Tag Archives: cancer

Setting A Cost Of Time That Patients May Gain From A New Therapy

Posted on by
Reply

Since quite some, an intense ongoing debate about setting a cost of time, often by a few months, that patients could possibly gain from a new therapy for complex diseases. The answer still remains elusive.  Meanwhile, newer therapies for treating cancer, such as, Kymriah, priced at US$ 475,000, alongside several rare diseases, hit the market with jaw-dropping prices. The latest being - Zolgensma of Novartis, carrying a price tag of US$ 2.12 million – the most expensive treatment ever. This trend assumes greater significance as Bio – claimed as the world’s largest trade association representing biotechnology companies, and related organizations, across the United States and in more than 30 other nations, also makes some interesting points in this area.

This article will dwell on the relevance of this important issue, both in today’s and also in the future perspective. It will try to explore, why pharma and biotech companies are not keen to use a ‘transparent multi-factorial life-value calculator’, especially for prolonging life or curing an incurable disease, with a high-priced novel therapy.

Emotional ads to justify the trend, against tough practical questions: 

A part of a sleek looking advertisement from Bio, depicting the power of new therapies to prolong life, carries a headline – ‘Time. The Currency of Life,” followed by three emotive lines and two equally emotive questions: “Another decade with a spouse. A few more years with your best friend. A rich, fuller life rather than one cut short. How do we place value on these?” It then asks: “What is more precious? What is more priceless?”

Turning this emotive question on its head to a rational one, an article published in the Stat News on February 25, 2016 questioned: “How much is an extra month of life worth?” It asked the drug makers to calculate the same. The same article also quoted a Yale University economist and practicing radiologist asking: “It’s all well and good to just say life is priceless, but the reality is we are paying for it.”

Emotive ads try to justify funding towards innovation for such drugs:

The same advertisement, as above, while trying to indirectly justify such exorbitant drug costs, used yet another emotive note in its playbook. It emphasized: “By continuing to fund the innovation pipeline that has served us so well, we will be able to reduce the costs associated with modern-day health care.”

Such claims are being scientifically challenged – head on, by many important studies. To illustrate this point, I shall quote the following two, both were published in the JAMA Network. The first one in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery and the next one in JAMA Oncology.

The first article is the ‘John Conley Lecture’, carrying a title, ‘Unintended Consequences of Expensive Cancer Therapeutics—The Pursuit of Marginal Indications and a Me-Too Mentality That Stifles Innovation and Creativity,’ appeared on December 2014. On innovative drugs of such genre, the paper concluded: “The use of expensive therapies with marginal benefits for their approved indications and for unproven indications is contributing to the rising cost of cancer care. We believe that expensive therapies are stifling progress, by:

  • Encouraging enormous expenditures of time, money, and resources on marginal therapeutic indications and
  • Promoting a me-too mentality that is stifling innovation and creativity.

The second article is an ‘original investigation, titled ‘Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated with New Cancer Medicines.’ It also underscored: ‘Although innovation in the oncology drug market has contributed to improvements in therapy, the magnitude and dimension of clinical benefits vary widely, and there may be reasons to doubt that claims of efficacy reflect real-world effectiveness exactly.’

Here again, the emotional appeal is being made by creating a ‘perfect World’ scenario. Whereas, scientific analysis of the innovative and high-priced drugs, reveals the reality for other stakeholders to take note of. Different pharma trade associations, although being a part of the same orchestrated effort, try differently to take the eyes off the humongous prices of new life-saving drugs. But many continue to believe that new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control.

90 percent Biopharma companies do not earn a profit – A bizarre claim?

As is well-known, besides justifying high drug prices by highlighting ‘high R&D cost,’ drug manufacturers often say, as the Bio ad campaign makes an eyebrow raising claim – “Of the approximately 1,200 Biopharma companies in the United States, more than 90 percent do not earn a profit.”

Citing the example of the US market where drug prices are very high, it justifies, the general focus on list prices of the drugs is misplaced. This is because, the ‘manufacturers provide billions of dollars in rebates and discounts on their innovative therapies annually, to federal, state and private payors, in addition to offering direct assistance through patient assistance programs.’ It further added, these discounts vary but can result into a significant total of as much as 50 percent or greater depending on the program.

Experts have challenged even this claim that the list prices do matter, even in the US, for many, including uninsured population and those with co-payment arrangement, which are not based on the discounted prices. Leaving aside America, what happens in those countries, such as India, where out-of-pocket expenses on health care are considered the highest in the world?

With new cancer drug prices going beyond control, the price of postponing death is growing:

That the new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control, isn’t a new realization. A research paper, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on May 06, 2013, also noted emphatically: ‘Allowing the producer-dominated market to set drug prices has spiraled the cost of cancer drugs out of control.’  So did another 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective.

According to various studies, such as the one published in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, as quoted above, also found after studying over 70 of such new drugs that the median improvement in survival was around 2.1months. Some other reports indicated this number to be around 3.5 months on an average.

Interestingly, the 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective found that ‘the price of postponing death is growing. In 2013, one extra year of life for cancer patients costs US$ 207,000, on average, nearly quadruple what it did in 1995.

Is it quality of life over the quantity of life, or vice versa?

The above findings may lead one to the critical question – what type of treatment choice would create the most desirable net impact on individual cancer patients? This evaluation should include all the three parameters – the extent of prolongation of the ‘Length of Life (LoL)’, the ‘Quality of Life (QoL)’ the patients experience during this period – and the additional drug cost that needs to be incurred.

It should ideally be up to patients whether they will choose quality over quantity of life or vice versa. To facilitate this process, an informed briefing by the doctor on the most likely scenario, vis-à-vis other available treatment alternatives, is expected to help individual cancer patient exercise the best affordable individual option.

This point was scientifically addressed in a research article - ‘Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review,’ published in the Journal of Psycho-Oncology on May 15, 2019. The study noted, ‘Patients with cancer face difficult decisions regarding treatment and also the possibility of trading the Quality of Life (QoL) for Length of Life (LoL).’ Little information is available on patients’ preferences in this regard, including ‘the personal costs they are prepared to exchange to extend their life.’

Another related question that also remains equally elusive, is the relationship between the cost of a medication and the amount of quality-time that it offers to patients. Quantifiable assessment of such nature could bring more transparency in drug pricing, especially for those that help treat life-threatening ailments, such as cancer.

Similar questions are raised on pricey therapy for rare diseases:

The cost of drugs for rare diseases is threatening the health care system – articulated an article, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on April 07, 2017. The paper stated, in December 2016, US-FDA announced the market approval of nusinersen (sold as “Spinraza”), an effective Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) treatment licensed to Biogen by Ionis Pharmaceuticals. SMA is considered the most common genetic cause of infant mortality.

As the author penned, “Patients and providers greeted the approval with near ecstasy, but the celebration was bittersweet. Five days after the FDA approved, the drug, Biogen announced each dose would cost US$ 125,000. Given that patients need six doses in the first year and three per year after that, it means the drug costs US$ 750,000 per patient in the first year and US$ 375,000 annually thereafter.”

A desperate father’s reaction for the price – and the economics behind it:

The HBR article captured the reaction of the father of an infant on this price, who is desperate to save the baby – in the following words – “Then there’s Will’s heartbreaking reaction, which I’m sure echoes the sentiments of many touched by SMA. – “The Biogen announcement of the cost of nusinersen floored me in every way possible,” he says. “Words cannot describe the sickening feeling I get when I think about it.” If this could be a father’s reaction in America, one can well imagine what happens in a similar situation to people in the developing world.

At that time, Zolgensma of Novartis, wearing a price tag of US$ 2.12 million for treatment of the same disease, was also shaping up for market launch. On this drug, the author of this HBR article who also happened to be a professor, vice chair of research, and chief of the Division of Neuromuscular Medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine, wrote: “A very promising gene therapy for SMA is on the horizon, which would require only one dose and potentially render nusinersen obsolete. Did such mercenary economics influence Biogen’s pricing decision? We may never know; drug companies are not required to justify their prices.” On the contrary, as many believe, the concerned global CEOs, reportedly, get a hefty financial reward, for the same.

Conclusion:

It is not difficult to understand either, that some drugs, especially for rare diseases, will be used for treating a smaller number of patients. Hence, the optimal economies of scale in manufacturing can’t be attained. At the same time, the cost of R&D of the therapy needs to be recouped along with a reasonable profit, for investment towards future drugs. This is in addition to market exclusivity the drug will enjoy through patent thicket.

Nevertheless, despite the existence of several methods of a human life value calculation, such as in the insurance industry the use of a transparent and drug industry specific, multi-factorial live-value calculator is still not in vogue. As the drug industry often highlights, the ‘value of human life is priceless’ – regardless of the costs of drugs. In this situation, many industry experts, academics and patient groups advocate that the ongoing uncontrolled pricing mechanism for such medicines should be brought under a leash. This could come in the form of a tough price negotiation’ before the drug marketing approval, as was promised by the Government, or putting in place a stringent price regulatory system.

Be that as it may, the bottom line is to understand and find an answer to: ‘Why Does Medicine Cost So Much?’ This issue was analyzed by the Time Magazine in its April 09, 2019 edition. Quoting Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, it emphasized: It all starts with the manufacturers. There are essentially no regulations governing how new drugs are priced – drug companies select a price what they “believe the market will bear.” Blockbuster first-in-class treatments, therefore, command a stratospheric price, like what happened with Gilead’s hepatitis medication – Sovaldi, way back in 2013. It was priced at US$ 1,000 a pill, or US $84,000 for the full course of treatment. From this perspective, although, setting a cost of time that patients may gain from a new therapy has a moral and ethical relevance – but actually, it doesn’t seem to be business-friendly in the drug industry.

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.

Dynamics of Cancer Therapy Segment Remain Enigmatic

Posted on by
Reply

Currently, cancer is likely to occupy the center stage on any discussion related to the fastest growing therapy segments in the pharma or biotech industries. There are several reasons behind such probability, some of which include:

  • Cancer is not only the second leading cause of death globally, but also offer outstanding new drug treatment options, though, mostly to those who can afford.
  • Consequently, these drugs are in high demand for saving lives, but not accessible to a vast majority of those who need them the most.
  • Alongside, oncology is one of the fastest growing therapy segments in sales in many countries, including the largest and most attractive global pharma market - the United States.
  • New cancer drugs being complex, involves highly sophisticated cutting-edge technology – creating an entry barrier for many, and are generally high priced, fetching a lucrative profit margin.

These are only a few basic dynamics of the segment. Nevertheless, understanding these dynamics, in a holistic way, is indeed an enigma – caused mostly by directly conflicting arguments on many related issues, within the key stakeholders. Thus, I reckon, this issue will be an interesting area to explore in this article. Later in this discussion, I shall try to substantiate all the points raised, backed by credible data. Let me start with some causative factors, that may make comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of this segment enigmatic.

Some causative factors for triggering the enigma:

Close overlap of several contentious factors is associated with this head-scratcher. These come in a package of reasoning and counter reasoning, a few examples of which may be seen below:

  • When increasing incidence of cancer related deaths are a global problem, fast growing oncology segment, regularly adding novel drugs in its portfolio, ideally should be a signal for containing this problem. Whereas, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) reports, cancer drugs are beyond reach to millions, for high cost. Nonetheless, the cancer drug sales keep shooting north.
  • Nearer home, while Indian anti-cancer drug market growth has, reportedly, ‘outstripped that of all other leading countries in recent years and is set to go on doing so,’ another study report underscores, ‘Indians have poor access to essential anti-cancer drugs.’
  • Although, a 2019 report of W.H.O highlights: Expensive cancer drugs ‘impairing’ access to cure, innovator companies also have their counter argument ready. They claim, higher prices ‘are necessary to fund expensive research projects to generate new drugs.’
  • When innovator companies keep touting that many new therapies are path-breaking concepts, researchers don’t find these drugs much superior to the existing ones in outcomes, except jaw-dropping prices.
  • Despite the above argument of research-based drug players to justify unreasonable pricing, several studies have established that the development cost of new cancer drugs is more than recouped in a short period, and some companies are making even more than a 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending.
  • While several pharma companies claim that they are providing patients with access to a wide variety of cancer medication through Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs), the findings of several published research on the same concluded, ‘the extent to which these programs provide a safety net to patients is poorly understood.’

Let me now briefly substantiate each of the above points raised in this article.

Incidence of cancer and the oncology market:

Now, while substantiating the above points, let me go back to where I started from. According to the W.H.O fact sheet of September 12, 2018, cancer is the second leading cause of death globally and is responsible for an estimated 9.6 million deaths in 2018 – about 1 in 6 deaths was due to cancer. Approximately 70 percent of deaths from cancer occur in low- and middle-income countries. The Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) estimated around 1.4 million new cancer cases in 2016, which is expected to rise to 1.7 million cases by 2020.

According to ‘World Preview 2019, Outlook to 2024’ of Evaluate Pharma, ‘Oncology prevails as the leading therapy segment in 2024, with a 19.4 percent market share and sales reaching USD 237bn.’ The report also highlights: ‘Oncology is the area with the largest proportion of clinical development spending with 40 percent of total pipeline expenditure.’

Similarly, the Indian Oncology market is found to be growing at 20 percent every year and is likely to remain so for the coming 3-5years. In 2012 the cancer market was valued at USD 172m (quoted from Frost & Sullivan). Another report also reiterates, the oncology market in India has outstripped that of all other leading countries in recent years and is set to go on doing so.

Poor access to cancer drugs:

Despite the impressive growth of oncology segment, ‘high prices for cancer medicines are “impairing the capacity of health care systems to provide affordable, population wide access,” emphasizes a recent ‘Technical Report’ of W.H.O. I shall further elaborate on this report in just a bit. However, before that, let me cite an India specific example of the same. The March 2019 study, published in the BMJ Global Health, also highlighted, the mean availability of essential anti-cancer medicines across all hospitals and pharmacies surveyed in India was less than the WHO’s target of 80 percent.

Cancer drug pricing conundrum:

The recent ‘Technical Report of W.H.O – ‘Pricing of cancer medicines and its impacts’ confronts this issue head on. It clearly articulates, the enduring debates on the unaffordability of cancer medicines and the ever-growing list of medicines and combination therapies with annual costs in the hundreds of thousands, suggests that the status quo is not acceptable. The global community must find a way to correct the irrational behaviors that have led to unsustainable prices of cancer medicines. Thus, correction of unaffordable prices is fundamental to the sustainability of access to cancer medicines. Further inertia on this issue and half-hearted commitments from all stakeholders, including governments and the pharmaceutical industry, will only invite distrust and disengagement from the public, the report emphasized.

Another 2019 WHO report says expensive cancer drugs ‘impairing’ access to cure. It pinpointed: “Pharmaceutical companies set prices according to their commercial goals, with a focus on extracting the maximum amount that a buyer is willing to pay for a medicine.” It also reiterated that the standard treatment for breast cancer can drain 10 years of average annual income in India. Unaffordable pricing of cancer medicines set by such intent often prevents their full benefits being realized by scores of cancer patients, the report adds. Yet another paper expressed similar concern about ‘the unsustainability of the high costs of cancer care, and how that affects not only individual patients, but also society at large.

What does the industry say?

The industry holds a different view altogether. According to another recent news, one such company quoted their 2017 Janssen U.S. Transparency Report,” which states: “We have an obligation to ensure that the sale of our medicines provides us with the resources necessary to invest in future research and development.” This is interesting, as it means that even higher pricing may be necessary to fund expensive research projects to generate new drugs for life threatening ailments, such as cancer.

What do research studies reveal?

There are several research studies often disputing the industry quoted claim of R&D spend of over a couple of billion dollar to bring a new molecule to the market. They also keep repeating, this is an arduous and time-intensive process, involving humongous financial risk of failure. One such ‘Original investigation’ titled, ‘Research and Development Spending to Bring a Single Cancer Drug to Market and Revenues After Approval,’ published by JAMA Internal Medicine in its November 2017 issue, presents some interesting facts.

The study brings to the fore: ‘The cost to develop a cancer drug is USD 648.0 million, a figure significantly lower than prior estimates. The revenue since approval is substantial (median, USD 1658.4 million; range, USD 204.1 million to USD 22 275.0 million). This analysis provides a transparent estimate of R&D spending on cancer drugs and has implications for the current debate on drug pricing.’ Thus, the cost of new cancer drug development is more than recovered in a short period, with as much as over 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending, in many cases, as the analysis concluded.

Even top oncologists, such as Dr. Peter Bach, the Director of Memorial Sloan Kettering’s (MSK)Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, along with other physicians at MSK drew attention to the high price of a newly approved cancer drug. According to available reports, ‘two recently approved CAR-T cell drugs – one is USD 373,000 for a single dose, the other USD 475,000 - are benchmarks on the road to ever-higher cancer drug price tags.’

It happens in India too:

Although, on May 19, 2019, NPPA announced almost 90 percent price reduction of nine anti-cancer drugs, curiously even those cancer drugs, which are not patent protected, continued to be sold at a high price. For example, according to the September 2018 Working Paper Series, of the Indian Institute of management Calcutta (IIM C), the maximum price for Pemetrexed, a ‘not patented’ cancer product was Rs 73,660, though, it is also available at Rs 4,500. Similarly, the price of Bortezomib was between Rs 60,360 and Rs 12,500 and Paclitaxel between Rs 19, 825.57 and Rs 7,380.95. It is intriguing to note that no pricing policy for patented drugs, as promised in the current Drug Policy document, hasn’t been implemented, as yet. 

Does Pharma’s ‘Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs) work? 

Different pharma companies claim their addressing access to cancer care in developing countries. A report also mentions: ‘16 of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies are engaged in 129 diverse access initiatives in low- and middle-income countries.’ Whereas, a research study, questioning the transparency of these initiatives, concluded, ‘our results suggest that numerous drug company sponsored PAPs exist to provide patients with access to a wide variety of medications but that many details about these programs remain unclear. As a result, the extent to which these programs provide a safety net to patients is poorly understood.’

During the famous Glivec patent case, which went against Novartis at the Supreme Court of India, the company’s PAP for Glivec in the country, also came under focus. Many articles, with mutually conflicting views of the company and independent experts were published regarding this program. One such write-up emphasized with eulogy, “Novartis provides Glivec free of charge to 16,000 patients in India, roughly 95 percent of those who need it via the Novartis – Glivec International Patient Assistance Program. The remaining 5 percent is either reimbursed, insured, or participate in a very generous co-payment program. Thus, not granting a patent for Glivec really hasn’t prevented patients from getting this life-saving medication.”

However, many were, reportedly, not convinced by Novartis’ claims and counter-argued: “Our calculation says there are estimated 20,000 new patients every year suffering from cancer, this means after ten years there will be two lakh (200,000) patients, hence the program is not enough.” The views of many independent global experts on the same are not very different. For example, even Professor Carlos M. Correa had articulated: “The reported donation of Glivec by Novartis to ‘eligible patients’ under the ‘Glivec International Patient Assistance Program’ (GIPAP) may be a palliative but does not ensure a sustainable supply of the product to those in need.” Be that as it may, new studies now question whether novel anti-cancer drugs are worth their extra cost.

Are novel cancer drugs worth the extra cost?

According to a September 26, 2019 report, the results of two studies investigating the links between clinical benefit and pricing in Europe and the USA, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress, September 2019, reveal an interesting finding. It found, many new anti-cancer medicines add little value for patients compared to standard treatment and are rarely worth the extra cost. Interestingly, in the midst of this imbroglio, the world continues taking a vow globally to mitigate the cancer patient related issues on February the fourth, every year.

A vow is taken globally on every 4th February, but…:

On every February 04 – The World Cancer Day - an initiative of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC), the world takes a noble vow. Everybody agrees on its broad goal that: ‘Life-saving cancer diagnosis and treatment should be equal for all – no matter who you are, your level of education, level of income or where you live in the world. By closing the equity gap, we can save millions of lives.’

UICC also noted, as many cancers are now preventable or can be cured, more and more people are surviving the disease. However, for the vast majority people, the chances of surviving cancer are not getting better. Socioeconomic status of individuals leaves a significant impact on whether one’s cancer is diagnosed, treated and cared for, in an appropriate and cost-effective manner. A customer-focused understanding of the dynamics of the cancer therapy segment, although may help effective ground action, but the status quo continues for various critical reasons. Even on the World Cancer Day 2019, the oncology pricing debate continued.

Conclusion:

The business dynamics for the cancer therapy segment, continues to remain enigmatic regardless of public emotion and sentiments attached to these drugs. Patients access and affordability to the most effective drug at the right time can save or take lives. Surprisingly, despite healthy growth of anti-cancer drugs, especially the newer and pricey ones, the number of deaths due to cancer is also fast increasing, and is the second largest cause of death today.

The pricing conundrum of cancer drugs remains the subject of a raging debate, globally. Nevertheless, the drug industry keeps justifying the mind-boggling prices, with the same sets of contentious reasons, even when various investigative research studies negate those claims. Moreover, when general public expects the drug industry to innovate both in the new drug discovery and also on making the drug prices affordable to a large section of the population, the industry doesn’t exhibit any interest to talk about the latter. Instead, they talk about PAP initiatives for improving access to such drugs. Notwithstanding independent research studies concluding that PAPs lack transparency, and is not an alternative for all those who want to fight the disease, in the most effective way.

The arguments and counterarguments continue. More effective cancer drugs keep coming with lesser number of cancer patients having access to those medicines, as patents prevail over the patients. The reverberation of the power of Big Pharma to stay in the chosen course – come what may, can also be felt from the reported statement of politically the most powerful person in the world – the President of the United States. In view of this, both the business and market dynamics of the cancer therapy segment is likely to remain enigmatic – at least, in the foreseeable future?

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.

 

A New Facet of ‘Data Integrity’ With Novel Therapy… And Much Beyond

Posted on by
Reply

The peril of breach of data integrity involving a top Indian pharma player, jolted many, probably for the first time, on September 17, 2008. On that day, the USFDA, reportedly, issued two ‘Warning Letters’ and an ‘Import Alert’. These were related to deficiencies in the drug manufacturing process and deviations from U.S. current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) at Ranbaxy’s Dewas and Paonta Sahib plants in India.

Since then, instead of demonstrable corrective measures, similar incidents had started ballooning – inviting more serious US-FDA actions, such as Import ban, consent decree, loss of market value, Loss of customer trust, among many others. The research article – ‘Overview of Data Integrity issues in the Pharmaceutical industry,’ published by the International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Review and Research, in its May-June 2018 issue, also reflects the same trend.

Much reported instances of breach of ‘Data Integrity’ were specific to generic drugs and mostly manufactured by Indian companies, besides China. While this may be true at that time, it is now spreading much beyond generic drug manufacturing in India and China – making its way into the global clinical trial arena. I also wrote earlier that ‘Data Manipulation: Leapfrogging Dangerously Into Clinical Trial Domain.’ With greater focus, this article will discuss not just how ‘Data Integrity’ issue is cropping up into clinical trials of even modern, complex, highly innovative and exorbitantly priced lifesaving treatments. Going beyond that, I shall also point towards increasing attempts to exaggerate the success of many cancer drug trials due to strong bias. Nevertheless, let me start by rehashing the relevance of ‘Data Integrity’ on patients’ health interest.

Data Integrity ensures safe, effective and high-quality drugs for patients:

According to US-FDA: ‘Data integrity is an important component of industry’s responsibility to ensure the safety, efficacy, and quality of drugs, and of FDA’s ability to protect the public health.’ Thus, data integrity-related cGMP violations may lead to regulatory actions, including warning letters, import alerts, and consent decrees, as the drug agency notified. In other words, maintain all types of ‘Data Integrity’ is a key requirement in the pharma industry to demonstrate that the final products conform to the required quality parameters.

These requirements are known to all generic drug exporters catering to the regulated markets, including the local manufacturers in the United States. Curiously, it continues to happen despite their full knowledge of the grave consequences of violations. The June 12, 2019 paper – ‘An Analysis Of 2018 FDA Warning Letters Citing Data Integrity Failures,’ published in Pharmaceutical Online, brings out some interesting facts, related to drug manufacturing area.

From the analysis of 194 ‘Data Integrity’ associated ‘Warning Letters (WL).’ from 2008 to 2018, the top 5 countries in this regard came out as follows:

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

Country

China

India

United States

Europe

Japan

No. of WL

58

54

36

14

7
% to Total

29.8

27.8

18.6

7.2

3.6

Interestingly, over 76 percent of US-FDA Warning Letters (WL) are on manufacturing ‘Data Integrity’ and were issued to pharma companies located in China, India and the United States. Moreover, when it comes to all types WL related to various types of regulatory malpractices, India again featured as one of the top violators. Be that as it may, I shall now focus on the spread of this decay in other important drug safety related areas, such as clinical trials.

Ironically, breach of ‘Data Integrity’ in another crucial area, like clinical trials for new drugs, doesn’t seem to attract public attention as much, which I shall reason out below – also explaining why it’s so.

Breach of ‘Data Integrity’ in clinical trial – more crippling for the company: 

‘Data Integrity’ concern pertaining to clinical trials was recently expressed in an article, published by the Food and Drug Law Institute, in the April-May 2019 issue of its Update Magazine. The paper reiterated: ‘Good Clinical Practice (GCP) data integrity issues can at times be more crippling to a company than Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) data integrity issues.’ Elaborating the point further, the authors highlighted, where such issues are severe, the drug regulatory agency may completely reject the data submitted in new drug applications, supplemental drug applications, and abbreviated new drug applications.

This outcome is quite akin to import bans for generic drugs into the United States, as it would cause a huge setback for the company, affecting clinical development programs for the new drug. Moreover, as the article says, such action would be ‘costing the sponsor substantial time, money, and reputational credibility, not to mention delaying patient access to new drugs.’

‘Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data’:

This is claimed by the research paper that was discussed in ‘The Guardian’ on June 05, 2017 carrying the headline - ‘Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data, claims study.’

In this study, John Carlisle, a consultant anesthetist at Torbay Hospital, reviewed data from 5,087 clinical trials published during the past 15 years in two prestigious medical journals, JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine, and six anesthesia journals. In total, 90 published trials had underlying statistical patterns that were unlikely to appear by chance in a credible dataset, the review concluded.

As one of the top medical experts quoted in this paper, said: “It’s very scary that we may be treating patients based on false evidence.” He further added: “It may be the case that certain treatments may need to be withdrawn from use.”

Another October 01, 2013 report, citing a specific example of the same, wrote: ‘Japan’s ministry of health has concluded that studies based on clinical trials for Novartis’s blood pressure drug Diovan contain manipulated data.’ It also added: ‘Diovan was approved for use in Japan in 2000, but recently two universities who hosted and analyzed trials for Novartis – the Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine and Jikei University School of Medicine – reported finding evidence of data fabrication.’

Thus, from available reports, it appears, just as the saga of ‘Data Integrity’ related drug manufacturing keeps continuing, the same related to clinical trials doesn’t seem to fall much behind. But, the valid question that may follow – why then reported instances of breach of clinical trial data integrity isn’t as many?

Breach of ‘Data Integrity’ found by USFDA is rarely reported: 

The answer to the above question may be found in The BMJ study, published on February 10, 2015. It brought to the fore – ‘Research misconduct found by FDA inspections of clinical trials is rarely reported in journal studies.’ This review was based on identified 57 published clinical trials for which an FDA inspection of one of the trial sites had found significant evidence of research misconduct, including falsification or the submission of false information, problems with adverse event reporting.

The researcher also noted that serious misconducts related to clinical trials, are rarely mentioned in subsequently published journal articles in the same area. More disturbing to note, this critical gap in the transparency of clinical trial reporting is now sneaking into even highly specialized treatment, such as ‘Gene Therapy’, and that too involving a Big Pharma name.

US-FDA has now raised this question even for a ‘Gene Therapy’:

A media report of September 09, 2019 highlights, that Novartis is facing an uproar over data manipulation involving USD 2.1 million gene therapy Zolgensma, which treats spinal muscular atrophy, a leading genetic cause of death in infants. According to this report, Novartis gave “detailed explanations” on Aug. 23 to the FDA about the company’s investigation into the data manipulation and addressed regulators’ questions over why the company waited until late June to make disclosures. However, quoting the FDA, the report indicates, ‘Novartis could face possible civil or criminal penalties.’

Prior to this, another report of August 13, 2019, stated that ‘documents referenced in a Form 483 by the FDA, which inspected the lab a month after it learned of the falsified records, also suggest the data-fudging began at least in early 2018 and could have been uncovered by managers at AveXis during several steps in the clinical outcome assessment.’ The gene unit of Novartis is called AveXis, which had announced the US-FDA approval of Zolgensma on May 24, 2019.

Such instances involving clinical trials with new, complex and highly innovative therapies, further reinforces already existing ‘Data Integrity’ related health safety concern. The cost of these new treatments being so high, it’s perplexing to fathom the necessity of cutting corners in clinical trials, if at all. More so, when these are avoidable to establish efficacy, safety and high-quality standard of the therapy to drug regulators for marketing approval.

Beyond ‘Data Integrity’ – in clinical trials:

Just as ‘Data Integrity’ issue in generic drug manufacturing has intruded in the clinical trial arena for novel treatments, yet another concern, also related to data, goes much beyond what is happening today in this area. This fast-emerging practice is related to ‘cherry-picking data’ for biased clinical trial reporting, adversely impacting public health safety, as brought by several research studies.

Very recently, this was vindicated by another paper published in The BMJ on September 18, 2019. It raised a serious concern of bias in clinical trial data submitted to regulatory agencies for marketing approval of even lifesaving drugs. The findings of the above paper concluded:

Between 2014 and 2016, almost half of the most pivotal studied forming the basis of European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval were judged to be at high risk of bias, based on their design, conduct or analysis. Accepting that some of these might be unavoidable because of complexity of cancer trials, it noted that regulatory documents and the scientific literature had gaps in their reporting. Journal publications also did not acknowledge the key limitations of the available evidence identified in regulatory documents. This concern too keeps growing.

Conclusion:

As discussed above, six broad and important points to note for any ‘breach of integrity’ or ‘cherry-picking’ of data in the pharma industry:

  • Takes place mostly in two known areas – manufacturing and clinical trials.
  • Involves both cheaper generic drug manufacturing, as well as, clinical trials of most innovative and highly expensive treatments – conducted even by Big Pharma constituents.
  • ‘Cherry-picking data’ for biased clinical trial reporting while obtaining marketing approval, involves even cancer drugs.
  • Any such avoidable malpractices with ‘data’, could seriously impact patients’ health interest, raising a public concern.
  • Instances of such malpractices usually become public, only when the perpetrators are caught by vigilant drug regulatory agencies, such as the US-FDA, or when external experts can trace their footprints through sophisticated analytical tools.
  • Multiple instances of wrongdoing of this nature, often by the same company, despite requisite regulations being in place, and also after facing penal actions, make it mostly a self-discipline issue of repeat offenders.

It’s a different discussion all together, whether or not ‘data’ is a new oil – air or water. But maintaining the sanctity of data, while generating, interpreting, presenting or even leveraging these, including for commercial considerations, must not be compromised, at any cost.

Today, breach of ‘Data Integrity’ and ‘Cherry-Picking of Data’ for biased reporting, are creeping into new drug clinical trial domain – from its usual habitat of generic drug manufacturing, posing a greater threat to patient safety. At the same time, none can say, either, that it’s happening with all drugs, at all the time and by all drug manufacturers. But, if and when it happens, it could lead to a catastrophic consequence both for patients and their family.

Be that as it may, country’s top drug regulators should strive harder for an ongoing and meaningful engagement with the pharma industry on this avoidable development. It could well be a carrot and stick approach, where repeat violations by any company would pose a risk of legal survival of the business.

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.

Would ‘Connected Healthcare’ Catch Pharma Players Off-Guard?

Posted on by
Reply

Rapid advancement of medical science is making several life-threatening diseases easily preventable, curable and manageable. For some conditions, such as, peptic ulcer even surgical interventions are no longer necessary. This results in the expansion of preventive and primary-care segments, with equal speed. Simultaneously, increasing complexity of many diseases, late stage disease detection, and better identification of rare diseases, are broadening the specialty hospital segment, as well.

On the other hand, the general mindset of people is also changing as fast. They dare to chart in the cyberspace, seek for more health-information, prefer participative care, expect a speedy treatment process – delivering better outcomes.

The cumulative impact of these are creating some brilliant sparks, confirming evolution of some disruptive health care business models. These are quite different from what we generally experience today.One such model is termed ‘connected healthcare.’ This is a unique business model, having potential to break the decades old status-quo – for the benefit of patients – closely involving doctors, pharma – medical device/diagnostic companies and of course the hospitals. In this article, I shall deliberate on ‘connected healthcare’ looking at its various aspects and examining whether pharma industry is ready for this change. Let me start this discussion with the role of Internet of Things (IoT), as an enabler for this process.

Internet of Things (IoT) – A great enabler for ‘connected health’:

‘Internet of Things (IoT)’ has opened new vistas of opportunities for providing healthcare with significantly better outcomes. According to Ecoconsultancy, by leveraging the IoT network, medical devices of everyday use can be made to collect, store and share invaluable medical data, providing a ‘connected healthcare’ system. Consequently, doctors, along with patients, can get speedy and deeper insights into symptoms and trends of diseases for prompt interventions, even from remote locations. The question that follows: what really is ‘connected health?’

‘Connected Health (cHealth)’ and a teething problem:

‘Connected health or (cHealth)’ refers to the process of empowering healthcare delivery through a system of connected and interrelated computing devices, mechanical and digital machines on an IoT network platform. It provides the ability for seamless data transfer and access between patients and providers, without requiring human-to-human interactions to improve both quality and outcomes of healthcare.

Two more articles, one titled ‘Connected health: How digital technology is transforming health and social care,’ and the other ‘Accelerating the adoption of connected health’, both published by Deloitte Center for Health Solutions also described ‘Connected health (cHealth)’quite eloquently.

One of the papers highlighted, being a technology driven network system, cHealth has its own teething problems. Some of its key reasons include: Many physicians ‘are often reluctant to engage with technology, partly due to the scale and pace of changes, and partly through lack of education and training, and concerns over liability and funding.’

Precise value offerings of a ‘Connected Health’ system:

The Accenture study titled, ‘Making the Case for Connected Health,’ established that ‘connected health’ approach creates value at three different levels, as follows:

  • Clinical efficacy and safety - Eliminating duplicate lab and radiology tests; improving patient safety through 24/7 access to comprehensive, legible medical records; and speeding up access to patient medical histories and vital information – the cost of treatment can be reduced, significantly.
  • Shared knowledge - Improves care quality, benefits with prompt safety alerts, such as drug interaction, enhances clinical decision-making through sophisticated tools along with evidence-based care protocols, and helps acquiring new capabilities in health care.
  • Care transformation - Advanced analytics help sharing clinical decision-making process, population health management, and facilitate building new care delivery models.

‘Connected health’ in managing chronic diseases:

‘Connected health’ is being practiced at different levels in many countries. These are particularly useful in treating or managing chronic ailments, such as cardiovascular (hypertension), metabolic (diabetes) disorders and COPD (Asthma).  Some examples are as follows:

Many hypertensive patients monitor their blood pressure and other related parameters, through self-operating digital instruments and devices. If the auto-flagged readings get transferred to the treating physicians through IoT system, physicians can promptly adjust the drug doses and offer other required advices over the same system online, and as and when required or periodically. This could avoid periodic personal visits to doctors for the similar purpose, saving time and money. At the same time, it ensures better quality of life through the desired level of disease management, always.

Similar results have been reported in the management of diabetes and Asthma with ‘connected health’ system.

 ‘Connected health’ in treating life-threatening diseases, like cancer:

The paper titled, ‘Smart technology helps improve outcomes for patients with head and neck cancer,’ published by the News Medical on May 17, 2018, which was also read at the June 2018 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), highlights some interesting developments in this area. This federally funded, randomized clinical trial on 357 people receiving radiation for head and neck cancer, using mobile and sensor technology to remotely monitor patient symptoms, resulted in less severe symptoms related to both the cancer and its treatment.

It also noted: ‘Patients who used the technology – which included a Bluetooth-enabled weighing scale, Bluetooth-enabled blood pressure cuff, and mobile tablet with a symptom-tracking app that sent information directly to their physician each weekday – had lower symptom severity than participants who had standard weekly visits with their doctors. In addition, daily remote tracking of patient wellbeing, according to the researchers, enabled physicians to detect concerning symptoms early and respond more rapidly, compared to usual care.’

While treating serious ailments, medical images, such as computed axial tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), digital mammography and positron emission tomography (PET), can be connected, stored and shared with cloud-based connectivity and online sharing platforms, as confirmed by several studies. This would enable physicians to build better and deeper referral networks, for better diagnosis and speedier treatment inventions to patients.

‘Connected healthcare’ is fast growing:

As the above Accenture study indicates, many countries have started implementing  ‘connected healthcare’ systems to deliver cost-effective, high-quality and speedy healthcare services to the population with better outcomes. Some of these nations are, Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Singapore, Spain and the United States.

According to the New Market Research report titled, “Connected Healthcare Market – Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Trends, Growth and Forecast 2018 – 2022,” published by Wise Guy Research: ‘Globally, Asia-Pacific region is one of the fastest growing markets for ‘connected healthcare’. It was valued at USD 2.65 billion in 2015, and is expected to reach USD 23.8 billion by 2022, at the rate of 30.6% during the forecast period.’ During this span, ‘The global connected healthcare market is expected to reach $105,337.5 Million by 2022 at a CAGR of 30.27%,’ with North America commanding largest market share of 36.7%, the report highlights.

‘Connected health’ shows a high potential in India:

The above report also indicates, ‘mobile-health services’ accounts for the largest market segment in the UK, Italy, Japan, China and India. E-prescribing is the fastest growing segment in Asia Pacific and is expected to grow at the rate of 31.27% CAGR during the forecast-period.

E-Health initiative of the Government of India, which is aimed at using of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in health signals a good potential for ‘connected health’ in India. Fast penetration of mobile technologies even at the hinterland of India will facilitate this process.

Another article titled, ‘Why Connected health is the key to reducing waste and increasing efficiency,’ published in Healthcare India on July 25, 2017, brings to the fore some key benefits of ‘connected healthcare’ in the country. It says, ‘connected healthcare’, can bring path-breaking changes in the country. Following are a few examples:

  • Today when almost 70 percent of the medical expenses are borne by the patient, a ‘connected health’ ecosystem, would reduce admissions by early intervention and potentially deter surgeries.
  • Having access to a patient’s entire medical record, physicians’ will be able to minimize ‘over diagnosis’, amounting to multiple tests, over-medication and avoidable prescriptions, thereby reducing out of pocket health expenditure of patients.
  • When patients are referred from one doctor to the other, or from the rural medical centers to district hospitals, they often need to repeat all the tests, as there is no connected health ecosystem. In doing so, they lose time and sometimes don’t show up for follow up treatments and consultations with their treatment remains incomplete.

Leading private players in ‘connected health’ area:

Some of the leading market players in the global ‘connected healthcare’ market, reportedly, include Agamatrix Inc. (USA), Airstrips Technology (San Antonio), AliveCore Inc. (Australia), Apple Inc. (USA), Athenahealth Inc. (USA), Boston Scientific Co. (USA), GE Healthcare (UK), Honeywell Life care Solutions (UK), Medtronics (Ireland) and Philips Innovation Campus (Bengaluru, India).

Would ‘Connected healthcare’ disrupt pharma’s legacy commercial model:

McKinsey Digital’s March 2012 paper titled, “Biopharma in the coming era of connected health” explains, how ‘connected healthcare’ has started disrupting the legacy commercial models of pharma and Biopharma industry. One of the related examples cited in the article is, pharma’s less emphasis on large sales forces “selling” to physicians.

As this new system gathers wind on its sail, information transparency will allow customers, regulators, and competitors to understand and independently assess the performance of various drugs, often better than what the manufacturers present. These powerful new data sources would reveal true efficacy of medicines, in the real-world settings. No doubt, it will be a significant patient empowerment.

Would pharma be caught off-guard?

Despite such clear signs of changes, the way the pharma industry continues to operate, which as perceived by a majority of the population, is generally self-serving in nature. It has remained virtually unchanged over several decades. Another strong public perception is, patients often get trapped by a two-way financial interest, existing between doctors, hospitals, pharma, biotech – medical devices/diagnostic companies, in various forms. Notwithstanding, industry lobbyists pooh-poohing it, it remains a robust general perception, nonetheless.

That said, this situation can no longer be allowed to remain frozen in time. Today, time is making many things obsolete, including human behavior and business practices, much faster than ever before. This gets fueled primarily by two catalytic factors – one, rapid progress of technology, and the other, which is even more fundamental – the changing demographic profile and social fabric. Together, these are creating a new, informed, more assertive and expressive mindset of people – signaling their needs, preferred choices and processes, even for a health care solution. It’s for the industry now to shape up, soon.

Conclusion:

Joining all these dots, one gets a clear sign of ‘connected healthcare’ gradually evolving in India. Even if, it still takes some more time for an integrated ICT system to be in place, especially in India, it’s for sure that ‘connected healthcare’ will be a reality, surely.

As and when it happens, it will be a disruptive process. The process of sharing all requisite disease prevention, treatment and management related data, between patients, doctors and other care providers, including pharma companies – over regulatory approved, interconnected IoT enabled devices, machines and applications, will benefit all.

There will, of course, be several barriers to overcome, before this new era ushers in. One such hurdle being, many doctors still don’t express a favorable attitude towards adoption of ICT technology in their everyday practice. Alongside, the government with the help of regulators, should enact the requisite laws, and frame stringent rules to ensure enough privacy and security of confidential medical information of individual patients. In tandem, appropriate authorities must ensure that ‘connected healthcare’ system is effectively implemented by all concerned.

As strong environmental needs will hasten this process, public access to high quality healthcare with better outcomes – and all at an affordable cost, will improve by manifold. Thus, I reckon, days aren’t too far to witness ‘connected health care’ in India. But, the hundred-dollar questions still remain unanswered – Are most pharma players ready for the ‘connected healthcare’ regime, or will it catch them off-guard?

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.

Are Cancer Patients Victims of Pharma’s Payment to Doctors – For Prescriptions?

Posted on by
Reply

In pharma industry, people of all socioeconomic backgrounds have no other choice but to visit doctors, to seek their expert advice for medical treatment. Patients expect them to prescribe the right and most affordable medicines for desired relief. Ironically, it appears to be the general industry practice to favorably influence the prescribing decision of doctors of all kinds of drugs, irrespective of any tangible product superiority, and price. This practice has been a decade old general concern of many that still continues unabated, especially in India.

There is nothing wrong, though, in pharma companies’ influencing doctors with unique product and associated service offerings over others, intended to benefit patients. However, when any marketing activity goes against the general patient interest, or may be construed independently as short-changing patients, must not be condoned, the least by any government.

This article will discuss how this menace is not sparing even those cancer patients who can’t afford expensive drugs but want to survive. I shall start with an overall perspective and sign off with the prevailing situation in India.

Are such practices transparent?

Obviously not, as these take place under several benign names and guise, and is an open secret to almost all stakeholders, including many patients. In several countries, India excluded, the government or the legal systems have intervened to make the drug marketing process more transparent, often with strong punitive measures. Curiously, adequate space is constantly being created by some players to hoodwink all these.

Today, one can, at best put two and two together to get a feel of what could possibly be the reality. It still remains a challenge to exactly quantify as to what extent it is going on, and with what impact on common patients, who mostly pay out of pocket to purchase medicines. But the good news is, studies on this particular subject has commenced, a few examples of which I shall in this article.

Some common influencing tools:

Pharma companies’ influencing tools for favorable doctors’ prescriptions are, apparently, directly proportional to a doctor’s prescription generating capacity. Once a doctor is influenced by such mechanism, high product price becomes irrelevant, even for those who find the drug difficult to afford.

The form of influence varies from gifts carrying different price tags, advertising in specific souvenirs or journals, sponsoring medical symposia of doctors’ choice, to arranging company’s own ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ programs in exotic places, with travel, boarding and lodging expenses paid by the company, sometimes including their spouses. Hefty speaking, consulting fees and research grants may also be among these influencing tools. All are commonly done through a third party to avoid easy detection.

Some evidences of drug companies’ payment to doctors:

May 02, 2017 edition of the Journal of American Medical Association, published a couple of survey findings that can be summarized, as follows:

  • About half of U.S. doctors received payments from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries in 2015, amounting to USD 2.4 billion
  • Such payments and gifts very likely encourage doctors to prescribe pricey brand-name drugs and devices pushed by sales representatives.
  • Chances of receiving a general payment depended on the doctor’s specialty — 61 percent of surgeons got a payment, compared with 48 percent of primary care doctors.
  • Pharma companies earned more than USD 60 billion in 2010 for brand-name drugs included in the study. Generic drugs are 80 to 85 percent less expensive, which means hospitals can save lots of money, if doctors start prescribing generics instead of brand-name drugs.
  • Doctors at academic medical centers were more likely to prescribe cheaper generic drugs than expensive brand-name drugs after their hospitals adopted rules that restricted pharmaceutical sales visits, the researchers said.
  • “Many doctors would say they can’t be bought for the low amounts we’re talking about, but the amounts actually aren’t that low. Many, many doctors are getting thousands of dollars. It’s hard to imagine that is not influential,” the article underscored.

Quantification of increased prescription:

Another interesting study analyzed the prescription pattern of cardiologists who were taken out for a meal by sales representatives of Pfizer or AstraZeneca– makers of two expensive branded cholesterol-lowering statins, Lipitor and Crestor. They found that payment to physicians increases prescribing of the focal drug by 73 percent.

It is noteworthy,during the time period examined, which was between 2011 and 2012, there were several equivalent, lower-cost generic statin drugs available in the market. The paper’s findings confirm the general belief that drug companies’ business practices do influence doctors prescribing behavior while treating patients, in favor of the high-cost targeted brands.

Any relationship between soaring cancer drug price and pay for prescriptions?

Dr. Peter Bach at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York City, with the help of a ‘cancer drug price chart from 1965 to 2016 period, established that treatment cost with cancer drugs is soaring. In another article, on the same issue, Dr. Bach commented: ‘Market pricing does not ensure access to new innovation.’ He reiterated:‘Profit maximizing price is not welfare maximizing. This is a policy failure, not a market failure.’

So far so good. However, everybody was surprised when on October 02, 2018, The New York Times reported about the same Memorial Sloan-Kettering that: ‘Dr. Craig B. Thompson, the hospital’s chief executive, resigned in October from the board of Merck. The company, which makes the blockbuster cancer drug Keytruda, had paid him about $300,000 in 2017 for his service.’

The same report further detailed: ‘Dr. Thompson, 65, received $300,000 in compensation from Merck in 2017, according to company financial filings. He was paid $70,000 in cash by Charles River in 2017, plus $215,050 in stock.’ This does not seem to be a solitary example from this hospital, as ‘another article detailed how a hospital vice president held a nearly $1.4 million stake in a newly public company as compensation for representing Memorial Sloan Kettering on its board.’

The question that arises now, how would such behavior of doctors adversely impact cancer patients’ health-interest? This was evaluated in an interesting article, as below.

Evaluation of association between industry payment to doctors and their prescribing practices:

Financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry are common. This was analyzed in detail with deft and expertise in yet another very recent research paper titled, ‘Evaluating the Strength of the Association Between Industry Payments and Prescribing Practices in Oncology,’ published in the ‘The Oncologist’ on February 06, 2019. Two critical findings of the study may interest many, which are:

  • The association between industry payments and cancer drug prescribing was greatest among physicians who received payments consistently (within each calendar year).
  • Receipt of payments for compensation purposes, such as for consulting or travel, and higher dollar value of payments were also associated with increased prescribing.

Its implication on cancer patients:

To ascertain its implication on cancer patients by combining records of industry gifts with prescribing records, the study identified:

  • The consistency of payments over time, the dollar value of payments, and payments for compensation as factors.
  • This is very likely to strengthen the association between receiving payments and increased prescribing of that company’s cancer drug.

The outrageous cost of cancer treatment with innovative drugs:

As I said in my previous articles, new cancer drugs are increasingly becoming more innovative with greater efficacy. The fact that the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to James P. Allison and Tasuku Honjo “for their discovery of cancer therapy by inhibition of negative immune regulation,” provides a testimony to the high quality of innovation involved in the discovery and development of cancer therapy.

This progress is excellent, unquestionably! But who is getting benefitted by these innovative cancer medicines? The headline of the article, titled ‘The Nobel Prize is a reminder of the outrageous cost of curing cancer,’ published by the Vox Media Vox Media on October 02, 2018, captures the prevailing reality, succinctly. Articulating, ‘The Nobel Prize is a reminder of the outrageous cost of curing cancer,’ the author further elaborates the point. The paper underscores, for the first time ever, we’re living in a moment when many of our most promising medical advances, such as cancer immunotherapy, are far out of reach for the vast majority of people who could benefit from them.

Innovative cancer drugs are pricey only for the high cost of innovation? 

Let me deliberate this point based on data. Quite expectedly, pharma industry never accepts that prescriptions are bought. But, when get caught, they retort that these are some aberrations, keeping their much-publicized argument unchanged in support of jaw dropping cancer drug prices. They argue, innovative drugs are brought to market after incurring R&D expenditure of over a billion dollars, if not more.

The Vox article quotes the CEO of Novartis, the maker of the immunotherapy drug Kymriah, saying that the R&D costs of the drug were about USD 1 billion. But many experts don’t buy this argument. The article echoed one such expert - Ezekiel Emanuel, a professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine.

The professor countered by saying: ‘That’s certainly a big investment, but it is much less astounding when compared with the drug’s anticipated revenue. Based on Kymriah’s list price, treating just 2,700 patients would allow Novartis to recoup its entire investment. Even with significant discounts for many patients, it wouldn’t take many treatments to turn a considerable profit.’

According to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, the total cost for removing, reprogramming and infusing the cells into each patient is less than USD 60,000—just one-sixth of the USD 373,000 price tag. Production costs do not seem to be driving the stratospheric drug prices, the researchers commented.

Has any remedial action been taken by the industry or the doctors?

Except one report, I reckon, this practice continues virtually unabated, even today.

‘The above conflicts at Memorial Sloan Kettering, unearthed by The New York Times and ProPublica, have had a rippling effect on other leading cancer institutions across the country’, commented ProPublica on January 11, 2019. It reported: ‘The cancer center will now bar top officials from sitting on outside boards of for-profit companies and is conducting a wide-scale review of other policies.’

Further, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, both of whose executives sit on corporate boards, are among the institutions reconsidering their policies on financial ties, the article said.

Conclusion:

Although, in many countries, at least, some action has been taken by the governments to curb such practices by framing appropriate laws, in India it is virtually free for all types of situation, as prevailing in this area.

A recent news report aptly summarized the Indian situation. It highlighted: “While Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently mocked doctors in a public interaction in London for going on foreign trips sponsored by pharma companies, his government has been unsuccessful in bringing in a law to punish pharma companies that bribe doctors. The Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), prepared by the pharmaceuticals department (DoP) to control unethical marketing practices in pharma has been in the work since December 2014, six months after the current government came to power. More than three years later, the code is stuck in the Niti Aayog after the law ministry rejected DoP’s draft.”

With the above global and local perspective, I reckon, even if some changes take place in the developed world, India is unlikely to fall in that category, any time soon. Consequently, a large number of Indian patients may continue to fall victims of common pharma practice – pay to doctors for prescriptions. It doesn’t seem to matter even for cancer drugs.

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.

Pharma’s Oncology Focus: Some Key Drivers With Pros And Cons For Patients

Posted on by
Reply

Just in the first ten days of the brand-new year – 2019, three important oncology focused acquisitions were announced by three top global pharma companies.

On January 03, 2019, Bristol-Myers Squibb announced that it will acquire Celgene for a hefty sum of USD 74 billion to be a leading Biopharma player, focusing on high-value innovative medicines. As reported by BioSpace on January 04, 2019, the BMS CEO said, the combined might of the two pipelines will create “the number one oncology franchise” for both solid and hematologic tumors.

Just four days thereafter, on January 7, 2019, at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, Eli Lilly announced that it will acquire targeted cancer drug maker Loxo Oncology for USD 8 billion. This deal gives the company TRK inhibitor Vitrakvi – the first drug approved by the FDA to target tumors based on genetic abnormality, rather than the location of the cancer.

On June 08 2019, at the same J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, GlaxoSmithKline CEO Emma Walmsley, reportedly said that GSK has agreed to acquire already approved PARP inhibitor Zejula as well as a range of pipeline assets valued USD 5 billion.It’s noteworthy that Walmsley announced the company’s new focus on oncology just the last year and has now almost doubled its immuno-oncology pipeline.

Even in the last year – 2018, a significant number of oncology focused Merger and Acquisitions (M&A) took place. The acquisition values are also interesting – ranging from a few-hundred million to billions of USD. In this article, I shall examine what could be the main drivers of this emerging trend with its pros and cons from the patients’ perspective, in general. As a brief backdrop, let me start with a few examples of such M&As in 2018.

Some oncology focused M&As in 2018:

Following are examples of some oncology focused acquisitions that took place in 2018:

  • In January 2018, Celgene Corporation, which has now been acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb, announced theacquisition of Juno Therapeutics for about USD 9 billion. This deal came shortly after Celgene’s deal for Impact Biomedicines valuing USD 1.1 billion.
  • In late-January 2018, the biggest deals this year were by Sanofi. It acquired Waltham, Massachusetts-based Bioverativ for about USD 11.6 billion. Bioverativ was a spinoff by Biogen. About a week later, Sanofi bought Ghent, Belgium-based Ablynx for USD 4.8 billion.
  • In April 2018, Roche completed its acquisition of Flatiron Health, an oncology-specific digital health company for about USD 1.9 billion.
  • In the same month of April 2018, Shire sold its oncology business to France’s Servier for USD 2.4 billion.
  • In May 2018,  Janssen Biotech, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals, announced that it was buying Rockville, Maryland-based BeneVir Biopharma, in a deal of more than USD 1 billion.

Thus, the question that follows: what could be the primary drivers of this trend?

The primary drivers:

In my view, the primary drivers for focus on the oncology segment by pharma and biotech companies is a combination of the following factors:

  • Leading cause of death: The incidence of cancer is fast increasing across the world, making it the leading cause of death, says 2018 report of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
  • High incidence: Cancer burden rose to 18.1 million new cases, with 9.6 million cancer deaths in 2018. IARC report further highlighted, one in 5 men and one in 6 women worldwide develop cancer during their lifetime, and one in 8 men and one in 11 women die from the disease.
  • The need for new treatment approaches is increasing: Various types of cancers are getting more and more complex.Genetic and epigenetic alterations in tumor cell populations are generating heritable variation, requiring new drugs along with novel treatment approaches.
  • High price: According to Journal of Oncology Practice, the average cancer drug price for approximately 1 year of therapy or a total treatment duration was less than USD 10,000 before 2000. This had increased to USD 30,000 to USD 50,000 by 2005. In 2012, twelve of thirteen new drugs approved for cancer indications were priced above USD 100,000 per year of therapy. For example, Keytruda (Merck) was launched in the US in 2014 at a price of reportedly USD 12,500 for each patient monthly or USD 150,000 annually. The drug is expected to be 30 percent cheaper in India than the global prices.
  • Longer product exclusivity period: As is often reported, many of the newer high-priced cancer drugs are for very specific types of cancer, with virtually no real competition. Consequently, they generally enjoy the benefits of a longer price exclusivity period, even after patent expiry. Humira of AbbVie is one such example.

The strategy is paying rich dividend to pharma players:

That this strategy continues paying rich dividend to concerned pharma players, gets reflected on the therapy group-wise performance of the global drug industry. Today, the global cancer therapeutics segment assumed mind-boggling size in value term. It was estimated at USD 121 billion in 2017 and projected to reach USD 172.6 billion by 2022. The top 10 oncology drugs accounted for revenue of USD 54.48 billion in 2017. Celgene, which has just been acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb, dominates the oncology market, with its best-selling product – Revlimid.

Successive launches of a large number of high-priced novel cancer drugs, has pushed the oncology segment in the top slot in therapy ranking. It is expected to remain this way, at least for some time, as June 2018 report of Evaluate Pharma forecasts that the oncology therapy area will maintain the top ranking in the 2017-2024 period.

IQVIA report on ‘Global Oncology Trends 2018’ ofMay 24, 2018 also reconfirms that the number of approved cancer therapies continues to rise, with 63 cancer drugs launching within the past five years.’ Illustrating the point further, the report highlights that global spending on cancer medicines keeps rising with therapeutic and supportive care use at USD133 billion globally in 2017, up from USD 96 billion in 2013.

Pros and Cons of this trend for patients:

Interestingly, this trend has both pros and cons for patients, almost in equal measure. Some of the important pros are, as follows:

  • Advancement of cancer treatments at an accelerated pace in recent years, is offering notable improvements in clinical benefit to patients, comments the above IQVIA report.
  • Consequently, cancer incidence and mortality have been declining with an increase in the survival rate, especially in the developed countries, such as the United States, in recent times.
  • Nevertheless, decreased incidence and improved survival rate have also been attributed to both – reductions in smoking, as well as advances in early detection and treatments.

Alongside, examples of some of major cons are also bothering many patients, such as:

  • The real benefits of newer and novel high-priced cancer drugs have not been felt by most people in the developing world, which constitutes the majority of the global population.
  • The GLOBOCAN 2018 database, accessible online as part of the IARC Global Cancer Observatory, also highlights that countries with lower Human Development Index (HDI) have a higher frequency of certain cancer types associated with poorer survival. This is mainly because access to timely diagnosis and effective treatment is less common.
  • Although, the new generation of treatment is transforming the field of cancer, yielding more cures and long-term remissions than ever before, the healthcare systems worldwide continue to struggle to deliver the benefits of these drugs to deserving patients.
  • As the above IQVIA report says, the list prices of new cancer drugs at launch have risen steadily over the past decade, and the median annual cost of a new cancer drug launched in 2017 exceeded USD 150,000, compared to USD 79,000 for the new cancer drugs launched in 2013.
  • If the affordability of drugs is not addressed soon, many people with cancer might not be able to reap the rewards of cutting-edge therapies.This concern was also expressed by Nature in an article titled, ‘Bringing down the cost of cancer treatment,’ published on March 07, 2018.

Thus,access to cancer treatment, mostly with modern cancer drugs, is becoming a major challenge in all countries, but much more acute in the developing nations. A special article titled, ‘Facing the Global Challenges of Access to Cancer Medication,’ published in the Journal of Global Oncology on March 28, 2018, also broached the question of affordability of modern anticancer medication and commented, “the financial challenge presented by the rising cost of care will create a barrier to its delivery.”

Conclusion:

On the above perspective, the emerging trend of large pharma and biotech companies’ focus on novel oncology drugs is an interesting one. The key drivers fueling this ascending trend are also understandable. However, a deep-stick analysis of pros and cons of its impact on patients indicate, it has helped patients in the developed world, significantly more than those in the developing world, with affordability being the primary issue.

The article titled, ‘Bringing down the cost of cancer treatment,’ published in Nature on March 07, 2018, also reconfirms the current situation eloquently. It asserted, there isn’t an iota of doubt that new generations of cancer drugs are transforming the field of cancer treatment, yielding long-term remissions and even cure – more than ever before. Nevertheless, while medicine’s ability to tackle tumors increases by manifold, patients and healthcare systems worldwide are struggling to deliver their benefits to most cancer patients.

To address this situation, some drug players did try out ‘tiered pricing’, while a few others announced – ‘patient assistance programs’. Unfortunately, none of these measures seem to have benefitted majority of deserving patients, materially. Thus, echoing the above article from Nature, I would emphasize, if the affordability issue of new cancer drugs is not effectively addressed soon, collectively by all stakeholders, a vast majority of cancer patient won’t be able to reap expected rewards from such cutting-edge therapies.

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.

‘Made-to-Measure’ Marketing for ‘Made-to-Measure’ Medicines

Posted on by
Reply

We have entered into a new era of innovation in medical science where ‘one size fits all’ type of treatment is making a sizeable space for a new ‘made-to-measure’ variety of the same. Such medicines are being developed particularly for life-threatening and rare diseases, where individual genetic differences in patients play a key role in the choice of therapy.

The marketers of such drugs, at the same time, will need to make sure that the right sets of messages are delivered to the right person, in the right way and at the right time, for brand success. This isn’t a piece of cake, as it will be akin to finding out a needle from a haystack. It would call for craftily ferreting out from an enormous database, both the patients’ and the prescribers detail profile virtually in each stage of the treatment process.

Such information would form the bedrock for effective brand value creation and its delivery, to achieve best possible business results and also patient outcomes. Thus, ‘made-to-measure’ marketing would be a whole new ball game for many pharma marketers – a  completely different situation that, very often, they know little about.

In this article, I shall dwell on this subject. Let me begin with a brief description of the emerging ‘made-to-measure’ variety of treatments.

‘Made-to-measure’ treatment:

There are many serious and life-threatening disease conditions where ‘One Size Fits All’ sort of treatment approach doesn’t work too well. One such dreaded disease is cancer. Conventionally, following standard treatment guidelines, doctors generally opt for similar treatment for patients suffering from the same type and stage of cancer. Interestingly, it has been conclusively established over a period of time that this approach often yields different outcomes to different patients.

With the progress of genetic science, the researchers have unraveled this mystery from the genetic difference of patients. This understanding heralded the dawn of a new era of targeted or ‘made-to-measure’ drug therapies. These are called “personalized medicine” or “precision medicine”. According to the National Research Council, “personalized medicine” is an older term with a meaning similar to “precision medicine.”

Personalized medicines:

According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), understanding a patient’s genetic makeup and ascertaining how certain gene changes during cancerous tumor growth, doctors can now choose more effective treatment options for each patient. In other words, based on genetic test results, oncologists can now opt for a customize treatment, based on each patient’s specific needs. Such drugs can block or turn off the signals that tell malignant cells to grow and divide, keep cells from living longer than normal, or kill the cancer cells altogether.

Moreover, by performing genetic tests both on the cancer and normal cells, doctors can also:

  • Find out the chances of a person developing cancer and selecting the screening strategies to lower the risk
  • Match patients with treatments that are likely to be more effective and cause fewer side effects
  • Predict the risk of recurrence, which means the return of cancer

The new era began in 1998:

The era of ‘personalized medicine’ for cancer, in all practical purposes, commenced in 1998, when the US-FDA approved the targeted therapy, Herceptin (trastuzumab). Breast cancer patients having high levels of a biomarker, known as “HER-2,” are more likely to be susceptible to this drug.

Since then, the development of targeted therapies has grown rapidly. As reported by the American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC), published on January 31, 2018, one in every 4 drugs approved by the US-FDA over the past 4 years was a personalized medicine, and the agency approved a record-breaking 16 personalized therapy in 2017. The same year, US-FDA also approved the first biosimilar of a personalized medicine - trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri) for HER-2-positive breast cancer patients. This biosimilar was developed with Herceptin as its reference.

The February 2018 report of Research and Markets titled, ‘Personalized Medicine – Scientific and Commercial Aspects’ says, the aim of ‘personalized medicine’ is to match the right drug to the right patient and, in some cases, even to design the appropriate treatment for a patient according to his/her genotype. I deliberated on genotype-based treatment in my article titled, ‘A Disruptive Innovation to Fight and Cure Intractable Diseases’, published in this blog on October 30, 2017.

At this point, let me hasten to add that the development of personalized medicine raises some ethical issues, as well. Currently, this debate is mostly limited to the area of genetic testing.

Personalized dosage:

An article published on March 23, 2015 in the ‘FDA Voice’ of the US-FDA states, since the 1990s, the agency is also working on personalized drug dosing. This is because individuals differ in how they eliminate a drug. Some eliminate it much more slowly than most other people, and thus are susceptible to overdosing, while others eliminate it much faster, and may not get the desired therapeutic effect. There are biomarkers to identify people who may have these unusual results. Personalized drug dosing makes sure that drug efficacy for such patients are not compromised, or they are not at high risk of any severe side effects.

Marketing ‘personalized medicine’ a whole new ball game:

All this vindicates that ‘personalized medicine’ is not just a flash in the pan. With each passing year, it’s moving ahead at a brisk pace. In this emerging scenario, what happens to marketing of these drugs? Will the marketing of ‘personalized medicine’ remain just the same as the conventional one, or it warrants radically different cerebral inputs?

The opportunities for personalization in pharma marketing are immense. ‘Personalized medicines’ offer a greater scope in leveraging its potential that is yet to be fathomed, meaningfully. Broadly, this will mean targeting customers or potential consumers even at the individual level, to add greater differential value.

This, in turn, will involve making the marketing content, the message format and choosing the effective value delivery platforms, virtually ‘made-to-measure’ for the target audience. Marketing interaction of this ilk, has proven to offer a cutting-edge experience to the target groups with greater outcomes, in tandem, yielding superior financial results to the concerned pharma players.

Recent reports:

On December 18, 2017, Cambridge BioMarketing – one of the world’s leading rare disease agency highlighted, as personalized medicine continues to take hold, it will be more important than ever for healthcare companies to incorporate the ‘hyperpersonalized’ experience in marketing and communications. Patients’ voice has already started becoming more important than ever before, in various facets of pharma business. In 2018, one may expect to witness more pharma companies tapping the experts who can help explain the life-changing benefits of a treatment for the patient, effectively – the report predicted.

Moving forward, patients embarking on new treatments will be better empowered to take charge of their well-being. Physicians and nurses will also be better connected to their patients, along with other care providers, with the support of enhanced digital connections and mobile apps. Interestingly, one can find it happening in several developed countries, especially, in areas like rare diseases, where ‘personalized medicines’ will be used more – underscored this agency.

On January 22, 2018, quoting the same Cambridge BioMarketing, FiercePharma also reported, more ‘personalized medicines’ also mean more ‘personalized marketing’ – and the ‘hyperpersonalization’ trend goes to extremes. Crunching data gathered from multiple sources, such drug marketers need to identify small groups that could be receptive to specific messaging. Advanced data and analytics, would facilitate the marketers to whittle down their targets and tailor messages to consumer audiences, sometimes as small as one person – the report asserted.

Conclusion:

As the February 2018 report of ‘Research and Markets’ highlights, increase in efficacy and safety of treatment by individualizing it, has benefitted in financial terms too. Available information indicates that ‘personalized medicine’ will ultimately be cost-effective in healthcare systems. This would also eliminate the need for various assumptions in the process of diagnosing a disease.

Thus, conventional pharma marketing based on the mostly segmentation strategy used for blockbuster molecules may not work for a ‘personalized medicine’. Instead, ‘personalized marketing, focused on smaller and exclusive markets – identified based on robust research and analytical data, will be the name of the new game for business excellence in this specialized area.

Thus, I reckon, as we move ahead, ‘made-to-measure’ marketing will no doubt be one of the key success requirements to make ‘made-to-measure’ medicines’ – a money spinner.

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.

Emerging Role of Digital Pathology in Cancer

Posted on by
Reply

Dear readers, an unlocked door awaiting all of us with tons of opportunities as we log out of  2017 and log in to 2018. Let’s grab those, bringing changes and smile  in many lives. Happy New Year

Cancer is now a leading cause of death worldwide. Every year, across the world 8.2 million people die from cancer. As the World Health Organization (W.H.O) estimates, deaths from this deadly disease will continue to rise, reaching over 13.1 million in 2030.

W.H.O flags that two-thirds of these deaths occur in low and middle-income countries. More than 50 percent of cancer deaths could have been prevented through awareness campaigns, or could have been effectively addressed through expert screening, early diagnosis and affordable treatment.

From this perspective, ‘digital pathology’ offers an immense potential to make a significant difference in the lives of many, who are either high risk individuals, or actually suffering from life threatening ailments. In this article, I shall try to illustrate the above point, in simple language, citing the emerging role of ‘digital pathology’ in cancer, as an example.

Incidence of cancer in India:

W.H.O reports that presently in India, cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. This is vindicated by the 2016 Press Release of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) stating that, the total number of new cancer cases was expected to be around 1.45 million  in 2016, and the figure is likely to reach nearly 1.73 million new cases in 2020.

ICMR expected over 736,000 people to succumb to the disease in 2016 while the figure was estimated to shoot up to 880,000 by 2020. The data also revealed that only 12.5 percent of patients come for treatment in early stages of the disease. Another report estimated that around 2.5 million individuals in India are living with the cancer.

Launch of cancer screening program:

Realizing the increasing incidence of cancer, ‘the National Program for the Prevention and Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular Diseases and Stroke (NPCDCS)’ was initiated in 100 districts in 2010, and expanded to about 468 districts in 2012, in tandem with other Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs).

After further review, the Government informed the Indian Parliament on April 01, 2017 about the launch of universal screening of diabetes, hypertension and cancer in 2100 districts, which would be extended across the country. Accordingly, ‘Operational Guidelines for Non-Communicable Diseases’ were worked out and made public.

A large number of cancer cases remain undetected:

It is worth noting, India is still among one those countries where a large number of cancer cases remain undetected or under-diagnosed. The country continues to grapple with a huge dearth of specialists in this area. These include not just cancer specialists, which reportedly is just 1 over 2000 cancer patients, but qualified pathologists, as well. This stark reality assumes greater importance, as early diagnosis with precision is the key to successful treatment of cancer.

It’s more in rural India:

Availability and access to affordable cancer diagnostic facilities, are indeed a major issue much more in rural areas – the home of over 70 percent of the Indian population. Consequently, its late detection, together with low awareness level for disease prevention, is considered to be the major factors attributing to relatively higher cancer mortality rate in the country.

The intensity of this problem increases manifold and gets more complex, due to various other geographic and logistical constraints. This situation makes high-technology based medical interventions a necessity to save many lives.

A unique public-private partnership initiative:

Interestingly, some developed countries are also trying to address the core issue of increasing access to affordable cancer diagnosis and treatment to all.  An example of which can be drawn from the United Kingdom (UK), where one of finest Universal Health Care (UHC) system exists, for a long time.

On December 06, 2017, by a media release Roche Diagnostics announced a groundbreaking partnership discussions with the UK Government to transform cancer testing in patients.’ It said that the current shortage of pathologists and geographic constraints can make it difficult or longer for an expert to provide an opinion on a cancer patient case, where ‘digital pathology’ can play a crucial life-saving role.

Roche Diagnostics articulated that once important patient-cases are made available digitally, experts from any location can review them without delay. This would lead to availability of more equal access to experts to provide a timely and accurate diagnosis for cancer patients. It further said, making more information available electronically opens possibilities for the discovery of new treatments and the development of Artificial Intelligence algorithms in pathology diagnosis.

A Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) approach, such as the above can add greater efficiency, especially in tissue pathology services – including the expensive ones, to deliver faster and more accurate test results across the health care space, even in India. It goes without saying, such a PPP initiative has to be fleshed out with considerable details to unleash its true potential.

Thus, ‘digital pathology’, I reckon, has the potential to play a path-breaking role in providing access to affordable and early diagnosis of cancer to a large number patients, even in remote places, leading to better outcomes.

The scope of ‘digital pathology’:

It now brings us to the question of: what exactly is ‘digital pathology’? In simple term, ‘digital pathology’ involves remotely examining the whole slide digital imaging of original pathological slides of a patient, virtually in real time, from anywhere in the world to properly diagnose a disease. In case of cancer, these are digital image of original blood and tissue slides of patients, examined by experts with the application of special ‘digital pathology’ software and hardware, from a distant specialty hospital or laboratory.

According to the article titled ‘Artificial intelligence is aiding pathologists’, published on September 02, 2017 by the ‘Digital Journal’, AI or machine learning is being increasingly used in ‘digital pathology’ for precision diagnosis of a disease.

One such use of AI in ‘digital pathology’ for cancer, is to recognize broad or specific patterns in a whole slide image to interpret the features in the cancerous tissues for accurate diagnosis of metastasis and recurrence, besides the stage or grade of cancer.

Preparation of samples for ‘digital pathology’ is very important, and the requirements may vary with different cancer types. Nonetheless, prescribed procedures for each need to be adhered to, meticulously, even in those areas where there is no qualified pathologist, and paramedics do this job. Hence, those personnel should be thoroughly trained and periodically refreshed by well qualified specialist trainers.

Digital pathology in India:

The article titled, ‘Telepathology at the doorstep of a village’, published by the Department of Atomic Energy in India that was last updated on December 14, 2017, aptly captures the scope of ‘digital pathology’ or ‘Telepathology’ in the country.

The authors recognized in the article, despite the high quality of expertise being available within the country, even for the treatment of cancer, it is not available or accessible to a large section of the population, more in the rural areas. On the other hand, super specialty health care facilities like, Tata Memorial Hospital (TMH) or All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) cannot take the increasing patient load, beyond a point, due to various constraints.

Improving telecommunication infrastructure in the country, can be put to effective use for accurate diagnosis of cancer with ‘digital pathology’ or ‘tele-pathology’. Nevertheless, this application is currently operable mostly in those rural and semi urban areas, where a minimum standard of telecommunication infrastructure is available. However, the good news is, such areas are growing in India.

An interesting example is Barshi – a rural landscape in interior Maharashtra, located around 500 km away from Mumbai. Nargis Dutt Memorial Cancer Hospital (NDMCH) located in this hinterland, with Tata Memorial Hospital’s constant support and guidance, especially in ‘digital pathology’ has become an important cancer center. NDMCH now caters to a sizable population from a number of villages and towns surrounding it – in the districts of Solapur, Osmanabad and Latur.

A Government Press Release of October 19, 2016 states that AIIMS in Delhi has gone digital, becoming India’s first fully digital public e-hospital. More initiatives, such as these, in collaboration with rural health centers, and other related PPP initiatives, are expected to significantly improve access to ‘digital pathology’ to a large population, especially for early cancer detection in India.

More ‘Digital pathology’ initiatives are spreading roots in India, including the private business space. For example, according to a media report, Anand Diagnostic Laboratory in Bengaluru has become the first private diagnostic laboratory in the country to adopt the complete Roche Digital Pathology portfolio to provide better diagnostic insights for physicians and their patients.

“From simply remotely viewing patient slides, to consulting specialists real time within India or even through other parts of the world – the applications of digital pathology are endless” – commented the Managing Director, Roche Diagnostics India, while discussing the new technology at a meeting of pathologists in India.

Conclusion:

Against this backdrop, a wide-network of PPP initiatives of affordable ‘digital pathology’ would be a game changer, particularly for early detection of cancer.  With the incidence of cancer rising fast in India, and its effective management getting increasingly more complex – requiring prompt specialists’ intervention right from early diagnosis, such initiatives call for high priority.

A few green-shoots are already visible in this area, but quite sporadic in nature, though. Hoping that its pace of progress will soon gain momentum, the emerging role of digital pathology in cancer brings a fresh hope for survival with dignity to a large population of patients – if and when cancer poses to strike its deadly blow.

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.