Search

BackgroundAccess to medicines is a global priority. Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan have different approaches to pricing policies for pharmaceuticals. The aim of this study was to analyze recent trends in the consumption and prices of non-communicable disease (NCD) medicines in Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan, in the outpatient setting.MethodsWe included medicines for asthma and COPD, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, epilepsy, and mental disorders. Sales data for pharmaceutical products in community pharmacies were extracted from a commercial database. Changes in consumption and prices were analyzed across all included NCD medicines, by disease category and pharmacological group.ResultsConsumption of NCD medicines was highest in Georgia, at twice the levels in Azerbaijan, and four times levels in Uzbekistan. Average prices of NCD medicines, weighted by consumption, increased by 26% in Georgia, but decreased by 3% in Azerbaijan and by 0.1% in Uzbekistan. Prices increased for all disease groups in Georgia (from +13% for epilepsy medicines to +86% for cancer), varied by group in Uzbekistan (from -22% for epilepsy medicines to +47% for cancer), while changes in Azerbaijan were smaller in magnitude (from -4% for medicines for cardiovascular disease to +11% for cancer). Cancer medicines had markedly higher prices in Uzbekistan, and asthma and COPD medicines had markedly higher prices in Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan.ConclusionsGeorgia showed the highest outpatient consumption of NCD medicines, suggesting the broadest access to treatment. However, Georgia also saw marked price increases, greater than in the other countries. In Georgia, where there was no price regulation, widespread price increases and increases in consumption both contribute to increasing pharmaceutical expenditures. In Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, increases in outpatient pharmaceutical expenditures were primarily driven by increases in consumption, rather than increases in price. Comparing trends in consumption and pricing can identify gaps in access and inform future policy approaches.

BackgroundThe GeneXpert diagnostic platform from the US based company Cepheid is an automated molecular diagnostic device that performs sample preparation and pathogen detection within a single cartridge-based assay. GeneXpert devices can enable diagnosis at the district level without the need for fully equipped clinical laboratories, are simple to use, and offer rapid results. Due to these characteristics, the platform is now widely used in low- and middle-income countries for diagnosis of diseases such as TB and HIV. Assays for SARS-CoV-2 are also being rolled out. We aimed to quantify public sector investments in the development of the GeneXpert platform and Cepheid's suite of cartridge-based assays.MethodsPublic funding data were collected from the proprietor company's financial filings, grant databases, review of historical literature concerning key laboratories and researchers, and contacting key public sector entities involved in the technology's development. The value of research and development (R&D) tax credits was estimated based on financial filings.ResultsTotal public investments in the development of the GeneXpert technology were estimated to be $252 million, including >$11 million in funding for work in public laboratories leading to the first commercial product, $56 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health, $73 million from other U.S. government departments, $67 million in R&D tax credits, $38 million in funding from non-profit and philanthropic organizations, and $9.6 million in small business 'springboard' grants.ConclusionThe public sector has invested over $250 million in the development of both the underlying technologies and the GeneXpert diagnostic platform and assays, and has made additional investments in rolling out the technology in countries with high burdens of TB. The key role played by the public sector in R&D and roll-out stands in contrast to the lack of public sector ability to secure affordable pricing and maintenance agreements.

IntroductionIn 2012, bedaquiline became the first new treatment from a novel class to be approved for tuberculosis in nearly five decades and is now a core component of the standard of care for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. In addition to the originator pharmaceutical company, Janssen, a range of governmental and non-profit entities have contributed to the development of bedaquiline.Materials and methodsWe identified various avenues of public investments in the development of bedaquiline: direct funding of clinical trials and a donation programme, tax credits and deductions, and revenues resulting from the priority review voucher (PRV) awarded to the originator. Data on investments were gathered through contact with study leads and/or funders; for non-responses, published average costs were substituted. The originator company's expenses were estimated by similar methods. Tax credits and deductions were calculated based on estimated originator trial costs and donation expenses. The value of the PRV was estimated by application of a published model.ResultsPublic contributions through clinical trials funding were estimated at US$109-252 million, tax credits at US$22-36 million, tax deductions at US$8-27 million, administration of a donation programme at US$5 million, PRV revenues at US$300-400 million. Total public investments were US$455-747 million and originator investments were US$90-240 million (if capitalized and risk-adjusted, US$647-1,201 million and US$292-772 million, respectively).ConclusionsEstimating the investments in the development of a medicine can inform discussions regarding fair pricing and future drug development. We estimated that total public investments exceeded the originator's by a factor of 1.6-5.1.

BackgroundUniversities undertake the majority of publicly funded research in Germany and hence bear a responsibility to contribute to global health efforts. So far, involvement and impact of German medical faculties in global health are unknown. Our aim was to systematically asses and evaluate German medical faculties' contribution to global health related research and education, as well as their policies and practices concerning open access publishing and equitable licensing.MethodsWe assessed the involvement in global health of all 36 publicly funded medical faculties in Germany during 2010-2014 in three areas: innovation, access and education, using the following indicators: research funding and publications focused on global health or poverty-related and neglected diseases; open access publishing and policies promoting access to medical innovations worldwide; provision of global health education. Data were gathered from public databases, university websites and questionnaires sent to individual universities for validation and triangulation.ResultsThere was a high level of variability between institutions and indicators. The proportion of research funding for poverty-related and neglected diseases research ranged between 0.0-1.1%. The top five institutions received nearly 85% of the total poverty-related and neglected diseases research funding. 20 of 36 universities had an institutional open access publishing policy, 19 had an open access publishing fund, 16 had neither. Only one university reported having used an equitable licensing policy. 22 of 36 faculties provided some global health education, but only one of them included global health in their core undergraduate medical curriculum as a compulsory course with more than just single lectures.ConclusionObtained data indicate that global health and poverty-related and neglected diseases research at German medical faculties is highly concentrated in a few institutions, open-access publishing and equitable licensing policies are mostly absent, and only little global health education exists. Universities and government should address global health strategically in both research and education at medical faculties to reflect the country's economic and political weight and human resource potential.