The European Commission laid plans to fight the war against drug-resistant infections with concrete actions to be implemented in close cooperation with the member states in Europe.

In the European Union,  about 25,000 patients dying per year from the drug-resistant bacteria  infections. Related costs in health care expenses and productivity losses were estimated at over 1.5 billion euros. Facing the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, the European Commission unveiled  12 concrete actions to tackle the problem.

Richard Bergstrom said that “we need to ensure that investment in antibiotic R&D is strengthened. Our shared goal is more investment and more targeted investment in both public and private sector. EFPIA and its member companies look forward to building on today’s announcement to make that vision a reality.”

The European Commission Thursday put forward a new compromise solution to try to break a 30-year impasse that is preventing the adoption of a European Union-wide patent system.

Under the new proposal, a three-language system would be adopted, significantly reducing translation costs.

“For Europe to be competitive globally, we need to encourage innovation. That’s not the case today–it is far too expensive and complicated to obtain a patent,” said the internal markets commissioner in charge of the proposal, Michel Barnier.

Under the current patent system, getting a Europe-wide patent costs 10 times as much as it does in the U.S., mainly due to the complex translation requirements, the commission said.

Despite the existence of a single European Patent Office, patent holders have to translate patents into the language of every EU member state in which they want the patents validated.

A European patent validated in 13 EU countries today costs about EUR20,000, of which nearly EUR14,000 is spent on translation. An equivalent U.S. patent will cost about EUR1,850, the commission said.

Under the new proposal, all EU patents would be examined and granted in either German, English or French. A patent application can still be filed in other EU languages, but it will be always translated into one of the three languages by the European Patent Office, in which it is then legally binding.

In the case of a patent dispute, the patent holder may have to pay for further translation costs if the infringement process is taking place in a different language, the commission added.

The commission’s proposal will need unanimous acceptance by the union’s 27 member states, some which are known to still oppose losing their own languages from the system.

Both Italy and Spain have been unhappy with these proposals in the past, said one EU diplomat, but adding: “We have to hope that under the Belgian presidency a compromise will be possible.”

Heated discussions are likely during the coming months, as the commission and the council hope to hammer out a compromise.

Commissioner Barnier said that to reach an agreement with the council he would be willing to “improve the proposal” if it came to it.

Most patent applications in Europe are filed in English, with German and French the two other most common languages for applications, the commission says.

A single EU patent system is also strongly supported by European industry.

“The vast costs and complexity of patenting in Europe are well documented, which is why the continued absence of a single EU patent regime remains a significant constraint on businesses and thus on our economic recovery and growth,” said Arnaldo Abruzzini, secretary general of Eurochambers, which represents European industry.

“We feel that this proposal from the commission presents a sensible compromise that tackles the language issue in a way that will significantly reduce the costs associated with filing a patent,” Abruzzinin said.

Read the proposal from European CommissionC

As European countries line up with ever-stricter rules designed to reduce the price they pay for pharmaceuticals, Novartis has commissioned a new report from a group of tech experts that draws a straight line between the strictness of the new regs and a reduction in R&D innovation.

In clear and measured language, the European School of Management and Technology Competition Analysis note that a strict regulatory environment inevitably shifts the attention of drug developers to new therapies that can deliver the highest profits. And that can spur biopharma companies to reduce spending on new antibiotics, which are badly needed.

“Rational investors will naturally look for the most profitable investment choices, which is why regulation has a direct impact on the number and characteristics of the medications developed. Our study shows the consequences that pricing and reimbursement regulation can have on pharmaceutical innovation. It also shows that, incorrectly applied, regulation can reduce the value of pharmaceutical projects and curtail the resources available to carry them out,” Hans Friederiszick of ESMT CA said in a statement with the report.

None of their reasoning, though, is likely to slow down the burst of activity around controlling drug prices in Europe, though. Both German and Greek lawmakers recently moved to reduce their drug bill by billions of euros.

A consortium of the UK’s largest and most successful scientific and academic institutions has laid out its plans for the biggest centre for biomedical research and innovation in Europe. The UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI), founded by the Medical Research Council (MRC), Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust and UCL (University College London) has released its vision for the institute alongside designs for the building. It will be based at St Pancras and Somers Town in the London Borough of Camden. The project represents a substantial investment from charity and public funders in the future growth of one of the UK’s leading sectors.

The Vision was drafted by a panel of leading international scientists who came together to conceive of an institute capable of tackling the underlying causes of our most challenging health problems. They were advised by experts from Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Harvard, the US National Institutes of Health and other world-renowned institutions, as well as leaders from the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.

The building, planned by a team led by the architects HOK working with PLP Architecture, is designed to foster innovation by allowing collaboration between different academic disciplines. The chairman of the Scientific Planning Committee – the Nobel Laureate and President of Rockefeller University, New York and incoming President of the Royal Society – Sir Paul Nurse, explained:

UKCMRI aims to break down the traditional barriers between different research teams and different disciplines, thereby encouraging biologists, clinician scientists, chemists, physicists, mathematicians, and computer scientists to work together to answer shared questions. With 1250 scientists working with an encompassing infrastructure, UKCMRI will provide the critical mass, support and unique environment to tackle difficult research questions.

Focuses of research will include basic biological work such as stem cells and how organs work together. Scientists will also study the nervous system in a bid to understand conditions such as Alzheimer’s and motor neurone disease and behavioural disorders such as schizoprenia and autism.

In addition, the UKCMRI will be responsible for the scientific response to emerging infleunza pandemics, carrying out rapid genetic sequencing of viruses and helping to develop vaccines – tasks that were carried out by the NIMR during the swine flu pandemic last year.

“Our single vision shows our joint commitment to beating the diseases that affect the lives of so many people in the UK each year,” said Harpal Kumar, chief executive of Cancer Research UK. “By working together, UKCMRI scientists will produce cutting-edge research and help the UK keep its place as a world leader in scientific innovation.

“Crucially, these advances will be translated into better treatments for diseases, including cancer. This collaboration will ultimately bring huge benefits for cancer patients in the future, who will be diagnosed, treated and cured using breakthroughs that will be made at UKCMRI.”

Construction at the St Pancras site will start next year and the institute will be up and running in 2015.

With European countries slamming the brakes on drug spending whenever possible, GSK chief Andrew Witty took the helm of the continent’s pharma association calling for a “new dialogue” between the industry and government officials and cautiously backing a radical revamp of the European approval process.

Currently, developers have to gain the endorsement of the EMA prior to seeking marketing approval from the 27 countries in the EU, which assess a product’s cost effectiveness. Witty, though, expressed support for a more centralized approach to a therapeutic review.

“There is a certain degree of appeal to having a rational evidence-based relative efficacy or effectiveness discussion once in Europe rather than having it 27 times and potentially answered 27 different ways,” said Witty as he took the presidency of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. “Provided that didn’t become a further reason to delay approval or access to the medicine, I think that is something that over time the industry could work towards.”

Witty also wants a new regulatory approach to the drug industry in which industry executives and regulators can take a more collaborative approach to drug development. “Let’s start looking at medicines expenditure as an investment. This will enable governments and industry to set a strategic agenda for health and pharmaceutical innovation. What matters is whether a medicine works, responds to patient needs and, if so, that it is rewarded,” he said.

Unlike the U.S., where drug prices can float as high as the market will bear, Europe’s central payer system gives government agencies extraordinary power to determine if a drug should be covered or not. The UK’s NICE, for example, often takes a hard line on therapies with marginal health benefits and high costs. As a result, Witty and other biopharma chiefs want more regulatory input earlier on in the R&D process,so they can focus on new drugs that can gain widespread use.