ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2005
Therapeutic innovation in the European Union: analysis of the drugs approved by the EMEA between 1995 and 2003.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Level of therapeutic innovation from the registration studies of the new drugs for the prophylaxis of migraine.Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics · 2022Article
- How innovation can be defined, evaluated and rewarded in health technology assessment.Health economics review · 2022Review
- Regulatory policy and pharmaceutical innovation in the United Kingdom after Brexit: Initial insights.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Registries supporting new drug applications.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2017Article
- Antidepressant-induced Dopamine Receptor Dysregulation: A Valid Animal Model of Manic-Depressive Illness.Current neuropharmacology · 2017Review
- Do the EMA accelerated assessment procedure and the FDA priority review ensure a therapeutic added value? 2006-2015: a cohort study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
- Observational
- Article
- The most transformative drugs of the past 25 years: a survey of physicians.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2013Review
- Assessment of the therapeutic value of new medicines marketed in Australia.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2013Article
- A 3-dimensional view of access to licensed and subsidized medicines under single-payer systems in the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand.PharmacoEconomics · 2012Article
- No difference in between-country variability in use of newly approved orphan and non- orphan medicinal products--a pilot study.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2009Article
- The Italian Horizon Scanning Project.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2009Article
- CNS drugs approved by the centralised European procedure: true innovation or dangerous stagnation?Psychopharmacology · 2007Article
- An update on the first decade of the European centralized procedure: how many innovative drugs?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2006Article
- Drug development: more science, more education.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since January 1995, all European Union applications for marketing approval for medicinal products derived from biotechnology and other drugs considered potentially innovative follow the EMEA centralized procedure. In order to assess the overall degree of therapeutic innovation of these drugs, we considered, for each approved agent, its target, the availability of previous treatments and the extent of its therapeutic effect. The following scores for therapeutic innovation were assigned through a consensus process: 'A' (important), 'B' (moderate) and 'C' (modest). The overall degree of important/moderate therapeutic innovation was 47% of all therapeutic agents (32% important; 15% moderate). Most (80%) of the EMEA-approved therapeutic agents were for serious diseases. The remaining ones were for risk factors (7%) or nonserious diseases (13%).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.