Search

Background: Adverse drug/device reactions (ADRs) can result in severe patient harm. We define very serious ADRs as being associated with severe toxicity, as measured on the Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Events (CTCAE)) scale, following use of drugs or devices with large sales, large financial settlements, and large numbers of injured persons. We report on impacts on patients, clinicians, and manufacturers following very serious ADR reporting. Methods: We reviewed clinician identified very serious ADRs published between 1997 and 2019. Drugs and devices associated with reports of very serious ADRs were identified. Included drugs or devices had market removal discussed at Food and Drug Advisory (FDA) Advisory Committee meetings, were published by clinicians, had sales > $1 billion, were associated with CTCAE Grade 4 or 5 toxicity effects, and had either >$1 billion in settlements or >1,000 injured patients. Data sources included journals, Congressional transcripts, and news reports. We reviewed data on: 1) timing of ADR reports, Boxed warnings, and product withdrawals, and 2) patient, clinician, and manufacturer impacts. Binomial analysis was used to compare sales pre- and post-FDA Advisory Committee meetings. Findings: Twenty very serious ADRs involved fifteen drugs and one device. Legal settlements totaled $38.4 billion for 753,900 injured persons. Eleven of 18 clinicians (61%) reported harms, including verbal threats from manufacturer (five) and loss of a faculty position (one). Annual sales decreased 94% from $29.1 billion pre-FDA meeting to $4.9 billion afterwards (p<0.0018). Manufacturers of four drugs paid $1.7 billion total in criminal fines for failing to inform the FDA and physicians about very serious ADRs. Following FDA approval, the median time to ADR reporting was 7.5 years (Interquartile range 3,13 years). Twelve drugs received Box warnings and one drug received a warning (median, 7.5 years following ADR reporting (IQR 5,11 years). Six

Background: Adverse drug/device reactions (ADRs) can result in severe patient harm. We define very serious ADRs as being associated with severe toxicity, as measured on the Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Events (CTCAE)) scale, following use of drugs or devices with large sales, large financial settlements, and large numbers of injured persons. We report on impacts on patients, clinicians, and manufacturers following very serious ADR reporting. Methods: We reviewed clinician identified very serious ADRs published between 1997 and 2019. Drugs and devices associated with reports of very serious ADRs were identified. Included drugs or devices had market removal discussed at Food and Drug Advisory (FDA) Advisory Committee meetings, were published by clinicians, had sales > $1 billion, were associated with CTCAE Grade 4 or 5 toxicity effects, and had either >$1 billion in settlements or >1,000 injured patients. Data sources included journals, Congressional transcripts, and news reports. We reviewed data on: 1) timing of ADR reports, Boxed warnings, and product withdrawals, and 2) patient, clinician, and manufacturer impacts. Binomial analysis was used to compare sales pre- and post-FDA Advisory Committee meetings. Findings: Twenty very serious ADRs involved fifteen drugs and one device. Legal settlements totaled $38.4 billion for 753,900 injured persons. Eleven of 18 clinicians (61%) reported harms, including verbal threats from manufacturer (five) and loss of a faculty position (one). Annual sales decreased 94% from $29.1 billion pre-FDA meeting to $4.9 billion afterwards (p<0.0018). Manufacturers of four drugs paid $1.7 billion total in criminal fines for failing to inform the FDA and physicians about very serious ADRs. Following FDA approval, the median time to ADR reporting was 7.5 years (Interquartile range 3,13 years). Twelve drugs received Box warnings and one drug received a warning (median, 7.5 years following ADR reporting (IQR 5,11 years). Six

Christa R Lewis,1,2 Hoa T Vo,1 Marc Fishman1,3 1Maryland Treatment Centers, Baltimore, MD, USA; 2Department of Psychology, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA; 3Department of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA Abstract: Deaths due to prescription and illicit opioid overdose have been rising at an alarming rate, particularly in the USA. Although naloxone injection is a safe and effective treatment for opioid overdose, it is frequently unavailable in a timely manner due to legal and practical restrictions on its use by laypeople. As a result, an effort spanning decades has resulted in the development of strategies to make naloxone available for layperson or “take-home” use. This has included the development of naloxone formulations that are easier to administer for nonmedical users, such as intranasal and autoinjector intramuscular delivery systems, efforts to distribute naloxone to potentially high-impact categories of nonmedical users, as well as efforts to reduce regulatory barriers to more widespread distribution and use. Here we review the historical and current literature on the efficacy and safety of naloxone for use by nonmedical persons, provide an evidence-based discussion of the controversies regarding the safety and efficacy of different formulations of take-home naloxone, and assess the status of current efforts to increase its public distribution. Take-home naloxone is safe and effective for the treatment of opioid overdose when administered by laypeople in a community setting, shortening the time to reversal of opioid toxicity and reducing opioid-related deaths. Complementary strategies have together shown promise for increased dissemination of take-home naloxone, including 1) provision of education and training; 2) distribution to critical populations such as persons with opioid addiction, family members, and first responders; 3) reduction of prescribing barriers to access; and 4) reduction of legal recr