DOCSLIB.ORG

In Re: Glaxosmithkline Plc Securities Litigation 05-CV-3751

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Re: Glaxosmithkline Plc Securities Litigation 05-CV-3751 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ ) In re: GlaxoSmithKline plc Securities ) Civil Action No. 05 CIV. 3751 (LAP) Litigation ) ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL __________________________________________) CONSOLIDATED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The claims asserted herein arise under §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”) and Rule 10b-5. Jurisdiction is conferred by § 27 of the 1934 Act, and 28 U.S.C. §1331. Venue is proper here pursuant to § 27 of the 1934 Act. GlaxoSmithKline plc and SmithKline Beecham Corporation doing business as GlaxoSmithKline plc (collectively “GSK”) is headquartered in London, England, but conducts business in this District. GSK’s ADRs trade on the New York Stock Exchange headquartered in this District. THE PARTIES 2. Lead Plaintiff Joseph J. Masters (“Plaintiff”) acquired publicly traded securities of GSK during the Class Period and was damaged thereby. 3. Defendant GlaxoSmithKline plc is a public company. GlaxoSmithKline plc’s ADRs trade in an efficient market on the NYSE under the symbol “GSK.” GlaxoSmithKline plc’s ordinary shares trade in an efficient market on the London Stock Exchange. Defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation is a Delaware corporation, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GlaxoSmithKline plc. GlaxoSmithKline plc was created in December 2000 when Glaxo Wellcome merged with SmithKline Beecham. Both GlaxoSmithKline plc and SmithKline Beecham, as well as all of their predecessors, subsidiaries and successors, are referred to herein collectively as “GSK.” 4. Defendant Jean-Pierre Garnier (“Garnier”) was CEO and Chairman of GSK throughout the Class Period. By reason of his position, Garnier had access to material inside information about GSK and was able to control directly or indirectly the acts of GSK and the contents of the representations disseminated during the Class Period by or in the name of GSK. -2- 5. The defendants are liable, jointly and severally, as direct participants in the scheme and wrongs complained of herein. Defendants had a duty promptly to disseminate accurate and truthful information with respect to GSK’s products, operations, financial condition and future business prospects or to cause and direct that such information be disseminated so that the market prices of GSK’s stock and ADRs would be based on truthful and accurate information. SUMMARY OF THE ACTION 6. From the time it was formed, GSK has relied upon various deceptive practices to artificially inflate its stock price. Concerning its patents for various medications, GSK would file baseless patent applications to prevent competition to its products from generic drug manufactures. GSK would tout to the investing public that the drug patents for its largest selling medications, Paxil and Augmentin, would expire years in the future, when in reality GSK knew, or should have known, that its patent protection for both Paxil and Augmentin had either already expired, or would expire shortly. These two drugs accounted for billions of dollars in sales for GSK during the class period. By falsely touting that the patents for these two drugs would expire years in the future, GSK mislead the investing public into believing that the future sales and profits from these two drugs would remain high. GSK knew that without patent protection, generic manufactures would undercut GSK’s monopoly prices, which would directly lead to plunging sales for GSK. This is exactly what happened. In addition, GSK’s illegal practice of patent manipulation violated U.S. anti-trust laws. So far GSK has paid out over $160 million to settle antitrust class actions for its illegal practice of patent manipulation involving Paxil and $29 million to settle antitrust class actions involving Augmentin. This is not the only liability GSK faces for its practice of patent manipulation of Paxil and Augmentin. GSK is currently being sued for by the City of New York for medicare fraud, and -3- by various insurance companies for anti-trust violations springing from this practice of patent manipulation. GSK’s public false and misleading statements concerning the patent protection for both Paxil and Augmentin have damaged investors, who would not have paid the high prices for GSK that they did if they had know patent protection had or would shortly expire. 7. Not only did GSK illegally file baseless patents for its Paxil medication, it also hid from the public and government regulators the fact that Paxil was causing serious and sometimes deadly health problems to consumers. GSK touted Paxil to doctors as a medication that was safe and effective for children, when it knew from its own drug testing program that Paxil was less effective than a placebo, while it also was twice as likely as a placebo to cause suicide. These problems, when disclosed to the public, lead to decreased sale for Paxil. Some countries forbid doctors from prescribing Paxil to children, while here in the U.S. Paxil was required to warn that children who use Paxil are at increased risk of suicide. GSK also hid from consumers and government regulators the fact that Paxil was causing withdrawal problems, even in healthy test subjects. Sales of Paxil plunged as medical professionals and the public became aware that GSK’s statements that Paxil was safe and non-habit forming were false and misleading. Not only have sales been negatively impacted by the disclosure of these problems, but class action products liability suits have been filed which have resulted in billions of dollars in potential liability. GSK shares have suffered as a result. 8. Finally, GSK has also violated the Federal False Claims Act numerous times, which has artificially raised reported profits. The latest violation was shown on September 20, 2005, when it was announced that GSK had paid out $150 million to settle claims that GSK engaged in a scheme to inflate the price of its drugs Zofran and Kytril for the Medicare and Medicaid programs. -4- CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 9. This is a class action on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired GSK common stock and ADRs during the period from December 27, 2000 through August 5, 2004, inclusive (the “Class Period”), excluding defendants, directors and officers of the Company and their families and affiliates (the “Class”). Class members are so numerous that joinder of them is impracticable. At all relevant times, the markets for GSK ADRs and common stock were efficient. 10. Common questions of law and fact predominate and include whether defendants (i) violated the 1934 Act; (ii) omitted and/or misrepresented material facts; (iii) knew or recklessly disregarded that their statements were false; and (iv) artificially inflated GSK’s stock and ADR prices and the extent of and appropriate measure of damages. 11. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Class. Prosecution of individual actions would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications. Plaintiff will adequately protect the interests of the Class. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. BACKGROUND 12. Concerning its patent protection, SmithKline Beecham disclosed in its Form-20F for the year ending December 31, 1999 that [t]he patent situation on potassium clavulanate (Augmentin and Timentin) is complex. Although patents on the compound expired in some markets in 1995, the relevant U.S. patents will not expire until 2002 and patent extensions in France and Italy also provide protection beyond 2000.” Concerning Paxil, this Form-20F also disclosed that “[t]he patent for the marketed form of Seroxat/Paxil expires during or after 2006.” -5- 13. On January 17, 2000, the Boards of Glaxo Wellcome (NYSE: GLX) and SmithKline Beecham (NYSE: SBH) announced that they have unanimously agreed the terms of a proposed merger of equals to form Glaxo SmithKline. 14. March 1, 2000, SmithKline Beecham announced that it had obtained a new US patent on its broad-spectrum antibiotic, Augmentin. This patent was completely baseless and filed only to illegally prohibit generic drug manufactures from selling generic forms of Augmentin. 15. The terms of the merger were released in the PR Newswire on July 5, 2000. Under the terms of the merger, Glaxo Wellcome Shareholders and SmithKline Beecham shareholders would receive, respectively: for each Glaxo Wellcome share 1 GlaxoSmithKline share and for each SmithKline Beecham share 0.4552 GlaxoSmithKline shares. Holders of Glaxo Wellcome ADRs and holders of SmithKline Beecham ADRs would receive, respectively: for each Glaxo Wellcome ADS 1 GlaxoSmithKline ADS for each SmithKline Beecham ADS 1.138 GlaxoSmithKline ADSs. Based on the number of shares outstanding as at the 31st December 1999, upon the merger becoming effective, 3,640,804,312 GSK shares would be issued to Glaxo Wellcome shareholders and 2,556,309,411 GlaxoSmithKline shares would be issued to SmithKline Beecham shareholders, representing approximately 58.75 percent and 41.25 percent respectively of the issued ordinary share capital of GSK. 16. On July 26, 2000, in an article by the Financial Time, defendant Garnier is quoted as identifying Paxil/Seroxat and Augmentin as “stars of the show” as these two drugs each brought in over a billion dollars in revenue. Defendant Garnier also stated he was confident that newly granted patents on Augmentin, would keep competition at bay until 2013. -6- 17. On December 27, 2000, the start of the Class Period, the merger between Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham was completed. Trading in the shares of GSK commenced on the London Stock Exchange and trading also commenced on GSK American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) on the New York Stock Exchange. 18. The FDA approves drugs for human use if they are safe and effective as determined through scientifically conducted clinical studies. Throughout the Class Period, GSK manufactured and sold paroxetine under the name Paxil in the United States and under the name Seroxat in Great Britain (hereinafter, “Paxil”).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • !Hcl^S Office Filed Under Seal
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT P FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS !^D !HCL^S OFFICE Civil Action No. 03-10641-NG-RWZ Civil Action No. 11-10398-NG-RWZ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et at, ex rel GREGORY W. THORPE and BLAIR HAMRICK, Plaintiffs, v. SMITH KLINE BEECHAM, INC., and GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE, Defendants. SEVENTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 etseq. Matthew J. Fogelman, Esquire FOGELMAN & FOGELMAN LLC 100 Wells Avenue William J. Leonard, pro hac vice Newton, MA 02459 Richard P. Limburg, pro hac vice Kimberly D. Sutton, pro hac vice Brian P. Kenney Alex P. Basilevsky,/>/"6> hac vice M. Tavy Deming OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & Emily C. Lambert HIPPEL LLP KENNEY & McCAFFERTY, PC One Perm Center, 19th floor 3031 Walton Road, Suite C202 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Philadelphia, PA 19103 A Homeys for Plaintiffs-Relators Gregory W. Thorpe and Blair Hamrick 4612364 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................2 II. PARTIES ................................................................................................................4 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE............................................................................6 IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS...............................................................................7 A. Drugs Marketed By GSK For Off-Label Use...............................................12 1. Advair ...................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Rights and the Evergreening of Pharmaceuticals
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Boscheck, Ralf Article — Published Version Intellectual property rights and the evergreening of pharmaceuticals Intereconomics Suggested Citation: Boscheck, Ralf (2015) : Intellectual property rights and the evergreening of pharmaceuticals, Intereconomics, ISSN 1613-964X, Springer, Heidelberg, Vol. 50, Iss. 4, pp. 221-226, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10272-015-0546-y This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/172664 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu DOI: 10.1007/s10272-015-0546-y Intellectual Property Ralf Boscheck Intellectual Property Rights and the Evergreening of Pharmaceuticals Escalating healthcare expenditures and the need to ensure access to affordable medicine in both emerging and emerged economies are fuelling calls to contain the so-called evergreening practices of drug producers around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Sleepless No More SUB.1000.0001.1077
    SUB.1000.0001.1077 2019 Submission - Royal Commission into Victoria's Mental Health System Organisation Name: Sleepless No More SUB.1000.0001.1077 1. What are your suggestions to improve the Victorian community’s understanding of mental illness and reduce stigma and discrimination? Australia is unfortunately a country with pervasive Incorrect Information, Lack of Information, Unsubstantiated Information and Out of Date Information about mental health, emotional health and the underlying reasons for emotional challenges. The reason people do not understand emotional challenges, being promoted as “mental illness”, is that they are not being given full and correct, up to date and relevant information. The Australian public is being given information which is coming from the ‘mental health industry’ not information that reduces mental health problems. The information is industry driven. “Follow the money” is a phrase very relevant in this field. People need to be given correct information that empowers them and ensures that they continue to be emotionally resilient. The information being promoted, marketed as ‘de-stigmatising mental health’ has resulted in people incorrectly self-diagnosing and presenting to their medical professionals asking for help with their anxiety (mental health problem), depression (mental health problem), bipolar (mental health problem), etc. Examples of information and mental health developments I do not see mentioned or promoted in Australia as part of making Australians emotionally resilient, and therefore not diagnosed and medicated as mentally ill: The flaws in the clinical trial process, and how to check the strategies being promoted by health care professionals, the government, doctors and psychiatrists. Making Medicines Safer for All of Us.
    [Show full text]
  • What Influences Healthcare Providers' Prescribing Decisions?
    Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy xxx (xxxx) xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rsap What influenceshealthcare providers’ prescribing decisions? Results from a national survey Simani M. Price a,*, Amie C. O’Donoghue b, Lou Rizzo a, Saloni Sapru a, Kathryn J. Aikin b a Westat, Inc., Rockville, MD, USA b U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Background: Prior U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) surveys with healthcare providers (HCPs) have Healthcare providers focused on attitudes toward direct-to-consumer advertising and have not specifically examined professionally- Prescription drug promotion targeted prescription drug promotion. Similarly, there are no recent national surveys of HCPs examining their Detailing interactions with the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical opinion leaders Objectives: The goal of this study was to use a national sample of HCPs to examine exposure to professionally- Off-label prescribing Prescribers targeted prescription drug promotions and interactions with industry, and knowledge, attitudes and practices related to FDA approval of prescription drugs. Methods: An online national survey was conducted with 2000 HCPs representing primary care physicians (PCPs), specialists (SPs), physician assistants (PAs), and nurse practitioners (NPs). The sample was randomly drawn from WebMD’s Medscape subscriber network, stratified by HCP group, and designed to yield target numbers of completed surveys in each group. Weights were computed to correct for unequal selection probabilities, dif­ ferential response rates, and differential coverage and used to generalize completed surveys to a national pop­ ulation of PCPs, SPs, NPs, and PAs.
    [Show full text]
  • Overcoming Intellectual Property Monopolies in the COVID-19 Pandemic
    MSF Briefing Document July 2020 Overcoming intellectual property monopolies in the COVID-19 pandemic Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is responding to the global COVID-19 pandemic, providing treatment and care for people with COVID-19, protecting people living in vulnerable conditions, and ensuring uninterrupted essential health services for people suffering from other diseases.1 Having universal access to existing and future tools for treatment, diagnosis and prevention is critical. MSF has repeatedly witnessed how exclusive rights and monopolies granted to pharmaceutical corporations, resulting in high prices and blocking generic competition, have had a negative impact on our medical actions in different countries.2 For example, in the past, high prices for patented medicines have undermined the capacity of countries to provide access to treatment for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB), hepatitis C and cancer to all patients who need them. However, the impact of intellectual property (IP) monopolies is not limited to drugs. The availability of more affordable pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and human papillomavirus vaccine in low- and middle-income countries has been delayed due to unmerited patents on key technologies blocking follow-on producers.3 Intellectual property monopolies in the COVID-19 pandemic While several of the drugs being trialled as COVID-19 treatments are now off patent, patented drugs and experimental drugs are also being trialled, and some of which are under patent protection in many developing countries.4 With control over the market as a result of patents or other exclusive rights, pharmaceutical companies could determine how global production and supply chain are organised, who ultimately has access, who can produce medicines and where they can be supplied.
    [Show full text]
  • Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship
    University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2019 The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship Erika Lietzan University of Missouri School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs Part of the Food and Drug Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Erika Lietzan, The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship, 53 Akron Law Review 805 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs/984 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DATE DOWNLOADED: Wed Jan 20 13:42:00 2021 SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline Citations: Bluebook 21st ed. Erika Lietzan, The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship, 53 AKRON L. REV. 805 (2019). ALWD 6th ed. Lietzan, E. ., The "evergreening" metaphor in intellectual property scholarship, 53(4) Akron L. Rev. 805 (2019). APA 7th ed. Lietzan, E. (2019). The "evergreening" metaphor in intellectual property scholarship. Akron Law Review, 53(4), 805-872. Chicago 7th ed. Erika Lietzan, "The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship," Akron Law Review 53, no. 4 (2019): 805-872 McGill Guide 9th ed. Erika Lietzan, "The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship" (2019) 53:4 Akron L Rev 805. AGLC 4th ed. Erika Lietzan, 'The "Evergreening" Metaphor in Intellectual Property Scholarship' (2019) 53(4) Akron Law Review 805.
    [Show full text]
  • Index 499 Abacavir Case Study, 359 Drug Labeling And, 448 Infectious Diseases And, 317 Pharmacist And, 465 Pharmacodynamics Of
    Index 499 A Allele, 3, 8 detection of, 59, 70-71, 74, 92, 94 Abacavir discrimination, 59, 68, 70-72, 74-75, 88, 90-92, case study, 359 94 drug labeling and, 448 frequency calculations for, 34 infectious diseases and, 317 genetics and, 19, 20, 22, 28-30, 32, 34-47, 49, 52-53 pharmacist and, 465 methodologies, 59, 60, 70-75, 85-94, 96-97 pharmacodynamics of, 198 respiratory diseases and, 327, 336-338, 343, toxicogenomics of, 367 346 ABC transporters, 153-154 -specific amplifications, 92-93 ABCB1, 154-158, 160-161, 258, 263, 314 Allele-specific oligonucleotide (ASO) hybridiza- ABCC transporter family, 161-168 tion, 59, 74, 90-91 Allelic drift, 38 ABCC1, 161-162 All-trans retinoic acid (ATRA), 271 ABCC2, 162-163 Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, 406, 421-422 ABCC3, 163 gene polymorphisms and, 425 ABCC4, 163 Alzheimer’s disease, 201, 296 ABCC5, 163 American Academy for Study of Liver Diseases, ABCC6, 166 322 American College of Cardiology, 228 ABCC8, 407-409, 410-411, 414, 446 American College of Medical Genetics working ABCC11, 166-167 group, 475 ABCG2, 167-168 American Heart Association Foundation, 228 Acamprosate, 394 American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Infor- Acarbose, 421-422 mation, 461 Americans with Disabilities Act, 479 Access issues, 474 Amino acid, 25 Accreditation Counsel for Pharmacy Education, 461 Amiodarone, 243-244 Accuracy, 72 Amitriptyline, 285 ACE inhibitors, 194-195, 200, 230, 232-233, 296 Analytical specificity, 71-72 Acenocoumarol, 222 Ancillary information, 467-468, 470, 473, 475-477, Acetaminophen, 112 480-481 Anderson,
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Transcript
    DRUGS-2017/05/02 1 THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION REINING IN PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES Washington, D.C. Tuesday, May 2, 2017 Introduction: LOUISE SHEINER Senior Fellow, Economic Studies Policy Director, Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy The Brookings Institution Paper: Framework for Negotiation in Part D of Medicare MODERATOR: PAUL B. GINSBURG Senior Fellow, Economic Studies Leonard D. Schaeffer Chair in Health Policy Studies Director, Center for Health Policy The Brookings Institution Presenters: RICHARD G. FRANK Margaret T. Morris Professor of Health Economics Department of Health Care Policy Harvard Medical School RICHARD J. ZECKHAUSER Frank P. Ramsey Professor of Political Economy Harvard Kennedy School of Government Paper: Can Importation Address High Generic Drug Prices? MODERATOR: PAUL B. GINSBURG Senior Fellow, Economic Studies Leonard D. Schaeffer Chair in Health Policy Studies Director, Center for Health Policy The Brookings Institution Presenters: THOMAS BOLLYKY Senior Fellow for Global Health, Economics and Development Council on Foreign Relations AARON KESSELHEIM Associate Professor of Medicine ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 DRUGS-2017/05/02 2 Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School Paper: Removing Barriers to Competition in Pharmaceutical Markets MODERATOR: PAUL B. GINSBURG Senior Fellow, Economic Studies Leonard D. Schaeffer Chair in Health Policy Studies Director, Center for Health Policy The Brookings Institution Presenters:
    [Show full text]
  • Canada's Continuing Support of US Linkage Regulations For
    Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Volume 15 | Issue 1 Article 1 I'm Still Your Baby: Canada's Continuing Support of U.S. Linkage Regulations for Pharmaceuticals Ron A. Bouchard University of Manitoba, Canada Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Repository Citation Ron A. Bouchard, I'm Still Your Baby: Canada's Continuing Support of U.S. Linkage Regulations for Pharmaceuticals, 15 Intellectual Property L. Rev. 71 (2011). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr/vol15/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. I’M STILL YOUR BABY: CANADA’S CONTINUING SUPPORT OF U.S. LINKAGE REGULATIONS FOR PHARMACEUTICALS RON A. BOUCHARD∗ ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... 72 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 73 I. REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES............................................................ 77 A. Study 1 ........................................................................................... 77 B. Study 2 ............................................................................................ 83 C. Study
    [Show full text]
  • Comments to Draft
    March 8, 2021 Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Two Liberty Square, Ninth Floor Boston, MA 02109 Re: Comments to Draft Evidence Report on Anti B-Cell Maturation Antigen CAR T-cell and Antibody Conjugate Therapy for Heavily Pre-Treated Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma Introduction The Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM) appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) February 11, 2021 draft report on Anti B-Cell Maturation Antigen CAR T-cell and Antibody Conjugate Therapy for Heavily Pre-Treated Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma (“Draft Evidence Report”).1 ARM is the leading international advocacy organization dedicated to realizing the promise of regenerative medicines and advanced therapies. ARM promotes legislative, regulatory and reimbursement initiatives to advance this innovative and transformative sector, which includes cell therapies, gene therapies and tissue-based therapies. In its 11-year history, ARM has become the global voice of the sector, representing the interests of 380+ members worldwide, including small and large companies, academic research institutions, major medical centers and patient groups. Although focused on one type of rare cancer, the Draft Evidence Report raises important issues for ARM members because of its potential negative impact on the development of the therapies under review and future therapies. ARM is concerned that the timing of the review prevents ICER from taking into account the FDA’s perspective on the appropriate patient population (i.e., through the label), that of expert providers’ perspectives (i.e., through recognized compendia), and the technology’s durability. Consequently, ARM is concerned that the Draft Evidence Report may harm market and patient access.
    [Show full text]
  • Study 329: Trials Why Is It So Important?
    © July - August 2016 RIAT ; Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Study 329: Trials Why is it so important? tudy 329 is a GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) sponsored trial with S22 academic authors that compared paroxetine, imipra- mine, and placebo for adolescent depression. In this trial 275 safetysaafee adolescents with major depression were randomized in a dou- y ble-blind fashion to paroxetine (93), imipramine (95) or pla- cebo (87) for 8 weeks. Those who completed 8 weeks were efficacy studied in a 6-month continuation phase. Published 8-week results (2001)1: Compared with placebo, paroxetine demonstrated significantly greater improvement in The publications report in detail the methods used 3 selected depression rating scales and a Clinical Global Im- to re-analyze Study 329. Notably, they followed the provement score of 1 or 2. The response to imipramine was protocol (and amendments) established by GSK7 not significantly different from placebo for any measure. and used all appropriate procedural steps to avoid Authors’ conclusions: “Paroxetine is generally well tol- bias. They have also made the original anonymous erated and effective for major depression in adolescents.”1 patient data available for others to analyze. This trial has been cited over 600 times and was very influ- RIAT analysis of Study 329 ential in increasing prescribing of paroxetine in this clinical (acute phase) setting.2 The trial protocol7 specified two primary effica- Did these published conclusions reflect cy variables: change in total score on a Hamilton “reality”? depression rating scale (HAM-D) from baseline Critical appraisal of the 2001 publication would have led to endpoint, and the proportion of responders at to questions about the authors’ conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • Evergreening and Patent Cliff Hangers CRISPR/Cas9 System and Gene
    Evergreening and patent cliff CRISPR/Cas9 system and gene Being equitable about hangers editing tools equivalents Ove Granstrand Thomas Hedner and Jean Lyckel John Hornby Page 4 Page 12 Page 24 Second medical use claims Do rules experience culture The patentability of Dosage and scope of protection shock? Regimes Clara Berrisch Lisa West Åkerblom Ester-Maria Elze Page 38 Page 48 Page 60 Safeguarding public health In pursuit of Robinson Crusoe The CJEU clarifies the effects in the wake of hegemonic Kristina Björnerstedt of skinny labelling intellectual property rights and Gunnel Nilsson Sofia Bergenstråhle Katarina Foss-Solbrekk Page 94 and Valter Gran Page 76 Page 98 Editorial Preface “Some industries are different but some are more different than others. The discusses how developing countries’ access to medicines is EDITOR-IN-CHIEF pharmaceutical industry fits the latter category” (Scherer 1996:336). There is impeded by the patent system as well as how flexibilities in really no other industry where the nature of the products, the economics of the international and national legal framework contribute Silvia A. Carretta research and development as well as the market structure and the societal to this end. The article shows that while exceptions to implications of the industry’s strategic decisions are as unique as in the patent rights might not be as effective, they have however pharmaceutical industry. Furthermore, there is no other industry that tests triggered a very interesting development of voluntary the boundaries and effects of intellectual property (IP) rights on a national and licensing, a company-centered initiative providing access international level as the pharmaceutical industry.
    [Show full text]