[Ip-health] drug naming/patents/exclusivity

[Brendan Hickey]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Sue -

Many countries, including the UK (see Patents Act 1977, c. 37 s. 2
(6)) allow individuals to patent new uses of known chemicals,
granting a full patent term for the new use.  These types of patents
are known as Swiss-form claims.

This type of innovation does happen a fair amount, as the email
examples you got demonstrate.  Researchers frequently try out known
chemicals for new uses, just this morning I heard on NPR that Viagra
cured jet lag in hampsters.   As for the role of IP, there is an
argument that allowing patents on new uses of drugs spurs this type
of innovation.  On the other hand, over-ownership of patents can make
it difficult for researchers to have access to the drugs they need to
conduct research on different uses until the drug's original patent
term expires.  Swiss-form patents also create problems of increased
prices and therefore reduced access to new ways of treating
diseases.  In the UK, however, this is less of an issue than it might
be elsewhere because of nationalized health care.

Finally, it is important to note that drugs are sometimes prescribed
for off-label use, which is where a doctor will prescribe a drug for
treating something other than an FDA-approved indication.  This means
that where there is a cheap generic of a chemical available for
treatment of one affliction and a more expensive patented version
with an indication for treating another, the doctor could simply
prescribe the generic for 'off-label' use (even though the chemicals
may be identical) and save money for the patient/health care
provider.  Using the above example, a doctor might simply prescribe
generic viagra (pretend this is several years down the road) to
someone who wants treatment for serious jet lag symptoms rather than
prescribing the expensive new patented version that is chemically
identical but patented for use in treating jet lag.  How often
doctors actually do this I don't know, nor do I know if it is
considered ethical/professionally appropriate.  I do know that drug
companies have historically given a lot of free samples, golfing
trips, etc. to doctors.  Perhaps these efforts  encourage doctors to
prescribe the newer, patented, more expensive versions of drugs - but
for a definitive answer to those issues you'd need to look elsewhere
(I'd ask a doctor).

Feel free to give a call if you have more questions.

-Brendan

___________
Brendan Hickey
JD Candidate, Harvard Law School

82 Sacramento Ave, #3
Somerville, MA  02143
United States of America

BHickey@law.harvard.edu
(+01) 617-388-8651


On May 19, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Sue Rochman wrote:

> I'm doing a piece on pharmaceutical companies that sell the same drug
> under two different names for two different uses.
>
> The most recent example I am aware of  is Novartis, which makes
> zoledronic acid (Zometa). Zometa is approved for treating bone mets.
> Novartis hopes to soon begin selling zoledronic acid as Reclast  for
> the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. It's the exact same
> drug,
> just two different names.
>
> I'm curious as to whether anyone knows of any other similar examples.
> (I know that Wyeth has "reformulated" Effexor to sell under a
> different
> name for use as a hot flash treatment.)
>
> Also, can anyone explain, or recommend someone who can comment on, the
> benefits that pharmaceutical companies get (patent or exclusivity
> extensions or otherwise) when they remarket a drug with a new name or
> for a new use?
>
> Thanks,
> Sue Rochman
> Freelance Medical/Health Writer
> sue.rochman@earthlink.net
> 415-346-0414
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health