scholarly journals Impact of FDA black box warning on fluoroquinolone and alternative antibiotic use in southeastern US hospitals

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 1297-1300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael E. Yarrington ◽  
Deverick J. Anderson ◽  
Elizabeth Dodds Ashley ◽  
Travis Jones ◽  
Angelina Davis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drug Administration ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Southeastern Us ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Tract Infections ◽  
Psychiatric Side Effects ◽  
Alternative Antibiotic

AbstractWe analyzed antibiotic use data from 29 southeastern US hospitals over a 5-year period to determine changes in antibiotic use after the fluoroquinolone US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory update in 2016. Fluoroquinolone use declined both before and after the FDA announcement, and the use of select, alternative antibiotics increased after the announcement.Fluoroquinolones are among the 4 most commonly prescribed antibiotic classes.1,2 Postmarketing reports of serious adverse events linked to fluoroquinolones include tendonitis, neuropathy, hypoglycemia, psychiatric side effects, and possible aortic vessel rupture, leading to safety label changes in July 2008 and August 2013.3 In July 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) strengthened the “black box” warning following an initial safety announcement in May 2016, recommending avoidance of fluoroquinolones for uncomplicated infections such as acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis, uncomplicated urinary tract infections, and acute bacterial sinusitis.4 Concerns over safety and the association with Clostridiodes difficile infection have led inpatient antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) to develop initiatives to promote avoidance of quinolones. The objective of this study was to quantify the effect of the 2016 FDA “black box” update on inpatient antibiotic use among a cohort of southeastern US hospitals.

scholarly journals 855. Impact of FDA Black Box Warning on Fluoroquinolone and Alternative Antibiotic Use in Southeastern US Hospitals

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S18-S18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Yarrington ◽  
Deverick J Anderson ◽  
Elizabeth Dodds Ashley ◽  
Travis Jones ◽  
Melissa Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Negative Binomial ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Third Generation ◽  
Southeastern Us ◽  
Days Of Therapy ◽  
Alternative Antibiotic ◽  
Third Generation Cephalosporins ◽  
Community Onset

Abstract Background Many antimicrobial stewardship programs have set goals to reduce the use of fluoroquinolones because of risks of causing C. difficile and other adverse safety events. The US Food and Drug Administration issued a black box label warning for fluoroquinolones in June 2016 recommending avoidance of this class for treatment of uncomplicated infections. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of antimicrobial use (AU) data in 29 southeastern United States hospitals from 2013 to 2017. An interrupted time series approach with segmented negative binomial regression modeling was used to estimate the longitudinal trend and effect of the FDA safety announcement on AU rates. Fluoroquinolone and alternative antibiotic agent use rates were measured as days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 patient days. Alternative antibiotics were analyzed individually or in groups (e.g., community-onset agent group included ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, and ertapenem). Results Hospital AU data for the 60-month period included a total of 6,685,950 patient days; 8 to 29 hospitals contributed AU data to estimates each month. FQ use rates declined at a consistent rate of approximately 1 DOT/1,000 patient days per month resulting in an overall 10% decrease prior to the FDA warning. A significant drop in FQ use rates occurred at the time of the announcement (P = 0.002), but there was no significant change in trend [rate ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.79–1.01, P = 0.07, Figure 1]. Alternative antibiotic use significantly increased for the following antibiotic groups after the warning: community-onset agents (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11–1.38), atypical agents (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.19–1.66), and third-generation cephalosporins (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19–1.65). Antipseudomonal β-lactam use remained stable (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88–1.05, P = 0.3). Conclusion Fluoroquinolone use was declining in our network prior to the FDA announcement and continued to decline after 2016. This is likely due to stewardship activities focusing on quinolone-sparing treatment guidelines. AU shifted away from FQ toward third-generation cephalosporins and atypical agents. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals A Black Box Warning: The Marginalization of White-Collar Crime Victimization

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Dodge
Keyword(s):  
Drug Administration ◽  
White Collar Crime ◽  
Wide Spectrum ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
White Collar ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Additional Research ◽  
Crime Victimization ◽  
Street Level ◽  
Victimization Research

The study of white-collar crime has become a subfield of criminology receiving great attention, though victimization calls for additional research. The black box warning, used by the Food and Drug Administration to denote potential serious hazards of a drug or device, is an apt metaphor for the neglect often associated with the identification, depth, consequences, and, at times, violent nature of white-collar crime victimization. Research on victims is evolving, though compared to street-level crime remains marginalized, despite the serious harms caused by the former. This article offers a review of what researchers have accomplished and identifies topics of concern. White-collar crime targets a wide spectrum of the population and a high number of people, but the black box of victimization demonstrates the need for research that further enhances knowledge and informs policy.

scholarly journals Safety of meningococcal group B vaccination in hospitalised premature infants

2018 ◽  
Vol 104 (2) ◽  
pp. F171-F175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Kent ◽  
Kazim Beebeejaun ◽  
Serena Braccio ◽  
Seilesh Kadambari ◽  
Paul Clarke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Premature Infants ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Neurological Status ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Historical Cohort ◽  
Protein Levels ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Group B

ObjectivesTo assess the risk of significant adverse events in premature infants receiving the novel 4-component group B meningococcal vaccine (4CMenB) with their routine immunisations at 2 months of age.Participants, design and settingIn December 2015, Public Health England requested neonatal units across England to voluntarily participate in a national audit; 19 units agreed to participate. Anonymised questionnaires were completed for infants receiving 4CMenB alongside their routine immunisations. For comparison, a historical cohort of premature infants receiving their primary immunisations without 4CMenB or paracetamol prophylaxis was used.Main outcome measuresParacetamol use; temperature, cardiovascular, respiratory and neurological status before and after vaccination; and management and investigations postvaccination, including serum C reactive protein levels, infection screens and antibiotic use.ResultsComplete questionnaires were returned for 133 premature infants (<35 weeks’ gestation) who received their first dose of 4CMenB at 8 weeks of age, including 108 who received prophylactic paracetamol according to national recommendations. Overall, 7% (8/108) of infants receiving 4CMenB with paracetamol had fever (>38°C) after vaccination compared with 20% (5/25) of those receiving 4CMenB without paracetamol (P=0.06) and none of those in the historical cohort. There were no significant differences between cohorts in the proportion of infants with apnoea, bradycardia, desaturation and receiving respiratory support after vaccination.Conclusions4CMenB does not increase the risk of serious adverse events in hospitalised premature infants. This audit supports the current national recommendations to offer 4CMenB with other routine vaccinations and prophylactic paracetamol to premature infants at their chronological age.

Efficacy, Safety, and Regulatory Approval of Food and Drug Administration–Designated Breakthrough and Nonbreakthrough Cancer Medicines

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (18) ◽  
pp. 1805-1812 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Hwang ◽  
Jessica M. Franklin ◽  
Christopher T. Chen ◽  
Julie C. Lauffenburger ◽  
Bishal Gyawali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Mechanism Of Action ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Fda Approval

Purpose The breakthrough therapy program was established in 2012 to expedite the development and review of new medicines. We evaluated the times to approval, efficacy, and safety of breakthrough-designated versus non–breakthrough-designated cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Methods We studied all new cancer drugs approved by the FDA between January 2012 and December 2017. Regulatory and therapeutic characteristics (time to FDA approval, pivotal trial efficacy end point, novelty of mechanism of action) were compared between breakthrough-designated and non–breakthrough-designated cancer drugs. Random-effects meta-regression was used to assess the association between breakthrough therapy designation and hazard ratios for progression-free survival (PFS), response rates (RRs) for solid tumors, serious adverse events, and deaths not attributed to disease progression. Results Between 2012 and 2017, the FDA approved 58 new cancer drugs, 25 (43%) of which received breakthrough therapy designation. The median time to first FDA approval was 5.2 years for breakthrough-designated drugs versus 7.1 years for non–breakthrough-designated drugs (difference, 1.9 years; P = .01). There were no statistically significant differences between breakthrough-designated and non–breakthrough-designated drugs in median PFS gains (8.6 v 4.0 months; P = .11), hazard ratios for PFS (0.43 v 0.51; P = .28), or RRs for solid tumors (37% v 39%; P = .74). Breakthrough therapy–designated drugs were not more likely to act via a novel mechanism of action (36% v 39%; P = 1.00). Rates of deaths (6% v 4%; P = .99) and serious adverse events (38% v 36%; P = 0.93) were also similar in breakthrough-designated and non–breakthrough-designated drugs. Conclusion Breakthrough-designated cancer drugs were associated with faster times to approval, but there was no evidence that these drugs provide improvements in safety or novelty; nor was there a statistically significant efficacy advantage when compared with non–breakthrough-designated drugs.

Recommendations for Clinical Trials of Off-Label Drugs Used to Treat Advanced-Stage Cancer

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 661-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Daniel Mullins ◽  
Russ Montgomery ◽  
Amy P. Abernethy ◽  
Arif Hussain ◽  
Steven D. Pearson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Technology Policy ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Off Label ◽  
The Us ◽  
Before And After

Purpose To provide recommendations to trialists and sponsors that guide the design and implementation of prospective postapproval clinical trials for oncology drugs used outside US Food and Drug Administration–labeled indications for treatment of late-stage cancers. Methods A meeting was hosted by the Center for Medical Technology Policy in Baltimore, MD, on November 12, 2009. Discussions during the meeting and key informant interviews were conducted before and after this stakeholder meeting. Peer review by multidisciplinary stakeholders was followed by a public comment period. Input was received from patient advocacy groups, medical oncologists, pharmaceutical companies, the US Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the National Cancer Institute, foreign government agencies involved in health technology assessment, public and private payers, drug compendia, clinical research entities, statisticians, academics, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Results To address the needs of patients and their clinical providers, compendia, payers, and policy makers, recommendations are proposed to guide the design of future prospective trials for off-label use of oncology drugs across four areas: trial design and data analysis, patient and site recruitment, comparators, and outcomes. Conclusion The US Food and Drug Administration provides guidance to the pharmaceutical industry and others designing randomized clinical trials for regulatory approval. However, a gap exists for postregulatory decision makers, including patients, prescribers, and payers, because regulatory trials do not answer the questions most relevant to them. Therefore, guidance is needed for trials performed in the postapproval environment for these postapproval decision makers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document