Author:
Liddicoat Johnathon,Liddell Kathleen,Darrow Jonathan,Aboy Mateo,Jordan Matthew,Crespo Cristina,Minssen Timo
Abstract
AbstractCommentators claim that drug repositioning (i.e. developing new uses for authorised drugs) significantly slows when generics are authorised and, therefore, law reform is necessary to encourage more R&D. This study empirically examines this claim by analysing records of clinical trials. It finds that once generics are authorised: (i) commercial trials continue at “active” rates for approximately half of the drugs studied, and (ii) the number of hospital and university trials actually increases. These findings cast doubt on whether additional incentives are needed. They also indicate that a more effective way to reposition drugs is for recently established government programmes to embrace IP strategies and leverage the hospital and university trials as an R&D pipeline.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,Political Science and International Relations
Reference83 articles.
1. Aboy M et al (2021) Mapping the European patent landscape for medical uses of known products. Nat Biotechnol 39:1336–1344. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01104-1
2. Aboy M et al (2022) European patent protection for medical uses of known products and drug repurposing. Nat Biotechnol 40:465–471
3. Ackermann M (2021) No need for ‘plausibility’ in German patent law. GRUR Int 70(1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa146
4. Altman D (2016) United States of America. In: Bühling J (ed) Patent protection for second medical uses. 1st edn, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
5. Arrowsmith J, Harrison R (2012) Drug repositioning: the business case and strategies, and operations considerations. In: Barratt MJ, Frail DE (eds) Drug repositioning: bringing Nnew life to shelved assets and existing drugs. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, pp 9–32