A singular article is on a very wry tone that John J.
Baldwin sums up his career in pharmaceutical research (Annual Reports in
Medicinal Chemistry, Vol49). A therapeutic chemist by training, he has worked
thirty years for Merck Labs and is responsible for the discovery of several
major drugs, including two anhydrase inhibitors, an antithrombotic carbon for
the treatment of glaucoma (Trusopt and Cosopt) (Aggrastat), one of the first
anti-viral hanger AIDS (Indinavir, protease inhibitor). Having had to leave
Merck, he then launched a Biotech, Pharmacopeia, who was among the first to
exploit the possibilities offered by the new high throughput screening
techniques, and then he was involved in the development of the Chinese Wu-xi
contract research firm. I reproduced here the fact that it gives quite unusual
tone in a tribute to a scientific journal article.
In brief - pharmaceutical companies abandon gradually
what amwas considered as their core
business, pharmaceutical research, which has becamed more and more expensive
and risky - As the discovery of new drugs is the main source of value, they will
not save themselves by becoming sellers of generic drugs considered as
commodities, and there will be no miracle in emerging countries - Outsourcing
of research with shared risk/reward models between biotech and Big Pharma
(where the biotech take risks and the Big Pharma profits...) will
not address the slowdown in new drug discovery - This outsourcing has helped
the development of Asian competitors for research itself, and the weakening of
Western countries - These developments have had a clearly negative impact for
all those working in therapeutic research, and for all those who wish to enter
this career.
To
say otherwise, and perhaps more bluntly than Mr. Baldwin, today, I would not
dare advise anybody to dream of a career in in pharmaceutical research.
End of an era; failure of mega-merges
In 1993, Merck
began to prepare for the twenty-first century and the predicted patent cliff
which lay ahead. One step was to decrease staff througha retirement incentive
plan. Cut-backs not only pose difficult decisions for management but impose
difficult decisions on the people affected as well. Such actions by Merck and
other companies marked the disappearance of the lifelong commitment of an
employee to a single company and the belief that the commitment of the company
to this contract would also be honored. A
new era in the company/employee relationship had begun.
This new reality
became even more apparent over the past decade, and it must be considered by
professionals and students alike as they make choices about employment. I
adjusted to this apparent evolutionary change by deciding not only to take
Merck’s offer but to start a new company, Pharmacopeia, which was based on
cutting-edge technology not being practiced in BigPharma. Ja Chabala, also from
Merck, and Larry Bock of Avalon Ventures joined me in launching the new company
around encoded combinatorial chemistry and high-throughput screening. This
technology played a key role in exploiting the genomic revolution and the
target-specific approach to drug discovery….
Looking back to
the start of the biotech era, it is clear that start-up companies continue to
be a high-risk exercise. Whether the company is large or small, it still takes
years and over a billion dollars to discover and develop a New Chemical Entity
(NCE). This forces the small biotech firm to be in a constant search for financing
and for a viable exit strategy. Recent years have not been easy ones, especially
for the major pharmaceutical companies, which faced a slowing rate of
discovery, major products going “off patent” into the generic class, higher
R&D costs, and longer approval times. To combat this, a range of new
survival strategies has been developed and adopted, including a series of
mega-mergers with the resulting cut-back in employment. Since NCEs are the main
factor in raising valuation, it is unlikely that the merger strategy will
increase value to the pharmaceutical industry. Mergers like
Merck/Schering-Plough, Pfizer/ Wyeth, Bayer/Schering, and Sanofi/Aventis will,
at best, produce only short-term stability. History teaches us that such
merges simply do not increase the productivity on which valuation is based.
Such retrenchment stimulated an outsourcing trend that has accelerated over the
past decade. The layoffs from merges and outsourcing reached 130,000 between 2005
and 2008, with the total number now well over 300,000 people. Few companies
were spared: the top 10 pharma layoffs in 2011, in rank order, were Merck,
Pfizer, Novartis, Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Teva, Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson,
Eisai, and Bayer. WuXi Pharma Tech, one
of the first to recognize the growth in outsourcing and profit from it, went
public on the New York Stock Exchange in 2000 and now has over 6000 employees.
Negative impact for those who have worked as
scientists on drug R&D
Along with the
outsourcing of science, there has been growth in alliance among large
pharmaceutical companies themselves as well as with academic institutions, all
with the idea of sharing both cost and risk. With the Westernmarkets mature,
Big Pharma has turned to the evolving economies as part of its growth strategy.
However, emerging markets have shown resistance to patented medication and a
greater interest in improving health through the availability of low-cost
generic drugs. To overcome the generic competition, Big Pharma has turned to“branded
generics.” Even with cost only somewhat above the local generic equivalent,
pricing remains a problem for Western companies. The cost of patented Western
drugs in these economies is being countered by price controls and forced
licensing. Considering both of these marketing issues, fast growing evolving
economies may not be the answer for the problems of today’s pharmaceutical
companies.
With the uptick
in new FDA approvals in the past 2 years (2011–2012), it has been suggested
that the worst may be over for the productivity decline we have seen in the
pharmaceutical industry. However, considering that programs for these approvals
were initiated in the late 1990s to early 2000s, it is reasonable to predict
that the decrease in productivity expected from the bcut-backs will not be felt
for at least another 10–12 years.
Things have
changed in the pharmaceutical industry since I first walked the halls of Merck.
These changes and the resulting strategies discussed here have had a negative
impact for those who have worked as scientists on drug R&D and even those
who hope to join the exciting adventure of drug discovery. The sky is red, but
it is difficult to tell whether it is the sunrise o sunset. Looking to the
future, it is certain that there are many road blocks along the road to
recovery.
For synthetic organic
chemists, the path ahead is not bright but should stabilize as the cost advantage
of outsourcing to India and China decreases. In the USA, there will be fewer
opportunities for chemists than there will be for biologically trained
scientists as the revolution in biotechnology continues. Many of these
opportunities will be in industry sponsored academic laboratories, although the
productivity of this industrial/ academic strategy may decline over the next
decade as Big Pharma increasingly depends on licensing new products from
non-U.S. biotechs. Government laboratories, such as the National Institutes of
Health and the National Cancer Institute, are unlikely to replace the
industrial discovery machine that gave the world new drugs. Therefore, society
will become increasingly dependent on generic medications as new drugs
constitute a smaller percentage of total sales. With government budget
pressures, generic drugs will become commodities with low profit margins. This
may create the kind of shortages seen recently due to deteriorating production
facilities and poor quality control, which leads to forced closings and recalls
by government agencies.
The introduction
of biosimilars will be slower than expected, and their price will not decrease
as dramatically as in the case of small-molecule drugs.
The high prices
for niche drugs will come under increasing pressure, as demonstrated by the
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center’s experience with the anticancer drug Zaltrap.
Similar forced pricing and licensing decisions by India and other countries on
expensive, patented drugs will be a growing problem for the Western
pharmaceutical industry. Companies will begin to rethink whether it is worth
pursuing low-volume drugs where high prices are needed to recover cost.
Similarly, society must decide whether it is willing to pay high prices for
drugs that extend the life of a very ill person for just a short period of
time. These questions pose ethical issues that are difficult to solve.
A Personal
Essay: My Experiences iin the Pharmaceutical Industry John J. Baldwin
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire
Commentaires
Remarque : Seul un membre de ce blog est autorisé à enregistrer un commentaire.