Enhancing Vulnerable Groups’ Participation in Medicines Risk Regulation: The Case of the European Medicines Agency’s Public Hearing on Quinolone Antibiotics

IF 1.8 Q1 LAW European Journal of Risk Regulation Pub Date : 2023-03-20 DOI:10.1017/err.2023.10
Matthew Wood
{"title":"Enhancing Vulnerable Groups’ Participation in Medicines Risk Regulation: The Case of the European Medicines Agency’s Public Hearing on Quinolone Antibiotics","authors":"Matthew Wood","doi":"10.1017/err.2023.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What is the value of including vulnerable people in risk regulation decision-making in the European Union (EU)? This article examines a distinctive approach employed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA): public hearings integrated within safety reviews of medicinal products. The article presents findings from a case study of the EMA’s public hearing on Quinolone antibiotics, which was included by the EMA as part of a review process that led to significant tightening of regulatory restrictions on the prescribing of this class of antibiotics. The article argues that the public hearing enabled a group of patients who had been victims of a debilitating toxicity syndrome associated with Quinolone antibiotics to criticise the existing scientific evidence base around the safety of Quinolone. Deploying the quantitative Discourse Quality Index and an interpretive analytical approach, the article shows how patients challenged the evidence base in a manner that was efficacious in advancing knowledge in this area of risk regulation. When physically staged alongside interventions by professional experts, the article argues that patients facilitated a process of “negotiation” of expertise, leading professional representatives to propose methods of coordination in order to integrate the patients’ qualitative evidence of their suffering with the toxicity syndrome. Ultimately, this process led to the EMA proposing more stringent future guidelines for the prescription of Quinolone antibiotics in the EU.","PeriodicalId":46207,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Risk Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract What is the value of including vulnerable people in risk regulation decision-making in the European Union (EU)? This article examines a distinctive approach employed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA): public hearings integrated within safety reviews of medicinal products. The article presents findings from a case study of the EMA’s public hearing on Quinolone antibiotics, which was included by the EMA as part of a review process that led to significant tightening of regulatory restrictions on the prescribing of this class of antibiotics. The article argues that the public hearing enabled a group of patients who had been victims of a debilitating toxicity syndrome associated with Quinolone antibiotics to criticise the existing scientific evidence base around the safety of Quinolone. Deploying the quantitative Discourse Quality Index and an interpretive analytical approach, the article shows how patients challenged the evidence base in a manner that was efficacious in advancing knowledge in this area of risk regulation. When physically staged alongside interventions by professional experts, the article argues that patients facilitated a process of “negotiation” of expertise, leading professional representatives to propose methods of coordination in order to integrate the patients’ qualitative evidence of their suffering with the toxicity syndrome. Ultimately, this process led to the EMA proposing more stringent future guidelines for the prescription of Quinolone antibiotics in the EU.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加强弱势群体参与药品风险监管:以欧洲药品管理局喹诺酮类抗生素公开听证会为例
摘要将弱势群体纳入欧盟风险监管决策的价值是什么?本文探讨了欧洲药品管理局(EMA)采用的一种独特方法:将公开听证会纳入药品安全审查。这篇文章介绍了欧洲药品管理局关于喹诺酮类抗生素的公开听证会的案例研究结果,该听证会被欧洲药品管理管理局纳入审查程序,导致对这类抗生素处方的监管限制大幅收紧。文章认为,公开听证会使一群曾患上与喹诺酮类抗生素相关的衰弱性毒性综合征的患者能够批评围绕喹诺酮安全性的现有科学证据基础。文章运用定量话语质量指数和解释性分析方法,展示了患者如何以一种有效的方式挑战证据库,以提高风险监管领域的知识。当与专业专家的干预措施一起进行物理阶段时,文章认为,患者促进了专业知识的“协商”过程,导致专业代表提出协调方法,以整合患者关于其患有毒性综合征的定性证据。最终,这一过程导致欧洲药品管理局提出了更严格的未来欧盟喹诺酮类抗生素处方指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: European Journal of Risk Regulation is an interdisciplinary forum bringing together legal practitioners, academics, risk analysts and policymakers in a dialogue on how risks to individuals’ health, safety and the environment are regulated across policy domains globally. The journal’s wide scope encourages exploration of public health, safety and environmental aspects of pharmaceuticals, food and other consumer products alongside a wider interpretation of risk, which includes financial regulation, technology-related risks, natural disasters and terrorism.
期刊最新文献
Management and Enforcement Theories for Compliance with the Rule of Law A Robust Governance for the AI Act: AI Office, AI Board, Scientific Panel, and National Authorities Standards for Including Scientific Evidence in Restrictions on Freedom of Movement: The Case of EU Covid Certificates Scheme Collaborative Governance Structures for Interoperability in the EU’s new data acts Dangerous Legacy of Food Contact Materials on the EU Market: Recall of Products Containing PFAS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1