Health Canada's fast-tracked drug approvals can put public at risk

Drugs streamed into Health Canada's accelerated review process are more likely to be withdrawn from the market or earn a serious safety warning than those that undergo the standard review, according to a recent paper out of York University.

The study, published online by the on Oct. 8, is the first of its kind undertaken in Canada. It tracked a total of 434 new active substances (NASs) approved by Health Canada between 1995 and 2010, examining how many subsequently acquired either serious or had to be withdrawn from the market for safety reasons. The NASs were then compared to see whether a difference in safety existed between those that had gone through Health Canada's standard 300 day review period vs. the 180 day priority process.

"I found that drugs that went through the standard process had a 1 in 5 chance of either having a serious safety warning issued or being withdrawn from the market for being unsafe," says study author Dr. Joel Lexchin, Professor in York's Faculty of Health. "However, if the drug goes through the priority process, it has a greater than 1 in 3 chance of having the same outcome."

Though some drugs are moved into the priority process because they provide major therapeutic advances for serious illnesses, such as cancer, /AIDS, and , and thus may be put through with a lower benefit to harm safety ratio, Lexchin found that the types of drugs in the priority category, and the types of diseases they treated, did not account for the difference in safety issues.

"Even drugs that provided no major therapeutic advances were still more likely to acquire serious safety issues if they were put through the priority review," says Lexchin. "This indicates that the difference is likely due to the faster review missing serious safety issues."

The study concludes that new products that offer major therapeutic advantages should be embraced, even with the significant gaps that exist about their safety, but because most NASs do not fall into this category, clinicians and patients should be using these drugs very cautiously.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Heart safety of non-heart drugs questioned

Dec 29, 2007

A New York heart surgeon is calling for more testing to ensure the cardiovascular safety of drugs developed primarily for non-cardiovascular medical problems.

In drug-approval race, US FDA ahead of Canada, Europe

May 16, 2012

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) generally approves drug therapies faster and earlier than its counterparts in Canada and Europe, according to a new study by Yale School of Medicine researchers. The study counters ...

Drugs warning -- check the label

Feb 02, 2011

A new study highlights inconsistencies in black box warnings - medication-related safety warnings on a drug's label - and argues for a more transparent and systematic approach to ensure these warnings are consistent across ...

Recommended for you

Have a cold? Don't ask your doctor for antibiotics

Nov 26, 2014

Antibiotic resistance is a major threat to public health. Resistance makes it harder for physicians to treat infections and can increase the chance patients will die from an infection. What is more, the treatment ...

Powdered measles vaccine found safe in early clinical trials

Nov 25, 2014

A measles vaccine made of fine dry powder and delivered with a puff of air triggered no adverse side effects in early human testing and it is likely effective, according to a paper to be published November 28 in the journal ...

User comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.