Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday May 15 2015, @08:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the whatever-it-takes dept.

The problems of developing new antibiotics is that it is a never ending technology race.

New drugs are targeted at those areas where there are a sufficient number of patients to (eventually) pay for the cost of development. Only when existing drugs no longer are effective (due to resistant strains of infectious agents), will doctors prescribe newer more expensive drugs. Some antibiotics and antivirals will end up being niche drugs, for those with special needs.

These situations can lead to an inability to recover developmental costs before the patent expires

This means, the developers are tempted to keep the prices very high. Unfortunately, this discourages use and doctors refuse to prescribe the drug. Some drug companies launch a massive advertising campaign to pump up sales before the patents can expire. This encourages over use, which detracts from the useful life of the drugs.

Too many drug companies therefore, have started shying away from expensive development on a drug that will never make money for them.

ScienceMag features a story on a UK Government proposal for a global government administered program that would guarantee drug developers a profit, rather than extending patent length.

The new report full text pdf here estimates that the world needs 15 new antibiotics per decade, at least four of which should have new mechanisms of action to target the most harmful pathogens.

Toward that end the UK plan would create a $2 billion "global innovation fund," bankrolled by pharmaceutical companies to kick-start development of promising drug studies.

To incentivize drug development without encouraging overuse, the report promotes an idea gaining popularity in antibiotics: "de-linking" a drugmaker's profits from the drug's sales. Such strategies aim to give companies assurance that they will make money if they bring valuable new antibiotics to market, regardless of the number of pills prescribed right away.

  • They propose a system by which a global organisation has the authority and resources to commit lump-sum payments to successful drug developers, irrespective of current sales.
  • Secondly, they would also jump-start a new innovation cycle in antibiotics by getting more money into early stage research by boosting funding for blue-sky research into drugs and diagnostics.
  • Finally they propose to further reduce barriers to drug development by lowering costs, improving the efficiency of research, and lowering global regulatory barriers wherever possible without compromising patients' safety.

They suggest that a comprehensive package of interventions could cost as little 16 billion USD and no more than 37 billion USD over the course of 10 years and would be sufficient to radically overhaul the antibiotics pipeline.

Presumably such a program would come with some requirement to keep prices low, or require them to license others to manufacture the drugs at reasonable royalty rates well before the patents expire.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by AnonTechie on Friday May 15 2015, @08:59AM

    by AnonTechie (2275) on Friday May 15 2015, @08:59AM (#183283) Journal

    This seems to be a well intentioned proposal. However, what seems promising in theory rarely pans out in practice. I have serious doubts about all pharma companies cooperating with each other for the good of humankind.

    --
    Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 15 2015, @03:53PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Friday May 15 2015, @03:53PM (#183376)

    Not sure that it's less realistic than all the military suppliers cooperating with each other for the good of the Pentagon.
    If you guarantee there's enough mullah on the table, people will share.

  • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Friday May 15 2015, @08:11PM

    by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Friday May 15 2015, @08:11PM (#183469)

    "This seems to be a well intentioned proposal. "

    That was a joke right?

    Fork over even more money to big pharma in the form of subsidies because they are not already profitable enough?!

    You have GOT to be kidding me?