The major players that influence the development of medical innovations include the FDA, the chief regulator, and the National Institutes of Health, the primary resource for training the skilled research personnel as well as sponsoring major clinical trials. A historical review of the Food and Drug Administration shows that disasters have been the catalyst that has molded the agency which faces the impossibility of satisfying its many interest groups. Timeliness has been a constant battleground — should product availability or safety be stressed? In the early 1990s the “speed-up-the-process” side won and the agency implemented programs that would lead to quicker drug approvals such as fast tracking and accelerated review. These innovations led to a change to the “substantial-evidence” standard that required only one rather than two well-controlled clinical studies for a marketing approval, providing the product treated a life-threatening condition. For-profit companies are also a indispensable member in developing new products. For decades, new novel and important drugs wended their way through the testing phases and onto the market. But that flow has slowed. Consequently, drug discovery must exploit new opportunities such as that created by the Human Genome project in order to bring more major new products to the marketplace.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Chapter 21 — Medical Innovation
Cited References
DiMasi J. Risks in new drug development: approval success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001:69;297–307.
Harris Interactive. FDA gets good marks for ensuring new drug safety and efficacy but not for getting new drugs to market quickly. Wall Street Journal Online. http://harrisdealerpoll.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=803 May 25, 2004.
Harris Interactive. Confidence in FDA hits new low, according to WSJ.com/Harris Interactive study. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1301 Apr 22, 2008.
Lexchin J, Bero L, Djulbegovic B, et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. Br Med J 2003:326;1167–1170.
Sinclair U. The Jungle. New York: Doubleday, 1906.
General References
Association of American Medical Colleges. 2001 medical school graduation questionnaire. http://www.aamc.org/data/gq/allschoolsreports/2001.pdf June 21, 2002.
Berenson A. Pricey drug trials turn up few new blockbusters. New York Times Dec 18, 2004:A1.
Congressional Research Service. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL33914 Mar 13, 2007.
Davis M, Manning A, Schmid G. Chapter 3: The Food and Drug Administration. Institute for the Future. Regulation: a fragmented future. http://www.iftf.org/system/files/deliverables/SR-775_Regulation_AFragementedFuture.pdf Nov 30, 2002.
DiMasi J, Hansen R, Grabowski H. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003:22;151–185.
Kermani F. The future is pharmacogenomic. Pharmaceutical Technology. http://www.ptemag.com/pharmtecheurope/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=464310&pageID=1&sk=&date=The future is pharmacogenomic Oct 1, 2007.
Food and Drug Administration. Milestones in U.S. Food and Drug law history. http://www.fda.gov /opacom/backgrounders/miles.html May 3, 2002.
Food and Drug Administration. 2004 FDA accomplishments. http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:AJSHq_CBT7wJ:www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2005/ANS01346.html+ drugs+ number+ approved+ fda+ 2004&hl=en Mar 22, 2005.
Food and Drug Administration. Innovation or stagnation. http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criti-calpath/whitepaper.pdf Mar 25, 2005.
Food and Drug Administration. Fast track, accelerated approval and priority review. http://www.fda.gov/oashi/fast.html May 21, 2006.
Lowrance W. The promise of human genetic databases. Brit Med J 2001:322:1009–1010.
Merrill R. Modernizing the FDA: an incremental revolution. Health Affair 1999:18;96–111.
Nathan D. Careers in translational clinical research—historical perspectives, future challenges.JAMA 2002:287;2424–2427.
Nathan D, Wilson J. Clinical research and the NIH —a report card. New Engl J Med 2003:349;1860–1865.
Service R. Surviving the blockbuster syndrome. Science 2004:202;1796–1799.
Thompson C. Antibacterial research and development in the 21st century — an industry perspective of the challenges. Curr Opin Microbiol 2004:7;445–450.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2009). Medical Innovations – Regulators, Resources and Results. In: It's Great! Oops, No It Isn't. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8907-7_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8907-7_21
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8906-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8907-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)