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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |