Your prescription drugs may have more side effects than you’re told — here’s why
By Mary James, ND
For years the FDA and big drug companies have been telling us they’re getting
much-needed new drugs to market faster than ever. The FDA has published studies
backing up its claims that the new “fast track approval process” is
just as safe as the old, slower method. And certainly the new process can
take just half the time of the old way.
But is the new system really safer? We reviewed the evidence, and found plenty of
reasons to be concerned. You should be too.
Obviously, we all hope that new, lifesaving drugs become available as quickly as
possible. But there are business factors at work here, too. It takes a long
time to develop new drugs, and drug development is an expensive process. Drug companies
have suffered for years from a relative failure to discover breakthrough new products.
This means that as older drugs lose their patents and go generic, drug companies
don’t have new hit products to replace the lost revenues. Thus they have a financial
incentive to use the FDA’s new accelerated approval process to to replenish
their product line faster.
But you won’t be surprised to learn that faster doesn’t necessarily mean
What drug companies don’t know can hurt you
According to a 2017 study, nearly a third of recent new drugs had a safety issue
that was identified after the FDA approved the drug for sale. Of the 222 new
drugs put on the market between 2001 and 2010, 71 (or 32%) had a safety issue
that the testing and approval process didn’t uncover. In 43 of the drugs (or
19%), the side effect was severe enough to warrant a “black box warning,”
which is reserved for side effects that are potentially life threatening. In three
cases (or 1.4%), the problem was so severe that the drugs were actually pulled off
the market. But the drugs had already been on the market for years!
For most of the drugs looked at in the study, the product was on the market and
in use for anywhere from 3 to 5 years before a pattern of patient safety concerns
was found. When you consider the fact that the median review time for FDA-approved
drugs is about 11 months — and half that for fast-tracked drugs — you
start to realize why there’s a problem.
Safety review processes have changed
Fast-tracking first became an option in drug development back in the 1990s, when
Congress passed a law intended to help relieve the backlog of research into drugs
needed to treat life-threatening illnesses and “orphan” diseases. The
concern was that people were suffering and dying because promising medications just
took too long to get through the arduous, expensive drug safety and efficacy assessment
process. The goal with these changes was to get drugs into the hands of patients
faster if they showed clear superiority to existing treatments (or if they treated
conditions for which there were no existing treatments).
And over the past 20-plus
years, there’ve been some great successes in reaching that goal. Drugs called
immune checkpoint inhibitors, for instance — many of which received “priority
review” or fast-tracking from the FDA — have doubled the rate of survival
in patients with the most serious form of skin cancer, metastatic melanoma. But
as is often the case, just because there are successes in some cases doesn’t
mean it’s wise to try the process in all cases — because there have
been some serious problems, too.
One example of how the expedited approval process has gone wrong is Eteplirsen,
a drug approved in 2016 for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. This drug’s approval
process pitted the FDA’s commissioner against its chief scientist, with the
commissioner calling for expedited approval (in part to assure that research for
further therapies could get funding from the drug’s sales) and the chief scientist
protesting that the drug was ineffective and offered “false hope” to
patients and families struggling with a difficult chronic illness. The commissioner
prevailed, and the drug was approved — but many pharma industry watchers were
disturbed by how it was handled. After several years on the market, there
doesn’t seem to be much evidence that it works in the patients who take it,
which suggests the chief scientist’s argument against approval was well-founded.
In the three years since the Eteplirsen approval sent shockwaves through the industry,
the FDA’s flawed approval process has changed — but not for the better.
The recent push to “deregulate” the FDA is cause for concern, and even
some drug company executives have spoken out about it. “In my view it’s
nuts to ascribe a material portion of the time and cost of drug development to FDA
‘regulations’,” one biotech entrepreneur said in an interview.
“Lowering the bar for proof is inviting both catastrophe for patients and
even more wasted money in a system that is forced to pay for drugs that don’t
work — and may even inflict harm.”
What accelerated drug approvals may mean for women
Unfortunately, quite a few fast-tracked drugs are marketed directly to women. The
drug industry pushed the FDA to allow direct-to-consumer advertising back in the
1980’s, and it now spends over $5 billion on such promotions every year in
the USA alone. Notably, the US is one of the few countries in the world where
such advertising is legal, effectively diminishing the role of the doctor in choosing
drugs for her patients. Here are two recent and worrisome examples: first,
the drug Xeljanz, which was approved in 2012 for treatment of
rheumatoid arthritis — a debilitating autoimmune disease that women
experience at over twice the rate men do, and usually at a younger age. In February
2019, almost 7 years after it first went on the market, post-marketing safety studies
concluded that a 10-mg twice daily dose of Xeljanz has an increased risk of blood
clots, pulmonary embolism, and death.
Then there’s Addyi, the “female Viagra” approved in 2015 for women
low libido. The FDA approved the
sex drug for women despite concerns that combining the drug with
drinking alcohol could cause low blood pressure and fainting — concerns that
had prevented the drug’s approval twice before, in 2010 and again in 2013.
Many healthcare providers, including some of the reviewers who assessed the drug
for the FDA in the first place, objected to the approval, arguing that the drug didn’t
meet the standard of providing significant benefits to the patient. Some of their
related objections are downright disturbing, among them the fact that the drug’s
manufacturer placed “inappropriate pressure … upon the drug approval
process by the ‘Even the Score’ campaign, which was partly funded by
So many questions
In the case of Xeljanz, why did it take so long to find the problems? One reason:
The drug companies gather as little data as possible before submitting their drug
for FDA approval. The drug’s manufacturer, Pfizer, did run a clinical trial
assessing drug safety at the 10-mg twice daily dose before the drug’s approval
— but the trial ran for just 6 months. Most patients are likely to use it
a lot longer than that. There have been more follow-up studies since 2012 —
but meanwhile, the drug is already being used in patients and is being advertised
regularly on television and in magazines in an effort to acquire more customers.
This means that drug companies are still learning about their products’ long-term
effects while you’re taking them.
And as Addyi shows, they’re not at all unwilling to put pressure on regulators
to get drugs to market even when there are good reasons to reject them — to
the point of creating entire PR campaigns (disguised as patient advocacy), to get
even an iffy product over the finish line. How is that good for patients?
Or, as one pharmacology professor put it in the Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics,
““Many drugs that are relatively new to the market find their way out as fast as they entered it. Is expediting drug discovery really solving the unmet needs of society?”
Who’s protecting you?
Step back and consider how these factors work together. Drugs are rushed to
market without large-scale, long-term trials. This conceals risks that only
emerge months or years after the drug is certified. But meanwhile, the drugs
are advertised directly to consumers. Notably, half of all clinical trials
in the USA are never published -- not even to doctors. And half of all drug
prescriptions are off-label, i.e. written for a usage other than what the FDA approved.
So what’s that add up to? Certainly there are cases where the innovative
new drug is a true breakthrough that relieves suffering and saves lives. But
in many if not all cases, it also means that neither you nor your doctor can really
assess the risk/reward ratio of the drug you’re being given.
What can you do? In our view, it boils down to is this:you have to do your
homework when it comes to treatments, especially when taking medications that are
new to the market (meaning, within the past 10 years).
Watch the ads on TV critically. Usually these ads
manipulate people’s thinking by creating impossible expectations and playing
off our desperation. Also, listen carefully to the list of side effects
at the end of each ad — if they’re recited too quickly for you to hear,
look up the drug’s website or third-party review site before discussing it
with your doctor.
Review the drug facts. Every medication comes with
an extensive list of side effects, interactions, precautions, and warnings. Usually
these are in teeny type that no one wants to read. But if you’re considering
a new medication and you’re not sure what it might do to you, go ahead and
read at least the “adverse effects” warnings. Then, discuss them with
your practitioner. Sometimes by doing this, you both may find a reason why the drug
might not be your best option.
Explore other, gentler options first — and save the newest
option for last. This is so important! When you’re not feeling
well, it’s tempting to bring out the most powerful solution you can find and
apply it in an effort to get rid of your symptoms fast. But as we mentioned above
— faster isn’t always better. Work with a health care practitioner who
is committed to integrative health and can make recommendations.
A tried-and-true approach that focuses on wellness rather than the latest medication
on the market may not seem like the quickest route to feeling well, but often it
offers less system-wide disruption and fewer unpleasant side effects.
Carroll J. Senior FDA officials warned that approving $300,000 Duchenne drug will
lower agency standards. Endpoints News (Sept. 19, 2016). https://endpts.com/senior-fda-officials-warned-that-eteplirsen-ok-would-lower-fda-standards/
Carroll J. Dear President Trump: Don’t destroy the FDA we know and respect.
Endpoints News (Feb. 20, 2017). https://endpts.com/dear-president-trump-dont-destroy-the-fda-we-know-and-respect/
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Summary Review: Application Number
Chary KV. Expedited drug review process: Fast, but flawed. J Pharmacol Pharmacotherap
Cohen S, Radominski SC, Gomez-Reino JJ, et al. Analysis of infections and all‐cause
mortality in phase II, phase III, and long‐term extension studies of tofacitinib
in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014;66(11):2924–2937.
Gould S, Ramsey L. Trump is promising big changes at the FDA — here’s
how drugs are approved today. Business Insider (Feb. 19, 2017). https://www.businessinsider.com/how-fda-drug-approval-works-2017-2
Fleischmann R, Kremer J, Cush J, et al. Placebo-controlled trial of tofacitinib
monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2012 Aug 9;367(6):495-507. doi:
Food & Drug Administration. [n.d.] Fast Track Approvals: CDER CY 2018 FT Approvals.
Food & Drug Administration. [n.d.] Fast Track Approvals: Fast Track Approvals
through 3/31/2007. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/nda-and-bla-approvals/fast-track-approvals.
Food & Drug Administration. [n.d.] A History of the FDA and Drug Regulation
in the United States. https://www.fda.gov/media/73549/download
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. ICER Publishes Evidence Report on Treatments
for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy [press release]. July 11, 2019. https://icer-review.org/announcements/dmd_evidence_report/
Joffe HV, Chang C, Sewell C, et al. FDA approval of flibanserin — treating
hypoactive sexual desire disorder. N Engl J Med 2016; 374:101-104. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1513686
Saleh N. 10 dangerous drugs recalled by the FDA. MDLinx.com, July 25, 2019. https://www.mdlinx.com/internal-medicine/article/4008
Van Norman GA. Drugs, devices, and the FDA: Part 1: an overview of approval processes
for drugs. JACC: Basic Transl Sci. 2016;1(3):170-179. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452302X1600036X
Last updated on 10/31/2019