Tag Archives: better

Combating Covid Pandemic: When ‘Something Is Better Than Nothing’

Posted on by
Reply

As the new Coronavirus overwhelms the world, since its global outbreak, up until November 29, 2020, over 1,458,305 people have died from this pandemic. Understandably, the Governments in all countries are frantically searching for some robust remedial measures to prevent these unfortunate deaths, besides protecting livelihoods of a vast majority of people.

For this purpose, experts considered effective preventive measures, such as vaccines could help taming this menace, alongside existing personal prevention measures. Accordingly, scientists around the world, have are hard to accelerate development and manufacturing of safe and effective Covod-19 vaccines, within the prescribed guidelines. Equally important is the fact these vaccines must be safe with predictable effectiveness- for all age groups.

The good news is, vaccines are now a distinct possibility in the near future, with the positive interim Phase III clinical trial reports pouring in. It gets reflected in the remark of the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), on November 23, 2020, at the media briefing on Covid-19. He said: There is now real hope that vaccines – in combination with other tried and tested public health measures – will help to end the pandemic.

Interestingly, amid these reports, a lurking fear of many experts also surfaces – on the impact of possible side effects, that Covid vaccine may cause, besides their medium to long term efficacy in human subjects. But, with the mounting number of deaths, near collapse of the global economy, including India, there isn’t any more time to watch and wait.

Apparently, all governments now want some scientifically relevant vaccines, instead of nothing. This article will deliberate on the one hand – an unprecedented achievement, alongside some critical concerns – voiced even by the Indian Prime Minister. Let me begin with the apprehensions, as expressed by some domain experts on some rough edges, as it were, in the process of its development.

Queries on vaccine dosing, efficacy, safety and testing:

On November 23, 2020, AstraZeneca and Oxford reported interim results of their vaccine with the average efficacy of 70% prevention. This sounded good to many, as it falls within the expectations of above a 50% standard that the FDA had set for Covid vaccines. However, the puzzling part in this result was – bigger (standard) doses of the vaccines were less efficacious. The vaccine was only 62% effective in a group that got two full doses spaced about a month apart. But among about 2,700 people who got a half-dose followed by a full, the number rose to 90%, the report highlighted. This incident prompted several questions about the most effective dose of AstraZeneca and Oxford vaccine, including its safety record and the approach to testing. Consequently, apprehensions surfaced whether the Drug regulators will clear it, based on the currently available data.

It now appears, AstraZeneca ‘s Covid-19 vaccine is ‘headed for an additional global trial as the drug maker tries to clear up the uncertainty and confusion surrounding favorable results in its current study.’ Incidentally, in India - AstraZeneca and Oxford vaccine will be manufactured by Pune-based Serum Institute of India (SII) under a collaborative arrangement. Let me now dwell on a broader as aspect in this space.

Could current Covid vaccines become useless in the future?

There isn’t an iota of doubt that developing Covid vaccine in ten months, which otherwise takes around ten years – is an unprecedented achievement. However, there are several other important areas in this space, where pundits have expressed uneasiness through various articles.

One such paper is titled, ‘Don’t rush to deploy COVID-19 vaccines and drugs without sufficient safety guarantees,’ published in the Nature on March 16, 2020. According to the author, a critical point in this regard is to consider ‘the potential for emerging and re-emerging Coronaviruses to cause future outbreaks.’

This is because, ‘the virus behind COVID-19 might mutate in ways that would make previously effective vaccines and antivirals useless.’ Testing vaccines and medicines without taking the time to fully understand safety risks, could bring unwarranted setbacks during the current pandemic, and into the future. ‘Despite the genuine need for urgency, the old saying holds – ‘measure twice, cut once’, the author commented.

The article concluded by suggesting, ‘any regulatory agency considering ways to accelerate treatments into testing should also weigh up how likely these drugs are to work beyond this particular Coronavirus.’ Moreover, according to the WHO, it’s too early to know if COVID-19 vaccines will provide long-term protection.

Possible side-effects of COVID-19 vaccines:

As people’s hopes swell, expecting Covid vaccines to ultimately end the deadly global pandemic, experts caution about their reported – annoying and unpleasant side effects. The November 12, 2020 paper – ‘Time to Discuss Potentially Unpleasant Side Effects of COVID Shots? Scientists Say Yes,’ published by the Kaiser Health News (KHN), also articulated similar apprehension.

It said, most Covid vaccines, including much publicized ones from Pfizer and Moderna, will require two doses to work, injections that must be given weeks apart, as company protocols show. Scientists anticipate the shots will cause enervating flu-like side effects — including sore arms, muscle aches and fever — that could last days and temporarily sideline some people from work or school.

Even with the Pfizer vaccine, which is touted to be over 90% effective, 1 in 10 recipients would still be vulnerable. There could also be a possibility that a vaccine may not suit everyone due to side-effects, especially the most vulnerable elderly population. That means, at least in the short term, as population-level immunity grows, people can’t stop social distancing and throw away their masks, the report emphasized. Even Prime Minister Modi has informed the nation about possible side effects of Covid vaccines.

PM Modi also warns of possible vaccine side-effects:

Being adequately briefed on the above perspectives related to Covid vaccines, the PM has also warned the nation about the possible side-effects. This is probably to ensure that the unpleasant experience of side-effects, after being administered the first dose, do not catch the population off-guard. Mostly because, no one should miss the second dose of vaccine for the same.

He said, during a recent video conference with the state chief ministers, ‘like many other popular medicines, any COVID-19 vaccine could lead to side-effects in some people.’ Emphasizing that both speed and safety are equally important in launching a vaccine, he assured that ‘the government would only go by science in finalizing a vaccine for the country.’

Is something better than nothing?

In the current situation, it appears so, as there is no other alternatives, except maintenance of social distancing, frequent hand sanitizing and wearing masks while outdoors. The Prime Minister also articulated sans any ambiguity: ‘Whatever vaccine makes it through the world’s certified processes, we will have to accept them and move ahead.’

In the meantime, he urged the states to keep distribution infrastructure, such as cold storages ready, the report said. Interestingly, according to Serum Institute CEO Adar Poonawalla, India could approve the emergency use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine by December 2020.

That said, for mass vaccination of the population across India, another factor that is extremely important to decide which vaccine to go for – is the required storage temperature of various Covid Vaccines under development.

Required cold chain storage temperature of various Covid vaccines:

Required cold chain storage temperatures of various Covid vaccines are as follows:

Company

Type

Doses

Effectiveness*

Storage
Oxford-AstraZeneca Viral Vector (genetically modified virus) Two 62-90%** Regular fridge temp.
Moderna RNA (part of virus genetic code) Two 95% -20C up to six months
Pfizer-BioNTech RNA Two 95% -70C
Gamaleya (Sputnik V) Viral Vector Two 92% Regular fridge temp.

Source: Respective Companies, WHO – BBC News. *Preliminary Phase III results. **Two full doses: 62%, A half dose followed by a full dose: 90%, Average: 70%

From the above table, it appears, from the perspective of continuous cold chain storage facility of vaccines – till these are administered to each person, Oxford-AstraZeneca and Russian Sputnik vaccines will be more practical, despite issues with them. Viewing from this perspective, as well, it appears ‘something is better than nothing’ term can be applied in this area, as well.

Conclusion:

The Covid pandemic continues to worry India, immensely. As on November 29, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 9,393,039 of Coronavirus cases with 136,733 deaths. The threat of subsequent waves for further spread of Covid infection now looms large in many states.

Unprecedented speed in developing vaccines to effectively combat Covid Pandemic has created some initial issues. Some of these Covid vaccine challenges include, vaccine side effects, its future usefulness, or challenges towards maintaining required stringent cold chain storage requirements, especially in a country like India. Powder version of Covid vaccines, in the future, would possibly resolve this issue for all countries, across the world.

Currently, in tandem with keeping the cold-chain distribution infrastructure ready, at least, for vaccines that require regular fridge temperature, there is a need to make people aware of Covid vaccine side-effects. Otherwise, after getting first shot of a Coronavirus vaccine, many people may get so scared of its side effects that they may not come back for the second dose. If this happens, the very purpose of mass vaccination will get defeated.

However, from the Indian perspective, Covid vaccines that the country, hopefully, will shortly get, may not be the best, out of the available ones, in terms of safety and efficacy. But, for combating Covid Pandemic across India at this juncture, I reckon, the good old dictum still holds good – ‘something is better than nothing.’

By: Tapan J. Ray     

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 

Gamification in Pharma: Creates Engaging Patient Experience For Better Results

Posted on by
Reply

On January 03, 2019, media reports flashed – “A video game-based ‘digital medicine’ tool can help reduce symptoms in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention/deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).” This study was published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, confirming the feasibility and safety of the tool called Project: EVO, which delivers sensory and motor stimuli through an action video game experience.

This initiative reconfirms that technology is becoming a great enabler to provide integrated, comprehensive and cost effective approach in treating many diseases, particularly with ‘Digital Medicine.’ The above report on ‘Project EVO’ is an example of application of the concept of ‘gamification’ in digital medicine. Many consider ‘gamification’ as a game changer to create an engaging patient experience with added value. It makes patients getting involved in the disease-treatment process, especially for effective self-management of chronic disorders.

I shall focus on this area in today’s article, giving examples wherever available. However, let me start by recapitulating what is ‘gamification’ in the pharma industry.

Gamification: 

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘gamification’ as: ‘The application of typical elements of game playing (e.g. point scoring, competition with others, rules of play) to other areas of activity, typically as an online marketing technique to encourage engagement with a product or service.’ It further adds, ‘gamification is exciting because it promises to make the hard stuff in life fun.’

‘Gamification’ is assuming increasing importance, with disruptive digital innovations gradually becoming game changers in the pharma business. This is mainly because, it can deliver to a specific group of patients, doctors or other stakeholders exactly what they look for – with precision.

I suggested in my article, published in this blog on January 07, 2019 that pharma companies should facilitate self-management of chronicailments,not just for better outcomes, but also for improving the quality of patient engagement. To achieve this objective,‘gamification’ could play a remarkable role-such as disease awareness and prevention and when afflicted its desirable self-management. This has the potential to create a win-win situation between patients and a drug company.

This is so important, as ‘the old paradigm of the paternalistic model of medicine is now transforming into an equal level partnership between patients and professionals, aided and augmented by disruptive technologies. This comment was made in a study titled, ‘Digital health is a cultural transformation of traditional health care,’ published in mHealth on September 14, 2017.

‘Patient-doctor partnership is critical in the new paradigm:

One of the major ways to develop a partnership between the treating doctors along with the product/service providing pharma companies and patients is through mutually beneficial ‘patient engagement’ programs with added value.

That such programs can create a unique patient experience of better outcomes at a lesser cost, has already been established by a number of credible research studies. Taking a cue from quantum benefits that this initiative provides, many pharma companies are now making ‘patient engagement’ strategy as an integral part of their overall market access program, including the process of branding.

What does an effective patient engagement strategy involve?

An article titled, ‘Patient Engagement: A Key Element in Pharmaceutical Marketing Strategy,’ published in the IgeaHub on May 29, 2016 defines ‘patient engagement’ as a concept that combines a patient’s knowledge, skills, ability and willingness to manage his own health and care with interventions designed to increase activation and promote positive patient behaviors. This measure also involves offering relevant services to patients.

To assess the opportunity of patient services in the pharma industry, Accenture conducted a survey titled, ‘Pharma’s Growing Opportunity in Patient Services’, on 200+ pharma patient services executives, covering seven therapeutic areas – heart, lungs, brain, immune systems, bones, hormone/metabolism, and cancer. The study concluded,the future of patient services that requires patient engagement, is bright. It elaborated by saying, this approach offers pharmaceutical companies a tremendous opportunity – for those willing to invest in the right places and let patients know about them in the right way.

To move in this direction, ‘gamification’ is an efficient way for the pharma companies to follow. Let us see below how does ‘gamification’ work on the ground.

How does ‘gamification’ work?

According to the findings of Innovatemedtec, ‘gamification’ with health apps typically works in the following three ways:

  • Allowing users to share progress and results with their friends or other users of the service, creating a competitive spirit to elicit more or better use of the specific health app service.
  • Giving virtual gifts, such as badges, medals, stars during each stage of progress, generating a sense of achievement for greater patient motivation levels in disease monitoring and management.
  • Advanced medical health applications can provide real-time biofeedback with built-in sensors. Or using a storytelling approach and explaining health literature related to diagnoses, medical procedures and patient behavior.

Thus, the primary reasons for introducing ‘gamification’ in the pharma industry would be to improve the disease awareness and increasing patients’ motivation for self-management for mutual benefits.

Improves disease awareness and motivation for self-management:

The precise rationale for ‘gamification’ in the pharma industry was nicely articulated in the ‘M.Sc. Thesis titled, ‘Gamification in the Pharmaceutical Industry – Exploring how European Pharmaceutical Organizations can build and use Gamified Mobile Applications to Improve Relations with Patients.’ This was written by Nanna Birkedal and jointly delivered by the University of Stirling and Lund University.

It highlighted: “Patients and industry experts both argue that awareness is important; constant reminders about healthy habits are pivotal for an improved lifestyle. Patients furthermore need to be motivated to act upon this and actively implement the required lifestyle changes. If pharmaceutical organizations succeed in helping the patients with overcoming challenges related to their illness by motivating them to enact the needed lifestyle changes, it will increase the perceived trust towards their brand and thereby strengthen their relationship with the patients. This research argues that digital gamification is suited for this purpose, hence why it may be advantageous for organizations to incorporate digital gamification …”

Why and how to motivate patients for self-management of chronic disease?

As I said before, after proper diagnosis of a chronic ailment and charting out a medical treatment pathway, self-management of the disease by patients plays a critical role. Thus, the question arises, how to motivate patients and more importantly, keep patients motivated for engaging in self-management of such nature.

There is also a need for continuous improvement of the ‘gamification’ process for a long-term engagement of patients, leading to progressively better outcomes. Many examples of success with ‘gamification’ are available for chronic diseases, such as diabetes.

One of the metrics used in ‘gamification’ to help diabetic patients stick with a digital health platform, making it a higher priority in their daily lives, is to provide useful timely information on their disease condition. This metric may include informing the user about some tangible changes in their health risks due to the disease. For example: “Over the last month your effective glucose has reduced the risk of losing your eyesight by 10 percent.” Accordingly, the patients may earn points or badges for using the app and accomplishing certain important tasks.

In this way, gamification can immensely help self-management through behavioral changes, improving disease outcomes. As Healthcare in America also reiterates: ‘There is nothing more motivating than knowing your health is improving in real time.’

Another study, and two examples of ‘gamification’ in pharma:

Another study titled, ‘Gamification: Applications for Health Promotion And Health Information Technology Engagement’, published by ResearchGate arrived at an interesting conclusion. It reiterated: ‘Game-based approaches (gamification) can provide ideal strategies for health promotion, prevention, and self-management of chronic conditions. However, there is a need to clearly define components and uses of gamification in healthcare for increased patient engagement in health information technology.’

Elaborating the point further, the authors emphasized that many health/physical activity apps provide feedback in a clear and concise manner and in a variety of formats (e.g., graphs, text or icons). The available option to share the feedbacks on social networking sites allows for further engagement by individuals and adds additional motivation and encouragement in attaining users’ goals. However, it recommends more studies to explore and identify the suitability of ‘gamification’ for health in clinical settings.

There have been several instances of gamification efforts health care with powerful effects. Let me cite just two interesting illustrations from mobihealthnews, as follows:

Conclusion:

As available from various literature, such as Healthcare in America, there are enough well-verified testimony, indicating that patients are motivated by gamified elements.

Consequently, some major global pharmaceutical companies have started testing the water. For example, the Media Release of Roche dated June 30, 2017 announces, the company has acquired mySugr - an Austrian startup that offers gamified solutions for diabetes management in a fun way, both for children and adults. It, reportedly, has more than a million registered users in 52 countries and is available in 13 different languages. Post-acquisition, it will be an integral part of Roche’s new patient-centered digital health services in diabetes care.

Hence, ‘gamification’ in pharma carries potential to be a win-win strategy in creating engaging, motivating and a unique patient experience in self-management of chronic diseases, for better outcomes.

By: Tapan J. Ray    

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Should Pharma-Doctor Communication Be Also Gender-Specific?

Posted on by
Reply

Regardless of situations, while selecting a suitable doctor for patients, or for that matter, pharma companies engage with them for commercial reasons, their gender doesn’t matter much to many.

What one generally looks for is, whether they are General Practitioners (GPs), General Surgeons (GSs) or Specialists in various disease areas, such as cardiac, metabolic, bones and joints, cancer and so on. This has been happening, despite several research studies pointing out a number of important gender-based behavioral differences between most male and female doctors, often leading to a significant difference in patient outcomes.

Before proceeding further, let me admit up front that there may be some exceptions to this general scenario. For example, certain female patients may prefer being examined by the female doctors only. Similarly, a few drug companies may be tailoring the content and the process of their communication based on the target doctors’ age.

In this article, I shall try to focus on this area based on a number of important research findings. The objective being whether medical communications of pharma players should also factor-in the gender-specific nuances among male and female doctors. This is because, such differences impact clinical outcomes and happens irrespective of whether they are GPs or specialists. Let me kick-start the discussion with the following question:

“Does gender matter when choosing a doctor?”

This interesting point was raised in an article, titled “Should You Choose a Female Doctor?”, appeared in ‘The New York Times (NYT)’ on August 14, 2018. Let me put across the essence of it, quoting from some large research findings.

The August 21, 2018 study, titled “Patient–physician gender concordance and increased mortality among female heart attack patients,” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). This study covered more than 580,000 heart patients admitted to emergency rooms in Florida between 1991 and 2010. After a thorough scrutiny, the researchers noted that:

  • The mortality rates for both women and men were lower when the treating physician was female.

Consequently, it appears, gender does matter, while choosing a doctor for better treatment outcomes. Nevertheless, just one illustration in this regard may not possibly be enough to drive home this point. Thus, let me quote from another important study. This one is a Harvard study that included more than 1.5 million hospitalized Medicare patients and arrived at similar conclusions, with the finding as stated hereunder.

Lower 30-day mortality under female internists than male counterparts:

This large study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine on February 2017 also concludes:Hospitalized patients who receive care from female general internists have lower 30-day mortality and readmission rates than those patients cared for by male internists.

“The difference in mortality was slight – about half a percentage point – but when applied to the entire Medicare population, it translates to 32,000 fewer deaths,” reported the above NYT article while commenting on this subject. I shall come to this finding in just a bit.

Why patient outcomes are different under the care of male and female doctors? 

To get an answer to this question, just as several other previous studies, the findings of the above issue of JAMA Internal Medicine also suggest more studies in this area. The aim is to zero-in on the key differences in practice patterns between male and female physicians, which may have important clinical implications for patient outcomes.

The researchers observed, understanding exactly why these differences in care quality and practice patterns exist may provide valuable insights into improving quality of care for all patients, irrespective of who provides their care.

Curiously, this question was answered in a 2002 study published in the JAMA that found female doctors spend more times with patients.

Female doctors spend more times with patients:

The paper, titled “Physician gender effects in medical communication: a meta-analytic review” wanted to find out why patient outcomes are different under the care of male and female doctors?This study was published in the August 14, 2002 issue of JAMA. It found, “Female primary care physicians engage in more communication that can be considered patient centered and have longer visits than their male colleagues.”The average difference in time spent with patients between male and female physicians is about 2 minutes, or 10 percent, per visit.

The researchers also found that female physicians engage in communication that mostly relates to the larger life context of patient conditions. It includes addressing psychosocial issues through related questions and counseling, greater use of emotional talk, more positive talk, and more active enlistment of patient input. From this perspective, they commented: When taken together, these elements comprise a pattern that can be broadly considered ‘patient-centered’ interviewing.

Would tailoring pharma communication accordingly fetch better dividend? 

Such highly similar findings, as evidenced by many reports, over a considerable period of time, add much credence to an important fact. These vindicate the concept that ‘patient-outcomes are better when cared by female doctors as compared to their male counterparts.’ In the pharma context, the subsequent question that surfaces: Can this finding be put to use while developing a tailor-made communication strategy with appropriate content for female doctors, harvesting a rich commercial dividend?

No doubt, before doing so, more data need to be generated and analyzed to corroborate the utility of the same in the pharma business. That said, the good news is, the work has already started in this area.

Some interesting recent findings on pharma-doctor interactions:

As reported by Fierce Pharma on October 26, 2018, moving towards this direction, CMI/Compas ventured into testing the water. It planned to find out whether drug companies should develop male and female doctor-specific communication strategy and content for more productive engagement with them. After an elaborate data analysis, CMI/Compas found the following:

  • As the most important source of new product information 59 percent of older-male-doctors rank pharma sales reps much higher. Whereas, only 46 percent of older-female-doctors’ think so.
  • 47 percent of older-male-doctors were most likely to see sales reps without any restrictions. Whereas, less than 40 percent of the other group saw reps without placing any hurdles to their visits.
  • Female physicians of all generations were found more likely to rank medical websites and online drug reference guides as more important tools than their male counterparts.
  • Women doctors are also likely to encourage patients using websites, electronic medical records and patient support programs more frequently than their male counterparts.
  • After receiving requisite information from pharma source, especially younger women doctors, are more likely:

- To change a patient’s treatment (20 percent).

- Try a new product (22 percent).

- Conduct more research using other sources (40 percent).

Conclusion:

These research findings do provide a fresh food for thought for the pharma strategists to ascertain whether a new ground exists to further hone the conversation between drug companies and the doctors. More specific point to ponder is, whether an avant-garde, as it were, customer-segmentation strategy be put to use, while devising a sharply focused communication and content for the male and female doctors, separately for each.

Coming back to where I started from: Should pharma-doctor communication be gender-specific? In my view, enough credible evidences, as captured in several large studies, send a clear signal towards an affirmative answer. Nevertheless, individual company would still be required to meticulously vet it out internally, for the best possible results.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Higher The Healthcare Spend, Better The Healthcare Performance: A Myth?

Posted on by
Reply

It is generally believed, higher the per-capita expenditure of healthcare, better is the overall ‘healthcare performance’ of a nation.

However, this myth has recently been busted by a new study, the take-home message of which would be quite relevant for India too. It flags a very important point, just as too low per-capita expenditure on healthcare fails to deliver an optimal healthcare performance to the target population, higher health expenditure, on the other hand, does not have any linear relationship with commensurately better healthcare performance either.

The question, therefore, comes up: What then would be the optimal per-capita spending on healthcare to offer quality healthcare performance in a country like India?

The study:

According to this recent Commonwealth Fund report , per-capita expenditures on healthcare in 2011 of eleven wealthy nations were as follows:

Per-Capita Healthcare Spend in 2011

Rank Country US $
1. United States 8,508
2. Norway 5,669
3. Switzerland 5,643
4. Netherlands 5,099
5. Canada 4,522
6. Germany 4,495
7. France 4,111
8. Sweden 3,925
9. Australia 3,800
10. United Kingdom 3,405
11. New Zealand 3,182

Against the above spend, the ‘Healthcare Performance’ rankings of the same 11 nations were as under, showing no linear relationship between higher per-capita healthcare expenditure and better healthcare performance:

Performance of Healthcare System

Rank Country
1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany
6. Netherlands
7. New Zealand
8. Norway
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

The basis of ranking:

Interestingly, though the healthcare expenditure of the United States of America at 17.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the highest in the world, according to this report, America ranks worst among all these nations, namely, France, Australia, Germany, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

The ranking was made based various factors, which include quality of care, access to doctors and equity throughout the country.

The U.K. ranked best, with Switzerland following a close second, though their respective per-capita expenditures on healthcare were much less than the United States.

Holds good in BRIC perspective too:

Coming to the BRIC nations’ perspective, though India’s per-capita healthcare spend has been the lowest among these 4 countries, the following quick example would clearly establish that here also the healthcare performance does not have any linear relationship with the per-capita healthcare spend:

Per capita Healthcare expenditure in 2011: Country Comparison

Country US $ World Rank Physician/1000 people Hospital/1000 people Life expectancy at birth (years)
Brazil 1120.56   41 1.76 2.3 73.4
Russia 806.7   55 4.31 9.6 69.0
India 59.1 152 0.65 0.9 67.08
China 278.02   99 1.82 3.8 73.5

(Source: WHO data)

Taking the United States as an example:

To illustrate the point further, let me take the US details as an example, as it incurs the highest per-capita expenditure on healthcare. When that is the fact, does high healthcare spending of the US help the patients commensurately? 

Going by these reports, it does not appear so, as:

  • The Commonwealth Fund report also states, “Moreover, US patients were the most likely to find it very difficult to get after-hours care without going to an emergency room – 40 percent said it was very difficult, compared with only 15 percent in the Netherlands and Germany, the lowest rates of any country on this measure.”
  • The 2008 Commonwealth Fund survey, of 7,500 chronically ill patients in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK and the USA, reportedly also found that: “More than half (54 percent) of the US patients did not get recommended care, fill prescriptions, or see a doctor when sick because of costs, compared to 7 percent – 36 percent in other countries. About a third of the US patients – more than in any other country – experienced medical errors or poorly-coordinated care, while 41 percent spent more than US$ 1,000 in the past year on out-of-pocket medical costs, compared with 4 percent in the UK and 8 percent in the Netherlands.”

The study also highlighted the following for the United States with the highest health expenditure:

  • Lesser number of doctors and hospital beds among developed nations:

The US has fewer physicians per 100,000 populations than any of the other countries apart from Japan, and the fewest doctor consultations (3.9 per capita) than any except Sweden. Relative to the other countries in the study, the US also had few hospital beds, short lengths of stay for acute care and few hospital discharges per 1,000 populations.

  • Highest rates of potentially preventable deaths from asthma and amputations due to diabetes:

While the US performs well on breast and colorectal cancer survival rates, it has among the highest rates of potentially preventable deaths from asthma and amputations due to diabetes, and rates that are no better than average for in-hospital deaths from heart attack and stroke.

  • Individual payers negotiate prices with health care providers:

In the US, individual payers negotiate prices with health care providers, a system that leads to complexity – and varying prices for the same goods and services, says the study.

Where is the high healthcare spending of US going?

High health costs in the United States are mostly due to higher prices driven by free-market economy and not quality of care, says the study. Some of the key characteristics of the US healthcare space in the areas under discussion are as follows:

High and totally decontrolled drug prices:

The drug prices are totally decontrolled in the US, unlike most other developed nations, where price negotiations for reimbursed drugs are the common norms.

The above study highlights that US prices for the 30 most commonly-used branded prescription drugs are more than double the prices paid in Australia, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the UK, and they are a third higher than in Canada and Germany. In contrast, prices of generic drugs are lower in the US than in any of the other 12 nations due to very high competition. This reinforces the point that any delay in the entry of generics after patent expiry would impact the patients and the payor very adversely

Expensive hospital stays:

US hospital stays are far more expensive than in other countries, at more than US$18,000 per discharge compared with about US$13,000 in Canada and under US$10,000 in Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, France and Germany.

Conclusion:

In 1999, according to a WHO Study, per capita healthcare expenditure in India was just US$ 18.2. The figure rose to US$ 28.7 in year 2004 and US $ 59.1 in 2011, which reflects a double digit Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) in per capita healthcare expenditure of the country from the 2004 study to 2011. The absolute numbers may be far from adequate; nevertheless, the trend is ascending. This needs to be accelerated, possibly by the new health minister with the prime minister’s direct help and intervention.

There is a lot to learn from the US healthcare model too, especially from its pitfalls and regulatory structure, as deliberated above.

Finally, taking a cue from all these, India should decide at what per-capita spend, with all necessary regulatory measures being firmly in place, the country would be able to ensure quality ‘access’ to healthcare for all its citizens.

Mere comparison of per-capita healthcare spend of each country, I reckon, may not mean much now. India needs to ‘reinvent the wheel’ in this area, as it were, to arrive at its own health expenditure model for quality healthcare service delivery to all in the country. This is more important than ever before, as higher healthcare spends do not necessarily mean commensurately better healthcare performance.

By: Tapan J. Ray 

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Buying Physicians’ Prescriptions in Cash or Kind: A Global (Dis)Order?

Posted on by
Reply

Recently a European business lobby reportedly raised its voice alleging pharma Multinational Corporations (MNCs) in China have been ‘unfairly targeted’ by a string of investigations into bribery and price-fixing cases despite their generally ‘strong legal compliance’ and has suggested that China ‘must step back.’

Two comments of this European lobby group, presumably with full knowledge of its past records, appear indeed intriguing, first – ‘unfairly targeted’ and the second – ‘China must step back’, that too when a reportedly thorough state investigation is already in progress.

Reality is all pervasive:

However, while looking over the shoulder, as it were, an altogether different picture emerges and that reality seems to be all pervasive.

Over the past several decades, the much charted sales and marketing frontier in the pharmaceutical industry has been engagement into a highly competitive ‘rat race’ to create a strong financial transactional relationship, of various types and forms, with the physicians, who only take the critical prescription decisions for the patients. Most of the times such relationships are cleverly packaged with, among many others,  a seemingly noble intent of ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ by the companies concerned.

Increasingly, across the globe, more questions are now being raised whether such pharmaceutical business practices should continue even today. These voices are gradually getting louder fueled by the recent moves in the United States to ‘separate sales and marketing related intents of the drug industry from the practice of medicine’, especially in large medical teaching hospitals, in tandem with the enactment and practice of ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act 2010’.

A recent article titled, “Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Lessons Learned from a Pharma-Free Practice Transformation”, published in the ‘Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine’ deliberated on an interesting subject related to much talked about relationship between the doctors and the pharmaceutical players.

The authors argue in this paper that significant improvement in the quality of healthcare in tandem with substantial reduction in the drug costs and unnecessary medications can be ensured, if the decision makers in this area show some willingness to chart an uncharted frontier.

‘Questionable’ relationship in the name of providing ‘Medical Education’:

‘The Journal of Medical Education’ in an article titled “Selling Drugs by ‘Educating’ Physicians” brought to the fore the issue of this relationship between the pharma industry and individual doctors in the name of providing ‘medical education’.

The article flags:

“The traditional independence of physicians and the welfare of the public are being threatened by the new vogue among drug manufacturers to promote their products by assuming an aggressive role in the ‘education’ of doctors.”

It further elaborates that in the Congressional investigation in the United States on the cost of drugs, pharma executives repeatedly stated that a major expenditure in the promotion of drugs was the cost of ‘educating’ physicians to use their products.

The author then flagged questions as follows:

  • “Is it prudent for physicians to become greatly dependent upon pharmaceutical manufacturers for support of scientific journals and medical societies, for entertainment and now also for a large part of their ‘education’?”
  • “Do all concerned realize the hazards of arousing wrath of the people for an unwholesome entanglement of doctors with the makers and sellers of drugs?”

Financial conflicts in Medicine:

Another academic paper of August 13, 2013 titled, “First, Do No Harm: Financial Conflicts in Medicine” written by Joseph Engelberg and Christopher Parsons at the Rady School of Management, University of California at San Diego, and Nathan Tefft from the School of Public Health at the University of Washington, states:

“We explored financial conflicts of interest faced by doctors. Pharmaceutical firms frequently pay physicians in the form of meals, travel, and speaking fees. Over half of the 334,000 physicians in our sample receive payment of some kind. When a doctor is paid, we find that he is more likely to prescribe a drug of the paying firm, both relative to close substitutes and even generic versions of the same drug. This payment-for-prescription effect scales with transfer size, although doctors receiving only small and/or infrequent payments are also affected. The pattern holds in nearly every U.S. state, but it is strongly and positively related to regional measures of corruption.”

On this paper, a media report commented:

“The findings – based on recently released data that 12 companies have been forced to make public as a result of US regulatory settlements – will rekindle the debate over the limits of aggressive pharmaceutical marketing, which risks incurring unnecessarily costly medical treatment and causing harm to patients.”

A call for reform:

The first paper, as quoted above, titled “Breaking Up is Hard to Do” reiterates that even after decades, individual practitioner still remains the subject to undue influence of the pharmaceutical companies in this respect. It categorically points out:

“The powerful influence of pharmaceutical marketing on the prescribing patterns of physicians has been documented and has led to fervent calls for reform at the institutional, professional, and individual levels to minimize this impact.”

The rectification process has begun in America:

Interestingly, even in the United States, most physicians practice outside of academic institutions and keep meeting the Medical Representatives, accept gifts and drug samples against an expected return from the drug companies.

Many of them, as the paper says, have no other process to follow to become ‘pharma-free’ by shunning this hidden primitive barrier for the sake of better healthcare with lesser drug costs.

To achieve this objective, many academic medical centers in America have now started analyzing the existing relationship between doctors and the drug companies to limit such direct sales and marketing related interactions for patients’ interest.

This unconventional approach will call for snapping up the good-old financial transactional relationship model between the doctors and Medical Representatives of the Pharma players, who promote especially the innovative and more costly medicines.

An expensive marketing process:

The authors opine that this is, in fact, a very powerful marketing process, where the pharmaceutical players spend ‘tens of billions of dollars a year’. In this process more than 90,000 Medical Representatives are involved only in the United States, providing free samples, gifts along with various other drug related details.

The study reiterates that deployment of huge sales and marketing resources with one Medical Representative for every eight doctors in the United States, does not serve the patients interests in any way one would look into it, even in terms of economy, efficacy, safety or accuracy of information.

“But Don’t Drug Companies Spend More on Marketing?”

Yet another recent article, captioned as above, very interestingly argues, though the drug companies spend good amount of money on R&D, they spend much more on their marketing related activities.

Analyzing six global pharma and biotech majors, the author highlights that SG&A (Sales, General & Administrative) and R&D expenses vary quite a lot from company to company. However, in this particular analysis the range was as follows:

SG&A 23% to 34%
R&D 12.5% to 24%

SG&A expenses typically include advertising, promotion, marketing and executive salaries. The author says that most companies do not show the break up of the ‘S’ part separately.

A worthwhile experiment:

Removing the hidden barriers for better healthcare with lesser drug costs, as highlighted in the above “Breaking Up is Hard to Do” paper, the researchers from Oregon State University, Oregon Health & Science University and the University of Washington outlined a well conceived process followed by one medical center located in central Oregon to keep the Medical Representatives of the pharmaceutical companies at bay from their clinical practice.

In this clinic, the researchers used ‘a practice transformation process’ that analyzed in details the industry presence in the clinic. Accordingly, they educated the doctors on potential conflicts of interest and improved patient outcomes of the clinical practice. The concerns of the staff were given due considerations. Managing without samples, loss of gifts, keeping current with new drugs were the key concerns.

Based on all these inputs, various educational interventions were developed to help the doctors updating their knowledge of new drugs and treatment, even better, through a different process.

The experiment established, though it is possible to become “pharma free” by consciously avoiding the conflicts of interest, implementation of this entire process is not a ‘piece of cake’, at least not just yet.

Need for well-structured campaigns:

The researchers concluded that to follow a “pharma sales and marketing free” environment in the clinical practice, the prevailing culture needs to be changed through methodical and well-structured campaigns. Although, initiation of this process has already begun, still there are miles to go, especially in the realm of smaller practices.

One researcher thus articulated as follows:

“We ultimately decided something had to be done when our medical clinic was visited by drug reps 199 times in six months. That number was just staggering.”

Where else to get scientific information for a new drug or treatment?

The authors said, information on new drugs or treatment is currently available not just in many other forum, but also come with less bias and more evidence-based format than what usually are provided by the respective pharmaceutical companies with a strong motive to sell their drugs at a high price to the patients. 

The paper indicated that there are enough instances where the doctors replaced the process of getting information supplied by the Medical Representatives through promotional literature with monthly group meetings to stay abreast on the latest drugs and treatment, based on peer-reviews.

‘Academic detailing’:

In the process of ‘Academic detailing’ the universities, and other impartial sources of credible information, offer accurate information without bias, whenever sought for. In the United States, some states and also the federal government are reportedly supporting this move now, which is widely believed to be a step in the right direction.

Moves to separate sales and marketing of the drug industry from the practice of medicine:

As stated above, there are many moves now in the United States to ‘separate the sales and marketing influence of the drug industry from the practice of medicine’, especially in large medical teaching hospitals, as the paper highlights.

The study also reported that of the 800,000 physicians practicing in the United States only 22 percent practice in the academic settings and 84 percent of primary care physicians continue to maintain close relationships with the pharmaceutical companies.

Citing examples, the new report indicated various tangible steps that primary care physicians can possibly take to effectively mitigate these concerns.

Emerging newer ways of providing and obtaining most recent information on new drugs and treatment together with educating the patients will hasten this reform process.

A commendable move by the Medical Council of India:

Taking a step towards this direction, the Medical Council of India (MCI) vide a notification dated December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″. This move was welcomed by most of the stakeholders, barring some vested interests.

The notification specified stricter regulations for doctors in areas, among others, gifts, travel facilities/ hospitality, including Continuing Medical Education (CME), cash or monetary grants, medical research, maintaining professional Autonomy, affiliation and endorsement in their relationship with the ‘pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry’. These guidelines came into force effective December 14, 2009.

With this new and amended regulation, the MCI, on paper, has almost imposed a ban on the doctors from receiving gifts of any kind, in addition to hospitality and travel facilities related to CMEs and others, from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector industries in India.

Moreover, for all research projects funded by the pharmaceutical industry and undertaken by the medical profession, prior approval from the appropriate authorities for the same will be essential, in addition to the ethics committee.

Although maintaining a cordial and professional relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the doctors is very important, such relationship now should no way compromise the professional autonomy of the medical profession or any medical institution, directly or indirectly.

It is expected that the common practices of participating in private, routine and more of brand marketing oriented clinical trials would possibly be jettisoned as a pharmaceutical strategy input.

However, inability of the Indian regulator to get these guidelines effectively implemented  and monitored has drawn sharp flak from all other stakeholders, as many third party private vendors are reportedly coming up as buffers between the industry and the physicians to facilitate the ongoing illegal financial transactions, hoodwinking the entire purpose, blatantly.

No such government guidelines for the industry yet:

MCI under the Ministry of Health, at least, came out with some measures for the doctors in 2009 to stop such undesirable practices.

However, it is difficult to fathom, why even almost four years down the line, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India is yet to implement its much hyped ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for the entire pharmaceutical industry in India.

‘Physicians payment induced prescriptions’ – a global phenomenon:

Besides what is happening in China today with large pharma MNCs alleged involvement in bribery to the medical profession soliciting prescriptions of their respective drugs, world media keep reporting on this subject, incessantly.

For example, The Guardian in its July 4, 2012 edition reported an astonishing story. Since quite some time many pharmaceutical giants are being reportedly investigated and fined, including out of court settlements, for bribery charges related to the physicians.

In another very recent article titled “Dollars for Docs Mints a Millionaire” the author stated as follows:

“The companies in Dollars for Docs accounted for about 47 percent of U.S. prescription drug sales in 2011. It’s unclear what percentage of total industry spending on doctors they represent, because dozens of companies do not publicize what they pay individual doctors. Most companies in Dollars for Docs are required to report under legal settlements with the federal government.”

In India, deep anguish of the stakeholders over this issue is also getting increasingly reverberated all across, without much results on the ground though. It has also been drawing attention of the patients’ groups, NGOs, media, Government and even the Parliament of the country. 

Another article titled, “Healthcare industry is a rip-off” published in a leading business daily of India states as follows:

“Unethical drug promotion is an emerging threat for society. The Government provides few checks and balances on drug promotion.”

Physician Payment Sunshine Act of 2010:

To partly address this issue under President Obama’s ‘Patient Protection Affordable Care Act’, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ came into force in the United States in 2010. 

Under this Act, any purchasing organization that purchases, arranges for, or negotiates the purchase of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply or manufacturer of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply operating in the United States, or in a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States is required to publicly disclose gifts and payments made to physicians.

Penalty for each payment not reported can be upto US$ 10,000 and the penalty for knowingly failing to submit payment information can be upto US$ 100,000, for each payment.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has already released their ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ reporting templates for 2013. The templates apply for reports dated August 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013.

Should the Government of India not consider enacting similar law in the country  without further delay?

Conclusion:

That said, these well-researched papers do establish increasing stakeholder awareness and global concerns on the undesirable financial influence of pharma players on the doctors. Product promotion practices of dubious value, especially in the name of ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME), seem to strongly influence the prescribing patterns of the doctors, making patients the ultimate sufferer.

The studies will help immensely to establish that achieving the cherished objective of a ‘pharma sales and marketing free’ clinic is not only achievable, but also sustainable for long.

The barriers to achieving success in this area are not insurmountable either, as the above article concludes. These obstacles can easily be identified and overcome with inputs from all concerned, careful analysis of the situation, stakeholder education and identifying most suitable alternatives.

Thus, I reckon, to effectively resolve the humongous ‘physician payment induced prescriptions’ issue for the sole benefit of patients, it is about time for the pharmaceutical players to make a conscientious attempt to shun the ‘road much travelled, thus far, with innovative alternatives. However, the same old apprehension keeps lingering:

“Will the mad race for buying physicians’ prescriptions in cash or kind, much against patients’ interest, continue to remain a global (dis)order, defying all sincere efforts that are being made today?  

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 

 

Encourage vaccine research and improve its access to demonstrate ‘prevention is better than cure’

Posted on by
Reply

Vaccines are one of the most successful and cost-effective public health interventions, which help preventing over 2 million deaths every year.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines vaccines as:

“A vaccine is any preparation intended to produce immunity to a disease by stimulating the production of antibodies. Vaccines include, for example, suspensions of killed or attenuated microorganisms, or products or derivatives of microorganisms. The most common method of administering vaccines is by injection, but some are given by mouth or nasal spray.”

Types of Vaccines:

As per the ‘National Institute of Health (NIH)’ of USA, following are some types of vaccines that researchers usually work on:

  • Live, attenuated vaccines
  • Inactivated vaccines
  • Subunit vaccines
  • Toxoid vaccines
  • Conjugate vaccines
  • DNA vaccines
  • Recombinant vector vaccines

The first vaccine:

In 1796, Edward Anthony Jenner not only discovered the process of vaccination, alongside developed the first vaccine of the world for mankind – smallpox vaccine. To develop this vaccine Jenner acted upon the observation that milkmaids who caught the cowpox virus did not catch smallpox.

As per published data prior to his discovery the mortality rate for smallpox was as high as up to 35%. Thus, Jenner is very often referred to as the “Father of Immunology”, whose pioneering work has “saved more lives than the work of any other person.”

Later on in 1901 Emil Von Behring received the first Nobel Prize (ever) for discovering Diphtheria serum therapy.

The future scope of vaccines:

The future scope of vaccines is immense as several potentially preventable diseases, as indicated below remain still unaddressed.

Examples of effective Vaccines Examples of Potentially VaccineTreatable Diseases
Bacterial
  • Diphtheria
  • Haemophilus influenza type B
  • Meningitis A, C
  • Pneumococcus
  • Enterococcus
  • Meningitis B, W, Y
  • Group A Streptococcus
  • Staphylococcus
Viral
  • Varicella
  • Hepatitis B and C
  • Influenza
  • Polio
  • Pandemic influenza
  • RSV
  • West Nile Virus
  • Epstein Barr Virus
Other
  • Cancer
  • Alzheimer’s disease
  • Substance abuse
  • Autoimmune disorders

Source: Deutsche Bank Report 

Expanded focus for vaccines:

The focus of the global vaccine industry also has been expanded from prophylactic vaccination for communicable disease (e.g. DTP vaccine) to therapeutic vaccines (e.g. Anti-cancer vaccines) and then possibly non-communicable disease vaccines (e.g. vaccines for coronary artery disease).

The Issues and Challenges:

To produce a safe and effective marketable vaccine, it takes reportedly around 12 to 15 years of painstaking research and development process involving an investment ranging between US $500 million and over $1 billion dollars (Ibid, 7).

Moreover, one will need to realize that the actual cost of vaccines will always go much beyond their R&D expenses. This is mainly because of dedicated and highly specialized manufacturing facilities required for mass-scale production of vaccines and then for the distribution of the same mostly using cold-chains.

Around 60% of the production costs for vaccines are fixed in nature (National Health Policy Forum. 25. January 2006:14). Thus such products will need to have a decent market size to be profitable.

Unlike many other medications for chronic ailments, which need to be taken for a long duration, vaccines are administered for a limited number of times, restricting their business potential.

Thus, the long lead time required for the ‘mind to market’ process for vaccine development together with high cost involved in their clinical trials/marketing approval process, special bulk/institutional purchase price and limited demand through retail outlets, restrict the research and development initiatives for vaccines, unlike many other pharmaceutical products.

Besides, even the newer vaccines will be required mostly for the diseases of the poor, like Malaria, Tuberculosis, HIV and ‘Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs)’ in the developing countries, which may not necessarily guarantee a decent return on investments for vaccines, unlike many other newer drugs. As a result, the key issue for developing a right type of newer vaccine will continue to be a matter of pure economics.

A great initiative called GAVI: 

Around 23 million children of the developing countries are still denied of important and life-saving vaccines, which otherwise come rather easily to the children of the developed nations of the world.

To resolve this inequity in January 2000, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) was formed. This initiative was mainly aimed at generating sufficient fund to ensure availability of vaccines for children living in the 70 poorest countries of the world.

The GAVI Alliance has been instrumental in improving access to six common infant vaccines, including those for hepatitis B and yellow fever. GAVI is also working to introduce pneumococcal, rotavirus, human papilloma virus, meningococcal, rubella and typhoid vaccines in not too distant future.

A recent example:

As if to vindicate the above points, Reuters on December 16, 2011 reported that  “Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are increasing sales of cut-price pneumonia vaccine to developing countries by more than 50 percent, marking the scale-up of an international program to protect millions of children.

GAVI is buying an additional 180 million doses of Pfizer’s pneumococcal vaccine Prevenar 13 and a similar quantity of GSK’s Synflorix at a deeply discounted price of US $3.50 a shot.”

Success with vaccines in disease prevention:

Diphtheria incidence in the US  – Mortality 5/10,000 cases Peak Incidence (1921) Incidence today

2,06,939

1

 

Tetanus incidence in the US – Mortality 3/10 cases Peak Incidence (1927) Incidence today

1,314

40

 

H. Influenza type B incidence in the US – Mortality 2-3/100 cases Peak Incidence (1927) Incidence today

20,000

363

Source: Ehreth Vaccine 21:4105-4117

Development of vaccines through the passage of time:

No. of vaccines

Year

Vaccines
1. 1780-1800

Smallpox

(first vaccine for any disease)
2. 1860-1880

Cholera
1880-1900

Rabies
6.

Tetanus

Typhoid fever

Bubonic plague
11 1920-1940

Diphtheria

Pertussis

Tuberculosis

Yellow fever

Typhus
16 1940-1960

Influenza

Polio

Japanese encephalitis

Anthrax

Adenovirus-4 and 7
24 1960-1980

Oral polio

Measles

Mumps

Rubella

Chicken pox

Pneumonia

Meningitis

Hepatitis B
28 1980-2000

Haemophilus influenzae type b

Hepatitis A

Lyme disease

Rotavirus
29 2000-2010

Human papilloma virus

Current trend in vaccine development:

Malarial Vaccine:

Reuters on December 20, 2011 reported that an experimental malaria vaccine has been developed by the British scientists, which has the potential to neutralize all strains of the most deadly species of malaria parasite.

In October 2011, the data published for a large clinical trial conducted in Africa by GlaxoSmithKline on their experimental malaria vaccine revealed that the risk of children getting malaria had halved with this vaccine. Reuters also reported that other teams of researchers around the world are now working on different approaches to develop a malaria vaccine.

Tuberculosis vaccines:

On August 11, 2011, Aeras and the Oxford-Emergent Tuberculosis Consortium (OETC) announced with a ‘Press Release’ the commencement of a Phase IIb ‘proof-of-concept efficacy trial’ of a new investigational tuberculosis (TB) vaccine. OETC indicated that clinical trial for the drug will be undertaken by them in Senegal and South Africa with primary funding support from the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP).

Cancer vaccines:

Cancer vaccines are, in fact, biological response modifiers, which work by stimulating or restoring the ability of the immune system to fight the disease. There are two broad types of cancer vaccines:

  • Preventive vaccines:  To prevent cancer in healthy people
  • Therapeutic vaccines:  To treat cancer by strengthening the natural defense mechanism of the human body against the disease.

The United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) has approved the following cancer vaccines, which protect against two types of HPV that cause approximately 70% of all cases of cervical cancer globally:

  • Gardasil of Merck & Company
  • Cervarix of  GlaxoSmithKline

The US FDA has also approved a cancer preventive vaccine that protects against HBV infection, which can cause liver cancer. It has been reported that the original HBV vaccine was approved in 1981 and currently most children in the US are vaccinated against HBV after their birth.

In addition, the US regulator has also approved a cancer vaccine for treatment of certain types of metastatic prostate cancer.

HIV Vaccines:

‘The AIDS Vaccine 2011 conference’ held in Bangkok in the month of September, 2011 discussed some of the latest findings on the following two vaccines for prevention and control of HIV disease progression:

  • A large trial of RV 144 vaccine in Thailand demonstrated the proof of concept that a preventive vaccine with a risk reduction of 31% could effectively work.  The trial was supported by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS.
  • Bionor Pharma announced that clinical trial participants who received Vacc-4x “experienced a 70% viral load decrease relative to their level before starting Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART), compared with no notable reduction among placebo recipients.”

Promising ‘Therapeutic Vaccines’ undergoing clinical trial:

‘FierceVaccines’ in its October 27, 2011 reported the following 10 most promising therapeutic vaccines, which are now undergoing clinical trials on humans:

Molecule Company Indication
ICT-107 ImmunoCellular Therapeutics Glioblastoma
VGX-3100 Inovio Pharmaceuticals Cervical cancer
MAGE-A3 GlaxoSmithKline Skin, lung cancer
Neu-Vax RXi Pharmaceuticals Breast cancer
AE37 Antigen Express Breast cancer
NexVax2 ImmusanT Celiac disease
ADXS-HPV Advaxis Cervical, head and neck cancer
CRS-207 Aduro BioTech Pancreatic cancer
PEV7 Pevion Biotech Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis
GI-4000 GlobeImmune Pancreatic cancer

Future scope for cancer vaccines:

One school of scientists firmly believes that out of all cancers diagnosed each year globally, various types of microbes contribute 15% to 25% as a causative factor for this dreaded disease, as indicated below:

Infectious Agents

Type of Organism

Associated Cancers
Hepatitis B virus (HBV)

Virus

 Hepatocellular carcinoma(a type of liver cancer)
Hepatitis C virus (HCV)

Virus

 Hepatocellular carcinoma(a type of liver cancer)
Human papilloma virus (HPV) types 16 and 18, as well as other HPV types

Virus

 Cervical cancer; vaginal cancer;vulvar cancer; oropharyngeal cancer(cancers of the base of the tongue,

tonsils, or upper throat);

anal cancer; penile cancer;

squamous cell carcinoma of the skin
Epstein-Barr virus

Virus

 Cancer of the upper part ofthe throat behind the nose
Human herpes virus 8 (HHV8)

Virus

 Kaposi sarcoma
Human T-cell lymphotropic virus

Virus

 Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma
Helicobacter pylori

Bacterium

 Stomach cancer
Schistosomes

Parasite

 Bladder cancer
Liver flukes

Parasite

 Cholangio carcinoma(a type of liver cancer)

Source: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

These findings open the doors of unique opportunities to develop both preventive and therapeutic vaccines to address the life threatening near fatal ailment of mankind – cancer.

Conclusion:

Developing countries of the world are now demanding more of those vaccines, which no longer feature in the immunization schedules of the developed nations. Thus to supply these vaccines at low cost will be a challenge, especially for the global vaccine manufacturers, unless the low margins get well compensated by high institutional demand.

To effectively focus on all important disease prevention initiatives, there is also a need to build a vibrant vaccine business sector in India. To achieve these dual objectives the government should create an enabling ecosystem for the vaccine manufacturers, academics and the government funded vaccine R&D centers to concentrate more with the relevant vaccine development projects ensuring a decent return on investments, for long term public health interest.

More often than not, the above stakeholders find it difficult to deploy sufficient fund to take their vaccine projects successfully through various stages of clinical development to obtain marketing approval from the drug regulator, working out a decent return on investments. This critical issue needs to be appropriately and urgently addressed by the Government to make the disease prevention initiatives in the country sustainable, demonstrating to all concerned that disease ‘prevention is better than cure’.

By: Tapan J Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

‘Prevention is better than cure’: Such a healthcare policy focus could effectively reduce the disease burden in India

Posted on by
Reply
First National Health Policy was passed by the Parliament of India in 1983 and was last updated in 2002. How much of the policy intent has seen the light of the day is anybody’s guess.
Healthcare issues are not being effectively addressed:
Even after six decades of independence only one in three Indians has access to basic sanitation facility like toilets, exposing a large number of population to various types of ailments. World Health Organization (WHO) reports that around 9 lakh Indians die every year breathing polluted air and drinking contaminated water. Maternal mortality rate is the highest in India. Almost half of the children in our country are grossly underweight and this phenomenon is growing at a rate which is nearly double the rate of even Sub-Saharan Africa. One third of the world’s tuberculosis patients live in India. It is indeed an irony that even today India belongs to one of those four countries of the world where polio has not been successfully eradicated, as yet.

Increasing incidences of chronic ailments are exerting further pressure on the disease burden:

Along with diseases originating due to poor hygienic conditions and life style, new challenges are coming up with rapid emergence of non-infectious chronic diseases like, diabetic, cardiovascular and psychosomatic disorders.

Chronic diseases could soon become the most critical issue in the Indian healthcare system, if these are not prevented and successfully managed. It has been reported that population suffering from, for example, diabetes could generate health care costs which are almost double of those without this ailment.

All these factors together are leading to an abnormally high disease burden in the country where very unfortunately over 65% of the population are not having access to modern medicines, either due to lack of infrastructural facilities or the people just cannot afford the basic costs of healthcare.

Most of the diseases are preventable:

Many of these chronic ailments ascribe to common preventable risk factors. Poor hygienic conditions, unhealthy nutrition, lack of proper physical activity, alcohol and tobacco abuse are the major risk factors for these diseases. An integrated approach towards disease prevention, though challenging for the nation, is the need of the hour. It is a pity that our healthcare systems do not support this process. India as a whole carries an abysmally poor track record for a well thought out and structured healthcare promotion and disease prevention policies and strategies.

Indian healthcare system is highly skewed towards disease treatment rather than disease prevention:

Current healthcare systems of India, which offer access to modern medicines just to 35% of the population, are aimed mostly towards responding to urgent needs of patients.

Relieving symptoms of the disease with an expectation of curing the ailment are the basic pattern of healthcare in our country, wherever it is available and in whatever scales and proportion. Preventive health care is quite different from the above approach.

Australia has shown a way:

Australian National Health and Hospitals Reforms Commission report titled, “A healthier future for all Australians”, published in July 2009 recommends the establishment of an independent National Health Promotion and Prevention Agency, with a significant budget for creating a robust evidence base to find out what exactly works in prevention of a disease. Like for example , the report highlights “comparison of the relative efficacy of a medical intervention (gastric bypass), a pharmaceutical intervention (an anti-obesity drug), an allied health intervention (an exercise and diet program) and a population health intervention ( a community walking program) in reducing obesity.”

The report clearly articulates that just collecting evidence on prevention will not be enough; disease prevention should be put on the same footing as the treatment of the disease.

Are we listening?

The way forward in India:

As many diseases are preventable, every interaction with a healthcare professional should include advice and follow-up on the preventive measures. When with an integrated and systematic approach, patients will be provided with information and practices to reduce health risks, it is quite likely that they will then try to maintain a healthy and hygienic life style with regular exercise, drinking safe water, eating healthy food which they can afford, practicing safe sex, avoiding tobacco and alcohol abuse.

Such integrated and systematic preventive healthcare measures can significantly help reducing the disease burden of individuals and families, besides improving vastly the quality of life. To promote prevention in healthcare, the very basic requirement is the change in mindset of both the policy makers and the civil society. A collaborative or partnership approach involving all concerned to create mass awareness is absolutely essential to ensure commitment of the common man towards such an important healthcare initiative.

Important areas for action:

• Effective use of persuasive communication tools to establish that preventive health care can help avoiding expensive disease burden and improve quality of life

• Mass awareness and demonstration program to help creating a positive attitude and required skill sets in disease prevention activities within the community

• Motivate healthcare professionals to make prevention an integral part of every interaction with the patients

• Medical insurance and healthcare policies to offer adequate incentives for preventive healthcare through innovative means

What the government of India is doing towards preventive healthcare:

The Planning Commission of India reports as follows:

• Health education for primary and secondary prevention of Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs) through mobilization of community action

• Development of treatment protocols for education and training of physicians in the prevention and management of NCDs

• Research support for: Multi-sectoral population-based interventions to reduce risk factors

• Explanation of the role of nutrition and lifestyle-related factors

• The development of cost effective interventions at each level of care.

All these are very appreciable statements of intent. However, how much of these intents are getting translated into reality will be very difficult fathom by the common mortals.

Conclusions:

Most of the serious types of ailments of a vast majority of the population of India can be prevented and the disease related complications can be effectively avoided, if we all have a will to do that. Can we take a leaf out of the formation of “National Health Promotion and Prevention Agency” in Australia?

Healthcare costs of the nation and utilization of its scarce resource can be successfully optimized by properly focusing on disease prevention related activities. In my view, effective measures towards preventive healthcare can quite efficiently address many pressing healthcare issues of the nation.

By Tapan Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.