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

被引:0
作者
Rawson, NSB
Kaitin, KI
Thomas, KE
Perry, G
机构
[1] Univ Saskatchewan, Coll Pharm & Nutr, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
[2] Tufts Univ, Ctr Study Drug Dev, Boston, MA 02111 USA
[3] Ctr Med Res Int, Carshalton, Surrey, England
[4] Pharmaceut Manufacturers Assoc Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada
来源
DRUG INFORMATION JOURNAL | 1998年 / 32卷 / 04期
关键词
drug approval; Canada; United States; United Kingdom; Australia; Sweden;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
To evaluate the timeliness of the Canadian drug review process, data on approval times of nonbiologic new chemical entities approved between 1992 and 1995 were obtained for Canada, Australia, and Sweden from their national drug regulatory agencies, for the United States from Tufts University's Center for the Study of Drug Development, and for the United Kingdom from the Centre for Medicines Research International. The information was augmented by a survey of companies performed by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada. The overall Canadian median approval time (917 days) was significantly longer (p < 0.001) than those of all the other countries: Australia (620), Sweden (368), the United Kingdom (542), and the United States (623). On a yearly basis, approval times in Canada were significantly longer in 1992-1994, but the median time improved in 1995 to 650 days, which was not significantly different from any of the other countries (562, 444, 439, and 464 days, respectively). Further work is required, however to achieve established review time performance targets and to reduce approval rimes in all therapeutic classes.
引用
收藏
页码:1133 / 1141
页数:9
相关论文
共 26 条
  • [1] ANDERSON RL, 1992, TRENDS GLYCOSCI GLYC, V4, P43
  • [2] *AUD GEN CAN, 1987, REP HOUS COMM FISC Y
  • [3] Baume P, 1991, QUESTION BALANCE REP
  • [4] de Haen P, 1975, Drug Intell Clin Pharm, V9, P144
  • [5] DIGGLE GE, 1982, PHARM INT, V3, P230
  • [6] *DRUGS DIR, 1997, 1996 ANN SUBM PERF R
  • [7] *DRUGS DIR, 1996, 1995 ANN PERF REP
  • [8] EASTMAN HC, 1985, REPORT COMMISSION IN
  • [9] GAGNON D, 1992, WORKING PARTNERSHIPS
  • [10] GAHART MT, 1995, FDA DRUG APPROVAL RE