The Rise of Global Mental Health

The constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO) opens with a definition of health that underscores the importance of “mental…well-being.” Even still, mental health has struggled to achieve parity in global health. For much of its history, the field of mental health developed parallel to public health. Mental health, and the lack of it, was nebulous and eluded the gold standards of clinical measurement like bioassays and microscopy. As a result, psychology and psychiatry (components of the larger field of mental health) were shunned by other disciplines for a perceived lack of scientific basis and over-emphasis of sociological factors. Those with mental disorders, cognitive and developmental impairments were thusly cared for largely by religious institutions and, eventually, asylums rampant with inhumane treatment and neglect. 

Psychiatric patients in Bucharest sleep two to bed with feet bound;
Image Credit: Bernard Bisson

By the 1970’s the United States was moving toward deinstitutionalization and curiosity about how to effectively study and treat mental illness in the context of culture. Mental health research worldwide began engaging with patients as active participants with “lived experience.” The sharing of epidemiological data around mental health indicators became more fluid. The push for data-driven and evidence based decision making in global mental health produced big payoffs. The 1990’s saw both the WHO’s first World Mental Health Report and the first iteration of The Global Burden of Disease study

These publications highlighted the sheer burden of poor mental health. Of the ten leading causes of disability, five were mental illnesses, including the leading cause of disability in the world: unipolar major depression. Self-inflicted injury was among the top ten leading causes of premature death in developed countries. While the psychiatric epidemiological data continued to underscore the need for new interventions and novel funding mechanisms for global mental health, not much has changed. Last year, the Lancet Commision on global mental health and sustainable development released a 45-page report outlining a global health crisis that is severely underfunded relative to its burden on society. Even in developed countries, only 20% of individuals living with depression will receive adequate treatment. In developing countries, the number is a dismal 4%. But only 1% of global health development funds are allocated to mental health programs. That comes out to just $0.85 per year of healthy life lost to mental illness, compared to $144 for HIV/AIDS programming and $48 for malaria and tuberculosis. 

Even if the funding existed, global health education has yet to produce a reliable pipeline of mental health professionals with the skills necessary to address the crisis. Educators at schools of public health in the United States have identified that mental health is still not adequately integrated into public health curriculum. Johns Hopkins remains the only school of public health in the country with a dedicated mental health department. While the majority of other public health programs offer coursework that have mental health as a component of its curriculum, few programs offer tracks or courses that have mental health as its primary focus, leaving students interested in the field to piecemeal their education together through independent study and practicum/thesis work. 

(Read the study on mental health in schools of public health here)

The evidence is clear that global mental health should be recognized as a global health and global development priority. Despite the lack of full acceptance by the global health donor community and larger public health community, the field of global mental health has continued to grow. Organizations like the Movement for Global Mental Health serve as collaboration spaces for mental health researchers and advocates. The Lancet Commission on Global Mental Health continues to produce calls for action that elicit drastic, even if short-lived, spikes in mental health earmarked development assistance. And just this year, the field’s superstar, the Peter Piot or Paul Farmer of global mental health, Dr. Vikram Patel was awarded the prestigious John Dirks Canada Gairdner Global Health Award

“...All countries can be thought of as developing countries in the context of mental health

Patel et al.

We are living in the age of a changing climate, protracted humanitarian crises, and a global population that is increasingly forcibly displaced from their homes. The burden of mental health problems will continue to pose a threat to health that will require the unique skill set of the field of global mental health. Leaders like Dr. Patel continue to advance the global mental health agenda in an effort to realize the complete definition of health that lies at the core of global health. For those of us for whom global mental health is our calling and passion, we must continue to push for our place at the table when the global health agenda is being set. 

Note: One of the photographs used in this blog appears elsewhere on the internet in an unredacted form. However, to protect the privacy and dignity of those who appear in the photograph, I’ve elected to hide their faces.

Global Mental Health: How Are We Doing? (WHO)

Perspectives on Global Health from Pharmacists Around the World

As healthcare continues to morph and adapt based on the requirements of kind, compassionate, evidence-based care, pharmacists are playing a vital role in ensuring patients needs are met in countless regions across the earth. In this four-part IH Blog series, these roles accompanied by profession-related challenges and pharmacist-led global health initiatives will be explored within a profession that is often underappreciated. The following perspectives, shared by practicing pharmacy professionals from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), India, Cambodia, and the United States of America (USA) aim at highlighting various aspects of healthcare that should be properly addressed by governmental bodies, NGOs, and all stakeholders by both sustainable political will and empowering solutions. This initial segment focuses on medication access in each of these areas and the thoughts that pharmacists from these respective nation states have been willing to share with IH Connect.

Throughout both developed and developing healthcare systems, access to medications is consistently a top priority for pharmacists and health care systems. As this health care profession attempts to provide services that meet the needs of their communities, access deficiencies habitually impede the ability to follow through with individualized and compassionate care. The lack of access to life altering chemical entities can affect anyone anywhere, from an affluent metropolitan city like Washington D.C. to a small rural Cambodian village in the province of Kampot. Despite the differences in these locations, each of these instances cause significant harm, breed mistrust in healthcare professionals, and create despair among those that seek healing. These frustrating situations are due to intensify because of the increased strain on medical resources who take a “do-what-has-always-been-done” approach. These following four pharmacists, all from various corners of this vast planet, will describe the barriers they consistently face regarding medication access and initiatives that are being undergone to ensure that a novel approach is commenced to address this looming medical tragedy.

Nazgul Bashir, B. Pharm

Registered Pharmacist – Super Care Pharmacy

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Before discussing medication access in the United Arab Emirates, I would like to give a brief introduction about the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It is a middle eastern country with a population of 9.68 million. The country is comprised of seven emirates and healthcare in UAE is regulated both federally & at the Emirate level. 

Now, starting with the topic on hand about medication access in UAE, there are several factors that have an impact on it and I will touch on them individually and in detail. 

First and foremost, I think the most important factor is the number of medications available in UAE. The majority of medications available in UAE are imported drugs. UAE imports pharmaceutical products from 72 different countries. Of those, 10 countries constitute approximately 80% of the entire country’s supply. The domestic sector is rather small; however the UAE Ministry of Health (MOH) plans to increase the number of pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities to 30 by 2020 up from 16 in 2017. Availability of different medication combinations or different strengths are difficult to find due to the limited number of industries in UAE. One such example is oral prednisolone, which in UAE is available in strengths of 1mg, 5mg, 10mg & 20mg. In the USA, there are more strengths available including 1mg, 2.5mg, 5mg, 10mg, 20mg and 50mg. Tourists or expats coming from overseas that need a particular medicine or medicine combination or a particular strength may not find it available.

The second hindrance to medication access is the cost of medications. There are many reasons for the high cost medication. The aforementioned fact that about 80% of medications in UAE are being imported rather than locally manufactured is one reason. Another reason is an insignificant availability of generic medicines as the majority of medicines available are brand name. The final reason is the national health insurance model. Because all national citizens do not have to pay for their own medications, there is no incentive to keep the medicine prices low. As a result, individuals who are not insured under the public national insurance system, for example expats and tourists, face a huge barrier to obtaining medicines. 

With these barriers in mind, initiatives have started to take place in UAE to find a solution. The government reduced 24% of the prices for 8732 medicines over the course of 6 years. Another initiative which took place is increasing the number of generic medicines while also advising physicians and pharmacists to dispense the generic rather than the branded medicines. Through this initiative, generic medicines now account for 30% of the overall pharmaceutical market which has increased from 12% of the market two years ago. If the UAE can bump these numbers up to 70-80% of the overall market in UAE, the UAE will be seen in better position in terms of generic medicines. 

I am glad to be a part of a region where these issues are actively tackled, not just by the government but by private sectors as well. We are also seeing that pharmacists are playing a larger role, providing information on availability of cheaper alternatives on medicines. Pharmacists are the most accessible healthcare professional and it should be part of their responsibility to help make medicines as accessible as possible to their clients.

 Dr. Bryce Adams, Pharm D., RPh.

Oncology Medical Science Liaison

Washington D.C., United States of America

Although there are a host of issues surrounding access to medications, I will be focusing on oncology medications as oncology is my current specialty as a medical science liaison in the USA. 

To begin, I would like to highlight encouraging statistics that show the accessibility of oncology medications in the USA. A recent 2019 study found that 96% of new cancer medications were available within the United States, the next highest nation was at 71%. Furthermore, the average delay in the availability of cancer medications within the United States was 3 months, with the next closest nation being at 9 months.

In terms of novel and innovative treatment options, oncology drugs have been increasingly approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) throughout the last few years. The FDA has enacted policy changes to attempt to increase the efficiency of drug reviews. The results have been significant – in 2017 alone, 46 new oncology drugs were approved. Moreover, from 1991 to 2016 there was a 27% decrease in cancer related deaths in large part to the expanded and more targeted-based therapy. The chance that a patient will live for 5 or more years has increased by 41% since 1975.

Outside of regular treatment options of those living with cancer, patients have the ability to participate in a clinical trial. Currently, there are 24,351 clinical trials listed as active (defined as not yet recruiting, recruiting, enrolling by invitation, or active) – 11,813 of those trials are active in the United States. However, even with the surplus of ongoing clinical trials, it still seems there is a lack of patient enrollment. It is estimated that roughly 70% of patients are interested in clinical trials, and yet <5% of patients actually enroll in clinical trials. Some of these barriers to enrollment include: lack of availability at a specific clinic, lack of a specific trial available, patient ineligibility, physician is unaware of trials/not offering them to patients, and a patient deciding not to enroll in a clinical trial (perhaps due to a fear of receiving the placebo).

An aforementioned barrier to cancer treatment that needs to be emphasized is the locations of specialized cancer clinics. Studies have shown that patients who are diagnosed with advanced staged cancer are likely required to drive an hour or more to the nearest cancer clinic for the appropriate care they need. Additionally, travel distance may affect treatment decisions. A patient may select a slightly less efficacious therapy if that means they have to travel less often. 

Two initiatives have recently been instituted to further increase the accessibility of medications. First, in an effort to go towards value-based contracting, some companies are beginning to only charge patients if their medications are effective. While this is a rarity, it will be interesting to follow the impacts of this on other more costly treatments and to determine the impact on patients. Secondly, in 2018, the right to try act was passed. This essentially gives terminally ill patients who are unable to enroll in a clinical trial and have no other remaining FDA approved options, access to other treatments. While this is a relatively new policy and there are some restrictions, hopefully it will give patients hope and additional treatment options. 

Dr. Moeung Sotheara, Ph.D. 

Clinical Research Assistant & Part Time Lecturer – University of Health Sciences

Phnom Penh, Cambodia 

In rural Cambodia, access to medication is especially limited when compared to urban areas. Access is limited by two main factors in these communities. Firstly, many people living in rural areas have low incomes which means it is difficult for poor rural individuals to buy medicines for serious illnesses. Secondly, community drug outlets and public health facilities are generally concentrated in the provincial capitals/cities, making it difficult for people from rural, remote areas to get access to those places. 

Usually, medicines imported from other Asian countries such as India, China, Vietnam, Thailand, or Malaysia are cheaper and therefore, more accessible. These cheaper medications, however, tend to be held toward a lower quality standard which can lead to disease state progression, antibiotic resistance, and other situations that can inflict harm onto patients. However, western brand medicines, which are usually held to a higher standard of quality, are less accessible because their prices are higher. Locally, they are generally considered “medicines for the rich.”

The lack of access due to  these aforementioned barriers makes diseases difficult or impossible to treat in cases where medication is necessary to cure it. Patients may see their disease aggravated and could die of it.

In order to address these medication access complications, a specialized team should be created that assists patients or their relatives to get medication which is far from their home and provide a specific loan with very low or no interest rate for villagers who cannot afford to buy medicines. This approach has been initiated in Cambodia through the increased access of health equity funds (HEF). These funds, allocated to individuals unable to afford the out-of-pocket expenses for public services, are pooled from a variety of sources like the national health budget and various donors. These patients are then given a specialized card to receive these funds when public services are used. The HEF focuses on addressing low medication access through the initial financing as aforementioned, community support, quality assurance, and finally policy dialogue. The results of this project have been promising – there was a 28% increase of patients utilizing public services with HEF than before without the HEF. In addition, the patients were not perceived to be more stigmatized within their communities.  

Veda Peddisetti, B. Pharm.

Clinical Pharmacist – Satya Sree Clinic & Diagnostics 

Hyderabad, India 

India is the largest country in South Asia and the second most populous country (1.35 billion) in the world. In addition, India is said to be in the third stage of demographic transition with birth rates declining and death rates decreasing. In the past few decades, India has experienced monumental population growth. This has led to many problems in healthcare management throughout the country, in particular, medication access. The direct cause seems to be the over-demand of medications. However, various indirect causes include poverty, varying per-capita incomes, unemployment, and out of pocket expenditures (India doesn’t have an established federal healthcare insurance system like Medicare in the USA, National Health Service in the United Kingdom, etc.).

In addition to the aforementioned causes, the literacy level in villages and rural areas are quite low. Many of the farmers and laborers from rural India are uneducated. As a result, many don’t know how medication can help them get better and how important it is to take medication every day to keep chronic conditions like hypertension and diabetes in control. In urban areas, all income classes are more educated and are given awareness more frequently about healthcare when compared to individuals in rural areas. So, they tend to use medication and other healthcare facilities more frequently. Accessibility is not a huge issue in cities but this creates competition among providers and results in high costs which turns into a problem for low and average income communities of the urban population.

Usually, regular medications like anti-diabetics, anti-hypertensives, common antibiotics, analgesics, vitamins are available throughout the country except in some deeply located tribal areas. Medications which are used for some cancer chemotherapies, auto-immune diseases, and some orphan drugs are not widely available. People have to go to highly rated hospitals in developed metropolitan cities to get these medications, and I believe this scenario is the same anywhere in the world. This kind of accessibility shouldn’t affect any patient or healthcare provider unless there is any medical emergency. And thanks to the continuous efforts of the Government of India, India is improving the accessibility of medication. Recently, various health benefit schemes were implemented like free supply of in-patient medications in civil hospitals and sale of reasonably priced generic medications in rural and urban communities.

It is a well-established fact that India is a potential supplier of medications to many countries in the world. India is a manufacturing and research hub for many reputed pharmaceutical companies. However, this often leads to pharmaceutical companies who are exporting their products in large quantities rather than supplying them domestically. These medications range from certain medications for chronic diseases like diabetes drugs to life saving medical devices like the Epi-Pen. These pharmaceutical companies more interested in profit are preventing the Indian population from getting the best medications.

With the lack of proper medications, healthcare professionals cannot take the proper steps in patient care that they could actually do if they had adequate access to medications. So, it is vital to educate people of India, especially the rural population, while simultaneously framing and implementing some regulations and limits on the export of medications by pharmaceutical companies in order to improve healthcare in India.

Webinar/In-Person Event (5/29/2019): Universal approaches to promoting healthy development A Princeton -Brookings Future of Children event

Universal approaches to promoting healthy development
A Princeton-Brookings Future of Children event

Wednesday, May 29, 2019, 9:00 – 11:00 a.m. EDT

The Brookings Institution, Saul/Zilkha Room
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

RSVP to attend in person
RSVP to watch the webcast
On Wednesday, May 29, Princeton University and the Brookings Institution will release the latest volume of The Future of Children—a journal that promotes effective, evidence-based policies and programs for children, along with a policy brief, “Achieving Broad-Scale Impacts for Social Programs.” This volume, titled “Universal Approaches to Promoting Healthy Development,” explores universal social programs designed to serve entire communities as they move toward achieving population impact in reducing child maltreatment, strengthening parental capacity, and improving infant health and development.

Following an overview of the volume and the accompanying policy brief, Cynthia Osborne, associate dean for academic strategies at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, will give keynote remarks and provide an overview of the home visiting landscape. Presentations will then highlight the Family Connects program and give an overview of the First 5 LA program in Los Angeles County. The event will conclude with an expert panel discussion moderated by Ron Haskins, a senior editor of the volume and the co-director of the Center on Children and Families at Brookings.

This event will be live webcast. Join the conversation on Twitter at #FutureofChildren.

Welcome and overview of volume

Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow and Co-Director, Center on Children and Families, The Brookings Institution

Keynote address

Cynthia Osborne, Associate Dean for Academic Strategies, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin

Overview of ‘Family Connects’

Kenneth A. Dodge, Pritzker Professor of Early Learning Policy Studies, Duke University

Overview of home visiting in Los Angeles County

Deborah Daro, Senior Research Fellow, Chapin Hall, University of Chicago

Panel discussion

Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow and Co-Director, Center on Children and Families, The Brookings Institution
Deborah Daro, Senior Research Fellow, Chapin Hall, University of Chicago
Kenneth A. Dodge, Pritzker Professor of Early Learning Policy Studies, Duke University
Cynthia Osborne, Associate Dean for Academic Strategies, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin

 

1000 Deaths and Rising: The Complexity of DR Congo’s Ebola Outbreak

The Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has officially taken the lives of over 1000 individuals, according to the country’s Ministry of Health. These statistics, which were released at the end of last week, have been accumulating since the outbreak’s onslaught in August 2018. This occurrence is considered the second deadliest in the history of this Filoviridae Virus in the world and the deadliest in the DRC. This specific incidence afflicting humanity is often referred to as the Kivu outbreak due to the initial emergence in this northeastern DRC province; however, the identified virulent strain is the Zaire Ebola Virus which happens to carry the highest rate of mortality of all strains.

The following is an up-to-date timeline of the current Ebola outbreak’s transition to an epidemic:

  • August 1st, 2018: The DRC’s Ministry of Health declares an Ebola outbreak in Mangina, North Kivu
  • August 7th, 2018: Laboratory findings confirm this outbreak is caused by Zaire Ebola
  • October 17th, 2018: World Health Organization (WHO) convenes a meeting about the Kivu outbreak. WHO declares this situation does not constitute the classification of a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern”
  • October 20th, 2018: An armed attack occurs in Beni, Kivu at a health care facility leaving 12 people dead
  • November 9th, 2018: The number of cases in DRC reaches 319 which marks the largest outbreak in the country’s history
  • November 29th, 2018: The Kivu epidemic becomes the second largest recorded outbreak of the Ebola virus in the history of the disease on this planet.
  • December 27th, 2018: There is an announcement of postponement of elections in Benin & Butembo which are two largest cities in Kivu.
  • February 24th, 2019: An MSF health care facility is partially burned down and MSF suspends activities in North Kivu by unknown militants
  • February 27th, 2019: A second MSF health care facility is attacked also by unknown militants and the NGO is forced to evacuate staff and suspend all operations in the province of Kivu
  • March 20th, 2019: The outbreak reaches the 1,000 confirmed cases mark of the Ebola Virus
  • April 12th, 2019: WHO holds an additional meeting but finds the Kivu outbreak still doesn’t qualify as a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern”
  • May 3rd, 2019: The number of deaths secondary to the Ebola virus reaches 1000

Although each explicit manifestation of this deadly communicable disease carries with it seemingly insurmountable barriers in the form of human resources, supply logistics, social tendencies, and global support, the Kivu is particularly devastating due to political uncertainty, lack of trust in the health care system, and civil unrest.

Despite the increase in novel innovations for treating Ebola and even a promising vaccine that can prevent the virus virology, the Kivu outbreak continues to surge ahead and torture the human species in large part to a break down of trust in the medical system. The surge has lead to identifying 126 confirmed cases over a seven day stretch at the end of April 2019 in addition to the aforementioned data confirming this outbreak to be the second largest in the history of Ebola. Despite this, the mistrust has amassed in a disbelief that the outbreak even exists. A study conducted by the Lancet in March 2019 revealed that 32% of the respondents believed that the outbreak did not exist in the DRC, it only served as a way serve the elite’s financial interests. Another 36% stated that the Ebola outbreak was fabricated to further destabilize the surrounding areas. With these sentiments, the responders marked that fewer than two-thirds would actually want to receive the vaccine for Ebola. These perceptions of fellow humans provides an additional barrier to overcome for health care professionals in addition to treating a high mortality rate disease in resource limited settings.

While the mistrust in the healthcare system provides a tremendous intrinsic challenge for the DRC, the civil conflict that has targeted Ebola treatment centers delivers a physical and emotional component of the devastatingly uniqueness of this outbreak. With over 100 armed groups thought to be estimated within Kivu province, this has led to widespread violence causing this area to be difficult to maintain access. Due to the high rate of armed groups and the political unrest, there has been 119 incidents of Ebola treatment centers and/or health workers that have been attacked since the start of this outbreak. A few shocking examples include the murder of Dr. Richard Mouzoko who was a Cameroonian WHO physician and the two torched MSF facilities in the northern part of Kivu that were mentioned in the timeline.

The Kivu Ebola outbreak has been unanimously christened one of the most complex humanitarian crises that faces this fragile planet today – the global health community is attempting to treat a disease with a 50% mortality rate, with inadequate but effective evidence-based treatment options in a resource-limited setting, all while in a treacherous war zone. Although these are insurmountable odds, health care professionals across Africa and other parts of the world are addressing the needs of their patients and communities to defeat this ailment. These physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and so many others are generating trust in the health care system at a grass-roots level in the DRC to combat the negative perceptions and the actual outbreak. This example, that the global health community can learn from, highlights the role each person dedicated to global health needs to undertake before an outbreak batters a part of this fragile planet. The vitality of trust can start to be built through having individual/group conversations truly listen to health beliefs, coming in with an open mind to acknowledge local health treatments to complement evidence-based treatment, providing patient centered care that encompasses their culture and values, supporting capacity-building initiatives that allow humanity to act accordingly, investing both time and resources in local public health care infrastructure, and expressing empathy ubiquitously socially and professionally.

Being part of the global health community, it is imperative that this outbreak is adequately supported by humanity. As fellow humans striving towards a healthier society, health care professionals and public health experts must accompany those tormented by the social factors associated with Ebola and the actual virus through global awareness of the situation, an un-stigmatized compassion for those who contract the disease, and a pragmatic solidarity to address this humanitarian crisis.  

Repurposing Medications: Reimagining Treatment Options

Last month around the Chinese New Year holiday, a prominent Chinese scientist from Guangzhou Medical University made an announcement that stirred controversy both domestically and internationally while also highlighting a route to combat ailments that global academia and pharmaceutical industries have been attracted to for years. The scientist revealed that his team had been injecting patients with a malaria-causing parasite in order to cure a range of cancers – with two patients seeming to have no cancer cells remaining at the site of tumor and five additional patients having no disease progression out of ten total patients receiving this malarial therapy for at least a year. Although this type of treatment has been attempted in the past in an attempt to combat HIV in the 1990s, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and other health governing bodies determined that there was insufficient pre-clinical data to justify human trials during this time period. The controversy revolving around this announcement encompasses the aforementioned determination by CDC, the release of trial results before being published in a peer-reviewed journal, and, most importantly, the possibility of creating a malaria public health emergency for a country due to eradicate the communicable disease by 2020. Although the scientist who underwent this study clearly abdicated internationally conferred health principles, this avenue of repurposing – repositioning, re-profiling, re-tasking, etc – medications and therapy is becoming more appealing to those invested in novel treatment options for both established and emerging diseases.

Throughout the development lifecycle of new chemical entity (NCE), the process for regulatory approval could span over ten to fifteen years with an associated cost of over 2 billion dollars. This has led to an average of only 20 to 30 NCEs being approved by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) each year. However, through repurposing medications, the development span can be cut to five to eight years at approximately 60% of the total NCE cost – in addition to higher approval rates from regulatory agencies. This repurposing process, as shown by the statistics, is enormously appealing for pharmaceutical companies/investors, but also provides targeted therapy for patient’s disease states at a theoretically lower price than an NCE. Even for rare genetic diseases, repurposing has become common due to only 400 medications being on the market to treat over 7000 genetic conditions. Repurposing is accomplished through the theory of translational research which takes a look at basic scientific discoveries and determining how a medication can be made to match this discovery – for example, examining the molecular pathway of diabetes and then matching it with a chemical entity that has an effect within the pathway like glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1). The known chemical entities are commonly stored in giant databases within academia and the industry. Through big-data analytics, advanced modeling, and high throughput screening techniques, these chemical entities can then be extracted from the databases and determined if it has a possible role in a certain molecular pathway.

This method of establishing novel treatment options ought to be utilized more frequently and effectively, though there are medications over the years that have undergone this type of approval. The following are examples of already approved medications and others undergoing clinical trials:

Approved Repurposed Medications:

  1. Thalidomide, which was originally developed as a racemic mixture of enantiomers for the treatment of morning sickness but found to be teratogenic due to the effect of the (S)-isomer, was later successfully developed by Celgene as a single (R)-isomer product for the treatment of leprosy and multiple myeloma.
  2. Viagra (Pfizer’s sildenafil) was a drug that initially failed as an angina treatment in clinical studies; however, during these trials, its effect on erectile dysfunction was noted and then later approved for this indication.
  3. Celebrex, commonly used in osteoarthritis, works by inhibiting COX-2 receptors. Recently it has been shown that for patients that previously had colon cancer, taking this agent can reduce the risk of additional polyp formation without negative gastrointestinal effects associated with existing treatments.
  4. All-trans retinoic acid (ATRA), which is an acne medication, when combined with traditional chemotherapy, results in complete remission of acute promyelocytic leukemia in 90% of treated patients.
  5. Tamoxifen, a hormone therapy medication, treats metastatic breast cancers, or those that have spread to other parts of the body, in both women and men, and it was originally approved in 1977. Thirty years later, researchers discovered that it also helps people with bipolar disorder by blocking the enzyme PKC, which goes into overdrive during the manic phase of the disorder.
  6. Raloxifene was initially developed to treat osteoporosis, but has since been shown to reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women in 2007.
  7. Zidovudine (AZT) was initially developed to treat various types of cancer, but was determined to be ineffective. However, it was repurposed into the first approved HIV/AIDs medications in 1987 and has had a tremendous impact on the progression of the autoimmune disorder.

Repurposed Medications Undergoing Clinical Trials:

  1. The lipid soluble simvastatin is currently undergoing a trial in the UK to assess the efficacy of reducing the progression of Parkinson’s disease. The statin drug class is thought to prevent this ailment through its pleiotropic effects including reducing inflammation, reducing oxidative stress, reducing the formation of sticky bundles of alpha-synuclein, and increasing the production of neurotrophic factors. The results are expected to be released in 2020.
  2. Purdue University received a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to discover the effectiveness of Ebselen, a chemical entity, against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and auranofin, which is FDA-approved for the treatment of unresponsive rheumatoid arthritis, against Clostridium difficile.
  3. Metformin, a first line agent for many diabetics, has been shown to reduce the risk of breast cancer in diabetes patients and is being investigated as a treatment for cancer in many different clinical trials

Although this is certainly not an exhaustible list of the impacts repurposing has had on healthcare, the majority of this repurposing stems from serendipitous observations rather than targeted interventions. Through these unanticipated occurrences, a range of disease states can now be more effectively treated ranging from communicable diseases like HIV/AIDS to mental health ailments including bipolar disorder and Parkinson’s disease to non-communicable diseases. As the rising cost of healthcare continues to devastate humanity and lead to health inequalities, heads of governments, pharmaceutical industries, academia, and nonprofits need to commit themselves into investing their time and resources into this repurposing method. The targeted repurposing interventions are more vital and should be devoted to in order to expand options for health disorders rather than the unexpected observed effects. The financial and health outcomes will lead to novel treatment options accessible to a majority of the world which will allow health care professionals to properly accompany their patients through their disease state.