IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v72y2011i9p1574-1581.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The socio-political roots of pharmaceutical uncertainty in the evaluation of 'innovative' diabetes drugs in the European Union and the US

Author

Listed:
  • Davis, Courtney
  • Abraham, John

Abstract

The prevalence of diabetes is growing in many countries. Prescription oral medications have been developed to treat the disease since the 1950s. More recently, a group of diabetes drugs, known as the glitazones, have been developed and introduced on to North American and European markets since the late 1990s. When first introduced, the glitazones were widely regarded as 'innovative' pharmaceuticals and have remained on the American and EU markets, among others, throughout the 2000s. Yet, enormous uncertainties about their therapeutic value have remained since they came on the market a decade ago. This paper investigates how socio-political systems of drug development and regulation generate such pharmaceutical uncertainty consequent upon the limited informational value that diabetes drug trials provide about the health risks and benefits of such medications when used in clinical practice. Drawing on documentary research and fieldwork interviews, the first in-depth analysis of regulation of 'innovative' pharmaceuticals in both the US and supranational EU is presented. It is argued that these pharmaceutical uncertainties can be explained by reference to four key factors: regulatory paradigms using surrogate markers for drug efficacy; drug approval standards in policy and legislation; ideological expectations of innovation within regulatory agencies; and pharmaceutical industry shaping of drug evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Davis, Courtney & Abraham, John, 2011. "The socio-political roots of pharmaceutical uncertainty in the evaluation of 'innovative' diabetes drugs in the European Union and the US," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(9), pages 1574-1581, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:72:y:2011:i:9:p:1574-1581
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(11)00136-5
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Palmlund, Ingar, 2006. "Loyalties in clinical research on drugs: The case of hormone replacement therapy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 540-551, July.
    2. Doran, E. & Kerridge, I. & McNeill, P. & Henry, David, 2006. "Empirical uncertainty and moral contest: A qualitative analysis of the relationship between medical specialists and the pharmaceutical industry in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(6), pages 1510-1519, March.
    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. Benedek, Gábor & Lublóy, Ágnes & Keresztúri, Judit Lilla, 2015. "Az orvosok közötti kapcsolatok szerepe az új gyógyszerek elfogadásában [The impacts of three types of social interaction on the spread of new types of drug]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 786-810.
    2. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).

    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. Read, John, 2008. "Schizophrenia, drug companies and the internet," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 99-109, January.

    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:72:y:2011:i:9:p:1574-1581. 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.