I have written in the past about my feelings about ‘Suboxone Film’– that it is a product that serves only one purpose, and that is to block generic competition from the Suboxone market. Below I’ve copied a Bloomberg article that discusses the current nature of the buprenorphine/naloxone business, and the efforts by RB to prevent generic competition from coming in and making significant price reductions for healthcare consumers.
The point missed by the writers of the Bloomberg article, though, is the same point that is missed by many physicians– even by many addictionologists. The dirty secret that RB does not want anyone to realize is that the equivalent of generic Suboxone is already available, in the form of orally-dissolving tablets of buprenorphine.
Suboxone consists of buprenorphine plus naloxone. Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that is added to reduce diversion of Suboxone in the form of intravenous injection of a dissolved tablet. Naloxone is NOT ACTIVE when not injected. The molecule is poorly absorbed through the oral mucosa because of the molecule’s size and poor lipid-solubility. Instead, naloxone is swallowed, absorbed from the small intestine, and totally destroyed at the liver before reaching the systemic circulation through a process called ‘first pass metabolism.’
All of the beneficial aspects of Suboxone come from the partial agonist buprenorphine. The ceiling effect of buprenorphine results in a reduction in cravings through a process that I’ve described in earlier posts. Naloxone does absolutely nothing to reduce cravings, to increase safety, to reduce euphoria, etc, provided that the medication is not injected.
Confusion comes from several sources, all which are forms of intellectual laziness or dishonesty by the physicians who prescribe the medication and the pharmacists who dispense it. I am particularly disappointed that the large organizations that supposedly oversee the science of addiction treatment have dropped the ball on this issue. I don’t know why groups like ASAM and SAMHSA don’t get it– whether the problem is ignorance, or whether there are mutually beneficial relationships between these organizations and RB that encourage them to deliberately foster ignorance among patients and doctors. I don’t belong to the organizations primarily for this reason– and I blame this and other positions of these groups on the current status of addiction treatment as the ‘no science zone’ of modern medicine.
A few examples of intellectual laziness:
- Physicians who prescribe Suboxone will write or say that one shouldn’t use buprenorphine ‘because it doesn’t have the opioid blocker’ and therefore…. (add whatever here– it causes euphoria, it is addictive, it isn’t safe– any or all of these comments). The confusing part is that the statement is partially correct; generic buprenorphine does not have the opioid blocker naloxone. BUT, naloxone is irrelevant to the actions of Suboxone. The ‘opioid blocker’ that IS in generic buprenorphine? Buprenorphine! As a partial agonist, buprenorphine has antagonist properties that are responsible for ALL of the effective clinical properties of Suboxone. I suspect that some docs get confused between naloxone and naltrexone, the latter being an orally-active opioid antagonist that is NOT part of Suboxone.
- Letting the fear of diversion be the one factor that determines the type of buprenorphine prescribed. My own interactions with hundreds of opioid addicts over the years in practice has taught me that buprenorphine is rarely used as a favored drug of choice. Rather, it is taken by addicts who are sick and tired of using and want a break from using without withdrawal, who have no money for an agonist, or during times when no agonists are available. In such cases, buprenorphine or Suboxone are equally effective– and equally diverted. When I ask addicts new to treatment about their injecting habits, I always ask whether they injected buprenorphine or Suboxone; the typical response is either ‘can you do that?’ or ‘why would I do that, since heroin is cheaper?’
There is some question whether the naloxone in Suboxone even does anything to block diversion. Discussions with buprenorphine patients on my forum suggest that those who have injected Suboxone in the past did not experience withdrawal, consistent with expectations when combining a low-affinity antagonist with a high-affinity partial agonist.
In my area, an 8 mg tab of buprenorphine costs as low as $2.33. This low cost should be part of the equation for choice of medication, just as it is for other illnesses. Does anyone doubt that there are some people kept from treatment by a price differential of 300%?! Is it ethical to fear diversion so greatly that treatment is effectively withheld– for a condition with the fatality rate of opioid dependence?! I’m sure readers know my answer, especially when there are effective ways to reduce diversion, such as close monitoring of prescribed doses, a ‘no replacement’ policy, and drug testing, among others.
The misinformation/laziness has gotten to the point that the State of Wisconsin REQUIRES that people on Medicaid use ONLY Suboxone film. Getting Abilify for a patient is virtually impossible without first going through the less-costly options, but the squishy arguments in favor of Suboxone push the med up the formulary chain past an alternative that sells at a fraction of the cost. The film/Medicaid situation is doubly dubious, as we have the arguments for buprenorphine over Suboxone, and the even less-sound argument for Suboxone Film being favored over the tablet. RB convinced the state that only the film was safe for Medicaid patients, and should be favored over any tablet form of Suboxone, placing future generics at a great disadvantage. It is especially impressive that RB accomplished this feat, after selling a million units of the tablets themselves! I can picture the person making the point: ‘the tablet is unsafe…. NOW!’
I’m going to write all night if I don’t wrap this up…. my point is that the Bloomberg article below describes why RB is winning the battle with generics over Suboxone, but the writers of the article, along with most doctors, miss the bigger issue– that misplaced fears, intellectual laziness, and misinformation has protected Suboxone sales from a much greater potential foe– generic buprenorphine.
The Bloomberg piece:
Reckitt Benckiser Kicks Heroin Tablet Habit With Film: Retail
By Clementine Fletcher
Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc may be kicking its heroin problem.
After losing U.S. patent protection in 2009 for its Suboxone tablet, designed to help heroin users quit, Reckitt Benckiser has said that the entrance of a generic competitor could erode pharmaceutical sales and profit by 80 percent (note by JJ: What a shame?! Consider the benefit of such a price reduction for addicts in need of treatment!).
Reckitt Benckiser, which gets most of its revenue from selling home and personal-care products like Lysol cleaners and Durex condoms, has faced calls to sell the business before a generic comes to market. Instead, the London-based company aims to divert the showdown by switching users to a film form of the drug — one whose last patent doesn’t run out until 2025 (note by JJ: NOW do you see why they made the film?!)
To get people to make the switch, Reckitt Benckiser is thinking more like a consumer company than a pharmaceutical one. It’s drawing on a marketing technique first pioneered by Coca- Cola Co. more than 100 years ago: coupons. By offering up to $45 a month toward a user’s co-payment in the U.S., the company is making the film version, which looks like a Listerine Pocketpak, close to free. That offers patients who get part of the bill subsidized by health insurance little incentive to transfer to a generic pill once it appears on the market.
“They’ve done a good job of making a silk purse out of a not very compelling situation,” said Martin Deboo, an analyst at Investec Securities Ltd. in London.
Reckitt Benckiser’s shares have risen 55 percent in the last five years, outpacing Unilever and Procter & Gamble Co. Under Chief Executive Officer Bart Becht, who stepped down last month, the company more than doubled sales in a decade. The stock has dropped 3.7 percent this year, compared with Unilever’s 4.7 percent gain and P&G’s 1.2 percent gain.
The company is due to report third-quarter results tomorrow and will probably say revenue adjusted for purchases and asset sales rose 7 percent at the drugs division, analysts led by Andy Smith at MF Global in London estimate, compared with a 3.9 percent increase for the rest of the business. Profit likely rose 0.9 percent to 430 million pounds, they said.
The film version of Suboxone, introduced in September 2010, accounted for 41 percent of the drug’s U.S. sales by the end of the first half (note by JJ: Thanks, Wisconsin Badgercare!). That surpassed the company’s own expectations, Becht said on an Aug. 30 conference call arranged by Sanford C. Bernstein. Becht was succeeded by Rakesh Kapoor, a company veteran.
The film “has been a phenomenal success,” Becht said, according to a transcript of his remarks. “To make the business completely sustainable, we would like to have a share which is clearly much higher than where we are.” He added that the company aims to grow that share every month.
Right now, time is on his side. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., the world’s biggest maker of generics, began the year saying it might launch a Suboxone copy in 2011. Now the company has backed off, saying it no longer expects the product to win regulatory approval this year.
Biodelivery Sciences International Inc., another drugmaker going after Suboxone, said a study comparing its own version of the drug to a placebo failed to show a statistical difference in the treatment of chronic pain. A test in patients addicted to opioids, which include heroin and codeine, is scheduled to begin
“This delay has been a massive benefit,” said Andrew Wood, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein. “With every day that goes by, RB has an extra day to convert users.” Suboxone is either harder-than-expected to copy or generic-drug makers are having second thoughts about targeting addicts, according to Bernstein.
About 1 million people in the U.S. are addicted to heroin, the National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates. As many as 325,000 people use Suboxone to quit the drug or painkillers, says Pablo Zuanic, an analyst at Liberum Capital in London.
The medicine combines buprenorphine, a painkiller derived from the opium poppy that shares some of its properties, with naloxone, a chemical that blunts
More than half of people on Suboxone use private insurance with co-pay, Zuanic says. Reckitt Benckiser offers $45 towards co-pay for the film, he said, meaning an insured patient who’d contribute $50 to the cost of the drug may end up spending $5.
“The actual cash cost for some patients buying the film with private insurance could be near zero,” Zuanic said in a note to clients this month. (note by
Meantime, Suboxone is only becoming more important to Reckitt Benckiser. The drugs division, whose sales grew five times as quickly as the main business last year, accounted for almost 9 percent of sales and 24 percent of profit, up from 7.6 percent and 20 percent in 2009. Sales at the unit will probably rise 12 percent to 829 million pounds ($1.3 billion) this year, according Nomura International Plc estimates.
The maker of French’s mustard is even considering making an injectable Suboxone and developing new products for cocaine, alcohol and cannabis addicts.
“We’re quite a long way from having any visibility on these products,” said Julian Hardwick, an analyst at Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc in London. “Are they products that will work? Which will get approval?”
Prescription drugs are perceived as a bit of a misfit in the home of Vanish stain removers and Finish dishwasher tablets.
“Reckitt Benckiser is basically a home and personal-care company with over-the-counter pharmaceuticals,” said Carl Short, an analyst at Standard & Poor’s in London. The drugs unit is “always going to be something that looks like it doesn’t fit with the rest.”
Reckitt Benckiser may look at selling the unit, which Becht himself has said is “not the No. 1 strategic part” of the company, once a generic form of Suboxone reaches pharmacy shelves, analysts said. (note by JJ: i.e. after all of the profit has been wrung from suffering addicts). But the company’s marketing savvy, coupled with delays in the launch of a generic, are giving Kapoor time to settle into his new job.
“This is a big job and he is coming in after someone’s done it for some considerable time and very well,” said Julian Chillingworth, who helps manage about 16 billion pounds in shares at Rathbone Brothers Plc, including Reckitt stock. “You wouldn’t want to come in as a CEO into a very successful business and start selling things off on the cheap.”
Analyst valuations range from 2 billion pounds to 6.3 billion pounds, according to four estimates compiled by Bloomberg News. Estimates diverge because it’s hard to value the business without knowing how Suboxone sales will resist the generic challenge and whether the shift to film can counter some of that impact.
“Until you get generic competition for the tablet, I think it’s unlikely that prospective buyers would give you the full value for the business,” said Hardwick of RBS. “Now is not the time to sell.”
–With assistance from Naomi Kresge in Berlin. Editors: Celeste Perri, Marthe Fourcade.