MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317895751 · doi:10.1370/afm.21.s1.3603

Permissive Regulation: How North America’s Regulation of Buprenorphine Supported Manufacturer Profits Over Equitable Access

2023· article· en· W4317895751 on OpenAlex
Meghan McGee

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessOpioid overdoseBuprenorphinePublic healthPublic economicsDeregulationMedicineOpioidEconomics(+)-NaloxoneMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Context:</h3> Suboxone (buprenorphine-naloxone) is an opioid product approved in the US and Canada for the treatment of opioid use disorder. The drug is considered an important response to the opioid overdose epidemic with consistent calls for wider prescribing and deregulation in primary care. But there are documented irregularities, or “abuses”, in the US pharmaceutical regulation process that support manufacturer profit-making. <h3>Objective:</h3> We aimed to critically examine the regulatory history of Suboxone in Canada – and compare it to that of the US – to determine how federal regulators balance profit-making and equitable access during an epidemic. <h3>Study Design and Analysis:</h3> First, we investigated Suboxone’s entry into the Canadian market to understand how it achieved market exclusivity. Second, we examined Health Canada’s risk mitigation process to address extramedical use and diversion to understand the intersection of regulation and brand promotion. Third, we extended these insights to the recent approval of two related buprenorphine products and their pathways to market exclusivity. <h3>Setting or Dataset:</h3> Public drug and patent registries. <h3>Population Studied:</h3> Canadian and US government regulatory bodies. <h3>Results:</h3> We identified inconsistencies in Suboxone’s regulatory history that suggest Health Canada’s functions of health protection and promotion were compromised in favour of a profit-making “innovations” agenda. Despite six years of market exclusivity in Canada, there was no evidence suggesting Suboxone achieved formal exclusivity (i.e., through patent or data protection). Health Canada’s process to address Suboxone’s safety concerns was compromised and ultimately allowed the manufacturer to develop and deliver a branded “education” program to providers. In the US, we found similar inconsistencies like orphan drug approvals and “product hopping” between therapeutically interchangeable formulations that served to extend market exclusivity. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Health Canada’s regulatory duties were compromised in favour of manufacturer profit-making. This approach can adversely affect public health due to unnecessarily high costs for drugs deemed essential to stem a major health crisis. Alternative pharmaceutical policies are urgently needed to safely expand primary care treatment for opioid use disorder.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.311
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it