A Dearth of Innovation for Key Drugs (re: abx. NYT)

[wawa]

www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/business/a-dearth-of-investment-in-much-needed-drugs.html?emc=edit_th_20140723&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=36291146

This just makes me say, "right, ok.  So isn't this why we need robust gov't funded research?"  Is that just not going to be enough?  Not enough different teams working on the same thing?  epphd ?  Who else knows the nitty gritty of this stuff?

There is clearly something wrong with pharmaceutical innovation.

Antibiotic-resistant infections sicken more than two million Americans every year and kill at least 23,000. The World Health Organization has warned that a “post-antibiotic era” may be upon us, when “common infections and minor injuries can kill.” Even the world’s tycoons consider the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria one of the crucial global risks of our times, according to a survey by the World Economic Forum.

Yet the enthusiasm of the pharmaceutical industry for developing drugs to combat such a potential disaster might be best characterized as a big collective “meh.”
(totally unrelated wawa note:  I'm both appalled and amused by the use of "meh" in a NYT article.)

No major new type of antibiotic has been developed since the late 1980s, according to the W.H.O. From 2011 to 2013, the Food and Drug Administration approved o nly three new molecular entities to combat bacterial diseases — the lowest rate since the 1940s. “No sane company will develop the next antibiotic,” said Michael S. Kinch, who led a team at the Yale Center for Molecular Discovery tracking the evolution of pharmaceutical innovation over the last two centuries.
Continue reading the main story

And this is hardly the drug industry’s only problem. Antibiotics, Professor Kinch told me, “are the canary in the coal mine.”

This is particularly striking at a time when the pharmaceutical industry is unusually optimistic about the future of medical innovation. Dr. Mikael Dolsten, who oversees worldwide research and development at Pfizer, points out that if progress in the 15 years until 2010 or so looked sluggish, it was just because it takes time to figure out how to turn breakthroughs like the map of the human genome into new drugs. The pipeline today, which includes tailored treatments for cancer, newfangled vaccines and therapies for tough diseases like hepatitis C, is robust.

So far this decade, the F.D.A. has approved drugs at a pace second only to the 1990s. In 2012, the FDA approved 37 new drugs, the most in 15 years.

But the economics of the drug development, argues Professor Kinch, who in July was appointed associate vice chancellor of the University of Washington in St. Louis, are not conducive to creating the highest levels of public health.



More and more antibiotics are going out of circulation every year — either because of bacteria have become resistant to them or because they have been replaced by better or less toxic drugs. The pharmaceutical arsenal against bacterial infections shrank to only 96 different molecules by the end of last year, 17 fewer than at the turn of the century.

Nevertheless, many of the big drug companies that produced the antibiotic breakthroughs of the past have decided to drop this line of research. And few new entrants are jumping in.

“It has become very difficult to find new drug classes to fight infections,” Dr. Dolsten of Pfizer acknowledged. “There haven’t been enough incentives for the industry to take on 10 or 15 years of research.”

Antibiotics face a daunting proposition. They are not only becoming more difficult to develop, but they are also not obviously profitable. Unlike, say, cancer drugs, which can be spectacularly expensive and may need to be taken for life, antibiotics do not command top dollar from hospitals. What’s more, they tend to be prescribed for only short periods of time.

Continue reading the main story

Importantly, any new breakthrough antibiotic is likely to be jealously guarded by doctors and health officials for as long as possible, and used only as a drug of last resort to prevent bacteria from developing resistance. By the time it became a mass-market drug, companies fear, it could be already off patent and subject to competition from generics that would drive its price down.

Antibiotics are not the only drugs getting the cold shoulder, however. Research on treatments to combat H.I.V./AIDS is also drying up, according to the research at Yale, mostly because the cost and time required for development are increasing. Research into new cardiovascular therapies has mostly stuck to less risky “me too” drugs.

Neuropsychiatric diseases, including Alzheimer’s and depression, are the leading cause of disability across most of the industrial world. And they are going to get worse. Yet researchers have underscored a dearth of investment into these diseases.

Instead, pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms are betting on personalized therapies — mostly targeting specific varieties of cancers — and drugs for so-called orphan diseases, which affect very small populations. “More people are studying orphan diseases than have orphan diseases,” Professor Kinch said jokingly. Of the new drugs that the F.D.A. approved in 2013, about 70 percent were specialty drugs — which are used by less than 1 percent of the population, according to the drug benefits manager Express Scripts.

The problem, of course, lies in the industry’s incentives. The cost of developing a new drug has skyrocketed over the last three decades. A research paper by scientists from Eli Lilly suggested that in 2010, it cost $1.8 billion to bring a big new drug from conception to rollout, through the costly gantlet of clinical trials needed to prove that it is both safe and more effective than existing therapies.

Developing orphan drugs is cheaper. They receive expedited approval from the F.D.A. Clinical trials are inherently less expensive because the drugs are aimed at a small population. And insurance companies are willing to pay $100,000 a year for a drug that few patients will use.

“Companies are flocking to rare diseases,” said John LaMattina, a former head of research at Pfizer who now writes a blog about pharmaceutical research. “They might only make $500 million in sales a year, but their costs are much lower.”

Similar considerations have pushed pharmaceutical companies into newfangled biological drugs at the expense of old-fashioned compounds. Standard brand-name drugs lose 80 percent of the market within a year of patent expiration. Biologicals face much less generic competition, protected both by regulation and the fact that it is tough to determine the equivalency of different biological agents.

The wave of protests over the $84,000 cost per course of Gilead’s blockbuster new drug to treat hepatitis C, Sovaldi, highlights the kind of strain that can be caused when mass market therapies are priced like niche specialty drugs.

Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

“I’ve seen nothing as potentially harmful as the exorbitant pricing displayed by Gilead,” wrote Dr. Steve Miller, the chief medical officer of Express Scripts. Regardless of whether that is worth it for the individual patient or society at large — which it probably is — the price could bankrupt Medicaid budgets around the country.

Can drug makers’ incentives be fixed? Some argue that the patent system governing drug innovation is not up to the task, and suggest handing over most drug research and development to the National Institutes of Health, which already spend tens of billions on basic research.

Tweaking the existing system might be a more feasible proposition, however. Research on new antibiotics could be encouraged by allowing shorter clinical trials for the promising molecules or guaranteeing minimum returns for groundbreaking drugs.

Patricia Danzon of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania suggests recalibrating the regulatory burden to favor research in drugs with a broader potential footprint. “The decks have been stacked in favor of orphan drugs,” she said.

At the same time, new mechanisms are needed to constrain prices.

The National Health Service in Britain may have a bad reputation in the United States, but Americans could benefit from something like the country’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which determines what therapies will be covered, based on their efficacy and their price.

“There’s a myth in the United States that market forces are working to control prices,” Professor Danzon said. It’s clear that they aren’t. But the market isn’t delivering the innovation we need, either.

[IIOY]

If you want to be terrified, read Rising Plague by Brad Spellberg.

[dirtyred]

This  shouldn't be a surprise. Ninety percent of R&D costs go to drugs that never reach the market. People sue now over known side effects; that is less likely to happen with drugs for orphan diseases. Although my friend at Pfizer who is working on an orphan disease is not having that project go well, so many orphan diseases may still not benefit from this trend.

I saw an intetesting program about new antibiotics (Ted talk maybe) a couple of years ago where a researcher discovered that bacteria "talk" to each other, which might explain why some people can have their bloodstream crawling with bacteria but not develop sepsis while others get a tiny exposure and the get an overwhelming infection. If that communucation can be disrupted, infections may not occur.

[wawa]

Jul 23, 2014 7:57:54 GMT -5 dirtyred said:

This  shouldn't be a surprise. Ninety percent of R&D costs go to drugs that never reach the market. People sue now over known side effects; that is less likely to happen with drugs for orphan diseases. Although my friend at Pfizer who is working on an orphan disease is not having that project go well, so many orphan diseases may still not benefit from this trend.

I saw an intetesting program about new antibiotics (Ted talk maybe) a couple of years ago where a researcher discovered that bacteria "talk" to each other, which might explain why some people can have their bloodstream crawling with bacteria but not develop sepsis while others get a tiny exposure and the get an overwhelming infection. If that communucation can be disrupted, infections may not occur.

I don't think it is a surprise at all.  I am curious how those in the industry think it can be addressed though.

[wrathofkuus]

While there is a stifling of innovation for various reasons that I frequently talk about, bacterial infections aren't as dire as this sounds. No, antibiotics aren't going to be useful, but we still have phage.

[debatethis]

I can't read these posts without wanting to kick things. DH is on Olysio and Sovaldi right now. His total course of treatment (12 weeks) will be $180,000. Disgusting.

[wrathofkuus]

Okay, imma say more. A large part of the problem is what research money funds. Everyone wants new drugs, new treatments, new biomedical everything, and no one cares about basic science that has no immediate human application. But if you stop doing basic science, and I mean a LOT of basic science, you can't progress biomedically because at some point (right now), you're just doing minor tinkering with things we already know.

[IIOY]

Jul 23, 2014 10:08:16 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Bill and Melinda Gates, where are you?

I have more hope they will step in than our government.

They are busy changing how we teach math. Sorry.

[Velar Fricative]

Jul 23, 2014 9:13:37 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Okay, imma say more. A large part of the problem is what research money funds. Everyone wants new drugs, new treatments, new biomedical everything, and no one cares about basic science that has no immediate human application. But if you stop doing basic science, and I mean a LOT of basic science, you can't progress biomedically because at some point (right now), you're just doing minor tinkering with things we already know.

Can you elaborate because I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean by basic science.

[anonymous]

Jul 23, 2014 9:37:47 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

wawa to answer your question at the top, yes, I think the answer is enormous government involvement. This is why the whole movement to privatize research at universities is so horrifying (see, Mitch Daniels at Purdue). If universities switched to a profit incentive for drug creation, that would be devastating. I see how much we have budgeted to medicare and our national defense and I don't understand why specifically research on new abx isn't part of that. With all the bionic oldz, infection,is really the last thing besides renal failure that is killing them, and infection control is clearly a national security issue. But I don't see much focus on that. Or maybe it's classified either because we've reached a wall in research and development they've can't break through or we have broken through it and want to be the only ones who have... But it seems more likely we're just wishing phizer would stop making boner pills despite their having no incentive to stop.

IIRC, FDASIA-the food and drug administration safety and innovation act has a title dealing with antibacterials.  I will go look...

Yes.  Title VIII of FDASIA.  It has a few things in it including DHHS required to develop a list of human pathogens which could be treated by antibiotics or antifungals and there is to be priority review for those products and longer exclusivity (7 years longer than normal)

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s3187enr/pdf/BILLS-112s3187enr.pdf 

[Deleted]

I'm torn, on one hand, I'm all about orphan/rare disease research since DH has one and we're running out of treatment options (as in we may have to think about going to Switzerland for treatment if his current one doesn't work).

On the other hand, I was in the ER on Monday for a nasty case of celluitis in my foot from a bee sting. Thankfully it's responding to antibiotics. And I know far too many people who have been affected by resistant bacterial strains.

[Velar Fricative]

Jul 23, 2014 10:32:29 GMT -5 @ameliapond said:

I'm torn, on one hand, I'm all about orphan/rare disease research since DH has one and we're running out of treatment options (as in we may have to think about going to Switzerland for treatment if his current one doesn't work).

On the other hand, I was in the ER on Monday for a nasty case of celluitis in my foot from a bee sting. Thankfully it's responding to antibiotics. And I know far too many people who have been affected by resistant bacterial strains.

I really hope his current treatment works.

[MWOS]

Jul 23, 2014 10:16:51 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Jul 23, 2014 9:13:37 GMT -5 wrathofkuus said:

Okay, imma say more. A large part of the problem is what research money funds. Everyone wants new drugs, new treatments, new biomedical everything, and no one cares about basic science that has no immediate human application. But if you stop doing basic science, and I mean a LOT of basic science, you can't progress biomedically because at some point (right now), you're just doing minor tinkering with things we already know.

Can you elaborate because I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean by basic science.

Basic science is research that you do without a product end goal. So if you want to determine how nicotinic acetylcholine receptor controls the rate at which cations enter the cell through the receptor’s transmembrane pore, that's basic science. They aren't trying to make a drug that will do something for someone, they're just trying to figure out how in the hell the cation rate is being controlled.

[Velar Fricative]

Jul 23, 2014 10:47:02 GMT -5 MWOS said:

Jul 23, 2014 10:16:51 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Can you elaborate because I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean by basic science.

Basic science is research that you do without a product end goal. So if you want to determine how nicotinic acetylcholine receptor controls the rate at which cations enter the cell through the receptor’s transmembrane pore, that's basic science. They aren't trying to make a drug that will do something for someone, they're just trying to figure out how in the hell the cation rate is being controlled.

Understood, thank you.

[Deleted]

Jul 23, 2014 10:42:29 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Jul 23, 2014 10:32:29 GMT -5 @ameliapond said:

I'm torn, on one hand, I'm all about orphan/rare disease research since DH has one and we're running out of treatment options (as in we may have to think about going to Switzerland for treatment if his current one doesn't work).

On the other hand, I was in the ER on Monday for a nasty case of celluitis in my foot from a bee sting. Thankfully it's responding to antibiotics. And I know far too many people who have been affected by resistant bacterial strains.

I really hope his current treatment works.

Big scan Friday, so fingers crossed!  He's doing a hormone therapy (Sandostatin) to hopefully keep his bone/gastro/whatever else mets stable combined with multiple in-patient embolization procedures for his liver mets right now.  

I really want the Sando to work, because it has no side effects for him. If it isn't he'll have to do another chemo, which will totally suck. 

[epphd]

Just seeing this. I think the problem is that no one wants to make the tough choices because "innovation good, death panels bad!" Federal dollars and labs should be encouraged to do this sort of work. Federal dollars should FUND translational research and clinical trials more extensively. Our patent system needs to be examined because a for profit company will... duh... only engage in activities to make them the most money the most exclusively. And medicare. OH MEDICARE. Get your damn head examined. The fact that we do not take cost into consideration when adding drugs to the formulary is so colossally stupid that I think most people would not even believe it if they knew it. Why is this not changing - I feel like it would be a mostly bipartisan issue. I'm looking at provenge as an example - while an additional moment of life is a blessing, a drug that extends life for a few weeks to maybe a couple of months and costs $200K should NOT be paid for by taxpayers.

[ttt]

I was recently prescribed a course of levofloxacin for my pneumonia. I understand this is a pretty powerful antibiotic. What was scary was that it didn't work. Fortunately, the next course of a different antibiotic did work, but we as a culture I think are so used to "well, I'll just take an antibiotic and everything will be fine" that it's sobering when it doesn't actually happen that way.

[laurenpetro]

Jul 23, 2014 7:45:01 GMT -5 IIOY said:

If you want to be terrified ever sleep again, don't read Rising Plague by Brad Spellberg.

fixed that for the rest of us.

[msmerymac]

See, this is the response when people say we have the best medical care in the world. Only if its profitable. Hence why the government needs to compel pharma to make vaccines.