Open access in silico tools to predict the ADMET profiling of drug candidates – PubMed

Abstract:  Introduction: We are in an era of bioinformatics and cheminformatics where we can predict data in the fields of medicine, the environment, engineering and public health. Approaches with open access in silico tools have revolutionized disease management due to early prediction of the absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) profiles of the chemically designed and eco-friendly next-generation drugs.

Areas covered: This review meticulously encompasses the fundamental functions of open access in silico prediction tools (webservers and standalone software) and advocates their use in drug discovery research for the safety and reliability of any candidate-drug. This review also aims to help support new researchers in the field of drug design.

Expert opinion: The choice of in silico tools is critically important for drug discovery and the accuracy of ADMET prediction. The accuracy largely depends on the types of dataset, the algorithm used, the quality of the model, the available endpoints for prediction, and user requirement. The key is to use multiple in silico tools for predictions and comparing the results, followed by the identification of the most probable prediction.

Trade policy response to COVID-19 examined in Committee report – News from Parliament – UK Parliament

“[The unanimously adopted report from the International Trade Committee] also recommends the Government consider adjusting intellectual property provisions to allow for compulsory licensing of therapeutic drugs or vaccines against COVID-19, as a means of ensuring they can be made available as quickly, widely and cheaply as possible..”

Countries Are Adapting Intellectual Property Laws to Prioritise Health During COVID-19

“Intellectual property (IP) rights can potentially impede mass production of existing health products, as well as innovation and research and development of new products. IP rights can be exercised by their owners to grant or withhold from licensing the technology required for manufacturing or further developing a product. If a license is denied, the technology will not be available for other firms to manufacture or supply.

Usually, a bundle of several IP rights can exist around a particular technology. It is very common patenting strategy in the pharmaceutical industry to take separate patents on the main compound of a drug and a large number of secondary patents on different formulations and combinations, dosage, as well as other possible therapeutic use of a drug. This can make it difficult for follow on innovators to invent around the thicket of IP rights….

Through a resolution of the World Health Assembly on COVID-19, member states of the WHO have recognised the possible need for countries to adopt measures to ensure that IP rights do not constrain global equitable access to health technologies for COVID-19 through the full use of the flexibilities of the agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) as well as voluntary pooling of patented technologies, data and know-how….

A number of flexibilities available under the TRIPS Agreement can be applied by governments to ensure that IP rights do not constrain innovation and availability of health technologies required for responding to COVID-19….

It is time for developing countries to review the extent to which such measures can be adopted, or what changes, if any, need to be introduced into their legal regimes so as to be able to act effectively and timely to address the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic….”

Pharmaceutical companies should publish more research open access – The BMJ

“Pharmaceutical companies fund around half of all biomedical research, but, in contrast to many public funders of research, only two companies (Takeda and Ipsen) mandate that all the research they fund must be published open access. Nevertheless, other pharmaceutical companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, are able to publish up to three quarters of the research they fund open access without a mandate. This is not bad when less than 50% of research overall is published open access….

Open Pharma has produced a position statement on open access that calls for journals to give authors who are publishing research funded by pharmaceutical companies the same rights as authors of research funded by public funders. In the 9 months since its launch, the position statement has gained over 150 endorsements, including eight publisher and 29 pharmaceutical company endorsements.

The liveliest part of the roundtable meeting was when patients called for full open access to research. Patients have not usually been included in debates about open access because they have not been considered to be “end users” of research. Nowadays, not only do patients participate at each stage of the research life cycle, from clinical trial design to establishing patient-reported outcome measurements, but they are also increasingly involved in the creation and curation of scientific studies. Yet patients can access no more than one-quarter of published clinical research. …”

Baltimore’s community lab puts the scientific method in the people’s hands – The Washington Post

“Huon de Kermadec, originally from France, has been collaborating with a group of other “biohackers” for about two years to develop an alternative. The Open Insulin Project springs from the idea that people with diabetes should have access to affordable treatment methods outside the traditional pharmacologic brands, which can cost hundreds of dollars per vial.

If successful, the project could enable diabetics to set up their own low-cost insulin production systems at home.

A 30-something biochemist with a doctorate, Huon de Kermadec started working on open-source insulin in Oakland, Calif. But when his wife accepted a job at Johns Hopkins University, Huon de Kermadec relocated his workspace to the Baltimore Under Ground Science Space (BUGSS), a community lab designed with such purposes in mind.

BUGSS operates under the ethos that people other than university faculty members and students should have access to research lab space. Do-it-yourself biologists, hobbyists, and high school and home-schooled students have made BUGSS their official headquarters and classroom as they pursue advanced projects without much red tape involved….”

Proposing minimum requirements for announcing clinical trial results during the COVID-19 pandemic | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic

Abstract:  Recently, results from at least three major randomized clinical trials studying management of COVID-19 have been announced via press release without accompanying information. Given the unique nature of the pandemic, results of such trials often have immediate and worldwide relevance. Yet, while press releases serve the important purpose of disseminating top-level results quickly, they are inherently limited in scope, and rarely include sufficient data to inform practice. Herein, we propose a minimum set of trial characteristics and results to be released simultaneously with clinical trial announcements. This practice will ensure data related to management of COVID-19 can be used to appropriately impact care, while responding to the needs of diverse stakeholders in the scientific and publishing communities, as well as the public at large.

 

Can open, collaborative tactics help us crack COVID-19? | Opensource.com

“At least 109 organizations are currently working on treatment for COVID-19. But many researchers believe an approved, effective vaccine against the coronavirus will not be available in 2020.

But what would happen if these organizations collaborated on a global scale? What if they adopted open organization principles to accelerate the work of finding a treatment and cure?

In this article, I’ll examine how that might be possible. And I’ll explain one initiative that seems to be doing it….”

“Pharma are doing ok in terms of open access, but they could be doing more” – insights from the Open Pharma June roundtable meeting – Open Pharma

“Open Pharma Members, Supporters and key Advisers came together to discuss the ways in which the scientific publishing community can make research accessible, discoverable and transparent for patients and the public.

Many organizations are working towards the same goals in terms of transparency, discoverability, accessibility and accountability in scientific publishing, but wouldn’t it be better if these goals were aligned? On 15 June 2020, Open Pharma brought together the different stakeholders in academic publishing for a virtual roundtable meeting with the aim of coordinating their approach to open access models and enhanced content for scientific publications. Following a recap of the January roundtable meeting, attendees discussed the benefits of open access mandates for pharma. A clear definition of what open access is, with regards to Creative Commons licences and publishing embargoes, and a strong communications plan were both shown to be key to the successful implementation of a mandatory open access policy….”

Against pandemic research exceptionalism | Science

“The global outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has seen a deluge of clinical studies, with hundreds registered on clinicaltrials.gov. But a palpable sense of urgency and a lingering concern that “in critical situations, large randomized controlled trials are not always feasible or ethical” (1) perpetuate the perception that, when it comes to the rigors of science, crisis situations demand exceptions to high standards for quality. Early phase studies have been launched before completion of investigations that would normally be required to warrant further development of the intervention (2), and treatment trials have used research strategies that are easy to implement but unlikely to yield unbiased effect estimates. Numerous trials investigating similar hypotheses risk duplication of effort, and droves of research papers have been rushed to preprint servers, essentially outsourcing peer review to practicing physicians and journalists. Although crises present major logistical and practical challenges, the moral mission of research remains the same: to reduce uncertainty and enable caregivers, health systems, and policy-makers to better address individual and public health. Rather than generating permission to carry out low-quality investigations, the urgency and scarcity of pandemics heighten the responsibility of key actors in the research enterprise to coordinate their activities to uphold the standards necessary to advance this mission….”

Big Pharma Attacks Coronavirus Price Controls

“On April 15, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., along with Reps. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, laid out basic principles for the development and pricing of coronavirus therapies and vaccines. Their demands were simple: Pharmaceutical companies should have to set reasonable prices for their drugs and vaccines used to treat or prevent Covid-19. They should be required to make the costs of research and manufacturing of these products public. During the pandemic, the legislators said, companies should not be able to profit exclusively from these potentially lifesaving drugs.

“Exclusivity determines who has access, who can manufacture, and how we scale up production to meet the need,” the members of Congress noted in a press release at the time….

Few have spoken out against the protections that were designed to ensure equitable access to lifesaving medicines — at least publicly. But privately, a coalition of conservative groups attacked the proposed patient protections as “dangerous, disruptive, and unacceptable.” In a May 7 letter, representatives of 31 groups, including Hudson Institute, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, and Consumer Action for a Strong Economy, called on Congress to reject the drug pricing guidelines and defended patents and the exclusive right to profit from drugs as “America’s great assets.” …

Perhaps most galling to the Democratic lawmakers is the fact that the vast majority (if not all) of the drugs they seek to protect from exorbitant pricing have been developed at least in part with taxpayer dollars. Between 2010 and 2016, every drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration benefited from science funded with federal research through the National Institutes of Health, according to the advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs. During that time, taxpayers spent more than $100 billion on that research.

Although American taxpayers are the “angel investors” of pharmaceuticals, as Doggett put it, many cannot afford the treatments they’ve bankrolled….

On Friday, the World Health Organization unveiled a global effort to pool intellectual property, data, and research related to Covid-19. While 36 countries have already announced their support for the project, the U.S. was not among them. Just as WHO was detailing its plan to broadly share the benefits of scientific advancement, President Donald Trump was announcing his plan to withdraw from the global organization.”