Offerhaus L
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1997 May 24;141(21):1028-33.
Since the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA) in London started its activities, the registration of medicines in the European Union (EU) has gained momentum, and its relevance to national drug registration procedures is steadily increasing. Its main objectives are centralization and standardization of assessments and promoting free trade within the EU. From its early beginning the EMEA has promoted transparency and full disclosure of expert opinions. Since the EMEA is largely operating beyond the scope of the average prescriber and patient, an attempt was made at improving information, based on interviews of a number of responsible or interested persons and parties. Though the overall opinion seems favourable, the quality of the assessment reports has notably improved, and the implementation of decisions has gained speed, this has made little impact on medical practice. The approach towards collating reports of adverse drug reactions has been divisive, and feedback to reporting physicians has been largely neglected. The eventual introduction of the Eudrawatch database and further improvements in transparency will hopefully correct these initial problems. So far as legally possible national drug agencies should follow the example of EMEA by offering public disclosure of documents and expert opinions.
自伦敦的欧洲药品评估局(EMEA)开展活动以来,欧盟(EU)药品注册工作发展势头迅猛,其与各国药品注册程序的相关性也在稳步增强。其主要目标是评估的集中化和标准化以及促进欧盟内部的自由贸易。从一开始,EMEA就致力于提高透明度并全面披露专家意见。由于EMEA的工作很大程度上超出了普通处方医生和患者的范围,因此基于对一些相关责任方和利益方的访谈,尝试改进信息披露。尽管总体评价似乎不错,评估报告的质量有了显著提高,决策的执行速度也加快了,但这对医疗实践的影响甚微。收集药品不良反应报告的方式存在分歧,对报告医生的反馈也大多被忽视。最终引入Eudrawatch数据库以及进一步提高透明度有望纠正这些初期问题。只要法律允许,各国药品机构应效仿EMEA,公开披露文件和专家意见。