Earlier this month the Supreme Court had dismissed Novartis' plea for patent of cancer drug Glivec. In that order Supreme Court had very clearly stated the definition of enhanced efficacy, however the global drug major believes that it still leaves a lot of room for more debate on what really is patentable innovation in India.
The company made it clear that they are not going to apply to any international agency now for an appeal against the Supreme Court order.
Novartis' India head also pointed out pertinent aspects of IMATINIB or Glivec market, drug accessibility and their plans for the local market. IMATANIB has been very debatable and even IMS data do not have correct figure on the drug's actual market size. Through various charts and numbers Novartis said that they hold about 77 percent of the total IMATINIB market which includes both generic as well as patented Glivec.
The company said that out of 42,000 patients who reach oncologist only 28,000 patients are the ones who get treatment, out of which 16,400 patients get free Glivec and another 400 get it through co-pay programmes.
Novartis claimed that they have a much better access programme on Glivec for chronic myeloid leukemia patients and they reach out to a larger number of patients as compared to all the other generics put together.
Also, through a comparative analysis of per day prices of IMATINIB both generic as well as Glivec, Novartis claimed to churn out the cheapest Imatinib to patients through its co-pay programme. The company claims that it works out to be even cheaper than generics.
The drug major will continue launch products in India but would be very cautious in launching patented drugs.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Explanation of Sec 3(d) of patent act still vague: Novartis
Dengan url
http://efektifkesehatan.blogspot.com/2013/04/explanation-of-sec-3d-of-patent-act.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Explanation of Sec 3(d) of patent act still vague: Novartis
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Explanation of Sec 3(d) of patent act still vague: Novartis
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar