Scientists find way to slash cost of drugs

[Prozac the Robert]

Scientists find way to slash cost of drugs

Indian-backed approach could aid poor nations and cut NHS bills
Sarah Boseley, health editor
Tuesday January 2, 2007

Guardian

Two UK-based academics have devised a way to invent new medicines and get them to market at a fraction of the cost charged by big drug companies, enabling millions in poor countries to be cured of infectious diseases and potentially slashing the NHS drugs bill.

Sunil Shaunak, professor of infectious diseases at Imperial College, based at Hammersmith hospital, calls their revolutionary new model "ethical pharmaceuticals".

Improvements they devise to the molecular structure of an existing, expensive drug turn it technically into a new medicine which is no longer under a 20-year patent to a multinational drug company and can be made and sold cheaply.

The process has the potential to undermine the monopoly of the big drug companies and bring cheaper drugs not only to poor countries but back to the UK.

Professor Shaunak and his colleague from the London School of Pharmacy, Steve Brocchini, have linked up with an Indian biotech company which will manufacture the first drug - for hepatitis C - if clinical trials in India, sponsored by the Indian government, are successful. Hepatitis C affects 170 million people worldwide and at least 200,000 in the UK.

Multinational drug companies put the cost of the research and development of a new drug at $800m (£408m). Professors Shaunak and Brocchini say the cost of theirs will be only a few million pounds.

Imperial College will hold the patent on the hepatitis C drug to prevent anybody attempting to block its development. The college employs top patent lawyers who also work for some of the big pharmaceutical companies.

Once the drugs have passed through clinical trials and have been licensed in India, the same data could be used to obtain a European licence so that they could be sold to the NHS as well.

Professor Shaunak says it is time that the monopoly on drug invention and production by multinational corporations - which charge high prices because they need to make big profits for their shareholders - was broken.

"The pharmaceutical industry has convinced us that we have to spend billions of pounds to invent each drug," he said. "We have spent a few millions. Yes, it will be a threat to the monopoly that there is.

"I'm not only an inventor of medicines - I'm an end user. We have become so completely dependent on the big pharmaceutical industry to provide all the medicines we use.

"Why should we be completely dependent on them when we do all the creative stuff in the universities? Maybe the time has come to say why can't somebody else do it? What we have been struck by is that once we have started to do it, it is not so difficult."

The team's work on the hepatitis C drug has impeccable establishment credentials, supported by a grant from the Wellcome Trust and help and advice from the Department for Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

But the professors' ethical pharmaceutical model is unlikely to find much favour with the multinational pharmaceutical companies, which already employ large teams of lawyers to defend the patents which they describe as the lifeblood of the industry.

One industry insider envisaged legal challenges if the new drugs were not genuinely innovative. It could become "a huge intellectual property issue", he said.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

Link.

Interesting huh? It's my understanding that the big companies do similar things already to extend the life of their patents. If so then they are going to have a hard time stopping this in court.

[KrauserKrauser]

Time to dump your stock in Pfizer and the like.

Though I'm sure there will be protections put up in America to save their market here, the lobbyists will make sure of that.

Good news for the rest of the world though.

[Velthuijsen]

Great news, especially for people living the third world.
The use around here is somewhat different though. As a counter to the big pharma conspiracy that suppresses things like this.

[Gerald Tarrant]

The problem is that this isn't a way to develop new drugs, its just a way to avoid the patent law on existing drugs. Of course this will cut deeply into pharmaceutical profits. That's got some negative consequences because pharma profits are what drives the search for new drugs. Anything which reduces the profitability of drugs in general will reduce drug companies' willingness to undergo the risk which is attached to creating a new drug. So talking about this like its purely good is incorrect, this will likely reduce the number of new original drugs coming out of big pharma.

[Shroom Man 777]

It might reduce the amount of upcoming wonder drugs, but for poor miserable disenfranchised folk who don't have access to drugs in the first place, it'll be a godsend.

[LadyTevar]

I sometimes wonder how much of the 'profits' of Big Name Drugs go into research, and how much goes into the countless repetative adverts on TV, in magazines, and on the radio?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I sometimes wonder how much of the 'profits' of Big Name Drugs go into research, and how much goes into the countless repetative adverts on TV, in magazines, and on the radio?

Up to 49% per drug as seen here.

[Eris]

While I'm sceptical how much of an impact this might have immediately--I cannot see big pharma going down without one hell of a legal fight--it still makes me giddy inside. As someone in the medical industry, I can provide a large quantity of anecdotal evidence, and a fair amount of real evidence besides, for how bad our drug problem is at present. Reducing medical overhead will be a godsend not only for persons in underdeveloped nations, but frankly everywhere. Wonderdrugs are a lie, anyway.

Excuse me while I go dance around for a bit like a rabid weasel.

[aerius]

I find this incredibly hilarious in a way. First the computer & tech companies outsource all their tech support to India, then everyone else starts moving their call centres there as well, and now drugs are also being outsourced to India. It just cracks me up for some reason.

[PainRack]

The problem is that this isn't a way to develop new drugs, its just a way to avoid the patent law on existing drugs. Of course this will cut deeply into pharmaceutical profits. That's got some negative consequences because pharma profits are what drives the search for new drugs. Anything which reduces the profitability of drugs in general will reduce drug companies' willingness to undergo the risk which is attached to creating a new drug. So talking about this like its purely good is incorrect, this will likely reduce the number of new original drugs coming out of big pharma.

There is virtually nothing to prevent governments from funding academic research into drugs..........

As it is, considering the stranglehold on prices big pharma exerts, it actually makes more economic sense for governments to assume that risk.

[Spoonist]

Arrgh, this is a short term solution which will spell disaster in the long term.
Of course they can rip off someone elses research at a fraction of the cost but if they do that they will effectively create less incentive to create new medicine.

If governements thought that the 20 year patent was bad for medicine then that would be what they would target, just change the laws so that instead of a 20 year patent they only get 10 or even 5. Now why do you think they don't do that?

Now the problem with the idea to let a politically elected governement to create research for specific medicine is that it would be politically controlled and thus less effective.

[Eris]

Arrgh, this is a short term solution which will spell disaster in the long term.
Of course they can rip off someone elses research at a fraction of the cost but if they do that they will effectively create less incentive to create new medicine.

If governements thought that the 20 year patent was bad for medicine then that would be what they would target, just change the laws so that instead of a 20 year patent they only get 10 or even 5. Now why do you think they don't do that?

Now the problem with the idea to let a politically elected governement to create research for specific medicine is that it would be politically controlled and thus less effective.

Wanna back up those claims? What they're doing is not ripping off someone else's research in the sense you seem to take it. They're taking existing drugs and re-engineering them to cut the production costs dramatically, making them cheaper for the end user.

You also seem to be under the impression that our current patent law is effective and sane. Disabuse yourself of that notion. One, since the patent begins before clinical trials, it creates an incentive for bad research and pressing for approval before the drug is known to be either safe or even effective. Two, despite what you seem to think, patents do not produce incentives for creating good medicine, merely profitable medicine. Many diseases that could be cheaply wiped out or at least contained (malaria et al) are nearly completely ignored because they're treatments are effective and cheap. The stress is put on long term expensive treatments, both in development then in actual clinical practice. It also takes the focus off of preventive medicine; good public health measures are much cheaper and more effective, but are ignored because they aren't as profitable as expensive drug treatments.

Furthermore, I do not see where the hell you get off saying that public funding for drug research would translate into direct governmental control over research. This betrays hideous ignorance of how public research is conducted. Learn something about how grants are applied for and awarded before making claims like this. Also, support your claim that even if there were a greater amount of governmental control, effectiveness would go down. Doubly so since private control has led to monopolies with very little real innovation.

[PainRack]

Now the problem with the idea to let a politically elected governement to create research for specific medicine is that it would be politically controlled and thus less effective.

What difference would it really make? Drug companies go where the markets are and disease of the month. You're still going to get the same effect as when the US spent millions of dollars researching how to fight Leigionaire Disease when malaria is a much more severe problem.

[Gerald Tarrant]

I think malaria is a poor example. The least expensive cures for it are not drugs. The best preventrions for marlaria are insecticides and bug nets.

[Eris]

I think malaria is a poor example. The least expensive cures for it are not drugs. The best preventrions for marlaria are insecticides and bug nets.

That's exactly my point, actually. Cheap preventative measures are constantly skipped over in favour of expensive drug treatments. We could take a tiny fraction of the money put into any one new drug and put it into prevention, and it would do more good than the drug ever will. Further, the same principle applies to drugs as well. The cheap and effective ones are ignored or go unresearched because the profit margin is too low. And don't even get me started about how we prescribe them.

[PainRack]

I think malaria is a poor example. The least expensive cures for it are not drugs. The best preventrions for marlaria are insecticides and bug nets.

While the point made is valid, the analogy still stands. The US government, as well as drug companies already routinely spend money on drug research for diseases that are "popular" as opposed to an efficient use of resources to treat the most severe problem. And just before you ask, the Legionaire Disease actually happened. The US government chose to spend money researching the disease when 12 veterans caught the disease....

[Gerald Tarrant]

I think malaria is a poor example. The least expensive cures for it are not drugs. The best preventrions for marlaria are insecticides and bug nets.

While the point made is valid, the analogy still stands. The US government, as well as drug companies already routinely spend money on drug research for diseases that are "popular" as opposed to an efficient use of resources to treat the most severe problem. And just before you ask, the Legionaire Disease actually happened. The US government chose to spend money researching the disease when 12 veterans caught the disease....

There are more issues with the fight against malaria than just drug companies. Probably the most effective pesticide is DDT which is politcally unusable. IIRC the EU has trade policy which will ban agricultural imports from any country which uses DDT. In short there are other political considerations which automatically distort any government action in regards to Malaria.

You said this previously

There is virtually nothing to prevent governments from funding academic research into drugs..........

As it is, considering the stranglehold on prices big pharma exerts, it actually makes more economic sense for governments to assume that risk.

The malaria discussion came up in regards to government funding of drugs, I noted that Malaria was a bad example because non-drug solutions exist.

Malaria is not a good example of drug funding gone amock, it's a good example of foreign aid gone amock. IIRC Malaria is the largest killer in the 3rd world, but anti AIDS projects seem to me to get more attention and money from everyone, government included. In the US government is very responsive to popular whims, and I don't see how they could avoid making similar mis-allocations.

[PainRack]

I think malaria is a poor example. The least expensive cures for it are not drugs. The best preventrions for marlaria are insecticides and bug nets.

While the point made is valid, the analogy still stands. The US government, as well as drug companies already routinely spend money on drug research for diseases that are "popular" as opposed to an efficient use of resources to treat the most severe problem. And just before you ask, the Legionaire Disease actually happened. The US government chose to spend money researching the disease when 12 veterans caught the disease....

There are more issues with the fight against malaria than just drug companies. Probably the most effective pesticide is DDT which is politcally unusable. IIRC the EU has trade policy which will ban agricultural imports from any country which uses DDT. In short there are other political considerations which automatically distort any government action in regards to Malaria.

You said this previously

There is virtually nothing to prevent governments from funding academic research into drugs..........

As it is, considering the stranglehold on prices big pharma exerts, it actually makes more economic sense for governments to assume that risk.

The malaria discussion came up in regards to government funding of drugs, I noted that Malaria was a bad example because non-drug solutions exist.

Malaria is not a good example of drug funding gone amock, it's a good example of foreign aid gone amock. IIRC Malaria is the largest killer in the 3rd world, but anti AIDS projects seem to me to get more attention and money from everyone, government included. In the US government is very responsive to popular whims, and I don't see how they could avoid making similar mis-allocations.

You misunderstood.

My point was exactly the same as yours in the last

In the US government is very responsive to popular whims, and I don't see how they could avoid making similar mis-allocations

However, I don't see anything bad about this because the drug companies are similarly just as misguided and make such misallocations. Given such. I see no "evil" by letting the government decide which drugs to research if such a situation will slash the huge patent costs.