Who has responsibility for access to essential medical drugs in the developing world?

L’accès aux traitements de base est un enjeu crucial pour la santé, la pauvreté et le développement. La responsabilité en matière d’accès est alors une question essentielle. Le huitième Objectif du Millénaire pour le Développement postule qu’en coopération avec les firmes pharmaceutiques, l’accès aux traitements essentiels doit être assuré. Les principales parties prenantes qui doivent engager leur responsabilité pour l’accès aux médicaments sont (1) l’industrie pharmaceutique, (2) les gouvernements, (3) la société au sens large, et (4) les individus (qu’ils soient ou non malades). Quatre approches permettent d’appréhender la responsabilité: (a) l’approche déontologique; (b) l’utilitarisme; (c) l’égalitarisme; (b) l’approche basée sur les droits de l’homme. Ces quatre arguments peuvent être utilisés pour assigner une responsabilité aux gouvernements dans l’accès aux médicaments. Le papier conclut qu’il est parfois difficile de distinguer entre ces quatre approches et qu’un « glissement-d’échelle » de la responsabilité est une voie utile pour appréhender les rôles des quatre principales parties prenantes dans l’accès aux médicaments, dépendant du pays ou de la région et de son environnement interne.

Access to essential medicines: Public health and international law

Historically, there have been intense conflicts over the ownership and exploitation of pharmaceutical drugs and diagnostic tests dealing with infectious diseases. Throughout the 1980’s, there was much scientific, legal, and ethical debate about which scientific group should be credited with the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus, and the invention of the blood test devised to detect antibodies to the virus. In May 1983, Luc Montagnier, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, and other French scientists from the Pasteur Institute in Paris, published a paper in Science, detailing the discovery of a virus called lymphadenopathy (LAV). A scientific rival, Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, identified the AIDS virus and published his findings in the May 1984 issue of Science. In May 1985, the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded the American patent for the AIDS blood test to Gallo and the Department of Health and Human Services. In December 1985, the Institut Pasteur sued the Department of Health and Human Services, contending that the French were the first to identify the AIDS virus and to invent the antibody test, and that the American test was dependent upon the French research. In March 1987, an agreement was brokered by President Ronald Reagan and French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, which resulted in the Department of Health and Human Services and the Institut Pasteur sharing the patent rights to the blood test for AIDS. In 1992, the Federal Office of Research Integrity found that Gallo had committed scientific misconduct, by falsely reporting facts in his 1984 scientific paper. A subsequent investigation by the National Institutes of Health, the United States Congress, and the US attorney-general cleared Gallo of any wrongdoing. In 1994, the United States government and French government renegotiated their agreement regarding the AIDS blood test patent, in order to make the distribution of royalties more equitable... The dispute between Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo was not an isolated case of scientific rivalry and patent races. It foreshadowed further patent conflicts over research in respect of HIV/AIDS. Michael Kirby, former Justice of the High Court of Australia diagnosed a clash between two distinct schools of philosophy - ‘scientists of the old school... working by serendipity with free sharing of knowledge and research’, and ‘those of the new school who saw the hope of progress as lying in huge investments in scientific experimentation.’ Indeed, the patent race between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier has been a precursor to broader trade disputes over access to essential medicines in the 1990s and 2000s. The dispute between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier captures in microcosm a number of themes of this book: the fierce competition for intellectual property rights; the clash between sovereign states over access to medicines; the pressing need to defend human rights, particularly the right to health; and the need for new incentives for research and development to combat infectious diseases as both an international and domestic issue.

Turing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Intellectual Property, Public Health, and Access to Essential Medicines

A recent controversy in the United States over drug pricing by Turing Pharmaceuticals AG has raised larger issues in respect of intellectual property, access to medicines, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In August 2015, Turing Pharmaceuticals AG – a private biopharmaceutical company with offices in New York, the United States, and Zug, Switzerland - acquired the exclusive marketing rights to Daraprim in the United States from Impax Laboratories Incorporated. Martin Shkreli, Turing’s Founder and Chief Executive Officer, maintained: “The acquisition of Daraprim and our toxoplasmosis research program are significant steps along Turing’s path of bringing novel medications to patients with serious disorders, some of whom often go undiagnosed and untreated.” He emphasised: “We intend to invest in the development of new drug candidates that we hope will yield an even better clinical profile, and also plan to launch an educational effort to help raise awareness and improve diagnosis for patients with toxoplasmosis.” In September 2015, there was much public controversy over the decision of Martin Shkreli to raise the price of a 62 year old drug, Daraprim, from $US13.50 to $US750 a pill. The drug is particularly useful in respect to the treatment and prevention of malaria, and in the treatment of infections in individuals with HIV/AIDS. Daraprim is listed on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) List of Essential Medicines. In the face of much criticism, Martin Shkreli has said that he will reduce the price of Daraprim. He observed: “We've agreed to lower the price on Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit.” He maintained: “We think these changes will be welcomed.” However, he has been vague and ambiguous about the nature of the commitment. Notably, the lobby group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA), disassociated itself from the claims of Turing Pharmaceuticals. The group said: “PhRMA members have a long history of drug discovery and innovation that has led to increased longevity and improved lives for millions of patients.” The group noted: “Turing Pharmaceutical is not a member of PhRMA and we do not embrace either their recent actions or the conduct of their CEO.” The biotechnology peak body Biotechnology Industry Organization also sought to distance itself from Turing Pharmaceuticals. A hot topic: United States political debate about access to affordable medicines This controversy over Daraprim is unusual – given the age of drug concerned. Daraprim is not subject to patent protection. Nonetheless, there remains a monopoly in respect of the marketplace. Drug pricing is not an isolated problem. There have been many concerns about drug pricing – particularly in respect of essential medicines for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This recent controversy is part of a larger debate about access to affordable medicines. The dispute raises larger issues about healthcare, consumer rights, competition policy, and trade. The Daraprim controversy has provided impetus for law reform in the US. US Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton commented: “Price gouging like this in this specialty drug market is outrageous.” In response to her comments, the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index fell sharply. Hillary Clinton has announced a prescription drug reform plan to protect consumers and promote innovation – while putting an end to profiteering. On her campaign site, she has emphasised that “affordable healthcare is a basic human right.” Her rival progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders, was also concerned about the price hike. He wrote a letter to Martin Shkreli, complaining about the price increase for the drug Daraprim. Sanders said: “The enormous, overnight price increase for Daraprim is just the latest in a long list of skyrocketing price increases for certain critical medications.” He has pushed for reforms to intellectual property to make medicines affordable. The TPP and intellectual property The Daraprim controversy and political debate raises further issues about the design of the TPP. The dispute highlights the dangers of extending the rights of pharmaceutical drug companies under intellectual property, investor-state dispute settlement, and drug administration. Recently, the civil society group Knowledge Ecology International published a leaked draft of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP. Knowledge Ecology International Director, James Love, was concerned the text revealed that the US “continues to be the most aggressive supporter of expanded intellectual property rights for drug companies.” He was concerned that “the proposals contained in the TPP will harm consumers and in some cases block innovation.” James Love feared: “In countless ways, the Obama Administration has sought to expand and extend drug monopolies and raise drug prices.” He maintained: “The astonishing collection of proposals pandering to big drug companies make more difficult the task of ensuring access to drugs for the treatment of cancer and other diseases and conditions.” Love called for a different approach to intellectual property and trade: “Rather than focusing on more intellectual property rights for drug companies, and a death-inducing spiral of higher prices and access barriers, the trade agreement could seek new norms to expand the funding of medical research and development (R&D) as a public good, an area where the US has an admirable track record, such as the public funding of research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal agencies.” In addition, there has been much concern about the Investment Chapter of the TPP. The investor-state dispute settlement regime would enable foreign investors to challenge government policy making, which affected their investments. In the context of healthcare, there is a worry that pharmaceutical drug companies will deploy their investor rights to challenge public health measures – such as, for instance, initiatives to curb drug pricing and profiteering. Such concerns are not merely theoretical. Eli Lilly has brought an investor action against the Canadian Government over the rejection of its drug patents under the investor-state dispute settlement regime of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Health Annex to the TPP also raises worries that pharmaceutical drug companies will able to object to regulatory procedures in respect of healthcare. It is disappointing that the TPP – in the leaks that we have seen – has only limited recognition of the importance of access to essential medicines. There is a need to ensure that there are proper safeguards to provide access to essential medicines – particularly in respect of HIV/AIDs, malaria, and tuberculosis. Moreover, there must be protection against drug profiteering and price gouging in any trade agreement. There should be strong measures against the abuse of intellectual property rights. The dispute over Turing Pharmaceuticals AG and Daraprim is an important cautionary warning in respect of some of the dangers present in the secret negotiations in respect of the TPP. There is a need to preserve consumer rights, competition policy, and public health in trade negotiations over an agreement covering the Pacific Rim.

Intellectual property rights and the campaign for access to essential medicines : the advocacy role assumed by Médecins Sans Frontières

Non-governmental organizations and transnational networks have been increasingly successful a t gaining influence within issue areas traditionally controlled by the state. In many instances, non-state actors have been instrumental in forcing issues onto the global agenda, have aided in the development or transformation of global regimes, and have participated in securing state compliance for the adoption of new international norms. This paper argues that, consistent with social constructivist theory, ideas are important in influencing state preferences and change may be possible when certain factors are present. I f non-state actors can influence states, it is meaningful to understand how this happens. This paper focuses on a campaign led by Medecins Sans Frontieres that began in the late 1990s to acquire affordable medicines for patients in developing states that could not afford patented drugs. The campaign reached a measure of success in that member states of the World Trade Organization re-negotiated contested terms and meanings within the trade agreement for intellectual property rights and allowed concessions that would benefit lower income states. What factors contributed to the success of the campaign? And what were the most important factors - the issue, the actors or the mechanisms used?

Tailoring access to high cost, genetically targeted drugs

Assessment of real cost effectiveness, with data linked to individual health outcomes while protecting patient privacy, is an essential challenge we need to meet

Incentives for global public health: Patent law and access to essential medicines

This portrait of the global debate over patent law and access to essential medicines focuses on public health concerns about HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, the SARS virus, influenza, and diseases of poverty. The essays explore the diplomatic negotiations and disputes in key international fora, such as the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization. Drawing upon international trade law, innovation policy, intellectual property law, health law, human rights and philosophy, the authors seek to canvass policy solutions which encourage and reward worthwhile pharmaceutical innovation while ensuring affordable access to advanced medicines. A number of creative policy options are critically assessed, including the development of a Health Impact Fund, prizes for medical innovation, the use of patent pools, open-source drug development and forms of 'creative capitalism'.

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.

The right to health, the TRIPS agreement and the public health safeguards to encourage the universal access to essential medicines

The privileges arising from patent protection on pharmaceutical products often prevent the full realization of the right to health, especially in developing countries with scarce resources. This thesis first identifies the international agreements that have established the right to health in international law, obligations and violations associated with it, the problems encountered in the implementation of human rights on the field, compared with the implementation and sanctions associated with economic rights from the World Trade Organization regulatory framework. A comparative study of the legislative frameworks of both developed and developing countries will reveal to what extent Canada, the United States, the European Union, Brazil, India, and South Africa conformed with patent protection exceptions arising from international patent law to protect public health. Finally, the author identifies the crucial indicators that need to be considered in order to assess the conformity of a given approach with the right to health, before he underscores the temporary character of the relevant WTO measures, and the future stakes concerning an increased access to essential medicines.

Exploring the use of pharmaceutical patient assistance programs as an option to improve access to and affordability of prescription drugs

Background. Pharmaceutical-sponsored patient assistance programs (PAPs) are charity programs that provide free or reduced-priced medications to eligible patients. PAPs have the potential to improve prescription drug accessibility for patients but currently there is limited information about their use and effectiveness. ^ Objectives and methods. This dissertation described the use of PAPs in the U.S. through the conduct of two studies: (1) a systematic review of primary studies of PAPs from commercially-published and “grey” literature sources; and (2) a retrospective, cross-sectional study of cancer patients' use of PAPs at a tertiary care cancer outpatient center. ^ Results. (1) The systematic review identified 33 studies: 15 evaluated the impact of PAP enrollment assistance programs on patient healthcare outcomes; 7 assessed institutional costs of providing enrollment assistance; 7 surveyed stakeholders; 4 examined other aspects. Standardized mean differences calculated for disease indicator outcomes (most of which were single group, pre-posttest designs) showed significant decreases in glycemic and lipid control, and inconsistent results for blood pressure. Grey literature abstracts reported insufficient statistics for calculations. Study heterogeneity made weighted summary estimates inappropriate. Economic analyses indicated positive financial benefits to institutions providing enrollment assistance (cost) compared to the wholesale value of the medications provided (benefit); analyses did not value health outcomes. Mean quality of reporting scores were higher for observational studies in commercially-published articles versus full text, grey literature reports. (2) The cross-sectional study found that PAP outpatients were significantly more likely to be uninsured, indigent, and < 65 years old than non-PAP patients. Nearly all non-PAP and PAP prescriptions were for non-cancer conditions, either for co-morbidities (e.g., hypertension) or the management of treatment side effects (e.g., pain). Oral chemotherapies from PAPs were significantly more likely to be for breast versus other cancers, and be a newer, targeted versus traditional chemotherapy.^ Conclusions. In outpatient settings, PAP enrollment assistance plus additional medication services (e.g., counseling, reminders, and free samples) is associated with improved disease indicators for patients. Healthcare institutions, including cancer centers, can offset financial losses from uncompensated drug costs and recoup costs invested in enrollment assistance programs by procuring free PAP medications. Cancer patients who are indigent and uninsured may be able to access more outpatient medications for their supportive care needs through PAPs, than for cancer treatment options like oral chemotherapies. Because of the selective availability of drugs through PAPs, there may be more options for newer, oral, targeted chemotherapies for the treatment breast cancer versus other for other cancers.^

Molecular determinants of drug access to the receptor site for antiarrhythmic drugs in the cardiac Na+ channel.

The clinical efficacy of local anesthetic and antiarrhythmic drugs is due to their voltage- and frequency-dependent block of Na+ channels. Quaternary local anesthetic analogs such as QX-314, which are permanently charged and membrane-impermeant, effectively block cardiac Na+ channels when applied from either side of the membrane but block neuronal Na+ channels only from the intracellular side. This difference in extracellular access to QX-314 is retained when rat brain rIIA Na+ channel alpha subunits and rat heart rH1 Na+ channel alpha subunits are expressed transiently in tsA-201 cells. Amino acid residues in transmembrane segment S6 of homologous domain IV (IVS6) of Na+ channel alpha subunits have important effects on block by local anesthetic drugs. Although five amino acid residues in IVS6 differ between brain rIIA and cardiac rH1, exchange of these amino acid residues by site-directed mutagenesis showed that only conversion of Thr-1755 in rH1 to Val as in rIIA was sufficient to reduce the rate and extent of block by extracellular QX-314 and slow the escape of drug from closed channels after use-dependent block. Tetrodotoxin also reduced the rate of block by extracellular QX-314 and slowed escape of bound QX-314 via the extracellular pathway in rH1, indicating that QX-314 must move through the pore to escape. QX-314 binding was inhibited by mutation of Phe-1762 in the local anesthetic receptor site of rH1 to Ala whether the drug was applied extracellularly or intracellularly. Thus, QX-314 binds to a single site in the rH1 Na+ channel alpha subunit that contains Phe-1762, whether it is applied from the extracellular or intracellular side of the membrane. Access to that site from the extracellular side of the pore is determined by the amino acid at position 1755 in the rH1 cardiac Na+ channel.

Evaluating health policy and legal responses : how to reduce barriers and improve access to orphan drugs for rare diseases in Canada

Abstract : Rare diseases are debilitating conditions often leading to severe clinical manifestations for affected patients. Orphan drugs have been developed to treat these rare diseases affecting a small number of individuals. Incentives in the legal framework aimed to recoup the research and development cost of orphan drugs for pharmaceutical companies have been implemented in the United States and the European Union. At the present time, Canada is still lacking a legal and policy framework for orphan drugs. Several problems at the federal and provincial levels remain: lack of research funds for rare diseases, discrepancies on orphan drug policies between provinces, difficulties to access and reimburse these high price drugs. Recommendations and measures are proposed, such as a pan-Canadian (national) scientific committee to establish evidence-based guidelines for patients to access orphan drugs uniformly in all provinces with a disease specific registry, a formal agreement for a centralized Canadian public funding reimbursement procedure, and increasing the role of “guardian” for prices by the Patented Medicines Review Board in Canada. These recommendations and measures will be beneficial for the implementation of a policy framework for orphan drugs in Canada.

Using mobile phones to improve offline access to online information : distributed content delivery

Mobile phones are now powerful and pervasive making them ideal information browsers. The Internet has revolutionized our lives and is a major knowledge sharing media. However, many mobile phone users cannot access the Internet (for financial or technical reasons) and so the mobile Internet has not been fully realized. We propose a novel content delivery network based on both a factual and speculative analysis of today’s technology and analyze its feasibility. If adopted people living in remote regions without Internet will be able to access essential (static) information with periodic updates.