Tag Archives: research

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

The key highlights of the new policy:

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

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

Rare diseases – definition:

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

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

Rare Diseases in India:

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

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

Orphan diseases and orphan drugs:

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

Need to encourage orphan drug development in India:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other countries did – why not India?

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

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

Opportunities galore:

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

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

The market:

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

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

Other commercial benefits:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Stem Cell Therapy in India: A Potential Game Changer in Disease Treatment

Posted on by
Reply

Stem Cells (SC) offer an incredible potential to instill a new lease of life virtually to any organ of the human body, bringing them back to the pre-disease state through its own biological repair mechanism. Intensive research initiatives are on across the world to harness this unique possibility that will be able to successfully address a plethora of serious and chronic ailments for mankind. The good news is, the global scientific community is taking rapid strides in understanding the complex stem cell biology to give shape to a game changing medical treatment blue print for tomorrow.

Capturing one such pursuit, on February 21, 2017, well-reputed British news daily – ‘The Telegraph’, reported the outcome of a path-breaking medical study for freezing the progression of yet another complex and crippling ailment – Multiple Sclerosis (MS). This research followed a unique SC transplantation process. Intriguingly, both such diseases and the treatment are not generally much talked about, particularly in India. If done, it would increase public awareness and help many patients fetch greater benefits from the available and approved SC therapy in the country. Probably, considering the unfathomable scope of the body’s own repairing toolbox with SC, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reportedly called on Indian biologists to motivate school children for pursuing a career in stem cell research.

Let me now go back for a moment to Multiple Sclerosis (MS) as I am aware of this this disease condition rather closely. One of our close family friends who was a very senior official in one of the top multinational corporations of the world, had to give up his job prematurely being a victim to this serious illness. In that sense, this particular news item rekindles a new hope for many to look for a better quality of life while managing many other diseases of such kind, all over the world, including India.

‘The Telegraph’ reported: in so far, the largest long-term follow-up of SC transplantation treatment study of MS, which was spearheaded by Imperial College London, established that 46 per cent of patients who underwent this treatment did not suffer a worsening of their condition for five years. The treatment works by destroying the immune cells responsible for attacking the nervous system. This is indeed a very significant development in the space of medical research.

This new treatment, called autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT), was given to patients with advanced forms of MS who had failed to respond to other medications. However, the researchers noted that the nature of the treatment, which involves aggressive chemotherapy, carried “significant risks”.

It’s worth recapitulating here that MS is caused by the immune system malfunctioning and mistakenly attacking nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, leading to problems with movement, vision, balance and speech. It’s a lifelong condition and often causes serious disability, with no cure still in sight. The disease is most commonly diagnosed in people in their 20s and 30s, although it can develop at any age.

A new hope with a game changing potential:

The above study of SC transplantation conducted by Imperial College London in MS, is just a recent example, among scores of major steps being taken in this frontier of medical science in preparation of a decisive battle against many more life-threatening and serious debilitating diseases.

No doubt that various treatments involving stem cells are generally considered a novel and rapidly advancing medical technology. However, in a small number of developed countries, such as the United States (US), a number medical procedures with stem cells are being practiced since around last three decades. Bone marrow transplant is the most widely used stem-cell therapy in this area, which was first performed in 1968.

According to California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) and various other medical literature, SC treatment has the game changing potential for successful use to:

  • Replace neurons damaged by spinal cord injury, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease or other neurological problems
  • Produce insulin that could treat people with diabetes and heart muscle cells that could repair damage after a heart attack, or
  • Replace virtually any tissue or organ that is injured or diseased

Thus, stem cells offer limitless possibilities, such as tissue growth of vital organs like liver, pancreas. Today there are many diseases for which no effective treatment still exists, besides giving symptomatic relief, such as Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, severe burn, spinal cord injury. There is a host of other diseases, including several chronic ailments, such as diabetes, heart ailments, rheumatoid arthritis, or some types of cancer, which can’t just be reversed, however, could be managed with a lifelong treatment. For most of these diseases, and several others involving tissue degeneration, SC therapy has the potential to be a huge life and a game changer. It may involve, besides patients, several industries, including pharmaceuticals and biotech sectors.

Major stem cell sources and some key milestones:

Medical scientists and researchers have conclusively established that stem cells are the master cells of any human body. These are undifferentiated cells of the same lineage, retaining the ability to divide throughout life and grow into any one of the body’s more than 200 cell types. Some of the major sources of stem cells in the human body are bone marrow, cord blood, embryonic cells, dental pulp and menstrual blood.

As captured by ‘ExploreStemCells’ of UK, some key events in stem cell research include:

  • 1978: Stem cells were discovered in human cord blood
  • 1981: First in vitro stem cell line developed from mice
  • 1988: Embryonic stem cell lines created from a hamster
  • 1995: First embryonic stem cell line derived from a primate
  • 1997: Cloned lamb from stem cells
  • 1997: Leukemia origin found as hematopoietic stem cell, indicating possible proof of cancer stem cells
  • 1998: University of Wisconsin isolated cells from the inner cell mass of early embryos and developed the first embryonic stem cell lines.
  • 1998: Johns Hopkins University derived germ cells from cells in foetal gonad tissue; pluripotent stem cell lines were developed from both sources.
  • 1999 and 2000: Scientists discovered that manipulating adult mouse tissues could produce different cell types. This meant that cells from bone marrow could produce nerve or liver cells and cells in the brain could also yield other cell types.

All these discoveries were exciting for rapid progress in the field of stem cell research, along with the promise of greater scientific control over stem cell differentiation and proliferation. Currently, many more research studies are underway in globally acclaimed institutions and other boutique laboratories exploring the possibility of wide scale use of SC therapy, even in the treatment of several chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart disorders.

A controversy:

The controversy related to SC research mainly involves Embryonic Stem Cells (ESC) and raises several difficult questions for a speedy resolution. As articulated by the ‘Genetic Science Learning Centre’ of the University of Utah, these are mainly:

  • Does life begin at fertilization, in the womb, or at birth?
  • Is a human embryo equivalent to a human child?
  • Does a human embryo have any rights?
  • Can destruction of a single embryo be justified to provide a cure for a countless number of patients?
  • Since ESC can grow indefinitely in a dish and can, in theory, still grow into a human being, is the embryo really destroyed?

However, in 2006 scientists learned how to stimulate a patient’s own cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. These cells are reducing the need for human embryos in research and revealing exciting new possibilities for stem cell therapies, according to this Centre.

Stem cell research in India:

India has pursued SC research since over a couple decades reasonably supported by the Government, especially the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), besides several remarkable initiatives from the private sector. Ethical guidelines in this regard are also in place, so also are the National Guidelines for Stem Cell Research in India. These guidelines are aimed at obtaining licenses from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI).

Further, in a major move to regulate and oversee the activities by streamlining SC research in the country, the Government has also set up an Institutional Committee for Stem Cell Research and Therapy (IC-SCRT) and the National Apex Committee for Stem Cell Research and Therapy (NAC-SCRT). This necessitates the researchers on human stem cells, both institutions and the individuals, to be registered with NAC-SCRT through IC-SCRT. To ensure that the concerned companies and individuals follow the National Guidelines, these committees will review, approve and monitor each research project in this area. It now calls for even greater focus from all other stakeholders to help accelerate growth of this niche segment of medical science for patients’ benefits.

SC transplantations using umbilical cord blood and bone marrow for treating neurological, hematological, hepatic and cardiac disorders are being pursued by some well-known medical institutions, such as, AIIMS, PGI Chandigarh, CMC Vellore, AFMC Pune, Manipal Hospital Bangalore. For example, AIIMS, reportedly, undertook a major multi-center trial to look at the role of stem cells in repairing tissue damaged during acute heart attacks, where other treatment process, including a cardiac bypass surgery fails to adequately improve the heart function. Similarly, Shankar Netralaya in Chennai has successfully carried out limbal stem cell transplantations for restoring vision to several patients.

That said, this is a cost intensive area of research, which involves expensive equipment, reagents and other consumables. Moreover, ensuring continuous training for SC researchers and clinicians also poses a major problem. Greater international collaboration in this area, and increasing number of Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) could accelerate the progress of India in this hugely promising area of medical science, reaping a rich harvest for a large patient population of the country.

Stem cell banking:

SC banking is a fast-developing area in this field, especially designed for SC therapy. As not many patients are not currently as much aware or interested in SC therapy as they ought to, it may not appear as an immediate requirement for many. However, an encouraging trend is fast catching up, especially within some enlightened persons, to have in a bank a large reserve of their own or their baby’s stem cells that would be available for any medical emergencies or more effective treatment options, in the future.

It assumes increasing importance because, as we age, illness and the natural process of aging could reduce the number of stem cells available to regenerate organs, muscles and bone. At that time, while treating a serious illness or a grave injury, a person may have fewer adult stem cells that have the collective power to make an effective healing response to SC therapy.

In that context, SC banking provides a great opportunity to store, multiply and utilize a newborn’s or even an adult person’s younger and healthy stem cells for SC therapy during any medical emergency, such as a serious accident or a crippling illness, at a later stage in life.

There are broadly the following two types of SC banking facilities are now available in India:

A. Cord blood stem cell banking:

This is type of SC banking is the process of collecting, processing, cryogenically freezing and preserving the ‘Cord blood’ that remains in the vein of the umbilical cord and placenta at the time of birth, for potential future medical use during SC therapy. Stems cells extracted from the umbilical cord blood have been shown to be more advantageous than those extracted from other sources such as bone marrow. These banked stem cells are considered as a perfect match for the lifetime of the donor baby, and for other family members, as well. This is significant as there exists a greater chance for success in a stem cell transplant between siblings than with unrelated donors and recipients.

B. Adult stem cell banking:

Some state-of-the-art adult stem cell banking services are either already available or in the process of coming up in many places of the world, including India. As an individual’s fat (adipose tissue) is an important source of adult stem cells, with the application of a high precision medical technology of separating, multiplying, and storing adult adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells for autologous use by physicians, ‘Adult stem cells are stored in these banks.

The good news is, increasing awareness in this area has now started prompting many parents, and also some adults to bank or store their own SC and the baby’s cord blood rich with a specific types of stem cells, that can be utilized, at a later date, in a variety of SC therapy while treating many life-threatening and debilitating diseases, if required.

Types of stem cell therapy:

There are two major types of SC therapies, and both are available in India:

  • Autologous stem cell therapy: uses the adult patient’s own stem cells obtained from the blood, bone marrow.
  • Allogenic stem cell therapy: uses donated stem cells, but faces chances of donor stem cell rejection.

As articulated in the revised stem cell guidelines, stem cells can’t be offered to patients in India as ‘therapy’ unless these are proven effective and safe supported by unequivocal clinical trial data and approved by the DCGI. Otherwise, these can be used only in ‘clinical trials’ as will be approved by the DCGI. The only exception to this is the use of haematopoietic (blood forming) stem cells for treating blood disorders, which is considered as ‘a proven therapy,’ according to available reports.

The Market – Global and India:

September 14, 2015 issue of ‘The Pharma Letter’ stated based on a recent report that the global stem cells market was valued at US$ 26.23 billion in 2013, and is estimated to be worth US$ 119.52 by 2019, registering at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 24.2 percent. Whereas, in India, the stem cell market is expected to be around US$ 600 million by 2017. Another report, titled ‘India Stem Cells Market Forecast & Opportunities, 2020’ of ‘Pharmaion’, states that stem cells market in India is expected to grow at a CAGR of over 28 percent during 2015 – 2020.

In terms of services offered, stem cells market in India has been segmented into two main categories, namely SC banking, and SC research. The latter dominated the market in 2014, and is likely to continue its dominance through 2020. Adult stem cells accounted for the majority share in India’s SC market in 2014, as a lot of research being carried out using adult stem cells, besides growing adult stem cell banking and other associated applications in therapeutics.

The major growth drivers for SC market are: increasing patient awareness, an increase in the approval for clinical trials in stem cell research, growing demand for stem cell banking services,

Government support, rising investments in research, and ascending trend of development for regenerative treatment to meet unmet medical needs.

The first stem cell based product approval in India:

On May 30, 2016, a Press Release of ‘Stempeutics Research’ of Bengaluru announced that for the first time in India, DCGI has granted limited approval for manufacturing and marketing of its allogeneic cell therapy product named Stempeucel® for the treatment of Buerger’s Disease – a rare and severe disease condition affecting the blood vessels of the legs, which finally may require amputation. Stempeucel® treatment is designed to enhance the body’s limited capability to restore blood flow in ischemic tissue by reducing inflammation and improving neovascularization. The prevalence of Buerger’s Disease is estimated to be 1,000,000 in India and two per 10,000 persons in the EU and US, as the release stated. Stempeutics Research’ is a company of Manipal Education & Medical Group and a Joint Venture with Cipla Group.

Conclusion:

Research on stem cells, across the world, is taking rapid strides. It has already demonstrated its healing power in changing many human lives either by significantly stalling the progression of several serious ailments, such as Multiple Sclerosis (MS), or reversing the disease conditions, such as serious damage to the heart caused by massive myocardial infarction.

An increasing number of stem cell banks coupled with growing public and private investments in stem cell research, positive narratives are getting scripted for this space in India. With rapidly growing middle class population and comparatively less stringent rules and regulations, India is emerging as a perfect destination for many more global and local stem cell banking companies. Consequently, the stem cell market in the country is expected to witness robust growth in the coming years.

However, only future research on stem cells will be able to unravel whether an Alzheimer’s victim will get back the stolen memory; a cancer patient won’t have to mentally prepare to die of cancer anytime soon, besides spending a fortune towards cancer therapy; an insulin dependent diabetic will no longer require insulin; an individual with damaged heart won’t have to continue with lifelong medication, and it goes on and on.

Nevertheless, if it does… and God willing – it will, ‘Stem Cell Therapy’ would not just be a life changer for many patients, it will be a game changer too for several others, including the pharma, biotech companies and many more within the healthcare sector. If any skeptic still asks, will it really happen? My counter question, in response, will be: Why not?… Why the hell not?

By: Tapan J. Ray  

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

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A global perspective:

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

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

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

What then is its basic solution?

When the right solution eludes:             

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The current business model leaves behind many patients:

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

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

Public outrage over high drug prices:

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

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

The industry continues chasing rainbows:

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

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

  • Lawmaker Peter Welch, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus’ task force on drug pricing, said, “The issue here is not whether drugs have some benefits … The issue is whether pharma is going to be able to kill us with their pricing power or whether we will get transparency and competition.” He added, “The campaign is all about defending their pricing power and pushing their product.”
  • Similarly, another lawmaker Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “This is [PhRMA] trying to change the subject and to try and divert people’s attention away from drug pricing. Continuing to ignore drug pricing is probably not going to work.”
  • Ameet Sarpatwari, a drug pricing policy researcher at Harvard University said, “It’s really a matter of being tone deaf in terms of thinking somehow that this is going to change public perception”

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

The situation in India:

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

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

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

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

Is the devil in the traditional pharma business model?

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

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

In pursuit of a new model:

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

  • Learn from innovation models of the IT industry: Win-Win collaborative innovation models, including ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’, if scaled up, could reduce the cost of innovation significantly and making the new innovative drugs generally affordable. Thus, larger volume sales may adequately offset a voluntary cut in the product margin, creating a multiplier effect.
  • Be a part of the solution and not the problem: Because of fiercely pushing the blatant self-serving agenda, inconveniencing many patients, the core mindset of the pharma industry is considered by many as an integral part of the main problem. While pharma industry, quite rightly, seek more market access, they need to act as a facilitator too, to improve general access to medicines, in various imaginative ways, which is, of course, possible. This will make the pharma industry to be a part of the solution to the national problem, over a period of time.
  • Walk the talk: While pharma industry speaks all right things, in terms of ethical conduct of business, at a time when both national and international media frequently expose their gross wrongdoings. This continues, unabated. Sales and marketing functions are indeed very important, but not at the cost of good corporate governance. I am aware, all compliance rules exist immaculately on paper for many companies, but the senior management officials should demonstrate that they walk the talk, giving exemplary punishment to the wrongdoers, including their peers.
  • Change the current advocacy model: The current advocacy model of the research-based pharma companies is too self-serving. For example, in India it mostly demands, which is bordering obsession, to change the IP laws of a sovereign country, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no problem with these, whatsoever. There is a need for them to demonstrate, sans any shade of arrogance, visible respect to any country’s general sentiment on its Patents Act, as it’s their own decision to operate in those countries. An imaginative win-win change in this area, would significantly help to create a strong bond and mutual respect with other important stakeholders.

Are senior citizens in pharma business a barrier to change?

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

In conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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.

Dry New Antibiotic Pipeline: Increasing Incidence Of Deadly Antibiotic Resistance

Posted on by
Reply

On January 13, 2017, ‘The Telegraph’ quoting the ‘Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’ reported that a woman in Nevada was killed by a superbug that proved resistant to every antibiotic available in the United States (US). She was in her 70s, and had recently returned to the US after an extended visit to India. The CDC found her blood containing ‘New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase (NDM)’ – an enzyme that was first detected in India, makes bacteria resistant to many antibiotics. Nevertheless, this is just not a solitary example. It’s fast giving rise to a snowballing effect.

The magnitude of this problem has now assumed a global dimension. A May 2016 review of ‘Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)’ estimates: ‘By 2050, 10 million lives a year and a cumulative 100 trillion USD of economic output is at risk due to the rise of drug – resistant infections, if we do not find proactive solutions now to slow down the rise of drug resistance. Even today, 700,000 people die of resistant infections every year.

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), AMR is the ability of a microorganism (like bacteria, viruses, and some parasites) to stop an antimicrobial (such as antibiotics, antivirals and antimalarials) from working against it. Consequently, standard treatments become ineffective, infections persist and may spread to others.

As antibiotics are a special category of antimicrobial drugs that underpin modern medicine as we know it: if they lose their effectiveness, key medical procedures (such as gut surgery, caesarean sections, joint replacements, and treatments that depress the immune system, such as chemotherapy for cancer) could become too dangerous to perform. Most of the direct and much of the indirect impact of AMR will fall on low and middle-income countries – the above review reiterates.

The first global report on AMR:

Not so long ago, In 2014, the first global report on AMR, published by the W.H.O reiterated that this scary scenario is no longer a prediction for the future. It is happening right now, and is not a country specific issue, but a global concern that is jeopardizing global health security.

“Hundreds of thousands of antibiotic-resistant infections and tens of thousands of related deaths go uncounted each year. But even if they were closely tracked, the lack of new drugs to meet the rising tide of resistance means the toll will only mount,” Reported Reuters in another article titled “Stronger superbugs and no new drugs to fight them”, on December 15, 2016.

Thus, there isn’t even an iota of doubt now that in the battle against bacterial infections, drug-resistant superbugs are fast emerging as one of the deadliest issues in the health care space, across the world, including India.

Interestingly, no one knows who will fall victim of this scary scenario and when. Neither can one eliminate this risk completely, even in the developed world. Only painstaking medical research, sans sole focus on creamy bottom-line, and with the application of cutting edge technology, can help overcome this fast-growing health menace to mankind.

“It’s all about the bottom line”:

Quoting a biochemistry professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, the above article reported, in 1980, 36 large American and European pharmaceutical companies were involved in research into new antibiotics. This number currently reduces to just four: Novartis AG, Merck & Co, GlaxoSmithKline Plc and Sanofi SA.

The May 2016 Data Table of ‘The Pew Charitable Trust’ indicates, as of March 2016, an estimated 37 new antibiotics with the potential to treat serious bacterial infections are in clinical development for the U.S. market. It is worth noting, the success rate of clinical drug development is low. Historical data show that, generally, only 1 in 5 infectious disease products that enter human testing (phase 1 clinical trial) will be approved for patients.

Moreover, most of these new antibiotics are based on existing drugs. Although, this approach is cheaper and easier to develop a new antibiotic, as compared to new classes of drugs, bacteria may rather quickly succeed in developing resistance to them.

It keeps happening, primarily because the return on investment for antibiotics, which are typically prescribed for a short period of 7 to 14 days, is much lower than the new drugs used for virtually a life treatment of chronic conditions, such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or diabetes.

Consequently, most of the constituents of Big Pharma have virtually fled the antibiotic business, as the new drug development ball game today “is all about the bottom line”, the article quoted.

Antibiotic resistance in India:

As W.H.O articulates in its above report, AMR poses a greater challenge in the developing nations, such as India, where the burden of infectious disease is high and health care spending is too low. The problem assumes a more critical dimension in India, that records among the highest bacterial disease burden in the world, with antibiotics playing a critical role in limiting morbidity and mortality.

The 2015 multi-country survey of the W.H.O unveiled a widespread public misunderstanding about antibiotic usage and resistance in India. Some of the major highlights are as follows:

  • Three quarters (75 percent) of respondents think, incorrectly, that colds and flu can be treated with antibiotics, and only 58 percent know that they should stop taking antibiotics only when they finish the course as directed.
  • More than three quarters (76 percent) of respondents report having taken antibiotics within the past 6 months; 90 percent say they were prescribed or provided by a doctor or nurse.
  • While 75 percent agree that antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest problems in the world, 72 percent of respondents believe experts will solve the problem before it becomes too serious.

Nowhere AMR is as stark as in India:

Another article published in the ‘PLOS Medicine’ on March 2, 2016, is quite in tune with the above W.H.O report. It also reiterates that antibiotic resistance is a global public health threat, but nowhere is it as stark as in India. The crude infectious disease mortality rate in India today is 416.75 per 100,000 persons and is twice the rate prevailing in the United States when antibiotics were introduced (roughly 200 per 100,000 persons).

It also captures the following burning issues in this area:

  • Antibiotic use is a major driver of resistance. In 2010, India was the world’s largest consumer for human health.
  • Access to antibiotics is rising, which portends well for the large proportion of India’s population that thus far had poor access to these life-saving drugs.
  • The convergence of factors such as poor public health infrastructure, rising incomes, a high burden of disease, and cheap, unregulated sales of antibiotics have created ideal conditions for a rapid rise in resistant infections in India.
  • Over-the-counter, nonprescription sales of carbapenems in India are among the highest in the world, and contribute to growing carbapenem resistance among gram-negative organisms.
  • Improving regulations of drug production and sales, better managing physician compensation, and encouraging behavior change among doctors and patients, are of immediate priority.

More serious than local perception:

The new report released by the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy (CDDEP) in September 2015, has flagged an alarming trend of bacterial resistance to last-resort antibiotics that can lead to life-threatening infections across the world.

While the developed countries still use far more antibiotics per capita, high AMR rates in the developing nations, such as India, Kenya and Vietnam send a strong warning signal to the world.

For example, in India, 57 per cent of the infections caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae, a deadly superbug found in hospitals, were found to be resistant to one type of last-resort drug in 2014 – an increase from 29 per cent in 2008. It is worth noting that these drugs, known as carbapenems, are still effective against Klebsiellainfections in 90 per cent of cases in the U.S, and over 95 per cent in Europe.

A new class of antibiotics discovered with iChip technology:

The good news is, as reported in the June 18, 2015 issue of the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, scientists could produce a new class of antibiotic, named Teixobactin, from a hitherto undescribed soil microorganism (provisionally named Eleftheria terrae). It was isolated with a new tool – the iChip, that allowed the environmental bacterium to grow and for the antibiotic it produced to be isolated and subsequently identified.

Working together with collaborators at the University of Central Florida and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, a research team of Hong Kong University (HKU) has successfully synthesized this ‘game-changing’ antibiotic that can kill a wide range of bacteria seemingly without developing resistance.

Teixobactin has activity against Gram-positive (but not Gram-negative) organisms and mycobacteria and a novel mode of action inhibiting peptidoglycan biosynthesis. Teixobactin, a still-experimental drug that may herald a new era of antibiotic discovery. However, there are no guarantees that it will be able to reach the market post regulatory acid tests, though the use of the iChip will hopefully result in the discovery of further potential new antibiotics.

Country specific frugal innovation is also necessary:

Alongside, various academic initiatives in search of new, path breaking antibiotics, frugal innovation in various countries to address the local issues in this area, could also play a very significant role to contain this menace.

In this context, I shall quote from the example of a small country, such as Singapore, which is contributing significantly to medical research and development in this area.

An article published in a new daily of Singapore – ‘Today’, on December 29, 2016, highlighted that drug-resistant superbugs have become one of the most pressing problems in the healthcare space of even one of the cleanest cities of the world.

Driven by the need to find a more suitable alternative, researchers at the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (IBN) of Singapore, have developed a new material that can kill E coli bacteria within seconds. E coli is a type of bacteria found in the intestines of humans and animals, and some strains can cause severe diarrhea, abdominal pain and fever.

The article, reported that the novel synthetic material, known as imidazolium oligomers, can kill 99.7 percent of the bacteria within 30 seconds, more rapidly than any existing antimicrobial product on the market, such as hand wash or surface sprays. Existing products take minutes to hours to kill the bacteria. It was also tested and found to be effective against other common strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi, such as Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans. It has been licensed by a multinational firm for commercial development in October.

If Singapore can take its own initiatives in this crucial health care space, why can’t India?

Conclusion:

Strict enforcement of the existing regulations of the medical sector, particularly in the prescription of medicines, is of crucial importance. Lack of knowledge among medical practitioners, as well as public on rational use of antibiotics, aggravates the issue.

Notwithstanding fast drying-up of global research pipeline for new antibiotics due to several reasons, India needs to address this fast escalating life-threatening problem through various other practical means. One such could be, putting in place a comprehensive National Action Plan for AMR, quite in line with the Global one, which the W.H.O has already recommended.

This critical issue gets further compounded, as a very significant part of an out-of-pocket expenditure on health care is on medicines, and longer treatment with ineffective drugs and/or second line expensive antibiotics, are pushing the treatment costs higher. On the other side, higher priced drug regimens are less likely to be adhered to, which again contributes to the AMR.

“This situation needs to be interrupted and reversed, not only for safeguarding people’s health, but also for providing protection against health care costs and people going into poverty,” advises the premier World Health body.

Finally, it is important for all to bear in mind, no one knows who will fall victim of this scary scenario and when. So, a decisive action from all concerned can’t wait any longer.

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 Criticizing Pharma Now Just A Fad?

Posted on by
Reply

Is criticizing pharma now just a fad of its stakeholders? Fathoming the right answer to this seemingly simple question may not be too easy, either, for some. The task could even be more onerous, especially when the global ‘researched based’ pharma and biotech companies, well chorused by their trade associations, are exerting serious efforts to garner the much required trust of all stakeholders on their ‘patient centric’ focus in the process of transacting business.

This often repeated pledge, as it were, on ‘patient centric’ approach is indeed praiseworthy. There’s no two opinions about it, either. The new found interest of several ‘research-based’ pharma and biologic players to develop less expensive biosimilar drugs, to possibly improve patient access to otherwise expensive biologic medicines, post patent expiry, could well be a reiteration of the same and well publicized vow, of course if not proven otherwise.

A recent example:

In the context of ‘patient-centric’ approach with biosimilar product development by the world’s largest innovative biologic drug makers, let me quote the following recent example.

On September 23, 2016, by a Press Release, the Food and Drug Administration of the United States (US-FDA) announced regulatory approval of Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) as a biosimilar to Humira (adalimumab) for multiple inflammatory diseases. This is the fourth FDA-approved biosimilar, after the new biosimilar pathway became effective in the US. Amjevita has been developed by Amgen Inc. – one of the global pioneers in the development of innovative biologic drugs.

According to US-FDA, a biosimilar is a biological product that is approved based on a showing that it is highly similar to an already-approved biological product and has no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity and potency (i.e., safety and effectiveness) from the reference product, in addition to meeting other criteria specified by law.

Although, Amjevita is biosimilar to Humira,  it has not been approved as an interchangeable product with Humira. This issue is considered as a major regulatory roadblock in the US for substitution of original biologic brands with their biosimilar equivalents, which can, therefore, be prescribed mostly to the new patients. It’s worth noting here that Humira – the blockbuster arthritis drug of AbbVie Inc. clocked a sale of US$ 14 billion in 2015, and probably will continue to do so in the foreseeable future, even long after patent expiry. I shall touch upon that point below, briefly.

It is estimated that the savings of putting just new patients on much less expensive biosimilar drugs, sans substitution of the expensive original brand, will be billions of dollars. Nonetheless, this will help reduce the cost of treatment with biologic medications, improving their access to many others.

A key barrier:

Interestingly, the barriers to following the biosimilar path are being mostly created none other than the innovative drug companies themselves, even post patent expiry, presumably to extend market exclusivity and monopoly pricing.

Arising out of one such key barrier, in the form of patent litigation, Amgen’s Amjevita, in all probability, may not be available to deserving patients for years. This could involve a protracted process of skillfully navigating through the labyrinth of legalities.

On August 05, 2016, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that AbbVie Inc. has filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against rival Amgen Inc., seeking to block sales of a lower-priced biosimilar of AbbVie’s top-selling, now generally considered as an off-patent drug – Humira.

When the narrative gets paradoxical:

While all the ‘research-based’ drug companies claim to be ‘patient-centric’ in their business approaches, be it with the development of biosimilars or in other areas, somewhere this narrative gets paradoxical.

On September 02, 2016, Reuters reported that global ‘research-based’ companies are now ‘waging courtroom patent battles against each other over biosimilars, as the line blurs between companies known for their innovative medicines, and those that produce cheaper biotech knockoffs.’

Some of the recent high-profile examples were reported as follows:

  • Sanofi sued Merck in the US federal court over its biosimilar version of Lantus insulin with around US$7 billion in annual sales.
  • Eli Lilly reached a royalties deal with Sanofi to end a similar Lantus-related lawsuit, but their pact means the biosimilar launch was likely delayed.
  • Pfizer and Korea’s Celltrion in August beat back a court challenge from Johnson & Johnson over US$10 billion autoimmune drug Remicade, though J&J’s Janssen unit promised to appeal.
  • In a closely watched case, Novartis wants the US Supreme Court to dump a six-month marketing delay for biosimilars, in what would be the first time the high court took up a biosimilar case.
  • Samsung Bioepis, along with partner and minority shareholder Biogen Inc, filed a lawsuit against AbbVie in Britain in March to stop the US company from blocking the launch of yet another Humira biosimilar.

It is equally noteworthy, while Amgen is keen to launch its own biosimilars, the company’s aggressive legal strategy delayed Novartis’s efforts to introduce the first US biosimilar, Zarxio, before the copy of Amgen’s US $1 billion drug Neupogen finally went on sale last year.

Further, Amgen has also filed a legal suit against a biosimilar version of its Enbrel (etanercept) developed by Novartis (Sandoz), which has already received regulatory approval from the US-FDA on August 30, 2016 for multiple inflammatory diseases.

Taking these into consideration, isn’t, therefore, about time to ponder afresh, whether the innovative drug makers’ general mindset of maintaining drug exclusivity with a very high price, on techno-legal grounds, even after enjoying price monopoly over a long period of the specified time, be termed as ‘patient-centric’?

Indian scenario:

Indian players have already started developing biosimilar drugs in the country. This market offers a lucrative future opportunity considering that original biologic brands with a global turnover of around US$ 70 billion will expire by 2020.

The first biosimilar was approved and marketed in India for a hepatitis B vaccine in 2000 (GaBI Online). By now, around 30 such products have reportedly received the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI)’s approval for marketing in India. Even after the new biosimilar guidelines were framed and implemented locally, since 2012, there has not been any worthwhile legal suits filed by the global innovative biologic manufacturers, against the Indian companies or such products developed and approved in India, till 2014.

Since then, this scenario has changed with Roche suing Biocon and its partner Mylan on their biosimilar versions of Roche’s Herceptin (Trastuzumab) for breast cancer, and also making the DCGI a party to this suit. This litigation is broadly on the following grounds:

  • Non-adherence to the Indian biosimilar guidelines
  • Misrepresentation of drugs as biosimilar and passing off 

Be that as it may, its key impact is on affordable biosimilar drugs that can save more lives of breast cancer patients in India. If it is so, do such litigations demonstrate a patient-centric perspective for so important a drug, which is not even protected by a product patent in India, any longer?

Are biosimilars the only examples?

Lest I am not seen as highlighting only the instances of blocking market entry of biosimilar drugs, as sole examples of ‘patient-centric focus’, or lack of it, of many global innovative drug manufacturers, I would now expand it, just a bit. This is only to fathom the bottom-line – whether it is a ‘patients-centric’ focus, or solely a ‘profit-centric’ outlook.

‘Patients-centric’ or ‘Profit-centric’?

To get a sense on this vexing issue, it would be worthwhile for us to find out by ourselves the most appropriate reason behind each of the following. Of course it’s just an illustration. This reason could be either a ‘patient centric’ focus, or simply a ‘profit centric’ outlook. …And then let’s try to make out which way the overall balance tilts, on the ground:

  • Discovering new drugs, delivery systems, and finding new indications
  • Lack of transparency and widely reported bias towards mainly positive results in clinical trial data, both for publication and regulatory approval of various new drugs, and associated global furor.
  • Exorbitant high prices of many new patented medicines and some generic drugs too
  • Widely reported marketing/other malpractices, and associated fines paid by the respective players
  • Causing entry delay for cheaper small molecule generics and large molecule biosimilar drugs post patent expiry restricting gtreaterr patient access

What’s your relative score now?

Conclusion:

Let me sign off here by raising the following relevant questions in this area, for all of us to think and address, as we deem appropriate:

Is the narrative of ‘patient centric’ approach of the ‘research-based’ global drug companies’ now getting clearer with the widely reported credible examples, as above?

Is there still a paradox between their two different strategic business approaches – one entry into off-patent drug development, such as biosimilars, and the other in blocking or delaying entry of such drugs, whenever possible, even after enjoying a specified period of product pricing monopoly?

Does it then mean, what a large section of pharma industry constituents is now publicly demonstrating, at least in the above areas, more than negates their protracted sound bites on ‘patient centric’ focus?

Despite these facts, would pharma related criticism in this space be termed as just a fad of the stakeholders?

If not, what should be the way forward from here to ensure that remedial measures are taken in so important an area of ‘patient-centric’ outlook, soon enough?

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. 

Clinical Trials: Critical Need To Improve Patient Participation With Informed Consent

Posted on by
Reply

On April 13, 2016, an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) titled, “Clinical Trials Need More Subjects” underscored an important point that the rate at which the clinical researchers are able to recruit and retain patients for ‘Clinical Trials (CT)’, has now hit an all-time low. This is vindicated by studies that indicate less than 10 percent of Americans now participate in clinical trials, and only 3 to 5 percent of patients sign up for trials of new cancer therapies, in the largest CT market of the world.

As a result, about 40 percent of CTs do not recruit enough patients to meet their goals, the article highlights. Consequently, a large number of pharma industry sponsored CTs are now, reportedly, moving away from the United States. India should, therefore, take note of this development and pull up the socks.

If similar situation gets replicated in other countries too, and persists, it would be very unlikely that critical and credible medical and scientific knowledge that can significantly improve the treatment outcomes in many serious disease conditions could be meaningfully gathered and put to practice. Its other serious fallouts too, are also not terribly difficult to imagine.

A key medical research tool: 

In pursuit of the advancement of medical knowledge and patient care, CT of drugs is universally considered to be a key medical research tool, as it is the best way to learn what works best in treating various types of diseases. It goes without saying that drugs for all new types of treatments would need to be discovered first through a long and painstaking process of discovery research. These are then purified, and tested in preclinical studies, before a final decision is taken for commencement of CT on human against preset parameters, as deemed necessary.

While going through this stringent process some drugs are found to be safe and effective on human subjects and some others are not, on the contrary may be harmful.

There lies the crucial importance of CT for all scientific evidence based medicines. According to the Department of Health & Human Services of the United States, Clinical research is done only if doctors don’t know:

  • whether a new approach works well with people and is safe and
  • which treatments or strategies work best for certain illnesses or groups of people 

CT, though a small part in the important and lengthy process of developing newer treatments, significantly helps the health care decision makers to decide on the treatments that work best for any patient.

Broad types: 

Pharmaceutical companies usually sponsor CT for new drugs and treatments, which are carried out by the designated research teams, consisting of doctors and other related professionals in different specialized areas.

There are 4 phases in any CT, which are broadly as follows:     

  • Phase I: Here, for a new treatment, an investigational drug is tested for the first time in small numbers, usually between 20 and 100, on healthy volunteers, to identify the proper dosage ranges for drug administration, while critically monitoring its method of absorption, adverse effects and toxicity profile.
  • Phases II: This phase, just as Phase I studies, also tests the drug on, usually between 100 and 300 patients, suffering from the targeted disease conditions. Safety is the main goal of this phase of CT and is programmed towards adjusting treatment doses, monitoring the common side effects, and whether patient’s disease condition improve as a result of the drug. These studies are usually randomized and double-blinded, where neither the patient nor the researchers would know whether a patient is receiving the investigational drug, or a placebo, or a standard treatment.
  • Phase III: In this phase, the investigational new drug goes through rigorous testing of safety, efficacy, and proper dosage levels in a large group of subjects, which may even exceed several thousand, with a specific illness or disease. The key objective is to enable the doctors to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the treatment for various groups of patients, such as, men versus women, elderly versus young, besides many others. 
  • Phase IV: Such studies are done after the drug receives the marketing approval from the drug regulator. The basic objective of these trials is usually to monitor whether the treatment offers desired benefits or gives rise to long-term side effects, which were not seen in the phase II and III trials. This phase may involve even several hundreds and thousands of patients.

It is worth noting that CT is essential to obtain marketing approval for any new treatment, as required by the drug regulators in the different countries, and takes around 6 to 8 years.

The role of patients:

Patients play a critical role in the entire scientific value chain of any drug evaluation process, especially on human. It is absolutely necessary, particularly in the regulated markets of the world, that all medicines are fully vetted through highly regulated, stringently monitored and well-scrutinized CTs, to ensure safety and effectiveness of each new drug and treatment for the patients.

No CT can take place sans the willingness and informed consent for participation of thousands of patients for any such studies held across the world. Without adequate patient participation in a CT, the drug performance data may also not be credible and thus acceptable to the drug regulator. This would, consequently, make it impossible to bring any new drug for prevention or treatment of various, often life threatening, disease conditions. 

Major reasons for not enough patient participation:

There are many reasons for not enough patients volunteering to participate in the CT, even in India. Some of the major reasons have been identified as follows:

  • Patients often are not aware that such trials also offer a treatment option. In many cases, their doctors too may not be explaining it effectively to them, as a part of their professional discourse. Several studies conclude that trust in a physician is a main reason patients decide to participate in CT.
  • Some patients, after reading media reports, interacting with some NGOs and also from word of mouth, mistrust the CT process and suffer from fear of being a guinea pig.
  • At times, complicated protocols, and eligibility requirements may also be discouraging.
  • Many patients, especially in India, are not very clear about the exact insurance (financial) cover the study provides for them, along with other payments for the care that they would receive during the trial, or for any drug-related long term untoward incident even after completion of the CT.

All these need to be effectively addressed. 

India attractiveness for CT:

The number of CT conducted in India had increased with a rapid pace till 2012, driven by cost arbitrage, treatment-naïve patient population, qualified English speaking medical research professionals that the country offers. According to available reports, in 2009, outside the United States, India was the second most preferred country to conduct CT. Incidentally, at that time, the CT guidelines in India were too loose, quite discretionary, patient-unfriendly and with many gaping holes. This scenario has changed dramatically since 2013, with consequent adverse impact on the number of CT in India.

A 2009 study conducted by Ernst & Young and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (FICCI), states that India participates in over 7 percent of all global phase III and 3.2 percent of all global phase II trials. The major reasons of India attraction of the global players to conduct CT in the country, were highlighted as follows:

  • Cost of Clinical Trial (CL) is significantly less in India than most other countries of the world
  • Huge treatment-naïve patient pool with different disease pattern and demographic profile
  • Easy to enroll volunteers, as it is not very difficult to persuade poor and less educated people as ‘willing’ participants. This may not be so easy now with the recent amendment of CT guidelines. 

However, there is an urgent need for a world class capacity building in this area to reap a rich harvest.

Improving CT regulations in India:

Not so long ago, it came to light with the help of ‘Right To Information (RTI)’ query that more than 2,000 people in India died as a result of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) caused during drug trials from 2008-2011 and only 22 of such cases, which is just around 1 percent, received any compensation. That too was a meager average sum of around US$ 4,800 per family.

It has been widely reported that pharmaceutical companies often blame deaths, that occur during trials, on a person’s pre-existing medical condition, and not related to CT.

This gloomy situation is now gradually improving. According to an August 2015 research article titled “Impact of new regulations on clinical trials in India”, published in International Journal of Clinical Trials, 2015 Aug; 2 (3): 56-58, there was a need of strict vigilance and regulations for conducting CT in India, which was much easier than in North America or Europe. In India, the trial participants were exploited because of illiteracy, poverty and lack of awareness of their basic rights in this area. The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) has now taken a noteworthy step by launching online Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI) ensuring accountability, transparency and information sharing on clinical trials in the public domain.

Followed by a tough intervention of the Supreme Court in 2013, Indian Government brought in amendments to the CT guidelines of Schedule Y, in December 2014 which came into force effective June 2015. These long-overdue amendments are expected to strengthen the CT process in India and effectively protect the rights, desired safety and general well-being of the participating subjects, while generating authentic clinical data for new drugs or treatment.

Informed consent:

Obtaining informed consent of the participating patients, is absolutely necessary for the researchers. This has recently been made stringent in India effective June 07, 2013. From that date, to make the sCT process transparent and ensure requisite confidentiality, an audio-visual recording of the ‘informed consent’ process has been made mandatory in the country.

A valid consent would mean that the participants have well understood the risks and benefits of the treatment during the CT period and after, along with the general procedures that he or she would need to undergo during the given time-frame.

However, the question that is still being debated, primarily because of the continuing challenge in defining in each case, beyond any scope of doubt, what should be universally considered as an adequate level of information given to the patients to obtain consent of participation in the CT. 

Financial compensation process:

Currently, the calculation of financial compensation, wherever applicable, is based on a well-defined formula. This system has been made mandatory for the sponsor in India for any trial related injuries or death. Such compensation has to be paid, even when the trial related injury is discerned after the completion of the CT. The concerned participants would receive this compensation over and above the free medical management of injury, which in any case has to be provided by the sponsor.

Hence patient safety and compensation related issues pertaining to CT in India have, to a great extent, been addressed, though there is still more scope for improvement on an ongoing basis.

Another major issue still to be addressed:

It is generally expected that when CT of a new drug is conducted by the global pharma players in India with the participation of Indian patients, the same drug when launched in other countries would also be made available in India for the benefit of Indian patients. 

Unfortunately, the situation is not so, as indicated by a paper titled, “A critical appraisal of clinical trials conducted and subsequent drug approvals in India and South Africa”, published in the BMJ Open on August 31, 2015.

The objective of this study was to assess the relation between the number of clinical trials conducted and respective new drug approvals in India and South Africa.

The study found that out of CTs with the participation of test centers in India and/or South Africa, 39.6 percent (India) and 60.1 percent (South Africa) CTs led to market authorization in the EU/USA, without a New Drug Application (NDA) approval in India or South Africa. 

The paper concluded, despite an increase in CT activities, there is a clear gap between the number of trials conducted and market availability of these new drugs in India and South Africa. Hence, the drug regulatory authorities, investigators, institutional review boards and patient groups should direct their efforts to ensuring availability of new drugs in the market that have been tested and researched on their population, the article suggested. 

I hope, the CDSCO would take remedial measures to address this situation, soon.

Indian pharma players should get their act together:

In view of the international media reports on alleged ‘CT data fudging’ by some of the larger Indian players in the pharma and relator sectors, there is an urgent need of the Indian pharma players to get their acts together, without any further delay.

On April 15, 2016, Reuters reported, “India’s Alkem Laboratories has been accused by Germany’s health regulator of fudging data on clinical trials of an antibiotic and brain disorder drug, becoming the third Indian firm to be scrutinized since 2014 for suspected manipulation of trial data.” However, a day later Alkem said that it was submitting suitable clarifications to the European Medical Agency (EMA).

Be that as it may, if the allegation for such gross violations of basic ethical standards is true, it would bring shame not just to the companies concerned, but also to India as a trusted source for pharma products and services. Such alleged foul play has the potential to ultimately shatter the stakeholders’ confidence, including patients, on CTs done by the Indian players, both for the local and global markets. 

Conclusion:

At the long last, after a grueling experience and tough intervention of the Supreme Court of India, CTs conducted in India are now reasonably well regulated and generally seem to comply with ethical requirements and standards. The question of human ‘guinea pigs’ and its associated concerns have also been adequately addressed by the CDSCO now.

Gradually improving the CT regulatory environment in India, barring some avoidable aberrations, offers some significant direct and indirect benefits to all concerned. Indian pharma is, therefore, expected to handle this sensitive opportunity with great care and following the highest ethical standards. 

This, in turn, would help bring to the market robust evidence-based new drugs and treatment for many types of diseases, and at the same time could facilitate their early access to many patients, at a time of dire need.

Through increasing access to CT, the participating patients would be able to avail several important benefits, such as, new and still unavailable treatment options, especially for those serious ailments, where other existing drugs either are not working effectively with satisfactory results, not affordable to many, or not working at all. In that sense, CT could offer to a sizeable number patients several other treatment options to choose from, especially, for many life-threatening diseases. This important benefit needs to be explained to the patients from credible sources, and thus merits serious consideration by the practicing medical professionals.

However, it is also a fact, particularly, in India that some people are lured to, or voluntarily enroll themselves for CT with an objective to make some extra money. Let me hasten to add that there are many other patients for whom the compensation for participation in the CT is no more than just an extra bonus.

Hence, improved patient participation with informed consent, to avail an important medical option in the disease treatment process, encouraged by the doctors without having any vested interest, has a great potential to create a win-win situation, for all concerned.

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.

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

A recent alarm for a future epidemic:

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

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

Causing havoc in many lives and families:

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

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

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

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

Worldwide Projections of Alzheimer’s Disease Prevalence:  

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

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

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

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

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

Currently available treatment:

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

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

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

Primary reasons:

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

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

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

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

Key hurdles in Alzheimer’s drug development:

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

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

  • Scientists still do not understand the underlying causes and mechanisms of the disease. It remains unknown whether many of the defining molecular characteristics of the disease are causes, effects, or signs of progression. This scientific knowledge gap makes the identification and selection of viable targets for new medicines difficult. 
  • Current preclinical models of Alzheimer’s disease are limited in the extent to which they can be extrapolated or translated to the human condition. Better models are needed to facilitate preclinical testing of drug candidates and better predict the effects of the drug in humans. 
  • The absence of validated, non-invasive biomarkers to identify disease presence and progression means the diagnosis is delayed until an individual becomes symptomatic. This makes it particularly challenging to evaluate, enroll, retain, and follow up with patients in clinical studies. It also makes it challenging to assess the effects of the drug candidate. Ultimately, this leads to long and very expensive clinical trials. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of research funding is a critical impediment:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

Undeniably, the challenges ahead are still too many.

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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.

 

Worsening Health Effect Of Climate Change In India: A Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

At present, out of the top five most pressing global and local environmental challenges, ‘Climate Change’ features at the top.

It has been broadly defined as, “a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.” 

The impact of Climate Change’ is so profound that, if not addressed immediately, it would most likely to cause extinction of human life from the planet Earth and that too in the most agonizing and painful way, lasting over a long period of time.

The Paris Summit and its objectives: 

To effectively address the ‘Climate Change’ issue, nearly 150 world leaders of 196 countries, including Prime Minister Modi, deliberated in the Paris summit earlier in December 2015. Their representatives and negotiators ultimately succeeded, at the fag end of the ‘Paris Summit’ to arrive at a global consensus for inking a new ‘Climate Change’ agreement.

Prior to this, a report titled, “Paris 2015: Getting a global agreement on climate change”, published in August, 2014 by the Green Alliance Trust, United Kingdom stated that the agreement, expected to be signed in this Paris summit should ensure a meaningful united global action on climate change, covering the following key points:

  • A strong legal framework and clear rules
  • A central role for equity
  • A long term approach
  • Public finance for adaptation and the low carbon transition
  • A framework for action on deforestation and land use

Experts opined that a strong deal will make a significant difference to the ability of individual countries to tackle climate change by ensuring the following:

  • Give a clear signal to business for desired environmental protection and pollution control
  • Guide investment toward low carbon outcomes
  • Create a simpler, more predictable framework for companies operating in different countries
  • Help meeting international development aims, which are at increasing risk from rising global temperatures.
  • Help reducing poverty
  • Help improving health and building security
  • Fetch huge benefits to the natural environment by helping to avoid biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystems upon which the existence of human life depends

India’s position on ‘Climate Change’:

India’s position on ‘Climate Change’ has been clear and is well captured in Prime Minister Modi’s reiteration in the Paris summit as follows:

“Climate change is not of our making. It is the result of global warming that came from an industrial age powered by fossil fuel. Yet, we face its consequences today, and that is why the outcome in Paris is so important and we are here today. We want the world to act with urgency. Agreement must lead us to restore balance between humanity and nature. We want a comprehensive equitable and durable agreement in Paris.”

Worsening health effect:

‘Climate Change’ could even drive the human race to extinction in its final outcome. Meanwhile, besides its devastated environmental impact on the planet Earth, it would gradually but surely worsen human health conditions.

In this article, I shall focus only on human health perspective on ‘Climate Change’. 

Direct and indirect health impact:

I would classify the adverse impact of ‘Climate Change’ on health basically into two categories:

- Indirect

- Direct

Indirect impact: 

Many of the indirect health impact events of ‘Climate Change’ either go unnoticed or are still considered as an ‘Act of God’. Although this issue relates to our ultimate survival, even today in India not many debates are taking place on the subject, mostly in the Television Channels. This amazing medium continues to remain obsessed with competitive high decibel shouting and slanging matches to strengthen the viewers’ appetite, even more, mostly on trivial sensationalism.

Fortunately, global awareness of the disastrous impact of ‘Climate Change’ is increasing, slowly but surely. 

I shall give below just a few examples of indirect health impact of this change:

- Extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, tsunamis, heat-waves and other disasters would keep increasing the mortality rate. Many experts attribute the cause of the recent deluge in Chennai to ‘Climate Change’, though there are other view points too. 

- Extreme weather conditions have also started causing frequent crop failures, especially in the developing world like India. As a result, many people go hungry and children suffer from malnourishment, mostly in rural areas, precipitating adverse health consequences.

- The impact of all these on mental health is also at times devastating and should in no way be ignored. Frequent incidences of farmers’ suicide in India due to crop failures could possibly be due to their deteriorating mental health, which needs to be studied in detail.

Direct impact:

According to ‘Big Picture’ – a free and impartial educational resource that explores the innovations and implications of cutting-edge science, rising temperatures and pollution levels may act together to directly worsen various health conditions, a few examples are as follows:

- Researches say, air temperature is more likely to affect cardiovascular function, when ozone levels are high, including the heart’s electrical activity and airflow into the lungs.

- A recent review has established that air pollution sets off nearly as many heart attacks as physical exertion, alcohol or coffee. Belgian researchers examined 36 studies conducted in various countries between January 1960 and January 2010 to examine the percentage of heart attacks attributable to the common risk factors and found that air pollution increased a person’s heart attack risk by 5 percent.

- Higher temperatures may also make the body more sensitive to toxins, such as ozone.   

- Studies show allergies are on the rise in developed countries, including the United States, which could partly be rising carbon dioxide levels and warming temperatures. 

- A number of notorious diseases, such as, malaria and cholera, thrive with the increase in temperature and rainfall. To give an example, the mosquitos that carry the malaria parasites grow rapidly in hot and humid conditions. The increasing prevalence of such weather conditions in climate change is likely to spread these diseases in a much wider population.

Is there any upside for ‘Climate Change’? 

Available information also points out towards some possible, but limited benefits for ‘Climate Change’, as follows: 

- Reduced risk of dying of the elderly persons from extreme cold in the winters of the temperate countries.

- Longer summers in those countries are likely to improve agricultural yields of the farmers.

Let me hasten to add, all these upsides, if at all, may not help the developing and poorer nations of the planet Earth, as such climatic conditions are mostly prevalent in the developed nations of the world.

Need for further research:

A report titled, “A Human Health Perspective On Climate Change”, published on April 22, 2010 by ‘Environmental Health Perspectives’ and the ‘National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’, identified the following major research areas that need to be further explored and understood in the ‘Climate Change’ perspective:

The above outcome of the study is exactly in the expected line, which was “to identify research needs for all aspects of the research-to-decision making pathway that will help us understand and mitigate the health effects of climate change, as well as ensure that we choose the healthiest and most efficient approaches to climate change adaptation.”

How can we all contribute individually?

On this subject, by a release on November 26, 2011, ‘The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)’ of the United States recommended some very easy to follow steps for all of us.

It said, each individual can help in this matter by using less energy and water. For example, one may consider turning off lights and TVs when one leaves a room. Turn off the water, when brushing teeth.

It suggests, another way to help is by learning about Earth and its climate. The more we know about how Earth’s climate works, the more we shall be able to help solve problems related to climate change and that is also the purpose of this article.

In addition, besides many others, we may consider lesser use of our private cars and more of available public transports. Smokers may consider to quit smoking. We can also help by planting trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

India’s high stake:

A December 9, 2015 article published in ‘The New York Times’, titled “For Indians, Smog and Poverty Are Higher Priorities Than Talks in Paris” reiterated as follows:

At the climate talks in Paris, “few countries have so much at stake as India. For the last month, the front pages of major newspapers have been dominated by one environmental crisis after another: City-dwellers are up in arms about hazardous levels of air pollution, which has already damaged the lungs of about half of Delhi’s schoolchildren. And last month brought torrential rains and flooding in the southern city of Chennai, evoking the erratic weather that climate experts warn about.”

India’s consistent stand in various ‘Climate Change’ talks is drawing a fine balance between rapid development of the nation, with commensurate new job creation and health safety & environment. However, the apprehension that is being expressed now by many, whether that is feasible on the ground at all, for holistic measures in the right direction, with the adequate funds flow for the same.

Thus, the key concern of the Indian negotiators was, signing of any global agreement to support a strong climate regime, without requisite funding, could seriously impede India’s economic growth and development agenda. The developing nations, such as India, therefore, expect adequate and committed funding from the developed nations for generation of clean energy to drive inclusive economic prosperity of the respective emerging economies.

Developed nations still not quite on the same page?

The developed nations, even in the final text of the deal, do not seem to be quite on the same page, with firm financial commitments. As a result, a ‘Tug of War’ of objectives, as it were, surfaced in the final negotiation process – mainly between sustained economic development and stringent global measures with fund commitment to contain possible extinction of the human race in the world.

The impact of an effective implementation of the agreement is expected to last almost in perpetuity.

Conclusion:                                                                              

Finally, on the last Saturday, December 12, 2015 a new global deal to address the pressing issue of ‘Climate Change’, was agreed in Paris. Unquestionably, this is a critical step forward for all countries to save the planet Earth.

Intriguingly, the deal still does not provide for a binding commitment towards adequate funding by the developed countries, which is so essential for the developing nations to adopt clean and renewable energy to contain the devastating impact of the ‘Climate Change’.

Although, the agreement does talk about funding of US$ 100 billion a year from 2020 to 2025, this is not the legally binding part of the deal, as many people had expected.

In my view, if there is just one statesman who could be singled out for taking exemplary initiative to make the deal come through, it would be President Barack Obama of the United States. He spoke several times to the heads of the several developing nations, including India, China and Brazil, many times to iron out the differences till the last moment, for this key global issue – indeed a statesman par excellence, at least to me.

Be that as it may, the deal has now been inked, Indian Government also has expressed its satisfaction and happiness with the final text of the agreement. Still, a key question haunts: Would it produce the desired results, as expected? Well, that depends on how effectively and time bound manner the global commitments get translated into reality, with required fund flowing smoothly, to contain environmental disasters, leading to natural calamities and jeopardizing human health-safety.

Let’s all keep our finger crossed, as the saying goes, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.”

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.