IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0157756.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health and Ethical Consequences of Outsourcing Pivotal Clinical Trials to Latin America: A Cross-Sectional, Descriptive Study

Author

Listed:
  • Núria Homedes
  • Antonio Ugalde

Abstract

Introduction: The implications of conducting clinical trials in low and middle income countries on the financial accessibility and safety of the pharmaceutical products available in those markets have not been studied. Regulatory practices and ethical declarations lead to the commercialization of the new products, referred to as New Molecular Entities (NMEs), in the countries where tested as soon as they are approved in high surveillance countries. Patients and patients’ associations use the Latin American courts to access new and expensive treatments, regardless of their safety profile and therapeutic value. Design and Objectives: Cross-sectional, descriptive study. To determine the therapeutic value and safety profile of the NMEs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2011 and 2012 that had been tested in Latin America, and the implications of their market approval for the pharmaceutical budgets in the countries where tested. Setting: Latin America. Measures: To assess the therapeutic value and safety of the NMEs commercialized in the different countries we used f independent drug bulletins. The prices of the NMEs for the consumers were obtained from the pharmaceutical price observatories of the countries were the medicines had been tested. If the price was not available in the observatories, it was obtained from pharmaceutical distributors. We used the countries’ minimum wage and per capita income to calculate the financial accessibility of a course of treatment with the NMEs. Results: We found that 33 NMEs approved by the FDA in 2011 and 2012 have been tested in Latin America. Of these, 26 had been evaluated by independent drug bulletins and only five were found to add some value to a subset of patients and had significant side-effects. The pharmaceutical prices were very high, varied widely across countries and were unrelated to the countries’ income per capita or minimum wage. Conclusion: The implementation of clinical trials in Latin America results in the commercialization of medicines with questionable safety profiles and limited therapeutic value, putting patients at risk and causing budgetary strains in pharmaceutical budgets.

Suggested Citation

  • Núria Homedes & Antonio Ugalde, 2016. "Health and Ethical Consequences of Outsourcing Pivotal Clinical Trials to Latin America: A Cross-Sectional, Descriptive Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-17, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0157756
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157756
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157756&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0157756?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:wbk:wboper:13070 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Roberto Iunes & Leonardo Cubillos-Turriago & Maria-Luisa Escobar, 2012. "Universal Health Coverage and Litigation in Latin America," World Bank Publications - Reports 13072, The World Bank Group.
    3. Vargas-Peláez, Claudia Marcela & Rover, Marina Raijche Mattozo & Leite, Silvana Nair & Rossi Buenaventura, Francisco & Farias, Mareni Rocha, 2014. "Right to health, essential medicines, and lawsuits for access to medicines – A scoping study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 48-55.
    4. Nicod, Elena & Kanavos, Panos, 2012. "Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: A comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 167-177.
    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. Visintin, Erica & Tinelli, Michela & Kanavos, Panos, 2019. "Value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: HTA evidence from seven OECD countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 118-129.
    2. Kanavos, Panos & Visintin, Erica & Gentilini, Arianna, 2023. "Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    3. Grepstad, Mari & Kanavos, Panos, 2015. "A comparative analysis of coverage decisions for outpatient pharmaceuticals: Evidence from Denmark, Norway and Sweden," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 203-211.
    4. Serra-Sastre, Victoria & Bianchi, Simona & Mestre-Ferrandiz, Jorge & O’Neill, Phill, 2021. "Does NICE influence the adoption and uptake of generics in the UK?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113639, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Vargas-Peláez, Claudia Marcela & Rover, Marina Raijche Mattozo & Leite, Silvana Nair & Rossi Buenaventura, Francisco & Farias, Mareni Rocha, 2014. "Right to health, essential medicines, and lawsuits for access to medicines – A scoping study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 48-55.
    6. Elena Nicod, 2017. "Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four Europ," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 715-730, July.
    7. Whitty, Jennifer A. & Littlejohns, Peter, 2015. "Social values and health priority setting in Australia: An analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 127-136.
    8. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2019. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 130-139.
    9. Mills, Mackenzie & Kanavos, Panos, 2022. "How do HTA agencies perceive conditional approval of medicines? Evidence from England, Scotland, France and Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(11), pages 1130-1143.
    10. Maynou, Laia & Cairns, John, 2018. "What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90877, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Vargas-Peláez, Claudia Marcela & Soares, Luciano & Rover, Marina Raijche Mattozo & Blatt, Carine Raquel & Mantel-Teeuwisse, Aukje & Rossi Buenaventura, Francisco Augusto & Restrepo, Luis Guillermo & L, 2017. "Towards a theoretical model on medicines as a health need," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 167-174.
    12. Salas-Vega, Sebastian & Bertling, Annika & Mossialos, Elias, 2016. "A comparative study of drug listing recommendations and the decision-making process in Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1104-1114.
    13. Wang, Daniel & Vasconcelos, Natália Pires de & Poirier, Mathieu JP & Chieffi, Ana & Mônaco, Cauê & Sritharan, Lathika & Van Katwyk, Susan Rogers & Hoffman, Steven J, 2020. "Health technology assessment and judicial deference to priority-setting decisions in healthcare: Quasi-experimental analysis of right-to-health litigation in Brazil," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    14. Pejcic, Ana V. & Iskrov, Georgi & Jakovljevic, Mihajlo Michael & Stefanov, Rumen, 2018. "Access to orphan drugs – comparison across Balkan countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 583-589.
    15. Anderson, Michael & Drummond, Michael & Taylor, David & McGuire, Alistair & Carter, Paul & Mossialos, Elias, 2022. "Promoting innovation while controlling cost: The UK's approach to health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 224-233.
    16. Victoria Serra-Sastre & Simona Bianchi & Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz & Phill O’Neill, 2021. "Does NICE influence the adoption and uptake of generics in the UK?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(2), pages 229-242, March.
    17. Diego Gómez‐Ceballos & Isabel Craveiro & Luzia Gonçalves, 2019. "Judicialization of the right to health: (Un)compliance of the judicial decisions in Medellin, Colombia," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 1277-1289, October.
    18. Nicod, Elena & Kanavos, Panos, 2016. "Developing an evidence-based methodological framework to systematically compare HTA coverage decisions: A mixed methods study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 35-45.
    19. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth & Heisser, Thomas & Stargardt, Tom, 2016. "Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1115-1122.
    20. David Flood & Sandy Mux & Boris Martinez & Pablo García & Kate Douglas & Vera Goldberg & Waleska Lopez & Peter Rohloff, 2016. "Implementation and Outcomes of a Comprehensive Type 2 Diabetes Program in Rural Guatemala," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0157756. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.