- Corrado Barbui, associate professor of psychiatry,
- Cinzia Baschirotto, researcher,
- Andrea Cipriani, lecturer in psychiatry
- 1WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Mental Health and Service Evaluation, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
- Correspondence to: C Barbui, Section of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, Policlinico G B Rossi, Piazzale L A Scuro 10, 37134 Verona, Italy corrado.barbui{at}univr.it
- Accepted 15 March 2011
In Europe, new drugs are approved or rejected on the basis of the results of studies carried out by the manufacturer and submitted to the European Medicines Agency. However, the transparency of the approval process has been criticised.1 2 Calls have been made for the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR), a summary of the grounds for granting marketing authorisation (box 1), to include additional information on critical points examined and discussed during assessment such as whether a drug is approved by majority vote, the reasons for the minority’s opposition, and decisions of other licensing bodies, in a timely and user friendly format.1 2
Box 1: Assessment of new drugs in Europe
European Medicines Agency (www.emea.europa.eu)
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is an agency of the European Union responsible for the scientific evaluation of medicines developed by drug companies for use in EU countries. The EMA’s decisions on new or old medicines relating to changes in therapeutic indications, approval, suspension, or withdrawal of a product have to be accepted by all EU members.3
European public assessment report
Once the EMA has given marketing authorisation for a drug, it publishes a scientific assessment called the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR). The EPAR, written in agreement with the industry,4 summarises the documentation produced by the manufacturer and describes procedures that led to the EMA approval. EPARs are published on the EMA’s website after commercially confidential information has been deleted (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=/pages/medicines/landing/epar_search.jsp&murl=menus/medicines/medicines.jsp).
Surprisingly, no criticism has been raised about the quality of the information that is currently available, especially the quality of reporting of phase III studies. This is an important aspect considering that new drugs …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27