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 Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas 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.

Quantitative Analysis Of Contributions To NETMundial Meeting

A quantitative analysis of the 187 submissions to the April NETmundial conference on the future of internet governance shows broad support for improving security, ensuring respect for privacy, ensuring freedom of expression, and globalizing the IANA function, analyst Richard Hill writes.


Latest Comments
  • Why should anyone care what James Anaya thinks? In... »
  • If this goes ahead, as the EU will "speak" for all... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    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 Safety Needs Global Cooperation Of Drug Regulators, Officials Say

    Published on 19 May 2012 @ 1:34 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    On the eve of the World Health Assembly, the permanent mission of Brazil organised an informal meeting on sanitary regulation and how to improve cooperation among drug regulatory agencies. Major stakeholders were invited to present challenges and ongoing efforts to improve global quality, safety and efficacy of medical products.

    The 18 May meeting was meant to bring together various actors, among which were a number of national drug regulatory agencies, to address main concerns preventing access to safe, efficient and affordable medicines to all people in the context of a globalised world.

    Amb. Maria Nazareth Farani Azevêdo, the Brazilian ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, said the seminar was set to be a collective reflection on how to improve cooperation among national authorities.

    “The main responsibility of national regulatory agencies is the protection of human health against potential risks by a variety of products in circulation in a globalised world,” she said, but added that while ensuring safety, unnecessary obstacles to the availability and access of these same products should be avoided.

    WHO Director Supportive Of Health Regulators

    World Health Organization Director General Margaret Chan, at the close of the meeting, championed the cause of health regulatory authorities. “I am one of you,” she said. “Before I joined WHO, I worked in Hong Kong. I have been a drug and food regulator for almost ten years … so I know your business very well, I know your challenges and I also know your strength,” she said.

    Regulation is one of the most important public health prevention tools, she said, but “regulatory control of medicines has become a complex task in a world of radically increased interdependence characterised by a phenomenal growth in both the volume of international trade and the number of players.”

    No country can deal alone with the complexity, Chan said, “no matter how wealthy,” citing the United States. The regulators’ mission is also complicated by “the use of internet sale of medical products and the very sophisticated tactics used by organised crime” who provide Substandard/Spurious/Falsely-Labelled/Falsified/Counterfeit products, she said, using the terminology adopted by WHO members after long negotiations to describe substandard medicines.

    Chan said she supported the strengthening of regulatory authorities in her personal capacity, as this support was subject to agreement by WHO member states. “What is the use of prequalification done by WHO if the regulatory authorities in the country do not have the capacities, the means and the resources to exercise their function?” she asked.

    Chan also expressed concern that many countries do not regulate medical products for export while some countries regulate imports but not local production. “In this day and age, if a government has double standards, one standard for its people and another standard for making money, you would better be careful, because information is very powerful and accountability to your people is important,” she said.

    On the WHO prequalification programme, Chan said one of its results was to give the opportunity for manufacturers from low- and middle-income countries to enter the market with straight quality and safety standards, and to enter into fair competition with other manufacturers, in order to reduce the price to improve access to medicine to the poor people.

    “If you would like products made in your countries to be pre-qualified by WHO, especially vaccines, you need to be a functional national regulatory authority in the first place,” she said. “Drug regulatory authorities often do not have the resources they need and sometimes do not have the support they require to do their job properly.”

    Challenges for Regulatory Agencies

    Three sessions punctuated the meeting. The first session chaired by Michel Sibidé, executive director of the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), addressed challenges in ensuring the safety of products in a globalised world.

    Disparities in capacities and resources among different regulatory agencies were pointed out by several speakers, such as Nathalie Wourgaft, medical director of the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative.

    Denis Broun, executive director of UNITAID, said the organisation supports mechanisms for homologation so that people can register their products and make them available in markets. Very often for products oriented toward the markets in poor countries it can take five years to ten years between the time the product is ready and the time it enters the market, he said.

    He praised the WHO prequalification mechanism, which he said was supported mainly by UNITAID, due to the funding shortage at WHO. “We consider this of one of our best investments with a major market impact and a major public health impact,” he said.

    Elodie Jambert, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) international pharmacist coordinator, said the quality of medicines available in developing countries remains highly variable, with problems such as sub-dosage, poor stability, lack of sterility, and the presence of impurities.

    MSF meets a number of constraints for importation of medicines, for example, different requirements for importation according to national regulatory agencies, legislative rules that are not always clear, some importations blocked from specific countries of origin, and political pressure to use locally produced medicines.

    Challenges with local purchases include the risk of purchasing medicines of unknown quality, and the lack of traceability of the origin of the medicine, Jambert said. MSF supports regional cooperation between regulatory agencies, she said, adding that WHO should continue the development of norms and standards for phamacovigilence and support their implementation at country level.

    Marie-Pierre Poirier, regional director for the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), said the organisation is facing many problems with the quality of medical products. In particular, she said, many manufacturers continue to produce poor quality products. This situation is mainly due to the fact that “many exporting countries do not control the quality of products they export, [and] national regulatory agencies of some low- and middle-income countries are inadequately resourced and do not manage to control the quality of products that are domestically produced,” she said. Also, many national procurement agencies “continue to purchase the cheapest products irrespective of the quality unless they are prevented to do so by the national regulators,” she said.

    International Initiatives

    The second panel focused on international initiatives and cooperation to promote access and ensure quality, safety and efficacy of products. It was chaired by Carissa Etienne, assistant director general for health systems and services at WHO.

    James Fitzgerald, senior advisor on Medicines and Health Technologies for the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)introduced the work of PAHO, and Anne Hayes, inspection manager for the intergovernmental Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) presented the goals and achievements of the PIC/S. One of the core principles of the scheme is the development of quality systems and the training of inspectors, as well as the promotion of harmonised good manufacturing practices (GMP) standards.

    Market control and supply chain security remains outstanding issues in many countries, said Lembit Rago, coordinator, Quality Assurance and Safety Medicines Essential Medicines and Health Products for WHO. In spite of progress in developing regulatory capacities, the gap between well resourced and less resourced regulators may have even increased, he said. WHO, he said, has developed a comprehensive assessment tool for medicines regulatory authorities.

    “Not a single regulator today can work meaningfully in isolation,” he said, and not use other regulators’ experience, knowledge and information. “The future of medicines regulations is more in harmonisation, collaboration and network.”

    The third session was aimed at challenges and initiatives of regional regulatory authorities, chaired by Azevêdo, and panellists discussed the challenges in their jobs.

    Margaret Hamburg, commissioner for the US Food and Drug Administration, said for many years medicines in the US were produced within the US borders but in recent times, FDA regulated products that originated from some 150 countries.

    In this context of global sources of production, the “FDA can no longer remain a domestically focused agency reacting to a globalised world. Instead, we must transform into a proactive and global public health agency,” she said.

    In April, she said, the FDA released a report on the FDA global cooperation for product safety.
    In the report, she said, “we describe the FDA’s commitment to partner with our foreign counterparts in global coalitions ” of regulators dedicated to building and strengthening a product safety net around the world.

    Guido Rasi, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, said the complexity of processes is increasing, with more complex supply chains, and an increasing scope for counterfeit products. He called for identifying synergies before launching new initiatives in order to avoid duplication. The European Union supports efforts to improve international cooperation amongst regulatory authorities of medicinal products, he said.

    D.N. Singh, deputy at the Drugs Controller General of India, said challenges are mainly the harmonisation of regulatory systems and standards of medicines, the exchange and sharing of information, and the accessibility and affordability of quality drugs.

    With nine ambassadors, 22 health authorities, 16 organisations from civil society and nine industrial associations present, Dirceu Brás Barbano, director chairman of the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency, said a consensus had been identified during the meeting. That is, there is a necessity and the possibility to do more in the field of cooperation, and a desire to build mutual confidence and trust among regulatory authorities.

    Catherine Saez may be reached at info@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.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.227.141.230