Race Labeling Of Non Whites From Clinical Trials

1656 Words May 13th, 2016 7 Pages
Moreover, Bidil race labeling might actually have undermined the broader goal of increasing racial minorities’ participation in clinical trials (Winickoff and Obasogie, 2008). For instance, by specifying African Americans as the only beneficiaries of BiDil, the same idea could be applied for a special efficacy drug for Whites, “the largest and most lucrative population segment of the United States” (Winickoff and Obasogie,2008). This logic could be used to justify the exclusion of non-Whites from clinical trials. This seems to be what happened in 2006 when Schering-Plough decided to exclude African Americans from the Phase 2 trial of SCH 503034, an investigational hepatitis C protease inhibitor. “Even though African Americans have the highest hepatitis C prevalence of any racial group in the United States, the company excluded this population not for any safety rationale but to boost efficacy numbers” (Winickoff and Obasogie,2008). BiDil, as a race-specific medicine also encourages the trend for other pharmaceutical companies to try and come up with other drugs in order to copy Bidil marketing success.
The role of law as a player in the emergence of Bidil as an ethnic drug began in the 1980s, around the same time as the initiation of V-HeFT I (Kahn,2005). Two legislations signed by President Carter would encourage interactions between industry and academic researchers and inevitably make it easier for Bidil to emerge as an ethnic drug. The first, the Stevenson- Wydler…

More about Race Labeling Of Non Whites From Clinical Trials

Open Document