Professional Documents
Culture Documents
New Engla ND Journal
New Engla ND Journal
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on October 28, 2009 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
PERS PE C T IV E Lost in Transmission — FDA Drug Information That Never Reaches Clinicians
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on October 28, 2009 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
PE R S PE C T IV E Lost in Transmission — FDA Drug Information That Never Reaches Clinicians
Uncertainty That Does Not Appear in the Label for Rozerem (Ramelteon) for Chronic Insomnia.
Trial 1: 107 healthy adults 18–65 yr of age Fall asleep 14 min faster 38 min 24 min
Trial 2: 100 adults ≥65 yr of age Fall asleep 7 min faster 38 min 31 min
Outpatient trial*
Trial 3: 848 adults 18–64 yr of age No significant difference in time to fall asleep 1 hr 14 min 1 hr 15 min
(sleep diary)
Trial 4: 829 adults ≥65 yr of age Fall asleep 8 min faster (sleep diary) 1 hr 18 min 1 hr 10 min
* Neither of the outpatient trials showed a significant difference in ease of falling back asleep, number of sleep awaken-
ings, total sleep time, sleep quality, or clinical global impression of the change in insomnia.
than those in the placebo group. label, clinicians cannot distin provements in total sleep time,
However, on average, Lunesta guish drugs that reviewers en sleep quality, or the time it took
patients still met criteria for in dorsed enthusiastically from those to fall asleep. Two phase 3 out
somnia and reported no clinically they viewed with great skepticism. patient trials confirmed that peo
meaningful improvement in next- Rozerem (ramelteon), for ex ple didn’t notice much benefit
day alertness or functioning. ample, was approved in 2005 for from Rozerem. In a trial involv
A sense of uncertainty about chronic insomnia and was ag ing younger adults, Rozerem had
the net benefit of drugs is al gressively promoted to consum no effect on any subjective sleep
most always lost. FDA approval ers. No efficacy data were pro outcome; in one involving older
does not mean that a drug works vided in the label.4 The phase 3 adults, the drug reduced reported
well; it means only that the agen sleep-laboratory studies that were time to fall asleep by 7 minutes
cy deemed its benefits to outweigh included in the FDA’s medical but did not reduce the proportion
its harms. This judgment can be review show that Rozerem re of cases meeting the definition of
difficult to make: benefits may duced the time required for pa insomnia (taking more than 30
be small, important harms may tients to fall asleep (as measured minutes to fall asleep). Nor did
not have been ruled out, and the by polysomnography) by 14 min it improve any of the secondary
quality of the trials may be ques utes among younger adults and outcomes: falling back asleep,
tionable. Since the nature — or by 7 minutes among older adults number of awakenings, total sleep
even existence — of reviewer un (see box on Rozerem data). How time, or sleep quality.
certainty is not addressed in the ever, there were no subjective im The Rozerem review included
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on October 28, 2009 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
PERS PE C T IV E Lost in Transmission — FDA Drug Information That Never Reaches Clinicians
a memo from the medical review spectively, are substantively un No potential conflict of interest relevant
to this article was reported.
team’s leader, highlighting the changed. The views expressed in this article are
team’s struggle to determine The FDA has not issued new those of the authors and do not necessarily
whether this drug provided any guidance about its drug-review reflect those of the Department of Veterans
Affairs or the U.S. government.
clinically important benefit and documents. A standardized ex
whether that benefit outweighed ecutive summary of the reviews From the Dartmouth Institute for Health
the harms. “Ordinarily,” the memo would be a substantial improve Policy and Clinical Practice, Hanover, NH;
and the VA Outcomes Group, VA Medical
said, “a marginally clinically sig ment. These summaries should Center, White River Junction, VT.
nificant treatment effect would include data tables of the main
not preclude an approval of a results of the phase 3 trials, high This article (10.1056/NEJMp0907708) was
published on October 21, 2009, at NEJM.org.
product. However, the ability to light reviewers’ uncertainties, and
approve such a product would note whether approval was con 1. Drugs@FDA. Approval history of NDA
021223: Zometa. Silver Spring, MD: Food
then focus even more on the ditional on a post-approval study. and Drug Administration. (Accessed Octo-
safety profile. . . . In the case Toward this goal, we conduct ber 8, 2009, at http://www.accessdata.fda.
of ramelteon, there are several ed a pilot test, funded by the Rob gov/Scripts/cder/DrugsatFDA/index.
cfm?fuseaction=Search.Label_
issues in the safety profile of con ert Wood Johnson Foundation’s ApprovalHistory#apphist.)
cern,” including frequent symp Pioneer Portfolio, in which FDA 2. Major P, Lortholary A, Hon J, et al. Zole-
tomatic side effects and possible reviewers created “Prescription dronic acid is superior to pamidronate in the
treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy:
hyperprolactinemia. The sense that Drug Facts Boxes,”5 featuring a a pooled analysis of two randomized, con-
the FDA’s decision was a close data table of benefits and harms. trolled clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:
call was not communicated in the Recently, the FDA’s Risk Adviso 558-67.
3. Drugs@FDA. Approval history of NDA
label. ry Committee recommended that 021476: Lunesta. Silver Spring, MD: Food
To its credit, the FDA has the FDA adopt these boxes as the and Drug Administration. (Accessed Octo-
recognized problems with drug standard for their communica ber 8, 2009, at http://www.accessdata.fda.
gov/Scripts/cder/DrugsatFDA/index.
labels. In 2006, it revised the la tions. FDA leadership is deciding cfm?fuseaction=Search.Label_
bel design, adding a “highlights” whether and how to use the boxes ApprovalHistory#apphist.)
section to emphasize the drug’s in reviews, labels, or both. 4. Drugs@FDA. Approval history of NDA
021782: Rozerem. Silver Spring, MD: Food
indications and warnings. It also Whatever approach the agen and Drug Administration. (Accessed Octo-
issued guidance about reporting cy adopts, it needs a better way ber 8, 2009, at http://www.accessdata.fda.
trial results in the label, empha of communicating drug informa gov/Scripts/cder/DrugsatFDA/index.
cfm?fuseaction=Search.Label_
sizing the importance of effec tion to clinicians. We don’t need ApprovalHistory#apphist.)
tiveness data. Yet the data presen to wait for new comparative-effec 5. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Us-
tations for the approval studies tiveness results in order to im ing a drug facts box to communicate drug
benefits and harms: two randomized trials.
referred to in the labels for prove practice. We need to bet Ann Intern Med 2009;150:516-27.
Lunesta and Rozerem, which were ter disseminate what is already Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society.
updated in 2009 and 2008, re known.
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on October 28, 2009 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.