Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery
  • Outlook
  • Published:

Looking backwards: a possible new path for drug discovery in psychopharmacology

Nature Reviews Drug Discoveryvolume 1pages1003–1006 (2002)Cite this article

Abstract

The history of psychopharmacology is littered with type II errors — the rejection of effective compounds in the specious belief that they were inefficacious because they had failed to beat placebo in a controlled trial. Revisiting some of these drugs to establish their receptor profile, and then determining what patentable compounds now on the shelf match that profile, might represent a possible future pathway to drug discovery. This article looks at the special circumstances in which numerous potentially effective drugs were withdrawn in the United States.

This is a preview of subscription content,access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Subscription info for Japanese customers

We have a dedicated website for our Japanese customers. Please go tonatureasia.com to subscribe to this journal.

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Antineurotic drugs evaluated by the NAS/NRC Psychiatry Panel, 1966–1968: 13 out of 18 were subsequently withdrawn by the FDA.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shorter, E. Fading beauties: searching for value in psychopharmacology.Scrip Magazine 52–53 (September 2001).

  2. Drug Efficacy Study.Final Report to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Food and Drug Administration, from the Division of Medical Sciences, National Research Council (National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, 1969).

  3. Impact of NAS/NRC report on future of drug regulation.The Pink Sheet 5 (July 14, 1969).

  4. Bryan, P. A. & Stern, L. H. The drug efficacy study, 1962–1970.FDA Papers4, 14–17 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Temple, R.Re-Evaluation of Marketed Drugs: the DESI Program (3rd International Conference of Drug Regulatory Agencies, Stockholm, Sweden, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Temin, P.Taking your Medicine: Drug Regulation in the United States (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1980).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Nelson hearings on psychotropics open with NIMH.The Pink Sheet T&G-6 (July 14, 1969).

  8. Edwards' new thinking on Rx combos emerges from House subcommittee.The Pink Sheet 28 (May 10, 1971).

  9. Smith Kline & French Laboratories.A Chronology and Review of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Drug Efficacy Study (Smith Kline & French, Philadelphia, 1971).

  10. NAS should reconvene drug evaluation panel chairmen.The Pink Sheet T&G-6 (October 19, 1970).

  11. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council.NAS/NRC Report on Captodiame FDA Accession Number 1740 (1968).

  12. Ashby, W. R. et al. A clinical trial of covatin on elderly patients with anxiety and restlessness.J. Ment. Sci.105, 504–507 (1959).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ellermann, M. Virkningen af covatin (et nyt dagsedativum) pa et ambulant patientmateriale.Nordisk Medicin10, 1531 (1955).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pentney, B. H. et al. Captodiame in anxiety states in general practice.The Practitioner185, 218–221 (1960).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council.NAS/NRC Report on Butabarbital FDA Accession Number 1720 (1968).

  16. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council.NAS/NRC Report on Deprol FDA Accession Number 1729 (1968).

  17. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council.NAS/NRC Report on Potassium–Magnesium Aspartate FDA Accession Number 1314 (1968).

  18. Wright, J.An Interview with Dr Jonathan Wright Tahoma Clinic [online] (cited Oct 10 2002) <http://www.tahoma-clinic.com/male.shtm> (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hass, A. E. & Coppinger, P. L.Introductions and Discontinuations of New Drugs in the United States and the United Kingdom (Food and Drug Administration, Office of Planning and Evaluation, Study 78 Appendix A, September 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Formica, P. E. The housewife syndrome. Treatment with the potassium and magnesium salts of aspartic acid.Curr. Therap. Res.4, 98–106 (1962).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council.NAS/NRC Report on Emylcamate FDA Accession Number 1739 (1968).

  22. Melander, B. O. et al. 3-Methyl-3-pentanol carbamate compositions. US Patent 2,972,564 (1961).

  23. Striatran advertisement.JAMA174, 234–235 (1960).

  24. Shubin, H. & Steinberg, N. A study of a new tranquilizer in general practice: emylcamate in 400 patients.Curr. Therap. Res.3, 527–533 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Listica advertisement.Dis. Nervous Syst.22, 543–545 (1961).

  26. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council.NAS/NRC Report on Hydroxyphenamate FDA Accession Number 1737 (1968).

  27. Mclaughlin, B. E. et al. A double blind study involving Listica, Librium and placebo as an adjunct to supportive psychotherapy in a psychiatric clinic.Dis. Nervous Syst.22, S41–S42 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Greenspan, E. B. Use of hydroxyphenamate in some forms of cardiovascular disease.Dis. Nervous Syst.22, S33–S34 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Alexander, L. Discussion comment.Dis. Nervous Syst.22, S53 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  30. PMA President Stetler's statement on efficacy study disclosures.The Pink Sheet 9 (June 14, 1971).

  31. Justice's narcotics bill called 'stupid'; Brill urged government-supported drug data.The Pink Sheet 10 (August 4, 1969).

  32. Cooper, J. D. (ed.)The Efficacy of Self-Medication (The Smithsonian Institution, Interdisciplinary Communications Program, Washington DC, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 88 College Street, Toronto, M5G 1LY, Canada

    Edward Shorter

Authors
  1. Edward Shorter

Rights and permissions

About this article

This article is cited by

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Advertisement

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for theNature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox.Sign up for Nature Briefing

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp