Comparison of the Drug Approval Processes in the US,the EU and Canada

Abstract

Much research has been done regarding approval of marketing applications for prescription pharmaceuticals in various countries, but much of this research has concentrated on examining and comparing times required.

This paper will compare and contrast the processes via which marketing applications must go through for three different major organisations: the United States' Food and Drug Administration, the European Union's European Medicines Evaluation Agency and Canada's Health Protection Bureau.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andersson

(1992) ‘The international diffusion of new drugs: A comparative study of seven industrialized countries’, Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Economics, 4(2), pp. 43–62.

Kessler

D. A.

Hass

A. E.

Frieden

K. L.

Lumpkin

Temple

(1996) ‘Approval of new drugs in the United States: Comparison with the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 276(22), pp. 1826–1831.

Rawson

N. S. B.

(1995) ‘The timeliness of new drug approvals in Canada,’ International Journal of Health Services, 25(1), pp. 153–165.

Peterson

E. A.

(1992) ‘A comparison of regulatory approval times for new chemical entities in Australia, Canada, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States’, Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 32, pp. 889–896.

Rawson

N. S. B.

Kaitin

K. I.

Thomas

K. E.

Perry

(1998) ‘Drug review in Canada: A comparison with Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States’, Drug Information Journal, 32, pp. 1133–1141.

Rawson

N. S. B.

(2000) ‘Time required for approval of new drugs in Canada, Australia, Sweden, the UK and the USA in 1996–1998’, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 162(4), pp. 501–504.

Bodenheimer

(2000) ‘Uneasy alliance: Clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry’, New England Journal of Medicine, 342(20), pp. 1539–1544.

Merrill

R. A.

(1994) ‘Regulation of drugs and devices: An evolution’, Health Affairs, 13(3), pp. 47–69.

Harris

(2000) ‘Drug firms, stymied in the lab, become marketing machines’, Wall Street Journal, July 6, A1, A12.

10.

Lin

J. H.

A. Y.

(1997) ‘The role of pharmacokenetics and metabolism in drug discovery and development’, Pharmacologichol Review, 49, pp. 403–449.

11.

www.fda.gov/fdac/special/newdrug/begin.html [accessed March 1999].

12.

Mattieu

(1995) Developments in International Pharmaceutical Regulation: Implications for the United States, Lexington, MA: Eastern Research Group, Inc.

13.

Ibid.

14.

www.fda.gov/fdac/special/newdrug/guinea.html [accessed March 1999].

15.

Ibid.

16.

Stringer

(1996) ‘An overview of how the food and drug administration regulates new drug development in the United States’, Drug Information Journal, 30(3), pp. 745–751.

17.

Searle Sales Training Notes (October 1997).

18.

www.fda.gov/fdac/special/newdrug/advise.html [accessed March 1999].

19.

www.fda.gov/fdac/special/newdrug/benefits.html [accessed March 1999].

20.

Ibid.

21.

www.fda.gov/cder/handbook/postmark.htm (1997 Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Handbook) [accessed March 1999].

22.

Kessler

D. A.

Hass

A. E.

Frieden

K. L.

Lumpkin

Temple

(1996) op. cit.

23.

Hart

(1999) ‘Drug approvals: Safe at any speed?’, Modern Drug Discovery, 2(5), pp. 25–26, 28.

24.

Kaitin

K. I.

(1997) ‘The Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 and the new drug development process’, American Journal of Therapeutics, 4, pp. 167–172.

25.

Shi

Singh

D. A.

(2001) Developments in International Pharmaceutical Regulation: Implications for the United States, Lexington, MA: Eastern Research Group, Inc.

26.

Drews

(1998) Developments in International Pharmaceutical Regulation: Implications for the United States, Lexington, MA: Eastern Research Group, Inc.

27.

Kessler

D. A.

Frieden

K. L.

(1995) ‘Faster evaluation of vital drugs’, Scientific American, March, pp. 48–54.

28.

DiMasi

J. A.

Manocchia

(1997) ‘Initiatives to speed new drug development and regulatory review: The impact of FDA-sponsored conferences’, Drug Information Journal, 31(2), pp. 771–788.

29.

Eastern Research Group, Inc. (1995) Developments in International Pharmaceutical Regulation: Implications for the United States, Lexington, MA: Eastern Research Group, Inc.

30.

Evers

P. T.

(1995) Developments in International Pharmaceutical Regulation: Implications for the United States, Lexington, MA: Eastern Research Group, Inc.

31.

Ibid.

32.

Sauer

(1997) ‘A new and fast drug approval system in Europe’, Drug Information Journal, 31, pp. 1–6.

33.

Healey

E. M.

Kaitin

K. I.

(1999) ‘The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products' centralized procedure for product approval: Current status’, Drug Information Journal, 33(4) pp. 969–978.

34.

www.eudra.org/emea.html; Fees Payable [accessed March 1999].

35.

Article 5I(j) of Regulation (EEC) No. 2309/93.

36.

Evers

P. T.

(1995) op. cit.

37.

Currie

W. J. C.

Löfgren

(1996) Developments in International Pharmaceutical Regulation: Implications for the United States, Lexington, MA: Eastern Research Group, Inc.

38.

Evers

P. T.

(1995) op. cit. p. 34.

39.

Evers

P. T.

(1995) op. cit.

40.

Currie

W. J. C.

Löfgren

(1996) op. cit.

41.

www.eudra.org/emea.html [accessed February 1998].

42.

Hennings

(2000) ‘Marketing authorizations of medical products in the European Union: Past, present, and future’, Drug Information Journal, 34(3), pp. 793–2000.

43.

McMahon

(1995) New Drug Approval in Canada, Parexel, Inc.

44.

Appel

W. C.

(1996) ‘Postmarketing surveillance in Canada’, Drug Information Journal, 30(3), pp. 655–659.

45.

McMahon

(1995) op. cit.

46.

McMahon

(1995) op. cit.

47.

www.gov.on.ca/health/english/program/hed/reports/drugap1.html [accessed March 1999].