Page 9 - Pharma eZine 140828

I fundamentally believe that commercial drug

companies are the way to go when it comes to the
discovery and development of new drugs.

The problem when pharmaceuical companies

posiion themselves as organizaions which seek
the good, when in fact they are proit-oriented

companies, is that it creates a sort of corporate

cogniive dissidence. In other words, their
corporate values don’t match up with reality. When

a pharmaceuical company says that it always acts
in the best interests of paients, but it actually

acts in the interests of shareholders, it creates a
discrepancy that is intuiively perceived as dodgy.

I think if pharmaceuical companies were honest
about the fact that they are commercial operaions

that act within legal boundaries, they would be m
much more credible.
.co
ess
xpr
NN: So what you are saying is that pharmaceuical oto
ph
companies have an ethical imperaive to operate

within the conines of exising legal frameworks. The fact of the mater is that if it weren’t for These are drugs developed to treat rare diseases,
Do they have a responsibility to go above and paients in the US being willing and able to aford or diseases with short life-spans, so their

beyond that?
such expensive treatments, most drugs would proitability is limited. Someimes with orphan
never have been discovered. The American health drugs, companies ind out that even though the

PA: When it comes to their core business, yes. system allows people with good private insurance drug was developed for a small market, it could
What I mean is that drug companies do have a to aford extremely expensive drugs. It’s a very have a much wider usage. For example Gleevec,

responsibility to their paients, and that means lucraive market, and precisely because companies which was developed to treat a very rare form
taking all measures necessary to help and protect can make so much money, they develop absolutely of lymphoma, was found to treat other types of

paients, regardless of the laws. However, I don’t brilliant, life-saving drugs. So it’s thanks to these cancer as well and became hugely proitable.
think that pharmaceuical companies have an rich American paients that later - less than ive

obligaion to serve paients that cannot pay for years in most of Europe and maybe 10 or 15 years NN: Why is there such diiculty in reconciling

their drugs and I don’t think they have an obligaion in countries such as India - people get access to proitability with ethical behavior in
to develop drugs for paients that cannot pay.
drugs that are simply miracles. If it weren’t for pharmaceuical companies in paricular?

these inancial incenives, these drugs would have
That said, companies should pay close atenion to never been developed.
PA: There is a very strong conlict between a

changes in public opinion. If all of a sudden these company’s commercial interests and its ethical
ethical quesions are not about legal obligaions, NN: If that’s the case, what incenives do imperaive to protect its paients if a drug blows

but about legiimacy, then pharmaceuical companies have to develop drugs to combat rare up at a late stage of the clinical development
companies beter do whatever it takes. Otherwise diseases or diseases that afect primarily poorer for safety reasons. It is a company’s purpose to

they could risk losing their license to operate, their paients in developing counies?
market a drug. But as soon as the side efects are
social legiimacy.
severe in comparison with the beneits, then of

PA: I think that public-private partnerships, course the drug cannot be marketed. This means

NN: So you don’t believe pharmaceuical government insituions, and non-governmental that the company has potenially spent over one
companies have an ethical obligaion to make organizaions like foundaions deinitely have a billion dollars developing a drug and geing it

their drugs available to paients who cannot role to play here. I believe in smart-money: irst approved that it then needs to write of. It also
aford them?
you make investments and then you bring the means that all the scienists, medical doctors and

pharmaceuical companies on board. It’s also other people working on developing the drug risk
PA: No, I don’t think so. Of course there are a lot of great for the company’s reputaion.
their jobs.

people who disagree. My personal opinion is that
this is clearly the responsibility of government. If For rare diseases, I think governments can really So the consequences are signiicant from a

governments lack the budget for such iniiaives, promote developments through so-called fast- commercial and professional point of view,
then public-private partnerships are a good tracking. Usually the approval process for a new but they are not as severe of course as having

soluion - but these should be voluntary. A drug drug is lengthy and extremely expensive. With thousands of paients sufering from these adverse
side efects. And that is why, again, companies
that costs USD 60,000 now will be very afordable fast-tracking you relax some of the rules and give
in ten years’ ime, because patents expire and there the drug preferenial treatment. The other thing have to comply with the rules. It’s clear, ethics

is generic compeiion. What is a good treatment of course is that you have to make absolutely sure comes irst. And this is deinitely a dilemma faced
for privileged paients now will eventually be a that the commercial beneits for orphan drugs are disproporionately by pharmaceuical companies.

standard treatment for paients across the world.
really maximized.

ISSUE 6 Pharmaceuicals l 9