The ethics of post-marketing surveillance of therapeutic agents

Trials of new therapies have strict codes of conduct which expect the highest of ethical practice. Local ethics committees review protocols, patient information, consent. National research councils delineate guidelines for minimum standards regarding subjects in such trials. Once medications enter the market place, there is less definition of minimal codes of conduct. Clinical trials are designed to meet regulatory demands to access commercial markets. Prior to marketing, there is a usual drug trial exposure of less than 5,000 individuals which diminishes identification of rare adverse events. Australian case law has found negligence for not warning of a 1:14,000 risk of sympathetic ophthalmia and more recently, in Chappel v Hart, even a speculative risk was grounds for negligence. Recent reports of serious adverse events for conditions such as epilepsy or depression resulted in companies appearing to expend considerable effort to suppress concern rather than to seriously investigate these complications in the post marketing period. This paper will explore such cases and discuss approaches to improve post marketing surveillance and patient protection.