|
 In a strongly-worded attack on major drug companies, Jim O'Neill,
who headed a British government global review of antimicrobial
resistance in 2016, said the industry had produced "endless talk and
no action", and was engaged in little more than "spewing out
nonsense" about the problem.
"If the pharma companies delivered one tenth of the commitment in
their words, we might be getting somewhere," O'Neill told reporters
at a briefing in London.
O'Neill, also formerly chief economist of Goldman Sachs, said his
frustration at the lack of commitment by drug companies had reached
a point where he now believes the best solution might be to create a
government-funded "utility" type drug company, which would not be
beholden to shareholders.
Any use of antibiotics promotes the development and spread of
superbugs - multi-drug-resistant infections that can evade the
antimicrobial drugs designed to kill them.
O'Neill's 18-month-long review, commissioned by former British prime
minister David Cameron and concluded in 2016, found that the threat
of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) could kill an extra 10 million
people a year by 2050 and cost up to $100 trillion if nothing is
done to slow or halt it.
Global health experts agree the world urgently needs new medicines
to keep ahead of the superbugs. But pharmaceutical firms are
reluctant to invest in developing drugs that would not be sold in
large volumes because of the need to preserve them.
[to top of second column] |
O'Neill has proposed a "pay or play" solution to the problem, in
which drug companies would be subject to a surcharge if they decide
not to invest in research and development (R&D) to bring successful
new antimicrobial medicines to market.
For those firms who do decide to "play", he suggests, a reward of
between $1 billion and $1.5 billion should be paid for any
successful new antibiotic drug developed.
Asked to respond to O'Neill's comments on Wednesday, the global
industry body, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), described some of his ideas
as "pipe dreams". IFPMA said his suggestion of creating a public
utility had "little to commend it".
"Rather than wasting time running after new pipe dreams, we call for
a big push to sort out the incentives that have broad consensus -
fast - before we give up," it said in a statement emailed to
Reuters.
(Reporting by Kate Kelland; Editing by Mark Heinrich)
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
 |
