Tag Archives: pool

Innovation: Is Big Pharma Talking Differently?

Posted on by
Reply

“Nearly 2 billion people have no access to basic medicines, causing a cascade of preventable misery and suffering. Good health is impossible without access to pharmaceutical products.” The World Health Organization’s (WHO) ‘Access to Medicine’ report on ‘Ten years in public health 2007–2017’ made this observation.

It also reemphasized: “A significant proportion of the world’s population, especially in developing countries, has yet to derive much benefit from innovations that are commonplace elsewhere.” Despite this, continued lobbying of many pharma companies for TRIPS-plus measures and legislation, the breaching of laws or codes relating to corruption and unethical marketing, and several blatant instances of company misconduct continues, even today.

In the midst of this situation, has Big Pharma started thinking differently about the purpose of innovation? I shall try to explore the ground reality in this article.

The argument of Big Pharma:

In response to the above observation or anything akin to that, Big Pharma has counter arguments, which are rather contentious, as many believe. They generally say, it is the responsibility of the different governments to alleviate health misery of the citizens, and not theirs. In tandem, they keep repeating the same old argument, underscoring lower prices of innovative drugs would lead to lower profit generation, significantly slowing down the process of innovation.

Drug innovation follows an arduous path and an expensive process: 

Big Pharma wants people to comprehend about what it entails in the journey of discovering a New Molecular Entity (NME) and converting it to a safe and effective medicine.

For example, in its booklet Bayer explained: ‘it takes about ten to twelve years to develop a new drug. during this time, highly qualified scientists from a variety of disciplines work on filtering out a suitable active ingredient from an enormous number of compounds. Between 5,000 and 10,000 compounds are rigorously studied in numerous laboratory tests and the best ones further optimized. out of four or five drug candidates that are then tested on humans in clinical studies often only one substance is approved and becomes available to physicians and patients.”

The entire process reportedly takes around 14 years, and according to a 2016 study by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development - developing a new prescription drug, which gains marketing approval, is estimated to cost drug manufacturers USD 2.6 billion. Besides, a new analysis conducted at Forbes finds that getting a single drug to market may involve an expenditure of USD 350 million before the medicine is available for sale. It concludes, large pharmaceutical companies that are working on dozens of drug projects, spend USD 5 billion per new medicine.

Drug innovation is only for those who can afford:

As is being witnessed by many, Big Pharma always tend to argue that high R&D costs drive new drug prices up in pharma. Moving a step further, that drug innovation is for only those patients who can afford, was justified even by the CEO of a major constituent of Big Pharma. An article published in Forbes Magazine on December 05, 2013 wrote: “At the Financial Times Global Pharmaceutical & Biotech Conference this week, Bayer AG CEO, Marijn Dekkers, is reported to have said that Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western patients that can afford it.”

How strong is the justification for high new drug cost?   

Instead of believing the pharma argument on its face value, it will be worthwhile to go for a dip-stick analysis. One such analysis, titled “Pharmaceutical industry profits and research and development”, published by the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy on November 17, 2017, presents some interesting facts.

It says, the pharmaceutical industry is a high-fixed-cost and low-marginal-cost industry. This means, as the authors explain, that the cost of bringing a new drug to market is very high and the process is risky, while the cost of producing an extra unit of a product that is on the market is frequently “pennies a pill”. It also, indicates, though there is a disagreement about the exact cost of bringing a new drug to market, there is general recognition that the process costs run a fewhundreds of millions of dollars per new drug. Thus, innovative drugs are supposed to be somewhat more expensive to many patients. But how much – is the question to ponder, I reckon.

An example of a new drug pricing:

Let me choose here, as an example, the pricing of one of the most contentious, but undoubtedly a breakthrough medicine – Sovaldi (Sofosbuvir) of Gilead. Sofosbuvir was discovered in 2007 – not by Gilead Sciences, but by Michael Sofia, a scientist at Pharmasset. The drug was first tested on human successfully in 2010. However, on January 17, 2012 Gilead announced completion of the acquisition of Pharmasset at approximately USD 11.2 billion.

Subsequently, on December 06, 2013, US-FDA approved Gilead’s Sovaldi (Sofosbuvir) for the treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C. Sovaldi was priced at USD 1,000 a day in the U.S., costingUSD 84,000 for a course of treatment. That Gilead can’t justify the price of its hepatitis C therapy – Sovaldi, was highlighted in an article with a similar title, published in the Forbes Magazine on June 17, 2014.

It is worth mentioning that Sovaldi costs around USD 67,000 for a course of therapy, in Germany. Whereas, it costs round USD 55,000 in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK). Gilead has accepted an altogether different pricing strategy for Sovaldi in some other countries, such as India and Egypt.

When the above concept is used to explain Sovaldi pricing:

The above Forbes paper explained its pricing by saying: “Add in other therapies that supplement Sovaldi, and now you’re talking about USD 100,000 or so to treat a single patient. To use Sovaldi to treat each of the 3 million hepatitis C patients in the United States, it would cost around USD 300 billion, or about the same amount we annually spend for all other drugs combined.”

Let me now put a couple of important numbers together to get a sense of the overall pricing scenario of a new drug. The New York Times (NYT) reported on February 03, 2015: “Gilead Sciences sold USD 10.3 billion of its new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi in 2014, a figure that brought it close to being the best-selling drug in the world in only its first year on the market.”

Against its just the first-year sale, let me put the cost of acquisition of Sovaldi at USD 11.2 billion, an expenditure of USD 350 million before the medicine is available for sale as calculated in the Forbes articleand the cost to manufacture a pill of Sovaldi at around USD 130. This reinforces the point, beyond any doubt how ‘outrageous’ its pricing is.Even Gilead’s CEO admitted to failures in setting price of Sovaldi at USD 1,000-A-Pill, said another article on the subject. More important is, the costs to Gilead for Sovaldi acquisition and launch were virtually recovered in just a little over a year, but Sovaldi’s original price tag remains unaltered.

Is the Big Pharma talking differently now?

It appears that some constituents of Big Pharma have now started talking differently in this regard, publicly – at least, in letters, if not in both letter and spirit. Be that as it may, one will possibly be too naïve to accept such sporadic signals coming from pharma, as a shift in their fundamental thought pattern on drug innovation as a profit booster. Being highly optimistic in this area, I would rather say that these are early days to conclude that Big Pharma has really accepted the reality that – drug innovation is only meaningful, if it reaches those patients who need them the most.

Changing…not changing…or early days?

Let me explain this point with examples of changing…not changing…orearly days.

Changing?

On July 24, 2018 during an interview to Pharm Exec the head of the sub-Saharan African region for Roche made some key points, such as:

  • Groundbreaking innovation in medical science is only meaningful, if it reaches the patients who need it.
  • Access to healthcare is a multidimensional challenge and key to addressing the barriers, is really understanding them
  • Need to create a new business model that can sustainably – and this is very important – create access for patients.

Not changing?

When one Big Pharma constituent is showing some change in its approach on the purpose of innovation, another constituent is trying to make the entry of cheaper biosimilar drugs even tougher. This creates yet another doubt – both on safety and efficacy of biosimilars, as compared to much higher priced off-patent original biologic drugs.In August 2018, Pfizer reportedly called for US-FDA guidance on ‘false or misleading information’ about biosimilars, citing some of the following examples from other Big Pharma constituents, such as:

  • Genentech’s “Examine Biosimilars” website, which states that “the FDA requires a biosimilar to be highly similar, but not identical to the existing biologic medicine.” Pfizer argues that Genentech’s omission of the fact that an approved biosimilar must have no clinically meaningful differences from its reference product is a failure to properly communicate the definition of a biosimilar.
  • Janssen Biotech’s patient brochure for brand-name Remicade, which states that a biosimilar works “in a similar way” to a biosimilar without clarifying that the biosimilar must have the same mechanism of action as the originator. Pfizer also takes issue with the brochure’s suggestion that no infliximab biosimilar has been proven to be safe or effective in a switching study.
  • Amgen’s April 13, 2018, tweet that states that patients may react differently to biosimilars than to reference products. Pfizer also points out an Amgen YouTube video that implies that switching to a biosimilar is unsafe for patients who are well controlled on a current therapy.

Interestingly, on July 20, 2018 Pfizer announced that the US-FDA has approved Nivestym (filgrastim-aafi), a biosimilar to Neupogen (filgrastim) of Amgen, for all eligible indications of the reference product. This is the fourth US-FDA approved Pfizer biosimilar drug, the marketing and sales promotion of which expectedly, I reckon, will be no different from other biosimilars.

Early days?

Yes, it appears so. These are early days to draw any definitive conclusion on the subject.

Conclusion:

W.H.O observed in its above report that the ‘overall situation is somewhat improving’. It was also corroborated in the ‘2016 Access to Medicines Index’, which gave high marks to those companies that negotiated licenses for antiretrovirals and hepatitis C medicines through the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). MPP was set up in 2010 as a public health organization supported by the United Nations to improve access to HIV, hepatitis and tuberculosis treatments in low- and middle- income countries.

It could well be, on the purpose of drug innovation some new realization has dawned, at least, on some few global pharma majors. However, it is still difficult to fathom its depth, at this point of time. There is no conclusive signal to believe that the Big Pharma is now thinking differently on the subject, not just yet.

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.

‘Patent Pool’ – is GSK setting a new trend for the global pharmaceutical industry?

Posted on by
Reply

On February 13, 2009, The Guardian reported that Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced some significant changes to the way his company will operate in the developing countries of the world.

GSK, as Witty said, will:

• “Cut its prices for all drugs in the 50 least developed countries to no more than 25% of the levels in the UK and US – and less if possible – and make drugs more affordable in middle- income countries such as Brazil and India.

• Put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a “patent pool”, so they can be explored by other researchers.

• Reinvest 20% of any profits it makes in the least developed countries in hospitals, clinics and staff.

• Invite scientists from other companies, NGOs or governments to join the hunt for tropical disease treatments at its dedicated institute at Tres Cantos, Spain.”

Quoting Andrew Witty, The Guardian reported, “his stance may not win him friends in other drug companies, but he is inviting them to join him in an attempt to make a significant difference to the health of people in poor countries”.

“We work like crazy to come up with the next great medicine, knowing that it’s likely to get used an awful lot in developed countries, but we could do something for developing countries. Are we working as hard on that? I want to be able to say yes we are, and that’s what this is all about – trying to make sure we are even-handed in terms of our efforts to find solutions not just for developed but for developing countries,” Witty envisioned.

“I think the shareholders understand this and it’s my job to make sure I can explain it. I think we can. I think it’s absolutely the kind of thing large global companies need to be demonstrating, that they’ve got a more balanced view of the world than short-term returns,” he expressed Knowing full well that his comments will be considered as quite radical within the global pharmaceutical Industry.

The unorthodox young CEO of GSK continued, “I think it’s the first time anybody’s really come out and said we’re prepared to start talking to people about pooling our patents to try to facilitate innovation in areas where, so far, there hasn’t been much progress.”

Definition of ‘Patent Pool’:

The ‘Patent Pool’ is defined as, “an agreement between different owners, including companies, governments and academic bodies to make available patent rights on non-exclusive basis to manufacturers and distributor of drugs against payment of royalties”

Thus one of the often repeated key benefits of the ‘Patent Pool’, as considered by its proponent, is that the system enables the use of innovation against payment of royalties, without the risk of patent infringement.

The rationale for ‘Patent Pool’ system:

Many experts in this area feel that the conventional patent system does not really work for the diseases of the poor, all over the world. Though the concept of ‘Patent Pool’ is quite new in the global pharmaceutical industry, this system is being very successfully and widely practised within the Information Technology (IT) industry. ‘Patent Pool’ system, if effectively used, can also help the global pharmaceutical companies to improve their access to many more developing countries of the world.

GSK appears to have kick started the process:

Andrew witty of GSK is undoubtedly the first CEO of a global pharmaceutical company to announce a ‘Patent Pool’ system for research on 16 neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, filariasis leprosy and leishmaniasis. GSK has, in a real sense, kick started the process by putting more than 500 granted pharmaceuticals patents and over 300 pending applications in the ‘Patent Pool’.

Key requirements for the ‘Patent Pool’:

Careful identification of various patents, which will be essential for the pool, will be one of the key requirements to initiate a ‘Patent Pool’ system. It makes the need to obtain individual patents, required in the process of a drug discovery, less important.

Key issues with the ‘Patent Pool’ concept:

It has been reported, from a WHO conference held in April, 2006 ‘Innovation Strategy Today’ worked out that the start-up costs of a ‘Patent Pool’ for vaccines will be economically viable only if more than 25 participants holding relevant patents join the initiative.

Moreover, various types of litigations, related to patents, which we are currently witnessing within the global pharmaceutical industry, could also be impediment in getting more patents in the pool.

Conclusion:

The initiative to create a ‘Patent Pool’ system in the global pharmaceutical industry, especially for the diseases of the poor, as enunciated by the CEO of GSK, is indeed a path breaking one. Such initiatives are likely to have very positive contribution in solving the problem of access to affordable medicines, especially in the developing world.

In fact, the Council of Science and Industrial Research of the Government of India, lead by its Director General, Dr. Samir Brahmachari has already undertaken similar initiatives in the country where global experts including academia are actively participating.

Though ‘Patent Pool’ is still an untested model in the global pharmaceutical industry, the recent announcement of GSK towards this direction does appear to offer a realistic and practical approach to address the critical global issue of improving ‘access to affordable innovative modern medicines’ to a vast majority of population in the developing countries of the world.

By Tapan Ray

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

‘Orphan Drugs’ for ‘Orphan Diseases’ – is ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ platform for discovery research the way forward?

Posted on by
Reply
To meet the unmet needs of common and dreaded diseases intensive R&D activities are being undertaken by the Pharmaceutical Industry, the world over. At the same time, a percentage of human population, however small, also suffers from some rare diseases, for which there are no approved medical treatments even in the twenty first century, for the rich and poor alike.These rare diseases are also termed as ‘orphan diseases’, which are often chronic, progressive, degenerative, life-threatening or disabling. Many patients suffering from such rare diseases are denied their right to get their ailments effectively treated.It is indeed heartening to note that European Organization for Rare Diseases (EURORDIS) and National Alliances announced February 29, 2008 as the first ‘Rare Disease day’. Thereafter, the last day of February has been designated as ‘Rare Disease Day’ worldwide to call attention to the public health issues associated with rare diseases, which have been reported to affect around 30 million patients around the world.

People with rare diseases remain a medically underserved population even in a developed country. We can then well imagine the plight of such patients in India. The ‘Rare Disease Day’ is intended to bring together the patients and families with rare diseases to discuss the need for greater awareness, more research, and better access to diagnosis and treatment. I am not sure how various authorities, including our Government, are deliberating on this healthcare issue.

People suffering from ‘orphan diseases’ often face huge challenges compared to more common diseases. These include delay in getting an accurate diagnosis, few treatment options and difficulty finding medical experts. Many such rare diseases have no approved treatment. Moreover, treatments for ‘orphan diseases’ tend to be in most cases more expensive than treatments for more common diseases.

This year, the “Rare Disease Day” will be observed in India also, on February 28, though these are not very much talked about in our country, nor is there any proper definition in place for such diseases, as yet.

The drugs meant for treating ‘orphan diseases’ have been very appropriately termed as ‘orphan drugs’, mainly due to commercial reasons, as such drugs will be used on much fewer patients with commensurate return on investments towards R&D. Thus spending expensive R&D resources toward such drugs may not make sound commercial sense.

To address this need, in 1983, the Orphan Drug Act was passed by the Congress in the USA to extend financial incentives for companies to develop treatments for rare diseases. Since then, nearly 330 ‘orphan drugs’ and biologics have been approved by the U.S. FDA, which estimates that from 11 to 14 million Americans would benefit from these ‘orphan drugs’. However, despite such commendable measures taken by the US FDA, around 15 million Americans still leave with such ‘orphan diseases’ for which there is no approved treatment.

It is interesting to note that some of these ‘orphan diseases’ are now being diagnosed in India, as well. As India takes rapid strides in medical science, more of such ‘orphan diseases’ are likely to be known in our country.

Thus the moot question is how does India address this issue with pro-active measures? In the USA, even by giving adequate financial incentives, this problem could not be effectively addressed for commercial reasons.

In my view, one of the ways to properly address this issue is to follow the model of our very own the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for an ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’ (OSDD) program with global partnerships, wherever required. This initiative has been pioneered by the well known scientist and Director General of CSIR Dr. Samir Brahmachari. Andrew Witty, the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline also had mooted a similar idea in another context in not too distant past.

Therefore, to address the issue of ‘orphan diseases’, in my opinion, the OSDD model with partnerships between private, public and academia will not only prove to be a viable and more practical model to discover ‘orphan drugs’, but will also help India to effectively contribute to this important global issue – not just by observing the ‘Rare Diseases Day’ on February 28 or 29, each year.

By Tapan Ray

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