Follow me on

Scalable Obesity Treatments: Time For Pharma To Step Up



time spiralIn my two previous posts (here and here), I have discussed the urgent need for obesity treatments that are scalable to the size of the problem. I explained why neither “lifestyle” nor surgery are scalable to the millions of Canadians who would stand to benefit from obesity treatments.

No doubt, not everyone with a BMI over 30 needs treatment. As I also discussed, we should target treatments (especially with anti-obesity medications) to those who are actually experiencing an obesity related impairment in health, especially those with comorbidities that are not well controlled and who are otherwise good candidates for treatment.

As I calculated, this reduces the number of Canadians that would really need to be treated for obesity from about 7,000,000 to perhaps 1,250,000 – roughly half the number of Canadians currently living with diabetes, a chronic disease that is routinely managed with medical treatments.

 

Many of these would no doubt stand to benefit from surgical treatments, but at the current rate of about 10,000 surgeries a year (a number that is unlikely to dramatically increase in the foreseeable future), I see no alternative than the use of anti-obesity medications.

This is where we have a real problem.

While for any patient with diabetes or hypertension who walks through my door, I have over 100 possible prescription medications to pick from, including an almost limitless number of possible combinations, for obesity I have almost nothing.

The two only prescription medications for obesity currently approved in Canada are orlistat and liraglutide. The former is moderately effective but is handicapped by unpleasant side effects. The latter, is an injectable hormone-analogue, where access is limited by cost (in Canada about $15 a day).

Obviously, not everyone will tolerate or respond to either of these medications. This is not unexpected. In fact this is the very reason that we have so many different classes of drugs for the treatment of other chronic diseases like hypertension or diabetes – what works for one patient does not work (or is not tolerated) by another.

So why do we not have more therapeutic options for obesity treatment?

The only answer that springs to mind is that Big Pharma is not putting the same dedication and resources behind developing anti-obesity drugs compared to what they are pouring into other indication areas.

Thus, while Big Pharma is busy developing and appears to be launching new drugs for diabetes almost every other month, nothing remotely comparable is happening in the obesity space.

thus, virtually every multinational pharmaceutical company has active development programs for diabetes.

In contrast, almost no multinational pharmaceutical company has an active development program for obesity worth speaking of.

The only reason that I can think of why a Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Merck or any of the other major pharmaceutical companies are not investing in finding, developing, and bringing new anti-obesity drugs to market to fill this gaping therapeutic gap, is that they do not expect to make money with anti-obesity drugs.

This is largely because, as we have seen with past introductions of anti-obesity drugs, medications for obesity are seldom covered by pharma benefit plans or public formularies, making access to these drugs for a relevant number of patients difficult.

This lack of coverage of obesity drugs has little to do with the actual cost of new medications. In fact, even the currently most expensive anti-obesity drug in Canada works out to only around $5,000 a year – a sum that drug benefit plans routinely spend on managing patients with diabetes year after year after year.

So if it is not the cost of treating obesity that is prohibitive, why do most people who would stand to benefit from obesity treatments (and remember, we are only talking about half as many people who are currently being treated for diabetes) not have access to obesity treatments?

My guess is that this has a lot to do with the fact that obesity (in contrast to hypertension or diabetes), is still not widely seen as a chronic disease requiring treatment in its own right.

For one, most doctors have never prescribed a medication for obesity – they were simply never trained to do so.

In addition, employers (who generally pay for their employee benefit plans) are offered the option of opting out of covering obesity treatments (drugs or otherwise) – unfortunately, most employers do.

Of course, I understand that prescriptions medications (even after their regulatory approval and meeting the relevant efficacy and safety standards) should only be covered if they promise real health benefits, which of course have to be demonstrated in clinical trials.

But we will never have those new medications or the trials that prove their efficacy, if companies believe that despite all efforts, their medications will not recoup the investments or make profits for their shareholders.

This is where policy makers need to step in.

For one, governments could consider providing significant incentives (e.g. tax breaks?) to Big Pharma to devote resources specifically towards developing new medications for obesity.

Secondly, governments must streamline the approval process for new obesity medications in a way that will ensure that these treatments become available to those who stand to benefit (and I don’t mean anyone who is hoping to lose a couple of pounds to fit into their wedding dress – I mean people with at least Edmonton Stage 2 obesity, especially those with poorly controlled obesity related health problems).

Thirdly, employers and benefit plans should no longer have the option of opting out of paying for obesity treatments (in the same manner that they cannot chose to simply not cover diabetes or hypertension or any other chronic disease).

I believe that if these measures were implemented, at least some of the big pharmaceutical companies will reassess their position on developing safe and effective anti-obesity medications.

With more pharmacological options (and more competition in the market place), I see no reason why the standard for obesity care cannot be on par with what is currently routinely offered for patients with diabetes, hypertension or most other chronic diseases.

Without these policy changes, I fear that we will never have obesity treatments that are scalable to address the size of the problem.

The time for policy makers to act is now!

@DrSharma
Edmonton, AB

Post script: I harbour no illusion that any change in policy in Canada alone will make any difference to Big Pharma – after all, the Canadian pharma sales are only about 2% of the global market. Rather, it would take a consortium of countries, including the biggest markets, to make a joint decision regarding any such policies. Sadly, I believe that the  chances for this in the current political climate are rather remote – but, then again, we can always hope…

 

4 Comments

    • Multiple studies show that the effect of metformin on body weight is minimal at best. The long-term benefits of protein supplements for obesity management is likewise questionable.

      Post a Reply
  1. Definitely, if urge we have in clinical medicine for obesity. In Mexico, there are similarly Orlistat and Liraglutide, but they are marketed in the same way as in the USA Phentermine and Topiramate, separately and continue to be in pharmacies Fenproporex,. Amfepramone, mazindol.
    As an endocrinologist, I prescribe them in fine practice. But I see complications most painfully from their use by non-specialist physicians who use them without the care or knowledge and training in relevant internal medicine or endocrinology
    I see the problem a little different in some respects:
    1.-Coinciding in that it is the lack of training in medical faculties until today, we have been in charge of “demonizing” the drugs ourselves and favored that the basic aspects of the pharmacotherapy with them are unknown.
    2.-In addition to the lack of support for anti-obesity drugs by insurers and public institutions, I believe that a very important limiting factor for their development and research, the application of high security standards, such as those that do not cause any risk of CV alteration and Of the CNS, which assisted the industry that required the study Scout for Sibutramine for example and for use of Rimonabant by Sanofi for risk mental disorders, knowing all endocrinologists and internists that these effects were expected. That is, I assume that it is almost impossible to require a drug to maintain lipolytic, anorexigenic and thermogenic efgects without affecting such systems, where they act.

    3. The third problem is undoubtedly that it persists with a double-sidedness, a duality or ambivalence in the facultative organs like the FDA, and I imagine in Canada, not to say in Mexico, where sanitary norms are folded health policies To the US,
    In which, on the one hand, the metabolic, cardiovascular, respiratory, orthopedic risk of the offense is advocated and recognized as a clinical entity, but any developing drug is labeled as if it were to be used for people who would use it for aspects Aesthetics and asia is where the possibility of drug development is narrowed as it does not admit a risk at the level of snc or cv, as if it were for cosmetic use.
    4.-For this reason I believe as you, the physicians who specialize in endocrinology metabolism and nutrition, who we should meet and encourage to be clearer:
    Or is a disease in itself obesity and with high risks of comorbidity, damage to health, or deny that is a disease, forcing the regulatory institutions of our countries, first be separated from the FDA and second accept And promote self-research, balancing the potential and potential benefits of developing such much-needed drugs.
    My fans page:- Diabetes,Endocrinologia, Nutricion, Metabolismo

    Post a Reply
  2. It is shocking phara doesn’t see a financial opportunity when there is such a need in North America – perhaps, like the rest of society, they hold the view that obesity is a lifestyle choice, and just eating a bit less and moving more will solve the issue and people who chose to remain obese are lazy, irresponsible, etc. I was reading the comments in a Facebook story about airline seats and sharing a row with an obese person, and the shame and blame was really disappointing but shows how obesity is not yet seen as a chronic disease, but more like a choice such as smoking or alcoholism was. When we know better, we do better – a lot of public education will be required to change the tide.

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>