Posts

Article Review Module 6 HCR 553

/in /by

Article Review Module 6 HCR 553

Article under Review: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-this-fda-approved-drug-for-pre-term-birth-is-being-pulled-from-the-market

  1. Introduction

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a significant role in safeguarding the health of the people. It does this by checking the data in clinical trials in an effort to decide on the safety and efficacy of a drug. Nonetheless, there have been instances of FDA-authorized drugs subsequently being recalled on grounds of adverse effects or ineffectiveness. This paper is a review of Makena, a drug used to prevent preterm birth, in accordance with the article by Pattemore (2023). It looks at why the drug was withdrawn, how clinical trial information was managed, the use of a Data Monitoring Committee (DMC), and whether the matter might have been spotted sooner. The paper also considers what the manufacturer could have done differently regarding FDA regulatory frameworks.

  1. Why Makena Was Withdrawn

Pattemore describes in her 2023 article the removal of Makena, the only FDA-approved medication with the ability to reduce the chance of recurrent preterm delivery. In early 2023, its manufacturer, Covis Pharma, voluntarily stopped manufacturing Makena; at the time of the announcement, the FDA had not yet annulled its approval.

Approval of the drug was initially carried out on a U.S.-based clinical trial in 2003 that had 463 women. This trial demonstrated a decrease in the percentage of preterm births (preterm births less than 37 weeks of gestation) in women who received Makena as opposed to a placebo. Nevertheless, this initial trial used the gestation period as a primary outcome measure and not neonatal morbidity or mortality outcomes.

Further concerns arose following a bigger 2020 foreign study, later dubbed the PROLONG trial. The trial involved more than 1,700 women worldwide and demonstrated the lack of effect on neonatal outcomes in the Makena and the placebo groups. This prompted the Obstetrics, Reproductive, and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the FDA to recommend that the drug be withdrawn. Covis eventually complied with a voluntary withdrawal.

This decision underscores a fundamental problem with the accelerated approval pathway: while it allows for faster access to promising treatments, it also poses risks when early data are later contradicted by comprehensive follow-up studies.

III. Clinical Trial Data Collection and Management

The study involving a surrogate endpoint (gestational age) used as the basis of the approval of Makena was carried out in the early part of 2003. Although this is significant, it is not necessarily a surety of enhanced infant health. The data used consisted of dates of delivery and health of the mother, but no other details on the neonatal outcomes, including respiratory distress, neonatal intensive care, or survival rates. The information was gathered in only one geographical area (the United States), and it was not demographically diverse.

In comparison, the 2020 PROLONG study used wider data collection tools. It involved the description of the neonatal health outcomes as well as the monitoring of the health of mothers in several countries. The study was conducted in adherence to the principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP), and it had standardized data collection and data management processes. Case report forms (eCRFs) were used to collect data and were continuously monitored per international ethical guidelines.

The FDA permits surrogate endpoints applications following accelerated approval (per 21 CFR 314.500), but these approvals are accompanied by the condition that confirmatory trials demonstrate clinical benefit. In the instance of Makena, the withdrawal call arose since this condition was not fulfilled.

  1. Role of the Data Monitoring Committee (DMC)

Whether or not a Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) was established during the Makena trials has not been explicitly stated in the article. However, it is standard for large international studies like PROLONG to include a DMC. The 2006 guidance document created by the FDA, titled Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees, suggests the usage of DMCs in clinical trials with high-risk groups, including pregnant women.

In the absence of any, the DMC probably observed the data and might have reported negative events and efficacy signals. Since the PROLONG trial has been completed and did not find any major safety concerns, one should assume that no significant harms were reported. It was the lack of efficacy and not evidence of harm that led the FDA committee to advise that the drug be withdrawn.

Conversely, the applicability of a Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) in the 2003 trial is less apparent, since the trial was of a smaller magnitude and was consistent with the standards of early-stage drug development at the time. With the development of regulatory expectations, particularly since the passage of the FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007, sponsors are subjected to greater responsibilities concerning the operation and monitoring of trials.

  1. Could the Issues Have Been Detected Earlier?

Yes. The issues would have been discovered during the initial trial stages. The initial study back in 2003 was small and selective. It measured the delay of birth but not an improvement in subsequent infant health. Gestational age alone was inadequate just because there was no direct relationship between gestational age and neonatal health.

The FDA process of accelerated approval, which is defined in 21 CFR Part 314 Subpart H and enabled by a statutory basis at 21 U.S.C. 356(c), enables early approval based on surrogate endpoints (21 U.S. Code § 355 – New Drugs, n.d.). Nevertheless, post-marketing confirmatory studies should be carried out by sponsors to demonstrate real clinical benefit. In this case, the confirmatory study came nearly a decade after approval, allowing Makena to remain on the market despite its unproven benefit.

Such a scenario shows the weaknesses of accelerated approval once the surrogate endpoints lack validation, or confirmation trials take time. The FDAAA of 2007 gave the FDA the power to request timely post-mark studies and remove products when they should (Research, 2024). The long-term availability of Makena, even when not of benefit, casts doubt on the enforcement of the requirements.

  1. What Could the Sponsor Have Done Differently?

Several actions could have improved the handling of Makena’s development and post-market oversight:

  1. Stronger Trial Design from the Start: The sponsor should have designed a larger and more diversified placebo-derived trial initially. The greater concordance of the study with FDA expectations of meaningful clinical benefit could have been achieved by including neonatal outcomes as primary endpoints (Research, 2024).
  2. Proactive Engagement with the FDA: The manufacturer should have collaborated more closely with the FDA to discuss initial reservations, determine potential subgroups who could experience benefit, or redesign the drug to be a more effective tool (Ogg, 2005).
  3. Timely Post-Marketing Trials: The sponsor was under the regulatory mandate to perform confirmatory trials as soon as possible after receiving accelerated approval. The time it took to complete the PROLONG trial undermined the system of regulatory reviews and public confidence.

VII. Conclusion 

The recall of Makena provides a valuable case study of drug approval, post-marketing surveillance, and risk management of health in the population. The drug was approved on the basis of small amounts of evidence, but did not demonstrate benefit in a larger and more rigorous trial. The fact that such pitfalls went unnoticed before indicates larger problems with the design of trials, the responsibilities of sponsors, and regulation. The case also demonstrates that there should be a change in the observance of confirmatory trial schedules and risk communication by the FDA. Sponsors, policymakers, and healthcare providers need to collaborate in order to make sure that accelerated approvals in the future will also be evidence-based and well-overseen after approval.

References

21 U.S. Code § 355 – New drugs. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/355

Ogg, G. (2005). A practical guide to quality management in clinical trial research. CRC

Press.

Pattemore, C. (2023, March 13). Why This FDA-Approved Drug for Pre-Term Birth is being Pulled from the Market. Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-this-fda-approved-drug-for-pre-term-birth-is-being-pulled-from-the-market

Research, C. F. D. E. A. (2024, December 24). Accelerated Approval Program. U.S. Food And Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-healthcare-professionals-drugs/accelerated-approval-program

CLICK HERE TO ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER

Article Review Module 6 HCR 553