The preferred paradigm to address the obvious shortage of drugs for neglected diseases has been
ppps between governments or international agencies on one side and the pharmaceutical industry on the other. Though the success of this paradigm has been loudly trumpeted, it has fundamental problems that make it unworkable in existing formats.
To begin with, it must be stressed, there is a mismatch between what is needed and what is being done. In a 30-year period between 1975 and 2004, only 21 drugs have been developed for tropical diseases and
tb. Research on drugs for neglected diseases did gain some momentum after 2000 when 60 drug development projects for neglected disease were initiated, mainly as
ppps. By 2005, 18 of these drugs were in clinical trials and two drugs were registered.
In some cases,
ppps have managed to get a few 'low-hanging fruits'--drugs on which work has been taken past the preliminary stage mainly by public agencies. Some diseases have been known for centuries and scientists have done extensive work on them. More is known about and published on the biology of kala-azar and the trypanosomes parasites than any other. Many useful leads have been abandoned midway due to lack of funds, however. In some cases, successes of
ppps are based on taking this work forward. Paromomycin is a good example. The anti-kala-azar activity of the drug was known since the 1980s and
who even carried out some clinical trials. The work of the
ppps started only with phase-
iii clinical trials. Similarly, some of the successful anti-malarial drugs introduced by
ppps are also low-hanging fruits.
The field of neglected diseases gives drug companies tangible and intangible incentives. They range from image-building through the corporate social responsibility route to gaining market access. Developing countries with thousands of trained researchers also help reduce cost of research. AstraZeneca's first Asian
r&d centre, its neglected disease institute in Bangalore, provided it with low-cost, high-skilled researchers. But these do not necessarily translate into benefits for people on the ground.
A study by Mary Moran and her team at the London School of Economics in 2005 showed the pitfalls of
ppps in developing drugs for neglected diseases.
The research was on miltefosine, the first oral drug for kala-azar. Miltefosine is a big asset in terms of profile for Zentaris, which has just one other drug in the market. The drug was initially taken up by Wellcome for kala-azar in the mid-1980s but the project was abandoned and the biotech company Zentaris GmbH, Frankfurt, started working on it as an oral anti-cancer agent but found it unsuccessful. When
who and the Indian government decided to eliminate kala-azar by 2010, Zentaris had the opportunity to develop it for the disease. Public assistance was provided all the way.
who/tdr set up a joint public-private steering committee for the project, provided specialist leishmaniasis and developing country inputs, helped develop trial protocols and sponsored clinical trial monitoring. Indian public research groups helped the company conduct clinical trials within five years (1997-2002). The drug was quickly registered in India due to involvement of
who and the Indian government.
Despite all this, the drug did not become available to kala-azar patients in government hospitals until recently, though the company had been selling it in the open market at
us $145 for a 28-day course. The reasons for the delay were that
who declined to include the drug in its Essential Drugs List because of toxicity and teratogenecity (the capacity to cause foetal malformation). Zentaris also did not agree with
who on the price though initially it was agreed that the drug would be provided at
us $60-85 for a 28-day course.
Moran's team also showed that the
tb Alliance could not pursue the development of derivatives of the anti-
tb drug ethambutol because Sequella, a small pharmaceutical firm that had the patent to the drug, refused to sign a deal on the grounds that the
ppp's pricing, production and distribution terms were incompatible with the company's business model. Meaning, that the company was not willing to sacrifice a large potential market its drug had for a public cause.
Some drugs developed for neglected diseases become successful because they have other more lucrative markets. The anti-malarial developed by the Medicines for Malaria Venture (
mmv) in collaboration with Ranbaxy will be available at a lower cost in developed countries but Ranbaxy can sell it a higher price in the travellers' market--people from the developed world travelling to malaria-affected countries. Similarly, paromomycin will be available at a lower price to the Indian government but the manufacturer has a vast secondary market in developed countries because kala-azar has become an important co-infection associated with
hiv/aids.
This is also the reason why
ppps for malaria and
tb have been more successful than others. In 2004 nearly 60 per cent of
ppp projects in pre-clinical stages and 82 per cent in clinical stages were working on malaria. Moreover, 75 per cent of total
ppp budgets were used for malaria projects. More funding is available for these drugs than for other neglected diseases. According to statistics from
usaid, the Department for International Development,
uk, the Global Fund to fight
aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the President's Malaria Initiative websites, the funding for research on
hiv/aids, malaria and
tb is to the tune of
us $10 billion compared to just
us $35 million available for other neglected diseases (see table
Skewed; graph
Some are not so neglected).
Bad models
The problem with
ppps is not restricted to drug development, delivery models are sometimes also a problem. "Our phase-
iv trials will include a replicable and affordable access model for delivery of the medicine. We hope to be able to scale this up for government use," says Mireille Cronin Mather, director, communications and outreach, i
owh, which is providing paramomycin to kala-azar patients in East Champaran. But the fact is that instead of using the government health machine already working in the area, i
owh is giving private players a free run in operationalising the drug. Janani, an
ngo affiliated to the Washington-based charitable organisation
dkt-International, will be instrumental in taking the drug to rural areas.The pilot access programme is being funded by a
us $30-million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Some private agencies try to complement the government and factor in local circumstances in working out their delivery model. "We have not come here to replace the government but support the government in what we have identified as a health problem in the area," says Javier Roldn Salado, project coordinator,
msf, Spain which has taken up anti-kala-azar work in Vaishali district. To ensure the programme maximises benefits, the organisation also plans to provide nutritional support to patients, a novel feature. Additional support of 2,500 kilocalories will be given to the severely undernourished and 1,200 kilocalories to those who are moderately malnourished. The government also gives nutritional support in its programmes, but the diet it provides is not very nutritious.
Fund crunch
The success of a
ppp depends on whether it can raise sufficient funds to carry its projects through to fruition. Currently,
ppps have not even secured funding for their existing projects; as they fill their pipelines funding, needs will increase.
It is unclear at this moment where the resources to finance the very expensive later stages of development and clinical trials will come from. A 2004 estimate by the Initiative for Public-Private Partnerships for Health, Geneva, compared needs with pledged funding for a sample of
ppps and suggested a shortfall of
us $1.2-2.2 billion up to 2007. There is a need to increase public funding to ensure that progress in basic science and biomedicine results in new, affordable drugs for neglected diseases (see pie chart
Donor stack-up).
With funding gaps increasing, researchers around the world are trying to find ways of promoting research on neglected diseases that break both the existing
ppp model and the established intellectual property rights system.
who set up the Inter-governmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (
igwg) in 2003. Tasked to create mechanisms to develop products to fight diseases in the developing world,
igwg authored a report in April 2006 suggesting patent pools, advance purchase commitments, prize funds and no-profit, no-loss models for pharmaceutical companies as suitable mechanisms.
igwg will now have to come up with a global plan by 2008.
Proposed solutions
A patent pool is an arrangement between several patent holders for the collective management of their patents, which could make access to research tools easier, in turn facilitating research in both the public and private sector. Patent pools can be voluntary or imposed by governments.
Similarly, advance purchase commitments can create a market by guaranteeing the purchase of a drug or vaccine that does not yet exist. It is believed that if the demand and price are high enough, and the commitment originates from credible organisations with sufficient financial backing, this can provide an incentive for the development of necessary drugs.
A prize fund is a variation on the idea of an advance purchasing commitment. Instead of rewarding innovators indirectly, via profits on the sale of the final product, a prize fund can directly pay a significant sum as a reward or 'prize' to any entity invents a new drug or vaccine. The prize will have to be substantial in order to be effective.
Some firms like GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Sanofi Aventis have been involved in
r&d for neglected diseases on a no-profit, no-loss basis.They have said products will be affordable and accessible in developing countries.
In 2005, a group of
ngos, professional organisations and scientists, including Nobel laureates, submitted a draft medical
r&d policy to
who. Among other things, it advocated a credit system. For example, research on neglected diseases could earn countries credits that protected them from other trade agreements on patents or drug prices. Other things that would bring in credits would include transfer of technology and capacities to developing countries and help in preserving traditional knowledge. It also proposed that under the treaty, governments could commit to spending a certain percentage of their
gdp on medical
r&d to help increase research on neglected diseases and get certain benefits. If a government, for example, opted to fund research (for example, by giving grants to research institutions or via a prize fund), it would not have to respect patents on pharmaceuticals, having already have paid its share of the
r&d.
The problem with these solutions is getting industry on board, across the board. At a meet in Brussels on April 2, 2007, to help
eu prepare for discussions at
igwg, industry did not agree that the system wasn't working. Members of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations said the existing property rights model was fine and industry was active in
r&d into many neglected diseases. They said
ppps should be strengthened and the intellectual property rights system complemented, such as through advanced purchase schemes, not replaced.
As many point out, the problems in working with private industry and private or international donors to serve the public interest means that ultimately an injection of public money at the national level is crucial in making further headway on research into and control of neglected diseases. This was demonstrated spectacularly by China with its public research on artemisinin, the anti-malarial drug.