Traditionally, knowledge about drug mechanism of action and clinical use was derived largely from studies conducted by clinical pharmacologists and therapeutic specialists. More recently, a broader concept of drug use, social pharmacology, has attracted growing interest and recognition. Building on the foundation provided by clinical research, this discipline encompasses the multiple dimensions associated with “real world” use of drugs during the postmarketing period. Physicians, pharmacists, nurses, biologists, epidemiologists, and economists, together with lawyers and regulators, insurance specialists, and communications specialists all contribute to this broader assessment of drug use. Thus, social pharmacology brings together a broad collection of disciplines pertaining to evaluating the efficacy, safety, effectiveness, compliance, self-medication, and consumption of economic resources associated with the use of pharmaceutical products. Application of evidence-based treatment guidelines; measures of drug utilization in both individual patients and in populations; safety assessments; and use of quality assurance tools, including formularies, are among the tools used to direct and evaluate product use. This report seeks to describe these new relationships, suggest integrative methodologies, and identify critical public policy issues.
LennardHLA proposed program of research in sociopharmacology. In: LeidermanPHShapiroD, eds. Psychobiological Approaches to Social Behavior.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1964;127–137.
2.
BarchasPRBarchasJDSociopharmacology. In: BarchasJD, eds. Psychopharmacology: From Theory to Practice.New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1977;80–87.
3.
McGuireMTRaleighMJBrammerGLSociopharmacology. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol.1982;22:643–661.
4.
BlumKBriggsAHCullJGHolism: A social pharmacological approach to drug-seeking behavior. J Psychoactive Drugs.1981;13:369–71.
5.
VenuletJ.Aspects of social pharmacology. In: JuckerJ, ed. Progress in Drug Research.Basel and Stuttgart; Bikhäuser Verlag; 1978;22:10–25.
6.
VenuletJ.Towards social pharmacology. In AllozaJL, ed. Clinical and Social Pharmacology. Postmarketing Period.Aulendorf, Germany: Editio Cantor; 1985;129–139.
7.
AllozaJL, ed. Clinical and Social Pharmacology. Postmarketing Period.Aulendorf, Germany: Editio Cantor; 1985.
8.
MantD.Can randomized trials inform critical decisions about individual patients?Lancet.1999;353:743–745.
Experimental Technology Incentives Program.The Experiment in Post-Marketing Surveillance of Prescription Drugs: An Initial Status Report.Washington DC: National Bureau of Standards; 1982.
11.
WeisOFSriwatanakulKAllozaJLWeintraubMLasagnaL.Attitudes of patients, house staff, and nurses toward postoperative pain. Anesthesia Analgesia.1983;62:70–74.
12.
AllozaJLEpidemiological drug surveys in the ambulatory care environment. In: AllozaJL, ed. Clinical and Social Pharmacology. PostmarketingPeriod.Aulendorf, Germany: Editio Cantor; 1985;38–56.
13.
LeapeLLReporting of adverse events. N Engl J Med.2002;347:1633–1638.
14.
GurwithJHFieldJSHarroldLRRothshildJDebellisKSegerACCadoretCFishLSGarberLKlelleherMBaatesDWIncidence and preventability of adverse drug events among older persons in the ambulatory setting. JAMA.2003;289:1107–1116.
15.
LasagnaL.A plea for the “naturalistic” study of medicines. Eur J Clin Pharmacol1974;7:153–154.
16.
AllozaJLA naturalistic study on post-operative acute pain: Comparison between two standard narcotic analgesics (morphine and meperidine). (Estudio “natural” sobre el dolor postoperatorio: Una comparación entre dos analgésicos narcóticos estándar.)Pain. (Dolor.)1987;2:55–61.
17.
LasagnaL.Phase IV: the opportunity and the challenge. In: BurleyDHawardCMullingerB, ed. The Focus for Pharmaceutical Knowledge. The Proceedings of the Sixth International Meeting of Pharmaceutical Physicians. Houndmils, U.K.: MacMillan Press Ltd.; 1988;115–118.
18.
TempleRJJonesJKCroutJRAdverse effects of newly marketed drugs. N Eng J Med.1979;300:1046–1047.
19.
AllozaJLOpiophobia and cancer pain. (Letter to the Editor). Lancet.1993;341:1474–1475.
20.
RuckerTDDrug-utilization review: Moving toward an effective and safe model. In: MorganJPKaganDC, ed. Society and Medication: Conflicting Signals for Prescribers and Patients.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1983;25–51.
21.
RuckerTDDrug utilization review: Guidelines for program development. In: AllozaJL, ed. Clinical and Social Pharmacology: Postmarketing Period.Aulendorf, Germany: Editio Cantor; 1985;57–65.
22.
SriwatanakulKWeisOFAllozaJLKelvieWWeintraubMLasagnaL.Analysis of narcotic analgesic usage in the treatment of postoperative pain. JAMA.1983;250:926–929.
23.
WeintraubM.Intelligent noncompliance with special emphasis on the elderly. Contemp Pharm Pract.1981;4:8–11.
24.
HaynesRBMcDonaldHPGargAXHelping patients to follow prescribed treatment. JAMA.2002;288:2880–2883.
25.
Prescribing anomalies in Europe.Scrip.1995; 1995:7.
26.
RuckerTDThe formulary process at it relates to drug utilization review. P & T.1992;17/4:646–657.
27.
NashDBCatalanoMLWordellCJThe formulary decision-making process in a US academic medical center. PharmacoEcon.1993;3:22–35.
28.
MashfordMLDrug information and therapeutic guidelines: A second opinion before prescribing. In: AllozaJL, ed. Communication in Health Care: Drug Information. III International Medical Pharmaceutical Meeting. Madrid. Spain: Madrid Doctors' Association; 1995;12–16.
29.
JohnsonKBHirshfeldEBIleMLLegal Implications of Practice Parameters. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1990.
30.
TorrasJPalésAGüellJMAllozaJLMedical and economical analysis of the heparin antithrombotic prophylaxis versus nonprophylaxis in orthopaedics: A study of 920 traumatic patients. J Advances Orthopaedics, Surgery Labour Sport Rehab. (Avances de Traumatología. Cirugía y Rehabilitación Laboral y Deportiva.)1985;15/2.
31.
TolpinHGCost-benefit assessment of pharmaceutical products. Drug Inf J.1988;22:281–292.
32.
CookeJ.The practical impact of pharmacoeconomics on institutional managers. PharmacoEcon. 1994;6:289–297.
33.
SchrogieJJHow decisions about health care are affected by outcomes research in USA. In: AllozaJL, ed. Second International Medical-Pharmaceutical Meeting. Changes in Health Care Delivery: Impact of Pharmaco-economics and Outcomes Measures.Spain, Madrid: Madrid Doctors' Association; 1994;9–11.
34.
SchrogieJJOutcomes assessment. In: JohnsonNENashDB ed. The Role of Pharmacoeconomics in Outcomes Management.Chicago, IL: American Hospital Publishing Inc.; 1996;9–22.
35.
GibbongJHEvaluation of the Oregon Medicaid Proposal.Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment; 1992.
36.
YanQHuntCAPreventing adverse drug events (ADEs): The role of computer information systems. Drug Inf J.2000;34:1247–1260.
37.
MarshallA.Laying the foundations for personalized medicines. Nature Biotech.1997;15:954–957.
38.
MaciáCParedesMBPoncelaMPAlvarezMACastañoGVentaR.Serum Cortisol concentrations in acute non-critically ill patients measured in three periods of the day. (Concentración sérica de Cortisol en tres franjas horarias en pacientes con enfermedad aguda no crítica.)Med Clín (Barc).2001;117:254–256.
39.
RylanceGWPrescribing for infants and children. Br Med J.1988;296:984–986.
40.
BerdLALiptonHIBirdJACharacterization of geriatric drug-related hospital readmissions. Med Care.1991;29:989–1003.
41.
DavisNMCohenMR, ed. Medication Errors: Causes and Prevention.Philadelphia, PA: George F. Stickley Company; 1981.
42.
LeapeLLWoodsDDHatlieMJKizerKWSchroederSALundbergGDPromoting patient safety by preventing medical error. JAMA.1998; 280:1444–1447.
43.
FinkJL.IIICompounding versus manufacturing in pharmacy practice: A regulatory challenge. J Pharm Pract.1995;VIII/3:103–114.
44.
ConlanMFCompounding vs. manufacturing. Where is the line?Drug Topics.1992; October: 46–52.
45.
PrescriptionsHerbalThe promises and pitfalls. Consumer Reports.1999; March: 44–48.
46.
EisenbergDDavisRBEttnerSLAppelSWilkeySVan RompayMKesslerRCTrends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990–1997. JAMA.1998;280:1569–1575.
47.
ScheidV.The globalization of Chinese medicine. Lancet.2000; (Supp. December 1999);354: siv10.
48.
EisenbergDMAdvising patients who seek alternative medical therapies. Ann Int Med.1997;127:61–69.
HróbjartssonAGotzcheP.Is the placebo powerless?N Engl J Med.2001;344:1594–602.
51.
HuffordMRPlacebo effects, memory, and the value of real-time data in drug development. App Clin Trials.2002; August:34–43.
52.
AllozaJLAlamoCEspadaM.Analysis of ambiguous terms widely used in the communication process among physicians, pharmacists and patients: A social pharmacology study. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol.2000;22:464.
53.
WoloshinSSchwartzLMTremmelJWelchHGDirect-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs: What are Americans being sold?Lancet.2001; 358:1141–1146.
54.
AllozaJLLasagnaL.A comparison of drug product information in four national compendia. Clin Pharmacol Ther.1983;33:269–277.
55.
JohnsonKWEvaluation of drug product information: The example of the United States Pharmacopoeia. In: AllozaJL, ed. Third International Medical Pharmaceutical Meeting. Communication in Health Care: Drug Information.Madrid, Spain: Madrid Doctors' Association; 1995;17–22.
56.
ShannonMEMalechaSEChaAJMoodyMLEvaluation and critical appraisal of a random sample of drug information practice in United States academic and industry medical information centers. Drug Inf J.2000;334: 1133–1138.
57.
AlbertT.Written information for patients. Lancet.2000;356:434.
58.
BradburyJ.UK panics over phthalates in babymilk formulae. Lancet.1996;347:1541.
59.
MoynihanRBeroLRoss-DegnanDCoverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. N Engl J Med.2000;342:1645–1650.
60.
McLellanF.“Like hunger, like thirst“: Patients, journals, and the Internet. Lancet.1998;352(suppl II): sii 39–43.
61.
SzalavitzM.Web sites and misinformation about illicit drugs. N Engl J Med.2001;345:1710.
AllozaJLAlamoCEspadaM.Analysis of ambiguous terms widely used in the communication process among physicians, pharmacists and patients. Meth Find Exp Clin Pharmacol.2000;22/6:27.
64.
Drug promotion: stealth, wealth and safety. Lancet.1993;341:1507–1508.
65.
OrellanaC.German doctors links with drug firm investigated. Lancet.2002;359:1039.
66.
GSK mislead on Seroxat's effects.Scrip. March 21, 2003;2834:3.
67.
VillanuevaPPeiróSLiberoJPereiróI.Accuracy of pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals. Lancet.2003;361:27–32.
68.
AllozaJLThe social pharmacology of “ask your doctor or pharmacist for advice.” Concerns about self-medication with OTCs by the consumer and the pharmacist in the pharmacies in the Community of Madrid. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol.2002;24(Suppl. A):3:125.
69.
SchiffGDRuckerTDComputerized prescribing. Building the electronic infrastructure for better medication usage. JAMA.1998;279:1024–1029.
70.
AllozaJLEspadaMAlamoCCuencaE.Informed consent forms, comprehension and volunteering in a controlled clinical trial. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol.1996; 18 (Suppl. B):117.
