Home > Pharma company reforms, R & D > The Single Biggest Reason we need Big Pharma Drug Discovery

The Single Biggest Reason we need Big Pharma Drug Discovery

“I’m sorry we have done everything we can do…there is nothing left to try.”

Nobody wants to hear these words, especially as it relates to our health or the health of a mother, father, son, daughter, close relative, or friend.  Most of us have had people in our lives who have heard these words.  From what should be simple to treat infectious diseases to the complexities of cancers and physically debilitating, if not lethal diseases like Alzheimer’s, there remains a huge medical need for effective and safe new treatments.  Too many people hear these helpless words today and even more may hear them in the future as the population ages with increasing life expectancy.

We have seen how financial rewards can drive  decision making and  behavior in the pharmaceutical industry but really… not wanting to hear these words should be the single biggest reason pharmaceutical companies continue to invest heavily in drug discovery research.

It starts with a mindset to discover truly innovative new drugs that are better than what we have available and that can treat diseases we can’t treat today.  It is frightening that the industry has spent so much in the last decade to deliver so little in terms of innovation.  Think about the billions of dollars spent on clinical trials just to get  “me-too” drugs to the market.  It is equally frightening to think of the cash being spent on mega-mergers and acquisitions to source near-term products to fill the depleted late stage pipelines.  Neither of these contributes to bringing innovative new products to the market that wouldn’t otherwise have come to market.  I’m also not sure how long biotech can support the drug discovery needs of Big Pharma before that well runs dry.

I believe the current “product driven mentality” of many Big Pharma company executives today (and Wall Street analysts) is blinding these companies to the long-term solutions to finding truly innovative new products.  I have said it before.  Drug discovery is hard work and getting harder. It is going to take a much deeper, multidisciplinary understanding of human biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and pathophysiology of diseases that most companies only think about once they have a potential therapeutic target or drug candidate in hand (most likely acquired from outside the company in most recent history).

I believe this comprehensive approach to drug discovery is where Big Pharma should be making significant investments.  Choose a therapeutic area of interest.  Find, recruit, and collaborate with world class scientific and medical expertise in that therapeutic area.  Invest in an exhaustive understanding of the disease,  explore beyond the known,  and challenge common principles of disease management.  Don’t just look for a compound, look for a comprehensive approach to treating and possibly curing the disease.

Big Pharma is one of the few place with sufficient resources to fund, coordinate, and execute this comprehensive approach over a long period of time.  I am not suggesting universities and biotech companies won’t continue to be a great source of novel, innovative new drug candidates.  In fact, much of the necessary drug discovery expertise now resides in academia.   At the same time however, I am concerned with Big Pharma moving away from drug discovery and relying on universities and biotech as their primary sources of innovative new products.  Why?

Because… I don’t want to hear… “I’m sorry we have done everything we can do…there is nothing left to try.”

mike@pharmareform.com

  1. October 28th, 2010 at 05:11 | #1

    Thank you for a cogent and hard-hitting article about an extremely important topic. Your point about the use of resources to develop ‘me too’ drugs is absolutely correct. With the pressure to increase financial returns for investors and employees, pharmaceutical companies have chosen the easiest path to earnings while make few new discoveries of innovative treatments for diseases that affect many people worldwide. Diseases with low prevalence rates do not even warrant consideration for R&D. Academia is not the place for new drug discovery as there are too many competing interests to ensure that drug discovery is a true priority.

    Kind regards,
    Carole Chrvala, PhD

  2. October 28th, 2010 at 10:57 | #2

    Carole,
    Thank you for your feedback and contribution to the discussion. Your point about competing interests in academia is interesting. While I see the need for independent thinking to avoid “group think”, you would think that coordinated multidisciplinary collaboration would be a good thing when it comes to drug discovery research. Thanks again. mike@pharmareform.com

  3. Bill Olsen
    October 28th, 2010 at 19:41 | #3

    Here is why this will not happen. My wife’s situation is a case in point. She has debilitating migraine attacks. So she is prescribed Imitrex. Works wonders. Life is beautiful. Then one fine day, it goes generic. IMMEDIATELY, guess what appears like magic? An improved version of Imitrex. To think that these folks will think of anything other than how much money they can grab from us is, unfortunately, nothing other than a dream. At this point in time, the drug industry is nothing short of organized crime. They will never think of anything besides money until they are forced to do so.

  4. October 29th, 2010 at 10:45 | #4

    Bill,
    I’m not sure where to start. While I empathize with you and your wife’s situation, I would have thought a generic version of a medication that “works wonders” would have been a good thing. If “an improved version” is worth paying the difference for (your choice) I would think that would also be a good thing.

    If your point is the high price of the “improved version”, I’m not sure what your expectations would be. If you expect the company to sell the “improved version” at generic prices, there would be no incentive to even start working on “an improved version.”

    Like any other business, Pharma has a responsibility to its shareholders to do what it can to protect its patents, manage the product life cycle, and maximize its return on investment. I have no problem with any of these until the company employs unethical, illegal, or abusive tactics.

    With over 70% of prescriptions in the US now filled with generic drugs and that percentage is going to increase over the next five years, I do believe the healthcare market is becoming more demanding of Pharma to deliver innovative new treatments that are clinically better than what we have today or that will treat diseases we can not treat today. When they deliver on those expectations, Pharma will expect premium pricing and the market will determine whether or not the clinical benefits are worth the expense. At the same time, the healthcare market is becoming much less tolerant of high prices for marginal improvements over other available therapeutic options, including generic alternatives.

    This may not be the response you were hoping for but I do want to thank you for sharing your situation with us. mike@pharmareform.com

  1. No trackbacks yet.