The Trans-Pacific Partnership--Is It Bad for Your Health?

A conceptual framework for investigating the impacts of international trade and investment agreements on noncommunicable disease risk factors

We developed a conceptual framework exploring pathways between trade and investment and noncommunicable disease (NCD) outcomes. Despite increased knowledge of the relevance of social and structural determinants of health, the discourse on NCD prevention has been dominated by individualizing paradigms targeted at lifestyle interventions. We situate individual risk factors, alongside key social determinants of health, as being conditioned and constrained by trade and investment policy, with the aim of creating a more comprehensive approach to investigations of the health impacts of trade and investment agreements, and to encourage upstream approaches to combating rising rates of NCDs. To develop the framework we employed causal chain analysis, a technique which sequences the immediate causes, underlying causes, and root causes of an outcome; and realist review, a type of literature review focussed on explaining the underlying mechanisms connecting two events. The results explore how facilitating trade in goods can increase flows of affordable unhealthy imports; while potentially altering revenues for public service provision and reshaping domestic economies and labour markets-both of which distribute and redistribute resources for healthy lifestyles. The facilitation of cross-border trade in services and investment can drive foreign investment in unhealthy commodities, which in turn, influences consumption of these products; while altering accessibility to pharmaceuticals that may mediate NCDs outcomes that result from increased consumption. Furthermore, trade and investment provisions that influence the policy-making process, set international standards, and restrict policy-space, may alter a state's propensity for regulating unhealthy commodities and the efficacy of those regulations. It is the hope that the development of this conceptual framework will encourage capacity and inclination among a greater number of researchers to investigate a more comprehensive range of potential health impacts of trade and investment agreements to generate an extensive and robust evidence-base to guide future policy actions in this area.

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and Its Impact on Accessibility and Affordability of Medicines: A Meta-synthesis

This article aims to discuss the main consequences of the implementation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TTPA) in the pharmaceutical sector in regard to public health, focusing on the accessibility and affordability of medicines. This paper also looks at the likely impact of the TPP agreement on access to affordable medicines. The potential effects of provisions in the final text are explored based on the context of developed and developing countries. A meta-synthesis study design was used. The thematic analysis technique was used to generate themes and a decision tree of the TTPA meta-synthesis. PubMed, EBSCOhost, Ovid, and Scopus databases from inception until the first week of January 2016 were used. Only peer-reviewed journals that discussed TPPA's impact on the pharmaceutical sector were included. Data were extracted by 2 reviewers and then verified by 3 senior researchers. The extracted data were imported into Excel spreadsheets and coded line by line. Codes were organized into descriptive themes. The identified themes were cross-checked against original articles to ensure consistency. A total of 85 full articles and reports were reviewed and, finally, 32 of them were used in the meta-synthesis. Two central themes to the TTPA emerged: intellectual property rights and transparency. Five subthemes were identified under intellectual property rights: patent subject matter (representing scope of patentability), patent term adjustment for patent office delays (representing patent term extension), protection of undisclosed test or other data (representing data exclusivity), protection of undisclosed test or other data (representing patent linkage), and compulsory licensing. Meanwhile, transparency and anti-corruption-procedural fairness, which presents restriction of coverage program and reimbursement, were identified as the subthemes of transparency. Findings indicate that the TPPA could potentially hinder the affordability and accessibility of medicine, which could increase risks to public health.

Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999-2014

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of pharmaceuticals is most often demonstrated by randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, in some cases, regulatory applications lack RCT evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the number and type of these approvals over the past 15 years by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODS

Drug approval data were downloaded from the EMA website and the 'Drugs@FDA' database for all decisions on pharmaceuticals published from 1 January 1999 to 8 May 2014. The details of eligible applications were extracted, including the therapeutic area, type of approval and review period.

RESULTS

Over the period of the study, 76 unique indications were granted without RCT results (44 by the EMA and 60 by the FDA), demonstrating that a substantial number of treatments reach the market without undergoing an RCT. The majority was for haematological malignancies (34), with the next most common areas being oncology (15) and metabolic conditions (15). Of the applications made to both agencies with a comparable data package, the FDA granted more approvals (43/44 vs 35/44) and took less time to review products (8.7 vs 15.5 months). Products reached the market first in the USA in 30 of 34 cases (mean 13.1 months) due to companies making FDA submission before EMA submissions and faster FDA review time.

DISCUSSION

Despite the frequency with which approvals are granted without RCT results, there is no systematic monitoring of such treatments to confirm their effectiveness or consistency regarding when this form of evidence is appropriate. We recommend a more open debate on the role of marketing authorisations granted without RCT results, and the development of guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable data package for regulators.