Tag Archives: rare

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.

On The Flip Side of Pharma Industry: A Saga of Perennial Contradictions

Posted on by
Reply

Awesome contribution in the battle against multiple diseases, is obviously the primary facet of the pharma industry. However, on its flip side, one would witness a saga of numerous contradictions. Some of these exist perennially in well-protected opaque cocoons, regardless of what recent research data reveal. The consequences of which leaves a detrimental impact on the patient’s health interests, eventually turning into highly contentious issues, in the socio-political milieu of recent times.

While there are many such contradictions involving the pharma industry, this article will endeavor to understand just one inherent dispute. This is related to the impact of high R&D expenditure on drug prices. It assumes importance, especially at a time, when the world’s most influential pharma trade organization continues arguing in favor of the dictum – high new drug prices are driven by mind-boggling cost of drug innovation, as R&D spending keep shooting north. Incidentally, many others challenge this assertion backed by robust data, claiming it’s not so, actually.

Thus, the question that comes up, if high R&D cost prompts high drug prices, what happens when this major cost of new drug innovation comes down, as is, apparently, happening now. A proper resolution of this contradiction by ushering in transparency in this area, is important to safeguard a critical health interest of many patients. A recent research report, followed by several other important developments in this area, exposes this contradiction, probably more than ever before.  

Some recent reports revealing the contradictions:

To drive home the point of contradictions, I shall cite a few references below, from a pool of many others. For example, one such report of September 26, 2019 unfolded: ‘The cost to bring a new drug to market has decreased to under US$ 2Billion’. This was announced by Clarivate Analytics plc  while releasing the “2019 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.”

Interestingly, another article had sharply contradicted the above, presenting a different story altogether. Quoting the Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development, it highlighted that it costs US$ 2.6 billion growing at 8.5 percent annually. However, adding an estimate of post-approval R&D costs increases, the cost estimate to US$ 2870 million. Many estimated, it would take pharma companies more than 15 years of average sales to reach breakeven.

Curiously, a different research paper, titled ‘Comparison of Sales-Income and Research and Development Costs for FDA-Approved Cancer Drugs Sold by Originator Drug Companies,’ published by the JAMA Network Open on January 04, 2019 concluded quite in line with the ‘2019 CMR International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.’ It found, ‘Cancer drugs, through high prices, have generated incomes for the companies far in excess of research and development costs; lowering prices of cancer drugs and facilitating greater competition are essential for improving patient access, health system’s financial sustainability, and future innovation.’

Again, contradicting the above, one more article – ‘The Link Between Drug Prices and Research on the Next Generation of Cures,’ published ITIF (Information Technology & Innovation Foundation) on September 09, 2019, touted to: ‘Put simply, drug companies must make significant profits on their best-selling drugs in one generation in order to reinvest in the next generation.’

The saga of contradiction continues.

A glimpse at the current scenario:

While trying to understand the inherent contradiction in the space of cost of drug innovation by analyzing the available data, let us examine the current scenario, of course with reasons. Going by the oft-repeated justification that high R&D expenses drive the drug prices up, the converse scenario would be – a dip in the R&D expenditure should lead to a reduction in medicine prices, commensurately.

But this is unlikely to happen – drug prices won’t possibly come down due to voluntary measures of the drug manufacturers. As various recent developments indicate, it will be clear in the course of this discussion that the same justification won’t be jettisoned anytime soon.

Pharma CEOs do acknowledge that they have some role to play in helping lower drug prices. However, they continue defending prevailing high new drug prices by highlighting, their multibillion-dollar investments in R&D are responsible for advances in treatments of many serious ailments, such as cancer, hepatitis C, schizophrenia and autoimmune diseases.

This was again contradicted by another BMJ Research Study of October 23, 2019, which concludes: ‘A review of the patents associated with new drugs approved over the past decade indicates that publicly supported research had a major role in the late stage developments of at least one in four new drugs, either through direct funding of late stage research or through spin-off companies created from public sector research institutions. These findings could have implications for policy makers in determining fair prices and revenue flows for these products.’ Nevertheless, in the midst of it, signs of a shift in focus of many pharma companies in this area, is clearly discernible. 

Signs of a shift in R&D focus are clearly discernible:

This gets well- reflected in the “2019 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.” As the report unfolds, one of the basic shifts is a change in focus on R&D targets. Until recently, the research focus of most companies was on Noncommunicable Diseases (NCD) such as, Parkinson’s disease, autoimmune diseases, strokes, most heart diseases, most cancers, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and others. Whereas, today there has been an increased focus on rare diseases.  

What does it signify?

It obviously signifies, most companies are now trying to launch steeply priced niche products for rare diseases. This includes complex biologic products, gene therapy, personalized medicine and the likes. Which is why, a majority of current new drug approvals, targets smaller patient populations. For example, between 2010 and 2018, the number of addressable patients per drug approval decreased by 15 percent, as the above report revealed.

The bottom-line, therefore, is with the low hanging fruits already been plucked, many pharma players don’t seem to consider targeting innovation of reasonably priced mass market products. It has already happened with antibiotics and would now probably happen with several NCDs.

Two main drivers for this shift:

The two main drivers for this shift, resulting an increase in drug approvals, and significant reduction in cost per new molecular entity (NME), may be summarized as follows:

  • Increased focus on rare diseases. Of the 57 NMEs launched in 2018, 22 had an orphan drug designation, indicating that they targeted rare disease area.
  • Increased activity of smaller pharmaceutical companies. In 2018, as high as 74 percent of drug launches were developed by companies with an R&D spend of US$ 700 million to US$2 billion. Major pharma companies (R&D spend of greater than US$2 billion) accounted for just 26 percent of drug launches.

A good news!

The increase in new drug approvals driven by smaller pharma companies is a good news and also encouraging. This suggests, becoming a big company with deep pocket is no longer a prerequisite to bring an innovative drug to the market. On the contrary, making R&D programs more efficient is the name of the game, today.

Changing pharma investment strategies:

As is evident from the CMR International Factbook, drug manufacturers’’ investment strategies are also undergoing a makeover. In the R&D domain, external innovation, in general, is now playing a more critical role. Perhaps, more than ever before. In the first half of 2019 alone, global spend for pharma M&A and licensing activities was, reportedly, around US$140 billion. Interestingly, it outpaced projected 2019 R&D spend by more than 60 percent.

Do high R&D cost impact drug prices and vice versa?

This brings us to the key question: Does the high cost of R&D impact drug prices and vice versa? Or, it is being over-hyped as a tool to justify high drug prices. There are umpteen instances to believe so – for example, the world’s best-selling drug – Humira of AbbVie. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of September 28, 2017, the initial U.S. patent for Humira expired in December 2016, but the additional patents expire in the 2020s.

Interestingly, according to other reports, AbbVie has collected more than US$115 billion in global Humira sales since 2010. In 2018 alone its sales amounted to US$ 19.9 billion. The report reiterates, ‘AbbVie has made and will continue to make a lot of money from Humira.’ From these facts, one can presume that AbbVie’s R&D expenditure or the product acquisition cost, has long been recovered, but still doesn’t seem to have any significant impact on the drug price.

Pharma CEOs continue to repeat the same argument:

While testifying at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, pharma CEOs had to confront with a Senators’ question - “Prescription drugs did not become outrageously expensive by accident, Drug prices are astronomically high because that’s where pharmaceutical companies and their investors want them.” However, acknowledging that their prices are high for many patients for high R&D expenditure, the company chiefs tried to deflect blame onto the insurance industry, government and middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers.

The CEOs also highlighted the rebates given on list prices to benefit patients. However, the reality is, under the current system, savings from rebates are not consistently passed through to patients in any form. Interestingly, despite such scenario, pharma CEOs don’t want the government negotiating drug prices directly. It’s apparent that none of their reasonings were found to be the genuine reasons for high drug prices, even by the US Senators.

Thus, pharma’s points of justification for high drug prices have not changed, over a long period of time. On the contrary, shifting greater focus on the R&D of rare diseases, where the number of patients is much less, the CEOs seem to be bolstering their same argument on a different ground, despite reducing R&D costs.

Surfaces a glaring contradiction:

Presenting the current situation from the drug industry perspective, the article titled, ‘Drug Prices and Innovation’, published in the Forbes Magazine on June 20, 2019, emphasized on some interesting points.

It said: ‘In 2018 return on investment in drug discovery/development were 1.9 percent, far below the 10.5 percent cost-of-capital - the rate-of-return the industry must provide to compete for capital with similar investments.’  The article also emphasized: ‘Under the current pricing regime, the expected returns from drug discovery do not justify the investment. They have not done so since 2010 and are expected to turn negative by 2020.’ It further added, big pharma, despite one of the highest rates of R&D spending of any industry, chronically fails to fund research sufficient to support adequate growth and returns to the average drug don’t cover the cost of development.

On the other hand, according to a presentation by CVS Health that cited Macrotrends.net as its source,pharmaceutical manufacturers’ profit margins have reportedly exceeded 26 percent for the last three years and 22 percent for the past 10 years.

This brings out again, the glaring contradiction between what is being highlighted and what is actually happening in the pharma business. Lack of transparency in this area of the drug industry, is believed to be the root cause of this confusion among many.

Conclusion:

As it has been recognized the world over, the high new drugs prices are an issue over the contentious argument of ‘high R&D expenditure’ being the ‘root cause’.  It is, therefore, imperative for the stakeholders to demand transparency in this area. If finding a solution to this health-related issue is considered critical, without further delay, this needs to be expeditiously addressed.

As the saying goes, once the disease is diagnosed accurately, zeroing in on an effective treatment becomes easier. Let me hasten to add, for new, innovative and patented drugs, the situation in India is generally no different. Thus, there is no scope for any contradiction in this area, whatsoever. As the saying goes, once the disease is diagnosed accurately, zeroing in on an effective treatment becomes easier.

Voluntary implementation of ‘responsible’ drug pricing policies, by pharma manufacturers themselves, has been given a long rope. Time is running out now. If this does not happen soon, government control of drug prices will be essential, just as is being contemplated in the United States – the ‘capital’ of the free-pricing world. Moreover, it has been well documented in several studies that price control won’t jeopardize drug innovation, as pharma manufacturers will have to come out with innovative new products and treatments – event for survival of the business.

Saving lives – more lives, alongside making reasonable profits in the business, remain the primary facet of the pharma industry. However, the flip side of it, revealing a perennial saga of contradictions, such as one we discussed above, raises concerns of their being perceived as profiteering with drug prices, by many. Such practices go not only against patients’ health interest, but also negates the core purpose of existence of the industry – surely, endangering long term survival of this business model – as the modern technology unleashes its mesmerizing power for all.

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.

 

Reaping Rich Harvest With Orphan Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

A set of perplexing questions on the drug industry has been haunting many, since long. One such area is intimately associated with the core purpose of this business, as enunciated by each company, often publicly. Just to give a feel of it, let me quote what one of the largest global pharma players – Pfizer articulated in this regard, on April 5, 2019: “Health for All is at the core of our company’s purpose. We advance breakthroughs that change patients’ lives by ensuring they have access to quality health care services and Pfizer’s medicines and vaccines.”

Publicly expressed core purpose of any pharma business being generally similar, it may be construed as the same of the industry, at large. Hence, some baffling questions – not ethical, but purely commercial in nature, float at the top of mind, such as:

  • How the core purpose of business – “Health for All”, gets served when companies bring to the market mostly exorbitantly high-priced drugs, having access only to a minuscule patient population?
  • How are these companies growing at a faster pace and doing better commercially, by focusing more on orphan drugs approved for the treatment of rare diseases, affecting a very small patient population.

At this point, it will be worthwhile to have a quick recap on ‘orphan drug’ and ‘rare disease’. According to MedicineNet, orphan drugs are those which are developed to specifically treat rare medical condition. This rare medical condition is also referred to as an orphan disease. With that preamble, I shall now focus on this knotty area in search of evidence-based answers to – Is it possible to reap a rich harvest in business with orphan drugs for rare disease? And, if so, how?

Is the focus on high priced orphan a strategic business move?

Regardless of an affirmative or negative answer to the above questions, many people are head scratching with anguish while observing this trend in the drug industry. Mainly because, it is possibly the most important industry for most patients, not only while suffering from an ailment, but also before and after it happens, for various reasons.

The anguish increases manifold, when top manufacturers of popular mass-market drugs, such as, the cholesterol blockbuster Crestor, Abilify for psychiatric conditions, cancer drug Herceptin, and rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira, the best-selling medicine in the world, at a later stage seek and receive orphan drug status for these products reaping a rich harvest. The underlying intent being leveraging ‘additional advantages’ for exorbitant pricing and lesser competition. Hence, it is a strategic business move. I shall discuss this point in greater details, as was raised in a Kaiser Health News (KHN) investigation, in this article.

The same feeling gets resonated in several articles and papers, such as the one titled ‘Big Pharma’s Go-To Defense of Soaring Drug Prices Doesn’t Add Up,’ published in The Atlantic on March 23, 2019. It questioned, ‘How is it that pharmaceutical companies can charge patients $100,000, $200,000, or even $500,000 a year for drugs – many of which are not even curative?’ Nonetheless, the strategy is working well, as we shall find below.

More drugs for rare diseases entering the market at a higher price:

Another article, titled ‘Drug Prices for Rare Diseases Skyrocket While Big Pharma Makes Record Profits,’ published by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) on September 10, 2019 wrote, drugs for rare diseases are now entering the market at higher prices than ever before, ranging from tens-of-thousands to hundreds-of-thousands of dollars per patient. It further wrote, according to a new report by AHIP, ‘out-of-control drug prices mean too many patients are forced to choose between paying for their prescriptions or paying their mortgage. The prices for drugs to treat rare medical conditions are 25 times more expensive than traditional drugs. That is 26-fold increase in two decades.

The rationale behind so high pricing:

To explore the rationale behind the exorbitant pricing of such drugs, let’s examine what the expert organizations, such as the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSSD) said in this regard. Quoting a senior research fellow of CSDD, the article - ‘The High Cost of Rare Disease Drugs,’ published by the Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN) on March 04, 2014 reported, although biopharma players generally set higher prices for orphan drugs, there is no causal link between cost of development and pricing. Instead, rare-disease drug prices reflect typical supply and demand situation: ‘Few treatment alternatives allow companies to charge what they can, knowing that payers will often ultimately foot the bill.’

It further explained: “The rarity of the disease means that few people are affected. Generally, the fewer disease sufferers there are, the higher the price of the drug. Companies that invest the same amount of money or more in orphan drugs as they would non-orphan drugs, want to recoup their investment.”

The situation in India for such drugs:

The January 05, 2019 issue of The Pharma Letter captures it all in its headline – ‘India lifts price caps on innovative and orphan drugs; major fillip for Big Pharma.’ It said, with the new legislation announced on January 4, 2019, the Indian government has decided to remove price restrictions on new and innovative drugs developed by foreign pharmaceutical companies for the first five years. In a rider, the government notification also states, the provisions of the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) 2013 will not apply to drugs for treating orphan diseases (rare diseases).

How will it impact Indian patients?

Consequent to the above government decision, as the report indicated: ‘Orphan drugs to treat rare disease, like Myozyme (alglucosidase alfa) and Fabrazyme (agalsidase beta), both from Genzyme, which are used in the treatment of rare genetic diseases, are among a host of medicines that are to be kept out of price control.’

Quoting officials, the paper pointed out, the most challenging part in the fight against rare diseases is access to affordable treatment. As on date, the prices of these drugs tend to vary, e.g., the cost of treatment with enzyme replacement therapies may reach more than $150,000 per treatment per year. Whereas, in some other areas it may even be as much as $400,000 annually. Moreover, most of these drugs are rarely available in India. As a result, Indian patients suffering from rare diseases have to import these drugs directly. This makes affordability of medicines with an orphan drug regulatory status, a major issue for different stakeholders.

Why patient groups are not generally too vocal about this issue?

An interesting paper of 2008-09 brought to the fore the importance of patient organizations to further patient interest in various areas of health care. With the example of rare diseases and orphan drugs, it aptly expressed: ‘by changing the scale of their organizational efforts, patients’ organizations have managed to integrate themselves into the relays of power through which matters of health are thought about and acted upon. Through their formation into coalitions, patients’ organizations have been able to assume a number of important functions in relation to the government of health.’ The paper further added that the orphan drug problem can be thought of as having changed the scale and organizational form of rare disease patients’ groups.

Regrettably, a recent report of October 09, 2019, raised a big question in this area with a startling headline - ‘Big Pharma’s shelling out big-time to patient organizations. Is there any quid pro quo?’ It said, the Senate Finance Committee of the United States, while looking into the drug pricing decisions, ‘is digging into pharma funding for patient advocacy groups, which have been known to speak in tune that are music to the industry’s ears.’ It added, some Big Pharma constituents together contributed more than $ 680 million to hundreds of patient groups and other nonprofits last year.

It’s worth noting, earlier this year, several patient advocacy groups rallied in objection to a Trump-administration plan that would introduce step therapy requiring patients to try cheaper drugs before moving to more costly ones. ‘A Kaiser Health News analysis found that about half of the groups that objected had received funding from the pharmaceutical industry.’ Be that it may, rallying behind high drug prices by patient groups would help the industry only at the cost of patients’ interest. This is beyond an iota of doubt.

The motivation behind marketing more drugs for rare diseases:

There are several motivating factors to market drugs, which also treat rare disease, attaching startling price tags. The top drivers are generally considered, as follows:

  • The company gets seven years of market exclusive rights with the drug marketing approval for a rare or orphan disease. Interestingly, many drugs that now have an orphan status aren’t entirely new, either. Even if, the product patent runs out, USFDA won’t approve another version to treat that rare disease for seven years. This exclusivity is compensation for developing a drug, designed for a small number of patients whose total sales weren’t expected to be that profitable, otherwise.
  • Market exclusivity rights granted by the ‘Orphan Drug Act’ in the United States, can be a vital part of the protective shield that companies create.
  • Leveraging associated free pricing incentive, the concerned company can attach any price tag of its choice to the orphan drug, sans any competition.
  • Interestingly, more than 80 orphan drugs won USFDA approval for more than one rare disease, and in some cases, multiple rare diseases. For each additional approval, the drug manufacturer is qualified for a fresh batch of incentives. 

The system ‘is being manipulated by many drug makers’:

That this system is being manipulated by many drug makers was also established by the Kaiser Health News (KHN) investigation dated January 17, 2017 titled, ‘Drugmakers Manipulate Orphan Drug Rules To Create Prized Monopolies.’ The analysis brought out that ‘the system intended to help desperate patients, is being manipulated by most drug makers. It reiterated, the key driver is to maximize profits, besides protecting niche markets for even those medicines, which are already being taken by millions. Thus, many orphan drugs, originally developed to treat diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people, come with astronomical price tags.’

Even some familiar brands were later approved as orphan drugs:

The KHN’s investigation also uncovered that many drugs that now have an orphan status aren’t entirely new. Over 70 were drugs first approved by the USFDA for mass market use. These medicines, some with familiar brand names, were later approved as orphans. ‘In each case, their manufacturers received millions of dollars in government incentives plus seven years of exclusive rights to treat that rare disease, or a monopoly’, the investigation revealed.

The same KHN study also cited the example of AbbVie’s Humira – the best-selling drug in the world. ‘Humira was approved by the USFDA in late 2002 to treat millions of people who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis. Three years later, AbbVie asked the FDA to designate it as an orphan to treat juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, which they told the FDA affects between 30,000 and 50,000 Americans. That pediatric use was approved in 2008, and Humira subsequently was approved for four more rare diseases, including Crohn’s and uveitis, an inflammatory disease affecting the eyes. The ophthalmologic approval would extend the market exclusivity for Humira for that disease until 2023, the report highlighted.

The report also indicated, much touted Gleevec of Novartis, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia, has nine orphan approvals. Similarly, Botox, started out as a drug to treat painful muscle spasms of the eye and has three orphan drug approvals. It’s also approved as a drug for mass-market for a variety of ailments, including chronic migraines and wrinkles. Despite humongous pricing, recent reports show that drugs with orphan status are eclipsing many new drugs with outstanding commercial success.

Companies focus on orphan drugs for better financial results:

Many top global companies’ sharp strategic focus on orphan drugs, presumably for the above reasons, is paying a rich dividend. This is evident from a number of recent reports, such as, ‘Orphan Drug Report 2019’ of Evaluate Pharma, released in April. The report says, orphan drugs will make up one-fifth of worldwide prescription sales, amounting to $242bn in spending by 2024 – much of it is going to either big pharma or big biotech players. It also found that the drugs prescribed for the treatment of rare diseases now account for seven of the 10 top-selling drugs of any kind, ranked by annual sales.

Another study of October 2019 by Prime Therapeutics LLC (Prime) shows, with more of ultra-expensive drug treatments coming to market, there is a sharp jump in the number of drug super spenders. While small in number, this group of drug super spenders grew 63 percent, which resulted in $800 million in additional drug costs. In the same period, the number of drug super spenders with drug costs over $750,000 increased 38 percent. This explains, why many companies are focusing on orphan drugs for better financial results.

Conclusion:

As the above quoted report of AHIP articulated, the regulators’ primary intent behind creating lucrative incentives for orphan drugs, was to encourage drug makers to develop treatments for rare diseases by earning a modest profit. ‘Unfortunately, drug makers have responded by building lucrative business models that empower them to achieve a gross profit margin of more than 80 percent – compared to an average gross profit margin of 16 percent for the rest of the pharmaceutical industry,’ the report said.

The AHIP study also finds, from 1998 to 2017, orphan drugs were 25 times more expensive than non-orphan drugs, resulting 26-fold increase in average per-patient annual cost, while the cost of specialty and traditional drugs merely doubled. Today, 88 percent of orphan drugs cost more than $10,000 per year per patient, which will be no different even when Indian patients import the same. The paper also revealed, in 2017, seven out of ten best-selling drugs had orphan indications. And among newly launched drugs, the share of orphan drugs increased more than 4-fold, from 10 percent to 44 percent, over a 20-year period.

Coming back to the core purpose of the pharma and biotech business, as defined by the pharma organizations themselves, one would have expected the situation to be much different. Their stated business purpose – ‘Health for All’, does not seem to recognize: “Every patient deserves to get the medications they need at a cost they can afford,’ as AHIP reiterates. Whereas, “drug makers are gaming well-intentioned legislation to generate outsized profits from drugs intended to treat a small population of patients with rare diseases.” In this scenario, reaping a rich harvest with the orphan drug status seems to have become a new normal.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

‘Made-to-measure’ treatment:

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

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

Personalized medicines:

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

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

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

The new era began in 1998:

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

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

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

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

Personalized dosage:

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

Marketing ‘personalized medicine’ a whole new ball game:

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

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

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

Recent reports:

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray  

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

Making ‘National Policy For Rare Diseases’ More Meaningful With ‘Orphan Drugs Act’

Posted on by
Reply

In November 2016, while hearing a related case, the Delhi High Court reportedly directed the Union Government to finalize and implement a policy on rare diseases, with a provision for free treatment with the expensive medications, as will be required by patients.

Earlier in 2014, while passing the judgement in response to a petition filed by a seven-year-old son of a rickshaw puller seeking affordable treatment for the rare disease that he is suffering from, the Delhi High Court concluded that, “every person has a fundamental right to quality health care that is affordable, accessible and compassionate.”

Currently, the treatment for rare diseases costs the patients an arm and a leg, ranging between Rs. 40 lakhs (US$ 62,000 approx.) to Rs 1.70 crores (US$ 267,000 approx.), which is way beyond the reach of most Indians.

Subsequently, on May 26, 2017, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare filed an affidavit before the honorable Court, submitting a copy of the National Policy for Rare Diseases 2017, stating that it will aim to facilitate effective diagnosis and affordable treatment. This development is indeed good news, especially considering around 6 to 8 percent of the world population suffer from ‘rare diseases’, and India is no exception.

The key highlights of the new policy:

As per available information, following are the 10 major highlights of the National Policy for Rare Diseases 2017:

  • The Union Government to create a corpus with an initial funding of Rs 100 crores (US$ 16 million). The State Governments would also provide for a similar fund with a 60 percent contribution from the Centre. This corpus is primarily for the treatment of genetic disorders, excluding rare blood diseases, such as, thalassemia and sickle-cell anemia.
  • For the sustainability of the corpus, Public Sector Units and Corporates will be encouraged for the contribution in these earmarked funds, as part of their corporate social responsibility.
  • Appropriate institutions will be accredited by the government for diagnosis and treatment of rare diseases.
  • To ensure adequate availability and reasonable affordability of the drugs for rare diseases, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) will consider amending the Drug and Cosmetics Act with requisite provisions to make clinical trials and import of ERTs possible.
  • The Department of Financial Services to ensure coverage of rare diseases under insurance schemes.
  • Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) will explore whether the ceiling limit of funding the treatments for rare diseases can be increased through suitable amendments.
  • The policy recognizes that rare diseases are, in most cases, serious, chronic, debilitating and life-threatening, often requiring long – specialized treatments, and may also lead to some form of handicap, at times extremely severe in nature.
  • About 50 percent of new cases of rare diseases are in children and responsible for 35 percent of deaths before the age of one, 10 percent between the ages of one, and five years and 12 percent between five and 15 years.
  • As a preventive measure, the policy may consider the feasibility of providing pre-conception and ante-natal genetic counselling and screening programs for diagnosing genetic disorders, which would provide a choice to parents about giving birth to children with genetic disorders, especially for families that have a diagnosed genetic disorder, or a high risk profile for it.
  • The policy gives Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) the responsibility of creating a patient registry, as India has no epidemiological data on rare diseases.

Rare diseases – definition:

There is no universal definition of rare diseases. For example, while the US defines a rare disease as one that affects less than 200,000 people nationwide, in China, this number changes to 1 in 500,000 people (or neonatal morbidity of less than 1 in 10,000). India doesn’t yet have a clear definition for the same – not even in its new policy for rare diseases.

However, according to Rare Diseases India (RDI) – a foundation for research on rare diseases and disorders, any disease having fewer than 100 patients per 100,000 population fall into this category. Whereas, those ones affecting 2 patients per 100,000 population are described as ultra-rare diseases.

Rare Diseases in India:

The Organization for Rare Diseases in India (ORD), states that 1 in 20 Indians is affected by such diseases. About 6000 to 8000 rare diseases, mostly genetic in nature, have been identified in India. It was initially estimated that over 31 million Indians are suffering from such disorders in the country, many of which still do not have any cure. Moreover, epidemiological data for most of these ailments is hardly available.

To increase awareness for rare diseases, Rare Diseases Day was observed for the first time in India (New Delhi) on February 28, 2010.

Orphan diseases and orphan drugs:

According to RDI, rare diseases are often referred to as ‘orphan’ diseases. Consequently, the drugs that are specifically developed to treat ‘orphan’ or ‘rare disease conditions’ are called ‘orphan drugs’. The reason being, pharma companies do not generally take such drugs through further stages of development for market launch, or in other words, these are orphaned for economic considerations, though are important to save many precious lives.

Need to encourage orphan drug development in India:

According to SanOrphan SA, Geneva, Switzerland, around 65 percent of rare diseases is serious and disabling. Interestingly, about 250 new rare diseases are discovered each year, corresponding to five new rare diseases per week. As the scenario is no different in India, it prompts the need to encourage development of effective and affordable orphan drugs in the country.

However, without appropriate ecosystem being in place, developing an orphan drug in India, specifically to treat a very small number of such patient populations, through a cost intensive R&D initiative with a low potential of return on investments, is indeed a challenging proposition for many pharma players. Although, in the western world, this trend has started changing now, driven by various other commercial reasons.

Why should ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ follow the National Policy on rare diseases?

National Policy for Rare Diseases is undoubtedly a good beginning, though was brought under the directive of Delhi High Court. Nevertheless, to encourage ‘Orphan Drugs’ development within the country, a robust ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ should now logically follow.

One may well ask, why is this Act is so necessary in India? This is because, the new ‘National Policy for Rare Diseases’ charts just the pathway of a course of action that the Government is planning to take in this area. Policies, as we know, though, are a set of well-articulated intents, do not guarantee that these will be successfully followed to achieve the pre-set long-term goals. Whereas, all legislative Acts or duly enacted laws, are legally enforceable. It is worth noting, while the national policies can be formulated by the government, an Act must be passed by the lawmakers in the Parliament.

Consequently, it is now a well-accepted fact that ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ encourages development of drugs for rare diseases. In an article titled, “What the Orphan Drug Act has done lately for children with rare diseases: a 10-year analysis”, published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), U.S, National Library of Medicine, the authors highlighted that in the U.S. 1138 orphan drugs were designated and 148 received marketing approval, of which 38 (26 percent) were for pediatric diseases, from 2000 to 2009. The percentage of approvals for pediatric products increased from 17.5 (10 of 57) in the first half of the decade, as compared to 30.8 (28 of 91) in the second half. Based on these data, the paper concluded that the incentives provided in the ‘Orphan Drugs Act (ODA)’ of the United States of America, have led to increased availability of specific drugs for the treatment of ‘Rare Diseases’ in the country.

Other countries did – why not India?

1983 signaled the importance of ‘Orphan Drugs’ with the ‘Orphan Drugs Act (ODA) in the U.S.A. A decade after, in 1993, Japan took similar initiative followed by Australia in 1999. Currently, Singapore, South Korea, Canada and New Zealand are also having their country specific ODAs.

Following similar footsteps, India should also encourage its domestic pharmaceutical industry to get engaged in research to discover drugs for rare diseases by putting an ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ in place, extending financial support, tax exemptions and regulatory concessions like smaller and shorter clinical trials, among several other areas, without delay.

Opportunities galore:

The above constraints in the development of orphan drugs have now been turned into an opportunity galore by the global pharma industry, where the domestic players should not lag much behind. Orphan drugs, backed by adequate financial incentives provided by laws in different countries, are now seen as a research and development priority to significantly boost the top and the bottom-line of pharma business.

As IgeaHub has highlighted, orphan drugs, though, cater to a small patient pool, the remunerative price of these drugs offsets the commercial challenges, as mentioned earlier. For example, in 2010, Soliris, which treats paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) that affects 1 out of 500,000, was considered as the industry’s most expensive drug amounting to US$ 409,000 per year of treatment, which generated a total of US$ 541 million revenue for Alexion Pharmaceuticals in that year. In 2012, Soliris recorded a sales turnover of US$ 1.13 billion, which is expected to cross the mark of US$ 3.40 billion in 2018. Further, in 2012, the top selling orphan drug in the USA – Rituxan of Roche – used for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, generated US$ 7.15 billion in total sales. Post patent expiry, in 2018, the same drug is expected to yield a revenue of US$ 6.99 billion.

The market:

Evaluate Pharma’s Orphan Drug Report 2017 estimates the worldwide Orphan Drug Sales of total US$ 209 billion, with CAGR of +11 percent for 2017 to 2022 period, which is double of the overall prescription Market Growth. Excluding generics orphan drugs are set to contribute 21.4 percent of Worldwide Prescription Sales by 2022.

Big pharma dominates this segment. Seven of the top 10 companies’ orphan drug sales are from global industry players, who have won approval for their biggest products in various niche indications.

Other commercial benefits:

Thomson Reuters reported additional commercial opportunities with an appropriate ODA, which in the United States are as follows:

  • 15 percent of the ‘Orphan Drugs’ analyzed by them had subsequent launches for other rare illnesses.
  • 6 out of the top 10 ‘Orphan Drugs’ had more than one rare disease indication, with an average peak sales of US$ 34.3 billion in overall sales potential, against around US$ 8.1 billion of the same for drugs with single indication.
  • Time taken for Clinical Trials (CT) focused on orphan drugs is significantly shorter with much quicker review time than trials involving non-orphan drugs.

Conclusion:

Some of the ‘orphan diseases’ are now being diagnosed also in India, and with precision. As the nation takes rapid strides in the medical science, more of such rare diseases are likely to be diagnosed in our country. The global pharma industry has already started taking rapid strides in this area, supported by ODA in various countries. Similar opportunities, both for the patients, as well as, for the industry, need to be made available in India too.

One of the ways to encourage the orphan drug development in India is to follow the model of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’ (OSDD)’ with both global and local partnerships and collaboration.

However, speedy enactment of an appropriate ODA for the country, providing adequate financial incentives to the pharma players, for developing and marketing such drugs, both in the local and global markets, at a reasonably affordable price, would go a long way, and be a win-win situation for all.

Alongside, leveraging the knowledge of OSDD acquired by the CSIR, and framing a robust win-win Public Private Partnership (PPP) model to discover and commercialize the orphan drugs, India could well demonstrate the zeal of the country to move beyond the National Policy for Rare Diseases. In that process, it would be able to offer more meaningful and sustainable benefits, both to the domestic pharma industry and the patients, alike, for a long time to come.

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.

“New drug prices are Astronomical, Unsustainable and Immoral” – Anatomy of Unique Protests

Posted on by
Reply

Yes. The quoted sentiment captured in the headline was reportedly voiced recently by many cancer specialists, including researchers and that too in the heartland of pharmaceutical innovation of the world– the United States of America.

These specialist doctors argued:

“High prices of a medicine to keep someone alive is profiteering, akin to jacking up prices of essential goods after a natural disaster”

Thus, not just in India, high prices of new drugs have started prompting large-scale protests in various types and forms across the world. This time the above unique protest assumed an extra-ordinary dimension, with the eye of the storm being in America.

The news item highlighted quite a different type of public protest by the top doctors, originated at a major cancer center located in New York and actively supported by over 120 influential cancer specialists from more than 15 countries spanning across five continents. These crusaders, though reportedly are working in favor of a healthy pharmaceutical industry, do think, especially the cancer drug prices are beyond the reach of many.

About 30 of these doctors hail from the United States and work closely, as mentioned earlier, with pharmaceutical companies engaged in R&D, including clinical trials.

As the cost of many life saving cancer drugs are now exceeding US$ 100,00 per year, all these doctors and researchers involved in the patients’ fights against cancer, are now playing a pivotal role in resisting such high drug prices vigorously.

Examples of astonishingly high drug prices:

In the area of treating rare diseases, the situation in every sense is mind-boggling. When a drug to treat such ailments comes with a price tag of over US$ 400,000 just for a year’s treatment, it is indeed astonishingly high by any standard. Some protestors even described the cost of these drugs as ‘obvious highway robbery’ in the guise of high R&D cost, while some others would continue to wonder as to why is not there a regulatory intervention for the same?

Here below are the top 10 most expensive drugs of the world…and just hold your breath:

World’s Most Expensive Medicines

No. Name Disease

Price US$ /Year
1. ACTH Infantile spasm

13,800,00
2. Elaprase Hunter Syndrome

657,000
3. Soliris Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria

409,500
4. Nagalazyme Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome

375,000
5. Folotyn T-Cell Lymphoma

360,000
6. Cinryze Hereditary Angioedema

350,000
7. Myozyme Pompe

300,000
8. Arcalyst Cold Auto-Inflammatory Syndrome

250,000
9. Ceredase / Cerezyme Gaucher Disease

200,000
10. Fabrazyme Fabry Disease

200,000

(Source: Medical Billing & Coding, February 6, 2012)

The good news is protests against such ‘immoral pricing’ have started mounting.

Protests against high drug prices for rare diseases:

Probably due to this reason, drugs used for the treatment of rare diseases are being reported as ‘hot properties for drug manufacturers’, all over the world.

The above report highlighted a changing and evolving scenario in this area.

In 2013, the Dutch Government had cut the prices of new enzyme-replacement therapies, which costs as high as US$ 909,000. Similarly, Ireland has reduced significantly the cost of a cystic fibrosis drug, and the U.K. rejected a recommendation to expand the use of a drug for blood disorders due to high costs.

Soon, the United States is also expected to join the initiative to reduce high prices of orphan drugs as both the government and private insurers increasingly come under the cost containment pressure.

Yet another protest prompted cancer drug price reduction by half:

Another report highlights that last year physicians at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York refused to use a new colon cancer drug ‘as it was twice as expensive as another drug without being better’.

After this protest, in an unusual move, the manufacturer of this colon cancer drug had cut its price by half.

Even developed countries with low out of pocket expenditure can’t sustain such high prices:

With over one million new cancer cases reportedly coming up every year in India, there is an urgent need for the intervention of the Government in this area, especially for poor and the middleclass population of the country.

Further, it is worth noting that in countries like India, where out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare is very high, as public health system is grossly inadequate, such ‘astronomical prices’ will perhaps mentally knock-down many patients directly, well before they actually die.

That said, even in those countries where out-of-pocket expenditure towards healthcare is nil or very low, respective health systems, by and large, be it public or run by other payors, will still require paying for these high cost drugs, making the systems unsustainable.

Moreover, patients on assistance program of the pharmaceutical companies, reportedly also complain that these ‘Patient Access Programs’ are always not quite user friendly.

Protests spreading beyond cancer and rare disease treatment:

The concern for high drug prices is now spreading across many other serious disease areas, much beyond cancer. It has been reported that the issue of drug prices for various other disease areas was discussed in October 2012 at the Cowen Therapeutic Conference in New York. Many doctors in this conference felt that the drugs with no significant benefit over the existing therapy should not be included in the hospital formulary.

Pressure on diabetic and cardiac drug prices:

Various Governments within the European Union (EU) are now reportedly exerting similar pressures to reduce the costs of drugs used for the treatment of diabetes and cardiac disorders. These measures are now reportedly ‘putting the brakes on an US$ 86 billion sector of the pharmaceutical industry that’s been expanding twice as fast as the market as a whole’.

It is worth noting that each nation within EU is responsible for deciding the price of a new drug, though the European Commission approves drugs for all 27 members of the EU.

Flip side of the story – Commendable initiatives of some global companies:

There is another side of the story too. To address such situation some global companies reportedly are increasing drug donations, reinvesting profits in developing countries and adopting to a more flexible approach to intellectual property related issues. However, as per media reports, there does not seem to be any unanimity within the global companies on country-specific new drug pricing issue, at least not just yet.

To encourage pharmaceutical companies to improve access to affordable drugs for a vast majority of population across the world, an independent initiative known as Access to medicine index ranks 20 largest companies of the world. This ranking is based on the efforts of these companies to improve access to medicine in developing countries.

As indicated by the World Health Organization (WHO), this Index covers 20 companies, 103 countries, and a broad range of drugs, including vaccines, diagnostic tests and other health-related technologies required for preventing, diagnosing and treating disease.

The index covers 33 diseases, including maternal conditions and neonatal infections. The top 10 companies in ‘Access to Medicine Index’ ranking for 2012 are as follows:

No. Company

Index
1. GlaxoSmithKline plc 3.8
2. Johnson & Johnson 3.6
3. Sanofi 3.2
4. Merck & Co. Inc. 3.1
5. Gilead Sciences 3.0
6. Novo Nordisk A/S 3.0
7. Novartis AG 2.9
8. Merck KGaA 2.5
9. Bayer AG 2.4
10. Roche Holding Ltd. 2.3

Source: http;//www.accesstomedicineindex.org/ranking

How high is really the high R&D cost?

A recent article published this month raises some interesting points on this subject, which I am quoting below:

  • No direct and transparent details are available from the industry for public scrutiny on the total cost of innovation.
  • What one does have access to are studies on the issue funded by pharmaceutical MNCs themselves.
  • For most NCEs, public-funded programs in the U.S largely invest in drug discovery.
  • In industry sponsored studies there is lack of transparency on the real costs of drug research and development.
  • Various tax benefits allowed under U.S. law are also ignored by industry studies.
  • Researching new drugs gives one Tax breaks to the extent of 50 per cent in the U.S. If one researches and markets an orphan drug for rare diseases, again, tax breaks are available to the tune of half the expenditure.

Further, a 2011 study by Donald W. Light and Rebecca Warburton published by the London School of Economics and Political Science indicates, “based on independent sources and reasonable arguments, one can conclude that R&D costs companies a median of US$ 43.4 million per new drug.”

It is interesting to note, the above cost estimate is a fraction of what is available from the industry source (over US$ 1.2 billion).

An interesting pricing model prescribed:

Another article recently published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) commented, while pharmaceutical companies reportedly spend billions on research, the actual cost of manufacturing a treatment (such as a pill) is minimal. This cost structure enables pricing flexibility.

The author suggests:

  • Adopt a smarter pricing model, where a company can charge the highest price that each customer is willing to pay.
  • To implement smarter pricing that saves more lives, and brings in more revenue, the pharmaceutical industry should create a straightforward grid that specifies the annual maximum a patient should pay out of pocket on drug expenses.
  • Key variables that determine this maximum include income, family size, and their other drug costs. Patients can submit this data to a third party agency to avail discounts based on these criteria.

However, implementability of this model, especially in the Indian scenario, seems to be challenging.

Conclusion:

Despite this gloom and doom, as ‘Access to Medicine Index 2012′ indicates, some pharmaceutical companies do want to become an integral part in finding out a solution to the access problem in general. Though, there are still many more miles to cover, some companies, though small in number, are demonstrably trying to improve access to health care in the developing countries of the world.

Rising prices of new drugs in general and for dreaded disease like cancer and other rare disorders in particular have now started reaching a crescendo, not just India, but in many other countries across the world and in various forms. Probably due to this reason, currently in Europe, regulators tend to be depending more and more in the concept of cost to efficacy ratios for new drugs.

It is interesting to note, the world is witnessing for the first time and that too in the developed world that a large number of specialist doctors are protesting against this trend, unitedly and with strong words.

The anatomy of initial phase of this groundswell, many would tend to believe, signals ushering in a new era of checks and balances to set right ‘astronomical, unsustainable and immoral new drug prices’ in the patients’ fights especially against dreaded diseases, the world over.

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.

 

 

 

India needs ‘Orphan Drugs Act (ODA)’ to counter growing threat of dreaded rare diseases and simultaneously boost global growth potential of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Posted on by
Reply

An orphan disease is a rare and uncommon disease and an ‘Orphan Drug’ is a pharmaceutical substance that has been developed to treat an orphan disease. The US FDA defines a rare disease, with a prevalence of 1 in 5,000 of the general population, whereas in the European Union (EU) defines it as a disease with a prevalence of 5 in 10,000 of the population.

Around 6-8% of the world population is manifested by such rare diseases. There are around 5000 of reported rare diseases with an ascending growth trend.

Despite such trend, high drug development cost coupled with low return on investment, do not encourage many innovator pharmaceutical companies to get engaged in R&D initiatives for such drugs. However, this perception is fast changing, as we shall see below.

US took the first step to encourage commercialization of ‘Orphan Drugs’:

Public awareness drives for ‘Orphan Diseases’ first originated in the USA with the formation of a rare disease support group representing around 200,000 patients suffering from such diseases. This awareness campaign ultimately culminated into a path breaking legislation in the US named, ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ (ODA), in 1983. The key purpose of ODA was to incentivize initiatives towards development of such drugs to treat around 25 million Americans suffering from ‘Orphan diseases’. The incentives included:

- Funding towards investigation for “Orphan Disease’ treatment
- Tax credit for Clinical Research
- Waiver of fees for New Drug Application (NDA)
- Offering more lucrative incentive than product patent (product patent requires the drug to be novel), as the orphan designation of the product by the US FDA and product approval by them are the only requirements for 7 year market exclusivity of an ‘Orphan Drug’ for the same indication.
- Market exclusivity of ‘Orphan Drugs’ become effective from the date of regulatory approval, unlike product patent, product development time remains outside this period.
- The drugs, which are not eligible for product patent, may be eligible for market exclusivity as an ‘Orphan Drug’ by the US-FDA

Thanks to this Act, currently around 230 ‘Orphan Drugs’ are available in the US for the treatment of around 11 million patients suffering from rare diseases. With the help of ‘Human Genome Project’ more orphan diseases are expected to be identified and newer drugs will be required to treat these rare ailments of human population.

1983 signaled the importance of ‘Orphan Drugs’ with the ODA in the US. A decade after in 1993, Japan took similar initiative followed by Australia in 1999. Currently, Singapore, South Korea, Canada and New Zealand are also having their country specific ODAs.

India needs ODA:

Unfortunately in India, we do not have any ODA, as of now. Such legislation could give a new fillip to the Indian Pharmaceutical and Bio-Pharmaceutical industry and at the same time usher in a new hope to thousands of patients suffering from rare diseases in India, with the availability of relatively lower cost medications to them.

The global market:

The global market of ‘Orphan Drugs’ is expected to grow to US $ 112 billion in 2014 from US $85 billion in 2009. Biotech products contribute around 70% of this turnover with relatively higher CAGR growth rate of around 7%. However, reluctance of the insurance companies to cover ‘Orphan Drugs’ due to higher price still remains a global issue.

Orphan drugs to create a paradigm shift in the Pharmaceutical Industry: says Frost & Sullivan:

“While the pharmaceutical industries have been focusing on ‘blockbuster’ small molecules (chemical drugs) for high revenue generation in the past, it is expected that in 5 years, around $90.0 billion worth of branded drugs will lose their exclusivity. The current economic situation plus the huge generic competition shifted the focus of pharmaceutical companies and they are moving to a new business model – ‘Niche busters’, also called Orphan drugs.”

It is believed that Orphan drugs will now offer an attractive opportunity to the pharmaceutical companies than ever before to significantly absorb the impact of the ‘Patent Cliff’. Various financial incentives provided by the governments of various countries under the ODA coupled with many smaller collaborative projects towards this direction will further encourage the global pharmaceutical players to develop ‘Orphan Drugs.

Currently, EU has granted over 700 ‘Orphan Designations’ and over 60 new drugs have received favorable response for Market Authorization.

Sales potential for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

Generally ‘Orphan Drugs’ were not expected to be very high revenue earners. However, about 4 year ago in the year 2006, about 50 ‘Orphan Drugs’ were reported to had crossed a sales turnover of US $200 million. In 2006 the following ‘Orphan Drugs’ with expired market Exclusivity in the US, had assumed blockbuster status:

- Enbrel (Immunex): US $ 4.38 billion
- Rituxan (Genentech): US$ 3.97 billion
- Nupogen/Neulasta (Amgen): US $ 3.92 billion
- Epogen (Amgen): US $ 2.50 billion
- Avonex (Biogen): US $ 1.70 billion
- Betaseron (Novartis & Bayer): US $ 1.33 billion
- Intron A/ PEG-Intron (Schering): US $ 1.07 billion
- Kogenate (Bayer): US $ 1.07 billion
- Ceredase/Cerezyme (Genzyme): US $ 1.00 billion

Key growth drivers for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

In my view the following key factors will play critical role in driving the growth for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

- Market exclusivity options for a number of FDA recognized ‘Orphan Indications’ for the same drug
- Market exclusivity for seven years in the U.S. and ten years in the EU for each of the ‘Orphan Indications’
- Oncology could be a good segment to get such multiple ‘Orphan Indications’ for the same molecule

Glivec of Novartis obtained approval for around five new ‘Orphan Indications’, the key indications being Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) and Gastrointestinal Stomal Tumors. The product has already assumed a global blockbuster status with an estimated sales turnover of over US $4 billion by 2011.

Biotech companies are champions for the development of ‘Orphan Drugs’, globally:

Since long, the Biotech companies are taking initiatives for the development of ‘Orphan Drugs’. The path breaker in this respect was Genentech of the US, which developed two growth hormone molecules with names Protophin and Nutrophin, way back in 1985. Now, having realized the hidden potential of this segment more number of pharmaceutical players are entering into this arena. Thus, it is no wonder that 13 out of 19 blockbuster ‘Orphan Drugs’ were biologics in the year 2006.

Conclusion:

It is interesting to note that some of the ‘orphan diseases’ are now being diagnosed in India, as well. As India takes rapid strides in the 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?
Currently, India is curving out a strong niche for itself in the space of biogenerics. Pfizer-Biocon deal will vindicate this point.

Moreover, with Pharmacogenomics keep gaining ground at a faster pace, as I mentioned earlier, there will be a shift towards personalized medicines, in not too distant future, in which case the blockbuster drugs as defined today, will be effective only for a smaller number of patients. If the Government of India visualizes this scenario sooner, and comes out with appropriate ODA for the country, domestic pharmaceutical industry of India, in general and biopharmaceuticals industry of the country, in particular, will be able emerge as a force to reckon with, in this important global space, much faster than what one would currently anticipate.

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.