Healthcare In India (2016-17): Whither Goest Thou?

Posted on February 29, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The Union Budget 2016-17 will be proposed today by the Finance Minister before the Indian Parliament. As many critical questions are currently being raised about the real health of the Indian economy, across the globe, the Union Finance Minister shoulders an onerous task to address all those apprehensions, beyond any further doubt.

Yesterday, in his monthly radio program ‘Mann Ki Baat’, Prime Minister Modi himself said, “Budget 2016 is my exam, 125 crore people will test me.” A large section of people also would probably view Union Budget 2016-17 in a similar way.

That said, we all know, that the system or the process of annual Union Budget presentation before the Parliament need not be considered as the primary platform to announce various policies of the Government to propel economic growth of the nation. Nevertheless, it certainly underscores the key focus areas, where the Government would prefer deploying country’s financial and other resources, through appropriate budgetary allocations, to effectively meet the key short and long term national goals.

Simultaneously, of course, the Finance Minister would also explain the measures that he proposes for raising the required wherewithal for the same.

The Economic Survey report 2015-16:

The Economic Survey report of the Government for 2015-16, tabled before the Parliament on February 26, 2016, reiterates a grim healthcare situation in India, for a vast majority of its citizens.

The report also underscores, that the average cost of treatment in private hospitals, excluding child birth, is currently about four times than that of public healthcare facilities. This alarming situation, fueled by the meager public health infrastructure in the country, severely limits healthcare access to many in the country. Its primary reason being, a large number of Indians are unable to incur so high out of pocket health expenditure.

A situation like this, brings to the fore the challenges that India faces in providing affordable and accessible healthcare to all those who need it most, the Survey document commented.

Thus, with limited resources and competing demands in the health sector, it is essential for the government to prioritize its expenditure in the sector, the report recommends.

Healthcare deserves a priority focus:

Healthcare, I believe, is one such domain that has been attracting a priority focus in all the developed and a large number of developing nations, since long. In this critical area, however, various national Governments in India have been just expressing its laudable intents, over a period of time. Unfortunately, no political dispensation, so far, has implemented anything hugely impactful to make its citizens feel a huge difference in this critical area, especially, by translating the promised intents into reality and keeping the nose to the grindstone.

Besides many other robust reasons, commercially too, the Indian healthcare industry is one of the largest growing sectors contributing around 10 percent of the GDP, employing around 4 million people.

The D-Day:

Today is the D-Day for the Financial Year 2016-17. We shall get to know soon, in which direction would public healthcare go, as we step into another brand new financial year, and in the third Union Budget of the Government in power.

On December 7, 2015, I wrote an article in this Blog on this issue, titled, “Healthcare: My Expectations From Union Budget (2016-17)”.

My expectations on healthcare budget allocations:

In the above article, I articulated my overall expectations on the allocations for healthcare in 2016-17 Union Budget proposals, as follows:

Increase total public health expenditure from the current 1.2 percent to at least 2.0 percent of the GDP and then raise it 2.5 percent over a period of next three years.

The main source of financing for public health should remain general taxation by levying ‘Health Cess’, quite in line with with ‘Swachh Bharat Cess’ at the rate of 0.5 percent on all taxable services, besides adding a similar tax on non-essential and luxury items.

Primary focus areas:

If something similar to the above budgetary provision is made for public health in India, the details would require to be worked out, if not done already, in the following five primary focus areas, as I envisage:

A. Infrastructure and capacity building:

- Focused and well-identified investments in building high quality public health infrastructure and well-skilled human resources for rural India on priority.

- Villages, based on population, would be identified by the respective State Governments.

B. Increasing access to quality public healthcare:

- Free universal access to primary care services to start with, across the country,

- Free drugs, free diagnostics and free emergency care services in all public hospitals of the country and for all.

- Free emergency response and patient-transport systems across the country, for all.

C. Strengthening the supply chain:

- Quality drug and diagnostics procurement system by the Central Medical Services Society (CMSS) of the Government needs to be modernized, strengthened and made more efficient with real time data, for easy availability of all required drugs and diagnostics in all public hospitals at the right time and in the right quantity.

- Today, a large number of life saving drugs and diagnostics is highly temperature sensitive. Thus, adequate cold chain facilities are to be created right from transportation to storage in public hospitals for all such products, maintaining their required efficacy and safety standards for patients.

D. Increasing awareness for disease prevention:

- Intensive multi-pronged, multi-channel and door to door campaigns by the para-medics to increase awareness for identified disease prevention.

E. Performance incentive:

- To achieve the desired level of success and increase the motivation level in a sustainable way, budgetary provisions to be made for a system of well-structured individual and team performance incentive scheme, when the key implementers exceed expectations by achieving the set goals well before schedule.

- Commensurate punitive measures for failure also to be put in place, simultaneously.

I shall not broach upon the area of Research and Development (R&D) for drugs and diagnostics here, as that could probably be considered in a holistic way under overall innovation, science and technology budget allocation required for the country, as a whole.

Conclusion:

February 29, 2016 is the moment of truth, of yet another year-long expectation in the key focus areas of the Government for resource mobilization and its meaningful deployment.

It is worth noting, however, that the much awaited “National Health Policy” has not been put in place before the Union Budget 2016-17, which could have given an indication to all, about the road map that the Government intends to follow in the healthcare domain of India.

Thus, it is possibly too late now to identify the specific health projects based on majority of citizen’s immediate health needs, from a well-articulated Health Policy for the country. Consequently, charting an action plan for joint implementation by the Central and the State Governments in unison, and making budgetary provisions accordingly for this year, to start with, may not just be feasible.

In the above situation, despite the recommendations of ‘The Economic Survey report 2015-16’, we may, at best see in today’s Union Budget, some ad hoc measures in this space. In any case discussing all these at this hour would just be a matter of speculation. Nevertheless, like many persons, I too keep my fingers crossed.

In any case, we all shall get to know today, the Finance Minister’s comprehensive budgetary proposals for this year, including healthcare. Till then, at least for 2016-17, the same question will keep haunting: Healthcare In India: Whither Goest Thou?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Against Pharma Marketing Malpractices: A Gutsy Step

Posted on February 22, 2016 by Tapan Ray

January 7, 2016 edition of ‘The Financial Times (FT)’ reported that responding to escalating pressure on the drug industry, related to its ‘Conflict of Interest’ with the doctors and other related professionals, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has decided taking a very unorthodox step.

According to this news report, GSK has decided not to promote its brands by making payments to doctors in any form. The company also strongly expressed its belief that to refurbish the dented image of the industry, in general, its competitors, as well, would start following the same steps, sooner than later.

Whatever it may be, GSK has apparently decided to avoid the above ‘conflict of interest’ and not to ride on the trendy wave for drug promotion, any longer.

Although, many restrictions have already been put in place by different countries, to curb these practices to the extent required, many pharma companies always find effective ways to circumvent those restrictions, as many report highlights.

In this scenario, GSK has taken a bold and calculated decision to swim against the tide. Respecting public outcry and sensitiveness on the subject, it has decided against engaging paid physician speakers, as an integral of the brand marketing strategy, any longer. More importantly, this decision of the company is absolutely voluntary, transparent, and its faithful implementation level can also be monitored externally.

The consequences of this ‘Conflict of Interest’:

Available reports indicate that the consequences of alleged marketing malpractices of any kind, attract some serious financial consequences for the pharma players, provided of course, if one gets caught, especially in the United States or Europe.

A February 24, 2014 article highlights that in the last few years alone, pharmaceutical companies have agreed to pay over US$13 billion to resolve only U.S. Department of Justice allegations of ‘fraudulent marketing practices’.

Dwelling on the subject, a November 6, 2014, BBC News commented, “Imagine an industry that generates higher profit margins than any other and is no stranger to multi-billion dollar fines for malpractice.”

It is worth noting, all those pharma players paying hefty fines due to alleged marketing misadventures of humongous proportion, also prominently display their well-crafted code of ethics of pharma marketing practices in their respective websites, vowing for strict voluntary adherence. Nevertheless, the (mal)practice goes on, unabated.

Did a recent deterrent work in America?

Despite recent enactment of “Physician Payments Sunshine Act”, such practices of pharma companies continue unabated even in the World’s largest pharma market – the United States.

As is known by many, the ‘Physician Payments Sunshine Act’ is a healthcare law enacted in the United States in 2010 to increase transparency of financial relationships between health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This Act requires manufacturers of drugs, medical devices and biologicals that participate in US federal health care programs to submit annual data on payment and other transfers of value that they make to physicians and teaching hospitals. The data submission period is followed by 45 days for physicians to review their ‘Open Payments’ data and dispute errors before the public release.

On July 1, 2015, ‘ProPublica’ – an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest, published an article titled, “Dollars for Docs: How Industry Dollars Reach Your Doctors.” Quoting the public database, it reported that in 2014, 1,630 pharma companies in the United States disclosed a hefty total payment of US$ 3.53 billion to 681,432 doctors. The maximum total payment received by a single doctor during this period was US$ $43.9 million.

Published names of ‘Top 20 Companies’:

According to ‘ProPublica’, the money that the following 20 companies spend on interactions with doctors in the United States, excluding research and royalties, is as follows:

Pfizer: $30M,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals: $20.5M
Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals: $19.1M
Forest Laboratories: $17.2M
Allergan: $15.5M
Otsuka America Pharmaceutical: $15M
Sanofi and Genzyme: $14.6M
AbbVie: $13.5M
Genentech: $12.9M
Intuitive Surgical: $12.8M
Novo Nordisk: $12.4M
Depuy Synthes Sales: $12M
Bristol Myers Squibb: $11.9M
Eli Lilly: $11.7M
Teva: $11.6M
Novartis: $11.5M
Boehringer Ingelheim: $10.8M
Stryker: $10.3M
Merck Sharp & Dohme: $10.3M
Takeda: $9.68M

GlaxoSmithKline not featuring in the list:

Interestingly, I could not locate GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) featuring in this specific list of the top 20 companies in the United States. Some industry watchers comment that this could well be an outcome of other unorthodox measures taken by GSK earlier to revamp its reputation, dented by the widely reported Chinese bribery scandal and also a huge settlement of US$3 billion with the Government of the United States, for alleged marketing malpractices. Whatever it is, GSK has now initiated some tangible policy decisions in this regard, unlike most of its counterparts.

Alleged pharma malpractices are rampant in India too:

Frequent reports of Indian media have already triggered a raging debate in the country on the same subject. It has also been reported that a related case is now pending before the Supreme Court against a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for the hearing.

On May 08, 2012, the ‘Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare’ presented its 58th Report to both the Lower and the Upper houses of the Indian Parliament. The committee, with a strong indictment against the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), observed that the DoP should take decisive action, without any further delay, in making the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ mandatory, so that effective checks could be ensured on ‘huge promotional costs and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices’.

Unfortunately, nothing substantive has happened on the ground regarding this issue as on date, excepting announcement of voluntary implementation of the DoP’s ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, effective January 1, 2015 for six months for its assessment. Thereafter, the date extension process on the voluntary implementation of the UCPMP has become a routine exercise for the DoP, on the pretext of continuing discussion on the subject with the pharma trade associations and other stakeholders.

Nevertheless, incidences of alleged marketing malpractices are still unfolding today and getting dragged into the futile public debate. In a situation like this, I reckon, the Government is expected to play a more proactive role by all, instead of maintaining the status quo, any longer.

‘Voluntary practice’ concept alone, has not worked, anywhere:

Strong internal and external business performance pressures, while navigating through turbulent business environment with strong headwinds, could temporarily unnerve even the seasoned managers with nerves made of steel, as it were. It has been happening all the time, now more frequently, despite having stringent ‘voluntary pharma marketing practices’ codes in place, for many different reasons.

This has been vindicated by a recent research published by ‘PLOS Medicine’ on January 26, 2016.

The study states that European Union law prohibits companies from marketing drugs off-label. However, in the United Kingdom (UK), as in some other European countries, but unlike the United States, pharma industry self-regulatory bodies are tasked with supervising compliance with marketing rules. The objectives of this study were to characterize off-label promotion rulings in the UK compared to the whistleblower-initiated cases in the US and also) shedding light on the UK self-regulatory mechanism for detecting, deterring, and sanctioning off-label promotion.

The paper provided credible evidence of the limited capacity of the UK’s self-regulatory arrangements to expose marketing violations. It recommended that the UK authorities should consider introducing increased incentives and protections for whistleblowers combined with US-style governmental investigations and meaningful sanctions.

Thus, all-weather ‘voluntary practice of ethical pharma marketing code model’ alone, is either failing or has failed, almost everywhere in the world. GSK’s is a novel, but solo attempt and may not necessarily be imbibed by others.

Appropriate regulations and robust laws, instilling not just the ‘fear of God’ to the violators, but also promising justice to all, would always be a strong deterrent in those trying situations, especially in countries like, India, unless of course, any person or a legal entity is a hardcore manipulator with its key focus just on profiteering.

Restoring tarnished image:

GSK has taken the above bold step to restore its tarnished image, after receiving body blows related to several scandals, as it were. Commendably, it did not continue doing the same, unlike many others. Instead, the leadership of the Company demonstrated sensitivity to public outrage.

GSK won’t be a solitary example of pharma marketing malpractices. There are other large drug companies too, who even after meeting with similar public disgrace, keep charting the same old path to maximize brand sales by paying for the doctors, either directly or in several other forms, as many reports have alleged.

To offset all such marketing related expenses, and thereafter earn a huge profit, many of them keep the new drug prices exorbitantly high, adversely impacting the access of those drugs to many of those, who need them the most. This is besides taking hefty annual increases on existing brand pricing, even when inflation is very low to moderate.

Access to drugs for all needy patients is ‘Government responsibility’:

To justify access barrier to high priced drugs for a large number of patients globally, most pharma players and their trade associations have a ready answer in their advocacy toolkit. It says, ensuring access to drugs for all needy patients is the responsibility of the Government, not of the drug companies.

As a result, the trust deficit between the pharma industry and the general public is increasing, further denting its image. At present, when many national Governments are initiating action or are contemplating to do so, to contain such insensitive practices, the industry probably would require to pause for a while, take a step back and ponder – what next?

Restoring the tarnished image of the drug industry is a challenging ball game, far beyond the capabilities of even the richest pharma associations of the world, and their over-paid lobbyists. Crafty creation of any facade to hoodwink all, is no longer working to achieve their self serving purposes. Today, the public, in general, seems to understand much more about their reasonably affordable healthcare needs and wants, than what these trade associations’ possibly think about them.

Otherwise, why would Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton – one of the strongest contenders for American Presidency this time, would tweet on January 28, 2016 addressing her voters and admirers with the following vow:

“We will go after pharmaceutical companies that gouge patients with pricing. They are wrong, and we will stop them.”

My experience tells me that astute pharma CEOs, by and large, still command much higher credibility than their trade associations. Thus, the top leadership of the respective organizations would require taking the ‘image revamping exercise’ in their own hands, directly. It is essential to publicly demonstrate that most of them are aligned and in sync with the emerging new paradigm of changing aspirations, needs and wants of the patients and other key stakeholders. Future business excellence would demand inclusive growth. GSK is just an example of a CEO’s bold response to address this challenge of change – ‘a small step but a giant leap’ in this direction.

Conclusion:

In my view, all these contentious practices are basically being prompted by the strong intent of most of the pharma CEOs to ‘play safe’, in order to deliver expected shareholder value.

Any unorthodox approach to rebuild the tarnished image is usually risky, generally frowned upon and discouraged by the industry. Other vested interests often join them too. All these retarding forces express grave apprehensions on any fresh look by a company to mend fences with its key stakeholder – the patients and the public, in general.

The recent GSK example is no exception. Apprehensions have already been expressed, whether this untested fresh thinking, against a widely perceived corrupt practice of paying physician speakers for indirect brand promotion would really be able to boost its image, without cutting into revenue. Some would take a step further and question, would a rejuvenated image ultimately fetch expected growth in sales revenue and profit?

Only time will tell us the consequences of this uncommon and unorthodox decision taken by a courageous leader in the pharma industry.

In India, even the Government seems to have gone into a deep slumber on this issue. Despite reported discussions with the stakeholders several times, Government’s UCPMP still remains voluntary, with the DoP holding the same old ground, where it started from on January 1, 2015. It is difficult to fathom, whether intense industry lobbying is influencing a long overdue decision in favor of the patients’ overall interest.

However, there is good news also. According to a February 6, 2016 media report, ‘The Medical Council of India (MCI), for the first time ever, is set to notify specific punishments for errant doctors based on the value of favors or freebies received from drug players, under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) (Amendment) Regulations, 2015.

That apart, to revamp its dented image, the decision of GSK against paid physician speakers as an integral part of brand promotion, is not just a gutsy step with a sharp focus on restoring business ethics and values, but more laudably a voluntary one. Would others follow it too, including in India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Democratization of Healthcare: An Evolving Trend Driven By Cutting-Edge Technology

Posted on February 15, 2016 by Tapan Ray

We have stepped on to a fascinating era of yet another disruptive innovation in a newly carved out space of the healthcare domain.

Such initiatives are driven by path breaking ideas, which are being translated into reality with the application of cutting-edge technology. All these are aimed at providing a plethora of unique healthcare related solutions in the cyberspace to various stakeholders, especially to patients through inexpensive smartphones of various types.

Although the process has just begun, but is moving at a rapid pace. In virtually no time, as it were, it is showing a great potential of delivering more accurate and affordable healthcare solutions to a large number of the population globally, particularly in the developing nations.

‘Democratization of Healthcare’:

The ‘patient empowerment’ of such kind, with technology enabled the power of personalized healthcare knowledge and information in an organized manner, has been termed as ‘The Democratization of Healthcare.’

The critical point to ponder, therefore, whether this fast developing state of art technological advancement has the potential of delivering a novel and much affordable process of disease treatment and management, in the real world. As it happens, the new paradigm would shift the focus of key stakeholders from doctors to patients, in a genuine sense, and almost irreversibly.

In this article, I shall deliberate on this wonderful emerging scenario.

A recent reiteration raises hope:

The following reiteration of one of the largest and most reputed tech giant of the world raises general hope that this process would soon come to fruition:

‘The democratization potential of healthcare interests most of us, as the injustice of fantastic healthcare available in some parts of the world, and others suffering needlessly.”

The above profound comment was made on a radio show – ‘Conversations on Health Care’, by none other than the Chief Operating Officer, Jeff Williams of Apple Inc. on January 4, 2016 and was reported accordingly by ‘appleinsider.com’ on January 06, 2016.

Jeff Williams also indicated in his talk, how smartphone technology can be harnessed for therapeutic purpose in disease treatment, as well. Citing an example, he said, detecting autism at an early age is a key to future treatment, as doctors can intervene – albeit to a limited degree – as long as the brain is still developing.

He referred to a study that found not just the potential in app-based smartphone screening of children, but can even go much further by delivering therapy and treatment.

The rapid progress of technology in this direction is very real, as ‘Apple’ and other smartphone health app developers are stretching the commoditization of computer technology to serve health sciences. In not so distant future, with relatively inexpensive smartphones and supporting health apps – the doctors and researchers can deliver better standards of living in severely under-served areas like Africa, where there are only 55 trained specialists in autism, Williams said.

Triggers a key shift in focus:

As I said before, unleashing the power of technology in healthcare solutions through smartphones will bring a fundamental shift in focus of all concerned, from medical doctors to ordinary patients.

This transformation seems to be rather imminent now, as equipped with detailed knowledge of various types of individual health and disease related information through their smartphones, the patients would position themselves in the driver’s seat, demanding more for affordable treatment of diseases.

Dr. Eric Topol, the author of the book titled, “The Patient Will See You Now”, thus very appropriately said, “MDs will no longer be considered ‘medical deities’, but rather professionals with whom patients will consult to get the proper treatment on the path of least resistance.”

Consequently, the pharma players and other related service providers would require to ‘walk the talk’ by being ‘patient centric’ in the true sense, and definitely not by using this profound term, as one of the tools of their mostly self-serving, advocacy campaigns.

Empowering patients:

As Dr. Eric Topol said, smartphone applications that can monitor throughout the day, such as, heart rate and rhythm, blood pressure, take and interpret an electrocardiogram, capture X-rays and analyze ultrasound, have the potential to reduce patient visits to doctors, cut costs, speed up the pace of care and give more power to patients. He emphasized though, digital apps won’t replace physicians. The patients would still be seeing doctors, but the doctor-patient relationship will ultimately be radically altered.

As an illustration, it is worth mentioning here, that taking a significant step forward in this direction, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) has already approved ECG apps by for consumers, which have been validated in many clinical studies.

Examples of Smartphone Apps for patients:

Smartphone apps are now available for different user segments. In this section, I shall focus only on patient-centered apps capable of performing a wide array of functions, such as managing chronic disease, lifestyle management, smoking cessation and even self-diagnosis.

I am quoting below just a few of these interesting apps, as reported in an article published by ‘The Online Journal of Public Health Informatics (OJPHI)’ on February 5, 2014:

A. For diabetic patients, over 80 apps on the Android platform alone, offer a variety of functions. These include self-monitoring blood glucose recording, medication or insulin logs, and prandial insulin dose calculators.

Yet another diabetes intervention app integrated communication between patients and a healthcare provider. Here, the patient would log fasting blood sugars, daily eating behaviors, medication compliance, physical activity and emotions into a mobile online diary. A remote therapist with access to these diaries would then formulate personalized feedback to the patient.

‘WellDoc’ is reportedly one such company that has already received approval of the US FDA for its mobile-enabled diabetes management program, and is being paid for by health insurers as they would for a pharmaceutical product.

B. For smoking cessation and alcohol addiction apps are also available. At least 47 iPhone apps for smoking cessation and another one called – ‘A-CHESS’ (Alcohol Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System) helps preventing relapse in alcoholic dependency and harnesses mobile technology to improve treatment and motivation.

C. For asthma and allergic rhinitis patients, an app called ‘m.Carat’, developed at Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto, Portugal, , helps recording their exacerbations, triggers, symptoms, medications, lung function tests and visits to the doctor or the hospital. The users of this app can also receive disease education, medication information, task notifications, and synchronize records with an online database to better control their symptoms.

D. For psychiatric patients, available smartphone apps offer benefits of ambulatory monitoring, that randomly prompts the patient to self-report psychotic symptoms multiple times throughout the day.

E. For sickle cell disease another app allows patients access to an online diary for recording pain and other symptoms.

F. For patients with dementia, ‘iWander’ app assists the affected individuals with daily living, by providing audible prompts to direct the patient home, sending notifications and GPS coordinates to caretakers, or by calling local 911 (US emergency) services.

G. For HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) and STD around 55 unique smartphone apps are available. These are used for education, prevention, testing and to provide other resources.

Self-diagnosis without a medical visit:

The above article also states that patients may even use smartphone apps to attempt self-diagnosis without a medical visit. Patients with a camera-enabled smartphone can use apps to take photographs of skin lesions and send these to a remote server for computer analysis and/or review by a board certified dermatologist. However, such apps are still not without their pitfalls, which are being addressed by the scientists, expeditiously.

Nevertheless, informed debate has already started in search of an appropriate direction for self-diagnosis with the help of robust smartphone apps, without any in-person medical visits.

Need for ‘Regulatory control’ and ‘certification’ of health apps:

I hasten to add, all such smartphone health apps should not be allowed to come to the market without stringent regulatory control and a well thought out the certification process.

As in the United States, where the health apps are being assessed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (US FDA), in India too the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) or any other appropriate and designated authority should approve and certify all such smartphone health apps, before the market launch.

‘Trust deficit’ poses a critical challenge to pharma industry:

Since the health apps opportunity is new, and still in its evolutionary stage, pharma industry, in general, does not seem to have fully accepted yet, that the process of ‘Democratization of Healthcare’ has already commenced. I reckon, the progress in this direction is unstoppable now. Nevertheless, many drug companies apparently continue to prefer sticking to the same proven path that had fetched enormous success for them in the past and, of course, also its associated business models.

Besides health apps, the democratization process of healthcare includes other technological platforms too, such as, social media and video communications, which have started to bring healthcare into patients’ homes. To be successful in a situation like this, gaining ‘patient trust’ has become more important today than ever before, for all concerned.

Unfortunately, the drug companies, generally speaking, continue suffering from an increasing ‘trust deficit’ of the key stakeholders. This has been vindicated by a September 9, 2013 study of Makovsky Health, which found:

Pharma websites continued to rank low in terms of traffic, with just 9 percent of Americans visit them for health information.

WebMD is the most frequented online source for healthcare information (53 percent)

Almost a fourth of consumers (24 percent) use at least one or a combination of social media channels – including YouTube video channels, Facebook sites, blogs, and Twitter feeds with links to other resources – to seek healthcare information

The writing on the wall:

Some major global pharma players apparently have clearly seen the writing on the wall, and started collaborating with the developers of various types of digital health apps.

Quoting from the May 02, 2014 edition of ‘MobileHealthNews”, I am citing below, just as an illustration, the initiatives taken in this space by some of the drug majors:

Pfizer (2014) had backed startup Akili in the development of a mobile game to help diagnose patients with Alzheimer’s. The game could also be used in the treatment or detection of ADHD and autism, among other conditions.

Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiary, Janssen Healthcare Innovations (2013), launched the new version of its free Care4Today medication reminder app and platform – Care4Today Mobile Health Manager 2.0. It has also overhauled Care4Today medication adherence app.

Sanofi US (2013) and the Prostate Cancer Foundation announced the creation of Prost8Care, an SMS system to help prostate cancer patients and their families understand treatment processes.

AstraZeneca (2013) announced a pilot with Exco InTouch to help patients suffering from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), with mobile and online tools.

Sanofi’s (2012) iBGStar device became the first US FDA cleared iPhone-enabled blood glucose meter.

GlaxoSmithKline (2012) offered a free asthma management app called MyAsthma, for iPhone and Android users. The app’s core offering is an Asthma Control Test (ACT), which is a simple 30-second test providing users with an index score of how well they are managing their asthma overall.

The potential in India:

In India, ‘Democratization of Healthcare’ is believed to be more broad based, with a third of all Indian mobile users expected to own a smartphone by 2017.

This is vindicated by the Press Release of Telecom Regulator TRAI, India, pharma, drug, playersy Authority of India (TRAI) of December 30, 2015. It states, the Wireless Tele-density in India is 79.39 as on October 31, 2015. The shares of urban and rural wireless subscribers were 57.61 percent and 42.39 percent, respectively, during the same period.

Conclusion:

The process of ‘Democratization of Healthcare’ is gaining momentum with the digital health app developers flooring the gas pedal. Even the global tech giant – Apple, has expressed its support and vow of taking rapid strides in this direction.

As this fascinating process unfolds, the final disease treatment decision, from various medical options available, is expected shift from doctors to patients, and may be their closest relatives. In tandem, patients would learn to take ownership of their physical and mental health conditions for disease prevention of various types, besides general fitness.

The patients, empowered with relevant digital information and knowledge, on their health status, including the pace of disease progression, would play a pivotal role not just in reducing disease burden, but also in making overall cost of individual healthcare more affordable. Additionally, access to healthcare, especially in the developing world like India and in its hinterland, will be improved significantly.

Digital apps are not just limited to patients’ use, these are being developed with equal speed for doctors, diagnostic centers, and clinical trials, just to name a few. All these would substantially reduce healthcare costs and add speed to various disease treatments.

In this golden pathway, there are some thorns too, mostly in the form of important regulatory issues, which need to be sorted out, expeditiously. Increasing ‘Trust Deficit’ of stakeholders on the drug companies is yet another hurdle, especially when the primary focus of all would shift from doctors to patients. However, it appears, the pharma players will eventually have no other choice, but to willy-nilly mold themselves accordingly, primarily for survival and thereafter progress.

As I see it today, the fast evolving trend of ‘Democratization of Healthcare’, driven by cutting-edge technology, is virtually unstoppable now. The only question is how soon will it happen?

By: Tapan J. Ray

The ‘Moonshot’: Access To World-Class Cancer Care, For All

Posted on February 8, 2016 by Tapan Ray

As in every year, February the 4^th was celebrated as the ‘World Cancer Day’, across the world, in 2016, as well. Its main objective is to commemorate all the efforts done by the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), including the governmental and nongovernmental health organizations towards formulating a grand strategy to fight against cancer. The strategy is expected to span across cancer prevention, detection and treatment, for all. The key goal of this commendable initiative is to reduce illness and death caused by cancer by 2020, the world over.

The event also encourages to explore various ways to align individuals and groups to do their bit in reducing both the local and the global burden of disease related to cancer.

The last Thursday, the ‘World Cancer Day’ was celebrated in India too, albeit in a low key, as I could fathom, despite its alarmingly ascending trend in the country.

In this context, I would start with my first and a very small example of a sharply contrasting mindset to address the vexing issue of cancer between the largest democracy of the world – India, and the oldest democracy of the globe – America.

The United States (US) this year, like the previous five years on a trot, made this event visible for a large section of people to encourage them to think and act against cancer, in several different ways that they can. The imposing landmark in New York – the magnificent ‘Empire State Building’ was lit in blue and orange, the colors of the ‘Union for International Cancer Control (UICC’), the organizers of this annual event.

A brief recap:

Cancer is now one of the leading causes of death, not just in India, but across the world. Its rate is expected only to go up further in the years ahead, and that too at a brisk pace. Just as the disease is fast spreading across the socioeconomic spectrum, all over, so are the tough access barriers for effective cancer diagnosis, treatment and care, for all, increasing by manifold.

Urgent action is called for in most of the countries of the world by the respective Governments to save precious lives, by effectively overcoming most of these hurdles, soon.

With this backdrop, in this article, I shall explore what is happening on the ground in this direction, at present, drawing examples from the two greatest democracies of the world.

The largest democracy of the world:

Delivering affordable and equitable care for cancer to all, is one of greatest public health challenges of the largest democracy of the world – India. The country is required to face this challenge boldly and squarely, to mitigate the devastating socioeconomic and human costs that this disease is already costing our nation.

This point was reiterated by one of the lead authors of an article published by ‘The Lancet Oncology’ on April 11, 2014. The paper discussed the epidemiology and social context of the growing burden of cancer in India.

According to this paper, around 600,000 – 700,000 deaths in India were caused by cancer in 2012, with more than 1 million new cases of this life threatening disease being diagnosed every year.

Further, the World Health Organization (WHO) also reported that every year, around 145,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in India. Unfortunately, around half of them had succumbed to the disease, in 2008.

However, all these numbers should be taken into consideration carefully factoring in very low rates of early-stage detection and poor treatment outcomes in the country.

In this prevailing scenario, cancer is fast becoming a major public health concern in India, with the number of new cancer cases projected to nearly double within the next 20 years.

The average cost of cancer treatment in India:

According to the above ‘Lancet Oncology’ report, in India, the average cost of treating a typical patient with cancer at a government facility would come around US$593. Whereas, the average annual income per person is only U$ 1,219, with 27.5 percent of the population living on or below a daily income level of US$ 0.4.

Besides, most district hospitals, including the regional cancer centers do not have the requisite facilities required to provide quality cancer care to all those patients who need them.

Quoting experts, a newspaper report on June 19, 2014 also stated, around 50 per cent of the diagnosed cancer patients, who also commence their treatments, stop visiting hospitals after two or three cycles of chemotherapy, as they find the cost of treatment is not affordable to them. They also drop out from regular follow-up visits, say the doctors.

Low Government funding for healthcare:

As a result of abysmally poor public funding for healthcare in India, both by the Central and most of the State Governments, the cost of diagnosis and treatment of cancer is increasingly becoming out of pocket, and being catastrophically expensive, going beyond the reach of a large number of patients suffering from this serious ailment.

The socioeconomic impact:

This pathetic public healthcare system in India adversely affects not only the debt ridden poor and middle-class cancer patients, but also the welfare and education of several generations of their respective families.

Thus, cancer has a profound, both social and economic, consequences for the general population in India. This very often leads to family impoverishment and societal inequity, as the study points out.

The oldest democracy of the world:

The oldest democracy of the world – America, is one of the richest countries in the globe, having perhaps the best healthcare facilities and systems. All the latest drugs and diagnostics are also available there. Despite all these, there is a growing inequity in the cancer treatment in America too, with access to quality diagnosis and treatment for cancer patients becoming a major health, economic and political issue for the country.

‘Mayo Clinic Proceedings’ of August 2015, also expressed concern on the high prices of cancer drugs, which are affecting the care of cancer patients and eventually the American health care system.

The report does ring an alarm bell for high cancer care cost for many patients in America. The ‘Proceedings’ highlighted the following reasons, most of which are, quite interestingly, very similar to India:

Cancer will affect 1 in 3 individuals over their lifetime.

Recent trends in insurance coverage put a heavy financial burden on patients, with their out-of-pocket share increasing to 20 percent to 30 percent of the total cost.

In 2014, all new US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) approved cancer drugs were priced above US$ 120,000 per year of use.

The average annual household gross income in the United States is about US$ 52,000.

For a patient with cancer who needs one cancer drug that costs US$120,000 per year, the out-of-pocket expenses could be as high as US$25,000 to US$ 30,000 – more than half the average household income and possibly more than the median take-home pay for a year.

Thus, cancer patients have to make difficult choices between spending their incomes and liquidating assets on potentially lifesaving therapies or foregoing treatment to provide for family necessities, such as, food, housing and education.

This decision is even more critical for senior citizens who are more frequently affected by cancers and have lower incomes and limited assets.

Because of costs, about 10 to 20 percent of patients with cancer do not take the prescribed treatment or compromise it. It is documented that the greater the out-of-pocket cost for oral cancer therapies, the lower the compliance. This is a structural disincentive for compliance with some of the most effective and transformative drugs in the history of cancer treatment.

Given the rising incidence of cancer in the aging American population, high cancer drug prices will affect millions of Americans and their immediate families, often repeatedly.

General public wants the US Government to act:

‘The Mayo Clinic Proceedings’ findings were vindicated by the October 2015 Kaiser Health Tracking poll, which reported, 76 percent of the public believes that a top priority for the American president and Congress should be making high-cost drugs for chronic conditions affordable. Yet another Kaiser poll found 72 percent of Americans believe drug costs are unreasonable and 74 percent think that pharma companies, in general, care more about profits than people.

General public expectations and belief do not seem to be any different in India too.

I reckon, due to similar reasons in most countries of the world, an urgent action is required from the respective Governments to make cancer diagnosis and treatment affordable to all, sooner than later.

Different responses to the same problem:

Let me reiterate here again, that I am comparing India with America on this issue, not for any other reason, but just to give an example and a feel of how much the promised political intent, made for the benefit of the general population of the country, gets translated into reality in the world’s oldest democracy, as compared to the world’s largest democracy.

In India, despite high sound bytes emanating from various leaders of the principal party in power today, the fragile public healthcare system is still gasping for breath, starved by grossly inadequate resource allocations. This gets reflected on the details of national and state budgetary allocations for healthcare in India.

The delay in finalizing and then putting in place for implementation of the “National Health Policy”, which proposed making health a fundamental right and denial of health an offense, also seems to be of low priority for the national Government, at present. If so, this will indeed be quite contrary to its earlier firm promises on improving healthcare in India.

In the United States, as well, similar promises were made by senior politicians during the last national election campaign. The Presidential candidate for the party, which is now in power, created as much hype with matching sound bytes for healthcare reform in America, while seeking votes.

However, the sharp difference between the two similar situations is, having come to power on November 4, 2008 President Barack Obama, fulfilled his promise with a path breaking healthcare reform in his country. On March 23, 2010 he signed into law the ‘Affordable care Act’. It’s a different matter though, like most political decisions, this one also faced its own share of criticism from the American opposition.

The ‘Moonshot’:

Zeroing in specifically to address the agony of cancer patients in America, President Obama has recently initiated a ‘National Mission’ in this area. He has asked his Vice-President Joe Biden to spearhead this mission and get it done expeditiously. Biden enthusiastically accepted to lead this noble ‘National mission’ for mankind and termed it ‘A Moonshot for Cancer Cure’. The White House also announced a resource commitment of US$1 billion on this effort over the next two years.

In his ‘White House’ Blog Post of January 13, 2016 the Vice-President wrote about this project, very close to the ‘World Cancer Day’, which is basically symbolic, just as the ‘International Day of Yoga’, but this specific American ‘National mission’ against cancer does not appear to be so, by any stretch of imagination.

The key objective of this mission is indeed profound. With is effective implementation, the American Government wants to ensure that ‘the same care provided to patients at the world’s best cancer centers, is available to everyone who needs it.’

Joe Biden admitted, though several cutting-edge areas of research and care, including cancer immunotherapy, genomics, combination therapies and innovations in data and technology are revolutionary, all these are currently trapped in silos, preventing faster progress and greater reach to patients.

It’s not just about developing game-changing treatments. It’s about delivering them to those who need them the most. The community oncologists, who treat more than 75 percent of cancer patients, have more limited access to cutting-edge research and advances, even in America, Vice-President Biden elaborated.

Two key focus areas:

Increase resources, both private and public, to fight cancer.

Break down silos and bring all the cancer fighters to work together, share information, and end cancer, as we know it.

The goal of this initiative is to double the rate of progress by making a decade worth of advances in five years. He also outlined the details that he would follow to get this mission implemented on the ground within the set time frame.

“If there’s one word that defines who we are as Americans…” – Biden

Joe Biden concluded this announcement with his natural statesmanship, sans any drama, by saying: “If there’s one word that defines who we are as Americans, it’s ‘possibility.’ And these are the moments when we show up.”

The good news is, the project ‘Moonshot’, as the American Vice-President calls it, has already started with the full commitment of the American Government and backed to the hilt by none other than President Obama himself. The American President has already demonstrated to the world, from the very commencement of his Presidency, that he is a project implementer per excellence, as head of the Government.

Some key barriers to effective 'cancer care' in India:

Coming back to the Indian context, experts do indicate that one of the main barriers to cancer care, in the largest democracy of the world – India, is primarily lack of enough public facilities for early detection of cancer. Thus, even when it is detected considerable disease progression usually takes place. Moreover, most patients lack access to expensive cancer treatment and are compelled to give up the treatment for this reason. Consequently, as the data reveals, less than 30 percent of patients suffering from cancer in India survive for more than five years after diagnosis, while over two-thirds of cancer related deaths occur among people aged 30 to 69.

According to the data of the Union Ministry of Health, 40 percent of over 300 cancer centers in India do not have adequate facilities for advanced cancer care. It is estimated that the country would need at least 600 additional cancer care centers by 2020 to meet this crying need.

Conclusion:

It appears to me, even meeting this basic need for cancer care will be extremely challenging with frugal public healthcare spending in India. As I said before, it gets well reflected in the successive annual budgetary allocations for the same, both by the Central and most of the State Governments. Added to this, the ‘National Health Policy’, which was first drafted and released in December 2014 by the Ministry of Health for the stakeholders’ comments, is yet to be put in place. The draft policy recommended, among many others, making health a fundamental right of Indian citizens.

According to ‘The World Bank’ report, the public expenditure for health as a percentage of GDP of the oldest democracy of the world is already hovering over 8, against around just 1 of the largest democracy of the world. On top of this, the present American Government has committed, even more resources to usher in a new era of hope for all cancer patients with its latest ‘National Mission’ – ‘A Moonshot for Cancer Cure’.

There is a lot to feel good about it, even as an Indian, as this health mission, termed as ‘‘A Moonshot for Cancer Cure’ by the American Vice-President assures that ‘the same care provided to patients at the world’s best cancer centers, is available to everyone who needs it.’ Its overall benefits could possibly reach even the Indian patients…who knows?

Like 2016, and the previous years, the ‘World Cancer Day’ would come and go with the turn of every calendar year. Hopefully, things will be quite different sometime in future. India would possibly initiate the much awaited health care reform in the country and more specifically effective ‘cancer care’ for all, with requisite budgetary provisions in place. Till then, do the cancer patients in India have any other choice, but to eagerly wait for it, hoping for the best outcome?

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘The Memory Thief’ Still Eludes Grasp Of Pharma R&D

Posted on February 1, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Over several decades, in fact, since its very inception, pharma R&D has been playing a crucial role in alleviating diseases of various types – from severe acute infections, to a large variety of non-infectious chronic illnesses, including many dreaded diseases, such as, cancer.

In the battle against diseases, pharma research and development initiatives, both by a large number of academia and also the pharma players, have mostly won, decisively. R&D has been consistently coming out with flying colors, both in finding cures and also in effective disease management, to prolong and improve the quality of life of billions of people, the world over.

However, there is still an important disease area, where pharma R&D has not been successful yet. Without any prior warning, this disease stealthily affects the human brain and completely erases the entire lifetime memory of the person, gradually but surely, over a relatively short period of time. This disease is known as Alzheimer’s, following the name of Dr. Dr. Alois Alzheimer, who first detected it in 1906. Due to its devastating impact on human memory, some, very appropriately, term the Alzheimer’s disease – ‘The memory thief’.

I discussed this subject in one of my previous articles titled, “It Took 90 Years To Accept The Dreaded Disease Discovered In A Mental Asylum”, published in this Blog on December 01, 2014.

A recent alarm for a future epidemic:

A January 6, 2016 paper titled, “Sounding the alarm on a future epidemic: Alzheimer’s disease”, published by the well reputed public research university in the United States, ‘The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), made the following noteworthy observation:

“If the aging trend illustrates the success of public health strategies, it also raises the specter of a major public health crisis – a sharp rise in the number of people living with Alzheimer’s disease.”

Causing havoc in many lives and families:

‘Alzheimer’s Disease Education and Referral (ADEAR) Center’ of the United States, currently ranked Alzheimer’s disease as the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, but recent estimates indicate that the disorder may rank third, just behind heart disease and cancer, as a cause of death for older people.

According to Mayo Clinic, the frightful disease – Alzheimer’s, is progressive in nature. At the onset, the afflicted persons may exhibit just mild confusion and some difficulty in remembering.

Tragically, in around five years or a little after, Alzheimer’s would erase the entire lifetime memory of most of the affected persons, when they may even forget the important people in their lives and undergo dramatic personality changes.

The dreaded disease – Alzheimer’s, still without any effective medication in place, has been causing havocs in many lives and families since long, involving many great international personalities too. It is one of those ailments, where the disease process mostly commences almost a decade before the visible appearance of above clinical symptoms.

Worldwide Projections of Alzheimer’s Disease Prevalence:

The above UCLA report highlights the worldwide projections of Alzheimer’s disease prevalence from 2005 to 2050, which includes both the early and late stage patients.

According to this report, the number of people afflicted by this total memory-erasing disease, would grow from 35.26 million in 2015 to as high as 106.23 million populations in 2050, as follows:

Year	Alzheimer’s disease prevalence (in Millions)
2005	25.73
2010	30.12
2015	35.26
2020	41.27
2025	56.55
2040	77.49
2050	106.23

Similar situation in India:

The situation in India seems to be no different, though we are living today in the midst of the hype of ‘Demographic Dividend’.

According to the March 2012 report of ‘The Population Reference Bureau’ of Washington DC of the United States, India’s population with ages 60 and older, who are more prone to Alzheimer’s disease, is projected to increase dramatically over the next four decades, from 8 percent in 2010 to 19 percent in 2050. By mid-century, this age group is expected to encompass 323 million people, a number greater than the total US population in 2012.

Currently available treatment:

At present, there are no treatments available that can stop or slow down the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in the brain of the affected persons.

As I wrote earlier, very often the onset of this disease starts decades before the visible manifestation of even preliminary symptoms. Thus, there is a critical need for early medical interventions to arrest the disease progression.

Again, quoting Mayo Clinic, current Alzheimer’s disease medications and management strategies may at best temporarily improve symptoms. These symptomatic treatments can sometimes, help Alzheimer’s patients maximize cognitive and other related functions to the extent possible, and thereby maintain independence for a little while longer.

Primary reasons:

Many earlier research had postulated that plaques and tangles are primarily responsible for the permanent damage and destruction of nerve cells.

While the plaques are abnormal clusters of beta-amyloid protein fragments between nerve cells, tangles are twisted fibers made primarily of a protein called “tau” that accumulates in the brain cells, damaging and killing them.

The appearance of these two in the brain structure makes the affected persons suffer from almost irreversible memory loss, altered thinking pattern and associated behavioral changes, which are usually serious in nature.

However, I shall discuss below about a very recent research that is focusing on a different and novel target.

Key hurdles in Alzheimer’s drug development:

Despite all these, almost at a regular interval, we have been getting to know about various new studies on Alzheimer’s disease, mostly from academic and scientific institutions. It clearly vindicates, at least, the global academia and also some pharma players, are working hard to get an effective key to unlock the pathway of Alzheimer’s disease process.

The hurdles in developing a suitable drug for effective treatment of Alzheimer’s disease are many. A paper titled, “Researching Alzheimer’s Medicines: Setbacks and Stepping Stones Summer 2015”, published by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) – a trade association of leading biopharmaceutical researchers and biotechnology companies of the United States, cited the following three major reasons as examples:

Scientists still do not understand the underlying causes and mechanisms of the disease. It remains unknown whether many of the defining molecular characteristics of the disease are causes, effects, or signs of progression. This scientific knowledge gap makes the identification and selection of viable targets for new medicines difficult.

Current preclinical models of Alzheimer’s disease are limited in the extent to which they can be extrapolated or translated to the human condition. Better models are needed to facilitate preclinical testing of drug candidates and better predict the effects of the drug in humans.

The absence of validated, non-invasive biomarkers to identify disease presence and progression means the diagnosis is delayed until an individual becomes symptomatic. This makes it particularly challenging to evaluate, enroll, retain, and follow up with patients in clinical studies. It also makes it challenging to assess the effects of the drug candidate. Ultimately, this leads to long and very expensive clinical trials.

The PhRMA publication also states that “researchers believe that no single medicine will be able to defeat Alzheimer’s; rather, several medicines will probably be needed to combat the disease. Thus, researchers need not one, but an array of options to prevent or treat Alzheimer’s disease.”

High rate of R&D failure, with flickers of success:

The above PhRMA publication also indicates, between 1998 and 2014, 123 medicines in clinical development have been halted and have not received regulatory approval.

In this rather gloomy R&D scenario, there are also some flickers of success in this pursuit.

In a recent study, the scientists at the University of Southampton announced that their findings added weight to evidence that inflammation in the brain is what drives the disease. A drug, used to block the production of these microglia cells in the brains of mice, had a positive effect. The study, therefore, concluded that blocking the production of new immune cells in the brain could reduce memory problems seen in Alzheimer’s disease. This finding is expected to pave the way for a new line of treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.

Currently, most drugs used for the treatment of dementia targeted amyloid plaques in the brain, which are considered as a key characteristic of people with the Alzheimer’s disease. According to an article published in Forbes on March 20, 2015, several amyloid-clearing drugs have failed to show statistically significant benefits in large clinical trials. Notable among those are Bapineuzumab – developed by Elan Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson failed in 2009; Solanezumab of Eli Lilly failed in 2012; and so did Gantenerumab of Roche in 2014.

The latest study, as quoted above, published in the journal ‘Brain’, on January 8, 2016 suggests that targeting inflammation in the brain, caused by a build-up of immune cells called microglia, could halt progression of the disease.

Another flicker of hope is, another drug being developed by Biogen Idec for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease appeared to slow down the inexorable cognitive decline of patients’, though in a small and a preliminary study.

Lack of research funding is a critical impediment:

Be that as it may, many experts believe that not enough is still being done in Alzheimer’s research, especially in the area of funding.

In an article titled, “Alzheimer’s disease: are we close to finding a cure?” published by ‘Medical News Today (MNT)’ on August 20, 2014, quoted the Alzheimer’s Society, as follows:

“Dementia is the biggest health and social care challenge of our generation, but research into the condition has been hugely underfunded. This lack of funding has hampered progress and also restricted the number of scientists and clinicians working in the dementia field.”

As an illustration, MNT mentioned that in the United States Alzheimer’s research received US$504 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2014, while cancer received more than US$5 billion. Breast cancer alone received more funding than Alzheimer’s at US$674 million.

Quoting an expert in this field the report highlighted, “Other diseases have demonstrated that sustained investment in research can improve lives, reduce death rates and ultimately produce effective treatments and preventions. We have the tools and the talent to achieve breakthroughs in Alzheimer’s disease, but we need the resources to make this a reality.”

Conclusion:

From the published research reports, it appears that the quest to decipher the complicated Alzheimer’s disease process continues, at least by the academic and scientific institutions, with equal zest.

These scientists remain committed to finding out the ‘magic bullet’, which would be able to effectively address the crippling disease. As a result, the research has also moved from discovery of effective amyloid-clearing drugs to search for new molecules that targets inflammation in the brain, caused by a build-up of immune cells called microglia.

Undeniably, the challenges ahead are still too many.

Nevertheless, enough confidence is also building up to halt the epidemic of Alzheimer’s by overcoming those hurdles, the world over. Experts are hoping that both a cure and also successful preventive measures for the disease, are not too far anymore.

Though some Global Pharma majors invested significantly to discover effective drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, overall research funding in this area is still far from adequate, according to the Alzheimer’s Society.

For various reasons, not many pharma players today seem to believe that it would be financially prudent for them to make significant investments in developing new molecules for the treatment of Alzheimer’s – the disease that robs memory of millions of people, completely, and without any prior warning whatsoever.

‘The Memory Thief’ continues to prowl, undeterred, still eluding otherwise brilliant Pharma R&D, across the world.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma R&D: Chasing A Rainbow To Replicate The Past

Posted on January 25, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Would future be always a replica of the past?

If the response is yes, the efforts of many global pharma players to replicate the successful Research and Development (R&D) models of long gone by days, would continue to be a grand success. The new drug pipeline would remain rich and sustainable. R&D costs would be increasingly more productive, with the rapid and more frequent churning out of blockbuster drugs, in various therapy areas.

However, an affirmative response to this question, if any, has to be necessarily supported by relevant credible data from independent sources.

Additionally, yet another equally critical query would surface. Why then the prices of newer innovative drugs have started going through the roof, with the rapid escalation of R&D expenses?

Thus, there is a need to ponder whether the continued hard effort by many large innovator companies in this direction is yielding the desired results or not.

In this article, I shall try to dwell on this issue with the most recent data available with us.

A new research report:

A new research report of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions titled, “Measuring the return from pharmaceutical innovation 2015: Transforming R&D returns in uncertain times” states that the R&D returns of major life sciences industry groups have fallen to their lowest point in 2015, since 2010. The report tracked and reviewed the estimated returns of 12 leading global life sciences companies.

Some of the data presented in this report would give an idea about the magnitude of current challenges in this space. Nevertheless, there could be a few rare and sporadic green shoots, which can also be cited to claim a revival in this area.

I am quoting below some key pharma R&D trends, for the period starting from 2010 to 2015, as illustrated in the Deloitte report:

A. Declining R&D productivity:

Year	R&D return (%)
2010	10.1
2011	7.6
2012	7.3
2013	4.8
2014	5.5
2015	4.2

B. Increasing drug development cost with decreasing estimated sales:

During 2010 to 2015 period, the average peak sales estimate per drug has fallen by 50 percent from US$ 816 million to US$416 million per year, while the development costs per drug, during the same period increased by 33 percent, from US$ 1.188 billion to US$ 1.576 billion.

C. Smaller Companies showing better R&D productivity:

Between 2013-2015, relatively smaller companies showed better R&D productivity as follows:

Big companies: 5 percent
Mid to large cap companies: 17 percent

D. External innovation becoming increasingly more important:

Again, mid to large cap companies opting for more external innovation are showing a higher proportion of late stage pipeline value, as below:

Big companies: 54 percent
Mid to large cap companies: 79 percent

A fear of failure?

The Deloitte report throws some light on the general stakeholders’ concerns about the exorbitantly high price fixation for innovative new drugs by the concerned companies, together with consequential macroeconomic pressures.

One of the key suggestions made in this report, is to increase the focus on reduction of R&D costs, while accelerating the new drug development timelines. I shall broach upon this point briefly just in a short while.

However, the stark reality today, the hard efforts still being made by many large global drug companies to almost replicate the old paradigm of highly productive pharma R&D, though with some tweaking here or there, are not yielding expected results. The return on R&D investments is sharply going south, as the new drug prices rocketing towards north.

Is it happening due to a paralyzing fear of failure, that moving out of the known and the traditional sphere of the new drug discovery models could impact the stock markets adversely, making the concerned CEOs operational environment too hot to bear?

Be that as it may, without venturing into the uncharted frontiers of the new drug discovery models, would it at all be possible to bring out such drugs at a reasonable affordable price to the patients, ever?

I have deliberated before, in this blog, some of the possible eclectic ways in this area, including in one of my very recent articles on January 4, 2016 titled, “2015: Pharma Industry Achieved Some, Could Achieve Some More”.

New innovative drugs evaluated over priced:

Here, I would not quote the prices of Sovaldi and its ilk, which are known to many. I intend to give examples of just two other new drugs that have triggered significant interest as potential advances for the care of patients in two common disease areas, namely, asthma and diabetes. These two drugs are GlaxoSmithKline’s Nucala® (Mepolizumab) for Asthma and Novo Nordisk’s Tresiba® (Insulin Degludec) for Diabetes.

According a December 21, 2015 report of the ‘Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)’ of the United States:

“The annual price of mepolizumab would need to be discounted 63-76% to be better aligned with value to patients and the health system, while insulin degludec would need to be discounted less than 10% to do so.”

Thus, there has been a growing mismatch between the value that new innovative drugs, in general, offers to the patients and the price that the innovator companies fix for such drugs. This trend, if continues, would significantly limit patients’ access to new drugs, as the pharma players keep chasing disproportionately high profitability to increase their shareholder value.

External sourcing of R&D may not make new drugs affordable:

Taking a cue from the highly successful strategy of Gilead, especially what it has done with Sovaldi and Harvoni, if other major global pharma players’ also try to enrich their late stage new drug molecule pipeline from external sources, would that effectively resolve the core issue?

In my view, this could possibly be one of the ways to contain R&D expenses and with much lesser risk, as suggested in the Deloitte report. However, I doubt, whether the same would effectively help bringing down the prices of newer innovative drugs, in tandem.

This is primarily because of the following contemporary example, that we now have with us.

Although the active compound that is used to manufacture Sovaldi, or for that matter even Harvoni, is not Gilead’s in-house discovery, the prices of these drugs have already gone through the roof.

It is altogether a different matter that robust patent laws along with the Government vigilance on obnoxious drug pricing is gradually increasing in various countries. Some developed and developing markets of the world, including the Unites States and the United Kingdom, either already have or are now mulling for an effective counter check to irresponsible drug pricing, primarily by putting the ‘innovation’ bogey right at the very front.

In India, prompted by its robust patent law and to avoid any possibility of Compulsory Licensing (CL), Gilead ultimately decided to give Voluntary Licenses (CL) for Sovaldi to several Indian drug companies. These pharma players will manufacture the drug in India and market it in the country at a much lesser price.

A new cooperative effort for cancer drugs:

On January 11 2016, ‘The New York Times’ reported the formation of ‘National Immunotherapy Coalition (NIC)’. This is a cooperative effort by some leading global pharma companies to speed up the testing of new types of cancer drugs that harness the body’s immune system to battle tumors. The NIC will try to rapidly test various combinations of such drugs.

This is important, as many researchers believe that combinations of two or more drugs that engage different parts of the immune system might be effective for more patients than a single drug.

On the face of it, this initiative appears to be a step in the right direction and could make the cancer drugs more affordable to patients. However, only future will tell us whether it happens that way or not.

Conclusion:

Nevertheless, the bottom line is, to make the new innovative drugs available at an affordable price to patients, along with strict vigilance by the government bodies, the old and a traditional ball game of drug discovery has to change.

This would necessarily require fresh eyes, inquiring minds and high IQ brains that can bring forth at least significant eclectic changes, if not a disruptive innovation, in the new drug discovery and development process, across the world.

Otherwise, and especially when the low-hanging fruits of drug discovery have already been plucked, if the major global pharma players continue striving to replicate the grand old path of new drug discovery, the efforts could very likely be, and quite akin to, chasing a rainbow.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process

Posted on January 18, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Fathoming the details of just a short span of time, not going beyond the last 10 years, I find from the published data that many new drugs, such as, Alatrofloxacin, Aprotinin, Drotrecogin alfa, Lumiracoxib, Propoxyphene, Rofecoxib, Rosiglitazone, Sibutramine, Tegaserod, Tetrazepam, were withdrawn from a number of important global markets. Quite a few of those were withdrawn also from the world market.

The key reason for almost all these withdrawals was serious safety concerns for the patients while using these medicines. Interestingly, some of these new molecules were withdrawn even after attaining the blockbuster status, such as Rofecoxib.

Tens of thousands of patients have died only because of this reason, according to reports.

It is widely believed by the experts in this area, if full public disclosure of the entire data of drug clinical trials was made, most of these new drugs would not have seen the light of the day and without putting many patients’ health safety in jeopardy.

All this is a part of a curious conundrum in the new drug approval process, across the world, for various reasons. In this article, I would try to dwell on this issue.

Voices against this ‘unethical practice’ getting louder:

On December 22, 2015, ‘CBC News’ published an interesting article, titled “Researcher issues ‘call to action’ to force release of hidden drug safety data: Bringing drug industry data into the light of public scrutiny.”

The article echoed the same belief of other global experts and, in fact, went a step forward. It categorically reiterated, if full disclosure of the entire data of drug clinical trials is made public, medical practice might have been quite different.

To drive home this point, the article cited the example of the arthritis drug rofecoxib (Vioxx), which has been linked to tens of thousands of deaths related to heart attacks.

It highlighted, although this risk was very much known to the regulatory authority of the United States, the relevant data was not released to the public for an impartial scrutiny.

Quoting different sources, the paper observed, almost half of the drug trials remain secret and the studies that are published, overwhelmingly report results that make the drug in question look good.

Independent experts’ views differed from the innovator companies:

In some cases, when researchers were able to see what is hiding in the filing cabinets of the drug innovator companies, a different picture altogether emerged on the overall profile of those drugs.

One group looked at 12 antidepressants, comparing the published studies with the internal US FDA assessments. They found that 94 per cent of the published studies were positive, as compared to 51 per cent, when they included all of the studies assessed by the drug regulator.

Based on a detailed study, the authors concluded, without considering all the data, drug effectiveness can often be exaggerated, leading doctors and patients to assume that the medications work better than what they actually do. The ongoing practice of the drug players may help them to significantly diminish the risks, related to the benefits offered by these medicines.

A few months ago, another group analyzed the data from an unpublished drug company study about the effect of Paxil on teen depression and found that the drug did not work and was not safe for the patients. This result completely contradicted the original, unpublished study on this drug.

A crusader emerged in Canada:

Interestingly, the same article, as above, states that Mathew Herder , the health law associate professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada is now taking up the fight. He is now “calling on other doctors, researchers and journalists to bombard Ottawa with their own demands for drug industry data, using the new legislative lever called the ‘Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act,’, which was passed late last year in Canada.

He has also created a template to help doctors, researchers and journalists access drug safety data at Health Canada. Herder reportedly could even include biomedical researchers, doctors who prescribe medicine, investigative journalists pursuing questions about drug safety, and other activists and patient groups.

This example is worth imbibing elsewhere.

The ‘Rule Books’ are in place, though with loopholes:

To curb such alleged patient unfriendly practices of the innovative drug manufacturers, while obtaining the marketing approval of new drugs, various rules and procedure were put in place, by various authorities.

I shall deliberate below a few of these rules, and enough loopholes therein, enabling the interested parties to hoodwink the external experts, at the cost of patients.

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform:

Much before Herder, following a ministerial summit on Health Research in 2004, a World Health Assembly Resolution passed in 2005 called for unambiguous identification of all interventional clinical trials. This resolution led to the establishment of the ‘World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform’. It collates information on trials that have been notified in a network of clinical trial registries.

According to W.H.O, “The registration of all interventional trials is a scientific, ethical and moral responsibility”.

In the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki, it reiterates, “Every research study involving human subjects must be registered in a publicly accessible database before recruitment of the first subject.”

It unambiguously states, “Researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research …. Negative and inconclusive as well as positive results must be published or otherwise made publicly available”.

Understandably, W.H.O statement underscores, “There is an ethical imperative to report the results of all clinical trials, including those of unreported trials conducted in the past.”

It is worth mentioning here that on January 1, 2015, by a new policy on publication of clinical data, ‘European Medicines Agency (EMA)’ also decided to proactively publish all clinical reports submitted as part of marketing-authorization applications for human medicines, by the by pharmaceutical companies.

Big Pharma's serious apprehensions on greater Public transparency:

Before finalization of the above policy, EMA sought comments on its draft from various state holders. On September 5, 2013, in its remarks on the draft, ‘The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, EFPIA’ expressed its apprehension about the public health safety oriented proactive move by the EMA as follows:

“We are worried by a move towards greater transparency of clinical trials data that appears to be putting transparency – at whatever cost – ahead of public health interests. Our detailed response to the EMA draft policy speaks to this concern. While EFPIA values other voices and opinion in the conversation surrounding clinical trials data, we believe there are better alternatives than what the EMA is presenting.”

This is of course understandable. That said, it also gives satisfaction to note that EMA did not wilt under any pressure on this score, whatever the anecdotal might of the external force be.

Gross non-compliance, endangering patients’ health safety:

Although, the standards and requirements of “Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Results” have been well specified now, and even in most of the Big Pharma websites one can find disclosure norms of clinical trial data, their overall compliance on the ground, is still grossly inadequate, endangering patients’ health safety.

An article published in the BMJ Open on November 12, 2015 titled, “Clinical trial registration, reporting, publication and FDAAA compliance: a cross-sectional analysis and ranking of new drugs approved by the FDA in 2012”, well captured the magnitude of this issue.

Nevertheless, the study analyzed just a subset of drugs approved in a single year, 2012. The researchers only examined whether clinical trials were registered and reported, not what that data suggested about how the drugs worked.

The paper reported the results as follows:

“In 2012, the US FDA approved 39 novel new medicines, known as NMEs, and 35 novel drugs. Combining these lists, the FDA approved a total of 48 new drug entities, 15 of which were sponsored by 10 large pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies with market capitalizations valued over US$19 billion. A total of 342 trials were conducted to gain regulatory approval of the 15 drugs, 24 of which were excluded from our analysis, leaving 318 trials involving 99 599 participants relevant to our study, a median of 17 trials per drug.”

Based on the findings, the authors concluded asunder:

“Trial disclosures for new drugs remain below legal and ethical standards, with wide variation in practices among drugs and their sponsors. Best practices are emerging. 2 of our 10 reviewed companies disclosed all trials and complied with legal disclosure requirements for their 2012 approved drugs. Ranking new drugs on transparency criteria may improve compliance with legal and ethical standards and the quality of medical knowledge.”

Simultaneously, The Washington Post in an article of November 12, 2015, titled, “How pharma keeps a trove of drug trials out of public view”, summarized this report by highlighting to the general public that one third of the clinical trial results that US FDA reviewed to approve drugs made by large pharmaceutical companies in 2012, were never publicly reported.

Unethical practices skewing medical science:

On July 25, 2015, ‘The Economist’ published an article titled, “Spilling the beans’. It highlighted again that the failure to publish the results of all clinical trials is skewing medical science.

This article also brought to the public attention that half of the clinical trial results are never published over several decades. It broadened the discourse with the observation that this specific unwanted practice, distorts perceptions of the efficacy of not just drugs, but devices and even surgical procedures too, in a well planned and a systematic manner. What is most important to note is, it has seriously compromised with patients’ health interest, across the world.

It keeps on happening, as there are no firm obligations on the part of drug companies for making public disclosure of all such data, both for and against, though all these data are required to be filed with the regulatory authorities. Hence, the overall assessment of the drugs, weighing all pros and cons, is just not possible for any outside expert agency.

For granting necessary marketing approval, the designated authorities, at least theoretically, ensure that the drugs are reasonably safe, and have, at least, ‘some beneficial effects’. However, the prescribing doctors would continue to remain ignorant of the untold facts, the article states.

According to ‘The Economist’, although in the United States the relevant laws were modified, way back in 2007, to address this issue, it still remains as a theory, the actual practices in this regard are mostly not so.

Despite vindication no tangible outcome yet:

As I said earlier, this fact got vindicated through extensive research by the ‘BMJ Online’ article and many other contemporary medical publications.

For example, the evidence released earlier on April 10, 2014 by the Cochrane Collaboration of London, UK, also shows that a large part of negative data generated from the clinical trials of various drugs were not disclosed to the public.

Again, like Vioxx, though the US FDA was aware of all such data, for a well known drug Tamiflu, unfortunately the prescribing doctors were not. As a result, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which doesn’t have the same access to unpublished data as the regulators, recommended this medicine not being able to evaluate it holistically.

However, as the findings from the unpublished clinical trials eventually surfaced, CDC expressed serious apprehension on the overall efficacy of Tamiflu, quite contrary to the assessment of the concerned big pharma player.

Hence, despite quite a large number of vindications by the experts, no tangible outcome has been noticed on this pressing issue, just yet.

Conclusion:

Based on all this discussion, the moot question that springs up: Why do the doctors still prescribe such drugs, even after being aware of the full facts?

In this regard, an article titled, “Big Pharma Plays Hide-The-Ball with Data”, published in the Newsweek on November 13, 2014 raised a very valid question.

It commented, even if Tamiflu does nothing, and there is just a slight chance of life-threatening side effects, why was it approved by the US FDA, in the first place?

Even more intriguing is: Why do the doctors continue prescribing these, especially after the Cochrane Collaboration took the Tamiflu’s maker, Roche, to task about many of its claims, in April 2014.

Incidentally, the Cochrane Collaboration is widely regarded as one of the most rigorous reviewers of health science data. It takes results of multiple trials, looks for faults and draws conclusions. It doesn’t accept funding from businesses with a stake in its findings.

The answer to this question may perhaps be too obvious to merit any elaborate discussion here.

Be that as it may, this curious conundrum of ‘New Drug Approval’ with ‘Partial Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Data’ needs to effectively addressed, without further delay. If not, patients’ health interest would continue to get seriously compromised with the continuation of prevailing laxity in its implementation process by the drug regulators.

By: Tapan J. Ray

3D Printing: An Emerging Game Changer in Pharma Business

Posted on January 11, 2016 by Tapan Ray

On August 3, 2015, Aprecia Pharmaceuticals in the United States took a game changing step towards a new paradigm of the global pharma business. The Company announced that for the first time ever, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) approved a ‘Three-Dimensional (3D)’ – printed prescription drug for the oral use of epilepsy patients. Although, 3DP has already been used to manufacture medical devices and prosthetics, in the pharma world, this disruptive innovation was never practiced on the ground, till that magic moment came.

The drug is Spritam® (levetiracetam) used as a prescription adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial onset seizures, myoclonic seizures and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in adults and children with epilepsy.

According to this announcement, Spritam® utilizes Aprecia’s proprietary ZipDose® Technology platform, that uses 3D Printing (3DP) to produce a porous formulation that rapidly disintegrates with a sip of liquid.

The 3DP technology:

3DP technology is broadly defined as a process for making a physical object from a three-dimensional digital model, typically by laying down many successive thin layers of a material.

The originator of this game changing development is the renowned academic institution – ‘The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)’in the United States.

Later on, the MIT licensed out the patented 3DP technology for its use in many different other fields. Among pharma companies Aprecia Pharmaceuticals obtained the exclusive rights to 3D-printing technology for pharmaceutical purposes in 2007.

A high potential game changer:

In pharma, 3DP could possibly emerge as a game changing and disruptive innovation, sooner than later. It could radically change the traditional and well-established strategic and operational models of pharma business, especially the drug discovery process, manufacturing strategy and even the disease treatment process, paving a faster pathway for the much awaited ‘Personalized Medicines’, in a large scale.

Lee Cronin, a Professor of Chemistry, Nanoscience and Chemical Complexity at the Glasgow University, says that the 3DP technology could potentially be used to print medicines of many types – cheaply and wherever it is needed. As Professor Cronin says: “What Apple did for music, I’d like to do for the discovery and distribution of prescription drugs.”

3D Printers would also throw open an opportunity of getting any drug tailor made for the individual patient’s needs, such as, exact dosage requirements, size, shape, color and flavor of the pill and also in the most appropriate delivery systems, just as what Aprecia Pharmaceuticals did with Spritam® by using this technology.

In this article, I shall highlight the game changing impact of 3DP only in the following three areas of pharma business:

The drug discovery process
Drug manufacturing strategy
Supply Chain effectiveness

A. Impact on drug discovery process:

A December 29, 2015 article titled, “Click chemistry, 3D-printing, and omics: the future of drug development”, published in ‘Oncotarget, Advance Publications 2015’ deliberates on the potential of 3DP in the drug discovery process.

The paper states, Genomics has unambiguously revealed that different types of cancers are just not highly complex, they also differ from patient to patient. Thus, conventional treatment approaches for such diseases fit poorly with genomic reality. It is also very likely that similar type of complexity will eventually be identified in many other life-threatening ailments.

Currently, a large number of patients are taking medications that may not help them, on the contrary could harm some of them. The top ten best-selling drugs in the United States are only effective in between 4 percent and 25 percent of the individuals for whom they are prescribed, the paper observes.

However, developing new drugs and tailoring such therapy to each patient’s complicated problem has still remained a major challenge.

One possible solution to this challenge could be to match patients to existing compounds with the help of an equally complicated modelling technique. Nonetheless, optimization of a complex therapy will eventually require designing compounds for patients using computer modeling and just-in-time production. 3DP shows a very high potential to effectively address this complex issue.

This is primarily because, 3DP is potentially transformative by virtue of its ability to rapidly generate almost limitless numbers of objects that previously required manufacturing facilities.

It is also now becoming clearer that with 3DP, scientists will be able to print even the biologic materials, such as, tissues, and eventually organs. Thus, in the near future, it is plausible that high-throughput computing may be deployed to design customized drugs, which will reshape medicine, the article highlights.

In his short ‘Ted Talk Video Clip’ (please click on this link), Professor Lee Cronin explains his working on a 3D printer that, instead of objects, is able to print molecules for a new drug. It could throw open an exciting potential of a long-term application of 3DP for printing, our own customized new medicine by using chemical inks.

In a nutshell, Professor Lee Cronin elucidates in his ‘Ted Talk’, how could the immense potential of 3D printers be leveraged to catalyze the chemical reactions in order to print real drugs, as and when required, according to the requirements of individual patients.

B. Impact on drug manufacturing strategy:

Not just in drug discovery, 3DP would equally be a game changer in pharma manufacturing, the way it is operated today, including the state of the art production facilities.

This could very much happen in tandem with the 3DP drug discovery research, moving towards personalized medicine, and simultaneously making the same 3DP an integral part of the new drug production line.

Moreover, besides the opportunity of getting any drug tailor made for individual patient needs, such as, exact dosage requirements, size, shape, color and flavor of the tablet and also the delivery system, 3DP technology can be most productively used to manufacture high priced low volume and patient-specific orphan drugs for the treatment of critical illnesses.

Even for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), the power and potential of 3DP technology can be well leveraged. On March 12, 2015 the ‘Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)’ of the United States announced that HHMI scientists have designed a revolutionary “3D printer” for small molecules that could open the power of customized chemistry to many.

It further stated, small molecules hold tremendous potential in medicine and technology, but they are difficult to synthesize without proper expertise. The automated “3D printer” designed for small molecules is a way to get around this bottleneck. The new technology has the potential to unlock access to customized molecules in a way that will drive science forward, on many levels. Moreover, the potential for cost-savings with 3DP is huge, improving the drug profitability significantly.

C. Impact on 'supply chain' effectiveness:

Currently, the traditional pharma ‘Supply Chain models’ are primarily based on the following:

Efficiency largely with high volume operation
Need to drive the cost as low as possible
Relatively higher-number of workers
The inventory cost
The real estate cost, owned directly or indirectly, for the entire ‘Supply Chain’ cycle

3DP technology would enable manufacturers shifting the ‘just in time production and distribution’ processes very close to consumers. Such well spread out and ‘just in time’ drug manufacturing activities catering to varying requirements, from very small to very high, would help reduce the cost of logistics, substantially.

This disruptive innovation will enable even the hospitals to print the required drugs at their own locations with, authorized 3DP file downloads, eliminating the need to keep huge inventory and also protecting patients from counterfeit medicines in the ‘Supply Chain’.

Thus, the bottom-line is, the drug companies will be able to print drugs with 3DP technology on real time demand at a large number of selected locations. This will significantly bring down the finished product inventory, starting from companies’ warehouses and distributors to retail and hospital shelves, to almost zero, making pharma supply chain significantly lean and highly effective.

Additionally, it will enable the pharma companies to manufacture drugs also in all developing countries, resulting in improved access to medicine, at a much lesser cost.

Conclusion:

I believe, this technology has already reached a critical juncture, where it is no longer a matter of conjecture that 3DP would ‘soon’ become a game changer, especially for the drug discovery process, manufacturing strategy and supply chain effectiveness of the pharma business, across the world, including India. Getting a prime mover advantage is vital.

However, the question still remains: how soon will this ‘soon’ be?

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Category Archives: Blog

Healthcare In India (2016-17): Whither Goest Thou?

Against Pharma Marketing Malpractices: A Gutsy Step

Democratization of Healthcare: An Evolving Trend Driven By Cutting-Edge Technology

The ‘Moonshot’: Access To World-Class Cancer Care, For All

‘The Memory Thief’ Still Eludes Grasp Of Pharma R&D

Pharma R&D: Chasing A Rainbow To Replicate The Past

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process

3D Printing: An Emerging Game Changer in Pharma Business