Tag Archives: pipeline

Any Threat To Current Commercial Model Of ‘Gene Therapy’?

Posted on by
Reply

Wish All My Readers A Very Happy, Healthy, Peaceful and Prosperous 2020

 

One of the most complex areas in disease management, is the ailments related to genetic disorders. As these were incurable, over the last four decades, medical researchers are engaged in understanding the complex and intricate process to modify human DNA, using viruses for treatment. This painstaking initiative led to the evolution of ‘gene therapy’ which, according to Mayo Clinic, ‘involves altering the genes inside human body’s cells in an effort to treat or stop the disease.’ In that process, ‘gene therapy’ replaces a faulty gene or adds a new gene, to cure a disease or improve the human body’s ability to safely and effectively treat dreaded ailments, such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, hemophilia and AIDS, it further added.

Several studies, e.g., one titled ‘Gene therapy on the move,’ published in the EMBO Molecular Medicine highlighted, the first gene therapy clinical trials were initiated more than two decades ago. However, initially many of these were impeded by the occurrence of severe side effects in a few treated patients. Nevertheless, over a period of time, ‘highly efficient gene targeting strategies and site-directed gene editing technologies have been developed and applied clinically.’ With over hundreds of clinical trials to date, gene therapy has moved from a vision to clinical reality – offering a powerful treatment option for the correction of monogenic disorders.

It is believed that in the new millennium, ‘gene therapy’ has emerged as one of biotech’s momentous success stories for curing many genetic disorders, which were once considered incurable. But, the cost of ‘gene therapy’ treatment is indeed jaw-dropping – ranging ‘from about US$ 500,000 to US$ 1.5m. And for treatment over a lifetime, some drugs can cost as much as US$ 750,000 in the first year, followed by US$ 375,000 a year after that – for life.

Since, I have already deliberated on ‘gene therapy’ price and associated moral dilemma that it causes, in this article, I shall focus on different concerns that could pose a threat to its ongoing commercial model. Nevertheless, let’s start with the current scenario on ‘gene therapy,’ for better understanding of the issue.

The current scenario:

According to McKinsey & Company’s October 2019 article - ‘Gene therapy coming of age’ - till 2019, the primary focus in development of ‘gene therapy’ has been on monogenic rare diseases with all currently approved therapeutics falling into this category. It is worth noting, rare diseases tend to have clear genomic targets, as well as, high unmet need in a very small patient population, who have generally been under-served by other, more traditional, therapeutic modalities (including monoclonal antibodies)—making them ideal targets for gene therapies.

More than 150 investigational new drug applications were filed for gene therapy in 2018 alone. With this in mind, McKinsey & Company expects this market to grow significantly, with ten to 20 cell and gene therapy approvals per year over the next five years.

Major ‘gene therapy’ launched:

If one takes a broad look at the ‘gene therapy’ treatments launched so far, which I have compiled from different sources, it may appear as follows.

Gene Therapy Company Country Launch Year Indication Price ($M) Current status
Glybera UniQure Europe(EMA) 2012 Pancreatitis caused by absence of a gene - lipoprotein lipase, affecting about 14 people per year in Europe 1.0 Withdrawn (unaffordable)
Strimvels GSK Europe (EMA) 2016 To treat ADA-SCID patients (rare disease) 0.665 Sold to Orchard Therapeutics. Only 5 patients were treated.
Kymriah(CAR-T therapy) Novartis USA 2017 Acute lymphoblastic leukemia 0.475
Yescarta(CAR-T therapy) Kite Pharma USA 2017 Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma 0.373 Gilead acquired Kite Pharma in August 2017 for 11.9 billion dollars
Luxturna  Spark   2017 Rare disease called RPE65 mutation-associated retinal dystrophy. 0.850 for both eyes Novartis is paying $105M up front for the ex-US rights.

The latest being Zolgensma of Novartis. It was approved by USFDA on May 24, 2019 for ‘patients less than 2 years of age with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) with bi-allelic mutations in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene.’ It costs US$ 2.125 million in the US for a one-time treatment.

However, to get a better idea on the industry focus in this area, let us look at the current ‘gene therapy’ pipeline.

Current ‘gene therapy’ pipeline:

To fathom the extent of industry interest in ‘gene therapy’ let’s have a glance at the depth of its pipeline – both in terms of phase-wise clinical study, as well as therapy areas covered. This will help understand the concerns that could pose a threat to its ongoing commercial model.

Clinical Trial Phase Total by phase    Therapy Areas:HematologyOncologySensory OrgansInternal MedicinesOthers
I 574
II 520
III 205
Filed/Approved/Marketed 237
Total 1536

Adapted from: McKinsey article – ‘Gene therapy coming of age’, October 2019

Both large and small companies are entering into the fray:

Besides Novartis and GSK, as mentioned above, other Big Pharma constituents, such as Pfizer, Roche, Gilead and Bristol-Myers Squibb - are also putting their money in developing ‘gene therapy.’ This includes Mergers and Acquisitions too. For example:

Alongside, newer ‘gene therapy’ platforms continue to come up, many funded by venture capitals – further enriching the ‘gene therapy’ pipeline. In tandem, fresh concerns that could pose a serious threat to the ongoing commercial model of ‘gene therapy’ are also being realized. Mainly, the impact of the one-time or curative version of such avant-garde therapy on current pharma business models.

Also facilitates a giant leap towards personalized medicine:

‘Gene therapy’ is also believed to be a giant leap of medical science towards personalized medicine. This is because, in addition to repairing and replacing defective or missing genes of a human body, this therapy can use body’s own cellular immune system to treat the disease. This is because, CAR-T cell therapy can fall in the category of personalized medicine, where a patient’s T cells are changed in the laboratory, empowering them to attack cancer cells.

Concerns that could threaten its ongoing commercial model:

Despite its significant patient-value offerings with long-term benefits, ‘gene therapies’ that have been approved and are already in the market had to confront with tough unforeseen challenges, both from fresh regulatory questions - to therapy withdrawal for commercial reasons. These developments, coupled with a very low and difficult to identify patient population, and affordability related low market access, prompt the need of a transformed marketing model for novel ‘gene therapy.’ This is important for financial sustainability of current ‘gene therapies’ in most pharma markets, globally, including the United States.

Some critical areas:

An article on ‘gene therapy’ by the Managing Directors of L.E.K Consulting, published by Cell & Gene on May 16, 2019, also pointed to some of these critical areas. Even this paper articulated, the fundamental value proposition of ‘gene therapy’, its long-term efficacy with a single-dose treatment, gives rise to a number of unique challenges for its manufacturing companies. Let me paraphrase below just three of those, as I understand, to drive home this point.

Declining number of eligible patients for most doctors: 

The promise of a functional cure is expected to limit ‘gene therapies’ to a single dose per patient, in most cases. Thus, inability to re-treat would lead such therapies to deplete their addressable prevalent populations, for most doctors. This is primarily because, as the number of treated patient accumulates – the number of potential patients who could be treated in a given year is reduced. This leads to demand that would peak early before steadily declining. Once the prevalent population is depleted, the demand for a gene therapy would be driven by incident patients.

However, research has now been initiated targeting larger populations – e.g., those suffering from leukemia and lymphomas. But, the greatest revenue potential for ‘gene therapy’, is expected to be its success in delivering life-changing treatment outcomes in multiple myeloma. When such patients will get to experience better outcomes from cell and gene therapies, the incremental approach the industry has been taking in this area, will be more than justified.

Till then, it could pose a challenge to business sustainability:

As discussed, the ‘gene therapy’ sales curve with an early peak and then steady decline, caused by a depleted addressable patient population within a few years after launch, could pose a serious challenge to business sustainability. This would require launching, possibly another ‘gene therapy’ product before the revenue of the first ‘gene therapy’ starts waning. Consequently, the timing of its life cycle management efforts and subsequent launches would be a critical success factor.

Intricacy of market access dynamics:

Optimal market access of ‘gene therapy’ will call for working in unison with virtually all stakeholders, including regulators, governments, and at the same time, effectively disseminating the real-life treatment-success stories. However, both in the developed countries and also in the emerging markets, such as India, its treatment cost will continue to remain a key barrier, sans some disruptive pricing strategy.

How this tough task remains unresolved, can be sensed from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report of December 19, 2019 titled, ‘Novartis to Offer World’s Most Expensive Drug for Free Via Lottery.’ For this purpose, Novartis launched a lottery-style program to provide doses of its pricey gene therapy for Zolgensma, a one-shot ‘gene therapy’ cure, for free of charge. But, this approach drew criticism from patient groups that called it – an inappropriate way to distribute a lifesaving treatment aimed at babies for a deadly inherited disease whose victims cannot control their muscles. At a price of US$ 2.1 million, Zolgensma, is the world’s most expensive drug.

Conclusion:

As I discussed above, ‘gene therapy’, also known as ‘human gene transfer,’ has been one of biotech’s momentous success stories in the new millennium, paving the way for a cure of many genetic disorders – once considered incurable. However, the number of patients on ‘gene therapy’ remains small compared to other therapeutic regimens, mainly because of two factors. One – this therapy, mostly targets rare diseases, and the second – even among those small patient populations, only very few can afford such pricey therapy.

Nevertheless, current research in this complex area, is now targeting larger populations – suffering from leukemia, lymphomas and multiple myeloma. Success in these areas will open the door of significantly greater revenue potential for ‘gene therapy’ by delivering life-changing treatment outcomes. Till then, its current business model, I reckon, would continue to pose a high commercial risk to this venture.

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.

Dry New Antibiotic Pipeline: Increasing Incidence Of Deadly Antibiotic Resistance

Posted on by
Reply

On January 13, 2017, ‘The Telegraph’ quoting the ‘Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’ reported that a woman in Nevada was killed by a superbug that proved resistant to every antibiotic available in the United States (US). She was in her 70s, and had recently returned to the US after an extended visit to India. The CDC found her blood containing ‘New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase (NDM)’ – an enzyme that was first detected in India, makes bacteria resistant to many antibiotics. Nevertheless, this is just not a solitary example. It’s fast giving rise to a snowballing effect.

The magnitude of this problem has now assumed a global dimension. A May 2016 review of ‘Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)’ estimates: ‘By 2050, 10 million lives a year and a cumulative 100 trillion USD of economic output is at risk due to the rise of drug – resistant infections, if we do not find proactive solutions now to slow down the rise of drug resistance. Even today, 700,000 people die of resistant infections every year.

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), AMR is the ability of a microorganism (like bacteria, viruses, and some parasites) to stop an antimicrobial (such as antibiotics, antivirals and antimalarials) from working against it. Consequently, standard treatments become ineffective, infections persist and may spread to others.

As antibiotics are a special category of antimicrobial drugs that underpin modern medicine as we know it: if they lose their effectiveness, key medical procedures (such as gut surgery, caesarean sections, joint replacements, and treatments that depress the immune system, such as chemotherapy for cancer) could become too dangerous to perform. Most of the direct and much of the indirect impact of AMR will fall on low and middle-income countries – the above review reiterates.

The first global report on AMR:

Not so long ago, In 2014, the first global report on AMR, published by the W.H.O reiterated that this scary scenario is no longer a prediction for the future. It is happening right now, and is not a country specific issue, but a global concern that is jeopardizing global health security.

“Hundreds of thousands of antibiotic-resistant infections and tens of thousands of related deaths go uncounted each year. But even if they were closely tracked, the lack of new drugs to meet the rising tide of resistance means the toll will only mount,” Reported Reuters in another article titled “Stronger superbugs and no new drugs to fight them”, on December 15, 2016.

Thus, there isn’t even an iota of doubt now that in the battle against bacterial infections, drug-resistant superbugs are fast emerging as one of the deadliest issues in the health care space, across the world, including India.

Interestingly, no one knows who will fall victim of this scary scenario and when. Neither can one eliminate this risk completely, even in the developed world. Only painstaking medical research, sans sole focus on creamy bottom-line, and with the application of cutting edge technology, can help overcome this fast-growing health menace to mankind.

“It’s all about the bottom line”:

Quoting a biochemistry professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, the above article reported, in 1980, 36 large American and European pharmaceutical companies were involved in research into new antibiotics. This number currently reduces to just four: Novartis AG, Merck & Co, GlaxoSmithKline Plc and Sanofi SA.

The May 2016 Data Table of ‘The Pew Charitable Trust’ indicates, as of March 2016, an estimated 37 new antibiotics with the potential to treat serious bacterial infections are in clinical development for the U.S. market. It is worth noting, the success rate of clinical drug development is low. Historical data show that, generally, only 1 in 5 infectious disease products that enter human testing (phase 1 clinical trial) will be approved for patients.

Moreover, most of these new antibiotics are based on existing drugs. Although, this approach is cheaper and easier to develop a new antibiotic, as compared to new classes of drugs, bacteria may rather quickly succeed in developing resistance to them.

It keeps happening, primarily because the return on investment for antibiotics, which are typically prescribed for a short period of 7 to 14 days, is much lower than the new drugs used for virtually a life treatment of chronic conditions, such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or diabetes.

Consequently, most of the constituents of Big Pharma have virtually fled the antibiotic business, as the new drug development ball game today “is all about the bottom line”, the article quoted.

Antibiotic resistance in India:

As W.H.O articulates in its above report, AMR poses a greater challenge in the developing nations, such as India, where the burden of infectious disease is high and health care spending is too low. The problem assumes a more critical dimension in India, that records among the highest bacterial disease burden in the world, with antibiotics playing a critical role in limiting morbidity and mortality.

The 2015 multi-country survey of the W.H.O unveiled a widespread public misunderstanding about antibiotic usage and resistance in India. Some of the major highlights are as follows:

  • Three quarters (75 percent) of respondents think, incorrectly, that colds and flu can be treated with antibiotics, and only 58 percent know that they should stop taking antibiotics only when they finish the course as directed.
  • More than three quarters (76 percent) of respondents report having taken antibiotics within the past 6 months; 90 percent say they were prescribed or provided by a doctor or nurse.
  • While 75 percent agree that antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest problems in the world, 72 percent of respondents believe experts will solve the problem before it becomes too serious.

Nowhere AMR is as stark as in India:

Another article published in the ‘PLOS Medicine’ on March 2, 2016, is quite in tune with the above W.H.O report. It also reiterates that antibiotic resistance is a global public health threat, but nowhere is it as stark as in India. The crude infectious disease mortality rate in India today is 416.75 per 100,000 persons and is twice the rate prevailing in the United States when antibiotics were introduced (roughly 200 per 100,000 persons).

It also captures the following burning issues in this area:

  • Antibiotic use is a major driver of resistance. In 2010, India was the world’s largest consumer for human health.
  • Access to antibiotics is rising, which portends well for the large proportion of India’s population that thus far had poor access to these life-saving drugs.
  • The convergence of factors such as poor public health infrastructure, rising incomes, a high burden of disease, and cheap, unregulated sales of antibiotics have created ideal conditions for a rapid rise in resistant infections in India.
  • Over-the-counter, nonprescription sales of carbapenems in India are among the highest in the world, and contribute to growing carbapenem resistance among gram-negative organisms.
  • Improving regulations of drug production and sales, better managing physician compensation, and encouraging behavior change among doctors and patients, are of immediate priority.

More serious than local perception:

The new report released by the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy (CDDEP) in September 2015, has flagged an alarming trend of bacterial resistance to last-resort antibiotics that can lead to life-threatening infections across the world.

While the developed countries still use far more antibiotics per capita, high AMR rates in the developing nations, such as India, Kenya and Vietnam send a strong warning signal to the world.

For example, in India, 57 per cent of the infections caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae, a deadly superbug found in hospitals, were found to be resistant to one type of last-resort drug in 2014 – an increase from 29 per cent in 2008. It is worth noting that these drugs, known as carbapenems, are still effective against Klebsiellainfections in 90 per cent of cases in the U.S, and over 95 per cent in Europe.

A new class of antibiotics discovered with iChip technology:

The good news is, as reported in the June 18, 2015 issue of the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, scientists could produce a new class of antibiotic, named Teixobactin, from a hitherto undescribed soil microorganism (provisionally named Eleftheria terrae). It was isolated with a new tool – the iChip, that allowed the environmental bacterium to grow and for the antibiotic it produced to be isolated and subsequently identified.

Working together with collaborators at the University of Central Florida and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, a research team of Hong Kong University (HKU) has successfully synthesized this ‘game-changing’ antibiotic that can kill a wide range of bacteria seemingly without developing resistance.

Teixobactin has activity against Gram-positive (but not Gram-negative) organisms and mycobacteria and a novel mode of action inhibiting peptidoglycan biosynthesis. Teixobactin, a still-experimental drug that may herald a new era of antibiotic discovery. However, there are no guarantees that it will be able to reach the market post regulatory acid tests, though the use of the iChip will hopefully result in the discovery of further potential new antibiotics.

Country specific frugal innovation is also necessary:

Alongside, various academic initiatives in search of new, path breaking antibiotics, frugal innovation in various countries to address the local issues in this area, could also play a very significant role to contain this menace.

In this context, I shall quote from the example of a small country, such as Singapore, which is contributing significantly to medical research and development in this area.

An article published in a new daily of Singapore – ‘Today’, on December 29, 2016, highlighted that drug-resistant superbugs have become one of the most pressing problems in the healthcare space of even one of the cleanest cities of the world.

Driven by the need to find a more suitable alternative, researchers at the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (IBN) of Singapore, have developed a new material that can kill E coli bacteria within seconds. E coli is a type of bacteria found in the intestines of humans and animals, and some strains can cause severe diarrhea, abdominal pain and fever.

The article, reported that the novel synthetic material, known as imidazolium oligomers, can kill 99.7 percent of the bacteria within 30 seconds, more rapidly than any existing antimicrobial product on the market, such as hand wash or surface sprays. Existing products take minutes to hours to kill the bacteria. It was also tested and found to be effective against other common strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi, such as Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans. It has been licensed by a multinational firm for commercial development in October.

If Singapore can take its own initiatives in this crucial health care space, why can’t India?

Conclusion:

Strict enforcement of the existing regulations of the medical sector, particularly in the prescription of medicines, is of crucial importance. Lack of knowledge among medical practitioners, as well as public on rational use of antibiotics, aggravates the issue.

Notwithstanding fast drying-up of global research pipeline for new antibiotics due to several reasons, India needs to address this fast escalating life-threatening problem through various other practical means. One such could be, putting in place a comprehensive National Action Plan for AMR, quite in line with the Global one, which the W.H.O has already recommended.

This critical issue gets further compounded, as a very significant part of an out-of-pocket expenditure on health care is on medicines, and longer treatment with ineffective drugs and/or second line expensive antibiotics, are pushing the treatment costs higher. On the other side, higher priced drug regimens are less likely to be adhered to, which again contributes to the AMR.

“This situation needs to be interrupted and reversed, not only for safeguarding people’s health, but also for providing protection against health care costs and people going into poverty,” advises the premier World Health body.

Finally, it is important for all to bear in mind, no one knows who will fall victim of this scary scenario and when. So, a decisive action from all concerned can’t wait any longer.

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.

The Stakeholder-Mix Has Changed, But Pharma Marketing Has Not

Posted on by
Reply

“We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for profit. Profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they never fail to appear.”

In 1952, George Wilhelm Herman Emanuel Merck, the then President of Merck & Co of the United States said this. He was then aptly quoted on the front cover of the ‘Time Magazine’, epitomizing his clear vision for the company: “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”.

The globally acclaimed Management Guru – Peter F. Drucker had also clearly articulated in his management classics that, “Profit is not the purpose of business and the concept of profit maximization is not only meaningless, but dangerous.” He further said, “There is only one valid purpose of a business, and that is to create a customer” 

As this is an ongoing process, in the pharma perspective, it may be construed as ensuring access to new drugs for an increasing number of patients.

It really worked: 

In those days, driven by such visionary leadership, the pharma used to be one of the most respected industries and Merck topped the list of the most admired corporations in America. It is clear that pharma leadership at that time wanted to make ‘inclusive growth’, both in the letter and spirit, as an integral part of the organizational progress, moving with time.

Thus, it worked. The sales and marketing growth of the global drug industry at that time was not lackluster, either, in any way. The R&D pipeline of the drug companies used to be also rich, with regular flow of breakthrough new products too. 

Straying away from ‘inclusive’ to ‘self-serving’ strategies:

Much water has flown down the bridges, since then, so is the change in the public and other stakeholders’ perception about the pharma industry, in general. 

Sharply in contrast with George W. Merck’s (Merck & Co) vision in 1952 that “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”, in December 2013 the global CEO of Bayer reportedly proclaimed in public that: “Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.” 

It appears that the focus of the pharma industry on ‘inclusive growth’ seems to have strayed away to ‘self-serving growth’, with the passage of time. As a result, a large majority of the new stakeholders started harboring a strong negative feeling about the same industry that continues its active engagement with the very same business of developing new drugs that save many precious lives. 

Granted that the business environment has changed since then, with increasing complexities. Nonetheless, there does not seem to be any justifiable reason for straying away from ‘inclusive growth’ strategies.                                         

As are regularly being reported, both in the global and local media, mindless arrogance on fixing exorbitant high new drug prices severely limiting their access, unabated malpractices in drug marketing and escaping with hefty fines, releasing only favorable clinical trial data, just to mention a few, are giving the industry image a strong tail spin.

Stakeholders changed, but pharma marketing did not:

Keeping the same strategic direction and pace, overall pharma brand marketing strategy also continued to be increasingly ‘self-serving’, and tradition bound. Success, and more success in building relationship with the doctors, whatever may be the means, is still considered as the magic wand for business excellence, with any pharma brand. Thus, since over decades, building and strengthening the relationship with doctors, continue to remain the primary fulcrum for conceptualizing pharma marketing strategies. 

It does not seem to have not dawned yet for the pharma marketers, that over a period of time, the market is undergoing a metamorphosis, with several key changes, and some of these would be quite disruptive in the traditional pharma marketing ball game. Consequently, the above key the fulcrum of pharma marketing is also gradually shifting, slowly but surely.

In this article, I shall deliberate only on this area.

A new marketing paradigm:

The key customer in the pharma business is no longer just the doctors. That was the bygone paradigm. The pharma stakeholders’ mix is no longer the same as what it used to be. 

The evolving new paradigm constitutes multitude of important stakeholders, requiring a comprehensive multi-stakeholder approach in modern day’s pharma marketing game plan.

Patients, governments, policy influencers, health insurance providers, hospital administrators, social media, and many others, have now started playing and increasing role in determining the consumption pattern of pharma brands, and their acceptability. More importantly, these not so influential stakeholders of the past, are gradually becoming instrumental in building overall pharma business environment too. This necessitates customized engagement strategy for each of these stakeholders, with high precision and relevance.

Changing mindset is critical: 

An effective response to this challenge of change, calls for a radical change in the marketing mindset of the top pharma marketers. The most basic of which, is a strong will to move away from the age old ‘one size fits all’ and ‘self-serving’ initiatives with some tweaking here or there, to a radically different ‘inclusive marketing’ approach.  In this game, both the types and the individual customer concerned, would occupy the center stage for any meaningful interactions on the brands and associated diseases, besides many other areas of relevance.

Multi-stakeholder – Multi-channel approach:

For a multi-stakeholder customized engagement, innovative use of multiple channels would play a crucial role, more than ever before.

Availability of state of the art digital tools, would facilitate crafting of comprehensive marketing strategies, accordingly. For example, for the doctors, some companies are moving towards e-detailing.

As I discussed in my article in this Blog titled, “e-detailing: The Future of Pharmaceutical Sales?” on September 13 2013, this modern way of interaction with the doctors is fast evolving. E-detailing is highly customized, very interactive, more effective, quite flexible, and at the same time cost-efficient too. Live analytics that e-detailing would provide instantly, could be of immense use while strategizing the game plans of pharmaceutical marketing.

A feel of the changing wind direction:

A relatively new book titled, “Good Pharma: How Marketing Creates Value in Pharma”, published in March 2014, and written by Marcel Corstjens, and Edouard Demeire, well captures some of the key changes in the pharma industry with a number interesting examples. 

The above book seems to somewhat respond to Ben Goldacre’s bestselling book ‘‘Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients’, which I discussed in this blog on October 15, 2012.  It made some important observations in many areas of pharma business. I am quoting below just a few of those incoming changes to give a feel on the urgent need of recasting the marketing models of the pharma industry:

On emerging markets’ like India:

“Emerging markets should not be seen as low-hanging fruits. Their prevalence of diseases may not be the same, the stakeholders may be very different. In addition, the healthcare infrastructure is often not very sophisticated, and these markets can be rather volatile and difficult to predict. It’s not a sure bet; you have to invest. … Companies need to commit seriously to building a heavily localized approach that is substantiated by a global reputation.” This is perhaps not happening in India, to a large extent, as I reckon.

On personalized Health Care (PHC): 

The new drugs brought to market by the pharma companies are not just expensive, but often work only for small segments of the patient population. In India this situation mostly leads to very high out of pocket expenditure, which often is wasted for the drug not working on the patient. Thus, the regulators and payers in the developing countries are setting the threshold for higher reimbursement. The authors observed that PHC is now being put forward as the industry’s best bet for satisfying stricter effectiveness criteria, not only by developing new drugs, but also by investing in the magical trio of the future: “drug-biomarker-diagnostic. In that case, pharma marketing would need to undergo a significant change, starting from now.

On ‘Category captains’:

The book also says, “The most financially successful companies in the past 20 years has been Novo-Nordisk. They have specialized in diabetes, they’re extremely good at that. Roche specializes in oncology. The larger the company, the more ‘captive’ areas they can have. The success of Novo-Nordisk, a relatively small company, proves firms of all sizes have a chance to compete, as long as they stick closely to their strengths. When this happens in a much larger scale, pharma marketing would also be quite different and more focused.

Many pharma companies are still avoiding to change, successfully. For example, as announced on May 31, 2016, Intercept Pharma of the United States announced its new liver disease drug with a hefty price tag of US$ 70,000 a year. According to the report, the company said, prices are justified by a drug’s level of innovation and cost savings for the healthcare system. This justification has now become very typical in the pharmaceutical world, which has been facing barrage of criticisms, including from Capitol Hill, about too-high drug prices.

However, as we move on, the writing on the wall seems to be very clear on the sustainability of health care business, the world over.

Conclusion:

Finally, the question arises, would the traditional approach still be good enough to achieve the desired sales and marketing objectives, any longer?

No, probably not, I reckon. With changed mindsets, ‘getting under the skin’ of each stakeholder, separately, would assume key importance. It would play a key role, while devising each component of any cutting-edge pharma sales and marketing strategy, tactic, and task.

The shift from the old paradigm, signals towards a total recast of pharma marketing to make it more ‘inclusive’, and not just ‘self-serving’. Newly crafted commensurate grand marketing plans and their effective implementation should satisfy the needs and wants of all stakeholders, simultaneously. Singular focus on building, or further strengthen the relationship with prescribing doctors, won’t be adequate enough, anymore.

Thus, the name of the new pharma ballgame would again be ‘inclusive marketing for inclusive growth’.

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.