LYMEPOLICYWONK: Lyme disease abandoned by Pharma

Byldoadmin

The lack of pharmaceutical funding has resulted in studies that have been done on Lyme treatment suffer from small sample sizes, mixed results, and a lack of generalizability to the clinical patient population. 

Wendy Rogers at MacQuarie University puts it well: 

Those with the greatest burden of ill health are left disenfranchised, as there is little research that is relevant to them, there is poor access to treatments, and attention is diverted away from activities that might have a much greater impact on their health.
 

From the press report on the lack of pharmaceutical interest in Lyme disease:

GlobalData has estimated that the Lyme disease therapeutics market was worth $2.2m in 2009. The major reason for this limited market revenue is that there is no approved drug specifically for Lyme disease treatment. Antibiotics such as doxycycline, cefuroxime and amoxicillin are currently prescribed. The patent protection of all these antibiotics expired long ago and many generic versions of the antibiotics are available very cheaply. In 2009, the annual cost of therapy for Lyme disease with antibiotics was $81. Between 2001 and 2009, the Lyme disease therapeutics market grew only at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 6.1%. The late-stage pipeline for the Lyme disease therapeutics market is very weak and is entirely made up of antibiotics that are currently used as off-label drugs. Therefore, even though these drugs will receive regulatory approval for the Lyme disease therapeutics market, the entry of antibiotics is expected to have a negligible impact on the market in terms of sales value and volume. Overall, between 2009 and 2017, the Lyme disease therapeutics market is expected to grow at a CAGR of only 4.8% to reach $3.2m by 2017.

The $2.2 million dollar market that GlobalData identifies is a number that is based on underlying assumptions–as these things always are.  To know and test the underlying assumptions, one would need to purchase the $2,000 report.  Without knowing the underlying assumptions it’s impossible to analyze their validity.  For instance, is the market size retail (what you pay to the pharmacy) or wholesale (what the pharmacy pays to the drug company).    It is possible that these assumptions are based merely on the designated number of treatment days under the IDSA guidelines times the number of reported cases under CDC surveillance.  Both of these assumptions would be incorrect because many patients, especially those with chronic Lyme disease, are treated longer and because CDC surveillance statistics underestimate the number of cases by a factor of ten.  I discuss the cost of Lyme disease in a previous blog post based on a study by Zhang, which puts the number at $203 million for CDC cases reported for 2002 alone–a number which given the 10 fold underreporting may in fact be more like $2 billion dollars.  The Zhang study, however, included both direct and indirect medicine costs, while the GlobalData report focus is more narrowly focused on the size of the pharmaceutical market for Lyme disease.  Another huge variable is the rate of prevalence (how many patients remain ill  after short term treatment).  Patients with chronic Lyme disesase are much more costly to treat.  Zhang found the cost of treating early illness was $1310 per patient, while the cost of treating late Lyme was $16,199.

You can follow additional comments on Lyme policy at www.lymepolicywonk.org.  You can contact Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA guidelines: A cautionary tale about development of clinical practice guidelines

    Dr. Stricker and I have published a new peer-reviewed article on the flawed IDSA Lyme guidelines development process, the antitrust investigation, and the lack of impartiality in the mandated review process run by the IDSA. The article is now the number 1 accessed article of the publisher with over 1600 hits in the week since it was published. (Johnson L, Stricker R. “The Infectious Diseases Society of America Lyme guidelines: A cautionary tale about development of clinical practice guidelines,” Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine;5:9 2010.) The article is open access. The two lead in quotes set the stage. The first is by one of the nation’s founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson: ‘Without health, there is no happiness’. The second quote is by Thucydides and speaks to power and its abuse. ‘The strong do what they can; the weak endure what they must’. An excerpt of the article follows the jump:

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: You can observe a lot by watching: Breast Cancer & Lyme Disease

    The parallels between breast cancer and Lyme disease are not obvious, are they? I was surprised by them myself. Breast cancer patients have two treatment options (sound familiar?). Mastectomy removes the entire breast, while the newer procedure, a lumpectomy removes only the tumor and immediately surrounding tissue. Consider this: lumpectomies used to be controversial and were opposed by an entrenched medical establishment. It’s hard to imagine, isn’t it? Even harder to imagine is that women had to pass legislation in 20 states to obtain the right to choose between lumpectomy and a radical mastectomy. Physicians were afraid to perform lumpectomies for fear of losing their license. We have passed legislation in 3 states so far protecting physicians who treat Lyme in defiance of the IDSA guidelines from medical board action. But, wait there's more..

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IOM Report: ’Tis neither here nor there. Or?

    The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has released its long awaited report on Lyme disease. So should we celebrate or despair? I think there is room for a little of both. We should certainly celebrate the tone of the report, which characterizes the session as “a walk in the woods” to start dialogue and we should celebrate the contributions made by those who attended and participated, whether as patients, advocacy groups, researchers or physicians. I think these people did their very best to represent a side of Lyme disease that is not often given public voice. We should also recognize the contribution to a better process that was achieved by the three groups who pulled out of the hearing (CALDA, LDA, and Time for Lyme). This action resulted in Dr. Benjamin Luft of Stony Brook University being added to the agenda and may have also added to the “tone” of the report. What we should not lose sight of though, is that a civil tone and the inclusion of some patients’ testimony are not enough. This is a debate about science. Debates are about equal time, opportunities to rebut, and not excluding opposing viewpoints. That did not happen here. And, what the IOM left out or left unchallenged harms patients. Our biggest hits were in diagnosis, the exclusion of the topics chronic Lyme and treatment, and the complete exclusion of any physicians from ILADS. Let me drill down into the details.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: New Lyme Disease Culture Test Could be Game Changer

    Advanced Laboratory Services Inc. (ALSI) has announced a new culture test for Lyme disease. It is commercially available in all states except California, New York and Florida, which have individual state licensing requirements that must be met before the test can be offered. Direct detection of bacteria through culture is considered the “gold standard” for diagnosis, but this method has not been commercially available for Lyme disease using previous culture methods. The new test is based on research conducted by Dr. Eva Sapi and colleagues, which CALDA helped fund. Results of the research published earlier this year demonstrated the improved culture method for Borrelia burgdorferi, the agent of Lyme disease, and the technique has recently been corroborated using human blood samples. Larger confirmatory studies of the test are now being pursued. Dr. Joseph Burrascano, a pioneer in the treatment of Lyme disease, consulted with ALSI to help make the test commercially available. A sensitive high-quality culture test would not only permit patients to be accurately diagnosed, but would lay to rest much of the controversy surrounding Lyme disease.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Dr. Fallon Sets the Record Straight—Part 2. Differences Matter.

    When studies fail to take heterogeneity into account, researchers can leap to the wrong conclusion. In a recent open-access article, Dr. Fallon and colleagues describe the four NIH trials, the Krupp Stop-LD study, the Klempner seronegative study, the Klempner seropositive study, and Fallon neurologic study and make a key point. There are considerable differences between chronic Lyme patients (so-called patient heterogeneity) that need to be addressed in study design to improve what he calls the signal to noise ratio. If a study does not address heterogeneity, the results may simply reflect “garbage in, garbage out.”