SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Advertisement


Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old

It may be too much, too late for content providers finally trying to tame the internet, and a fresh approach is needed, writes Bruce Berman.




Special Reports

Non-Communicable Diseases Issue Energises Public Health Policymakers Read More >


Latest Comments
  • This is certainly a good move, but perhaps this is... »
  • Copyrights are unique works set in a concrete mode... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Drug Regulatory Agencies Collaborate On Counterfeits, New Medical Products

    Published on 17 September 2008 @ 2:23 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Kaitlin Mara
    BERN – Representatives from drug regulatory bodies are meeting this week in Bern, Switzerland, to discuss collaboration in an increasingly international world. Key topics of concern in the meetings include counterfeit drugs and issues in the production of new medical products.

    The 13th International Conference of Drug Regulatory Authorities (ICDRA), co-organised by the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic) and the World Health Organization (WHO) and taking place from 16-19 September, is an opportunity for drug regulatory experts to engage in private consultation: without groups, such as industry, who have a stake in their decisions, according to an organiser. The group comes up with recommendations by week’s end, which are later published online.

    Industry groups and civil society were invited for a two-day pre-conference immediately before the ICDRA, focussing on one issue of key importance in drug regulation. This year that issue was paediatric medication, in particular the challenge of developing drugs and dosages for children, as children’s needs are distinct from adults, they suffer diseases to which adults are not or are less susceptible, and there are ethical questions with regards to clinical trials involving them.

    Hans Hogerzeil, director of Essential Medicines and Pharmaceutical Policies at the WHO, said at a press conference on 15 September that the real problem is “nobody really makes good medicines for children.” Instead, he said, they take medicines for adults and assume they work for children, even if not properly tested. Research is complex, because a child cannot truly give permission for a trial. Also, researchers must contend with important ethical considerations, for example how to ensure continued treatment and treatment for patients on placebo after the trial.

    Children often need specific formulations, especially if too young to swallow big capsules, said Agnew Saint-Raymond from the European Union Medical Agency.

    Intellectual Property and Medicine For Children

    One of the major worries of the intellectual property sector on drugs is counterfeit. On this problem, Hogerzeil said that it is “clear it exists” and there is no reason to believe that children’s medications are exempt from the problem. However, he cautioned, the real concern is about safety and not IP.

    If you have a counterfeit that is the right medicine but with a different package, then you have a trade issue, but if you have a counterfeit that contains nothing or contains something toxic, then it is a serious concern, he explained.

    Yves Juillet, counsellor to the president of the French Pharmaceutical Companies Association (Leem), who also works with the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), agreed, saying “IP is not the issue, it’s fraudulent misrepresentation” that cheats the patients who purchase the drug.

    The WHO webpage on counterfeit drugs predicts that in 2010 the value of the counterfeit drug trade will have increased by 90 percent from its 2005 levels. One problem could be the increasing sales of medicines online. This is dangerous, said Hogerzeil, because “you have no idea where the medicines are coming from, or if they are registered.” Consumer advocates have elsewhere expressed concern that the danger of online medical sales is exaggerated by those who have a stake in selling higher priced pharmaceutical drugs in stores.

    The difficulty in incentivising innovation on drugs for children that do not yet exist, particularly when those children are resource-poor, also is at issue.

    Diabetes, for instance, said Hogerzeil, will often kill children under 1 year old in the developing world because insulin is not available; even when available, insulin must be refrigerated, which is not always possible in areas with high heat and no electricity. There is a clear human need for heat-stable insulin, but an unclear market to support its development.

    But Stuart MacLeod of the Child and Family Research Institute said that while the market is “small in fiscal terms, it’s not small in population terms.” This is especially true when you look at local situations. There are, for instance, several countries in sub-Saharan Africa where more than 50 percent of the population is under 15, he said.

    Further, MacLeod said, it would be “wrong to assume it’s only HIV, tuberculosis and malaria” – diseases toward which public research funds are often directed – that are problems, and that there were “obviously many other widespread diseases” of concern.

    David Wood, who coordinates the Quality, Safety and Standards Team of the Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals at WHO, pointed to a Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) study paper that said diabetes and pneumonia are the leading killers of children under 5. Wood added that the public private alliance of GAVI has helped reduce the prices of vaccines, and the syringes used to administer them.

    “From an economic point of view it’s not an attractive option,” noted Hogerzeil, to produce medicines for diseases affecting those who cannot afford to purchase cures. For instance, those who are bitten by snakes and need anti-venom tend to be farm labourers, women, and children, he said: and they often lack the political power to speak up for themselves.

    This is a market failure and therefore a public interest problem, Hogerzeil added, so it will need public-private partnerships to be solved. However, very little public money has so far gone into such initiatives; most investment to date has been private.

    And drug development is only the first step: after it is discovered, then it must be formulated, quality norms must be set, and there needs to be a mechanism to inspect companies and countries to ensure that those quality norms are met.

    Pricing Policy; Delays

    Once a drug can be brought to market, there is the issue of sales prices. Hogerzeil said some of the common concerns in this area do not always manifest themselves as theorised. For instance, worry about brand name proprietary drugs have led to many calls for generic companies to step in and play a role in creating similar-quality, but cheaper and off-patent goods.

    But generic companies, while good at copying, are not necessarily good at producing new medicines.

    Also, fears that price differentiation between countries will just encourage export of cheaper drugs have not manifested. We have seen 35 years of price differentials in vaccines, and in family planning drugs, and no one is shipping them back to developed countries.

    A good solution, he explained, is a Novartis anti-malarial drug that sells for the full price of US$72 in Switzerland, for US$18 to private-sector medical procurers in the developing world, and for US$2 to public sector care providers in developing countries. The solution is making the trade name different – so it is illegal to move developing country versions back into Switzerland – and to make the packaging different between public and private versions of the drugs so they cannot be confused.

    What is a problem, he noted, was lack of harmonisation between regulatory bodies. Regulation is a “forgotten part of the problem”; regulation ensures quality but uncertainty about the specifics of national regulations can cause significant delays in needed drugs.

    ICDRA events have been taking place biennially since 1980. Participants are regulatory agents from WHO member states. Discussion results are released publicly online as recommendations for collaboration, for nations, or for the WHO. Recommendations from the 12th ICDRA, for instance, include advice to national agencies to facilitate vaccine development for emerging diseases, and for the WHO to help ensure transparency on blood and blood products.

    Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.

     


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.