Tag Archives: R&D

‘Repurposing’ Older Drugs: Has The Process Started Rolling?

Posted on by
Reply

On October 22, 2015, BBC News reported, “The world’s largest clinical trial to examine whether aspirin can prevent cancers returning has begun in the United Kingdom (UK).”

About 11,000 people, who have had early bowel, breast, prostate, stomach and esophageal cancer will be involved in this study with one tablet a day dosage for five years. This trial is being funded by ‘The Charity Cancer Research, UK’ and ‘The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).’

The scientists feel, if it works, this ‘repurposing’ of an older and much-known drug would be a “game-changing” one. It would then be able to provide a cheap and effective alternative to prevent recurrence of cancer to a large number of cancer survivals. Interestingly, no global pharma players are involved in this cancer prevention research, as yet. 

Aspirin was developed by Bayer way back in 1897 for pain and inflammation. Thereafter, the scientists found a ‘repurpose’ in its use as an anti-platelet drug for treating and preventing heart attacks and strokes.

Similarly, the anti-inflammatory drug Ibuprofen, which was developed by Boots in the 1960s for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, is now showing promises that it can help protect against Parkinson’s disease.

Again, a number of studies claim that statins, a cholesterol-reducing drug, can help prevent Alzheimer’s Disease, resulting in low levels of beta-amyloid. Further research needs to be done in this area, as this finding has not been universally accepted, just yet.

All such commendable initiatives, throw open a relevant question for debate: ‘Can the existing drugs be re-examined in a systematic manner to discover their other possible radically new usages at a much lesser treatment costs to patients?’

In my view, available data emphatically prompts the answer ‘Yes’ and I shall deliberate on on that in this article.

‘Repurposing’ older drugs:

The Oxford Dictionary meaning of ‘repurpose’ is: ‘Adapt for use in a different purpose.’

Accordingly, the process of discovering new usages of older drugs is often called by many scientists as ‘repurposing’.   

Currently, we come across various articles reporting a number of such new initiatives. This process is safer, much less expensive and takes much lesser time.

These laudable R&D initiatives needs encouragement from all stakeholders, especially from the Government. Given proper focus and attractive financial and other incentives, more and more players are expected to get attracted to a different genre of innovation. It is a whole new ball game of discovering new purposes of old and cheaper drugs with known and well-documented long term safety profile.

Some old drugs with ‘new purpose’: 

The following table gives an example of some well known older drugs, for which fresh R&D initiatives discovered their new purpose of treatment, at a much cheaper cost: 

Drug Old Indication New purpose
Amantadine Influenza Parkinson’s Disease
Amphotericin Antifungal Leishmaniasis
Aspirin Inflammation, pain Antiplatelet
Bromocriptine Parkinson’s disease Diabetes mellitus
Bupropion Depression Smoking cessation
Colchicine Gout Recurrent pericarditis
Methotrexate Cancer Psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis

(Source: Indian Journal of Applied Research, Volume: 4, Issue: 8, August 2014)  

A clarion call to join this movement:

The well-known researcher, Dr. Francis S. Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in a TED talk (video) strongly argued in favor of ‘translational research’ to produce better drugs, faster. To make this process to work successfully Francis Collins hopes to encourage global pharmaceutical companies to open up their stashes of drugs that have already passed safety tests, but that failed to successfully treat their targeted disease. 

He wants to study, how drugs approved for one disease could successfully treat another or more ailments and also gave examples of the following drugs, which I am quoting below, as such:

  • Raloxifene: The FDA approved Raloxifene to reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women in 2007. It was initially developed to treat osteoporosis.
    .
  • Thalidomide: This drug started out as a sedative in the late fifties, and soon doctors were infamously prescribing it to prevent nausea in pregnant women. It later caused thousands of severe birth defects, most notably phocomelia, which results in malformed arms and legs. In 1998, thalidomide found a new use as a treatment for leprosy and in 2006 it was approved for multiple myeloma, a bone marrow cancer.
    .
  • Tamoxifen: This hormone therapy treats metastatic breast cancers, or those that have spread to other parts of the body, in both women and men, and it was originally approved in 1977. Thirty years later, researchers discovered that it also helps people with bipolar disorder by blocking the enzyme PKC, which goes into overdrive during the manic phase of the disorder.
    .
  • Rapamycin: This antibiotic, also called sirolimus, was first discovered in bacteria-laced soil from Easter Island in the seventies, and the FDA approved it in 1999 to prevent organ transplant rejection. Since then, researchers have found it effective in treating not one but two diseases: Autoimmune Lymphoproliferative Syndrome (ALPS), in which the body produces too many immune cells called lymphocytes, and lymphangioleiomyomatosis, a rare lung disease.
    .
  • Lomitapide: Intended to lower cholesterol and triglycerides, the FDA approved this drug to treat a rare genetic disorder that causes severe cholesterol problems called homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia last December.
    .
  • Pentostatin: This drug was created as a chemotherapy for specific types of leukemia. It was tested first in T-cell-related leukemias, which didn’t respond to the drug. But later NIH’s National Cancer Institute discovered that the drug was successful in treating a rare leukemia that is B-cell related, called Hairy Cell Leukemia.
    .
  • Sodium nitrite: This salt was first developed as an antidote to cyanide poisoning and, unrelated to medicine, it’s also used to cure meat. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute is currently recruiting participants for a sodium nitrite clinical trial, in which the drug will be tested as a treatment for the chronic leg ulcers associated with sickle cell and other blood disorders.
  • Zidovudine (AZT): The first antiviral approved for HIV/AIDS in 1987.
  • Farnesyltransferase inhibitor (FTI): This was used to successfully treat children with the rapid-aging disease Progeria in a 2012 clinical trial.

“None of these drugs could have been developed without collaborations between drug developers and researchers with new ideas about applications, based on molecular insights about disease,” Dr. Collins said.

The examples that I have given, so far, on ‘repurposing’ older drugs are not exhaustive, in any way, there are more such examples coming up almost regularly.

The key benefits: 

The key benefits of ‘repurposing’ older drugs may be summarized as follows:

  • Ready availability of the starting compound
  • Previously generated relevant R&D data may be used for submission to drug regulators
  • Makes clinical research more time-efficient and cost-effective
  • Possibility of much quicker market launch

Slowly gaining steam: 

On November 27, 2012, ‘The Guardian’ reported that a number of university-based spin-outs and small biotech companies are being set up in the United States to find new purpose for old drugs. They express interest especially, on those drugs, which were shelved as they did not match the desired efficacy requirements, though showed a good overall safety profile.

Such organizations, take advantage of the declining cost of screening, with some compound libraries, such as, the Johns Hopkins library, which includes 3,500 drugs, available for screening at a small charge, the report highlighted.

Quoting a specialist, the report stated, “Existing drugs have been shown to be safe in patients, so if these drugs could be found to work for other diseases, then this would drastically reduce drug development costs and risks. Of 30,000 drugs in the world, 25,000 are ex-patent – it’s a free-for-all.”

‘Repurposing’ may not attract many pharma players, Government should step in:

Notwithstanding the clarion call of Dr. Francis Collins to global pharma players for their active participation in such projects, I reckon, the positive response may not be too many, because of various reasons.

Although, ‘repurposed’ drugs offer similar or even greater value to patients than any comparable ‘me-too’ New Chemical/Molecular Entity (NCE/NME), there may not possibly be any scope here for ‘Obscene Pricing’, such as ‘Sovaldi’ and many others, as some experts feel. And that’s the reality.

Moreover, new usages of the same old molecule, in all probability, may not get any fresh Intellectual Property (IP) protection in India, either.

Hence, considering the health interest of patients, in general, the Government should assume the role of ‘prime mover’, primarily to set the ball of ‘repurposing of older drugs’ rolling in India. This has already started happening in some of the developed countries of the world, which I shall dwell upon here.

Funding clinical development for ‘repurposing’:

Let me give a couple of examples of funding such admirable initiatives in two different countries.

I have already mentioned above that the clinical development for ‘repurposing’ Aspirin in the prevention of cancer, is being funded by the charity Cancer Research UK and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

In a similar initiative, National Institutes for Health (NIH) of the United States, launched the ‘National Center for Advancing Transnational Sciences (NCATS), in May 2012.

New Therapeutic Uses program of NCATS helps to identify new uses for drugs that have undergone significant research and development by the pharma industry, including safety testing in humans. NIH claims that ‘using drugs that already have cleared several key steps in the development process gives scientists nationwide a strong starting point to contribute their unique expertise and accelerate the pace of therapeutics development.’

By pairing researchers with a selection of specific drugs, NCATS program tests ideas for new therapeutic uses, ultimately identifying promising new treatments for patients. Funding for this purpose is done by NCATS through NIH. For example, In July 2015, NCATS planned a funding of around US$3 million to support four academic research groups to test a selection of drugs for new therapeutic uses, as follows:

  • Type 2 diabetes
  • Glioblastoma (one of the most aggressive brain tumors in adults)
  • Acute myeloid leukemia (an aggressive blood cancer)
  • Chagas disease (a neglected tropical disease that causes heart, digestive and neurological problems)

According to NIH, each award recipient will test a selected drug for its effectiveness against a previously unexplored disease or condition. The industry partners for these projects are AstraZeneca and Sanofi.

Can it be done in India?

Of course yes, provided the Government considers health care as one its priority focus areas with commensurate resource deployment of all kinds for the same.

As things stand today, India still remains beyond any visibility to give a tangible shape to this specific concept of ‘repurposing’ of older drugs. There does not seem to be any other valid reason why similar model of funding can’t be followed locally too, for this purpose.

The nodal agency to spearhead such initiatives, and to create appropriate groundswell to help gain a critical mass, may well be the ‘Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)’ or any other body that the Government decides in consultation with domain experts, together with reasonable financial incentives for commercialization of new usages at an affordable cost.

Conclusion:

As we all know, many people, across the world, are currently going through the pain of seeing their loved ones suffer, and even die, from serious ailments, the treatments of which either do not exist or when exist, the therapy costs may be out of reach of a vast majority of patients. In tandem, the R&D pipeline of the global pharma industry is gradually drying up.

In a situation like this, drug ‘repurposing’ that is directed towards meeting unmet medical needs of patients of all types irrespective of financial status, needs to be increasingly encouraged and pursued as a critical solution to this growing problem.

The good news is that some global pharma majors, though very few in number, have now expressed their intention to salvage their failed molecules and are open to help explore whether such drugs may work in other disease conditions.

India seems to be still miles away from this space, and a bit directionless too. That said, the country is scientifically quite capable of making up the lost ground in this area, provided the Government decides so, garnering requisite wherewithal.

Thus, in my view, the process of ‘repurposing’ older drugs has already started rolling in some major countries of the world, in a well structured manner with requisite funding in place. Tangible outcomes are already noticeable today, with some examples quoted in this article.

As Dr. Francis Collins said, collaborations between drug developers and researchers with new ideas about applications, based on molecular insights about disease are critical in the way forward to achieve this cherished goal in a sustainable manner.

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.

Does The Attempt To ‘Debunk Five Big Myths About Big Pharma’ Not Reconfirm The Truth?

Posted on by
Reply

Late last week while returning to India, to my pleasant surprise, I bumped into a longtime overseas friend and his wife working in the pharma industry. Incidentally, they were also traveling in the same flight with a plan to spend their vacation in India.

We both were immensely delighted spotting each other, and were trying to catch up with plethora of subjects at a break-neck speed and mostly with child-like zest. As a result, we were jumping from one topic to another, keeping many loops of discussion unknowingly incomplete.

One such rapid-fire colloquy got almost permanently interrupted with the final boarding announcement. It happened, just when he was referring to busting of some “myths about Big Pharma” by the global CEO of one of the Big Pharma constituents, recently. The article, he said before we got up, was published in the May edition of Forbes Magazine.

As I had missed this curious narrative during my recent relatively long overseas travel commitments, yesterday in Mumbai I did trace that out with the help of our “Google Guru” and went through the content of the article with interest.

‘Debunking Five Big Myths About Big Pharma’:

In the May 19, 2015 issue of Forbes Magazine, I came across an Op-Ed, titled “Debunking the Five Big Myths About Big Pharma”, written by Mr. John Lechleiter, President, Chairman and CEO of Eli Lilly and Company, whom I immensely respect as an icon of the global pharma industry.

The author in his article identified the ‘Five Myths’ as follows:

Myth1: Pharmaceutical companies exaggerate the costs of developing new medicines to justify high prices.

Myth 2: Industry does not develop most new medicines; they come from government and university laboratories.

Myth 3: Prescription medicines are the main driver of health-care cost increases.

Myth 4: Public and private health-care payers must accept and pay whatever prices drug companies charge for medicines.

Myth 5: Government-controlled pricing of medicines in other countries explains their lower health-care costs.

The article is indeed interesting, as it raises more questions than answers. This is mainly because, ‘the debunking of the Five Myths’ was done using the same old fragile arguments much often repeated by the international ‘Big Pharma Trade Associations’ and by some others as well, whom many call privately as their ‘poodles’, although I am not very sure about that.

The reason and time for ‘debunking’:

In the above Op-Ed John Lechleiter forcefully asserts:

“The Big Five Myths’ about this industry routinely poison debates, obscure genuine problems, and distort policy recommendations on healthcare. These myths have been all over the public arena again recently, and it’s time to confront them systematically.”

“The First Big Myth”:

As stated above, the Eli Lilly Chief described the first ‘Big Myth’ of ‘Big Pharma’ as follows:

“Pharmaceutical companies exaggerate the costs of developing new medicines to justify high prices.”

Arguments behind debunking the ‘Big Myth 1’:

The Chief debunked the first ‘Big Myth’ with the following argument:

“In fact: The research and development (R&D) expenditures of this industry are staggering – and since they are matters of public record there is no way and no need to exaggerate them.”

Raises more questions than answers:

Just to illustrate my point, that this article raises more questions than answers, I shall, try to explain the so called ‘debunking’ of this first of the ‘Five Big Myths’ of ‘Big Pharma’, as penned by Lechleiter.

The author seems to have missed the core narrative behind the so-called ‘Myth’ – lock stock and barrel. Whether deliberately or not, I can’t really figure that out.

The reason behind high costs of patented drug:

Even if for the arguments sake, what the author has said is accepted as a gospel truth while ‘debunking Myth 1’, experts’ discourses on the facts behind high costs of patented drugs do not just focus just on the ‘R&D Costs’, it also seriously points towards abnormally high ‘Marketing Costs’, which in many instances several times more than the ‘R&D Costs’.

Some hard facts:

An article of 6 November 2014 of BBC News, titled “Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits” written by Richard Anderson, Business reporter, BBC News highlights:

Drug companies justify the high prices they charge by arguing that their Research and Development (R&D) costs are huge. On average, only three in 10 drugs launched are profitable, with one of those going on to be a blockbuster with US$1bn-plus revenues a year. Many more do not even make it to market.

But as the table below shows, drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs – in some cases twice as much – than on developing them… and besides, profit margins take into account R&D costs.

World’s largest pharmaceutical firms
Company Total revenue ($bn) R&D spend ($bn) Sales and marketing spend($bn) Profit ($bn) Profit margin (%)
Johnson & Johnson (US) 71.3 8.2 17.5 13.8 19
Novartis (Swiss) 58.8 9.9 14.6 9.2 16
Pfizer (US) 51.6 6.6 11.4 22.0 43
Hoffmann-La Roche (Swiss) 50.3 9.3 9.0 12.0 24
Sanofi (France) 44.4 6.3 9.1 8.5 11
Merck (US) 44.0 7.5 9.5 4.4 10
GSK (UK) 41.4 5.3 9.9 8.5 21
AstraZeneca (UK) 25.7 4.3 7.3 2.6 10
Eli Lilly (US) 23.1 5.5 5.7 4.7 20
AbbVie (US) 18.8 2.9 4.3 4.1 22
Source:GlobalData

The article states that in 2013, US giant Pfizer, the world’s largest drug company by pharmaceutical revenue, made an eye-watering 42 percent profit margin. The same year, five other major pharmaceutical companies made a profit margin of 20 percent or more – Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Eli Lilly.

Why does the drug industry spend more on marketing than on R&D?

Thus, one most persistent question that is being raised by the stakeholders is: Why does the drug industry spend more on marketing than on R&D?

Quoting these facts, a November 6, 2014 article of ‘FiercePharma’, titled “New numbers back old meme: Pharma does spend more on marketing than R&D”, also pointed out that even John Lechleiter headed Eli Lilly’s marketing spending clocked US$5.7 billion, compared with US$5.5 billion for R&D. That’s a difference of 7 percent.

High marketing expenditure and increasing marketing malpractices:

Interestingly there appears to be a curious coincidences between fines paid by ‘Big Pharma’ related to alleged marketing malpractices and spiraling marketing expenditure.

As I indicated earlier in my Blog Post of December 29, 2014, the following are a few recent examples of just the last three years to help fathom the enormity of the problem on this issue and also to vindicate the point made above:

  • In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder.
  • Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges.
  • In November 2013, Teva Pharmaceutical reportedly said that an internal investigation turned up suspect practices in countries ranging from Latin America to Russia.
  • In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.
  • In August 2012, Pfizer Inc. was reportedly fined US$ 60.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing of overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.
  • In April 2012, a judge in Arkansas, US, reportedly fined Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary more than US$1.2 billion after a jury found that the companies had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Where does most of the marketing expenditure go?

On February 11, 2015, an article published in the ‘The Washington Post’ titled, “Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research”, stated:

“Most of this marketing money is directed at the physicians who do the prescribing, rather than consumers.”

The HBO video that had gone viral:

The HBO Video with a dash of characteristic British humor of “John Oliver: Marketing to Doctors (HBO)” captures the essence of the issue. Many readers much have watched this video earlier. Nevertheless it helps understanding the point.

Some people associated with the industry did attempt nitpicking on this video and quite understandably; they did not find many takers.

Conclusion:

As deliberated above, I submit with humility that there are ample hard facts, which would debunk even more forcefully, the ‘debunking of the remaining so called four myths’ as was elucidated in the Forbes Magazine article authored by well-respected John Lechleiter, the President, Chairman and CEO of Eli Lilly and Company.

This seemingly well-timed article from the global pharma icon, though with disappointedly fragile content, I reckon, would not be able to evoke the desired response from its target audience. On the contrary, it carries the risk of being construed as no more than a half-hearted attempt of defending the indefensible and in that process reconfirming the truth, camouflaged in the paper as ‘myths’.

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.

Unsustainable New Cancer Drug Prices: Resolution Remains A Far Cry

Posted on by
Reply

Prices of new drugs for the treatment of life-threatening ailments, such as cancer, are increasingly becoming unsustainable, across the world, and more in India. As articulated by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2014, this is primarily due to the fact that their prices are disconnected from the actual therapeutic value of products.

Today, a very large number of poor and even the middle-income patients, who spend their entire life-savings for treatment of a disease like cancer, have been virtually priced out of the patented new drugs market.

The plights of such patients are worse in India and would continue to be so, especially when no trace of Universal Health Care/Coverage (UHC) is currently visible anywhere near the healthcare horizon of the country.

I discussed about the recent decision of the Government for shelving UHC in my recent Blog Post titled, “Would Affordable ‘Modicare’ Remain Just A Pipe Dream In India?”

Irresponsible pricing?

To highlight this point, I shall quote from the research paper titled, “Five Years of Cancer Drug Approvals, Innovation, Efficacy and Costs” published in JAMA Oncology dated April 02, 2015. This report states that just one year’s cost of treatment with a patented new cancer drug now routinely exceeds US$ 100,000. It is much known today that the medical bills for cancer treatment have become the single largest cause of personal bankruptcy, in many countries of the world.

The issue is even more impactful and heart wrenching in India, as with much lower per capita income, compared to the global median, a cancer patient pays around the same price for the same patented drugs in the country. Much talked about Nexavar of Bayer, has been a good example.

The above report underscores, the big global pharma players still vigorously contend to establish that the high cost of drugs is required to support their research and development efforts. However, none would possibly deny the hard data that, when costs and revenues are balanced, the pharmaceutical industry generates high profit margins.

On a lighter vain – the fact that the richest person in India is a pharma player of ‘low price generic medicines’ vindicates this point.

The latest report on pharma R&D costs:

In a ‘Press Release’ of November 18, 2014, Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development announced, “Cost to develop and win marketing approval for a New Drug is US$2.6 Billion”.

This is around 2.5 times more than its previous estimate published in 2003, which reads as US$802 million.

Although the study is not publicly available, neither has it been peer reviewed, it does reflect that above overall inflation rate, pharma R&D costs are reportedly going up at an annual rate of around 8 percent!

Even if the R&D cost of US$2.6 Billion is accepted as correct to justify high prices of patented drugs, one should note that this figure is applicable only to those types of New Chemical Entities (NCE) that did not receive any outside funding in their developmental process, such as, from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

It is worth noting, such types of NCEs account for less than one-sixth of the annual new drugs approval in the United States.

Interestingly, Tufts Center receives its funding from the pharmaceutical industry, according to reports.

When is a high cost of medicine defendable?

According to some, high price may be justified, if novel products offer significant benefits to patients giving rise to indirect quantifiable economic value through restoration of health of patients.

This is understandable, as those patented drugs represent significant and well-accepted pharmacological advances over the existing ones, offering novel mechanisms of actions for better treatment value through ‘high-risk-high-cost’ research.

Price is a function of the value that a drug offers:

The price of any drug must be a function of the value that it offers to the patients. Not just the cost of its innovation, irrespective of the fact, whether it is a ‘New-Class (Novel)’ or ‘Next-in Class’ or even a ‘Me-too’ NCE.

The above April 2015 research report published in JAMA Oncology, investigated at length, whether novelty of medications or their relative benefits dictated drug pricing.

In that endeavor, the authors found out that from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013, the USFDA approved 51 drugs in oncology for 63 indications. During this period, 9 drugs received more than 1 approved indication.

The study observed:

Of these 51 drugs:

- 21 (41 percent) exert their effect via a novel mechanism of action

- While 30 (59 percent) are next-in-class drugs

Despite this fact, there was no difference in the median price per year of treatment between the 30 next-in-class drugs (US$119, 765) and the 21 novel drugs (US$116, 100).

Global cancer market is soaring high fuelled by astronomical prices:

According to a report that quotes an official of IMS Health, the overall cost for cancer treatments per month in the United States is now US$10,000, up from $5,000 just a year ago. At the same time, according to a 2014 study by the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, global oncology spending has hit US$91 billion in 2013, and despite patent cliff is growing at 5 percent annually.

None likes nightmarish cancer drug-pricing trend:

None likes this worrisome drug-pricing trend, not even in the developed world. God forbid, just one cancer patient in the family can drag even a middle class household to the poverty level, especially in a country like India, where Out of Pocket (OoP) expenses for health hovers around 70 percent and Universal Health Coverage still remains a pipe dream.

Payers, including governments and private insurers, in the top cancer markets such as the United States and Europe, are trying hard to bring the cancer drug prices to a reasonable level through regulatory pressure of various kinds and forms. For example, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom and the regulators for drug cost-effectiveness in other large European countries, are coming hard on patented new cancer drugs with small improvements in survival time but priced much higher than the existing ones.

Even many private insurers in those countries are now raising questions about the additional value offerings in quantifiable terms, especially for the new cancer drugs and other treatments for life-threatening ailments, such as hepatitis C. To give an example, in late 2014, Express Scripts in America negotiated hard for an exclusive deal with AbbVie to provide its hepatitis C treatment Viekira Pak over Gilead’s exorbitantly priced Sovaldi.

Action by the doctors outside India:

In 2012, doctors at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center reportedly announced in ‘The New York Times’ that their hospital would not be using Zaltrap, a newly patented colorectal cancer drug from Sanofi. This action of the Sloan-Kettering doctors compelled Sanofi to cut Zaltrap price by half.

Unlike in India, where prices of even cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, 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 on their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

In a recent 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 such drugs. Their solution for this problem includes value-based pricing and NICE like body of the U.K.

This Interesting Video from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

Tokenism by the Indian Government:

India sent a signal to global pharma players about its unhappiness of astronomical pricing of patented new cancer drugs in the country on March 9, 2012. On that day, the then Indian Patent Controller General issued the first ever Compulsory License (CL) to a domestic drug manufacturer Natco, allowing it to sell a generic equivalent of a kidney cancer treatment drug from Bayer – Nexavar, at a small fraction of the originator’s price.

In this context, it won’t be out of place recapitulating that an article published in a global business magazine on December 5, 2013 quoted Marijn Dekkers, the CEO of Bayer AG saying: “Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

Whether, CL is the right approach to resolve allegedly ‘profiteering mindset’ at the cost of human lives, is a different subject of discussion.

Be that as it may, India did send a very strong signal in this regard, which some construe as mere tokenism. Nonetheless, this action of the Indian Government shook the global pharma world very hard, that it would find difficult to forget in a foreseeable future.

Government’s determination to make it happen is still eluding:

The headline of this article would probably invoke an instant negative response from my friends in the industry, an understandably so, expressing… ‘Hey, are you talking against innovation and suggesting one more regulator for the heavily regulated pharma industry?’ 

I would very humbly say, no…I am suggesting neither of those two, but requesting to give shape to a very important decision already taken by the Government on this issue, in a meaningful way. That decision has been scripted in Para 4.XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and was notified on December 07, 2012.

On ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’, it categorically states as follows:

“There is a separate committee constituted by the Government Order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented Drugs would be based on the recommendation of this committee.”

The following long drawn unproductive events would vindicate, beyond even an iota of doubt, that a strong determination to make it happen, by even by the new Government, is still eluding by far.

Is this committee ‘Jinxed’?

To utter dismay of the patients and their well-wishers, the above committee took over six years after it was formed to submit its report.

It recommended ‘Reference Pricing’ for the Patented Drugs in India, after adjusting against India’s Gross National Income and Purchasing Power Parity. The suggested ‘Reference Countries’ were UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand, where there exist a strong public health policy, together with tough bargaining power of the governments for drug price negotiations.

However, our Government found this report useless for various reasons and dissolved the panel. The grapevine in the corridors of power whispers, it could possibly be due to intense pressure from the global pharma players and their powerful lobby groups.

Interestingly, again by the end of 2013, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) set up a brand new inter-ministerial committee with four representatives each from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) and one from the DoP to resolve the same issue of ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’ in India.

Unfortunately, a serious issue of this magnitude has still remained unresolved, even under the new seemingly dynamic Government, till date. There were media reports though, just prior to the Union Budget in January 2015, that ‘the Government may negotiate prices of patented medicines with their manufacturers before allowing pharmaceutical companies to launch them in India.’

The scenario is still far from even sketchy. A lurking fear, therefore, creeps into the minds of many: Is this committee on ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’ jinxed or incompetent or has deliberately been kept non-functional under tremendous external pressure on pricing of patented drugs?

The way forward:

To find an implementable ‘Patented Drug Pricing Model’ soon, the new committee of the Government should consider Pharmacoeconomics Based or Value-Based Pricing (PBP/VBP) Model for the country.

Pharmacoeconomics, as we know, is a scientific model of setting price of a medicine commensurate to the economic value of the drug therapy.  Pharmacoeconomics principles, therefore, intend to maximize the value obtained from expenditures towards medicines through a structured evaluation of products costs and disease outcomes.

Thus, PBP/VBP basically offers the best value for money spent. It ‘is the costs and consequences of one treatment compared with the costs and consequences of alternative treatments’.

To the best of my knowledge, the Public Health Foundation of India, spearheaded by well-reputed internationally acclaimed physician – Dr. Srinath Reddy, has requisite expertise in this area and to build on it further, as required by the committee.

This new model would help establishing in India that the price of any drug is always a key function of the value that it offers and not of the so called ‘high cost of innovation’, irrespective of whether it is a ‘New-Class (Novel)’ or ‘Next-in Class’ or even ‘Me-Too’ NCE.

The concept is gaining ground: 

The concept of ‘Value-Based Pricing’, has started gaining ground in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcome’ data using similar or equivalent products.

Cost of incremental value that a product delivers over the existing ones, is of key significance and should always be the order of the day. Some independent organizations such as, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK have taken a leading role in this area.

Conclusion:

Warren Buffet – the financial investor of global repute once said, “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” Unfortunately, this dictum is not applicable to the consumers of high priced life saving drugs, such as, for cancer.

Price tags of most of the patented new cancer drugs, do not seem to give any indication that the pharma players believe in this pricing model, even remotely. As JAMA Oncology has established in their recent research study, there is no difference in the median price of per year of treatment between ‘Next-in-Class’ and ‘Novel Drugs’.

Thus far, India has been able to address this issue either through section 3(d) or Compulsory Licensing (CL) provisions of its Patents Act. As the saying goes, ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating’, the net fall-out of these measures has been demonstrably profound. For example, the global pharma giant Gilead has entered into voluntary License (VL) agreements with several local companies to market in India one of the most expensive products of the world – Sovaldi, at a small fraction of its original price of US$1,000/tablet. 

That said, effective long-term resolution of ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’ issue, in my view, is long overdue in India, especially for the treatment of life-threatening diseases, such as cancer. This has been necessitated by the fact that in many cases, therapeutic benefits of most of these drugs are not commensurate to their high costs.

The provision for ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’ has already been made in the NPPP 2012, though not implemented, as yet. While working out an implementable mechanism for the same, the new committee of the present Government may consider ‘Pharmacoeconomics Based or Value-Based Pricing (PBP/VBP) Model’ to effectively resolve this crucial issue. The specialized group that will operate this system could be a part of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of India.

The struggle for life in the fierce battle against dangerous ailments, without having access to new life-saving drugs, has indeed assumed a mind-boggling dimension in India, especially in the absence of Universal Health Coverage. It would continue to remain so, unless the new Government demonstrates its will to act, putting in place a transparent model of patented drugs pricing, without succumbing to any power play or pressures of any kind from vested interests.

The bottom-line is: It has to happen soon…very soon. For patients’ sake.

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.

A Patient-Centric State Initiative To Revolutionize Disease Treatment

Posted on by
Reply

In his State of the Union address, just before the recent visit to India in January 2015, President Barack Obama articulated the need to develop “Precision Medicine” in his country – a bold, giant and perhaps unprecedented State initiative to remarkably improve effectiveness of disease treatment.

To set the ball rolling, in his budget proposal for the year 2016, President Obama earmarked an amount of US$ 215 million for this purpose. This includes an allocation of US$130 million for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to create a national research database of about a million American volunteers by studying their genetics together with other relevant factors, such as the environments they live in and the microbes that live in their bodies.

‘Precision Medicine’ initiative is similar to path breaking 13-year and US$3 billion Human Genome Project, that has formed the bedrock of modern genomics, President Obama said. He also expressed hope that the private healthcare sector too, including universities and foundations, will get involved to “lay the foundation” for this new initiative of the Government for the interest of patients.

Why is this approach so relevant in today’s healthcare?

In an article published in the ‘British Medical Journal (BMJ) in October 2012, Richard Smith - an editor of BMJ until 2004 and a Director of the United Health Group’s chronic disease initiative wrote:

“Doctors know that many of the patients they treat with drugs will not benefit. Many patients know that too.”

Dr. Smith also emphasized, for centuries medicine classified diseases by what could be seen, felt, and smelt. Thereafter, medical scientists in this area started defining diseases anatomically, physiologically, and biochemically. Even today, this is by and large the paradigm where most medicines fall.

Smith underscored, because of imprecise diagnosis the treatment also becomes haphazard. There is big variation in how individuals respond to drugs and yet that variation is not usually recorded. The regulators approve drugs based on their average performance even today.

The White House release also reiterates, most medical treatments have been designed for the “average patient.” This “one-size-fits-all-approach,” treatments can be very successful for some patients but not for others.

This calls for broadening the scope of disease treatment – from the conventional and error-prone ‘Disease Oriented’ approach, to relatively more unconventional and better targeted with greater value – ‘Patient-Centric’ ones, wherever needed.

Two current trends:

To address this key deficiency in the effective treatment of several dreaded diseases for many patients, following two are the current trends, as stated by William Pao, M.D., Ph.D., who led Roche’s Oncology Discovery & Translational Area research unit since May 2014:

  • We now know that on a molecular level every cancer is different – not only between different tumors, but even between different areas within a single tumor! This means that we need to match the right drug to the patient who we know will respond best to the drug, at the right time during the course of treatment.
  • Patients will have their tumors profiled not only for genetic drivers, but also for predictive immunotherapy markers at different time points in their course of treatment.

Personalized and Precision Medicine:

The above trends in the endeavor of making treatments more patient specific – thus more effective, have thrown open scientific discourse and intense research on ‘Personalized’ and ‘Precision’ medicines.

As Pfizer has described in its website:

Personalized Medicine is a unique approach to medical practice in which the individual aspects of a patient are directly considered to guide treatment planning, including his or her genetic make-up, key biomarkers, prior treatment history, environmental factors and behavioral preferences. This approach can be used to optimize pharmaceutical treatments and overall care.

Whereas, Precision Medicine is an approach to discovering and developing medicines and vaccines that deliver superior outcomes for patients, by integrating clinical and molecular information to understand the biological basis of disease. Precision medicine is the biopharmaceutical research and development paradigm that will help enable more patient-centered clinical practice, including treatment decision-making based on genetic information – an emerging standard now often described as “personalized medicine”.

As President Obama said while announcing the proposal on January 30, 2015, ‘Precision Medicine’ promises delivery of the right treatment at the right time, every time, to the right person.

He also said that the new effort will “bring us closer to curing diseases like cancer and diabetes…and give all of us access to the personalized information we need to keep ourselves and our families healthier.”

‘Precision Medicines’ Dominate Oncology segment: 

In the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2014 Congress, pharma majors reported their latest advances on precision medicines in the cancer care. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and Merck & Co. were among the companies presented updates of their most promising cancer drugs closer to this area.

According to a large pharma lobby group in the United States – The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA):

“Recent advances in diseases such as cancer and cystic fibrosis are delivering on the promise of targeted treatments, and between 12 and 50 percent of all compounds currently being researched by the industry are potential personalized medicines. These advances hold great promise in improving patient outcomes and controlling costs by targeting the right medicines to the right patients.”

‘DCAT Connect’ Report of September 2014 also indicates significant increase in ‘Precision Medicines’ in the pipelines of the leading global pharma companies, which is a key change over the past decade.

In 2013, targeted therapies increased their share of the global oncology market, accounting for 46 percent of total sales, up from 11 percent a decade ago. According to IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, the global oncology drug market reached US$ 91 billion in 2013 with CAGR of 5.4 percent from 2008 to 2013.

Taking note of this trend, it appears that in the near future ‘Precision Medicines’ would possibly be the most promising class in the treatment of cancer, particularly in breast cancer, lung cancer and certain types of leukemia. This is mainly because medical scientists are already quite acquainted with the molecular signatures of different types of cancer related tumors.

Medical scientists and researchers are also working on ‘Precision Medicines’ to more effectively address many other diseases, such as, diabetes, cardiovascular and ailments related to several types of infections.

Increasing potential:

Realization of the potential of ‘Precision Medicines’ to improve care and speed the development of new treatments has just only begun to be tapped.

In recent times, scientists and researchers have accelerated efforts to understand more about biomarkers for this purpose. A study conducted by the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (vfa) indicates that more than 20 percent of clinical trials carried out since 2005 focused not just on agents, but also on biomarkers. Before 1990, only one in twenty clinical trials addressed biomarkers.

According to another report, last year, 20 percent of all new drug approvals in the United States were for “Precision Medicine” treatments. This vindicates, yet again, the immense potential to turn genetic discoveries into innovative disease treatments for patients.

A bold state sponsored research initiative:

State funded, ‘Precision Medicine’ initiative is a bold new step of the American Government to revolutionize improvement in healthcare and treating disease. It is expected to pioneer a new model of patient-powered research that promises to accelerate biomedical discoveries and provide clinicians with new tools, knowledge, and therapies to select which treatments will work best for which patients.

As the White House release reiterates, most medical treatments have been designed for the “average patient.” As a result of this, “one-size-fits-all-approach” treatments can be very successful for some patients but not for others. This is changing with the emergence of ‘Precision Medicine’, an innovative approach to disease prevention and treatment that takes into account individual differences in people’s genes, environments, and lifestyles.

In this process, ‘Precision Medicine’ gives clinicians tools to better understand the complex mechanisms underlying a patient’s health, disease, or condition, and to better predict which treatments will be most effective.

Opposite view:

In an op-ed titled, ‘Moonshot’ Medicine Will Let Us Down, published recently in The New York Times, the author argued with his differing viewpoints.

I am quoting below three of those arguments:

  • “For most common diseases, hundreds of genetic risk variants with small effects have been identified, and it is hard to develop a clear picture of who is really at risk for what. This was actually one of the major and unexpected findings of the Human Genome Project. In the 1990s and early 2000s, it was thought that a few genetic variants would be found to account for a lot of disease risk. But for widespread diseases like diabetes, heart disease and most cancers, no clear genetic story has emerged for a vast majority of cases.”
  • “Another unexpected finding of the Human Genome Project was the problem of ‘missing heritability.’ While the statistics suggest that there is a genetic explanation for common conditions and diseases running in families or populations, it turns out that the information on genetic variants doesn’t explain that increased risk.”
  • “The idea behind the “war on cancer” was that a deep understanding of the basic biology of cancer would let us develop targeted therapies and cure the disease. Unfortunately, although we know far more today than we did 40-plus years ago, the statistics on cancer deaths have remained incredibly stubborn.”

I am sure, you will analyze the above points with the facts that you have at your disposal on this subject to arrive at a logical conclusion.

Current Applications:

Though these are still early days, initial benefits of ‘Precision Medicines’ have been reported in many areas, such as:

  • Genetic analysis of patients dealing with blood clots: Since 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been recommending genotyping for all patients being assessed for therapy involving Warfarin.
  • Colorectal cancer: For colon cancer patients, the biomarker that predicts how a tumor will respond to certain drugs is a protein encoded by the KRAS gene, which can now be determined through a simple test.
  • Breast cancer: Women with breast tumors can now be effectively screened to determine which receptors their tumor cells contain.
  • Cystic fibrosis: In America, patients with a rare form of cystic fibrosis now can choose a drug designed specifically to target the genetic defect causing their illness. Specialized medical centers, such as “individualized medicine centers” at the Mayo Clinic, are also available to the patients for effective treatment.

Ethical issues:

While following this pursuit of excellence of the genetic scientists in the realm of disease treatment, some experts have reportedly raised flags of caution. They strongly feel that DNA code sequencing brings to light a “very real privacy concerns” of individuals.

GeneWatch UK is an organization that investigates how genetic science and technologies will impact on our food, health, agriculture, environment and society. They have been strongly arguing, if genome sequencing is extended to entire population, individuals and their relatives could then be identified and tracked by matching their DNA with the genome stored in the respective health records. This move, as contemplated by them, could “wipe out privacy” with an impact on the society.

Thus, the ethical and social issues in the development of ‘Precision Medicine’ primarily in the area of genetic testing need to be effectively addressed, sooner.

Conclusion:

The quest for moving away from conventional and error-prone ‘Disease Oriented Treatment’ paving the way for unconventional and value added individual patient-specific ones, may soon come to fruition.

Advances in ‘Precision Medicine’ have already led to powerful new discoveries and several new treatments that are tailored to specific characteristics of individuals, such as a person’s genetic makeup, or the genetic profile of an individual’s tumor.  This is leading to a transformation in the way the world can treat diseases such as cancer.

Patients with breast, lung, and colorectal cancers, melanomas and leukemia, for instance, should be provided with facilities in specialist hospitals to undergo molecular testing as a part of patient care, enabling physicians to select treatments that improve chances of survival and reduce exposure to adverse effects.

Although, the potential for precision medicine to improve care and speed the development of new treatments has only just begun to be tapped, some skeptics do say that tailoring medical treatments to individual characteristics of each patient is both overly optimistic and cost-prohibitive.

Be that as it may, in the balance of probability the benefits of prudent use of ‘Precision Medicine’ far outweigh the concerns expressed. This evolving new paradigm would help saving not just significant expenses, but also precious time that is usually spent on ‘trial-and-error treatments’, by enabling clinicians to determine quickly which therapies are most likely to succeed.

Though lot many grounds would still need to be covered in this area, the State sponsored ‘Precision Medicine’ initiative of America to revolutionize disease treatment, in my view, is indeed a laudable one, every way.

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.

Is The Core Purpose of Pharma Business Much Beyond Profit Making?

Posted on by
Reply

Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), at a briefing to discuss the Ebola outbreak in West Africa at the UN Foundation in Washington on September 3, 2014 said:

“Big Pharma’s greed for profits, not lack of funding, delaying Ebola treatment development.”

Highlighting that the disease has already taken lives of 4,951 people in West Africa, Dr. Chan castigated the pharmaceutical industry for failing to develop an effective treatment for the deadly virus Ebola since 1976. “Though the Ebola crisis has become the most severe acute public health emergency seen in modern times, a profit-driven industry does not invest in products for markets that cannot pay”, Dr. Chan added.

That said, the Big Pharma has now initiated some efforts in this area, as the disease currently poses a significant threat to non-African countries, including America.

The sentiment reverberates:

Echoing similar sentiment, an article published in the BBC News on November 7, 2014 reiterated:

“Big pharma companies are in the business to make money, so will generally develop those drugs that offer the greatest potential for profit. This means a number of important drugs are neglected – the current Ebola crisis being a case in point.”

The profit oriented approach isn’t restricted just to the diseases of Africa:

The above article also points out that, besides diseases of the developing world, the Big Pharma has been slow to develop newer and multi-drug resistant antibiotics, as well.

This is mainly because, it is lot more difficult for the pharma companies to make huge quantum of profit from discovery of newer antibiotics for acute infections having limited use for around 7 to 10 days, as compared to the medicines for chronic illnesses that people will have to necessarily take every day, for life.

It appears today that the ongoing public opinion and pressure are possibly not adequate enough to trigger even a slightest change in the fetish for profit-making incentives of the Big Pharma companies.

Despite high profitability, the fetish for even more profit continues:

The pharma industry that basically exists to help saving lives of patients of all types, status and color in various ways, now seems to focus mostly on generation of more and more profit than ever before.

- The following table would vindicate the point of profitability of the industry:

Highest and Lowest Profit Margins of 5 key Industrial Sectors, 2013                        (Profit Margin in %)

No.

Sectors

Highest

Lowest

1.

Pharmaceuticals

42

10

2.

Banks

29

5

3.

Carmakers

10

3

4.

Oil & Gas

24

2

5.

Media

18

6

NB: Highest and lowest margins achieved by individual company                             (Source: Forbes, BBC News)

To generate mind boggling profits, many of the Big Pharma constituents have reportedly resorted to various types of gross misconduct and malpractices too, the Chinese saga being the tip of the iceberg.

- The following are some recent examples to help fathom the enormity of the problem:

  • In September 2014, GlaxoSmithKline was reportedly fined US $490m by China for bribery.
  • In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder.
  • Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges.
  • In November 2013, Teva Pharmaceutical reportedly said that an internal investigation turned up suspect practices in countries ranging from Latin America to Russia.
  • In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.
  • In August 2012, Pfizer Inc. was reportedly fined US$ 60.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing of overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.
  • In April 2012, a judge in Arkansas, US, reportedly fined Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary more than US$1.2 billion after a jury found that the companies had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Many more of such instances are regularly being reported by the international media, unabated.

More profit through high drug pricing – The key argument in favor:

The Big Pharma argues that high drug pricing is absolutely necessary to generate a kind of profit, that is essential to fund heavy investments for drug innovation to meet the unmet needs of patients. Moreover, only 3 out of 10 drugs launched are profitable, on an average.

This argument really goes over the top. It does not hold much water either, as the Big Pharma reportedly spends more on the process of drug marketing than on innovation (R&D) of new drugs.

The following table would paint a different picture altogether, marketing expenditure being far more than the R&D costs: 

R&D and Marketing Spend of World’s largest Pharmaceutical Companies

Company Total Revenue (US$ Bn.) R&D Spend  (US$ Bn.) Marketing Spend (US$ Bn.) Profit (US$ Bn.) Profit Margin (%)
J & J (US) 71.3 8.2 17.5 13.8 19
Novartis (Swiss) 58.8 9.9 14.6 9.2 16
Pfizer (US) 51.6 6.6 11.4 22.0 43
Roche (Swiss) 50.3 9.3 9.0 12.0 24
Sanofi (France) 44.4 6.3 9.1 8.5 11
Merck (US) 44.0 7.5 9.5 4.4 10
GSK (UK) 41.4 5.3 9.9 8.5 21
AstraZeneca(UK) 25.7 4.3 7.3 2.6 10
Eli Lilly (US) 23.1 5.5 5.7 4.7 20
AbbVie (US) 18.8 2.9 4.3 4.1 22

(Source: GlobalData, BBC News)

Thus, it is difficult to fathom why are numbers of drugs, such as, Sovaldi and others costing as much as US $ 84,000 and above for a treatment course, when the cost of manufacturing is no more than an insignificant fraction of that treatment cost?

Considering all these and looking at the published profit and loss accounts of various pharma companies, it appears that, the line between ‘making reasonable profit’ and ‘profiteering’ is getting increasingly blurred in the pharma world.

Why is the marketing cost so high?

Since about the last decade and half, despite reasonably high expenditure on R&D there does not seem to have been many reports on breakthrough innovations. According to an expert of the World Health Organization (WHO), “of the 20 or 30 new drugs brought to the market each year, typically 3 are genuinely new, with the rest offering only marginal benefits.”

In a situation like this, when the challenge mostly is of generating targeted revenues with the new products of ‘me-too values’ rather than with those having intrinsic ‘unmet values’, marketing costs to generate doctors’ prescription would obviously escalate disproportionately. Even the process followed to generate these prescriptions, often cross the red line of regulatory, ethics and compliance standards, as have been cited above.

The following questions come up consequently:

- Are these exorbitant avoidable marketing expenditures adding any tangible or intangible values to the ultimate consumers – the patients?

- If not, why burden the patients with these unnecessary costs?

India is no different against similar parameters:

Back home in India, the deep anguish of the stakeholders over similar issues is now being increasingly reverberated with every passing day, as it were. It has also drawn the attention of the patients’ groups, NGOs, media, Government and even the Parliament.

The quality of the pharmaceutical sales and marketing process in India has touched a new low and continues to go south, causing suffering to a large number of patients. Well documented unethical drug promotion is increasingly becoming an emerging threat to the society.

Even today, the Ministry of Health and the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India provide few checks and balances on unethical drug promotion in India and prefer to keep the eyes meant for vigilance, closely shut.

Despite deplorable inaction of the government on the subject and frequent reporting by Indian media, the national debate on this issue is yet to attain a critical mass. A related Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing, hopefully in the near future. Its judicial verdict is expected to usher in a breath of fresh air around a rather stifling environment for healthcare in India.

I deliberated on a similar issue in one of my earlier blog posts of September 1, 2014, titled, “Pharma And Healthcare: Mounting Trust deficit In Post Halcyon Days”

Conclusion:

While it is well-acknowledged that pharma industry has contributed immensely for the development of a large number of life saving new drugs to save precious lives all over the globe, none can also deny that for such efforts the companies concerned have not been hugely profited either…and, as we have been witnessing, not necessarily through legitimate means, always.

That said, in the backdrop of all the above examples, the core issue that emerges today as raised by many, including the World Health Organization (WHO), is the growing inherent conflict between predominantly the profit driven business goals of the pharma players and the public health interest of a nation.

Considering a number of recent serious public outbursts of the global thought leaders and also from the international media on the ‘profit dominating goals’ of the pharma industry, in general, the following questions need to be addressed with all seriousness:

- Is there a need to define afresh the core purpose of pharmaceutical business for all?

- Does the core purpose go much beyond profit making?

- If so, how would the industry plan to engage the stakeholders for its credible public demonstration?

Meanwhile, taking a serious note of it and learning from the past examples, India should initiate experts’ debate on the subject soon, to effectively resolve the conflict of two different mindsets, not resting on the same page in many ways.

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.

 

An Aggressive New Drug Pricing Trend: What It Means To India?

Posted on by
Reply

A new class and an aggressive drug-pricing trend is now evolving in the global pharmaceutical industry, exerting huge financial pressure on the patients and payers, including governments, especially, in the developed nations of the world.

Another aspect of this issue I deliberated in one of my earlier blog posts of August 18, 2014 titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments.”

Let me start my deliberation today by citing an example. According to 2013 Drug Trend Report of the pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts, the United States will spend 1,800 percent more on Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) medications by 2016 than it did last year. This is largely attributed to new Hepatitis C cure with Sovaldi of Gilead, priced at Rs 61,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet with a three-month course costing around Rs. Million 5.10 (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a pill.

In a Press Release, Express Scripts stated, “Never before has a drug been priced this high to treat a patient population this large, and the resulting costs will be unsustainable for our country…The burden will fall upon individual patients, state and federal governments, and payers who will have to balance access and affordability in a way they never have had to before.”

The magnitude of impact – an example:

According to another report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid of the US, the cost to treat all Americans, who have hepatitis C, with Sovaldi would cost US$227 billion, whereas it currently costs America US$260 billion a year for all drugs bought in the country. According to Express Scripts, no major therapy class has experienced such a hefty increase in spending over the last 21 years.

This gives us a feel of the net impact of the evolving new aggressive drug pricing strategy on the lives of the patients and payers of one of the richest nations of the world.

Three critical parts of the evolving pricing strategy:

In an era, when new drug pricing has come under great scrutiny of the stakeholders globally, this strategy seems to have three critical components as follows:

1. Strategy for the developed countries: Set the launch price as high as possible and generate maximum profit faster from wealthy minority who can afford to pay for the drug.

It helps establishing the base price of the product globally, despite all hue and cries, maintaining a very healthy top and bottom line business performance, amidst ‘Wall Street cheering’.

Implementing this strategy meticulously and with precision, Gilead has reportedly registered US$ 5.8 billion in sales for Sovaldi in the first half of 2014. That too, in the midst of huge global concerns on alleged ‘profiteering’ with an exorbitantly priced HCV drug.

At that time, the company noted on its earnings call that it believes 9,000 people have been cured of HCV so far with Sovaldi, which means that the 6-month turnover of Sovaldi of US$ 5.8 billion was generated just from the treatment of 9000 patients. If we take the total number of HCV infected patients at 150 million globally, this new drug benefited less than one percent of the total number of HCV patients, despite clocking a mind-boggling turnover and profit.

2. Strategy for the developing countries: Create a favorable optic for the stakeholders by lowering the drug price significantly, in percentage term from its base price, earning still a decent profit. However, in reality the discounted price would continue to remain high for a very large number of patients.

Gilead is now in the process of implementing this strategy for 80 developing countries. For these markets, it has already announced a minimum threshold price of US$ 300 a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost per patient would be about US$ 900 for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000.

If we convert the discounted treatment cost, it comes down to around Rs. 55,000 from the base price of around Rs. Million 5.10. This discounted price, which is significantly less than the base price of the drug, creates an extremely favorable optic. No one discusses how many Hepatitis C patients would be able to afford even Rs. 55,000, say for example in a country like India? Thus, setting a high base price in the developed market for a new drug could make many in the developing world perceive that the treatment cost of Rs. 55,000 is very reasonable for majority of not so privileged patients.

Under the second strategy, Gilead has targeted mostly the world’s poorest nations, but also included some middle income ones such as Egypt, which has by far the highest prevalence of HCV in the world.

A ‘Financial Times’ report, also states, “At the US price, Gilead will recoup its Sovaldi development investment  . . . in a single year and then stand to make extraordinary profits off the backs of US consumers, who will subsidize the drug for other patients around the globe.”

If other global pharma companies also follow this differential strategy, one for the developed markets and the other for the developing markets, it could be a masterstroke for the Big Pharma. This would help address the criticism that its constituents are facing today for ‘obscene’ pricing of important new life saving drugs, as they target mostly the creamy layer of the society for business performance.

However, many in the United States are also articulating that they understand, the countries getting steep discounts from Gilead have high levels of poverty, but clearly points out that the disease affects lower-income patients in America, as well. To substantiate the point, they reiterate, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) about 150 million people worldwide have HCV, out of which around 2.7 million HCV diagnosed people live in the US. They highlight that currently even less than 25 percent of Americans with chronic HCV have had or are receiving treatment. In Europe, just 3.5 percent of patients of are being treated.

Thus, keeping in view of the increasing number of voices in the developed countries against abnormally high prices of the new drugs, the moot questions that come up are as follows:

  • Is Strategy 1 sustainable for the developed markets?
  • If not, would Strategy 2 for the developing market could ever be broader based?

3. Strategy for Voluntary License (VL) in those countries, where grant of product patent is   doubtful.

Thanks to the Indian patent regime, global companies would possibly consider following this route for all those products that may not be able to pass the ‘Acid Test’ of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005. Gilead has followed this route for Sovaldi and before that for tenofovir (Viread).

In this context, it is worth noting that the Indian patent office has not recognized Sovaldi’s patent for the domestic market, just yet. Thus, following this strategy Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing knowhow and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

Accordingly, on September 15, 2014, international media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also reported that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Indian companies would require paying 7 per cent of their revenues as royalty to Gilead, which, in turn would ensure full technology transfer to them to produce both the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and finished formulations. The generic version of Sovaldi is likely to be available in India in the second or third quarter of 2015, at the earliest.

However, the final decision of the Indian Patent Office on the patent grant for Sovaldi holds the key to future success of similar high-voltage, seemingly benign, VL based game plan of the global pharma majors.

The new trend:

In April 2014, Merck and Co. announced that its two HCV drug candidates had a 98 percent cure rate in a mid-stage trial. In addition, AbbVie is also expected to launch a high-end hepatitis C drug within the next year. The prices for these drugs are yet to be announced.

However, a new report of October 2014 states that USFDA has approved this month a new drug named Harmony, a ledipasvir/sofosbuvir combo formulation, again from Gilead for curative treatment of chronic HCV genotype 1 infection in adults. Harmony, which is called the son of Sovaldi, would cost a hopping US$ 94,500 for a 12-week regimen, as against US$ 84,000 for Sovaldi.

Hence, I reckon, similar aggressive pricing strategy for new drugs would gain momentum in the coming years and at the same time.

Is this pricing model sustainable?

Though Gilead pricing model for patented drugs works out better than what is prevailing today in India, the question that comes up yet again, whether the new model is sustainable for various reasons as mentioned above or would it be followed by majority of the global drug innovators?

In a situation like this, what then could be a sustainable solution in India?

The desirable pathway:

A transparent government mechanism for patented drugs pricing, as followed by many countries in the world, would be quite meaningful in India. The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India could play a constructive role in this area, as already provided in the Drug Policy 2012 of the country.

This measure assumes greater urgency, as the astronomical prices of patented drugs, especially for life-threatening illnesses, such as cancer, have become a subject of great concern in India too, just as it has become a critical issue across the world.

DoP is in inactive mode:

It is not difficult to fathom that CL for all patented life-saving drugs would not be a sustainable measure for all time to come. Thus, the need for a robust mechanism of price negotiation for patented drugs was highlighted in the Drug Policy 2012.

The DoP first took up the issue for consideration in 2007 by forming a committee. After about six years from that date, the committee produced a contentious report, which had hardly any takers.

Today, despite the new government’s initiative to inject requisite energy within the bureaucracy, administrative lethargy and lack of sense of urgency still lingers with the DoP, impeding progress in this important subject any further.

Intense lobbying on this issue by vested interests from across the world has further pushed the envelope in the back burner. Recent report indicates, the envelope has since been retrieved for a fresh look with fresh eyes, as a new minister is now on the saddle of the department.

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was also formed by the DoP under the chairmanship of one of its Joint Secretaries, to suggest a mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country.
The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).

Unfortunately, nothing tangible has been made known to the stakeholders on this matter, just yet. I sincerely hope that the new government expedites the process now.

Three critical factors to consider:

While arriving at the patented products price in India, three critical factors should be made note of, as follows:

  • The discussion should start with the prices adjusted on the Purchasing Power Parity factor for India.
  • Any price must have a direct relationship with the per capita income of the population of the country.
  • Details of other public healthcare measures that the government would undertake, by increasing its healthcare spends as a percentage of GDP, should also be clearly articulated.

Conclusion:

The evolving and aggressive new product-pricing trend has three following clearly identifiable facets:

One, the base price of the drugs would be established at a very high level to help increase both the turnover and profit of the companies significantly and quickly. This measure would consequently make the drug bills of the developed world even more expensive, which could limit healthcare access wherever co-payment exists or the expenditures are Out of Pocket (OoP) in nature.

Two, against intense global criticism for aggressive drug pricing strategy, to create a favorable optic, the concerned companies would launch these products at a deep discount on the base price in the developing world. However, the net price would still remain high in absolute terms, considering per capita income in those countries.

Three, for many of these new products, Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents 2005 would place India at an advantage. Thus, in absence of evergreening type of product patents, to salvage the situation, many of these companies would prefer to offer Voluntary License (VL) to Indian generic manufacturers under specific terms and conditions. However, such VL may not have any potential value, if IPO refuses to grant patents to those products, which would fall under the above section. In that case, generic competition would further bring down the prices.

No doubt, the above pricing model for patented drugs works out better than what is prevailing today in India. However, the question that comes up, whether the new model is sustainable or would be followed by majority of the global drug innovators in the same way? Considering all these, it does not seem to be the most desirable situation. Moreover, the current patent regime is a deterrent mostly to evergreening of patents.

Thus, the Indian government should play a more specific and proactive role in this game by first putting in place and then effectively implementing a country specific mechanism to tame the spiraling patented drug prices in India, for the interest of patients.

The world has taken serious note of this fast evolving aggressive new drug-pricing trend, as different countries are in the process of addressing the issue in various country-specific ways. Unfortunately, the DoP still remains in a deep slumber, having failed once to half-heartedly put a clumsy mechanism in place to address the issue.

As India is now under a new political regime, let us sincerely hope, the new minister in charge succeeds to make it happen, sooner, reducing vulnerability of a vast majority of patients during many life threatening ailments and…of course, in tandem, ensuring justifiable profit margin for the innovator drug companies…the evolving aggressive new drug pricing trend notwithstanding.

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.

Pharma And Healthcare: Mounting ‘Trust Deficit’ In Post Halcyon Days

Posted on by
Reply

Although a radical transformation in the field of medicine and path breaking advances of medical sciences are in progress, the healthcare system as whole, including the pharma industry, as voiced by many, is fast losing its human touch and values. This is mainly because a large number of patients feel that they are being financially exploited in the entire medical treatment chain, as their ailments become primary means of making money…more money by many others .

A new and interesting book, authored by a practicing cardiologist, titled “Doctored: The Disillusionment of an American Physician”, which has just been released in August 2014, also unfolds with self-example a dysfunctional healthcare system and stark realities of practicing medicine even in the ‘Mecca’ of medicine – the United states.

The author eloquently highlights the malaise and cronyism affecting a sizeable number within the medical profession, being hand in gloves with a large constituents of the pharma industry. Medical practice seems to have now become just as any other ‘make-money’ endeavor; not quite different from what the pharma business has metamorphosed into, over a period of time.

A heartless game played by shrewd minds:

In a situation like this, a heartless game is being played by shrewd business savvy minds, at the cost of patients, making healthcare frightfully expensive to many.

As the above new book narrates, many pharmaceutical companies are coming to the fore to exploit the situation for commercial gain. In the book the author confesses, to make extra cash, he too accepts speaking fees from a pharmaceutical company that makes a cardiac drug he prescribes. He candidly admits enjoying the paid speeches on that specific pharma company’s drugs to influence other doctors, usually arranged at exotic places over fancy dinners. The author does not fail in his part to admit that the drug he touts on behalf of the pharma company turns out to be no better than other cheaper alternatives.

In this beautifully written memoir, the author Dr. Sundeep Jauhar tries to bring to light many complex problems of the healthcare system and alleged involvement of global pharma companies to drive the medical treatment costs up at a galloping pace. All these are being driven by various malpractices in pursuit of making quick bucks.

There are some compelling health policy, public spending on health and infrastructure related issues too, specifically for India, which are not the subject of my today’s discussion.

In this article, I shall neither dwell on the above book any further, but briefly deliberate on how all these, much too often repeated instances, are giving rise to mounting ‘Trust Deficit’ of the stakeholders, involving both the pharma industry and the medical profession at large and yet, quite intriguingly, they seem to remain unbothered.

The Halcyon days and after:

When we take a glimpse into the recent history of pharma and healthcare industry, it would be quite possible to convince ourselves that the overall situation, focus and mindset of the drug industry honchos and members of the medical profession were quite different, even a few decades ago. Those were the ‘Halcyon Days’.

At that time, pharmaceutical industry used to be one of the most admired industries of the world and people used to place the doctors almost in the pedestal of God.

Unlike today, when the drugs meant for the treatment of even widely prevalent dreaded diseases, such as, Cancer, Hepatitis C and HIV are not spared from maximum stretch pricing, the grand vision of the Global Chief Executives, in general, used to extend much beyond of just making profits. So were the doctors christened by the Hippocratic Oath. Yes, I repeat, those were the ‘Halcyon Days’.

Just to cite an example, in 1952, George Wilhelm Herman Emanuel Merck, the then President of Merck & Co was quoted on the front cover of the ‘Time Magazine’, epitomizing his following vision for the company:

“Medicine is for people, not for the profits”.

Having articulated this vision with so much of passion and clarity, Merck did not just walk the talk, in tandem, he steered an up swing in the company’s valuation over 50 times, proving beyond an iota of doubt that it is possible to give shape to his vision, if there is a will.

Today, in post ‘Halcyon Days’, for many of those who follow the history and development of the knowledge driven pharma and healthcare industry, this grand vision is no more than a sweet memory. Though the bedrock of pharma industry is innovation, is it inclusive? Is it benefitting the majority of the global population? No one believes now that “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”.

Thus, it was no surprise to many, when in 2012 while vocalizing its anguish on specific pharma mega malpractices ‘The Guardian’ came out with a lashing headline that reads as follows:

‘Pharma Overtakes Arms Industry To Top The League Of Misbehavior.’

Ignoring the reality:

Many people believe that all these are happening, as the global pharma industry refuses to come out of its nearly absurd arrogance created by spectacular business successes, over a very long period of time, with a large number of blockbuster drugs and the massive wealth thus created.

It appears, the pharma industry, by and large, cannot fathom just yet that its business model of 1950 to perhaps 1990, has lost much of relevance at the turn of the new millennium with changing aspirations and values of people, governments and the civil society at large.

Key reasons of distrust:

If we make a list from the global and local reports, the following are some of the key examples:

  • Media reports on pharmaceutical companies directly paying to doctors for writing prescriptions of high priced drugs to patients.
  • A growing belief that the pharma industry spends disproportionately more on sales & marketing than on R&D, which eventually increases the drug prices.
  • Unabated reports in the media of various pharma malpractices from across the world, including hefty fines amounting to billions of dollars, paid by many global pharma players.
  • A widespread belief that for commercial gain, the industry often hides negative clinical trial results, which go against patients’ health interest.

A recent survey:

According to a recent ‘Healthcheck Survey’ of the drug business by ‘Eye for Pharma’:

  • 42 percent of the respondents indicated that image of pharma is not getting any better among average people.
  • More than one-third said they are not sure or remained neutral on the subject.
  • 19 percent within the group are optimistic about improving image of pharma.

Though, it was reported that almost half of the respondents believe the industry knows what to do to gain standing and only 24 percent think pharma is clueless about how to regain its reputation, the commentators on the survey results are skeptical that companies are willing to do what it takes. This is predominantly because the pharma players do not know what would be the immediate financial impact, if the corrective measures were taken.

2014 developments in India:

In August 2014, a premier television news channel of India – NDTV exposed some blatant violations of medical guidelines involving both the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies in the country. The crew of NDTV carried out a sting operation (video), pretending to be medical representatives of a Delhi based new pharma company. The video clipping showed three doctors resorting to malpractices for which the pharma companies pay them heavily, though illegally.

This particular sting operation by NDTV could arrest the attention of the new Union Minister of Health Dr. Harsh Vardhan, whose reaction on tweeter was:

“One more sting operation on doctors exposing greed and readiness to shed professional ethics. I again appeal to brother doctors – show spine!”

Based on this public expose, the Medical Council of India (MCI), which is supposed to serve as the watchdog for doctors and overall medical practices, was compelled to conduct an enquiry on professional misconduct against those three doctors through its Ethics Committee. MCI has the power to cancel licenses of the erring medical practitioners.

Soon thereafter, one of the three Delhi doctors, who were caught on camera taking bribes in exchange of prescribing drugs, was reportedly arrested and the other two doctors were summoned by MCI for further investigation.

Just before this incident an article published in the well-reputed British Medical Journal (BMJ) on 08 May 2014 highlighted, “Corruption ruins the doctor-patient relationship in India”. The author David Berger wrote, “Kickbacks and bribes oil every part of the country’s healthcare machinery and if India’s authorities cannot make improvements, international agencies should act.”

I deliberated a part of this issue in one of my earlier blog posts titled “Kickbacks And Bribes Oil Every Part of India’s Healthcare Machinery”.

Interestingly, a couple of months earlier to this BMJ report, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) issued notices for various illegal practices in the pharma industry. These notices were served, among others, to pharma industry associations, chemists associations, including individual chemists & druggists, stockists, wholesalers and even to some local and global pharma majors.

In February 2014, the CCI reportedly issued a warning of severe penalties and prosecution to various bodies in the pharmaceutical industry indulging in anti-competitive practices even after giving undertakings of stopping the illegal practices, for which they were summoned for deposition before the commission earlier.

The CCI has now called upon the public through a public notice to approach it for curbing the malpractices that amount to anti-competitive in nature, adversely impacting interests of the consumer.

I reckon, all these actions are fine, but the bottom-line is, pharma and healthcare malpractices still continue unabated at the cost of patients, despite all these. Unable to garner adequate resources to pay for the high cost of treatment, which is fuelled by virtually out of control systemic malfunctioning, the families of a large number of patients are reportedly embracing abject poverty each year.

Pharma and healthcare continue to remain unbothered:

It is also not surprising that despite global uproar and all these socio-commercial issues, including pressure on drug prices, pharma and healthcare continue to march on the growth path, without any dent in their business performance particularly on this count.

Just to give an example, Moody Investor Services have highlighted just last week that India’s pharmaceutical market is set to experience continuing double-digit growth, faster than most other markets of the industry.

Lack of significant financial impact on the overall business performance on account of the alleged misconducts, barring USFDA imports bans, further reduces the possibility of a sense urgency for a speedy image makeover of the industry by doing the right things, in an organized manner.

The reason behind this inertia is also understandable, as expenditure on healthcare is not discretionary for the patients. To save lives of the near and dear ones, almost everybody, irrespective of financial status, try to garner resources to the maximum possible, whatever it costs.

Urgent remedial measures necessary:

Effective remedial measures to allay public distrust in all the above areas, in tandem with working out well-networked and inclusive innovation models, I reckon, would prove to be more meaningful today. This would facilitate not just in increasing the market access, but also for cost-effective innovation of new products leveraging the complex science of evolving biology. Let me reiterate, all these should be woven around the center piece of patients’ interest, without an exception.

I hasten to add here that some green shoots in this area have already started becoming visible, as some global industry constituents, though small in number, are articulating their new vision and the uncharted path that they intend to follow. Keeping a tab on the speed of spread of these green shoots would be important.

It is really a matter of conjecture now, whether the visible green shoots, as seen today would perish or not over a period of time. Nonetheless, that possibility is always there, if the concerned companies decide afresh that the efforts required for a long haul are not sustainable due to intense short-term performance pressure. Hence, it is not worth the financial risk taking.

In that scenario, they would continue with their existing business model of achieving the financial goals by selling the high priced medicines to the privileged few of the rich countries and to affluent people living in the other parts of the world, depriving millions of patients who desperately need those drugs, but are unable to afford.

Conclusion: 

Alleged malpractices in pharma and healthcare business operations, might not have hit any of the constituents really hard in financial terms just yet. However, the humongous ‘Trust Deficit’ of stakeholders, including the government, is gradually compelling them to face tougher resistance in operating the key business levers. Such resistance is increasingly coming in drug pricing, clinical trial requirements and related disclosure, marketing practices and even in the arena of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

On the part of the government, it is important to realize that self-regulations of various business and marketing practices have miserably failed in India for the pharmaceutical industry, just as it has failed in many other parts of the world, self-serving hypes often created by the global pharma associations in this regard notwithstanding. Besides the China saga and other reported scandals, billions of dollars of fines levied to the global pharma players, since last so many years, for a large number of malpractices would vindicate this point. It is worth noting that even these hefty fines are pittance, as compared to mind-boggling profits that these companies make on patented drugs with the adopted means. Hence, many of them would possibly feel that this risk is worth taking.  Similarly, lackadaisical implementation of MCI guidelines for the medical profession brings shame to the country, as evidenced by the article in the BMJ.

As self-regulation by the industry has proved to be nothing more than an utopia, it is about time for the new government to come out with strict, yet transparent and fair regulation, ensuring its effective implementation, to kill all these malpractices, once and for all, writing an apt epitaph to draw the final curtain to this chronicle.

That said, conscious efforts towards a mindset-changing approach for inclusive progress and growth by majority of pharma players and a sizeable number within the medical profession, would surely help reducing the ‘Trust Deficit’ of the stakeholders.

This much desirable transformation, if materializes, would enable both the pharma and healthcare industry to retrieve, at least, a part of the past glory. The constituents of the industry undoubtedly deserve it, just for the very nature of business they are engaged in.

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.

 

Alarming Incidence of Cancer: Fragile Infrastructure: Escalating Drug Prices

Posted on by
Reply

According to the ‘Fact-Sheet 2014′ of the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer cases would rise from 14 million in 2012 to 22 million within the next two decades. It is, therefore, no wonder that cancers figured among the leading causes of over 8.2 million deaths in 2012, worldwide.

A reflection of this scary scenario can also be visualized while analyzing the growth trend of various therapy segments of the global pharmaceutical market.

A recent report of ‘Evaluate Pharma (EP)’ has estimated that the worldwide sales of prescription drugs would reach US$ 1,017 bn by 2020 with a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 5.1 percent between 2013 and 2020. Interestingly, oncology is set to record the highest sales growth among the major therapy categories with a CAGR of 11.2 percent during this period, accounting for US$ 153.4 bn of the global pharmaceutical sales.

The key growth driver is expected to be an exciting new class of cancer products targeting the programmed death-1 (PD-1) pathway with a collective value of US$ 14 bn in 2020, says the report.

Another recent report from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics also highlights that global oncology spending touched US$ 91 billion in 2013 growing at 5 percent annually.

Consequently, Oncology would emerge as the biggest therapeutic class, more than twice of the anti-diabetic category, which features next to it.

Key global players:

Roche would continue to remain by far the largest player in the oncology market in 2020 with a 5 percent year-on-year growth between 2013 and 2020 with estimated total sales of over US$ 34bn in 2020 against US$ 25bn in 2013.

In 2020, besides Roche, other key players in the oncology segment would, in all probability, be Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Merck & Co, the EP report says.

Escalating costs of cancer drugs:

As IMS Health indicates, the overall cost for cancer treatments per month in the United States has now reached to US$10,000 from US$ 5,000 just a year ago. Thus, cancer drugs are fast becoming too expensive even in the developed markets, leave aside India.

The following table would help fathom how exorbitant are the costs per therapy of the common cancer drugs, though these are from the United States:

Generic                               Diagnosis

 Cost/ Dose (US$)

Cost of     Therapy/    28 days  (US$)

Cost per  Therapy      (US$)
brentuximab Hodgkins lymphoma

14,000

18,667

224,000
Pertuzumab Breast cancer

4,000

5,333

68,000
pegylated interferon Hepatitis C

700

2,800

36,400
Carfilzomib Multiple myeloma

1,658

9,948

129,324
ziv-aflibercept CRC

2,300

4,600

59,800
Omacetaxine CML

560

3,920

50,960
Regorafenib CRC

450

9,446

122,800
Bosutinib CML

278

7,814

101,580
Vemurafenib Melanoma

172

4,840

62,915
Abiraterone Prostate

192

5,391

70,080
Crizotinib NSCLC

498

27,951

363,367
Enzalutamide Prostate

248

6,972

90,637
ado-trastuzumab emtansine Breast – metastatic

8,500

8,115

105,500
Ponatinib Leukemia

319

8,941

116,233
Pomalidomide Multiple myeloma

500

10,500

135,500

(Source: ION Solutions)

Even US researchers concerned about high cancer drugs cost:

It is interesting to note, that in a review article published recently in ‘The Lancet Oncology’, the US researchers Prof. Thomas Smith and Dr. Ronan Kelly identified drug pricing as one area of high costs of cancer care. They are confident that this high cost can be reduced, just as it is possible for end-of-life care and medical imaging – the other two areas of high costs in cancer treatment.

Besides many other areas, the authors suggested that reducing the prices of new cancer drugs would immensely help containing cancer costs. Prof. Smith reportedly said, “There are drugs that cost tens of thousands of dollars with an unbalanced relationship between cost and benefit. We need to determine appropriate prices for drugs and inform patients about their costs of care.”

Cancer drug price becoming a key issue all over:

As the targeted therapies have significantly increased their share of global oncology sales, from 11 percent a decade ago to 46 percent last year, increasingly, both the Governments and the payers, almost all over the world, have started feeling quite uncomfortable with the rapidly ascending drug price trend.

In the top cancer markets of the world, such as, the United States and Europe, both the respective governments and also the private insurers have now started playing hardball with the cancer drugs manufacturers.

There are several instances in the developed markets, including the United States, where the stakeholders, such as, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) are expressing their concerns about manufacturers’ charging astronomical prices, even for small improvements in the survival time.

Following examples would give an idea of global sensitivity in this area:

  • After rejecting Roche’s breast cancer drug Kadcyla as too expensive, NICE reportedly articulated in its statement, “A breast cancer treatment that can cost more than US$151,000 per patient is not effective enough to justify the price the NHS is being asked to pay.”
  • In October 2012, three doctors at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center announced in the New York Times that their hospital wouldn’t be using Zaltrap. These oncologists did not consider the drug worth its price. They questioned, why prescribe the far more expensive Zaltrap? Almost immediately thereafter, coming under intense stakeholder pressure, , Sanofi reportedly announced 50 percent off on Zaltrap price.
  • Similarly, ASCO in the United States has reportedly launched an initiative to rate cancer drugs not just on their efficacy and side effects, but prices as well.

India:

  • India has already demonstrated its initial concern on this critical issue by granting Compulsory License (CL) to the local player Natco to formulate the generic version of Bayer’s kidney cancer drug Nexavar and make it available to the patients at a fraction of the originator’s price. As rumors are doing the rounds, probably some more patented cancer drugs would come under Government scrutiny to achieve the same end goal.
  • I indicated in my earlier blog post that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of India by its notification dated July 10, 2014 has decided to bring, among others, some anticancer drugs too, not featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011), under price control.
  • Not too long ago, the Indian government reportedly contemplated to allow production of cheaper generic versions of breast cancer drug Herceptin in India. Roche – the originator of the drug ultimately surrendered its patent rights in 2013, apprehending that it would lose a legal contest in Indian courts, according to media reports. Biocon and Mylan thereafter came out with biosimilar version of Herceptin in the country with around 40 percent lesser price.

Hence, responsible pricing of cancer drugs would continue to remain a key pressure-point  in the days ahead.

Increasing R&D investments coming in oncology:

Considering lucrative business growth opportunities and financial returns from this segment, investments of global pharma players remain relatively high in oncology, accounting for more than 30 percent of all preclinical and phase I clinical product developments, with 21 New Molecular Entities (NMEs) being launched and reaching patients in the past two years alone, according to IMS Health.

However, it is also worth noting that newly launched treatments typically increase the overall incremental survival rate between two and six months.

Opportunities for anti-cancer biosimilars:

With gradual easing out of the regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs in the developed markets, especially in the US, a new competitive dynamic is evolving in the high priced, over US$ 40 billion, biologics market related to cancer drugs. According to IMS Health, on a global basis, biosimilars are expected to generate US$ 6 to12 billion in oncology sales by 2020, increasing the level of competition but accounting for less than 5 percent of the total biologics market even at that time.

Alarming situation of cancer in India:

A major report, published in ‘The Lancet Oncology’ states that In India, around 1 million new cancer cases are diagnosed each year, which is estimated to reach 1.7 million in 2035.

The report also highlights, though deaths from cancer are currently 600,000 -700,000 annually, it is expected to increase to around 1.2 million during this period.

Such high incidence of cancer in India is attributed to both internal factors such as, poor immune conditions, genetic pre-disposition or hormonal and also external factors such as, industrialization, over growth of population, lifestyle and food habits.

The Lancet Oncology study showed that while incidence of cancer in the Indian population is only about a quarter of that in the United States or Europe, mortality rates among those diagnosed with the disease are much higher.

Experts do indicate that one of the main barriers of cancer care is its high treatment cost, that is out of reach for millions of Indians. They also believe that cancer treatment could be effective and cheaper, if detected early. Conversely, the treatment would be more expensive, often leading to bankruptcy, if detected late and would, at the same time, significantly reduce the chances of survival too.

The fact that cancer is being spotted too late in India and most patients lack access to treatment, would be quite evident from the data that less than even 30 percent of patients suffering from cancer survive for more than five years after diagnosis, while over two-thirds of cancer related deaths occur among people aged 30 to 69.

Unfortunately, according to the data of the Union Ministry of Health, 40 percent of over 300 cancer centers in India do not have adequate facilities for advanced cancer care. It is estimated that the country would need at least 600 additional cancer care centers by 2020 to meet this crying need.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer, accounting for over 1 in 5 of all deaths from cancer in women, while 40 percent of cancer cases in the country are attributable to tobacco.

Indian Market and key local players:

Cancer drug market in India was reported to be around Rs 2,000 Crore (US$ 335 million) in 2013 and according to a recent Frost & Sullivan report, is estimated to grow to Rs 3,881 Crore (US$ 650 million) by 2017 with a CAGR of 15.46 percent, throwing immense business growth opportunities to pharma players.

Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) is one of the leading Indian players in oncology. DRL has already developed biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche, Filgastrim of Amgen and has also launched the first generic Darbepoetin Alfa and Peg-grafeel.

Other major Indian players in this field are Cipla, Lupin, Glenmark, Emcure, Biocon, Ipca, Natco, Intas, Reliance Life Science, Zydus Cadila and some more. These home grown companies are expected to take a leading role in the fast growing oncology segments of India, together with the major MNC players, as named above.

Analysis of detailed opportunities that would be available to these companies and consequent financial impacts could be a subject of separate discussion.

Conclusion:

Unlike many other developed and developing countries of the world, there is no system yet in place in India to negotiate prices of innovative patented drugs with the respective manufacturers, including those used for cancer. However, NPPA is now moving fast on reducing prices of cancer drugs. It has reportedly pulled up six pharma for not providing pricing data of cancer drugs sold by them.

Further, CL for all patented anti-cancer drugs may not be a sustainable measure for all time to come, either. One robust alternative, therefore, is the intense price negotiation for patented drugs in general, including anti-cancer drugs, as provided in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012).

This important issue has been under consideration of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) since 2007. The report produced by the committee formed for this specific purpose, after dilly-dallying for over five years, now hardly has any takers and gathering dusts.

I reckon, much discussed administrative inertia, insensitivity and abject lack of sense of urgency of the previous regime, have desisted the DoP from progressing much on this important subject, beyond of course customary lip services, as on date. Intense lobbying by vested interests from across the world, seems to have further helped pushing this envelope deep inside an inactive terrain.

The new Government would hopefully make the DoP break its deep slumber now to resolve this critical issue decisively, in a time bound manner, assigning clear accountability, without any further delay.

At the same time, shouldn’t both the Honorable Ministers of Health and Chemicals & Fertilizers, taking the State Governments on board, put their collective resources together to create the following, expeditiously:

- A robust national health infrastructure for cancer care

- A transparent mechanism to prevent escalating cancer drug prices and other treatment costs

Hope, the good days would come to the cancer patients of India, at least, sooner than never.

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.