Safety-Related Regulatory Actions for Biologicals Approved in the United States and the European Union | Allergy and Clinical Immunology | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Commission of European Communities.  Commission Directive 2003/63/EC of 25 June 2003 amending Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Accessibility verified September 11, 2008
Frank RG. Regulation of follow-on biologics.  N Engl J Med. 2007;357(9):841-84317761588PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Shankar G, Pendley C, Stein KE. A risk-based bioanalytical strategy for the assessment of antibody immune responses against biological drugs.  Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(5):555-56117483842PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Walsh G. Biopharmaceutical benchmarks 2006.  Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24(7):769-77616841057PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Aggarwal S. What's fueling the biotech engine?  Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(10):1097-110417921989PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Schneeweiss S. Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research.  Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;82(2):143-15617554243PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Stricker BH, Psaty BM. Detection, verification, and quantification of adverse drug reactions.  BMJ. 2004;329(7456):44-4715231627PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Schellekens H. Follow-on biologics: challenges of the “next generation.”  Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005;20:(suppl 4)  iv31-iv3615827057PubMedGoogle Scholar
Baumann A. Early development of therapeutic biologics–pharmacokinetics.  Curr Drug Metab. 2006;7(1):15-2116454690PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Schellekens H. Immunologic mechanisms of EPO-associated pure red cell aplasia.  Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. 2005;18(3):473-48015792922PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Schellekens H, Ryff JC. “Biogenerics”: the off-patent biotech products.  Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2002;23(3):119-12111879678PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Schellekens H, Jiskoot W. Eprex-associated pure red cell aplasia and leachates.  Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24(6):613-61416763579PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Vonberg RP, Gastmeier P. Hospital-acquired infections related to contaminated substances.  J Hosp Infect. 2007;65(1):15-2317145102PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Ryff JC, Schellekens H. Immunogenicity of rDNA-derived pharmaceuticals.  Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2002;23(6):254-25612084625PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kessler M, Goldsmith D, Schellekens H. Immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals.  Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006;21:(suppl 5)  v9-v1216959792PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Suntharalingam G, Perry MR, Ward S,  et al.  Cytokine storm in a phase 1 trial of the anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN1412.  N Engl J Med. 2006;355(10):1018-102816908486PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Sims J. Assessment of biotechnology products for therapeutic use.  Toxicol Lett. 2001;120(1-3):59-6611323162PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Brennan FR, Shaw L, Wing MG, Robinson C. Preclinical safety testing of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals: understanding the issues and addressing the challenges.  Mol Biotechnol. 2004;27(1):59-7415122047PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Crommelin DJ, Storm G, Verrijk R, de Leede L, Jiskoot W, Hennink WE. Shifting paradigms: biopharmaceuticals versus low molecular weight drugs.  Int J Pharm. 2003;266(1-2):3-1614559389PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hamilton CD. Infectious complications of treatment with biologic agents.  Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2004;16(4):393-39815201602PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Aksamit AJ. Review of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy and natalizumab.  Neurologist. 2006;12(6):293-29817122725PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Bongartz T, Sutton AJ, Sweeting MJ, Buchan I, Matteson EL, Montori V. Anti-TNF antibody therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of serious infections and malignancies: systematic review and meta-analysis of rare harmful effects in randomized controlled trials.  JAMA. 2006;295(19):2275-228516705109PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Lasser KE, Allen PD, Woolhandler SJ, Himmelstein DU, Wolfe SM, Bor DH. Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications.  JAMA. 2002;287(17):2215-222011980521PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Bakke OM, Manocchia M, de Abajo F, Kaitin KI, Lasagna L. Drug safety discontinuations in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Spain from 1974 through 1993: a regulatory perspective.  Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1995;58(1):108-1177628177PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kromminga A, Schellekens H. Antibodies against erythropoietin and other protein-based therapeutics: an overview.  Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2005;1050:257-26516014541PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Schellekens H, Bragt PH, Olijve W, Van der Weele CN. Medische Biotechnologie. Maarssen, the Netherlands: Elsevier Gezondheidszorg; 2001
Winthrop KL. Risk and prevention of tuberculosis and other serious opportunistic infections associated with the inhibition of tumor necrosis factor.  Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2006;2(11):602-61017075599PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Botsios C. Safety of tumour necrosis factor and interleukin-1 blocking agents in rheumatic diseases.  Autoimmun Rev. 2005;4(3):162-17015823502PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Brune K, Furst DE. Combining enzyme specificity and tissue selectivity of cyclooxygenase inhibitors: towards better tolerability?  Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007;46(6):911-91917459958PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Temple RJ, Himmel MH. Safety of newly approved drugs: implications for prescribing.  JAMA. 2002;287(17):2273-227511980528PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hartford CG, Petchel KS, Mickail H,  et al.  Pharmacovigilance during the pre-approval phases: an evolving pharmaceutical industry model in response to ICH E2E, CIOMS VI, FDA and EMEA/CHMP risk-management guidelines.  Drug Saf. 2006;29(8):657-67316872240PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Meyboom RHB, Gribnau FWJ, Hekster YA, De Koning GHP, Egberts ACG. Characteristics of topics in pharmacovigilance in the Netherlands.  Clin Drug Investig. 1996;12:207-219Google ScholarCrossref
Nieminen O, Kurki P, Nordstrom K. Differences in product information of biopharmaceuticals in the EU and the USA: implications for product development.  Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2005;60(3):319-32615996576PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.  Drug safety information: FDA's communication to the public, March 2007. Accessibility verified September 10, 2008
European Commission.  Volume 9A of the rules governing medicinal products in the European Union: guidelines on pharmacovigilance for medicinal products for human use, March 2007. Accessibility verified September 10, 2008
Original Contribution
October 22 2008

Safety-Related Regulatory Actions for Biologicals Approved in the United States and the European Union

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Divisions of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacotherapy (Drs Giezen, Mantel-Teeuwisse, Leufkens, and Egberts) and Pharmaceutics (Dr Schellekens), and Department of Innovation Sciences (Dr Schellekens), Utrecht University, and Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht (Dr Egberts), Utrecht, the Netherlands; and Medicines Evaluation Board, the Hague, the Netherlands (Drs Giezen, Mantel-Teeuwisse, Straus, and Leufkens).

JAMA. 2008;300(16):1887-1896. doi:10.1001/jama.300.16.1887

Context Biologicals are a relatively new class of medicines that carry specific risks (eg, immunogenicity). However, limited information is available on the nature and timing of safety problems with their use that were identified after approval.

Objective To determine the nature, frequency, and timing of safety-related regulatory actions for biologicals following approval in the United States and/or the European Union.

Design and Setting Follow-up of a group of biologicals approved in the United States and/or European Union between January 1995 and June 2007. Vaccines, allergenic products, and products for further manufacture and transfusion purposes were excluded.

Main Outcome Measures Nature, frequency, and timing of safety-related regulatory actions defined as (1) dear healthcare professional letters (United States) and direct healthcare professional communications (European Union), (2) black box warnings (United States), and (3) safety-related marketing withdrawals (United States and European Union) issued between January 1995 and June 2008.

Results A total of 174 biologicals were approved (136 in the United States and 105 in the European Union, of which 67 were approved in both regions). Eighty-two safety-related regulatory actions (46 dear healthcare professional letters, 17 direct healthcare professional communications, 19 black box warnings, and no withdrawals) were issued for 41 of the 174 different biologicals (23.6%). The probability of a first safety-related regulatory action, derived from Kaplan-Meier analyses, was 14% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9%-19%) 3 years after approval and 29% (95% CI, 20%-37%) 10 years after approval. Biologicals first in class to obtain approval had a higher risk for a first safety-related regulatory action compared with later approved products in that class (12.0/1000 vs 2.9/1000 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 3.7 [95% CI, 1.5-9.5]). Warnings mostly concerned the classes general disorders and administration site conditions, infections and infestations, immune system disorders and neoplasms benign, malignant, and unspecified.

Conclusions The nature of safety problems identified after approval for biologicals is often related to the immunomodulatory effect (infections). Because the biologicals first to be approved in a class were more likely to be subjected to regulatory action, close monitoring is recommended.