Posts Tagged ‘drug policy’
By: Shakira M. Nelson, PhD, MPH
For many, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was a point of great debate during the 2016 Presidential primaries and election. As a simplified explanation, the TPP is a free-trade agreement involving the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam, intended to “level the trading playing field” through the elimination of tariffs and other laws that create trade barriers. In its final form, the TPP would impact up to one-third of world trade and 40% of the global gross domestic product. Many who debated the ramifications of the TPP did so in the context of foreign policy interests. Although aligned with foreign policy, a major part of the TPP deals with intellectual property protection, and pharmaceutical drug development. If implemented, the effects of the TPP could greatly diminish public access to affordable medicines, both domestically and internationally. Moreover, the stronghold the TPP places on intellectual property could limit the development and marketing of less expensive options.
Intellectual property can be divided into two categories: industrial property and copyright. Patents, trademarks, and industrial design fall under industrial property. Patent development is a large part of scientists’ work, seen as almost a necessity to incentivizing innovation. Many argue that, without the ability to patent inventions and significant findings, scientists would not be able to generate profits used to sustain research and development; within the pharmaceutical industry, patents are the proverbial bread-and-butter. When in place, patents create a stronghold around the release of new chemical drugs, which prevents competition by generic brands. The standard length of time of a patent for a chemical drug is 20 years, which starts from the time the drug is invented.
Many new medicines under development today fall under the category of ‘biologics’. As the name suggests, biologics are treatments made from biological sources, and are very different from chemical drugs. Created to treat a multitude of diseases, including Ebola and cancer, biological sources include vaccines, anti-toxins, proteins, and monoclonal antibodies. Given their structural complexity compared to traditional drugs, and use of recombinant DNA technology, biologics are more difficult, and costlier to make. Moreover, manufacturers have a greater burden in ensuring product consistency, quality, and purity over time. This is done through certifying that the manufacturing process remains the same over time. Because of this, it is estimated that the price to manufacture biologics cost on average more than 22 times the price of chemical drugs. Current laws state that generic biologic development, known as biosimilars, cannot be approved until 12 years after the branded product has been approved – this is known as an exclusivity period. This was enacted under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA).
The challenge with current policies is establishing a period-of-time that balances the need for companies to generate profits and cash flows, which will incentive them to conduct more research and compensate them for the extensive manufacturing processes, with the need to provide greater access through launching generic drugs and biosimilars. The trouble with the proposed policies of the TPP agreement is that they seem to embolden the pharmaceutical companies by introducing changes that would prevent competition from generics and biosimilars for longer periods of time than the current basic terms. The implications of this are far-reaching, as it may lead to a significant increase in the current costs of pharmaceutical drugs and biologics, hindering the health of the patients who rely upon these treatments.
Critics of the current system of patent length and biologic exclusivity periods fear that rather than incentivizing innovation, companies are being rewarded through their ability to charge higher amounts for drugs without the fear of competition on the market. Health policy experts concur, identifying policies such as the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 in allowing for the creation of drug monopolies, and “going too far in compensating the pharmaceutical industry at the public’s expense”. A report released in 2009 by the Federal Trade Commission stated that biosimilar development was more difficult to achieve than traditional generic drugs. For example, development requires comparisons to the original biologic, to prove efficacy and equivalence. Biosimilars must share the same mechanism of action, with no clinically significant differences in terms of safety or potency for the approved condition of use. The steps necessary to achieve this are significant, and therefore imposing a 12-year exclusivity period on biologics may be unnecessary. US Congressmen have pushed to compromise, floating an amendment to the TPP that would lower the exclusivity period to 8 years. However, critics and patients who rely upon drug competition to lower market prices, have protested this amendment stating that costs of new drugs and biologics are too high, and 8 years is too long of a length of time to wait for affordable generics and biosimilars to come on to the market.
The impact of decreasing the length of time it takes for biosimilars to come onto the market can be seen with Neupogen, a leukemia drug that was first approved by the FDA in 1991. Delivered via injection, Neupogen costs patients $3,000 for 10 injections. With injections needed daily, this drug could carry a price tag of well over $100,000 per year. It wasn’t until recently, however, that the first biosimilar was approved on the US market. The biosimilar, Zarxio, was approved as a leukemia drug and is priced at more than $1000 less than Neupogen. This pricing has the potential to decrease the yearly costs of this drug from $100,000 with Neupogen to $55,000-$75,000. Further evidence of these financial savings was provided by the Rand Corporation, which predicted a savings of over $44 billion over 10 years with an increased approval of biosimilars, for patients who rely upon these specific cancer treatments.
Internationally, the policies of the TPP also have far reaching effects on the availability and costs of pharmaceuticals. The 12-year exclusivity period would be imposed upon the other countries involved in the TPP, where currently for some, such as Brunei, there is no current exclusivity protection. By imposing the 12-year period, global competition could become restricted. Additionally, the TPP proposes other key patent protections that play a bigger role on the international market. One protection, known as evergreening, allows drug companies to request patent extensions for new uses of old drugs. The immediate effect of this is an extension of monopolies on drug sales for minor reasons. The second protection allows pharmaceutical companies to request patent extensions if it takes “more than 5 years for an application to be granted or rejected.” Advocacy groups fear that the price of drugs would undermine the efforts of health initiatives, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. These initiatives rely upon price competition to manage costs, with the availability of cheap generics helping drive costs down.
Although the current administration has ended the USA’s association with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it is important to note that other countries may try to implement some of the policies, affecting the availability and affordability of drug treatments. To decrease this burden, the US could work to assist in negotiating exceptions for the poorer and smaller countries, to help them meet any challenges they may come up against. Within the US itself, it is important for policies, laws and any future trade agreements to be modified, with more of a focus on the affordability and regulation of drugs and biologics. Imposing price controls may offer a modest benefit, but may not be a long-term solution. A focus on lowering the patent length for new drugs and biologics can be an immediate step. Although the push back from pharmaceutical lobbyists will be substantial, alleviating the financial burden on families afflicted with cancer and diseases should be the focus.
Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!
By: Kseniya Golovnina, PhD
On November 8th 2016, nine states voted on legalizing recreational and medical marijuana (Cannabis L.). All US presidential candidates supported relaxing current restrictions on marijuana use. Since 2011, more than 50% of Americans consistently show positive attitudes towards legalizing marijuana. It is estimated that marijuana industry tax revenues for federal, state and local governments could total up to $28 billion. In addition to tax revenues, the non-profit advocacy group the Drug Policy Alliance highlights that marijuana legalization will reduce harm to young people and people of color, create new jobs, save money on law enforcement, and promote development of tests for drug impairment.
One of the challenges in marijuana regulation is how it is generally perceived—either as a drug or as a harmless recreation. On the one hand, it is a central component of the long standing ‘war on drugs’ that is a primary part of US law enforcement. According to the legal system, marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I substance under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, along with heroin. On the other, prominent thinkers argue that it is a drug of choice, without a known lethal case, which helps produce serenity and insight, and should be regulated as alcohol and tobacco. Recent policy shifts will strike a new balance between these views.
While prohibited at the Federal level, marijuana decriminalization laws have been passed in several states by lawmakers, and often through public ballot measures. In 25 states, Cannabis is legal for medical use and in 5 states, for recreational use. Out of the 9 states that voted on Nov 8, only Arizona hasn’t supported marijuana initiatives. In 2013, the Obama administration clarified Federal marijuana enforcement to deemphasize some criminal behavior, and remain in harmony with new and evolving state laws. The US Congress is acting as well, with a petition introduced (the CARERS Act) intended to remove conflicts between state and federal laws.
Marijuana in science
Shown clearly by these recent political trends, the public attitude has been shifting rapidly, and legalization appears to be only an issue of time. From a scientific point of view, legalization of Cannabis will open the door for robust federally approved research on marijuana’s therapeutic value. The reasonable scientific question now is whether and to what degree Cannabis can be a real new frontier of therapeutics?
Marijuana chemical science started from the identification of THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) as the main active ingredient. Today, more than 460 chemicals are known to be Cannabis ingredients, more than 60 of which are grouped under the name cannabinoids. In the early 1990s, cannabinoid (CB) receptors were discovered and cloned. Cannabinoids, along with their receptors, make up the endocannabinoid (EC) system, which participates in the regulation of neurotransmission. Surprisingly, a number of chocolate-derived chemicals can activate the human cannabinoid system, both directly and indirectly, suggesting that chocolate and marijuana can have overlapping effects. The identification of natural agonists anandamide and 2-arachidonylglycerol, which also act on CB receptors, has stimulated interest in the medical uses of Cannabis. On PubMed the number of publications with the term “cannabis” has increased from 71 in 1990 to 1195 in 2016, revealing both the unexpected Cannabis therapeutic horizons and warnings about its effect on adolescent brain.
A 2003 review on cannabinoids as potential anticancer agents reported, “cannabinoids have favorable drug-safety profiles and do not produce the generalized toxic effects of conventional chemotherapies.” Thirteen years later in 2016, cancer therapy using cannabinoids is still paradoxical but evident. In 2006, based on the analysis of 72 controlled studies evaluating the therapeutic effects of cannabinoids, it was shown that “cannabinoids present an interesting therapeutic potential as antiemetics, appetite stimulants in debilitating diseases (cancer and AIDS), analgesics, and in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, Tourette’s syndrome, epilepsy and glaucoma”. A potential antipsychotic effect of cannabidiol was also reported in 2012. At the 2015 AAAS Annual Meeting, researcher Mark Ware from McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, Canada, reported, “it’s clear that the weight of evidence now is such that cannabinoids are analgesic drugs,” while also emphasized that more studies are needed to understand the best dosing and delivery methods for medical use.
A search on the website ClinicalTrials.gov, maintained by the National Institutes of Health shows 557 clinical trials with ‘known status’ for the term “cannabis” as of October 26, 2016. More than one hundred of them are open now. Topics for these studies relate to Cannabis abuse as well as new treatments for a variety of medical conditions such as schizophrenia, cancer, autoimmune diseases, epilepsy, musculoskeletal diseases, and others. For example, GW Pharmaceuticals Ltd. was conducting clinical trials with Nabiximols (trade name Sativex) to investigate its safety in treating cancer pain. However, out of ten cannabis-related drugs on the world market, only three (including Sativex) are approved for medical use in the US.
Legalization, public interest and scientific research on Cannabis has promoted regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop new policies and guidance. It is stated on the official FDA website that “the FDA supports researchers who conduct adequate and well-controlled clinical trials which may lead to the development of safe and effective marijuana products to treat medical conditions.” Non-profit US Pharmacopeial Convention (USP), a known leader in developing and controlling drug standards, has organized a Cannabis expert committee to develop USP Standards for medical Cannabis. Their aim is to control quality specifications for the Cannabis used in clinical studies.
While the frontier of science appears to be opening for Cannabis in the US, the regulatory regime will need to keep pace. As medical use legalization proliferates, there will be a strong, even urgent need to revamp regulation to accommodate and emphasize research and best uses. Until the regulations are properly developed there will be some uncomfortable unknowns from a public health perspective, leading to greater risks and missed benefits.
Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!