Tag Archives: fragile

Covid-19: Perils Of Haste In Scientific Decision-Making Process

Posted on by
Reply

Multifaceted threats posed by Coronavirus to the humanity, are getting increasingly complex, every day. Currently, Covid-19 cases in India are ‘the highest that any country has ever recorded on a single day since the start of the outbreak.’ Alongside, the hopes of billions of people – for its predictable and dependable remedies are also soaring sky high. But, despite full throttle global endeavor of scientists, the world continues waiting for scientific-evidence-based, well-proven, safe, and effective Covid-19 drugs, vaccines and other treatments.

It is expected, each of these cures and antidotes should be duly authorized by drug regulators, according to global norms – without any outside non-scientific interference – not even from the very top. Nevertheless, the reality is, as on date, besides some ‘emergency use authorizations’, all scientific pursuits in this area are Works in Progress (WIP) – some are with great potential, though.

The catastrophic impact of Covid-19 pandemic is all pervasive. So is the competition between media publications to attract maximum eyeballs, with details on many aspects of the disease and related scientific development. These include reports on intense, non-scientific pressure on scientists and regulators to make drugs, vaccines or other Covid-19 treatments immediately available for use. In this article, I shall dwell on the perils of haste in the scientific decision-making processes, while combating Covid-19.

A quick research outcome is important – based on ‘rational’ – but not ‘rash’ decisions: 

In pursuit of a quick disease treatment outcome, a rational and ethical approach in any scientific discovery process, is non-negotiable. It has always been so – while dealing with many different health crises, and should remain that way for Covid-19, as well. In my view, for achieving a prompt and desirable treatment outcome – a quick, but rational decision should always be favored – over highly influenced, contentious, non-scientific and rash decisions.

Many wise men believe, a quick decision is one, made quickly supported by irrefutable inputs of an accepted quality and scale. Whereas, a rash decision is one, made with limited, questionable or even no inputs – just based on gut feel, as it were. This broad concept is applicable to Covid-19 drugs, vaccines and other treatments, including -plasma therapy.

In the space of Covid-19 pandemic, there are several such examples, starting from hydroxychloroquine to the most recent plasma therapy – both in India, and also beyond its shores. Without being judgmental, this article will try to join some critical dots, for the readers draw their own conclusions on this issue. Let me start with two examples of this drug regulatory quagmire – the very first, and the most recent ones.

Perils of haste in the Hydroxychloroquine saga:

As I wrote in this blog that the US President Donald Trump, on March 21, 2020,  proclaimed Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine as potential game changers against Covid-19 global pandemic, despite doubts from the US-FDA. Interestingly, on March 28, 2020, the US drug regulator granted the emergency use authorization of these two drugs for treating Covid-19. However, it was subsequently revoked on June 15, 2020. The agency justified this action by saying:

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The World Health Organization (W.H.O) also announced: “Studies show Hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19.” However, as published by JAMA on May 28, 2020,following President Trump’s naming these drugs at a press conference, Hydroxychloroquine prescriptions shot up by over 200 percent, over the previous year. Nonetheless, the prescriptions returned to normal as news highlighting the lack of enough evidence to support its use started spreading, across the globe.

Soon, India followed the same… a strange coincidence?

As stated above, on March 21, 2020, the US President Trump proclaimed Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine as potential game changers against Covid-19 global pandemic, despite doubts from the US-FDA. Curiously, on March 23, 2020, Indian media also reported:

‘Amid rising Coronavirus cases in the country, the national task force for COVID-19 constituted by Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) has recommended hydroxy-chloroquine as a preventive medication for high-risk population. According to the advisory, it should be given to high risk population — asymptomatic healthcare workers involved in the care of suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 and asymptomatic household contacts of laboratory confirmed cases.’

The above protocol, recommended by the National Task Force, has been approved by the Drug Controller General of India (DGCI) for restricted use in emergency situations. This seems to have happened even before the US-FDA granted similar authorization. Intriguingly, US-FDA subsequently revoked it on June 15, 2020, for lack of enough scientific evidence, unlike the Indian drug regulator.

Another report of April 09, 2020 summed it up well. It wrote, the hype of Hydroxychloroquine – pushed by the US President Trump as a COVID-19 treatment, has now been joined by many other countries, despite inconclusive medical evidence on the efficacy and safety of the drug. Is this just a strange coincidence?

Be that as it may, India’s decision on the emergency use of Hydroxychloroquine had its rub-off financial impact in the country, in terms of increase in its export demand, which may not be an intended one, though.

Its rub-off financial impact in India:

As the world’s largest manufacturers of Hydroxychloroquine are located in India, many of these companies reaped a rich harvest in the April-June quarter, mostly, based on media reports on its use in treating Covid-19. For example, Ipca Laboratories Ltd, reportedly, garnered ₹259 Crore in additional sales, with consolidated net profit for the quarter soar threefold to ₹454 Crore, from the drug in that period.

Notably, Ipca also acknowledged, ‘HCQ sales were a one-time boost for the company. With the hype waning, after various clinical trials showed the drug did not provide any significant benefit, the company now expects sales to ease to earlier levels,’ as the report goes. Let me now move over to the most recent example.

Perils of haste in the plasma therapy saga:

Since, the third week of this month, a series of incidents related to plasma therapy highlighted the ongoing perils of haste in the scientific decision-making process. These were generally prompted by powerful non-scientific external influences, as reported below:

  • On August 23, 2020, the US President announced that the US-FDA has granted emergency approval of blood plasma from recovered Coronavirus patients as a treatment for those battling the disease. President Trump called the development “a historic breakthrough.”
  • According to Reuters, the US-FDA had authorized its use after President Donald Trump blamed the drug agency for impeding the rollout of vaccines and therapeutics for political reasons.
  • The very next day of President Trump’s announcement, on August 24, 2020, the World Health Organization advised caution about endorsing the use of recovered COVID-19 patients’ plasma to treat those who are ill, saying evidence it works remains “low quality.”
  • American scientists, including researchers at the Mayo Clinic also challenged a key statistic cited by U.S. officials as grounds for emergency approval of the treatment.
  • On August 25, 2020, US-FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, publicly apologized ‘for overstating the benefits of plasma for treating Covid-19 patients.’ 
  • “The US-FDA’s emergency use authorization for plasma for Covid-19 looks questionable. If this presages an early vaccine nod, we should be very afraid,” reported another article.

Similar controversy was also witnessed in India. Just days after the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) gave its go-ahead to a proposal of ICMR for the clinical trial of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients, the Ministry of Health said, ‘there is not enough evidence to claim plasma therapy can be used for treatment of COVID-19. Interestingly, several states, such as, Delhi, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, have already started clinical trials for plasma-based treatment. Meanwhile, media reports, such as, ‘India sees black market boom for plasma from recovered Covid-19 patients,’ started pouring in.

Conclusion:

As recorded in the morning of August 30, 2020, total Coronavirus cases in India have reached a staggering figure of 3,542,733 with 63,657 deaths, despite all measures taken by the country. No signs of flattening of the curve are visible, just yet. In this situation, many experts believe, the way prescriptions are written for Covid-19 patients, based on anything but robust considerations, needs to be re-looked. The headline of an article, written by Richard L. Kravitz, Professor of Health Policy and Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis on July 09, 2020, vindicates this point. It said:‘When Trump pushed Hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, hundreds of thousands of prescriptions followed, despite little evidence that it worked.’

Another interesting article, tried to ferret out the truth behind such haste. It voiced, ‘the truth is that researchers, academic institutions, medical journals and the media all face powerful incentives to portray the latest research findings as more earthshaking than they actually are’. The authors spotlighted, under normal circumstances, numerous mechanisms exist to blunt some of the worst over-hyping and many sources of medical information do their best to be accurate in what they report.

It is possible that in the midst of a pandemic, the urgency of the moment may overwhelm these good intentions. The above paper also cautioned, ‘Bad science can be spread far and wide by normally credible sources.” However, the bottom-line is, the scientific research community, under no circumstances, be made to comply with the thoughts and beliefs of non-scientific, but powerful decision makers. It happened in the oldest democracy in the world, as it also happened in the largest democracy on the planet earth.

The above two instances are just illustrations to highlight an important point – without becoming judgmental. The discussion spotlights the perils of haste in the scientific decision-making processes, while combating Covid-19. As many experts believe, it could be counterproductive for non-scientific power sources to influence the robust medical value creators for a quick remedy. Mainly because, patients will continue to be at the receiving end for the net outcome, of such unproven, and scientifically fragile hypes.

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.

High Innovation-Cost Makes Cancer Drugs Dear: A Fragile Argument?

Posted on by
Reply

Cancer is a major cause of high morbidity and mortality in India, just many other countries, according to a report of the World Health Organization (W.H.O). While deaths from cancer worldwide are projected to continue to rise to over 1.31 million in 2030, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) estimates that India is likely to have over 1.73 million new cases of cancer and over 8,80,000 deaths due to the disease by 2020 with cancers of breast, lung and cervix topping the list.

 Cancer treatment is beyond the reach of many:

Despite cancer being one of the top five leading causes of death in the country, with a major impact on society, its treatment is still beyond the reach of many. There are, of course, a number of critical issues that need to be addressed in containing the havoc that this dreaded disease causes in many families –  spanning across its entire chain, from preventive measures to early diagnosis and right up to its effective treatment. However, in this article, I shall focus only on the concern related to affordable treatment with appropriate cancer with medicines.

To illustrate this point, I shall quote first from the address of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra during inauguration of Aditya Birla Memorial Hospital Cancer Care Center on November 26, 2016. He said: “Cancer is the dreadful disease of all the time and for Maharashtra it is a big challenge as we are infamously at number two position in cancer cases in the country as after Uttar Pradesh, most cases are found here.” Incidentally, UP is one of the poorest state of India.

Underscoring that the biggest challenge before the technology is to bring down the cost of the cancer treatment and make it affordable and accessible for all, the Chief Minister (CM) further observed, “although, technological innovation has increased in last one decade, the accessibility and affordability still remain a challenge and I think, we need to work on this aspect.”

A new cancer drug launch vindicates the CM’s point:

The Maharashtra CM’s above statement is vindicated by a national media report of September 13, 2017. It said, Merck & Co of the United States have launched its blockbuster cancer drug ‘Keytruda’ (pembrolizumab) in India, around a year after its marketing approval in the country. Keytruda is expected to be 30 percent cheaper, compared to its global prices, costing Rs 3,75,000 – 4,50,000 to patients for each 21-day dose in India.

The point to take note of, despite being 30 percent cheaper, how many Indian patients will be able to afford this drug for every 3 weeks therapy? Doesn’t it, therefore, endorse the CM’s above submission? Well, some may argue that this exorbitant drug price is directly linked to high costs for its innovation and clinical development. Let me examine this myth now under the backdrop of credible research studies.

Cancer drugs are least affordable in India – An international study:

On June 6, 2016, by a Press Release, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) revealed the results of one of the largest analyses of differences in cancer drug prices between countries worldwide. The researchers calculated monthly drug doses for 15 generic and eight patented cancer drugs used to treat a wide range of cancer types and stages. Retail drug prices in Australia, China, India, South Africa, United Kingdom, Israel, and the United States were obtained predominantly from government websites. The study shows that cancer drug prices are the highest in the United States, and the lowest in India and South Africa.

However, adjusting the prices against ‘GDPcapPPP’ – a measure of national wealth that takes into consideration the cost of living, cancer drugs appeared to be least affordable in India and China. The researchers obtained the ‘GDPcapPPP’ data for each country from the International Monetary Fund and used it to estimate the affordability of drugs.

Why are cancer drug prices so high and not affordable to many?

The most common argument of the research based pharma companies is that the cost of research and development to bring an innovative new drug goes in billions of dollars.

The same question was raised in a series of interviews at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, published by the CNBC with a title “CEOs: What’s missing in the drug pricing debate” on January 11, 2016, where three Global CEOs expressed that the public is getting overly simple arguments in the debate about drug pricing. All three of them reportedly cited three different reasons altogether, as follows:

  • Eli Lilly CEO said, “Some of the noise you hear about drug pricing neglects the fact that we often must pay deep discounts in a market-based environment where we’re competing in many cases against other alternative therapies, including those low-cost generics.”
  • Pfizer CEO took a different approach by saying, “if you look at the market, about a decade ago, 54 percent of the pharmaceutical market was genericized; today 90 percent is genericized.”
  • However, as reported by CNBC, Novartis CEO Joseph Jimenez, focusing on innovation and in context on cancer drugs, argued “innovation has to continue to be rewarded or we’re just not going to be able to see the kind of breakthroughs that we have seen in cancer research, specifically regarding the uses and benefits of the cancer-fighting drug Gleevec. We continued to show that the drug was valuable in other indications in cancer and so we needed to be reared for that innovation and we’re pricing according to that.”

Is drug innovation as expensive and time intensive as claimed to be?

An article titled, “The high cost of drugs is the price we pay for innovation”, published by the World Economic Forum (WEF) on March 28, 2017 reported, “15 spenders in the pharmaceutical industry are investing about US$3 billion in R&D, on average, for each successful new medicine.”

The November 18, 2014 report on the ‘Cost of Developing a New Drug,’ prepared by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development also announced: “The estimated average pre-tax industry cost per new prescription drug approval (inclusive of failures and capital costs) is: US$ 2,558 million.”

Not everybody agrees:

Interestingly, Professor of Medicine of Harvard University – Jerry Avorn questioned the very basis of this study in the article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on May 14, 2015. It’s not just NEJM even the erstwhile Global CEO of GSK – Sir Andrew Witty had questioned such high numbers attributed to R&D cost, around 5 years ago, in 2013. At that time Reuters reported his comments on the subject, as follows:

“The pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge less for new drugs in future by passing on efficiencies in research and development to its customers. It’s not unrealistic to expect that new innovation ought to be priced at or below, in some cases, the prices that have pre-existed them. We haven’t seen that in recent eras of the (pharmaceutical) industry, but it is completely normal in other industries.” Quoting the study of Deloitte and Thomson Reuters on R&D productivity among the world’s 12 top drugmakers that said the average cost of developing a new medicine, including failures, was then US$ 1.1 billion, Witty remarked, “US$ 1 billion price-tag was one of the great myths of the industry.”

A decade after Sir Andrew’s comment, his view was virtually corroborated by yet another research study, published this month. The study reemphasized: “The Tufts analysis lacks transparency and is difficult to judge on its merits. It cannot be properly analyzed without knowing the specific drug products investigated, yet this has been deemed proprietary information and is governed by confidentiality agreements.” I shall discuss this report briefly, in just a bit.

The latest study busts the myth:

The latest study on the subject, titled “Research and Development Spending to Bring a Single Cancer Drug to Market and Revenues After Approval”, has been published in the ‘JAMA Internal Medicine’ on September 11, 2017. It busts the myth that ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear,’ providing a transparent estimate of R&D spending on cancer drugs. Interestingly, the analysis included the cost of failures, as well, while working out the total R&D costs of a company.

The report started by saying: “A common justification for high cancer drug prices is the sizable research and development (R&D) outlay necessary to bring a drug to the US market. A recent estimate of R&D spending is US$ 2.7 billion (2017 US dollars). However, this analysis lacks transparency and independent replication.”

The study concludes: “Prior estimates for the cost to develop one new drug span from US$ 320.0 million to US$ 2.7 billion. We analyzed R&D spending for pharmaceutical companies that successfully pursued their first drug approval and estimate that it costs US$ 648.0 million to bring a drug to market. In a short period, development cost is more than recouped, and some companies boast more than a 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending—a sum not seen in other sectors of the economy. Future work regarding the cost of cancer drugs may be facilitated by more, not less, transparency in the biopharmaceutical industry.” The researchers also established that ‘the median time to develop a drug was 7.3 years (range, 5.8-15.2 years).’

“Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation”:

NPR – a multimedia news organization and radio program producer reported: In an invited commentary that accompanies the JAMA Internal Medicine analysis, Merrill Goozner, editor emeritus of the magazine Modern Healthcare, noted that “the industry consistently generates the highest profit margins among all U.S. industries.” Goozner argues that the enormous value of patent protection for drugs far outweighs the inherent riskiness of pharmaceutical research and development, and agrees with the study authors when he writes: “Policymakers can safely take steps to rein in drug prices without fear of jeopardizing innovation,” NPR wrote.

Conclusion:

So, the moot question that surfaces: Is Pharma innovation as expensive and time consuming as claimed to be? If not, it further strengthens the credibility barrier to Big Pharma’s relentless pro-innovation messaging. Is the core intent, then, stretching the product monopoly status as long as possible – with jaw dropping pricing, unrelated to cost of innovation?

Further, incidents such as, shielding patent of a best-selling drug from low priced generic competition, by transferring its patents on to a native American tribe, probably, unveil the core intent of unabated pro-innovation messaging of major global pharma companies. In this particular case, being one among those companies which are seeking to market cheaper generic versions of this blockbuster eye drug, Mylan reportedly has decided to vigorously oppose such delaying tactic of Allergan before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

As a cumulative impact of similar developments, lawmakers in the United States are reportedly framing new laws to address the issue of high drug prices. For example, “California’s Senate Bill 17 would require health insurers to disclose the costs of certain drugs and force pharmaceutical manufacturers to detail price hikes to an agency for posting on a government website. The proposal would also make drugmakers liable to pay a civil penalty if they don’t follow its provisions.”

The myth of ‘high innovation-cost makes cancer drugs dear’ will go bust with such revelations, regardless of the blitzkrieg of self-serving pro-innovation fragile messaging.  Alongside, shouldn’t the Indian Policy makers take appropriate measures to rein in cancer drug prices, being free from any apprehension of jeopardizing innovation?

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.

 

Alarming Incidence of Cancer: Fragile Infrastructure: Escalating Drug Prices

Posted on by
Reply

According to the ‘Fact-Sheet 2014′ of the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer cases would rise from 14 million in 2012 to 22 million within the next two decades. It is, therefore, no wonder that cancers figured among the leading causes of over 8.2 million deaths in 2012, worldwide.

A reflection of this scary scenario can also be visualized while analyzing the growth trend of various therapy segments of the global pharmaceutical market.

A recent report of ‘Evaluate Pharma (EP)’ has estimated that the worldwide sales of prescription drugs would reach US$ 1,017 bn by 2020 with a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 5.1 percent between 2013 and 2020. Interestingly, oncology is set to record the highest sales growth among the major therapy categories with a CAGR of 11.2 percent during this period, accounting for US$ 153.4 bn of the global pharmaceutical sales.

The key growth driver is expected to be an exciting new class of cancer products targeting the programmed death-1 (PD-1) pathway with a collective value of US$ 14 bn in 2020, says the report.

Another recent report from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics also highlights that global oncology spending touched US$ 91 billion in 2013 growing at 5 percent annually.

Consequently, Oncology would emerge as the biggest therapeutic class, more than twice of the anti-diabetic category, which features next to it.

Key global players:

Roche would continue to remain by far the largest player in the oncology market in 2020 with a 5 percent year-on-year growth between 2013 and 2020 with estimated total sales of over US$ 34bn in 2020 against US$ 25bn in 2013.

In 2020, besides Roche, other key players in the oncology segment would, in all probability, be Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Merck & Co, the EP report says.

Escalating costs of cancer drugs:

As IMS Health indicates, the overall cost for cancer treatments per month in the United States has now reached to US$10,000 from US$ 5,000 just a year ago. Thus, cancer drugs are fast becoming too expensive even in the developed markets, leave aside India.

The following table would help fathom how exorbitant are the costs per therapy of the common cancer drugs, though these are from the United States:

Generic                               Diagnosis

 Cost/ Dose (US$)

Cost of     Therapy/    28 days  (US$)

Cost per  Therapy      (US$)
brentuximab Hodgkins lymphoma

14,000

18,667

224,000
Pertuzumab Breast cancer

4,000

5,333

68,000
pegylated interferon Hepatitis C

700

2,800

36,400
Carfilzomib Multiple myeloma

1,658

9,948

129,324
ziv-aflibercept CRC

2,300

4,600

59,800
Omacetaxine CML

560

3,920

50,960
Regorafenib CRC

450

9,446

122,800
Bosutinib CML

278

7,814

101,580
Vemurafenib Melanoma

172

4,840

62,915
Abiraterone Prostate

192

5,391

70,080
Crizotinib NSCLC

498

27,951

363,367
Enzalutamide Prostate

248

6,972

90,637
ado-trastuzumab emtansine Breast – metastatic

8,500

8,115

105,500
Ponatinib Leukemia

319

8,941

116,233
Pomalidomide Multiple myeloma

500

10,500

135,500

(Source: ION Solutions)

Even US researchers concerned about high cancer drugs cost:

It is interesting to note, that in a review article published recently in ‘The Lancet Oncology’, the US researchers Prof. Thomas Smith and Dr. Ronan Kelly identified drug pricing as one area of high costs of cancer care. They are confident that this high cost can be reduced, just as it is possible for end-of-life care and medical imaging – the other two areas of high costs in cancer treatment.

Besides many other areas, the authors suggested that reducing the prices of new cancer drugs would immensely help containing cancer costs. Prof. Smith reportedly said, “There are drugs that cost tens of thousands of dollars with an unbalanced relationship between cost and benefit. We need to determine appropriate prices for drugs and inform patients about their costs of care.”

Cancer drug price becoming a key issue all over:

As the targeted therapies have significantly increased their share of global oncology sales, from 11 percent a decade ago to 46 percent last year, increasingly, both the Governments and the payers, almost all over the world, have started feeling quite uncomfortable with the rapidly ascending drug price trend.

In the top cancer markets of the world, such as, the United States and Europe, both the respective governments and also the private insurers have now started playing hardball with the cancer drugs manufacturers.

There are several instances in the developed markets, including the United States, where the stakeholders, such as, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) are expressing their concerns about manufacturers’ charging astronomical prices, even for small improvements in the survival time.

Following examples would give an idea of global sensitivity in this area:

  • After rejecting Roche’s breast cancer drug Kadcyla as too expensive, NICE reportedly articulated in its statement, “A breast cancer treatment that can cost more than US$151,000 per patient is not effective enough to justify the price the NHS is being asked to pay.”
  • In October 2012, three doctors at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center announced in the New York Times that their hospital wouldn’t be using Zaltrap. These oncologists did not consider the drug worth its price. They questioned, why prescribe the far more expensive Zaltrap? Almost immediately thereafter, coming under intense stakeholder pressure, , Sanofi reportedly announced 50 percent off on Zaltrap price.
  • Similarly, ASCO in the United States has reportedly launched an initiative to rate cancer drugs not just on their efficacy and side effects, but prices as well.

India:

  • India has already demonstrated its initial concern on this critical issue by granting Compulsory License (CL) to the local player Natco to formulate the generic version of Bayer’s kidney cancer drug Nexavar and make it available to the patients at a fraction of the originator’s price. As rumors are doing the rounds, probably some more patented cancer drugs would come under Government scrutiny to achieve the same end goal.
  • I indicated in my earlier blog post that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of India by its notification dated July 10, 2014 has decided to bring, among others, some anticancer drugs too, not featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011), under price control.
  • Not too long ago, the Indian government reportedly contemplated to allow production of cheaper generic versions of breast cancer drug Herceptin in India. Roche – the originator of the drug ultimately surrendered its patent rights in 2013, apprehending that it would lose a legal contest in Indian courts, according to media reports. Biocon and Mylan thereafter came out with biosimilar version of Herceptin in the country with around 40 percent lesser price.

Hence, responsible pricing of cancer drugs would continue to remain a key pressure-point  in the days ahead.

Increasing R&D investments coming in oncology:

Considering lucrative business growth opportunities and financial returns from this segment, investments of global pharma players remain relatively high in oncology, accounting for more than 30 percent of all preclinical and phase I clinical product developments, with 21 New Molecular Entities (NMEs) being launched and reaching patients in the past two years alone, according to IMS Health.

However, it is also worth noting that newly launched treatments typically increase the overall incremental survival rate between two and six months.

Opportunities for anti-cancer biosimilars:

With gradual easing out of the regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs in the developed markets, especially in the US, a new competitive dynamic is evolving in the high priced, over US$ 40 billion, biologics market related to cancer drugs. According to IMS Health, on a global basis, biosimilars are expected to generate US$ 6 to12 billion in oncology sales by 2020, increasing the level of competition but accounting for less than 5 percent of the total biologics market even at that time.

Alarming situation of cancer in India:

A major report, published in ‘The Lancet Oncology’ states that In India, around 1 million new cancer cases are diagnosed each year, which is estimated to reach 1.7 million in 2035.

The report also highlights, though deaths from cancer are currently 600,000 -700,000 annually, it is expected to increase to around 1.2 million during this period.

Such high incidence of cancer in India is attributed to both internal factors such as, poor immune conditions, genetic pre-disposition or hormonal and also external factors such as, industrialization, over growth of population, lifestyle and food habits.

The Lancet Oncology study showed that while incidence of cancer in the Indian population is only about a quarter of that in the United States or Europe, mortality rates among those diagnosed with the disease are much higher.

Experts do indicate that one of the main barriers of cancer care is its high treatment cost, that is out of reach for millions of Indians. They also believe that cancer treatment could be effective and cheaper, if detected early. Conversely, the treatment would be more expensive, often leading to bankruptcy, if detected late and would, at the same time, significantly reduce the chances of survival too.

The fact that cancer is being spotted too late in India and most patients lack access to treatment, would be quite evident from the data that less than even 30 percent of patients suffering from cancer survive for more than five years after diagnosis, while over two-thirds of cancer related deaths occur among people aged 30 to 69.

Unfortunately, according to the data of the Union Ministry of Health, 40 percent of over 300 cancer centers in India do not have adequate facilities for advanced cancer care. It is estimated that the country would need at least 600 additional cancer care centers by 2020 to meet this crying need.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer, accounting for over 1 in 5 of all deaths from cancer in women, while 40 percent of cancer cases in the country are attributable to tobacco.

Indian Market and key local players:

Cancer drug market in India was reported to be around Rs 2,000 Crore (US$ 335 million) in 2013 and according to a recent Frost & Sullivan report, is estimated to grow to Rs 3,881 Crore (US$ 650 million) by 2017 with a CAGR of 15.46 percent, throwing immense business growth opportunities to pharma players.

Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) is one of the leading Indian players in oncology. DRL has already developed biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche, Filgastrim of Amgen and has also launched the first generic Darbepoetin Alfa and Peg-grafeel.

Other major Indian players in this field are Cipla, Lupin, Glenmark, Emcure, Biocon, Ipca, Natco, Intas, Reliance Life Science, Zydus Cadila and some more. These home grown companies are expected to take a leading role in the fast growing oncology segments of India, together with the major MNC players, as named above.

Analysis of detailed opportunities that would be available to these companies and consequent financial impacts could be a subject of separate discussion.

Conclusion:

Unlike many other developed and developing countries of the world, there is no system yet in place in India to negotiate prices of innovative patented drugs with the respective manufacturers, including those used for cancer. However, NPPA is now moving fast on reducing prices of cancer drugs. It has reportedly pulled up six pharma for not providing pricing data of cancer drugs sold by them.

Further, CL for all patented anti-cancer drugs may not be a sustainable measure for all time to come, either. One robust alternative, therefore, is the intense price negotiation for patented drugs in general, including anti-cancer drugs, as provided in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012).

This important issue has been under consideration of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) since 2007. The report produced by the committee formed for this specific purpose, after dilly-dallying for over five years, now hardly has any takers and gathering dusts.

I reckon, much discussed administrative inertia, insensitivity and abject lack of sense of urgency of the previous regime, have desisted the DoP from progressing much on this important subject, beyond of course customary lip services, as on date. Intense lobbying by vested interests from across the world, seems to have further helped pushing this envelope deep inside an inactive terrain.

The new Government would hopefully make the DoP break its deep slumber now to resolve this critical issue decisively, in a time bound manner, assigning clear accountability, without any further delay.

At the same time, shouldn’t both the Honorable Ministers of Health and Chemicals & Fertilizers, taking the State Governments on board, put their collective resources together to create the following, expeditiously:

- A robust national health infrastructure for cancer care

- A transparent mechanism to prevent escalating cancer drug prices and other treatment costs

Hope, the good days would come to the cancer patients of India, at least, sooner than never.

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.