Click for next page ( 56


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 55
References 1. Ahlquist RP: Study of adrenotropic receptors. Am. J. Physiol. 1948;53:586-600. 2. Allen TJ: Communication Networks in R&D Laboratories. R&D Management 1970;1:14-21. 3. Altman SM: Impact of the Changing Medical Payment System in Technological Innovation and Utilization. In: Ekelman K (ed): New Medical Devices: innovation, development and use. National Academy Press, 1988. pp 93-103. Anderson OF, Steinberg E: To buy or not to buy technology: Acquisition under prospective payment. N Engl J Med 1984;311:182-185. 5. Arthur D. Little. Medical device safety and efficacy testing PB 83-105-031; PB 83-105-049; PB 82-1~13-036. 6. Baily MN: Research and development costs and returns: the US pharmaceutical industry. J Political Economy 1972;80:78-85. Bakke OM, Wardell WM, Lasagna L: Drug discontinuations in the United Kingdom and the U.S., 1964 to 1983: issues of safety. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 1984;35:559-567. 8. Barnes BA: Discarded operations: surgical innovation by trial and error. In: Bunker JP, Barnes BA, Mosteller F (eds): Costs, Risks and Benefits of Surgery. Oxford University Press, 1977. pp 109-123. 9. Barton Hutt P: Medical device regulation: Reasonable workable. Legal Times Washington, May 1980. 10. Barton Hutt P.: Regulation in the United States. Int Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1986;2:619-628. 11. Bergkamp L: American IRBs and Dutch Research Ethics Committees: how they compare. IRB A Review of Human Subjects Research. Hastings Center 1988;10:1-6. 12. Bergner M: Quality of Life, Health Status, and Clinical Research (to be published in Medical Care). Bernal JD: Science in History. Volume I-IV. Illustrated edition. Pelican Books, 1969. 14. Berlin H. Jonsson B.: International Dissemination of new drugs: a comparative study of six countries. Managerial and Decision Economics 1986;7:235-242. 15. Black JW, Stephenson JS: Pharmacology of a new adrenergic beta-receptor-blocking compound (nethalide). Lancet 1962;2:311-3-14. 1 6. Black JW, CroYYther AF, Shanks RG, Smith LH, Dornho rst AC: A new adrenergic beta - receptor antagonist. Lancet 1964;1:1080-1081. 55

OCR for page 55
17. Blozan CF, Gieser NC, Tucker SA: A profile of investigational device exemption applications. OPE study 76, November 1987. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD. 18. Bonchek LI: The role of the randomized clinical trial in the evaluation of new operations. Surg. Clin. North Am. 1982;62:761-769. 19. Bonchek LI: Are randomized trials appropriate for evaluating new operations? N Engl J Med 1979;301:44-45. 20. Borden EK, Lee JO: A methodological study of post-marketing drug evaluation using a pharmacy-based approach. J Chron Dis 1982;35:803-816. 21. Bunker JP, Barnes BA, Mosteller F: Costs, Risks and Benefits of Surgery. Oxford University Press, 1977. 22. Bunker JP, Hinkley D, McDermott WV: Surgical innovation and its-evaluation. Science 1978;200:937-941. 23. Buxton M: Problems in the economic appraisal of new health technology: the evaluation of heart transplants in the United Kingdom. In: Drummond ME (ed.) Economic appraisal of health technology in the European Community. Oxford Medical Publications, 1987. 24. Carr SW, Jones JH: Drug epidemiology data bases applicable to medical device monitoring. Medical Device Data Base Conference, Washington D.C., AMA, October 1983. 25. Casimir HBG: Haphazard reality, half a century of science. New York, Harper & Row Publishers, 1983. 26. Chalmers TC: Randomization and coronary a-rte~y surgery. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 1972;14:323-327. 27. Chalmers TC: The clinical trial. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 1981;59:324-339. 28. Code of Federal Regulations, section 860.3. 29. Cody E: France orders sale of new pill. Washington Post, 1988. 30. Comroe JH, Dripps RO. Scientific basis for the support of biomedical science. In: Roberts EB, Levy RI, Finestein SW, Moskowitz J. Sondik EJ: Biomedical innovation. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1981. 31. Cuatrecasas P.: Contemporary drug development - dilemmas. The Center for the Study of Drug Development Publication Series. New York, University of Rochester, 1983. 32. Dimond KG, Kittle CF, Crockett JE: Comparison of internal mammary artery ligation and sham operation for angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 1960;5 483~486e 33. Doyle AK: Biologic end-points as surrogates for clinical outcomes. In: Lasagna L, Bearn AG feds): Innovation and acceleration in clinical drug development. New York, Raven Press, 1987, pp 177-123. 56

OCR for page 55
34. EC/IC Bypass Study Group: Failure of extracranial-intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 1985;313:1191-1200. EC/IC Bypass Study Group: Are the Results of the Extracranial-Intracranial Bypass Trial Generalizable? N Engl J Med 1987;13:820-824. 36. Eddy DM, Billings J: The quality of medical evidence: implications for quality of care. Health Affairs 1988;Spring:20-32. 37. Eden M: The engineering-industrial accord: inventing the technology of health care. In: Reiser SJ, Anbar M: The machine at the bedside. Cambridge University Press, 1984. 38. Eschbach: Presentation at the Institute of Medicine. New Biology Workshop, September 1987. 39. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended, Sec. 505 (d) 40. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): The Code of Federal Regulations. Section 860.3. 41. FDA Consumer Special Report: From test tube to patient: New drug development in the U.S. Rockville, MD, January 1988. 42. FDA Office of Planning and Evaluation: Assessment of the economic impact of revisions to regulations governing the submission of investigational new drug applications. Rockville, MD, 1984. 43. FDA Office of Planning and Evaluation: Final regulatory impact analysis of changes to regulations governing the submission and review of new drug applications. Part 314. Title 21. Rockville, MD, August 1983. ~ , .1 , 44. Feinstein AR: An additional basic science for clinical medicine: II. The limitations of randomized trials. Ann Internal Med 1983;49:544-550. Also see: I. The constraining fundamental paradigms. III. The challenges of comparison and measurement. IV. The development of clinimetrics. 45. Feinstein AR: Clinical Biostatistics. St. Louis, Mosby, 1977. 46. Feinstein AR: Scientific studies in epidemiological studies of the menace of daily life. Science 1988;242:1257-1263. 47. Felig P: Biomedical research in the industrial setting. Contrasts and similarities to academia. JAMA 1987;258:2407-2409. 48. Fineberg HV, Bauman R. Susman M: Computerized cranial tomography: Effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans. JAMA 1977;238:224-230. 49. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, Section 501 to 521. 50. Fox RC, Swazey J.: The courage to fail: a social view of organ transplants and dialysis. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1974. 57

OCR for page 55
51. Fox, RC: The cultural shaping of biomedical science and technology. A preface. International Journal on Technology Assessment in Health Care 1986;2:189-194. 52. Freeman C, Clark J. Soete L: Unemployment and Technical Innovation. London, 1982. 53. Friedman PJ: The early evaluation of MR imaging. Am J Radiol 1988;151:860-861. 54. Frishman WH: Clinical differences between beta-adrenergic agents: Implications for therapeutic substitution. Am Heart J 1987; 113:1190- 1198. 55. General Accounting Office: Medical Devices - FDA's 510 (k) operations could be improved. August 1988. General Accounting Office: FDA Drug Approval - a lengthy process that delays the availability of important new drugs. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology. May 1980. 57. Gilbert JP, McPeek B. Mosteller F: Statistics and ethics in surgery and anesthesia. Science 1977;198:684-689. 58. Goodman CS: Guide to comparative clinical trials. In: Committee for Evaluating Medical Technologies, Institute of Medicine: Assessing Medical Technologies. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1985, pp 490-505. 59. Goyan JE: Drug regulation: Quo vadis? JAMA 1988;260:3052-3053. 60. Grabowski HO, Vernon J. Thomas L: Estimating the effects of regulation on innovation: an international comparative analysis of the pharmaceutical industry. J Law & Economics 1978;21:1-32. 61. Grabowski HO: Health care cost containment and pharmaceutical innovation. Center for the Study of Drug Development, 1986. Reprint RS S707 62. Green SB, Byar DP: Using observational data from registries to compare treatments: the fallacy of omnimetrics. Statistics in Medicine 1984;3:361-370. 63. Greer AL: Adoption of medical technology. The hospital's three decision-systems. International Journal on Technology Assessment in Health Care 1985;1:669-80 64- Hanssen RW: The pharmaceutical development process: estimates of development costs and times and the effects of proposed regulatory changes. In: Chien RI: Issues in pharmaceutical economics. Lexington, MA, 1979. Hass AK, Portable DP, Grossman RE: New Drug introductions, discontinuations and safety issues in the United States and the United Kingdom: 1960-1982. OPE (FDA) study 68. 66. Hauptman O. Roberts EB: FDA regulation of product risk and its impact upon young biomedical firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management 1987;2:138-148. 67. Hillman BJ: Government health policy and the diffusion of new medical devices. Health Services Research 1986;21:681-711. 58

OCR for page 55
68. van Hippel E: The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Polipy 1976;3:212-239. 69. van Hippel E, Finkelstein S: Product designs which encourage or discourage related innovations by users: an analysis of innovation in automatic clinical chemistry analyzers. MIT, 1978. 70. Hlatly MA, Lee KL, Harrel FE, Califf RM, Pryor OB, Marck DB, Rosatti RA: Tying clinical research to patient care by use of an observational database. Statistics in Medicine 1984;3:375- 384. 71. Horowitz RI, Feinstein AR, Crede WE, Clemens JD: Does technology work? Judging the validity of clinical evidence. In: Reiser SJ, Anbar M teds): The Machine at the bedside. Cambridge University Press, 1984, pp 193-208. 72. Inman WHW: Drug Surveillance Research Unit. Letter from the director. University of Southampton. PEM News 1983;N1. 73. IDE regulations. 45 Fed. Reg. 3732, 1980. 74. Joint Commission on Prescription Drug Use, Inc. Final Report. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, April 1980. 75. Jones JK: Regulatory use of adverse drug reactions. Stockholm, Skandia International Symposia, Almquist G. Wichsell International, 1984, pp 203-214. 76. Kaitin KI, Richard BW, Lasagna L: Trends in drug development: the 1985-86 new drug approvals. J Clin Pharm 1987;27:542-548. 77. Kaye HL: The biological revolution and its cultural context. International Journal on Technology Assessment in Health Care 1986;2:275-2%4. 78. Kennedy RS: Clinical investigations with medical devices: new rules. JAMA 1981;245:2053- 2054. 79. Kessler DA, Pape SM, Sundwall DN: The federal regulation of medical devices. N Engl J Med 1987:317:357-365. 80. Kline SJ, Rosenberg N: An overview of innovation. In: Landau R. Rosenberg N teds): The positive sum strategy. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1986, pp 275-306. 81. Kowey PR, Fisher L, Giardina KG, Leier CV, Lowenthal DT, Messerli FH, Pratt CM: The TPA controversy and the drug approval process. The view of the cardiovascular and renal drugs advisory committee. JAMA 1988;260:2250-7252. 82. Landau R. Rosenberg N: The Positive Sum Strategy. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1986. 83. Lasagna L, Bearn AG: Innovation and acceleration in clinical drug development. Raven Press, New York 1987. Roundtable 2: early clinical trials-Phase I-IIA: optimal designs for maximum information. pp 95-103. 59

OCR for page 55
84. Lasagna L: Techniques for ADR reporting. Detection and prevention of adverse drug reactions. Stockholm, Almquist G. Wichsell International, 1984, pp 146-151. 85. Laubach GB: Federal regulation and pharmaceutical innovation. In: Levin A (ed): Regulating health care: the structure for control. Proceedings of Political Science 1980;3:64-80. 86. Levy RI, Sondik EJ: The management of biomedical research: an example for heart, lung, blood diseases. In: Roberts EB, Levy RI, Finestein SW, Moskowitz J. Sondik EJ: Biomedical innovation. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1981. 87. Liebenau J.: Innovation in pharmaceuticals: industrial R&D in the early 20th century. Research Policy 1985;14:179-187. 88. van der Linden W: Pitfalls in randomized surgical trials. Surgery 1980;87:258-262. 89. Lowrance WW: Of acceptable risk. Science and the determination of safety. Los Altos, CA, William Kaufman Inc. 1976. 90. McKinlay JB: Seven stages in the career of an innovation. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 1981;59:374-411. 91. McKinlay SM: Experimentation in human populations. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 1981;59:308-323. 92. McNeil BJ, Keeler E, Adelstein SJ: Primer on certain elements of decision making. N Engl J Med 1975;293:211-215. 93. Mansfield E, Rapoport J. Wagner S. Hamburger M: Research and innovation in the modern corporation. New York, WW Norton & Co Inc. 1971. 94. Mattison N. Richard BW: Postapproval research requested by the FDA at the time of NCE approval, 1970-1984. Drug Information Journal 1987;21:309-329. 95. Mattison N. Trimble AG, Lasagna L: New drug development in the United States, 1963 through 1984. Clin Pharm & Ther 1988;43:290-301. 96. Maxwell RA: The state of the art of the science of drug discove~y - an opinion. Drug Development Research 1984;4:380. 97. May MS, Wardell WM, Lasagna L: New drug development during and after a period of regulato~y change: clinical research activity of major United States pharmaceutical firms, 1958 to 1979. Clin Pharm & Therapeutics 1983;33~691-700. 98. Maynard A, Hartley K: The regulation of the pharmaceutical indust~y. In: Lindgren B (ed): Pharmaceutical Economics. Stockholm, Swedish Institute for Health Ecnonomics, Liber Forlag, 1984, pp 123-137. 99. Medica-Pharmaceutical Forum: Clinical Trials. London, Royal Society of Medicine Se~vices, 1987. 60

OCR for page 55
100. Melmon KL: Strategic planning and the transfer of technology to clinical medicine. Presented to the Stanford Alumni Association, North Carolina, March 17 1989. 101. Moore FD: Therapeutic innovation: ethical boundaries in the initial clinical trials of new drugs and surgical procedures. Daedalus 1969;Spring:502-522. 102. Moses LE: Randomized Clinical Trials. In: Assessing Medical Technologies. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1985, pp 73-80. 103. Mowed D, Rosenberg N: The influence of market demand upon innovation: a critical review of some recent empirical studies. Research Policy 1979;8:102-153. 1(~4. Money JH: How trends will interact: the perspective of the hospital. In: Ekelmon K (ed): New Medical Devices: innovation, development and use. National Academy Press, 1988, pp 127-137. 105. National Advisory Council on Health Care Technology Assessment: The medicate coverage process. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services, September 1988. 106. National Research Council: Directions in engineering research. An assessment of opportunities and needs. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1987, pp 84-85. 107. Nightingale SL: Drug regulation and policy formulation. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 1981;3:412-444. 108. Nelson RR, Winter SO: In search of useful theory of innovation. Research Policy 1977;6:36-76. 109. Nobel Committee, Stockholm, 1988. 110. Office of Economic Corporation and Development (OECD): Science and technology indicators. No.2 R&D, invention and competitiveness. Paris, March 1986. 111. Office of Technology Assessment: Background Paper. The impact of randomized clinical trials on health policy and medical practice. Washington, DC, August 1982, OTA-BP-H-22. 112. Office of Technology Assessment. Development of medical technology. Opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, 1976. 113. Office of Technology Assessment. Federal policies and the medical devices industry, October 1984. Washington, DC, 1988. 114. OPE. Pre-amendment medical device safety and efficacy testing. FDA, Rockville, MD, October 1982. 115. Peltzman S.: An evaluation of consumer protection regulation: the 1962 drug amendment. Journal of Political Economy 1973;81:1049-91. 116. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association: Update on biotechnology products in development. Washington, DC, July 1988. 61

OCR for page 55
117. Pollard MR, Persinger GS: Investment in health care innovation. Health Affairs 1987;Summer:93-100. 118. Powell EE, Slater IH: Blocking of inhibitory adrenergic receptors by a dichloro analog of isoproterenol. J Pharm Exp Ther 1958:122:480-488. 119. Read JL, Campbell PM. Health care innovation: a progress report. Health Affairs. Summer 19~:174-185. 120. Roberts EB: Technological innovation and medical device innovation. In: Ekelman K (ed): New medical devices: innovation, development and use. National Academy Press, 1988. 121. Roberts ED, Peters D: Commercial innovation from university faculty. Research Policy 1981;2:108-126. 122. Roos LL, et al. Computers to identify complications after surgery. Am J Public Health 1985;75:1288-1294. 123. Rosenberg W: Inside the black box: technology and economics. Cambridge University Press, 1982. 124. Russet LB: The diffusion of new hospital technologies in the United States. Int J Health Services 1976;4:557-580. 125. Schwartz JS: Evaluating diagnostic technologies. In: Assessing Medical Technologies. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1985, pp 80-89. 126. Shaw BF: The role of the interaction between the manufacturer and the user in the technological innovation process. Ph.D. dissertation. Sussex, United Kingdom, 1987. 127. Shephard D, Durch JS: International comparison of resource allocation in health sciences: An analysis of expenditures on biomedical research in 19 industrialized countries. Supported by the Forearm International Center, NIH. Harvard School of Public Health, 1985. 128. Sladek JR, Shoulson I: Neural transplantation: A call for patience rather than patients. Science 1988;240: 1386-1388. 129. Spilker B: Planning studies to evaluate medical devices. In: Guide to Planning and Managing Multiple Clinical Studies. Raven Press, 1987. 130. Spilker B: Multinational drug companies. Issues in drug discover and development. New York, Raven press, 1989. 131. Spodick DH: The surgical mystique and the double standard: Controlled trials of medical and surgical therapy for cardiac disease: Analysis, hypothesis, proposal. American Heart Journal 1973;85~5~: 579-583. 132. Swazey, JP, Fox RC. The clinical moratorium. In: Fox RC. Essays in medical sociology. A Wiley-Interscience series, New York, 1974:325-363. 62

OCR for page 55
133. Temin P: Taking your medicine: Drug regulation in the United States. Harvard University Press, 1980. 134. Thier SO: Public policy and the private sector innovation. Keynote Address at the PMA/NHC Meeting on America's Medical Research, Washington, DC, November 1987. 135. Thomas LJ: Federal support of medical device innovation. In: Ekelman K (ed): New Medical Devices. IOM/NAE. Washington, DC, 1988, pp 59, 61. 136. Tucker SA, Blozan C, Coppinger P: The outcome of research on new molecular entities commencing clinical research in the years 1976-1978. Office of Planning and Evaluation, study 77. Rockville, MD, FDA, 1988. 137. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industrial Economics: U.S. Industrial Outlook. Washington, DC, 1983. 138. Wardell WM, May MS, Trimble KG: New drug development by United States Pharmaceutical firms with analyses of trends in the acquisition and origin of drug candidates 1963-1979. Clin Pharm & Therapeutics 1982;32:407-417. 139. Wardell WM, Tsianco MC, Anaveliar SN, Dans HT: Postmarketing surveillance of new drugs II. Case Studies. J Clin Pharmacol 1979;19:169-184. 140. Wardell WM: Introduction of new drugs in the United States and Great Britain: An International comparison. Clin Pharm & Therapeutics 1973; 14:773-790. 141. Wardell WM, Sheck LE: Is pharmaceutical innovation declining? In: Lindgren B (ed): Pharmaceutical Economics. Stockholm, Swedish Institute for Health Ecnonomics, Liber Forlag, 1984, pp 180-182. 142. Wardell WM: Therapeutic implications of the drug lag. Clin Pharm & Therapeutics 1974;15:73- 96- 143. Wardell WM: The drug lag revisited: Comparison by therapeutic area of drugs marketed in the United States and Great Britain from 1972 through 1976. Clin Pharm & Therapeutics 1978;24:499-527. 144. Wennberg JE: Improving the medical decision making process. Health Affairs 1988;Spring:99- 106. 145. Wennberg JE, Gittelsohn A: Small area variations in health care delive~y. Science 1973;182:1102-1108. 146. Wennberg JE, Roos N. Sola L, Schori A, Jaffe R: Use of claims data systems to evaluate health care outcomes. JAMA 1987:257:933-936. 147. Whitehead EC: Development of technicians auto analyzer. In: Ekelman K (ed): New Medical Devices. Innovation, development and use. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1988. 148. Wiedhaup K: View of contraceptive development. Presentation for the National Research Council, Washington, DC, March 1988. 63

OCR for page 55
149. Wiener H: Problems in the assessment of side effects of new drug'. (Mimeo), Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, New York, internal document. 150. Wiggins SN: The effect of US pharmaceutical regulations on new introductions. In: Lindgren B (ed): Pharmaceutical Economics. Stockholm, Swedish Institute for Health Ecnonomics, Liber Forlag, 1984, pp 191-205, 195-201. 151. Wiggins SN: The cost of developing a new drug. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC, June 1987. 152. Young FE, Norris JA, Levitt JA et al.: The FDA's new procedures for the use of investigational drugs in treatment. JAMA 1988;259:2267-2270. 153. Zbinden G. Flu~y-Roversi M: Significance of the LD-50 test for the toxicological evaluation of chemical substances. Archives of Toxicology 1981;47:77-99. 154. Zbinden G: Current trends in safer testing and toxicological research. Naturwissenschaften 1982;69:255-259. 64