Access to innovative medicines by pharma companies: Sustainable initiatives for global health or useful advertisement?

Estimating COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in pregnant and lactating women: a cross-sectional study in Lebanon

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights vaccination's critical role in reducing morbidity and mortality, depending on public attitude. This study aims to identify the estimates of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in pregnant and lactating women, as well as associated potential factors.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted between August and September 2021, through an online survey and with a paper survey distributed in gynecology and pediatric clinics. Pregnant and breastfeeding women aged 18 years and above were recruited. The attitude scale was created specifically for evaluating attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine.

RESULTS

In total, 207 women participated, with 132 breastfeeding, 74 pregnant and 1 experiencing both conditions. Of these, one hundred and twenty women (58%) considered themselves at risk for COVID-19 infection. In addition, 51.7% (n = 107) of women expressed the intent to receive the vaccine once available. A multivariable linear regression was conducted taking the COVID-19 vaccination attitude scale as a dependent variable. The results revealed an R-squared value of 0.558, indicating that approximately 55.8% of the variance in the attitude scale was accounted for by the included predictors. The results showed that preventive measures (ß=2.25, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [1.02; 3.48], p < 0.001), preference for vaccines made in Europe and America (ß=1.23; 95% CI [0.69-1.77], p < 0.001), protect yourself for getting sick (ß=4.22, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [2.83; 5.61], p < 0.001) and belief in the importance of vaccination for themselves and their baby (ß=3.49; 95% CI [2.01; 4.98], p < 0.001) were associated with a positive attitude towards vaccination. Conversely, experiencing a previous bad reaction to a vaccine (ß= -1.35; 95% CI [0.85-1.85], p < 0.001) and concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety (ß= -4.09; 95% CI [-5.98; -2.21], p < 0.001) were associated with a negative attitude towards vaccination.

CONCLUSION

Our findings reveal that COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among pregnant and breastfeeding women, amidst the pandemic was insufficient to meet community immunity. The identified reasons for vaccine reluctance, notably concerns about safety for both personal health and the health of their pregnancy or newborns, along with insufficient information about the vaccine, underscore the pressing need to address these factors to improve immunization rates.

Changes in launch delay and availability of pharmaceuticals in 30 European markets over the past two decades

BACKGROUND

The timing of the launch of a new drug is an important factor that determines access for patients. We evaluated patient access to pharmaceuticals in 30 European markets over the past two decades.

METHODS

Launch dates were extracted from the IQVIA (formerly IMS) database for 30 European countries for all pharmaceuticals launched internationally between 2000 and 2017. We defined launch delay as the difference between the first international launch date and the corresponding national launch date, and calculated these for each country in our sample over time. Additionally, we ranked countries according to their launch delays and looked at changes in the ranking order over time. Lastly, we determined the availability of new pharmaceuticals in each country, calculating this as the percentage of these pharmaceuticals that were available in each country during a pre-specified interval.

RESULTS

There was a clear trend towards a decrease in launch delays across all countries from 2000 (37.2 months) to 2017 (11.8 months). Over the entire observation period, the three fastest launching countries were the Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany, whereas the three slowest were Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, and Turkey. Germany had the highest availability of new pharmaceuticals with 85.7%, followed by the United Kingdom (83.1%) and Norway (82.9%). Countries with the lowest availability of pharmaceuticals were Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, and Latvia. Gross domestic product per capita was negatively correlated with launch delay (-0.67, p < 0.000) and positively correlated with the availability of pharmaceuticals (+ 0.19, p < 0.000).

CONCLUSION

Launch delay and the availability of pharmaceuticals varied substantially across all 30 European countries. Using countries with above-average availability and below-average launch delays as a benchmark, stakeholders may discuss or modify current pharmaceutical policy, if needed, to improve access to pharmaceutical care.

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

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.

Framing access to medicines during COVID-19: A qualitative content analysis of Gilead's Remdesivir

The COVID-19 pandemic calls into question the institutional structure underlying the pharmaceutical industry. While some have called for medical technologies to be global public goods and patent waivers on pharmaceuticals, much of the industry has pushed back against any attempts that might threaten their monopoly power to set prices. Public acceptance of the role of private companies to control life-saving drugs, as well as of the intellectual property system, informs campaigns guaranteeing universal access to medicines and corporate strategies to shape policy. This study consists of a qualitative content analysis of online comments about news reports of Gilead Science's pricing of remdesivir, a re-purposed drug that shows some positive efficacy against COVID-19 in clinical trials. Analysing elite and public framing about medicine pricing informs our understanding of the social construction of markets. The findings identify hegemonic and counter-hegemonic discourse about innovation, affordability, saving lives, health care savings and international comparisons that stimulate debate and potentially advocacy. As such, the discursive context delineates the possibilities for remediating the normative and material structure of a pharmaceutical system currently geared towards private profit instead of public health needs.

Availability and reimbursement of biological products for severe asthma in Bulgaria

Objectives

This study aims to analyze the reimbursement and cost of biological therapy for severe asthma in Bulgaria during 2014-2019 from the perspective of the National Health Insurance Fund.

Methods

It is a retrospective, Marco-costing, top-down study of the expenditures for biological products for severe asthma. The changes in the cost paid by the National Health Insurance Fund per year, per product, and per patient during 2015-2020 were systematized and calculated. The utilization of biologicals was analyzed by calculating the defined daily dose/1000inh/day. Three databases were searched-the European Medicines Agency for the date of marketing authorization of biological products, National Council of Prices and Reimbursement for the date of their respective inclusion in the positive drug list, and National Health Insurance Fund about the number of patients with asthma, reimbursed sum for all asthma patients, and number of packages sold of biological products.

Results

At the end of 2019, five international non-proprietary names of biologicals with indication for severe asthma had received European marketing authorization, and three of them were included in the Bulgarian positive drug list-omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab with a 75% reimbursement. Upon their introduction into the positive drug list, the reimbursed expenditures for asthma therapy started to increase from 27 million in 2014 to 33 million BGN in 2019 (€13.5-€16.5 million). The cost of therapy with biologicals rose from 16% to 24% of all anti-asthmatic medicines budget. The National Health Insurance Fund database reported that between 47,000 and 52,000 of patients with asthma, 466 are on biological therapy. The yearly cost of one asthma patient ranges between 512 and 615 BGN (€258-€307), and the yearly per-patient cost of severe asthma is 16,666 BGN (appr. €8333). Total utilization in defined daily dose/1000inh/day increases from 0.0199 to 0.0383 from 2015 to 2019.

Conclusion

The access to biological therapy through the reimbursement system has improved during the last 3 years. The cost of therapy is posing a high burden on the National Health Insurance Fund and on the patients and is expected to increase due to the small number of patients on biological therapy currently in comparison to all reimbursed asthmatics.