Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of methodology on the results of phase IV studies

  • Chapter
The Focus for Pharmaceutical Knowledge

  • 16 Accesses

Abstract

A favourable risk-benefit ratio is the necessary requirement of any drug treatment. It is well known that the data contributing to the evaluation of this ratio are only partially available when a new drug is released for marketing [1–5]. This establishes the need for further investigations on both efficacy and safety in everyday clinical practice (table 1).

Table 1 Objectives of phase IV studies
Full size table

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. Anello C. The use, design and limitation of selected phase IV studies in the United States. In: Crescioni C, James J M, ed. Post-marketing Clinical Trials, Paris: Editions de Santé, 1984;35.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bell R L, Smith O’B. Clinical trials in post-marketing surveillance of drugs. Controlled Clin Trials 1982;3:61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chadra D R. Phase IV studies: an introduction. Curr Ther Res 1985;38:353.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Slone D, Shapiro S, Miettinen O S, et al. Drug evaluation after marketing. Ann Intern Med 1979;90:257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Strom B L, Melmon K L, Miettinen O S. Post-marketing studies of drug efficacy: why? Am J Med 1985;78:475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hommel E, Parving H H, Mayhiesen E, et al. Effect of Captopril on kidney function in insulin-dependent diabetic patients with nephropathy. Br Med J 1986;293:467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Beckett V L, Donadio J V, Brennan L A, et al. Use of Captopril as early therapy for renal scleroderma: a prospective study. Mayo Clin Proc 1985;60:763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rovelli F, De Vita C, Feruglio G A, et al. Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1986;56(i):397.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Horwitz R I, Feinstein A R. Improved observational method for studying therapeutic efficacy. JAMA 1981;246:2455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gifford L M, Aeugle M E, Myerson R M, et al. Cimetidine post-market outpatient surveillance program. JAMA 1980;243:1532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Horwitz R I, Feinstein A R. The problem of protopathic bias in case-control studies. Am J Med 1980;68:255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rawlins M D. Spontaneous reporting of adverse reactions. Q J Med 1986;230:531.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Colin-Jones D G, Langman M J S, Lawson D H, et al. Post-marketing surveillance of the safety of Cimetidine: 12 month mortality report. Br Med J 1983;286:1713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rossi A C, Knapp D E, Anello C, et al. Discovery of adverse drug reactions. A comparison of selected phase IV studies with spontaneous reporting methods. JAMA 1983;249:2226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rawlins M D. Post-marketing surveillance of adverse reactions to drugs. Br Med J 1984;288:879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Paulus H E. FDA arthritis advisory committee meeting: post-marketing surveillance of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Arthritis Rheum 1985;28:1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Venning G R. Validity of anecdoctal reports of suspected adverse drug reactions: the problem of false alarms. Br Med J 1982;284:249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carson J L, Strom B L, Soper K A, et al. The association of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding. Arch Intern Med 1987;147:85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Somerville K, Faulkner G, Langman M J S. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and bleeding peptic ulcer. Lancet 1986;56(i):462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Feinstein A R, Horwitz R I. Double standards, scientific methods, and epidemiologic research. N Eng J Med 1982;307:1611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Strom B L, Carson J L, Morse M L, et al. The computerized on-line Medicaid pharmaceutical analysis and surveillance system: a new resource for postmarketing drug surveillance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1985;38:359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Faich G A. Adverse-drug reaction monitoring. N Eng J Med 1986;314:1589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Soffer A. The practitioner’s rôle in detection of adverse drug reactions. Chest 1984;86:808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Venulet J. The practising physician as generator and user of adverse reaction data. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1986;24:385.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. E. Ambrosioni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Strocchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceuticals, IFAPP, Wimblehurst Road, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 4AB, England

    Denis Burley (President) (President)

Copyright information

© 1988 The International Federation of Associations of Pharmaceutical Physicians

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ambrosioni, E., Strocchi, E. (1988). Influence of methodology on the results of phase IV studies. In: Burley, D., Haward, C., Mullinger, B. (eds) The Focus for Pharmaceutical Knowledge. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09571-1_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation