CorrespondenceDrug development output: what proportion for tropical diseases?
References (5)
Olliaro P. Drug development output from 1975 to 1996: what proportion for tropical diseases
Int J Infect Dis
(1999)The effect of pharmacoeconomics on company research and development decisions
Pharmacoeconomics
(1997)
Cited by (17)
Mapping ethical and social aspects of cancer biomarkers
2016, New BiotechnologyCitation Excerpt :These scholars argue that global health systems are organised such that financial incentives privilege diseases more prevalent in the developed world: “drugs are not developed for the health needs of the poor because incentives for pharmaceutical innovation are built around patients’ ability to pay” [47]. For example, according to Trouiller and Olliaro [48], of the 1223 new drugs that were sold worldwide during 1975–1996, less than 1% tackled tropical diseases. More recent numbers indicate that 100 million dollars per year worldwide are spent on tropical disease research versus over 3 billion dollars per year in the US alone for cancer research [49] (see also [50]).
Malaria drug and vaccine trials in Africa: obstacles and opportunities
2008, Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and HygieneSynthesis, characterization and in vitro antiamoebic activity of 5-nitrothiophene-2-carboxaldehyde thiosemicarbazones and their Palladium (II) and Ruthenium (II) complexes
2004, European Journal of Medicinal ChemistryInfectious diseases, non-zero-sum thinking, and the developing world
2003, American Journal of the Medical SciencesCitation Excerpt :The lack of commitment of pharmaceutical companies to address the distribution of drugs in the developing world is associated with the concept of cost recovery. Bringing a new antimicrobial drug to the market costs about US$224 million a year47; therefore, a major obstacle for pharmaceutical companies is the fact that they have no market incentive to address the health problems of the world’s poor. Private firms do not have sufficient incentives to develop the technology, namely because it is a public global good and because beneficiaries are people with low ability to pay.
Accountability of the pharmaceutical industry
2002, LancetCitation Excerpt :Publicly funded programmes are underway to develop drugs for disorders that affect the world's poorest people. These programmes show the extent to which industrial science has neglected this unprofitable area, instead companies have developed drugs for affluent societies that can pay for them.3–7 It is hard to see that the worldwide pharmaceutical industry—if is to be judged accountable to society—can be said to be discharging its duties adequately as long as it continues to neglect the desperate needs of the world's poorest populations.
In vitro trypanocidal activities and structure–activity relationships of ciprofloxacin analogs
2023, Molecular Diversity