Drug review in Canada: A comparison with Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States

Drug Information Journal

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 1133-1141

  Rawson, Nigel S B ^a,e   Kaitin, Kenneth I ^b   Thomas, Kate E ^c   Perry, Grant ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN   (Canada)

^b TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Centre for Medicines Research International   (United Kingdom)

^d Pharmaceutical Manufacturers A   (Canada)

^e MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND   (Canada)

Author keywords

Australia; Canada; Drug approval; Sweden; United Kingdom; United States

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; CANADA; DRUG APPROVAL; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SWEDEN; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0031773169     PISSN: 00928615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009286159803200433     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Wardell WM. Introduction of new therapeutic drugs in the United States and Great Britain: an international comparison. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1973;14: 773-790.
2. Wardell WM. The drug lag revisited: comparison by therapeutic area of patterns of drugs marketed in the United States and Great Britain from 1972 through 1976. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1978;24:499-524.
3. Kaitin KI, Mattison N, Northington FK, Lasagna L. The drug lag: an update of new drug introductions in the United States and in the United Kingdom, 1977 through 1987. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1989;46: 121-138.
4. Kaitin KI, Brown JS. A drug lag update. Drug Inf J. 1995;29:361-373.
5. Schweitzer SO, Schweitzer ME, Sourty-Le Guellec M-J. Is there a US drug lag? - the timing of new pharmaceutical approvals in the G-7 countries and Switzerland. Med Care Res Rev. 1996;53:162-178.
6. Kessler DA, Hass AE, Feiden KL, Lumpkin M, Temple R. Approvals of new drugs in the United States: comparison with the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan. JAMA. 1996;276:1826-1831.
7. Eastman HC. Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Pharmaceutical Industry. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada; 1985.
8. Nielsen Task Force. Health and Sports Program: a study team report to the Task Force on Program Review. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada; 1985: 95-109.
9. Auditor General of Canada. Report to the House of Commons, fiscal year ending 31 March 1987. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada; 1987.
10. Working Group on Drug Submission Review. Memorandum to the Minister (the Stein Report). Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada; 1987.
11. Overstreet RE, Berger J, Turriff C. Program evaluation study of the Drug Safety, Quality and Efficacy Program. Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada; 1989.
12. Gagnon D. Working in partnerships. . . . drug review for the future. Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada; 1992.
13. Pieterson EA. A comparison of regulatory approval times for new chemical entities in Australia, Canada, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;32:889-896.
14. Rawson NSB. The timeliness of new drug approvals in Canada. Int J Health Serv. 1995;25:153-165.
15. Drugs Directorate. 1995 Annual performance report. Ottawa: Health Canada; 1996.
16. Stroud R. Drug submission evaluation: international comparison of performance standards and performance. Ottawa: Drugs Directorate, Health Canada; 1995.
17. de Haen P. The drug lag: does it exist in Europe? Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1975;9:144-180.
18. Andersson F. The international diffusion of new drugs: a comparative study of seven industrialized countries. J Res Pharmaceut Econ. 1992;4:43-62.
19. Diggle GE, Griffin JP. Licensing times in granting marketing authorizations for medicines: a comparison between the UK and USA. Pharm Int. 1982;3: 230-236.
20. Harvey C, Lumley CE, Walker SR. A comparison of the review of a cohort of NCEs by four national regulatory authorities. J Pharmaceut Med. 1993;3: 65-75.
21. Thomas KE, McAuslane JAN, Parkinson C, Luscombe DK, Walker SR. A study of trends in pharmaceutical regulatory approval times for nine major markets in the 1990s. Drug Inf J. 1998;32 (in press).
22. Baume P. A question of balance: report on the future of drug evaluation in Australia. Canberra: Minister for Aged, Family and Health Services; 1991.
23. Kaitin KI. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 and the new drug development process. Am J Ther. 1997;4:167-172.
24. Siegel S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1956.
25. Gahart MT, Orza M, Silberman G, Weston R. FDA drug approval: review time has decreased in recent years. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office; 1995.
26. Drugs Directorate. 1996 Annual submission performance report. Ottawa: Health Canada; 1997.