IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v57y2003i2p195-204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reshaping the carcinogenic risk assessment of medicines: international harmonisation for drug safety, industry/regulator efficiency or both?

Author

Listed:
  • Abraham, John
  • Reed, Tim

Abstract

The most significant institutional entity involved in the harmonisation of drug testing standards worldwide is the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), which comprises the three pharmaceutical industry associations and regulatory agencies of the EU, US and Japan. It is often claimed that such harmonisation will both accelerate the development and approval of new drugs and preserve safety standards, if not strengthen safety regimes. Drawing on extensive documentary research and interviews, this paper systematically examines whether the efforts by the ICH to improve industrial and regulatory efficiency by harmonising drug testing requirements is likely to raise, maintain or compromise safety standards in carcinogenic risk assessment of pharmaceuticals. The evidence suggests that, in the field of carcinogenicity testing, the ICH management of international harmonisation of medicines regulation is not achieving simultaneous improvements in safety standards and acceleration of drug development. Rather, the latter is being achieved at the expense of the former. Indeed, the ICH may be converting permissive regulatory practices of the past into new scientific standards for the future. These findings are significant as many expert scientific advisers to drug regulatory agencies seem to have accepted uncritically the conclusions reached by the ICH, which may affect a potential patient population of half a billion and tens of thousands of clinical trials.

Suggested Citation

  • Abraham, John & Reed, Tim, 2003. "Reshaping the carcinogenic risk assessment of medicines: international harmonisation for drug safety, industry/regulator efficiency or both?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 195-204, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:57:y:2003:i:2:p:195-204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(02)00339-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abraham, John & Davis, Courtney, 2005. "A comparative analysis of drug safety withdrawals in the UK and the US (1971-1992): Implications for current regulatory thinking and policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(5), pages 881-892, September.
    2. Wahlberg, Ayo & Rehmann-Sutter, Christoph & Sleeboom-Faulkner, Margaret & Lu, Guangxiu & Döring, Ole & Cong, Yali & Laska-Formejster, Alicja & He, Jing & Chen, Haidan & Gottweis, Herbert & Rose, Nikol, 2013. "From global bioethics to ethical governance of biomedical research collaborations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 293-300.
    3. Abraham, John & Ballinger, Rachel, 2012. "Science, politics, and health in the brave new world of pharmaceutical carcinogenic risk assessment: Technical progress or cycle of regulatory capture?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(8), pages 1433-1440.

    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:57:y:2003:i:2:p:195-204. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.