Document Detail


Open-label extension studies: do they provide meaningful information on the safety of new drugs?
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  17253876     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
The number of open-label extension studies being performed has increased enormously in recent years. Often it is difficult to differentiate between these extension studies and the double-blind, controlled studies that preceded them. If undertaken primarily to gather more patient-years of exposure to the new drug in order to understand and gain confidence in its safety profile, open-label extension studies can play a useful and legitimate role in drug development and therapeutics. However, this can only occur if the open-label extension study is designed, executed, analysed and reported competently. Most of the value accrued in open-label extension studies is gained from a refinement in the perception of the expected incidence of adverse effects that have most likely already been identified as part of the preclinical and clinical trial programme. We still have to rely heavily on post-marketing safety surveillance systems to alert us to type B (unpredictable) adverse reactions because open-label extension studies are unlikely to provide useful information about these types of often serious and relatively rare adverse reactions. Random allocation into test and control groups is needed to produce precise incidence data on pharmacologically expected, or type A, adverse effects. Some increased confidence about incidence rates might result from the open-label extension study; however, as these studies are essentially uncontrolled and biased, the data are not of great value. Other benefits have been proposed to be gained from open-label extension studies. These include ongoing access to an effective but otherwise unobtainable medicine by the volunteers who participated in the phase III pivotal trials. However, there are unappreciated ethical issues about the appropriateness of enrolling patients whose response to previous treatment is uncertain, largely because treatment allocation in the preceding randomised, double-blind, controlled trial has not been revealed at the time of entry into the open-label extension study. Negative aspects of open-label extension studies revolve around their use as a marketing tool, as they build a market for the drug and generate pressure for subsidised access to the drug from consumers and their physicians. Consumers, institutions where these studies are conducted and research ethics committees need to be convinced of the motives, as well as the quality, of the open-label extension study and its execution before supporting such studies. Open-label extension studies do have a legitimate but limited place in the clinical development of new medicines. The negative perceptions about these studies have arisen because of perversion of acceptable rationales for this type of study and a failure to recognise (or disclose) the limitations resulting from the inherent weaknesses in their design. Increased human exposure to a new medicine under reasonably controlled circumstances to increase confidence in the safety of the medicine is an acceptable rationale for an open-label extension study, and a useful activity to increase the knowledge of the safety profile of a new medicine. However, this goal is increasingly being achieved by means other than open-label extension studies.
Authors:
Richard O Day; Kenneth M Williams
Related Documents :
18196446 - Structured early consultation with the occupational physician reduces sickness absence ...
14965386 - What influences participants' treatment preference and can it influence outcome? result...
18499526 - Acupuncture for tension-type headache: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.
21046386 - Arterial closure devices versus manual compression for femoral haemostasis in intervent...
24060236 - Cesarean delivery and perinatal mortality rates in japan, 2007-2011.
2000676 - Symptom analysis of patients undergoing modified pereyra bladder neck suspension for st...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Review    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Drug safety     Volume:  30     ISSN:  0114-5916     ISO Abbreviation:  Drug Saf     Publication Date:  2007  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2007-01-26     Completed Date:  2007-03-16     Revised Date:  2014-11-17    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9002928     Medline TA:  Drug Saf     Country:  New Zealand    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  93-105     Citation Subset:  IM    
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Advertising as Topic
Clinical Trials as Topic / ethics,  methods*
Drug Approval
Drugs, Investigational / adverse effects*
Ethics, Clinical
Ethics, Research
Guidelines as Topic
Health Services Accessibility / ethics
Humans
Marketing of Health Services / ethics
Research Design*
Chemical
Reg. No./Substance:
0/Drugs, Investigational

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Simultaneous concentration and separation of coumarins using a molecular micelle in micellar affinit...
Next Document:  Use of contemporary antidepressants during breastfeeding: a proposal for a specific safety index.