Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Priority reviews: innovation and safety

Joel Lexchin
CMAJ July 04, 2017 189 (26) E895; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.733103
Joel Lexchin
Physician, Emergency Department, University Health Network; Professor Emeritus, School of Health Policy and Management, Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In the CMAJ news story about the anticorruption symposium held in Toronto, Dr. Supriya Sharma, chief medical officer at Health Canada, said that the expedited 180-day priority review is justified. Her position was that, even though these drugs have more safety problems once they reach the market, it is an acceptable trade-off because they offer major benefits.1 However, that assertion is simply not true for the most part.

First, Health Canada gave a priority review to one-quarter of all the new drugs approved between 1997 and 2012, but fewer than one in six actually offered a major new therapeutic improvement.2 Second, Health Canada is not able to predict accurately which drugs should get a priority review. Out of 91 products that got such a review, only 33 were actually major therapeutic innovations.2

The bottom line is that faster drug reviews lead to more safety problems3 but only occasionally to getting really useful drugs to market more quickly.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: Joel Lexchin received consultant fees for projects looking at indication-based prescribing and at which drugs should be distributed free of charge by general practitioners. He received compensation for being on a panel that discussed expanding drug insurance in Canada. He is a member of the Foundation Board of Health Action International.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Vogel L
    . Experts blame feds for pharma corruption. CMAJ 2017;189:E327–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Lexchin J
    . Health Canada’s use of its priority review process for new drugs: a cohort study [published erratum in BMJ Open 2015;5: e006816corr1]. BMJ Open 2015;5:e006816.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Lexchin J
    . New drugs and safety: What happened to new active substances approved in Canada between 1995 and 2010? Arch Intern Med 2012; 172:1680–1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 189 (26)
CMAJ
Vol. 189, Issue 26
4 Jul 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Priority reviews: innovation and safety
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Priority reviews: innovation and safety
Joel Lexchin
CMAJ Jul 2017, 189 (26) E895; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.733103

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Priority reviews: innovation and safety
Joel Lexchin
CMAJ Jul 2017, 189 (26) E895; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.733103
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Experts blame feds for pharma corruption
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Responding to Bill C-7
  • Benefits of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir remain unproven for some populations
  • Renalism
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire