QDIS Blog

Forbes recently had an article exclaiming that big pharma has a huge “black hole” as many blockbuster patents expire in the coming years, particularly from 2010 to 2013 when ~28% of current sales will be subject to generic competition.

Big Pharma’s Black Hole - Forbes.com

First of all, being an amateur astronomer, the black hole analogy really isn’t accurate. Black holes suck in everything including light and nothing escapes (okay I know that isn’t totally true but lets ignore that for now). This problem isn’t related to everything getting sucked in and crushed into nothingness. If they mean it in the more generalized usage as in having a gap that needs to be filled then maybe it is more appropriate.

I’m not a big fan of the “sky is falling” mantra. While it is obvious there are large issues looming I think these can be overcome if people are willing to focus on long term issues. However, and I’ve said this before, merging to acquire a pipeline is not the answer. I am much more in favor of partnerships or deals although those to can be dangerous. Just look at Icos and Lilly; it made better financial sense for Lilly to just purchase Icos rather than continue under the terms of their agreement.

I really think that big pharma needs to get out of the mindset of developing blockbuster drugs that only have over $1 billion in sales. I’d like to see them take advantage of genomics to better identify which patients may benefit the most from a given drug. I think that more post-launch marketing efforts should be undertaken to better understand how certain genetics differences make drugs work better for certain individuals.

Another factor that I think gets mentioned but not thoroughly explored is that of the lack of new drug applications. It gets mentioned but no one really goes further and asks why that is the case. I think there is some validity to the argument that the low fruit has been picked and new targets are more difficult. However, too many times, this is used as a prelude to bashing so called me-to drugs. As you know, I don’t subscribe to that school of thought and believe there is a need for several drugs in a given category in order to have competition and since all drugs don’t work well for everyone, there needs to be choice.

My argument concerning why there seems to be a lack of new drug applications, which doesn’t get mentioned often in the coverage of this issue, is that large corporations tend to stifle innovations. As big pharma gets bigger and bigger, I think the ability for creative individuals to come up with cutting edge solutions is greatly diminished. These larger organizations tend to be more risk adverse and not willing to take chances with projects that may not generate a return. However, many breakthrough and paradigm shifts require this sort of risk taking in order to come to fruition. I’ve worked for both large and small pharma and can tell you there is a world of difference in the approach to innovation and risk. For me the future of drug development s going to come from smaller organizations willing to try what others dismiss out of hand.

Technorati Tags: drug patent expiration, drug patents

Email Ed Vawter

Bookmark it with: | del.icio.us | Digg it | Furl | Simpy | Spurl | My Yahoo! |