Advertisement

The top 50 drugs in the UK and Japan: why are they so different?

  • Kazunori Hirokawa
  • Colin T. Dollery
Chapter
Part of the CMR Workshop Series book series (CMRW)

Summary

  1. 1

    This study identified the top 50 drugs according to sales figures (IMS) in Japan and the UK and reviewed the references for clinical trials in Japan in order to determine the factors contributing to the differences in these two groups of medicines.

     
  2. 2

    The basic design of the trials reviewed was of a good standard and all were controlled, randomised and double-blind. Only seven of the 55 trials used placebos as controls and 30 out of 44 trials, which used active drugs as controls, failed to show a statistically significant difference in efficacy. Most of the trials were of a substantial size but the number of centres included was large and consequently each centre had only a few patients.

     
  3. 3

    Almost all of the trials reviewed used multiple endpoints, but for most drugs these were not fully defined. A unique feature of Japanese studies is the universal use of global response criteria for efficacy although the indices and the methods used to calculate them were rarely fully defined in the published papers.

     

Keywords

Sodium Hyaluronate Complicated Urinary Tract Infection Cefpodoxime Proxetil Ethnic Factor Comparative Clinical Study 
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.
    Ueie K, Kanai T, Hashimoto Y et al. (1992). The general situation of mortality rate in 1990. Kosei no Shihyo, 39(5):22–33 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. (1991). Review of the Registrar General on deaths by cause, sex and age, in England and Wales, 1990. In: Mortality Statistics,Cause. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    British Hospital Index. (1991). International Medical Statistics, Ltd., Middlesex.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    British Pharmaceutical Index. (1991). International Medical Statistics, Ltd., Middlesex.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Japan Pharmaceutical Market. (1991). IMS Japan, Ltd., Tokyo.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Japan Medical Data Index. (1991). IMS Japan, Ltd., Tokyo.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Matsumoto K, Saito R, Nagahama F et al. (1981). A comparative clinical study of cefaclor and cephalexin in bacterial bronchitis. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 29:653–97 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ishigami J, Mita T, Ohno S et al. (1981). Clinical evaluation of cefaclor in acute simple cystitis. A double-blind comparative study of cefaclor. Chemotherapy (Tokyo), 29:250–66 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arata J, Yamamoto Y, Nohara N et al. (1981). A double-blind comparison between cefaclor and cephalexin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin infections. Chemotherapy (Tokyo), 29:267–79 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horii M, Morinaga T, Takeuchi T et al. (1984). A double-blind comparison between cefaclor and cephalexin in the treatment of dental infections. Jpn J Antibiotics, 37:152–75 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Konno K, Saitoh A, Ohizumi K et al. (1986). Comparison of cefixime and cefaclor in bacterial bronchitis. Chemotherapy (Tokyo), 34:1150–83 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Konno K, Saitoh A, Ohizumi K et al. (1986). Comparative test of the efficacy of cefixime and amoxicillin on pneumonia by double-blind method. Chemotherapy (Tokyo), 34:1184–218 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arakawa S, Fujii A, Kamidono S et al. (1986). A double-blind study to compare cefixime and L-cephalexin for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. Nishinippon Hinyoukika, 48:645–74 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kawada Y, Kumamoto E, Nishimoto T et al. (1986). Comparative study of T-2588 and cefadroxil in complicated urinary tract infections. Chemotherapy (Tokyo), 34:908–29 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kobayashi H, Kawai S, Saitoh A et al. (1986). Comparative clinical study of T-2588 and Bacampicillin for bacterial pneumonia by double-blind method. Kansensyougaku Zasshi, 60:1078–106 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kobayashi H, Kawai S, Saitoh A et al. (1986). Comparative clinical study of T-2588 and cefaclor for chronic respiratory tract infections by a double-blind method. Kansensyougaku Zasshi, 60:1052–77 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shiba K, Saitoh A, Shimada J et al. (1988). Comparative clinical study of CS-807 and cefaclor for bacterial pneumonia by a double-blind method. Kansensyougaku Zasshi, 62:973–1001 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shiba K, Saitoh A, Shimada J et al. (1988). Comparative clinical study of CS-807 and cefaclor for chronic respiratory tract infections by a double-blind method. Kansensyougaku Zasshi, 62:1166–91 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ogata N, Kumazawa J, Kushimoto T et al. (1988). A double-blind study to compare CS-807 and L-cephalexin for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. Nishinippon Hinyoukika, 50:2077–98 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kobayashi H, Takamura K, Kono K et al. (1984). Comparison of DL-8280 and amoxicillin in the treatment of respiratory tract infection. Kansensyougaku Zasshi, 58:525–54 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fujimori I, Kobayashi Y, Obana M et al. (1984).Comparative clinical study of ofloxacin and cefaclor in bacterial bronchitis. Kansensyougaku Zasshi, 58:832–61 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fujita K, Nakano M, Nonami E et al. (1984). Comparative clinical study of DL-8280 and cefaclor for suppurative skin and soft tissue infections by a double-blind method. Kansensyougaku Zasshi, 58:793–819 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saito M, Seo T, Matsubara Y et al. (1984). Comparison of clinical efficacy of ofloxacin (OFLX: DL8280) and pipemidic acid (PPA) in acute infectious diarrhoea by a double-blind method. Kansensyougaku Zasshi, 58:965–81 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kishi H, Nito H, Saitoh I et al. (1984). Comparative studies of DL-8280 and pipemidic acid in complicated urinary tract infections by double-blind method. Hinyoukiyou, 30:307–55 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ishigami J, Kamidono S, Harada M et al. (1984). A double-blind controlled study of DL-8280 in comparison with pipemidic acid in the treatment of acute simple cystitis. Nishinippon Hinyoukika, 46:967–88 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kawamura S, Fukimaki Y, Iwasawa T et al. (1984). A comparative double-blind study of DL-8280 and pipemidic acid in suppurative otitis media. Otologia Fukuoka, 30:642–70 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sasaki T, Unno T, Tomiyama T et al. (1984). Evaluation of clinical effectiveness and safety of DL8280 in acute lacunar tonsillitis; in comparison with amoxicillin by double-blind method. Otologia Fukuoka, 30:484–513 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Takase Z, Komoto K, Katayama M et al. (1984). Comparative clinical study of ofloxacin (OFLX) and amoxicillin (AMPC) on the infectious disease in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology. Chemotherapy (Tokyo), 34:31–63 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ohizumi K, Saitoh A, Nagahama F et al. (1987). Comparative double-blind study of the efficacy of 6315-S (Flomoxef) and Latamoxef on chronic respiratory tract infections. Chemotherapy (Tokyo), 35 (Suppl 1):780–809 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kumazawa J, Matsumoto T, Kumamoto E et al. (1987). 6315-S (Flomoxefl in complicated urinary tract infections: a double-blind controlled study using LMOX. Chemotherapy (Tokyo), 35 (Suppl 1):1 138–63 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Soejima R, Matsushima T, Kawane H et al. (1986). Comparative study of MK-0787/MK-0791 and piperacillin in respiratory tract infections. Kansensyougaku Zasshi, 60:345–77 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kawada Y, Nishiura T, Kumamoto E et al. (1986).Comparative study of MK-0787 /MK-0791 and cefoperazone in complicated urinary tract infections. Chemotherapy (Tokyo), 34:536–60 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yura J, Shinagawa N, Ishikawa S et al. (1986). Comparative clinical study of imipenem/cilastatin sodium and ceftizoxime in the treatment of puruient peritonitis. Chemotherapy (Tokyo), 34:713–38 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Matsumoto K, Uzuka Y, Shishido H et al. (1979). Clinical evaluation of cefotiam (SCE-963) in pulmonary infections: a comparative study with cefazolin by a randomized double-blind technique. Chemotherapy (Tokyo), 27 (Suppl 3):399–419 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ishigami J, Ohno S, Tomioka O et al. (1979). Clinical evaluation of cefotiam (SCE-963) in complicated urinary tract infections: a comparative study with cefazolin by a randomized double blind technique. Chemotherapy (Tokyo), 27 (Suppl 3):629–48 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Baba S, Iwasawa T, Kawamura S et al. (1983). Clinical evaluation of cefotiam (SCE-963) in suppurative otitis media: a comparative study with cefazolin by a randomized double-blind technique. Jitenn,Suppl 5:451–68 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ohtomo E, Araki G, Hasegawa K et al. (1985). Clinical efficacy of CV-2619 (Idebenone) in the treatment of cerebrovascular disorders. Multi-centre double-blind study in comparison with Ca-hopantenate. Igaku no Ayumi, 134:220–42 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ohtomo E, Tohgi H, Hirai S et al. (1986). Clinical effectiveness of YM-08054 (Indeloxazine) in the treatment of cerebrovascular disorders. Multi-centre double-blind study in comparison with Ca-hopantenate. Igaku no Ayumi, 136:535–55 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ohtomo E, Hirai S, Hasegawa K et al. (1986). Clinical evaluation of TA-079 (Nicergoline) in the treatment of cerebrovascular disorders. Multi-centre double-blind study in comparison with Ca-hopantenate. Clin Eual, 14:575–602 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tasaki Y, Kutsuzawa T, Tohgi H et al. (1986). Clinical efficacy of E-0687 (Bifemelane) in the treatment of cerebrovascular disorders. Multi-centre double-blind study in comparison with Ca-hopantenate. Igaku no Ayumi, 137:647–70 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Atarashi J, Araki G, Itoh E et al. (1983). Clinical efficacy of TCV-3B (Vinpocetin) in the treatment of cerebrovascular disorders. Multi-centre double-blind study in comparison with Ifenprodil tartarate. Igaku no Ayumt, 1983;124:66–90 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Serizawa S, Shirakawa K, Sakita T et al. (1983). Clinical efficacy of E-0671 (Tetraprenylacetone) in the treatment of gastric ulcer. Multi-centre double-blind study with proglumide. Prog Med, 3 (Suppl):1 169–91 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ichita F, Tashiro N, Murayama H et al. (1976). Clinical efficacy of Marzulene-S granule in the treatment of gastric ulcer. Double-blind study with L-glutamine or azulene. Shinyaku to Rinsho, 25:167–75 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kobayashi S, Sekiguchi T, Takei A et al. (1981). Clinical study of Marzulene-S granule in the treatment of duodenal ulcer. Double-blind study with L-glutamine. Shtnyaku to Rinsho, 30:1855–73 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ishii K, Takebe T, Hirayama N et al. (1980). Clinical evaluation of FOY-305 in pancreatitis. Multi-centre double-blind study. Gendat Iryou, 12:261–78 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ishii K, Takebe T, Hirayama N et al. (1984). Clinical evaluation of FOY-305 in chronic pancreatitis. Multi-centre double-blind study. Gendai Iryou, 16:844–54 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Itami Y, Inoue T, Takahashi H et al. (1982). Clinical evaluation of elcatonin in the treatment of lumbodorsal pain complicated in osteoporosis. Multi-centre double-blind study. Igaku no Ayumi, 120:1180–95 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Itami Y, Fujita T, Inoue T et al. (1982). Clinical efficacy of alfacalcidol (1a-OH-D3) in the treatment of osteoporosis. Comparative study by multi-centre double-blind method. Igaku no Ayumi, 123:958–73 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Shichikawa K, Igarashi M, Sugawara S and Iwasaki Y. (1983). Clinical evaluation of high molecular weight sodium hyaluronate (SPH) on osteoarthritis of the knee. Multi-centre well controlled comparative study. Jpn J Clin Pharmacol Ther, 14:545–58 (in Japanese).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hirohata K, Matsuda T, Watanabe Y et al. (1985). Clinical evaluation of CS-600 (loxoprofen sodium) on lumbago. Comparative study with ibprofen by multi-centre double-blind method. Prog Med, 5:1487–505 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Aoki T, Sugawara S, Hoshino T et al. (1986). Clinical evaluation of CS-600 (loxoprofen sodium) on osteoarthritis. Comparative study with diclofenac sodium by multi-centre double-blind method. Igaku no Ayumi, 136:983–1001 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hirasawa Y, Hirashima K, Arakawa M et al. (1989). Clinical evaluation of recombinant human erythropoietin (EPOCH) on renal anaemia: A double-blind, three doses comparative study. Kidney and Dialysis, 27:157–77 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Agishi Y, Asanuma Y, Shimizu S et al. (1986). Clinical evaluation of lipo PGE, on occupational vibration syndrome using double-blind comparative method. Rinsho Iyaku, 2:1269–89 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Katumura T, Uemichi T, Ohshiro T et al. (1986). Clinical evaluation of lipo PGE1 in the treatment of ischemic ulcer of the extremities. A multi-centre double-blind comparison with inositol niacinate. Junkankika, 20:331–50 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kumagai A, Takahashi S, Shida T et al. (1982). Clinical evaluation of HC 20–511 (Ketotifen), a new oral anti-anaphylactic compound, in bronchial asthma. II - Multi-centre double-blind study in comparison with disodium cromoglycate. Clin Eval, 10:737–85 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kumagai A, Takahashi S, Shida T et al. (1980). Clinical evaluation of HC 20–511 (Ketotifen), a new orally anti-anaphylactic compound, in bronchial asthma. I - Multi-centre double-blind study in comparison with placebo. Clin Eval, 8:353–96 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yasugi T, Goto Y, Yoshida S et al. (1988). Clinical evaluation of CS-514, (Pravastatin) on hyperlipidemia. Double-blind study with clinofibrate. Clin Eval, 16:211–49 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Goto Y, Yamamoto A, Matsuzawa Y et al. (1988). Clinical evaluation of pravastatin (CS-514) on hyperlipidaemia. Double-blind study with probucol. Igaku no Ayumi, 146:927–55 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Saito Y, Goto Y, Nakaya N et al. (1988). Dose-dependent hypolipidaemic effect of an inhibitor of HMG-CoA reductase, pravastatin (CS-514), in hypercholesterolaemic subjects. Atherosclerosis, 72:205–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Katsumura T, Mishima Y, Kamiya K, Sakaguchi S, Tanabe T, Sakuma A. (1986). Therapeutic effect of ticlopidine, a new inhibitor of platelet aggregation, on chronic arterial occlusive disease. A double blind study with inactive placebo. Junkankika, 7:396–406 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Murakami M, Toyokura Y, Omae T et al. (1983). Therapeutic effect of ticlopidine or aspirin on transient ischemic attacks (TIA) - Comparative double blind study for 12 months. Igaku no Ayumi, 127:950–71.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    British National Formulary No 22. (1991). British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    British National Formulary No 24. (1992). British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Handbook of Medicines (1990). A Society for Pharmaceuticals edn. Yakuji Jihou-sya Ltd., Tokyo (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Dept. of Social Statistics, Ministry of Health and Welfare. (1992). Summary of medical expenditure in Japan. Kosei no Shihyo, 39 (3):32–38. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industries. (1993). The Health Manager’s Guide to the Pharmaceutical Industry. 1993 edition. ABPI, London.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ohkoshi M, Isigami J, Kamidono S et al. (1986). The criteria proposed by the UTI committee in Japan. Chemotherapy (Tokyo), 34:408–41 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sakita T, Fukutomi H. (1971). Diagnosis of gastric ulcer. In: Yoshitoshi Y (ed.) Gastroduodenal Ulcer, Nankodo, Tokyo, pp. 197–208. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    The Official Book Society of Japan edn. (1992). Guidelines on Clinical Evaluation of Medicines. Yakuji Nippo-sya Ltd., Tokyo, 1992. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Matsumoto K, Saitoh A, Yokoyama K et al. (1977). An assessment method of clinical states in bacterial pneumonia. Jpn J Clin Pharmacol Ther, 8:155–68 (in Japanese).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ohtomo E, Kutsuzawa N, Hasegawa K et al. (1982). Clinical evaluation of HOPA (HOPATE) in the treatment of cerebrovascular disorders. - Multi-centre double-blind study in comparison with Ifenprodil tar-tarate and placebo. Clin Eval, 9:673–710 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    FX-505 project for Phase III study. (1976). Double blind study of FX-505 (Ifenprodil) on cerebrovascular diseases. Clin Eval, 4:419–58 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kawal K, Kohli Y, Takeda S et al. (1978). A multi-clinical double-blind controlled study on the clinical efficacy of proglumide in gastric ulcers. Clin Eval, 6:69–84 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    New Drugs Division, Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare edn. (1990). Handbook on Good Clinical Practice. Yakuji Jiho-sya Ltd., Tokyo (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    New Drugs Division, Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare. (1992). Guidelines on statistical analyses in clinical trials. Clin Eval, 20:205–219 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    New Drugs Division, Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare. (1992). General guidelines on clinical evaluation of new drugs. Jpn J Clin Pharmacol Ther, 23:609–21 (in Japanese).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazunori Hirokawa
  • Colin T. Dollery

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations