Connecting pre-marketing clinical research and medical practice: Opinion-based study of core issues and possible changes in drug regulation

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 202-219

  Wieringa, Nicolien F ^a   Peschar, Jules L ^a   Denig, Petra ^a   De Graeff, Pieter A ^a   Vos, Reih ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cardiovascular drugs; Drug approval; Drug policy; Professional practice; Qualitative evaluation

Indexed keywords

CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM; DATA REDUCTION; DRUG PRODUCTS; MARKETING;

CLINICAL RESEARCHES; DRUG REGULATIONS;

HEALTH CARE;

CARDIOVASCULAR AGENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG UTILIZATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PHARMACIST; PHYSICIAN; PUBLIC OPINION; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS;

CARDIOVASCULAR AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG UTILIZATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; MALE; NETHERLANDS; PHARMACISTS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS;

EID: 0037412506     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462303000199     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Abraham J, Lewis G. Regulating medicines in Europe. London: Routledge; 2000.
2. Angell M. Is academic medicine for sale? N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1516-1518.
3. Angell M. The pharmaceutical industry: To whom is it accountable? N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1902-1904.
4. Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001;322:1115-1117.
5. Bodewitz HJHW, Buurma H, de Vries GH. Regulatory science and the social management of trust in medicine. In: Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch TJ, eds. The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press; 1987:243-259.
6. Commission of the European Committee. Studies in support of special populations: Geriatrics. Brussels: European Community; 1993.
7. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Points to consider on switching between superiority and non-inferiority. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;52:223-228.
8. De Cremiers F. Proceedings of the 34th DIA Annual Meeting: Thinking globally: Product development, registration and marketing in the new millennium, June 7-11, 1998, Boston, Mass. Drug Inf J. 1999;33:585-600.
9. Diaz T, Chu SY, Sorvillo F, et al. Differences in participation in experimental drug trials among persons with AIDS. J Acquir Immune Defic Synd Hum Retrovirol. 1995;10:562-568.
10. Dukes MNG. Drug regulation and the tradition of secrecy. Int J Risk Safety Med. 1996;9:143-149.
11. Egberts ACG. Pharmacoepidemiological approaches to the evaluation of antidepressant drugs. University of Utrecht: 1997. Unpublished thesis.
12. EMEA. Outcome of public consultation on new EMEA transparency initiatives. Publication EMEA/D/16906/00. Available at: www.eudra.org/emea.html.
13. EMEA website. Available at: www.eudra.org.
14. English V. Networking at the EMEA. Scrip Magazine. 2001;10:41-45.
15. Fleming TR. Surrogate end points in cardiovascular disease trials. Am Heart J. 2000;139:S193-S196.
16. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:605-613.
17. FDA. Guideline for the study of drugs likely to be used in the elderly. Rockville, Md: Department of Health and Human Services; 1989.
18. Furberg CD, Herrington DM, Psaty BM. Are drugs within a class interchangeable? Lancet. 1999;354:1202-1204.
19. Garattini S, Bertele V. Adjusting Europe's drug regulation to public health needs. Lancet. 2001;358:64-67.
20. Gelijns AC, Rosenberg N, Moskowitz AJ. Capturing the unexpected benefits of medical research. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:693-698.
21. Impicciatore P, Choonara I. Status of new medicines approved by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency regarding paediatric use. Br J Clin. Pharmacol. 1999;48:15-18.
22. Kanavos P, Mossialos E. Outstanding regulatory aspects in the European pharmaceutical market. PharmacoEconomics. 1999;15:519-533.
23. Kanavos P, Trueman P, Bosilevac A. Can economic evaluation guidelines improve efficiency in resource allocation? The cases of Portugal, the Netherlands, Finland, and the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:1179-1192.
24. Kerridge I, Lowe M, Henry D. Ethics and evidence based medicine. BMJ. 1998;316:1151-1153.
25. Knottnerus JA, Dinant GJ. Medicine based evidence: A prerequisite for evidence based medicine. BMJ. 1997;315:1109-1110.
26. Leufkens HG, Urquhart J. Variability in patterns of drug usage. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1994;46(suppl 1):433-437.
27. Martin RM. When to use a new drug. Australian Prescriber. 1998;21:67-69.
28. Mays N, Pope C. Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ. 1995;311:109-112.
29. McAlister FA, Straus SE, Guyatt GH, Haynes B. Users' guide to the medical literature, XX: Integrating research evidence with the care of the individual patient. JAMA. 2000;283:2829-2836.
30. Miller SI, Fredericks M. How does grounded theory explain? Qual Health Res. 1999;9:538-551.
31. Nadel MV. Women's health: FDA needs to ensure more study of gender differences in prescription drug testing. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office; 1992.
32. O'Connell D, Glasziou P, Hill S. How to use the evidence: Assessment and application of scientific evidence. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council; 2000.
33. Peschar JL, Meijer CJW. WSNS on track: The evaluation of the process of inclusion of special education into general education in the Netherlands. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff; 1997.
34. Pieters T. Biology meets drug development: The biography of a "miracle" drug, the interferons. Maastricht University; 1999. Unpublished thesis.
35. RIVM. Health care perspectives 2002: Background document - Medicines now and in the future. Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum; 2001.
36. Rochon PA, Fortin PR, Dear KB, Minaker KL, Chalmers TC. Reporting of age data in clinical trials of arthritis: Deficiencies and solutions. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153:243-248.
37. Sauer F. European Medicines Evaluation Agency is ahead of national licensing authorities. BMJ. 1998;317:1078.
38. Schellevis FG. Chronic diseases in general practice: Comorbidity and quality of care. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen: 1993. Unpublished thesis.
39. Schmidt AM. The politics of drug research and development. In: Wechsler H, Lamont-Havers RW, Cahill GF, eds. The social context of medical research. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Group; 1981:233-262.
40. Schofield I. Regulators' response to public health concerns in Europe. Scrip Magazine. 2001;10:8-11.
41. Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc; 1998.
42. Svensson CK. Representation of American blacks in clinical trials of new drugs. JAMA. 1989;261:263-265.
43. Temple R. Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular disease drugs? JAMA. 1999;282:790-795.
44. Toering DJ. Interview with the director of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board. Pharmaceutisch Weekblad. 2001;136:251-253.
45. Trimble EL, Carter CL, Cain D, et al. Representation of older patients in cancer treatment trials. Cancer 1994;74:2208-2214.
46. Vos R. Drugs looking for diseases: Innovative drug research and the development of the beta-blockers and the calcium antagonists. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1991.
47. Wieringa NF, Denig P, de Graeff PA, Vos R. Assessment of the position of new cardiovascular drugs in the therapeutic regimen: Relationships between considerations, professional characteristics, and prescribing. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:559-570.
48. Wieringa NF, de Graeff PA, van der Werf GT, Vos R. Cardiovascular drugs: Discrepancies in demographics between pre- and post-registration use. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;55:537-544.
49. Wieringa NF, Vos R, van der Werf GT, de Graeff PA. Inclusion of patients with co-morbidity and co-medication in pre-marketing trials of cardiovascular drugs. Drug Develop Res. 2000;51:159-168.
50. Wieringa NF, Vos R, van der Werf GT, van der Veen WJ, de Graeff PA. Co-morbidity of "clinical trial" versus "real-world" patients using cardiovascular drugs. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2000;9:569-579.
51. Witteman JC. Women and cardiovascular diseases in the Netherlands. Den Haag: Nederlandse Hartstichting; 1994.
52. Yusuf S, Teo KK. The gap between reliable evidence and adoption of therapies. Eur Heart J. 1999;20:637-638.