Gleevec Researcher Lambasts Novartis Pricing
5 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // August 16th, 2007 // 9:32 am
Brian Druker, chair of Leukemia research and professor of medicine at the Oregon Health and Science University Cancer Institute, was the key researcher behind the discovery of Novartis’ imatinib, or Gleevec. But in an essay on LiveMint.com, he chastises the drugmaker for pricing that causes him “considerable discomfort.” Here is an excerpt (thanks to Shamnad Basheer at SpicyIP for bringing this to our attention)…..
“In the recent debates on patents, pharmaceutical prices and access to essential medicines, the critical role of scientists and resources of the public sector and academic institutions involved in medical research have often been overlooked. As one of the scientists behind the development of imatinib, which has allowed the effective control of a devastating form of cancer, I have witnessed the vital role that academic researchers and public institutions play in bringing new medicines to the market.
Many scientists, if not most of those I have collaborated with in these settings, are engaged in research primarily motivated by the pursuit of knowledge as a means to help patients. For many of these scientists it is, therefore, of great concern that the results of their efforts can’t reach patients and save lives because of pricing strategies and patent policies such as “patent evergreening†(minor changes to existing molecules designed to extend patent monopolies) used by partners further down the drug development process…
In the late 1980s, I began collaborating with industry scientists at Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis Pharmaceuticals) who were developing inhibitors for the class of enzymes to which Bcr-Abl belongs…In 1993, I moved to Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland and had a single goal of finding a company that had the best inhibitor for Bcr-Abl and to bring it into clinical trials. My work in Oregon on a therapy for CML was primarily funded by public sources, particularly the National Cancer Institute…The approval of imatinib by the FDA in May 2001 for use in CML was the culmination of a 10-year project for me, something I had dreamed of since medical school.
However, the price at which imatinib has been offered for sale by Novartis around the world has caused me considerable discomfort. Pharmaceutical companies that have invested in the development of medicines should achieve a return on their investments. But this does not mean the abuse of these exclusive rights by excessive prices and seeking patents over minor changes to extend monopoly prices. This goes against the spirit of the patent system and is not justified given the vital investments made by the public sector over decades that make the discovery of these medicines possible.
Public institutions around the world have continuously played a critical role in the research that leads to vital new medicines reaching the market. Without access medical research becomes a luxury good. Most of my colleagues would be very uncomfortable if we felt that this would be the result of our decades of effort.”
Hat tip to Spicy IP
VentureBeat » Gleevec pioneer slams Novartis on drug pricing, patents
[...] to confirm the authenticity of this essay. I’ll update if and when I hear back. (Hat tip: Pharmalot.) For more stories on VentureBeat Life Sciences, click here.Tagged co:Novartis, Gleevec, Glivec, [...]
Someone who knows better
If true, these comments from Dr. Druker begin to restore my faith in humanity! Just when we have seen so greediness in this world it is refreshing to be reminded that lead investigators like Dr. Druker are actually in it to cure and heal and help w/o thinking about PROFITS first.
Additionally, we see that most of the cost in developing this drug came from the public taxpayers - yet, from what I understand 100% of the profits goes to Novartis. How is this fair and balanced?
If the money mostly came from the NIH, we should all be relieved to know that the drug is being made in Ireland, and the corporate global headquarters is in Switzerland - who’s zooming who??
Not only did the U S citizens pay the taxes that went towards funding this drug discovery, those unfortunate souls who need this drug are actually paying twice!
GEESH!
Hypocrisy rules
When good doc Drucker started his scientific cooperation with the Swiss Co Ciba-Geigy, the pharma biz was a different world on different planet. As was the company he helped. Novartis ain’t what Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz were, the componenets of the current Co. Those were some of the best pharma cos and they did business like Swiss do. Dignified and honest. They never overcharged or showed overt geed. The return they looked for was a reasonable by any standards and never did they have any complaints as to prices of their drugs. That all changed with the infamous merger in 1996 when these two most reputable companies were fused together with the help of New York bankers not the Swiss banks that nurtured these companies financially for decades as they grew up and spread around the world in most positive and honorable manner. At the same time the newly renamed Co was taken over by predatorial business types, non-Swiss, who transformed it into predatory company it is today. They still do some “nice” things for PR purposes that is managed by well known PR firms that know how to repackage even the worst case scenarios. Remember the first Iraq war when the Congress got the package of lies that turned them around to approve the war. That is the type of PR work they also do for this and other big pharma cos.
Is this true? Just ask yourself if someone like this doc would make the statement he did if this was not the case. Obviously he is very disapointed and one can be sure that he also feels that the cost of this drug is way out of line in general and with what he and others were paid for the work and discovery of it.
Here is the likely way they established the price of this (and other) drug: ” So you have terminal cancer. How much would you pay for the drug that would save your life?”
Should I give you the answer or you can guess it? This is what the once ethical pharmaceutical business was not supposed to become. Thanks to companies like Novartis and other big pharma this is the reality we have today. Can we reverse this insenity?
William Chastain
All comments are very interesting and true. The cost to manufacture Novartis Gleevec is but a tiny fraction of the overall cost to the average patiient of $424,000.00. This cost will buy an expected life extension of 7 years over interferon treatment.
Our research clinic in Tampa, FL has just entered Phase III Clinical Trials on a breakthrough multiphase antimicrobial cancer treatment that has proven 100% effective in making leukemia patients cancer free, not just in remission, cancer free after an accelerated 120 day program. Our first patient is still leukemia free nine years later after one 120 day treatment.
Total cost of the zero negative side effect treatment is projected to be a one time expenditure of about $20,000.00 which includes individual dosing and personal professional counseling.
No additional information can be released to the general public at this time, but if you would like a copy of the APeX Multiphase Anti-Microbial White Paper please contact info@apexuap.com with a short professional bio and one will be sent for your review.
Tech News » Blog Archive » New — and Expensive — Hope for Incurable Leukemia
[...] I appreciate the importance of patent protections and incentive, but it seems only fair to make Gleevec’s derivatives more readily available than drugs developed entirely with private money — and at least one of the scientist behind Gleevec agrees. [...]