Tag Archives: nations

What A New Microbe Can Man Can’t?

Posted on by
Reply

Our world is indeed so fascinating, where mankind is in possession of a predictable lethal power to annihilate fellow citizens of any country or countries – just in minutes or hours or days, as it would decide. Whereas, any sudden attack of an unpredictable crippling power of unknown microbes, can make the same mankind feel helpless – grappling to save lives of the citizens – along with its socioeconomic fabric.

Because of the sudden nature of such crippling attacks, mankind is put to fight against time to build a new arsenal of medicines and vaccines – while defending itself under an umbrella of preventive measures. It’s not that such a situation was never envisaged. On the contrary, as we shall see below, the warning from the same came from several credible sources. Even Bill Gates during a TED Talk five years ago had warned: “If anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it’s most likely to be a highly infectious virus rather than a war – not missiles, but microbes.”

A few years later, the 2018 publication of the World Health Organization (WHO) – ‘Managing epidemics,’ articulated a similar cautionary note, which I am quoting in verbatim: “We are continuously learning about the unpredictable powers of nature. This is nowhere more true than in the continuous evolution of new infectious threats to human health that emerge – often without warning – from the natural environment.” Elaborating the point, it further cautioned: “Given the effects of globalization, the intense mobility of human populations, and the relentless urbanization, it is likely that the next emerging virus will also spread fast and far. It is impossible to predict the nature of this virus or its source, or where it will start spreading.”

Ironically, in about a year’s time, by end 2019, a new Coronavirus broke out in Wuhan of China. From January to March 22, 2020, 13,569 people, reportedly, died globally due to Coronavirus (Covid 19) infection. In India, as I write as I write during 14 hours long public curfew, 341 confirmed cases and 6 deaths have been reported. This outbreak has now shaken, almost the entire world – more than even before. The reverberation of the life-shattering impact of the disease, is now being felt and heard across all the facets of human life, including social, economic and political. Thus, the broad point to ponder in this article: Why the mankind can’t do what a new microbe can?

Various elements to it:

There are various elements of the above broad issue. A comprehensive response to which would involve, at least, two critical sub-questions:

  • Was it avoidable? If so, to what extent?
  • Or, at least, could its overall impact have been blunted?

Moving in that direction, let me try to explore some important facts that may help taking an unknown microbe bull by the horn, if such calamity strikes again – unannounced, in future.

None of these facts were unknown:

As we have seen above, the possibility of emergence and a sudden crippling strike of a new microbe was not unknown, including the warning of a global crisis from the W.H.O.  Besides, ‘nearly 50,000 men, women and children are dying every day from infectious diseases; many of these diseases could be prevented or cured for as little as a single dollar per head.’

Another interesting report: ‘Global rise in human infectious disease outbreaks,’ published in the Journal of the Royal Society interface on December 06, 2014, presents more facts. It says: Since 1980, over the last 30 years till 2014, outbreaks of infectious disease mostly caused by bacteria and viruses are steadily increasing with different health impact in different countries.

Several reasons for the high death rate related to infectious disease:

Several reasons could be attributed to high death rates for infectious disease, despite the availability of a large number of powerful antibiotics in the world, which include the following:

  • Developing nations with lesser access to drugs.
  • Fast development of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) owing to misuse and abuse of antibiotics.
  • Emergence of new bacteria and viruses, such as, Covid19 catching the population off-guard, as is being warned by top experts, from time to time.

Several times in the past, I wrote on the subjects of access to medicine, Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR), as well as the recent Coronavirus outbreak. Nevertheless, for this specific discussion, I shall focus only on the second and the third points, in the reverse order, with a different perspective.

Fresh threats of new infections are ongoing:

As the 2018 paper of ‘Managing epidemics’, published by the World Health Organization (WHO) had articulated – besides new microbial pandemics, the history of previous viral outbreaks can also possibly repeat themselves. That means: ‘A new HIV, a new Ebola, a new plague, a new influenza pandemic are not mere probabilities. Whether transmitted by mosquitoes, other insects, contact with animals or person-to-person, the only major uncertainty is when they, or something equally lethal, will arrive.’

As these being ‘newer’ types – just as Covid19 is so different from commonly occurring Flu - in all probability would be unique viruses with unique characteristics. For example, as the W.H.O describes, while Seasonal Flu cannot be stopped, countries still have the chance to limit cases of Covid19, through stringent implementation of scientific protocols. More, importantly, Covid-19 seems to lead to much more severe disease than Seasonal Flu strains.

Effective solution of both – the new and the new forms of known viruses, would require successfully navigating through tough challenges, involving multiple areas, such as, medical, technological, social, economic and political. No doubt, the world has progressed a lot in this area. But, effective ‘capacity building’ to combat the sudden onslaught of any deadly microbial pandemic, still remains an unfinished agenda.

The world has moved a lot, but still needs to accelerate capacity building:

Just in 2018, the world remembered the devastating Great Flu pandemic of 1918 on its 100th anniversary. Although, it lasted only a few months, claimed 50 million to 100 million lives worldwide. The book - ‘Influenza: The Hundred Year Hunt to Cure the Deadliest Disease in History,’ provided a glimpse of that scenario. Interestingly, Flu still kills about 1 percent of those infected by this virus. Whereas, about 3.4 percent of Covid-19 cases have been fatal, as on date, according to the W.H.O.

A comparison of these two pandemics will include both the similarities and the differences. The most striking similarity being – in both the global pandemics, most people are just not afraid, but are also getting panicked.

Whereas, the key differences between the two episodes are – the quality health care infrastructure in today’s globalized world, speed of diagnosis and the versatility of available drugs – even for ‘repurposing’, as being done in the present situation. Now, many people understand the need of putting the exposed persons in isolation – or under quarantine, besides co-operating with various infection control measures, as prescribed by the health authorities. In the midst of this crisis, an ongoing and very related critical issue remains virtually ignored - fast developing AMR, as I mentioned above.

Fast developing AMR continues taking many lives:

In this article, instead of dwelling on the cause of AMR and how to address it, I would rather focus on the current threats that AMR poses and will pose in the future, if not addressed on a war footing, collectively.

The latest details in this area are available from the paper – ‘The Antimicrobial Resistance Benchmark 2020’, published by the Access to Medicine Foundation. It emphasized that infectious diseases are still the cause of “more than 500,000 deaths each year, including more than 200,000 infant deaths. In India, for example, resistance exceeds 70 percent for many widespread bacteria.” As I mentioned in one of my previous articles that the 2017 Review Article, titled ‘Antimicrobial resistance: the next BIG pandemic,’ has termed India as ‘the AMR capital of the world.’ Even a 2020 news report says: Two million deaths are projected to occur in India due to AMR by the year 2050.

The current status:

The following two reports of WHO, published in January 2020, unfolded some interesting facts:

The analysis demonstrated, although, many drug companies are making enough investments to discover and develop innovative medicines, anti-infective therapy area does not feature there for most companies. As the reports unraveled:

  • Not just a declining trend of investment, even the current clinical pipeline remains insufficient to tackle the challenge of AMR.
  • With large drug companies continuing to exit the field, primarily due to commercial considerations, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are entering this space, but not with as much resources and other wherewithal.
  • All the eight new antibacterial agents, approved since July 01, 2017, offer limited clinical benefits.
  • One new anti-TB agent, pretomanid, developed by a not-for-profit organization, has been approved for use within a set drug-combination treatment for MDR TB.
  • The current clinical pipeline contains 50 antibiotics and combinations and 10 biologicals. Six of these agents fulfil at least one of the innovation criteria; only two of these are active against the critical MDR Gram-negative bacteria, with a major gap in activity against metallo-β- lactamase (MBL) producers.

As the AMR situation is getting worse, globally, unlike any possible repetition of a new microbial attack in the future, AMR isn’t a future problem. It needs to be addressed here and now. Fixing the problem does not require a scientific miracle. It demands a very human solution, spearheaded by the R&D based drug companies, the academia and the Governments, collectively. The reasons of why it is not happening - is known to many, but how to chart an effective pathway for its meaningful resolution – possibly isn’t. The signal today is loud and clear that infectious diseases are reemerging and threatening human lives – be it due to AMR or a sudden attack by a new microbe such as Covid19.

Conclusion:

It is loud and clear that infectious diseases will continue to reemerge in various shapes, forms and virulence – having the incredible power of shaking the world, including the most powerful and developed nations, as we all are experiencing today. As and when Covid19 pandemic gets over, and it will, learning from the past situation and picking up the global best practices to combat and decisively win over any such future crisis, will be critical. But, this is easier said than done – going by the past.

All concerned can feel it today, without any shade of doubt. There is no room for complacency in this regard, for anyone, regardless of having the best of health care infrastructure, diagnosing facilities, state of the art treatments of all types, including vaccines, for a wide range of number of life-threatening conditions.

As the W.H.O said, ‘The microbes didn’t go away. They just went out of sight. Instead, the focus turned to chronic, noncommunicable diseases, which came to receive much more attention. But nature was by no means in retreat. In fact, it seemed to return and took many health institutions and decision makers by surprise.’

It’s, therefore, high time for all to read the writing on the wall. A time to accept and realize that, when it comes to an unpredictable, crippling power of bringing the entire world to virtually a grinding halt – making even the most powerful nations feel helpless and highly vulnerable – what a new lethal microbe can do in one go, even the most developed and the powerful nation can’t. An all-time preparedness against biological threats, therefore, has emerged as a new normal.

By: Tapan J. Ray  

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Higher The Healthcare Spend, Better The Healthcare Performance: A Myth?

Posted on by
Reply

It is generally believed, higher the per-capita expenditure of healthcare, better is the overall ‘healthcare performance’ of a nation.

However, this myth has recently been busted by a new study, the take-home message of which would be quite relevant for India too. It flags a very important point, just as too low per-capita expenditure on healthcare fails to deliver an optimal healthcare performance to the target population, higher health expenditure, on the other hand, does not have any linear relationship with commensurately better healthcare performance either.

The question, therefore, comes up: What then would be the optimal per-capita spending on healthcare to offer quality healthcare performance in a country like India?

The study:

According to this recent Commonwealth Fund report , per-capita expenditures on healthcare in 2011 of eleven wealthy nations were as follows:

Per-Capita Healthcare Spend in 2011

Rank Country US $
1. United States 8,508
2. Norway 5,669
3. Switzerland 5,643
4. Netherlands 5,099
5. Canada 4,522
6. Germany 4,495
7. France 4,111
8. Sweden 3,925
9. Australia 3,800
10. United Kingdom 3,405
11. New Zealand 3,182

Against the above spend, the ‘Healthcare Performance’ rankings of the same 11 nations were as under, showing no linear relationship between higher per-capita healthcare expenditure and better healthcare performance:

Performance of Healthcare System

Rank Country
1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany
6. Netherlands
7. New Zealand
8. Norway
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The basis of ranking:

Interestingly, though the healthcare expenditure of the United States of America at 17.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the highest in the world, according to this report, America ranks worst among all these nations, namely, France, Australia, Germany, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

The ranking was made based various factors, which include quality of care, access to doctors and equity throughout the country.

The U.K. ranked best, with Switzerland following a close second, though their respective per-capita expenditures on healthcare were much less than the United States.

Holds good in BRIC perspective too:

Coming to the BRIC nations’ perspective, though India’s per-capita healthcare spend has been the lowest among these 4 countries, the following quick example would clearly establish that here also the healthcare performance does not have any linear relationship with the per-capita healthcare spend:

Per capita Healthcare expenditure in 2011: Country Comparison

Country US $ World Rank Physician/1000 people Hospital/1000 people Life expectancy at birth (years)
Brazil 1120.56   41 1.76 2.3 73.4
Russia 806.7   55 4.31 9.6 69.0
India 59.1 152 0.65 0.9 67.08
China 278.02   99 1.82 3.8 73.5

(Source: WHO data)

Taking the United States as an example:

To illustrate the point further, let me take the US details as an example, as it incurs the highest per-capita expenditure on healthcare. When that is the fact, does high healthcare spending of the US help the patients commensurately? 

Going by these reports, it does not appear so, as:

  • The Commonwealth Fund report also states, “Moreover, US patients were the most likely to find it very difficult to get after-hours care without going to an emergency room – 40 percent said it was very difficult, compared with only 15 percent in the Netherlands and Germany, the lowest rates of any country on this measure.”
  • The 2008 Commonwealth Fund survey, of 7,500 chronically ill patients in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK and the USA, reportedly also found that: “More than half (54 percent) of the US patients did not get recommended care, fill prescriptions, or see a doctor when sick because of costs, compared to 7 percent – 36 percent in other countries. About a third of the US patients – more than in any other country – experienced medical errors or poorly-coordinated care, while 41 percent spent more than US$ 1,000 in the past year on out-of-pocket medical costs, compared with 4 percent in the UK and 8 percent in the Netherlands.”

The study also highlighted the following for the United States with the highest health expenditure:

  • Lesser number of doctors and hospital beds among developed nations:

The US has fewer physicians per 100,000 populations than any of the other countries apart from Japan, and the fewest doctor consultations (3.9 per capita) than any except Sweden. Relative to the other countries in the study, the US also had few hospital beds, short lengths of stay for acute care and few hospital discharges per 1,000 populations.

  • Highest rates of potentially preventable deaths from asthma and amputations due to diabetes:

While the US performs well on breast and colorectal cancer survival rates, it has among the highest rates of potentially preventable deaths from asthma and amputations due to diabetes, and rates that are no better than average for in-hospital deaths from heart attack and stroke.

  • Individual payers negotiate prices with health care providers:

In the US, individual payers negotiate prices with health care providers, a system that leads to complexity – and varying prices for the same goods and services, says the study.

Where is the high healthcare spending of US going?

High health costs in the United States are mostly due to higher prices driven by free-market economy and not quality of care, says the study. Some of the key characteristics of the US healthcare space in the areas under discussion are as follows:

High and totally decontrolled drug prices:

The drug prices are totally decontrolled in the US, unlike most other developed nations, where price negotiations for reimbursed drugs are the common norms.

The above study highlights that US prices for the 30 most commonly-used branded prescription drugs are more than double the prices paid in Australia, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the UK, and they are a third higher than in Canada and Germany. In contrast, prices of generic drugs are lower in the US than in any of the other 12 nations due to very high competition. This reinforces the point that any delay in the entry of generics after patent expiry would impact the patients and the payor very adversely

Expensive hospital stays:

US hospital stays are far more expensive than in other countries, at more than US$18,000 per discharge compared with about US$13,000 in Canada and under US$10,000 in Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, France and Germany.

Conclusion:

In 1999, according to a WHO Study, per capita healthcare expenditure in India was just US$ 18.2. The figure rose to US$ 28.7 in year 2004 and US $ 59.1 in 2011, which reflects a double digit Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) in per capita healthcare expenditure of the country from the 2004 study to 2011. The absolute numbers may be far from adequate; nevertheless, the trend is ascending. This needs to be accelerated, possibly by the new health minister with the prime minister’s direct help and intervention.

There is a lot to learn from the US healthcare model too, especially from its pitfalls and regulatory structure, as deliberated above.

Finally, taking a cue from all these, India should decide at what per-capita spend, with all necessary regulatory measures being firmly in place, the country would be able to ensure quality ‘access’ to healthcare for all its citizens.

Mere comparison of per-capita healthcare spend of each country, I reckon, may not mean much now. India needs to ‘reinvent the wheel’ in this area, as it were, to arrive at its own health expenditure model for quality healthcare service delivery to all in the country. This is more important than ever before, as higher healthcare spends do not necessarily mean commensurately better healthcare performance.

By: Tapan J. Ray 

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Pioglitazone Conundrum: Should The Drug Regulator Step Over The Line?

Posted on by
Reply

Recent order of the Indian drug regulator to withdraw all formulations of the well known, yet controversial, anti-diabetic drug – Pioglitazone from the domestic market has created a flutter in the country, ruffling many feathers at the same time.

Withdrawal of any drug from the market involves well-considered findings based on ongoing robust pharmacovigilance data since the concerned product launch. To ascertain long-term drug safety profile, this process is universally considered as important as the processes followed for high quality drug manufacturing and even for R&D.

A paper titled, “Withdrawing Drugs in the U.S. Versus Other Countries” brings to the fore that one of the leading causes of deaths in the United States is adverse drug reaction. Assessing enormity and impact of this issue, the United Nations General Assembly for the first time in 1979 decided to publish a list of banned pharmaceutical products that different countries may use for appropriate decisions keeping patients’ safety in mind, as they will deem necessary from time to time.

An interesting finding:

Quite interestingly, the paper also highlights:

“There are a number of pharmaceuticals on the market in the USA that have been banned elsewhere and similarly, there are some drug products that have been banned in the United States, but remain on the market in other countries.”

Different policies in different countries:

The reason for the above finding is mainly because, various countries follow different policies to address this important health related issue. For example, though the United States will withdraw drugs based on the decision taken by its own FDA, it will also compare the action taken by countries like, UK, Japan, Australia and Sweden on the same subject.

However, many experts do believe that United Nations must take greater initiative to make all concerned much more aware about the UN list of dangerous drugs, which should be continuously updated to expect the least.

Need transparency in pharmacovigilance:

Pharmacovigilance has been defined as:

“The task of monitoring the safety of medicines and ensuring that the risks of a medicine do not outweigh the benefits, in the interests of public health.”

An article on Pharmacovigilance by A.C. (Kees) van Grootheest and Rachel L. Richesson highlights as follows:

“The majority of post marketing study commitments are never initiated, and the completion of post marketing safety studies (i.e., phase IV studies) declined from 62% between 1970 and 1984 to 24% between 1998 and 2003.”

Thus, in many countries, due to lack of required transparency in the pharmacovigilance process, harmful drugs continue to remain in the market for many years before they are withdrawn, for various reasons.

The above paper strongly recommends, “While there might be monetary benefits for each country in keeping these drugs on the market, the U.N. must step up the visibility of the withdrawal of dangerous drugs list.”

Recent Pioglitazone withdrawal in India:

Recently in India, the Ministry of Health under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has suspended the manufacture and sale of Pioglitazone, along with two other drugs, with immediate effect, through a notification issued on June 18, 2013.

As per the Drugs and Cosmetic Rule 30-B, import and marketing of all those drugs, which are prohibited in the country of origin, is banned in India. Just as in the United States, the Ministry of health, while taking such decisions in India, compares long-term safety profile of the concerned drugs in countries like, USA, UK, EU and Australia.

A Parliamentary Standing Committee of India has already indicted the drug regulator for not taking prompt action on such issues to protect patients’ treatment safety.

Pioglitazone: the risk profile:

In India:

A leading medical journal (JAPI) cautions:

“Given the possible risk of bladder cancer, physicians have to be extremely careful about using pioglitazone indiscriminately in the future.”

The JAPI article continues to state:

“We require more robust data on the risk of bladder cancer with pioglitazone and Indian studies are clearly needed. Till that time, we may continue the use of this drug as a second or third line glucose-lowering agent. In all such cases, the patient should be adequately informed about this adverse effect and drug should be used in as small a dose as possible, with careful monitoring and follow up.”

In the USA:

In 2011 The US FDA as a part of its ongoing safety review of pioglitazone informed physicians and the public that use of this drug for more than 12 months is linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer.

The USFDA review is reportedly based on “an ongoing 10-year observational cohort study as well as a nested, case-control study of the long-term risk of bladder cancer in over 193,000 patients with diabetes who are members of the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) health plan.”

Based on this finding US FDA directed that physicians should:

  • Not use pioglitazone in patients with active bladder cancer.
  • Use pioglitazone with caution in patients who have a prior history of bladder cancer, adding, “The benefits of blood sugar control with pioglitazone should be weighed against the unknown risks for cancer recurrence.”
  • Tell patients to report any signs or symptoms of “blood in the urine, urinary urgency, pain on urination, or back or abdominal pain, as these may be due to bladder cancer.”
  • Urge patients to read the pioglitazone medication guide.
  • Report adverse events involving pioglitazone medicines to the FDA MedWatch program.

The moot point:

Considering the above US FDA directives in the Indian context, the moot point therefore is, whether it will be possible for the drug regulator to ensure that physicians and the patients in India follow such steps for drug safety with pioglitazone?

In Canada:

Another new Canadian study has again reportedly linked Pioglitazone with risks of bladder cancer and cautioned, “physicians, patients and regulatory agencies should be aware of this association when assessing the overall risks and benefits of this therapy.”

Pioglitazone and its combinations banned in France and Germany:

After a government-funded study, tracking diabetics from 2006 to 2009, concluded that Pioglitazone increases bladder cancer risk, the French Medicines Agency (FMA) announced withdrawal of Pioglitazone along with its fixed-dose combination with Metformin, as well.

FMA also advised doctors to stop prescribing Pioglitazone, plain or in combination, and asked patients, who are on this drug to consult their doctors immediately.

Simultaneously, German health authorities also acted on similar lines.

An intriguing comment by the Indian drug regulator:

Keeping all these in view, it is indeed intriguing to note that the Indian drug regulator is reportedly open to re-examine the case of pioglitazone and revoking its ban in India, if strong scientific evidences emerge in support of safety and efficacy of the drug.

However, the question then comes up is what more new scientific evidences that the Indian drug regulator is now expecting, especially when the pharmacovigilance studies are almost non-existent in India?

Moreover, such comments of the drug regulator not only prompt raising doubts about the fragility and hastiness of his own decision of banning Pioglitazone in India, but also amply demonstrate lack of seriousness in his part on this extremely important decision on drug safety?

‘Drug Product Liability Claims’ in India virtually non-existant:

In most of the developed countries, appropriate regulations are in place for product liability claims.

Under this law, if any patient suffers injury in any form while administering  a pharmaceutical drug, the patient concerned is eligible to make pharmaceutical-drug-based product liability claims, which usually involve a huge amount of money by any imaginable standard.

These claims are based on:

  • Improperly marketed pharmaceutical drugs. This category includes:

- Failure to provide adequate or accurate warnings regarding a dangerous side effect.

- Failure to provide adequate instructions on safe and appropriate use of the drug.

- The “bad advice”, which may have been given by the manufacturer or by a doctor, pharmacist, sales rep, or some other medical provider.

In the United States drug safety and effectiveness related litigations reportedly also include:

-        Criminal and civil complaints brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.

-        Lawsuits brought by state Attorney Generals and private plaintiffs under state consumer protection acts and other causes of action.

In India, closer to the above system there is a law in paper, named as “Products Liability”. This law deals with the liability of manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and vendors for injury to a person or property caused by dangerous or defective products. The aim of this law is to help protecting consumers from dangerous or defective products, while holding manufacturers, distributors, and retailers responsible for putting into the market place products that they knew or should have known were dangerous or defective. However, in reality, there are hardly any damages slapped by consumers on to the manufacturers in India under this ‘Product Liability’ law.

It may sound however bizarre, but is a hard fact that many drugs in Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) had never even gone through any form clinical trials on human volunteers before they were for the first time allowed to be marketed in India by the drug regulators.

In absence of any active steps taken by the government to educate and encourage patients to make use of this law, patients, by and large, would continue to pay a heavy price for their ignorance, keeping their mouth shut all the way, while using:

- Defectively manufactured pharmaceutical drugs.

- Pharmaceutical drugs with dangerous side effects.

- And even improperly marketed pharmaceutical drugs.

As stated before, it is worth repeating, neither is their any functional pharmacovigilance system in place in India.

Drug product liability suit for Pioglitazone in the United States:

Just to cite an example, one report indicates:

“According to court filings, all of the Actos (Pioglitazone) lawsuits pending in the Western District of Louisiana allege Takeda Pharmaceuticals failed to provide adequate warnings to doctors and patients regarding the drug’s association with an increased risk of bladder cancer. Last month (April, 2013), the nation’s first trial involving Actos bladder cancer allegations ended with a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarding $6.5 million to a plaintiff who was diagnosed with the disease after taking the drug for four years”. However, the judge overseeing the case granted Takeda Pharmaceuticals’ request to set aside the verdict.

The report also indicates, ‘more than 1,200 Actos bladder cancer claims are pending in the Louisiana litigation. Additional Actos lawsuits have been filed in state litigations in California and Illinois.’

Indian doctors and manufacturers protest together against Pioglitazone ban:

It is equally intriguing to note, despite serious life threatening side-effect and restricted usage profile of Pioglitazone, as established internationally through robust and large clinical studies, both the doctors and the Pioglitazone manufacturers in India are urging the government to lift ban on this drug immediately, keeping the silent patient community in the front line, as usually happens all over.

A news report highlighted that ‘doctors flayed the ban on anti-diabetes drug Pioglitazone and requested the Centre to reverse its decision in interest of patients.’

Another media report highlighted, major drug makers are strongly opposing the move of the government to ban Pioglitazone, in India.

Conclusion:

Without generating another set of robust evidence proving contrary to what has been already concluded in the United States and EU based on strong supporting pharmacovigilance data, if the Indian drug regulator revokes the ban of Pioglitazone, it will be construed as a huge compromise with patients’ safety interest with this drug.

This issue assumes even greater importance, when the ‘drug product liability’ system is almost dysfunctional in India.

The other alternative of the drug regulator is to revoke the ban, wilting under combined pressure of the manufacturers and doctors and ask for safety warnings trying to emulate, as it were, what has been done by the US FDA.  

In which case, with full knowledge that it is virtually impossible for any one to comply with the above US FDA requirements in India, will the drug regulator not step over the line, yet again?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

The top 10 environment polluters of the world should now transform themselves into the top 10 saviours of the world from the disaster of Climate Change

Posted on by
Reply

Global awareness dawned early:

After World War the second, various types of atmospheric pollution started drawing increasing public attention in the western world, both in the USA and Europe.

In Europe, the incidence of London’s ‘Great Smog’ in 1952 initiated the process of bringing in ‘The Clean Air Act’ in 1956. This Act is believed to be one of the first legislations on environment in the world. Similarly in the USA in 1969 ‘The National Environment Policy Act’ was passed by the US Congress.

As we know, globally environmental pollution takes place mainly through carbon emission related to various developmental activities like construction, manufacturing, mining, motor vehicles, aircrafts; combustion equipment etc. All such emissions are gradually assuming alarming proportions.

Though CO2 is absolutely essential for photosynthesis of plant life, its raised level through the above developmental activities, very often adversely impacts the protective ozone layer of the earth triggering the process of climate change.

Sustained increase in atmospheric CO2 has also been shown to critically affect the sea water by increasing its acidity level, which in turn could endanger the marine ecosystem.

The key question:

Therefore, the moot question now is how to balance various developmental activities related to social and economic progress of nations with the preservation of global natural ecosystems.

Top 10 environment polluters of the world:

As per recent reports the top 10 environment polluters of the world are as follows:

1. China: Emits maximum CO2 of 6,018 million tonne. However, in terms of per capita emission, with 4.5 tonne China ranks 44 in the world, Australia being at the top of the list with 20.58 tonne followed by USA, Canada and Saudi Arabia. China has now pledged to cut its carbon intensity goal by 40-45 per cent by 2020.

It is important to note that against the suggestion of Denmark, the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) have refused to set a target of reduction of the global carbon emission by half, by 2050. BASIC countries emphasized that the developed nations should first work out an implementable model for emission cut before setting up any target.

2. United States: Emits 5,903 million tonnes of CO2 with a plan to cut the emission by 17 per cent from 2005 level by 2020. Per capita emission of CO2 of the USA, which ranks no.2 in the world, is 19.78 tonne.

3. Russia: Emits 1,704 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and agreed to cut emission by 25 percent, by 2020, if others also do the same.

4. India: Emits 1,293 million tonne of carbon dioxide with per capita emission of 1.16 tonne and agreed to cut emission by 20 to 25 per cent from 2005 level by 2020.

5. Japan: Emits 1,247 million tonne of carbon. It is important to note that last year in Japan CO2 emission came down by 6.2 per cent and the country agreed to reduce its CO2 emission by 2020 from its 1990 level by 25 per cent, if similar steps are taken by other developed nations of the world.

6. Germany: Emits 858 million tonne of carbon dioxide.

7. Canada: Emits 614 million tonne of carbon dioxide with per capita emission of 18.81 tonne. The country agreed to reduce its emissions by 2020 from 2006 level by 20 per cent.

8. U.K: Emits 586 million tonnes of carbon dioxide with a declining emission level. As compared to 1990 level, EU has agreed to a 20 percent cut in emission by 2020.

9. South Korea: Emits 514 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and agreed to reduce its emissions 4 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.

10. Iran: Emits 471 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. The country is worst hit by environmental pollution with marine ecology of the Caspian Sea is in great danger.

Conclusion:

Besides recent Copenhagen Accord more practical and effective steps must be taken by the global community, especially by these top 10 environmental polluters, to ensure quick and more substantial reduction in CO2 emission to arrest the climate change. This is obviously not expected to happen, as said earlier, at the cost of development and economic progress of any nation. The issue of climate change can primarily be addressed with initiation of various energy efficient measures to produce clean energy with increased sense of urgency.

Greater use of existing technologies like solar and wind power, electric and hybrid cars together with integrated robust projects to preserve natural ecosystems could save the humanity from the disastrous consequences of global climate change.

By Tapan Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Recent global meet on climate change in Copenhagen: what were achieved and what were not.

Posted on by
Reply

Long before the commencement of Copenhagen climate change meet, many from all over the world started talking passionately about the “dangerous climate change”, which as we know deals with the issue of increase of global temperature of 2 degrees Celsius (2C) from the preindustrial level.

This issue was discussed at length in Copenhagen and an accord was ultimately announced on December 18, 2009 followed by a plenary session on December 19, 2009.

What does it say?

The Accord is a 12-paragraph document of statement of intents and non-binding pledges to address the “dangerous climate change” issues.

Towards this direction the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at Copenhagen recommended even to the developed countries of the world to reduce carbon emission from their respective 1990 level by not less than 25% by 2020, from when the global carbon emission is expected to start declining.

USA and China were the key partners of IPCC with a strong supporting role played by Brazil, South Africa and India to have an accord that suits the emerging large developing economies of the world. The accord though recommends to the developed countries, barring the US, to ensure their carbon emission cuts, but not under the Kyoto Protocol. Most influential 26 countries of the world agreed with this accord and other 192 countries, though appeared to be unhappy in the plenary session, accepted the same with their ‘silence’, which perhaps means indirect consent.

The key points of the accord:

The main points of the Copenhagen Accord are as follows:

• Cooperation by all in containing emissions within 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

• To reduce carbon emission, the developing nations will report in every two years on their non-binding voluntary actions. This report will be subject to international consultations and analysis.

• US $ 10 billion each year will be financed by the developed countries for a three-year program to pay for the projects taken up by the poorer nations to develop clean energy and effectively address drought and other climate-change impacts.

• A goal of mobilizing US $ 100 billion per year by 2020 was also set for achieving the same objectives.

Is this accord a triumph of USA or China or the BASIC countries?

This accord is seen by some as a triumph of the USA to influence the ultimate outcome of the Copenhagen climate change summit. US President Barack Obama, in fact, brought back the negotiation from the brink of collapse, at the last minute, through hectic negotiation with the heads of states of Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC countries).

What will the success of the summit depend upon?

The success of this accord will depend on whether the USA will be able to live up to its promises to reduce carbon emissions in their own country and help other countries to address the same by raising billions of dollars.

BASIC countries, especially China, emerged stronger:

The process of this accord also witnessed China coming stronger leveraging their clout in a multilateral forum of the African continent, which is very rich in various valuable natural resources. However, many other less powerful nations, as said earlier, felt left out in this deal brokered mainly by the US initiative and interest.

Thus even after reaching the accord, at the plenary session on the last Saturday, a large number of speakers from the developing nations sharply criticized the deal alleging it as a pact meant only for the rich and BASIC countries.

Lack of a clear roadmap:

Be that as it may, without a clear road map for research and development of low-carbon technologies and no binding collective carbon emission target, achieving 2C by 2020 still remains a pipe dream.

Conclusion:

After the Copenhagen Accord, Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC), the four large emerging economies of the world, were immensely successful to display their joint muscle power to the world as a whole, clearly emerging as a major combined force to reckon with, especially by the developed nations of the world lead by the USA.

However, many will strongly feel that interests of smaller and poorer nations of the world were sacrificed in this first global agreement of the century on climate change at Copenhagen.

By Tapan Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.