Day: December 11, 2023

Public Urged To Use Registered Ozempic Products

Photos supplied by Novo Nordisk

The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) is aware of the falsified Ozempic products currently being sold on the market and online.

SAHPRA has been informed of advertisements regarding unauthorised Ozempic/semaglutide-containing products that are being disseminated through radio stations and social media platforms.

The Regulator is warning the public to be wary of products claiming to be Ozempic (semaglutide) which are not approved by SAHPRA.  

Ozempic is a Schedule 4, prescription-only medicine, authorised by SAHPRA only for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. SAHPRA has not authorised/registered Ozempic for weight-loss, therefore, use in that regard would be off-label. It must be noted that only a healthcare practitioner can make a Schedule 4 product available off-label as they would provide the requisite guidance and support to the patient/individual.

Novo Nordisk South Africa, who is the Holder of Certificate of Registration (HCR) has confirmed a national shortage of Ozempic stock; this resulted in limited access to treatment for diabetic patients. This may have created an opportunity for falsified/counterfeit products flooding the market claiming to be Ozempic and being used off-label for weight loss. Consumers should be wary of online offers for products claiming to be Ozempic or semaglutide.

Currently, there are no generic versions of this medicine being lawfully manufactured. Therefore, any product not manufactured by Novo Nordisk claiming to contain semaglutide is likely to be fake or counterfeit. The public is being exposed to many different types of unregistered/unauthorised products that are either substandard or falsified thereby putting their health at risk. See examples of registered vs counterfeit products.

Registered products safe to use
Ozempic solution for injection is a registered product by SAHPRA belonging to the HCR, Novo Nordisk South Africa.

There are only two (2) registered presentations of the pre-filled pen for Ozempic available in South Africa namely, Ozempic 0,25 mg and 0,5 mg/dose pen and Ozempic 1 mg/dose pen.

What the public should know

  • Using unregistered semaglutide products claiming to have the effects of Ozempic bought from unverified/illegally trading suppliers could be detrimental to your health as these have not been evaluated by SAHPRA for safety, quality, and efficacy.
  • These falsified/fake Ozempic products may contain certain active ingredients found in the registered Ozempic products; however, the formulations or manufacturing processes may be different. These formulations have not been evaluated by SAHPRA.
  • SAHPRA urges the public to first consult their medical professionals for their health treatment and prescriptions, and only purchase or use SAHPRA registered/authorised products sold at registered pharmacies.
  • Any medicines that are bought outside of the legal supply chain:
    • May not contain any active ingredient.
    • May contain dangerous levels of the active ingredient.
    • May contain another active ingredient such as insulin instead of semaglutide.
    • May contain harmful inactive ingredients.
    • May be nonsterile and contaminated with microbes, therefore not suitable for injection.

“Protecting the health of South Africans is top of mind for the regulator. The scourge of unregistered, substandard, and falsified medicines on the market is a serious health risk for the public. SAHPRA is listening to the public concerns, and we have an ongoing investigation into these falsified Ozempic and unregistered semaglutide-containing products”, indicates SAHPRA CEO, Dr Boitumelo Semete-Makokotlela.

Public are urged to report any suspected products that are falsely claiming to work like OzempicYou can report through these whistle blower platforms, SAHPRA’s 24-hour hotline (0800 204 307) or via our web reporting facility: .

Patients Are Now Getting Fewer Post-op Opioids, but Decline is Slowing

Photo by cottonbro studio

Post-surgery pain relief has shifted away from opioid-containing medications over the past seven years, but the downward trend has slowed since 2020, a new University of Michigan study shows.

Overall, the rate of surgery-related opioid prescriptions dropped by 36% from 2016 to the end of 2022, and the average amount of opioids in those prescriptions dropped by 46%, the study of pharmacy data finds.

That combination of declines means that the total amount of opioids dispensed to surgical patients in late 2022 was 66% lower compared with early 2016, according to the findings published in JAMA Network Open.

But the rate of decline was much faster before the pandemic, the researchers report after comparing surgical opioid patterns before and after 2020.

That’s even after they took into account the unusual circumstances of spring 2020, when most elective surgery temporarily stopped to free up hospital capacity for COVID-19 patients and reduce unnecessary exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Even with the overall declines, American surgery patients in late 2022 still received the equivalent of 44 5-milligram pills of hydrocodone from pharmacies after their operations on average.

That’s far higher than what patients need for most procedures.

“These data suggest surgical teams have substantially reduced opioid prescribing, but also suggest that efforts to right-size opioid prescriptions after surgery must continue,” said Kao-Ping Chua, M.D., Ph.D., the senior author of the new study and an assistant professor of pediatrics at U-M. He worked with first author and former U-M research assistant Jason Zhang, who is now in medical school at Northwestern University.

The researchers also find that some types of surgeons have reduced the amount of opioids dispensed to patients more than others.

For instance, reductions were particularly large in cardiothoracic surgery and ophthalmology.

Orthopedic surgeons still account for more than half of all surgical opioids dispensed to American patients, even as the rate and size of prescriptions filled by their patients dropped.

Right-sizing prescribing

The authors note that surgeons should not strive to eliminate opioid prescribing altogether.

“The goal should be to ensure that opioids are only prescribed when necessary, and that the amount of opioids prescribed matches the amount that patients need,” said Zhang.

“Achieving these goals could help reduce the risk of opioid misuse, persistent opioid use, and diversion of pills to other people besides the patient.”

The potential for accidental exposure to opioids by others in the household, and interactions between opioids and other substances including alcohol and prescription drugs, are other reasons to focus on non-opioid surgical pain care.

Chua and colleagues have studied procedure-related opioid prescribing multiple times, including a recent study showing that the reduction in the rate of dental opioid prescribing has similarly slowed in recent years.

Surgical organisations and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have advised surgeons to rely less on opioid-based acute pain relief for their patients since the mid-2010s.

But no studies have examined surgical opioid prescribing trends using pandemic-era data.

The new study is based on data from a company called IQVIA that tracks prescriptions dispensed at 92% of US pharmacies.

Source: Michigan Medicine – University of Michigan

Scientists Identify New Cause of Diabetes – and Potential Treatment Target

Photo by Photomix Company on Pexels

Researchers have identified an enzyme that blocks insulin produced in the body – a discovery that could provide a new target to treat diabetes. Their study, published the journal Cellfocuses on nitric oxide, which dilates blood vessels, improves memory, fights infection and stimulates the release of hormones, among other functions.

How nitric oxide performs these activities had long been a mystery.

The researchers at Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals discovered a novel “carrier” enzyme (called SNO-CoA-assisted nitrosylase, or SCAN) that attaches nitric oxide to proteins, including the receptor for insulin action.

They found that the SCAN enzyme was essential for normal insulin action, but also discovered heightened SCAN activity in diabetic patients and mice with diabetes.

Mouse models without the SCAN enzyme appeared to be shielded from diabetes, suggesting that too much nitric oxide on proteins may be a cause of such diseases.

“We show that blocking this enzyme protects from diabetes, but the implications extend to many diseases likely caused by novel enzymes that add nitric oxide,” said the study’s lead researcher Jonathan Stamler, professor at the Case Western Reserve School of Medicine.

“Blocking this enzyme may offer a new treatment.”

Given the discovery, next steps could be to develop medications against the enzyme, he said.

Many human diseases, including Alzheimer’s, cancer, heart failure and diabetes, are thought to be caused or accelerated by nitric oxide binding excessively to key proteins.

With this discovery, Stamler said, enzymes that attach the nitric oxide become a focus.

With diabetes, the body often stops responding normally to insulin.

The resulting increased blood sugar stays in the bloodstream and, over time, can cause serious health problems.

Individuals with diabetes, the Centers for Disease Control reports, are more likely to suffer such conditions as heart disease, vision loss and kidney disease.

But the reason that insulin stops working isn’t well understood.

Excessive nitric oxide has been implicated in many diseases, but the ability to treat has been limited because the molecule is reactive and can’t be targeted specifically, Stamler said.

“This paper shows that dedicated enzymes mediate the many effects of nitric oxide,” he said. “Here, we discover an enzyme that puts nitric oxide on the insulin receptor to control insulin. Too much enzyme activity causes diabetes. But a case is made for many enzymes putting nitric oxide on many proteins, and, thus, new treatments for many diseases.”

Source: Case Western Reserve University

Biologics Alone may be Able to Control Severe Asthma

Credit: Pixabay CC0

A European study showed that 92% of patients using the biologic therapy benralizumab could safely reduce inhaled steroid dose and more than 60% could cease entirely. The results, published in The Lancet, could be transformative for severe asthma patients by minimising or eliminating the unpleasant, and often serious, side effects of inhaled steroids.

These include osteoporosis which leads to increased risk of fractures, diabetes and cataracts.

Around 3 to 5% of the 300 million people with asthma worldwide have severe asthma. This leads to daily symptoms of breathlessness, chest tightness and cough, along with repeated asthma attacks which require frequent hospitalisation.

The SHAMAL study was led by Professor David Jackson, head of the Severe Asthma Centre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ and Professor of Respiratory Medicine at King’s College London.

Professor Jackson said: “Biological therapies such as benralizumab have revolutionised severe asthma care in many ways, and the results of this study show for the first time that steroid related harm can be avoided for the majority of patients using this therapy.”

The monoclonal antibody benralizumab targets interleukin-5, reducing eosinophil count, which is elevated in the airway of patients with severe asthma and is critically involved in the development of asthma attacks.

Benralizumab is injected every four to eight weeks.

The SHAMAL study took place across 22 sites in the UK, France, Italy and Germany.

The 208 patients were randomly assigned to taper their high dose inhaled steroid by varying amounts over 32 weeks, followed by a 16 week maintenance period.

Approximately 90% of patients experienced no worsening of asthma symptoms and remained free of any exacerbations throughout the 48 week study.

Similar studies to SHAMAL will be necessary before firm recommendations can be made regarding the safety and efficacy of reducing or eliminating high dose steroid use with other biologic therapies.

Source: King’s College London

New Drug with a Different Approach Holds Promise as a Treatment for Multiple Sclerosis

This is a pseudo-colored image of high-resolution gradient-echo MRI scan of a fixed cerebral hemisphere from a person with multiple sclerosis. Credit: Govind Bhagavatheeshwaran, Daniel Reich, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health

Researchers have found in pre-clinical studies of a small molecule drug that it has promise as a potential new treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS). The results from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health-led study have been published in the journal Science Advances.

Expanding on Dr Fang Liu’s earlier work that identified a novel drug target for the treatment of MS, she and her team have now created a small molecule compound that is effective in two different animal models of MS. This represents a key advancement that brings this MS research closer to the clinic to impact patient care.

MS is a progressive neurological disease that currently has no cure.

It is associated with a wide-range of debilitating symptoms, including problems with coordination, cognition, muscle weakness and depression. For unknown reasons, it is more common in northern latitudes and more than twice as common in women.

It is known that MS damages myelin, a protective sheath that forms around nerves in the brain and spinal cord. As the myelin damage is triggered by inflammation in the immune system, up until now all current drug treatments for MS target the immune system.

In this study, CAMH Senior Scientist Dr Fang Liu and her team treated MS in a completely different way – targeting the glutamate system. Study results showed that the newly synthesised lead compound not only reduced MS-like symptoms, it also may repair the damaged myelin in two different pre-clinical models of MS.

“Our compound had a stunning effect on rescuing myelin and motor function in the lab models, and I hope these effects will translate to the clinic to add to current treatments and bring new hope to patients with MS,” said Dr Liu.

“As with cancer chemotherapy drug cocktails, simultaneous targeting of the MS disease pathway at multiple points can have synergistic effects and result in better outcomes.”

Dr Iain Greig, Reader in Medicinal Chemistry at the University of Aberdeen, alongside his team, are working to turn the molecules identified by Dr Liu into advanced “drug-like” molecules suitable for continued development towards clinical use in patients.

He added: “In all my years as a medicinal chemist, I have never seen a more promising starting point for a drug development project. It has been a huge pleasure to be involved in this program and I am looking forward to continuing to drive it towards to the clinic.”

Much of the funding for this novel treatment for MS, which Dr. Fang and her team have been investigating for over a decade, has come from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society USA’s Fast Forward commercial research program.

“We are pleased to have helped enable the early development of a novel neuroprotective strategy for MS, and look forward to seeing it progress through the critical next stages needed to determine its potential benefits for people living with MS,” said Walt Kostich, PhD, head of the National MS Society (USA)’s Fast Forward commercial research programme.

Dr. Liu believes that the evidence of efficacy and tolerability generated in this study for the small molecule drug makes it a good candidate to be developed for human trials. The next steps in drug development will involve some further pre-clinical research, including investigating safety and stability of the compound. CAMH and the University of Aberdeen have already filed patent applications to protect this research and are actively seeking industry partners to further advance this work towards clinical trials over the next few years.

Source: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

The EU Protects its Companies from Big Pharma. South Africa Needs to do the Same

Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash

By Fatima Hassan

Critical work done by South African scientists on mRNA vaccines for several diseases is at risk from patent claims from the pharmaceutical giant Moderna. Yet the government could easily protect this and other programmes by speeding up the passage of amendments to patent laws.

Every year, industry’s biggest players spend a combined US$4-billion on legal action. Even then, there was an audible gasp from the world’s media when Moderna, which developed a Covid vaccine with the US government, announced it was suing rivals Pfizer and BioNTech for “patent infringement”.

All three companies have made a fortune from selling Covid vaccines, and are now at war over the rights to the publicly-funded mRNA technology behind it.

After a year of suing and counter-suing in multiple jurisdictions, the European Patent Office stepped in two weeks ago and revoked one of Moderna’s patents covering “respiratory virus vaccines”. In doing so, the European Patent Office was seemingly defending BioNTech, a German company, from a ‘’threat’’.

This is not unusual. In most countries, governments can intervene to protect companies viewed as important to their national interest and can review, revoke, or withdraw patents. Most countries, but not South Africa.

Under Nelson Mandela, South Africa fought Big Pharma to secure affordable generic HIV medicines, and in the pandemic, the government made a valiant attempt to do the same for Covid vaccines by seeking a global waiver of intellectual property rules. But arcane apartheid-era laws still accept patent requests from companies – without substantive examination of the merits of the patent application and without the due process right to challenge it before it is granted. And, once a patent is granted, patient advocacy groups cannot easily revoke it.

There is legislation drafted which could give us the ability to challenge patents before they are granted, among other much needed mechanisms such as compulsory and government-use licensing.

In 2018, Cabinet approved a new Intellectual Property Framework which would give us this most basic right. It is compliant with international trade rules and should not be controversial. But, despite the fact the government has said it wants this legislation, has drafted it, and has even trained examiners on it, the law has sat languishing on the desk of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition Ebrahim Patel for several years. This has enabled Moderna to be granted far-reaching mRNA related patents in South Africa.

These patents put our widely-acclaimed mRNA vaccine manufacturing project, backed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and others, at risk.

While the world quickly developed effective vaccines to combat Covid, intellectual property rules prevented us from making shots for ourselves. Western governments blocked our government’s efforts to suspend these global rules, leaving South Africa to wait at the back of the global queue, eventually paying unreasonably high prices for vaccines. Then at the height of our third wave of Covid infections, Johnson & Johnson exported vaccines which had been completed at a factory in the Eastern Cape to Europe, prioritising European customers over South Africa and the continent.

It was a dark time for South Africa. But amid the devastation, some hope came in the form of a small biotech company in Cape Town, Afrigen, when the WHO announced it would be at the centre of a new Global South programme to deliver vaccines.

Sharing technology

Moderna, Pfizer, and BioNTech have all refused to share their technology with the programme. But scientists from Afrigen and universities in South Africa as well as the South African Medical Research Council developed an mRNA vaccine of their own, using the publicly available information from the vaccine which Moderna developed with the US government. They have now begun sharing the technology with partners across the Global South – and are exploring vaccines for diseases such as TB too.

In a future pandemic, the programme could be used to rapidly share vaccine technology between low and middle-income countries, so that we don’t repeat the global inequality of the Covid vaccine rollout.

Except that Moderna filed far-reaching patents in South Africa which could be interpreted as covering any mRNA technology. And, under our faulty, unchanged intellectual property regulation system, the patents were granted.

Dozens of health and legal organisations have warned that the mRNA programme is vulnerable to patent claims from Moderna. While the company has given assurances that it will not enforce patents on its Covid vaccine in some lower-income countries, including South Africa, the work of the programme on other diseases remains under threat.

The Medicines Patent Pool, which is implementing the project for the WHO, wants each programme partner (in the Global South) to resolve the issue of patents itself. But, by suing Pfizer and BioNTech, Moderna has signalled that it wants a total monopoly on mRNA technology. What, then, is Plan B if Moderna turns on the WHO-backed programme next?

When earlier this year, the Health Justice Initiative took legal action to force the Department of Health to disclose secret contracts with Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers, we won – and the documents revealed that vaccine procurement negotiations were one-sided, with pharmaceutical companies pressuring our government into unfair prices, terms and conditions.

Back to court

Now we are once again preparing to take the government to court to pass key provisions of the Patent Amendment Act. At the very least, we need proper patent examination, ways to oppose patents before and after they have been granted, and easy-to-use compulsory and government-use procedures in place. And we need this quickly.

We have seen how big pharmaceutical companies including Johnson & Johnson use our patent provisions to evergreen patents and then charge the state and sick patients more than they should by holding on to their patent monopolies.

We want to ensure that:

  • monopolies are not granted without examining their merits;
  • the public can exercise its right to oppose a patent before it is granted; and
  • the government can override patents and allow generic production where needed, as do the governments of many other countries.

It is our right in a constitutional democracy.

Hassan is founder and director of the Health Justice Initiative.

Views expressed are not necessarily those of GroundUp.

Republished from GroundUp under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Source: GroundUp