The race to patent the SARS virus: The TRIPS agreement and access to essential medicines

This article considers the race to sequence the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome virus ('the SARS virus') in light of the debate over patent law and access to essential medicines. Part II evaluates the claims of public research institutions in Canada, the United States, and Hong Kong, and commercial companies, to patent rights in respect of the SARS virus. It highlights the dilemma of ’defensive patenting' - the tension between securing private patent rights and facilitating public disclosure of information and research. Part III considers the race to patent the SARS virus in light of wider policy debates over gene patents. It examines the application of such patent criteria as novelty, inventive step, utility, and secret use. It contends that there is a need to reform the patent system to accommodate the global nature of scientific inquiry, the unique nature of genetics, and the pace of technological change. Part IV examines the role played by the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization in dealing with patent law and access to essential medicines. The article contends that there is a need to ensure that the patent system is sufficiently flexible and adaptable to accommodate international research efforts on infectious diseases.

Immunointervention for patients with HIV and tuberculosis

Therapeutic options aimed at confronting the HIV pandemic face many obstacles. Current opinion on HIV-induced pathogenic immune activation and strategies aimed at eliminating HIV, including a potential role for non-neutralising antibodies as part of a therapeutic vaccine option, was elegantly reviewed by Martin Cadogan and Angus Dalgleish. 1 It is important to note that, for eliciting such antibody responses in patients, functionally fit antigen presenting cells and effector T and B cells are cruc.

A method for mapping the distribution and density of rabbits and other vertebrate pests in Australia

The European wild rabbit has been considered Australia’s worst vertebrate pest and yet little effort appears to have gone into producing maps of rabbit distribution and density. Mapping the distribution and density of pests is an important step in effective management. A map is essential for estimating the extent of damage caused and for efficiently planning and monitoring the success of pest control operations. This paper describes the use of soil type and point data to prepare a map showing the distribution and density of rabbits in Australia. The potential for the method to be used for mapping other vertebrate pests is explored. The approach used to prepare the map is based on that used for rabbits in Queensland (Berman et al. 1998). An index of rabbit density was determined using the number of Spanish rabbit fleas released per square kilometre for each Soil Map Unit (Atlas of Australian Soils). Spanish rabbit fleas were released into active rabbit warrens at 1606 sites in the early 1990s as an additional vector for myxoma virus and the locations of the releases were recorded using a Global Positioning System (GPS). Releases were predominantly in arid areas but some fleas were released in south east Queensland and the New England Tablelands of New South Wales. The map produced appears to reflect well the distribution and density of rabbits, at least in the areas where Spanish fleas were released. Rabbit pellet counts conducted in 2007 at 54 sites across an area of south east South Australia, south eastern Queensland, and parts of New South Wales (New England Tablelands and south west) in soil Map Units where Spanish fleas were released, provided a preliminary means to ground truth the map. There was a good relationship between mean pellet count score and the index of abundance for soil Map Units. Rabbit pellet counts may allow extension of the map into other parts of Australia where there were no Spanish rabbit fleas released and where there may be no other consistent information on rabbit location and density. The recent Equine Influenza outbreak provided a further test of the value of this mapping method. The distribution and density of domestic horses were mapped to provide estimates of the number of horses in various regions. These estimates were close to the actual numbers of horses subsequently determined from vaccination records and registrations. The soil Map Units are not simply soil types they contain information on landuse and vegetation and the soil classification is relatively localised. These properties make this mapping method useful, not only for rabbits, but also for other species that are not so dependent on soil type for survival.

Australia’s first Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot – who did pharmacists jab with a needle again? QPIP2

Introduction. The successful rollout of the Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot (QPIP1) led to expansion of the pilot into Phase 2 (QPIP2), which saw pharmacists being permitted to vaccinate adults for not only influenza, but also measles and pertussis in community pharmacies. The extremely positive results from QPIP1 paved the way for expanding the scope of pharmacists across Australia. Aims. The aim was to continue to investigate the benefits of trained pharmacists administering vaccinations in a community pharmacy setting. Methods. Participant demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software. Participants also completed a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction survey’ after receiving their vaccination. Results. To date, 22,467 influenza vaccines, 1441 pertussis and 22 measles vaccinations have been administered by pharmacists. Females accounted for 57% of the participants, with the majority of the participants aged between 46-65 years of age (51.2%). It was interesting to note that 18.9% of the participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but still opted to be vaccinated by a pharmacist in a community pharmacy setting. Participants reported a positive experience with the pharmacist vaccination service; reporting they were happy to receive vaccinations from a pharmacy in the future, and being happy to recommend the service to others. Discussion. The overwhelmingly positive uptake of this pharmacist vaccination service is demonstrated by a 100% increase in the number of influenza vaccines administered as part of QPIP1, and the ongoing positive feedback from patients. These findings will continue to pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists across the country.

Australia’s first Pharmacists Immunisation Pilot – about the service

Background: The first phase of the Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot (QPIP) ran between April and August 2014, to pilot pharmacists administering influenza vaccinations for the flu season for the first time in Australia. Aim: An aim was to investigate factors facilitating implementation of a pharmacist vaccination service in the community pharmacy setting. Method: The QPIP pharmacies were divided into two arms; the South East Queensland arm consisting of 51 Terry White Chemists (TWCs), and 29 pharmacies in the North Queensland (NQ) arm. The TWCs featured pharmacies which previously provided a vaccination service and that were experienced with using an online booking system, providing an opportunity to capture booking data. Results: The TWCs delivered 9902 (90%) of the influenza vaccinations in QPIP. Of these, 48.5% of the vaccines were delivered via appointments made using the online booking system, while 13.3% were in-store bookings. Over one-third (38.2%) of the vaccinations delivered in were “walk-ins” where the vaccination was delivered ‘on the spot’ as spontaneous or opportunistic vaccinations. The absence of a booking system meant all vaccinations delivered in the NQ arm were “walk-ins”. The online-booking data showed 10:00 am and Tuesday being the most popular time and day for vaccinations. Patients preferred having their vaccinations in private consultation rooms, over areas which used a screen to partition off a private area. Discussion: The presence of an online booking system appeared to increase the efficiency and penetration of the of vaccine service delivery. Also, as the level of privacy afforded to patients increased, the number of patients vaccinated also increased. Conclusions: As pharmacist-delivered vaccination services start to progressively roll out across Australia; these findings pave the way for more efficient and effective implementation of the service.

Beyond vaccination: The benefits of having a pharmacist behind the syringe

Background: The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot which ran in 2014 was Australia’s first to allow pharmacists to administer vaccinations. Aim: An aim of the pilot was to investigate the benefits of trained pharmacists administering vaccinations in a community pharmacy setting. Methods: Participant demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software. Participants also completed a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction survey’ following their influenza vaccination. Results: A total of 10889 participant records and 8737 satisfaction surveys were analysed. Overall, 1.9% of participants lived with a chronic illness, and 22.5% took concomitant medications. As part of the consultation before receiving the influenza vaccination, participants acknowledged the opportunity to discuss other aspects of their health with the pharmacist, including concerns about their general health, allergies, and other medications they were taking. It was worth noting that 17.5% of people would not have received an influenza vaccination if the pharmacist vaccination service was unavailable. Additionally, approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but still opted to receive their vaccine from a pharmacist. Conclusion: The findings from this pilot demonstrate the benefit of a pharmacist vaccination program in increasing vaccination rates, and have helped pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists.

Preparing pharmacists to vaccinate in Australia’s first Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot

Background: In November 2013, the Queensland Department of Health announced its intention to pilot pharmacist vaccination for influenza in the 2014 flu season. The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia Queensland Branch was tasked with developing a training program for the pilot. Aim: The aim was to develop, implement and evaluate a training program for pharmacist vaccination relevant to the needs of Australian pharmacists. Method: Background content was delivered via two online modules, while training for practical injection skills and anaphylaxis management were provided in a face-to-face workshop. Participants were required to complete the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA) anaphylaxis e-training for pharmacists, and hold a current First-Aid and CPR certificate. On completion of the course, pharmacists were asked to evaluate the training program. Results: Overall, 157 pharmacists across Queensland completed the training. Participants rated the training highly on a 5-point Likert scale (>4.4 for all fields) for relevance to practice, comfort with the skill, confidence to do the task and relevance of the learning objectives to the training. Qualitative feedback indicated that a key component of the training was the ability to practice injections on each other. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate participants felt prepared for vaccination following completion of the training program, as reflected in the high level of confidence reported. A follow-up post-pilot will explore if this confidence was translated into practice during the implementation phase.

Who was vaccinated in Australia’s first Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot?

Background: The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot which ran in 2014 was Australia’s first to allow pharmacists vaccination. Aim: The aim was to explore demographics of people vaccinated by a pharmacist, and their satisfaction with the service. Method: Demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software, and participants completed a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction survey’ after their influenza vaccination. Results: A total of 10889 participant records were analysed and >8000 participants completed the post-vaccination survey. Males accounted for 37% of participants, with the majority of participants aged between 45-64 years (53%). Overall, 49% of participants had been vaccinated before, the majority at a GP clinic (60%). Most participants reported receiving their previous influenza vaccination from a nurse (61%). Interestingly, 1% thought a pharmacist had administered their previous vaccination, while 7% were unsure who had administered it. It was also of note that approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but opted to receive their vaccine in a pharmacy. Overall, 95% were happy to receive their vaccination from a pharmacy in the future and 97% would recommend this service to other people. Conclusion: Participants were overwhelmingly positive in their response to the pharmacist vaccination pilot. These findings have helped pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists with the aim to increase vaccination rates across the state.

Who did pharmacists vaccinate in Australia’s first Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot?

Introduction: The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot (QPIP) began in April 2014, and was Australia’s first to allow pharmacists vaccination. An aim of QPIP was to investigate participants’ satisfaction with the service, and their overall experience with the service. Method: Patient demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software. After receiving the influenza vaccine from the pharmacist, participants were asked to complete a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction questionnaire’. Results: A total of 10,889 participants received influenza vaccinations from a pharmacist, and >8000 participants completed the post-vaccination survey. Males accounted for 37% of participants, with the majority of participants aged between 45-64 years (53%). Almost half of the participants had been vaccinated before, the majority at a GP clinic (60%), and most participants reported receiving their previous influenza vaccination from a nurse (61%). Interestingly, 7% were unsure which healthcare professional had vaccinated them, and 1% thought a pharmacist had administered their previous vaccination. It was also noteworthy that approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination under the National Immunisation Program, but opted to receive their vaccine in a pharmacy. Overall, 95% were happy to receive their vaccination from a pharmacy in the future and 97% would recommend this service to other people. Conclusion: Participants were overwhelmingly positive in their response to the pharmacist vaccination pilot. These findings have paved the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists with the aim to increase vaccination rates across the country. The pilot has now been expanded to include the administration of vaccinations for measles and pertussis.

Pharmacist vaccination – an Australian first, but what was the impact?

Introduction/background/issues The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot is Australia’s first to allow pharmacists vaccination. The pilot ran between April 1st 2014 and August 31st 2014, with pharmacists administering influenza vaccination during the flu season. The aim of this work was to investigate the benefits of trained registered pharmacists administering vaccinations in a community pharmacy setting. Methods Participant demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software. Participants also completed a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction survey’ following their influenza vaccination. Results/discussions A total of 10,889 participant records were analysed. Females accounted for 63% of participants, with the majority of participants aged between 45-64 years (53%). Overall, 49% of participants had been vaccinated before, the majority at a GP clinic (60%). Most participants reported receiving their previous influenza vaccination from a nurse (61%). Interestingly, 1% thought a pharmacist had administered their previous vaccination, while 7% were unsure which health professional had administered it. It was also of note that approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but still opted to receive their vaccine in a pharmacy. Over 8,000 participants took part in the post-vaccination survey, 93% were happy to receive their vaccination from a pharmacy in the future while 94% would recommend this service to other people. The remaining 7% and 6% respectively had omitted to fill in those questions. Conclusions/implications These findings have helped pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists with the aim to increase vaccination rates across Australia. Key message • Scope of practice and ability for health providers like pharmacists to provide services such as vaccination in primary care. • New service delivery to improve access to service, and increase immunisation rates.

The health professional behind the syringe: Benefits of a pharmacist vaccination program

Background: The Queensland Pharmacist Immunisation Pilot (QPIP) which ran in 2014 was Australia’s first to allow pharmacists to administer vaccinations. An aim of QPIP was to investigate the benefits of trained pharmacists administering vaccinations in a community pharmacy setting. Methods: Participant demographics and previous influenza vaccination experiences were recorded using GuildCare software. Participants also completed a ‘post-vaccination satisfaction survey’ following their influenza vaccination. Results: A total of 10,889 participant records and 8,737 satisfaction surveys were analysed. Overall, 1.9% of the participants reported living with a chronic illness, and 22.5% were taking concomitant medications. As part of the consultation before receiving the vaccine, participants acknowledged the opportunity to discuss other aspects of their health with the pharmacist, including concerns about their general health, allergies, and other medications they were taking. It was worth noting that 17.5% of people would not have received an influenza vaccination if the QPIP service was unavailable. Additionally, approximately 10% of all participants were eligible to receive a free vaccination from the National Immunisation Program, but still opted to receive their vaccine from a pharmacist. Conclusion: The findings from this pilot demonstrate the benefit of a pharmacist vaccination program in increasing vaccination rates, and have helped pave the way for expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists.

Agricultural intensification, priming for persistence and the emergence of Nipah virus: a lethal bat-borne zoonosis

Emerging zoonoses threaten global health, yet the processes by which they emerge are complex and poorly understood. Nipah virus (NiV) is an important threat owing to its broad host and geographical range, high case fatality, potential for human-to-human transmission and lack of effective prevention or therapies. Here, we investigate the origin of the first identified outbreak of NiV encephalitis in Malaysia and Singapore. We analyse data on livestock production from the index site (a commercial pig farm in Malaysia) prior to and during the outbreak, on Malaysian agricultural production, and from surveys of NiV's wildlife reservoir (flying foxes). Our analyses suggest that repeated introduction of NiV from wildlife changed infection dynamics in pigs. Initial viral introduction produced an explosive epizootic that drove itself to extinction but primed the population for enzootic persistence upon reintroduction of the virus. The resultant within-farm persistence permitted regional spread and increased the number of human infections. This study refutes an earlier hypothesis that anomalous El Nino Southern Oscillation-related climatic conditions drove emergence and suggests that priming for persistence drove the emergence of a novel zoonotic pathogen. Thus, we provide empirical evidence for a causative mechanism previously proposed as a precursor to widespread infection with H5N1 avian influenza and other emerging pathogens.

Disease Diplomacy

In the age of air travel and globalized trade, pathogens that once took months or even years to spread beyond their regions of origin can now circumnavigate the globe in a matter of hours. Amid growing concerns about such epidemics as Ebola, SARS, MERS, and H1N1, disease diplomacy has emerged as a key foreign and security policy concern as countries work to collectively strengthen the global systems of disease surveillance and control. The revision of the International Health Regulations (IHR), eventually adopted by the World Health Organization’s member states in 2005, was the foremost manifestation of this novel diplomacy. The new regulations heralded a profound shift in international norms surrounding global health security, significantly expanding what is expected of states in the face of public health emergencies and requiring them to improve their capacity to detect and contain outbreaks. Drawing on Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink’s "norm life cycle" framework and based on extensive documentary analysis and key informant interviews, Disease Diplomacy traces the emergence of these new norms of global health security, the extent to which they have been internalized by states, and the political and technical constraints governments confront in attempting to comply with their new international obligations. The authors also examine in detail the background, drafting, adoption, and implementation of the IHR while arguing that the very existence of these regulations reveals an important new understanding: that infectious disease outbreaks and their management are critical to national and international security. The book will be of great interest to academic researchers, postgraduate students, and advanced undergraduates in the fields of global public health, international relations, and public policy, as well as health professionals, diplomats, and practitioners with a professional interest in global health security.

Biofilm formation by multidrug resistant Escherichia coli ST131 is dependent on type 1 fimbriae and assay conditions.

Escherichia coli sequence type 131 (ST131) have emerged as a pandemic lineage of important multidrug resistant pathogens worldwide. Despite many studies examining the epidemiology of ST131, only a few studies to date have investigated the capacity of ST131 strains to form biofilms. Some of these studies have reported contrasting findings, with no specific ST131 biofilm-promoting factors identified. Here we examined a diverse collection of ST131 isolates for in vitro biofilm formation in different media and assay conditions, including urine from healthy adult women. We found significant differences among strains and assay conditions, which offers an explanation for the contrasting findings reported by previous studies using a single condition. Importantly, we showed that expression of type 1 fimbriae is a critical determinant for biofilm formation by ST131 strains and that inhibition of the FimH adhesin significantly reduces biofilm formation. We also offer direct genetic evidence for the contribution of type 1 fimbriae in biofilm formation by the reference ST131 strain EC958, a representative of the clinically dominant H30-Rx ST131 subgroup. This is the first study of ST131 biofilm formation in biologically relevant conditions and paves the way for the application of FimH inhibitors in treating drug resistant ST131 biofilm infections.

Risk assessment for airborne infectious diseases between natural ventilation and split-system air conditioner in a university classroom

Indoor air quality is a critical factor in the classroom due to high people concentration in a unique space. Indoor air pollutant might increase the chance of both long and short-term health problems among students and staff, reduce the productivity of teachers and degrade the student’s learning environment and comfort. Adequate air distribution strategies may reduce risk of infection in classroom. So, the purpose of air distribution systems in a classroom is not only to maximize conditions for thermal comfort, but also to remove indoor contaminants. Natural ventilation has the potential to play a significant role in achieving improvements in IAQ. The present study compares the risk of airborne infection between Natural Ventilation (opening windows and doors) and a Split-System Air Conditioner in a university classroom. The Wells-Riley model was used to predict the risk of indoor airborne transmission of infectious diseases such as influenza, measles and tuberculosis. For each case, the air exchange rate was measured using a CO2 tracer gas technique. It was found that opening windows and doors provided an air exchange rate of 2.3 air changes/hour (ACH), while with the Split System it was 0.6 ACH. The risk of airborne infection ranged between 4.24 to 30.86 % when using the Natural Ventilation and between 8.99 to 43.19% when using the Split System. The difference of airborne infection risk between the Split System and the Natural Ventilation ranged from 47 to 56%. Opening windows and doors maximize Natural Ventilation so that the risk of airborne contagion is much lower than with Split System.