正當(dāng)各國(guó)爭(zhēng)相為本國(guó)居民接種新冠疫苗之際,一款由阿斯利康公司和牛津大學(xué)聯(lián)合開發(fā)的疫苗也被視為了抗擊疫情的關(guān)鍵利器。這不僅僅是由于該疫苗易于運(yùn)輸——與輝瑞/BioNTech和Moderna生產(chǎn)的疫苗相比,這款無需極端低溫環(huán)境——同時(shí)還因?yàn)樗某杀镜土?/p>
但近日發(fā)生的一連串事件,讓外界對(duì)阿斯利康履行交付承諾的能力產(chǎn)生了質(zhì)疑。
阿斯利康在1月22日表示,由于生產(chǎn)環(huán)節(jié)出現(xiàn)問題,今年首季交付的疫苗數(shù)量將不足承諾的一半,而此舉激怒了歐洲各國(guó)的首腦。
而前一日還有消息稱,南非向全球最大的疫苗生產(chǎn)商印度血清研究所訂購(gòu)了阿斯利康疫苗,每劑需支付5.25美元。但參考上個(gè)月意外泄露的一份清單,南非的購(gòu)買價(jià)不僅是歐洲富裕國(guó)家的兩倍多,還遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于阿斯利康在去年11月承諾的3美元上限。
歐洲疫苗供應(yīng)短缺
阿斯利康在近日爆出的消息,加劇了人們對(duì)歐洲短期內(nèi)疫苗短缺問題的擔(dān)憂,因?yàn)榫驮谇安痪?,輝瑞/BioNtech也發(fā)出了減產(chǎn)預(yù)警。
輝瑞的問題在于,它的一家比利時(shí)工廠需經(jīng)改裝后才能夠提升產(chǎn)量。但阿斯利康對(duì)減產(chǎn)原因諱莫如深,僅表示“因?yàn)闅W洲供應(yīng)鏈的一家工廠產(chǎn)量下降,所以初期產(chǎn)量將低于預(yù)期”。該公司拒絕指明具體哪間工廠存在問題,也未能說明該問題可能會(huì)持續(xù)多久。
歐盟尚未授權(quán)使用牛津/阿斯利康生產(chǎn)的疫苗——藥品監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)預(yù)計(jì)將于本周給予審核意見——但已經(jīng)與阿斯利康簽訂了一份高達(dá)4億劑的疫苗合同。其中,約8000萬劑疫苗本應(yīng)在今年第一季度交付,但阿斯利康在1月22日通知官員,實(shí)際數(shù)量將減少60%,僅可以交付3100萬劑。
據(jù)奧地利媒體報(bào)道,該國(guó)在本季度僅能夠收到60萬劑阿斯利康疫苗,而當(dāng)初承諾的是200萬劑。在意大利,首季本應(yīng)收到800萬劑疫苗,但對(duì)方只可以交付340萬劑。
意大利總理朱塞佩?孔特威脅將起訴阿斯利康和輝瑞/BioNTech,稱這“嚴(yán)重違反了合同內(nèi)容,對(duì)意大利和其他歐洲國(guó)家造成了巨大損害”。
1月25日,歐盟委員會(huì)的主席烏爾蘇拉?馮德萊恩與阿斯利康的首席執(zhí)行官帕斯卡爾?索里奧特進(jìn)行了電話溝通。主席發(fā)言人隨后表示,“她已經(jīng)明確希望阿斯利康能夠履行預(yù)先采購(gòu)協(xié)議中的安排?!?/p>
“她提醒索里奧特,歐盟為前期研發(fā)投入了大量資金,就是為了確保在歐洲藥品管理局發(fā)出有條件上市許可前,該公司可以加快擴(kuò)大生產(chǎn)?!卑l(fā)言人埃里克?馬梅透露?!爱?dāng)然,生產(chǎn)工序復(fù)雜的疫苗時(shí)可能會(huì)遇到問題,但我們希望該公司能夠找到解決方案,采用一切可行的彈性做法迅速完成交付?!?/p>
1月25日,歐洲理事會(huì)的主席查爾斯?米歇爾稱“歐盟打算執(zhí)行與制藥公司簽署的合同”,還表示“我們不惜采取一切可行的法律手段”。歐洲理事會(huì)由歐洲各國(guó)元首和歐盟委員會(huì)組成。
阿斯利康的發(fā)言人通過電郵發(fā)表了聲明:“隨著產(chǎn)量的持續(xù)提升,我們將在2月和3月向歐盟提供數(shù)千萬劑疫苗?!?/p>
南非訂購(gòu)的疫苗定價(jià)高昂
阿斯利康在去年表示,公司在疫情結(jié)束前只會(huì)收取成本價(jià)。但《金融時(shí)報(bào)》曾經(jīng)于2020年10月報(bào)道稱,該公司保留今年7月前宣稱疫情“結(jié)束”的權(quán)利。
阿斯利康法國(guó)分公司于去年11月表示,每劑疫苗僅售3美元,“在盡可能公平的條件下,向盡可能多的人群提供疫苗?!庇《妊逖芯克脖硎?,根據(jù)和比爾及梅琳達(dá)?蓋茨基金會(huì)與全球疫苗免疫聯(lián)盟(Gavi)達(dá)成的協(xié)議,會(huì)為中低收入國(guó)家訂購(gòu)的阿斯利康和Novavax疫苗制定相同的單價(jià)上限。
但1月20日有消息稱,南非向印度血清研究所訂購(gòu)了150萬劑阿斯利康疫苗,而每劑需支付5.25美元。相比之下,歐盟國(guó)家只需支付2.18美元。
另據(jù)南非本地媒體報(bào)道,南非衛(wèi)生局的副局長(zhǎng)安班?皮萊說:“印度血清研究所告知我們采用了分級(jí)定價(jià)制度,鑒于(南非)屬于中高收入國(guó)家,所以提出了5.25美元的報(bào)價(jià)。針對(duì)高收入國(guó)家享受較低價(jià)格的疑問,我們得到的解釋是,這些國(guó)家投資了(研發(fā)過程),因此可以享受折扣價(jià)?!?/p>
南非政府之所以同意支付相對(duì)較高的價(jià)格,可能是因?yàn)樵缜拔茨転楸緡?guó)人民成功爭(zhēng)取疫苗而備受壓力。這是該國(guó)獲得的第一批疫苗,將于本月起陸續(xù)運(yùn)抵當(dāng)?shù)?。根?jù)印度血清研究所和非盟達(dá)成的一項(xiàng)單獨(dú)協(xié)議,該廠在今年3月會(huì)提供更多疫苗——單價(jià)不會(huì)超過3美元。
但據(jù)報(bào)道,印度血清研究所的首席執(zhí)行官阿達(dá)爾?普納瓦拉在兩周前表示,“全球沒有任何地方”的阿斯利康疫苗售價(jià)低于每劑3美元。他駁斥了有關(guān)歐盟國(guó)家支付金額的報(bào)道,稱泄露的數(shù)字只是總價(jià)的一半。
《財(cái)富》雜志多次詢問印度血清研究所,為何要向南非訂購(gòu)的150萬劑阿斯利康收取如此高昂的單價(jià),但對(duì)方不予置評(píng),僅表示阿斯利康“能夠更好地回答這個(gè)問題”。
然而,阿斯利康也拒絕解釋究竟哪一方在為印度血清研究所生產(chǎn)的疫苗制定售價(jià),僅表示“阿斯利康已經(jīng)承諾向盡可能多的國(guó)家提供疫苗,并且疫情期間不會(huì)盈利?!?/p>
1月22日,Global Justice Now組織的負(fù)責(zé)人尼克?迪爾登發(fā)表聲明稱:“鑒于阿斯利康曾經(jīng)作出制定價(jià)格上限的承諾,我們呼吁該公司解釋清楚為何會(huì)出現(xiàn)這種高價(jià)?!?/p>
“該問題的癥結(jié)在于,重要的藥物被掌握在大企業(yè)手里,而定價(jià)幾乎沒有透明度可言。”迪爾登補(bǔ)充說,“我們急需將技術(shù)和專利交到公眾手中,這樣才可以共享知識(shí),生產(chǎn)更多疫苗。只有這樣,我們才有能力公平、有效地抗擊病毒。”(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:Emily
正當(dāng)各國(guó)爭(zhēng)相為本國(guó)居民接種新冠疫苗之際,一款由阿斯利康公司和牛津大學(xué)聯(lián)合開發(fā)的疫苗也被視為了抗擊疫情的關(guān)鍵利器。這不僅僅是由于該疫苗易于運(yùn)輸——與輝瑞/BioNTech和Moderna生產(chǎn)的疫苗相比,這款無需極端低溫環(huán)境——同時(shí)還因?yàn)樗某杀镜土?/p>
但近日發(fā)生的一連串事件,讓外界對(duì)阿斯利康履行交付承諾的能力產(chǎn)生了質(zhì)疑。
阿斯利康在1月22日表示,由于生產(chǎn)環(huán)節(jié)出現(xiàn)問題,今年首季交付的疫苗數(shù)量將不足承諾的一半,而此舉激怒了歐洲各國(guó)的首腦。
而前一日還有消息稱,南非向全球最大的疫苗生產(chǎn)商印度血清研究所訂購(gòu)了阿斯利康疫苗,每劑需支付5.25美元。但參考上個(gè)月意外泄露的一份清單,南非的購(gòu)買價(jià)不僅是歐洲富裕國(guó)家的兩倍多,還遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于阿斯利康在去年11月承諾的3美元上限。
歐洲疫苗供應(yīng)短缺
阿斯利康在近日爆出的消息,加劇了人們對(duì)歐洲短期內(nèi)疫苗短缺問題的擔(dān)憂,因?yàn)榫驮谇安痪茫x瑞/BioNtech也發(fā)出了減產(chǎn)預(yù)警。
輝瑞的問題在于,它的一家比利時(shí)工廠需經(jīng)改裝后才能夠提升產(chǎn)量。但阿斯利康對(duì)減產(chǎn)原因諱莫如深,僅表示“因?yàn)闅W洲供應(yīng)鏈的一家工廠產(chǎn)量下降,所以初期產(chǎn)量將低于預(yù)期”。該公司拒絕指明具體哪間工廠存在問題,也未能說明該問題可能會(huì)持續(xù)多久。
歐盟尚未授權(quán)使用牛津/阿斯利康生產(chǎn)的疫苗——藥品監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)預(yù)計(jì)將于本周給予審核意見——但已經(jīng)與阿斯利康簽訂了一份高達(dá)4億劑的疫苗合同。其中,約8000萬劑疫苗本應(yīng)在今年第一季度交付,但阿斯利康在1月22日通知官員,實(shí)際數(shù)量將減少60%,僅可以交付3100萬劑。
據(jù)奧地利媒體報(bào)道,該國(guó)在本季度僅能夠收到60萬劑阿斯利康疫苗,而當(dāng)初承諾的是200萬劑。在意大利,首季本應(yīng)收到800萬劑疫苗,但對(duì)方只可以交付340萬劑。
意大利總理朱塞佩?孔特威脅將起訴阿斯利康和輝瑞/BioNTech,稱這“嚴(yán)重違反了合同內(nèi)容,對(duì)意大利和其他歐洲國(guó)家造成了巨大損害”。
1月25日,歐盟委員會(huì)的主席烏爾蘇拉?馮德萊恩與阿斯利康的首席執(zhí)行官帕斯卡爾?索里奧特進(jìn)行了電話溝通。主席發(fā)言人隨后表示,“她已經(jīng)明確希望阿斯利康能夠履行預(yù)先采購(gòu)協(xié)議中的安排?!?/p>
“她提醒索里奧特,歐盟為前期研發(fā)投入了大量資金,就是為了確保在歐洲藥品管理局發(fā)出有條件上市許可前,該公司可以加快擴(kuò)大生產(chǎn)?!卑l(fā)言人埃里克?馬梅透露?!爱?dāng)然,生產(chǎn)工序復(fù)雜的疫苗時(shí)可能會(huì)遇到問題,但我們希望該公司能夠找到解決方案,采用一切可行的彈性做法迅速完成交付?!?/p>
1月25日,歐洲理事會(huì)的主席查爾斯?米歇爾稱“歐盟打算執(zhí)行與制藥公司簽署的合同”,還表示“我們不惜采取一切可行的法律手段”。歐洲理事會(huì)由歐洲各國(guó)元首和歐盟委員會(huì)組成。
阿斯利康的發(fā)言人通過電郵發(fā)表了聲明:“隨著產(chǎn)量的持續(xù)提升,我們將在2月和3月向歐盟提供數(shù)千萬劑疫苗。”
南非訂購(gòu)的疫苗定價(jià)高昂
阿斯利康在去年表示,公司在疫情結(jié)束前只會(huì)收取成本價(jià)。但《金融時(shí)報(bào)》曾經(jīng)于2020年10月報(bào)道稱,該公司保留今年7月前宣稱疫情“結(jié)束”的權(quán)利。
阿斯利康法國(guó)分公司于去年11月表示,每劑疫苗僅售3美元,“在盡可能公平的條件下,向盡可能多的人群提供疫苗。”印度血清研究所也表示,根據(jù)和比爾及梅琳達(dá)?蓋茨基金會(huì)與全球疫苗免疫聯(lián)盟(Gavi)達(dá)成的協(xié)議,會(huì)為中低收入國(guó)家訂購(gòu)的阿斯利康和Novavax疫苗制定相同的單價(jià)上限。
但1月20日有消息稱,南非向印度血清研究所訂購(gòu)了150萬劑阿斯利康疫苗,而每劑需支付5.25美元。相比之下,歐盟國(guó)家只需支付2.18美元。
另據(jù)南非本地媒體報(bào)道,南非衛(wèi)生局的副局長(zhǎng)安班?皮萊說:“印度血清研究所告知我們采用了分級(jí)定價(jià)制度,鑒于(南非)屬于中高收入國(guó)家,所以提出了5.25美元的報(bào)價(jià)。針對(duì)高收入國(guó)家享受較低價(jià)格的疑問,我們得到的解釋是,這些國(guó)家投資了(研發(fā)過程),因此可以享受折扣價(jià)。”
南非政府之所以同意支付相對(duì)較高的價(jià)格,可能是因?yàn)樵缜拔茨転楸緡?guó)人民成功爭(zhēng)取疫苗而備受壓力。這是該國(guó)獲得的第一批疫苗,將于本月起陸續(xù)運(yùn)抵當(dāng)?shù)?。根?jù)印度血清研究所和非盟達(dá)成的一項(xiàng)單獨(dú)協(xié)議,該廠在今年3月會(huì)提供更多疫苗——單價(jià)不會(huì)超過3美元。
但據(jù)報(bào)道,印度血清研究所的首席執(zhí)行官阿達(dá)爾?普納瓦拉在兩周前表示,“全球沒有任何地方”的阿斯利康疫苗售價(jià)低于每劑3美元。他駁斥了有關(guān)歐盟國(guó)家支付金額的報(bào)道,稱泄露的數(shù)字只是總價(jià)的一半。
《財(cái)富》雜志多次詢問印度血清研究所,為何要向南非訂購(gòu)的150萬劑阿斯利康收取如此高昂的單價(jià),但對(duì)方不予置評(píng),僅表示阿斯利康“能夠更好地回答這個(gè)問題”。
然而,阿斯利康也拒絕解釋究竟哪一方在為印度血清研究所生產(chǎn)的疫苗制定售價(jià),僅表示“阿斯利康已經(jīng)承諾向盡可能多的國(guó)家提供疫苗,并且疫情期間不會(huì)盈利?!?/p>
1月22日,Global Justice Now組織的負(fù)責(zé)人尼克?迪爾登發(fā)表聲明稱:“鑒于阿斯利康曾經(jīng)作出制定價(jià)格上限的承諾,我們呼吁該公司解釋清楚為何會(huì)出現(xiàn)這種高價(jià)。”
“該問題的癥結(jié)在于,重要的藥物被掌握在大企業(yè)手里,而定價(jià)幾乎沒有透明度可言?!钡蠣柕茄a(bǔ)充說,“我們急需將技術(shù)和專利交到公眾手中,這樣才可以共享知識(shí),生產(chǎn)更多疫苗。只有這樣,我們才有能力公平、有效地抗擊病毒?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:Emily
As countries scramble to inoculate their populations against COVID-19, the vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford has been seen as a crucial element of that program. That's not only because of its relative ease of deployment—unlike the vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, it doesn't require extreme cooling—but also because of its low cost.
However, the events of recent days have cast doubt on AstraZeneca's ability to deliver what it's promised.
Most recently, AstraZeneca enraged European leaders by saying Friday that a manufacturing glitch meant it would be delivering less than half the doses it had promised during the first quarter of the year.
A day before, it emerged that South Africa will be paying $5.25 per dose for AstraZeneca vaccine as produced by the world's largest vaccine-maker, the Serum Institute of India. That's more than twice as much as far-richer European countries are paying, per a list that was accidentally leaked last month, and considerably more than the $3 price cap AstraZeneca promised in November 2020.
European shortage
AstraZeneca's January 22 surprise added to existing concerns about Europe's short-term vaccine supply, coming as it did soon after Pfizer and BioNtech also warned of reduced output.
In that case, the issue lay in the need to retool a Pfizer plant in Belgium, so it could produce more doses. However, AstraZeneca is being more opaque about its problems, saying only that "initial volumes will be lower than originally anticipated due to reduced yields at a manufacturing site within our European supply chain." The company refused to specify which site is proving problematic, and how ongoing the problem might be.
The European Union has not yet authorized the use of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine—its drug regulator is expected to give a crucial opinion on that this week—but it has a contract with AstraZeneca to provide up to 400 million doses. Around 80 million of those were supposed to arrive in the first quarter of this year, but AstraZeneca told officials on January 22 that the actual volume would be 60% lower, meaning just 31 million doses.
According to Austrian media reports, only 600,000 of a promised 2 million AstraZeneca doses will make it to the country this quarter. In Italy, 8 million doses were due this quarter, but only 3.4 million will arrive.
Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte has threatened to sue both AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech over what he called "serious contractual violations, which cause enormous damage to Italy and other European countries."
On January 25, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had a phone call with AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot and, her spokesman subsequently said, "she made it clear she expects AstraZeneca to deliver on the contractual arrangements foreseen in the advanced purchasing agreement."
"She reminded Mr. Soriot that the EU has invested significant amounts in the company upfront precisely to ensure production is ramped up even before the conditional market authorization is delivered by the European Medicines Agency (EMA)," said the spokesman, Eric Mamer. "Of course, production issues can appear with a complex vaccine but we expect the company to find solutions and to exploit all possible flexibilities to deliver swiftly."
Charles Michel, the president of the European Council—the body that comprises the leaders of EU countries and the Commission—said on January 25 that "the EU intends to enforce the contracts signed by the pharmaceutical industry" and "we can use all the legal means at our disposal for this."
"We will be supplying tens of millions of doses in February and March to the European Union, as we continue to ramp up production volumes," said an AstraZeneca spokesperson in an emailed statement.
South African pricing
AstraZeneca said last year that it would only charge cost price for its doses until the pandemic is over—though as the Financial Times reported in October 2020, it retains the right to declare the pandemic "over" by July this year.
In November, AstraZeneca France said it would charge only $3 per dose, "in order to be able to provide this vaccine to the widest possible population, under the most equitable conditions of access possible." The Serum Institute of India (SII) also announced the same per-dose price cap for the AstraZeneca and Novavax vaccines that it would produce for low and middle-income countries, under an arrangement involving the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
However, on January 20 it emerged that South Africa will be paying $5.25 a dose for the Serum Institute's AstraZeneca shots, in an order for 1.5 million doses. By way of comparison, EU countries are paying just $2.18 a dose.
"We were advised that SII has applied a tiered pricing system, and given that [South Africa] is an upper-middle-income country, their price is $5.25," said Anban Pillay, the deputy head of South Africa's health department, according to local media. "The explanation we were given for why other high-income countries have a lower price is that they have invested in [research and development], hence the discount on the price."
It may be that South Africa's government agreed to pay this relatively high price because it was under pressure over its early failure to secure vaccines for its populace. The vaccines, the first to make it to the country, should start arriving this month. In March, more SII-made doses should become available under a separate arrangement between the Indian manufacturer and the African Union—these will supposedly enjoy the $3 price cap.
However, Serum Institute CEO Adar Poonawalla reportedly said at two weeks ago that the AstraZeneca vaccine was being sold for under $3 per dose "nowhere on the planet." He dismissed reports of the amounts EU countries are paying, claiming that the leaked figures only account for half the price.
Fortune has repeatedly asked the Serum Institute why it is charging South Africa so much for its 1.5 million AstraZeneca doses, but the manufacturer has refused to comment, instead saying that AstraZeneca is "in a better position to answer the query."
But AstraZeneca has also refused to explain who sets the pricing for the SII-made doses, saying only that "AstraZeneca has committed to making the vaccine available to as many countries as possible, and at no profit during the pandemic period."
"We are calling on AstraZeneca to explain how this pricing has happened, given their promise to cap charges," said Nick Dearden, the director of campaign group Global Justice Now, in a January 22 statement.
"This is the problem when you have essential medicines in the hands of big business, with almost no transparency as to pricing," Dearden added. "We urgently need technology and patents placed in public hands, so we can share this knowledge and produce more vaccines now. Our ability to defeat this virus fairly and effectively depends upon it."