After decades of research – much of it funded by the public – gene therapy is a reality. Now high costs are blocking patient access. Prices should be constrained
Source Science Business
Gene therapy is providing unprecedented hope for growing numbers of patients and families. This game changer in medicine restores vision in babies born with congenital blindness, reconstitutes defences against infection in inherited immunodeficiencies and offers the perspective of curing the devastating neuromuscular disease, spinal muscular atrophy.
Gene therapy is also removing the need for repeat blood transfusions in adolescents with the inherited blood disorder, beta-thalassemia. Meanwhile, in oncology, CAR-T therapies, involving genetic modifications of a patient’s own immune cells, are proving life-saving for children or adults with certain types of blood cancers.
All these revolutionary treatments are now approved by regulatory agencies in Europe or the US. Unfortunately, they carry astronomical price tags which prevent their effective delivery to patients. As one case in point, Bluebird Bio’s Zynteglo for treating beta-thalassemia, has a list price of €1.57 million.
Can high prices be justified?
Gene therapy manufacturers defend their prices by pointing to high development and manufacturing costs, small markets, and unique therapeutic effectiveness as compared to the current standard of care. However, R&D costs are kept secret, and higher numbers of patients eligible for a given therapy do not translate into lower prices.
Indeed, several arguments the manufacturers put forward are dubious or even far-fetched. As of today, claims that a single administration of a gene therapy product will ensure a lifelong cure are simply not supported by the scientific evidence.
Likewise, value-based pricing is often misconceived. As stated by the US Institute for Clinical and Economic Review in its 2017 white paper on gene therapy, the established value of a treatment reflects the maximum price society might be prepared to pay for it – but should not dictate the price that is actually paid. In an ideal world, actual prices should provide market-consistent returns for shareholders and sufficient incentive to innovate.
The EU, a pioneer in gene therapy
European scientists, institutions and charities have been central to the development of gene therapy. The world’s first successful clinical trial was reported in 2000 by Alain Fischer and his team at Necker Hospital in Paris, while the first authorisation of a gene therapy product in a regulated market was granted by the European Medicines Agency in 2012.
According to the Cordis database of EU-supported research, 86 gene therapy projects for rare diseases had funding from the European Commission during the FP7 (2007-2013) and Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) research programmes. One can estimate that overall more than €1 billion has been invested in this area by the EU Commission, member states and not-for-profit organisations.
To ensure European patients benefit from these achievements and investments, it is essential to ensure reasonable pricing of gene therapies. Laudable efforts are currently being made by the World Health Organization to increase transparency, and by some member states to join forces in negotiating prices, but such initiatives are unlikely to solve the current crisis as they do not address its root, namely that the sole objective of most gene therapy companies is to maximise the return on investment and shareholder value.
A way forward: enforcing the corporate social responsibility of gene therapy manufacturers
As I recently argued with Alain Fischer and the economist Mathias Dewatripont in the journal Nature Medicine (November 25, 2019), now is the time to reflect on how to enforce the corporate social responsibility of gene therapy companies.
Among the measures we would like to see considered are the insertion of clauses into technology transfer agreements made between academic organisations receiving grants from the European Commission and for-profit companies to make reasonable pricing compulsory.
We also propose to make reimbursement of gene therapies by EU healthcare payers conditional on the companies which are commercialising these products being certified for their corporate social responsibility. This is in line with several commitments made recently by pharma companies. For example, in August 2019, the CEOs of US-based pharma companies signed the Business Roundtable Statement, affirming their commitment to generate value for all their stakeholders – not just their shareholders.
Also in August, Novartis announced it had joined the Value Balancing Alliance, a body whose goal is to increase transparency around business decisions, work with external bodies to develop accounting frameworks, and shift priority from profit maximisation to optimising value creation.
Earlier this year, the pharmaceutical company Chiesi was certified as a Benefit Corporation, meaning its legally defined goals include positive social impact in addition to profit.
Of course, the effective implementation of such commitments and their translation into reasonable pricing policies will require both incentives and regulatory controls. The starting point should be a renewed multi-stakeholder conversation with industry, investors, regulators, payers and, of course, patients.
Professor Michel Goldman is Co-director of the I3h Institute at the Université Libre de Bruxelles and former Executive Director of the EU Innovative Medicines Initiative.