Dataset Information

In which developing countries are patents on essential medicines being filed?

ABSTRACT:

Background

This article is based upon data gathered during a study conducted in partnership with the World Intellectual Property Organization on the patent status of products appearing on the World Health Organization's 2013 Model List of Essential Medicines (MLEM). It is a statistical analysis aimed at answering: in which developing countries are patents on essential medicines being filed?

Methods

Patent data were collected by linking those listed in the United States and Canada's medicine patent registers to corresponding patents in developing countries using two international patent databases (INPADOC and Derwent) via a commerical-grade patent search platform? (Thomson Innovation). The respective supplier companies were then contacted to correct and verify our data. We next tallied the number of MLEM patents per developing country. Spearman correlations were done to assess bivariate relationships between variables, and a multivariate regression model was developed to explain the number of MLEM patents in each country using SPSS 23.0.

Results

A subset of 20 of the 375 (5%) products on the 2013 MLEM fit our inclusion criteria. The patent estate reports (i.e., the global list of patents for a given drug) varied greatly in their number with a median of 48 patents (interquartile? range [IQR]: 26-76?). Their geographic reach had a median of 15% of the developing countries sampled (IQR: 8-28%). The number of developing countries covered appeared to increase with the age of the patent estate (r = .433, p = 0.028). The number of MLEM patents per country was significantly positively associated with human development index (HDI), gross domestic income (GDI) per capita, total healthcare expenditure per capita, population size, the Rule of Law Index, and average education level. Population size, GDI per capita, and healthcare expenditure (in % of national expenditure) were predictors of the number of MLEM patents in countries (p = 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.009, respectively). Population size was the most important predictor (? = 0.59), followed by income (GDI per capita) (? = 0.32), and healthcare expenditure (? = 0.15). Holding the other factors constant, (i) 14.3 million more people, (ii) $833.33 more per capita (GDI), or (iii) 0.88% more of national spending on healthcare resulted in 1 additional essential medicine patent.

Conclusion

Population was a powerful predictor of the number of patent filings in developing countries along with GDI and healthcare expenditure. The age and historical context of the patent estate may make a difference in the number of patents and countries covered. Broad surveillance and benchmarking of the global medicine patent landscape is valuable for detecting significant shifts that may occur over time. With improved international medicine patent transparency by companies and data available through third parties, such studies will be increasingly feasible.

SUBMITTER: Beall RF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5485610 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

In which developing countries are patents on essential medicines being filed?

Beall Reed F RF Blanchet Rosanne R Attaran Amir A

Globalization and health 20170626 1

<h4>Background</h4>This article is based upon data gathered during a study conducted in partnership with the World Intellectual Property Organization on the patent status of products appearing on the World Health Organization's 2013 Model List of Essential Medicines (MLEM). It is a statistical analysis aimed at answering: in which developing countries are patents on essential medicines being filed?<h4>Methods</h4>Patent data were collected by linking those listed in the United States and Canada' ...[more]

PMID: 28651631

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSuboptimal medicine use is a global public health problem. For 35 years the World Health Organization (WHO) has promoted essential medicines policies to improve quality use of medicines (QUM), but evidence of their effectiveness is lacking, and uptake by countries remains low. Our objective was to determine whether WHO essential medicines policies are associated with better QUM.Methods and findingsWe compared results from independently conducted medicines use surveys in countries that did versus did not report implementation of WHO essential medicines policies. We extracted survey data on ten validated QUM indicators and 36 self-reported policy implementation variables from WHO databases for 2002-2008. We calculated the average difference (as percent) for the QUM indicators between countries reporting versus not reporting implementation of specific policies. Policies associated with positive effects were included in a regression of a composite QUM score on total numbers of implemented policies. Data were available for 56 countries. Twenty-seven policies were associated with better use of at least two percentage points. Eighteen policies were associated with significantly better use (unadjusted p<0.05), of which four were associated with positive differences of 10% or more: undergraduate training of doctors in standard treatment guidelines, undergraduate training of nurses in standard treatment guidelines, the ministry of health having a unit promoting rational use of medicines, and provision of essential medicines free at point of care to all patients. In regression analyses national wealth was positively associated with the composite QUM score and the number of policies reported as being implemented in that country. There was a positive correlation between the number of policies (out of the 27 policies with an effect size of 2% or more) that countries reported implementing and the composite QUM score (r=0.39, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.59, p=0.003). This correlation weakened but remained significant after inclusion of national wealth in multiple linear regression analyses. Multiple policies were more strongly associated with the QUM score in the 28 countries with gross national income per capita below the median value (US$2,333) (r=0.43, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.69, p=0.023) than in the 28 countries with values above the median (r=0.22, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.56, p=0.261). The main limitations of the study are the reliance on self-report of policy implementation and measures of medicine use from small surveys. While the data can be used to explore the association of essential medicines policies with medicine use, they cannot be used to compare or benchmark individual country performance.ConclusionsWHO essential medicines policies are associated with improved QUM, particularly in low-income countries. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Essential medicines lists and related policies are intended to meet the priority health needs of populations and their implementation is associated with more appropriate use of medicines. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that countries carefully select the medicines to be included in their national essential medicines lists. Lists that are used to prioritize access to important treatments should not include medicines that have been withdrawn elsewhere because of an unfavourable benefit-to-harm balance; however, countries still list and use medicines that have been withdrawn worldwide. The objective of this study was to determine whether the national essential medicines lists of 137 countries include medicines that have been withdrawn in other countries. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We performed an audit of national essential medicines lists for medicines that had been withdrawn. Medicines withdrawn from worldwide markets between 1953 and 2014 were identified using a systematic review of published literature and regulatory documents. The reviewers used sources including the WHO's database of drugs, PubMed, and the websites of regulatory agencies to obtain information regarding adverse effects associated with the medicines, the year of first withdrawal, markets of withdrawal, and the level of evidence supporting each withdrawal. We recorded the number of countries with a withdrawn medicine included in their national medicines list, the number of withdrawn medicines included in each nation's list, and the number of national essential medicines including each withdrawn medicine. 97 medicines were withdrawn in at least one country but still included in one more national essential medicines list. Of 137 countries with a national essential medicines list, 136 lists included at least one withdrawn medicine, with 54% of the lists containing 5 or fewer withdrawn medicines, and 27% including 10 or more withdrawn medicines. 11 medicines were withdrawn worldwide but still included on at least one national essential medicines list. Countries with longer essential medicines lists had more withdrawn medicines included in their lists. CONCLUSIONS:This study found that withdrawn medicines are included in all but one national essential medicines list, representing a need for more stringent processes for selecting and removing medicines on these lists. Countries may wish to apply special scrutiny to medicines withdrawn in other nations when selecting medicines to include on their lists.

Project description:Background Access to medicines is important for long-term care of cardiovascular diseases and hypertension. This study provides a cross-country assessment of availability, prices, and affordability of cardiovascular disease and hypertension medicines to identify areas for improvement in access to medication treatment. Methods and Results We used the World Health Organization online repository of national essential medicines lists (EMLs) for 53 countries to transcribe the information on the inclusion of 12 cardiovascular disease/hypertension medications within each country's essential medicines list. Data on availability, price, and affordability were obtained from 84 surveys in 59 countries that used the World Health Organization's Health Action International survey methodology. We summarized and compared the indicators across lowest-price generic and originator brand medicines in the public and private sectors and by country income groups. The average availability of the select medications was 54% in low- and lower-middle-income countries and 60% in high- and upper-middle-income countries, and was higher for generic (61%) than brand medicines (41%). The average patient median price ratio was 80.3 for brand and 16.7 for generic medicines and was higher for patients in low- and lower-middle-income countries compared with high- and upper-middle-income countries across all medicine categories. The costs of 1 month's antihypertensive medications were, on average, 6.0 days' wage for brand medicine and 1.8 days' wage for generics. Affordability was lower in low- and lower-middle-income countries than high- and upper-middle-income countries for both brand and generic medications. Conclusions The availability and accessibility of pharmaceuticals is an ongoing challenge for health systems. Low availability and high costs are major barriers to the use of and adherence to essential cardiovascular disease and antihypertensive medications worldwide, particularly in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

Project description:AimDiabetes is a growing burden especially in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Inadequate access to diabetes care is of particular concern and selection of appropriate diabetes medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) is a first step in achieving adequate access. This selection was studied among LMICs and influences of various factors associated with selection decisions were assessed.MethodsCountries were studied if they employed NEMLs for reimbursement or procurement purposes. Presence and number of essential diabetes medicines from different classes, both insulins and oral blood glucose lowering medicines, were surveyed and calculated. Data were also analyzed by country income level, geographic region, year of last update of the NEML and purpose of NEML employment. The effect of prevalence and burden of disease on the number of essential diabetes medicines was also studied. Non parametric tests and univariate linear regression analysis were used.ResultsNearly all countries (n?=?32) had chosen fast (97%) and intermediate acting insulin (93%), glibenclamide and metformin (100% both) as essential medicines. The median number of essential diabetes medicines was 6, equally divided between insulins and oral medicines. 20% of the countries had selected insulin analogues as essential medicines. Among all the studied factors, an increase in burden of diabetes and wealth of countries were associated with selection of higher numbers of essential diabetes medicines (p?=?0.02 in both cases).ConclusionsNearly all the studied LMICs had included the minimum required medicines for diabetes management in their NEMLs. Selection can still be improved (e.g. exclusion of insulin analogues and replacement of glibenclamide by gliclazide). Nevertheless, the known suboptimal and inconsistent availability of essential diabetes medicines in LMICs cannot be explained by inadequate selection of essential medicines. Countries should therefore be encouraged to give precedence to implementation of NEMLs to make essential diabetes medicines more accessible.

Project description:BackgroundIn September 2003, the Canadian government committed to developing legislation that would facilitate greater access to affordable medicines for developing countries. Over the course of eight months, the legislation, now known as Canada's Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR), went through a controversial policy development process and the newspaper media was one of the major venues in which the policy debates took place. The purpose of this study was to examine how the media framed CAMR to determine how policy goals were conceptualized, which stakeholder interests controlled the public debate and how these variables related to the public policy process.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative content analysis of newspaper coverage of the CAMR policy and implementation process from 2003-2008. The primary theoretical framework for this study was framing theory. A total of 90 articles from 11 Canadian newspapers were selected for inclusion in our analysis. A team of four researchers coded the articles for themes relating to access to medicines and which stakeholders' voice figured more prominently on each issue. Stakeholders examined included: the research-based industry, the generic industry, civil society, the Canadian government, and developing country representatives.ResultsThe most frequently mentioned themes across all documents were the issues of drug affordability, intellectual property, trade agreements and obligations, and development. Issues such as human rights, pharmaceutical innovation, and economic competitiveness got little media representation. Civil society dominated the media contents, followed far behind by the Canadian government, the research-based and generic pharmaceutical industries. Developing country representatives were hardly represented in the media.ConclusionsMedia framing obscured the discussion of some of the underlying policy goals in this case and failed to highlight issues which are now significant barriers to the use of the legislation. Using the media to engage the public in more in-depth exploration of the policy issues at stake may contribute to a more informed policy development process. The media can be an effective channel for those stakeholders with a weaker voice in policy deliberations to raise public attention to particular issues; however, the political and institutional context must be taken into account as it may outweigh media framing effects.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death and disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (WHO EML) is a tool for improving accessibility and availability of medicines. This study compared the 2021 WHO EML CVDs basket of medicines with latest available national essential medicines list (NEMLs) for South Africa and 15 Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries to assess consistency in CVDs medicine listing.MethodsThis descriptive, desktop review study compared SADC NEMLs. A comparator list was extracted by combining cardiovascular medicines listed in the 2021 WHO EML for adults and children. SADC country NEMLs were obtained from the WHO Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal. Consistency of NEMLs was calculated as a percentage coverage of CVD medicines listed in the 2021 WHO EML. SA hospital and primary health care (PHC) level NEMLs were included as separate formularies.ResultsThe SA hospital level NEML scored 70% consistency with the 2021 WHO EML. Tanzania (84%), Namibia (81%) and Angola (79%) scored the highest consistency. The mean consistency for SADC NEMLs was 66%. The lowest scoring country was Eswatini at 26%. The SA PHC NEML scored 35%. The least listed medicines were beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), clopidogrel (43%) and paediatric formulations (furosemide (21%); digoxin (43%)). Individual antihypertensive medicines were most commonly listed. Botswana and Lesotho were the only countries to list a single pill combination (SPC) for the treatment of hypertension.ConclusionsThis comparison indicates that South Africa and most SADC countries are aligned with 2021 WHO EML recommendations. The inclusion of age-appropriate formulations for children as well as ARBs and SPC for the treatment of hypertension may improve patient adherence and cardiovascular outcomes in these countries. More frequent updates to NEMLs should improve consistency. NEMLs were not available for two countries, and these therefore did not form part of this study. Country health expenditure in ranking the consistency of NEMLs was not accounted for. LMICs adopting the essential medicine list strategy should consider imposing minimum consistency thresholds to the WHO EML to improve accessibility and availability of CVD medicines.Trial registrationNot applicable.

Dataset Information

In which developing countries are patents on essential medicines being filed?

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

In which developing countries are patents on essential medicines being filed?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets