The drug lag: An update of new drug introductions in the United States and in the United Kingdom, 1977 through 1987

1989 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth I Kaitin ◽  
Nancy Mattison ◽  
Frances K Northington ◽  
Louis Lasagna
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
New Drug ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Drug Lag

The Drug Lag Issue: The Debate Seen from an International Perspective

1992 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredrik Andersson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Processing Time ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Perspective ◽  
West Germany ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Regulatory Agencies ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Drug Lag

This article reviews the literature related to the “drug lag” issue, i.e., the issue of whether important new drugs are introduced relatively late, or, in certain cases, are introduced at all, in a particular country. The literature can be divided into two main parts: studies primarily related to the delay in introduction of new drugs and studies primarily related to the number of introduced new drugs. Most studies have found the United States, Sweden, and Norway to have a long delay in the introduction of new drugs. The United Kingdom and (West) Germany in general have the shortest delay. There are also large differences in the number of introduced new drugs. In most studies, the United States and Norway have introduced far fewer new drugs than any other industrialized country. In general (West) Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Italy have introduced the largest number of new drugs. One of the reviewed studies presented a relationship between regulatory processing time and delay in introduction. Another study found an increasing influence of regulatory stringency on the number of introduced new drugs in a country. If a country's aim is to decrease the delay in introduction and/or to increase the introduction of important new drugs, a review of the local regulatory agencies and the regulations seems worthwhile.

scholarly journals A Comparative Discussion of the Judicial Disqualification of Directors under the South African Companies Act

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Rehana Cassim
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
South African ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The South ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Locus Standi

Abstract Section 162 of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 empowers courts to declare directors delinquent and hence to disqualify them from office. This article compares the judicial disqualification of directors under this section with the equivalent provisions in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America, which have all influenced the South African act. The article compares the classes of persons who have locus standi to apply to court to disqualify a director from holding office, as well as the grounds for the judicial disqualification of a director, the duration of the disqualification, the application of a prescription period and the discretion conferred on courts to disqualify directors from office. It contends that, in empowering courts to disqualify directors from holding office, section 162 of the South African Companies Act goes too far in certain respects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document