Are Patents Impeding Medical Care and Innovation?

This month's debate examines whether the current patent system is crucial for stimulating health research or whether it is stifling biomedical research and impeding medical care. Background to the debate: Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers argue that the current patent system is crucial for stimulating research and development (R&D), leading to new products that improve medical care. The financial return on their investments that is afforded by patent protection, they claim, is an incentive toward innovation and reinvestment into further R&D. But this view has been challenged in recent years. Many commentators argue that patents are stifling biomedical research, for example by preventing researchers from accessing patented materials or methods they need for their studies. Patents have also been blamed for impeding medical care by raising prices of essential medicines, such as antiretroviral drugs, in poor countries. This debate examines whether and how patents are impeding health care and innovation

COVID-19's implications on agri-food systems and human health in Bangladesh

The COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh has put agri-food systems and resultant human health under serious pressure and this has thus become a priority concern for the country and its development partners. To understand, describe and analyse the impacts of COVID-19 on agri-food systems, human health issues and related SDGs, this study used systematic rapid literature review, analysis of blogs and news and engagement with key informants. The analysis reveals impacts that can be addressed through a set of recommendations for a coordinated effort to minimize the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on agri-food systems and related health issues in Bangladesh

Users\u27 Guides to the Medical Literature: How to Use an Article about Mortality in a Humanitarian Emergency

The accurate interpretation of mortality surveys in humanitarian crises is useful for both publichealth responses and security responses. Recent examples suggest that few medical personnel andresearchers can accurately interpret the validity of a mortality survey in these settings. Using anexample of a mortality survey from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), we demonstrateimportant methodological considerations that readers should keep in mind when reading amortality survey to determine the validity of the study and the applicability of the findings to theirsettings

Health and Historical Levels of Freedom

Background: The link between political freedom and health is unclear. We aimed to determine the association byexploring the relationship of historical and cumulative freedom levels with important health outcomes. Methods: We obtained countrywide health indicators for life expectancy, infant mortality, maternal mortality ratio, %low birth weight babies, Gini coefficient (a measure of wealth inequality) and various markers of freedom based onpolitical rights and civil liberties. We applied multivariable logistic regression to examine the association betweenhealth indicators and within-country years of freedom as determined by Freedom House rankings. Results: The total proportion of free years from 1972-2005, the duration of current freedom level, and the Ginicoefficient show independent positive associations with health indicators, which remain after the adjustment fornational wealth, total government expenditure, and spending on health. Countries identified as having high totalproportion of free years demonstrated significantly better health outcomes than countries with low levels of freedom(life expectancy, Odds Ratio [OR] 7.2, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 2.3-22.6, infant mortality OR 19.6, 95% CI, 5.6-67.7,maternal mortality ratio, OR 24.3, 95% CI, 6.2-94.9, and % low birth weight babies OR 3.8, 95% CI, 1.4-10.8). This was alsothe case for infant mortality (OR 3.4, 95% CI, 1.0-8.4), maternal mortality ratio (OR 4.0, 95% CI, 1.2-12.8), and % low birthweight babies (OR 2.6, 95% CI, 1.0-6.6) among countries considered as having medium levels of freedom. Interpretation: We found strong associations between country-level freedom and important health outcomes. Thecumulative level of freedom over time shows stronger associations with all health indicators than the duration ofcurrent freedom level

Health and historical levels of freedom

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The link between political freedom and health is unclear. We aimed to determine the association by exploring the relationship of historical and cumulative freedom levels with important health outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We obtained countrywide health indicators for life expectancy, infant mortality, maternal mortality ratio, % low birth weight babies, Gini coefficient (a measure of wealth inequality) and various markers of freedom based on political rights and civil liberties. We applied multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between health indicators and within-country years of freedom as determined by Freedom House rankings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The total proportion of free years from 1972-2005, the duration of current freedom level, and the Gini coefficient show independent positive associations with health indicators, which remain after the adjustment for national wealth, total government expenditure, and spending on health. Countries identified as having high total proportion of free years demonstrated significantly better health outcomes than countries with low levels of freedom (life expectancy, Odds Ratio [OR] 7.2, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 2.3-22.6, infant mortality OR 19.6, 95% CI, 5.6-67.7, maternal mortality ratio, OR 24.3, 95% CI, 6.2-94.9, and % low birth weight babies OR 3.8, 95% CI, 1.4-10.8). This was also the case for infant mortality (OR 3.4, 95% CI, 1.0-8.4), maternal mortality ratio (OR 4.0, 95% CI, 1.2-12.8), and % low birth weight babies (OR 2.6, 95% CI, 1.0-6.6) among countries considered as having medium levels of freedom.</p> <p>Interpretation</p> <p>We found strong associations between country-level freedom and important health outcomes. The cumulative level of freedom over time shows stronger associations with all health indicators than the duration of current freedom level.</p

Climate Change-Accelerated Ocean Biodiversity Loss & Associated Planetary Health Impacts

A planetary health perspective views human health as a function of the interdependent relationship between human systems and the natural systems in which we live. The planetary health impacts of climate change induced ocean biodiversity loss are little understood. Based on a systematic literature review, we summarize how climate change-induced ocean warming, acidification, and deoxygenation affect ocean biodiversity and their resulting planetary health impacts. These impacts on the planets’ natural and human systems include biospheric and human consequences for ecosystem services, food and nutrition security, human livelihoods, biomedical and pharmaceutical research, disaster risk management, and for organisms pathogenic to humans. Understanding the causes and effects of climate change impacts on the ocean and its biodiversity and planetary health is crucial for taking preventive, restorative and sustainable actions to ensure ocean biodiversity and its services. Future courses of action to mitigate climate change-related ocean biodiversity loss to support sound planetary health are discussed

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: How to Use an Article About Mortality in a Humanitarian Emergency

The accurate interpretation of mortality surveys in humanitarian crises is useful for both public health responses and security responses. Recent examples suggest that few medical personnel and researchers can accurately interpret the validity of a mortality survey in these settings. Using an example of a mortality survey from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), we demonstrate important methodological considerations that readers should keep in mind when reading a mortality survey to determine the validity of the study and the applicability of the findings to their settings

Drug development for neglected diseases: a deficient market and a public-health policy failure.

There is a lack of effective, safe, and affordable pharmaceuticals to control infectious diseases that cause high mortality and morbidity among poor people in the developing world. We analysed outcomes of pharmaceutical research and development over the past 25 years, and reviewed current public and private initiatives aimed at correcting the imbalance in research and development that leaves diseases that occur predominantly in the developing world largely unaddressed. We compiled data by searches of Medline and databases of the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, and reviewed current public and private initiatives through an analysis of recently published studies. We found that, of 1393 new chemical entities marketed between 1975 and 1999, only 16 were for tropical diseases and tuberculosis. There is a 13-fold greater chance of a drug being brought to market for central-nervous-system disorders or cancer than for a neglected disease. The pharmaceutical industry argues that research and development is too costly and risky to invest in low-return neglected diseases, and public and private initiatives have tried to overcome this market limitation through incentive packages and public-private partnerships. The lack of drug research and development for "non-profitable" infectious diseases will require new strategies. No sustainable solution will result for diseases that predominantly affect poor people in the South without the establishment of an international pharmaceutical policy for all neglected diseases. Private-sector research obligations should be explored, and a public-sector not-for-profit research and development capacity promoted