Pharma DA - GDI 2024

PHARMA INNOVATION DISAD
***NEG***
1NC Pharma DA
U.S. pharmaceutical industry is advancing but continued development is always key
Alivia Kaylor, Senior Editor, ’24, January 22, “A Pulse Check on Advancements in the Life Sciences, Pharma Industry,” PHARMA NEWS INTELLIGENCE, accessed July 16, 2024, https://pharmanewsintel.com/features/a-pulse-check-on-advancements-in-the-life-sciences-pharma-industry
The advancements mentioned by Kaylor and Salib highlight the remarkable progress made in the life sciences and pharmaceutical industry, with significant advancements in cell and gene therapy, targeted oncology treatments, and male birth control options.
These developments can transform medical treatment, improve patient outcomes, and promote shared responsibility in reproductive health. However, it is crucial to acknowledge the ongoing challenges — including the need for equitable access to these groundbreaking treatments and therapies — and address the cost and availability of these innovations to ensure that they benefit all individuals who could benefit from them.
In addition, ongoing research and collaboration among industry experts, healthcare professionals, and regulatory bodies will be essential in advancing these technologies and ensuring their safety and efficacy.
Although challenges remain, the future of healthcare looks promising, with these groundbreaking innovations paving the way for a more effective, personalized, and patient-centric approach to medical care.
Greater protection for indigenous knowledge raises costs, which can limit drug development.
Reid, Oklahoma Law Review Tech Editor, 09
[John K. Reid, Special Projects/Technology Editor, 3rd year Oklahoma College of Law student, 1-1-2009, American Indian Law Review, Volume 34, Number 1, “Biopiracy: The Struggle for Traditional Knowledge Rights,” https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=ailr, 6-30-24, EP]
Offering greater protection may force companies to contract and give Indigenous peoples further bargaining power during contract negotiations. Anything that limits pharmaceutical companies' rights to resources, however, has the potential to limit drug development. With past contracts, availability of resources did not always mean results. Merck's contract with Costa Rica did not yield any new drugs. Shaman's contracts did yield a few medical developments, but they did so at such a cost that Shaman ended up in bankruptcy. The more control indigenous peoples have over these resources, the more expensive access to them will become, leading to a decrease in development.
Continuous pharma innovation is the only shield against future pandemic extinction
Jean-Louis Excler et al ’21, including Melanie Saville, Seth Berkley & Jerome H. Kim, “Vaccine development for emerging infectious diseases,” Nature Medicine volume 27, pages 591–600 (2021) accessed July 16, 2024, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01301-0
Newly emerging and reemerging infectious viral diseases have threatened humanity throughout history. Several interlaced and synergistic factors including demographic trends and high-density urbanization, modernization favoring high mobility of people by all modes of transportation, large gatherings, altered human behaviors, environmental changes with modification of ecosystems and inadequate global public health mechanisms have accelerated both the emergence and spread of animal viruses as existential human threats. In 1918, at the time of the ‘Spanish flu’, the world population was estimated at 1.8 billion. It is projected to reach 9.9 billion by 2050, an increase of more than 25% from the current 2020 population of 7.8 billion (https://www.worldometers.info). The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic1,2,3 engulfed the entire world in less than 6 months, with high mortality in the elderly and those with associated comorbidities. The pandemic has severely disrupted the world economy. Short of lockdowns, the only means of control have been limited to series of mitigation measures such as self-distancing, wearing masks, travel restrictions and avoiding gatherings, all imperfect and constraining. Now with more than 100 million people infected and more than 2 million deaths, it seems that the addition of vaccine(s) to existing countermeasures holds the best hope for pandemic control. Taken together, these reasons compel researchers and policymakers to be vigilant, reexamine the approach to surveillance and management of emerging infectious disease threats, and revisit global mechanisms for the control of pandemic disease4,5.
Emerging and reemerging infectious diseases
The appearance of new infectious diseases has been recognized for millennia, well before the discovery of causative infectious agents. Despite advances in development of countermeasures (diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines), world travel and increased global interdependence have added layers of complexity to containing these infectious diseases. Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) are threats to human health and global stability 6,7. A review of emerging pandemic diseases throughout history offers a perspective on the emergence and characteristics of coronavirus epidemics, with emphasis on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic8,9. As human societies grow in size and complexity, an endless variety of opportunities is created for infectious agents to emerge into the unfilled ecologic niches we continue to create. To illustrate this constant vulnerability of populations to emerging and reemerging pathogens and their respective risks to rapidly evolve into devastating outbreaks and pandemics, a partial list of emerging viral infectious diseases that occurred between 1900 and 2020 is shown in Table 1.
Although nonemerging infectious diseases (not listed in Table 1), two other major mosquito-borne viral infections are yellow fever and dengue. Yellow fever, known for centuries and an Aedes mosquito-borne disease, is endemic in more than 40 countries across Africa and South America. Since 2016, several yellow fever outbreaks have occurred in Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria and Brazil to cite a few10, raising major concerns about the adequacy of yellow fever vaccine supply. Four live attenuated vaccines derived from the live attenuated yellow fever strain (17D)11 and prequalified by the WHO (World Health Organization) are available12.
Dengue is an increasing global public health threat with the four dengue virus types (DENV1–4) now cocirculating in most dengue endemic areas. Population growth, an expansion of areas hospitable for Aedes mosquito species and the ease of travel have all contributed to a steady rise in dengue infections and disease. Dengue is common in more than 100 countries around the world. Each year, up to 400 million people acquire dengue. Approximately 100 million people get sick from infection, and 22,000 die from severe dengue. Most seriously affected by outbreaks are the Americas, South/Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific; Asia represents ~70% of the global burden of disease (https://www.cdc.gov/dengue). Several vaccines have been developed13. A single dengue vaccine, Sanofi Pasteur’s Dengvaxia based on the yellow fever 17D backbone, has been licensed in 20 countries, but uptake has been poor. A safety signal in dengue-seronegative vaccine recipients stimulated an international review of the vaccine performance profile, new WHO recommendations for use and controversy in the Philippines involving the government, regulatory agencies, Sanofi Pasteur, clinicians responsible for testing and administering the vaccine, and the parents of vaccinated children14.
Two bacterial diseases, old scourges of humanity, are endemic and responsible for recurrent outbreaks and are increasingly antimicrobial resistant. Cholera, caused by pathogenic strains of Vibrio cholerae, is currently in its seventh global pandemic since 1817; notably, the seventh pandemic started in 196115. Global mortality due to cholera infection remains high, mainly due to delay in rehydrating patients. The global burden of cholera is estimated to be between 1.4 and 4.3 million cases with about 21,000–143,000 deaths per year, mostly in Asia and Africa. Tragic outbreaks have occurred in Yemen and Haiti. Adding to rehydration therapy, antibiotics have been used in the treatment of cholera to shorten the duration of diarrhea and to limit bacterial spread. Over the years, antimicrobial resistance developed in Asia and Africa to many useful antibiotics including chloramphenicol, furazolidone, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, nalidixic acid, tetracycline and fluoroquinolones. Several vaccines have been developed and WHO prequalified; these vaccines constitute a Gavi-supported global stockpile for rapid deployment during outbreaks16.
Typhoid fever is a severe disease caused by the Gram-negative bacterium Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Typhi (S. Typhi). Antimicrobial-resistant S. Typhi strains have become increasingly common. The first large-scale emergence and spread of a novel extensively drug-resistant (XDR) S. Typhi clone was first reported in Sindh, Pakistan17,18, and has subsequently been reported in India, Bangladesh, Nepal, the Philippines, Iraq and Guatemala19,20. The world is in a critical period as XDR S. Typhi has appeared in densely populated areas. The successful development of improved typhoid vaccines (conjugation of the Vi polysaccharide with a carrier protein) with increased immunogenicity and efficacy including in children less than 2 years of age will facilitate the control of typhoid, in particular in XDR areas by decreasing the incidence of typhoid fever cases needing antibiotic treatment21,22.
A model of vaccine development for emerging infectious diseases
The understanding of emerging infectious diseases has evolved over the past two decades. A look back at the SARS-CoV outbreak in 2002 shows that—despite a small number of deaths and infections—its high mortality and transmissibility caused significant global disruption (see Table 1). The epidemic ended as work on vaccines was initiated. Since then, the disease has not reappeared—wet markets were closed and transmission to humans from civets ceased. Consequently, work on vaccines against SARS-CoV ended and its funding was cut. Only a whole inactivated vaccine23 and a DNA vaccine24 were tested in phase 1 clinical trials.
Following a traditional research and development pipeline, it takes between 5 and 10 years to develop a vaccine for an infectious agent. This approach is not well suited for the needs imposed by the emergence of a new pathogen during an epidemic. Figure 1 shows a comparison of the epidemic curves and vaccine development timelines between the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak and COVID-19. The 2014 Ebola epidemic lasted more than 24 months with 11,325 deaths and was sufficiently prolonged to enable the development and testing of vaccines for Ebola, with efficacy being shown for one vaccine (of several) toward the end of the epidemic25,26. What makes the COVID-19 pandemic remarkable is that the whole research and development pipeline, from the first SARS-CoV-2 viral sequenced to interim analyses of vaccine efficacy trials, was accomplished in just under 300 days27. Amid increasing concerns about unmitigated transmission during the 2013–2016 Western African Ebola outbreak in mid-2014, WHO urged acceleration of the development and evaluation of candidate vaccines25. To ensure that manufacturers would take the Ebola vaccine to full development and deployment, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, publicly announced support of up to US$300 million for vaccine purchase and followed that announcement with an advance purchase agreement. Ironically, there had been Ebola vaccines previously developed and tested for biodefense purposes in nonhuman primates, but this previous work was neither ‘ready’ for clinical trials during the epidemic nor considered commercially attractive enough to finish development28.
From these perceived shortcomings in vaccine development during public health emergencies arose the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), a not-for-profit organization dedicated to timely vaccine development capabilities in anticipation of epidemics29,30. CEPI initially focused on diseases chosen from a list of WHO priority pathogens for EIDs—Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), Lassa fever, Nipah, Rift Valley fever (RVF) and chikungunya. The goal of CEPI was to advance candidate vaccines through phase 2 and to prepare stockpiles of vaccine against eventual use/testing under epidemic circumstances. CEPI had also prepared for ‘disease X’ by investing in innovative rapid response platforms that could move from sequence to clinical trials in weeks rather than months or years, such as mRNA and DNA technology, platforms that were useful when COVID-19 was declared a global health emergency in January 2020, and a pandemic in March 202031,32.
CEPI has been able to fund several vaccine development efforts, among them product development by Moderna, Inovio, Oxford–AstraZeneca and Novavax. Providing upfront funding helped these groups to advance vaccine candidates to clinical trials and develop scaled manufacturing processes in parallel, minimizing financial risk to vaccine developers. The launch of the larger US-funded Operation Warp Speed33 further provided companies with funding—reducing risks associated with rapid vaccine development and securing initial commitments in vaccine doses.
Vaccine platforms and vaccines for emerging infectious diseases
Vaccines are the cornerstone of the management of infectious disease outbreaks and are the surest means to defuse pandemic and epidemic risk. The faster a vaccine is deployed, the faster an outbreak can be controlled. As discussed in the previous section, the standard vaccine development cycle is not suited to the needs of explosive pandemics. New vaccine platform technologies however may shorten that cycle and make it possible for multiple vaccines to be more rapidly developed, tested and produced 34. Table 2 provides examples of the most important technical vaccine platforms for vaccines developed or under development for emerging viral infectious diseases. Two COVID-19 vaccines were developed using mRNA technology (Pfizer–BioNTech35 and Moderna36), both showing safety and high efficacy, and now with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA)37,38 and European Medicines Agency (EMA) conditional marketing authorization39,40. While innovative and encouraging for other EIDs, it is too early to assert that mRNA vaccines represent a universal vaccine approach that could be broadly applied to other EIDs (such as bacterial or enteric pathogens). While COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are a useful proof of concept, gathering lessons from their large-scale deployment and effectiveness studies still requires more work and time.
Uniqueness – pharma high
Pharma developing and distributing drugs at a fast clip
Sally Pipes ’24, January 30, president, CEO, and the Thomas W. Smith fellow in healthcare policy at the Pacific Research Institute, “Bernie's Anti-Pharma Crusade Is Not In Patients' Interests,” FORBES, accessed July 16, 2024, https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2024/01/30/bernies-anti-pharma-crusade-is-not-in-patients-interests/
The Commonwealth Fund recently published a report that compares prices for those first ten drugs in the United States with those in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom—all of which have government price caps. Sanders and his allies will surely point to this report, as it finds that those ten drugs cost three times as much here as they do in our seven peer countries.
But one of the costs of price caps is a lengthy wait for access. Just three of the ten medicines, on average, were available in the seven comparator countries within a year of their launch.
By contrast, seven of those ten were available in the United States within a year of their launch.
Overall, 85% of medicines launched between 2012 and 2021 were available through Medicare and Medicaid as of October 2022. People in the Commonwealth Fund's seven peer countries had access to just 40% of those new medicines.
American patients also got access to new medications on average 2.5 years sooner than those in the not-so-magnificent seven.
Faster access to cutting-edge meds saves lives. One study found that survival gains among Americans with the most common form of lung cancer would have been half as big between 2006 and 2017 if they'd been saddled with the limited access to medications that patients in Australia, Canada, and France had to deal with.
The Inflation Reduction Act's looming price controls won't just penalize current patients by reducing access. They'll harm future patients by resulting in the development of fewer novel drugs.
Price controls will deprive the pharmaceutical industry of revenue that could be invested in research and development. But the caps will also dissuade investors from funding drug discovery.
Pharma industry effective and growing now
Joseph Damond, ’24, February 6, EGA Health Chair, “Biden’s “march-in” rights threaten long-term innovation in pharmaceuticals and biotech,” EGA, accessed July 16, 2024, https://www.edelmanglobaladvisory.com/insights/Biden-march-in-rights-threaten-long-term-innovation
When it comes to healthcare, a delicate balance exists between fostering innovation and ensuring patient access to life-saving medicines. The Biden administration recently announced plans to establish new rules broadening its authority to seize patents from pharmaceutical companies for new drugs that have benefitted from publicly financed research. These plans are not only controversial but also raise critical questions about the future of pharmaceutical innovation in the United States.
The US pharmaceutical and biotech sector has long been a global leader in innovative drug development—owing much of its success to a combination of effective life-science policies such as federally funded research grants, robust intellectual property protections, and technology transfer policies. These policies have historically, and effectively, provided companies with incentives to invest in high-risk and costly drug development, which has resulted in countless groundbreaking medical advancements that we benefit from today.
Current investment in pharma is strong – continued development is likely but not assured
Anderson, Healthcare Brew Reporter, 7/11/24
[Maia, 07/11/2024, Healthcare Brew,“Why private equity investors are going all in on the pharma services sector,”, https://www.healthcare-brew.com/stories/2024/07/11/why-private-equity-investors-are-going-all-in-on-the-pharma-services-sector, accessed: 07/16/2024, shl]
Private equity (PE) investors have long poured money into the healthcare industry, commonly investing in physician practices and hospitals. But in the past couple of years, a new sector is gaining momentum among investors: pharma services.
The sector comprises companies that provide any services to the biopharmaceutical industry, from preclinical development and clinical trials to manufacturing, distribution, and commercialization, according to Rebecca Springer, lead healthcare analyst at global market data company PitchBook, which released a report in June outlining PE interest in pharma services.
“Although PE investment in pharma services reaches back to the 1990s, the past decade has seen industry trends converge to make the space increasingly attractive, and over the past two years, pharma services has become the hottest area of PE healthcare investing,” the report stated. Roughly 432 pharma services PE deals were made from 2017 to 2019, compared to 774 deals made between 2021 and 2023. And so 

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.