What's new

A major boost to cancer patients- Indian SC rules against swiss Novartis AG

I am asking about Pricing...............How could Novartis price there product below Generic Version of a molecule in India..............That means they still have margin..............
Okay, I got it now.Yes there is a margin. Medicines even the generic ones are sold at a price which is much more then their actual Production costs.

Usually the pricing for drugs when they initially come to market tends to be high,as only the original company which has the patent does its production . But after the patent expires (20 year limit) these meds can be produced by any generic companies. then to stay competitive, the original manufacturers tend to reduce the cost.
 
There is Nothing Magical about Indian Generic versionor about the Generic companies .Those generic Companies Just copied the drug chemistry and They do not have any Research and developmental funding put in the drug that they need to recover. and The Indians are somehow now boasting about how they are selling it at a low price. Novartis is absolutely with in bounds when they said the culture of innovation does not exist in India.Frankly One of reasons why I went abroad.


Good for you...
 
People going against this decision have no idea about evergreening...
I am pretty well versed with What Evergreening is.

I am not opposing the Court's decision,It certainly serves the best interest of the poor.

But to Berate the people and companies who are the original tinkerers and then somehow Boasting about how the copy cat Manufacturers export the end products at a fraction of cost is not very critical thinking .This is something I am totally against. all this is counterproductive and kills the desire to innovate.
 
Here is another good news, a BREAKTHROUGH for people suffering with MS

OTTAWA — A team of Ottawa doctors is preparing to publish a full report on its breakthrough multiple sclerosis treatment study that has so far eliminated the disease in those treated.

The experimental study began about 13 years ago as a last resort for patients who fail to improve on drug therapy and who suffer severe symptoms of MS. Snippets of the results have been published “here and there,” said, neurologist Dr. Mark Freedman, one of the leads of the program at The Ottawa Hospital, but its never been published in its entirety.

No specific date has been set for its release, but the team’s findings are far from secret. With MS not returning in any of the 24 participants, patient success stories appear in news media across the country. Since the original study’s completion, about another dozen patients have been treated with all of them showing the same results.

Eliminating MS completely and watching patients improve surprised both Freedman and Dr. Harold Atkins, a bone-marrow transplant expert, who started the study. The two originally set out to monitor the development of the disease and find a way to treat it. Their theory was this: Wipe out the entire immune system, reboot it with a transplant of the patient’s own bone marrow and wait for MS to regenerate
OTTAWA — A team of Ottawa doctors is preparing to publish a full report on its breakthrough multiple sclerosis treatment study that has so far eliminated the disease in those treated.

The experimental study began about 13 years ago as a last resort for patients who fail to improve on drug therapy and who suffer severe symptoms of MS. Snippets of the results have been published “here and there,” said, neurologist Dr. Mark Freedman, one of the leads of the program at The Ottawa Hospital, but its never been published in its entirety.

No specific date has been set for its release, but the team’s findings are far from secret. With MS not returning in any of the 24 participants, patient success stories appear in news media across the country. Since the original study’s completion, about another dozen patients have been treated with all of them showing the same results.

Eliminating MS completely and watching patients improve surprised both Freedman and Dr. Harold Atkins, a bone-marrow transplant expert, who started the study. The two originally set out to monitor the development of the disease and find a way to treat it. Their theory was this: Wipe out the entire immune system, reboot it with a transplant of the patient’s own bone marrow and wait for MS to regenerate.

“We thought we might be able to intercept one of the signals that initiates the disease and that would then give us a clue on how to treat it,” Freedman said. He jokes that they “had, in effect, failed because the disease never came back. No one expected to see zero disease activity after the transplant.”

Patients from Vancouver to Newfoundland, who had given up hope, became part of the original 24, including third-year medical student Alex Normandin from Montreal.

The aspiring doctor noticed alarming symptoms of fatigue, numbness and problems with balance and co-ordination. Researchers at the Montreal Neurological Institute confirmed he has a particularly aggressive form of MS, an unpredictable and degenerative disease that affects the central nervous system.

Most patients do not become severely disabled because the illness moves slowly. But in Normandin’s case, the destruction was so fast that doctors expected him to need a wheelchair within months.

Normandin, however, learned of the cutting-edge treatment run by Freedman and Atkins. He became patient No. 19 in the experiment and had his transplant in Ottawa in December 2008.

The procedure has its risks. One patient died in an earlier phase of the trial. It was in 2001 or 2002, Freedman recalled, saying the death was due to the pill form of the drug Busulphan. Used early on in the experiment, the drug attacks the liver twice, both when it enters the body and again when it leaves. But within a year, the team had found that a new intravenous version of the drug improved patient safety tremendously.

Freedman had the task of trying to scare patients by telling them the risks.

“My job was to talk everybody out of it,” he said. “It really is the hardest thing they’ll have to do in their lives. It is a bit of a gamble, but with the fantastic team we have in Ottawa, it’s less of a gamble.”

All participants showed dramatic improvement, and none reported relapses, according to a study on the Freedman-Atkins treatment by a team of MS researchers at the Neuro and the Université de Montréal.

Plus, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed no new lesions in the brain, “no new MS disease activity,” according to findings published in the latest issue of Annals of Neurology.

For Normandin, he’s now a family physician in private practice on the West Island and no longer takes medication for the illness. His fatigue and balance problems continue to diminish daily.

But despite such dramatic results, none of the MS researchers in this study is calling the procedure a cure.

For one thing, it is not known whether the treatment is good at stopping other kinds of MS, explained neurologist Amit Bar-Or of the Montreal Neurological Institute and McGill University and the study’s principal investigator.

Also, bone-marrow stem-cell transplants to treat MS are not approved outside of clinical trials because while the disease itself is not deadly, the procedure is fatal in as much as five per cent of patients.

But Freedman questions the risk rate. He says the five-per-cent figure was from data collected in the 1990s as the team prepared for the experiment. That number has since dropped to about one per cent, he said.

In addition to medical advancements, by comparing the immune responses in patients before and after the treatment, researchers discovered a key biological target for new therapies that might be able to provide similar benefits without the risks associated with knocking out someone’s immune system to facilitate a bone-marrow transplant.

Several studies have already noted that in MS patients, the body’s immune system attacks its own cells. Overactive T cells (a type of white blood cells called lymphocytes) — that are responsible for defending the body against bacteria, viruses and other parasites — can also damage myelin, the protective insulation covering nerves.

The concept is straightforward, Bar-Or explained. To fight an infection, different types of T cells mount a quick response, then other T cells quickly ratchet back that response, he said. But in auto-immune conditions, including MS, this regulation goes awry and the body attacks itself.

Researchers have zeroed in on a particular subset of T cells, called TH17 cells, that have a substantially diminished function following the experimental transplant. The discovery could help researchers target treatment in MS patients generally.

“We are cautious in not claiming we have figured out all cells responsible for all relapses in all MS patients,” Bar-Or noted. “Keep in mind these patients have very aggressive MS, so maybe TH17 are particularly important in these patients.”

Emerging treatments, however, are already attempting to target TH17 cells, but the story is even more complicated, Bar-Or said.

“We don’t know everything about them (TH17 cells) even in terms of basic immunology. It’s likely that within the TH17 subset there may be particular bad guys ... It would be nice to know which because we need to have these cells some of the time. Getting rid of all of them all of the time, may not be completely safe.”

Both the clinical study at the Ottawa Hospital Multiple Sclerosis Research Unit and biological study in Montreal were funded by the Research Foundation of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.

Canada has one of the highest rates of MS in the world — affecting about 55,000 to 75,000 people.

Normandin says his illness has been a blessing in disguise, giving him a unique perspective not found in medical text books.

“It changed my whole outlook on life. It definitely affects the way I see patients. I’m more sensitive in how to talk to them and more empathetic dealing with chronic diseases.”

He was once on a career track where the focus was work, but now “life balance” is everything and he is grateful for the treatment that gave him his life back and allowed him to work in a clinic where he can spend as much time as necessary talking to patients.

“Life is great,” he said. “I love to say it.”
 
I am pretty well versed with What Evergreening is.

I am not opposing the Court's decision,It certainly serves the best interest of the poor.

But to Berate the people and companies who are the original tinkerers and then somehow Boasting about how the copy cat Manufacturers export the end products at a fraction of cost is not very critical thinking .This is something I am totally against. all this is counterproductive and kills the desire to innovate.

Well, India does respect IP rights. But ever-greening is something we are opposed to. More out of necessity than desire. They were protected for 5 years, since they didn't manage to come up with something innovative, their patent expired. This is only natural i think. As for innovation, Indian pharmaceuticals are quite innovative--just not in the scale of western ones. Capability will take time to build.
 
I am pretty well versed with What Evergreening is.

I am not opposing the Court's decision,It certainly serves the best interest of the poor.

But to Berate the people and companies who are the original tinkerers and then somehow Boasting about how the copy cat Manufacturers export the end products at a fraction of cost is not very critical thinking .This is something I am totally against. This is counterproductive and kills the desire to innovate.

The court's decision is not about serving the poor, it's upholding the patent law as written. The SC only upheld the interpretation that the High Court in Chennai held about the patents office refusal to give Novartis a patent on the grounds that it was not new enough. Ever-greening is unethical no matter how you look at it. Very common in the U.S. & Europe but held to a tougher standard in India. If it is anyone's case that the patent period is not sufficient then that should be brought to the public domain & discussed, it cannot be used an excuse to do underhand dealing by subverting patent law.
 
Well, India does respect IP rights. But ever-greening is something we are opposed to. More out of necessity than desire. They were protected for 5 years, since they didn't manage to come up with something innovative, their patent expired. This is only natural i think. As for innovation, Indian pharmaceuticals are quite innovative--just not in the scale of western ones. Capability will take time to build.
Well said Sir. I am also against Ever greening ,Particularly in this case as Novartis has already Recovered the R & D cost.All I was saying is that they should be given a Vocal credit for the work they did and should not be disparaged as greedy looters etc.

The court's decision is not about serving the poor, it's upholding the patent law as written. The SC only upheld the interpretation that the High Court in Chennai held about the patents office refusal to give Novartis a patent on the grounds that it was not new enough. Ever-greening is unethical no matter how you look at it. Very common in the U.S. & Europe but held to a tougher standard in India. If it is anyone's case that the patent period is not sufficient then that should be brought to the public domain & discussed, it cannot be used an excuse to do underhand dealing by subverting patent law.
Definitely Sir, I have never embraced ever greening.If it was not for Novartis funding tyrosine kinase Inhibitor research in 1984, we might not have seen the Glevic today. My View was more in general for support to People who fund R & D efforts not about ever greening practice.
 
Well said Sir. I am also against Ever greening ,Particularly in this case as Novartis has already Recovered the R & D cost.All I was saying is that they should be given a Vocal credit for the work they did and should not be disparaged as greedy looters etc.

I would agree in the normal course but even you will have to agree that Novartis's behaviour of threats & intimidation, suggesting that they won't market their new drugs in India as retaliation is stupid, (also pointless since it would have no effect on India because India would grant compulsory licenses to overcome that threat) If you behave like a bully, then it would be very difficult to find people sympathetic to you. Best to accept the Supreme Court decision & move on, India is no banana republic to be cowed by such threats and no one respects a one trick pony.
 
I would agree in the normal course but even you will have to agree that Novartis's behaviour of threats & intimidation, suggesting that they won't market their new drugs in India as retaliation is stupid,
Yes Sir, It kinda is. They should have acted more maturely. Although these seem more like empty threats.A successful Company would be very stupid to ignore a Big market like India.
 
Back
Top Bottom