Lipitor is Pfizer’s brand name for Atorvastatin, the most heavily prescribed non-generic drug in the world. The clue is in the name: it’s a statin, used to lower blood cholesterol levels. It’s been a great 25 years or so for Pfizer, but the patent is almost exhausted, and toward the middle of 2011 [update: Nov 2011] generic versions of Atorvastatin will be globally available at a considerably lower price.
Patents are a problematic method for incentivising drug methods; but of the various models of authorised monopoly that can be described, I do think patenting is the least worst. Assuming that is, one doesn’t game the system to increase your monopoly period.
Via the AP:
The European Union has approved a new chewable form of cholesterol blockbuster Lipitor for children 10 and up with high levels of bad cholesterol and triglycerides, a type of blood fat, Pfizer said Tuesday. […]
Pfizer already won such an extension for its crucial U.S. patent on Lipitor.
For blockbuster drugs, those extensions can easily bring hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue. Normally, they are for drugs that are widely used by different age groups.
Until recently, cholesterol drugs have been primarily taken by adults with heart disease, but their use has expanded to younger patients as more obese, sedentary teenagers and adolescents develop heart disease and diabetes.
The net effect of this legislation is that if you own an valuable patent, and you knock up a quick study suggesting a plausible paediatric application [a Paediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP], then get yourself a Paediatric Use Marketing authorisation (PUMA), then you are officially quids-in – or euros-in, since the SPC applies to all sales of your drug.
To review: Patent + PIP + PUMA = PoM (Pile of Money). As to whether typical chubby ten-year-olds really need anti-cholesterol drugs, as opposed to fewer pies and crisps…that’s another matter entirely.
“Head Shops” - commercial premises that specialise in drug paraphernalia and legal highs.
Never heard that one before. In case you weren’t aware, much concern has been raised in the media over mephedrone, a member of a class of previously legal psychoactive substances that can - I am told – when taken in sufficient quantities lead one to an experience that might best be described as “tripping balls”.
From 16th April 2010, Mephedrone and other Cathinone derivatives joined this list of banned New Psychoactive Substances, controlled as Class B drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Since cathinone and its derivatives are the primary active substance in Khat, I presume the local trade – popular in the Somali community - will now be interdicted by the police.
And I wonder whether any of this is really a productive use of Police time, and the more general argument for Drug Prohibition. A couple of years ago, the “Letter from a Tory” blog criticised a Conservative spokesperson for a perceived weakening of the party’s anti-drugs message. My comment at the time was:
On the one hand, my instinct for supporting personal liberty tells me that adults should be allowed to choose their own poison, and that they must accept the consequences of their decisions.
And yet…the drug users whose addiction most affects me are those who commit violent and acquisitive crime, rather than the middle-classes knocking back vicodin. Let’s say that we did legalise the whole spectrum of pharmaceuticals for consenting adults and concentrated on policing those attempting to sell to children. Would all the “socially deprived” drug abusers suddenly smarten up, get a shave, a side parting and a steady job? I think not. They’d continue their self-destructive behaviours, just without inconveniencing me so much.
I’d still be cautious going down to the centre of Bristol on a Friday night because of those under the influence of alcohol, but at least I’d be less likely to be burgled while I’m out to support someone’s heroin addiction.
So in some ways, legalisation is an act of selfishness, in that although us boring, normal people may see some improvement in the quality of our lives from a reduction in acquisitive crime, we would be placing the burden of stepping up to society’s norms on those who seem least capable of doing so.
Now I read this again, it seems patronising. I wonder whether I’d respond well to someone talking down to me like that. [Actually, I don’t need to wonder. When Jamie Oliver did it, I didn’t respond well at all]
One troubling section of the ACPO guidance was the following, entitled “Alternative Legislation”:
Head shops may be found to be selling products that are not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In those circumstances there is legislation enforced by Trading Standards that could provide opportunities for prosecution if offences are disclosed. Whilst not an exhaustive list, possible alternatives include:
My reading of this section is “if you can’t have them for selling illegal substances, try some lateral thinking and get them on something else” which doesn’t sound like a very British approach to policing; certainly not in keeping with the Peelian Principles. Mind you, it worked for Bureau of Prohibition Agent Elliot Ness when he successfully prosecuted Bootlegger [i.e. drug dealer] Al Capone for tax evasion.
As an exercise for the reader, you might ponder whether the sale of tobacco or alcohol could fall foul of any of these legal instruments. I reckon the former is clearly at risk.
