Journal
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 575-587Publisher
SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-005-0027-y
Keywords
drug regulation; phase I-III clinical trials; post-marketing surveillance; drug discovery/development
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The history of drug/vaccine development has included major advances guided primarily by risk/benefit analyses concerning the innovative agent, not by evidence-based clinical trials (Phase I-IV). Because the approval for new drugs is hindered under the present process, the system requires restructuring. The Phase I/II study period should be more flexible, using the environment of knowledge about the new agent, plus risk/benefit assessments. Phase III, as presently constructed, does not add new adverse events data, it provides a narrower profile of drug efficacy than properly done Phase II studies, and placebo-controlled trials continue to raise unresolved ethical and social issues. Phase III studies should be abandoned for most drugs, and substituted with properly powered Phase II dose-ranging studies plus careful post-marketing surveillance. Phase X should be a penalty for poor drug development, not a regulatory requirement. To accomplish efficient drug development, greater cooperation between pharmaceutical companies and governments in developing clinical trials is needed rather than over-regulation. These changes will synchronize the drug development and regulatory process with the current rapid drug discovery process, reduce drug development time and cost, and improve patient care.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available