`
 
 
FDA Q&A on NSAID Labeling
 

 

DOGS

 
 

Posted with permission of Ed Murray

 

Thursday, June 17, 2004 Subject: Post Approval Labeling

Dr. Larkins,

(also sent to Drs Crawford and Sundlof)

I just looked at the latest Deramaxx product label to see the new Post Approval Experience information which I think is an invaluable addition to the label and can't believe that the agency has approved the following wording:

"In rare [emphasis added] situations, death has been reported as an outcome of the adverse events listed above."

How can anyone familiar with the English language and basic math characterize death as "rare" when according to your own statistics death and euthanasia together constitute fully 21% (375/1782) of the reported Adverse Drug Events which makes this the third most commonly reported sign associated with Deramaxx after vomiting and anorexia?

It seems to me that as a result of this wording, the product is now grossly mislabeled and veterinarians and owners are being horribly misinformed about the Post Approval Experience.

Edward Murray

 

 

Wednesday, July 07, 2004 Subject: RE: Post Approval Labeling

Dear Mr. Murray,

This response is to address your comments and concerns about the wording of statements added to the "Post Approval Experience" section of the Deramaxx label. Your concerns appear to be based on your interpretation of the Adverse Drug Events (ADE) data associated with the product.

The purpose of the Center for Veterinary Medicine's (CVM) monitoring system is not to collect statistics. Rather, the system is designed to look for drug side effects and other adverse drug events that are not presently reported on products' labels, and to advise veterinary practitioners of the benefits and risks of animal drug products. Each reported reaction is evaluated and scored. It is the collection of reactions, judged for severity and frequency, that drives label changes. This is a regulatory process that is performed separately from and independently of the drug company.

The ADE data published on the Center for Veterinary Medicine's (CVM) website provides the public, including veterinary practitioners, with meaningful risk information thereby contributing to animal health and safety. The ADE-related pages on CVM's website (e.g. http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/ade/ADEReport.htm ) also include substantial information to aid readers in interpreting the data as follows:

1. http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/ade/ADEReport.htm

These reports include all domestic adverse drug experience reports submitted to the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM or the Center) that the Center has determined to be at least "possibly" drug related. The Center's adverse drug experience (ADE) process takes into consideration confounding factors such as:

· Dosage
· Concomitant drug use
· The medical and physical condition of animals at the time of treatment
· Environmental and management information
· Product defects
· Extra-label-uses

However, the specifics of these complex factors cannot be addressed in these reports.

NOTE: These reports are intended ONLY as a general reference to the type of adverse experience that veterinarians, animal owners, and others have voluntarily reported either to the FDA or to the manufacturer as associated with drug use. These reports should NOT be used for:

· Determining drug association for a particular sign
· Determining the safety and efficacy of a given drug
· Determining the frequency of occurrence of an adverse experience
· Determining the effects of on-label versus extra-label use of a drug
· Comparing one drug with another drug

2. http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/ade/ade_description.htm

The primary purpose for maintaining the FDA/CVM DAE database is to provide an early warning or signaling system for adverse effects not detected during premarket testing of FDA-approved animal drugs and for monitoring the performance of drugs not approved for use in animals. The FDA/CVM ADE reporting system depends upon the detection of an adverse clinical event by veterinarians and animal owners, the attribution of the clinical event to the use of a particular drug ("suspect" drug), and the reporting of the ADE to the manufacturer of the suspected drug or directly to FDA. Data from these ADE reports are coded and entered into the computerized FDA/CVM ADE database.

It is important to remember certain caveats when using data from the FDA/CVM ADE database as follows:

1. For any given ADE report, there is no certainty that the suspected drug caused the adverse event. This is because veterinarians and animal owners are encouraged to report all suspected ADEs, not just those that are already known to be caused by the drug. The adverse event may have been related primarily to an underlying disease for which the drug was given, to other concomitant drugs, or may have occurred by chance at the same time the suspect drug was administered.

2. Accumulated ADE reports should not be used to calculate incidence rates or estimates of drug risk.

Based upon your comments it appears your estimate of the incidence (21%) is a misinterpretation of the ADE data posted on CVM's website and a gross overestimation of the incidence of death as an adverse event related to the use of Deramaxx. Due to case-specific variables such as concomitant drugs, pre-existing medical problems, patient age, and others, we cannot always be certain that there is a direct correlation between a specific adverse reaction and the particular drug implicated in causing the reaction. All factors must be taken into account.

The NSAIDs as a class of drugs carry risks. The FDA approves them with labeled information regarding recommendations for owners to observe for side effects so that early intervention and timely treatment can take place. The FDA also approves them with recommendations for pre and post-administration monitoring of blood work in much the same way the FDA makes recommendations about any other drug that requires monitoring. This is not unique to animal drugs; it is also very common with human NSAIDS, "statins" and other drugs that carry some risk.

Marcia K. Larkins D.V.M.
Ombudsman
Center for Veterinary Medicine

Thursday, July 08, 2004 Subject: Re: Post Approval Labeling


Dr. Marcia K. Larkins,

Thank you for your response to my message.

You have made a very forceful argument against the data which CVM publishes and raised the question of why you report the unscored and unevaluated data when you clearly have the scored/evaluated data. Surely the latter would be more "meaningful risk information thereby contributing to animal health and safety."

It is not clear to me from your response whether you are saying that the label changes are driven by the scored and evaluated data, or are the result of a regulatory process that is divorced from this data.

The actual wording of the label certainly implies that the information you are presenting is driven by some statistical analysis of the ADE data since the label specifically states:
"The following adverse reactions are based on voluntary post-approval reporting. The categories are listed in decreasing order of frequency by body system."
And with respect to the sentence on deaths:
"In rare situations, death has been reported as an outcome of the adverse events listed above."
In the first instance, you are indicating that the information on the label is "based on voluntary post-approval reporting." There is nothing in the wording of the label that implies that this is the scored and evaluated data.

In the second statement regarding deaths, you again specifically note that this is based on the "reports" the agency receives. In terms of 'reported' signs, death and euthanasia are clearly 21% and therefore not 'rare' as you have termed it on the label in terms of 'reported' signs.

It may be purely coincidental, but the rank order of the listing of signs on the label certainly appears to match that in the unscored data you make public.

You note: "Based upon your comments it appears your estimate of the incidence (21%) [of death and euthanasia] is a misinterpretation of the ADE data posted on CVM's website and a gross overestimation of the incidence of death as an adverse event related to the use of Deramaxx."

It is not my "estimate of the incidence" of reported deaths. I have simply taken the data you have chosen to make public and calculated death and euthanasia as a percentage of all reports you have received. (375/1782=.2104)

You have not chosen to characterize vomiting (35%) and anorexia (23%) as "rare" so I am still at a loss as to why you have chosen to add this wording with reference to death and euthanasia. I have to assume that the limitations on your published data apply to all the reported signs, not just to death and euthanasia yet you have not stated that these other reported signs are 'rare.'

You could easily resolve this issue by listing the signs in rank order based on your scored and evaluated data or simply listing it all in rank order of the reports you receive making it clear on the label that all of the data is unevaluated and unscored.

As it now stands, the label is misleading owners and veterinarians because it clearly implies that the signs you have listed in rank order of the "reports the agency receives" are more significant than death and euthanasia which you have singled out as being rarely "reported" when your own data makes it very clear that in terms of 'reported' data, this is not at all true.

Edward Murray

------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------

------------

------------

------------

------------
 
------------

------------

------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
"All truth passes through three stages:
First it is Ridiculed.
Second, it is Violently Opposed.
Third, it is Accepted as being Self-Evident."
~Arthur Schopenhauer~ (1778-1860)