Tag Archives: rare diseases

A Rare Strategic Acrobatic Feat in Covid Time

Posted on by
Reply

‘Keep nose to the grindstone while lifting eyes to the hills.’ Quite a while ago, all-time global management guru – Peter Drucker used this essential acrobatic feat as an example, for the business strategists. This illustration signifies the criticality of harmonizing decisions affecting both the short and the long-term goals of an organization, for a sustainable business excellence.

In most recent times, the pharma major AstraZeneca that has virtually become one of the household names, for developing a Covid-19 vaccine candidate with the University of Oxford, has performed the above acrobatic feat – with precision. During the prevailing unprecedented health crisis, the Company has unequivocally proven that it remains on course – in achieving its dual objectives, as Drucker had prescribed in his management classic – ‘The Practice of Management.’

It happened in tandem – without getting overwhelmed by the disruptive forced of Covid pandemic, unlike most others. Immediately, the Company focused on an urgent objective of saving the humanity – by developing, manufacturing and delivering a Covid vaccine to the world, in a record time. This was possibly a relatively short-term goal. And closely followed the other – a critical strategic decision for the organization’s long-term sustainable business excellence.

I have discussed before, the Company’s first initiative – developing a Covid vaccine candidate with the University of Oxford. Hence, in this article, I shall focus on two other related areas:

  • Deadly impact of rare diseases in some Covid infected young patients.
  • Why not some large Indian companies also explore similar strategies as demonstrated by AstraZeneca – and the reasons behind the same?

Before going into those areas up front, let me start with a brief description of AstraZeneca’s intent to expand its footprint in the of area of rare diseases, besides immunology area to help treat rare types of cancer.

The acquisition:

On December 12, 2020 AstraZeneca announced that to accelerate its strategic and financial development, the company will acquire Alexion valuing $39 billion. Subject to all statutory approvals, the deal is expected to close in the third quarter of 2021. Interestingly, Alexion’s top brand – Soliris, is the world’s one of the most expensive drugs in the world. It is prescribed to treat a rare – life-threatening blood disease paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH). Incidentally, rare diseases have also some significant relevance for Covid infected patients. Let me now recapitulate, some key aspects of rare diseases.

Some key aspects of rare diseases: 

Rare Diseases (RD) – also referred to as Orphan Disease (OD), are diseases affecting a small percentage of the population, and include genetic diseases, rare cancers, infectious tropical diseases and degenerative diseases. There is no universally accepted definition of a rare disease, yet. Different countries define these differently. However, the common considerations in the definitions are, primarily, disease prevalence and to a varying extent – severity and existence of alternative therapeutic options.

Impact of some rare diseases in Covid infected patients: 

Since the beginning of the Covid pandemic, people with underlying diseases, such as, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular and kidney disorders, are considered to fall in the high-risk group. They are more likely to have severe disease and complications and need to be extra cautious of the infection. Importantly, it has been recently reported that some rare diseases also increase risk of dying during Covid-19 pandemic at a younger age.

For example, as reported on December 07, 2020, recent studies indicate, rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases increase risk of dying during Covid-19 pandemic for younger patients. The researchers also found that women with rare autoimmune rheumatological diseases (RAIRD) had a greater increase in all-cause mortality rates during the pandemic when compared to men with RAIRD. However, there seems to be an India specific issue also in this situation, as well.

India specific issue for Covid infected patients with some rare diseases:

Some India specific issues on RD, could have a significant adverse impact on Covid infected patients in the country. One such critical issues is the ‘Baseline Knowledge of Rare Diseases in India.’ This fact was well captured in an important survey that was published with the same name, as an original article, in the ‘International Journal of Rare Diseases & Disorders,’ on November 06, 2019.

The study noted, among others:

  • Although, rare diseases have recently received worldwide attention, the developing countries are seriously behind in regard to awareness, drug development, diagnosis, and social services, in this area. India, which has one-third of the world’s rare disease population, has no accurate assessment of the problem.
  • The drugs for ‘Rare Diseases (RD), also called Orphan Drugs (OD)’, often cost exorbitant with difficulties in diagnosis and treatments.
  • Indian policymakers want to find out the number of RD and the extent of the population suffering from them and help provide treatment for them, which is a challenging task with 1.45% GDP health care budget for 1.3 billion people.
  • The health care professionals appear to have some awareness as compared with non-healthcare professionals, but even among health care professionals, only one third had a rudimentary understanding of RD and OD, whereas three-fourths have virtually no knowledge of RD.
  • Forty-three percent of health professionals had not seen rare disease patients, and a large percent of practicing physicians had not seen even one rare disease patient in their entire professional practice.

Thus, it is clear from this survey that the most important issues are awareness and diagnosis, as many rare diseases are not diagnosed or possibly misdiagnosed. Besides, the survey also observed, since 1983, many global companies started developing orphan drugs after the Orphan Drug Act implementation. There is none at this time in India, although in 2017, the Drugs & Cosmetic Act. 1945 has been amended to include “rare diseases and orphan drugs”.

The National Policy on Rare Diseases flagged some of these facts:

The ‘National Policy on Rare Diseases 2020,’ for India, released by the Union Ministry of Health on February 07, 2020, acknowledged many of these important facts. It also said, ‘Considering the limited data available on rare diseases, and in the light of competing health priorities, the focus of the draft policy is on prevention of rare diseases as a priority as identified by experts.’

Interestingly, the first of such policy was prepared by India in 2017 and a committee was appointed to review it in 2028. However, recently published the National Policy on Rare diseases, has also noted one more important point. It noted: ‘Paradoxically, though rare diseases are of low prevalence and individually rare, collectively they affect a considerable proportion of the population in any country, which according to generally accepted international research is – between 6% and 8%.’ Currently, India, reportedly, doesn’t have any registry of rare disease, which has now been entrusted to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in the National policy.

Common symptoms can hide underlying rare diseases, leading to misdiagnosis:

The above policy has also noted, rare diseases are characterized by a wide diversity of signs and symptoms that not only, reportedly, vary from disease to disease, but also from patient-to-patient suffering from the same disease. Importantly, relatively common symptoms can hide underlying rare diseases, leading to misdiagnosis.

During Covid treatment, similar circumstances could lead to a serious life-threatening situation. The 2020 RD Policy also reiterates: “Early diagnosis of rare diseases is a challenge owing to multiple factors that include lack of awareness among primary care physicians, lack of adequate screening and diagnostic facilities etc.” That said, yet another key question arises – will developing and marketing such drugs be profitable for the pharma industry?

Will developing such drugs be profitable for the pharma industry?

It is worth noting that the National Policy on Rare Diseases 2020, aims more at lowering the incidence and prevalence of rare diseases based on an integrated and comprehensive prevention strategy, rather than ensuring patient access to affordable treatments. Nonetheless, it also says, within the constraints on resources and competing health care priorities, India will try to enable access to affordable health care to patients of rare diseases which are amenable to one-time treatment. In general, the policy suggests, ‘voluntary crowdfunding for treatment’ of rare diseases.

With this being the prevailing situation in India, even during Covid pandemic, an interesting article – ‘How Orphan Drugs Became a Highly Profitable Industry,’ published in The Scientist, noted some important facts in this area. It highlighted: ‘Government incentives, advances in technology, and an army of patient advocates have spun a successful market—but abuses of the system and exorbitant prices could cause a backlash.’

It also articulated, despite higher costs and less-certain returns, investments in drug development on the rare diseases side appear to ‘be bucking the trend.’ The result of the global focus on RD nowadays is: ‘Firms with marketing authorization for orphan products, are now more profitable than those without.’

This also partly explains the financial rationale behind AstraZeneca’s recent acquisition of Alexion Pharmaceuticals, valuing $39 billion.

Conclusion: 

As of December 20, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 10,031,659 of new Coronavirus cases with 145,513 deaths. The country has already crossed 10 million in Covid cases as the vaccine approval remains pending. The threat of subsequent waves for further spread of Covid infection continues to loom large in many states. Meanwhile, many studies indicate that comorbidity should now include rare diseases, as well, especially to prevent deaths in younger patients. From this perspective effective diagnosis and treatment of RD are also coming under spotlights. Curiously, the National Policy on Rare Diseases 2020 focuses more on awareness and prevention of RD rather than access to affordable treatment, particularly in Covid infected patients to save precious younger lives. As I wrote previously and still believe, the ‘National Policy on Rare Diseases’ becomes more meaningful with ‘Orphan Drugs Act.’

Vaccines to prevent Covid infections are also expected to get emergency approval in India, shortly. At lease, some of these being available at affordable prices, including AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, according to reports. As recent reports indicate the same company, is also entering into RD therapy areas, through a key acquisition, yet another hope looms large. A hope for availability of relevant RD drugs at an affordable price for Covid infected patients, despite other apprehension, as I wrote before.

That apart, purely from the business management perspective, as well, this rare strategic acrobatic feat of AstraZeneca - ‘Keep nose to the grindstone while lifting eyes to the hills,’ during the Covid crisis, I reckon, is exemplary for the practicing managers.

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.

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similar questions are raised on pricey therapy for rare diseases:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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