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

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

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..........

To read more, please click on this link

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

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

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) reportedlytold 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....................

To read more, please click on this