Perhaps the most significant insight that can be gleaned from the consideration of the precautionary principle in this context has to do with who bears the burden of proof to demonstrate drug safety and effectiveness in post-market surveillance. This burden of proof lies with the manufacturer when applying for regulatory approval. Once a drug is approved, however, this burden largely shifts from the manufacturer of the drug to the drug regulator. With that said, some proposals for post-market surveillance regulation consider giving drug regulators the authority to compel pharmaceutical manufacturers to undertake further post-market studies on safety and effectiveness (36).
Recall that the Wingspread Statement asserts that the “proponent of an activity, rather than the public, bears the burden of proof.” In the context of a threat to population health, the ‘activity’ at hand can be considered a drug, or the licensure and distribution of a drug. And, it seems intuitive that, because the drug manufacturer has been responsible for the development and marketing of the drug, that they more justifiably ought to be considered the proponent of the activity.
As such, a reading of the Wingspread Statement’s formulation of the precautionary principle suggests that, in the context of a threat to population health, the drug manufacturer rather than the drug regulator may bear the burden of proof for demonstrating safety and effectiveness when an activity raises threats of harm to human health. In the current regulatory environment this is not the case, as industry-sponsored phase IV trials are not required by Health Canada and queries stemming from safety signals or about diminished effectiveness require a response from Health Canada and DSEN, not the drug manufacturer.
However, there are reasons, namely concerns of credibility stemming from potential conflicts of interest, that could caution against drug manufacturers bearing the sole burden in demonstrating a drug’s post-approval safety and effectiveness (39).
This creates a potential challenge, as drug manufacturers and the pharmaceutical industry more generally may be in the best position to generate scientific data in a timely manner. Thus, innovative strategies involving collaborative arrangements among regulators, arms-length research and surveillance bodies, and drug manufacturers may be necessary in order to ensure the generation of scientific data is feasible, timely, and credible (18). As one option, to mitigate the spectre of conflicts of interest regulators could conduct (or fund) studies by third parties, or otherwise partner with third parties, to examine the safety of the drug.
Conclusion
Recent analyses of the Canadian post-market surveillance system have noted that efforts must be improved to monitor and address the safety and effectiveness of approved drugs among vulnerable populations. Consideration of how to identify and address the risks among vulnerable population within Canada’s post-market surveillance system, and whether to adopt a precautionary approach in this setting, is critical given Canada’s recent announcement that they are working to optimize the use of real-world evidence for drug regulatory decisions (40). While drug regulators involved in post-market surveillance must routinely operate in the context of uncertainty, heightened uncertainty about drug safety and effectiveness and, indeed, heightened risk exists for vulnerable populations. Given this heightened uncertainty and risk, the precautionary principle should be considered relevant to guiding decision-making in this context. Historically, the precautionary principle has arguably amplified the duties and powers of governments with respect to the protection of the environment (8). As such, it is similarly expected that, if applied in a post-market strategy for vulnerable populations, the precautionary principle may have the effect of amplifying duties and powers of drug regulators with respect to the protection of the health of society’s most vulnerable populations.
Pre-licensure drug studies produce at least some evidence about safety and effectiveness that could inform many post-market surveillance and risk management activities for the general population. As such, a traditional risk-benefit approach may benefit a post-market surveillance strategy. The question, then, may not be whether and how the precautionary principle ought to figure in Canada’s post-market surveillance system generally, but rather how it might be deployed in a post-market strategy to protect the health of vulnerable populations – populations for whom less evidence of safety and effectiveness tends to be available. Due to the increased uncertainty of risk and the enhanced potential for harm for vulnerable populations, a post-market strategy for vulnerable populations guided by the precautionary principle may be most appropriate to protect the health of those already disadvantaged. Without some consideration of the precautionary principle in this context, the post-market drug regulatory system in Canada could be considered unethical as it would place vulnerable Canadians at an unreasonably
heightened risk of exposure to drugs that may cause serious, though previously undetected, side-effects. Moreover, it would indicate a failure on the part of Health Canada to fulfil its mandate with respect to patient safety. The outstanding challenge in a precautionary approach, though, is to prevent the creation and/or exacerbation of vulnerability as a result of precautionary measures (e.g., from withdrawing a drug from the market). To better protect the health of vulnerable populations, the application of precaution in a post-market strategy ought to be guided by the unique health needs and awareness of community vulnerability that may exist among relevant population subgroups.
Remerciements Acknowledgements
Nous tenons à remercier Esther Davies pour son soutien à la recherche. Ce manuscrit découle d’une étude financée par le prix Catalyseur n° 264153 des Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada du réseau sur l’innocuité et l’efficacité des médicaments.
We would like to acknowledge the research support of Esther Davies.
This manuscript was generated from a study funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Catalyst Award no. 264153 from the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network.
Conflits d’intérêts Conflicts of Interest
Aucun à déclarer None to declare
Responsabilités des évaluateurs externes Peer-reviewer responsibilities Les recommandations des évaluateurs externes sont prises en
considération de façon sérieuse par les éditeurs et les auteurs dans la préparation des manuscrits pour publication. Toutefois, être nommé comme évaluateurs n’indique pas nécessairement l’approbation de ce manuscrit. Les éditeurs de la Revue canadienne de bioéthique assument la responsabilité entière de l’acceptation finale et de la publication d’un article.
Reviewer evaluations are given serious consideration by the editors and authors in the preparation of manuscripts for publication.
Nonetheless, being named as a reviewer does not necessarily denote approval of a manuscript; the editors of Canadian Journal of Bioethics take full responsibility for final acceptance and publication of an article.
Édition/Editors: Bertrand Alexandre Stoffel & Aliya Affdal Évaluation/Peer-Review: Barbara Osimani & Sterling Burnett Affiliations
a School of Health Studies, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
b Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Correspondance / Correspondence: Maxwell J. Smith, maxwell.smith@uwo.ca
Reçu/Received: 26 July 2019 Publié/Published: 20 Jul 2020 Les éditeurs suivent les recommandations et les procédures décrites dans le Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors de COPE. Plus précisément, ils travaillent pour s’assurer des plus hautes normes éthiques de la publication, y compris l’identification et la gestion des conflits d’intérêts (pour les éditeurs et pour les auteurs), la juste évaluation des manuscrits et la publication de manuscrits qui répondent aux normes d’excellence de la revue.
The editors follow the recommendations and procedures outlined in the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Specifically, the editors will work to ensure the highest ethical standards of publication, including: the identification and management of conflicts of interest (for editors and for authors), the fair evaluation of manuscripts, and the publication of manuscripts that meet the journal’s standards of excellence.
References
1. Fisher CB. A relational perspective on ethics-in-science decisionmaking for research with vulnerable populations.
IRB Ethics Hum Res. 1997;19(5):1–4.
2. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Killen J, Grady C. What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. J Infect Dis. 2004;189(5):930–7.
3. Flaskerud JH, Winslow BJ. Conceptualizing vulnerable populations health-related research. Nurs Res.
1998;47(2):69-78.
4. Zion D, Gilliam L, Loff B. The declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS and the ethics of research on vulnerable populations.
Nat Med. 2000; 6(6):615-7.
5. Health Canada. Forward Regulatory Plan 2019-2021: Regulations amending the Food and Drug Regulations, Part C, and the Medical Devices Regulations (Flexible Lifecycle-Based Licensing for Drugs and Medical Devices).
Canada.ca. Ottawa (ON): Government of Canada; 2019.
6. Callreus T. The precautionary principle and pharmaceutical risk management. Drug Saf. 2005;28(6):465-71.
7. Soule E. The precautionary principle and the regulation of US food and drug safety. J Med Philos. 2004;29(3):333-50.
8. Osimani B. The precautionary principle in the pharmaceutical domain: a philosophical enquiry into probabilistic reasoning and risk aversion. Health Risk Soc. 2013;15(2):123-43.
9. Lexchin J. New drugs and safety: what happened to new active substances approved in Canada between 1995 and 2010? Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(21):1680-1.
10. Health Canada. Risk Classification of Good Pharmacovigilance Practices (GVP) Observations. Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate.
11. Canadian Medical Association Journal Editorial. Is Canada’s drug safety network effective? CMAJ, May 19, 2015, 187(8).
12. Ogilvie KK, Eggleton A, Cordy J, Dyck LE, Eaton N, Enverga T, et. al. Prescription pharmaceuticals in Canada:
post-approval monitoring of safety and effectiveness. Ottawa (ON): Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Senate, Parliament, Canada; 2013 Mar [cited 2019 Jan 26]. 42 p. Catalogue No.: YC17-0/411-20E-PDF.
13. Maxwell N, Dube L, Carroll M, Andayo I, Lamontagne D, Ysselstein M. 2011 Fall report of the Auditor General of Canada [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Office of the Auditor General of Canada; 2011. Chapter 3, Regulating
Pharmaceutical Drugs—Health Canada; [cited 2019 Jan 26]; [about 33 screens].
14. Gordillo V, del Amo J, Soriano V, Gonzalez-Lahoz J. Sociodemographic and psychological variables influencing adherence to antiretroviral therapy. AIDS. 1999;13(13):1763-9.
15. Kaplan RC, Bhalodkar NC, Brown EJ Jr, White J, Brown DL. Race, ethnicity, and sociocultural characteristics predict noncompliance with lipid-lowering medications. Prev Med. 2004;39(6):1249-55.
16. Mastroianni AC. Slipping through the net: social vulnerability in pandemic planning. Hastings Cent Rep. 2009;
39(5):11-2.
17. Smith MJ, Bernard C, Rossiter K, Sahni S, Silva D. Vulnerability: a contentious and fluid term. Hastings Cent Rep.
2010;40(1):5-6.
18. A framework for the application of precaution in science-based decision making about risk. Ottawa (ON): Privy Council Office; 2003 [cited 2017 Jan 30]. 13 p. Catalogue No.: CP22-70/2003E-IN.
19. Kriebel D, Tickner J. Reenergizing public health through precaution. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(9),1351-5.
20. The treaty of Amsterdam amending the treaty on European Union, the treaties establishing the European communities and certain related acts. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities;
1997 [cited 2017 Jan 28]. 144 p. ISBN: 92-828-1652-4.
21. Goldstein BD. The precautionary principle also applies to public health actions. Am J Public Health.
2001;91(9):1358-61.
22. Report of the United Nations conference on environment and development. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations; 1992 Aug [cited 2017 Jan 30]. Report No.: A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I)
23. Ashford N, Barrett K, Bernstein A, et. al. Wingspread statement on the precautionary principle. Eugene (OR):
Science & Environmental Health Network; 1998 [cited 2017 Jan 30]. 2 p.
24. Jensen KK. The moral foundation of the precautionary principle. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2002;15(1):39-55.
25. John S. Risk and Precaution. In: Dawson A, editor. Public health ethics: key concepts and issues in policy and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 67-84
26. Sachs NM. Rescuing the strong precautionary principle from its critics. Univ Ill Law Rev. 2011;1285.
27. Waller PC, Evans SJ. A model for the future conduct of pharmacovigilance. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf.
2003;12(1):17-29.
28. Gordon C. International pharmaceutical social risk regulation: an ethical perspective. Acta Pharm. 2011;61(1):15-23.
29. Callreus T. Pharmacovigilance and public health ethics. Pharmaceut Med. 2013;27(3):157-64.
30. Callreus T, Schneider CK. The emergence of regulatory science in pharmaceutical medicine. Pharmaceut Med.
2013;27(6):345-51.
31. Campbell A. The SARS commission interim report: SARS and public health in Ontario. Biosecur Bioterror.
2004;2(2):118-26.
32. Krever H. Final report: commission of inquiry on the blood system in Canada. Ottawa (ON): Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada; 1997 [cited 2019 Jan 26]. 375 p. Catalogue No.: CP32-62/3-1997E-PDF.
33. Ross W, Birkwood P, Henter T, Krewsiki D, Muise AM, Nahas A. Health Canada decision-making framework for identifying, assessing and managing health risks. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada; 2000 Aug 1 [cited 2017 Jan 30]. 80 p.
34. Scheifele D. IMPACT after 17 years: Lessons learned about successful networking. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol.
2009;20(1):12-14.
35. Lexchin J. Those who have the gold make the evidence: how the pharmaceutical industry biases the outcomes of clinical trials of medications. Sci Eng Ethics. 2012;18(2):247-61.
36. Bill C-17, Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law), 2nd Sess, 41st Parl, 2014
37. Communication from the commission on the precautionary principle. Brussels: European Commission; 2002 Feb 2 [cited 2017 Jan 26].
38. Bill C-17 An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act - Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs. Ottawa(ON):
Canadian Medical Association; 2014 [cited 2017 Jan 26].
39. Lemmens T, Bouchard RA. Regulation of pharmaceuticals in Canada. In: Downie J, Caulfield T, Flood C, editors.
Canadian Health Law and Policy. 3rd ed. Toronto: Butterwoths; 2007. p. 318-87
40. Health Canada. Optimizing the Use of Real World Evidence to Inform Regulatory Decision-Making. Health Products and Food Branch Notice.
M-J Drolet, N Baril, A Sauvageau, S Renaud. Can J Bioeth / Rev Can Bioeth.
2020;3(1):119-131
ARTICLE(ÉVALUÉ PAR LES PAIRS / PEER-REVIEWED)