STM Journals Peer-reviewed research from Consortium e-Learning Network

International Journal of Tropical Medicines Review Article

Drug Marketing in Tropical Regions and Its Effect on Pharmacovigilance Awareness and Reporting

  1. Suraj Sen Dept. of Pharmacy, Harishchandra Pharmacy College
  2. Anit Jha Dept. of Pharmacy, Harishchandra Pharmacy College
  3. Rajeev Ratan Dept. of Pharmacy, Harishchandra Pharmacy College
  4. Aman Dept. of Pharmacy, Harishchandra Pharmacy College
  5. Ashish Pal Dept. of Pharmacy, Harishchandra Pharmacy College

Abstract

Drug marketing practices in tropical regions present a complex interplay between pharmaceutical promotion, healthcare infrastructure limitations, and public health outcomes. These regions – characterized by high disease burden, socio-economic disparities, and diverse healthcare delivery systems – often experience unique challenges in ensuring safe and rational drug use. Aggressive and sometimes unregulated marketing strategies by pharmaceutical companies may significantly influence prescribing behavior, patient compliance, and, ultimately, pharmacovigilance systems. Pharmacovigilance, defined as the science and activities related to the detection, assessment, understanding, and prevention of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), is crucial for ensuring drug safety post-marketing. However, in tropical regions, pharmacovigilance awareness and reporting remain suboptimal due to factors such as inadequate training, poor regulatory enforcement, lack of infrastructure, and limited public awareness. This review critically examines the influence of drug marketing strategies on pharmacovigilance awareness and ADR reporting in tropical regions. It explores marketing techniques employed, their impact on healthcare professionals and patients, and the systemic barriers that hinder effective pharmacovigilance practices. Additionally, it highlights the need for ethical marketing, regulatory strengthening, and capacity building to enhance drug safety monitoring. The article aims to provide a structured understanding of how marketing practices shape pharmacovigilance outcomes and suggests strategies to bridge gaps in awareness and reporting systems in tropical healthcare settings.

Keywords

References (42)

  1. • World Health Organization. WHO guidelines on safety monitoring of herbal medicines in
  2. pharmacovigilance systems. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
  3. • Geneva WH. The importance of pharmacovigilance: Safety monitoring of medicinal products.
  4. Technical Report Series; 2002.
  5. • Mugada V, Suryadevara V, Cheekurumilli M, Yarguntla SR. Signal detection in pharmacovigilance:
  6. Methods, tools, and workflows from case identification to adverse drug reaction database entry. Przegl
  7. Epidemiol. 2025;79(3):404–14.
  8. • Guideline IH. Pharmacovigilance planning E2E. Curr Step. 2004;4.
  9. • Sahu M, Nandave M, Kumar A. Pharmacovigilance system in India. In: Pharmacovigilance Essentials:
  10. Advances, Challenges and Global Perspectives. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2024. p.147–62.
  11. • Agarwal DS, Chairman DT. Central Drugs Standard Control Organization. New Delhi; 2017.
  12. • Munshi RH, Singh KR, Thakkar AD. Understanding the degree of awareness among medical
  13. professionals regarding the ethics of pharmaceutical marketing activities in context of revised
  14. medical council of India code of ethics. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2016;5(2):263.
  15. • Vogler M, Ricci Conesa H, de Araújo Ferreira K, Moreira Cruz F, Simioni Gasparotto F, Fleck K,
  16. et al. Electronic reporting systems in pharmacovigilance: The implementation of VigiFlow in
  17. Brazil. Pharm Med. 2020;34(5):327–34.
  18. • Chibueze CN. The National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC)
  19. and the health ecosystem in Nigeria since the COVID-19 pandemic era. In: Nigerian History and
  20. Development. p.227.
  21. • Ho CM. A dangerous concoction: Pharmaceutical marketing, cognitive biases, and first amendment
  22. overprotection. Ind Law J. 2019;94:773.
  23. • Spurling GK, Mansfield PR, Montgomery BD, Lexchin J, Doust J, Othman N, et al. Information
  24. from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians’ prescribing: A
  25. systematic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7(10):e1000352.
  26. • Oshikoya KA, Awobusuyi JO. Perceptions of doctors to adverse drug reaction reporting in a
  27. teaching hospital in Lagos, Nigeria. BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2009;9(1):14.
  28. • Gupta P, Udupa A. Adverse drug reaction reporting and pharmacovigilance: Knowledge, attitudes
  29. and perceptions amongst resident doctors. J Pharm Sci Res. 2011;3(2):1064.
  30. • Fadare JO, Enwere OO, Afolabi AO, Chedi BA, Musa A. Knowledge, attitude and practice of
  31. adverse drug reaction reporting among healthcare workers in a tertiary centre in Northern Nigeria.
  32. • Bhagavathula AS, Elnour AA, Jamshed SQ, Shehab A. Health professionals' knowledge, attitudes
  33. and practices about pharmacovigilance in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One.
  34. 2016;11(3):e0152221.
  35. • Ofori-Asenso R, Agyeman AA. Irrational use of medicines—A summary of key concepts.
  36. Pharmacy (Basel). 2016;4(4):35.
  37. • Prasad P, Bajracharya SR, Deo S, Lamichhane S, Pradhan PM, Ghimire R, et al. Adherence of drug
  38. promotional literatures distributed by pharmaceutical companies to World Health Organization
  39. ethical criteria for medicinal drug promotion.
  40. • Gagnon MA, Lexchin J. The cost of pushing pills: A new estimate of pharmaceutical promotion
  41. expenditures in the United States. PLoS Med. 2008;5(1):e1.
  42. • Hazell L, Shakir SA. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf. 2006;29(5):385–96.