Original news and analysis on international IP policy
The World Health Organization (WHO) has released an updated guidance document on pandemic influenza risk management, which includes the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework for the sharing of influenza viruses and access to vaccines and other benefits that was discussed by member states during the 66th World Health Assembly (WHA) in May.
A recent Geneva-based study found that so-called evergreening practices utilised by drug manufacturers are successful in protecting profits by maintaining company market share and offsetting generic competition and cost containment policies.
Thirteen years after publication of the landmark report, “Tobacco Company Strategies to Undermine Tobacco Control Activities at the World Health Organization,” little has changed and industry manipulations continue, one of the lead authors has said.
Lower-income countries receive much less attention in terms of clinical trial research, according to a study published in this month’s World Health Organization (WHO) Bulletin. The study also underscored the value and importance the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) provides as a resource for evaluating the distribution of clinical trials around the world, and for providing information for future policy on health R&D.
Wrapping up one day early, the 66th World Health Assembly adopted a range of public health resolutions and decisions, some with key intellectual property implications, including a decision to convene a technical meeting on new public health R&D projects, a compromise on advancing the poor quality medicines mechanism, and resolutions on both neglected tropical diseases and noncommunicable diseases. Importantly, the novel coronavirus situation drew attention to WHO’s progress in pandemic influenza preparedness.
Heading into the 66th World Health Assembly, the prospect of a global treaty to address the health needs of developing countries seemed unlikely and years away at best. In a surprising turn in this highly political conversation, the US challenged member states to prove that it could work. That process will start sooner rather than later as members gavelled the resolution and agreed to convene a meeting on health R&D demonstration projects in the next few months.
Member states gathered at the annual World Health Assembly took note of a report on its pandemic influenza preparedness (PIP) framework amid encouragement by developed countries that standard agreements for transferring materials be completed, and reminders from some developing countries of the need for fair access and benefit-sharing of the resulting treatments.
Daniela Bagozzi writes: Ten years of efforts in treatment for priority diseases has yielded impressive results both in terms of lives and dollars saved. To maintain progress in a volatile and financially tight environment countries and the international community will need to increase pressure on quality and healthy generic competition.
Breaking six months of deadlock, WHA members reached a compromise in committee on the issue of which country should preside over the global mechanism on poor quality medicines by supporting Brazil’s proposal to rotate the steering committee chairmanship. The Assembly will likely approve the decision.
An informal drafting group finalised a text today, proposing to convene a technical meeting to help identify new health research and development projects for diseases that primarily affect poor communities.
Taking the World Health Assembly by surprise, the US delegation today made a proposal to advance progress on the monitoring, coordination, and financing of health R&D in committee discussions today. Their suggestion to convene an advisory meeting is being discussed in an informal drafting group in a side room. The committee has adjourned until Monday, but the drafting group will continue over the weekend.
"Bad Science" adversary and journalist, Dr Ben Goldacre, this week challenged WHO Director of Ethics and Social Determinants of Health, Dr Rüdiger Krech, on his understanding of published evidence.