The easy things have already been done, the difficult ones remain. And in the pharmaceutical field, difficult also means very expensive. And while the pipelines of the major companies do not appear particularly rich, according to Forbes analysts another peak in the loss of patent coverage of the most profitable specialties is approaching. According to Forbes, the annus horribilis will be 2011, during which the patents of drugs representing an annual turnover of over 20 billion dollars will expire, with a decrease in the turnover of products equal to 15 billion dollars. Something worse than 2006, which saw the arrival of generics for a group of drugs worth 16 billion dollars. Ultimately, between next year and 2011, 80 "heavy" patents should expire.
Which strategy to follow? Meanwhile there is more than one, all have strings to their bow, but also more or less serious drawbacks. As internal research becomes increasingly expensive and difficult, one option is to increase the purchase of biologics and similar drugs from biotech companies. A logical move, but one that also risks becoming less viable, since some of the more established companies in the sector are either buying patents themselves from smaller firms or trying to commercialize their discoveries directly. Genentech, for example, has offered $650 million to partner, and share the rights, with the smaller Inotek to discover new cancer drugs.
Another strategy is the one that emerges behind the appearance of some drugs in fixed combinations. This is the case of Merck with Vytorin, a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe, its synergistic molecules in the reduction of cholesterolemia, but with different mechanisms of action. Same choice for Pfizer, which with Caduet has associated with its blockbuster statin (atorvastatin), the antihypertensive amlodipine. It is evident that neither of the two molecules is brand new, in this case, but the association intercepts a subset of the population (hypertensive with hypercholesterolemia) for which the doctor might deem it interesting to reduce the number of prescriptions. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the third-party payer is willing to trade adherence to the therapy (which could be facilitated) for a price that could be higher than that of using two generics. This return of fixed associations, for a certain period demonized, at least in Italy, was in fact inaugurated by the polypill (based on various cardiovascular active ingredients) which however is made up of generics.
Which strategy to follow? Meanwhile there is more than one, all have strings to their bow, but also more or less serious drawbacks. As internal research becomes increasingly expensive and difficult, one option is to increase the purchase of biologics and similar drugs from biotech companies. A logical move, but one that also risks becoming less viable, since some of the more established companies in the sector are either buying patents themselves from smaller firms or trying to commercialize their discoveries directly. Genentech, for example, has offered $650 million to partner, and share the rights, with the smaller Inotek to discover new cancer drugs.
Another strategy is the one that emerges behind the appearance of some drugs in fixed combinations. This is the case of Merck with Vytorin, a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe, its synergistic molecules in the reduction of cholesterolemia, but with different mechanisms of action. Same choice for Pfizer, which with Caduet has associated with its blockbuster statin (atorvastatin), the antihypertensive amlodipine. It is evident that neither of the two molecules is brand new, in this case, but the association intercepts a subset of the population (hypertensive with hypercholesterolemia) for which the doctor might deem it interesting to reduce the number of prescriptions. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the third-party payer is willing to trade adherence to the therapy (which could be facilitated) for a price that could be higher than that of using two generics. This return of fixed associations, for a certain period demonized, at least in Italy, was in fact inaugurated by the polypill (based on various cardiovascular active ingredients) which however is made up of generics.
Certainly, there is also the possibility of opposing the tide, and of taking legal actions in succession to try to extend the duration of the patent, the path chosen by Sanofi (as explained in another article) and by Pfizer, for example.. But it is not said that it is worthwhile, even in terms of corporate image; probably, as others have done, it may be more effective (and cost-effective) to negotiate with the generic producers, but that is not certain. In short, the situation is fluid and at first glance no solution seems particularly superior to the others. Finally, there is a partly provocative aspect, raised by some: are we so certain that in 5 years the current blockbusters will still be blockbusters? Certainly it is a good demonstration of faith in innovation, or a strong fear of further reductions in pharmaceutical spending. From Swabian Prati
From pharmamarketing
From pharmamarketing
