IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v280y2021ics0277953621003816.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is there evidence for the racialization of pharmaceutical regulation? Systematic comparison of new drugs approved over five years in the USA and the EU

Author

Listed:
  • Mulinari, Shai
  • Vilhelmsson, Andreas
  • Ozieranski, Piotr
  • Bredström, Anna

Abstract

Recent decades have seen much interest in racial and ethnic differences in drug response. The most emblematic example is the heart drug BiDil, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2005 for “self-identified blacks.” Previous social science research has explored this “racialization of pharmaceutical regulation” in the USA, and discussed its implications for the “pharmaceuticalization of race” in terms of reinforcing certain taxonomic schemes and conceptualizations. Yet, little is known about the racialization of pharmaceutical regulation in the USA after BiDil, and how it compares with the situation in the EU, where political and regulatory commitment to race and ethnicity in pharmaceutical medicine is weak. We have addressed these gaps by investigating 397 product labels of all novel drugs approved in the USA (n = 213) and the EU (n = 184) between 2014 and 2018. Our analysis considered statements in labeling and the racial/ethnic categories used. Overall, it revealed that many labels report race/ethnicity demographics and subgroup analyses, but that there are important differences between the USA and the EU. Significantly more US labels specified race/ethnicity demographics, as expected given the USA's greater commitment to race and ethnicity in pharmaceutical medicine. Moreover, we found evidence that reporting of race/ethnicity demographics in EU labels was driven, in part, by statements in US labels, suggesting the spillover of US regulatory standards to the EU. Unexpectedly, significantly more EU labels reported differences in drug response, although no drug was restricted to a racial/ethnic population in a manner similar to BiDil. Our analysis also noted variability and inconsistency in the racial/ethnic taxonomy used in labels. We discuss implications for the racialization of pharmaceutical regulation and the pharmaceuticalization of race in the USA and EU.

Suggested Citation

  • Mulinari, Shai & Vilhelmsson, Andreas & Ozieranski, Piotr & Bredström, Anna, 2021. "Is there evidence for the racialization of pharmaceutical regulation? Systematic comparison of new drugs approved over five years in the USA and the EU," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:280:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621003816
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621003816
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114049?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fisher, J.A. & Kalbaugh, C.A., 2011. "Challenging assumptions about minority participation in US clinical research," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(12), pages 2217-2222.
    2. Fisher, Jill A. & Cottingham, Marci D. & Kalbaugh, Corey A., 2015. "Peering into the pharmaceutical “pipeline”: Investigational drugs, clinical trials, and industry priorities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 322-330.
    3. Lee, S.S.-J., 2005. "Racializing drug design: Implications if pharmacogenomics for health disparities," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(12), pages 2133-2138.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shim, Janet K. & Bentz, Michael & Vasquez, Emily & Jeske, Melanie & Saperstein, Aliya & Fullerton, Stephanie M. & Foti, Nicole & McMahon, Caitlin & Lee, Sandra Soo-Jin, 2022. "Strategies of inclusion: The tradeoffs of pursuing “baked in” diversity through place-based recruitment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    2. Torin Monahan & Jill A Fisher, 2020. "Sacrificial Labour: Social Inequality, Identity Work, and the Damaging Pursuit of Elusive Futures," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 34(3), pages 441-456, June.
    3. Hunt, Linda M. & Megyesi, Mary S., 2008. "The ambiguous meanings of the racial/ethnic categories routinely used in human genetics research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 349-361, January.
    4. William T. Hu & Stephanie M. Bergren & Dana K. Dychtwald & Yiming Ma & XinQi Dong, 2023. "Variations in racial and ethnic groups’ trust in researchers associated with willingness to participate in research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Lee, Catherine, 2009. ""Race" and "ethnicity" in biomedical research: How do scientists construct and explain differences in health?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1183-1190, March.
    6. Mwale, Shadreck, 2020. "‘Becoming-with’ a repeat healthy volunteer: Managing and negotiating trust among repeat healthy volunteers in commercial clinical drug trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    7. Alana Smith & Gregory A. Vidal & Elizabeth Pritchard & Ryan Blue & Michelle Y. Martin & LaShanta J. Rice & Gwendolynn Brown & Athena Starlard-Davenport, 2018. "Sistas Taking a Stand for Breast Cancer Research (STAR) Study: A Community-Based Participatory Genetic Research Study to Enhance Participation and Breast Cancer Equity among African American Women in ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Lorraine Greaves & Andreea C. Brabete & Mira Maximos & Ella Huber & Alice Li & Mê-Linh Lê & Sherif Eltonsy & Madeline Boscoe, 2023. "Sex, Gender, and the Regulation of Prescription Drugs: Omissions and Opportunities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-19, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:280:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621003816. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.