Timeliness of review and approval of new drugs in Canada from 1999 through 2001: Is progress being made?

Clinical Therapeutics

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 1230-1247

  Rawson, Nigel S B ^a,b  

^a Ctr for Hlth Care Plcy and Eval   (United States)

^b Ctr for Hlth Care Plcy and Eval   (United States)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

ALPHA2B INTERFERON; AMPRENAVIR; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; ANTIRHEUMATIC AGENT; ANTIVIRUS AGENT; BENZOPORPHYRIN DERIVATIVE; CARDIOVASCULAR AGENT; CASPOFUNGIN; CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AGENTS; DALFOPRISTIN; EXEMESTANE; GALANTAMINE; GASTROINTESTINAL AGENT; HEMATOLOGIC AGENT; HORMONE; IMATINIB; IMMUNOLOGIC AGENT; LINEZOLID; OXCARBAZEPINE; PIOGLITAZONE; QUINUPRISTIN; ROFECOXIB; ROSIGLITAZONE; TEMOZOLOMIDE; TENECTEPLASE; ZANAMIVIR; ZOLEDRONIC ACID;

AUSTRALIA; CANADA; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG CONTROL; DRUG MARKETING; EUROPEAN UNION; LICENCE; REVIEW; SWEDEN; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0038408697     PISSN: 01492918     EISSN: 1879114X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0149-2918(03)80080-2     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Paul D. Comparison of the drug approval processes in the US, the EU and Canada. Int J Med Marketing. 2001;1:224-235.
2. Eastman HC. Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Pharmaceutical Industry. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada; 1985.
3. 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.
4. Drug Regulation. Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, Fiscal Year Ending 31 March 1987. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada; 1987.
5. Working Group on Drug Submission Review. Memorandum to the Minister (the Stein Report). Ottawa: Department of National Health and Welfare Canada; 1987.
6. Overstreet RE, Berger J, Turriff C. Program Evaluation Study of the Drug Safety, Quality and Efficacy Program. Ottawa: Department of National Health and Welfare Canada; 1989.
7. Gagnon D. Working in Partnerships. Drug Review for the Future. Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada; 1992.
8. 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.
9. Rawson NSB, Kaitin KI, Thomas KE, Perry G. Drug review in Canada: A comparison with Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Drug Inf J. 1998;32:1133-1141.
10. Rawson NSB. Time required for approval of new drugs in Canada, Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States in 1996-1998. CMAJ. 2000;162:501-504.
11. Rawson NSB, Kaitin KI. New drug approval times and 'therapeutic potential' in Canada, Australia, Sweden and the United States during the period 1992 to 1998. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2000;7:97-101.
12. Picard A. AIDS activists condemn slow drug-approval process. Globe and Mail. May 2, 1998:A6.
13. Pole K. First to start, last to finish: Approvals track record is poor. Med Post. August 10, 1999:12.
14. Foss K. Loosening the cap on drug approvals. Globe and Mail. May 30, 2000:R5.
15. Picard A. Drug-approval process too slow, activists argue. Globe and Mail. October 18, 2001:A12.
16. Wente M. Waiting for approval: Canada's hidden drug problem. Globe and Mail. January 24, 2002:A21.
17. Jones L. Can the drug approval process be reformed to save lives? Fraser Forum. February 2002:14-16.
18. Kondro W. Speed up drug-approval process, feds told. CMAJ. 2002;166:644.
19. Rawson NSB. Issues in the approval of, access to, and post-marketing follow-up of new drugs in Canada: A personal viewpoint. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002;11:335-340.
20. Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies. Canada's Performance in Drug Approval Times: NOC Survey, 1999. Ottawa: Rx&D; 2000.
21. Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies. Canada's Performance in Drug Approval Times: NOC Survey, 2000. Ottawa: Rx&D; 2001.
22. Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies. Canada's Performance in Drug Approval Times: NOC Survey, 2001. Ottawa: Rx&D; 2002.
23. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. New Drug Approvals in 1999. Washington, DC: PhRMA; 2000.
24. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. New Drug Approvals in 2000. Washington, DC: PhRMA; 2001.
25. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. New Drug Approvals in 2001. Washington, DC: PhRMA; 2002.
26. Healy EM, Kaitin KI. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products' centralized procedure for product approval: Current status. Drug Inf J. 1999;33:969-978.
27. Hennings G. Marketing authorizations of medicinal products in the European Union: Past, present, and future. Drug Inf J. 2000;34:793-800.
28. Conover WJ. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1971:256-263.
29. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Priority Review Policy. Manual of Policies and Procedures, MAPP 6020.3. Rockville, Md: Food and Drug Administration; 1996. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/mapp/6020-3.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2002.
30. Therapeutic Products Directorate. Priority Review of Drug Submissions (Therapeutic Products). Ottawa: Health Canada; 2002. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb-dgps/therapeut/ zfiles/english/fact-sht/prfactsheet2002_e.html. Accessed December 2, 2002.
31. Therapeutic Goods Administration. How Long Does It Take to Evaluate a Prescription Medicine? Woden, Australia: Therapeutic Goods Administration; 2002. Available at: http://www.health.gov.au/tga/docs/pdf/evaltime.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2002.
32. Gorman D. Defending drug approval. Globe and Mail. January 31, 2002:A16.
33. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. FDA's Drug Review and Approval Times. Rockville, Md: Food and Drug Administration; 2001. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/reports/reviewtimes/default.htm. Accessed December 2, 2002.
34. European Commission. Pharmaceuticals in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2000. Available at: http://pharmacos.eudra.org/f2/pharmacos/docs/brochure/pharmaeu.pd f. Accessed December 2, 2002.
35. Office of Planning. Report on PDUFA Goals: Original New Product Applications. Rockville, Md: Food and Drug Administration; 2002. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/oc/pdufa/report2001/orgnewprodapps.html. Accessed December 2, 2002.
36. Kondro W. Drug approvals taking too long? CMAJ. 2002;166:790.
37. Peterson RG. Response to commentary. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002;11:341-342.
38. Rawson NSB. Human resources for the approval of new drugs in Canada, Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;9:73-78.
39. Medical Products Agency Annual Report 2001 [in Swedish]. Uppsala: Läkemedelsverket; 2002. Available at: http://www.mpa.se/om_verket/LV_arsredovisning_2001.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2002.
40. Therapeutic Products Program: Baseline Assessment of Drug Submission Review Process. Ottawa: PricewaterhouseCoopers; 1999.
41. Peterson R. Health Canada Progress Update. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2002. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb-dgps/therapeut/ zfiles/english/presentations/summit_2002_e.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2002.
42. Brown KR, Douglas RG Jr. New challenges in quality control and licensure. Regulation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1994;10:55-64.
43. Romanow RJ. Building on Values: The Future of Health Care in Canada. Saskatoon: Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada; 2002. Available at: http://www.healthcarecommission.ca. Accessed December 2, 2002.
44. Lasser KE, Allen PD, Woolhandler SJ, et al. Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications. JAMA. 2002;287:2215-2220.
45. Food and Drug Administration. Effect of User Fees on Drug Approval Times, Withdrawals, and Other Agency Activities. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office; 2002. Publication GAO-02-958.
46. Moynihan R. Alosetron: A case study in regulatory capture, or a victory for patients' rights? BMJ. 2002;325:592-595.