Pharmacovigilance in Europe and North America: Divergent approaches

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 75, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 165-170

  Wiktorowicz, Mary ^a   Lexchin, Joel ^a,b,c   Moscou, Kathy ^a,d  

^a York University   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Adverse drug reactions; Drug regulation; Europe and North America; Medicines regulation; Pharmaceutical policy; Pharmacosurveillance; Pharmacovigilance; Safety

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DRUG; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; MEDICINE; PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK;

ARTICLE; CANADA; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DATA MINING; DECISION MAKING; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; EUROPE; EUROPEAN UNION; FRANCE; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MEDICAID; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICARE; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED KINGDOM;

DECISION MAKING; DRUG AND NARCOTIC CONTROL; DRUG TOXICITY; EUROPE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; NORTH AMERICA; PHARMACOVIGILANCE; PRODUCT SURVEILLANCE, POSTMARKETING; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

EUROPE; NORTH AMERICA;

EID: 84860688254     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.046     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Abenhaim L. Lessons from the withdrawal of rofecoxib, France has policy for overall assessment of public health impact of new drugs. British Medical Journal 2004, 329:1342.
2. Atkinson M., Coleman W. The state, business, and industrial change in Canada 1989, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
3. Avorn J. Powerful medicines: The benefits, risks and costs of prescription drugs 2005, Random House, New York.
4. Badaracco J. Loading the dice: A five country study of vinyl chloride regulation 1985, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
5. Booz, Allen, Hamilton Deliverable 2-8: Final report on the PMR/PMC backlog review 2009, Food and Drug Administration.
6. Bowie N., Freeman R. Ethics and agency theory: An introduction 1992, Oxford University Press, New York.
7. Brickman R., Jasanoff S., Ilgen T. Controlling chemicals: The politics of regulation in Europe and the United States 1985, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
8. Carpenter D. Protection without capture: product approval by a politically responsive, learning regulator. American Political Science Review 2004, 98:613-631.
9. Carpenter D. Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA 2010, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
10. Collier R. Post-market drug surveillance projects developing slowly. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2010, 182:E43.
11. Daemmrich A. Pharmacopolitics 2004, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
12. Frau S., Pous M., Luppino M., Conforti A. Risk management plans: are they a tool for improving drug safety?. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2010, 66:785-790.
13. Giezen T., Mantel-Teeuwisse A., Strauss S., Egberts T., Blackburn S., Persson I., et al. Evaluation of post-authorization safety studies in the first cohort of EU risk management plans at time of regulatory approval. Drug Safety 2009, 32:1175-1187.
14. Gough S. Post-marketing surveillance: a UK/European perspective. Current Medical Research and Opinions 2005, 21:565-570.
15. HAI Europe, Medicines in Europe Forum, International Society of Drug Bulletins Final proposals on pharmacovigilance: Some progress, but a missed opportunity to genuinely strengthen patient safety 2010.
16. Hamburg M. The growing role of epidemiology in drug safety regulation. Epidemiology 2011, 22(5):622-624.
17. Hancher L. Regulation for competition: Government, law and the pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom and France 1990, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
18. Harris G., Berenson A. 10 voters on panel backing pain pills had industry ties. New York Times 2005.
19. Hazell L., Shakir S. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Safety 2006, 29:385-396.
20. Health Canada Advisory Health Canada prohibits sale of Bextra in Canada 2005, http://www.hc-sc.gc/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/2005/2005_134_e.html.
21. Hébert P., Standbrook M., MacDonald N., Flegel K., Coutts J., MacLeod S. Can health Canada protect Canadians from unsafe drugs?. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2011, 183:1125-1126.
22. Immergut E. Health politics 1992, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
23. Juni P., Nartey L., Reichenbach S., Dieppe P., Egger M. Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis. The Lancet 2004, 364:2021-2029.
24. Katzenstein P. Small states in world markets 1985, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
25. L'Inspection Générale des Affairs Sociales Enquête Sur le Mediator 2011.
26. Mills L. Science and the social context: The regulation of recombinant bovine growth hormone 2002, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal.
27. Moore T., Cohen M., Furberg C. Serious adverse drug events reported to the food and drug administration, 1998-2005. Archives of Internal Medicine 2007, 167:1752-1759.
28. Moore T., Psaty B., Furberg C. Time to act on drug safety. Journal of American Medical Association 1998, 279:1571-1573.
29. Office of Inspector General Adverse events in hospitals: National incidence among medicare beneficiaries 2010, Department of Health and Human Services.
30. Patient protection and affordable care act 2010, United States.
31. Ray W., Stein C. Reform of drug regulation - beyond an independent drug-safety board. New England Journal of Medicine 2006, 354:194-201.
32. Ross J., Madigan D., Hill K., Egilman D., Wang Y., Krumholtz H. Pooled analysis of rofecoxib Placebo-controlled Clinical trial data, Lessons for postmarket pharmaceutical safety surveillance. Archives of Internal Medicine 2009, 169(21):1976-1984.
33. Simon H. Sciences of the artificial 1969, MIT Press, Cambridge.
34. Stafford R. Regulating off-label drug use - rethinking the role of the FDA. New England Journal of Medicine 2008, 358:1427-1429.
35. Stang P., Ryan P., Racoosin J., Overhage J., Hartzema A., Reich C., et al. Advancing the science for active surveillance: rationale and design for observational medical outcomes partnership. Annals of Internal Medicine 2010, 153:600-606.
36. Steinbruner J. A cybernetic theory of decision 1974, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
37. Tuohy C. Accidental logics, the dynamics of change in the health care arena in the United States, Britain, and Canada 1999, Oxford University Press, New York.
38. Turner E., Matthews A., Linardatos E., Tell R., Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine 2008, 358:252-260.
39. U.S.Food and Drug Administration FDAAA implementation-Highlights two years after enactment. 2009, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/FederalFoodDrugandCosmeticActFDCAct/SignificantAmendmentstotheFDCAct/FoodandDrugAdministrationAmendmentsActof2007/ucm184271.htm.
40. Why drug safety should not take a back seat to efficacy. PLOS Medicine 2011, 8(9):e1001097.
41. Wiktorowicz M. Emergent patterns in the regulation of pharmaceuticals: institutions and interests in the United States, Canada, Britain and France. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2003, 28:615-658.
42. Wiktorowicz M., Lexchin J., Moscou K., Silversides A., Eggertson L. Keeping an eye on prescripiton drugs. Keeping Canadians safe: Active monitoring systems for drug safety and effectiveness in Canada and internationally 2010, Health Council of Canada, Toronto.