2001年５月２日　Next steps against AIDS：　The South African government at last has an opportunity to fight AIDS with drugs at reduced prices without fear of legal action.

また、南アフリカのAIDSに関する記事を見つけたので引用いたします。さらにもう一つの記事がサイトされています。これも続けて引用します。現実主義的な妥協、で訴訟に関してはひとまず落着したとのこと。南アフリカにとっては、まだまだ問題は山積。今が対策のチャンス。

Next steps against AIDS

The South African government at last has an opportunity to fight AIDS with drugs at reduced prices without fear of legal action. The country has the capacity to make significant progress. The government should make use of it.

The withdrawal last week of the case against the South African government by the country's Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association and 39 drug companies (see page 1013) should be widely welcomed. After more than three years of attrition, it is high time that the industry and government begin to work together to address mother-to-child transmission of HIV, as well as the treatment of South Africa's estimated half a million AIDS sufferers.

The ball now lies in the court of the South African government, which can no longer remain paralysed over AIDS policy. The reaction of its health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, has been disappointing. Her statement that the government has no intention of importing antiretrovirals in the near future raises suspicions that the government refuses to confront the realities of the country's predicament. The same is true of her claims that treating opportunistic infections and providing adequate nutrition will permit AIDS sufferers to "function adequately".

No one is under any illusions that the next steps will be easy: South Africa is estimated to have the greatest number of HIV-positive people ? 4.7 million ? of any nation. But its medical infrastructure is, by the standards of the developing world, relatively good, and most of its population is urban and has access to treatment. In many parts of the country the capacity to administer the drugs adequately and effectively is in place, despite government claims to the contrary. It would be tragic if AIDS sufferers and unborn children were not to benefit from the offers of cheap or free drugs.

In most cases, the offers from manufacturers are confined to the government sector. Drug companies would do well to consider the example of GlaxoSmithKline in extending its offer of reduced prices to non-governmental organizations and private employers who offer care to their staff through clinics at their own workplace. But this can nonetheless serve only a fraction of the people who could potentially benefit from concerted government action.

Tshabalala-Msimang is in Europe next month to negotiate with the drug companies on the regulations regarding the South African legislation. Reportedly, the South African government has undertaken to confine parallel importation of drugs to branded versions under patent in South Africa rather than import generic copies, and to issue compulsory licences in compliance with the Patents Act. This should reduce disparities in drug prices between markets, while enshrining intellectual property rights. Such a compromise should hopefully be reflected in good legislation, but that will serve little purpose unless it is applied.

The end of the South African suit will switch attention to the possible action being brought against Brazil within the World Trade Organization (WTO), backed by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The association says Brazil is flouting the treaty relating to intellectual property rights by making cheap copies of patented AIDS drugs. The case will soon go before the WTO, and hopefully, as in South Africa, the outcome will be a realistic compromise. Brazil is an example of how a relatively poor country can treat AIDS ? admittedly significantly less prevalent than in South Africa ? if it has access to cheaper generic drugs: AIDS deaths have halved since the government began providing cut-price treatment. The South African government should seize the opportunity to follow that example, with its own hard-won compromise from industry behind it.

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

South Africa may keep door closed to generic AIDS drugs

MICHAEL CHERRY

[CAPE TOWN] imes, times new roman, serif">

[CAPE TOWN]

Drug companies expect the South African government to hold off from importing cheap generic copies of their AIDS drugs following the withdrawal of their lawsuit against the government last week.

Although the 39 drug-makers withdrew their lawsuit unconditionally, officials of South Africa's Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association say the government has privately undertaken to import only branded versions of drugs already under patent in South Africa.

The government's only public promise is to consult the drug companies when drawing up regulations relating to the section of the 1997 Medicines and Related Substances Control Amendment Act to which the companies objected in their lawsuit.

The government had previously said it would use either parallel imports or compulsory licensing ? allowing domestic production of a patented drug ? to obtain drugs at lower prices than offered by patent holders. It has not committed itself to withdrawing that intention.

Earlier last week, South Africa's Medicines Control Council announced that it had registered the anti-AIDS drug nevirapine for use in preventing the mother-to-child transmission of HIV. The drug's manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim, has agreed that any possible resistance problems can be monitored. The decision opens the way ? in theory ? for the drug to become available on prescription.

But AIDS activists' euphoria over the lawsuit might be short-lived. At a press conference following the decision, health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang said hopes should not be raised that anti-AIDS drugs would become available. She said their widespread use would be hampered by a lack of adequate infrastructure, high costs and drug resistance.

濱田洋文

＊＊＊＊＊＊

　「近況と話題」目次

近況と話題　最新　　　　　　　　　　近況と話題　03/04/21　〜　　

近況と話題　01/07/31 - 01/05/01 　　近況と話題　01/04/27 - 01/01/22