|
| CORRESPONDENCE |
|
|
|
| Year : 2006 | Volume
: 38
| Issue : 4 | Page : 300 |
| |
Reply
GK Randhawa
Department of Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Amritsar, India
Correspondence Address:
G K Randhawa
Department of Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Amritsar
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
How to cite this article:
Randhawa G K. Reply. Indian J Pharmacol 2006;38:300 |
I thank D. Badyal for his comments on the article "Orphan Diseases and Drugs" (Ind J Pharmacol 2006; 38: 171-76) are welcome. Most of the issues mentioned have already been covered in the article though in a different perspective. A majority of the references cited in support of the facts by the authors are of 2006 whereas the present article was submitted on 17.8.2005.
1. The definition given in the article is standard (WHO). The variations to definition have been highlighted on page 175 para 1- Orphan vaccines and devices, Orphan Drug Status for non-orphan diseases have also been mentioned.
2. As regards the classification, there is at present no single standard consensus classification and all kinds of classifications cannot be given in a single article. The most befitting classification in accordance with the scope of this article was used in order to avoid any confusion.
3.Solution to ODS related to Third World Countries was given on page 175 'The public -private partnerships for R & D initiatives offers a new and effective way to deal with the medical needs of orphan disease patient.-DNDi'. It is agreed that the industry alone is not responsible for manufacturing less number of drugs with ODS.
|
