Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Crit Rev Toxicol ; 40(10): 893-911, 2010 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20854192

ABSTRACT

The public health and environmental communities will face many challenges during the next decade. To identify significant issues that might be addressed as part of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) scientific portfolio, an expert group of key government, academic, and industry scientists from around the world were assembled in 2009 to map the current and future landscape of scientific and regulatory challenges. The value of the scientific mapping exercise was the development of a tool which HESI, individual companies, research institutions, government agencies, and regulatory authorities can use to anticipate key challenges, place them into context, and thus strategically refine and expand scientific project portfolios into the future.


Subject(s)
Environmental Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Planning Guidelines , Health Priorities/trends , Public Health/trends , Toxicology/trends , Academies and Institutes , Government , Humans , Industry , Risk Assessment/trends
2.
Clin Trials ; 6(5): 430-40, 2009 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19846894

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Safety Planning, Evaluation and Reporting Team (SPERT) was formed in 2006 by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PURPOSE: SPERT's goal was to propose a pharmaceutical industry standard for safety planning, data collection, evaluation, and reporting, beginning with planning first-in-human studies and continuing through the planning of the post-product-approval period. METHODS: SPERT's recommendations are based on our review of relevant literature and on consensus reached in our discussions. RESULTS: An important recommendation is that sponsors create a Program Safety Analysis Plan early in development. We also give recommendations for the planning of repeated, cumulative meta-analyses of the safety data obtained from the studies conducted within the development program. These include clear definitions of adverse events of special interest and standardization of many aspects of data collection and study design. We describe a 3-tier system for signal detection and analysis of adverse events and highlight proposals for reducing "false positive" safety findings. We recommend that sponsors review the aggregated safety data on a regular and ongoing basis throughout the development program, rather than waiting until the time of submission. LIMITATIONS: We recognize that there may be other valid approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The proactive approach we advocate has the potential to benefit patients and health care providers by providing more comprehensive safety information at the time of new product marketing and beyond.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/organization & administration , Clinical Trials as Topic/methods , Data Collection/methods , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/prevention & control , Research Design/standards , Safety Management/organization & administration , Biological Products/adverse effects , Biomedical Research/standards , Clinical Protocols , Clinical Trials as Topic/standards , Drug Discovery/organization & administration , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Safety Management/standards , Vaccines/adverse effects
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...