Is Australia's National Medicines Policy Failing? the Case of Cox-2 Inhibitors

2007 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 735-744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnes Vitry ◽  
Joel Lexchin ◽  
Peter R. Mansfield

Australia has a National Medicines Policy with aims that include quality use of medicines, but policy stakeholders failed to protect Australia from the COX-2 (cyclo-oxygenase-2) inhibitor disaster. Drug regulators did not warn prescribers appropriately about potential cardiovascular risks. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme did not limit unjustified drug expenditures on COX-2 inhibitors. Drug companies ran intense and misleading promotional campaigns on COX-2 inhibitors without adequate controls. Independent drug information was insufficient to counter the effects of the millions of dollars spent on advertising. Core elements of the National Medicines Policy—in particular the drug approval process, the post-marketing surveillance system, the control of drug promotion, and the quality of independent drug information—require major reappraisal if we want to avoid similar disasters in the future.

1983 ◽  
Vol 22 (03) ◽  
pp. 135-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Kitaguchi ◽  
T. Nojiri ◽  
S. Suzuki ◽  
T. Fukita ◽  
T. Kawana

In order to meet the multifarious needs for drug information and to cope with the post-marketing surveillance of drugs adequately, an on-line drug information network, which is composed of two data bases, clinical case record data base and literature data base, has been developed. Primary considerations in designing these systems were input of clean data, accurate input, insuring that no ADRs are overlooked, accumulation of the latest data, saving manpower required for processing, and processing large quantities of data. This system is also designed to input and to output in Japanese character.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14580-e14580
Author(s):  
Felipe G. Gercovich ◽  
Ernesto Gil Deza ◽  
Eduardo L. Morgenfeld ◽  
Marcelo Muino ◽  
Marvin Albert Mizrahi ◽  
...  

e14580 Background: It has been consistently proven that pivotal clinical trials (PCT) for drug registration or new drug indications (NDI), sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, obtain better results than independent confirmatory studies (ICS). The interplay between PCT and ICS has supported better treatment selections and more realistic expectations: hope vs hype.The aim of this paper is to analyze the amount of ICS publications in Oncology within the last decade. Methods: All new FDA approved oncological drugs or NDI for solid tumors between 2005 and 2017 were taken into account. The PCT that led to their approval were identified, and between October and November 2019 a thorough search for related ICS (published or ongoing) was conducted on MEDLINE, ASCO Abstracts, NEJM, Lancet Oncology, JAMA, JCO, Cancer, PLOS ONE, PLOS Medicine and www.Clinicaltrials.gov. Results: Fifty-five new drugs or NDI were analyzed (Abemaciclib, Abiraterone, Ado-trastuzumab emtasine, Afatinib, Alectinib, Atezolizumab, Avelumab, Axitinib, Bendamustine, Bevacizumab, Brigatinib, Cabozantinib, Ceritinib, Cobimetinib, Crizotinib, Dabrafenib, Degarelix, Denosumab, Durvalumab, Eribuline mesylate, Everolimus, Ipilimumab, Irinotecan liposome, Ixabepilone, Lapatinib, Lenvatinib, Necitumumab, Neratinib, Nilotinib, Niraparib, Nivolumab, Olaparib, Osimertinib, Paclitaxel protein bound, Palbociclib, Panitumumab, Pazopanib, Pembrolizumab, Pertuzumab, Ramucirumab, Regorafenib, Ribociclib, Rucaparib, SipuleucelT, Sonidegib, Sorafenib, Sunitinib, Topotecan, Trabectedin, Trametinib, Trastuzumab, Vandetanib, Vemurafenib, Vismodegib, Ziv-afilbercept). Until November 30, 2019, no published or ongoing ICS were found in any of the cases. Conclusions: a) For the past decade, none of the PCT used for approval of new oncological drugs or NDI were replicated by ICS (without pharmaceutical industry sponsorship). b) We ignore the reasons for these approval methods but they raise suspicion and unnecessary discomfort. c) From an ethical point of view, patients’ Informed Consent must specify that expected results for the new drug or NDI are based exclusively on trials sponsored by the selling pharmaceutical company, unless other ICS are published. d) The current state of affairs can only be reverted if regulatory agencies and the scientific community demand ICS as part of the drug approval process or post-marketing duties.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 11-19
Author(s):  
Pankaj Kashyap ◽  
Eshant Duggal ◽  
Vikaas Budhwaar ◽  
Dr. Arun Nanda ◽  
Jitendra Kumar Badjatya

The drug approval process is the vehicle through which drug sponsors formally approve a new pharmaceutical for sale and marketing. The goals of the approval process are to provide enough information about the drug safety and efficacy in human beings.  Every country has its own regulatory authority, which is responsible to enforce the rules and regulations and issue the guidelines to regulate the marketing of the drugs. The approval process starts with preclinical testing. For drugs that appear safe, an investigational new drug application (IND) is filed. If approved, clinical trials begin with phase 1 study that focus on safety and pharmacology. Phase 2 studies examine the effectiveness of the compound. Phase 3 is the final step before submitting a new drug application to the authority. A New Drug Application (NDA) contains all the information obtained during all phases of testing. Phase 4 studies, or post-marketing studies, are conducted after a product is approved.


BMJ ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 333 (7568) ◽  
pp. 565.2
Author(s):  
Janice Hopkins Tanne

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document