Could Vaccine Prevent Heart Attacks?

Posted on July 10, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Could Vaccine Prevent Even Heart Attacks? The question may sound weird to many, but it really appears so, possibly reducing further need of several expensive medications for lifelong use. A good number of academic institutions, besides some biotechnology companies, are taking rapid strides in the newer areas of vaccine development to protect people from various non-infectious serious ailments, including some fatal disorders, such as heart attacks.

In this article, I shall deliberate on this area.

Picking up the thread:

One of the critically important preventive therapy to save millions of precious lives is – vaccination. Way back in 1796, Edward Anthony Jenner not only discovered the process of vaccination, but also developed the world’s first smallpox vaccine to save mankind from this highly infectious and life-threatening disease. As per published data, prior to this discovery, the mortality rate for smallpox was as high as up to 35 percent.

Very appropriately, Jenner is often referred to as the “Father of Immunology”, whose pioneering work has saved more lives than the work of any other person, in that era. Later, in 1901 Emil Von Behring received the first Nobel Prize (ever) for discovering Diphtheria serum therapy for yet another highly infectious disease, affecting mostly infants and children.

Nevertheless, the pioneering work of Edward Anthony Jenner laid the primary substructure of immunology, which continued to be developed as a robust prophylactic measure against various types of, initially infectious and communicable diseases.

Expanded scope for vaccines:

Gradually, the global focus of vaccine development started expanding from prophylactic vaccination for communicable disease such as smallpox, diphtheria, malaria and pneumonia; to non-infectious disorders, like cancer, diabetes and atherosclerosis that often leads to heart attacks and strokes; including several therapeutic vaccines, especially for cancer. The list continues.

In other words, from inducing long-life immunity against exogenous or foreign antigens in infectious diseases caused by microorganisms, to inducing similar immune reaction against the body’s own molecules, which are responsible for precipitating seriously debilitating or life-threatening pathological changes. These include conditions, such as cardiovascular or metabolic disorders and many other chronic ailments, including various types of the deadly disease – cancer.

Would vaccines prevent even heart attacks?

Let me now get back to where I started from: Would vaccines prevent even heart attacks?

Medical experts often say, until a sudden heart attack occurs, patients with atherosclerosis may show no symptoms for decades. This epitomizes the seriousness of this disorder in human population.

Since long, atherosclerosis used to be considered as ‘a lipid-driven disease caused by the continuous accumulation of cholesterol in the arterial intima.’ However, that concept is changing now based on enough scientific evidences. These clearly indicate that ‘atherosclerosis is predominately a chronic low-grade inflammatory disease of the vessel wall with an interplay of humoral, cellular, and locally produced pro-inflammatory factors.’

Atherosclerosis is a chronic low-grade inflammatory disease:

In the above context, a recent research study has arrested the attention of many medical scientists, including several top cardiologists, across the world. This article, published on June 19, 2017, in the peer-reviewed European Heart Journal reported the development of a vaccine that induces an effective immune response in mice to significantly reduce plasma lipids, systemic and vascular inflammation, and atherosclerosis lesions in the aorta.

Leverages the immune system of the body:

In simple words, this cholesterol-lowering vaccine demonstrates how the immune system of the body can be leveraged to lower blood lipids, signaling a strong potential to make drugs, such as statins, possibly irrelevant.

This is the first intervention study based on a well-established, translational mouse model for hyperlipidemia and atherosclerosis. The research found, as compared with the control group, the vaccine reduced total and LDL cholesterol levels in the mice, as well as reduced signs of fatty build-up in the arteries.

Potentially an effective and economical approach:

The authors believe, the vaccine may represent an effective and economical approach, with higher patient compliance, in the treatment and prevention of similar cardiovascular pathologies. Taking the study to its next stage, they have already enrolled human volunteers to conduct the phase one study, for a detailed scientific assessment on how this vaccine will work for the patients suffering from similar disorders.

Another interesting development:

To give just a flavor of the progress of vaccine development in several areas of serious and life-threatening non-communicable diseases, I am quoting below the following interesting study:

June 1, 2016 issue of ‘The Independent’ reported that scientists of Johannes Gutenberg University in Germany have taken a “very positive step” towards creating a universal vaccine against cancer that makes the body’s immune system attack tumors as if they were a virus. The researchers had taken pieces of cancer’s genetic RNA code, put them into tiny nanoparticles of fat and then injected the mixture into the bloodstreams of three patients in the advanced stages of the disease. The patients’ immune systems responded by producing “killer” T-cells designed to attack cancer.

This vaccine was found to be effective in fighting “aggressively growing” tumors in mice. At the same time, such vaccines are fast and inexpensive to produce, and virtually any tumor antigen (a protein attacked by the immune system) can be encoded by RNA, the report said.

How expensive are the R&D costs for vaccines?

In this context, an important related question may well be raised: How expensive are the R&D costs for vaccines? According to a paper published by the US National Library of Medicine and National Institute of Health (NIH):

“A vaccine candidate entering pre-clinical development in 2011 would be expected to achieve licensure in 2022; all costs are reported in 2022 Canadian dollars (CAD). After applying a 9 percent cost of capital, the capitalized total R&D expenditure amounts to $ 474.88 million CAD.”

Some key issues and challenges:

Scientific breakthroughs in genetics and biotechnological research, supported by state of art tools related to information technology, a wide range of vaccine development initiatives, targeting both in infectious and non-infectious diseases, are making rapid progress. However, as I had said before, there are some key issues and challenges that need to be addressed, simultaneously. A few examples of which are as follows:

Actual cost of vaccines goes much beyond their R&D expenses. This is mainly because of dedicated and highly specialized manufacturing facilities required for their mass-scale production, and then for the distribution of the same, mostly using cold-chains.

Around 60 percent of the production costs of vaccines are fixed in nature (National Health Policy Forum. 25. January 2006:14). Thus, such products will need to have a decent market size to be profitable.

Unlike many other medications for chronic ailments, which need to be taken for a long duration, vaccines are administered for a limited number of times, restricting their business potential.

Full neutralization of this cost before keeping a modest margin, could make such high-end vaccines relatively expensive for patients, without adequate financial incentives from the Government.

In conclusion:

The discovery of the interesting vaccine to prevent both fatal and non-fatal heart attacks followed an interesting path, and took a long time of around one and a half decade to go for the phase I human trial. Putting together the facts from the available scientific literatures, the long and arduous path of this journey may be, I reckon, summed up, as follows:

An article published by the Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI) on June 9, 2014 first reported that it’s plausible to prevent heart attacks with vaccination. Nonetheless, it all started even much before that, when in 2003, a group of researchers in France studying families with very high cholesterol levels and very early heart attacks, discovered a specific cholesterol regulator. Mutations in the related gene seemed to be responsible for very high cholesterol levels, and early heart attacks. Further research on the subject continued thereafter, based on this novel finding.

Thereafter, in 2014, HSCI scientists collaborating with researchers at the University of Pennsylvania developed a “genome editing” approach for permanently reducing cholesterol levels in mice with a single injection, potentially reducing heart attack risk by up to 90 percent, reported this Harvard article. ‘Circulation Research’ – a journal of the American Heart Association, published the study online on June 10, 2014.

Currently, in mid 2017, from the article published in the peer-reviewed ‘European Heart Journal’ we get to know that development of a vaccine that can prevent heart attacks is going for phase I clinical trial, following several well-tested and scientific evidence based promises.

The outcome of the final phases of this study will now be keenly followed by the experts. Others will optimistically wait for the D-day – virtually the dawn of a new paradigm of preventing heart attacks through vaccination, well before it can result into any fatal or crippling consequences.

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 New Cancer Drugs Cost-effective

Posted on April 17, 2017 by Tapan Ray

The prices of new cancer drugs are increasingly becoming unsustainable across the world, and more so in India. A sizable number of poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life’s savings for the treatment of this dreaded disease, is pushed towards extreme economic hardship. Their plight in India would continue to remain so, till Universal Health Care (UHC) comes into force, as enunciated in the National Health Policy 2017.

Thus, the delivery of affordable and equitable cancer care poses one of India’s greatest public health challenges. Public expenditure on cancer in India remains below US$ 10 per person, as compared with more than US$ 100 per person in high-income countries. The May 2014 paper, published in ‘The Lancet Oncology’, analyzed this concern in detail.

In this article, after giving a brief backdrop, I shall explore a possible alternative to make cancer treatment with new drugs affordable to many by scaling up this strategic option.

Cancer – the second leading cause of death:

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), cancer is the second leading cause of death globally and accounted for 8.8 million deaths in 2015. This works out to nearly 1 in 6 of all global deaths, with US$ 1.16 trillion being the estimated total annual economic cost of cancer in 2010. Lung, prostate, colorectal, stomach and liver cancer are the most common types of cancer in men, while breast, colorectal, lung, cervix and stomach cancer are the most common among women. To reduce significant disability, suffering and deaths caused by cancer worldwide, effective and affordable programs in early diagnosis, screening, treatment, and palliative care are needed. Treatment options may include surgery, medicines and/or radiotherapy – the report reiterates. In many instances, anti-cancer drugs are the mainstay treatment.

For the country, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) reported over 736, 000 people succumbing to the disease in 2016. This figure is expected to shoot up to 880,000 by 2020. ICMR estimated the total number of new cancer cases at around 1.45 million in 2016, and the same is likely to reach 1.73 million by 2020. The situation in this area, therefore, rather grim across the world, including India.

Cancer treatment cost in India is one of the highest in the world:

Anticancer drugs are generally expensive. As stated in a related article, published in the Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology on March 14, 2017, in the United States, a novel anticancer drug routinely costs more than US$ 100,000 per year of treatment. When adjusted for per capita spending power, these lifesaving medicines become most unaffordable in economically developing nations, such as India and China. Not only are their launch prices high and fast rising, but these also often escalate during the respective patent exclusivity period.

That in terms of the ability to pay for drugs, cancer drugs are most affordable in Australia and least affordable in India and China, was established in one of the largest research study presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Moreover, even in those cases where cancer could be detected early, about half the patients in India are compelled to skip the treatment for high drug cost, highlights another article.

Interestingly, the concerned drug manufacturers seldom, if at all, justify such astronomical drug prices and subsequent price increases well supported by some rational factors, such as, the extent of benefit patients are likely to derive, the novelty of the agents, or detailed spending on research and development, the above paper states.

The increasing trend of price escalation of cancer drugs harms many patients, often directly, through increased out-of-pocket expenses, which reduce levels of patient compliance, or drive thousands of cancer patients skipping the drug treatment, altogether. Consequently, it also harms the society by imposing cumulative price burdens on many patients that are unsustainable.

Despite high cost, annual global spending on anticancer drugs has already exceeded US$100 billion, and is predicted to reach US$150 billion by 2020. In India too, oncology is a leading therapeutic segment, which reached a turnover of Rs. 2,000 Crore (around US$ 320 million) in 2013 and is expected to grow to Rs. 3,831 crore (around US$ 615 million) by the end of 2017, according to a report of Frost and Sullivan.

The reason for high drug price:

The real reason for the high cost of cancer drugs, just as many other life-saving medicines, is quite challenging to fathom. Many attribute its reason to unsustainable R&D models of the global pharma companies, in general.

For example, “the spiraling cost of new drugs mandates a fundamentally different approach to keep lifesaving therapies affordable for cancer patients” – argued an article titled, “How Much Longer Will We Put Up With US$ 100,000 Cancer Drugs?”, published by Elsevier Inc. In the same context, another article titled “Making Cancer Treatment More Affordable”, published in the ‘Rare Disease Report’ on Feb 09, 2017, reiterated that the current R&D model needs to change, as the cost of many such treatments is higher than the cost of an average person’s house in the United States.

Nonetheless, the drug manufacturers answer this difficult question with ease and promptness, citing that the cost of innovation to bring these drugs through a complex research and development (R&D) process to the market, isn’t just very high, but is also increasing at a rapid pace.

Pharma R&D cost:

An analysis by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, published in the Journal of Health Economics in March, 2016 pegged the average cost to develop and gain marketing approval for a new drug at US$ 2.558 billion. It also said that the total cost of innovation of a new drug and bringing it to market, has increased more than double from US$ 1.22 billion in 2003 to US$ 2.6 billion in 2014. Although these numbers are being vehemently challenged in several credible journals and by the international media, many global pharma majors justify the high new drug prices

by highlighting that developing a new molecule takes an enormous amount of time of 12 to 14 years, lots of financial resources and huge efforts.

On the other hand, an article titled, “Does it really cost US$ 2.6 billion to develop a new drug?”, published in The Washington Post on November 18, 2014 observed that: ‘The never-ending debate about what drugs should cost is in part driven by the fact that no one seems to know what it actually costs to develop one.”

But, why is the decline in the R&D productivity trend?

According to a 2014 review article titled, “Recent Advances in Drug Repositioning for the Discovery of New Anticancer Drugs”, published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences, while the total R&D expenditure for drug discovery worldwide increased 10 times since 1975 (US$ 4 billion) to 2009 (US$ 40 billion), the number of NMEs approved has remained largely flat (26 new drugs approved in 1976 and 27 new drugs approved in 2013). The average time required for drug discovery to market launch has also increased over time in the US and in the EU countries from 9.7 years during 1990s, to 13.9 years from 2000 onwards.

Be that as it may, the bottom-line is regardless of tremendous advancement in biological science, technology and analytics, especially in the new millennium, coupled with increasing investments in pharma R&D, the total number of NMEs that has reached the market hasn’t shown commensurate increase.

One of my articles published in this blog titled, “How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?” found an echo of the same in a globally reputed journal. This study, published by the BMJ on May 2016, titled “Propaganda or the cost of innovation? Challenging the high price of new drugs”, expressed deep concern on the rising prices of new medicines. It reiterated that this trend is set to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Need for an alternative R&D strategy:

The hurdles in discovering and developing new drugs call for alternative approaches, particularly for life threatening diseases, such as cancer. I reckon, it’s about time to scale-up a viable alternative strategy to bring down the R&D cost of new drugs, improve the success rate of clinical development, reduce a decade long ‘mind to market’ timeframe for an innovative drug or a treatment, and of course, the mind blogging cost of the entire process, as asserted in the above report from the Tufts Center.

One such alternative strategy could well be: ‘Drug Repurposing’

Drug Repurposing:

As defined by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, ‘drug repurposing’ “generally refers to studying drugs that are already approved to treat one disease or condition to see if they are safe and effective for treating other diseases”.

As many molecules, with well-documented records on their pharmacology and toxicity profile, have been already formulated and undergone large clinical trials on humans, repurposing those drugs building upon the available documents and experiences for fresh clinical trials in different disease conditions, would hasten the regulatory review process for marketing approval, and at a much lesser cost.

I shall quote here just two such examples of ‘drug repurposing’ from well-known molecules, as follows:

Sildenafil (Viagra): The blockbuster drug that was launched by Pfizer in 1998 for the treatment of erectile dysfunctions was originally developed for the treatment of coronary artery disease by the same company in 1980s.

Thalidomide: Originally designed and developed by a German pharmaceutical company called Grünenthal in Stolberg as a treatment for morning sickness in 1957, but was withdrawn in 1961 from the market because it caused birth defects. The same molecule was reintroduced in 1998 as a ‘repurposed drug’ to effectively treat patients with erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) – a complication of leprosy, and multiple myeloma – a type of cancer.

I had given many more examples of ‘drug repurposing’ in one of my earlier articles published in this blog.

Repurposing drugs for cancer:

The above-mentioned review article of International Journal of Biological Sciences 2014 clearly noted: “Drug repositioning has attracted particular attention from the communities engaged in anticancer drug discovery due to the combination of great demand for new anticancer drugs and the availability of a wide variety of cell and target-based screening assays. With the successful clinical introduction of a number of non-cancer drugs for cancer treatment, ‘drug repurposing’ now became a powerful alternative strategy to discover and develop novel anticancer drug candidates from the existing drug space.”

The following are some recent successful examples of ‘drug repurposing’ for anticancer drug discovery from non-cancer drugs, which are mostly under Phase I to II clinical trials:

Drug	Original treatment	Clinical status for cancer treatment
Itraconazole	Fungal infections	Phase I and II
Nelfinavir	HIV infections	Phase I and II
Digoxin	Cardiac diseases	Phase I and II
Nitroxoline	Urinary Tract Infections	Preclinical
Riluzole	Amyotropic lateral sclerosis	Phase I and II
Disulfram	Chronic alcoholism	Phase I and II

‘Drug repurposing’ market:

A January 2016 report by BCC Research estimates that the global market for drug repurposing will grow from nearly US$ 24.4 billion in 2015 to nearly US$ 31.3 billion by 2020, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.1 percent for the period of 2015-2020.

Expressing concern just not enough:

There are enough examples available across the world regarding stakeholders’ expression of great concern on this issue, with the buzz of such protests getting progressively shriller.

However, in India, high prices of cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, notwithstanding some sporadic steps taken by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to allay the economic burden of cancer patients to some extent. Encouragingly, the top cancer specialists of the American Society of Clinical Oncology are reportedly working out a framework for rating and selecting cancer drugs not only for their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

In a 2015 paper, a group of cancer specialists from Mayo Clinic also articulated, that the oft-repeated arguments of price controls stifle innovation are not good enough to justify unusually high prices of cancer drugs. Their solution for this problem includes value-based pricing and NICE like body of the United Kingdom. An interesting video clip from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

All this can at best be epitomized as so far so good, and may help increase the public awareness level on this subject. However, the moot point remains: Has anything significantly changed on the ground, on a permanent basis, by mere expression of such concerns?

Conclusion:

This discussion may provoke many to go back to the square number one, making the ongoing raging debate on Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Public Health Interest to gather more steam, but the core concern continues to remain unresolved.

I hasten to add that all such concerns, including strong protests, may no doubt create some temporary pressure on drug manufacturers, but they are experienced enough to navigate through such issues, as they have been doing, so far. However, for making new cancer drugs cost-effective for a vast population of patients, coming out of the current strategic mold of pharma research and development would be necessary. Grant of Compulsory License (CL), or the expectation of the local drug manufacturers for a Voluntary License (VL) of new cancer drugs, can’t be a routine process either, as it appears unrealistic to me, for various reasons.

I have discussed in this article just one alternative R&D strategy in this area, and that is Drug Repurposing (DR). There could be several others. DR is reportedly gaining increasing focus, as it represents a smart way to exploit new molecular targets of a known non-oncological drug for a new therapeutic applications in oncology. Be that as it may, pharma companies and the academia must agree to sail on the same boat together having a common goal to make new cancer drugs cost-effective for majority of cancer patients struggling hard, for life.

I would conclude this article quoting the President and Chief Science Officer of Illinois-based Cures Within Reach who said: “What I like about drug repurposing is that it can solve two issues: improved health-care impact and reduced health-care cost – That’s a big driver for us.”

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.

Dwindling Drug Innovation: Declining Image: Unchanged Business And Advocacy Models

Posted on February 20, 2017 by Tapan Ray

A report of ‘The United States International Trade Commission (USITC)’ released on December 22, 2014 suggested, if tariffs and investment restrictions were fully eliminated, and standards of IP protection were made comparable to the U.S and Western European levels, American exports to India would rise by two-thirds.

A year later, on February 01, 2015 an interesting news article highlighted that the flashpoint of this issue “has clearly been pharmaceutical companies and their lobby group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which have made some of the strongest representations to the US government against India’s IPR regime.” The same report also indicated that many other companies including the aircraft maker Boeing and the generic drug giant Abbott felt that India offered adequate IP protection and that they had not experienced major IP problems in the country.

The above stance of USITC continued echoing right from the beginning of this year. In January 2017, the CEO of US Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) reportedly told our Prime Minister Narendra Modi, ‘if he follows western practices on intellectual property protection, his country would see a “tidal wave” of biotech industry investment.’

On February 08, 2017, when the fifth edition of ‘U.S. Chamber International IP Index’ report was released by the ‘Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC)’, India featured in the 43^rd rank out of 45 countries. With this India remained virtually at the bottom of the IP index for the fourth year on the trot. The GIPC report underscored India’s “anaemic IPR policy”, Section 3.d of the Indian Patents Act, besides several others, as major market access barriers.

On February 14, 2017, another news article reported that America’s pharma sector has asked the US Trade Representative (USTR) to continue to keep India on its Priority Watch List (PWL), which includes countries that are alleged violators of US patent laws, claiming that the environment on the ground remains ‘challenging’ in India. Among the areas of concern for the US pharma companies operating in India, unpredictable IP environment, high tariffs and taxes on medicines, regulatory data protection failure, discriminatory and non-transparent market access policies and unpredictable environment for clinical research were listed among others.

With this backdrop, the key question that haunts many industry watchers, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no complaint with the Indian Patents Act 2005, and finds it TRIPS compliant, why are these reports coming from the United States consistently emphasizing that the current IP regime of the country is a key barrier to market access, especially for research-based pharma companies?

Is the core issue of the global pharma industry in India is predominantly not encouraging innovation well enough, or the dearth of inadequate Intellectual Property (IP) protection – or it is something beyond that, and is more fundamental in nature. In this article, I shall dwell in this area, first in the global perspective, and then zeroing-in to India.

A global perspective:

“The past 60 years have seen huge advances in many of the scientific, technological and managerial factors that should tend to raise the efficiency of commercial drug research and development (R&D). Yet the number of new drugs approved per billion US dollars spent on R&D has halved roughly every 9 years since 1950, falling around 80-fold in inflation-adjusted terms. There have been many proposed solutions to the problem of declining R&D efficiency. However, their apparent lack of impact so far and the contrast between improving inputs and declining output in terms of the number of new drugs make it sensible to ask whether the underlying problems have been correctly diagnosed,” articulated an important article published on March 01, 2012 in the Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

This trend continues, virtually unchanged. R&D efficiency continues to remain a cause of great concern to the research-based global pharmaceutical companies. Accordingly, a 2016 report of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions titled, ‘Measuring the return of pharmaceutical innovation’, among other findings, has captured the following:

Annual projected pharma R&D return declines to 3.7 percent from 10.1 percent in 2010
Peak sales per asset fall 11.4 percent year-on-year since 2010

What then is its basic solution?

When the right solution eludes:

In this scenario, when the right solution is still eluding, to record growth in corporate profit and earning to meet shareholders’ expectations, keeping the existing business model intact, the global research-based pharma companies have the following two limited options, which they are actively pursuing:

Take high price increases for the existing products
Launch the limited new products at a very high price

A report published in The First Word Pharma on October 06, 2015 quoting The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) vindicated exercising the first option. It reported that many drug makers have succeeded in increasing revenue on products despite a flat or declining demand by consistently increasing prices. An analysis revealed that revenue for the top 30 products in the United States zoomed by 61 percent over the past five years, three times the increase in the number of prescriptions sold over that period. While another report by Credit Suisse illustrated that 80 percent of the growth in net profit for the top 20 drug makers was attributable to price hikes.

To substantiate application of the second option, I quote from the CBS News, which on April 05, 2016 reported that an investigation into the cost of prescription drugs revealed huge price hikes over the past five years. Several brand name medications more than doubled in price. Again, on August 24, 2016, it gave a sense of this trend with the following examples, covering the launch price of innovative drug, and price increases of generic drugs:

Gilead fixed their new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi’s cost at US$ 900 – 1,000 per pill
Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ increased the cost of its anti-allergic drug EpiPen from about US$ 57 in 2007 to more than US$ 500 in 2016
Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the price of the anti-malaria drug Daraprim by 5,000 percent last year, charging US$ 750 per pill for a drug that used to cost US$ 13.50 per pill.

PhRMA – the often quoted trade association in America, representing the country’s leading pharma and bio-pharmaceutical research-based companies, reportedly said in a statement: “Focusing solely on the list prices of medicines is misleading because it ignores the significant discounts and rebates negotiated by insurers and pharmacy benefit managers.”

Even if, this argument is accepted as such, the tough impact of regular hefty drug price increases on the consumers is real, unquestionably.

The current business model leaves behind many patients:

The ‘Access to Medicine Index 2016’ report also finds that companies generally do not systematically target populations with the highest needs in their registration, pricing and licensing actions. Although, we continue to make progress toward major public health goals, such as, polio is close to being eradicated, as is guinea worm; more than 45 percent of people living with HIV/AIDS have access to ARVs; important vaccines for malaria and dengue fever are being implemented, still business models for providing healthcare are leaving many people behind. Globally, two billion people cannot access the medicines they need, most of whom live hand to mouth.

Particularly, the big global pharma companies, as the innovators and producers of life-saving medicines, need to act much earlier in the patients’ value chain. Without or inadequate action by these companies, alongside governments, NGOs and others, it will be impossible to bring modern medicine to everyone.

Public outrage over high drug prices:

Many studies indicate that the research-based global pharma and biotech companies, still strive hard to stick to their existing overall business models with a sharp focus on improving both the top and bottom lines of the business, though the R&D projects are becoming lesser and lesser productive. This prompts them resorting to hefty price increases, and introducing new products with high price. Fueled by this self-serving mindset, a simmering public outrage, globally, over high drug prices is fast catching up, further undermining the trust in the industry, as another report says.

No wonder why in the Gallup Poll of August 15, 2016, pharmaceutical industry featured just one above the bottom among the ‘Worst-Rated U.S. Business Sectors’. Moreover, even the Harris Poll released on January 17, 2017 found that 91 percent of U.S. consumers believe pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies put profits over patients.

The industry continues chasing rainbows:

In response to this mounting stakeholders’ criticism, arguably the richest pharma association in the world in its member subscriptions – PhRMA, reportedly launched a new ad campaign costing tens of millions of dollars on January 25, 2017. It aims to highlight innovation and scientific breakthroughs to change the public’s negative perception of the industry. This campaign will span across television, print, digital, and radio, the report elaborates.

Following is an example, as reported, listing three important and interesting comments on this campaign for pharma image revamp from some of those who matter:

Lawmaker Peter Welch, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus’ task force on drug pricing, said, “The issue here is not whether drugs have some benefits … The issue is whether pharma is going to be able to kill us with their pricing power or whether we will get transparency and competition.” He added, “The campaign is all about defending their pricing power and pushing their product.”

Similarly, another lawmaker Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “This is [PhRMA] trying to change the subject and to try and divert people’s attention away from drug pricing. Continuing to ignore drug pricing is probably not going to work.”

Ameet Sarpatwari, a drug pricing policy researcher at Harvard University said, “It’s really a matter of being tone deaf in terms of thinking somehow that this is going to change public perception”

Isn’t a great example of chasing rainbows by the industry association, in the number one pharma and biotech market of the world, instead of amending to the root cause of this burning issue?

The situation in India:

In this backdrop, amid a tough global situation, let me assess the related Indian scenario.

The research-based global pharma companies, apparently want to introduce the whole range of their patented products at a high price and in a monopolistic situation in India too, for much higher growth in revenue and profits. Thus, they are consistently pushing hard, with all guns blazing, for major changes in the Indian Patents Act 2005, which would involve jettisoning many patients’ health interest related safeguard conditions enshrined in the Act, such as Section 3.d that restricts ever-greening of patents, and introducing several other tougher IP measures, such as data exclusivity under the garb of imaginary patient safety issues with generic drugs.

They don’t seem to like price control of essential drugs in India, either. While intensely lobbying for it, the lobbyists vehemently argue in favor of the absurd, which is the affordability of medicines does not help to increase drug access to all those who need these most, even when on the ground, the out of pocket expenses for drugs in the country is as high as around 65 percent and universal health care does exist in the country, much to the dismay of many.

It has now been generally established by many global experts, including our own National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) that market competition does not necessarily bring down drug prices, including for generics, quite unlike many other industries, but various pressure groups, including the media, can catalyze it, and quite effectively. What has happened recently with the cardiac stents price in the country, is just an example.

Is the devil in the traditional pharma business model?

An article titled, “How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time”, published on February 03, 2017 in The Harvard Business Review, emphatically states: “It’s a fact that the current business model of pharma companies is not working efficiently.” It suggests, besides enhancing the current unenviable public image of the industry, expanding access to medicines will help pharma companies enhance shareholder value. The success of a new business model depends on both the willingness and the ability of pharmaceutical companies to fully integrate access to medicine into their business strategies, the article emphasizes.

A July 2015 paper of McKinsey & Company titled, “Pharma’s next challenge”, also reiterates that in the developed economies, market access is chiefly concerned with pricing, and with satisfying local conditions. Whereas, in the emerging markets, to overcome the barriers, pharma players need to shift the focus of their commercial models from marketing and sales to access, and from brand-by-brand access planning to integrated cross-brand planning.

In pursuit of a new model:

Based on the above premises, the search for a new pharma business model, especially for the research-based pharma companies, in my view, may broadly focus on the following areas:

Learn from innovation models of the IT industry: Win-Win collaborative innovation models, including ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’, if scaled up, could reduce the cost of innovation significantly and making the new innovative drugs generally affordable. Thus, larger volume sales may adequately offset a voluntary cut in the product margin, creating a multiplier effect.

Be a part of the solution and not the problem: Because of fiercely pushing the blatant self-serving agenda, inconveniencing many patients, the core mindset of the pharma industry is considered by many as an integral part of the main problem. While pharma industry, quite rightly, seek more market access, they need to act as a facilitator too, to improve general access to medicines, in various imaginative ways, which is, of course, possible. This will make the pharma industry to be a part of the solution to the national problem, over a period of time.

Walk the talk: While pharma industry speaks all right things, in terms of ethical conduct of business, at a time when both national and international media frequently expose their gross wrongdoings. This continues, unabated. Sales and marketing functions are indeed very important, but not at the cost of good corporate governance. I am aware, all compliance rules exist immaculately on paper for many companies, but the senior management officials should demonstrate that they walk the talk, giving exemplary punishment to the wrongdoers, including their peers.

Change the current advocacy model: The current advocacy model of the research-based pharma companies is too self-serving. For example, in India it mostly demands, which is bordering obsession, to change the IP laws of a sovereign country, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no problem with these, whatsoever. There is a need for them to demonstrate, sans any shade of arrogance, visible respect to any country’s general sentiment on its Patents Act, as it’s their own decision to operate in those countries. An imaginative win-win change in this area, would significantly help to create a strong bond and mutual respect with other important stakeholders.

Are senior citizens in pharma business a barrier to change?

A recent white paper of ‘Eye for Pharma’, says in its conclusion “many of those now running pharma organizations have come through the ‘golden age’ of pharma and so may be reluctant to change”. Does this issue need to be addressed first by the Independent Directors of the respective Boards of the pharma companies?

In conclusion:

Many questions do spring up while addressing this issue. One common belief is that, pharma industry, in general, is reluctant to change its traditional business model, beyond just tweaking, despite declining overall productivity and in its public image.

In advocacy initiatives, while drawing stakeholders’ attention to the core grievance agenda, though they try hard to project their business focus on patients, especially using the buzzwords, such as, ‘patient centric approach’ or ‘patient engagement’, among many others, has anything visibly changed, just yet?

As the business environment is getting tougher and consumer expectations are fast changing, drug innovation is also steadily dwindling, so is the declining industry image. However, pharma business and advocacy models continue to remain mostly unchanged. It remains intriguing, why are the ‘wise guys’ of pharma business still so deeply obsessed with chasing rainbows, with so much of zeal, hectic activity and money, while majority of patients keeps bearing the brunt?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Awaiting The Two To Tango: Pharma Innovation And Public Health Interest

Posted on January 2, 2017 by Tapan Ray

“The rewards for the breakthrough drug discovery must be substantial, but if prices are the only mechanism through which returns on research flow, affordability will be compromised,” articulated an article titled, ‘Pharmaceutical Policy Reform – Balancing Affordability with Incentives for Innovation’, published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on February 25, 2016.

The article arrived at this conclusion, on the backdrop of the high prices of prescription drugs becoming an issue of paramount concern, not just in the United States, but across the world. This concern is so acute that it found its way into policy proposals from both the prime candidates, in the American Presidential election held on November 8, 2016.

Through last several decades, healthcare sector in general and particularly the pharmaceutical industry, witnessed many innovations that cure and effectively manage ailments to improve the general quality of life. It enormously impacted the lives of many in the developed countries, and a few others which offer high quality Universal Health Care in a comprehensive format, for all.

A trickle-down impact:

Nevertheless, even no more than its just a trickle-down impact, helped increase overall life expectancy of the population in many developing and poor countries, mostly driven by the expanding number of cheaper generic drugs, fueled by more treatment and disease management options.

The paper titled, ‘World Population Prospects – The 2015 Revision’ of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division of the United Nations’ reported that the life expectancy at birth rose by 3 years between 2000-2005 and 2010-2015, that is from 67 to 70 years. All major areas shared in the life expectancy gains over this period, but the greatest increases were in Africa, where life expectancy rose by 6 years in the 2000s, after rising by only 2 years in the previous decade.

Similarly, the global life expectancy at birth is projected to rise from 70 years in 2010-2015 to 77 years in 2045- 2050 and to 83 years in 2095-2100. Africa is projected to gain about 19 years of life expectancy by the end of the century, reaching 70 years in 2045-2050 and 78 years in 2095-2100. Such increases are contingent on further reductions in the spread of HIV, and combating successfully other infectious as well as non-communicable diseases.

The availability of cheaper generics gave some respite:

Out of a total population of 7.3 billion, as the above report says, the World Bank estimated that in 2013, 767 million people still lived on less than US$ 1.90 a day. Unfortunately, despite the greater availability of a large variety of cheaper generic drugs, the basic health care remains elusive to hundreds of millions of people in the world.

What causes more concern is the fact that 6 percent of people in low and middle-income countries are tipped into or pushed further into extreme poverty because of health spending, as the June 12, 2015 report of the World Health Organization (W.H.O) and the World Bank highlights. W.H.O has estimated that over a billion population of the world still suffer from neglected tropical diseases.

How many people benefitted from pricey patented drugs?

Nevertheless, despite so much innovation in the pharma industry, access to these new drugs remains elusive to a large section of even some the most developed nations, such as the United States, as they can’t afford these high-priced drugs. The overall situation, in this regard, is going from bad to worse. For example, the March 16, 2015 study published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings reveals that the average annual cost of cancer drugs increased from roughly US$ 10,000 prior to 2000 to an astounding over US$ 100,000 by 2012.

Further, an August 31, 2015 article published in the ‘Health Affairs’ also gave examples of Biogen Idec’s multiple sclerosis drug, Tecfidera, which costs US$ 54,900 per patient per year; hepatitis C cures from Gilead Sciences, with a sticker price of $84,000 per patient; and Orkambi, a cystic fibrosis drug from Vertex Pharmaceuticals approved this month, priced at a whopping US$ 259,000 per year. A Kaiser Health Tracking Poll last July 2015 found that 73 percent of Americans find the cost of drugs to be unreasonable, and most blamed drug manufacturers for setting prices too high, the article stated.

The health care scenario in India is no better:

A study conducted by the ‘National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO)’ from January to June 2014, which was the 71st round of the ‘National Sample Survey’, and published in the ‘Health in India’ report, narrates a very gloomy picture for India, especially for a clear majority of those who incur ‘out of pocket’ expenses on medicines. The report states, out of all health expenditure, 72 percent in rural and 68 percent in urban areas was for buying medicines for non-hospitalized treatment.

Thus, many patients cannot afford health services, even when these are needed the most. As many as 68 percent of patients in urban India and 57 percent in rural areas attributed “financial constraints” as the main reason to take treatment without any medical advice, the report adds.

In this situation, the challenges that the Governments and the civil society are facing in many developing, and to some extent even in some developed countries, though for different reasons, are multi-factorial. It has been well established that the humongous global health care challenges are mostly of economic origin.

Pharma innovation benefitted the developed countries more:

A study titled, ‘Pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease in developing and developed countries’ of Columbia University and National Bureau of Economic Research, to ascertain the relationship across diseases between pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease both in the developed and developing countries, reported that pharmaceutical innovation is positively related to the burden of disease in the developed countries but not so in the developing countries.

Making the two to tango:

These facts prompt the need to make the pharma innovation and public health interest to tango. Several suggestions have been made and initiatives taken in this direction. Some of which are as follows:

Responding to this need, in 2006 W.H.O created the ‘Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG)’. The primary focus of IGWG is on promoting sustainable, needs-driven pharmaceutical R&D for the diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries. One positive effect of this global debate is that some global pharmaceutical companies have initiated their R&D activities for neglected tropical diseases, such as, Malaria and Tuberculosis. Many charitable organizations like, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Clinton Foundation, are allocating significant funds for this purpose.

A paper titled, “Optional reward for new drugs for developing countries” published by the Department of Economics, University of Calgary, Institute of Health Economics, proposed an optional reward fund for pharmaceutical innovation aimed at the developing world to the pharmaceutical companies, which would develop new drugs while ensuring their adequate access to the poor. The paper suggests that innovations with very high market value will use the existing patent system, as usual. However, the medicines with high therapeutic value but low market potential would be encouraged to opt for the optional reward system. It was proposed that the optional reward fund should be created by the governments of the developed countries and charitable institutions to ensure a novel way for access to innovative medicines by the poor.

‘Open Innovation’ or the ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ is another model of discovering a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). Imbibing ‘Open Innovation’ for commercial results in pharmaceuticals, just has what has happened to android smartphones, would encourage drug discovery initiatives, especially for the dreaded disease like cancer, to make these drugs affordable for a very large section of people across the globe. In this model, all data generated related to the discovery research will be available in the open for collaborative inputs. In ‘Open Innovation’, the key component is the supportive pathway of its information network, which is driven by three key parameters of open development, open access and open source. This concept was successfully used in the ‘Human Genome Project’ where many scientists, and microbiologists participated from across the world to sequence and understand the human genes. Currently, pharmaceutical R&D is a well-protected in-house initiative of innovator global companies to maximize commercial benefits. For this reason, only a limited number of scientists working for the respective innovator companies will have access to these projects. In India, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is the champion of the OSDD movement, locally. CSIR believes that for a developing country like India, OSDD will help the common man to meet his or her unmet medical needs in the areas of mainly neglected tropical diseases.

Conclusion:

Thus, the ongoing heated debate on Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Public Health Interest is gathering steam all over the globe.

Argumentative Indians are also participating in this raging debate. I reckon rightly so, as India is not only the largest democracy of the world contributing 16.7 percent of the global population, it is also afflicted with 21 percent of the global burden of disease. Considering this, the reason for similar heated debate in our country is indeed no-brainer to anyone.

Many would possibly not disagree, both encouraging innovation and safeguarding the public health interest are equally important to any society, be it in the developed nations or developing countries. Nevertheless, some constituents of ‘Big Pharma’ and their trade association still highlight that ensuring access to high price innovative drugs is the responsibility of the respective Governments. Any other regulatory mechanism to bring down such prices will be construed as a barrier to encouraging, protecting and rewarding innovation.

Be that as it may, most other stakeholders, across the world, especially the patients, are awaiting these two goals to tango. From that point, I reckon, giving a quick shape to commercially well-tested initiatives, such as, ‘Open Innovation’ model could well be an important step to ensure access to innovative new medicines for a larger number of patients of the world, meeting their unmet medical needs with greater care.

By: Tapan J Ray

NCDs: Any Wolf Around, In Sheep’s Clothing?

Posted on August 8, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Noncommunicable Diseases (NCDs), such as, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic respiratory disease, are now the leading cause of death in the world, accounting for 63 percent of annual deaths. Over 80 percent of NCDs occur in lower or middle income countries.

Moreover, wide prevalence of NCDs and inadequate patients’ access to related drugs have a profound negative impact on the economic progress of any country. According to various reports, the increase of around just one year of a country’s average life expectancy, could increase its GDP growth by around four percent.

Since long, the global drug industry has been contributing immensely to discover and bring to the market various amazing medicines to effectively treat a spectrum of NCDs. It is still happening, but with a stark different impact on the majority of the patients, across the world.

There are many important aspects to NCDs, such as, public and private initiatives in their prevention, continuous screening, proper diagnosis, providing most effective treatment, and population’s lifestyle management for more effective disease control. However, in this article, I shall focus only on modern drug pricing, as one of the key barriers for patients’ access to modern drugs for the treatment of these ailments.

Saying something, and doing something else:

In this context, some large pharma lobby groups pontificate that the drug industry recognizes the economic and social impact of NCDs. Many of them also try to widely publicize, that they are working with various stakeholders, such as, the Governments, other payers and patients’ groups, as an active solution partner in lessening this burden.

Yes, some of them do actively support some programs, mostly to prevent, screen and diagnose these chronic ailments. There are also instances when they try to showcase some of their occasional and complicated, so called ‘patient access’ programs.

Interestingly, a global major even wanted to reap a rich harvest by highlighting one such initiatives to win a patent litigation in the Supreme Court of India. As many would know, the Apex Court of the country did not take cognizance of its real value to patients, as projected by the concerned company, while dictating its final judgement on the Glivec case.

To many independent experts, these could most probably be part of a grand façade to justify the high drug prices, which most of the patients can’t afford, and also is an attempt to manage their fast eroding overall public image. On the other hand, they ‘religiously’ continue to keep increasing the drug prices arbitrarily, including those of NCDs. I shall dwell on it below.

Impeding patient access to modern drugs:

Despite all these developments, the issue of general affordability of most effective available drugs, even by the payers, such as, many Governments and the health insurance companies, are seriously impeding the patient access to these medicines.

Such exorbitant treatment costs with modern and more effective drugs is creating almost an impregnable barrier for access to these medicines, mostly for those patients incurring Out-of-Pocket (OoP) expenditure on health care. In a situation like this, where the volume sales do not increase significantly, to maintain the business growth the manufacturers of these drugs further hike up their product prices to a jaw dropping level, as perceived by both the patients and the payers.

This overall pricing environment is now posing a major challenge to many even in many developed countries of the world, including the United States.

Even the sky is not the limit:

Today, for a drug price increase not even the sky is the limit. Recently, the Census Bureau, Commerce Department of the United States (US) announced May 2016 sales of merchant wholesalers of various industries in the country. According to this report, the total pharma sales by manufacturers to pharmacies, hospitals, and others in the distribution chain reflected a buoyant increase of a hefty 11.3 percent from a year ago, especially when most other sectors showed sluggishness in growth.

The obvious question, therefore, that comes up, are the Americans now consuming more pharmaceutical products than in the past? The answer, however, is negative, though not very surprising to many.

In that case, is this increase in growth coming primarily from price increases of drugs, which are mostly used for the treatment of chronic ailments? The answer now will be an affirmative one.

How much price increase is enough?

This question becomes quite relevant, when a large section of even Americans starts raising their voices against high drug price, as it is adversely impacting their access to those drugs.

If this question is put slightly differently, such as, when Apple Inc. can take an annual price increase of around 10 percent for its iPhones in the Unites States (US), how much drug price increases the pharma companies are possibly taking every year in the same country? This interesting point was deliberated in an article published in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on July 14, 2016.

Price increases driving growth:

According to this article, pharmaceutical prices in the US rose by 9.8 percent from May 2015 through May 2016. This is the second-highest increase among the 20 largest products and services tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Producer Price Index, with investment services ranking first.

Majority of pharma companies keeps increasing prices also for a large section drugs used in the treatment of NCDs, which require almost lifelong therapy for the patients to lead a normal and meaningful life.

I am trying to give below a flavor of such drug price increases, both for NCDs and communicable diseases, quoting a few examples from the above WSJ article:

Biogen Inc. reported a 15 percent increase to US$ 744.3 million in US sales of its Multiple Sclerosis (MS) drug Tecfidera in the first quarter, primarily due to price increases. The local revenue for Biogen’s other biggest-selling products, Avonex, used in the relapsing form of multiple sclerosis, and Tysabri used in multiple sclerosis and Crohn’s disease, also benefited from higher prices.

The sales of Giliead Science’s Truvada, used as a preventive treatment for HIV rose 16 percent in the quarter, on the back of higher prices, and also increased use as a preventive treatment for HIV.

Global sales of Amgen Inc.’s anti-inflammatory drug Enbrel rose 24 percent in the first three months of the year, driven primarily by a higher net selling price.

US sales for AbbVie Inc.’s anti-inflammatory drug Humira rose 32 percent in the first quarter, due to price increases and higher prescription volume.

Pfizer Inc.’s US price increases and, in some cases greater prescription volume, helped drive higher revenue for nine drugs representing US$2 billion in US revenue.

Payers have started reacting:

Responding to this development, Express Scripts’ National Preferred Formulary (NPF) of the US, which is one of the most widely used drug list in the United States, providing prescription drug coverage guidelines for 25 million Americans, has excluded many drugs from its 2017 list. This exclusion covers some brands, such as, Novo Nordisk’s blockbuster GLP-1 diabetes drug Victoza and two of its top-selling insulins.

Similarly, another large American retail and health care company CVS Health’s 2017 formulary does not feature, among many other drugs, Sanofi’s blockbuster insulin Lantus along with its follow-up Toujeo, making it the largest commercial product ever excluded from a formulary.

‘The playbook used for a number of years is over’:

In an article of August 04, 2016 titled, “Drug lobby plans a counterattack on prices”, a senior director of the public affairs firm APCO Worldwide, which represents several drug companies, and a former HHS official under President George W. Bush was quoted saying, in the context of pharma companies and their lobby groups that, the reality, the message and the playbook used for a number of years is over. The industry can no longer defend high drug prices by pointing to the pricey research and development that goes into innovative medicines. They have to move on, he added.

Indian scenario:

The Indian scenario is much worse, with OoP expenditure on drugs being around 70 percent of the total treatment cost. It could be even more, if only NCDs are considered. This situation raises a red flag, especially considering the WHO report released on January 20, 2015 that highlights NCDs are estimated to have accounted for 60 per cent of the deaths in India in 2014.

Some of the examples are as follows:

An ICMR-INDAIB study, published in September 2011, on diabetes prevalence in India indicate that the epidemic is progressing rapidly across the nation, and has already affected a total of 62.4 million persons in 2011. With proper diagnosis and screening this figure may increase to a dangerous level in India.

According to WHO, almost 2.6 million Indians are predicted to die due to coronary heart disease (CHD), which constitutes 54.1 percent of all CVD deaths in India by 2020.

A March 2012 ‘The Lancet’ study found that nearly six lakh Indians die of cancer every year, with 70 percent of these deaths between the ages of 30-69 years.

A report titled “Dementia in Asia Pacific Region” released in November 2014, at the 17th Asia Pacific Regional Conference of Alzheimer’s Disease International (ADI) states that by 2050, the number of people in India suffering from dementia will rise to over 12 million.

Carefully assessing the enormous pharma business opportunity, mainly due to increasing health awareness and fast growing per capita income in the country, pharma players operating in India have become very active in the NCD area, in different ways. However, one strategy remains unchanged, which is continuous increase in modern drug prices, even at the cost of volume increase, frequently taking them beyond affordability of a large section of patients in India.

Indian Government also reacted:

Recognizing, and basically to address this critical problem, just as what has is now happening in other parts of the globe too, the Union Ministry of Health was compelled to take strong measures, especially in the absence of Universal Health Care (UHC) in India. The Government recently revised the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) by adding many more modern drugs for NCDs in the list, to facilitate bringing them under the drug price control mechanism of the country.

Many company’s evading drug price control:

The Union Chemicals and Fertilizers minister Mr. Ananth Kumar informed the Rajya Sabha of the Indian Parliament on July 28, 2016 that various drug price regulatory measures taken by the government have helped consumers save Rs 4,988 crore over the last two years.

This saving may well be just on the paper. On the ground, have the consumers been really benefited out of these measures, and if so, to that much extent?

The answer wouldn’t be too ferret out, when one takes into account the reply of the Minister of State for Chemicals and Fertilizers, Mr. Hansraj Gangaram Ahir to the Lok Sabha of the Parliament on March 08, 2016. The Minister informed the lawmakers that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) is trying to recover a whopping Rs 4,551 crore, including interest, from various pharma companies for overcharging as of February 2016. Out of this total amount, Rs 3,698.32 crore, representing about 82 per cent of the total outstanding amount, is under litigation in various High Courts and Supreme Court spreading across 1,389 cases, the Minister further said.

The question, therefore, arises, how much benefit of the drug price control of essential medicines is actually benefitting the patients, and how much is being evaded by the pharma players?

Price increases driving Indian pharma industry growth:

In India too, a large number of pharma companies are increasing prices, including a large proportion of those drugs, which are used in the treatment of NCDs, requiring almost lifelong therapy for the sufferers to lead a normal and meaningful life.

The exorbitant treatment cost for many NCDs, with the modern and more effective drugs, is seriously impeding the patient access. As a cascading effect, the manufacturers of these drugs are further jacking up their prices to a much higher level for achieving their business growth objectives. This is very similar to what is happening also in the developed countries, including the US.

That price increases are primarily driving the growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) is vindicated by the following table, which has been compiled from the monthly retail audit reports of the well-reputed organization AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Private Limited:

IPM growth through price increases versus volume (July 2015 to June 2016):

Growth %	Jun 16	May	April	Mar	Feb	Jan 16	Dec 15	Nov	Oct	Sept	Aug	July 15
Price	3.8	5.0	4.5	5.1	5.4	5.1	5.2	1.0	13.2	9.9	13.2	12.9
Volume	-0.6	-4.4	3.2	-5.3	3.7	1.3	2.8	5.0	5.5	1.4	1.6	3.3

Source: Monthly Retail Audit of AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd

Conclusion:

Around the world, arbitrary drug price increases almost on a continuous basis, including in the low inflation countries that may now include India, has sparked-off a raging global debate. Even the Presidential nominees for the forthcoming general election in the United States are taking keen interest on the subject.

As highlighted in a recent issue of the magazine Politico, powerful pharma lobby groups are also gearing up to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to counter this ‘threat’, as perceived by them.

A number of hectic activities in this area, apparently, have started in India too, mainly to divert the focus of the stakeholders from arbitrary drug price increases to other important areas such as, NCDs. This usually happens by making the vested interests eulogizing how much good work these pharma companies are doing in this particular area, only to serve the patients’ health interest.

Many global pharma players seem to still believe that the same old message from the same old playbook would work even today, at least in India, to defend high drug prices on the contentious ground of pricey R&D that goes into innovative medicines. I reckon, almost gone are those days, even in India.

NCDs need to be fought, unitedly, with effective public, private initiatives and without any self-serving agenda of any participants. The issue needs to deliberated not in the five-star hotels, neither in front of a captive audience, nor with an intent of getting favorable media coverage, but on the real ground, along the general population, both in the urban and the hinterlands of India.

These initiatives would appear praiseworthy to many, when the ultimate aim of any stakeholder, including the doctors and the pharma players, won’t be to make the consumers consume more of high priced medicines, in many cases even by selling their frugal assets. The key aim, I believe, should be to facilitate prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment with affordable modern medicines, and finally to help manage the ailments well, through the rest of the life of any sufferers.

In the battle against NCDs, it is also important to know well and segregate, if there is any wolf around, in sheep’s clothing.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Posted on June 13, 2016 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

It really worked:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stakeholders changed, but pharma marketing did not:

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

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

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

A new marketing paradigm:

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

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

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

Changing mindset is critical:

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

Multi-stakeholder – Multi-channel approach:

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

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

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

A feel of the changing wind direction:

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

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

On emerging markets’ like India:

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

On personalized Health Care (PHC):

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

On ‘Category captains’:

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘The Memory Thief’ Still Eludes Grasp Of Pharma R&D

Posted on February 1, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Over several decades, in fact, since its very inception, pharma R&D has been playing a crucial role in alleviating diseases of various types – from severe acute infections, to a large variety of non-infectious chronic illnesses, including many dreaded diseases, such as, cancer.

In the battle against diseases, pharma research and development initiatives, both by a large number of academia and also the pharma players, have mostly won, decisively. R&D has been consistently coming out with flying colors, both in finding cures and also in effective disease management, to prolong and improve the quality of life of billions of people, the world over.

However, there is still an important disease area, where pharma R&D has not been successful yet. Without any prior warning, this disease stealthily affects the human brain and completely erases the entire lifetime memory of the person, gradually but surely, over a relatively short period of time. This disease is known as Alzheimer’s, following the name of Dr. Dr. Alois Alzheimer, who first detected it in 1906. Due to its devastating impact on human memory, some, very appropriately, term the Alzheimer’s disease – ‘The memory thief’.

I discussed this subject in one of my previous articles titled, “It Took 90 Years To Accept The Dreaded Disease Discovered In A Mental Asylum”, published in this Blog on December 01, 2014.

A recent alarm for a future epidemic:

A January 6, 2016 paper titled, “Sounding the alarm on a future epidemic: Alzheimer’s disease”, published by the well reputed public research university in the United States, ‘The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), made the following noteworthy observation:

“If the aging trend illustrates the success of public health strategies, it also raises the specter of a major public health crisis – a sharp rise in the number of people living with Alzheimer’s disease.”

Causing havoc in many lives and families:

‘Alzheimer’s Disease Education and Referral (ADEAR) Center’ of the United States, currently ranked Alzheimer’s disease as the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, but recent estimates indicate that the disorder may rank third, just behind heart disease and cancer, as a cause of death for older people.

According to Mayo Clinic, the frightful disease – Alzheimer’s, is progressive in nature. At the onset, the afflicted persons may exhibit just mild confusion and some difficulty in remembering.

Tragically, in around five years or a little after, Alzheimer’s would erase the entire lifetime memory of most of the affected persons, when they may even forget the important people in their lives and undergo dramatic personality changes.

The dreaded disease – Alzheimer’s, still without any effective medication in place, has been causing havocs in many lives and families since long, involving many great international personalities too. It is one of those ailments, where the disease process mostly commences almost a decade before the visible appearance of above clinical symptoms.

Worldwide Projections of Alzheimer’s Disease Prevalence:

The above UCLA report highlights the worldwide projections of Alzheimer’s disease prevalence from 2005 to 2050, which includes both the early and late stage patients.

According to this report, the number of people afflicted by this total memory-erasing disease, would grow from 35.26 million in 2015 to as high as 106.23 million populations in 2050, as follows:

Year	Alzheimer’s disease prevalence (in Millions)
2005	25.73
2010	30.12
2015	35.26
2020	41.27
2025	56.55
2040	77.49
2050	106.23

Similar situation in India:

The situation in India seems to be no different, though we are living today in the midst of the hype of ‘Demographic Dividend’.

According to the March 2012 report of ‘The Population Reference Bureau’ of Washington DC of the United States, India’s population with ages 60 and older, who are more prone to Alzheimer’s disease, is projected to increase dramatically over the next four decades, from 8 percent in 2010 to 19 percent in 2050. By mid-century, this age group is expected to encompass 323 million people, a number greater than the total US population in 2012.

Currently available treatment:

At present, there are no treatments available that can stop or slow down the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in the brain of the affected persons.

As I wrote earlier, very often the onset of this disease starts decades before the visible manifestation of even preliminary symptoms. Thus, there is a critical need for early medical interventions to arrest the disease progression.

Again, quoting Mayo Clinic, current Alzheimer’s disease medications and management strategies may at best temporarily improve symptoms. These symptomatic treatments can sometimes, help Alzheimer’s patients maximize cognitive and other related functions to the extent possible, and thereby maintain independence for a little while longer.

Primary reasons:

Many earlier research had postulated that plaques and tangles are primarily responsible for the permanent damage and destruction of nerve cells.

While the plaques are abnormal clusters of beta-amyloid protein fragments between nerve cells, tangles are twisted fibers made primarily of a protein called “tau” that accumulates in the brain cells, damaging and killing them.

The appearance of these two in the brain structure makes the affected persons suffer from almost irreversible memory loss, altered thinking pattern and associated behavioral changes, which are usually serious in nature.

However, I shall discuss below about a very recent research that is focusing on a different and novel target.

Key hurdles in Alzheimer’s drug development:

Despite all these, almost at a regular interval, we have been getting to know about various new studies on Alzheimer’s disease, mostly from academic and scientific institutions. It clearly vindicates, at least, the global academia and also some pharma players, are working hard to get an effective key to unlock the pathway of Alzheimer’s disease process.

The hurdles in developing a suitable drug for effective treatment of Alzheimer’s disease are many. A paper titled, “Researching Alzheimer’s Medicines: Setbacks and Stepping Stones Summer 2015”, published by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) – a trade association of leading biopharmaceutical researchers and biotechnology companies of the United States, cited the following three major reasons as examples:

Scientists still do not understand the underlying causes and mechanisms of the disease. It remains unknown whether many of the defining molecular characteristics of the disease are causes, effects, or signs of progression. This scientific knowledge gap makes the identification and selection of viable targets for new medicines difficult.

Current preclinical models of Alzheimer’s disease are limited in the extent to which they can be extrapolated or translated to the human condition. Better models are needed to facilitate preclinical testing of drug candidates and better predict the effects of the drug in humans.

The absence of validated, non-invasive biomarkers to identify disease presence and progression means the diagnosis is delayed until an individual becomes symptomatic. This makes it particularly challenging to evaluate, enroll, retain, and follow up with patients in clinical studies. It also makes it challenging to assess the effects of the drug candidate. Ultimately, this leads to long and very expensive clinical trials.

The PhRMA publication also states that “researchers believe that no single medicine will be able to defeat Alzheimer’s; rather, several medicines will probably be needed to combat the disease. Thus, researchers need not one, but an array of options to prevent or treat Alzheimer’s disease.”

High rate of R&D failure, with flickers of success:

The above PhRMA publication also indicates, between 1998 and 2014, 123 medicines in clinical development have been halted and have not received regulatory approval.

In this rather gloomy R&D scenario, there are also some flickers of success in this pursuit.

In a recent study, the scientists at the University of Southampton announced that their findings added weight to evidence that inflammation in the brain is what drives the disease. A drug, used to block the production of these microglia cells in the brains of mice, had a positive effect. The study, therefore, concluded that blocking the production of new immune cells in the brain could reduce memory problems seen in Alzheimer’s disease. This finding is expected to pave the way for a new line of treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.

Currently, most drugs used for the treatment of dementia targeted amyloid plaques in the brain, which are considered as a key characteristic of people with the Alzheimer’s disease. According to an article published in Forbes on March 20, 2015, several amyloid-clearing drugs have failed to show statistically significant benefits in large clinical trials. Notable among those are Bapineuzumab – developed by Elan Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson failed in 2009; Solanezumab of Eli Lilly failed in 2012; and so did Gantenerumab of Roche in 2014.

The latest study, as quoted above, published in the journal ‘Brain’, on January 8, 2016 suggests that targeting inflammation in the brain, caused by a build-up of immune cells called microglia, could halt progression of the disease.

Another flicker of hope is, another drug being developed by Biogen Idec for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease appeared to slow down the inexorable cognitive decline of patients’, though in a small and a preliminary study.

Lack of research funding is a critical impediment:

Be that as it may, many experts believe that not enough is still being done in Alzheimer’s research, especially in the area of funding.

In an article titled, “Alzheimer’s disease: are we close to finding a cure?” published by ‘Medical News Today (MNT)’ on August 20, 2014, quoted the Alzheimer’s Society, as follows:

“Dementia is the biggest health and social care challenge of our generation, but research into the condition has been hugely underfunded. This lack of funding has hampered progress and also restricted the number of scientists and clinicians working in the dementia field.”

As an illustration, MNT mentioned that in the United States Alzheimer’s research received US$504 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2014, while cancer received more than US$5 billion. Breast cancer alone received more funding than Alzheimer’s at US$674 million.

Quoting an expert in this field the report highlighted, “Other diseases have demonstrated that sustained investment in research can improve lives, reduce death rates and ultimately produce effective treatments and preventions. We have the tools and the talent to achieve breakthroughs in Alzheimer’s disease, but we need the resources to make this a reality.”

Conclusion:

From the published research reports, it appears that the quest to decipher the complicated Alzheimer’s disease process continues, at least by the academic and scientific institutions, with equal zest.

These scientists remain committed to finding out the ‘magic bullet’, which would be able to effectively address the crippling disease. As a result, the research has also moved from discovery of effective amyloid-clearing drugs to search for new molecules that targets inflammation in the brain, caused by a build-up of immune cells called microglia.

Undeniably, the challenges ahead are still too many.

Nevertheless, enough confidence is also building up to halt the epidemic of Alzheimer’s by overcoming those hurdles, the world over. Experts are hoping that both a cure and also successful preventive measures for the disease, are not too far anymore.

Though some Global Pharma majors invested significantly to discover effective drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, overall research funding in this area is still far from adequate, according to the Alzheimer’s Society.

For various reasons, not many pharma players today seem to believe that it would be financially prudent for them to make significant investments in developing new molecules for the treatment of Alzheimer’s – the disease that robs memory of millions of people, completely, and without any prior warning whatsoever.

‘The Memory Thief’ continues to prowl, undeterred, still eluding otherwise brilliant Pharma R&D, across the world.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma R&D: Chasing A Rainbow To Replicate The Past

Posted on January 25, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Would future be always a replica of the past?

If the response is yes, the efforts of many global pharma players to replicate the successful Research and Development (R&D) models of long gone by days, would continue to be a grand success. The new drug pipeline would remain rich and sustainable. R&D costs would be increasingly more productive, with the rapid and more frequent churning out of blockbuster drugs, in various therapy areas.

However, an affirmative response to this question, if any, has to be necessarily supported by relevant credible data from independent sources.

Additionally, yet another equally critical query would surface. Why then the prices of newer innovative drugs have started going through the roof, with the rapid escalation of R&D expenses?

Thus, there is a need to ponder whether the continued hard effort by many large innovator companies in this direction is yielding the desired results or not.

In this article, I shall try to dwell on this issue with the most recent data available with us.

A new research report:

A new research report of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions titled, “Measuring the return from pharmaceutical innovation 2015: Transforming R&D returns in uncertain times” states that the R&D returns of major life sciences industry groups have fallen to their lowest point in 2015, since 2010. The report tracked and reviewed the estimated returns of 12 leading global life sciences companies.

Some of the data presented in this report would give an idea about the magnitude of current challenges in this space. Nevertheless, there could be a few rare and sporadic green shoots, which can also be cited to claim a revival in this area.

I am quoting below some key pharma R&D trends, for the period starting from 2010 to 2015, as illustrated in the Deloitte report:

A. Declining R&D productivity:

Year	R&D return (%)
2010	10.1
2011	7.6
2012	7.3
2013	4.8
2014	5.5
2015	4.2

B. Increasing drug development cost with decreasing estimated sales:

During 2010 to 2015 period, the average peak sales estimate per drug has fallen by 50 percent from US$ 816 million to US$416 million per year, while the development costs per drug, during the same period increased by 33 percent, from US$ 1.188 billion to US$ 1.576 billion.

C. Smaller Companies showing better R&D productivity:

Between 2013-2015, relatively smaller companies showed better R&D productivity as follows:

Big companies: 5 percent
Mid to large cap companies: 17 percent

D. External innovation becoming increasingly more important:

Again, mid to large cap companies opting for more external innovation are showing a higher proportion of late stage pipeline value, as below:

Big companies: 54 percent
Mid to large cap companies: 79 percent

A fear of failure?

The Deloitte report throws some light on the general stakeholders’ concerns about the exorbitantly high price fixation for innovative new drugs by the concerned companies, together with consequential macroeconomic pressures.

One of the key suggestions made in this report, is to increase the focus on reduction of R&D costs, while accelerating the new drug development timelines. I shall broach upon this point briefly just in a short while.

However, the stark reality today, the hard efforts still being made by many large global drug companies to almost replicate the old paradigm of highly productive pharma R&D, though with some tweaking here or there, are not yielding expected results. The return on R&D investments is sharply going south, as the new drug prices rocketing towards north.

Is it happening due to a paralyzing fear of failure, that moving out of the known and the traditional sphere of the new drug discovery models could impact the stock markets adversely, making the concerned CEOs operational environment too hot to bear?

Be that as it may, without venturing into the uncharted frontiers of the new drug discovery models, would it at all be possible to bring out such drugs at a reasonable affordable price to the patients, ever?

I have deliberated before, in this blog, some of the possible eclectic ways in this area, including in one of my very recent articles on January 4, 2016 titled, “2015: Pharma Industry Achieved Some, Could Achieve Some More”.

New innovative drugs evaluated over priced:

Here, I would not quote the prices of Sovaldi and its ilk, which are known to many. I intend to give examples of just two other new drugs that have triggered significant interest as potential advances for the care of patients in two common disease areas, namely, asthma and diabetes. These two drugs are GlaxoSmithKline’s Nucala® (Mepolizumab) for Asthma and Novo Nordisk’s Tresiba® (Insulin Degludec) for Diabetes.

According a December 21, 2015 report of the ‘Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)’ of the United States:

“The annual price of mepolizumab would need to be discounted 63-76% to be better aligned with value to patients and the health system, while insulin degludec would need to be discounted less than 10% to do so.”

Thus, there has been a growing mismatch between the value that new innovative drugs, in general, offers to the patients and the price that the innovator companies fix for such drugs. This trend, if continues, would significantly limit patients’ access to new drugs, as the pharma players keep chasing disproportionately high profitability to increase their shareholder value.

External sourcing of R&D may not make new drugs affordable:

Taking a cue from the highly successful strategy of Gilead, especially what it has done with Sovaldi and Harvoni, if other major global pharma players’ also try to enrich their late stage new drug molecule pipeline from external sources, would that effectively resolve the core issue?

In my view, this could possibly be one of the ways to contain R&D expenses and with much lesser risk, as suggested in the Deloitte report. However, I doubt, whether the same would effectively help bringing down the prices of newer innovative drugs, in tandem.

This is primarily because of the following contemporary example, that we now have with us.

Although the active compound that is used to manufacture Sovaldi, or for that matter even Harvoni, is not Gilead’s in-house discovery, the prices of these drugs have already gone through the roof.

It is altogether a different matter that robust patent laws along with the Government vigilance on obnoxious drug pricing is gradually increasing in various countries. Some developed and developing markets of the world, including the Unites States and the United Kingdom, either already have or are now mulling for an effective counter check to irresponsible drug pricing, primarily by putting the ‘innovation’ bogey right at the very front.

In India, prompted by its robust patent law and to avoid any possibility of Compulsory Licensing (CL), Gilead ultimately decided to give Voluntary Licenses (CL) for Sovaldi to several Indian drug companies. These pharma players will manufacture the drug in India and market it in the country at a much lesser price.

A new cooperative effort for cancer drugs:

On January 11 2016, ‘The New York Times’ reported the formation of ‘National Immunotherapy Coalition (NIC)’. This is a cooperative effort by some leading global pharma companies to speed up the testing of new types of cancer drugs that harness the body’s immune system to battle tumors. The NIC will try to rapidly test various combinations of such drugs.

This is important, as many researchers believe that combinations of two or more drugs that engage different parts of the immune system might be effective for more patients than a single drug.

On the face of it, this initiative appears to be a step in the right direction and could make the cancer drugs more affordable to patients. However, only future will tell us whether it happens that way or not.

Conclusion:

Nevertheless, the bottom line is, to make the new innovative drugs available at an affordable price to patients, along with strict vigilance by the government bodies, the old and a traditional ball game of drug discovery has to change.

This would necessarily require fresh eyes, inquiring minds and high IQ brains that can bring forth at least significant eclectic changes, if not a disruptive innovation, in the new drug discovery and development process, across the world.

Otherwise, and especially when the low-hanging fruits of drug discovery have already been plucked, if the major global pharma players continue striving to replicate the grand old path of new drug discovery, the efforts could very likely be, and quite akin to, chasing a rainbow.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: R&D

Could Vaccine Prevent Heart Attacks?

Making New Cancer Drugs Cost-effective

Dwindling Drug Innovation: Declining Image: Unchanged Business And Advocacy Models

Awaiting The Two To Tango: Pharma Innovation And Public Health Interest

NCDs: Any Wolf Around, In Sheep’s Clothing?

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

‘The Memory Thief’ Still Eludes Grasp Of Pharma R&D

Pharma R&D: Chasing A Rainbow To Replicate The Past