Big Pharma Fails Avoiding Drug Price ‘Control’? Even In The US? Why?

Posted on August 22, 2022 by Tapan Ray

It ultimately happened – even in the United States, as the US President signed a bill on August 16, 2022 that aims to reduce healthcare costs, alongside fighting climate change, besides raising taxes on the rich. This new law was enacted, despite powerful lobbying and the vehement opposition of big pharma associations and that too in their home turf.

According to the Fierce Pharma report of the same day, since the current US President moved into the White House in 2020, the drug industry left no stone unturned battling to preserve pricing status-quo. It further added, the ‘pharmaceutical industry, including, PhRMA, its allies, and the nation’s largest pharmaceutical firms’ have spent more than $205 million in multi-media ads opposing ‘Medicare price negotiations’ and lobbying against efforts to lower drug prices for consumers.’

No wonder, when the bill was just introduced to the US lawmakers, big pharma’s disappointment on the bill was palpable. This gets well-captured in what the AbbVie CEO pointed out at that time. He said, ‘the legislation would force manufacturers to accept the government’s proposed price or face a harsh tax on their revenues from a given product.’ He also said: “So, it’s not a negotiation,” as stated in the bill. He further opined in his conference call: “We should just call it what it is. It’s price controls,’ which is what the lawmakers are ‘basically putting in place, if the language stays the same,’ the AbbVie chief added.

Capturing this new development in the United States, at least, in the recent past - Fierce Pharma in its August 08, 2022, issue commented: “The seemingly unstoppable pharma lobbying force has lost its charm. With the passage of a new bill, the U.S. Senate is opening the door to major drug pricing reform, leaving the drug industry licking its wounds.”

In the Eldorado of the global drug industry, this is indeed an unprecedented initiative to significantly reduce costs of many important drugs and reduce patients’ out of pocket expenses. Consequently, it has created so much of hullabaloo, across the world, for various reasons. In this article, I shall track this emerging scenario along with the message that it sends across the globe, and its possible impact on new drug innovation to meet unmet needs of patients. In India, one such area could be revisiting the price negotiation proposal for patented drugs, a government initiative that failed to take off earlier.

Would lowering prices stifle new drug innovation?

The apprehension, I reckon, that big pharma will continue to play with - price control will stifle new product innovation – adversely impacting patient interest. Notably, to many industry experts, this argument doesn’t just lack robustness, seems more a conjecture rather than the outcome of any peer- reviewed research study findings. On ewthe contrary, several highly credible and independent studies prove otherwise. Thus, let me put hereunder:

One – what big pharma directly and through their powerful industry associations or some financially sponsored studies are saying

And – what the top experts concluded from their independent analysis in this regard, as published in the globally acclaimed journals.

I leave it to my readers to evaluate the credibility of each to form their views.

Drug industry arguments supported by recent studies:

The findings of a study conducted recently, with the financial support of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), Amgen, Pfizer, Alexion, AbbVie, Genentech, and Bristol Myers Squibb, were released by PhRMA on November 23, 2021. The study was conducted by Vital Transformation. The key findings of this study highlighted: ‘Every 10% drop in the price of medicines in price-controlled EU markets was associated with a:

14% decrease in total VC funding (10% early stage and 17% late stage)
7% decrease in biotech patents
9% decrease in biotech start-up funding relative to the US
An 8% increase in the delay of access to medicines.

It concluded: ‘Drug pricing controls implemented in the US would likely have an even greater impact on Biopharma KPIs given its global leadership in investment and innovation.’

Independent expert studies, published in highly reputed journals:

Around the same time as the above report, an independent study published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on October 01, 2021, found exactly the opposite. It categorically stated: ‘The U.S. can lower drug prices without sacrificing innovation.’

The paper summed up: ‘With Congress considering legislation to allow Medicare to use its bargaining power to negotiate lower drug prices, large pharmaceutical companies are once again waging a campaign that contends that doing so would seriously harm the development of breakthrough drugs. This is not true. Smaller companies now account for the lion’s share of such breakthroughs. The key to supporting drug innovation is to increase NIH funding of the efforts that give rise to these new companies, cut the costs, and accelerate the speed of clinical trials, and reform patent law.’

Drug pricing in the Indian context:

Prices of, especially, new drugs and the overall cost of healthcare are two major concerns – more in the developing countries like India. Responding to this need drug price control for pre-defined essential medicines are already in place in the country. More recent studies further vindicate the relevance of such regulation from the perspective of affordability of drugs for the poorer section of the society, and where out of pocket expenses are very high.

Let me quote one such paper, published on June 04, 2022, which received no outside financial support from this study, where the researchers concluded: ‘With induced demand and an inadequate competitive environment, the pharmaceutical industry fails to reduce prices. Supply-chain trade margins are very high. Hence, government intervention through price control of essential and life-saving drugs is a necessity in India.’

In this context, another question that is being raised – are there other alternatives to expand access to high-priced life-saving drugs at an affordable cost to all those who need those most? The most common alternative that floats, encourage more competition for those drugs as soon as they go off patent. Let me examine what’s big pharma players are doing in that area.

Does Big Pharma encourage increasing competition to reduce drug prices?

Another way to reduce the price of an expensive product is encouraging competition to enable market forces bring down the price. An interesting article on breaking the rule of drug pricing by pharma companies was published in the Forbes magazine on June 29, 2022. I also wrote on June 10, 2013: ‘To scale-up access to health care, especially for the marginalized population of any country, greater access to affordable generic drugs will always remain fundamental, besides improving healthcare infrastructure and its delivery mechanism.’

Thus, there should be a robust mechanism, across the world, to facilitate quick entry of cheaper generic equivalents immediately after patent expiry of the original molecule. Increasing attempts of blocking entry of generics surreptitiously by vested interests, leaves no other alternative, but price control. This is imperative, ‘as without the availability of newer generics, unmet medical needs of the most vulnerable section of the society cannot be met effectively by any country, as I wrote there.

Attempts to game the system to minimize competition continue unabated:

Even after my article, this red flag is being raised for quite some time. It will be evident from another Harvard Business Review article titled, ‘How Pharma Companies Game the System to Keep Drugs Expensive,’ published in the on April 06, 2017. Acknowledging: ‘Drug development is risky and expensive, thanks to the long testing and approval process,’ the author concluded from their study – ‘But, increasingly, makers of branded drugs are using a variety of tactics to extend their exclusive rights,’ enabling them to maintain high drug prices for much longer time.

More recently, the above Forbes article of June 10, 2022 also highlighted, ‘even the most generous patent protections come to an end and companies must face the potential for generic competition. That’s when major drug manufacturers shift tactics from influencing policy to crushing the competition.’ There are several legal and semi-legal approaches that big pharma players adapt to game the system and maintain pricing monopoly. Let’s recap it with just three of these examples:

- ‘Patent Thicket: Delaying entry of lower price off-patent molecule through a Patent Thicket. This involves creation of ‘a dense web of overlapping intellectual property rights that a generic pharma company must hack its way through in order to actually commercialize new technology of a drug molecule,’ even after the original patent expires. For example, AbbVie’s Humira, the world’s best-selling drug for a long time. I also discussed this issue in my blog over three years ago – on April 22, 2019.

- ‘Pay-for-delay deals’: I discussed this issue in this blog on June 19, 2013. Moreover, the above Forbes article of June 29, 2022, also underscored this tactic. It explained that this is a deal in which drug companies agree not to compete for a set amount of time to maintain high prices of their brand-name drugs. The article, published in Bloomberg Law on February 20, 2020, captures it nicely.

- Authorized generics: As many would know, law permits six months of exclusivity to the first generic version of an off-patent new molecule coming into the market. Interestingly, just before patent expiry of an innovative drug, several drug makers roll out their own generics to stifle competition. Although, they keep different names for the generic versions, but pricing remains almost similar. Such a practice obliviously delays the entry of cheaper generics, at least by six months.

In this scenario, the new drug prices continue racing north. Something was to be surely done – for patients’ sake, as many believe, at least, where it all started – the US.

New drug prices are highest in 2022:

As reported by Reuters on August 16, 2022:

Eight of 13 drugs launched in 2022 priced over $200,000 per year
Median annual price for new U.S. drugs this year is $257,000
Some drugmakers disclose less information on pricing

Despite this, as reported on August 15, 2022: ‘The main U.S. drug lobby has said it will push back against the legislation, which includes policies that drug makers have opposed for decades.’

Conclusion:

The significance of the above development in the US healthcare scenario, was aptly summed-up by the US House Speaker, as she said: “If you are sitting at your kitchen table and wonder how you’re going to pay the bills – your health care bills, your prescription drug bills – this bill is for you.” For the first time in the US – the champion of champions of free-drug pricing market, will negotiate the drug price with their manufacturers to become patient -centric.

The reverberations of this difficult decision, especially on new drug prices, are expected to prompt the need for price negotiation or price control, primarily for expanding access to new drugs for a larger number of patients. This deserves to be a focus area for the Government, including India. Moreover, the August 18, 2022, media report also suggests that the top court of India may now encourage the Government to investigate, report and take remedial action on drug industry malpractices.

Finally, it’s worth noting that over a decade ago, international media widely reported - ‘India considering price controls for patented drugs.’ Its objective was to address the aggressive new drug pricing trend in the country. Accordingly, the price negotiation proposal for patented drugs was notified by the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) in 2007. The constituted Committee submitted a report, as well, on February 21, 2013. But it did not take off as on date. Many apprehend, this is due to intensive and ongoing lobbying by big pharma, just as what happened in the US. Nevertheless, the question that surfaces – will the above new drug law in the largest pharma market in the world encourage the DoP to revisit price negotiation for patented drugs - to make modern drugs affordable to a larger patient population in India – now?

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.

Being Eclectic – A Pharma Leadership Quality In The New Normal

Posted on June 21, 2021 by Tapan Ray

It’s no-brainer that since the onset of Covid pandemic, digitalization initiative of many pharma companies in critical facets of business operations, has reached a new high. The process is now fast accelerating with the adoption of avant-garde ideas, and scalable digital tools and platforms. Some of these initiatives may be incremental in nature, but several others possess game changing potential in delivering business outcomes.

This period of transformation is also an opportune time for pharma leadership to be more eclectic, while working out strategies to gain business momentum – outpacing the competition. As is being revealed, strategic inputs from a diverse range of sources – often from totally different areas, to meet fast changing customer needs and expectations, would immensely help in the new normal.

In this article, I shall argue on the need of being eclectic for pharma leadership to gain competitive edge, especially in the trying times. I shall elaborate this point with the example of an eclectic idea – Gamification. If used where it ought to be, eclectic ideas may help organizations to successfully navigate through unprecedented disruptions, especially, caused by Covid pandemic, in various critical areas of pharma business.

Gamification – an eclectic strategic tool for pharma:

Gamification – an eclectic strategic tool, ‘incentivizes people’s engagement and activities to drive results with game-like mechanics.’ Various companies, across the industries, are leveraging this technique for greater effectiveness in different business domains. This includes, driving employee motivation for sustainable performance excellence.

I discussed ‘Gamification in Pharma’ in this blog – about a year before the onset of the pandemic. However, its potential is being increasingly realized with virtual engagement becoming more common during Covid pandemic. Several drug companies are now imbibing Gamification techniques to offer greater value in several areas of business. These include, among others, chronic disease management, adherence to the prescribed dosage regimen, and also for training and development.

The core purpose and value:

The core purpose of Gamification is to effectively engage with both internal and external customers of an organization, with clearly captured details of their changing needs and expectations in the new normal. Game mechanics are basically the rules and rewards that build the foundation of game play. Game dynamics involve a set of emotions, behaviors and desires found in game mechanics that help foster engagement and motivate participants.

The broad process of Gamification entails integration of game mechanics on various existing platforms. These include, a website, online community, learning tools - providing target audiences with proactive directives and feedback through game mechanics that lead to the accomplishments of business goals and objectives.

According to BI Worldwide - a global engagement agency, ‘Gamification is about driving engagement to influence business results.’ When people participate and engage with gamification initiatives, they learn the best way to interact with the business, its products, services and in thereby in the brand building process.

It further says, the business value of Gamification doesn’t end with the participant. Engagement with game mechanics provides insightful data that can help influence marketing campaigns, platform utilization and performance goals. Every employee or customer interaction gives a better sense of where a participant is spending their time and what activities drive interest.

Application of ‘Gamification’ in pharma is a decade old now:

Gamification isn’t totally a new concept in the pharma industry. It was successfully tried by some pharma majors, at least, about a decade ago. Let me give below just a couple of examples from that period to get a feel of it:

Way back in 2011, Pfizer created the Back in Play game for European patients, to boost knowledge of ankylosing spondylitis, a disease that causes inflammation in the spine and pelvis joints. Interestingly, the game delivered a simple healthcare message to a notoriously difficult to reach audience 38 million times.

In 2012, Boehringer Ingelheim launched its pharma game – ‘Syrum’ on Facebook platform. This particular initiative is considered as an evolution in the pharma industry’s use of the social media platform. It gave the Company a new tool to educate and expand the knowledge of the general public about the challenges of its business. It also helped to improve disease awareness, besides allowing the company to conduct its market research.

Besides these two, other interesting Gamification initiatives taken around that period include, Zec Attack (Novartis), Silence Your Rooster (Sanofi).

Its potential in pharma marketing – and what to avoid:

Applying game mechanics to healthcare marketing could also help ensure that patients are activated, educated, and engaged throughout the duration of their care, driving both – business performance and patient outcomes. This observation was made in an article on ‘Gamification’, published in the Pharmaceutical Executive on February 28, 2019. Another article titled, ‘Gamification is Serious Business’ also reiterates, ‘Research and case studies from both the academic and healthcare space bring forth ample evidence that games can improve patient compliance and healthcare outcomes.’

However, if any pharma marketer enters into the gamification arena with greater focus on the desired outcome than on patient goals, or the games themselves don’t excite, engage, and motivate the users, the efforts may not succeed.

Gamified e-learning helps during Covid pandemic:

An interesting study on ‘The Impact of COVID-19 on Learning,’ conducted by find courses, noted some interesting points. A few of which, are as follows:

Covid pandemic is fueling an unprecedented interest and opportunity for many people to acquire more job knowledge and skills, mainly to protect their future in uncertain times.

In tandem, people’s priorities when it comes to learning are also changing. Health-safety being at the forefront of many learners’ minds, they prefer mostly online courses, or heavily reduced classroom sizes - to maintain social distancing.

It has also been noted that many such learners often find virtual learning programs uninteresting and lackluster. Sensing this issue, many organizations, which include some pharma companies, are now using Gamification to augment learning effectiveness and build greater team harmony. Let me illustrate this point with an example from the pharma industry during the ongoing pandemic.

It’s more relevant in the new normal:

On June 04, 2021, Fierce Pharma featured an article on Pharma companies’ getting into gaming to boost retention, recall – and fun. There, it quoted a top official of the global pharma major AbbVie, who said: “Gamification has become more important and more impactful in the virtual environment.” The honcho further said: “The pandemic showed we need this now more than ever. – It’s given an extra push to what has always been core to what we do, which is retention and recall in a fun and engaging manner.”

The report elaborates, AbbVie Canada uses gamification to onboard new reps, district managers and brand managers as well as for national sales meetings. Instead of studying or reading up, AbbVie asks employees to do the advance work through gamification tasks and then follows with more tasks after the meetings to boost retention and recall.

The Global Healthcare Gamification Market Report 2021-2027, also vindicates this point. As it reported, utilization of new healthcare gamification applications based on mobile tablets and laptops, witnessed a good growth during Covid pandemic. It reported, ‘Healthcare Gamification Market’ is expected to reach US$35,982.7 million in 2027 from US$ 3,072.5 million in 2019 with an estimated CAGR of 36.2% from 2020-2027.

Gamification is now being used by pharma in India, as well:

Abbott India is using elements of gamification in its customer services through a: care program. As the company Press Release says: ‘This new healthcare service is designed with games, quizzes and recognition programs to support patients, doctors and pharmacists throughout the entire healthcare journey, from awareness and prevention to motivation to get and stay healthy.’

In India, since quite some time, many well-known non-pharma companies are successfully using gamification for employee engagement and hiring.

Conclusion:

Unprecedented disruptions caused by Covid pandemic have considerably impacted the business operations of virtually every industry in India – just as other nations, across the globe. Since the onset of the pandemic, non-covid related medical centers, fitness institutions or gyms remained shut. Getting F2F – in clinic or hospital care, especially for non-Covid patients were also challenging for several reasons, with virtual care being the only options for many.

Interestingly, with most interactions and engagements – including learning, training and development programs going virtual, ‘Gamification’ initiatives started gathering wind on the sail, in some of those areas. This happened mainly because, organizations, institutions and people were driven to look for digital and app-based solutions for all needs and necessities, for a sustainable progress in an uncertain future.

An article on gamification, published in the PharmaPhorum on March 21, 2021, reiterated the same. It said, “Gamification” – adding game-like elements into non-game or real-world settings – has become a popular concept in the pharmaceutical, healthcare, and event industries, especially as virtual engagement becomes more common during COVID-19.’

With diverse applications and approaches, Gamification is quickly becoming a promising tool in various areas of pharma service and operations. These include, patient adherence, chronic disease management, preventive medicine, rehabilitation, besides better customer engagement, medical education, training, hiring and more.

From this perspective, in my view, pharma leadership now needs to more eclectic, and try using methods and approaches, such as, ‘Gamification’ – drawn from various other disciplines, in pursuit of excellence in the new normal.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Will ‘Patent Thicket’ Delay Biosimilar Drug Entry in India?

Posted on April 22, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Do pharma and biotech investors encourage companies indulging in ‘patent thicket?’ This question recently grabbed media headlines. On April 02, 2019, one such report brought out: AbbVie investors are calling for the Chair-CEO power split, flagging the CEO’s USD 4 million bonus payout, fueled by the company’s Humira ‘patent thicket’ strategy related aggressive price hikes. It prolonged the brand’s market monopoly, blocking entries of its cheaper biosimilar equivalents.

I have discussed some related issues in this blog, previously. As the issue is gaining relevance also in the Indian context, this article will deliberate the ill-effects of ‘patent thicket’ on patient health-interest. The sole beneficiaries for the creation of this self-serving labyrinth are the manufacturers of high-priced patented drugs, as reported above. Before I proceed further, let me recapitulate what exactly is a ‘patent thicket.’

‘Patent Thicket’:

The dictionary definition of patent thicket is: ‘A group of patents in a field of technology which collectively impede a party from commercializing its own patents or products in that field.’In the current context, it means a dense web of overlapping patent rights that restrict a generic or a biosimilar drug maker from commercializing its cheaper equivalents post expiry of the original patent.

This scenario has been well-captured by the above media report, which states: “AbbVie leadership has also been accused of creating a ‘patent thicket’ in its battle to stave off biosimilar competitors to Humira.” Boehringer Ingelheim is among the few still fighting AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ hoping to launch its Humira biosimilar - Cyltezo, even after receiving US-FDA approval on August 29, 2017. ‘Top biosimilar makers, including Novartis’ Sandoz unit and Mylan, have settled their own Humira patent fights with deals that put off launches until 2023,’ the report indicated.

In its favor: AbbVie says, Cyltezo infringes about 70 patents the company currently holds for Humira. Whereas, ‘Boehringer’s lawyers say AbbVie’s copious patents overlapped in an attempt to exclude competitors from the market.’ Notably, in March this year, New York’s UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, reportedly, also accused AbbVie of using overlapping patents to exclude biosimilars.

‘Patent thicket’ – a way of ‘evergreening’ beyond 20 years patent term:

Much concern is being raised about various ploys of especially by the drug MNC and their lobby groups – directly or under a façade, to delay entry of cheaper generic drugs for greater patient access. Mostly the following two ways are followed for patent ‘evergreening’ beyond the term of 20 years:

‘Incremental innovation’ of the existing patented drugs through molecular manipulation, with its clinical performance and safety profile remaining similar to the original one. As the cost benefits of such drugs are not shared with patients, cannibalizing the sales of the older molecular version with the newer one highlighting its newness, the sales revenue can be protected. With this approach, coupled with marketing muscle power with deep-pocket the impact of generic entry of the older version can almost be made redundant. For example: Omeprazole was first marketed in 1989 by AstraZeneca, under the brand name Losec (later changed to Prilosec at the behest of the US-FDA). When Prilosec’s US patent expired in April 2001, AstraZeneca introduced esomeprazole (Nexium) as a patented replacement drug. Both are nearly identical in their clinical efficacy and safety.

‘Patent thicket’ is yet another tool for ‘evergreening’, delaying launch of similar drugs, or resorting to ‘pay for delay’ sort of deals. As another recent report reiterates, AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ for Humira, has deterred other potential challengers, such as Amgen, Samsung Bioepis and most recently Mylan, each of which struck settlements with AbbVie to delay their biosimilar challenges in the United States.

Goes against patients’ health interest:

On May 09, 2018, the Biosimilars Council reported, just as generic medicines saved Americans USD 1.67 trillion in the last decade, biosimilars are poised to do the same – ‘if they aren’t thwarted by delaying tactics instituted by some pharmaceutical companies.’ Echoing similar concern, the outgoing US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb also, reportedly said, ‘some drugmakers are using unacceptable tactics such as litigation and rebate schemes to stall the entry of cheaper copies.’

‘Of the nine biosimilars the FDA has approved to date, only three have made it into the hands of patients – an alarmingly small number. Patients can’t access the six others due to barriers thrown in their way by pharmaceutical companies that want to protect their monopolies and keep prices high,’ highlights the Biosimilars Council report. Net sufferer of this self-serving ‘patent thicket’ strategy of pharma and biotech players to extend product patents beyond 20 years, are those patients who need these drugs the most – to save their lives.

Despite law, patent ‘evergreening’ still not uncommon in India:

With section (3d) on the Indian Patents Act 2005 in place, the country is expected to protect itself from patent ‘evergreening’ through ‘incremental innovation.’ This section articulates:“For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

On this ground, Indian Patent Office (IPO) rejected Novartis’ drug Glivec (imatinib mesylate) patent application, which was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in 2013. Nevertheless, a study report of April 30, 2018 emphasized: ‘Though the law with regard to anti-evergreening, upheld and clarified by Indian courts, remains on the books, its application by the IPO has been far from satisfactory.’

The esteemed author of the report, after analyzing about 2,300 drug patents, granted between 2009 and 2016 concluded that evergreening practices may be rampant in India. The report pointed out, ‘the IPO could be operating with an error rate as high as 72 percent for secondary patents, despite provisions to keep them in check.’

Are these IPO’s mistakes, or due to external pressure?

As the paper, published in the January 2016 edition of the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) said,‘The multi-national pharma companies (MNCs) and the US-India Business Council (USIBC) have suggested in their report for elimination of Section 3 (d) so that drug patents can be granted in India for incremental improvement and modification. As per US 301 report, India is listed among countries with inadequate IP regime.’ Keeping all these aspects into consideration, the article expressed some key concerns pertaining to the impact of Section 3 (d) with special emphasis on its interpretation. Does it mean any possibility of wilting under such extraneous and high impact pressure?

A fresh pressure from drug MNC on the DCGI:

Since long drug MNCs have been attempting to delay the entry of even those generics, which are fully compliant with the Indian Patent Law 2005. One such effort was their demand for ‘patent linkage’ with the marketing approval of new generic drugs. However, it could not pass through legal scrutiny – first by the Delhi High Court in the Bayer Cipla case in 2010, and then by the Supreme Court – on the same case. The Court, reportedly, ‘noted the Indian patent system was distinct from the drug regulatory system with no linkage between them and so Bayer can’t prevent DCGI from granting marketing approval to generic versions of patented drugs.’

According to another recent media report of April 04, 2019, in a fresh endeavor ‘to delay launch of low priced generic medicine, multinational drug makers have asked the government to create a registry providing information about all drug applications pending manufacturing and marketing approval. The proposal, which is still pending with the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), if accepted, could involve the generic players into expensive and time-consuming litigations, delaying early market entry of the cheaper generic or biosimilar equivalents.

To date, the health ministry has opposed the proposal, as it will be “unfair to local drug manufacturers to disclose their product strategy” and also has “the potential to substantially increase health care costs for the public.” The government further argued, “such information about product applications filed for approval are not disclosed anywhere in the world.”

India encourages new drug innovation, but not at any cost:

Despite shrill and disparaging comments of MNC lobbyists and the strong vested interests, that India’s Patent Law 2005, doesn’t encourage innovation, many independent international experts do praise the same for the following reasons:

Does encourage new drug innovation
Does extend product exclusivity for twenty years
Strikes a right balance with patients’ health interest
Indian judicial system deals with patient infringements and disputes, just as any other developed countries
Even 14 years after the enactment of patent laws, just one compulsory license has been granted, which is much less than other countries, including the United States.

What India doesn’t legally allow is, unfettered profit making through ‘evergreening of drug patents’ – at the cost of millions of patients-lives. Nonetheless, powered by deep pockets, the pharma and biotech players are unlikely to cease from this practice, anytime soon. Only patient-awareness, and stringent counter-legal measures can contain this unfair game of drug monopoly practices – in the name of ‘encouraging innovation’.

Conclusion:

The article titled, ‘Over patented, overpriced: How Excessive Pharmaceutical Patenting is Extending Monopolies and Driving up Drug Prices’ revealed:“Top grossing drugs have on average 125 patent applications, which are filed with a strategic intent to extend the commercial monopolies far beyond the intended twenty years of protection.” It also quoted American President Donald Trump as saying, “Our patent system will reward innovation, but it will not be used as a shield to protect unfair monopolies.”

Coming back to ‘patent thicket’ and the same classic case, another report of March 20, 2019 indicated, a new class action lawsuit filed by New York’s largest grocery union has accused AbbVie of violating antitrust and consumer protection laws, which AbbVie has defended by saying that its patent strategy for Humira has protected the investments that are necessary to “advance healthcare.”

Pharma and biotech companies’ maintaining patent monopolies far beyond twenty years has significant consequences on India’s healthcare system. Only patent lawyers and experts can possibly answer whether or not the Indian Patent Law 2005 can effectively deal with the practice of ‘evergreening’ with patent thicket. Intriguingly, taking a cue from recent developments, it seems many pharma and biotech investors too, deem ‘patent thicket’ rather distracting for longer-term undiluted focus on new product development, and sustainable investors’ return.

That apart, the question also comes, whether just as ‘antitrust and consumer protection laws’ in the US, the Competition Law of India will be able to do contain such unfair practices? Otherwise, with MNC lobbyists’ renewed activities in this area, ‘patent thicket’, especially for expensive biologic drugs, will delay market-entry of their cheaper biosimilar versions in India, as well, just as what is happening in the developed nations.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Is Criticizing Pharma Now Just A Fad?

Posted on October 10, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Is criticizing pharma now just a fad of its stakeholders? Fathoming the right answer to this seemingly simple question may not be too easy, either, for some. The task could even be more onerous, especially when the global ‘researched based’ pharma and biotech companies, well chorused by their trade associations, are exerting serious efforts to garner the much required trust of all stakeholders on their ‘patient centric’ focus in the process of transacting business.

This often repeated pledge, as it were, on ‘patient centric’ approach is indeed praiseworthy. There’s no two opinions about it, either. The new found interest of several ‘research-based’ pharma and biologic players to develop less expensive biosimilar drugs, to possibly improve patient access to otherwise expensive biologic medicines, post patent expiry, could well be a reiteration of the same and well publicized vow, of course if not proven otherwise.

A recent example:

In the context of ‘patient-centric’ approach with biosimilar product development by the world’s largest innovative biologic drug makers, let me quote the following recent example.

On September 23, 2016, by a Press Release, the Food and Drug Administration of the United States (US-FDA) announced regulatory approval of Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) as a biosimilar to Humira (adalimumab) for multiple inflammatory diseases. This is the fourth FDA-approved biosimilar, after the new biosimilar pathway became effective in the US. Amjevita has been developed by Amgen Inc. – one of the global pioneers in the development of innovative biologic drugs.

According to US-FDA, a biosimilar is a biological product that is approved based on a showing that it is highly similar to an already-approved biological product and has no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity and potency (i.e., safety and effectiveness) from the reference product, in addition to meeting other criteria specified by law.

Although, Amjevita is biosimilar to Humira, it has not been approved as an interchangeable product with Humira. This issue is considered as a major regulatory roadblock in the US for substitution of original biologic brands with their biosimilar equivalents, which can, therefore, be prescribed mostly to the new patients. It’s worth noting here that Humira – the blockbuster arthritis drug of AbbVie Inc. clocked a sale of US$ 14 billion in 2015, and probably will continue to do so in the foreseeable future, even long after patent expiry. I shall touch upon that point below, briefly.

It is estimated that the savings of putting just new patients on much less expensive biosimilar drugs, sans substitution of the expensive original brand, will be billions of dollars. Nonetheless, this will help reduce the cost of treatment with biologic medications, improving their access to many others.

A key barrier:

Interestingly, the barriers to following the biosimilar path are being mostly created none other than the innovative drug companies themselves, even post patent expiry, presumably to extend market exclusivity and monopoly pricing.

Arising out of one such key barrier, in the form of patent litigation, Amgen’s Amjevita, in all probability, may not be available to deserving patients for years. This could involve a protracted process of skillfully navigating through the labyrinth of legalities.

On August 05, 2016, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that AbbVie Inc. has filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against rival Amgen Inc., seeking to block sales of a lower-priced biosimilar of AbbVie’s top-selling, now generally considered as an off-patent drug – Humira.

When the narrative gets paradoxical:

While all the ‘research-based’ drug companies claim to be ‘patient-centric’ in their business approaches, be it with the development of biosimilars or in other areas, somewhere this narrative gets paradoxical.

On September 02, 2016, Reuters reported that global ‘research-based’ companies are now ‘waging courtroom patent battles against each other over biosimilars, as the line blurs between companies known for their innovative medicines, and those that produce cheaper biotech knockoffs.’

Some of the recent high-profile examples were reported as follows:

Sanofi sued Merck in the US federal court over its biosimilar version of Lantus insulin with around US$7 billion in annual sales.

Eli Lilly reached a royalties deal with Sanofi to end a similar Lantus-related lawsuit, but their pact means the biosimilar launch was likely delayed.

Pfizer and Korea’s Celltrion in August beat back a court challenge from Johnson & Johnson over US$10 billion autoimmune drug Remicade, though J&J’s Janssen unit promised to appeal.

In a closely watched case, Novartis wants the US Supreme Court to dump a six-month marketing delay for biosimilars, in what would be the first time the high court took up a biosimilar case.

Samsung Bioepis, along with partner and minority shareholder Biogen Inc, filed a lawsuit against AbbVie in Britain in March to stop the US company from blocking the launch of yet another Humira biosimilar.

It is equally noteworthy, while Amgen is keen to launch its own biosimilars, the company’s aggressive legal strategy delayed Novartis’s efforts to introduce the first US biosimilar, Zarxio, before the copy of Amgen’s US $1 billion drug Neupogen finally went on sale last year.

Further, Amgen has also filed a legal suit against a biosimilar version of its Enbrel (etanercept) developed by Novartis (Sandoz), which has already received regulatory approval from the US-FDA on August 30, 2016 for multiple inflammatory diseases.

Taking these into consideration, isn’t, therefore, about time to ponder afresh, whether the innovative drug makers’ general mindset of maintaining drug exclusivity with a very high price, on techno-legal grounds, even after enjoying price monopoly over a long period of the specified time, be termed as ‘patient-centric’?

Indian scenario:

Indian players have already started developing biosimilar drugs in the country. This market offers a lucrative future opportunity considering that original biologic brands with a global turnover of around US$ 70 billion will expire by 2020.

The first biosimilar was approved and marketed in India for a hepatitis B vaccine in 2000 (GaBI Online). By now, around 30 such products have reportedly received the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI)’s approval for marketing in India. Even after the new biosimilar guidelines were framed and implemented locally, since 2012, there has not been any worthwhile legal suits filed by the global innovative biologic manufacturers, against the Indian companies or such products developed and approved in India, till 2014.

Since then, this scenario has changed with Roche suing Biocon and its partner Mylan on their biosimilar versions of Roche’s Herceptin (Trastuzumab) for breast cancer, and also making the DCGI a party to this suit. This litigation is broadly on the following grounds:

Non-adherence to the Indian biosimilar guidelines
Misrepresentation of drugs as biosimilar and passing off

Be that as it may, its key impact is on affordable biosimilar drugs that can save more lives of breast cancer patients in India. If it is so, do such litigations demonstrate a patient-centric perspective for so important a drug, which is not even protected by a product patent in India, any longer?

Are biosimilars the only examples?

Lest I am not seen as highlighting only the instances of blocking market entry of biosimilar drugs, as sole examples of ‘patient-centric focus’, or lack of it, of many global innovative drug manufacturers, I would now expand it, just a bit. This is only to fathom the bottom-line – whether it is a ‘patients-centric’ focus, or solely a ‘profit-centric’ outlook.

‘Patients-centric’ or ‘Profit-centric’?

To get a sense on this vexing issue, it would be worthwhile for us to find out by ourselves the most appropriate reason behind each of the following. Of course it’s just an illustration. This reason could be either a ‘patient centric’ focus, or simply a ‘profit centric’ outlook. …And then let’s try to make out which way the overall balance tilts, on the ground:

Discovering new drugs, delivery systems, and finding new indications

Lack of transparency and widely reported bias towards mainly positive results in clinical trial data, both for publication and regulatory approval of various new drugs, and associated global furor.

Exorbitant high prices of many new patented medicines and some generic drugs too

Widely reported marketing/other malpractices, and associated fines paid by the respective players

Causing entry delay for cheaper small molecule generics and large molecule biosimilar drugs post patent expiry restricting gtreaterr patient access

What’s your relative score now?

Conclusion:

Let me sign off here by raising the following relevant questions in this area, for all of us to think and address, as we deem appropriate:

Is the narrative of ‘patient centric’ approach of the ‘research-based’ global drug companies’ now getting clearer with the widely reported credible examples, as above?

Is there still a paradox between their two different strategic business approaches – one entry into off-patent drug development, such as biosimilars, and the other in blocking or delaying entry of such drugs, whenever possible, even after enjoying a specified period of product pricing monopoly?

Does it then mean, what a large section of pharma industry constituents is now publicly demonstrating, at least in the above areas, more than negates their protracted sound bites on ‘patient centric’ focus?

Despite these facts, would pharma related criticism in this space be termed as just a fad of the stakeholders?

If not, what should be the way forward from here to ensure that remedial measures are taken in so important an area of ‘patient-centric’ outlook, soon enough?

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 Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs

Posted on May 30, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Should drug innovation models remain as expensive as what these are claimed to be now by the global pharma industry, in general?

Finding a credible, appropriately quantifiable, and generally acceptable answer to this question is critical. It won’t, then, just be a myth-buster for billions of dollar price tag, that is now being attached to drug innovation and development initiatives, by the global pharma industry, as a justification for arbitrarily fixing high new drug prices. If the upcoming and new startups with frugal models for even high-tech drug innovation succeed with flying colors, the patients and the payers would also possibly breathe a huge sigh of relief, from the increasing burden of disease and the cost of medicines.

I believe, it would eventually happen, may not be overnight, but over a period of time. I shall discuss in this article about some bright sparks, already visible in that direction.

The facade of high cost of drug innovation:

At the very outset, to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, let me confess up front, just as many others, I also strongly believe that drug innovation is extremely important. It needs to be encouraged, protected and rewarded reasonably.

That said, let me also give the right perspective of how the cost of ‘drug innovation’ is being often misused as a facade for keeping the drug prices high, if not exorbitant.

According to a contentious study of ‘Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development’, the total cost of innovation of a new drug and bringing it to market, has increased more than double from US$ 1.22 billion in 2003 to US$ 2.6 billion in 2014.

Despite these numbers being vehemently challenged in credible journals, many global pharma majors still keep justifying the high new drug prices on the same old pretext. As a diversionary tactic, they relentlessly argue that innovation has to be adequately rewarded to keep its wheels moving in perpetuity, though no one challenges this basic fact, not even remotely.

The moot questions:

The moot questions, therefore, are: how expensive is the drug innovation and how does the global drug industry establish its relationship with high new drug prices? The answers to these queries must be clear, specific, quantifiable and credible, and not ethereal, if not airy-fairy.

In this context, my article titled, “How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?” found an echo in a globally reputed journal. An analysis published in the BMJ in May 2016 titled, “Propaganda or the cost of innovation? Challenging the high price of new drugs”, expressed deep concern on the rising prices of new medicines. It reiterated that this trend is set to overwhelm health systems around the world.

The above BMJ article also put forth similar questions: “What does it really cost to bring a new medicine to the market, and do these costs justify the high price?”

The authors pointed out that the pharmaceutical market is not actually a “free market” based on supply and demand with minimal government intervention through taxes, subsidies, or regulation. On the contrary, the pharma market is highly manipulated, and not focused on achieving the best prices, or even fair prices for essential and life saving medicines.

No linear link between high drug price and innovation cost:

As I discussed this subject in my previous article titled, “Arbitrary Pricing of Essential Drugs Invites State Intervention”, it has been well established by now that there is no linear, or any relationship between high drug prices and cost of drug innovation. Since long, this argument is being misused just as a façade to keep the cost of medicines high, and making high profits even at the cost of lower sales volume.

The façade has started crumbling:

In India too, the pharma MNCs often use the same façade to keep the prices of also their branded generics much higher than the comparable formulations manufactured by larger domestic pharma manufacturers. However, the façade has started crumbling in many countries, across the world. This gradually increasing general realization is welcoming.

The Governments in many countries, have now started acting. They are increasingly forcing the drug makers to eye for volume growth, by reducing the fat margin, and improving patients’ access to high-priced drugs.

Just to draw an example, I would quote a very recent development in this area, outside India. On May 20, 2016, the Chinese health authorities announced price cuts of up to two-thirds to three patented drugs, in their latest move to reduce the cost of healthcare for patients. It is noteworthy that this happened in the world’s second-biggest economy, after the United States.

Why is arbitrary drug pricing continuing?

It appears, the only reason for the majority of the drug players to continue keeping the new drug prices high is because they can still make huge money through a small segment of patients who can afford their brands. What about the rest? This doesn’t seem to matter to them, at all, unless compelled to, in various ways.

Need to totally demolish the façade of innovation:

Thus, there is a compelling need is to demolish the façade of innovation, decisively, for keeping medicine prices high.

To move towards this direction, some flickers of a sound possibilities, are now visible in the horizon. The ‘Frugal’ or the ‘Silicon Valley’ type startups for high-tech drug innovation models, especially in the biotech sector, have shown high potential to be a game changer in this area.

Frugal innovation models for high-tech drugs:

The quest to find a pathway towards this direction continues. Recently, Professor Atul Butte, Director of the University of California Institute of Computational Health Sciences, highlighted that like other Silicon Valley startups, almost anyone can bring a drug to market from their garage with just a computer, the internet, and freely available data. Professor Butte, students, and research staff have already explored various methods and approaches of scientifically utilizing this data in search for new medicines.

As reported in the May 5, 2016 issue of ‘The Conversation’, Professor Butte outlined this process for an audience of local and international scientists and medics in a talk given at the Science on the Swan conference held in Perth in May 2016.

Professor Butte outlined several models of ‘Frugal Innovation’, especially for new biotech drugs or finding new indications for existing drugs.

A. The search for a new target:

There could be several approaches to the search of a new biotech drug. An example of one such, that Butte’s team is reportedly engaged in, is the construction of a map of how the genetic profiles of people with particular diseases are related to each other. The team looked for diseases with very similar genetic profiles.

Some may argue, this process of discovering other uses of drugs, conventionally termed as “drug repositioning”, is in the strictest sense is not exactly a novel one. They may attempt to establish it by drawing an example from Viagra, which was originally developed for treatment of cardiovascular conditions. However, the major difference is that Viagra’s repositioning for erectile dysfunction is an outcome triggered by its side-effects in patients taking the drug for its original cardiovascular disease treatment.

B. Desk research and discovery:

The primary desk research can start from the freely available enormous published genetic data, based on thousands of studies on humans, mice and other animals. The publications’ websites are also highly credible, such as, National Institute of Health and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory. Thus, as a result of abundantly available high quality genetic data, the cost of genetic sequencing, using gene chip technologies, is also coming down quite rapidly.

C. Animal testing:

After the potential drug discovery in the garage, there is a need to test the drugs on animals.

As Professor Butte suggests, this process also can be made much less expensive. For this purpose, he recommends the internet and the websites, such as, Assay Depot. This site is structured like Amazon, from which a researcher can order an experiment to be carried out to test a drug on a range of animal models, as the report states.

Butte finds this Internet based process very useful for ‘choosing the experiment type the researcher wants, adding it to a shopping cart, paying by credit card and getting the experimental results mailed back in a few weeks’ time.’ Such websites also offer wide choices to the researchers, even regarding the laboratory they would like to use, including the country where the laboratory is located.

D. Human Trial:

As ‘The Conversation’ article indicates, once a new use for a drug has been shown to work in an animal model, the next step would be to test the drug on human volunteers, get approval for the use of the drug for that condition, and then finally take the drug to market.

This purpose could involve spinning out startups with money from investors. In California, Professor Butte and his students have already followed this process after discovery of new uses for several drugs.

As Professor Butte epitomizes, none of this would be possible without sharing data. The ‘Frugal innovation’ models also highlight, how the growth of availability of open research data will be able to discover a range of uses, that would not have been foreseen, when the individual experiments were being carried out.

Would Big Pharma gobble up these startups?

If ‘Big Pharma’ starts gobbling up these startups paying exorbitant prices, the expectations of lower prices of novel drugs may possibly not come to fruition. Nevertheless, the facade of innovation for high drug prices would crumble. But, surely some other different and well-orchestrated pretext would surface, to maintain their stubbornness to continue with the same business model of very high margin and lesser volume sales, with cash register ringing, as ever.

Here is an example. ‘The Huffington Post’, in an article of May 10, 2016, reported on Big Pharma’s betting on a cancer drug startup.

The May 2016 article said, the pharmaceutical giant AbbVie acquired a startup named ‘Stemcentrx’ in a deal that values it at as high as US$10 billion.

The startup Stemcentrx has found out a unique approach, though somewhat controversial, for treating several forms of cancer. While most of today’s treatments view cancer as a result of unchecked cell growth, wherein any cell is capable of becoming cancerous, Stemcentrx believes that cancer primarily sprouts from only one cell type: cancer stem cells.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, hopefully, the evolving models of ‘Frugal innovation’, development and commercialization of high-tech drugs, are expected to be the game changer for quickly bringing a number of new drugs, or existing drugs for new indications to the market, for many disease conditions, at very affordable cost.

Big Pharma may not allow it happen so easily, just for vested interest, but the pressure group must keep a close vigil on this development, and more importantly, must prevail.

Thus, the next frontier of pharma research and development, would possibly shift to small startups of ‘Frugal Innovation’, especially for affordable high-tech drugs, extending their access to the majority of the patients, the world over.

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.

A Great News! But…Would This ‘Golden Goose’ Lay Golden Eggs?

Posted on December 15, 2014 by Tapan Ray

On December 9, 2014, international media flashed across the world a great news item from the Indian pharma industry:

“The first biosimilar of the world’s top-selling medicine Humira (adalimumab) of AbbVie has been launched in India by Zydus Cadila.”

This exhilarating news has undoubtedly got frozen in time flagging a well-cherished moment of pride for the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Along side, taking note of many contemporary factors in this area, a lurking apprehension too does creep in. It raises an awkward and uncomfortable question – would this ‘Golden Goose” born out of a laudable ‘reverse engineering’ effort be able to lay ‘Golden Eggs’, signaling its global commercial success for the company?

In this article, I shall try to dwell on on this important issue.

In one my earlier blog posts of August 25, 2014 titled, “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”, I discussed another related concern in this area.

Born a ‘Golden Goose’:

Just to recapitulate, the original product Humira (Adalimumab) of Abbvie, a fully human anti-TNF alpha monoclonal antibody was first globally approved for marketing in 2002. Since then Humira has emerged as the most preferred therapy to reduce the signs and symptoms of patients suffering from moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, moderate to severe polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, moderate to severe Crohn’s disease and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. However, Humira is not available in the Indian market, at present.

Zydus Cadila has announced that its biosimilar version of Humira (Adalimumab), has been approved by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and will be marketed under the brand name ‘Exemptia’ for the treatment of autoimmune disorders as indicated for Humira.

As claimed by the company, ‘Exemptia’ is a ‘fingerprint match’ with the original drug Humira in terms of purity, safety and potency. Zydus Cadila has also stated that the novel non-infringing process for Adalimumab and a novel non-infringing formulation have been researched, developed and produced by scientists in its own Research Centre.

With this the world took note of the ‘Golden Goose’, born out of brilliant ‘Reverse Engineering’ in India. However, the apprehension of many continued to linger: Would this ‘Golden Goose’ be able to lay ‘Golden Eggs’?

The product and the price:

According to an estimate, over 12 million patients in India suffer from the above chronic conditions of autoimmune disorders, which progressively deteriorate and lead to lifelong pain and in some cases, even disability. To treat these indications, Exemptia is recommended as a 40 mg subcutaneous injection once every alternate week. Patients normally would have to take the treatment for six months.

Media reports indicate that ‘Exemptia’ of Zydus Cadila will be priced in India equivalent to US$ 200 a vial against Humira price in the United States of US$ 1,000. Initial overall reaction for this local price does not seem to be quite favorable for India.

The global market:

A recent report from Thomson Reuters indicates, as blockbuster drugs with sales turnover of around US$100 billion lose patent protection, the global biosimilars market is expected to grow around US$ 25 billion by the end of the decade.

According to a 2013 report of the credit rating agency Fitch, eight of the current 20 top-selling global pharmaceuticals are biologics that will face patent expiry by 2020.

EvaluatePharma reported that the current the anti-rheumatics market makes up the second largest treatment area by sales, with worldwide revenues of US$ 41.1 billion, closely behind the oncology therapy area, which registered sales of US$68 billion in 2012 with a high growth rate.

The report also states, despite biosimilar entry Anti-rheumatics segment is expected to record a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 4 percent with a turnover of around S$52.1 billion in 2018.

The local potential:

Over the last several years, China and India have been emerging as the promising destinations for international outsourcing of biopharmaceutical manufacturing. In the recent times, China and India are reportedly showing promises to become the industry’s top potential destinations for offshoring over the next five years, ahead of traditional bio manufacturing hubs in the US and Western Europe.

More than 40 biosimilar products are now available in the Indian market. Over 10 pharma players are competing in this area with around 15 epoetin, 8 G-CSF and 4 insulin “biosimilars”, besides a few others.

Although India has the second largest USFDA approved drug manufacturing plants next to the United States, none of the products manufactured in these facilities can possibly be considered as “true biosimilars”.

Humira expected to remain strong:

EvaluatePharma also forecasts that Humira of AbbVie would continue to remain the best selling drug of the world at least till 2018 with sales of US$12.8 billion, despite its US patent expiry in 2016.

Moreover, to succeed Humira that will go off patent between end 2016 and 2018 (Europe), AbbVie reportedly has seven new drugs in clinical development for Rheumatoid Arthritis. These patented new drugs could also significantly cannibalize the sales of Humira.

Physicians’ attitude towards biosimilars:

According to an October 2014 Report of IMS Institute from Europe’s perspective, within each country’s health system, physicians display a range of attitudes and behaviors that influence their prescribing of biosimilars.

IMS observed three broad segments of prescribers as follows:

Conservative prescribers: These doctors tend to be late adopters of new technologies, are more likely to follow published clinical treatment guidelines, and may not be aware of or educated on the availability of potential use of biosimilars.

Open-minded prescribers: This archetype includes physicians who tend to be the most responsive to new information about treatment options, particularly where experience and knowledge of biologics may be low and educational program can be effective in impacting usage.

Enterprising prescribers: This segment of prescribers is most likely to search out information from all sources, and be open to trying different options for patient care including biosimilars as well as innovative treatments.

In addition to these archetypes, the report states, physicians’ attitudes and prescribing behavior may also be influenced or determined by prescribing guidelines, if any, the use of prescribing incentives, as well as the use of promotional activities by either originator or biosimilar manufacturers.

The US biosimilar challenge:

According to reports, despite two pharma players filing biosimilar applications at the USFDA, there are still many issues to be sorted out in this space by the drug regulator of the country.

Though an interchangeable biosimilar in the United States still appears to be several years away, there are initiatives in some American states to restrict interchangeable biosimilar for substitution against the reference product.

Moreover, USFDA’s draft guidance on clinical pharmacology of May 2014 has invited strong adverse comments from the innovator companies, lobby groups and the industry associations.

However, just in the last week, both the innovator companies and biosimilar manufacturers have reportedly agreed to support state legislation that allows pharmacies to automatically substitute biosimilars for corresponding branded biologics. But pharmacies must give prescribers a heads up afterward “within a reasonable time.”

For biosimilars makers, it’s a big improvement on the alternative, as the biotech developers wanted to require pharmacists to check with doctors before making the switch.

That said, the USFDA is yet to determine exactly how to classify biosimilars and their “reference products” as interchangeable. This guidance for classification would be necessary for the above mentioned pharmacy switches. This guidance is important especially for the statutory language, which dictates that interchangeability is proven for “any given patient”. This could also be construed as requiring studies in all the approved indications for a brand name biologic, i.e. Humira has around five different indications.

Thus, the path ahead still remains challenging for the biosimilar players in the United States, and more so for the Indian Companies, as compared to other global pharma majors with deep pockets.

Several other Humira biosimilars under development too:

As indicated earlier, the US and Europe patents of Humira with worldwide sales of US$ 11.02 billion in 2013 would expire by end 2016 and 2018, respectively. Thus, the product has become among the most sought-after biosimilar target prototypes for many pharma and biotech companies across the world.

The global biotech major Amgen has already indicated that its ABP 501 biosimilar has shown comparable efficacy and safety to Humira (adalimumab) in a late-stage trial in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis after treatment duration of 16 weeks. The product, reportedly, has also matched Humira in stimulating immune response in patients.

Experts believe, Amgen could be in a position to compete directly with Humira when it loses patent protection, if similar results are obtained in the second phase III trial.

Moreover, according to available reports, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sandoz (Novartis) and Coherus are also progressing well with the development of Humira biosimilars.

Zydus Cadila expects that in 2019 it would be ready to launch the biosimilar of Humira (Adalimumab) in the United States.

Marketing challenges for biosimilars:

Today, the global biosimilars market is indeed in a nascent stage, even for the Indian players.

For successful commercialization of biosimilars, I envisage, a well-crafted hybrid marketing-model of small molecule generics on the one hand and large molecule biologics of the originators’ on the other would be appropriate, in the years ahead.

In the early marketing phase, biosimilar marketers are expected to follow the same branding, communication and detailing strategies of the originators, which ultimately would transform into a generic matrix as more players chip in with the price competition intensifying.

Unlike small molecule generics, affordable price of a biosimilar would be just one of the many critical considerations for its commercial success in the biologics market.

Sustained efforts and initiatives to allay safety concerns with biosimilars among both the doctors and also the patients would be a dire necessity. Providing in-depth medical, technical and domain knowledge to the sales team should never be compromised, though these would require additional initial investments. Post marketing surveillance or pharmacovigilance for biosimilars must be ongoing, even in India. Here too, Indian players do not seem to be very strong, as yet.

Thus, unlike small molecule generics, marketing a large molecule biosimilar would require clear, razor sharp and focused strategies across the value chain to unlock its true potential. Crafting impactful value propositions, avoiding complexities, for each stakeholder, would decide the commercial fate of the product.

‘Made in India’ issue for pharma needs to be addressed expeditiously:

High credibility clinical trial data and manufacturing quality standards would also play a decisive role, especially for India made biosimilars.

This is mainly due to widespread reports of frequent USFDA allegations related to falsification and doctoring of manufacturing data in several manufacturing plants of India.

Ethical and quality issues for drugs made in India, such as these, assumed even greater dimension, as the regulators in France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg reportedly suspended marketing approval for 25 drugs over the genuineness of clinical trial data from India’s GVK Biosciences. This is yet another blow to ‘Made in India’ image for medicines, which has arrested the global attention, for all the wrong reasons, just the last week.

Conclusion:

Considering all the above points, let me now try to make a fair personal guess on whether or not the ‘Golden Goose’ would be successful enough to lay ‘Golden Eggs’, as required by the company.

Firstly, in the Indian perspective, the key point that strikes me is the cost of a treatment course with ‘Exemptia’ per patient in the country. On a rough calculation, it comes around Rs. 1,50,000 per course/per patient. This appears rather high according to the income level of an average Indian.

However, Zydus Cadila expects sales between Rs.1 billion (US$16.16 million) and 2 billion for ‘Exemptia’ only from the Indian market.

I reckon, with relatively high per course treatment cost with Exemptia, it may be quite challenging for the company to achieve this goal in the domestic market.

Thus, the global success of this biosimilar brand would mainly depend on its degree of success in the United States and Europe, post patent expiry of Humira.

Going by the possible availability of other Humira biosimilars from manufacturers with robust global marketing muscle, skill sets, experience and other wherewithal, the path of global success for Exemptia of Zydus Cadila, if the company decides to fly solo, appears to be strewn with many odds.

I would now stick my neck out to zero in with specificity in this area, while envisaging the possible future scenario.

Considering the evolving macro scenario together with the commercial success requirements in this space, I reckon, despite presence of several possible competitors of Humira biosimilars, including one from Zydus Cadila, the biotech domain expertise of Amgen, fuelled by its marketing muscle, would in all probability make its ABP 501 biosimilar the toughest competitor to Humira after its patent expiry in the US and Europe…and then…why doesn’t it try to succeed in India too?

By: Tapan J. Ray

An Aggressive New Drug Pricing Trend: What It Means To India?

Posted on October 27, 2014 by Tapan Ray

A new class and an aggressive drug-pricing trend is now evolving in the global pharmaceutical industry, exerting huge financial pressure on the patients and payers, including governments, especially, in the developed nations of the world.

Another aspect of this issue I deliberated in one of my earlier blog posts of August 18, 2014 titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments.”

Let me start my deliberation today by citing an example. According to 2013 Drug Trend Report of the pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts, the United States will spend 1,800 percent more on Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) medications by 2016 than it did last year. This is largely attributed to new Hepatitis C cure with Sovaldi of Gilead, priced at Rs 61,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet with a three-month course costing around Rs. Million 5.10 (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a pill.

In a Press Release, Express Scripts stated, “Never before has a drug been priced this high to treat a patient population this large, and the resulting costs will be unsustainable for our country…The burden will fall upon individual patients, state and federal governments, and payers who will have to balance access and affordability in a way they never have had to before.”

The magnitude of impact – an example:

According to another report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid of the US, the cost to treat all Americans, who have hepatitis C, with Sovaldi would cost US$227 billion, whereas it currently costs America US$260 billion a year for all drugs bought in the country. According to Express Scripts, no major therapy class has experienced such a hefty increase in spending over the last 21 years.

This gives us a feel of the net impact of the evolving new aggressive drug pricing strategy on the lives of the patients and payers of one of the richest nations of the world.

Three critical parts of the evolving pricing strategy:

In an era, when new drug pricing has come under great scrutiny of the stakeholders globally, this strategy seems to have three critical components as follows:

1. Strategy for the developed countries: Set the launch price as high as possible and generate maximum profit faster from wealthy minority who can afford to pay for the drug.

It helps establishing the base price of the product globally, despite all hue and cries, maintaining a very healthy top and bottom line business performance, amidst ‘Wall Street cheering’.

Implementing this strategy meticulously and with precision, Gilead has reportedly registered US$ 5.8 billion in sales for Sovaldi in the first half of 2014. That too, in the midst of huge global concerns on alleged ‘profiteering’ with an exorbitantly priced HCV drug.

At that time, the company noted on its earnings call that it believes 9,000 people have been cured of HCV so far with Sovaldi, which means that the 6-month turnover of Sovaldi of US$ 5.8 billion was generated just from the treatment of 9000 patients. If we take the total number of HCV infected patients at 150 million globally, this new drug benefited less than one percent of the total number of HCV patients, despite clocking a mind-boggling turnover and profit.

2. Strategy for the developing countries: Create a favorable optic for the stakeholders by lowering the drug price significantly, in percentage term from its base price, earning still a decent profit. However, in reality the discounted price would continue to remain high for a very large number of patients.

Gilead is now in the process of implementing this strategy for 80 developing countries. For these markets, it has already announced a minimum threshold price of US$ 300 a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost per patient would be about US$ 900 for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000.

If we convert the discounted treatment cost, it comes down to around Rs. 55,000 from the base price of around Rs. Million 5.10. This discounted price, which is significantly less than the base price of the drug, creates an extremely favorable optic. No one discusses how many Hepatitis C patients would be able to afford even Rs. 55,000, say for example in a country like India? Thus, setting a high base price in the developed market for a new drug could make many in the developing world perceive that the treatment cost of Rs. 55,000 is very reasonable for majority of not so privileged patients.

Under the second strategy, Gilead has targeted mostly the world’s poorest nations, but also included some middle income ones such as Egypt, which has by far the highest prevalence of HCV in the world.

A ‘Financial Times’ report, also states, “At the US price, Gilead will recoup its Sovaldi development investment . . . in a single year and then stand to make extraordinary profits off the backs of US consumers, who will subsidize the drug for other patients around the globe.”

If other global pharma companies also follow this differential strategy, one for the developed markets and the other for the developing markets, it could be a masterstroke for the Big Pharma. This would help address the criticism that its constituents are facing today for ‘obscene’ pricing of important new life saving drugs, as they target mostly the creamy layer of the society for business performance.

However, many in the United States are also articulating that they understand, the countries getting steep discounts from Gilead have high levels of poverty, but clearly points out that the disease affects lower-income patients in America, as well. To substantiate the point, they reiterate, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) about 150 million people worldwide have HCV, out of which around 2.7 million HCV diagnosed people live in the US. They highlight that currently even less than 25 percent of Americans with chronic HCV have had or are receiving treatment. In Europe, just 3.5 percent of patients of are being treated.

Thus, keeping in view of the increasing number of voices in the developed countries against abnormally high prices of the new drugs, the moot questions that come up are as follows:

Is Strategy 1 sustainable for the developed markets?
If not, would Strategy 2 for the developing market could ever be broader based?

3. Strategy for Voluntary License (VL) in those countries, where grant of product patent is doubtful.

Thanks to the Indian patent regime, global companies would possibly consider following this route for all those products that may not be able to pass the ‘Acid Test’ of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005. Gilead has followed this route for Sovaldi and before that for tenofovir (Viread).

In this context, it is worth noting that the Indian patent office has not recognized Sovaldi’s patent for the domestic market, just yet. Thus, following this strategy Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing knowhow and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

Accordingly, on September 15, 2014, international media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also reported that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Indian companies would require paying 7 per cent of their revenues as royalty to Gilead, which, in turn would ensure full technology transfer to them to produce both the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and finished formulations. The generic version of Sovaldi is likely to be available in India in the second or third quarter of 2015, at the earliest.

However, the final decision of the Indian Patent Office on the patent grant for Sovaldi holds the key to future success of similar high-voltage, seemingly benign, VL based game plan of the global pharma majors.

The new trend:

In April 2014, Merck and Co. announced that its two HCV drug candidates had a 98 percent cure rate in a mid-stage trial. In addition, AbbVie is also expected to launch a high-end hepatitis C drug within the next year. The prices for these drugs are yet to be announced.

However, a new report of October 2014 states that USFDA has approved this month a new drug named Harmony, a ledipasvir/sofosbuvir combo formulation, again from Gilead for curative treatment of chronic HCV genotype 1 infection in adults. Harmony, which is called the son of Sovaldi, would cost a hopping US$ 94,500 for a 12-week regimen, as against US$ 84,000 for Sovaldi.

Hence, I reckon, similar aggressive pricing strategy for new drugs would gain momentum in the coming years and at the same time.

Is this pricing model sustainable?

Though Gilead pricing model for patented drugs works out better than what is prevailing today in India, the question that comes up yet again, whether the new model is sustainable for various reasons as mentioned above or would it be followed by majority of the global drug innovators?

In a situation like this, what then could be a sustainable solution in India?

The desirable pathway:

A transparent government mechanism for patented drugs pricing, as followed by many countries in the world, would be quite meaningful in India. The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India could play a constructive role in this area, as already provided in the Drug Policy 2012 of the country.

This measure assumes greater urgency, as the astronomical prices of patented drugs, especially for life-threatening illnesses, such as cancer, have become a subject of great concern in India too, just as it has become a critical issue across the world.

DoP is in inactive mode:

It is not difficult to fathom that CL for all patented life-saving drugs would not be a sustainable measure for all time to come. Thus, the need for a robust mechanism of price negotiation for patented drugs was highlighted in the Drug Policy 2012.

The DoP first took up the issue for consideration in 2007 by forming a committee. After about six years from that date, the committee produced a contentious report, which had hardly any takers.

Today, despite the new government’s initiative to inject requisite energy within the bureaucracy, administrative lethargy and lack of sense of urgency still lingers with the DoP, impeding progress in this important subject any further.

Intense lobbying on this issue by vested interests from across the world has further pushed the envelope in the back burner. Recent report indicates, the envelope has since been retrieved for a fresh look with fresh eyes, as a new minister is now on the saddle of the department.

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was also formed by the DoP under the chairmanship of one of its Joint Secretaries, to suggest a mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country. The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).

Unfortunately, nothing tangible has been made known to the stakeholders on this matter, just yet. I sincerely hope that the new government expedites the process now.

Three critical factors to consider:

While arriving at the patented products price in India, three critical factors should be made note of, as follows:

The discussion should start with the prices adjusted on the Purchasing Power Parity factor for India.
Any price must have a direct relationship with the per capita income of the population of the country.
Details of other public healthcare measures that the government would undertake, by increasing its healthcare spends as a percentage of GDP, should also be clearly articulated.

Conclusion:

The evolving and aggressive new product-pricing trend has three following clearly identifiable facets:

One, the base price of the drugs would be established at a very high level to help increase both the turnover and profit of the companies significantly and quickly. This measure would consequently make the drug bills of the developed world even more expensive, which could limit healthcare access wherever co-payment exists or the expenditures are Out of Pocket (OoP) in nature.

Two, against intense global criticism for aggressive drug pricing strategy, to create a favorable optic, the concerned companies would launch these products at a deep discount on the base price in the developing world. However, the net price would still remain high in absolute terms, considering per capita income in those countries.

Three, for many of these new products, Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents 2005 would place India at an advantage. Thus, in absence of evergreening type of product patents, to salvage the situation, many of these companies would prefer to offer Voluntary License (VL) to Indian generic manufacturers under specific terms and conditions. However, such VL may not have any potential value, if IPO refuses to grant patents to those products, which would fall under the above section. In that case, generic competition would further bring down the prices.

No doubt, the above pricing model for patented drugs works out better than what is prevailing today in India. However, the question that comes up, whether the new model is sustainable or would be followed by majority of the global drug innovators in the same way? Considering all these, it does not seem to be the most desirable situation. Moreover, the current patent regime is a deterrent mostly to evergreening of patents.

Thus, the Indian government should play a more specific and proactive role in this game by first putting in place and then effectively implementing a country specific mechanism to tame the spiraling patented drug prices in India, for the interest of patients.

The world has taken serious note of this fast evolving aggressive new drug-pricing trend, as different countries are in the process of addressing the issue in various country-specific ways. Unfortunately, the DoP still remains in a deep slumber, having failed once to half-heartedly put a clumsy mechanism in place to address the issue.

As India is now under a new political regime, let us sincerely hope, the new minister in charge succeeds to make it happen, sooner, reducing vulnerability of a vast majority of patients during many life threatening ailments and…of course, in tandem, ensuring justifiable profit margin for the innovator drug companies…the evolving aggressive new drug pricing trend notwithstanding.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: ABBvie

Big Pharma Fails Avoiding Drug Price ‘Control’? Even In The US? Why?

Being Eclectic – A Pharma Leadership Quality In The New Normal

Will ‘Patent Thicket’ Delay Biosimilar Drug Entry in India?

Is Criticizing Pharma Now Just A Fad?

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 Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs

A Great News! But…Would This ‘Golden Goose’ Lay Golden Eggs?

An Aggressive New Drug Pricing Trend: What It Means To India?