Tag Archives: action

India’s Drug Quality Concerns: Is Light At The End of The Tunnel In Sight Now?

Posted on by
Reply

A brief chronology of some recent events on issues pertaining to patient-health-safety with drugs, as captured below, would possibly generate a mixed feeling for many. This includes a serious concern about, especially generic drug quality safety standards in India, on the one hand, and a ray of hope in the tools available to patients to know more about drugs that they have been prescribed. In this article, I shall dwell on this area. My intent is to bring to the fore the vital point – Is the beginning of the end of a long dark tunnel in sight now?

 A chronology of some recent events:

As reported on July 16, 2023, while talking on the subject, “Pharmaceutical Quality — What are we missing?”, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) made a notable comment. He, reportedly, said that the poor quality of drugs exported from India to foreign countries had tarnished the image of the country in the international market. The DCGI further added, pharmaceutical quality has become a subject of discussion on the global platform and the international community has started doubting whether India is capable of making quality pharmaceuticals for the global population.

He underscored, “We boast of our country as the pharmacy of the world, but it seems that it is too difficult to maintain the top position for long. If the position is lost, it will be painful and difficult to restore the faith of the international community. Further, we will lose the opportunity to serve the whole humanity of the world. The responsibility of the loss will not only fall on the manufacturers, but equally on all the stakeholders.”

Alongside, a news report on August 01, 2023, brings some hope in this regard, which I shall elaborate in course of this deliberation.  

A long saga of events: 

Yes, as it appears from the following backdrop:

Over the last several decades, there have been many instances where international drug regulators, including the U.S. FDA, expressed concerns about the quality standards of Indian manufactured drugs. These concerns have generally been related to specific manufacturing facilities – ranging from top domestic manufacturers to smaller ones, raising an uncomfortable apprehension – does India produce ’World-Class’ medicines, for all? 

About a decade ago, one of the most well-known cases was in 2013 when the U.S. FDA issued an import alert on products from the Ranbaxy Laboratories facility in India due to data integrity and manufacturing quality issues. This led to significant scrutiny of other Indian pharmaceutical companies as well. Issues related to data integrity, product quality, and good manufacturing practices lead to inspections, warning letters, import alerts, or other regulatory measures.

It continued. For example, around that time, even Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, one of India’s largest pharmaceutical companies, received a warning letter from the U.S. FDA in 2015 (Source: U.S. FDA). Similarly, Wockhardt, another top Indian pharmaceutical company, faced regulatory scrutiny in 2013 when the U.S. FDA issued an import alert and seized products manufactured at their facility in India. The FDA raised concerns about violations of good manufacturing practices and data integrity issues at the facility. This led to recalls of several products and affected the company’s reputation. (Source: Reuters).

As the juggernaut kept moving, on  December 08, 2016, I wrote in this blog, “Even Smaller Countries Now Question Indian Drug Quality Standard.” On March 04, 2023, the Mint reported, “Death of children in Gambia linked to consumption of India made cough syrups, as the US CDC report states.”  

As I write, the veracity of impact of such incidences remains as serious, if not more, although instances seem to be much fewer. For instance, as reported by Reuters on August 01, 2023: “India has directed Riemann Labs, a manufacturer linked to cough syrup deaths in Cameroon, to stop manufacturing activities, the country’s health ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.”

Thus, On May 27, 2019, I again wrote about: “Drug Quality Imbroglio And ‘Culture of Bending Rules’ in India” in this blog– and that was not the first time I flagged this menace in the country against patient safety.

Even big Indian pharma continued to be struggling with GMP issues:

Big Indian pharma companies are also involved in issues related to lapses in high drug quality standards even recently. Such as, even in 2021, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, received a warning letter from the U.S. FDA after an inspection of their manufacturing facility in India. The letter cited violations of good manufacturing practices, data integrity issues, and inadequate investigations of product complaints. Source: The Economic Times). Just a year before, in 2020, the U.S. FDA noted several observations related to good manufacturing practices and quality control. (Source: Moneycontrol).

Drug regulators fight the fire as and when it comes up:

Both the state drug regulators and the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) fight the fire at the respective manufacturing locations, as and when these come up. No significant actions on the ground for patient safety against such drugs were visible on the ground.  

For example, as reported on August 03, 2023: “Following recent incidents of several countries reporting deaths allegedly linked to “contaminated” India-manufactured drugs, the government has set a deadline for mandatory implementation of the Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) which were revised in 2018, bringing them on par with World Health Organization (WHO) standards.”

The government ponders making technological interventions for patients:

There are early signs of the government trying to embrace technology for patients’ safety. For example on November 17, 2022, the Union Health Ministry released a gazette notification no 823Eimplementing the Drugs (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 2022, making it mandatory for pharmaceutical companies to affix a QR code on the pack of top 300 formulations from August 1, 2023. A QR code, as reported, will contain the unique product identification code, generic name of the drug, brand name, name and address of the manufacturer, batch number, date of manufacture, expiry date and manufacturing license number.

This was part of the Ministry’s ‘track and trace’ mechanism, and of course, an intent at that time. However, a specific timeline for implantation has now been clearly enunciated.

This time it’s a two-pronged action:

For the first time, I think, a two-pronged action has been announced by the government – an enabling action for patients on the one hand against a strong punitive measure for the errant drug manufacturers on the other:

According to the above gazette notification of the Union Ministry of Health, on August 01, 2023, the central government announced stricter regulations for drug authentication and transparency by imposing mandatory QR codes on drugs. This will be effective from the same day. Patients will now be able to check the QR code on their medicines to ensure their authenticity. 

On August 03, 2023, the government set a deadline for adopting WHO-standard good manufacturing practices for drug manufacturers. Companies with a turnover of over Rs 250 crore will have to implement the revised GMP within six months, while medium and small-scale enterprises with turnover of less than Rs 250 crore will have to implement it within a year. 

Conclusion:

Besides all important patient safety, there are, at least, three other important factors for manufacturing high quality drugs for all and on an ongoing basis, sans lapses, as below:

  • Patients’ trust in the healthcare system relies on the availability of reliable medication. When patients have confidence in the drugs they are prescribed, they are more likely to comply with treatment regimens, leading to better health outcomes. 
  • A strong pharmaceutical sector that focuses on safe and effective drugs can foster economic growth by generating revenue, creating jobs, and attracting investments. It can also stimulate research and development efforts.
  • A reputation for producing quality drugs can boost India’s position as a global leader in pharmaceuticals, attracting international collaborations and partnerships.

Which is why, from the entire perspective, as above, amid India’s drug quality concerns, I reckon, one may still tend to wonder now – Is a light in sight now at the end of the dark and long tunnel? 

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.

 

New ‘Patient Compensation’ Norms on Clinical Trials in India: Overdue Action, Sharp Reaction and Ethical Issues

Posted on by
Reply

Responding to the damning stricture made by the Supreme Court on January 3, 2013, the Ministry of Health, as expected, by a gazette notification of January 30, 2013 has made the norms of compensation to patients participating in Clinical Trials (CT) more stringent.

‘Patient Compensation’ will now include injury or death, even if those are not related to the drugs being tested in the CT.

It is worth mentioning that these guidelines have been reportedly worked out after due consideration of around 300 comments received from the stakeholders on the draft proposal circulated by the Ministry of Health in July 2011, couple of rounds of discussion with the members of the civil society, expert groups and against reported ‘stiff opposition from the drug companies’.

Just a day after, on February 1, 2013, the Ministry of Health also notified final regulations on the conditions under which CT sites will be authorized by the local licensing and the inspection authorities of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO).

Key features of the new Government ‘Action’ on patient compensation:

Following are the key features in the new norms for patient compensation:

1. The sponsors of CTs will now be liable for injuries or deaths, which will take place during the course of a clinical trial and will be required to pay compensation to the patients or their families.

2. The investigator of the CT must inform the concerned pharmaceutical company, the Clinical Research Organization (CRO) and the Ethics Committee regarding injury or death during CT within 24 hours.

3. It will be mandatory for all CT Ethics Committees to be pre-registered with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), unlike the old system where this was not required and trial sponsors reportedly could staff the committee.

4. The pharmaceutical companies and the CROs will get 10 days time to submit a detailed report on related serious adverse event to the Ethics Committee, which in turn will get another 10 to 11 days to convey its evaluation on compensation to be paid to the independent expert committee. The Expert Panel will then advise the DCGI of an appropriate financial compensation within 30 days from the date of receiving the above report.

5. It will no longer require inclusion of specific amount of compensation for injury or death in the informed consent form and does not refer to insurance coverage for potential liability.

6. It requires the sponsors of CTs to provide the trial subject with free “medical management” for as long as it will require.

Will make CT more expensive in India:

Clinical Trials (CT), as we know, are of critical importance for obtaining marketing approval of any new drug and at the same time forms a major cost component in the new drug development process, across the world.

Any savings in this area, both in terms of time and money, will add significantly to the profit margin of the product. In that context the above notification will now make CT more expensive in India.

Sharp ‘reaction’ of CT related industry:

Understandably, reacting to this notification, some Clinical Research Organizations have expressed concerns in areas like:

  1. Lack of distinction between study-related injuries and non-study related injuries
  2. The use of placebos in placebo-controlled trials,
  3. Lack of any arbitration mechanism in case of disagreement on causality/quantum of compensation and the lack of clarity on who constitutes the Expert Committee and its composition.

Some other Experts related CT industry do highlight a few more troubling issues in the notification, as follows:

1. Compensation to be paid for ‘failure of an investigational product to provide intended therapeutic effect.’ This, they expressed, is intriguing as the very nature of a CT is to ascertain whether the investigational drug is efficacious or not.

2. If compensation is not paid as required, a sponsor or CRO may be banned from conducting any further trials in the country. This, they feel, provision could make India a challenging place to conduct CT.

3. There should also be clarity on the formula to determine compensation, the process for determining a compensation amount, and how an appeal process would work.

The bottom-line is, due to this new policy on ‘Patient Compensation’ CT expenses may go up considerably in India.

Other expert views:

On the other hand, some other experts opined to the International Weekly Journal on Science – ‘nature’ as follows:

“These reforms should go further to restore public confidence and the Indian government should establish special courts to deal quickly with allegations of medical misconduct, such as not fully disclosing to participants the risks involved in a clinical trial”.

Global concern on ethical issues with ‘Placebo Controlled’ studies:

In this context, though issues related to ‘Placebo Controlled’ trials have been raised by the CT related industry in India, very interestingly a paper of Research Administration of the University of California on the ethical issues with ‘Placebo Controlled’ studies’ clearly articulates that the use of a placebo in clinical research has remained a contentious issue in the medical community since long.

Some strongly argue that use of placebos is often unethical because alternative study designs would produce similar results with less risk to individual research participants. Others argue that the use of placebos is essential to protect society from the harm that could result from the widespread use of ineffective medical treatment.

However, as per the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) guidebook, “Placebos may be used in clinical trials where there is no known or available (i.e. US-FDA-approved) alternative therapy that can be tolerated by subjects.”

This issue also needs to be deliberated and effectively addressed by the Indian drug regulator in the debate of patient compensation for ‘placebo controlled trials’.

A perspective on CT in India:

Interestingly, in this critical area India is fast evolving as a major hub. This is vindicated by a study conducted by Ernst & Young and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (FICCI), which states that India now participates in over 7 per cent of all global phase III and 3.2 per cent of all global phase II trials. The key points of attraction of the global players, so far as India is concerned, were reported as follows:

1. Cost of Clinical Trial (CL) is significantly less in India than most other countries of the world

2. Huge patient pool with different disease pattern and demographic profile

3. Easy to enroll volunteers, as it is easy to persuade poor and less educated people as ‘willing’ participants.

Such opportunities, experts believe, should have ideally made the clinical research industry to demonstrate greater responsibility to ensure that patients’ safety needs are adequately taken care of. Unfortunately, despite such expectations, some important areas like ‘patient compensation’ have still remained blatantly neglected.

It has now come to light with the help of ‘Right To Information (RTI)’ query that more than 2,000 people in India died as a result of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) caused during drug trials from 2008-2011 and only 22 of such cases, which is just around 1 percent, received any compensation. That too was with a meager average sum of around US$ 4,800 per family.

It has been widely reported that pharmaceutical companies often blame deaths that occur during trials on a person’s pre-existing medical condition and not related to CT.

DCGI had hauled-up 9 companies for blatant negligence:

According to another report quoting the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), 25 people died in clinical trials conducted by nine pharmaceutical companies, in 2010. Unfortunately, families of just five of these victims received” compensation for trial related death, which ranged from Rs 1.5 lakh (US$ 3000) to Rs 3 lakh (US$ 6000).

This report also highlighted that arising out of this critical negligence, for the first time ever, the then DCGI was compelled to summon these nine pharmaceutical companies on June 6, 2011 to question them on this issue and with a clear directive to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to clinical trial by June 20, 2011, or else all other CTs of these nine companies, which were ongoing at that time or yet to start, will not be allowed.

The report also indicates that after this ultimatum all the nine companies as mentioned therein had paid the compensation to the families of the patients who had died related to the CT.

Long exploitation of the fragile CT regulations in India:

For all these reasons, the subject of CT in India has created a huge ruckus, mainly for wide spread alleged malpractices, abuse and misuse of fragile CT regulations of the country by some players in this field. The issue is not just of GCP or other CT related standards but more of ethical mind-set and reported rampant exploitation of uninformed patients, especially in case of trial related injuries or even death.

The Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an article titled, “Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns” reported as follows:

“Drug companies are drawn to India for several reasons, including a technically competent workforce, patient availability, low costs and a friendly drug-control system. While good news for India’s economy, the booming clinical trial industry is raising concerns because of a lack of regulation of private trials and the uneven application of requirements for informed consent and proper ethics review.”

“Pharmaceutical industry seeks to run studies in countries with lower costs”:

There seems to be nothing basically wrong in this approach per se. However, a recent report does highlight as follows:

“Clinical trials conducted by global drug makers and their proxies have generated increased scrutiny in recent years as the pharmaceutical industry seeks to run studies in countries with lower costs and populations where patients are not exposed to as many medications that can confound results. India has been a prime example”.

A lesson to learn by the Indian Drug Regulator:

It is worth noting that US-FDA in a communication meant for the consumers has stated as follows:

“The Food and Drug Administration’s job is to make sure medical treatments are safe and effective for people to use. FDA staff members meet with researchers, and perform inspections of clinical trial study sites to protect the rights of participants and to verify the quality and integrity of the data.”

The above approach seems to be drastically missing with the drug regulator in India as on date.

Conclusion:

Over a long period of time, a blatant negligence on reasonable care and financial compensation was allowed to continue by the Drug Regulator and the sponsors alike on the CTs conducted in India. A perceptible intent of justice to the patients, with the enforcement of stricter compensation laws and regulations for CT though belated, could dramatically change the CT scenario in India for the better in the years ahead.

In the fine balance of national priority for this area, patients’ safety and interest, I reckon, should always weigh more than the possibility of increase in the costs of CT in India. Thus,  the new norms of Patient Compensation indeed bring with it a breath of fresh air for the concerned stakeholders.

That said, the lose knots in some areas of the new norms, as discussed above, must be properly addressed and adequately tightened for greater clarity of the CT process, for all concerned.

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.

Concerted action by all stakeholders on counterfeit medicines is the need of the hour.

Posted on by
Reply
The concern of some section of the stakeholders that IPR is being extended to the definition of counterfeit medicines, in my view, is misplaced. As even in India, ‘misbranding’ though an integral part of IPR, is considered as a public health issue and is an offence under Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts, 1940.Currently, the magnitude of this problem is anybody’s guess. Earlier a study sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and conducted by SEARPharm reported that only 0.3% drugs were spurious and 3% of drugs were counterfeits. To scientifically assess the magnitude of this problem the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) India, for the first time ever, has initiated a study with 61 popular brands from nine therapeutic categories for testing 24000 samples. The study is expected to cost Rs.50 million and is expected to be published, soon.However, on the above study, Pharmabiz dated August 26, 2009 has reported the following:

“The Union Health Ministry’s ambitious nationwide survey to get an authentic estimate of spurious drugs in the country found no significant amount of spurious drugs in the pharmaceutical market. Among the 24,000 samples collected by the government for the survey, only around 10 were found to be spurious, it is reliably learnt.”

India being a part of ‘International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce’ (IMPACT), established under WHO in 2006, decided to work together to combat the growing menace of counterfeit medicines. The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) was reported to have several discussions with the convenor of the IMPACT to effectively address the issue.

A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits. In South East Asia, estimated prevalence of counterfeit Artesunate for malaria is 33-53%.

It appears that in all those countries where access to modern medicines is poor, incidences of counterfeit medicines, ranging from anti-malarial, anti-hypertensive, anti-tubercular, anti-retroviral to cardiovascular and other life saving and life style drugs, are higher.

Apprehensions from some section of the generic pharmaceutical industry that attempts are being made by the interested groups to bring generic drugs under the purview of counterfeit medicines, is unfounded. Why should there be any such threat at all, when the world is witnessing the global pharmaceutical companies scaling up their generic business operations?

Incidence like recent detention in transit of DRL shipment of the generic version of Losartan in the Netherlands or a consignment of Amoxicillin at the Frankfurt airport on the ground of patent infringement cannot be considered as attempts of MNCs to brand Indian generic pharmaceuticals as counterfeit medicines. These drugs violated valid patents held in those countries prompting the local authorities to enforce the law of the land by detaining those consignments. India also has been detaining similar consignments for Nepal whenever those transit consignments violated the intellectual property laws of India. It will, therefore, be not fair to expect Netherlands or Germany to follow a different set of rules for goods in transit, when Indian law itself defines ‘imports’ covering goods in ‘transit’. Thus Government of India should take up this issue on a bilateral platform with the European Union (EU) for a desirable resolution to the problem. Meanwhile, to ensure that pharmaceuticals exports from India do not get adversely affected, Indian pharmaceutical exporters should ensure, till such issues are bilaterally resolved, that their export consignments for third countries transit through non EU routes.

Further, the incidence of fake drugs seized recently with made in India label and originating from China is indeed a fraudulent and criminal action of some irresponsible people who bring disgrace to humanity. Such incidences must be strongly condemned and be taken up by the Government India with the Chinese authorities effectively, to stop recurrence of such criminal activities in future.

The sales of counterfeit medicines across the world as estimated by the ‘Centre for Medicine in Public Interest’ will reach US$75 billion by end of 2010. This is an increase of over 90% as compared to 2005. A report from the WHO’s Executive Board in its 124th session indicated that the detection of counterfeit medicines in 2007 had increased to more than 1,500. This reflects an increase of around 20% over 2006 and ten times more compared to year 2000.

WHO indicated that in 2005-06 the volume of counterfeit drug seizures included 2.7 million articles and the main countries where these articles originated from India: 31%, UAE: 31% and China: 20%.

Enough data are available to establish that counterfeit drugs are posing a growing menace to the humanity. All stakeholders should join hands to address this public health issue, leaving aside petty commercial interests, be it generic pharmaceutical companies or research based pharmaceutical companies, across the world and India is no exception. Otherwise, thugs and criminals who are involved in this illicit trade of manufacturing and distributing counterfeit medicines at the cost of the innocent patients, will keep remaing almost scot free, forever.

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