Dataset Information

TRIPS to Where? A Narrative Review of the Empirical Literature on Intellectual Property Licensing Models to Promote Global Diffusion of Essential Medicines.

ABSTRACT: Governed through the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) since 1995, the current medical R&D system requires significant trade-offs between innovation and high monopoly prices for patented drugs that restrict patient access to medicines. Since its implementation, few amendments have been made to the original TRIPS agreement to allow low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to facilitate access by generic manufacturers through flexible provisions, such as compulsory licensing and parallel import. Although a useful policy tool in theory, the routine use of TRIPS flexibilities in LMICs in the procurement of new essential medicines (EMs) is regarded as a 'last resort' due to strong political response in high-income countries (HICs) and new trade agreements' restrictions. In this context, access-oriented biomedical Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) have emerged. More recently, leading multilateral health organizations have recommended different types of intellectual property (IP) interventions, voluntary biomedical patent pools, as strategies to reduce prices and increase the diffusion of novel EMs in LMICs. Nevertheless, the recent Ebola and COVID-19 outbreaks highlight growing concerns regarding the use of TRIPS flexibilities and the limited success of voluntary mechanisms in promoting access to medicines in the Global South amidst health crises. This review aims at describing the state-of-the-art empirical research on IP-related options and voluntary mechanisms applied by emerging PPPs to guarantee timely and affordable access to EM in LMICs and reflect on both models as access paradigms. Some suggestions are put forward for future research paths on the basis of these analyses and in response to contemporary debates on waiving key IP rights on COVID-19 therapies, diagnostics, and vaccines.

SUBMITTER: Mermelstein S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8779122 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Biobanks are repositories that collect, store and distribute large quantities of biological samples and associated data (collectively called biobank `material'). Although biobanks have different modes of operation, all face a variety of similar challenges. Some of these challenges, such as donor consent and privacy, have been rigorously debated, but comparatively less attention has been paid to biobanks' intellectual property (IP) practices. IP rights (particularly patents) are integral to the translation of research into clinically relevant outcomes and, therefore, are key features in the business models of many biobanks. As a foundation for such research, commentators have identified five IP clauses of interest: (i) non-obstruction clauses; (ii) march-in clauses; (iii) grant-back clauses; (iv) return-of-results clauses and (v) reach-through clauses (also commonly called `reach-through rights'). In the limited literature that discusses the five clauses, commentators have largely debated their advantages and disadvantages in the abstract. The IP terms that biobanks actually use have not been empirically examined, apart from some small case studies. In particular, no industry-wide evidence exists on three points of biobanks' IP practice: (i) if and how biobanks implement these five types of IP clauses, (ii) whether any norms or standards have emerged, and (iii) whether the norms and standards align with commentators' recommendations for using the five IP clauses. To address these three gaps, the authors conducted a systematic, global survey of the IP clauses used by large, human biobanks. The results indicate that biobanks draft bespoke policies to meet their own needs, and probably do so without knowledge of the gamut of IP terms available. This study also revealed that, in general, biobanks are using IP terms differently from the advice of the commentators. On reviewing the differences, we encourage the use of march-in and grant-back clauses, discourage biobanks from using redundant non-obstruction clauses, and call for more research on return-of-results clauses. We also encourage the use of reach-through clauses to claim royalties (not IP), but only in limited circumstances; for example, where user access fees do not cover a biobanks' operational costs.

Project description:BackgroundTransparency and accountability are essential components at all stages of the trade negotiation process. This study evaluates the extent to which these principles were upheld in the United States' public consultation process during the negotiation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), with respect to public comments about the pharmaceutical sector and access to medicines.ResultsThe public consultation process occurred before the start of official negotiations and was overseen by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). It included both written comments and oral testimony about US trade negotiation objectives. Of the written comments that specifically discussed issues relating to pharmaceuticals, the majority were submitted by private individuals, members of the pharmaceutical industry, and civil society organizations. Nearly all comments submitted by non-industry groups indicated that access to medicines was a priority issue in the renegotiated agreement, with specific reference to price affordability. By contrast, more than 50% of submissions received from members or affiliates of the pharmaceutical industry advocated for strengthened pharmaceutical intellectual property rights, greater regulatory data protections, or both. This study reveals mixed outcomes with respect to the level of transparency achieved in the US trade negotiation process. Though input from the public at-large was actively solicited, the extent to which these comments were considered in the content of the final agreement is unclear. A preliminary comparison of the analyzed comments with the USTR's final negotiating objectives and the final text of the USMCA shows that several provisions that were advanced exclusively by the pharmaceutical industry and ultimately adopted in the final agreement were opposed by the majority of non-industry stakeholders.ConclusionsNegotiators could increase public transparency when choosing to advance one competing trade objective over another by actively providing the public with clear rationales for their negotiation positions, as well as details on how public comments are taken into account to form these rationales. Without greater clarity on these aspects, the public consultation process risks appearing to serve as a cursory government mechanism, lacking in accountability and undermining public trust in both the trade negotiation process and its outcomes.

Project description:ObjectivesStratified medicine is often heralded as the future of clinical practice. Key part of stratified medicine is the use of predictive biomarkers, which identify patient subgroups most likely to benefit (or least likely to experience harm) from an intervention. We investigated how many and what predictive biomarkers are currently included in European Medicines Agency (EMA) licensing.SettingEMA licensing.ParticipantsIndications and contraindications of all drugs considered by the EMA and published in 883 European Public Assessment Reports and Pending Decisions.Primary and secondary outcome measuresData were collected on: the type of the biomarker, whether it selected a subgroup of patients based on efficacy or toxicity, therapeutic area, marketing status, date of licensing decision, date of inclusion of the biomarker in the indication or contraindication and on orphan designation.Results49 biomarker-indication-drug (B-I-D) combinations were identified over 16 years, which included 37 biomarkers and 41 different drugs. All identified biomarkers were molecular. Six drugs (relating to 10 B-I-D combinations) had an orphan designation at the time of licensing. The identified B-I-D combinations were mainly used in cancer and HIV treatment, and also in hepatitis C and three other indications (cystic fibrosis, hyperlipoproteinaemia type I and methemoglobinaemia). In 45 B-I-D combinations, biomarkers were used as predictive of drug efficacy and in four of drug toxicity. It appeared that there was an increase in the number of B-I-D combinations introduced each year; however, the numbers were too small to identify any trends.ConclusionsGiven the large body of literature documenting research into potential predictive biomarkers and extensive investment into stratified medicine, we identified relatively few predictive biomarkers included in licensing. These were also limited to a small number of clinical areas. This might suggest a need for improvement in methods of translation from laboratory findings to clinical practice.

Project description:A pandemic calls for large-scale action across national and international innovation systems in order to mobilize resources for developing and manufacturing crisis-critical products efficiently and in the huge quantities needed. Nowadays, these products also include a wide range of digital innovations. Given that many responses to the pandemic are technology driven, stakeholders involved in the development and manufacturing of crisis-critical products are likely to face intellectual property (IP)-related challenges. To (governmental) decision makers, IP challenges might not appear to be of paramount urgency compared to the many undoubtedly huge operational challenges to deploy critical resources. However, if IP challenges are considered too late, they may cause delays to urgently mobilize resources effectively. Innovation stakeholders could then be reluctant to fully engage in the development and manufacturing of crisis-critical products. This article adopts an IP and innovation perspective to learn from the currently unfolding COVID-19 pandemic using secondary data, including patent data, synthesized with an IP roadmap. We focus on technical aspects related to research, development, and upscaling of capacity to manufacture crisis-critical products in the huge volumes suddenly in demand. In this article, we offer a set of contributions. We provide a structure, framework, and language for those concerned with steering clear of IP challenges to avoid delays in fighting a pandemic. We provide a reasoning why IP needs to be considered earlier rather than too late in a global health crisis. Major stakeholders we identify include 1) governments; 2) manufacturing firms owning existing crisis-critical IP (incumbents in crisis-critical sectors); 3) manufacturing firms normally not producing crisis-critical products suddenly rushing into crisis-critical sectors to support the manufacturing of crisis-critical products in the quantities that far exceed incumbents' production capacities; and 4) voluntary grassroot initiatives that form during a pandemic, often by highly skilled engineers and scientists in order to contribute to the development and dissemination of crisis-critical products. For these major stakeholders, we draw up three scenarios, from which we identify associated IP challenges they face related to the development and manufacturing of technologies and products for 1) prevention (of spread); 2) diagnosis of infected patients; and 3) the development of treatments. This article provides a terminology to help policy and other decision makers to discuss IP considerations during pandemics. We propose a framework that visualizes changing industrial organizations and IP-associated challenges during a pandemic and derive initial principles to guide innovation and IP policy making during a pandemic. Obviously, our findings result only from observations of one ongoing pandemic and thus need to be verified further and interpreted with care.

Dataset Information

TRIPS to Where? A Narrative Review of the Empirical Literature on Intellectual Property Licensing Models to Promote Global Diffusion of Essential Medicines.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets