Institution
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry
Other•London, United Kingdom•
About: Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry is a other organization based out in London, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Clinical trial & Pharmaceutical industry. The organization has 77 authors who have published 68 publications receiving 1305 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Guy's Hospital1, Duke University2, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre3, University Hospitals of Cleveland4, University of Toronto5, King's College London6, European Institute of Oncology7, Umeå University8, Institut Gustave Roussy9, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center10, University of California, Los Angeles11, Vrije Universiteit Brussel12, University College London13, Vanderbilt University Medical Center14, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry15, University of London16, Susan G. Komen for the Cure17, University of Chicago18, University of Oxford19
TL;DR: Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system.
Abstract: The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.
622 citations
••
Institute for Systems Biology1, University of Lyon2, University of Luxembourg3, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute4, Semmelweis University5, Linköping University6, Pfizer7, International Association of Classification Societies8, Medical University of Vienna9, Max Planck Society10, Austrian Academy of Sciences11, University of Florida12, KPMG13, Leiden University14, CERN15, Utrecht University16, European Bioinformatics Institute17, Saarland University18, Forschungszentrum Jülich19, Leiden University Medical Center20, Imperial College London21, Vienna University of Technology22, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry23, RWTH Aachen University24, University of Sheffield25, University of Leeds26, King's College London27, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens28, Fraunhofer Society29, Janssen Pharmaceutica30, University of Manchester31, Curie Institute32, Philips33, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven34, University of Valencia35, Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics36, Polaris Industries37
TL;DR: Clinicians, researchers, and citizens need improved methods, tools, and training to generate, analyze, and query data effectively and contribute to creating the European Single Market for health, which will improve health and healthcare for all Europeans.
Abstract: Medicine and healthcare are undergoing profound changes. Whole-genome sequencing and high-resolution imaging technologies are key drivers of this rapid and crucial transformation. Technological innovation combined with automation and miniaturization has triggered an explosion in data production that will soon reach exabyte proportions. How are we going to deal with this exponential increase in data production? The potential of “big data” for improving health is enormous but, at the same time, we face a wide range of challenges to overcome urgently. Europe is very proud of its cultural diversity; however, exploitation of the data made available through advances in genomic medicine, imaging, and a wide range of mobile health applications or connected devices is hampered by numerous historical, technical, legal, and political barriers. European health systems and databases are diverse and fragmented. There is a lack of harmonization of data formats, processing, analysis, and data transfer, which leads to incompatibilities and lost opportunities. Legal frameworks for data sharing are evolving. Clinicians, researchers, and citizens need improved methods, tools, and training to generate, analyze, and query data effectively. Addressing these barriers will contribute to creating the European Single Market for health, which will improve health and healthcare for all Europeans.
211 citations
••
TL;DR: Policy makers in developing countries are provided with an overview of the evolution of mechanisms governing the communication practices, such as the distribution of promotional or scientific material and interactions with healthcare stakeholders, relating to prescription-only medicines.
Abstract: The international pharmaceutical industry has made significant efforts towards ensuring compliant and ethical communication and interaction with physicians and patients. This article presents the current status of the worldwide governance of communication practices by pharmaceutical companies, concentrating on prescription-only medicines. It analyzes legislative, regulatory, and code-based compliance control mechanisms and highlights significant developments, including the 2006 and 2012 revisions of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) Code of Practice. Developments in international controls, largely built upon long-established rules relating to the quality of advertising material, have contributed to clarifying the scope of acceptable company interactions with healthcare professionals. This article aims to provide policy makers, particularly in developing countries, with an overview of the evolution of mechanisms governing the communication practices, such as the distribution of promotional or scientific material and interactions with healthcare stakeholders, relating to prescription-only medicines.
65 citations
••
TL;DR: The data indicate that, in the context of the methods applied, the ability to detect compounds that affect the corrected QT interval was good within the 10-30x exposure range but the predictive or detective value for heart rate and diastolic blood pressure was poor.
58 citations
••
TL;DR: The data show a large increase and a continuing upwards trend in development and adoption of in vitro alternatives to animal testing in pharmaceutical drug development providing new opportunities to improve success rates coupled with a strong commitment to the 3Rs.
Abstract: We examined the use of in vitro (including in silico) techniques in preclinical safety testing by the pharmaceutical industry between 1980 and 2013 to determine patterns, drivers and challenges in uptake. Data were collected via a survey sent to the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) member companies from the Nonclinical and Biological Discovery Expert Network (NaBDEN) requesting the number of compounds screened using in vitro and in silico tests at 5-year intervals between 1980 and 2005 then yearly from 2008 onwards. A utility score from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) for each assay was also requested. Four pharmaceutical companies and 3 contract research organisations (CROs) responded to the survey, providing >895 000 data points across all years and all assays. Overall, there was a steady increase in the use of in vitro tests by the pharmaceutical industry between 1980 and 2013; indeed >20% of all in vitro tests reported were conducted in the last year of the survey window (2013) and >70% of all in vitro tests reported were conducted since 2010. Use of in vitro tests peaked at >190 000 tests per annum in 2012; >99% of this usage was in the three main areas reported of ADME, safety pharmacology and genotoxicity. Trends and step changes in uptake were most notable in the three main areas of ADME, safety pharmacology and genotoxicity and may be explained by the timing of adoption of the relevant International Committee on Harmonisation (ICH) guidelines. Trends in uptake may also be explained by perceptions of utility where scores varied from poor (Eye Irritation – flourescein leakage) to excellent (Genotoxicity – Ames and Skin irritation – EpiSkin/Epiderm). In summary, the data show a large increase and a continuing upwards trend in development and adoption of in vitro alternatives to animal testing in pharmaceutical drug development providing new opportunities to improve success rates coupled with a strong commitment to the 3Rs.
46 citations
Authors
Showing all 77 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Jean-Pierre Valentin | 34 | 136 | 3246 |
Hugo M. Vargas | 29 | 110 | 2721 |
David J. Gallacher | 28 | 92 | 2499 |
Andy N. Mead | 24 | 38 | 1446 |
Willi Suter | 22 | 40 | 1565 |
Derek J. Leishman | 21 | 62 | 1557 |
Paul Baldrick | 19 | 43 | 1540 |
Lolke de Haan | 13 | 20 | 874 |
Virginia Acha | 13 | 25 | 956 |
Victoria Serra-Sastre | 7 | 20 | 123 |
Nick McMahon | 7 | 9 | 709 |
Philip Jarvis | 6 | 8 | 298 |
Richard Tiner | 5 | 8 | 60 |
Magdalini Papadaki | 5 | 8 | 201 |
Bina Rawal | 3 | 5 | 41 |