The FDA's Phenylephrine Decision: Based on Effectiveness Concerns, Not On Safety Concerns
How the removal of an ineffective decongestant demonstrates the strength, not the weakness, of our drug safety system
Stuffy nose? Reach for phenylephrine! Well, not anymore. For years, phenylephrine — sold under the brand names Sudafed PE and Neosynephrine among numerous others— has been used as a decongestant to treat stuffy nose and sinus congestion caused by the common cold, hay fever, or other allergies. Phenylephrine has been over-the-counter in pill form since the 1930s. But just last week, the FDA announced it is proposing to remove oral phenylephrine as an active ingredient that can be used in OTC drug products for the temporary relief of nasal congestion after an agency review of the available data determined that oral phenylephrine is not effective for this use.
As a result, my social media feed is overflowing with the following message:
THE FDA PULLS DRUG FROM THE SHELVES— WHAT ELSE ARE THEY WRONG ABOUT?
The FDA's Phenylephrine Decision: When Science Evolves
The FDA's November 2024 decision to remove oral phenylephrine from over-the-counter medications demonstrates something critical about modern drug regulation: the system works exactly as designed, adapting to new scientific evidence while maintaining different standards for safety versus efficacy concerns. While some view this decision as a regulatory failure, a closer examination reveals the opposite: it shows the FDA's commitment to evidence-based decision-making and continuous scientific review. Let’s discuss.
A Critical Distinction: Safety vs. Efficacy
It's very important to understand a fundamental point that often gets lost in media coverage: the FDA acts with different levels of urgency depending on whether a drug is unsafe or merely ineffective. When safety issues arise - such as dangerous side effects or contamination - the FDA moves swiftly to protect public health, and manufacturers often act voluntarily in cooperation with the agency before formal action is required.
The past few decades have provided several illustrative examples of how the FDA handles safety concerns. In 2000, the GERD medication cisapride was voluntarily withdrawn by its manufacturer after reports linked it to dangerous heart arrhythmias (long QT syndrome). In 2011, the FDA took the significant step of withdrawing approval for Avastin (bevacizumab) to treat metastatic breast cancer due to safety concerns, though the drug remains approved for other cancers where its benefits outweigh its risks. More recently, in 2020, the FDA requested that the manufacturer of the weight-loss drug Belviq withdraw it from the market after data showed an increased cancer risk.
The FDA's approach to cancer drugs particularly demonstrates this nuanced, safety-focused approach. Between 2021 and 2022, several immunotherapy drugs had approvals withdrawn for specific cancer types while maintaining approval for others - including Keytruda, Opdivo, and Tecentriq. These selective withdrawals occurred when data showed that for certain cancers, the risks outweighed potential benefits, while the drugs remained valuable treatment options for other cancers. This careful balancing of risks and benefits shows how the FDA can act surgically rather than with a broad brush when safety issues arise.
The phenylephrine case is fundamentally different. The drug is remarkably safe at recommended doses - it just doesn't work well enough to justify its continued use as an oral decongestant. This distinction explains the more deliberate timeline for removal. Without immediate safety concerns, the FDA could take the time needed to thoroughly evaluate effectiveness through multiple clinical trials and extensive data review.
Historical Context: How Phenylephrine Came to Market
The story of phenylephrine illustrates the evolution of drug regulation in the United States. The drug entered the market in the 1930s, during a fundamentally different era of pharmaceutical regulation. At that time, the FDA - which began as the Division of Chemistry in the mid-1800s and only gained its current name in 1930 - required manufacturers merely to accurately label their products and demonstrate basic safety.
The requirement to prove effectiveness didn't exist until the Kefauver-Harris Amendments of 1962, passed in the wake of the thalidomide tragedy. This watershed moment in drug regulation established the modern framework requiring both safety AND efficacy for drug approval. However, drugs already on the market, like phenylephrine, were grandfathered in under older, less stringent standards.
The Evolution of Scientific Evidence
Questions about phenylephrine's effectiveness emerged as early as the 1970s when the first scientific studies raised doubts about the oral form's efficacy. However, the limited analytical technology of the era made it difficult to reach definitive conclusions. These early concerns would lay dormant for decades until modern technology could provide more conclusive evidence.
The scientific scrutiny gained new momentum in the early 2000s when researchers at the University of Florida began investigating the drug's bioavailability— how much of the medication actually reaches the bloodstream. Using modern analytical techniques, they made a startling discovery: less than 1% of oral phenylephrine gets absorbed into the bloodstream, far less than previously believed.
The issue took on greater urgency in 2006 when the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act moved pseudoephedrine behind pharmacy counters due to its potential use in manufacturing methamphetamine. This regulatory change led to a surge in phenylephrine-containing products as manufacturers sought an easily accessible alternative for consumers.
By 2007, the mounting evidence led to a formal challenge at the FDA. An advisory panel reviewed the available data and voted 11-1 that while there was some evidence the formulations worked, the existing studies weren't definitive. The panel recommended studying higher doses, including a 25-milligram dose, highlighting the uncertainty around the standard 10-milligram dose's effectiveness.
Over the next several years, researchers conducted multiple large-scale clinical trials using increasingly sophisticated measurements and controls. Each new study added to the growing scientific consensus about the drug's lack of effectiveness. The FDA continued its comprehensive review, incorporating public comment periods and stakeholder input. This methodical process, while time-consuming, reflects not regulatory failure but rather the careful approach required when removing a widely used medication from the market.
Key Milestones in the Phenylephrine Review Process
1930s
Phenylephrine enters the market when only basic safety demonstration was required
No requirement to prove effectiveness existed at this time
1962
Kefauver-Harris Amendments pass, requiring new drugs to prove both safety and efficacy
Many existing drugs, including phenylephrine, were grandfathered in
Early 1970s
First scientific studies emerge questioning phenylephrine's oral effectiveness
Limited analytical technology made definitive conclusions difficult
1972
FDA establishes OTC Drug Review process
Phenylephrine receives GRASE (Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective) status
2006
Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act moves pseudoephedrine behind pharmacy counter
Manufacturers increasingly switch to phenylephrine in OTC products
Market for phenylephrine-containing products expands significantly
2007
University of Florida researchers formally challenge efficacy with FDA
First FDA advisory committee meeting votes 11-1 that evidence is not definitive
Committee calls for more research using modern methods
2015-2023
Three large modern clinical trials conducted using contemporary methods
Studies confirm poor bioavailability (<1% absorption) of oral phenylephrine
Growing scientific consensus about lack of effectiveness
Market reaches $1.8 billion in annual sales of phenylephrine products
2023
September: FDA advisory committee meets to review all available evidence
Committee votes unanimously (16-0) that oral phenylephrine is ineffective
Public comment period begins
CVS announces removal of single-ingredient phenylephrine products
2024
November: FDA announces final decision to remove oral phenylephrine
Manufacturers given time to reformulate products
Focus remains on ensuring alternative treatments are available
Why the Process Took Time
The timeline from initial concerns to regulatory action reflects the careful balance required in modern drug regulation. Since phenylephrine posed no safety risk, the FDA could take the time needed to build an ironclad scientific case. This meant waiting for multiple well-designed clinical trials to conclusively demonstrate the drug's ineffectiveness. The agency also needed to consider the practical implications of removing a widely used medication from the market, including ensuring alternatives were available and giving manufacturers time to reformulate their products.
The FDA's Modern Regulatory Framework: Understanding Recalls, Withdrawals, and Safety Monitoring
Critics of the FDA often cite that "14,000 drugs have been recalled in the last 10 years" as evidence of regulatory failure. However, this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how drug safety monitoring works in practice. Today's FDA employs a sophisticated system for monitoring and responding to drug-related concerns, with different types of actions based on the nature and severity of the issue.
A recall is typically a temporary and often voluntary action taken by a manufacturer to remove a specific batch or lot of a product from the market. These recalls are actually evidence of the system working as intended - companies proactively identifying and addressing potential problems before they cause harm. The FDA uses a three-tiered classification system that helps prioritize its responses based on risk level:
Class I recalls, representing about 6% of cases, demand immediate action because they involve dangerous products that could cause serious harm.
The majority of recalls (about 86%) fall into Class II, involving products that pose temporary or manageable risks.
The remaining cases are Class III recalls, typically involving technical violations unlikely to cause harm.
This recall system is distinct from a market withdrawal, where a company voluntarily removes a product for a minor violation that wouldn't be subject to FDA legal action.
Both of these differ from the most serious action - when the FDA withdraws approval for a drug entirely, as happened with phenylephrine. This last type of action is relatively rare and happens only after careful scientific review demonstrates either safety concerns or a lack of effectiveness.
This nuanced approach allows the FDA to marshal its resources effectively, moving swiftly when safety is at risk while taking appropriate time for thorough scientific review in cases involving efficacy concerns. The phenylephrine case demonstrates how this system works in practice. The agency maintained continuous monitoring of scientific literature, showed responsiveness to new evidence, and demonstrated willingness to revise its previous positions - all while maintaining a transparent decision-making process that balanced public health with practical considerations.
Understanding these distinctions helps explain why the high number of recalls actually demonstrates the strength of our drug safety system rather than its weakness. It shows that manufacturers and regulators are actively monitoring for problems and taking appropriate action to protect public health, even when those problems are minor. The system is designed to be precautionary - it's better to have many small, preventive recalls than to miss a serious safety issue.
Future Implications for Drug Regulation
The phenylephrine case offers some lessons for the future of pharmaceutical oversight. First, it demonstrates the importance of periodically reviewing older drugs using modern analytical methods, particularly those approved under previous regulatory frameworks. Second, it highlights how academic-regulatory partnerships can strengthen our drug safety system through independent scientific scrutiny.
The case establishes a model for how the FDA can systematically review and act on efficacy concerns while maintaining public trust through several key practices:
The agency must conduct thorough scientific reviews supported by multiple confirmatory studies using modern analytical methods.
Clear communication about the distinction between safety and efficacy concerns helps the public understand regulatory timelines and decisions.
The FDA should establish appropriate timelines based on risk level, moving swiftly for safety concerns while allowing proper time for efficacy evaluations.
Regulatory decisions must consider broader market impacts and ensure alternative treatments remain available to consumers.
This balanced approach ensures that while unsafe drugs are removed immediately, questions about efficacy receive the careful, comprehensive evaluation they deserve.
Stay curious,
Unbiased Science