Tag Archives: a

Contract Research – a rapidly evolving business opportunity in India: Is the Pharmaceutical Industry making the best use of it?

Posted on by
Reply
A quick perspective of the ‘new-era’ pharmaceutical R&D in India:
Since 1970 up until 2005, Indian pharmaceutical industry used to be considered as the industry of ‘reverse engineering’ and that too with an underlying disparaging tone… and also as the industry of ‘copycat’ medicines’.

However, it will be absolutely unfair on my part to comment that only domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies launched ‘copycat’ versions of patented products in India and no multinational companies (MNCs) resorted to this practice, during this period.

Long before Indian Product Patent regime was put in place, in January 1, 2005, around 1998/99 Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) entered into a bilateral agreement with Novo Nordisk and Ranbaxy with Bayer of Germany to out-license two New Chemical Entities (NCEs) and a New Drug Delivery System (NDDS), respectively for further development.

Opened the new vistas of opportunities:

These research initiatives opened the new vistas of opportunities for the Indian pharmaceutical industry in terms of R&D, in the pharmaceutical science. The above new developments also brought in a sense of determination within the research oriented domestic pharmaceutical players to enter into the big ticket game of the global pharmaceutical industry called ‘product discovery research’.

The jubilation of the industry having demonstrated its initial capability of taking a leap into forthcoming new paradigm of that time, received a set back momentarily when Novo Nordisk terminated the development of both the NCEs of DRL, after a couple of years, because of scientific reasons. However, DRL continued to move on to its chosen path, undeterred by the initial set back.

Need to focus on R&D and create world class ‘Intellectual Properties’:

In a letter addressed to the shareholders of DRL in one of its recent annual reports, the founder and the chairman of the company Dr. Anji Reddy expressed his following vision:

“Excelling in the basic business operations will be necessary, but not sufficient. To maintain a long-term presence in the global pharmaceuticals markets and to grow profitably will require companies to be even more focused on R&D and creation of successful IPR’s [intellectual property rights].”

After India signed the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement, Indian pharmaceutical companies were quick to make out that the ball game of doing pharmaceutical business in the new IPR regime will be quite different. Having pharmaceutical product patents will indeed be important in future, for the domestic R&D based pharmaceutical companies.

The Past versus Present R&D models in India:

Domestic research based pharmaceutical companies did realize in the early days that a radical shift in their focus from ‘process research’ to ‘product discovery research’ may not be prudent or practical either.

Some of these companies initiated step-wise approach from mid 90’s to meet the challenge of change, come year 2005. During the transition period of 10 years as given by the WTO to India from 1995 to 2005, some domestic companies wanted to make full use of their past R&D model.

The past model:

Before the product patent regime, Indian pharmaceutical companies used to manufacture and market generic equivalents of the patented drugs at a fraction of the price of the originators, with non-infringing process technology in the Indian domestic market and also for export to the other non-regulated markets. During the WTO transition period of 10 years, they increased the pace of utilization of this model and launched as many ‘copycat’ versions of the new products as possible to boost up their sales and profit.

The present model for regulated markets:

Following two strategies are followed:

1. Indian companies doing generic business in the regulated markets like the USA submit
“Abbreviated New Drug Application” (ANDA) to the drug regulator for approvals of drugs,
which will go off patent within the next few years, so that the generic products could be launched
immediately after patent expiry.

2. Many other companies follow the second avenue, simultaneously, which is though risky but very
remunerative. In this case, the generic market entry takes place by challenging the patents of the
innovators.

It is believed that this model is being used by the Indian pharmaceutical companies, primarily to raise financial resources to get more engaged in their drug discovery initiatives or to generate wherewithal for collaborative or contract research initiatives.

For short term business growth and to raise fund for discovery research, their non-infringing process research initiatives have been proved to be quite useful. These R&D based Indian pharmaceutical companies; seem to understand very well that discovery of NCEs/NMEs or getting involved in this process will ultimately be ‘the name of the game’ to fuel longer term business growth of their respective organizations.

Contract Research (CR) in India:

Contract research is another business model within the overall R&D space, where a significant part of the investments come from the collaborators. CR business model currently explore the following two key options:

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for the discovery will go to the global collabolator and the
Indian CR organization will get an upfront or milestone payments.

 Along with funding support to the CR organization, IPR is shared by both the companies
depending on the terms of agreement.

There could be many other terms/clauses in such CR agreements, which are not within the scope of this discussion.

Types of Contract Research (CR):

Frost & Sullivan in one of their studies on Indian R&D opportunities indicated following three models of contract research:

1. Joint research: Here two or more collaborators will work jointly

2. Collaborative research: In this type of research, scientists of different disciplines work together on a project e.g. Ranbaxy has recently entered into a collaborative research program with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) or collaboration of Ranbaxy to develop an anti-malarial NCE Rbx 11160 with Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV), Geneva.

3. Complete outsourcing: When an altogether different research organization is assigned a research project by another organization. Some Indian research based pharmaceutical companies have already got engaged in these types contract research activities. The market of contract research is expected to grow much faster in the near future.

India – an attractive contract research destination:

A global survey done by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) couple of years ago on the preferred centres for overseas contract research, published as follows:

• 39% preference for China

• 28% preference for India

Attractiveness as preferred contract research center was based on the following criteria:

• A place where companies can tap into existing networks of scientific and technical expertise

• Has good links to academic research facilities

• Provides an environment where innovation is supported and easy to commercialize.

Many global pharmaceutical companies believe that China scores over India on the third point, as mentioned above.

Indian pharmaceutical companies have commenced targeting contract research opportunities:

Research based Indian pharmaceutical companies companies like, Piramal Healthcare, Ranbaxy, DRL, Zydus Cadilla, Glenmark etc are now actively targeting international companies for contract research in custom synthesis, medicinal chemistry and clinical studies.

A medium-sized pharma company Shasun Chemicals and Drugs has been reported to have defined its business as an “integrated research and manufacturing solutions provider”. Similarly Divi’s Laboratories, a pharmaceutical company of similar size has collaborated with global multinational companies for both custom synthesis and contract research projects.

Some international CROs, like Quintiles have its establishments in Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Mumbai with great expectations and a robust business model.

New contract research opportunities in Biopharmaceuticals:

Besides pure pharmaceutical companies, an emerging opportunity is seen within the biotech companies in India, which are mostly engaged in a contract model. Novartis has inked a three year deal with Synergene (Biocon) for various research projects primarily in the early stages of development in cardiovascular and oncology therapy areas.

Likewise, Reliance Life Sciences are involved in chemistry, biology and contract clinical research activities.

Another research process outsourcing company, Avesthagen is engaged in collaborative research in metabolics, proteomics, genomics and sequencing. The company shares the IPR with the collaborators.

Jubilant Biosys of India, which has already partnered in a drug development deal with Eli Lilly has recently entered into another research and development deal with AstraZeneca, estimated to be worth up to US$220 million. This research collaboration will be funded by AstraZeneca for five years and they will own the patent of any neuroscience molecule that will come out of this collaborative agreement.

Contract research – a lucrative business model:

A UBS Warburg study indicated that around 20% to 25% of R&D investments in the US go towards contract research. This percentage is expected to increase as the pressure to contain R&D expenses keeps mounting, especially in the US and EU.

Currently the cost of bringing an NCE/NME to market from its R&D stage is estimated to be around US$ 1.7 billion. Across the world efforts are being generated to bring down these mounting expenses towards R&D.

Many experts believe that cost of innovation in India will be almost half of what it will be in the US and EU. A report from Zinnov Management Consulting forecasts that towards outsourcing by the global pharmaceutical companies, India has the potential to earn about US$2.5 billion by 2012.

Conclusion:

Currently, within CR space India is globally considered as a more mature venue for chemistry related drug-discovery activities than China. However, in biotech space China is ahead of India. Probably, because of this reason, companies like, Divi’s Laboratories, Avesthagen, Ranbaxy, Synergene, Jubilant Biosys, Reliance Life Science, DRL, Zydus Cadilla, Glenmark and Piramal Healthcare could enter into long-term collaborative arrangements with Multinational Companies (MNC)to discover and develop New Chemical Entities (NCEs).

As I said earlier quoting Korn/Ferry that in the CR space China’s infrastructure is better than India, primarily due to firm commitment of the Chinese government to derive maximum benefits of the globalization process in the country.

Prudent policy reforms and other measures as expected from the new UPA Government will hopefully help bridging the gap between the Chinese and Indian pharmaceutical industry in the space of overall CR business including biotechnology, as Indian R&D based pharmaceutical companies will start realizing and encashing the potential of this important business model.

By Tapan 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.

Global ‘Contract Research and Manufacturing Services’ (CRAMS) – a new growth opportunity for mid-cap Indian pharmaceutical companies… Are we ready?

Posted on by
Reply
Intense competition within global pharmaceutical industry, patent expiries of blockbuster drugs, ballooning R&D costs together with low R&D productivity, more and more stringent regulatory standards coupled with intense cost containment measures are exerting intense pressure on the bottom lines of the global pharmaceutical companies. The situation, which is continuing for quite some time from now has triggered two important strategic business considerations:1. A rapid consolidation process through ‘mega mergers’ and ‘mega acquisitions’ while medium to smaller M&As continued mostly with an intent to bridge strategic business gaps.2. Increase in interest towards ‘Business Processes Outsourcing’ initiatives of various scales and types, which include contract manufacturing and contract research to lower cost countries with clear objectives of saving both cost and time.

Such a situation has given rise to the evolution of Contract Research and Manufacturing Services, popularly known as CRAMS, especially in countries like India and China.

India is fast emerging as one of the key outsourcing hubs for contract research and global formulations manufacturing activities by improving its manufacturing standards through global benchmarking and simultaneously honing its competitive edge.

CRAMS market – Global and Local:

In 2006 the global market for CRAMS was reported to be of US$52 billion, which is expected to grow to US$76 billion by 2010.

However, the CRAMS market in India was just around US$1.00 billion in 2006, which is expected to grow to around US$3.50 billion by 2010, with an estimated CAGR of around 38% during the period.

Contract Research Market:

In 2006, including clinical trials with data management, contract research market in India was estimated to be around US$370 million with an annual growth of around 45%. In that year out of total contract research market, clinical trials activities contributed over 50%, closely followed by pre-clinical trials with a contribution of around 30%. Custom synthesis together with chemistry and biology related R&D activities contributed balance 18% of the contract research market.

Contract Manufacturing market:

In 2007, the global market for contract manufacturing was around U.S$26 billion. The market is estimated to be of U.S$40 billion in 2011 registering a CAGR of around 12%.

Contract manufacturing market in India was reported to be of U.S$ 660 million with an annual growth of 48% in 2007. However, both India and China are expected to grow faster during this period with a CAGR of around 20% because of availability of skilled human resource and world class manufacturing facilities.

The global market for contract manufacturing is highly fragmented. The market share of top 10 companies in this field is just around 30%. As Catalent Pharma Solutions, USA is the largest contract manufacturer of the world with a turnover of U.S$1.8 billion in 2007; Piramal Healthcare is the largest contract manufacturer in India, which has registered a growth of over 30% in 2007-08. In the field of biotechnology Lonza of Switzerland is the largest contract manufacturer with a growth of over 75% in 2007.

Key Services provided by the CRAMS in India:

Contract Manufacturing Organizations:

They provide mainly:

• Manufacturing capacities to the global pharmaceutical companies
• Formulations development
• Value-added services like process development and process optimization

Contract Research Organizations:

They provide services mainly related to:

• Drug discovery
• Pre-clinical and clinical trial management

The Growth Divers for CRAMS business:

• Collaboration with global pharmaceutical companies in various areas of manufacturing, like local country-specific packaging of finished formulations from bulk packs imported from the originator, to complete manufacturing of the finished formulations, including supply of indigenously made raw material as per originators specifications.

• Outsourcing of formulations of off-patent molecules by the global companies to effectively compete with generics, as has happened between Pfizer and Aurobindo Pharma of Hyderabad, India.

• Expertise in cost-effective custom synthesis for global innovator companies of various scales of operation.

• Clear and sharp focus on CRAMS business by constantly improving manufacturing and supply chain management efficiencies. As is currently being practised by Piramal Healthcare. They have already spun off their R&D activities into a separate legal entity to unleash its commercial potential.

• Anytime readiness for audit of the approved site/s by any global regulator.

CRAMS space in India offers an emerging growth opportunity of global scale, especially to mid-cap domestic pharmaceutical companies. Many of these companies are still engaged in their old business model of the old paradigm of pre-IPR regime – manufacturing and marketing of generic brands and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API). This business model can still work. But not without its huge inherent risk of continuous heavy pressure on the bottom lines due to intense cut-throat competition.

A strategic shift in the business model by those mid cap Indian pharmaceutical companies, who have wherewithal of creating world class CRAMS facilities for their global collaborators, would, to a great extent, be able to insulate their current high risk generic brands or API manufacturing and marketing business. At the same time, it will be quite possible for them to register a decent business growth by availing the emerging opportunities of the new paradigm of post IPR regime-CRAMS.

By Tapan 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.

Innovative use of the new-age ‘Social cyber-media’ as a pharmaceutical marketing tool has the potential to open a goldmine of opportunities.

Posted on by
Reply
The new-age marketing tool:
With more and more doctors not giving adequate time and even showing reluctance to meet the medical representatives and the important hospitals following suit, the global pharmaceutical companies are now in search of new marketing tools.

To get the marketing communications across to important target audiences, many of them have started experimenting, quite seriously, with the digital world. Effective networking media like ‘Facebook’ , ‘YouTube’, ‘MySpace’ and ‘Twitter’ are showing promises to become powerful online pharmaceutical marketing tools. Recent report of Pfizer’s new RSS feed and the plan for a unique ‘Pfacebook’ site for internal communication perhaps is an important step towards this direction.

Global pharmaceutical companies have already started ‘testing the water’:

Some global pharmaceutical giants who have already started using this new age media for pharmaceutical marketing are as follows:

1. Bayer uses ‘Facebook’ page to promote its Aspirin for women

2. Merck is using ‘Facebook’ to promote its cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil

3. GlaxoSmithKline is using ‘YouTube’ for ‘restless-legs syndrome’ awareness film. The popularity of this video spot perhaps has prompted the company to come out with its own ‘YouTube’ channel last year with a name, ‘GSKvision’.

4. AstraZeneca is also using ‘YouTube’ for their anti-asthma drug Symbicort

5. Johnson & Johnson and Novartis use ‘blog’s, ‘YouTube’ and ‘Twitter’ to channel patient groups and deliver news.

Why have these pharmaceutical companies started using the social media as a marketing tool?

This is because social media like, ‘Facebook’, ‘Twitter’, ‘YouTube’ etc. provide a very important platform towards patients’ outreach efforts of the pharmaceutical companies exactly in a format, which will be preferred by the target group.

With the new-age social media these companies are now joining communities to begin a dialogue with the important stakeholders. It has been reported that some of these companies have already created un-branded sites like, silenceyourrooster.com or iwalkbecause.org, to foster relationship with patients’ group through online activity, the contents of which have been generated by the users themselves of the respective social medium. With the help of click-through links these sites lead to the branded sites of the concerned companies.

As reported by TNS Media Intelligence, internet media spending of the global pharmaceutical companies had increased by 36% to US$137 million, in 2008, which is significantly higher than their spending in Television advertisements.

Why is the entry of pharmaceutical companies in the new-age social media so slow?

Pharmaceutical companies are currently delving into marketing through cyber media with a very cautious approach, though the new social media will become more central to many global marketing strategies in not too distant future. The cautious approach by the pharmaceutical companies is primarily due to evolving regulatory requirements in this new space

In the USA, very recently the FDA cautioned the major players in the industry to refrain them from publishing any misleading communication through social media. This is primarily because of absence of any published guidelines for online pharmaceutical marketing. How to use this powerful social media for maximum marketing and other benefits will indeed be quite a challenging task, at this stage. Many pharmaceutical companies are, therefore, slow to use the social media to the fullest extent.

Not only in the USA, there are no specific regulatory guidelines to promote a pharmaceutical brand or create brand awareness through these media in most of the countries of the world, including Europe and Japan. In this much uncharted territory, as there are not enough foot-steps follow, the pharmaceutical companies are now just ‘testing the water’. Most probably to fathom how far regulatory authorities will allow them to explore with this new media.

Effective use of social media is expected to be financially attractive:

Low costs associated with creating internet promotional inputs will make social media quite attractive to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, not only as a marketing tool, but also in their other outreach program for the stakeholders. The role and power of social media are expected to play a significant and cost effective role in creating pharmaceutical brand awareness and brand marketing to appropriate target segments.

‘Proof of the pudding is in the eating’:

A recent report indicates that in 2007, well reputed computer maker Dell’s ‘Twitter’ activity brought in US$ half-million in new business to the company.

Thus the innovative use of the new-age social cyber-media indeed has immense potential to open a goldmine of opportunities for the global pharmaceutical industry.

By Tapan 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.

Is the revised Mashelkar Committee Report a ‘please all’ report, without taking any chance to ‘rock the boat’?

Posted on by
Reply
After repeated request and persuasion by the Government of India (GoI) in general and the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) in particular ‘The Mashelkar Committee’re-submitted its reports to the GoI under the following terms of references:
Terms of Reference of the ‘The Technical Expert Group (TEG)’ Group:Following were the terms of references of the TEG:

1. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to limit the grant of patent for pharmaceutical substance to new chemical entity or to new medical entity involving one or more inventive steps.

2. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to exclude micro-organisms from patenting.

Today I shall restrict my comments only on the point 1 of the terms of reference. Keeping this mind, let me try to analyze what various stakeholders had expected from the report. Against those expectations, what the report has actually articulated. And how have all these comments/ recommendations been able to keep almost all the stakeholders, with widely varying expectations, reasonably happy.

Why is the revised report a ‘please all’ report?

The key stakeholders who were interested in the revised report are as follows:

A. Research-based pharmaceutical companies who expressed concerns on the patentability of ‘incremental innovation’.

B. The Government of India (GoI) who may not be keen to revisit section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005, at least for now.

C. All voices supporting price regulations for patented products, in some form, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) being one of them.

D. Domestic generic pharmaceutical companies who want safeguards within Indian Patents Act 2005 against ‘ever greening’ of patents to ensure that there is no delay in launching generics after patent expiry.

Well crafted and well reasoned revised report from the TEG has been able to please all these stakeholders, to a great extent, which I shall analyze hereunder:

A. Expectations of the Research-based pharmaceutical companies from the report:

The research-based pharmaceutical companies seem to have expected that the report will recommend in specific terms that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act 2005 is not TRIPS compliant, as it restricts patentability of ‘incremental innovation’.

What the report actually says:

- “The Technical Expert Group (TEG) concludes that it would not be TRIPS compliant (Article 27 of TRIPS) to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a statutory exclusion of a field of technology”.

- “The process of innovation is continuous and progressive leading to an ever extending chain of knowledge. Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation.”

“The TEG carefully examined the flexibilities allowed under the TRIPS Agreement to the member states (especially Articles 7 & 8 ) and also as a consequence of the Doha Declaration. The detailed analysis and reassessing provided in the report has led TEG to conclude that it is debatable as to whether national interest or the flexibility allowed under the agreement to member states would be accommodated by such ‘statutory exclusion’ of an entire class of (incremental)inventions.”

Very cleverly dodging the section 3(d) issue, the report supported the argument of the research-based pharmaceutical companies that ‘incremental innovation’ in pharmaceuticals cannot summarily be kept out of the criteria of patentability.

B. Government of India (GoI):

The GoI wanted to keep section 3(d) unchanged, till some sort of stakeholders’ consensus is arrived at in favor of its amendment, if at all.

What the report actually says:

“The TEG was not mandated to examine the TRIPS compatibility of Section 3(d ) of the Indian Patents Act or any other existing provision in the same Act. Therefore, the committee has not engaged itself with these issues.”

The TEG with this comment keeps the GoI satisfied, as the lawmakers are of the view that section 3(d) is not against incremental innovation. They believe, section 3(d) helps to avoid ‘frivolous’ innovation and ‘evergreening’ of patents by ensuring that all patentable ‘incremental innovations’ have ‘properties leading to incremental efficacy’. The revised TEG report, some people argue, vindicates this important point.

C. All voices supporting some form of price regulations of patented products, which include the DoP.

Both the DoP and other stakeholders want to keep the price of patented products under GoI control.

What the report actually says:

“Every effort must be made to provide drugs at affordable prices to the people of India”.

Thus the report satisfies the proponent of ‘affordable prices’ for patented products

D. Domestic generic pharmaceutical industry:

A large majority of the domestic generic pharmaceutical companies is of the opinion that most ‘incremental innovations’, are usually attempts to ‘evergreen’ patents for sustained commercially monopoly over the products for a much longer period of time than what it should have been otherwise. Hence patentability for ‘incremental innovation’ is to be restricted by law.

What the report says:

“TEG recommends that every effort must be made to prevent the practice of ‘ever greening’ often used by some of the pharma companies to unreasonably extend the life of the patent by making claims based sometimes on ‘trivial’ changes to the original patented product. The Indian patent office has the full authority under law and practice to determine what is patentable and what would constitute only a trivial change with no significant additional improvements or inventive steps involving benefits. Such authority should be used to prevent ‘evergreening’, rather than to introduce an arguable concept in the light of the foregoing discussion (paras 5.6 – 5.8 and paras 5.12 – 5.29) above of ‘statutory exclusion’ of incremental innovations from the scope of patentability.”

Many will believe, with the above recommendations in their revised report, the TEG also meets the expectations of the domestic generic pharmaceutical industry, on this contentious issue.

Conclusion:

The revised report of ‘The Mashelkar committee’ has definitely addressed its terms of references, pretty well. However, being ‘advisory’ in nature, the report was expected to be more specific, unambiguous and directional. Unfortunately, the comments/recommendations are neither specific without any ambiguity nor directional in nature; unless, between the lines the ‘please all’ report suggests its agreement with all stakeholders in unison, with perfect balance and elan, without making even a slightest attempt to ‘rock the boat’ in any manner, whatsoever.

By Tapan 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.

New Drug Policy 2009 – suggesting key elements for a strategic shift in the policy framework

Posted on by
Reply
The new drug policy of the Government of India (GoI) is long overdue. Despite so many reform measures taken by various Governments over last two decades, Indian Pharmaceutical Industry has not seen a new ‘drug policy’since 1995.As an individual who has been closely observing the pharmaceutical industry during this period, I would expect the new UPA Government to work out a new ‘drug policy’, without further delay, after having a fresh look at the current policy, which has outlived its time. The new ‘drug policy’should be aimed at achieving inclusive growth, keeping pace with the progressive outlook and aspirations of young India.Broad policy objectives:

The broad objective of the new ‘Drug Policy’ should undoubtedly be ‘ensuring access to affordable modern medicines to all’, clearly addressing the following key elements, in detail:

1. Affordability:

• The new policy should ensure adequate availability of all ‘National List of Essential Medicines’ (NLEM) at affordable prices.

• ‘Jan Aushadhi’ initiative of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) should be strengthened further through public-private-partnership (PPP) initiatives, using strong public distribution outlets like ration shops and post offices for effective rural penetration of the scheme.

2. Access:

• Around 65% of the Indian population does not have access to affordable modern medicines even today, against 47% in Africa and 15% in China.

• GoI should make effective use of its existing initiatives, take some new initiatives and dovetail them as follows:

- ‘National Rural Health Mission’ (NRHM): to create rural healthcare infrastructure.

- ‘Jan Ausadhi’ scheme: to extend the reach of affordable medicines to a vast majority of
rural population.

- Innovative ‘Health Insurance Schemes’ to be worked out for all sections of the society through PPP, like for example, ‘Yashasvini’, pioneered by Dr. Devi Shetty of Bangalore and the Government of Karnataka, which is possibly the world’s cheapest comprehensive Health Insurance scheme, at Rs.5 (11 cents) per month, for the poor farmers of the state.

3. Research & Development:

• Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 ushered in a new paradigm for the pharmaceutical industry of India. There is a great opportunity for the domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies to discover, develop and market their own New Molecular Entities (NMEs) throughout the world. The new policy should plan to provide adequate fiscal incentives for R&D initiatives taken by the pharmaceutical industry of India.

• R&D in India costs almost a fraction of equivalent expenditure incurred in the west. Because of availability of highly skilled manpower with proficiency in English together with cost advantages, the country has the potential to become the largest global hub for ‘Contract Research’ and other R&D related work being outsourced by the global Pharmaceutical Companies.

• As India is poised to be a global hub for Clinical Trials, the new policy should extend adequate support to companies carrying out clinical studies in India not only to help them record a healthy growth, but also to attract more ‘foreign direct investments’ (FDI) for the country.

4. Exports:

• The Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers reported in its ‘Annual Report of 2006-07′ that exports of Drugs & Pharmaceuticals have doubled during the last four years. To give greater boosts to exports PHARMEXIL should be further strengthened to act as an effective nodal centre for all pharmaceutical exports, together with the responsibilities for conducting extensive promotional activities to accelerate growth for this sector.

• It is estimated that in the next three years sales of over U.S.$ 60 billion being generated by some blockbuster pharmaceutical products patented in the western countries and not in India, will go off patent. This will open the door of significant opportunities for Indian pharmaceutical exports. GoI should help the domestic pharmaceutical companies to encash this opportunity through adequate financial measures and other support, wherever required.

5. Employment generation:

• Indian pharmaceutical industry with its encouraging pace of growth is making good contribution towards employment generation initiatives of the country, both within skilled and unskilled sectors of the population.

• With projected CAGR of around 14%, the employment opportunity, especially for the qualified professionals is expected to increase significantly in the coming years, across the industry, from core pharmaceutical sectors, right through to contract research, manufacturing services (CRAMS) and clinical trials space.

• Recommendations to be provided in the new drug policy should further accelerate such employment generation opportunity by the industry.

6. Contribution to Economic Growth of the Country:

• The new ‘drug policy’ should also address how will the pharmaceutical industry in India contribute more to the economic development of the country through various reform measures, in areas like, R&D, CRAMS, Clinical Trial (CT) and also towards health insurance, for all strata of society.

Innovative new ‘drug policy’ initiative of the new government will not only ensure a stimulating inclusive growth for the industry, but also will help attract adequate FDI for the country.

Broad Strategic shift towards ‘Access to affordable modern medicines for all’:

Ensuring ‘access to affordable modern medicines for all’ should be made one of the key objectives of the DoP. Resorting to populist measures like ‘drugs price control’ may sound good. Unfortunately at the ground level, it has not helped a vast majority of 650 million population of India, thus far.

Therefore, ‘Drugs Price Control’ since 1970 has not been able to ensure ‘access to affordable modern medicines’ to more than just 35% of Indian population. The new ‘drug policy’ should, therefore, shift its focus from ‘Price Control’ to ‘Price Monitoring’, which has been proved to be of great success to keep medicines affordable to the common man, as indicated by the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority’ (NPPA). However, for government purchases, made to address the healthcare needs of the ‘common man’ there should always be room for price negotiation with the concerned companies, as is being practiced in many countries of the world.

Conclusion:

To achieve the proposed ‘new drug policy objective’ of ‘ensuring access to affordable modern medicines for all’, the policy makers should try to think ‘outside the box’. ‘The old wine in a new bottle’ policy will just not be enough.

By Tapan 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.

Global API manufacturers are poised to penetrate the Indian market in a bigger way – will the API ‘marketing warfare’ be even more intense, in future?

Posted on by
Reply
India currently plays a relatively dominant role in the Global Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) Market with China being ahead of India. While this is the current scenario, many experts in this field contemplates that important players from the regulated markets will soon start making significant inroads in India.Current API Market situation in India:In 2007 the API output value in India was around US $4.1 billion registering a 5 year CAGR of around 19% and ranking fourth in the world API output. According to the Tata Strategic Management Group, Indian API export value is expected to increase to US $12.75 billion in 2012.

Currently in India about 400 different types of APIs are manufactured in around 3000 plants, Ranbaxy Laboratories, Lupin, Shasun Chemicals, Orchid Chemicals, Aurobindo Pharma, Sun Pharmaceuticals Ipca Laboratories and USV being the top API manufacturers of the country. Indian domestic companies source almost 50 percent of their API requirements from China, because of lower cost in that country.

In terms of global ranking, India is now the third largest API producers of the world just after China and Italy and by 2011 is expected to be the second largest producer after China. However, in Drug Master File (DMF) filings India is currently ahead of China.

In addition, India scores over China in ‘documentation’ and ‘Environment, Health and Safety (EHS)’ compliance. All these have contributed to India having around 100 US FDA approved world class manufacturing facilities, which is considered the largest outside the USA.

Indian API manufacturers are facing a cut throat competition from their Chinese counterparts mainly because of lower costs in China. Considerably higher economies of scale and various types of support that the Chinese API manufacturers receive from their Government are the main reasons for such cost differential.

Growing competiton from the regulated markets:

We now observe a new trend within the API space in India. Many of the global innovators and generic companies are keen to enter into the API space of India.

It is known that API manufacturers from the regulated markets are already selling their products in India. However, at present, the numbers of Indian registrations for API applied by some of the large global companies, as reported by ‘Thomson Reuters Newport Horizon Premium’, are quite significant, which are as follows:

1. Novartis, Switzerland:20
2. Pfizer, USA:16
3. Sanofi-Aventis, France: 26
4. Teva, Israel: 45
5. Schering-Plough, USA:39
6. BASF: 37
7. DSM: 26
8. E.ON AG: 16
9. Kyowa Hakko: 23

All these companies who are entering into the API business space in India, I am sure, have worked out a grand design to compete not only with the the low cost domestic API manufacturers, but also with the cheaper imports, particularly from China.

What will then be the competitive edge of these companies in India?

It appears that each of these companies has weighed very carefully the existing strategic opportunities in the API sectors of India, both in terms up technology and also in terms of domestic demand.

Strategic gap in API manufacturing technology:

India, undeniably, is one of the key global hubs in the API space, with competitive edge mainly in ‘non-fermentation technology’ product areas. This leaves a wide and perceptible technological gap in the areas of products requiring ‘fermentation technology‘.

Significant demand from domestic formulations manufacturing :

India is much ahead of China in pharmaceutical formulations manufacturing, especially in the area of exports to the regulated markets like, the USA and EU. Over 25 domestic Indian companies are currently catering to exports demand of the U.S market. However, it is interesting to note that the global manufacturers like Sandoz, Eisai, Watson, Mylan have already set up their formulations manufacturing facilities in India and some more are expected to follow suit over a period of time. Hence, fast growing domestic demand for APIs, especially for exports, will drive the business plan of the global API players for India.

Is the cost advantage in India sustainable?

Indian API manufacturers although currently have a cost advantage compared to their counterparts in the regulated market, this advantage is not sustainable over a period of time because of various reasons. The key reason being sharp increase in cost related to more stringent environmental and regulatory compliance, besides spiralling manpower and other overhead costs.

Indian regulatory requirements for the global API players:

To sell their APIs into India, global companies are now required to obtain the following regulatory approvals from the Indian authorities:

1. Foreign manufacturing sites for the concerned products
2. APIs which will be imported in the country

The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has stipulated a fee of U.S$1,500 to register the manufacturing premises and U.S$1,000 to register each individual API. Since January 2003, around 1,200 registration certificates have been issued in India. Large number of Indian registrations is attributed by many to the strategic technology gap in India, as stated above, demand of high-quality API for finished formulations required by the regulated markets like the U.S and EU, and relatively cheaper product registration process.

As we see above Teva has gone for maximum number of Indian registrations, so far and most probably selling the APIs to their contract formulations manufacturers in India. Similarly, Schering-Plough and Sanofi-Aventis, if not Pfizer are perhaps catering to the API demand of their respective formulations manufacturing plants in the country.

Whatever may be the reasons, these global players are now exporting APIs at a much larger scale to India and in that process have started curving out a niche for themselves in the Indian API market. Impressive growth of the domestic pharmaceutical formulations manufacturing market fueled by increasing domestic consumption and exports to the regulated markets, coupled with gradual improvement in the regulatory environment of the country, is expected to drive the growth of API business of the global players.

However, the moot question is how significant will this competition be?

By Tapan 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.

To reap rich harvest from emerging global opportunities, Indian Biotech sector needs a ‘lifeline’ from the new Government… Now.

Posted on by
Reply
Growth of Biotech Industry in India took a dip in 2008. It registered a turnover of U.S $2.56 billionwith a growth of 20%, over the previous year. The industry was clocking an annual growth of over 30%, before this period.According to the Association of Biotech Led Enterprises (ABLE)this growth rate can still be considered as encouraging. Some industry experts endorsed this view by commenting that 10% drop in the growth rate was mainly due to exchange rate variations impacting exports earning.However, many other do not subscribe to this explanation. They argue that global financial meltdown has caused an all-round liquidity crisis and lower demand in the biotech sector, leading to sharp decline in income generation.

It appears that even 2009 will continue to be a challenging year for the Biotech sector. As is known to many, continuous innovation is the growth driver of this sector and the main fuel for this growth driver is continuous infusion of capital, the pipeline of which is drying up during the current period of global financial crisis.

ABLE Survey on Biotech sector:

A recent survey, conducted by ABLE, reported as follows for the biotech sector:

1. 56% of revenue (U.S$ 1.44 billion) was generated from exports

2. Bio-pharma accounted for about 70% of exports

3. Bio-services are about 26% of exports with an encouraging growth of 46% followed by bio-informatics with 31% growth rate

4. The top 20 Indian firms accounted for 48 % of the total biotech market

5. Last year investments in Biotech were reported to have grown by around 21%.

ABLE expects a decent growth of the bio-pharma segment over the next five years. Bio-services and bio-generic exports to the regulated markets are expected to be the key growth drivers during this period. However, the moot question is: will the current global financial crisis act as a dampener to such bullish expectations?

Market forecast for Biotech sector:

‘Bio-spectrum’, in one of its recent reports, highlighted that with the new biotech policy of the Government of India (GoI), the sector is expected to grow to U.S$ 13-$16 billion by 2015. Serum Institute of Pune is at the top of the league table with a turnover of Rs. 9.87 billion followed by Biocon and Panacea Biotech.

Some analysts feel that the Indian biotech sector has the potential to register a turnover of U.S$5 billion by 2010 and U.S$20 billion by 2020. This is mainly due to increasing global demand for more affordable medicines in general and biotech medicines in particular. Recent introduction of ‘The Promoting Innovation and Access to Life-Saving Medicine Act’ in the US House of Representatives vindicates this point.

It is envisaged that this bill will enable the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) to create regulatory pathways for marketing approval of ‘bio-similar’ drugs in the USA. Many Indian biotech companies, analysts feel, are preparing themselves to make full use of this golden opportunity as soon as it comes.

How is the ‘Global Financial Meltdown’ affecting the Biotech sector?

The impact of ‘Global Financial Meltdown’ is all pervasive in the Biotech sector, all over the world, India is no exception.

Because of global liquidity crunch, availability of capital to fund the growth of this sector has become scarce, leading to most of the growth plans, if not all, are being put on hold. Fear among the Indian Biotech companies of turning an easy prey for the predators in search of a good biotech portfolio, is looming large. It was recently reported in the media that GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi-Aventis are interested to acquire a majority stake of Shantha Biotech of Hyderabad.

In abroad, we have witnessed such instances when Roche acquired Genentech, Astra Zeneca bought MedImmune, Eli Lilly acuired Imclone and Merck took over Serno.

Why is the impact of global ‘liquidity crunch’ more on the Biotech sector?

The impact on ‘liquidity crunch’ on the Biotech sector is more pronounced because all over the world this sector is dominated mainly by much smaller companies, engaged in the drug discovery and development research. Continuous flow of fund is of utmost importance not only to fund growth of these organizations, but for their survival, as well. Private equity funding is also dwindling up pretty fast.

GoI initiatives to encourage growth of Biotechnology sector:

Mr. Kapil Sibal outgoing Minister of Science and technology of the erswhile UPA government, not too long ago, announced the plan of the GoI to build 20 more biotech parks in India, in order to provide the required infrastructural facilities to this sector and promote high quality R&D initiatives related to biotechnology.

It is indeed encouraging to note that the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) has already signed a 10-year contract with the Welcome Trust towards developing human resources of high quality, for the sector.

Emerging outsourcing opportunities:

Despite such pessimistic scenario, Indian biotech sector is bullish on the business opportunities from various types of emerging outsourcing opportunities being offered by the global pharmaceutical companies, because of their business compulsions, particularly in Contract Research and Manufacturing services (CRAMS) space.

Zinnov management consulting recently reported that outsourcing opportunities of over U.S. $ 2.5 billion will come to the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, including its Biotech sector by 2012. This will indeed help the domestic pharmaceutical companies in a big way, as many players are now finding the transition from manufacturing ‘copy cat’ generic drugs to devising new therapies, pretty difficult.

Conclusion:

To reap a rich harvest from of all these emerging global and local opportunities, the biotech sector of India now needs a ‘lifeline’ from the new Government. Ensuring easy availability of capital will be the ‘lifeline’, at this moment of global financial crisis.

In the battle against disease let the Biotech parks of India be seen as the ‘Armageddon’, as it were, global hub to cater to the needs of poor and needy – a symbol of scientific supremacy.

By Tapan 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.

‘Patent Pool’ – is GSK setting a new trend for the global pharmaceutical industry?

Posted on by
Reply

On February 13, 2009, The Guardian reported that Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced some significant changes to the way his company will operate in the developing countries of the world.

GSK, as Witty said, will:

• “Cut its prices for all drugs in the 50 least developed countries to no more than 25% of the levels in the UK and US – and less if possible – and make drugs more affordable in middle- income countries such as Brazil and India.

• Put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a “patent pool”, so they can be explored by other researchers.

• Reinvest 20% of any profits it makes in the least developed countries in hospitals, clinics and staff.

• Invite scientists from other companies, NGOs or governments to join the hunt for tropical disease treatments at its dedicated institute at Tres Cantos, Spain.”

Quoting Andrew Witty, The Guardian reported, “his stance may not win him friends in other drug companies, but he is inviting them to join him in an attempt to make a significant difference to the health of people in poor countries”.

“We work like crazy to come up with the next great medicine, knowing that it’s likely to get used an awful lot in developed countries, but we could do something for developing countries. Are we working as hard on that? I want to be able to say yes we are, and that’s what this is all about – trying to make sure we are even-handed in terms of our efforts to find solutions not just for developed but for developing countries,” Witty envisioned.

“I think the shareholders understand this and it’s my job to make sure I can explain it. I think we can. I think it’s absolutely the kind of thing large global companies need to be demonstrating, that they’ve got a more balanced view of the world than short-term returns,” he expressed Knowing full well that his comments will be considered as quite radical within the global pharmaceutical Industry.

The unorthodox young CEO of GSK continued, “I think it’s the first time anybody’s really come out and said we’re prepared to start talking to people about pooling our patents to try to facilitate innovation in areas where, so far, there hasn’t been much progress.”

Definition of ‘Patent Pool’:

The ‘Patent Pool’ is defined as, “an agreement between different owners, including companies, governments and academic bodies to make available patent rights on non-exclusive basis to manufacturers and distributor of drugs against payment of royalties”

Thus one of the often repeated key benefits of the ‘Patent Pool’, as considered by its proponent, is that the system enables the use of innovation against payment of royalties, without the risk of patent infringement.

The rationale for ‘Patent Pool’ system:

Many experts in this area feel that the conventional patent system does not really work for the diseases of the poor, all over the world. Though the concept of ‘Patent Pool’ is quite new in the global pharmaceutical industry, this system is being very successfully and widely practised within the Information Technology (IT) industry. ‘Patent Pool’ system, if effectively used, can also help the global pharmaceutical companies to improve their access to many more developing countries of the world.

GSK appears to have kick started the process:

Andrew witty of GSK is undoubtedly the first CEO of a global pharmaceutical company to announce a ‘Patent Pool’ system for research on 16 neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, filariasis leprosy and leishmaniasis. GSK has, in a real sense, kick started the process by putting more than 500 granted pharmaceuticals patents and over 300 pending applications in the ‘Patent Pool’.

Key requirements for the ‘Patent Pool’:

Careful identification of various patents, which will be essential for the pool, will be one of the key requirements to initiate a ‘Patent Pool’ system. It makes the need to obtain individual patents, required in the process of a drug discovery, less important.

Key issues with the ‘Patent Pool’ concept:

It has been reported, from a WHO conference held in April, 2006 ‘Innovation Strategy Today’ worked out that the start-up costs of a ‘Patent Pool’ for vaccines will be economically viable only if more than 25 participants holding relevant patents join the initiative.

Moreover, various types of litigations, related to patents, which we are currently witnessing within the global pharmaceutical industry, could also be impediment in getting more patents in the pool.

Conclusion:

The initiative to create a ‘Patent Pool’ system in the global pharmaceutical industry, especially for the diseases of the poor, as enunciated by the CEO of GSK, is indeed a path breaking one. Such initiatives are likely to have very positive contribution in solving the problem of access to affordable medicines, especially in the developing world.

In fact, the Council of Science and Industrial Research of the Government of India, lead by its Director General, Dr. Samir Brahmachari has already undertaken similar initiatives in the country where global experts including academia are actively participating.

Though ‘Patent Pool’ is still an untested model in the global pharmaceutical industry, the recent announcement of GSK towards this direction does appear to offer a realistic and practical approach to address the critical global issue of improving ‘access to affordable innovative modern medicines’ to a vast majority of population in the developing countries of the world.

By Tapan 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.