Conditional approval and approval under exceptional circumstances as regulatory instruments for stimulating responsible drug innovation in Europe

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 88, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 848-853

  Boon, W P C ^a   Moors, E H M ^a   Meijer, A ^b   Schellekens, H ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTI HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS AGENT; AZTREONAM; CAYSTON; DARUNAVIR; ETRAVIRINE; LAPATINIB; PANITUMUMAB; RALTEGRAVIR; STIRIPENTOL; SUNITINIB; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ARTICLE; CONDITIONED APPROVAL; CYSTIC FIBROSIS; DATA BASE; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG SAFETY; EUROPE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTION; MYOCLONUS EPILEPSY; NEOPLASM; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DRUG APPROVAL; EUROPE; EUROPEAN UNION; HUMANS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS;

EID: 78449288140     PISSN: 00099236     EISSN: 15326535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2010.207     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. European Medicines Agency. The European Medicines Agency Road Map to 2015: The Agency's contribution to Science, Medicines, Health (European Medicines Agency, London, 2010).
2. European Parliament and the council. community code relating to medicinal products for human use. directive 2001/83/Ec, 2001.
3. Breckenridge, A. & Walley, T. Early access to new medicines. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 84, 23-25 (2008).
4. European commission. Ofcial Journal of the European Union, commission Regulation (Ec) no. 136/2004 (2004).
5. European commission. Ofcial Journal of the European Union, commission regulation (Ec) no. 507/2006 (2006).
6. Eichler, H.G., Pignatti, F., Flamion, B., Leufkens, H. & Breckenridge, A. Balancing early market access to new drugs with the need for benefit/risk data: a mounting dilemma. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 7, 818-826 (2008).
7. Reichert, J.M. & Healy, E.M. Biopharmaceuticals approved in the EU 1995-1999: a European Union-United States comparison. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 51, 1-7 (2001).
8. Ray, A. Beyond debacle and debate: developing solutions in drug safety. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 775-779 (2009).
9. Gale, E.A. collateral damage: the conundrum of drug safety. Diabetologia 52, 1975-1982 (2009).
10. US Government Accountability Office. New drug approval-FdA needs to enhance its oversight of drugs approved on the basis of surrogate endpoints (US Government Accountability Office, Washington, dc, 2009).
11. Reichert, J.M. & Wenger, J.B. development trends for new cancer therapeutics and vaccines. Drug Discov. Today 13, 30-37 (2008).
12. Olson, M.K. Are novel drugs more risky for patients than less novel drugs? J. Health Econ. 23, 1135-1158 (2004).
13. Olson, M.K. The risk we bear: the effects of review speed and industry user fees on new drug safety. J. Health Econ. 27, 175-200 (2008).
14. Richey, E.A. et al. Accelerated approval of cancer drugs: improved access to therapeutic breakthroughs or early release of unsafe and ineffective drugs? J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 4398-4405 (2009).
15. Giezen, T.J., Mantel-Teeuwisse, A.K., Straus, S.M., Schellekens, H., Leufkens, H.G. & Egberts, A.c. Safety-related regulatory actions for biologicals approved in the United States and the European Union. JAMA 300, 1887-1896 (2008).
16. Motola d., de Ponti F., Rossi P., Martini N. & Montanaro, N. Therapeutic innovation in the European Union: analysis of the drugs approved by the EMEA between 1995 and 2003. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 59, 475-478, (2004).
17. Daemmrich, A. & Krucken, G. Risk versus risk: decision-making dilemmas of drug regulation in the United States and Germany. Sci. Cult. (Lond). 9, 505-534 (2000).