Shifting Pharma Supply Chain Strategy From Global To Local

Posted on June 8, 2020 by Tapan Ray

Alongside large-scale disruptions of many critical industrial operations, Covid-19 global pandemic took the wind out of the sail of pharma supply chain, as well, at the very onset of lockdowns. This happened in many countries around the world, including the largest global pharma market – the United States, and also in ‘the pharmacy of the world’ – India.

That there were such disruptions in India, both in procurement and logistics, during the national lockdown, was widely reported in the media. Besides product non-availability, cost of goods also went up significantly in several cases.

From this perspective, I shall deliberate in this article, how different countries are contemplating to respond to any similar crisis in the future, primarily to safeguard patients’ health interest, despite some opposition, though. To drive home the points, I shall cite examples from India and the United States, as specified above.

Supply Chain vulnerability of the ‘largest pharma market of the world’:

There are several examples to vindicate such vulnerability, both for the US and also India. From the US perspective, the country’s supply of generic and branded medicines are, reportedly, heavily rely on emerging markets, like India and China.

This point has now ‘come under close scrutiny of the American policy makers, as COVID-19 sends shockwaves through the industry. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, China and India represent 31 percent of the plants that are registered with the US to supply Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), as of August 2019. The details are as hereunder:

Place	United States	European Union	India	China	Rest of the world	Canada
%	28	26	18	13	13	2

It is worth noting, the number of facilities in China supplying APIs has, reportedly, more than doubled since 2010 – to 13 percent of all those serving the US market.

Examples from India:

The outbreak of Coronavirus had just not shut factories in China - impacting supplies and leading to fears of a shortage of drugs and medicines. It happened in India, too. Several critical supply chain issues were reported during this period. For example, a major Indian drug manufacturing hub - Baddi,reportedly, was either shut down or operated with reduced capacity, since COVID-19 pandemic related national lockdown.

Its impact also got captured by the twitter handle of the former USFDA Commissioner – Scott Gottlieb. He twitted, “Drug supply chain at risk as Asia’s largest pharmaceutical manufacturing hub in Baddi (an industrial town in southwestern Solan district of Himachal Pradesh, India) is declared a #COVID19 containment zone – forcing many pharma units to slow or stop operations.”

Supply Chain vulnerability of the ‘pharmacy of the world’:

Supply Chain vulnerability related to the domestic issues in India, can possibly be sorted out by the country’s decision-making authorities. However, the country’s vulnerability arising out of the reasons originating in the other countries, needs a greater priority focus of the nation.

As is widely known – India caters to about 20 percent of the world’s generic drug supply. However, according to Bloomberg, 70 percent of the country’s imports of APIs come from China, ‘totaling US$ 2.4 billion of India’s US$ 3.56 billion in import spending for those products each year.

Consequently, ‘pharma companies in the country are dependent on China for two-thirds of the chemical components needed to make them.’ Exposures of such nature are now coming on to the center table – mostly triggered by Covid-19 pandemic, both in India, as well as in the United States.

India is reevaluating its import dependence from China:

To illustrate this point, let me begin with some related recent developments. While reevaluating the import dependence, India has taken both immediate and medium to long term measures – at the policy level.

The immediate reaction of India to Covid-19 outbreak, was to shift focus on local with restricted export of common medicines, such as paracetamol and 25 other pharmaceutical ingredients and drugs made from China. Curiously, prior to the national lockdown, on March 17, 2020 by a written reply the Government had informed the Indian Parliament about the import of APIs /drugs and the extent of the country’s dependence on China for the same.

Be that as it may, to protect the local interest, the above ban was followed by another export ban of the age-old malarial drug - hydroxychloroquine, ‘touted by President Trump as a possible weapon in the fight against Covid-19,’ but has been in short supply, globally. Interestingly, India produces around 47 percent of the U.S. supply of hydroxychloroquine. Thus, understandably, Indian Government had to partially lift this ban after the U.S. President Donald Trump sought supplies for the United States.

For medium longer-term measures, while announcing a ₹20 lakh crore stimulus package, Prime Minister Narendra Modi articulated that Covid-19 pandemic had taught India to ramp up domestic production and create supply chains to meet internal demands. Earlier, for safeguarding ‘national healthcare security’, the Government had allocated US$ 1.2 billion for the pharma industry to be self-reliant, by reducing its import dependence, especially for APIs. The government also wants to finance the construction of three bulk drugs with an investment of ₹300 Crores.

The United States is reevaluating import dependence from one region:

The Fierce Pharma article of June 03, 2020 also reported a shifting focus of supply chain from global to local, as the United States seeks to ‘onshore’ drug production, with the fallout of Covid-19 pandemic looming large on its drug supply chain.

U.S. legislators have argued that ‘U.S. reliance on drugs made or sourced outside the country has created a security issue that could be addressed by erecting parallel supply chains stateside and eliminating reliance on potential bad actors abroad.’ Accordingly, they have put forward ‘a raft of legislation’ that would seek to “onshore” drug manufacturing at the expense of major producers abroad.

Its biggest obstacle could be the pharma industry and its lobbyists:

Nevertheless, the same article also underscores that the biggest obstacle to that plan could be the pharmaceutical industry and its lobbyists on Capitol Hill. This is because, PhRMA - the industry’s biggest lobbying group, has pushed back against Congressional support for a supply chain shake-up. It said, “Policymakers must take a long-term, more holistic look at global pharmaceutical manufacturing supply chains before jumping to rash proposals that may cause significant disruptions to the U.S. supply of medicines.”

Will it happen in India?

My article, published in this blog on February 03, 2020, also focused on this issue. There I had emphasized, about five years back - the Government of India had also announced on February 25, 2015 – terming ‘2015 – Year of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients’ (API). This came after ascertaining that over-dependence on imports of bulk drugs or API, especially from China, is detrimental to India’s health interest. This decision was also in sync with the freshly announced, and well-publicized government objective regarding ‘Make in India’, I wrote.

Two years down the line from the above date, on July 15, 2017, eHEALTH publication also deliberated on this issue in an article – ‘Why over dependence on APIs imported from China is harmful for India?’ However, not much change has been witnessed till date, in this regard. The same vow is now being taken afresh. Nonetheless, let me hasten to add, Covid-19 has changed the life of all – in several respects. Thus, no one can possibly vouch with a high degree of certainty what can happen hereafter, as we move on.

Conclusion:

As the ‘Lockdown. 05’ or ‘Unlock down. 01’ begins in India – the ‘pharmacy of the world, as on June 02, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country reached 247,040 with 6,946 deaths. India is now racing ahead with its number Covid-19 cases, surpassing Italy and Spain, occupying the global fifth rank, in this regard. Whereas, the top ranked pharma market in the world – the United States, where Covid-19 struck hard before India, recorded 1,988,545 cases with 112,096 deaths, on the same day.

Thus, the need to have a fresh look at the strategic design of pharma supply chain is being felt in both these countries. The requirement for becoming less global and more local is attracting a priority focus of Governments in both countries. With an increasing State-push for safeguarding the health security of the country, the need to reshape pharma supply chain – call it transient or otherwise, is now more palpable than ever before.

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.

Criticality of Drug Quality In The Moment Of Truth

Posted on February 10, 2020 by Tapan Ray

When global health emergencies strike unannounced – in the scale and magnitude of new coronavirus, it shakes the health care system of all countries, in varying degree though, irrespective of the robustness of the economy. In such situation, the robustness of health care infrastructure, stringent manufacturing quality standards, operational flexibility for seamless sourcing of all drug ingredients in the required quantities, besides speed and agility of the delivery system – are put to the acid test.

Anytime readiness to effectively neutralize this crisis is of utmost importance. Accordingly, the key national goal should be to create a robust ‘whole’ that is much more than the sum total of each of each of the above factors – a sturdy ‘drug security system’ for the country. The most populous country of the world – China may have succeeded in building a 1,600-bed hospital coronavirus hospital in just 10 days, completing on February 05, 20120. But it is still looking for necessary drugs from other countries, such as the United States.

Curiously, China hasn’t yet disclosed its reason. More so, when the country is the top global supplier of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), including antiretroviral (ARV) drugs, along with India, according to the World Health Organization (W.H.O). This draws many to look at the general apprehension on the questionable quality of drugs that China, allegedly, produces. But, could this be the reason?

Nevertheless, regardless of inquisitiveness to know the reason, the question mark on its drug quality remains. And this is also not the risk-taking time for any nation, as it could possibly endanger lives of scores of the impacted population. The criticality of drug quality in ‘The Moment of Truth,’ such as, the new coronavirus emergency, can only be wished away at one’s own peril.

On the other hand, the confidence expressed in India, as we shall see below, in ‘drug security’, just based on adequate ARV drug availability appears to be coming from a different plane, although the drug quality issue is exactly the same in India, if not more concerning. From the above perspective, my today’s article will focus on this subject, purely based on available data, starting with the request of the Chinese authorities for ARV drugs from the United States.

Chinese request for ARV drugs:

‘U.S. Drugmakers Ship Therapies to China, Seeking to Treat Coronavirus – AbbVie, Gilead, others respond to Chinese authorities’ requests for antiviral drugs to test effectiveness against deadly respiratory illness.’ This was reported by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on January 27, 2020. It goes without saying that these antiviral drugs also include Anti-Retrovirals (ARVs).

AbbVie Inc. and Johnson & Johnson are among the drug makers that have begun shipping drugs approved to treat HIV, while Gilead Sciences Inc. is exploring whether it should send an antiviral therapy it is developing.

It isn’t known whether the drugs would be able to help contain the explosion of respiratory virus infections sweeping the country or provide relief to infected patients. Chinese authorities have requested the shipments to test the drugs’ effectiveness in containing the new coronavirus, the report added.

An intriguing difference between India and China:

Interestingly, China is looking for sourcing some of these ARV drugs from the United States and not from India, either – one of the top producers of these drugs, as W.H.O reported.

In contrast, according to an Indian report of February 04, 2020: ‘Leading domestic drug companies have said they are ready with supply of anti-retrovirals (ARVs) that seem to work in treating the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).’

As I said earlier, although, China hasn’t yet specified the reasons behind their decision on ARV drug import from the United States, but could it have any link on the internal general apprehension of these drugs quality, safety and effectiveness?

Acknowledging for a moment that this is global allegation on Chinese drugs, in general. So is regarding India, as we shall see below. Then where does India stand on this score, especially in view of the confidence with ARV drugs, as exhibited in the above media report from India? That said, the logical question that surfaces now – why is the request for ARV drugs?

Why ARV drugs?

Although W.H.O said that there is ‘No known effective treatments’ for new coronavirus, as yet, various reports do indicate the use of ARV drugs in the treatment of 2019-nCoV:

A combination of flu and HIV medications are helping treat severe cases of the new coronavirus in Thailand.

Chinese health officials are already administering the HIV and flu drugs to fight the coronavirus, but the combination of the three together in a cocktail seemed to improve the treatment.

The Scientist, on February 02, 2020 reported that large doses of the flu drug oseltamivir combined with HIV drugs lopinavir and ritonavir, reportedly, improved the conditions of several patients in Bangkok, Thailand.

Global dependence on Chinese and Indian generic drugs:

About 80 percent of the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), including many ARVs, which are used for manufacturing of drug formulations in the United States are said to come from China and other countries like India. This appeared in the article titled, ‘U.S. Dependence on Pharmaceutical Products From China,’ published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on August 14, 2019.

India’s dependence on Chinese APIs:

Latest statistics from Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics tabled in the Parliament show that in 2017-18, Indian imports of APIs and drug intermediates from China increased to 68.36 per cent. The same at 67.56 per cent in 2018-19, still remained the largest share in total Indian imports, with the overall India’s dependence on imports going up by 23 per cent from 2016-17 to 2018-19.

As reported in the media on November 22, 2019, India’s national strategies, such as, “2015 – Year of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients” or ‘Make in India’ campaign, to promote indigenous means of production continue to be relegated on paper. Even, the current National Security Advisor had warned that Chinese dependence on API can be a national security threat.

According to the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), Chinese API imports are due to economic considerations, which are essentially cheaper and more cost-effective for the Indian drug manufacturers, the above report highlighted.

Against this backdrop, the above local media report indicating, leading domestic drug companies are ready to supply anti-retrovirals (ARVs), may invite more questions than answers. Added to this come the critical quality issues with drugs manufactured in China and India.

Quality issues with Chinese drugs:

Credible documents highlight, as China’s pharmaceutical industry is not effectively regulated by the Chinese government, its regulatory apparatus is inadequately resourced to oversee thousands of Chinese drug manufacturers. Even if Beijing made such oversight a greater priority. This has resulted in significant drug safety scandals.

Although, the drug quality related concerns seem to be even more related to India, the drug industry of the country, reportedly, remains in a denial over most of such charges involving drug-quality.

India tops with the most quality related FDA warning letters in 2019:

The author of the above article reiterates, ‘Americans are expecting India, which supplies a significant percentage of the finished drug supply in the U.S., to get its act together to improve the quality of the medicines it makes, I am afraid they will be waiting a long time for that to happen. The only solution is for American lawmakers to enact new regulations focused on holding those who intentionally put public health at risk to account.’

To avoid ‘your-opinion-versus-my-opinion’ type of a debate with this article, let us look at some hard facts. These are from the ‘warning letters’ on drug quality, issued to various pharma companies, across the world, by the USFDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). The details were well captured in an article, titled ‘The country with the most FDA warning letters in 2019,’ published by Pharma Manufacturing on January 20, 2020.

Some key CDER findings:

As I consider, the top three CDER findings may be summarized as follows:

In 2019, CDER issued dozens warning letters for manufacturing issues to pharma companies outside the U.S. One country in particular – India – received the highest number of letters.

CDER’s office of Manufacturing Quality Letters issued 43 letters to companies outside of the U.S. Of those letters:

- 20 were aimed at facilities in India.

- With 11, China received the second most manufacturing quality warning letters.

- The rest of the letters were distributed among plants in Europe, Costa Rica, Singapore, Turkey and others.

The data from CDER shows that India has the poorest rate of FDA inspections with acceptable outcomes (83 percent) — much lower than China (90 percent) and the U.S. (93 percent).

Conclusion:

Today, a host of effective drugs and vaccines are available to treat a number of both non-infectious and infectious ailments, including many life-threatening viral diseases. However, the effectiveness of these medicines in treating such diseases, as well as many other illnesses, gets significantly compromised by questionable quality and distribution of these medicinal products. Even way back, a similar concern was deliberated in an article captioned, ‘Substandard drugs: a potential crisis for public health’, published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (BJCP), on November 29, 2013..

It may ordinarily remain undetected, sans stringent and wide-scale regulatory scrutiny. Additionally, a number of involved countries still remain in a denial mode. It’s also a fact, several governments may not have wherewithal for the same, particularly when the manufacturing units are too many, such as in China and India.

However, when a critical national health emergency strikes, unannounced, like the new coronavirus, the moment of truth dawns. Obviously, the national governments would want to be risk averse and prefer sourcing the best of drugs, to rapidly contain the spread of the disease, saving more lives. It’s not difficult to fathom, either, any country is unlikely to admit this reality, in public, even while taking measures for the same.

China’s sourcing of ARV and other drugs from the United States may or may not be due to the drug quality reasons. Nonetheless, I reckon, the criticality of drug quality issues can possibly be best realized, mostly when the ‘Moment of Truth’ arrives. Unannounced! Just like a bolt from the blue!

By: Tapan J. Ray

Opioid Crisis: A Looming Threat To India?

Posted on September 16, 2019 by Tapan Ray

A serious, but a typical health crisis that has shaken America, is now, apparently, in search of its prey in India – a soft target to ignite a raging fire of misuse or abuse of prescription drugs of addictive in nature. That India could probably be the next victim of this menace, is now being widely discussed and reported in the international media, though not so much in India, itself.

The January 2019 communique of the National Institute of Drug Abuse spotlights: ‘Every day more than 130 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids.’ Whereas, in 2017, more than 47,000 Americans, among 1.7 million suffering people, died as a result of an Opioid overdose. Snowballing effect of Opioids addiction commenced over a couple of decades ago and includes – both prescription pain relievers and synthetic Opioids, such as fentanyl, among others.

The health menace of this humongous dimension is not only jeopardizing public health, but also impacting the social and economic welfare, work productivity, besides drug addiction related criminal behavior of an increasing number of addicts.

In this article, exploring the factors – that not just ignited, but fueled this fire, I shall try to explain why India could be a fertile ground for another opioid epidemic. The key intent is to thwart this menace without further delay, learning from the ‘Opioid crisis’ in the United States. Moving towards that direction, I begin with a brief description of the genesis of this crisis, primarily to ensure that all my readers are on the same page to feel the gravity of the situation.

The genesis of Opioid crisis:

The terms – ‘Opioid epidemic’ or ‘Opioid crisis’are generally referred to rapid increase in consumption of prescription and nonprescription Opioid drugs in America that began in the late 1990s. It is noteworthy, until the mid-1980s and early 1990s, physicians seldom prescribed opiates because of the fear of addicting patients. This was established in several studies, such as, the July-August 2016 Article, titled ‘Drug Company Compensated Physicians Role in Causing America’s Deadly Opioid Epidemic: When Will We Learn?’

In the ninety’s, as the above paper indicates, some “medical experts and thought leaders led by the neurologist and pain specialist Russell Portenoy, MD, proclaimed that the risks of addiction to Opioids were minimal and that not treating pain was cruel and even amounted to medical negligence.” Incidentally, Russell Portenoy was at that time known as the “King of Pain” and was the Chairman of Pain Medicine and Palliative Care at Beth Israel Hospital in New York.

The paper also articulated, “Portenoy and his acolytes wrote articles and gave lectures to physicians about the safety of narcotics. They repeatedly cited a study by Porter and Jick in ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ that stated that only one percent of patients treated with narcotics became addicted.” It is a different matter, as the authors indicated, the above trial was ‘not a controlled study at all. It consisted of a short 101-word one paragraph letter to the editor.’

Understandably, the rapid spread of Opioid use in America commenced on the following years. As The author highlighted: “To this day in most American hospitals, nurses on their daily rounds, ask patients to rate their pain on a scale of one to ten and then may administer a narcotic accordingly.”

HHS corroborates the fact:

In line with the finding of the above paper, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) traces the origin of the U.S. Opioid Epidemic in the late 1990s. When, asHHS also reiterated, ‘pharmaceutical companies reassured the medical community that patients would not become addicted to opioid pain relievers.’ Presumably, the general image of the pharma industry not being as questionable as today, ‘health care providers began to prescribe them at greater rates,’ – HHS further noted.

Thereafter, all hell broke loose, as it were.With increased prescriptions of Opioid medications, the widespread misuse of both prescription and non-prescription Opioids started taking its toll. Obviously, it happened as the prescribers were not as cautious and restrictive and concerned about prescribing Opioids because of their addictive nature, as they were before 1990s. It seems unlikely that astute medical practitioners won’t be able to fathom the devastating health impact of such highly addictive medications on the users.

America had to declare the Opioid crisis as public health emergency:

In 2017 HHS declared Opioid crisis as a public health emergency, announcing a strategy to combat this epidemic. Separately, in October 2017, President Trump also declared the same as the ‘worst drug crisis in U.S. history’.One can sense this Presidential level urgency from the recent report of The Washington Post. It emphasized - ‘America’s largest drug companies saturated the country with 76 billion oxycodone and hydrocodone pain pills from 2006 through 2012, as the nation’s deadliest drug epidemic spun out of control.’

The above information comes from a database maintained by the Drug Enforcement Administration that tracks the path of every single pain pill sold in the United States – from manufacturers and distributors to pharmacies in every town and city. The data would provide an unprecedented look at the surge of legal pain pills that fueled the Opioid epidemic, resulting in nearly 100,000 deaths from 2006 through 2012, as the article highlighted.

In view of this, and also looking at the chronology of the genesis of this crisis, it is worth exploring the role of pharma companies in triggering this health hazard in America.

The role of pharma companies in the crisis:

That there is, apparently, a role of some big pharma players in the Opioid crisis was widely reported by the international media. One such article titled, ‘Big Pharma Is Starting to Pay for the Opioid Crisis. Make Those Payments Count,’ was publishesby The New York Times, on August 28, 2019.

It said: ‘As innumerable court documents and investigations have shown, Opioid makers, including Purdue and Johnson & Johnson, routinely and knowingly misled the public about their products. They played down the risks of addiction, insisting that their drugs were safe and, if anything, underutilized. And they combated growing concerns with aggressive lobbying and public relations campaigns.’

The September 01, 2019 article titled – ‘America’s Opioid catastrophe has lessons for us all, about greed and racial division’, published in The Guardian went a step forward. Explaining the reason for the situation to attain a ‘crisis’ stage, it said, ‘big pharma saw huge profits in medicalizing the social stress of the white working class.’ Thus, the question that comes up, is there any strong and credible evidence to associate Opioid crisis with pharma marketing?

Association of Opioid crisis with pharma marketing:

Several reports point towards a possible pharma-doctor nexus for the Opioid crisis. One such evidence is provided by the same July-August 2016 Article, as quoted above. The paper said:‘Recently and belatedly, Portenoy has backtracked and admitted he was wrong about the addictive properties of Opioids.’ He was quoted in the article saying: “I gave innumerable lectures in the late 1980s and ‘90s about addiction that weren’t true.”

Another original investigation report in this regard, titled ‘‘Association of Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing of Opioid Products With Mortality From Opioid-Related Overdoses’, was published in JAMAon January 18, 2019. The paper concluded:‘In this study, across US counties, marketing of Opioid products to physicians was associated with increased Opioid prescribing and, subsequently, with elevated mortality from overdoses. Amid a national Opioid overdose crisis, reexamining the influence of the pharmaceutical industry may be warranted.’

The article also indicated: ‘Recent data suggest that when physicians receive Opioid marketing, they subsequently prescribe more Opioids.’ The researchers pointed out:‘Amid a worsening Opioid crisis, our results suggest that industry marketing to physicians may run counter to current efforts to curb excessive Opioid prescribing.’

Again, the same September 01, 2019 article, published in The Guardian, also stresses– ‘The relationship between big pharma and US doctors can only be described as corrupt.’ Quoting the official figures, it highlighted: ‘The total paid to doctors and hospitals by drug companies was more than $9bn. Unsurprisingly, the greater the payments, the more willing doctors were to prescribe Opioids.’

The India’s tryst with Opioid drugs:

As many would know, India has remained for a long time one of the largest Opioid medicine producers in the world. However, most of the country’s population had a restricted access to Opioid pain relief drugs.

This was because, the International Narcotics Control Board, established in 1968, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985 ‘codified the bureaucratic thicket for any doctor who wanted to prescribe opioid painkillers. Physicians feared fines, jail sentences and losing their medical license if they skirted regulations.’

The amendment came in 2014:

According to reports, the need for pain relief being “an important obligation of the government,” the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, was amended in 2014, creating a class of medicines called the “essential narcotic drugs.” The list of which includes, morphine, fentanyl, methadone, oxycodone, codeine and hydrocodone. Alongside, the conditions for bail in drug offenses will be relaxed and the mandatory death penalty for those previously convicted of certain offenses will be revoked.This is expected to create a better balance between narcotic drug control and the availability of Opioid drugs, for beneficial use of patients.

The flip side – a looming threat?

So far so good. Nevertheless, another article – ‘How big pharma is targeting India’s booming Opioid market,’ appeared in The Guardian on August 27, 2019, shows the flip side of this development. It says, as India loosens its stringent narcotics laws, ‘American pharmaceutical companies – architects of the Opioid crisis in the United States and avid hunters of new markets – stand at the ready to fuel that demand.’

Many are truly concerned about it, especially in a country like India, where any medicine can be procured over the counter, hoodwinking robust drug laws. Thus, as the above article adds, ‘a looming deluge of addictive painkillers terrifies some Indian medical professionals, who are keenly aware that despite government regulations most drugs are available for petty cash at local chemist shops.’

Providers of pain management are increasing, so also self-medication:

Today, ‘pain management’ as a specialty treatment, can be seen in many hospitals of the country. In tandem – apparently, ‘at the insistence of the professional societies that accredit hospitals in India, nurses and doctors are now encouraged to assess pain as a “fifth vital sign“, along with pulse, temperature, breathing and blood pressure.’ Besides, as The Guardian article of August 27, 2019 also noted, ‘General practitioners have started prescribing these drugs.’

Yet another important point to note, according to studies, one of the most common reasons for self-medication is for pain – 18.34 percent, where self-medication is done with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in 49.4 percent of cases. Keeping pace with this trend, most generic pharma companies are having pain management product in their brand portfolio, unlike a couple of decades ago.

Early signs of drug companies’ special marketing activities:

There are many examples. But I shall quote The Guardian article again to drive home this point. The paper talks about hints of ‘American pharma’s fingerprints’ in a glass cabinet in the waiting room of a famous clinic in Delhi. Some of these include ‘awards from Johnson & Johnson honoring the doctor for symposia on pain management; a plaque for “his valuable contribution as a speaker” about tapentadol, an Opioid marketed by Johnson & Johnson in 2009. The dispensing counter does a brisk business in Ultracet, branded tramadol tablets made by a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary.’

Alongside, another interesting point is peeps in – the drugs, which are now commonly prescribed for chronic pain were first approved for use by cancer patients. ‘One of the first formulations of fentanyl, for example, was a lollipop because chemotherapy left cancer patients too nauseated to eat. In India, pain physicians now prescribe fentanyl patches to patients with chronic muscular pain.’

Every year, more of such drugs are coming to market. Many chemists, hospitals and medical shops are also acquiring requisite licenses for keeping these drugs. Curiously, Opioids are available in not just oral, but injectable, patches and syrups – the article noted.

Conclusion:

There are many striking similarities between the developments that preceded the American Opioid crisis and the emerging scenario of the same in India. One such is, its onset in America was in the late 1990s, with the regulatory relaxation in introducing Opioid drugs. However, the first announcement of the full-blown crisis on the same, took a couple of decades to come.

In India, the regulatory relaxation for some Opioid drugs came in 2014, and now its 2019. Thus, it’s possibly too early to even track, in which direction it is moving. However, given the prevailing overall healthcare scenario in India, the concern remains palpable. The decision makers, hopefully, would consider putting in place effective checks and balances, taking a leaf from the American Opioid epidemic. The measures should include, among others, effective implementation of legal and regulatory provisions; making health care delivery systems robust and transparent; protecting vulnerable patients from rampant and irresponsible self-medication, besides promptly addressing general concerns with pharma marketing practices.

The whole process should be aimed at benefitting the deserving patients, suffering from excruciating pain, while minimizing Opioid drug misuse or abuse. There should not be any repetition of human sufferings on this score, like what people are now witnessing in America. Effective action from all concerned – right from now, will decide whether or not Opioid crisis is a looming threat that India can successfully neutralize.

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.

Do Consumers Perceive Pharma Industry Innovative?

Posted on June 26, 2017 by Tapan Ray

One of the world’s richest and most powerful American pharma associations, having an equally strong indirect global presence, apparently, expects all concerned to give an emphatic affirmative answer to the above question.

Vindication of this thought gets reflected in the self-description of the association claiming, it “represents the country’s leading innovative biopharmaceutical research companies. Our members are devoted to discovering and developing medicines that enable patients to live longer, healthier and more productive lives. New medicines are an integral part of the health care system, providing doctors and patients with safe and effective treatment options, and improving quality of life.”

Nearer home, the reverberations of the same could be felt when Novartis lost the Glivec patent case in the Supreme Court of India. At that time, the Wall Street Journal quoted Eric Althoff – a spokesman of Novartis saying, “If innovation is rewarded, there is a clear business case to move forward. If it isn’t rewarded and protected, there isn’t.”

In sync with this self-belief, all pharma trade associations, located across the world, intensely lobbying for the ‘research-based’ global drug companies, together with their individual members, also expect the stakeholders to believe, as if, innovation is the middle name of the pharma industry. This process continues unabated, though, is expensive, and costing millions of dollars every year.

This core intent of doing so, may well be a statement of fact to some, and a contentious one to many, for various reasons. Be that as it may, as the proof of the pudding lies in eating, it is worth ferreting out how successful these efforts have been with the consumers of pharma products. Do they generally buy this concept, and if not, why?

In this article, I shall try to explore the overall scenario in this area.

A recent study:

A recent study results released on June 12, 2017, based on a survey on this issue, and that too conducted in the homeland of pharma innovation – America, brings to the fore a startling fact. In the absence of any other, better and more credible recent study, I shall draw upon some relevant facts from this report.

Klick Health Health – reportedly one of the world’s largest independent health marketing and commercialization agency headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, conducted this survey. As the agency reports, this is an online omnibus survey, conducted between May 19 and May 21, 2017 among 1,012 randomly selected American adults. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percent. To ensure that the findings are representative of the entire adult population of America, the results have been statistically weighted according to education, age, gender, region, and ethnicity. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding, the report says.

Consumer perception on pharma innovation:

Some of the major findings on consumers’ perception regarding the innovativeness of the pharma industry, are as follows:

Consumers do not believe that healthcare-related industries are particularly innovative today.

Only 17 percent of consumers polled perceive pharmaceuticals & biotech, health & wellness, and hospital sectors as the most innovative, ranking in the 4^th place after consumer electronics (72 percent), telecommunications (87 percent), and media & entertainment (90 percent).

Among health-related industries, respondents ranked health & wellness first in terms of the industry that should be the most innovative (17 percent), quickly followed by pharmaceuticals & biotech (14 percent), and hospitals (9 percent) trailing behind the top 5.

Some other interesting findings:

On innovation and technology, general consumer perceptions are as follows:

91 percent of consumers believe that innovation will positively impact health care over the next five years.

90 percent of respondents say that technology will have a positive impact on their health in the future.

70 percent believe that technology will have the biggest impact in helping them personally manage their own health.nology

Top five technologies predicted to have the biggest impact on people’s health in next five years:

- Health and fitness wearables (21 percent)

- Robotics (15 percent)

- 3D printing (10 percent)

- Smart home devices (9 percent)

- Artificial intelligence (9 percent)

The survey reflects a shift in the consumer mindset from being passive recipients of healthcare to more active and autonomous individuals who appear eager to try more creative and innovative approaches to managing their health.

Another study reflects a similar perception:

Similar negative perception gets reflected in the January 17, 2017 Harris Poll, which reported only nine percent of American consumers believe that pharma and biotechnology drug makers put patients over profits.

January 17, 2017 Harris Poll, while comparing consumers’ perception among different entities in the health care space, found that only insurers have an overall worse reputation than the pharmaceutical industry.

An important area worth exploring:

When consumers do not perceive the pharma industry as innovative as the sector wishes to be, what could possibly be its reasons? While that could be a part of another discussion, it is worth exploring another important area in this article – Do the majority of global pharma CEOs have desired background to lead innovation?

Do the majority of global pharma CEOs have desired background to lead innovation?

This is yet another interesting question. A research article titled “Many CEOs Aren’t Breakthrough Innovators (and That’s OK)”, published in the Harvard Business Review on September 04, 2015 discussed this issue, well-supported by some interesting research data, while coming to a logical conclusion.

The authors indicated that they looked at the background and performance data of 297 CEOs leading the largest companies in three different industries which are widely regarded as innovative: pharmaceuticals, high-tech, and fashion retail. The data captured a 20-year period, from 1995 to 2014 (and includes both current and former CEOs).

The study highlighted, though innovation is widely regarded as important to long-term business performance, CEOs of big pharmaceutical companies, are more likely to have a background as company lawyers, salespeople, or finance managers than in medicine or pharma R&D.

A direct comparison of the same, with the other two industries in the study, which are also widely regarded as innovative, vindicates the above point, as illustrated in the following table:

CEO Background	Pharma (%) (85 CEOs)	High-tech (%) (137 CEOs)	Fashion Retail (%) (75 CEOs)
Specialist background to lead innovation	26	61	60
Industry experience in other management function, e.g. Sales, Production	48	33	29
Background in support functions, e.g. Finance, Legal	26	6	11

In this study, the researchers found that, for pharmaceutical industry CEOs, there is a statistically significant relationship between a CEO’s specialist background and the firm’s performance. A specialist background to lead innovation is worth a 4 percent better shareholder return every year for 20 years, compared to other pharma CEOs in their sample.

Innovations are mostly ‘me-too’, so is the consumer perception:

As the above article reiterates, shorter patent lives of prescription drugs mean companies must continually look for not just any new drugs to fill their pipelines, but more often with breakthrough ones, which are significantly better than what’s already on the market.

Further, the article titled “How to Revive Breakthrough Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry”, which is linked to publications on ResearchGate, also indicates, over more than two decades, therapeutics discoveries of pharmaceutical companies more often than not yielded compounds that are only marginally better than existing therapies, rather than breakthrough molecules.

This could well be another contributing factor in the general ‘not so positive’ consumer perception about the global pharma industry, today.

Conclusion:

There may not be a hell of a lot of argument on the fact that the drug industry has a consumer perception problem today. Even the August 2016 Gallup Poll rated pharma as one of the worst industries in the current times.

Is the collective internal effort of continuously trying to associate innovation with the global pharma industry, the right answer for the same? May be, may well be not, though, the global drug industry is incessantly trying to project, as if ‘innovation’ is its middle name, as it were.

Is it working? The obvious answer is available from various recent research studies, as enumerated above. Still, in January 2017, reportedly to rescue the image of its member companies, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, unveiled a campaign, again basically focusing on innovation, called “Go Boldly.” It reportedly tries to communicate that the pharma industry develops life-saving medicines, and that they help keep medical costs down, because new medicines often reduce hospital stays and chronic illnesses. Is the campaign cost intensive? – Of course, yes. Is it productive? – possibly not. But who cares?

Be that as it may, today’s health care consumers perceive the global pharma industry neither as innovative nor caring, despite all its efforts. Thus, there is an important need for the pharma players to effectively bridge this perception gap in different and more innovative ways.

However, all that one can witness today, is the global pharma industry charting the same beaten path, yet again – with no further innovation in its communication – neither in content nor in its delivery platforms. That said, only time will be able to tell, whether similar efforts, renewed again and again, can reverse the consumer perception on pharma – making it seen as highly innovative and a caring industry for all.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Posted on February 8, 2016 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

A brief recap:

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

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

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

The largest democracy of the world:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The average cost of cancer treatment in India:

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

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

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

Low Government funding for healthcare:

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

The socioeconomic impact:

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

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

The oldest democracy of the world:

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

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

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

Cancer will affect 1 in 3 individuals over their lifetime.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General public wants the US Government to act:

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

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

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

Different responses to the same problem:

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

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

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

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

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

The ‘Moonshot’:

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

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

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

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

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

Two key focus areas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

Cancer Cure: Inching Towards The ‘Holy Grail’?

Posted on August 31, 2015 by Tapan Ray

In a Press Conference on August 20, 2015, the 39th President of the United States, now 90-year-old Jimmy Carter, revealed (video) that during a liver surgery earlier this month the doctors diagnosed that he has cancer. The type of cancer that he is suffering from is called melanoma, which has already spread to his liver and brain. Medical jargon would term it as deadly metastatic cancer.

Though the surgeons have removed the liver tumor, and well-targeted radiation treatment for four other small tumors in his brain has already been initiated, the original site of the melanoma, the lethal skin cancer, has reportedly not been found, as yet.

Mr. Carter’s medical treatment has started with an infusion of a new class of drug that uses the human immune system to fight cancer cells. The drug has been reported to work not only in advanced metastatic cancer, but also in the old age of patients. The former American President appears optimistic about the treatment outcomes with this new therapy, ‘placing his fate in the hands of God’, though initially he thought that he had just weeks to live.

I shall deliberate in this article, in an easy to understand language, though briefly, the promises offered by two latest options for cancer cure. One of these two, has just become available to patients and the other one, after an initial jaw-dropping success, is undergoing further tests in a renowned research laboratory of the United States.

Two novel pathways for cancer treatment:

Until recently, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy used to be the three common options for cancer treatment. One breakthrough option has just been launched and more in the offing.

In search of a cure for cancer, pathbreaking outcomes of medical research, especially in the following two areas, are significant:

A. Immunotherapy: It is a revolutionary approach to cancer treatment. The first of this novel class of drugs has just come to the market, with which Mr.Jimmy Carter is now reportedly being treated.

B. Re-programming cancer cells back to normal: Success has just been achieved in laboratory studies with this technique. It holds a strong promise to cure cancer, universally.

A. Immunotherapy:

On June 1, 2015, in an article titled, ‘Cure for terminal cancer’ found in game-changing drugs, “The Telegraph” – well-regarded international news daily, reported on anti-cancer immunotherapy drugs, as follows:

“Terminally ill cancer patients have been ‘effectively cured’ by a game-changing new class of drugs. In one trial, more than half of patients who had just months to live saw deadly tumors shrink or completely disappear.”

“In recent days, the results of trials of a number of treatments which harness the body’s immune system have been announced at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s annual conference in Chicago. They show promise in the fight against skin cancer and lung disease.”

As we know, most of the cancers are deadly. All these grow and spread, as they manage to hide from the immune system, disguising the life-threatening danger. Thus, medical research scientists pondered that the human immune system could play a critical role in the fight against cancer and even cure, by harnessing its ability to fight the deadly disease, effectively and decisively.

To achieve this goal, this class of new cancer drugs work by allowing the body to recognize and attack cancer as any other harmful invader to the body. It effectively blocks a cellular pathway that hinders the ability of the human immune system to attack cancer cells.

At present, to treat different types of cancer, more number of immunotherapy drugs are undergoing clinical investigations.

Brilliant treatment outcomes, but not universal:

It has been reported, about one third of patients taking immunotherapy for the treatment of cancer experienced positive results. Those who responded to this therapy, showed immediate effect with their tumors shrinking or vanishing in a matter of weeks. As a result, the patients who had no more than weeks or months to live, just as former US President Jimmy Carter, have gone into remission for years and continuing with their normal lives.

It has also been reported, otherwise such patients could expect to live just nine months, if given standard treatment of cancer. Researchers said, they were hopeful that half of the patients responded to immunotherapy would end up “living disease-free”.

These drugs are expensive, costing roughly US$150,000 per year, which is a part of a different debate altogether.

Not a ‘magic bullet’:

Besides its high cost and outstanding quality of results, it is worth noting that immunotherapy is not a ‘magic bullet’ for all types of patients and in all cancer. It, therefore, throws a challenge for the oncologists to understand, why immunotherapy benefits only to some cancer patients, and who are those patients?

Moreover, there is a possibility of immunotherapy sending immune system of some patients to overdrive, precipitating auto-immune disorder that may attack also the healthy cells.

Thus, immunotherapy is not the ‘Holy Grail’ for the treatment of cancer, neither it is nowhere near a perfect drug for the treatment of all types of cancers in all patients.

Two key findings:

In this regard, two key findings of the researchers on immunotherapy are as follows:

Roughly around 15 to 20 percent of patients could experience shrinkage or remission of cancer

Half of the patients who responded found it lasting for at least six months

Thus, immunotherapy can at best be a cure for only some terminally ill cancer patients, mostly for some time, but not for all.

“In the hands of God”:

All these factors on immunotherapy probably would help us to understand, why an erudite person like Mr. Jimmy Carter said, though optimistic about the new treatment, he is placing his fate ‘in the hands of God’.

B. Re-programming cancer cells back to normal:

The question, therefore, comes up now, if immunotherapy is not the ‘Holy Grail’ for cancer treatment that the research scientists have been intensively searching for, is there anything else coming up for cancer cure?

It appears so. A totally different approach to re-program the cancer cells back to normal has very recently been reported by Mayo Clinic’s Florida Campus in the United States. With this, cancer researchers’ dream of making the tumor cells morphing back to normal cells, they once were, would probably come true.

The research findings, published in Nature Cell Biology on August 24, 2015, represents ‘an unexpected new biology that provides the code, the software for turning off cancer,’ said the senior investigator of this study.

In the normal process, cells in the human body divide constantly to replace themselves and stop dividing when they have replicated sufficiently. However, unlike the normal cells, cancer cells do not stop dividing, they go out of control, leading to huge cell reproduction and tumor growth.

For the ultimate cure of cancer, scientists at Mayo Clinic have now reportedly succeeded in reversing the process responsible for the normal cells from replicating too quickly.

Possible cure now within sight?

This could ultimately lead to a newer class of breakthrough treatment that would be able to reverse cancerous growth in the human body, possibly curing cancer, without the need of surgery, chemotherapy, radiation or even immunotherapy.

Scientists at the Mayo Clinic have said that their initial experiments in some aggressive types of cancer are quite encouraging. They have successfully done this in very aggressive human cell lines from breast and bladder cancer.

Towards the ‘Holy Grail’:

In pursuit of finding a cancer cure, research scientists have been making commendable progress, over a period of time.

In the last few years, spectacular breakthroughs in treatment of cancer have been possible from the increasing genetic and biological understanding of the researchers, especially in ascertaining exact defects in the DNA code of human genes that cause cancer.

Ability to sequencing human genome has offered a key tool to the researchers to compare the DNA codes of cancerous and normal cells and identify the differences.

From within the 20,000 human genes, around 500 cancer genes have been reportedly discovered and are being catalogued. Clear understanding of what happens precisely when the cells divide uncontrollably and cancer spreads in different parts of the patients’ body, is taking place with commendable progress of various research initiatives in this area.

Based on the current knowledge on human genome, a number of new drugs have been and are being developed to target the cancer-causing genes with great accuracy. Such types of drugs are called ‘personalized medicines’, as these act on specific gene abnormality of patients related to certain types of cancer. Sophisticated laboratory tests facilitate treatment with ‘personalized medicines’. These are more effective with lesser side-effects, as compared to generally used anti-cancer drugs, prescribed to all cancer patients.

However, the question keeps lingering, ‘Is the Holy Grail for cancer cure has now come within sight?’

Conclusion:

Medical scientists continue to take rapid strides towards better and more effective treatment for cancer, if not cure, with fewer side-effects.

Claims for long remissions with immunotherapy, are being reported for some patients with even metastatic cancer and also in old age, just like former President of America – Mr. Jimmy Carter.

The success achieved by the scientists of ‘Mayo Clinic’ in re-programming rogue cancer cells back to normal, is stunning.

Being successful in this effort, the researchers have compared cancer with a complex software program of life. When it goes out of control, ‘instead of the code for normal cells, a code for making abnormal cells is executed’. This new study signals a strong possibility of bringing the cancer cells back to normal.

Medical experts keep their fingers crossed. Although, some of them do apprehend that there may never be a single ‘Magic Bullet’ to cure all types of cancer in all patients. This is mainly because cancer involves a large number of different disease areas, such as, breast, lung, bowel, prostate, blood and so on.

But hope refuses to fade out, as science continues to keep unravelling spectacular breakthroughs in this direction, at a fairly brisk pace. All these researches may be cancer types or patient types specifics, but the progress is taking place in the right direction.

Even in the ‘Mayo Clinic study’, scientists have been, so far, successful in re-programming the breast and bladder cancer cells back to normal, though they believe that this success sends a strong signal of an “early and somewhat universal event in cancer.”

Immunotherapy is undoubtedly a path breaking step that ensures cure in some types of cancer and in some categories of patients. However, if re-programming the cancer cells back to normal, eventually becomes an ‘universal event’ in the treatment of this generally frightening disease, no doubt, the medical science is now slowly but surely inching towards the ‘Holy Grail’ for cancer cure…at long last.

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Patent Linkage’: Can The Core Issue Be Resolved?

Posted on February 23, 2015 by Tapan Ray

On February 10, 2015, a leading business daily of India, quoted the Commerce Secretary of India – Rajeev Kher, saying, “India needs to relook at its Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy with a view to bring in a differentiated regime for sectors that have a greater manufacturing potential.”

In the present Government regime, it appears virtually impossible to make such important comments out of turn by a senior bureaucrat without the blessings of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). I hold this view, despite the fact that the Commerce Secretary reportedly added that his suggestion is “a highly controversial subject and if I discussed this in the government, I think I will be shot down in the very first instance”.

Be that as it may, as I indicated in my just previous article, several recent media reports also speculated, around the same time, that the Government of India is probably considering putting in place ‘Patent Linkages’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act 2005 of the country.

As I had indicated in my blog post of January 19, 2015 titled, “New ”National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”, these speculations originated mainly from the following events:

During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the United States in September 2014, a high-level Indo-US working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries.

Almost immediately after the Prime Minister’s return to India, in October 2014, the Government formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’ to draft the ‘National IPR Policy’ and suggest ways and legal means to handle undue pressure exerted by other countries in IPR related areas. The notification mandated the ‘Think Tank’ to examine the current issues raised by the industry associations, including those that have appeared in the media and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce and Industry as appropriate.

Speculations arising out of these two events were almost simultaneously fuelled by the following developments:

A. US Trade Representative Mike Froman’s reported affirmation of the following to the US lawmakers during a Congressional hearing held on January 27, 2015:

- “We have been concerned about the deterioration of the innovation environment in India, and we have engaged with the new government since they came into office in May of last year about our concerns.”

- “We held the first Trade Policy Forum in four years in November. I just returned from India yesterday as a matter of fact … and in all of these areas, we have laid out a work program with the government of India to address these and other outstanding issues.”

- “We are in the process of providing comments on that draft policy proposal on IPR, and we are committed to continuing to engage with them to underscore areas of work that needs to be done in copyright, in trade secrets as well as in the area of patents.”

- “We’ve got a good dialogue going now with the new government on this issue, and we’re committed to working to achieve concrete progress in this area.”

B. Union Minister of Commerce and Industry of India specifically seeking American Government’s inputs in the finalization process of the new National IPR policy of the country.

Keeping these in perspective, let me try to explore whether or not it would be fair for India deciding to put in place ‘Patent Linkages’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act of the country.

In this article, I shall deliberate on my personal take on ‘Patent Linkage’ and in the next week’s article on ‘Data Exclusivity’.

Definition:

Patent linkage is broadly defined as the practice of linking market approval for generic medicines to the patent status of the originator reference product.

A brief background in India:

The ‘Patent Linkage’ saga has an interesting background in India. I would now try to capture the essence of it, as stated below.

About 7 years ago, probably prompted by intense lobbying by the Pharma MNCs, the then Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly informed the media, on April 28, 2008, the following:

“We (DCGI) are going to seek the list of the drugs from innovator companies that have received patent in India. Once we have the database of the drugs which have been granted patent, we will not give any marketing approval to their generic versions…The DCGI has issued internal guidelines to this effect and it will also co-ordinate with the health ministry to give a formal shape to the initiative. The government expects to finalize a proper system within the next 2-3 months.”

It was also reported in the same article that Patent attorney Pratibha Singh, who along with Arun Jaitley was representing Cipla in the Tarceva case against Roche said:

“The DCGI does not have the authority to reject marketing application of a generic drug on the grounds that an innovator company has received the patent for the same drug in the country.”

Immediately following the above reported announcement of the DCGI on ‘Patent Linkage’, another media report flashed that the domestic drug companies are strongly objecting to the DCGI’s plans to link marketing approval for a drug with its patent status in the country, citing requirement of additional resources for the same and concern that it could block access to affordable medicines by suppressing competitive forces.

Despite this objection of the domestic Indian pharma companies, a senior official in DCGI office reportedly reaffirmed the DCGI’s intent of establishing the linkage so that no slips happen in the future. The same media report quoted that Government official as saying:

“We will have to amend the rules in the Act. We have to put it before the Drugs Consultative Committee first and this could be around the end of this year.”

Current ‘administrative’ status in India:

Currently in India, there is no provision for ‘Patent Linkage’, either in the Statute or through any administrative measure.

After those potboiler reports, it is quite challenging to fathom, what exactly had happened for the reverse swing thereafter at the DCGI’s office. The bottom line is, the above initiative of the then DCGI for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India ultimately got killed in the corridors of power. Hence, there does not exist any direct or indirect measure for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India, as I write this article.

Current legal status:

In 2008 Bayer Corporation had filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court against Union of India, the DCGI and Cipla seeking an order that the DCGI should consider the patent status of its drug, Sorefenib tosylate, and refuse marketing approval to any generic versions of this drug.

It is worth mentioning, Sorefenib tosylate is used to treat renal cancer and was being reportedly sold in India by Bayer at Rs. 2,85,000 for 120 tablets for a monthly course of treatment.

The appeal in the Delhi High Court was filed against a judgment delivered by Justice Ravindra Bhat on 18 August 2009, rejecting Bayer’s attempt to introduce the patent linkage system in India through a court direction. But, in a landmark judgment on February 9 2010, a division bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Bayer Corporation in this regard. Thereafter, Bayer Corporation moved Supreme Court against this Delhi High Court order.

However, in December 01, 2010, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by Bayer Corporation against the February 2010 decision of the Delhi High Court. The Apex Court of India ordered, since the Drugs Act does not confer power upon the DCGI to make rules regarding the ‘Patent Linkage’, any such attempt would constitute substantive ultra vires of the delegated power.

RTI helps to get the marketing approval status of drugs:

Currently relevant information on marketing approval application status of generic drugs are not available at the CDSCO website. Hence, some innovator companies have resorted to using Right To Information (RTI) Act to ferret out such details from the DCGI office and initiate appropriate legal measures for patent infringement, well before the generic version of the original drug comes to the market.

A middle ground:

In view of the above order of the Supreme Court, the government of India may try to seek a middle ground without amending any provision of the Patents Act, in any way.

Even avoiding the word ‘Patent Linkage’, the Ministry of Health can possibly help the pharma MNCs achieving similar goal, through administrative measures. It can instruct the DCGI to upload the ‘Marketing Approval’ applications status for various generic products in the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) website. If for any patented drugs, applications for marketing approval of generic equivalents are made, the available information would enable the patent holder taking appropriate legal recourse for patent infringement, much before the drug is marketed at a heavily discounted price.

It is quite possible that the interested constituents had put requests for such administrative measures even before the earlier Government. As no tangible action has been taken even thereafter, the erstwhile Government probably felt, if introduced, such a system would adversely impact quick and early availability of the generic drugs in the market place.

Conclusion:

I wrote an article on similar issue in my blog post of August 24, 2009 titled, “Recent Bayer Case Judgment: Patent Linkage: Encouraging Innovation in India.”

Taking all these into consideration, in my view, it is quite possible for the present Indian Government to resolve the core issue related to ‘Patent Linkage’ through administrative measure, without amending any Acts or breaching any case laws of the land.

In the present IPR imbroglio, the above administrative measure could well be a win-win solution for all.

It would help facilitating early judicial intervention by the patent holder in case of prima facie patent infringements, enabling the Government to send a clear reiteration that the patents granted to pharmaceutical products will be appropriately enforced and protected in the country.

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.

Reverberations Around The Proposed New IPR Policy Of India

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Tapan Ray

“If the Obama administration succeeds in forcing India to strengthen its patent laws, the change would harm not only India and other developing countries; it would also enshrine a grossly corrupt and inefficient patent system in the US, in which companies increase their profits by driving out the competition – both at home and abroad. After all, generic drugs from India often provide the lowest-cost option in the US market once patent terms have expired.”

The above sharp, piercing and precise comment did not come from any health activist from India or elsewhere. It came from a team of highly credible academic experts working in the United States.

On February 10, 2015, Nobel Laureate in Economics – Joseph E. Stiglitz, who is also University Professor at Columbia University, former Chairman of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers and Chief Economist of the World Bank, made this comment in an article published in ‘The World Opinion Page’ of ‘Project Syndicate’.

The article is co-authored by Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC and Arjun Jayadev, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.

The authors arrived at the above conclusion based on some sound arguments. I am highlighting below some of those important ones (may not be in the same order):

A patent that raises the price of a drug a hundred-fold has the same effect on the market as a 10,000 percent tariff.

India’s Patents and Act and policies allow drugs to be sold at a small fraction of the monopoly prices commanded by patent holders. For example, the Hepatitis-C drug Sovaldi is sold for US$84,000 per treatment in the US; Indian manufacturers are able to sell the generic version profitably for less than US$1,000 per treatment.

The threat of competition from Indian generics is partly responsible for major pharmaceutical companies’ decision to make some of their drugs available to the world’s poor at low prices. If the US compels India to tighten its patent rules substantially, so that they resemble US rules more closely, this outcome could be jeopardized.

Multilateral approach, using the World Trade Organization (WTO), has proved less effective than the major multinational pharmaceutical companies hoped, so now they are attempting to achieve this goal through bilateral and regional agreements.

In the view of America’s pharmaceutical industry, TRIPS did not go far enough. The Indian government’s desire to enhance its trade relations with the US thus provides the industry an ideal opportunity to pick up where TRIPS left off, by compelling India to make patents easier to obtain and to reduce the availability of low-cost generics.

In September 2014, during his visit to the US, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to establish a working group to reevaluate the country’s patent policy. The US participants in that group will be led by the Office of the US Trade Representative, which serves the pharmaceutical companies’ interests, rather than, say, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, or the National Institutes of Health.

Any comparable voice in favor of changes in Indian Patents Act?

I don’t seem to have heard or read as strong arguments from as credible sources as Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz, Dean Baker and Arjun Jayadev – the authors of the above article, in favor of the changes that American pharma companies want in the Indian Patents Act.

India at the center stage in IPR debate:

In the IPR debate, India is continuously being seen at the center stage for various reasons. The key one being the size, scale and economic efficiency that the home grown Indian pharma players have attained to cater to the needs of a large number of global population, including those residing in the United States and Europe, with a wide range of high quality generic drugs at affordable prices.

Fast evolving scenario:

It is now absolutely clear that being rattled by several refusals of India’s granting product patent to very similar molecules with minor tweaking under section (3d) of the country’s Patents Act, together with the nation’s uprightness in issuing Compulsory License (CL) for an enormously expensive cancer drug reducing its price by over 95 percent, United States now intends to directly intervene into India’s IPR policy environment.

As Nobel Laureate Stiglitz wrote, keen desire of the new dispensation of the Indian government to enhance its trade relations with the US has provided a golden opportunity to American pharma companies and their paid lobbyists to jump into the fray. They have started exerting enormous pressure on their own Government to compel India, at bilateral discussions, dilute its well-balanced Patents Act, ignoring India’s sovereign right to play by the flexibilities as provided by the WTO to protect public health interest in the country.

Both the domestic and international civil society organizations, including public health activists have expressed their serious concerns on this aggressive intent of US and India’s seemingly vulnerable position in this regard.

“The US is pushing India to play by its rules on Intellectual Property, which we know will lead to medicines being priced out of reach for millions of people,” commented the Executive Director of MSF’s Access Campaign, according to media reports.

Non-pharma American Organizations reacted differently:

14 American organizations in a letter to their President Barack Obama dated January 20, 2015, just prior to his visit to India, asked him “to support India’s central role in providing high-quality, low-cost generic medicines -which are essential for health care around the world. Recent U.S. policy stances have sought to topple parts of India’s intellectual property regime that protect public health in order to advance the interests of multinational pharmaceutical corporations in longer, stronger, and broader exclusive patent and related monopoly rights. India’s laws fully comply with the WTO TRIPS Agreement. Millions around the world depend on affordable generic medicines that would disappear if India acceded to these proposals, including many beneficiaries of US-funded programs. Instead of using your trip to promote the narrow interests of one segment of the pharmaceutical industry, we ask you to support the interests of people who need affordable medicines, whether they live in the U.S., in India, in Africa or elsewhere. Our world is safer and healthier because of India’s pro-health stance and we ask you to say so publicly while you are there.”

The letter re-emphasized at the end:

“From Detroit to New Delhi, health is increasingly interconnected. Our world is safer when it is healthier, and it is healthier because India’s laws appropriately balance health and IP.”

An interesting development:

It is interesting to note that after Winter Session of the Indian Parliament, the Modi Government announced a number of important policy changes at the end of December 2014.

Interestingly, one more critical policy – National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy has been left open for public comments and the final IPR Policy is yet to be announced despite enormous American pressure on India in this regard.

Without any specifics, the first draft of the National IPR policy just states that India will “review and update IP laws, where necessary, and remove anomalies and inconsistencies, if any.” It does emphasize though, the need of “more innovation” in the country, unequivocally and quite justifiably.

I wrote on the draft National IPR Policy in my blog post of January 19, 2015, titled “New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”.

Conclusion:

It is generally believed that the National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy is undoubtedly a positive step to clarify the Government’s stand in maintaining a balanced IP regime in the country that would encourage innovation to add speed to the progress of the nation.

In just 10 years Indian IPR regime has, by and large, attracted enormous global attention mostly for balancing IP and public health interest, admirably. Experts like Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz sincerely hope that India will not change this course under pressure of any kind or form.

Be that as it may, several recent media reports also speculated, around the same time, that Government of India is probably considering putting in place ‘Data Exclusivity’ and ‘Patent Linkage’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act of the country.

In my subsequent articles in this blog, I shall deliberate on these two contentious issues, keeping the evolving scenario in perspective.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: America

Shifting Pharma Supply Chain Strategy From Global To Local

Criticality of Drug Quality In The Moment Of Truth

Opioid Crisis: A Looming Threat To India?

Do Consumers Perceive Pharma Industry Innovative?

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

Cancer Cure: Inching Towards The ‘Holy Grail’?

‘Patent Linkage’: Can The Core Issue Be Resolved?

Reverberations Around The Proposed New IPR Policy Of India