Abstract
I have tried to trace the new drug development pattern from 1766, when Withering obtained his medical degree, to the present.
The role of governmental authority as defined by the 1962 Kefauver-Harris amendments to the 1906 law and the subsequently issued regulations has been summarized. Four phases of testing in man have been detailed.
Something of the scientific or research capability of the pharmaceutical industry has been presented.
It is concluded that in the period of over two hundred years of medical education in the United States, the university hospital has become more and more the focus of medical research, teaching and practice in the community. The safety and effectiveness in the use of drugs in the future will depend upon the liaison and rapport of the industry physicians, government officials and the university hospital teacher-clinical investigators (phase 1 and 2) in designing the most critical studies of the safety and effectiveness of new drugs.
Whether the medical profession as we know it will participate more in the future than has been possible since 1962 in mass clinical trial (phase 3) before new drug approval by governmental authority remains to be seen.
The final approbation or disapproval of a drug after NDA approval (phase 4) will continue to be in the hands of the participating physician as long as he can establish scientifically that the drug is the best possible agent for him to use in healing the sick and comforting the dying.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Appel J. Z. New drugs: the AMA and the FDA. Ann Allergy. 1966 Jul;24(7):333–336. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Beyer K. H., Jr Perspectives in toxicology. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1966 Jan;8(1):1–5. doi: 10.1016/0041-008x(66)90093-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bishop J. Drug evaluation programs of the AMA 1905-1966. JAMA. 1966 May 9;196(6):496–498. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- DUNLOP D. USE AND ABUSE OF DRUGS. Br Med J. 1965 Aug 21;2(5459):437–441. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5459.437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Goddard D. R. Medicine and the universities. JAMA. 1965 Nov 15;194(7):723–726. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grant R. N., Bartlett I. Unproven cancer remedies--a primer. CA Cancer J Clin. 1966 Mar-Apr;16(2):42–61. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.16.2.42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Greiner T. H. The gap between pharmacology and therapeutics. J New Drugs. 1966 Mar-Apr;6(2):69–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- KIRBY W. M. IMPACT OF THE NEW DRUG REGULATIONS ON TEACHING AND RESEARCH IN MEDICAL SCHOOLS. J Med Educ. 1964 Apr;39:355–359. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Krantz J. C., Jr New drugs and the Kefauver-Harris amendment. J New Drugs. 1966 Mar-Apr;6(2):77–79. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- SADUSK J. F., Jr THE PHYSICIAN AND THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. JAMA. 1964 Dec 7;190:907–909. doi: 10.1001/jama.1964.03070230043011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shryock R. H. European backgrounds of American medical education (1600-1900). JAMA. 1965 Nov 15;194(7):709–714. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- WOLFERTH C. C. Clinical science, clinical medicine, and academic medicine. Circulation. 1959 Sep;20:321–324. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.20.3.321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]