Risking public safety: Experts, the medical profession and ‘acceptable’ drug injury

Understanding Users in the 'Field' of Medications

The numbers of medicinal drugs available for human consumption have increased rapidly in the past several decades, and physician prescribing practices reflect the growing reliance on medicines in health care. However, the nature of medicines-as-technology makes problematic taken-for-granted relationships among actors involved in the delivery, or who are the recipients of medicines-reliant health care. In this article, I situate the medicine user in the 'field' of medications-where interests, actions and outcomes are continually negotiated among and between the various players-physicians, pharmacists, government regulatory bodies, the pharmaceutical industry and users of medicines. The objective of the paper is to illuminate the complex context in which the medicine-user-the target of the pharmacy profession's service to the public-accesses and uses medicines.

A review of the pharmacology and clinical application of alfaxalone in cats

Alfaxalone-2-hydroxpropyl-β-cyclodextrin (alfaxalone-HPCD) was first marketed for veterinary use in Australia in 2001 and has since progressively became available throughout the world, including the USA, where in 2012 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) registration was granted. Despite the growing body of published works and increasing global availability of alfaxalone-HPCD, the accumulating evidence for its use in cats has not been thoroughly reviewed. The purpose of this review is: (1) to detail the pharmacokinetic properties of alfaxalone-HPCD in cats; (2) to assess the pharmacodynamic properties of alfaxalone-HPCD, including its cardiovascular, respiratory, central nervous system, neuromuscular, hepatic, renal, haematological, blood-biochemical, analgesic and endocrine effects; and (3) to consider the clinical application of alfaxalone-HPCD for sedation, induction and maintenance of anaesthesia in cats. Based on the published literature, alfaxalone-HPCD provides a good alternative to the existing intravenous anaesthetic options for healthy cats.

The pharmaceuticalisation of society? A framework for analysis

Drawing on insights from both medical sociology and science and technology studies this article provides a critical analysis of the nature and status of pharmaceuticalisation in terms of the following key dimensions and dynamics: (i) the redefinition or reconfiguration of health 'problems' as having a pharmaceutical solution; (ii) changing forms of governance; (iii) mediation; (iv) the creation of new techno-social identities and the mobilisation of patient or consumer groups around drugs; (v) the use of drugs for non-medical purposes and the creation of new consumer markets; and, finally, (vi) drug innovation and the colonisation of health futures. Pharmaceuticalisation, we argue, is therefore best viewed in terms of a number of heterogeneous socio-technical processes that operate at multiple macro-levels and micro-levels that are often only partial or incomplete. The article concludes by drawing out some broader conceptual and reflexive issues this raises as to how we might best understand pharmaceuticalisation, based on our analysis, as a framework for future sociological work in this field.

Desperately seeking cancer drugs: explaining the emergence and outcomes of accelerated pharmaceutical regulation

Government regulators have increasingly accelerated new cancer drugs on to the market by granting them approval based on less clinical data supporting drug efficacy than permitted under standard regulations. With more lenient regulatory standards, pharmaceutical companies have keenly sought to develop cancer drugs. Focusing on the US, this article examines how the emergence and implementation of such accelerated approvals should be understood, particularly in relation to corporate bias and disease-politics theories. Drawing on longitudinal and case study data analysis, it is argued that the emergence of accelerated approval regulations for cancer drugs should be regarded primarily as part of a deregulatory regime driven by the interests of the pharmaceutical industry in partnership with all major aspects of the state, rather than as a response to patient activism in the aftermath of AIDS. Furthermore, even in cases when some patients successfully demand accelerated marketing approval of cancer drugs, such approval by regulators, while in manufacturers' interests, may not be in the interests of patients' health because the political culture of the regulatory agency is reluctant to uphold its own techno-regulatory standards of public-health protection when that would challenge the agenda-setting influence of manufacturers, including industry collaborations with patients and the medical profession.

'A pill for every ill': explaining the expansion in medicine use

This paper explores the major factors underpinning the expansion in medicine use over recent decades, using England as an example. It begins by constructing a 'progressive' model of the expansion and considers its limitations; it then uses a framework of countervailing powers to examine the contribution of key actors in the field. It examines the commercial orientation of the pharmaceutical industry and the strategies companies deploy to generate demand for their products. It explores the part played by doctors as researchers and gatekeepers to medicines, considering how features of medical knowledge and practice contribute to, rather than curtail, the expansion. It considers the role of the public as consumers of medicines, and the role of governments and insurance companies in both facilitating and controlling medicine use.

Sociology of pharmaceuticals development and regulation: a realist empirical research programme

A realist conceptualization of interests is proposed in opposition to the fashionable view that interests, objectivity and reality are merely social constructs, and that sociological analyses should be confined to discourse, actor-networks and micro-contextual practices. The objective interests of pharmaceutical companies in profit-maximization, and of patients/public health in the optimisation of drugs' benefit-risk ratios, can be empirically validated. The relationship between those interests and pharmaceutical regulation is best characterised by 'neo-liberal corporate bias' at the macro- and meso-levels. How such bias manifests itself at the micro-social level of science-based pharmaceutical testing and regulatory decision making is examined using a realist sociology of scientific knowledge, which appreciates that assessment of the validity of techno-scientific knowledge claims is essential for their sociological explanation. Commercial interests are shown to have biased science away from the interests of public health, in favour of industry. International comparisons of drug regulation demonstrate that drug injuries are not necessarily an inevitable by-product of pharmaceutical progress because some countries have fewer drug safety problems than others. Similarly, the lowering of techno-scientific standards for drug safety testing is not an inevitable cost of faster development of therapeutically valuable medicines, but a consequence of the internationalization of neo-liberal corporate bias.