GLOBAL HEALTH IMPACT: A BASIS FOR LABELING AND LICENSING CAMPAIGNS?

Most of the world's health problems afflict poor countries and their poorest inhabitants. There are many reasons why so many people die of poverty‐related causes. One reason is that the poor cannot access many of the existing drugs and technologies they need. Another, is that little of the research and development (R&D) done on new drugs and technologies benefits the poor. There are several proposals on the table that might incentivize pharmaceutical companies to extend access to essential drugs and technologies to the global poor. 1 Still, the problem remains – the poor are suffering and dying from lack of access to essential medicines. So, it is worth considering a new alternative. This paper suggests rating pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies based on how some of their policies impact poor people's health. It argues that it might be possible to leverage a rating system to encourage companies to extend access to essential drugs and technologies to the poor.     

Tailored Medicine: Whom Will it Fit? The Ethics of Patient and Disease Stratification

A key selling point of pharmacogenetics is the genetic stratification of either patients or diseases in order to target the prescribing of medicine. The hope is that genetically 'tailored' medicines will replace the current 'one-size-fits-all' paradigm of drug development and usage. This paper is concerned with the relationship between difference and justice in the use of pharmacogenetics. This new technology, which facilitates the identification and use of difference, has, we shall argue, the potential to lead to injustice either by the inappropriate use of difference or through the inappropriate failure to use difference. We build on empirical data from a detailed study of the range of options for the development of pharmacogenetics to present a consideration of the ethical issues that surround patient and disease stratification. In it we explore the ways in which the use of pharmacogenetics may lead to the creation of new, genetically stratified, forms of difference and new forms of injustice based on these divisions. We also examine the ways in which existing forms of difference and social stratification may interact with the use of pharmacogenetics. In conclusion, we suggest how an understanding of these ethical issues could usefully inform future policy discussions.     

The impact of pharmacogenetics on the future of healthcare

Pharmacogenetics has been promoted as potentially providing benefits to patients, managed care organizations and pharmaceutical companies. This has not translated into products that benecit healthcare developers, providers or consumers. The reasons for this are many, but this will change as the financial incentives become clear for the pharmaceutical industry to develop products that use genetic susceptibility as part of the rationale for products, healthcare providers have increasing incentive to reduce costs, and patients demand up-to-date technologies to optimize healthcare. Recent studies have established genetic contributions that alter the response to therapy for some disease entities, and more will follow as pharmacogenetics becomes increasingly accepted as an important consideration in the therapeutic decision-making process.     

Pharmacogenetics in drug development

Over the last two decades, identification of polymorphisms that influence human diseases has begun to have an impact on the provision of medical care. The promise of genetics lies in its ability to provide insights into an individual's susceptibility to disease, the likely nature of the disease and the most appropriate therapy. For much of its history, pharmacogenetics (PGx-the use of genetic information to impact drug choice) has been limited to comparatively simple phenotypes such as plasma drug levels. Progress in genetics technologies has broadened the scope of PGx efficacy and safety studies that can be implemented, impacting on a broad spectrum of drug discovery and development activities. Recent PGx data show the ability of this approach to generate information that can be applied to dose selection, efficacy determination and safety issues. This in turn will lead to significant opportunities to affect both the approach to clinical development and the probability of success--the latter being an important aspect for pharmaceutical companies and for the patients who will benefit from these new medicines.     

Are Drug Companies Living Up to Their Human Rights Responsibilities? The Merck Perspective

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE: The human rights responsibilities of drug companies have been considered for years by nongovernmental organizations, but were most sharply defined in a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly in August 2008. The "Human Rights Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Companies in relation to Access to Medicines" include responsibilities for transparency, management, monitoring and accountability, pricing, and ethical marketing, and against lobbying for more protection in intellectual property laws, applying for patents for trivial modifications of existing medicines, inappropriate drug promotion, and excessive pricing. Two years after the release of the Guidelines, the PLoS Medicine Debate asks whether drug companies are living up to their human rights responsibilities. Sofia Gruskin and Zyde Raad from the Harvard School of Public Health say more assessment is needed of such responsibilities; Geralyn Ritter, Vice President of Global Public Policy and Corporate Responsibility at Merck & Co. argues that multiple stakeholders could do more to help States deliver the right to health; and Paul Hunt and Rajat Khosla introduce Mr. Hunt's work as the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, regarding the human rights responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies and access to medicines.     

Are Drug Companies Living Up to Their Human Rights Responsibilities? Moving Toward Assessment

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE: The human rights responsibilities of drug companies have been considered for years by nongovernmental organizations, but were most sharply defined in a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly in August 2008. The "Human Rights Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Companies in relation to Access to Medicines" include responsibilities for transparency, management, monitoring and accountability, pricing, and ethical marketing, and against lobbying for more protection in intellectual property laws, applying for patents for trivial modifications of existing medicines, inappropriate drug promotion, and excessive pricing. Two years after the release of the Guidelines, the PLoS Medicine Debate asks whether drug companies are living up to their human rights responsibilities. Sofia Gruskin and Zyde Raad from the Harvard School of Public Health say more assessment is needed of such responsibilities; Geralyn Ritter, Vice President of Global Public Policy and Corporate Responsibility at Merck & Co. argues that multiple stakeholders could do more to help States deliver the right to health; and Paul Hunt and Rajat Khosla introduce Mr. Hunt's work as the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, regarding the human rights responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies and access to medicines.     

Are Drug Companies Living Up to Their Human Rights Responsibilities? The Perspective of the Former United Nations Special Rapporteur (2002-2008)

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE: The human rights responsibilities of drug companies have been considered for years by nongovernmental organizations, but were most sharply defined in a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly in August 2008. The "Human Rights Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Companies in relation to Access to Medicines" include responsibilities for transparency, management, monitoring and accountability, pricing, and ethical marketing, and against lobbying for more protection in intellectual property laws, applying for patents for trivial modifications of existing medicines, inappropriate drug promotion, and excessive pricing. Two years after the release of the Guidelines, the PLoS Medicine Debate asks whether drug companies are living up to their human rights responsibilities. Sofia Gruskin and Zyde Raad from the Harvard School of Public Health say more assessment is needed of such responsibilities; Geralyn Ritter, Vice President of Global Public Policy and Corporate Responsibility at Merck & Co. argues that multiple stakeholders could do more to help States deliver the right to health; and Paul Hunt and Rajat Khosla introduce Mr. Hunt's work as the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, regarding the human rights responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies and access to medicines.     

Understanding the Role of Accredited Drug Dispensing Outlets in Tanzania’s Health System

IntroductionPeople in many low-income countries access medicines from retail drug shops. In Tanzania, a public-private partnership launched in 2003 used an accreditation approach to improve access to quality medicines and pharmaceutical services in underserved areas. The government scaled up the accredited drug dispensing outlet (ADDO) program nationally, with over 9,000 shops now accredited. This study assessed the relationships between community members and their sources of health care and medicines, particularly antimicrobials, with a specific focus on the role ADDOs play in the health care system.MethodsUsing mixed methods, we collected data in four regions. We surveyed 1,185 households and audited 96 ADDOs and 84 public/nongovernmental health facilities using a list of 17 tracer drugs. To determine practices in health facilities, we interviewed 1,365 exiting patients. To assess dispensing practices, mystery shoppers visited 306 ADDOs presenting one of three scenarios (102 each) about a child’s respiratory symptoms.ConclusionADDOs are the principal source of medicines in Tanzania and an important part of a multi-faceted health care system. Poor prescribing in health facilities, poor dispensing at ADDOs, and inappropriate patient demand continue to contribute to inappropriate medicines use. Therefore, while accreditation has attempted to address the quality of pharmaceutical services in private sector drug outlets, efforts to improve access to and use of medicines in Tanzania need to target ADDOs, public/nongovernmental health facilities, and the public to be effective.     

Balancing commercial and public interests

Alarge number of randomized clinical trials with important health outcomes are completed each year. Those with favorable findings are typically reported and published rapidly, while the publication of those with unfavorable results is often delayed or given a positive "spin." This observation applies primarily to industry-sponsored trials. Our objectives are to discuss the responsibility of pharmaceutical firms to the public with respect to timely, complete, and unbiased information from all randomized clinical trials and to propose solutions for improvements. We believe that in addition to financial obligations to their shareholders, pharmaceutical companies have social responsibilities to the public and to health care providers. However, private markets do not reward or compel optimal disclosure of drug safety or inferiority information on a voluntary basis.A problem which has not previously been identified relates to non-comparability of drugs. A case report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) illustrates how public interests may be violated due to failure to inform about drug inferiority. The current system for dissemination of relevant medical information could be improved if all involved parties collaborated fully. However, full disclosure of trial results is unlikely when research results are unfavorable to the firm. We conclude that expanded government regulations will be required for a satisfactory solution to the problem.     

Pharmacogenetics in drug regulation: promise, potential and pitfalls

Pharmacogenetic factors operate at pharmacokinetic as well as pharmacodynamic levels-the two components of the dose-response curve of a drug. Polymorphisms in drug metabolizing enzymes, transporters and/or pharmacological targets of drugs may profoundly influence the dose-response relationship between individuals. For some drugs, although retrospective data from case studies suggests that these polymorphisms are frequently associated with adverse drug reactions or failure of efficacy, the clinical utility of such data remains unproven. There is, therefore, an urgent need for prospective data to determine whether pre-treatment genotyping can improve therapy. Various regulatory guidelines already recommend exploration of the role of genetic factors when investigating a drug for its pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, dose-response relationship and drug interaction potential. Arising from the global heterogeneity in the frequency of variant alleles, regulatory guidelines also require the sponsors to provide additional information, usually pharmacogenetic bridging data, to determine whether data from one ethnic population can be extrapolated to another. At present, sponsors explore pharmacogenetic influences in early clinical pharmacokinetic studies but rarely do they carry the findings forward when designing dose-response studies or pivotal studies. When appropriate, regulatory authorities include genotype-specific recommendations in the prescribing information. Sometimes, this may include the need to adjust a dose in some genotypes under specific circumstances. Detailed references to pharmacogenetics in prescribing information and pharmacogenetically based prescribing in routine therapeutics will require robust prospective data from well-designed studies. With greater integration of pharmacogenetics in drug development, regulatory authorities expect to receive more detailed genetic data. This is likely to complicate the drug evaluation process as well as result in complex prescribing information. Genotype-specific dosing regimens will have to be more precise and marketing strategies more prudent. However, not all variations in drug responses are related to pharmacogenetic polymorphisms. Drug response can be modulated by a number of non-genetic factors, especially co-medications and presence of concurrent diseases. Inappropriate prescribing frequently compounds the complexity introduced by these two important non-genetic factors. Unless prescribers adhere to the prescribing information, much of the benefits of pharmacogenetics will be squandered. Discovering highly predictive genotype-phenotype associations during drug development and demonstrating their clinical validity and utility in well-designed prospective clinical trials will no doubt better define the role of pharmacogenetics in future clinical practice. In the meantime, prescribing should comply with the information provided while pharmacogenetic research is deservedly supported by all concerned but without unrealistic expectations.     

PHARMACOGENETICS,RACE AND GLOBAL INJUSTICE1

This paper discusses the link between pharmacogenetics and race, and the global justice issues that the introduction of pharmacogenetics in pharmaceutical research and clinical practice will raise. First, it briefly outlines the likely impact of pharmacogenetics on pharmaceutical research and clinical practice within the next five to ten years and then explores the link between pharmacogenetic traits and ‘race’. It is shown that any link between apparent race and pharmacogenetics is problematic and that race cannot be used as a proxy for pharmacogenetic knowledge. The final section considers the implications of the development of pharmacogenetics for health care systems in low‐ and middle‐income countries.     

Perceptions and Attitudes of Egyptian Health Professionals and Policy-Makers towards Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives and Other Promotional Activities

BackgroundPharmaceutical promotion activities in low and middle-income countries are often neither regulated nor monitored. While Egypt has the highest population and per capita use of medicines in the Arab world, we know very little about pharmaceutical companies promotional activities in the country.AimTo explore and analyze the perceptions of physicians towards promotional and marketing activities of pharmaceutical companies among physicians and pharmacists in Egypt.MethodologyPerspectives of different healthcare system stakeholders were explored through semi-structured, in-depth interviews conducted in 2014 in Cairo, Egypt. Interviewees were chosen via purposive sampling and snowball technique. Each interview was recorded and transcribed. Then qualitative, thematic analysis was conducted with the help of NVIVO software.FindingsThe majority of physicians and pharmacists acknowledged exposure to pharmaceutical promotion. It was commonly believed that interaction with the pharmaceutical industry is necessary and both associated risks and benefits were acknowledged. The interviewed physicians considered themselves competent enough to minimize risks and maximize benefits to their prescribing habits. Views diverged on the extent and magnitude of the risks and benefits of pharmaceutical promotion, especially in regard to the influence on patients’ health.ConclusionsPharmaceutical promotion in Egypt is intensely directed at prescribers and dispensers. Physicians, pharmacists and policymakers expressed little skepticism to the influence of promotion towards their individual prescribing. Raising awareness of the pitfalls of pharmaceutical promotion is necessary, especially among the less experienced physicians.     

Economic issues for the UK biotechnology sector

This paper examines the economic prospects for the biotechnology industry, focusing on the UK position. I discuss some economic issues relating to the structure of the biotechnology industry and examine whether these factors can account for the relative success of the biotechnology sector in the UK compared to other European countries. I emphasize the importance of the science base, pharmaceutical companies and capital markets in giving the UK an advantage. Looking ahead I argue that prospects are good for the global growth of the industry due to supply and demand side factors. The UK is in a leading position in Europe but faces significant dangers, especially from the public towards biotechnology.     

Essential Medicines in a High Income Country: Essential to Whom?

Objective

To explore the perspectives of a diverse group of stakeholders engaged in medicines decision making around what constitutes an “essential” medicine, and how the Essential Medicines List (EML) concept functions in a high income country context.

Methods

In-depth qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 Australian stakeholders, recognised as decision makers, leaders or advisors in the area of medicines reimbursement or supply chain management. Participants were recruited from government, pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical wholesale/distribution companies, medicines non-profit organisations, academic health disciplines, hospitals, and consumer groups. Perspectives on the definition and application of the EML concept in a high income country context were thematically analysed using grounded theory approach.

Findings

Stakeholders found it challenging to describe the EML concept in the Australian context because many perceived it was generally used in resource scarce settings. Stakeholders were unable to distinguish whether nationally reimbursed medicines were essential medicines in Australia. Despite frequent generic drug shortages and high prices paid by consumers, many struggled to describe how the EML concept applied to Australia. Instead, broad inclusion of consumer needs, such as rare and high cost medicines, and consumer involvement in the decision making process, has led to expansive lists of nationally subsidised medicines. Therefore, improved communication and coordination is needed around shared interests between stakeholders regarding how medicines are prioritised and guaranteed in the supply chain.

Conclusions

This study showed that decision-making in Australia around reimbursement of medicines has strayed from the fundamental utilitarian concept of essential medicines. Many stakeholders involved in medicine reimbursement decisions and management of the supply chain did not consider the EML concept in their approach. The wide range of views of what stakeholders considered were essential medicines, challenges whether the EML concept is out-dated or underutilised in high income countries.     

The evolution of the biotechnology industry in Germany

In the past five years, the climate for commercial biotechnology in Germany has improved significantly and has resulted in an increase in the number of biotechnology companies. On examination of the underlying factors of the evolution of the biotechnology industry in Germany, and against the background of the current situation, it is predicted that many German biotech companies will have to change their business models to focus on product development rather than on platform technologies.     

Characteristics of primary health care units with focus on drug information from the pharmaceutical industry and adherence to prescribing objectives: a cross-sectional study

Background  

Adherence to prescribing guidelines varies between primary health care units. The aim of the present study was to investigate correlations between characteristics of primary health care units and adherence to prescribing objectives for rational drug use with focus on drug information from the pharmaceutical industry.     

Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing: a systematic review

Background

Pharmaceutical companies spent $57.5 billion on pharmaceutical promotion in the United States in 2004. The industry claims that promotion provides scientific and educational information to physicians. While some evidence indicates that promotion may adversely influence prescribing, physicians hold a wide range of views about pharmaceutical promotion. The objective of this review is to examine the relationship between exposure to information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians'' prescribing.

Methods and Findings

We searched for studies of physicians with prescribing rights who were exposed to information from pharmaceutical companies (promotional or otherwise). Exposures included pharmaceutical sales representative visits, journal advertisements, attendance at pharmaceutical sponsored meetings, mailed information, prescribing software, and participation in sponsored clinical trials. The outcomes measured were quality, quantity, and cost of physicians'' prescribing. We searched Medline (1966 to February 2008), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to February 2008), Embase (1997 to February 2008), Current Contents (2001 to 2008), and Central (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2007) using the search terms developed with an expert librarian. Additionally, we reviewed reference lists and contacted experts and pharmaceutical companies for information. Randomized and observational studies evaluating information from pharmaceutical companies and measures of physicians'' prescribing were independently appraised for methodological quality by two authors. Studies were excluded where insufficient study information precluded appraisal. The full text of 255 articles was retrieved from electronic databases (7,185 studies) and other sources (138 studies). Articles were then excluded because they did not fulfil inclusion criteria (179) or quality appraisal criteria (18), leaving 58 included studies with 87 distinct analyses. Data were extracted independently by two authors and a narrative synthesis performed following the MOOSE guidelines. Of the set of studies examining prescribing quality outcomes, five found associations between exposure to pharmaceutical company information and lower quality prescribing, four did not detect an association, and one found associations with lower and higher quality prescribing. 38 included studies found associations between exposure and higher frequency of prescribing and 13 did not detect an association. Five included studies found evidence for association with higher costs, four found no association, and one found an association with lower costs. The narrative synthesis finding of variable results was supported by a meta-analysis of studies of prescribing frequency that found significant heterogeneity. The observational nature of most included studies is the main limitation of this review.

Conclusions

With rare exceptions, studies of exposure to information provided directly by pharmaceutical companies have found associations with higher prescribing frequency, higher costs, or lower prescribing quality or have not found significant associations. We did not find evidence of net improvements in prescribing, but the available literature does not exclude the possibility that prescribing may sometimes be improved. Still, we recommend that practitioners follow the precautionary principle and thus avoid exposure to information from pharmaceutical companies. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

我国医药分开政策目的及其策略分析

目的 进一步明确医药分开政策目的及策略。方法 采用文献回顾性研究法,对医药利益链条及其形成原因,以及解决策略进行系统性地总结和分析。结果 现有研究一是认为医疗服务提供方拥有垄断地位造成利益链条存在,因而提出消除垄断;二是认为扭曲的“白色”或不良的“灰色”激励机制造成利益链条存在,因而提出完善“白色”或消除“灰色”激励机制的综合策略。结论 医药利益链条产生更深层次的原因是,非营利性的公立医疗机构不合理地追求经济利益,医生采用不合理方式追求部分合理经济利益。因此,医药分开目的应是让公立医疗机构真正成为非营利机构,使医生依靠技术获得合理的经济回报,让公立医疗机构、医生、政府、患者、药品企业及流通商间激励相容。建议采用外部补偿和内部薪酬制度为重点的综合改革策略,形成各利益相关方激励相容的良好局面,自然消除公立医疗机构、医生与药品销售间利益链条。