A new index measures impact pharma has on infectious diseases
The pharmaceutical industry regularly boasts that its efforts to develop treatments for infectious diseases in poor nations are making a difference. But for those wondering how to gauge those efforts, a new metric has been created.
The Global Health Impact Index measures three factors: the need for several important drugs for three specific infectious diseases: tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria; the effectiveness of the available treatments; and the number of people who can access those drugs. The rankings estimate the amount of death and disability the drugs are alleviating.
So how did drug makers fare? Of 16 companies that were evaluated, Sanofi ranked highest, followed by Novartis and Pfizer. Kyorin Pharmaceutical garnered the lowest rating, with Bayer and Eli Lilly not far behind. We asked the drug makers for comment and will pass along any replies.
The index arrives as more pressure is being placed on drug makers to meet the needs of poor populations. In response, various companies have crafted deals with government agencies and public-private partnerships to bolster development, production and distribution.
But while there may be sufficient data available to track the need for such medicines, there is currently no way to determine the extent to which drug makers and their products are having a desired effect, according to Nicole Hassoun, an associate philosophy professor at Binghamton University, who developed the index.
“By better understanding the impacts of products on the burden of disease, the index gives researchers a tool for measuring impact, governments and donors can better target their efforts and companies can be incentivized to focus on impact,” she writes us in an e-mail.
There is another tool out there called the Access to Medicines Index, which assesses such factors as patenting policies, price reductions, involvement in public-private partnerships and charitable contributions. But Hassoun contends this doesn’t guarantee what she terms a good outcome.
By contrast, she hopes the index she devised can serve as the equivalent of a Good Housekeeping seal of approval. The idea is that highly rated drug makers would have incentive to promote their rankings on their products which, presumably, would appeal to consumers and healthcare providers.
As Hassoun sees it, such a system would foster more interest in corporate social responsibility and, perhaps, serve as a model for policy makers seeking to improve access to a variety of medicines, not just those for infectious diseases.
Such indices “encourage competition among biopharmaceutical companies, and they motivate us to improve our contribution to public health,” says Francois Bompart, a Sanofi vp in charges of access to medicines.
A Lilly spokesman points out the drug maker does not sell any medicines for those three infectious diseases, but through foundation support has given away trademarks and manufacturing technology for two TB medicines, and launched a public-private partnership to discover TB drugs.
And a Pfizer spokesman sends us a note to say the drug maker “shares the goals of projects like these to measure activities and programs that improve access to medicines for people who need them.”
[UPDATE: A Bayer spokesman sends us this: “As we are not familiar with the methodology of this report we need to review it to understand it better. Our company wants to improve people's health and quality of life with innovative therapies. We would like all people to share the fruits of medical progress, regardless of their origins or income. We support programs that provide access to innovative medicines and modern family planning, and take up the fight against neglected diseases. In this regard we work side-by-side with aid agencies, international bodies and policy makers.]
Source: Pharmalot
