[Ip-health] Informa UK Ltd 2007: Talks on developing world diseases stall to 2008

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

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

November 14th 2007 | No 3311 19

----------

<SNIP>

Although little detail has emerged from the IGWG meeting,
NGOs were positive about its interim results.

Michel Lotrowksa, campaigner at M=E9decins sans Fronti=E8res=92s
access to medicine campaign, said: =94What is most
encouraging is that governments have decided that business
as usual won=92t do anymore. They are open to exploring
entirely new ways of financing essential health research, in
such a way that the fruits of innovation are accessible to
those who need it the most. One example is the decision to
pursue discussions on an essential health and biomedical
R&D treaty.=94

MSF also believes that member states are more supportive
of the WHO being more active in the access to medicines
debate, and taking a pro-health approach to intellectual
property. The industry has opposed the WHO taking an IP
role, saying this is best left for the World Trade Organization.
=93We need an R&D system that allows both medical
innovation and access,=94 MSF said.

James Love, the director of the US NGO, Knowledge Ecology
International, said: =93Negotiators [at the IGWG meeting] are
creating new global norms and mechanisms to promote
both innovation and access to medical technologies. For
many years we have had an access to medicines movement.
Today we have an =91innovation plus access=92 [i+a] movement.

=93The pharmaceutical industry tried to block all of the new
ideas, including most importantly, future discussions on a
medical R&D treaty. But discussions on everything,
including an R&D treaty, are moving forward. This has been
a very strong week for the i+a advocates.=94



----------------

Talks on developing world diseases stall to 2008

Public health officials for 140 member states at a World
Health Organization meeting could not finalise agreement
on how best to stimulate R&D for diseases that
disproportionately affect developing countries, after six
days of intensive talks last week.

The WHO=92s International Working Group on Public Health,
Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG) meeting in
Geneva had hoped to complete its =93global strategy and
plan of action=94 document for the World Health Assembly in
May, but time had run out.

Although the talks are set to resume again on April 28th to
May 3rd, 2008, before the assembly meets, the WHO said:
=93Progress had been made in developing a plan to ensure
poor populations have better access to medicines and other
health products.=94

Elil Renganathan, the secretariat of IGWG, told Scrip that:
=93Nothing is agreed until everything [in the strategy and
plan document] is agreed.=94

A document, which will be heavily bracketed (reflecting
issues that lack consensus), will be published on the WHO=92s
website before April, said Emma Ross, a WHO
spokesperson. A progress report will be issued to member
states later this month, added Mr Renganathan.

Some of the areas that moved towards consensus at the
IGWG meeting included prioritising R&D needs,
promoting R&D, and building and improving innovative
capacity, especially in the developing world, including
technology transfer.

...R&D treaty idea warm?

One idea that will be further explored is whether an R&D
treaty could stimulate the necessary research into diseases
that affect developing countries. Although the idea has the
support of the NGOs, the pharmaceutical industry believes
it is not a sustainable practical solution, but rather
=93theoretical or ideological in nature=94.

The treaty would require member states to commit certain
amounts of resources to R&D and the scheme would be
co-ordinated by an agency. Guy Willis, director of
communications for the international pharmaceutical
industry federation, the IFPMA, told Scrip that it would be
too bureaucratic and that state-driven research was not as
good as private-sector research. Furthermore he
questioned whether money put into the scheme would be
wasted covering overheads, when it could be better spent
on addressing R&D needs.

Other NGO-favoured ideas to stimulate R&D include patent
pools and medical prize funds, but again these do not
generally have the support of the industry. Mr Willis says
patent pools might work for the computer software
industry, as one patent does not necessarily lead to a
marketable product, but in medicine, patents tend to be
=93monolithic=94 and stronger. And medical prize funds should
not replace the patent system, he adds.

The industry advocates three approaches to addressing the
R&D needs of developing countries: advance market
commitments, the use of incentives for the pharmaceutical
industry such as orphan drug legislation (both exist in the
EU and US) and transferable fast-track regulatory reviews
of the sort proposed for the US FDA in September (Scrip
No 3297, p 14).

The US House and Senate passed legislation which would
create a voucher system to provide incentives for
companies to develop treatments for neglected  diseases.

Under the system, the FDA would fast-track a drug
application (a voucher entitling the company to a priority,
six-month review) if a company submits a new medicine for
the developing world. But what the industry likes about the
US scheme is that the fast-tracking can be transferred to
another of the company=92s medicines that has more
potential commercial success, the IFPMA says.

...NGO take on talks positive

Although little detail has emerged from the IGWG meeting,
NGOs were positive about its interim results.

Michel Lotrowksa, campaigner at M=E9decins sans Fronti=E8res=92s
access to medicine campaign, said: =94What is most
encouraging is that governments have decided that business
as usual won=92t do anymore. They are open to exploring
entirely new ways of financing essential health research, in
such a way that the fruits of innovation are accessible to
those who need it the most. One example is the decision to
pursue discussions on an essential health and biomedical
R&D treaty.=94

MSF also believes that member states are more supportive
of the WHO being more active in the access to medicines
debate, and taking a pro-health approach to intellectual
property. The industry has opposed the WHO taking an IP
role, saying this is best left for the World Trade Organization.
=93We need an R&D system that allows both medical
innovation and access,=94 MSF said.

James Love, the director of the US NGO, Knowledge Ecology
International, said: =93Negotiators [at the IGWG meeting] are
creating new global norms and mechanisms to promote
both innovation and access to medical technologies. For
many years we have had an access to medicines movement.
Today we have an =91innovation plus access=92 [i+a] movement.

=93The pharmaceutical industry tried to block all of the new
ideas, including most importantly, future discussions on a
medical R&D treaty. But discussions on everything,
including an R&D treaty, are moving forward. This has been
a very strong week for the i+a advocates.=94

=A9Informa UK Ltd 2007 | www.scripnews.com | November 14th 2007 | No
3311 19