Caveat Medicus: Clinician experiences in publishing reports of serious oncology-associated adverse drug reactions

Davids versus Goliaths: Pharma and academia threats to individual scientists and clinicians

Background

We previously described experiences of clinicians who published adverse drug reaction reports. We now report on threats and intimidations leveled against clinicians and scientists who received publicly documented threats after communicating safety, efficacy, or data integrity findings contrary to corporate interests.

Methods

Data on threats and intimidations were obtained from transcripts of governmental hearings or agencies, university-affiliated reports, media interviews, and investigative journalism articles. Content and timing of threats and intimidation, subsequent harms, numbers of persons seriously injured or who died from individual toxicities, financial payments from sponsors related to safety, efficacy, or data integrity concerns, and civil settlements and criminal findings were evaluated.

Findings

Twenty-six individuals who communicated safety, efficacy, or data integrity concerns were targets of threats and intimidation from corporate employees (twenty-three individuals) or regulatory personnel (three). Seventeen individuals identified instances where pharmaceutical sponsors submitted fraudulent data in support of regulatory approval of a drug or device. Scientist and clinician communications were followed by drug/device withdrawals (fourteen drugs/devices), black box warnings (six drugs), withdrawal of a sponsor’s application for regulatory approval (one device), and delay of approval of a sponsor’s application for regulatory approval (one drug). Actions mainly occurred after persons communicated with pharmaceutical employees (fourteen). Intimidation efforts by corporate personnel included threats of lawsuits (eighteen individuals), hiring private investigators (nine), and public disparagement at conferences (eleven). Related intimidation efforts carried out by academia or regulatory agency superiors included threats of: loss of positions (six), loss of grant funding (two), delays in decisions regarding tenure (two); or reassignment to a low-level position (one). Academic harms included lost: hospital or university appointments (nine and six, respectively), grant funding (two), chairperson title of an international clinical trial group (one), and journal editorial board position (one). Corporate harms included payment of $1 million to defense attorneys in three cases filed against clinicians.

Interpretation

Threats and intimidation carried out by corporate employees and/or academic supervisors followed public communication of concerns regarding patient safety, drug efficacy, or data integrity, including instances where sponsors were identified as having submitted fraudulent data to regulatory or government agencies. Consideration should be given to filing criminal charges against pharmaceutical executives who are discovered by scientists or clinicians to have knowingly submitted fraudulent data to regulatory or governmental agencies, rather than causing the scientists and clinicians who submit such reports to risk losing their reputations and occupations.

Consequences to Patients, Clinicians, and Manufacturers When Very Serious Adverse Drug Reactions Are Identified (1997-2019): A Qualitative Analysis from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions (SONAR)

Adverse drug/device reactions (ADRs) serious enough to lead to box warnings on drug labels or drug withdrawals occur in about one fifth of all new molecular entities.

Consequences to patients, clinicians, and manufacturers when very serious adverse drug reactions are identified (1997-2019): A qualitative analysis from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions (SONAR)

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 drugs and 1 device were withdrawn from marketing (median, 5 years after ADR reporting (IQR 4,6 years)).

INTERPRETATION

Because very serious ADRs impacts are so large, policy makers should consider developing independently funded pharmacovigilance centers of excellence to assist with clinician investigations.

FUNDING

This work received support from the National Cancer Institute (1R01 CA102713 (CLB), https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/nih-almanac/national-cancer-institute-nci; and two Pilot Project grants from the American Cancer Society's Institutional Grant Award to the University of South Carolina (IRG-13-043-01) https://www.cancer.org/ (SH; BS).

Pharmacovigilance of anti-cancer medicines: opportunities and challenges

INTRODUCTION

The foundations of pharmacovigilance are the monitoring of drug safety in real-world medicine, and identification of new adverse effects, unknown at the time of market approval. Cancer patients are prone to adverse drug reactions due to the complexity of the neoplastic disease and its treatment. Pharmacovigilance of anti-cancer medicines is further complicated because patients have comorbidities, as for elderly patients. It is even more challenging when complete safety and risk data for a drug are lacking, as may occur for new molecules or when it comes to drugs for children.

AREAS COVERED

This article introduces the field of pharmacovigilance of anti-cancer drugs, describing the various layers of complexity that make the recognition of adverse drug events in oncology particularly problematic, including the type of medicines, the phenomenon of underreporting and polypharmacy. Finally, it reviews new digital tools to help pharmacovigilance activities in oncology.

EXPERT OPINION

The authors outline some crucial challenges and opportunities that can be useful for pharmacovigilance to keep up with the times and follow the current technological and scientific progress. In addition to the evaluations made by researchers, it will, of course, be necessary to have an equality important concrete response from the institutions and regulatory bodies.

Response to: letter to the editor: consideration on 'an evaluation of reports of ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin association neuropsychiatric toxicities, long-term disability, and aortic aneurysms/dissections disseminated by the food and drug administration and the European medicines agency' by bennett et al

INTRODUCTION

Pulmonary fibrosis includes several lung disorders characterized by progressive fibrosis, of which idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a particularly severe form with a median survival time of 3-5 years after diagnosis. Although numerous compounds have shown efficacy in attenuating pulmonary fibrosis using animal models, only a few compounds have shown their beneficial effects for IPF in clinical trials. Thus, there is an ongoing need to improve the preclinical development process to better identify, characterize and select clinically useful targets.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we extensively describe current models of pulmonary fibrosis, focusing on rodent models, ex vivo models, and in vitro models.

EXPERT OPINION

Based upon our current understanding, improving the identification and characterization of clinically relevant molecules or pathways responsible for progressive fibrotic diseases and use of the robust preclinical model system to test these will be required to improve the drug development pipeline for pulmonary fibrosis. Combination of appropriate preclinical models with ex vivo (precision-cut lung slices) or in vitro models will benefit high-throughput drug discovery and validation of drug effects.