Patent Pools: The Next Step in Battling HIV in Africa
By Oliver Shawyer
Fellows and Associates guest contributor, Oliver Shawyer, give his take on some of the issues facing drug licensing in Africa
The prevalence of HIV infection in Africa currently stands at 6.1%, a figure that is significantly higher than that of Western Europe and North America, which are 0.3% and 0.55% respectively. The degree of the problem can be seen in the map below taken from the UN report in 2008, with infection rates being described by shades of red. While there is clearly a greater need for medicines to combat the problem, control currently resides with western pharmaceutical companies such as GlaxoSmithKline, via patents on anti-retroviral drugs.
This means that many countries are reliant on the western companies for their medicines and as a result are subject to the high prices of anti retroviral therapy. In the past when these prices have been too high, African countries used to turn to Indian companies that were able to produce cheaper copies of the western drugs but in 2005 India tightened up its patent laws which effectively prevented this from continuing.
Some African nations such as Uganda have begun to develop their own generic anti-retroviral drugs in conjunction with Indian companies despite the patents, by utilising rules set out by the World Trade Organisation that the worlds poorest countries can copy drugs without breaking patent laws. However other nations in need of cheaper anti-retroviral drugs that are not on the list of the worlds least developed nations such as South Africa are still bound by patent legislation.
In response to criticism and challenges by Médecins Sans Frontiéres (MSF) and Unitaid, pharmaceutical companies have introduced schemes to provide medicines free or at not for profit prices to developing countries, while also allowing other companies to copy their patented drugs at a lower price. However these schemes apply to older “first-line” drugs, not the newer and more effective “second-line drugs” which can be up to 30 times more expensive than the older drugs.
The need for these “second-line” drugs is increasing and “patent pools” are being advocated as a solution by many charitable and health organisations. GlaxoSmithKline has previously introduced a patent pool for neglected tropical diseases to increase research and is now in talks with Unitaid to better understand the objectives of a patent pool with regards to HIV. The patent pool would involve nine major pharmaceutical companies pooling their patents together to make them available to others. Those that use the patents then have to pay a royalty to the holders, which overall would allow the medication to be widely available at a lower rate.
Whether this will succeed or not depends on the compliance and willingness of the pharmaceutical companies, and as of yet the response has been underwhelming. According to a MSF spokesperson, this is due to the loss of monopoly on their products that would occur if a patent pool would be set up. While GlaxoSmithKline has already opened a patent pool for neglected tropical diseases and is in talks about this one, it does not feel HIV is a neglected disease and so not in need of a patent pool. Along with the loss of revenue that a patent pool would produce, it is this thinking that a patent pool is unnecessary that is hindering the efforts of Médecins Sans Frontiéres and other organisations.
It appears that while pharmaceutical companies have done a lot to help tackle the problem of AIDS in Africa, pooling their patents is not a measure that they are willing to introduce. Some Pharmaceutical companies have expressed an interest, but there have yet to be any patents added to the pool. Despite the best efforts of numerous charitable and health organisations, it seems that a patent pool is a step too far for these pharmaceutical giants.
To contribute to our site or to contact our news team please email: [email protected].