The latest Access to Medicine Index, which ranks the top 20 pharmaceutical companies on their efforts to improve access to medicine in developing countries, finds that the industry is doing more than it was two years ago, the last time the index was published. GlaxoSmithKline continues to hold the top position followed by Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi 

The Access to Medicine Index is published by the Access to Medicine Foundation, a nonprofit organization based in the Netherlands. The index methodology was developed and is continually refined in consultation with multiple stakeholders, including the World Health Organization, nongovernmental organizations, governments and universities, as well as 30 institutional investors. The index is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the UK Department for International Development, and other charitable organizations. It scores companies on their commitments, performance, innovation and level of transparency across seven areas of activity considered key to improving access to medicine. The companies are graded on more than 100 factors covering these areas, including whether they are developing new drugs for neglected diseases, to what extent they facilitate or resist efforts to create generic versions of their drugs, and how they approach pricing in developing countries. Lobbying activities, marketing ethics, product donations, and other philanthropic activities are also tracked. 

GlaxoSmithKline remains at the top of the index with a marginal improvement in performance since 2010. Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi, both new to the top three, closely follow in the second and third positions, respectively. The companies that rose in rank the most were Merck KGaA, followed by Johnson & Johnson, and tBayer. AstraZeneca fell down the rankings most significantly, followed by Boehringer Ingelheim,  Novartis, and Roche. The bottom of the rankings is  dominated by Japanese companies Takeda, Daiichi, and Astellas. 

The index found that Johnson & Johnson was one of the most dramatic risers, climbing from the middle of the field in ninth position in the 2010 rankings to second this year, closely behind GlaxoSmithKline. Its rise is due largely to its consolidation of its access activities under one business unit, which has resulted in a more strategic and integrated approach, and to its acquisition of vaccine maker Crucell, which has increased the relevance of its R&D investments. It has also disclosed more overall about its access activities. 

 Sanofi has a proactive approach to increasing access with a CEO-ledstrategy that results in strong performance in public policy and marketinfluence, a large investment in R&D, and good practice in the management of clinical trials, according to the index analysis.  It also has a particular commitment to advancing capabilities in developing countries and to relevant product donation and philanthropy. The company is less consistent in its approach to equitable pricing, where it is an average performer and although only ranked middle of the field in patents and licensing, it has made improvements in this area. 

A notable riser in the index is Merck KGaA, up nine places and into the top 10. Despite being only a mid-sized company, it has improved performance in all areas. Its score improved considerably due to its detailed disclosure around its tiered pricing schemes. Significant progress can be seen in its approach to building developing world capacities in anticounterfeiting and drug-safety monitoring and also in product donation, philanthropy, and R&D. 

Bayer has risen five places since 2010, ranking ninth this index, largely due to an improved management approach, the establishment of targets foraccess initiatives, and an intra-country four-tiered differential pricingscheme. Its score also benefited from increased transparency about itsapproach and initiatives and about its stance on intellectual property issues. 

 “This year’s Index shows that companies are becoming more organized internally in their approach to access to medicine and that those who do this best tend to perform well across the other aspects we measure. The leaders are really raising the bar,” said Wim Leereveld, founder and CEO of the Access to Medicine Index, in a press release. “It’s also clear that companies that do not continue to step up their efforts tend to be overtaken by their peers.” 

 The 2012 index finds that more than 60% of companies now have directboard ownership of access to medicine and that more companies are settingmeaningful targets. Among the highest-ranked companies, there’s an ever-increasing organizational focus. Dedicated access functions are being established and incentives to deliver access objectives are becoming more common and are increasingly supported by performance-management systems. 

For instance, Index leader GlaxoSmithKline has, since the last index report in 2010, established a Developing Countries and Market Access unit as a department dedicated to access, bringing all its businesses in least -developed countries under one umbrella, supported by a new lower price/highervolume business model. Notably, the bonus system for managers in this new unit is structured to reward volume growth rather than profit growth. Three other companies in the top five (Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi and Gilead) as well as Eisai have also created similar dedicated departments. 

 Many companies have increased investment in relevant R&Dand some now devote as much as 20% of their pipeline to developing new products and adapting existing ones to address the needs of the poor, according to the Access to Medicine press release. As well as investing more, companies are working together more often and sharing different types of information thatcan help advance various stages of R&D. 

The primary focus continues to be communicable diseases with the highesthealth burden:  low respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Although the neglected tropical diseases still receive insufficient investment, they are less neglected than in 2010 andhave received a significant funding boost from the private sector. Among thisgroup, African trypanasomiasis, leishmaniasis and Chagas disease receivethe most investment but there continues to be little, if any, investment forleprosy, soil-transmitted helminths, yaws, Buruli ulcer, dracunculiasis orfascioliasis, according to the analysis. 

The use of inter-country and intra-country tiered pricing, where companies set different prices for the same product depending on the target country or population group within a country, is increasing, with more than three quarters of companies now engaged in it. The number of companies applying the approach within countries has increased from five in 2010 to 12 in 2012. The affordability impact of these schemes is uncertain partly because not all companies disclose the extent of their price reductions, but also because across companies that do disclose, there is little commonality in the way that pricing tiers are constructed and in the reference points used to calculate price reductions. It is therefore not possible to compare schemes in order to assess which companies are delivering affordability. 

 An additional two factors interfere with the industry’s attempt to use tieredpricing to lower prices, according to the analysis. Firstly, companies often do not monitor the extent of mark-ups that third-party sales agents add to the price of their drugs, which means that even if the company sets low prices, the patient mightstill be paying high marked-up prices. Secondly, while so few companies usedifferentiated packaging to prevent drugs meant for the poor being divertedand ending up in the hands of richer patients, there is a risk of medicines notbeing available for the intended communities and that revenues lost throughsuch market leakage could jeopardize the very sustainability of theseschemes. 

However, there are still several areas where all companies could improve their approaches significantly. These include being more transparent about their lobbying practices, expanding their tiered -pricing schemes, adapting packaging to local needs, making their drug donations more needs-based, and allowing their clinical-trial data to be used to accelerate the approval of generic medicines in developing countries.Only four companies provide evidence that they use disciplinary measuresto enforce codes of conduct in relation to CROs they employ to conduct clinical trials on their behalf in developing countries. 

Articles

CSR and Sustainability Forum

The Access to Medicines Index shows that pharmaceutical companies are increasing drug development for the developing world and using more tiered pricing mechanisms to lower pricing.

GlaxoSmithKline Tops Industry Rankings for Access to Medicines

The Indian Supreme Court ruled against Novartis in the company’s appeal to be granted a patent for the company’s anticancer drug, Glivec/Gleevec (imatinib mesylate) in India.  The ruling, which was issued on Apr. 1, 2013, has broader implications for intellectual property protection and the role of innovator drugs in the Indian market.


In a statement on the ruling, Novartis said that it had never been granted an original patent for Glivec in India. Novartis filed a Special Leave Petition with the Indian Supreme Court in 2009 challenging the denial of the Glivec beta-crystal form patent on two grounds based on Sections 3(d) and 3(b) of the Indian patent law. In addition to seeking a patent for Glivec, the company filed the case to help clarify these unique aspects of the patent law.
 "Novartis has never been granted an original patent for Glivec in India,” said Ranjit Shahani, vice-chairman and managing director, Novartis India Limited, in the company’s statement. “We strongly believe that original innovation should be recognized in patents to encourage investment in medical innovation especially for unmet medical needs. We brought this case because we strongly believe patents safeguard innovation and encourage medical progress, particularly for unmet medical needs. This ruling is a setback for patients that will hinder medical progress for diseases without effective treatment options."

At issue in the case was whether Glivec was considered an innovative product and, therefore, afforded protection under Indian patent law. Novartis had argued that the beta-crystal form of imatinib mesylate was novel and that it should be given patent protection under India law. India, which is part of the World Trade Organization, had amended its patent law in 2005 to assert that pharmaceutical companies had to prove enhanced clinical efficacy of their drugs over already patented compounds. In its ruling against Novartis, the Indian Supreme Court cited a 1996 patent (US Patent No. 5,521,184), which included several derivatives of 

phenyl-2-pyrimidine-amine, including imatinib, in a free-base form (1). Novartis asserted that it had first developed the methanesulfonic acid addition salt, imatinib mesylate, and later the beta-crystalline form of the salt, which had improved properties, such as flow, thermodynamic stability, and lower hygroscopicity compared with the alpha-crystal form. The India Supreme  Court, however, ruled that the beta-crystalline form of imatinib failed to meet the tests of “invention” and “patentability” under Indian law. 

“PhRMA is very disappointed with the Indian Supreme Court’s decision to deny a patent on Glivec,” said Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) President and CEO John Castellani, in an Apr. 1, 2013 statement. “This decision marks yet another example of the deteriorating innovation environment in India....In order to solve the real health challenges of India’s patients, it is critically important that India promote a policy environment that supports continued research and development of new medicines for the health of patients in India and worldwide. Protecting intellectual property is fundamental to the discovery of new medicines. The research-based pharmaceutical industry is committed to working closely with the Indian Government and other stakeholders to find appropriate solutions to this challenge.”


 The Novartis ruling follows other high-profile cases regarding intellectual-property protection in India. In March 2012, Natco Pharma was granted a compulsory license for sorafenib tosylate, the active ingredient in Bayer’s Nexavar, a drug to treat liver and kidney cancer.  The compulsory license enables Natco to sell the drug at a price not exceeding Rs. 8880 ($163) for a pack of 120 tablets (one month’s therapy) compared with the Rs. 284,428 ($5225) as the cost of Nexavar sold by Bayer. The license is valid until the expiry of the patent in 2021. The order is subject to certain conditions such as maintaining account of sales, and payment of royalty at 6% of the net sales on a quarterly basis .  The order also makes it obligatory for Natco to supply the drug freeof cost to at least 600 needy and deserving patients per year.

The Natco ruling was significant as it was the the first time the Indian controller general of patents, designs, and trademarks granted a compulsory license to a generic-drug maker (2) and it has since opened the door for other such applications.  In March 2013, BDR Pharmaceuticals applied to the Indian patent office for a compulsory license to sell a generic version of Bristol-Myers Squibb’ anticancer drug Sprycel (dasatinib) after unsuccessfully seeking a voluntary licence from Bristol-Myers (3). 

In another ruling, in November 2012, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in revoked the patent of Roche’s hepatitis C drug Pegasys (peginterferon alfa-2A). Roche had received a patent for Pegasys in India in 2006, which was subsequently challenged by the Indian generic-drug maker Wockhardt and a nongovernmental organization, Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust, on the grounds that that drug was not novel and did now demonstrate inventiveness (4). In its decision to set aside Roche's patent, the appellate board supported the company's claims that its work on Pegasys was novel but asserted that the technology involved in the invention was "obvious" and could be replicated easily (4). Also, in October 2012, Pfizer had its patent for its anticancer drug Sutent (sunitinib malate) revoked (5). 

J. Zimmerman, “Pyrimidine Derivatives and Processes for the Preparation Thereof (US Patent No,521,184), May 28, 1996.   

G. Anand and R. Ahemd, “Bayer Loses Drug Ruling in India,’ 

K. Kulkarni,“BDR Pharma Seeks License for Bristol-Myers Squibb Drug,” 

R. Ahmed, Pfizer India: Patent for Cancer Drug Sutent Revoked,” 

Global Feature

Ruling has implications for intellectual property protection for innovator drugs in India.

Indian Supreme Court Rejects Patent for Glivec by Novartis

The biopharmaceutical industry continues to increase outsourcing less common, more complex processes as companies seek strategic advantage by leveraging external resources. Until recently, outsourcing has focused primarily on traditional expression systems (mammalian and microbial) versus less common systems (e.g., yeast, plant cell, and insect cell) more likely to be retained in-house. This year, there are signs that outsourcing of plant- and insect-cell culture-based processes are beginning to expand. Preliminary data from BioPlan Associates’ 10th Annual Report and Survey of Biopharmaceutical Manufacturers indicate that only 50% of plant-cell users are performing this operation fully in-house, with the other half outsourcing some elements of bioprocessing to some degree. The data represent a shift from prior years, when up to 90% of the industry kept their processes fully in-house. 

The BioPlan data for insect-cell systems shows a similar trend. In past years, between 65% and 100% of respondents did all their insect-based production in-house, but BioPlan’s preliminary data from 2013 show a reduction to 60% of respondents doing all insect-cell-based production in house; this is the lowest point in more than six years. For plant-cell and insect-cell systems, the smaller number of facilities using these systems and the fact that the data still being preliminary make it too soon to declare a definitive shift, but it is interesting to see that the trends projected by some industry analysts are reflected in the preliminary findings. Meanwhile, the proportion of respondents outsourcing traditional expression systems remains relatively steady as follows (2013 results are preliminary data): • Mammalian cell-culture systems: In 2013, 50% of respondents (47% in 2012 and 45% in 2011) indicated that they outsourced no production while 31.6% (47% in 2012, 44.6% in 2011, 30.3% in 2010, and 29% in 2009) outsourced up to half of production. 
 • Microbial fermentation: In 2013, 45% (50% in 2012 and 43.8% in 2011) of respondent outsourced no production.  Thirty-five percent (44.% in 2012 and 41.6% in 2011) outsourced up to half of production, and 20% outsourced more than half. 
 • Yeast systems: In 2013, 66.7% of respondents (62.5% in 2012, and 59.1% in 2011) outsourced no production; in 2013, 22.2% of respondents (31.3% in 2012, 27.2% in 2011, 32.1% in 2010, and 14% in 2009) outsourced up to half of production. 
 • Plant-cell systems: 50% outsourced no production in 2013 (89% in 2012,  58% in 2011, and 75% in 2010). 
 • Insect-cell systems: 60% outsourced no production in 2013 (83% in 2012, 65% in 2011, 100% in 2010, and 82% in 2009). 


 When the BioPlan survey separately asked respondents about the percentage of their production that they expect to outsource in five years (i.e., by 2018), similar trends hold true. Future outsourcing of plant- and insect-cell systems appears to be rising while outsourcing of traditional systems remains steady, suggesting a relatively stable production environment. The preliminary data from 2013 show:
 • Mammalian cell-culture systems: 62.5% of respondents in 2013 (58.2% in 2012 and 63.5% in 2011) indicated they expect to outsource at least some of their production in the next five years.
 • Microbial fermentation: In 2013, 68.2% of respondents (72.2% in 2012 and 59.6% in 2011) plan to outsource some production by 2018. 
 • Yeast systems: 40% of respondents in 2013 (45% in 2012 and 52.2% in 2011) believe that at least some of their production will be outsourced in the next five years. 
 •Insect-cell systems: 42.9% of respondents in 2013 (26.7% in 2012) plan to outsource some production by 2018. 
 • Plant-cells systems: 40% of respondents in 2013 (25% in 2012) expect to outsource some production in the next five years. 



Although outsourcing of traditional expression systems has remained fairly steady in BioPlan’s preliminary data, capacity utilization may be trending upward after several years of decline. Capacity utilization is important for ensuring productivity and cost-effective operations. Lower utilization equates to more idle capacity. A certain amount of flexible capacity is needed to ensure availability during stress operations. Also, CMOs require open capacity to ensure they are not turning away potential clients. Conversely, too little capacity can lead to production and delivery problems. Ten years ago, capacity utilization was a more prominent issue. Today, increased yield of titers, improved bioproduction modeling, the use of disposables, and better planning have liftedmost capacity problems. 

Manufacturers, however, continue to work toward optimized upstream and downstream process operations. In upstream bioprocessing, mammalian cell-culture capacity in 2013 is averaging 65.4% of total capacity, which would be its highest level since 2006, according to BioPlan’s preliminary data. Capacity use has stabilized at roughly 62% during the past six years after declining from 76.4% in 2004. Meanwhile, the rebound is even greater for microbial fermentation. After decreasing steadily from 71% in 2004 to 49.5% in 2012, capacity utilization appears to have increased to 62% this year. For yeast culture, the initial data showing 48.4% capacity utilization represent an uptick from a 2012 level of 35.7%, but is more in keeping with prior years, which ranged from 44.9% to 46.8% between 2006 and 2011. Capacity utilization for plant- and insect-cell systems remains steady comparative to 2012, but noting again the potential for “noisy” data due to the small number of respondents using these systems. For essentially all expression systems, there appears to be underutilized capacity, which is preferable for companies when compared to a shortage of capacity. Despite utilization percentages having decreased in recent years, new capacity and higher yields were established during this period, so overall biomanufacturing levels (i.e., output) have risen considerably. 


Despite steady utilization rates in insect- and plant-cell expression systems, outsourcing appears to be rising. For traditional mammalian and microbial expression systems, capacity utilization rates are trending upward while outsourcing has remained flatter. On the surface, capacity utilization and outsourcing would appear to be interconnected—when capacity is scarce, outsourcing becomes an option. For many bioprocessing technologies, however, selection factors may be more associated with the availability of technical competence among outsourcing suppliers and CMOs rather than simply access to available production capacity. 

Eric Langer is president of BioPlan Associates, tel. 301.921.5979, elanger@bioplanassociates.com,and a periodic contributor to 

Outsourcing

A recent study shows growth in outsourcing of insect- and plant-cell-based bioproduction expression systems.

Outsourcing of Non-traditional Protein Expression Systems Increases

In late March, AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot outlined the company’s plan to revitalize growth and a series of strategic priorities. The moves come as the company deals with declining revenues in part due to increased generic-drug incursion. These priorities include:•	Driving its on-market growth platforms to return to growth as the company moves through a period of patent expiries and revenue declines 

•	Progressing its Phase II pipeline, which the company says has the potential to double Phase III asset volume by 2016, and to deliver growth from its biologics portfolio

•	Rebuildinh its R& supported by co-location of R&D teams and better access to globally recognized science clusters

•	“Dramatically” simplifying the business, improving productivity, and building a culture that supports long-term success

•	Leveraging business development and acquisitions to execute the company’s base plan and to strengthen the pipeline further. 

Soriot said that the company will focus on three core therapy areas: respiratory, inflammation and autoimmunity; cardiovascular and metabolic disease; and oncology. “We will continue to be active in infection and vaccines and in neuroscience, though our investments will be more opportunity-driven,” he said.“Within our chosen therapy areas, we will tighten our disease focus. This approach is designed to improve our likelihood of success while allowing us to meet our goal of funding our growing portfolio of late stage assets on a broadly flat R&D spend to 2016.” 

By accelerating development of several new molecular entities (NMEs), Soriot said the company has the potential to double its Phase III pipeline by 2016. “Acceleration of these key assets, combined with our ongoing efforts to progress a strong Phase II biologics pipeline into late-stage development, will create a portfolio more weighted toward specialty care, balancing our traditional strengths in primary care. We are also increasing our investment in lifecycle management to support key on-market and late-stage pipeline products such as Brilinta, Forixga, Bydureon, and lesinuard.”

On the R&D side, AstraZeneca will increase its proximity to bioscience clusters and centralizes its R&D at three strategic locations: Cambridge, Massachusetts’ Gaithersburg, Maryland; and Möindal, Sweden. “These proposals will make it easier for our researchers to collaborate with external partners and with each other. The creation of autonomous biologics and small- molecules biotech units is designed to improve innovation and accelerate decision-making,” said Soriot. “Additionally, we will increase our emphasis on novel biology and personalized healthcare, and we will continue to partner with leading academic institutions to increase our understanding of disease biology.” 

To that end, AstraZeneca announced collaborations with the Swedish medical university Karolinska Institutet and an agreement with the biopharmaceutical company Moderna Therapeutics. In late March, AstraZeneca and the Swedish and the Karolinska Institutet announced their intention to create an Integrated Translational Research Center for cardiovascular and metabolic disease and regenerative medicine located at Karolinska Institutet’s site in Stockholm, Sweden. The centre will be set up to conduct preclinical and clinical studies aimed at advancing the understanding of cardiovascular and metabolic disease pathophysiology and assessing new drug targets for AstraZeneca’s two biotech units, AstraZeneca Innovative Medicines and Early Development (iMed) and MedImmune. The center will  initially run for a period of five years and will be made up of between 20 and 30 scientists, including a number of AstraZeneca scientists. In addition, AstraZeneca will contribute up to $20 million per annum, and Karolinska Institutet will contribute expertise and facilities. The center is expected to be operational by mid-2013. 

In March 2013, Moderna Therapeutics signed a five-year strategic agreement with AstraZeneca to discover and develop messenger RNA Therapeutics. Under the agreement, AstraZeneca has exclusive access to Moderna’s mRNA therapeutic platform in the area of cardiometabolic diseases as well as selected oncology targets. Moderna will be responsible for designing and manufacturing the messenger RNA against selected targets, and AstraZeneca will lead the preclinical development, clinical development, and commercialization of messenger RNA Therapeutics resulting from the collaboration. 

These moves come as AstraZeneca navigates revenue decline due to generic-drug incursion. In terms of organic growth, the company is focused on its oral antiplatelet medication Brilinta (ticagrelor), working with its partner Bristol-Myers Squibb in the noninsulin diabetes market, investing in emerging markets, particularly in China, maximize the potential of its respiratory portfolio, and also increase growth from established products and in certain established markets, such as Japan. 

The company projects that it would reach revenues of $21.5 billion by 2018. Key contributors to that revenue target are Brilinta (projected 2018 revenue of $1.3 billion), its diabetes franchise (2018 revenue estimate of $2.3 billion), emerging markets (2018 revenue estimate of $7.6 billion), its respiratory franchise (2018 revenue estimate of $3.7 billion), Japan (2018 revenue estimate of $2.3 billion), and pipeline contributions (2018 revenue estimate of $1.1 billion estimate). AstraZeneca also says it is intensifying product development in biologics. Approximately 50% of its Phase I–III development pipeline is in biologics. The company says it is on track to deliver one new biologic license application per year beginning in 2016. 

Concurrent with its growth initiatives, AstraZenneca is further restructuring that will lead to a global headcount reduction of 2300. This efforts are combined with two previously announced restructuring efforts: a headcount reduction of 1600 related to the proposed R&D footprint changes announced on Mar. 18, 2013, and the balance of the Phase 3 restructuring program announced in February 2012, which amounts to 1150 roles. The total combined Phase 4 program entails an estimated global headcount reduction of about 5050 over the 2013-2016 period. The combined program of changes is estimated to incur $2.3 billion in one-time restructuring charges, of which $1.7 billion are expected to be cash costs. Benefits of approximately $800 million per annum are expected by 2016.

Restructuring and a strategic focus on three hubs in research and development are part of a plan to restart growth.

The Plan by AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot to Revitalize the Company

 has awarded grants totaling $175,000 to the 

 to support comprehensive navigation services for patients with cancer both independently and as part of a collaborative effort among several hospitals in central New Jersey. The grant to PHCS supports the expansion of a successful patient navigation program at the system’s acute-care hospital, 

University Medical Center of Princeton at Plainsboro (UMCPP)

 in Plainsboro. The program was first piloted at 

 in East Windsor, under the guidance of a breast health navigator, and also among UMCPP’s patients with lung and esophageal cancer. The move toward a comprehensive oncology patient navigation program will expand navigation services to encompass all cancer patient categories at 

UMCPP’s Edward & Marie Matthews Center for Cancer Care

 has received an Energy Star 2013 Partner of the Year – Sustained Excellence Award from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its continued improvement of energy performance and leadership in energy management in both the pharmaceutical and industrial sectors. Merck has been an Energy Star partner since 1995 and recognized by the EPA for eight consecutive years. The award recognizes three Merck manufacturing sites that have achieved Energy Star rankings in the top 25% of pharmaceutical plant energy performance nationwide: Arecibo, Puerto Rico; Las Piedras, Puerto Rico; and Elkhorn, Nebraska. Also achieving certification this year were Merck's corporate headquarters in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, for the fourth time; Merck’s research headquarters in Upper Gwynedd, Pennsylvania, for the second time; and company office buildings in Springfield, New Jersey, and West Point, Pennsylvania, for the first time. 

 has launched an effort to eliminate rheumatic heart disease in Zambia in collaboration with the 

Lusaka University Teaching Hospital (UTH)

. To measure RHD prevalence and identify those in need of secondary prophylaxis, teams of health care professionals from Lusaka UTH, the MGH, and Novartis will use portable echocardiography machines to evaluate 3000 children, ages 9–10, in Lusaka-area public schools. Echocardiography screening is estimated to detect more than 10 times as many cases as clinical screening. Images from the echocardiography screens will be analyzed in Zambia and at the MGH using a cloud-based electronic registry developed by 

, a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based company that designs open-source electronic healthcare systems for low-resource environments. Children identified as having RHD will be treated with monthly penicillin injections (termed “secondary prophylaxis”) to prevent recurrent streptococcal infections and additional valve damage. Primary prevention, the treatment of children with streptococcal infection to prevent RHD, is key to elimination of the disease. To this end, all children diagnosed with strep throat will be treated with injectable penicillin in the community based study sites. Prevalence of RHD and adherence to secondary prophylaxis will be determined 

 has formed a partnership with a patient group and mobile operator to make breast cancer screenings available in remote desert areas. The project has been in the planning phase for more than two years, and consists of three partner organizations: patient advocacy group 

, and Roche. The project, called the Mammobile, combines the expertise of each of these three entities to bring screening facilities closer to the women of Algeria, where 3500 of every 10,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer, die. El Amel is one of two national level breast cancer patient groups, while Mobilis has the bandwidth to reach customers all across Algeria with text alerts and other information to it subscribers. 

 have formed a collaboration agreement as part of Sanofi’s energy performance optimization program for its industrial sites in 40 countries around the world. The collaboration will operate employing four components: the establishment of an Energy Observatory to assist Sanofi with forecasting energy price changes in 16 countries; energy performance monitoring both globally and per site using the Struxureware Energy Operation software; on-site diagnostics to contribute towards the design of energy efficiency improvement plans; and energy consultancy to Sanofi’s engineering teams starting from the design phase of any new industrial site. To support Sanofi in this collaboration, Schneider Electric will base its strategy on experience acquired since 2005 from its Energy Action program for the continuous reduction of energy consumption on Schneider Electric sites around the world. The Sanofi–Schneider Electric collaboration agreement is implemented for three years. 

A roundup of developments in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability from the bio/pharmaceutical industry, its suppliers, and other public and private organizations

PTSM: Pharmaceutical Technology Sourcing and Management-04-03-2013

GlaxoSmithKline Tops Industry Rankings for Access to Medicines

Indian Supreme Court Rejects Patent for Glivec by Novartis

Outsourcing of Non-traditional Protein Expression Systems Increases

The Plan by AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot to Revitalize the Company

CSR and Sustainability in the News