Reshaping the carcinogenic risk assessment of medicines: International harmonisation for drug safety, industry/regulator efficiency or both?

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 57, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 195-204

  Abraham, John ^a   Reed, Tim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Carcinogenicity; Drug regulation; Harmonisation; ICH; Neo liberalism; Safety standards

Indexed keywords

NEW DRUG;

CARCINOGEN;

CANCER TEST; CARCINOGENESIS; DATA BASE; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG PROGRAM; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SCREENING; EARLY CANCER; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GENETIC MANIPULATION; GENOTOXICITY; HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; JAPAN; LIFESPAN; MUTAGEN TESTING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SHORT COURSE THERAPY; TRANSGENIC ANIMAL; UNITED STATES; WESTERN EUROPE; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 0038632175     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00339-8     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Abraham J. Science, politics and the pharmaceutical industry. Controversy and bias in drug regulation:1995;UCL/St Martins Press, London/New York.
2. Abraham J. Regulating the cancer-inducing potential of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Some lessons from the 1970s and 1980s Social Science & Medicine. 46:1998;39-51.
3. Abraham J., Lewis G. Secrecy and transparency of medicines licensing in the EU. Lancet. 352:1998;480-482.
4. Abraham J., Lewis G. Harmonising and competing for medicines regulation. How healthy are the European union's systems of drug approval? Social Science & Medicine. 48:1999;1655-1667.
5. Abraham J., Lewis G. Regulating medicines in Europe. Competition, expertise and public health:2000;Routledge, London.
6. Abraham J., Reed T. Trading risks for markets. The international harmonisation of pharmaceuticals Health, Risk and Society. 3:2001;113-128.
7. Abraham J., Sheppard J. The therapeutic nightmare. The battle over the world's most controversial sleeping pill:1999;Earthscan, London.
8. Anon (1996). Safety: Carcinogenicity studies: Background to the discussions. In: P.F. D'Arcy & D.W.G. Harron (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on harmonisation (pp. 257-260). Belfast: Queen's University Belfast.
9. Ashby J., Tennant R.W. Definitive relationships among chemical structure, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity for 301 chemicals tested by the US National Toxicology Programme. Mutation Research. 257:1991;229-306.
10. Bentley P., Baier H., Krug E. Results from carcinogenicity tests in two rodent species - do they improve or confuse decision-making? An industry viewpoint. McAuslane J.A.N., Lumley C.E., Walker S.R. The carcinogenicity debate. 1992;111-120 Quay Publishing, Carshalton, Surrey.
11. Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) (1995). Annual Report for 1995. Carshalton, Surrey: CMR.
12. Contrera J.F. FDA science symposium: developing alternative in vivo approaches for the assessment of carcinogenicity. Background and objectives Toxicologic Pathology. 24:1996;514.
13. Contrera J.F., Jacobs A.C., DeGeorge J.J. Carcinogenicity testing and the evaluation of regulatory requirements for pharmaceuticals. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 25:1997;130-145.
14. D'Arcy, P. F., Harron, D. W. G. (Eds.) (1996). Proceedings of the third international conference on harmonisation. Belfast: Queen's University Belfast.
15. Davis P. Managing medicines. Public policy and therapeutic drugs:1997;Open University Press, Buckingham.
16. Dayan A. Relevance of current testing procedures for pharmaceuticals - an academic's viewpoint. McAuslane J.A.N., Lumley C.E., Walker S.R. The carcinogenicity debate. 1992;61-69 Quay Publishing, Carshalton, Surrey.
17. DeGeorge J. A regulatory perspective of the guidance on the utility of two rodent species. D'Arcy P.F., Harron D.W.G. Proceedings of the third international conference on harmonisation. 1996;274-277 Queen's University Belfast, Belfast.
18. Ekman L. Panel discussion. D'Arcy P.F., Harron D.W.G. Proceedings of the third international conference on harmonisation. 1996;295-302 Queen's University Belfast, Belfast.
19. Emmerson J.L. High dose selection in the design of studies to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceutical. industry perspectives D'Arcy P.F., Harron D.W.G. Proceedings of the first international conference on harmonisation. 1992;202-208 Queen's University Belfast, Belfast.
20. Epstein S. Impure science. Aids, activism and the politics of knowledge:1996;University of California Press, Berkeley.
21. Fenner-Crisp P.A. FDA science symposium: developing alternative in vivo approaches for the assessment of carcinogenicity: determining the "if" and "how" of carcinogenesis. A vision of the future Toxicologic Pathology. 24:1996;517.
22. Fung V.A., Barrett J.C., Huff J. The carcinogenesis bioassay in perspective. Application in identifying human cancer hazards Environmental Health Perspectives. 103:1995;680-683.
23. Halliday R.G., Drasdo A.L., Lumley C.E., Walker S.R. The allocation of resources for R & D in the world's leading pharmaceutical companies. R & D Management. 27:1997;63-77.
24. Hayashi Y. Utility of two rodent species. current regulatory perspectives D'Arcy P.F., Harron D.W.G. Proceedings of the second international conference on harmonisation. 1994;291-293 Queen's University Belfast, Belfast.
25. Hodgkin C. Harmonising drug policy. Making rules for tomorrow's market HAI-Lights. 1:1996;2-3.
26. Huff J., Haseman J., Rall D. Scientific concepts, value and significance of chemical carcinogenesis studies. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology. 31:1991;621-652.
27. IFPMA (2000). The Value and Benefits of ICH to Industry. Geneva: IFPMA.
28. King R.J.B. Cancer biology. 1996;Longman, Harlow, Essex.
29. Lexchin J. Who needs faster drug approval times in Canada. The public or industry? International Journal of Health Services. 24:1994;253-264.
30. Lumley, C. E., & Van Cauteren, H. (1997). Harmonisation of international toxicity testing guidelines for pharmaceuticals: contribution to refinement and reduction in animal use. European Biological Research Association Bulletin, November, 4-9.
31. MacDonald J.S. Evaluation of new models II. D'Arcy P.F., Harron D.W.G. Proceedings of the fourth international conference on harmonisation. 1998;272-277 Queen's University Belfast, Belfast.
32. Mitsumori K. Evaluation of new models I. Initiation and promotion models and the Hras 2 mouse model D'Arcy P.F., Harron D.W.G. Proceedings of the fourth international conference on harmonisation. 1998;263-271 Queen's University Belfast, Belfast.
33. Monro A. Why do chemicals apparently cause tumours more readily in rodents than in humans. Biology or exposure? McAuslane J.A.N., Lumley C.E., Walker S.R. The carcinogenicity debate. 1992;25-44 Quay Publishing, Carshalton, Surrey.
34. Monro A.M. Utility of two rodent species. Some arguments for and against D'Arcy P.F., Harron D.W.G. Proceedings of the second international conference on harmonisation. 1994;293-300 Queen's University Belfast, Belfast.
35. Monro A. Testing for carcinogenic potential. Rapporteur's report D'Arcy P.F., Harron D.W.G. Proceedings of the third international conference on harmonisation. 1996;260-268 Queen's University Belfast, Belfast.
36. Morris N. Biological medicines in the age of biotech. Public policy issues Science and Public Policy. 24:1997;53-62.
37. Mulliger B. Science should drive regulatory decisions, advise carcinogenicity workshop participants. CMR News. 16:1997;16-19.
38. Parkinson C., Grasso P. The use of the dog in toxicity tests on pharmaceutical compounds. Human and Experimental Toxicology. 12:1993;99-109.
39. Purchase I. Current knowledge of mechanisms of carcinogenicity. Genotoxins versus non-genotoxins McAuslane J.A.N., Lumley C.E., Walker S.R. The carcinogenicity debate. 1992;3-24 Quay Publishing, Carshalton, Surrey.
40. Robertson R.T. Safety: toxicity testing programme. Panel presentation D'Arcy P.F., Harron D.W.G. Proceedings of the first international conference on harmonisation. 1992;224-236 Queens University Belfast, Belfast.
41. Roe F. Factors affecting the duration of carcinogenicity studies. When should they end? McAuslane J.A.N., Lumley C.E., Walker S.R. The carcinogenicity debate. 1992;103-109 Quay Publishing, Carshalton, Surrey.
42. Scales D., Griffin J. Use of two matched strains. Can they improve sensitivity? McAuslane J.A.N., Lumley C.E., Walker S.R. The carcinogenicity debate. 1992;129-139 Quay Publishing, Carshalton, Surrey.
43. Schou J.S. Predictive value of carcinogenicity studies for drug safety. D'Arcy P.F., Harron D.W.G. Proceedings of the first international conference on harmonisation. 1992;208-212 Queens University Belfast, Belfast.
44. Tennant R.W. Stratification of rodent carcinogenicity bioassay results to reflect relative human hazard. Mutation Research. 286:1993;111-118.
45. Tennant R. FDA science symposium. Developing alternative in vivo approaches for the assessment of carcinogenicity Toxicologic Pathology. 25:1996;516.
46. Usui T., Griffiths S.A., Lumley C.E. Industry viewpoint. The utility of the mouse for the assessment of the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals D'Arcy P.F., Harron D.W.G. Proceedings of the third international conference on harmonisation. 1996;279-284 Queen's University Belfast, Belfast.
47. Van Oosterhout J.P.J., Van der Laan J.W., Waal E.J., Olejniczak K., Hilgenfeld M., Schmidt V., Bass R. The utility of two rodent species in carcinogenic risk assessment of pharmaceuticals in Europe. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 25:1997;6-17.
48. Weissinger J. Factors affecting the duration of carcingenicity studies. When should a study end - a regulatory viewpoint McAuslane J.A.N., Lumley C.E., Walker S.R. The carcinogenicity debate. 1992;73-76 Quay Publishing, Carshalton, Surrey.
49. WHO (1969). Principles for the testing and evaluation of drugs for carcinogenicity. Technical Report Series 426. Geneva: WHO.
50. Zbinden G. Risk predicted from animal studies. Walker S.R., Asscher W.A. Medicines and risk/benefit decisions. 1987;49-56 MTP Press, Lancaster.