Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 2.623
Filter
1.
CMAJ ; 196(20): E691-E701, 2024 May 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38802136

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), the agency that regulates the prices of patented medicines in Canada, published proposed amendments to the regulatory framework in December 2017. Because of a series of changes and delays, the revised policy has not yet been finalized. We sought to evaluate the potential early impact of the uncertainty about the PMPRB policy on patented-medicine launches. METHODS: We developed a retrospective cohort of patented medicines (molecules) sold in Canada and the 13 countries that the PMPRB currently uses or has proposed to use as price comparators, from sales data from the IQVIA MIDAS database for 2012-2021. The outcome was whether a molecule was launched (i.e., sold) in a specific country within 2 years of its global first launch (2-yr launch). We compared the change of 2-year launch before (2012-2017) and after the proposed amendments were published ("uncertain period," 2018-2021) in Canada with the change in the United States and the other 12 countries as a group ("other-countries group"), using interrupted time series and logistic regressions, respectively. We further conducted analyses for each individual country and subgroups by molecule characteristics, such as therapeutic benefit, separately. RESULTS: We included 242 and 107 new molecules launched before publication of the proposed amendments and during the uncertain period, respectively. The corresponding 2-year launch proportions were 45.0% and 30.8% in Canada, 81.4% and 82.2% in the US, and 83.9% and 70.1% in the other-countries group. All analyses showed changes in 2-year launch during the uncertain period in the US and in the other-countries group that were similar to the changes in Canada. Greater decreases were observed in Norway and Sweden than in Canada. The 2-year launch proportion for molecules with major therapeutic benefit decreased from 45.8% to 31.3% in Canada during the uncertain period and from 87.5% to 62.5% in the other-countries group, but increased from 91.7% to 100% in the US. INTERPRETATION: No negative impact of the PMPRB-policy uncertainty on molecule launches was observed when comparing Canada with price-comparator countries, except for molecules with major therapeutic benefit. The reduction in launches of medicines with major therapeutic benefit in Canada requires continuing investigation.


Subject(s)
Drug Costs , Patents as Topic , Canada , Retrospective Studies , Humans , Patents as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Drug Costs/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , Commerce/legislation & jurisprudence , Commerce/economics
3.
PLoS Med ; 21(4): e1004381, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38662775

ABSTRACT

In this Policy Forum piece, Robin Feldman discusses how current legislation contributes to informational deficits around drug patents for biologic drugs in the United States.


Subject(s)
Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals , Intellectual Property , United States , Humans , Biological Products , Patents as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Legislation, Drug , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudence
4.
Med Law Rev ; 32(2): 205-228, 2024 May 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38654475

ABSTRACT

The availability of biomaterials is a key component of health research and the development of new health-technologies (including, diagnostics, medicines, and vaccines). People are often encouraged by biobanks to donate samples altruistically to such biobanks. While empirical evidence suggests many donors are motivated by the desire to contribute towards developing new health-technologies for society. However, a tension can arise as health-technologies whose development is contributed to by donors' biomaterials will often be protected by intellectual property rights (IPRs), including patents. Patents give rightsholders control over how patented technologies are used and can be used in a way that impedes public access to technologies developed. Yet, there are no binding European legal obligations mandating disclosure to donors of how IPRs can operate over downstream health-technologies and how they could impact access to health-technologies developed, nor are there legally binding obligations to ensure public accessibility of technologies developed. Focusing on the bioethical implications posed, this article argues that the current situation can impact donors' autonomy and dignity interests. A more holistic approach is needed for biobank donation, which embeds a consideration of donors' expectations/interests from the point of donation through to how such samples are used and how health-technologies developed are accessed. We put forward avenues that seek to address such issues.


Subject(s)
Biological Specimen Banks , Intellectual Property , Humans , Biological Specimen Banks/legislation & jurisprudence , Biological Specimen Banks/ethics , Patents as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Biomedical Technology/legislation & jurisprudence , Biomedical Technology/ethics , Tissue Donors/legislation & jurisprudence , Bioethical Issues/legislation & jurisprudence
5.
Hum Antibodies ; 32(2): 35-49, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38640147

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patent protection of therapeutic antibodies and T cell receptors is an important tool to enable the path to the market. In view of the substantial spendings for R&D and regulatory approval, sponsors expect exclusivity for their drug for a given period of time. Different categories exist to protect therapeutic antibodies and T cell receptors. One of these categories are epitope-based patent claims, with regard to which in the different jurisdictions, different patentability standards exist, which, furthermore, are constantly changed by courts and lawmakers. OBJECTIVE: This article tries to explain the patentability issues related to epitope-based patent claims. METHODS: For this purpose, an overview is given on the respective legal provisions and court decisions. RESULTS: The study reveals that the respective patentability standards are constantly changed by courts and lawmakers. CONCLUSIONS: Companies developing therapeutic antibodies or T cell receptors need to consider these developments in their strategic planning.


Subject(s)
Epitopes , Patents as Topic , Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell , Patents as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Epitopes/immunology , Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell/immunology , Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell/therapeutic use , Antibodies/therapeutic use , Antibodies/immunology
6.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38563076

ABSTRACT

Cambodia has experienced exponential economic growth in recent years and is expected to graduate from least developed country (LDC) status within the next decade. Membership of the World Trade Organization (WTO) will require Cambodia to grant product and process patents for pharmaceuticals upon LDC graduation. This study aims to measure the impact of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) on the price of HIV and hepatitis C medicine in Cambodia once it graduates from LDC status and is obliged to make patents available for pharmaceutical products and processes. Using scenarios based on likely outcomes of accession to the TRIPS Agreement, it measures the impact on the price of the HIV treatment program and compares that impact with the hepatitis C treatment program. Graduation from LDC status would be expected to result in a modest increase in the cost of the antiretroviral (ARV) treatment program and very large increases in the cost of the direct acting antivirals (DAA) treatment program. If annual treatment budgets remain constant, patent protection could see 1,515 fewer people living with HIV able to access ARV treatment and 2,577 fewer people able to access DAA treatment (a drop in treatment coverage of 93%).


Subject(s)
HIV Infections , Health Services Accessibility , Hepatitis C , Intellectual Property , Cambodia/epidemiology , Humans , Hepatitis C/drug therapy , Hepatitis C/epidemiology , HIV Infections/drug therapy , HIV Infections/epidemiology , Health Services Accessibility/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Patents as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Developing Countries/economics , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/supply & distribution , Antiviral Agents/economics , International Cooperation/legislation & jurisprudence , Anti-HIV Agents/therapeutic use , Anti-HIV Agents/economics , Drug Costs
8.
JAMA ; 331(11): 976-978, 2024 03 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38386345

ABSTRACT

This cross-sectional study identifies the prevalence of patents on risk evaluation and mitigation strategies and their association with delaying generic competition.


Subject(s)
Drugs, Generic , Patents as Topic , Prescription Drugs , Risk Evaluation and Mitigation , Drug Costs , Drug Industry , Drugs, Generic/therapeutic use , Economic Competition , Risk Evaluation and Mitigation/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , Patents as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence
13.
JAMA ; 330(7): 650-657, 2023 08 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37505513

ABSTRACT

Importance: Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists were first approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in 2005. Demand for these drugs has increased rapidly in recent years, as indications have expanded, but they remain expensive. Objective: To analyze how manufacturers of brand-name GLP-1 receptor agonists have used the patent and regulatory systems to extend periods of market exclusivity. Evidence Review: The annual US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations was used to identify GLP-1 receptor agonists approved from 2005 to 2021 and to record patents and nonpatent statutory exclusivities listed for each product. Google Patents was used to extract additional data on patents, including whether each was obtained on the delivery device or another aspect of the product. The primary outcome was the duration of expected protection from generic competition, defined as the time elapsed from FDA approval until expiration of the last-to-expire patent or regulatory exclusivity. Findings: On the 10 GLP-1 receptor agonists included in the cohort, drug manufacturers listed with the FDA a median of 19.5 patents (IQR, 9.0-25.8) per product, including a median of 17 patents (IQR, 8.3-22.8) filed before FDA approval and 1.5 (IQR, 0-2.8) filed after FDA approval. Fifty-four percent of all patents listed on GLP-1 receptor agonists were on the delivery devices rather than active ingredients. Manufacturers augmented patent protection with a median of 2 regulatory exclusivities (IQR, 0-3) obtained at approval and 1 (IQR, 0.3-4.3) added after approval. The median total duration of expected protection after FDA approval, when accounting for both preapproval and postapproval patents and regulatory exclusivities, was 18.3 years (IQR, 16.0-19.4). No generic firm has successfully challenged patents on GLP-1 receptor agonists to gain FDA approval. Conclusions and Relevance: Patent and regulatory reform is needed to ensure timely generic entry of GLP-1 receptor agonists to the market.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Drug Approval , Drugs, Generic , Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor , Hypoglycemic Agents , Patents as Topic , Humans , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/economics , Drug Approval/legislation & jurisprudence , Drugs, Generic/economics , Drugs, Generic/therapeutic use , Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor/agonists , Pharmaceutical Preparations/economics , Hypoglycemic Agents/economics , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Patents as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , Therapeutic Equivalency , Commerce , Economic Competition/economics , Economic Competition/legislation & jurisprudence , Time Factors
14.
JAMA ; 329(19): 1641-1642, 2023 05 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36972066

ABSTRACT

This Viewpoint discusses a current Supreme Court lawsuit, Amgen v Sanofi, involving Amgen's broad patents on PCSK9 that could effectively prevent other manufacturers from producing similar or even clinically superior antibodies, with important negative consequences for patients.


Subject(s)
Patents as Topic , Supreme Court Decisions , United States , Patents as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence
17.
JAMA ; 329(1): 87-89, 2023 01 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36594955

ABSTRACT

This study quantifies the revenue earned on all brand-name inhalers approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2000 to 2021 and compared earnings before and after expiration of primary patents on these products.


Subject(s)
Drug Industry , Economic Competition , Nebulizers and Vaporizers , Patents as Topic , Drugs, Generic , Economic Competition/economics , Nebulizers and Vaporizers/economics , United States , Patents as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Drug Industry/economics , Drug Industry/legislation & jurisprudence
18.
JAMA ; 329(6): 461-462, 2023 02 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36637817

ABSTRACT

This Viewpoint discusses the CRISPR patent ruling, an ongoing patent dispute, and the implications for research and medical innovation.


Subject(s)
CRISPR-Cas Systems , Gene Editing , Patents as Topic , Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats , Gene Editing/legislation & jurisprudence , Patents as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , Legislation, Medical
19.
JAMA ; 329(6): 459-460, 2023 02 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36637860

ABSTRACT

This Viewpoint discusses 3 bills introduced recently in Congress that focus on patent eligibility, fraud, and quality and that have major implications for clinical medicine and pharmaceutical development.


Subject(s)
Health Care Reform , Legislation, Drug , Patents as Topic , Prescription Drugs , Health Care Reform/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , Patents as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence
20.
Rev. derecho genoma hum ; (57): 117-159, July-December 2022.
Article in English | IBECS | ID: ibc-219445

ABSTRACT

This work is inspired by the international litigation chronicle of Myriad Genetics that remains of topical importance in the judicial and academic discourse regardless of the time that passed since. It discusses approaches of various jurisdictions to the problem of gene patenting as well as patenting of geneticdiagnostic testing. The article takes under scrutiny the judgments rendered in the U.S., Australia as well as the decisions by the European Patent Office and placesthem into interdisciplinary background of genetic science. The issue is significant, both theoretically and practically. Notwithstanding the expiration of patents that constituted the subject matter of the Myriad’s various lawsuits, the problem still remains currently relevant. Firstly, because the judgments in individual cases did not answer all the questions, but – in some way – only prepared a path for future decisions. Secondly, it is on account of new scientific breakthroughs in the area of human genetics. Consequently, the domain of genetic diagnostics is under continuous development and in the future may continue to reveal new scientific discoveries and (possibly) inventions. The lack of uniform and transparent rules in this field, and well-defined boundaries for potential monopolies constantly brings not only uncertainty for medical practitioners and scientists, but also real disadvantagesfor the patients. (AU)


Esta obra se inspira en la crónica del litigio internacional de Myriad Genetics, que sigue siendo de actualidad en el discurso judicial y académico a pesar del tiempotranscurrido desde entonces. En él se examinan los enfoques de diversas jurisdicciones sobre el problema de las patentes de genes, así como de las patentes de pruebas de diagnóstico genético. El artículo examina las sentencias dictadas en Estados Unidos y Australia, así como las decisiones de la Oficina Europea de Patentes, y las sitúa en el contexto interdisciplinario de la ciencia genética. La cuestión es importante, tanto desde el punto de vista teórico como práctico. A pesar de la expiración de las patentes que constituyeron el objeto de los diversos pleitos de Myriad, el problema siguesiendo de actualidad. En primer lugar, porque las sentencias dictadas en los casos individuales no respondieron a todas las preguntas, sino que –en cierto modo– sólo prepararon el camino para futuras decisiones. En segundo lugar, debido a los nuevosavances científicos en el ámbito de la genética humana. En consecuencia, el ámbito del diagnóstico genético está en continuo desarrollo y en el futuro puede seguirrevelando nuevos descubrimientos científicos y (posiblemente) invenciones. La falta de normas uniformes y transparentes en este ámbito y de límites bien definidos para los monopolios potenciales no sólo genera constantemente incertidumbre para losmédicos y científicos, sino también desventajas reales para los pacientes. (AU)


Subject(s)
Humans , Genetics/ethics , Genetics/legislation & jurisprudence , Patents as Topic/history , Patents as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Genes, BRCA1 , Genes, BRCA2 , United States , Australia , European Union
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...