[Ip-health] Fierce Pharma: U.S. Army can't add a pricing safeguard to Sanofi's Zika vaccine license, official says

Andrew S. Goldman andrew.goldman at keionline.org
Tue Apr 25 08:07:37 PDT 2017


http://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/u-s-army-can-t-add-pricing-safeguard-to-sanofi-zika-license-official-says

U.S. Army can't add a pricing safeguard to Sanofi's Zika vaccine license,
official says

by Eric Sagonowsky |
Apr 25, 2017 9:34am

Despite pushback from intellectual property activists at Knowledge Ecology
International (KEI) and high-profile politicians, a U.S. Army official
dismissed concerns about a pending license transfer for a Zika vaccine
candidate to pharma giant Sanofi.

Responding to criticism of the proposed deal, the U.S. Army’s director of
medical technology transfer at the Medical Research and Materiel Command,
Barry Datlof, wrote (PDF) last week that the deal will comply with U.S.
laws and will “be in the best interest of the U.S. government and the
public.” KEI released the letter Monday.

Originally developed by Army scientists, the immunization went into phase 1
testing with National Institutes of Health support. Sanofi joined the
effort to prepare for phase 2 trials and to create a clinical development
and regulatory strategy.

KEI, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, started protesting the proposed
license soon after the U.S. government disclosed the plan in December.
Highlighting the extensive government funding for the program—$43 million
so far, with the potential for more—KEI Director James Love asked for
pricing safeguards and argued that the license transfer would “not be
legal” because it isn’t necessary to motivate Sanofi to develop the vaccine.

In his response, Datlof said it’s not feasible for the Army to “define,
implement and enforce 'affordable prices' or to set price controls for a
potential vaccine that will require great investment and face high risk of
failure."

The agreement hasn’t been finalized, Datlof wrote, but the Army still plans
to issue the license.

“Considering the high risk and high cost involved in advanced vaccine
development, granting an exclusive license for a federally developed
technology is often the only incentive significant enough to attract a
competent and willing commercial partner,” Datlof explained in the letter.

Love commented on KEI’s website that his group will appeal. “The notion
that this is too hard a task is not compelling,” he said, adding that a
pricing assurance in the license would be “very simple.”

Since KEI started criticizing the deal, international charity Médecins Sans
Frontières and politicians in the U.S. have joined in to register their
opposition. Last month, frequent pharma critic Sen. Bernie Sanders called
on the Trump Administration to call off a “bad deal” in a New York Times
op-ed.

Sanofi has also taken a chance to voice its position on the license. In a
separate NYT op-ed, R&D chief Elias Zerhouni, who saw plenty of
public-private collaboration during his time as National Institutes of
Health director, said vaccine development “entails tremendous costs and
risks.” If the vaccine did reach the market, Sanofi would owe “significant”
milestone and royalty payments to the government, Zerhouni pointed out.

Testing a variety of approaches to Zika immunization, other branches of the
federal government are in separate collaborations with Big Pharma players
GlaxoSmithKline and Takeda.

--
Andrew S. Goldman
Counsel, Policy and Legal Affairs
Knowledge Ecology International
andrew.goldman at keionline.org // www.twitter.com/ASG_KEI
tel.: +1.202.332.2670
www.keionline.org



More information about the Ip-health mailing list