 |
|
Contraindicated Use of Cisapride
Impact of Food and Drug Administration Regulatory Action
Walter Smalley, MD, MPH;
Deborah Shatin, PhD;
Diane K. Wysowski, PhD;
Jerry Gurwitz, MD;
Susan E. Andrade, DSc;
Michael Goodman, PhD;
K. Arnold Chan, MD, DSc;
Richard Platt, MD, MS;
Stephanie D. Schech, MPH;
Wayne A. Ray, PhD
JAMA. 2000;284:3036-3039.
Context Cisapride, a gastrointestinal tract promotility agent, can cause life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias in patients susceptible either because of concurrent use of medications that interfere with cisapride metabolism or prolong the QT interval or because of the presence of other diseases that predispose to such arrhythmias. In June 1998, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that use of cisapride was contraindicated in such patients and informed practitioners through additions to the boxed warning in the label and a "Dear Health Care Professional" letter sent by the drug's manufacturer.
Objective To evaluate the impact of the FDA's 1998 regulatory action regarding contraindicated use of cisapride.
Design and Setting Analysis of data for the 1-year periods before (July 1997-June 1998) and after (July 1998-June 1999) the regulatory action from the population-based, pharmacoepidemiology research databases of 2 managed care organizations (sites A and B) and a state Medicaid program (site C).
Participants Patients with at least 180 days of prior enrollment in 1 of the 3 sites who were prescribed cisapride at least once in the period before (n = 24 840) or after (n = 22 459) regulatory action. Patients could be included in both cohorts.
Main Outcome Measures Proportion of cisapride users in each period for whom cisapride use was contraindicated by the product label, based on computerized patient medical encounter records.
Results In the year prior to regulatory action, cisapride use was contraindicated for 26%, 30%, and 60% of users in study sites A, B, and C, respectively. In the year after regulatory action, use was contraindicated for 24%, 28%, and 58% of users, a reduction in contraindicated use of approximately 2 per 100 cisapride users at each site. When the analysis was restricted to new users of cisapride after regulatory action, only minor reductions in contraindicated use were found.
Conclusion The FDA's 1998 regulatory action regarding cisapride use had no material effect on contraindicated cisapride use. More effective ways to communicate new information about drug safety are needed.
Author Affiliations: Departments of Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, and VA Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (Drs Smalley and Ray); Center for Health Care Policy and Evaluation, UnitedHealth Group, Minnetonka, Minn (Dr Shatin and Ms Schech); Office of Postmarketing Drug Risk Assessment, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Md (Dr Wysowski); Fallon Healthcare System and Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester (Dr Gurwitz); College of Pharmacy, University of Rhode Island, Kingston (Dr Andrade); HealthPartners Research Foundation, Bloomington, Minn (Dr Goodman); Channing Laboratory, Brigham and Women's Hospital (Drs Chan and Platt), Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (Dr Platt), and Harvard Medical School, (Drs Chan and Platt) Boston, Mass.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLES
Drug Labeling Revisions—Guaranteed to Fail?
Raymond L. Woosley
JAMA. 2000;284(23):3047-3049.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
December 20, 2000
JAMA. 2000;284(23):3067-3068.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Concerns about health care warnings and their impact on prescribing behaviour
Katz
CMAJ 2008;179:405-406.
FULL TEXT
Effect of regulatory warnings on antipsychotic prescription rates among elderly patients with dementia: a population-based time-series analysis
Valiyeva et al.
CMAJ 2008;179:438-446.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Using population-based routine data for evidence-based health policy decisions: lessons from three examples of setting and evaluating national health policy in Australia, the UK and the USA
Morrato et al.
J Public Health (Oxf) 2007;29:463-471.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cardiovascular Risk and the Thiazolidinediones: Deja Vu All Over Again?
Solomon and Winkelmayer
JAMA 2007;298:1216-1218.
FULL TEXT
Detection and reporting of drug-induced proarrhythmias: room for improvement
Darpo
Europace 2007;9:iv23-iv36.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evaluation of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions: A Proactive Pharmacovigilance Program (RADAR) vs Safety Activities Conducted by the Food and Drug Administration and Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
Bennett et al.
Arch Intern Med 2007;167:1041-1049.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effect of Content and Format of Prescription Drug Labels on Readability, Understanding, and Medication Use: A Systematic Review
Shrank et al.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2007;41:783-801.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
ADHD drugs and cardiovascular risk.
Anders et al.
NEJM 2006;354:2296-2298.
FULL TEXT
Serious Adverse Drug Effects -- Seeing the Trees through the Forest
Gurwitz
NEJM 2006;354:1413-1415.
FULL TEXT
Adherence to black box warnings for prescription medications in outpatients.
Lasser et al.
Arch Intern Med 2006;166:338-344.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Reform of Drug Regulation -- Beyond an Independent Drug-Safety Board
Ray and Stein
NEJM 2006;354:194-201.
FULL TEXT
Pharmacogenetics in drug regulation: promise, potential and pitfalls
Shah
Phil Trans R Soc B 2005;360:1617-1638.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Analysis of Aspirin-Associated Risks in Healthy Individuals
Hur et al.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2005;39:51-57.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Potential for Conflict of Interest in the Evaluation of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions: Use of Cerivastatin and Risk of Rhabdomyolysis
Psaty et al.
JAMA 2004;292:2622-2631.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Promotion and Prescribing of Hormone Therapy After Report of Harm by the Women's Health Initiative
Majumdar et al.
JAMA 2004;292:1983-1988.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Population-Based Impact of Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in Young Children
Poehling et al.
Pediatrics 2004;114:755-761.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Three-Part Intervention To Change the Use of Hormone Replacement Therapy in Response to New Evidence
Roumie et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2004;141:118-125.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Safety of Patients Isolated for Infection Control
Stelfox et al.
JAMA 2003;290:1899-1905.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
What Clinicians Should Know About the QT Interval
Al-Khatib et al.
JAMA 2003;289:2120-2127.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Principles From Clinical Trials Relevant to Clinical Practice: Part II
Califf and DeMets
Circulation 2002;106:1172-1175.
FULL TEXT
Lessons Learned From Recent Cardiovascular Clinical Trials: Part I
DeMets and Califf
Circulation 2002;106:746-751.
FULL TEXT
Implications of Cytochrome P450 Interactions When Prescribing Medication for Hypertension
Flockhart and Tanus-Santos
Arch Intern Med 2002;162:405-412.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Postmarketing drug surveillance: what it would take to make it work
CMAJ 2001;165:1293-1293.
FULL TEXT
La surveillance postcommercialisation des medicaments : ce qu'il faudrait pour obtenir des resultats
CMAJ 2001;165:1295-1295.
FULL TEXT
Coprescribing and Codispensing of Cisapride and Contraindicated Drugs
Jones et al.
JAMA 2001;286:1607-1609.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Liver Enzyme Monitoring in Patients Treated With Troglitazone
Graham et al.
JAMA 2001;286:831-833.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Lessons from cisapride
CMAJ 2001;164:1269-1269.
FULL TEXT
Lecons tirees du cisapride
CMAJ 2001;164:1271-1271.
FULL TEXT
Time Trends in the Coprescribing of Cisapride and Contraindicated Drugs in Umbria, Italy
Raschetti et al.
JAMA 2001;285:1840-1841.
FULL TEXT
Drug Labeling Revisions--Guaranteed to Fail?
Woosley
JAMA 2000;284:3047-3049.
FULL TEXT
|
