PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12465411

[Post launch studies].

Abstract

Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) is a growing concept in Japan as it is elsewhere. Central to improving the use of EBM is generation of data through well conducted controlled clinical studies. There are many problems associated with conduct of clinical studies after launch in Japan, and many initiatives are ongoing to improve the situation. Development of Clinical Research Coordinators (CRO) and central Data Management centers are key to improving the quality of clinical research in Japan. Currently Japan has an undeveloped legal system with regard to post-launch trials and off-label use of registered drugs. There is no reimbursement for off-label and various restrictions imposed on the recipients of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's (MHLW) funds. Maybe the biggest problem is the high cost of post-marketing studies sponsored by pharmaceutical manufacturers. A high quality system to support post launch clinical studies need a solid financial base. There is a need for a suitable review system for investigator initiated multi-centre studies, as the current IRB system is not sufficient. There are also challenges regarding the differences, perceived or real, in treatment practice and available registrations in Japan and in the West, causing problems in choosing suitable comparators and study designs. At the present time it is not clear whether investigator initiated trials will be acceptable for registration purposes in Japan. The agreed first priority is to build a suitable and strong infrastructure within the academic community to support researchers to investigate important questions with or without pharmaceutical company support. Despite all these issues, several groundbreaking projects are under way throughout Japan, in many different areas and by different collaborative groups, some with government support. In fact, researcher-initiated clinical trials achieved a rapid growth in Japan in the past year.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hideyuki Akaza, Yasuo Ohashi, Yasuhiro Shimada, Tadashi Ikeda, Nagahiro Saijo, Seiji Isonishi, Yoshihiko Hirao, Takashi Tsuruo, Shigeru Tsukagoshi, Saburo Sone, Seigo Nakamura, Masuhiro Kato, Osamu Mikami, Mikael von Euler, George Blackledge, Bob Milsted, Brent Vose. 2002. [Post launch studies].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12465411/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Mistletoe for cancer? A systematic review of randomised clinical trials.

Mistletoe extracts are widely used in the treatment of cancer. The results of clinical trials are however highly inconsistent. We therefore conducted a systematic review of all randomised clinical trials of this unconventional therapy. Eight databases were searched to identify all studies that met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data were independently validated and extracted by 2 authors and checked by the 3rd according to predefined criteria. Statistical pooling was not possible because of the heterogeneity of the primary studies. Therefore a narrative systematic review was conducted. Ten trials could be included. Most of the studies had considerable weaknesses in terms of study design, reporting or both. Some of the weaker studies implied benefits of mistletoe extracts, particularly in terms of quality of life. None of the methodologically stronger trials exhibited efficacy in terms of quality of life, survival or other outcome measures. Rigorous trials of mistletoe extracts fail to demonstrate efficacy of this therapy.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

On the non-inferiority of a diagnostic test based on paired observations.

Non-inferiority of a diagnostic test to the standard or the optimum test is a common issue in medical research. Often we want to determine if a new diagnostic test is as good as the standard reference test. Sometimes we are interested in an inexpensive test that may have an acceptably inferior sensitivity or specificity. While hypothesis testing procedures and sample size formulae for the equivalence of sensitivity or specificity alone have been proposed, very few studies have discussed simultaneous comparisons of both parameters. In this paper, we present three different testing procedures and sample size formulae for simultaneous comparison of sensitivity and specificity based on paired observations and with known disease status. These statistical procedures are then used to compare two classification rules that identify women for future osteoporotic fracture. Simulation experiments demonstrate that the new tests and sample size formulae give the appropriate type I and II error rates. Differences between our approach and the approach of Lui and Cumberland are discussed.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗