Advertisement

Drug Testing for Teratogenicity: Its Implications, Limitations and Application to Man

  • Robert L. Brent
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 27)

Abstract

The establishment of drug testing protocols for teratogenic screening resulted primarily from the thalidomide episode. Although many laboratories throughout the world had developed their own personalized methodology for studying potential teratogenic agents, the quality of these investigations ranged from very good to very bad. In the 1960’s, numerous publications of committees and individuals reported or suggested various protocols for teratogenic screening of drugs. One must remember that a protocol for teratogenic screening is empirically derived, primarily because many of the basic mechanisms of teratogenesis in mammals is unknown. Developing protocols for teratogenic screening is applied research and of the most empirical type.

Keywords

Drug Testing Teratogenic Risk Teratogenic Agent Teratogenic Drug Intrauterine Diagnosis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    WARKANY, J., ET AL. Conference on Prenatal Effects of Drugs. Commission on Drug Safety Bull. pp. 1–3, June, 1963.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    BAKER, J.B.E., ET AL. Die Pharmazeutische Industrie 29: 759, 1967.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    BRENT, R.L. J. Pediat. 64: 762, 1964.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    BRENT, R.L. Excerpta Medica International Congress Series 204: 187, 1969.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    CAHEN, R.L. Clin. Pharm. Therap. 5: 480, 1964.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    GOTTSCHEWSKI, G.H.M. Arzneim.-Forsch. (Drug Res.) 15: 97, 1965.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    LOOSLI, VON R. and THEISS, E. Bull. Schw. Akad. Med. Wissensch. 20: 398, 1964.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    LORKE, D. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Arch. Exp. Path. u. Pharmak. 246: 147, 1963.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    WILSON, J.G. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 123: 219, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ZBINDEN, G. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 5: 537, 1964.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ZBINDEN, G. Newsletter of the Environmental Mutagen Society 4:20, March, 1971.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    BRENT, R.L. Statement to the Committee on Executive Reorganization and Government Research dealing with “Chemicals and the future of man”, April 6,7, 1971, pp. 76–103, 165–171. U.S. Government Printing Office 63–221, Washington, 1971.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    INGALLS, T.H. and KLINGBERG, M.A. Amer. J. PubZ. filth. 55: 200, 1965.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    BRENT, R.L., AVERICH, E. and DRAPIEWSKI, V.A. Proc. Soc. Exp.Biol. Med. 106: 523, 1961.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    BRENT, R.L. Adv. Biosc. 6: 421, 1971.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    BRENT, R.L., JOHNSON, A.J. and JENSEN, M. Teratology 4: 255, 1971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    BRENT, R.L. J. Pediat. 71: 288, 1967.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert L. Brent
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PediatricsJefferson Medical CollegePhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations