Un­der pres­sure, drug­mak­ers di­lute price hikes, but noth­ing is set in stone just yet — re­port

Bio­phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal price goug­ing has long en­raged politi­cians and pa­tients alike — mount­ing pres­sure on drug­mak­ers to not ap­pear like they put prof­it be­fore pa­tients — which has led to a slow­ing in size and fre­quen­cy of price hikes, a Leerink analy­sis has found.

The analy­sis echoes the find­ings of an As­so­ci­at­ed Press in­ves­ti­ga­tion — pub­lished this Sep­tem­ber — which in­di­cat­ed that al­though there were 96 price hikes for every price cut, the num­ber and size of hikes de­creased in the first sev­en months of 2018.

Ge­of­frey Porges

Leerink’s analy­sis in­clud­ed 17 large bio­phar­ma com­pa­nies — Ab­b­Vie $AB­BV, Alex­ion $ALXN, Am­gen $AMGN, Bio­gen $BI­IB, Cel­gene $CELG, Gilead $GILD, JNJ $JNJ, Re­gen­eron $REGN, As­traZeneca $AZN, Bris­tol-My­ers $BMY, GSK $GSK, Eli Lil­ly $LLY, Mer­ck $MRK, No­var­tis $NVS, Pfiz­er $PFE, Roche $RHB­BY, and Sanofi $SNY.

The most price-de­pen­dent growth com­pa­nies be­tween 2013 and 2017 were: Am­gen, As­traZeneca, GSK, and Pfiz­er; and the least price-de­pen­dent were: Alex­ion, JNJ, and Re­gen­eron. Over­all, the num­ber of price in­creas­es slowed this year by 31%, and the av­er­age size of the price in­creas­es fell by 40% — both mea­sures falling to their low­est lev­el in five years, the re­port found.

“The slow­ing of pos­i­tive price ef­fects means that in­dus­try growth is like­ly to be be­tween 200 and 400 bps slow­er go­ing for­ward than in the 2013-2017 pe­ri­od. This slow­er growth, and its as­so­ci­at­ed ef­fect on mar­gins, prof­itabil­i­ty, and cash flow, may not be ful­ly re­flect­ed in sec­tor stock prices and mul­ti­ples,” Leerink’s Ge­of­frey Porges said.

The an­a­lysts al­so found that price con­tri­bu­tions to sales in the Unit­ed States have steadi­ly de­clined from 11% in 2014 to 4% in 2017 and 2% YTD in 2018.

Sig­nif­i­cant­ly, “the de­cline in the net pos­i­tive price con­tri­bu­tion to in­dus­try growth has more or less matched the de­cline in rev­enue growth over the same pe­ri­od of time,” Porges not­ed.

How­ev­er, the im­pact of slow­ing price in­creas­es will be pow­er­ful go­ing for­ward — be­cause it will stim­u­late the un­tan­gling of the cu­mu­la­tive ef­fect of com­pound­ing from pri­or year price hikes.

“Price in­creas­es are ‘the gift that keeps on giv­ing’, since one year’s 10% price in­crease then in­creas­es the base of sales that then ben­e­fits from the next year’s price in­creas­es,” ex­plained Porges.

The Leerink team there­fore set about cal­cu­lat­ing the im­pact of trail­ing price in­creas­es over the five-year pe­ri­od be­tween 2013 and 2018. Cu­mu­la­tive pos­i­tive US price has con­tributed ~$27 bil­lion to glob­al phar­ma rev­enue in 2014, ~$45 bil­lion in 2015, ~$59 bil­lion in 2016, ~$68 bil­lion in 2017, and $71 bil­lion in 2018.

Re­port­ed glob­al phar­ma rev­enue in 2018 is rough­ly $320 bil­lion YTD, which with­out US price con­tri­bu­tions from the pri­or five years would have been 22% low­er, or rough­ly $250 bil­lion YTD, they found.

In oth­er words, it looks like price growth alone has con­tributed on av­er­age 5%/year to in­dus­try growth over the last five years, and while to­tal rev­enue growth was on­ly 1% from 2017-2018, with­out the price ef­fect, the an­a­lysts found that rev­enue growth from 2017-2018 would have ac­tu­al­ly fall­en 6%.

Fol­low­ing the re­lease of Pres­i­dent Trump’s blue­print for low­er­ing drug prices in May, a pletho­ra of com­pa­nies pledged not to in­tro­duce their usu­al hikes in the mid­dle of the year — how­ev­er, whether this re­straint will con­tin­ue in the fu­ture re­mains to be seen. Since then the HHS has float­ed two pro­pos­als to thwart soar­ing prices for Medicare and its ben­e­fi­cia­ries.

Mean­while, Mer­ck raised the price of some of its ma­jor drugs in No­vem­ber, and Pfiz­er has an­nounced it will in­crease the price of 41 drugs next month.

“These com­pa­nies are like­ly to be fol­lowed by a flood of peers, and then by in­evitable re­spons­es and re­ac­tions from Wash­ing­ton. How this col­li­sion of in­ter­ests plays out is any­one’s guess, and the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s cre­ativ­i­ty and in­ven­tive­ness with re­spect to pric­ing pro­pos­als seem un­like­ly to be di­min­ished in 2019. Iron­i­cal­ly, the sub­ject of drug pric­ing is prob­a­bly one of the few gen­uine­ly bi­par­ti­san is­sues for both ma­jor par­ties, and fur­ther reg­u­la­tion or re­stric­tions on drug pric­ing and price in­creas­es seem like­ly in our view to set up a show­down be­tween Pres­i­dent Trump, Con­gress and the Bio­phar­ma in­dus­try rel­a­tive­ly ear­ly in the New Year,” con­clud­ed Porges.


Charts: LEERINK

2019 Trin­i­ty Drug In­dex Eval­u­ates Ac­tu­al Com­mer­cial Per­for­mance of Nov­el Drugs Ap­proved in 2016

Fewer Approvals, but Neurology Rivals Oncology and Sees Major Innovations

This report, the fourth in our Trinity Drug Index series, outlines key themes and emerging trends in the industry as we progress towards a new world of targeted and innovative products. It provides a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of novel drugs approved by the FDA in 2016, scoring each on its commercial performance, therapeutic value, and R&D investment (Table 1: Drug ranking – Ratings on a 1-5 scale).

How to cap­i­talise on a lean launch

For start-up biotechnology companies and resource stretched pharmaceutical organisations, launching a novel product can be challenging. Lean teams can make setting a launch strategy and achieving your commercial goals seem like a colossal undertaking, but can these barriers be transformed into opportunities that work to your brand’s advantage?
We spoke to Managing Consultant Frances Hendry to find out how Blue Latitude Health partnered with a fledgling subsidiary of a pharmaceutical organisation to launch an innovative product in a
complex market.
What does the launch environment look like for this product?
FH: We started working on the product at Phase II and now we’re going into Phase III trials. There is a significant unmet need in this disease area, and everyone is excited about the launch. However, the organisation is still evolving and the team is quite small – naturally this causes a little turbulence.

Gilead claims Tru­va­da patents in HHS’ com­plaint are in­valid

Back in November, the Department of Health and Human Services took the rare step of filing a complaint against Gilead for infringing on government-owned patents related to the HIV drug Truvada (emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

But on Thursday, Gilead filed its own retort, making clear that it does not believe it has infringed on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Truvada patents because they are invalid.

Aymeric Le Chatelier, Ipsen

A $1B-plus drug stum­bles in­to an­oth­er big PhI­II set­back -- this time flunk­ing fu­til­i­ty test -- as FDA hold re­mains in ef­fect for Ipsen

David Meek

At the time Ipsen stepped up last year with more than a billion dollars in cash to buy Clementia and a late-stage program for a rare bone disease that afflicts children, then CEO David Meek was confident that he had put the French biotech on a short path to a mid-2020 launch.

Instead of prepping a launch, though, the company was hit with a hold on the FDA’s concerns that a therapy designed to prevent overgrowth of bone for cases of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva might actually stunt children’s growth. So they ordered a halt to any treatments for kids 14 and under. Meek left soon after to run a startup in Boston. And today the Paris-based biotech is grappling with the independent monitoring committee’s decision that their Phase III had failed a futility test.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Roche's check­point play­er Tecen­triq flops in an­oth­er blad­der can­cer sub­set

Just weeks after Merck’s star checkpoint inhibitor Keytruda secured FDA approval for a subset of bladder cancer patients, Swiss competitor Roche’s Tecentriq has failed in a pivotal bladder cancer study.

The 809-patient trial — IMvigor010 — tested the PD-L1 drug in patients with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer (MIUC) who had undergone surgery, and were at high risk for recurrence.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: Eli Lil­ly’s $1.6B can­cer drug failed to spark even the slight­est pos­i­tive gain for pa­tients in its 1st PhI­II

Eli Lilly had high hopes for its pegylated IL-10 drug pegilodecakin when it bought Armo last year for $1.6 billion in cash. But after reporting a few months ago that it had failed a Phase III in pancreatic cancer, without the data, its likely value has plunged. And now we’re getting some exact data that underscore just how little positive effect it had.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: FDA’s golodirsen CRL: Sarep­ta’s Duchenne drugs are dan­ger­ous to pa­tients, of­fer­ing on­ly a small ben­e­fit. And where's that con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al?

Back last summer, Sarepta CEO Doug Ingram told Duchenne MD families and investors that the FDA’s shock rejection of their second Duchenne MD drug golodirsen was due to some concerns regulators raised about the risk of infection and the possibility of kidney toxicity. But when pressed to release the letter for all to see, he declined, according to a report from BioPharmaDive, saying that kind of move “might not look like we’re being as respectful as we’d like to be.”

He went on to assure everyone that he hadn’t misrepresented the CRL.

But Ingram’s public remarks didn’t include everything in the letter, which — following the FDA’s surprise about-face and unexplained approval — has now been posted on the FDA’s website and broadly circulated on Twitter early Wednesday.

The CRL raises plenty of fresh questions about why the FDA abruptly decided to reverse itself and hand out an OK for a drug a senior regulator at the FDA believed — 5 months ago, when he wrote the letter — is dangerous to patients. It also puts the spotlight back on Sarepta $SRPT, which failed to launch a confirmatory study of eteplirsen, which was only approved after a heated internal controversy at the FDA. Ellis Unger, director of CDER’s Office of Drug Evaluation I, notes that study could have clarified quite a lot about the benefit and risks associated with their drugs — which can cost as much as a million dollars per patient per year, depending on weight.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Gilead dusts off a failed Ebo­la drug as coro­n­avirus spreads; Ex­elix­is boasts pos­i­tive Ph I/II da­ta

→ Less than a year ago Gilead’s antiviral remdesivir failed to make the cut as investigators considered a raft of potential drugs that could be used against an Ebola outbreak. But it may gain a new mission with the outbreak of the coronavirus in China, which is popping up now around the world.

Gilead put out a statement saying that they’re now in discussions with health officials in the US and China about testing their NUC against the virus. It’s the latest in a growing lineup of biopharma companies that are marshaling R&D forces to see if they can come up with a vaccine or therapy to blunt the spread of the virus, which has now sickened hundreds, killed at least 17 people and led the Chinese government to start quarantining cities.

Alex Karnal (Deerfield)

Deer­field vaults to the top of cell and gene ther­a­py CD­MO game with $1.1B fa­cil­i­ty at Philadel­phi­a's newest bio­phar­ma hub

Back at the beginning of 2015, Deerfield Management co-led a $10 million Series C for a private gene therapy startup, reshaping the company and bringing in new leaders to pave way for an IPO just a year later.

Fast forward four more years and the startup, AveXis, is now a subsidiary of Novartis marketing the second-ever gene therapy to be approved in the US.

For its part, Deerfield has also grown more comfortable and ambitious about the nascent field. And the investment firm is now putting down its biggest bet yet: a $1.1 billion contract development and manufacturing facility to produce everything one needs for cell and gene therapy — faster and better than how it’s currently done.