Contrasting academic approaches to COVID-19 vaccine production and distribution: What can the Oxford and Texas experiences teach us about pandemic response?

This article contrasts the different approaches to COVID-19 vaccine development adopted by Oxford University, on one hand, and Texas Children's Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine (collectively, Texas), on the other hand. Texas was praised widely in the press and academic literature for adopting an "open source" approach to vaccine development. Oxford, however, chose to license its vaccine technology to pharmaceutical manufacturer AstraZeneca and received significant public criticism as a result. Yet the Oxford vaccine reached far more individuals in developing countries than the Texas vaccine. We compare the two vaccines' experiences, drawing attention to a constellation of interrelated elements that contribute to a successful vaccine production program, including not only IP licensing, but also timing, technology transfer, and resource mobilization, all in the context of the prevailing funding environments. This comparative analysis sheds light on how the innovation ecosystem functioned during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing useful insights for policy makers and advocates as they prepare for future pandemics and other global health challenges.

Vaccine technology transfer in a global health crisis: Actors, capabilities, and institutions.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which featured international pharmaceutical firms seeking to build global manufacturing networks to scale-up the supply of vaccines, has generated heightened interest in understanding the role of firm-to-firm technology transfer. While considerable attention has been given to tracking the extent of international vaccine technology transfer, we know little about how partnerships were established and work in practice. Understanding the challenges that such projects face, and how such challenges may be overcome, is crucially important. This paper provides an account of the partnership between the British-Swedish multinational pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, the vaccine developer that has engaged in the most technology transfer and built the widest global manufacturing network, and Bio-Manguinhos, a public laboratory linked to Brazil's Ministry of Health. The case study demonstrates the importance of capabilities and regulatory flexibility. Moreover, the analysis highlights the role of political factors that affect the process of technology transfer, and innovation more broadly. Because of the risks involved and the need to quickly mobilize existing capabilities and build new ones, as well as the imperatives of coordinating among manufacturing and regulatory processes and allocating resources to make such arrangements feasible, technology transfer projects need to be enabled politically. Looking forward, the case study has implications for initiatives to expand technology transfer for broadened production of vaccines in the Global South.

The politics of COVID-19 vaccination in middle-income countries: Lessons from Brazil.

As the world struggles to meet the challenges of vaccination against COVID-19, more attention needs to be paid to issues faced by countries at different income levels. Middle-income countries (MICs) typically lack the resources and regulatory capacities to pursue strategies that wealthier countries do, but they also face different sets of challenges and opportunities than low-income countries (LICs). We focus on three dimensions of vaccination: procurement and production; regulation of marketing registration; and distribution and uptake. For each dimension we show the distinct challenges and opportunities faced by MICs. We illustrate these challenges and opportunities with the case of Brazil, showing how each dimension has been affected by intense political conflicts. Brazil's procurement and production strategy, which builds on a long trajectory of local production and technology transfer, has been riddled by conflicts between the national government and state governments. The regulatory approval process, based around one of Latin America's most highly-regarded regulatory authorities, has also been subject to acute inter- and intra-governmental conflicts. And with regard to distribution and uptake, in the face of high uncertainty, even with a solid health infrastructure, Brazil encounters difficulties in promoting vaccine delivery. The research also reveals the importance of coordination among these dimensions, in Brazil and beyond. Pandemic preparedness and response must include sharing knowledge of how to produce vaccines and recognition of the crucial linkages between procurement, regulation, delivery, and uptake that are necessary for ensuring access to these products.

The COVID-19 Innovation System.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic response brought forth major changes in innovation policy. This article takes stock of the key features of the COVID-19 innovation system-the network of public and private actors influencing the development and diffusion of technologies to combat the pandemic. Before the pandemic, biomedical research and development policy consisted largely of "push" funding from the public sector in support of basic research and "pull" incentives from patents to motivate private companies to invest in clinical trials and develop drugs and vaccines. In contrast, during the pandemic, public funding shifted its focus to late-stage product development and manufacturing. Procurement agreements with governments replaced traditional pull incentives from patents for the major private companies. Nonpatent barriers to competition may also have incentivized innovation. The challenges to ensuring diffusion have gained in prominence during the pandemic, though it is unclear what role patents will play in pricing and access. Some aspects of this approach to biomedical innovation may be unique to crises, but others could provide lessons for policy beyond the pandemic.

Challenges in ensuring global access to COVID-19 vaccines: production, affordability, allocation, and deployment.

The COVID-19 pandemic is unlikely to end until there is global roll-out of vaccines that protect against severe disease and preferably drive herd immunity. Regulators in numerous countries have authorised or approved COVID-19 vaccines for human use, with more expected to be licensed in 2021. Yet having licensed vaccines is not enough to achieve global control of COVID-19: they also need to be produced at scale, priced affordably, allocated globally so that they are available where needed, and widely deployed in local communities. In this Health Policy paper, we review potential challenges to success in each of these dimensions and discuss policy implications. To guide our review, we developed a dashboard to highlight key characteristics of 26 leading vaccine candidates, including efficacy levels, dosing regimens, storage requirements, prices, production capacities in 2021, and stocks reserved for low-income and middle-income countries. We use a traffic-light system to signal the potential contributions of each candidate to achieving global vaccine immunity, highlighting important trade-offs that policy makers need to consider when developing and implementing vaccination programmes. Although specific datapoints are subject to change as the pandemic response progresses, the dashboard will continue to provide a useful lens through which to analyse the key issues affecting the use of COVID-19 vaccines. We also present original data from a 32-country survey (n=26 758) on potential acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, conducted from October to December, 2020. Vaccine acceptance was highest in Vietnam (98%), India (91%), China (91%), Denmark (87%), and South Korea (87%), and lowest in Serbia (38%), Croatia (41%), France (44%), Lebanon (44%), and Paraguay (51%).

Analyzing the impact of trade and investment agreements on pharmaceutical policy: provisions, pathways and potential impacts.

BACKGROUND: Trade and investment agreements negotiated after the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) have included increasingly elevated protection of intellectual property rights along with an expanding array of rules impacting many aspects of pharmaceutical policy. Despite the large body of literature on intellectual property and access to affordable medicines, the ways in which other provisions in trade agreements can affect pharmaceutical policy and, in turn, access to medicines have been little studied. There is a need for an analytical framework covering the full range of provisions, pathways, and potential impacts, on which to base future health and human rights impact assessment and research. A framework exploring the ways in which trade and investment agreements may affect pharmaceutical policy was developed, based on an analysis of four recently negotiated regional trade agreements. First a set of core pharmaceutical policy objectives based on international consensus was identified. A systematic comparative analysis of the publicly available legal texts of the four agreements was undertaken, and the potential impacts of the provisions in these agreements on the core pharmaceutical policy objectives were traced through an analysis of possible pathways. RESULTS: An analytical framework is presented, linking ten types of provisions in the four trade agreements to potential impacts on four core pharmaceutical policy objectives (access and affordability; safety, efficacy, and quality; rational use of medicines; and local production capacity and health security) via various pathways. CONCLUSIONS: The analytical framework highlights provisions in trade and investment agreements that need to be examined, pathways that should be explored, and potential impacts that should be taken into consideration with respect to pharmaceutical policy. This may serve as a useful checklist or template for health and human rights impact assessments and research on the implications of trade agreements for pharmaceuticals.

Indian pharmaceutical patent prosecution: The changing role of Section 3(d).

India, like many developing countries, only recently began to grant pharmaceutical product patents. Indian patent law includes a provision, Section 3(d), which tries to limit grant of "secondary" pharmaceutical patents, i.e. patents on new forms of existing molecules and drugs. Previous research suggests the provision was rarely used against secondary applications in the years immediately following its enactment, and where it was, was redundant to other aspects of the patent law, raising concerns that 3(d) was being under-utilized by the Indian Patent Office. This paper uses a novel data source, the patent office's first examination reports, to examine changes in the use of the provision. We find a sharp increase over time in the use of Section 3(d), including on the main claims of patent applications, though it continues to be used in conjunction with other types of objections to patentability. More surprisingly, see a sharp increase in the use of the provision against primary patent applications, contrary to its intent, raising concerns about potential over-utilization.

Promoting and regulating generic medicines: Brazil in comparative perspective.

Promoting the use of generic drugs can constitute a core instrument for countries' national pharmaceutical policies, one that reduces drug expenditure while expanding health care access. Despite the potential importance of such policy measures and the differences among national practices, scholars embarking on comparative analysis lack a roadmap for determining which dimensions of generic drug policy to assess and compare. This report fills that gap by considering national rules and regulations across four dimensions deemed crucial to any evaluation: demonstrated therapeutic equivalence; pharmaceutical packaging and labeling; drug prescription; and drug substitution. Furthermore, this report examines how the diverse interests of public and private sector stakeholders might shape generic drug policy and its implementation. To illustrate the challenges and conflicts behind policy development and implementation, this report focuses on the case of Brazil.

Promoting and regulating generic medicines: Brazil in comparative perspective / La promoción y la regulación de los medicamentos genéricos: el caso del Brasil desde una perspectiva comparativa

Promoting the use of generic drugs can constitute a core instrument for countries’ national pharmaceutical policies, one that reduces drug expenditure while expanding health care access. Despite the potential importance of such policy measures and the differences among national practices, scholars embarking on comparative analysis lack a roadmap for determining which dimensions of generic drug policy to assess and compare. This report fills that gap by considering national rules and regulations across four dimensions deemed crucial to any evaluation: demonstrated therapeutic equivalence; pharmaceutical packaging and labeling; drug prescription; and drug substitution. Furthermore, this report examines how the diverse interests of public and private sector stakeholders might shape generic drug policy and its implementation. To illustrate the challenges and conflicts behind policy development and implementation, this report focuses on the case of Brazil.

La promoción del uso de medicamentos genéricos puede ser un instrumento fundamental para la política farmacéutica nacional de los países, puesto que reduce el gasto en medicamentos y, a la vez, amplía el acceso a la atención de salud. A pesar de la importancia que pueden tener esas políticas y de las diferencias entre las prácticas de cada país, los expertos que emprenden análisis comparativos carecen de una hoja de ruta que les permita determinar los aspectos que deben evaluar y comparar de las políticas relativas a los medicamentos genéricos. Este informe subsana esta carencia al examinar las leyes y los reglamentos nacionales en relación con cuatro dimensiones consideradas cruciales en toda evaluación: la demostración de la equivalencia terapéutica, el empaquetado y el etiquetado farmacéutico, la prescripción, y la sustitución. Además, se examina la forma en que los distintos intereses de las partes involucradas de los sectores público y privado podrían configurar la política relativa a los medicamentos genéricos y su aplicación. A fin de ilustrar los retos y los conflictos que subyacen a la formulación y la ejecución de las políticas farmacéuticas, este informe se centra en el caso del Brasil.

The political contradictions of incremental innovation: lessons from pharmaceutical patent examination in Brazil.

Neodevelopmental patent regimes aim to facilitate local actors' access to knowledge and also encourage incremental innovations. The case of pharmaceutical patent examination in Brazil illustrates political contradictions between these objectives. Brazil's patent law includes the Ministry of Health in the examination of pharmaceutical patent applications. Though widely celebrated as a health-oriented policy, the Brazilian experience has become fraught with tensions and subject to decreasing levels of both stability and enforcement. I show how one pillar of the neodevelopmental regime, the array of initiatives to encourage incremental innovations, has fostered the acquisition of innovative capabilities in the Brazilian pharmaceutical sector, and how these new capabilities have altered actors' policy preferences and thus contributed to the erosion of the coalition in support of the other pillar of the neodevelopmental regime, the health-oriented approach to examining pharmaceutical patents. The analysis of capability-derived preference formation points to an endogenous process of coalitional change.