Jurisprudence

Cancer cure drugs now more affordable

Submitted by Ritesh Raj Sarraf on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 15:32

Now these are the kind of moves that needs to happen more often. Whether this will cause a negative impact on the overall market, and the further invention of drugs (including patent control), but the affordability of the medicatoin to an average citizen is a great move.

The typical Chemotherapy can be on an average of 22 times. When summed up with the dosage (somewhere around 250 mg IIRC), the cost comes to approx: (22/4) * 15000 = 82k, which now, will be affordable at 27k.

I guess the price slash is only for India and am not sure what the impact to the global market will look like.

Quoting the article:

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/cipla-drug-price-cut-not-to-hurt-revenue-much-say-analysts_700380.html

Cipla cut price of its kidney cancer drug Sorafenib, which is sold under brand name Nexavar by multi-national Bayer to Rs 6,840 for a month's supply, from around Rs 28,000 earlier. Its lung cancer drug Gestinib, which is sold under brand name Iressa by AstraZeneca will cost Rs 4,250, versus Rs 10,200 earlier, and price of Temozolamide used to treat brain tumour, has been reduced by Rs 15,000 to Rs 5,000.
India's Patent Office recently issued a compulsory licence allowing Natco to make a generic copy of Sorafenib, on the payment of a royalty to Bayer, which sells the drug at around Rs 2 lakh.
Domestic sales account for 46-47% of Cipla's total sales and of that the cancer drugs portfolio is a very small portion, so these price cuts are unlikely to have any major impact on its revenue, Hitesh Mahida of Fortune Equity Brokers told moneycontrol.com
"Cipla's idea seems to be to create disruption in the market, increase its market share..." the analyst says.
Swiss pharma major Roche had earlier this year signed a manufacturing deal with India's Emcure Pharma so that its anti-cancer drugs Herceptin and MabThera could be made in India at affordable prices. Analysts say Cipla's move to slash prices could in future deter some MNCs from launching their drugs in India at all, but some may also look at doing deals like the one struck by Roche.
Meanwhile, shares of pharma major Cipla surged over 3% on Friday after brokerage CLSA upgraded the stock to "outperform" from "underperform," saying, Cipla would be strongest beneficiaries of a weakening rupee.
The rupee has been sliding sharply against the US dollar in recent days and hit over four month low of around Rs 53.78 earlier in trade.
"We expect improving margins over the coming quarters on back of a weak rupee and a low base. We expect strong operating profit growth over coming quarters led by margin expansion and high margin product supplies," CLSA's Hemant Bakhru said.
The US Food and Drugs Administration has approved Meda's drug Dymista for allergic rhinitis and the product is widely expected to reach USD 300-500 million in annual sales over the coming years. The analyst says Cipla being a partner, will benefit through product supplies over a longer term.
"Apart from approval (outside North America) related milestone payment (US$5m), we expect gradual increase in Cipla’s sales from product related supplies to Meda. Assuming Cipla supplies product at 10-15% of sales, it could earn US$50-75m at peak sales," Bakhru said.
Additionally, a low base in domestic formulations could result in reasonable India growth, he adds.
Cipla shares were up 2.8% at Rs 326.60 on NSE in noon trade.

Categories:

Keywords:

Patents and the Pharmacy Industry

Submitted by Ritesh Raj Sarraf on Sat, 02/26/2011 - 05:49

Mosf of us would be well versed with the Patent system in general. We have patents in every sector - Technology, Agriculture, Pharmacy etc. Most readers in our profession must already be well versed of the Pros/Cons of the Patent system in Software/Technology. Patents in software are more like ammunition. The more you have, the stronger you are. We don't seem much cat fight in Software/Technology because not one organization own all the patents for a product. An IBM ThinkPad might be using a cool track pad feature which might be a patent of Dell. Since the finished product comprises of many patents from different owners in the same industry, it is better to play good with each other. You scratch my back, I scratch yours.

But what about the Pharmaceutical Industry? There, one single patent could comprise the product. I was reading this document from Bruce Lehman which touches upon Patents and Pharmaceutical Industries, but couldn't find an answer to my question.

Say, Glaxo spends a billion in research and comes up with an invention. They patent the idea and market the product. Given that the medical "products" are of a special kind they need to be disclosed. To quote from the linked document:

The pharmaceutical industry has an important characteristic that sets it apart from other
industries that rely on patent protection. In many technology-based industries it is
possible to keep inventions a secret until the moment they are marketed. This enables
inventors to delay patent filings until the last possible moment and, therefore, to
maximize the effect of the 20 year patent term which runs from filing of the patent
application. The culture of medical research, however, emphasizes very early disclosure
of inventions, usually long before a resulting product can be placed on the market. This is
because scientists working in the field of human pathology have an obligation to share
their findings as soon as possible with their peers so that those peers will be able to
benefit from the new knowledge in their own research. And, unlike industries such as
computers and software, the pharmaceutical industry is heavily regulated by government
agencies to assure the safety and efficacy of products which will be sold to consumers. In
the United States the Food and Drug Administration performs this function. Much of the
investment in new drugs is in the clinical trials which are necessary to satisfy safety and
efficacy regulators. The tolerance for a “buyer beware” philosophy in the pharmaceutical
industry is extremely low compared to other industries.

The challenge is, Glaxo spends a billion in discovering a solution. Glaxo would want to make returns out of its investment in the product. The reality is, Glaxo launches the product at price N. Pharmaceutical companies in developing counties, like India, manufacture an equivalent product at price N/10. And that product also gets US FDA approved, which would imply that it is perfectly legal to sell the very same product.

So how does the patent system work in this scenario? How would the system ensure that the inventor gets the returns on the investment made in the research? Or, in other ways, what good is it to acquire a patent for a medical enhancement?

Categories:

Debian-Blog

Jurisprudence

Keywords:

patents

intellectual property

pharmacy

pharmaceutical industry

RHUT