Transnational pharmacogovernance: emergent patterns in the jazz of pharmaceutical policy convergence

Abstract

BackgroundAs a transnational policy network, the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) aligns international regulatory standards to address the pressures of globalization on the pharmaceutical industry and increase access to new medicines. Founding ICH members include regulators and pharmaceutical industry trade associations in the European Union, the United States and Japan. In this paper we explore the manner in which state interdependence fosters the conditions for regulatory harmonization by tracing the underlying parallels between ICH and member state pharmacogovernance to clarify emergent patterns in regulatory policy convergence.ResultsA shift to the life cycle approach to pharmaceutical regulation corresponded with international convergence in pre-market standards as emphasis shifted to post-market standards where convergence remains unresolved. Transnational pharmacogovernance was found to concentrate regulatory authority within a co-regulatory model of bilateral negotiation with pharmaceutical trade associations in defining safety and efficacy standards. Given a context of state interdependence, parallels were found between transnational and ICH member pharmacogovernance modes that guide policy development. Divergent modes of state regulatory governance that re-calibrate perceptions of risk and risk mitigation were found to coincide with post-market policy dissonance.ConclusionAlthough interdependence fostered harmonization in pre-market standards and aligned with increased focus on post-market approaches, the confluence of divergent state governance modes and perceptions of risk may inspire improvisation in post-market standards. As the ICH expands to an ensemble with a greater global reach, further research is needed to clarify the manner in which interdependence shapes transnational pharmacogovernance and the conditions that foster policy convergence in the public interest.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12992-018-0402-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Postmarket Safety Communication for Protection of Public Health: A Comparison of Regulatory Policy in Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United States

“…32,[106][107][108] While safety advisories publicize risks in order to raise awareness or change behavior, transparency is a matter of public accountability 35 and may improve public participation in value-setting through better understanding of decision making. 32 A considerable body of literature examines the extent to which regulatory actions and regulations may be shaped more by industry needs than those of the public, 9,33,[108][109][110][111][112] arising in part because of industry's role in developing and manufacturing medicines and hence its direct participation in the regulatory process. Transparency can enhance confidence that decisions are made in the public interest.…”

“…2 Since the rofecoxib controversy, postmarket regulation has changed considerably in the United States and the European Union, 3,4 underpinned by significant legislative amendments. [5][6][7][8] With international convergence and harmonization in pharmaceutical policy and standards, 9,10 these changes have had a global influence on other agencies, including Australian and Canadian regulators. An approach known as "life cycle regulation" now dominates, characterized by data collection and risk minimization planning in the premarket period and an expanded range of capabilities post marketing to identify, assess, and respond to evolving risks, including mandatory postmarketing studies and stronger conditions for safer use (Box 1).…”

Elements of Regulatory Dissonance: Examining FDA and EMA Product Labeling of New Vaccines (2006–2018)

“…However, because approval processes are not globally harmonized, a pharmaceutical company seeking approval for its product in multiple regions must prepare and submit separate applications, which may be different in content and format. Although efforts by the International Council for Harmonization (ICH) to harmonize technical requirements for registering drugs and biologics have produced a number of useful guidelines that are used around the world, such efforts have not been extended to the regulatory review process or product labeling [1] . Currently, the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) are considered two of the most prominent regulatory agencies around the world.…”

Regulatory reliance to approve new medicinal products in Latin American and Caribbean countries

“…During the 1980s, the International Conference of Drug Regulatory Authorities and later the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), launched in 1990, championed the idea of common technical and scientific standards toward pharmaceutical product authorization ( 1 – 4 ). Harmonization became a common practice among regulatory policymakers.…”

“…As a step forward, the concept of reliance has emerged as a new collaborative strategy among regulatory authorities ( 4 , 6 ). Reliance is a broad concept that implies that a national authority uses the work done or the decisions taken by another trusted authority—usually a regulatory body from another jurisdiction—as an input for its regulatory procedures ( 4 , 7 ). The direct recognition of marketing authorization (MA) from trusted authorities could be seen as the ultimate reliance ( 7 ).…”