Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
12 November 2019 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Leonie Bolleurs
Farmovs
At a first for South Africa, the SACRA clinical trials capacity-building workshop with government, research institutions, and industry, were from the left: Dr Nathaniel Mofolo, Dr Rita Nathan, Dr Mojalefa Maseloa (Head: Clinical Services in the Clinical Unit at the Universitas Hospital) and Sue Baily (Site Management Head at IQVIA).

Whether it is to treat the flu or a more serious illness, all medicines go through a very costly and lengthy research process before being approved for prescription to patients. The cumulative time from the beginning of trials to marketing approval has increased over the past ten years. 

According to Dr Vathi Papu-Zamxaka from the South African Clinical Research Association (SACRA), South Africans would not have had access to safe and effective medicines, had it not been for the intensive research conducted on new medicines. 

On 7 November 2019, a group of 115 delegates representing the Free State Department of Health, the UFS, private research sites, and the pharmaceutical industry met at FARMOVS on the Bloemfontein Campus of the University of the Free State (UFS) for the SACRA clinical trials capacity-building workshop.

2,1 billion dollars to develop one successful drug

Dr Michelle Middle, Chief Medical Officer at FARMOVS, provided some interesting stats on the process for drugs to hit the shelves: “One out of 10 drugs entering human research will be approved. The cost of development of one successful drug is approximately 2,1 billion dollars. And the time to develop a drug, from submission of the Investigational New Drug Application (IND) to approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is between 12 and 15 years.”

Dr Middle stated that drug development is one of the most regulated processes, with ethics and patient safety governing the undertaking. “With SAHPRA (South African Health Products Regulatory Agency) having some of the strictest regulations in the world, South Africa has a good history of running trials.  In addition, fast growth is expected for the pharmaceutical market on the African continent, necessitating the need for increased clinical trials on this continent,” she said. 

Very few clinical trials hosted in South Africa 

Although Africa has the broadest genetic variability of all human populations and carries 17% of the global population, very few clinical trials are hosted on the continent. Globally, there are currently approximately 322 000 clinical trials being actively conducted, of which only 1 700 are conducted in Africa, i.e. less than 3%.  Even worse, only 304 of the 1 700 trials running in Africa are conducted in South Africa.  There is thus a critical need for South Africa as a country to market itself as a clinical trial destination and to attract more trials to the country.

South Africa’s competitive edge lies in being known for its ICH (International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use)-compliant top-quality research, racial and genetic diverse trial participants, good medical infrastructure and expertise, and the good reputation of the regulator (SAHPRA). “There are, however, a need for transformation and capacity building in clinical research in the country,” said Dr Middle. 

Dr Rita Nathan, Head of Clinical Services in the Clinical Department at the Universitas Hospital, who was representing government at the workshop, is looking to strengthen clinical trials across government and industry by focusing on, among others, funding models, operations management, and service delivery. 

From the UFS Faculty of Health Sciences, Dr Nathaniel Mofolo, Head of the School of Clinical Medicine, said collaboration between stakeholders is important. “This initiative is giving direction to the UFS vision of being a research-led university.” 

Other topics discussed at the workshop include the clinical trials landscape, how clinical trials work, the patient factor, ethics in clinical trials, and the economic aspect of clinical trials. 

News Archive

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger
2007-11-26

 

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

 
A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept