IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v75y2012i1p165-170.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pharmacovigilance in Europe and North America: Divergent approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Wiktorowicz, Mary
  • Lexchin, Joel
  • Moscou, Kathy

Abstract

Although international medicines regulators adopt a common system to assess the safety and efficacy of new drugs, pre-market evaluation is recognized as incomplete given the much larger post-market experience to follow. Adverse drug reactions contribute to more than 100,000 deaths in the United States annually and are among the top 10 leading causes of death. Regulators are developing active surveillance approaches to assess the risks of medicines in the post-market phase to enhance passive adverse drug reaction reporting systems that capture only one to ten percent of ADRs. The objective of this study is to compare international approaches to active surveillance and the manner in which regulatory agencies access and use post-market evidence in their decisions. A conceptual framework is used to guide the comparative analysis of pharmacovigilance governance and policy in the United Kingdom, France, the European Union, the United States and Canada using data gathered from key informant interviews and document review. While research networks are emerging internationally, we found a greater reliance on industry funding and oversight of post-market research in Europe compared to an emphasis on publicly funded programs in North America.

Suggested Citation

  • Wiktorowicz, Mary & Lexchin, Joel & Moscou, Kathy, 2012. "Pharmacovigilance in Europe and North America: Divergent approaches," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 165-170.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:1:p:165-170
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953612002250
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.046?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. Carpenter, Daniel P., 2004. "Protection without Capture: Product Approval by a Politically Responsive, Learning Regulator," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 613-631, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Vanessa M. de Oliveira & Vanessa T. Gubert-Matos & Alexandre A. Tutes & Cristiane M. Ferreira & Erica F. Vasconcelos-Pereira & Monica C. Toffoli-Kadri & Maria T. F. D. Monreal, 2021. "Challenges of Pharmacovigilance in Brazil," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(2), pages 1-1, February.

    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. Charles Sabel & Gary Herrigel & Peer Hull Kristensen, 2018. "Regulation under uncertainty: The coevolution of industry and regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 371-394, September.
    2. Daniel Carpenter, 2014. "Accounting for Financial Innovation and Borrower Confidence in Financial Rule Making: Analogies from Health Policy," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(S2), pages 331-349.
    3. Rebecca Slayton & Aaron Clark‐Ginsberg, 2018. "Beyond regulatory capture: Coproducing expertise for critical infrastructure protection," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 115-130, March.
    4. Justin Rex, 2020. "Anatomy of agency capture: An organizational typology for diagnosing and remedying capture," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 271-294, April.
    5. Emeric Henry & Marco Loseto & Marco Ottaviani, 2022. "Regulation with Experimentation: Ex Ante Approval, Ex Post Withdrawal, and Liability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5330-5347, July.
    6. Finch, John & Geiger, Susi & Reid, Emma, 2017. "Captured by technology? How material agency sustains interaction between regulators and industry actors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 160-170.
    7. Amy Pond, 2021. "Biased politicians and independent agencies," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(3), pages 279-299, July.
    8. Boakye, Derrick & Sarpong, David & Mordi, Chima, 2022. "Regulatory review of new product innovation: Conceptual clarity and future research directions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    9. Rebecca L. Perlman, 2020. "For Safety or Profit? How Science Serves the Strategic Interests of Private Actors," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 293-308, April.
    10. Hoekman, Jarno & Boon, Wouter, 2019. "Changing standards for drug approval: A longitudinal analysis of conditional marketing authorisation in the European Union," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 76-83.
    11. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/1gr6n3t28b94tafji6op8tlqs1 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Stern, Ariel Dora, 2017. "Innovation under regulatory uncertainty: Evidence from medical technology," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 181-200.
    13. Marcel Hanegraaff, 2015. "Transnational Advocacy over Time: Business and NGO Mobilization at UN Climate Summits," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(1), pages 83-104, February.
    14. Koen Verhoest & Jan Boon & Stefan Boye & Heidi H. Salomonsen, 2023. "How does organizational task matter for the reputation of public agencies?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 158-176, January.
    15. Jeremy Hall & Stelvia Matos & Vernon Bachor, 2019. "From green technology development to green innovation: inducing regulatory adoption of pathogen detection technology for sustainable forestry," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 877-889, April.
    16. Ekaterina Borisova & Timothy Frye & Koen Schoors & Vladimir Zabolotskiy, 2022. "Fear, Trust and Demand for Regulation: Evidence from the Covid-19 Pandemic in Russia," CESifo Working Paper Series 10156, CESifo.
    17. Emeric Henry & Gianmarco Ottaviano, 2019. "Research and the Approval Process: the Organization of Persuasion," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/1gr6n3t28b9, Sciences Po.
    18. Scott Carrell & Janice Hauge, 2009. "Politics and the implementation of public policy: The case of the US military housing allowance program," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 367-386, March.
    19. Wouter Boon & Jakob Edler, 2018. "Demand, challenges, and innovation. Making sense of new trends in innovation policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 435-447.
    20. Manav Raj, 2021. "A house divided: Legislative competition and young firm survival in the United States," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(13), pages 2389-2419, December.
    21. 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:75:y:2012:i:1:p:165-170. 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.