Cargando…

An updated methodology to review developing-country vaccine manufacturer viability

In 1997, Milstien, Batson, and Meaney published “A Systematic Method for Evaluating the Potential Viability of Local Vaccine Producers.” The paper identified characteristics of successful vaccine manufacturers and developed a viability framework to evaluate their performance. This paper revisits the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Luter, Nicholas, Kumar, Ritu, Hozumi, Dai, Lorenson, Tina, Larsen, Shannon, Gowda, Bhavya, Batson, Amie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5593149/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28602604
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.04.087
_version_ 1783262996211957760
author Luter, Nicholas
Kumar, Ritu
Hozumi, Dai
Lorenson, Tina
Larsen, Shannon
Gowda, Bhavya
Batson, Amie
author_facet Luter, Nicholas
Kumar, Ritu
Hozumi, Dai
Lorenson, Tina
Larsen, Shannon
Gowda, Bhavya
Batson, Amie
author_sort Luter, Nicholas
collection PubMed
description In 1997, Milstien, Batson, and Meaney published “A Systematic Method for Evaluating the Potential Viability of Local Vaccine Producers.” The paper identified characteristics of successful vaccine manufacturers and developed a viability framework to evaluate their performance. This paper revisits the original study after two decades to determine the ability of the framework to predict manufacturer success. By reconstructing much of the original dataset and conducting in-depth interviews, the authors developed informed views on the continued viability of manufacturers in low- and middle-income country markets. Considering the marked changes in the market and technology landscape since 1997, the authors find the viability framework to be predictive and a useful lens through which to evaluate manufacturer success or failure. Of particular interest is how incumbent and potentially new developing-country vaccine manufacturers enter and sustain production in competitive international markets and how they integrate (or fail to integrate) new technology into the production process. Ultimately, most manufacturers will need to meet global quality standards to be viable. As governments and donors consider investments in vaccine producers, the updated viability factors will be a useful tool in evaluating the prospects of manufacturers over the mid to long term. The paper emphasizes that while up-front investments are important, other critical factors—including investments in a national regulatory authority, manufacturer independence, and ability to adapt and adopt new technology—are necessary to ensure viability.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5593149
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Elsevier Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55931492017-09-20 An updated methodology to review developing-country vaccine manufacturer viability Luter, Nicholas Kumar, Ritu Hozumi, Dai Lorenson, Tina Larsen, Shannon Gowda, Bhavya Batson, Amie Vaccine Article In 1997, Milstien, Batson, and Meaney published “A Systematic Method for Evaluating the Potential Viability of Local Vaccine Producers.” The paper identified characteristics of successful vaccine manufacturers and developed a viability framework to evaluate their performance. This paper revisits the original study after two decades to determine the ability of the framework to predict manufacturer success. By reconstructing much of the original dataset and conducting in-depth interviews, the authors developed informed views on the continued viability of manufacturers in low- and middle-income country markets. Considering the marked changes in the market and technology landscape since 1997, the authors find the viability framework to be predictive and a useful lens through which to evaluate manufacturer success or failure. Of particular interest is how incumbent and potentially new developing-country vaccine manufacturers enter and sustain production in competitive international markets and how they integrate (or fail to integrate) new technology into the production process. Ultimately, most manufacturers will need to meet global quality standards to be viable. As governments and donors consider investments in vaccine producers, the updated viability factors will be a useful tool in evaluating the prospects of manufacturers over the mid to long term. The paper emphasizes that while up-front investments are important, other critical factors—including investments in a national regulatory authority, manufacturer independence, and ability to adapt and adopt new technology—are necessary to ensure viability. Elsevier Science 2017-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5593149/ /pubmed/28602604 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.04.087 Text en © 2017 The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Luter, Nicholas
Kumar, Ritu
Hozumi, Dai
Lorenson, Tina
Larsen, Shannon
Gowda, Bhavya
Batson, Amie
An updated methodology to review developing-country vaccine manufacturer viability
title An updated methodology to review developing-country vaccine manufacturer viability
title_full An updated methodology to review developing-country vaccine manufacturer viability
title_fullStr An updated methodology to review developing-country vaccine manufacturer viability
title_full_unstemmed An updated methodology to review developing-country vaccine manufacturer viability
title_short An updated methodology to review developing-country vaccine manufacturer viability
title_sort updated methodology to review developing-country vaccine manufacturer viability
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5593149/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28602604
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.04.087
work_keys_str_mv AT luternicholas anupdatedmethodologytoreviewdevelopingcountryvaccinemanufacturerviability
AT kumarritu anupdatedmethodologytoreviewdevelopingcountryvaccinemanufacturerviability
AT hozumidai anupdatedmethodologytoreviewdevelopingcountryvaccinemanufacturerviability
AT lorensontina anupdatedmethodologytoreviewdevelopingcountryvaccinemanufacturerviability
AT larsenshannon anupdatedmethodologytoreviewdevelopingcountryvaccinemanufacturerviability
AT gowdabhavya anupdatedmethodologytoreviewdevelopingcountryvaccinemanufacturerviability
AT batsonamie anupdatedmethodologytoreviewdevelopingcountryvaccinemanufacturerviability
AT luternicholas updatedmethodologytoreviewdevelopingcountryvaccinemanufacturerviability
AT kumarritu updatedmethodologytoreviewdevelopingcountryvaccinemanufacturerviability
AT hozumidai updatedmethodologytoreviewdevelopingcountryvaccinemanufacturerviability
AT lorensontina updatedmethodologytoreviewdevelopingcountryvaccinemanufacturerviability
AT larsenshannon updatedmethodologytoreviewdevelopingcountryvaccinemanufacturerviability
AT gowdabhavya updatedmethodologytoreviewdevelopingcountryvaccinemanufacturerviability
AT batsonamie updatedmethodologytoreviewdevelopingcountryvaccinemanufacturerviability