Abstract:In recent months there have been several well-published cases in which drug companies have removed effective treatments from sale on safety grounds. For example, the anti-arthritis COX2 inhibitor refecoxib (Vioxx) was withdrawn by Merck because of evidence of increased cardiac events (non-fatal heart attacks) in a long-term trial for the prevention of cancer in patients with multiple colonic polyps (Couzin, 2004). The novel anti-integrin drug Tysabri, which had shown very encouraging evidence of efficacy in multiple sclerosis (MS), was withdrawn by Biogen Idec and Elan because two patients developed PML (progressive multifocal leucoencephaolopathy), a fatal brain disorder associated with viral infection. In both cases drugs with proven efficacy and novel benefits over existing agents have been withdrawn because the companies felt the risk/benefit ratio was insufficient. What is novel about both these cases is that it was the company not the regulatory authorities that removed the drug from sale – ostensibly to protect the public from further harm, but probably also in an attempt to protect themselves in the case of litigation by individuals who might subsequently suffer similar conditions while using the drug. The latter concern is problematic to society, and raises important ethical issues. Once a company withdraws a drug for reasons of ‘damage limitation’ in the courts, physicians and patients who would have benefited from the drug are denied the chance to make up their own minds on the risk/benefit equation, on the basis of all the evidence. Indeed many will be forced to use older, less effective drugs with different but nonetheless potentially dangerous adverse effects profiles (see Nutt, 2004). Such older drugs – e.g. aspirin in the case of anti-arthritis medications – might be less effective and have worse risk/benefit ratios than the withdrawn drug, but being generic they do not interest lawyers! Interestingly, refecoxib may be restored for use in some selected populations because the risk/benefit equation has been thought to be acceptable by the regulators and the company. The success of ‘personalized’ medicine – the specific tailoring of treatment to the individual genetic and other makeup of the patient – will depend on the acceptance that medicines that are beneficial to some might be harmful to others. But the present regulatory framework for the approval of drugs and the legal attitude to their safety is largely based on weighing average benefits against risks to anyone. Who should decide on the acceptable risk/benefit ratio of a drug? Should it be the company, the regulators or the patients, for whom a drug may offer the only hope of help? In current practice it is the first two, even though there are some recent examples where patient pressure has led to the continued use of a drug that has been associated with serious adverse events, e.g. the 5HT 4 agonist Zelnorm for constipation predominant IBS, which carries a risk of ischemic colitis. Allowing companies or regulators total authority suggests that only they know what is best for the patient. This seems paternalistic and out of touch with modern concepts of health care, such as self empowerment and personalized medicine. Even worse, decisions to withdraw drugs that are made to protect the company and/or the regulators from legal action, leads to a defensive attitude to the availability of medicines, which limits patient choice and fuels the risk-averse approach to drug development. This position is very unsatisfactory. Why can drugs not be treated more like other medical interventions, such as surgical procedures, where levels of risk that would be completely unacceptable for a drug are dealt with through a process of explanation and patient consent? Should individual patients not be allowed, under clinical guidance, and with full knowledge of the risks, to take medicines that companies or regulators feel to have unacceptable risk/benefit ratios, as long as they give signed informed consent? Agreeing in such a formal way to accept a drug treatment, knowing the risks (e.g. by being given a lay-language version of the Summary of Product Characteristics form for the drug), should remove the potential for litigation if adverse effects emerge. We believe that many patients with enduring and disabling illnesses would be prepared to take the risk of using a drug that offers their only hope of relief or recovery. This is certainly the case for the many MS patients who are eager to have access to

Informed consent - a new approach to drug regulation?

Comparison of Respirable Coal Mine Dust Constituents Estimated using FTIR, TGA, and SEM–EDX

Prevalence of nano-sized coal mine dust in North and Central Appalachian coal mines – Insights from SEM-EDS imaging

Exploring the Effect of Particle Loading Density on Respirable Dust Classification by SEM-EDX

Review of Respirable Coal Mine Dust Characterization for Mass Concentration, Size Distribution and Chemical Composition

Respirable dust constituents and particle size: a case study in a thin-seam coal mine

Advancing respirable coal mine dust source apportionment: a preliminary laboratory exploration of optical microscopy as a novel monitoring tool

Use of electron microscopy to determine presence of coal dust in a neighborhood bordering an open-air coal terminal in Curtis Bay, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

A thermogravimetric analysis application to determine coal, carbonate, and non-carbonate minerals mass fractions in respirable mine dust

Pulmonary inflammation and crystalline silica in respirable coal mine dust: Dose response

On the Occurrence and Persistence of Coal-Mineral Microagglomerates in Respirable Coal Mine Dust

Study on the transport and deposition of micron-sized particles with different densities in the coal mine environment in miners

From Dust to Disease: A Review of Respirable Coal Mine Dust Lung Deposition and Advances in CFD Modeling

Coal Mine Dust Size Distributions, Chemical Compositions, and Source Apportionment

Demonstration of Optical Microscopy and Image Processing to Classify Respirable Coal Mine Dust Particles

Characterization of Particle Size and Composition of Respirable Coal Mine Dust

Chemistry and particle size distribution of respirable coal dust in underground mines in Central Eastern Europe

Characterization and Toxicity Analysis of Lab-Created Respirable Coal Mine Dust from the Appalachians and Rocky Mountains Regions

Nonlinear Reduced-Order Observers Based On Differential Riccati Equation