Pharmacopolitics: Drug Regulation in the United States and Germany
http://www.100md.com
《新英格兰医药杂志》
The development of therapeutic drugs is accomplished through a complex series of interactions among government regulators, medical professionals, and the pharmaceutical industry. In declaring that a drug is suitable for marketing, this triumvirate must strike a compromise between ensuring the absolute safety of the product and meeting the immediate needs of patients. In Pharmacopolitics, Arthur Daemmrich examines the interplay among the three key players involved in the regulation, pre-market testing, and post-market surveillance of drugs in the United States and Germany in the 20th century, with an emphasis on events that occurred between 1950 and 2000. The scope of the material covered is ambitious in a book containing only 163 pages of text.
Brief histories of key pieces of legislation concerning the regulation of drugs in both countries provide the necessary context for discussion of the changing roles of government, physicians, and industry over time. Case studies of the development and approval of oxytetracycline, thalidomide, propranolol, interleukin-2, and indinavir are used to illustrate reactions to both opportunity and crisis by the U.S. and German systems. Daemmrich, a policy analyst at the Chemical Heritage Foundation, argues persuasively that the effects of varying historical influences (notably World War II) and divergent "therapeutic cultures" in the two countries ultimately led to the development of very different systems. The United States established a powerful, centralized regulatory authority that valued quantitative analysis of pre- and post-marketing data, whereas Germany maintained a more balanced system in which the medical profession exerted the dominant influence, with an emphasis on qualitative analysis of data.
Daemmrich identifies one additional key player, the disease-based organization, which entered the scene in the 1980s, though this type of group wielded much more influence in the United States than in Germany. The author notes that Americans tend to embrace social protest as a means of countering restrictive conditions that are imposed by legal entities or by the status quo. Indeed, participation by AIDS activists and other special-interest groups was probably inspired by a U.S. tradition of social protest, which was used to win women the right to vote in 1920 and to champion civil rights and protest the Vietnam War in the 1960s.
Several elements are notable for their absence from the book, though the exclusions are excusable in the light of the complexity and broad scope of the topic. Missing is an analysis of the effects of medical research that was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), especially in regard to the agency's influence on the design of clinical trials and on the general availability of drugs. The NIH is mentioned tangentially in the case study of interleukin-2 (although the amount that the agency spent on studies is mentioned without a corresponding figure for corporate funding) and as a sponsor of a workshop on clinical trials of drugs for AIDS. Less forgivable is the omission of a discussion about how the creation of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products as a regulatory authority in 1993 affected key players in Germany.
Despite some weakness in the analysis of current events, Pharmacopolitics takes a broad look at the history of drug regulation, clinical studies, and post-marketing surveillance in the United States and in Germany, and it will be of interest to those seeking a general overview of the topic.
Janice M. Reichert, Ph.D.
Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development
Boston, MA 02111
janice.reichert@tufts.edu((Studies in Social Medici)
婵烇絽娲犻崜婵囧閸涱喚顩烽柛娑卞墰鏉╂棃鏌涘▎蹇撯偓浠嬪焵椤掆偓閸犳稓妲愬┑鍥┾枖鐎广儱妫涢埀顒夊灦楠炲骞囬鍛簥婵炶揪绲惧ú鎴犵不閿濆拋鍤堝Δ锔筋儥閸炴挳鏌曢崱鏇犲妽閻㈩垰缍婇幊锟犲箛椤撶偟浠愰梺鍦瑰ú銈囨閳哄懎违闁稿本绋掗悗顔剧磼閺冨倸啸濠⒀勵殜瀵爼宕橀妸褎鍓戞繛瀛樼矊妤犲摜鏁锔藉婵$偛澧界粙濠囨煛婢跺﹤鏆曟慨鐟邦樀閺佸秴鐣濋崘顭戜户闂佽鍠撻崝蹇涱敇缂佹ḿ鈻旈柣鎴烇供閸斿啴鏌¢崒姘煑缂佹顦遍埀顒冾潐缁繘锝為敃鍌氱哗閻犻缚娅g粔鍨€掑顓犫槈闁靛洤娲ㄩ埀顒傤攰濞夋盯宕㈤妶鍥ㄥ鐟滅増甯楅~澶愭偣閸ワ妇涓茬紒杈ㄧ箘閹风娀鎮滈挊澶夌病婵炲濮鹃崺鏍垂閵娾晜鍋ㄥù锝呭暟濡牓姊洪锝嗙殤闁绘搫绻濋獮瀣箣濠婂嫮鎷ㄩ梺鎸庣☉閺堫剟宕瑰⿰鍕浄妞ゆ帊鐒﹂弳顏堟煕閹哄秴宓嗛柍褜鍓氬銊╂偂閿熺姴瑙﹂幖鎼灣缁€澶娒归崗鍏肩殤闁绘繃鐩畷锟犲礃閼碱剚顔戦梺璇″枔閸斿骸鈻撻幋鐐村婵犲﹤鍟幆鍌毭归悩鎻掝劉婵犫偓閹殿喚纾鹃柟瀵稿Х瑜版煡鏌涢幒鏂库枅婵炲懎閰f俊鎾晸閿燂拷Brief histories of key pieces of legislation concerning the regulation of drugs in both countries provide the necessary context for discussion of the changing roles of government, physicians, and industry over time. Case studies of the development and approval of oxytetracycline, thalidomide, propranolol, interleukin-2, and indinavir are used to illustrate reactions to both opportunity and crisis by the U.S. and German systems. Daemmrich, a policy analyst at the Chemical Heritage Foundation, argues persuasively that the effects of varying historical influences (notably World War II) and divergent "therapeutic cultures" in the two countries ultimately led to the development of very different systems. The United States established a powerful, centralized regulatory authority that valued quantitative analysis of pre- and post-marketing data, whereas Germany maintained a more balanced system in which the medical profession exerted the dominant influence, with an emphasis on qualitative analysis of data.
Daemmrich identifies one additional key player, the disease-based organization, which entered the scene in the 1980s, though this type of group wielded much more influence in the United States than in Germany. The author notes that Americans tend to embrace social protest as a means of countering restrictive conditions that are imposed by legal entities or by the status quo. Indeed, participation by AIDS activists and other special-interest groups was probably inspired by a U.S. tradition of social protest, which was used to win women the right to vote in 1920 and to champion civil rights and protest the Vietnam War in the 1960s.
Several elements are notable for their absence from the book, though the exclusions are excusable in the light of the complexity and broad scope of the topic. Missing is an analysis of the effects of medical research that was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), especially in regard to the agency's influence on the design of clinical trials and on the general availability of drugs. The NIH is mentioned tangentially in the case study of interleukin-2 (although the amount that the agency spent on studies is mentioned without a corresponding figure for corporate funding) and as a sponsor of a workshop on clinical trials of drugs for AIDS. Less forgivable is the omission of a discussion about how the creation of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products as a regulatory authority in 1993 affected key players in Germany.
Despite some weakness in the analysis of current events, Pharmacopolitics takes a broad look at the history of drug regulation, clinical studies, and post-marketing surveillance in the United States and in Germany, and it will be of interest to those seeking a general overview of the topic.
Janice M. Reichert, Ph.D.
Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development
Boston, MA 02111
janice.reichert@tufts.edu((Studies in Social Medici)
閻庣敻鍋婇崰鏇熺┍婵犲洤妫橀柛銉㈡櫇瑜帮拷
闂佺ǹ绻楀▍鏇㈠极閻愮儤鍎岄柣鎰靛墮椤庯拷
闁荤姴娲ょ€氼垶顢欓幋锕€绀勯柣妯诲絻缂嶏拷
闂佺懓鍚嬬划搴ㄥ磼閵娾晛鍗抽柡澶嬪焾濡拷
闂佽浜介崝宀勬偤閵娧呯<婵炲棙鍔栫粻娆撴煕濞嗘瑦瀚�
闂佸憡姊绘慨鎾矗閸℃稑缁╅柟顖滃椤ワ拷
|