Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary table of ex-post studies

From: Impacts of intellectual property provisions in trade treaties on access to medicine in low and middle income countries: a systematic review

StudiesObjectiveMethodologyPopulationSample data
Abbott et al. [21]To assess the impact of stronger intellectual property protection in Jordan on the access to medicinesMean and frequency comparison.
Outcome: lag years in launching new medicines.
Comparison groups: difference in years of lag in launching new innovative medicines in Jordan before and after the US-Jordan FTA.
Country: Jordan;
Medicines: 46 essential medicines.
Sample: a sample of 29 of 46 essential medicines;
Range: 1999 and 2004, pooled cross-section
Alawi & Alabbadi [22]To analyze the effect of data exclusivity on the pharmaceutical sector in Jordan before and after the implementation of data exclusivity.Trend analysis
Outcome variables: prices, sale values, sale volume and sales
Comparison groups: generic medicines, only originator medicines, originator to generic medicines, and generic to originator.
Country: Jordan;
Medicines: all pharmaceutical products in Jordan.
Sample: a sample of 140 products representing 36.8% of total sales value in 2010.
Range: 2004–2010.
Borrell [23]To estimate the impact of patents on pricing of HIV/AIDS medicines in low and middle income countries in the late 1990’s.Quasi-experimental study is used to study how the outcome variable differs for treatment groups and comparison groups that are not randomly assigned.
Treatment group: all the country medicine pairs for which any ARV medicine is under a patent regime
Comparison group: all the country-medicine pairs for which the medicine is not under a patent regime.
Outcome variable: price
Country: Developing and least developed countries.
Medicines: HIV/AIDS’ ARV medicines.
Sample: 21 developing and least developed countries with two groups of developing and low income countries, and 15 ARVs.
Range: January 1995 to June 2000.
Duggan, Garthwaite & Goyal [24]To estimate the effects of the 2005 implementation of a product patent system in India on pharmaceutical prices, quantities sold, and market structure.OLS regressions
Outcome variables: prices, sales volume
difference specification and event study framework, where OLS regressions with patent dummy that takes value 1 in post patent regime and 0 in pre-patent regime are estimated, to investigate whether there is any statistically difference in log prices
Country: India.
Medicines: All single molecule medicines
Sample: approximately 5100 Indian stockists.
Range: 2003q1 to 2012q2.
Jung & Kwon [25]To estimate the effect of stronger IPR on medicine access in low and middle income countriesPooled cross-country multilevel techniques with subgroup analyses to identify factors both at country level and individual level that affect access to medicine and financial burden of purchasing medicines.Country: all developing and least developed countries.
Medicines: all medicines.
Sample: 35 countries, 660 to 38424households and 585 to 38,618 individuals.
Range: 2002–2003.
Kyle & Qian [26]To examines how TRIPS affects new medicine launches, prices and sales using data from 59 countries of varying levels of development.Difference-in-difference estimation framework
Outcome variables: speed of launch or new medicines, price, sales volume
Country: 59 countries of varying degrees of development.Sample: 716 medicine-country pairs linked with patents;
Range: 2000–2013 for prices and units sold and 1990–2013 for launch of new medicines.
Berndt & Cockburn [27]To study the trade-off between stronger patent laws and early access to new medicines.Survival analysis
Outcome variable: sales volume, lag time of new medicine launch in India as compared to Germany and the U.S. due to Indian patent policies.
Country: India, Germany and USA;
Medicines: new innovative medicines.
Sample: 184 new molecular entities approved by the US FDA.
Range: 2000 to 2009.
Shaffer & Brenner [28]To estimate the effect of IPR provisions in the Central American Free Trade Agreement on access to low price generic medicines in Guatemala.Price comparison
Outcome variables: Price
Intervention group: Medicines purchased by both private and public sector in Guatemala of those that received data protection due to IPR provisions in the CAFTA
Comparison group: Brand or generic equivalents that have no data protection.
Country: Guatemala.
Medicines: all medicines available through various public-sector health programs.
Sample: 730 medicines on the Open Contract list.
Range: 2005–2007.