Science, politics, and health in the brave new world of pharmaceutical carcinogenic risk assessment: Technical progress or cycle of regulatory capture?

AbstractThe carcinogenicity (cancer-inducing potential) of pharmaceuticals is an important risk factor for health when considering whether thousands of patients on drug trials or millions/billions of consumers in the marketplace should be exposed to a new drug. Drawing on fieldwork involving over 50 interviews and documentary research spanning 2002–2010 in Europe and the US, and on regulatory capture theory, this article investigates how the techno-regulatory standards for carcinogenicity testing of pharmaceuticals have altered since 1998. It focuses on the replacement of long-term carcinogenicity tests in rodents (especially mice) with shorter-term tests involving genetically-engineered mice (GEM). Based on evidence regarding financial/organizational control, methodological design, and interpretation of the validation and application of these new GEM tests, it is argued that regulatory agencies permitted the drug industry to shape such validation and application in ways that prioritized commercial interests over the need to protect public health. Boundary-work enabling industry scientists to define some standards of public-health policy facilitated such capture. However, as the scientific credibility of GEM tests as tools to protect public health by screening out carcinogens became inescapably problematic, a regulatory resurgence, impelled by reputational concerns, exercised more control over industry’s construction and use of the tests, The extensive problems with GEM tests as public-health protective regulatory science raises the spectre that alterations to pharmaceutical carcinogenicity-testing standards since the 1990s may have been boundary-work in which the political project of decreasing the chance that companies’ products are defined as carcinogenic has masqueraded as techno-science

Abstracts from the NIHR INVOLVE Conference 2017

n/

2021 Taxonomic update of phylum Negarnaviricota (Riboviria: Orthornavirae), including the large orders Bunyavirales and Mononegavirales.

Correction to: 2021 Taxonomic update of phylum Negarnaviricota (Riboviria: Orthornavirae), including the large orders Bunyavirales and Mononegavirales. Archives of Virology (2021) 166:3567–3579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-021-05266-wIn March 2021, following the annual International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) ratification vote on newly proposed taxa, the phylum Negarnaviricota was amended and emended. The phylum was expanded by four families (Aliusviridae, Crepuscuviridae, Myriaviridae, and Natareviridae), three subfamilies (Alpharhabdovirinae, Betarhabdovirinae, and Gammarhabdovirinae), 42 genera, and 200 species. Thirty-nine species were renamed and/or moved and seven species were abolished. This article presents the updated taxonomy of Negarnaviricota as now accepted by the ICTV.This work was supported in part through Laulima Government Solutions, LLC prime contract with the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under Contract No. HHSN272201800013C. J.H.K. performed this work as an employee of Tunnell Government Services (TGS), a subcontractor of Laulima Government Solutions, LLC under Contract No. HHSN272201800013C. This work was also supported in part with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), under Contract No. 75N91019D00024, Task Order No. 75N91019F00130 to I.C., who was supported by the Clinical Monitoring Research Program Directorate, Frederick National Lab for Cancer Research. This work was also funded in part by Contract No. HSHQDC-15-C-00064 awarded by DHS S&T for the management and operation of The National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center, a federally funded research and development center operated by the Battelle National Biodefense Institute (V.W.); and NIH contract HHSN272201000040I/HHSN27200004/D04 and grant R24AI120942 (N.V., R.B.T.). S.S. acknowledges partial support from the Special Research Initiative of Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES), Mississippi State University, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture, Hatch Project 1021494. Part of this work was supported by the Francis Crick Institute which receives its core funding from Cancer Research UK (FC001030), the UK Medical Research Council (FC001030), and the Wellcome Trust (FC001030).S

2020 taxonomic update for phylum Negarnaviricota (Riboviria: Orthornavirae), including the large orders Bunyavirales and Mononegavirales.

In March 2020, following the annual International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) ratification vote on newly proposed taxa, the phylum Negarnaviricota was amended and emended. At the genus rank, 20 new genera were added, two were deleted, one was moved, and three were renamed. At the species rank, 160 species were added, four were deleted, ten were moved and renamed, and 30 species were renamed. This article presents the updated taxonomy of Negarnaviricota as now accepted by the ICTV

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

2021 Taxonomic update of phylum Negarnaviricota (Riboviria: Orthornavirae), including the large orders Bunyavirales and Mononegavirales.

In March 2021, following the annual International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) ratification vote on newly proposed taxa, the phylum Negarnaviricota was amended and emended. The phylum was expanded by four families (Aliusviridae, Crepuscuviridae, Myriaviridae, and Natareviridae), three subfamilies (Alpharhabdovirinae, Betarhabdovirinae, and Gammarhabdovirinae), 42 genera, and 200 species. Thirty-nine species were renamed and/or moved and seven species were abolished. This article presents the updated taxonomy of Negarnaviricota as now accepted by the ICTV

Controlling pharmaceutical risks: science, cancer, and the geneticization of drug testing

No description supplie

Power, expertise, and the limits of representative democracy: genetics as scientific progress or political legitimation in pharmaceutical risk assessment?

The expiration of patents for biological products in the first decade of the 21st century lead to an intense debate on a global scale due to the entry into the market of the generic versions of these products known as biosimilars. In Colombia, the regulatory of these entities arose in September 2014, after more than three years of discussion. This paper aims to analyze the public debate around the regulatory process. A study was carried out in three moments: first, the history of the country’s regulatory exercise in the field of drugs was briefly documented, in order to show the trends that have marked the consumption of expert knowledge in legal texts; afterward, the text approved as legal technology was analyzed; and finally, the debate is recreated taking into account the press appearances, public forums and interviews with the groups that arisen from the beginning of the debate in 2011 until the final appearance of the regulation in 2014. The paper focused on the forms of positioning of the groups in the public sphere and it concluded that the emerging feature of the regulation debate is the agreement and disagreement of ontological politics.La expiración de las patentes de medicamentos biológicos en la primera década del siglo XXI dio lugar a un intenso debate a escala global por la entrada al mercado de las versiones genéricas de estos productos conocidas como biosimilares. En Colombia, el decreto que reglamenta estas entidades vio la luz en septiembre de 2014, luego de más de tres años de discusión. El presente trabajo se propone analizar el debate público en torno al proceso de reglamentación. Para ello, se adelantó un estudio en tres momentos: primero se documentó brevemente la historia del ejercicio regulatorio del país en materia de medicamentos, con el ánimo de mostrar el devenir de las tendencias que han marcado el consumo de conocimiento experto en los textos de naturaleza jurídica; posteriormente se analizó el texto aprobado como tecnología jurídica; y finalmente, se recreó el debate teniendo en cuenta las apariciones en prensa, los foros públicos y las entrevistas con los grupos que emergieron desde el inicio del debate en 2011 hasta la aparición final del decreto en 2014. El trabajo centra su atención en las formas de posicionamiento de los grupos en la esfera pública y concluye que la característica emergente del debate sobre regulación es el encuentro y desencuentro de políticas ontológicas.Línea de investigación: Política CientíficaMaestrí