Sunday, October 25, 2015

Repurposing Older Drugs: Has The Process Started Rolling?

Repurposing Older Drugs: Has The Process Started Rolling?

On October 22, 2015, BBC News reported, “The world’s largest clinical trial to examine whether aspirin can prevent cancers returning has begun in the United Kingdom (UK).”
About 11,000 people, who have had early bowel, breast, prostate, stomach and esophageal cancer will be involved in this study with one tablet a day dosage for five years. This trial is being funded by ‘The Charity Cancer Research, UK’ and ‘The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).’
The scientists feel, if it works, this ‘repurposing’ of an older and much-known drug would be a “game-changing” one. It would then be able to provide a cheap and effective alternative to prevent recurrence of cancer to a large number of cancer survivals. Interestingly, no global pharma players are involved in this cancer prevention research, as yet. 
Aspirin was developed by Bayer way back in 1897 for pain and inflammation. Thereafter, the scientists found a ‘repurpose’ in its use as an anti-platelet drug for treating and preventing heart attacks and strokes.
Similarly, the anti-inflammatory drug Ibuprofen, which was developed by Boots in the 1960s for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, is now showing promises that it can help protect against Parkinson’s disease.
Again, a number of studies claim that statins, a cholesterol-reducing drug, can help prevent Alzheimer’s Disease, resulting in low levels of beta-amyloid. Further research needs to be done in this area, as this finding has not been universally accepted, just yet.
All such commendable initiatives, throw open a relevant question for debate: ‘Can the existing drugs be re-examined in a systematic manner to discover their other possible radically new usages at a much lesser treatment costs to patients?’
In my view, available data emphatically prompts the answer ‘Yes’ and I shall deliberate on on that in this article.
Repurposing’ older drugs:
The Oxford Dictionary meaning of ‘repurpose’ is: ‘Adapt for use in a different purpose.’
Accordingly, the process of discovering new usages of older drugs is often called by many scientists as ‘repurposing’.   
Currently, we come across various articles reporting a number of such new initiatives. This process is safer, much less expensive and takes much lesser time.
These laudable R&D initiatives needs encouragement from all stakeholders, especially from the Government. Given proper focus and attractive financial and other incentives, more and more players are expected to get attracted to a different genre of innovation. It is a whole new ball game of discovering new purposes of old and cheaper drugs with known and well-documented long term safety profile.
Some old drugs with ‘new purpose’: 
The following table gives an example of some well known older drugs, for which fresh R&D initiatives discovered their new purpose of treatment, at a much cheaper cost: 
DrugOld IndicationNew purpose
AmantadineInfluenzaParkinson’s Disease
AmphotericinAntifungalLeishmaniasis
AspirinInflammation, painAntiplatelet
BromocriptineParkinson’s diseaseDiabetes mellitus
BupropionDepressionSmoking cessation
ColchicineGoutRecurrent pericarditis
MethotrexateCancerPsoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis
(Source: Indian Journal of Applied Research, Volume: 4, Issue: 8, August 2014)  
A clarion call to join this movement:
The well-known researcher, Dr. Francis S. Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in a TED talk (video) strongly argued in favor of ‘translational research’ to produce better drugs, faster. To make this process to work successfully Francis Collins hopes to encourage global pharmaceutical companies to open up their stashes of drugs that have already passed safety tests, but that failed to successfully treat their targeted disease. 
He wants to study, how drugs approved for one disease could successfully treat another or more ailments and also gave examples of the following drugs, which I am quoting below, as such:
  • Raloxifene: The FDA approved Raloxifene to reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women in 2007. It was initially developed to treat osteoporosis.
    .
  • Thalidomide: This drug started out as a sedative in the late fifties, and soon doctors were infamously prescribing it to prevent nausea in pregnant women. It later caused thousands of severe birth defects, most notably phocomelia, which results in malformed arms and legs. In 1998, thalidomide found a new use as a treatment for leprosy and in 2006 it was approved for multiple myeloma, a bone marrow cancer.
    .
  • Tamoxifen: This hormone therapy treats metastatic breast cancers, or those that have spread to other parts of the body, in both women and men, and it was originally approved in 1977. Thirty years later, researchers discovered that it also helps people with bipolar disorder by blocking the enzyme PKC, which goes into overdrive during the manic phase of the disorder.
    .
  • Rapamycin: This antibiotic, also called sirolimus, was first discovered in bacteria-laced soil from Easter Island in the seventies, and the FDA approved it in 1999 to prevent organ transplant rejection. Since then, researchers have found it effective in treating not one but two diseases: Autoimmune Lymphoproliferative Syndrome (ALPS), in which the body produces too many immune cells called lymphocytes, and lymphangioleiomyomatosis, a rare lung disease.
    .
  • Lomitapide: Intended to lower cholesterol and triglycerides, the FDA approved this drug to treat a rare genetic disorder that causes severe cholesterol problems called homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia last December.
    .
  • Pentostatin: This drug was created as a chemotherapy for specific types of leukemia. It was tested first in T-cell-related leukemias, which didn’t respond to the drug. But later NIH’s National Cancer Institute discovered that the drug was successful in treating a rare leukemia that is B-cell related, called Hairy Cell Leukemia.
    .
  • Sodium nitrite: This salt was first developed as an antidote to cyanide poisoning and, unrelated to medicine, it’s also used to cure meat. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute is currently recruiting participants for a sodium nitrite clinical trial, in which the drug will be tested as a treatment for the chronic leg ulcers associated with sickle cell and other blood disorders.
  • Zidovudine (AZT): The first antiviral approved for HIV/AIDS in 1987.
  • Farnesyltransferase inhibitor (FTI): This was used to successfully treat children with the rapid-aging disease Progeria in a 2012 clinical trial.
“None of these drugs could have been developed without collaborations between drug developers and researchers with new ideas about applications, based on molecular insights about disease,” Dr. Collins said.
The examples that I have given, so far, on ‘repurposing’ older drugs are not exhaustive, in any way, there are more such examples coming up almost regularly.
The key benefits: 
The key benefits of ‘repurposing’ older drugs may be summarized as follows:
  • Ready availability of the starting compound
  • Previously generated relevant R&D data may be used for submission to drug regulators
  • Makes clinical research more time-efficient and cost-effective
  • Possibility of much quicker market launch
Slowly gaining steam: 
On November 27, 2012, ‘The Guardian’ reported that a number of university-based spin-outs and small biotech companies are being set up in the United States to find new purpose for old drugs. They express interest especially, on those drugs, which were shelved as they did not match the desired efficacy requirements, though showed a good overall safety profile.
Such organizations, take advantage of the declining cost of screening, with some compound libraries, such as, the Johns Hopkins library, which includes 3,500 drugs, available for screening at a small charge, the report highlighted.
Quoting a specialist, the report stated, “Existing drugs have been shown to be safe in patients, so if these drugs could be found to work for other diseases, then this would drastically reduce drug development costs and risks. Of 30,000 drugs in the world, 25,000 are ex-patent – it’s a free-for-all.”
‘Repurposing’ may not attract many pharma players, Government should step in:
Notwithstanding the clarion call of Dr. Francis Collins to global pharma players for their active participation in such projects, I reckon, the positive response may not be too many, because of various reasons.
Although, ‘repurposed’ drugs offer similar or even greater value to patients than any comparable ‘me-too’ New Chemical/Molecular Entity (NCE/NME), there may not possibly be any scope here for ‘Obscene Pricing’, such as ‘Sovaldi’ and many others, as some experts feel. And that’s the reality.
Moreover, new usages of the same old molecule, in all probability, may not get any fresh Intellectual Property (IP) protection in India, either.
Hence, considering the health interest of patients, in general, the Government should assume the role of ‘prime mover’, primarily to set the ball of ‘repurposing of older drugs’ rolling in India. This has already started happening in some of the developed countries of the world, which I shall dwell upon here.
Funding clinical development for ‘repurposing’:
Let me give a couple of examples of funding such admirable initiatives in two different countries.
I have already mentioned above that the clinical development for ‘repurposing’ Aspirin in the prevention of cancer, is being funded by the charity Cancer Research UK and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).
In a similar initiative, National Institutes for Health (NIH) of the United States, launched the ‘National Center for Advancing Transnational Sciences (NCATS), in May 2012.
New Therapeutic Uses program of NCATS helps to identify new uses for drugs that have undergone significant research and development by the pharma industry, including safety testing in humans. NIH claims that ‘using drugs that already have cleared several key steps in the development process gives scientists nationwide a strong starting point to contribute their unique expertise and accelerate the pace of therapeutics development.’
By pairing researchers with a selection of specific drugs, NCATS program tests ideas for new therapeutic uses, ultimately identifying promising new treatments for patients. Funding for this purpose is done by NCATS through NIH. For example, In July 2015, NCATS planned a funding of around US$3 million to support four academic research groups to test a selection of drugs for new therapeutic uses, as follows:
  • Type 2 diabetes
  • Glioblastoma (one of the most aggressive brain tumors in adults)
  • Acute myeloid leukemia (an aggressive blood cancer)
  • Chagas disease (a neglected tropical disease that causes heart, digestive and neurological problems)
According to NIH, each award recipient will test a selected drug for its effectiveness against a previously unexplored disease or condition. The industry partners for these projects are AstraZeneca and Sanofi.
Can it be done in India?
Of course yes, provided the Government considers health care as one its priority focus areas with commensurate resource deployment of all kinds for the same................
To read more, please click on this link

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Is Drug Price Control The Key Growth Barrier for Indian Pharma Industry?

Is Drug Price Control The Key Growth Barrier for Indian Pharma Industry?

The corollary of the above headline could well be: “Are drug price hikes the key growth driver for the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM)?”
Whenever the first question, as appears in the headline of this article: “Is drug price control a key barrier to growth of the IPM?”, is asked to the pharma players, irrespective of whether they are domestic companies or multinationals (MNCs), the answer in unison would quite expectedly be a full-throated ‘yes’. Various articles published in the media, including some editorials too, also seem to be on the same page, with this specific view. 
Likewise, if the corollary of the above question: “Are drug price hikes the key growth driver for the IPM?”, is put before this same target audience, most of them, if not all, would expectedly reply that ‘in the drug price control regime, this question does not arise at all, as IPM has been primarily a volume driven growth story.’ This answer gives a feel that the the entire or a major part of the IPM is under Government ‘price control’, which in fact is far from reality
Recently, a pharma industry association sponsored ‘Research Study’, conducted by an international market research organization also became quite vocal with similar conclusion on drug price control in India. This study, released on July 2015, categorically highlights ‘price control is neither an effective nor sustainable strategy for improving access to medicines for Indian patients’. The report also underscores: “The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.”
I argued on the fragility of the above report in this Blog on September 7, 2015, in an article titled, “Drug Price Control in India: A Fresh Advocacy With Blunt Edges”.
Nonetheless, in this article, going beyond the above study, I shall try to put across my own perspective on both the questions raised above, primarily based on the last 12 months retail data of well-respected AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd. 
Pharma product categories from ‘Price Control’ perspective:
To put this discussion in right perspective, following AIOCD-AWACS’ monthly pharma retail audit reports, I shall divide the pharma products in India into three broad categories, as follows:
  • Products included under Drug Price Control Order  2013 (DPCO 2013), which are featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) 
  • Products not featuring in NLEM 2011, but included in Price Control under Para 19 of DPCO 2013
  • Products outside the ambit of any drug price control and can be priced by the respective drug manufacturers, whatever they deem appropriate
The span of price controlled medicines would currently be around 18 percent of the IPM. Consequently, the drugs falling under free-pricing category would be the balance 82 percent of the total market. Hence, the maximum chunk of the IPM constitutes of those drugs for which there is virtually no price control existing in India.
According to the following table, since, at least the last one-year period, the common key growth driver for all category of drugs, irrespective of whether these are under ‘price control’ or ‘outside price control, is price increase in varying percentages: 
Value vs Volume Growth (October 2014 to September 2015):
MonthDPCO Product      Gr%Non-DPCO Products Gr%Non-NLEM Para 19 Gr%IPM
2015ValueVolumeValueVolumeValueVolumeValueVolume
September2.81.210.91.111.59.09.91.4
August3.3(2.7)14.52.415.213.713.01.6
July5.1(0.6)14.24.111.89.912.93.3
June5.6(0.1)16.26.214.611.714.85.0
May5.3(0.3)12.13.47.24.311.02.6
April11.15.318.49.611.99.617.28.7
March17.69.521.713.015.613.220.912.2
Feb13.97.620.010.114.49.918.99.6
Jan6.91.814.03.7NANA12.73.3
2014  
December8.00.714.83.2NANA13.62.7
November3.1(3.4)12.60.3NANA10.9(0.4)
October(2.4)(5.7)6.8(1.7)NANA5.2(2.6) 
Source: Monthly Retail Audit of AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd 
Does ‘free drug-pricing’ help improving consumption?
I would not reckon so, though the pharma industry association sponsored above study virtually suggests that ‘free pricing’ of drugs would help improve medicine consumption in India, leading to high volume growth.
As stated earlier, the above report of IMS Health highlights, “The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.”
On this finding, very humbly, I would raise a counter question. If only free pricing of drugs could help increasing volume growth through higher consumption, why would then the ‘price-controlled non-NLEM drugs under para 19’, as shown in the above table, have generally recorded higher volume growth than even those drugs, which are outside any ‘price control’? Or in other words, why is the consumption of these types of ‘price controlled’ drugs increasing so significantly, outstripping the same even for drugs with free pricing?
The right answers to these questions lie somewhere else, which I would touch upon now.
Are many NLEM 2011 drugs no longer in supply?
DPCO 2013 came into effect from from May 15, 2013. Much before that, NLEM 2011 was put in place with a promise that all the drugs featuring in that list would come under ‘price control’, as directed earlier by the Supreme Court of India.  Even at that time, it was widely reported by the media that most of the drugs featuring in the NLEM 2011 are either old or may not be in supply when DPCO 2013 would be made effective. The reports also explained its reasons. 
To give an example, a November 6, 2013 media report stated: “While the government is still in the process of fully implementing the new prices fixed for 348 essential medicines, it has realized that most of these are no longer in supply. This is because companies have already started manufacturing many of these drugs with either special delivery mechanism (an improved and fast acting version of the basic formulation) or in combination with other ingredients, circumventing price control.”
Just to give a feel of these changes, the current NLEM 2011 does not cover many Fixed-Dose Combinations (FDC) of drugs. This is important, as close to 60 percent of the total IPM constitutes of FDCs. Currently, FDCs of lots of drugs for tuberculosis, diabetes and hypertension and many other chronic and acute disease conditions, which are not featuring in the NLEM 201, are very frequently being prescribed in the country. Thus, the decision of keeping most of the popular FDCs outside the ambit of NLEM 2011 is rather strange.
Moreover, a 500 mg paracetamol tablet is under price control being in the NLEM 2011, but its 650 mg strength is not. There are many such examples.
These glaring loopholes in the NLEM 2011 pave the way for switching over to non-NLEM formulations of the same molecules, evading DPCO 2013. Many experts articulated, this process began just after the announcement of NLEM 2011 and a lot of ground was covered in this direction before DPCO 2013 was made effective.
Intense sales promotion and marketing of the same molecule/molecules in different Avatars, in a planned manner, have already started making NLEM 2011 much less effective than what was contemplated earlier. 
Some examples:
As I said before, there would be umpteen number of instances of pharmaceutical companies planning to dodge the DPCO 2013 well in advance, commencing immediately after NLEM 2011 was announced. Nevertheless, I would give the following two examples as was reported by media, quoting FDA, Maharashtra:
1. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare having launched its new ‘Crocin Advance’ 500 mg with a higher price of Rs 30 for a strip of 15 tablets, planned to gradually withdraw its conventional price controlled Crocin 500 mg brand costing around Rs 14 for a strip of 15 tablets to patients. GSK Consumer Healthcare claimed that Crocin Advance is a new drug and therefore should be outside price control.
According to IMS Health data, ‘Crocin Advance’ achieved the fifth largest brand status among top Paracetamol branded generics, clocking a sales turnover of Rs 10.3 Crore during the last 12 months from its launch ending in February 2014. The issue was reportedly resolved at a later date with assertive intervention of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).
2. Some pharmaceutical companies reportedly started selling the anti-lipid drug Atorvastatin in dosage forms of 20 mg and 40 mg, which are outside price control, instead of its price controlled 10 mg dosage form.
Why DPCO 2013 drugs showing low volume growth?
From the above examples, if I put two and two together, the reason for DPCO 2013 drugs showing low volume growth becomes much clearer.
Such alleged manipulations are grossly illegal, as specified in the DPCO 2013 itself. Thus, resorting to illegal acts of making similar drugs available to patients at a much higher price by tweaking formulations, should just not attract specified punitive measures, but may also be construed as acting against health interest of Indian patients…findings of the above ‘research report’, notwithstanding, even if it is accepted on its face value.
In my view, because of such alleged manipulations, and many NLEM 2011 drugs being either old or not in supply, we find in the above table that the volume growth of ‘Price Controlled NLEM drugs’ is much less than ‘Price Controlled non-NLEM Para 19’ drugs. Interestingly, even ‘Out of Price Control’ drugs show lesser volume growth than ‘Price Controlled non-NLEM Para 19 drugs’.
Government decides to revise NLEM 2011:
The wave of general concerns expressed on the relevance of NLEM 2011 reached the law makers of the country too. Questions were also asked in the Parliament on this subject.
Driven by the stark reality and the hard facts, the Union Government decided to revise NLEM 2011. 
For this purpose, a ‘Core Committee of Experts’ under the Chairmanship of Dr. V.M Katoch, Secretary, Department of Health Research & Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), was formed in May 2014.
The minutes of the first and second meetings of the ‘Core Committee of Experts’, held on June 24, 2014 and July 2, 2014, respectively, were also made public. 
On May 5, 2015, the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers Ananth Kumar said in a written reply to the ‘Lok Sabha’ that “The revised NLEM would form the basis of number of medicines which would come under price control.” This revision is taking place in the context of contemporary knowledge of use of therapeutic products, the Minister added.
Would pharma sector grow faster sans ‘price control’?
If ‘drug price control’ is abolished in India, would pharma companies grow at a much faster rate in volume with commensurate increase in consumption, than what they have recorded during ‘limited price control’ regime in the country? This, in my view, is a matter of conjecture and could be a subject of wide speculation. I am saying this primarily due to the fact that India has emerged as one of the fastest growing global pharmaceutical market during uninterrupted ‘drug price control regime’ spanning over the last 45 years.
Nevertheless, going by the retail audit data from the above table, it may not be necessarily so. The data shows that volume growth of ‘out of price control’ drugs is not the highest, by any measure. On the contrary, it is much less than ‘price controlled drugs under para 19 of DPCO 2013′, which are mainly prescribed for non-infectious chronic diseases on a large scale.
I am referring to AIOCD-AWACS data for just the last 12 months, because of space constraint, but have gone through the same for the entire DPCO 2015 period, till September’15. The reason for my zeroing in on DPCO 2015 is for the three simple reasons:
- The span of price control in this regime is the least, even lesser than DPCO 1995, which was 20 percent. 
- It is much more liberal in its methodology of ‘Ceiling Price (CP)’ calculation, over any other previous DPCOs
- It has also a provision, for the first time ever, of automatic price increases every year for price controlled drugs, based on WPI.
A safeguard for patients?
Medicines enjoy the legal status of ‘essential commodities’ in India. Thus, many believe that ‘drug price control’ is a ‘pricing safeguard’ for Indian patients, especially for essential medicines and ‘out of expenses’ for drugs being as high as over 60 percent.
In the prevailing health care environment of India, the situation otherwise could even be possibly nightmarish. The key reason for the same has been attributed to ‘market failure’ by the Government, for most of the pharmaceutical products, where competition does not work. I discussed this issue in my article titled, “Does ‘Free-Market Economy’ Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?” of April 27, 2015, in this Blog.
In India, ‘drug price control’ has successfully passed the intense scrutiny of the Supreme Court, along with its endorsement and approval. Any attempt of its retraction by any Government, without facing a tough challenge before the Apex Court, seems near impossible..............
To read more, please click on this link