A Critical Evaluation of Reporting Practices by the Drug Control Authority

Louisa Alcott^*
*Correspondence: Louisa Alcott, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia, Email:

Keywords

Drug control authority • Public health • Economic evaluation

Introduction

Inadequate resources, both in terms of funding and personnel, can impede the DCA's ability to conduct comprehensive post-marketing surveillance and report findings accurately. Pharmaceutical companies often exert significant influence on regulatory bodies. This influence can compromise reporting practices by favouring commercially beneficial outcomes over public health considerations. Accessing complete and accurate data, particularly negative or unfavourable results from clinical trials, can distort the reporting landscape and undermine the credibility of the DCA. The phenomenon of regulatory capture, where regulatory agencies become excessively aligned with the industries they oversee, can lead to biased reporting practices that prioritize industry interests [1].

Literature Review

The effectiveness of the DCA in safeguarding public health relies heavily on its reporting practices. Inaccurate or incomplete reporting can lead to a misrepresentation of a drug's safety and efficacy profile. This, in turn, can result in inappropriate prescribing practices by healthcare professionals and heightened risks for patients.0020A critical aspect of reporting practices pertains to clinical trial data. The DCA's timely and complete reporting of clinical trial results, regardless of the outcomes, is paramount. Selective reporting or non-disclosure of trial data often referred to as publication bias, can distort the perception of a drug's true benefits and risks [2].

The paper concludes with a discussion of the limitations of current economic evaluation methods and the potential future directions in the field. It emphasizes the need for ongoing research, collaboration, and data sharing to improve the economic evaluation of personalized medicine. The conclusion summarizes the key findings of the paper and emphasizes the importance of economic evaluation in guiding the adoption and reimbursement of personalized medicine interventions. It also highlights the need for multidisciplinary collaboration among clinicians, researchers, economists, and policymakers to address the challenges and maximize the benefits of personalized medicine. Case studies are valuable in understanding the application of cost-effectiveness analysis to personalized medicine. These studies highlight how CEA has been used to evaluate the economic value of personalized medicine interventions in different disease areas. For example, in oncology, CEA has been employed to assess the cost-effectiveness of targeted therapies based on tumour genetic profiling. Similarly, in cardiology, CEA has been applied to evaluate the use of genetic testing to guide the choice of anticoagulant therapy [3].

Discussion

After a drug is approved and enters the market, post-marketing surveillance becomes essential. Adverse events and unexpected side effects that were not observed during clinical trials can emerge. The DCA's prompt reporting of these adverse events, along with appropriate actions taken, is crucial for maintaining public safety. Failure to do so can lead to unnecessary patient harm and public outrage. Accurate and transparent reporting practices by the DCA are integral to holding both regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies accountable for their actions. Clear reporting allows external stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, patient advocacy groups, and the media, to scrutinize the DCA's decisions and actions. Such accountability fosters an environment in which responsible behaviour and ethical considerations take precedence. Case Studies: Reporting Lapses and Consequences. Several case studies from around the world illustrate the significance of reporting practices by the DCA and their impact .The withdrawal of the painkiller Vaux due to cardiovascular risks highlighted the importance of thorough post-marketing surveillance. Delayed reporting of adverse events and reluctance to act led to avoidable patient harm. The thalidomide tragedy serves as a historical reminder of the consequences of inadequate regulatory oversight. Incomplete reporting and insufficient testing contributed to the birth defects caused by this drug. Different countries have varying levels of reporting practices. Regulatory bodies in some countries prioritize transparency and accountability, while others July be more lenient due to regulatory capture or resource constraints. Comparative analysis of reporting practices across different countries can offer insights into effective strategies and identify areas for improvement. To ensures robust reporting practices by the DCA, the following recommendations are proposed. Adequate funding and staffing are essential to support comprehensive post-marketing surveillance and data reporting efforts. Enforce transparency mandates that require complete disclosure of clinical trial results, both positive and negative, to prevent publication bias. Establish mechanisms for independent oversight and evaluation of the DCA's reporting practices to mitigate the risk of regulatory capture. Encourage collaboration between regulatory bodies, healthcare professionals, and patient advocacy groups to improve information exchange and promote accountability. Implement whistleblower protection measures to encourage individuals within the regulatory system to report lapses without fear of retribution. Conduct regular audits of the DCA's reporting processes to identify areas of improvement and ensure compliance with reporting standards [4-6].

Conclusion

The reporting practices of the Drug Control Authority hold significant implications for public health, regulatory effectiveness, and accountability. Transparent and accurate reporting is essential to maintain public trust, prevent harm to patients, and uphold the integrity of the pharmaceutical industry. Challenges such as resource constraints and industry influence must be addressed to ensure that reporting practices prioritize public health over commercial interests. By adopting enhanced reporting practices and implementing recommendations, regulatory bodies can play a pivotal role in creating a safer and more transparent pharmaceutical landscape. The phenomenon of regulatory capture, where regulatory agencies become excessively aligned with the industries they oversee, can lead to biased reporting practices that prioritize industry interests.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest by author.

References

1. Walkey, Allan J., Renda Soylemez Wiener, Joanna M. Ghobrial and Lesley H. Curtis, et al. "Incident stroke and mortality associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients hospitalized with severe sepsis."JAMA306 (2011): 2248-2254.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Kuipers, Sanne, Peter Klouwenberg, M. C. Klein and Olaf L. Cremer, et al. "Incidence, risk factors and outcomes of new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients with sepsis: A systematic review." Crit Care 18 (2014): 1-9.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Fernando, Shannon M., Rebecca Mathew, Benjamin Hibbert and Bram Rochwerg et al. "New-onset atrial fibrillation and associated outcomes and resource use among critically ill adults-a multicenter retrospective cohort study." Crit Care 24 (2020): 1-10.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Walkey, Allan J., Bradley G. Hammill, Lesley H. Curtis and Emelia J. Benjamin, et al. "Long-term outcomes following development of new-onset atrial fibrillation during sepsis."Chest146 (2014): 1187-1195.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Walkey, Allan J., Stephen R. Evans, Michael R. Winter and Emelia J. Benjamin, et al. "Practice patterns and outcomes of treatments for atrial fibrillation during sepsis: A propensity-matched cohort study."Chest149 (2016): 74-83.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Lee, Young R., Michael Sadanand Seth, Dylan Soney and Hanyu Dai, et al. "Benefits of beta-blockade in sepsis and septic shock: A systematic review." Clin Drug Investig 39 (2019): 429-440.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at