Tag Archives: approval

A Game-Changing Non-Covid Drug Approval In the Pandemic Milieu

Posted on by
Reply

Amid high decibel deliberations on Covid-19 pandemic, something similar to groundbreaking happened – involving Biosimilar drugs, in just a couple of months ago. On July 28, 2021, in the Eldorado of the pharma industry, the US-FDA approved  the first ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drug, for wider access to modern and much affordable treatment of diabetes. This is expected to open new vistas of opportunity for biosimilar drugs, in general, across the world.

The development is even more interesting, as the product named Semglee belongs to India’s largest biopharmaceutical company - Biocon Biologic. It’s an ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar insulin glargine, referencing Sanofi’s, reportedly  the second best-selling product in 2020 - Lantus. Notably, the Biocon product was launched in 2020 without the ‘interchangeability’ designation.

Although, the patent of this long-acting insulin (glargine) – used to treat diabetes type I and II, expired during 2015, in 2020 also Lantus generated some 2.7 billion U.S. dollars worldwide. Many envisage, the approval of this first ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar insulin glargine will foster stronger competition in the insulin market, which is currently dominated by a handful of brands, like Lantus – and characterized by their stubbornly high prices.

In today’s article, I shall focus on what it means to pharma marketers for greater market access to ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drugs.

What ‘interchangeability’ really means:

As I wrote in my article on July 31,2017, there are two key barriers to improving patient access to biosimilar drugs, and one of which is the issue of their ‘interchangeability’ with original biologic drugs. It means, besides being highly similar, a biosimilar drug would require indisputable clinical evidence – that it gives the same result to patients, just as the original biologic medicine.

Thus, lack of the ‘interchangeability’ designation makes many physicians hesitant to switch, for all those existing patients who are on expensive original biologic drugs, to less expensive available biosimilar alternatives. Only new patients in that case, are prescribed biosimilar drugs, sans ‘interchangeability’ label from the drug regulator, especially in the US.

Overcoming a tough barrier to biosimilar market growth:

This was echoed by another article on ‘Interchangeability’ of biosimilars, published in the Pharmaceutical Journal on July 22, 2020. It wrote, ‘One of the hurdles in the adoption of biosimilars is the lack of interchangeability with reference biologics.’ While interchangeability is an important issue for doctors, ‘different definitions and regulatory frameworks that exist in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions add to the complexity.’

What the ‘interchangeable’ designation of Semglee will really mean, in terms of affordability to patients, was lucidly explained in an article, published in the AJMC – the center for Biosimilars – on July 29, 2021. It underscored: ‘An interchangeable designation means that Semglee can be substituted for Lantus automatically by pharmacists without physicians’ permission.’ As reported, Semglee will cost nearly 3 times less than the list price of Sanofi’s Lantus, which in 2019 clocked in at $283.56 for a single vial and $425.31 for a box of five pens, in the US.

Are interchangeable biosimilars superior to other biosimilars?

The ‘interchangeable’ designation is not meant to suggest that such biosimilars are superior to ones without this label. However, to obtain the ‘interchangeable’ designation, biosimilar manufacturers are required to perform ‘switching studies.’ These provide evidence that patients who are using originator’s biologic drug, when switch to a comparable biosimilar, do not experience higher rates of adverse events or decreased efficacy. The same has also been clearly explained in the AJMC article of July 29, 2021, as mentioned above.

But, if marketed well, ‘interchangeable’ biosimilars can provide a cutting edge to encourage consumers to switch to the less-expensive ‘interchangeable’ versions of the original higher priced biologic drugs. Consequently, more economical ‘interchangeable’ biosimilars would carve out a larger market share, creating a win-win situation. For patients, it will expand affordable access to biologic drugs- and for the company increased revenue from the expanding biosimilar market, as several studies point out.

Expanding biosimilar market:

According to the IQVIA report of March 04, 2021, the global biosimilars market currently shows double-digit growth and is expected to maintain a similar level of uptake in the coming years. This will be driven by the rising incidence of chronic diseases and the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars, especially as more stringent cost-containment measures are likely – post COVID-19 pandemic.

The paper concluded, biosimilars will continue to register impressive growth in their market share, aided by patent expiries and regulatory improvements which will permit easier and more rapid market access. Many pharmaceutical companies – having witnessed this trend, are now preparing to leverage the biosimilar opportunity. However, marketing large molecule biosimilar drugs will not be quite the same as marketing small molecule generics. 

Estimated savings to patients with biosimilars – in Covid-19 context:

As the IQVIA Institute estimates, over the next five years biosimilars could globally contribute a cumulative $285 billions of savings to patients and payers. To put this in context, it says, over the same period, around $150 billion will be spent on COVID-19 vaccines. According to a senior IQVIA official, as quoted by Reuters Events of July 2, 2021: “The five-year savings from biosimilars could almost double the amount of incremental spending that will be going out to get everybody vaccinated around the world.”

Going by the IQVIA data, biosimilars are between 20% and 50% more affordable. And this is especially at a time when affordability drives a lot of healthcare - sustainability that has emerged as a major issue during the pandemic.

Conclusion:

Currently, in many countries of the world, alongside Covid vaccination drive in top gear, creation of a disruptive pandemic-specific – a robust health infrastructure for the future, is yet to be in place. More importantly, public health facilities, especially in India, are still struggling hard to meet affordable health care needs of patients – sans restrictions or apprehensions of getting infected by Covid-19.

Against this backdrop, the very first approval of an ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drug, in the Eldorado of pharma business – the US, brings a new hope to many patients, in 2021. An expectation of reducing their healthcare burden, significantly. This will happen, as the prescribers muster enough confidence to advise patients switching from highly expensive original biologic to more affordable ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drugs, as and when these are launched.

In tandem, with this growing new confidence, others – even ‘non-interchangeable’ biosimilar drugs, will be able to deliver more value being, besides greater affordability – wider access to sustainable-treatments for patients.

This comes, possibly with a caveat. Biosimilar drug marketers will need to chart a new marketing frontier, without holding on to their pre-covid strategies – especially for large molecule biosimilar drugs.

From this perspective, the US-FDA’s regulatory approval of the first ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar insulin to Sanofi’s high-priced Lantus, carries a game-changing potential in the biosimilar drug market, for astute pharma marketers to leverage.

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.

Prescription Digital Therapy Now A Reality

Posted on by
Reply

The pursuit of offering ‘prescription digital therapeutics’ or ‘digiceuticals’ by Big Pharma, to ensure better clinical outcomes for patients, has apparently come to fruition now.

On April 18, 2018, by a media release, Novartis announced that the Sandoz Division of the Company has entered into collaboration with Pear Therapeutics to commercialize and continued development of digital therapeutics, designed to effectively treat disease and improve clinical outcomes for patients.

The collaboration brings on to the table, a synergy between Sandoz expertise in launching and commercializing various disease treatments, with Pear’s leading experience in digital therapeutics design and implementation. This deal has attracted attention of many. Mainly because, any pharma player will, for the first-time, detail a digital therapy treatment directly to the medical profession, and seek their prescription support.

It is worth noting that Pear’s flagship digital therapeutic – reSET is the first USFDA-cleared mobile medical application with both a safety and efficacy label to help treat patients with Substance Use Disorder, in September 2017. According to published reports, several studies have established that it is two-times more effective than conventional in person therapy sessions. Interestingly, the rate of treatment efficacy increases even up to tenfold, in refractory patients.

Just the beginning of a long run: 

The above market launch of a digital therapy by Novartis signals just the beginning of a long run in changing in the disease treatment archetype for better outcomes. Incidentally, prior to this announcement, on March 1, 2018, the same Company had announced, “Novartis and Pear Therapeutics to collaborate on prescription software applications aimed to treat patients with schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis.”

The media release underscored:“Psychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases place a heavy physical, mental and economic burden on patients and their families. With widespread adoption of digital devices, prescription digital therapeutics could potentially play an important role in future treatment models for a range of diseases with high unmet medical need”.

The scope and potential:

An article titled – ‘Digital therapeutics: Preparing for takeoff’,published by McKinsey & Company in February 2018, captures its scope succinctly. It says, “digital therapeutics tend to target conditions that are poorly addressed by the healthcare system today, such as chronic diseases or neurological disorders. In addition, they can often deliver treatment more cheaply than traditional therapy by reducing demands on clinicians’ time.”

A separate McKinsey interview article, titled ‘Exploring the potential of digital therapeutics’, published in the same month, elucidated the potential of digital therapy equally well.  It highlighted:“A digital therapeutic is an intervention based on software as the key ingredient, which has a direct impact on a disease. This is what distinguishes this category from the broader term digital health. We will see digital therapeutics and digital diagnostics integrate into the health system…”

‘Prescription digital therapy’ are not just ‘Fitness and Well-being’ Apps:

Prescription digital therapy are not just to monitor a person’s general fitness level against pre-identified parameters, and overall well-being. Whereas, digital therapeutics help patients to regularly and consistently monitor relevant and tailor-made disease related data - in real-time to detect behavioral, lifestyle and requisite biological changes on a daily basis. However, this is not ‘a so well-realized necessity’ today, especially, in the treatment of certain serious disease conditions, to ensure significantly better clinical outcomes for patients.

Digital therapeutics can ensure making a favorable change in patient behavior, which is not merely as efficient as administering medicines, but could also ensure greater effectiveness than conventional medications. Further, it assists patients to better understand, manage and control several disease conditions, and more importantly, sans any untoward side-effects.

Besides, with digital therapy, the required treatment interventions will reach patients faster than traditional treatment processes. Both the patient request and the medical response for the same can be quickly exchanged, together with relevant data support, through smartphones or other wearable digital interfaces – either in the form of voice or text or both. I shall dwell on this later in the article. Thus, digital therapy may not require patients to meet the doctor every time a need arises.

Moreover, fitness and wellbeing Apps do not require marketing approval from a country’s drug regulator. Mostly because, they help monitoring general and generic fitness parameters, capturing some low-risk changes. Whereas, a custom-made prescription digital therapy would necessarily require such regulatory nod.

In tandem, various studies are also being conducted on wearables, such as an Apple Watch, as an interface. The following are examples of some of these studies:

Digital therapy study with Apple Watch as an interface:

In February 2017, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. and Cognition Kit Limited, announced a collaboration to pilot the use of a specially designed app on an Apple Watch wearable to monitor and assess cognitive function in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD).

In November 2017, they presented results from ‘Digital Wearable Technology Study’ in patients with MDD. The observational study involved 30 participants, aged 18-65, with a clinical diagnosis of mild to moderate depression who have been prescribed antidepressant monotherapy for MDD.

The study also evaluated feasibility and participant compliance with measures of mood and cognition on wearable technology; and compared measures of mood and cognition on wearable technology using traditional neuropsychological testing and patient reported outcomes on depression symptoms at 6 weeks. Participants were provided with an Apple Watch on which brief cognitive and mood tests were administered daily.

The researchers observed that patients were compliant with the wearable Apple Watch device on a daily basis to evaluate mood (95 percent) and cognition (96 percent). The study also demonstrated that abbreviated daily assessments delivered through the wearable Apple Watch device corresponded with objective Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) cognitive tests and full-length patient reported outcomes, PHQ-9 and PDQ-D, assessed during weeks 1, 3 and 6. No adverse events were reported in the study.

According to another report, this user interface with Apple’s smart-watch versions 2 and 3 is now being used in a number of studies for chronic conditions, such as Parkinson’s disease – combining biometric data with user input. Again, in February 2017, Johns Hopkins University announced a project to use the smart-watch for research on possible triggers of epileptic seizures.

When used as an interface with prescription digital therapy, the provision of e-SIM and GPS in Apple Watch Series 3, I reckon, would also help patients to immediately communicate with the remote therapy centers using the same device, anytime – as and when the patients want.

Digital therapy initiatives in India:

Initiative on digital therapy has already started rolling in India, as well. Its pace is also quite encouraging. For example, Wellthy Therapeutics is building a patient centric solution for diabetes through digital intervention and management. On February 20, 2018, the Company, reportedly, shared the interim results of an ongoing real-world pilot to evaluate the effectiveness of the Wellthy Diabetes Smartphone App (WD). The results were shared at the 11th International Conference on Advanced Technologies and Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD 2018) in Vienna, Austria.

The data demonstrated how the use of WD improved glycemic control. On completion of 16 weeks, participants showed a reduction in their HbA1c by (-0.61%) on average, with 61.5% of participants having showed significant reduction in their HbA1c with an average of (-1.17%) reduction.

Conclusion:

As indicated in my article titled, ‘Digiceuticals: A Force Multiplier to Contain Chronic Diseases’, published in this blog on October 23, 2017,prescription digital therapies are primarily of two types – one for “medication augmentation” and the other for “medication replacement.”

Be that as it may, prescription digital therapyimproves clinical outcomes for patients by manifold. It also shows potential to take over from traditional treatment with medicines in several serious and virtually crippling ailments, mostly related to human behavior and lifestyle, such as a host of chronic diseases, and without causing any side-effects.

Thus, prescription digital therapy is now a reality. It has come to stay for long – can’t be wished away, any longer.

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.

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Posted on by
Reply

Novel biologic medicines have unlocked a new frontier offering more effective treatment for a host of chronic and life-threatening diseases, such as varieties of cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes, to name just a few. However, these drugs being hugely expensive, many patients do not have any access, or adequate access, to them. According to the Biosimilar Council of GPhA, only 50 percent of severe Rheumatoid Arthritis patients receive biologic medicines, even in the United States, Europe and Japan, leave aside India.

Realizing the gravity of this situation, a need to develop high quality, reasonably affordable and similar to original biologic brands, was felt about ten years ago. These were intended to be launched immediately after patent expiry of the original biologic. Such medicines are termed as biosimilar drugs. It is worth noting, even biosimilar drug development involves complex manufacturing processes and handling, while dealing with derivatives of highly sensitive living organisms.

The regulatory approval process of these drugs is also very stringent, which demands robust clinical data, demonstrating high similarity, both in effectiveness and safety profile, to original biologic brands, known as the reference product. The clinical data requirements for all new biosimilars include data on patients switching from the originator’s brand, and also between other biosimilars. Clinical evidences such as these, are expected to provide enough confidence to physicians for use of these products.

An article published in the PharmaTimes magazine in January 2016, reiterated that over the last couple of years, a wealth of supporting data has been published in medical journals and presented at global congresses, including real-world data of patients who have been switched to the new drug from the originator. This has led to a positive change in physician and patient attitudes towards biosimilars.

The good news is, besides many other regulated markets, as of May 2017, five biosimilar drugs have been approved even by the US-FDA, and several others are in the pipeline of its approval process.

That said, in this article I shall mainly focus on the two key barriers for improving patient access to biosimilar drugs, as I see it.

Two major barriers and their impact:

As I see it, there appear to be the following two key barriers for more affordable biosimilar drugs coming into the market, improving patients’ access to these important biologic medicines:

  • The first barrier involves fierce legal resistance from the original biologic manufacturers of the world, on various grounds, resisting entry of biosimilar varieties of their respective brands. This compels the biosimilar drug manufacturers incurring heavy expenditure on litigation, adding avoidable cost. A glimpse of this saga, we are ‘privy’ to witness even in India, while following Roche versus Biocon and Mylan case related to ‘Trastuzumab’. This barrier is one of the most basic types, that delays biosimilar drug entry depriving many new patients to have access to lower priced effective biologic for the treatment of serious diseases.
  • The other major barrier that exists today, involves ‘interchangeability’ of original biologic with biosimilar drugs. It simple means that in addition to being highly similar, a biosimilar drug manufacturer would require producing indisputable clinical evidence that it gives the same result for any given patient just as the original biologic. We shall discuss the reason behind this regulatory requirement later in this article. However, this is an expensive process, and the absence of it creates a barrier, making the physicians hesitant to switch all those existing patients who are on expensive original biologic drugs with less expensive available biosimilar alternatives.

The first or the initial barrier:

The first or the initial barrier predominantly involves patent related legal disputes, that can only be settled in a court of law and after incurring heavy expenditure towards litigation. Provided, of course, the dispute is not mutually resolved, or the law makers do not amend the law.

An interesting case in India:

Interestingly, in India, a similar dispute has knocked the doors of both the high court and the Competition Commission of India (CCI). From a common man’s perspective, it appears to me that the laws under which these two institutions will approach this specific issue are seemingly conflicting in nature. This is because, while the patent law encourages no market competition or a monopoly situation for a patented product, competition law encourages more market competition among all related products. Nonetheless, in this specific case CCI is reportedly investigating on the alleged ‘abuse of the regulatory process’, as it has opined ‘abuse of regulatory process can constitute an abuse of dominance under the (CCI) Act.’                                                                                            

The second barrier:

I am not going to discuss in this article the relevance of this barrier, in detail. Nevertheless, this one is also apparently equally tough to comply with. The very fact that none out of five biosimilar drugs approved in the United States, so far, has been considered ‘interchangeable’ by the US-FDA, vindicates the point.

That this specific regulatory demand is tough to comply with, is quite understandable from the requirements of the US-FDA in this regard, which goes as follows:

“To support a demonstration of interchangeability, the data and information submitted to FDA must show that a proposed interchangeable product is biosimilar to the reference product and that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient. Also, for products that will be administered more than once, the data and information must show that switching a patient back and forth between the reference product and the proposed interchangeable product presents no greater risk to the patient in terms of safety or diminished efficacy when compared to treating them with the reference product continuously.”

The reasoning of innovative biologic drug makers:

On this subject, the stand taken by different innovative drug makers is the same. To illustrate the point, let me quote just one of them. It basically sates, while biosimilar drugs are highly similar to the original medicine, the patient’s immune system may react differently due to slight differences between the two medicines when they are alternated or switched multiple times. This phenomenon, known as immunogenicity, is not a common occurrence, though. But there have been rare instances when very small differences between biologic medicines have caused immune system reactions that changed the way a medicine was metabolized, or reduced its effectiveness.

It further reiterates, the US-FDA requirements to establish ‘interchangeability’ between a biosimilar drug and the original one, or between biosimilars may seem like nuances, but are important because ‘interchangeability’ allows pharmacists to substitute biosimilars without consulting the doctor or patient first.

It may, therefore, indicate to many that innovative biologic drug manufacturers won’t want substitution of their expensive biologic with more affordable biosimilar drugs, on the ground of patient safety issues related to immunogenicity, though its instances are rather uncommon.

Some key players in biosimilar drug development:

Having deliberated on the core subject of this article, let me now very briefly name the major players in biosimilar drug development, both in the developed world, and also in India.

The first biosimilar drug was approved by the US-FDA in 2006, and the product was Omnitrope (somatropin) of Novartis (Sandoz). It was the same in the European Union (EU), as well. Subsequently, many other companies reportedly expressed interest in this field, across the globe, including Pfizer, Merck, Johnson and Johnson, Amgen, AbbVie, Hospira, AstraZeneca and Teva, among many others.

Similarly, in India, the major players in this field include, Biocon, Sun Pharma, Shantha Biotech, Dr. Reddy’s Lab, Zydus Cadila, Panacea Biotech and Reliance Life Sciences.

As featured on the Amgen website, given the complexity and cost of development and manufacturing, biosimilars are expected to be more affordable therapeutic options, but are not expected to generate the same level of cost savings as generics. This is because, a biosimilar will cost US$100 to US$200 million and take eight to ten years to develop. Whereas, a small molecule generic will cost US$1 to US$5 million and take three to five years to develop.

The market:

According to the 2017 report titled “Biosimilar Market: Global Industry Analysis, Trends, Market Size & Forecasts to 2023” of Research and Markets, the market size of the global biosimilar market was valued over US$ 2.5 billion during 2014, and it surpassed US$ 3.30 billion during 2016. The global biosimilar market is projected to surpass US$ 10.50 billion by 2023, growing with a CAGR between 25.0 percent and 26.0 percent from 2017 to 2023.

According to this report, gradually increasing awareness, doctors’ confidence and the lower drug cost are expected to boost the demand and drive the growth of the global biosimilar market during the forecast period. Segments related to diabetes medicine and oncology are expected to attain faster growth during the forecast period. Patent expiry of several blockbuster drugs is a major basic factor for growth of the global biosimilar market, as it may encourage the smaller manufacturers to consider producing such biologic drugs in those segments.

Conclusion:

Biosimilar drugs are expected to benefit especially many of those patients who can’t afford high cost biologic medicines offering better treatment outcomes than conventional drugs, in the longer term. These drugs are now being used to effectively manage and treat many chronic and life-threatening illnesses, such cardiac conditions, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, HIV/AIDS and cancer.

However, improving patient access to high quality biosimilar drugs, at an affordable price, with increasing competition, could be a challenge, as two key barriers are envisaged to attain this goal. Overcoming these meaningfully, I reckon, will involve choosing thoughtfully a middle path, creating a win-win situation, both for the patients, as well as the industry.

Adequate competition in the biologic drug market is essential – not only among high-priced original biologic brands and biosimilars, but also between biosimilar drugs. This is so important to increase patient access to biologic drugs, in general, across the world, including India.

The current situation demands a sense of urgency in searching for a middle path, which may be created either through a legal framework, or any other effective means as would deem fair and appropriate, without compromising with patient safety, at least, from where it is today.

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.

Stem Cell Therapy in India: A Potential Game Changer in Disease Treatment

Posted on by
Reply

Stem Cells (SC) offer an incredible potential to instill a new lease of life virtually to any organ of the human body, bringing them back to the pre-disease state through its own biological repair mechanism. Intensive research initiatives are on across the world to harness this unique possibility that will be able to successfully address a plethora of serious and chronic ailments for mankind. The good news is, the global scientific community is taking rapid strides in understanding the complex stem cell biology to give shape to a game changing medical treatment blue print for tomorrow.

Capturing one such pursuit, on February 21, 2017, well-reputed British news daily – ‘The Telegraph’, reported the outcome of a path-breaking medical study for freezing the progression of yet another complex and crippling ailment – Multiple Sclerosis (MS). This research followed a unique SC transplantation process. Intriguingly, both such diseases and the treatment are not generally much talked about, particularly in India. If done, it would increase public awareness and help many patients fetch greater benefits from the available and approved SC therapy in the country. Probably, considering the unfathomable scope of the body’s own repairing toolbox with SC, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reportedly called on Indian biologists to motivate school children for pursuing a career in stem cell research.

Let me now go back for a moment to Multiple Sclerosis (MS) as I am aware of this this disease condition rather closely. One of our close family friends who was a very senior official in one of the top multinational corporations of the world, had to give up his job prematurely being a victim to this serious illness. In that sense, this particular news item rekindles a new hope for many to look for a better quality of life while managing many other diseases of such kind, all over the world, including India.

‘The Telegraph’ reported: in so far, the largest long-term follow-up of SC transplantation treatment study of MS, which was spearheaded by Imperial College London, established that 46 per cent of patients who underwent this treatment did not suffer a worsening of their condition for five years. The treatment works by destroying the immune cells responsible for attacking the nervous system. This is indeed a very significant development in the space of medical research.

This new treatment, called autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT), was given to patients with advanced forms of MS who had failed to respond to other medications. However, the researchers noted that the nature of the treatment, which involves aggressive chemotherapy, carried “significant risks”.

It’s worth recapitulating here that MS is caused by the immune system malfunctioning and mistakenly attacking nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, leading to problems with movement, vision, balance and speech. It’s a lifelong condition and often causes serious disability, with no cure still in sight. The disease is most commonly diagnosed in people in their 20s and 30s, although it can develop at any age.

A new hope with a game changing potential:

The above study of SC transplantation conducted by Imperial College London in MS, is just a recent example, among scores of major steps being taken in this frontier of medical science in preparation of a decisive battle against many more life-threatening and serious debilitating diseases.

No doubt that various treatments involving stem cells are generally considered a novel and rapidly advancing medical technology. However, in a small number of developed countries, such as the United States (US), a number medical procedures with stem cells are being practiced since around last three decades. Bone marrow transplant is the most widely used stem-cell therapy in this area, which was first performed in 1968.

According to California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) and various other medical literature, SC treatment has the game changing potential for successful use to:

  • Replace neurons damaged by spinal cord injury, stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease or other neurological problems
  • Produce insulin that could treat people with diabetes and heart muscle cells that could repair damage after a heart attack, or
  • Replace virtually any tissue or organ that is injured or diseased

Thus, stem cells offer limitless possibilities, such as tissue growth of vital organs like liver, pancreas. Today there are many diseases for which no effective treatment still exists, besides giving symptomatic relief, such as Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, severe burn, spinal cord injury. There is a host of other diseases, including several chronic ailments, such as diabetes, heart ailments, rheumatoid arthritis, or some types of cancer, which can’t just be reversed, however, could be managed with a lifelong treatment. For most of these diseases, and several others involving tissue degeneration, SC therapy has the potential to be a huge life and a game changer. It may involve, besides patients, several industries, including pharmaceuticals and biotech sectors.

Major stem cell sources and some key milestones:

Medical scientists and researchers have conclusively established that stem cells are the master cells of any human body. These are undifferentiated cells of the same lineage, retaining the ability to divide throughout life and grow into any one of the body’s more than 200 cell types. Some of the major sources of stem cells in the human body are bone marrow, cord blood, embryonic cells, dental pulp and menstrual blood.

As captured by ‘ExploreStemCells’ of UK, some key events in stem cell research include:

  • 1978: Stem cells were discovered in human cord blood
  • 1981: First in vitro stem cell line developed from mice
  • 1988: Embryonic stem cell lines created from a hamster
  • 1995: First embryonic stem cell line derived from a primate
  • 1997: Cloned lamb from stem cells
  • 1997: Leukemia origin found as hematopoietic stem cell, indicating possible proof of cancer stem cells
  • 1998: University of Wisconsin isolated cells from the inner cell mass of early embryos and developed the first embryonic stem cell lines.
  • 1998: Johns Hopkins University derived germ cells from cells in foetal gonad tissue; pluripotent stem cell lines were developed from both sources.
  • 1999 and 2000: Scientists discovered that manipulating adult mouse tissues could produce different cell types. This meant that cells from bone marrow could produce nerve or liver cells and cells in the brain could also yield other cell types.

All these discoveries were exciting for rapid progress in the field of stem cell research, along with the promise of greater scientific control over stem cell differentiation and proliferation. Currently, many more research studies are underway in globally acclaimed institutions and other boutique laboratories exploring the possibility of wide scale use of SC therapy, even in the treatment of several chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart disorders.

A controversy:

The controversy related to SC research mainly involves Embryonic Stem Cells (ESC) and raises several difficult questions for a speedy resolution. As articulated by the ‘Genetic Science Learning Centre’ of the University of Utah, these are mainly:

  • Does life begin at fertilization, in the womb, or at birth?
  • Is a human embryo equivalent to a human child?
  • Does a human embryo have any rights?
  • Can destruction of a single embryo be justified to provide a cure for a countless number of patients?
  • Since ESC can grow indefinitely in a dish and can, in theory, still grow into a human being, is the embryo really destroyed?

However, in 2006 scientists learned how to stimulate a patient’s own cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. These cells are reducing the need for human embryos in research and revealing exciting new possibilities for stem cell therapies, according to this Centre.

Stem cell research in India:

India has pursued SC research since over a couple decades reasonably supported by the Government, especially the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), besides several remarkable initiatives from the private sector. Ethical guidelines in this regard are also in place, so also are the National Guidelines for Stem Cell Research in India. These guidelines are aimed at obtaining licenses from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI).

Further, in a major move to regulate and oversee the activities by streamlining SC research in the country, the Government has also set up an Institutional Committee for Stem Cell Research and Therapy (IC-SCRT) and the National Apex Committee for Stem Cell Research and Therapy (NAC-SCRT). This necessitates the researchers on human stem cells, both institutions and the individuals, to be registered with NAC-SCRT through IC-SCRT. To ensure that the concerned companies and individuals follow the National Guidelines, these committees will review, approve and monitor each research project in this area. It now calls for even greater focus from all other stakeholders to help accelerate growth of this niche segment of medical science for patients’ benefits.

SC transplantations using umbilical cord blood and bone marrow for treating neurological, hematological, hepatic and cardiac disorders are being pursued by some well-known medical institutions, such as, AIIMS, PGI Chandigarh, CMC Vellore, AFMC Pune, Manipal Hospital Bangalore. For example, AIIMS, reportedly, undertook a major multi-center trial to look at the role of stem cells in repairing tissue damaged during acute heart attacks, where other treatment process, including a cardiac bypass surgery fails to adequately improve the heart function. Similarly, Shankar Netralaya in Chennai has successfully carried out limbal stem cell transplantations for restoring vision to several patients.

That said, this is a cost intensive area of research, which involves expensive equipment, reagents and other consumables. Moreover, ensuring continuous training for SC researchers and clinicians also poses a major problem. Greater international collaboration in this area, and increasing number of Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) could accelerate the progress of India in this hugely promising area of medical science, reaping a rich harvest for a large patient population of the country.

Stem cell banking:

SC banking is a fast-developing area in this field, especially designed for SC therapy. As not many patients are not currently as much aware or interested in SC therapy as they ought to, it may not appear as an immediate requirement for many. However, an encouraging trend is fast catching up, especially within some enlightened persons, to have in a bank a large reserve of their own or their baby’s stem cells that would be available for any medical emergencies or more effective treatment options, in the future.

It assumes increasing importance because, as we age, illness and the natural process of aging could reduce the number of stem cells available to regenerate organs, muscles and bone. At that time, while treating a serious illness or a grave injury, a person may have fewer adult stem cells that have the collective power to make an effective healing response to SC therapy.

In that context, SC banking provides a great opportunity to store, multiply and utilize a newborn’s or even an adult person’s younger and healthy stem cells for SC therapy during any medical emergency, such as a serious accident or a crippling illness, at a later stage in life.

There are broadly the following two types of SC banking facilities are now available in India:

A. Cord blood stem cell banking:

This is type of SC banking is the process of collecting, processing, cryogenically freezing and preserving the ‘Cord blood’ that remains in the vein of the umbilical cord and placenta at the time of birth, for potential future medical use during SC therapy. Stems cells extracted from the umbilical cord blood have been shown to be more advantageous than those extracted from other sources such as bone marrow. These banked stem cells are considered as a perfect match for the lifetime of the donor baby, and for other family members, as well. This is significant as there exists a greater chance for success in a stem cell transplant between siblings than with unrelated donors and recipients.

B. Adult stem cell banking:

Some state-of-the-art adult stem cell banking services are either already available or in the process of coming up in many places of the world, including India. As an individual’s fat (adipose tissue) is an important source of adult stem cells, with the application of a high precision medical technology of separating, multiplying, and storing adult adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells for autologous use by physicians, ‘Adult stem cells are stored in these banks.

The good news is, increasing awareness in this area has now started prompting many parents, and also some adults to bank or store their own SC and the baby’s cord blood rich with a specific types of stem cells, that can be utilized, at a later date, in a variety of SC therapy while treating many life-threatening and debilitating diseases, if required.

Types of stem cell therapy:

There are two major types of SC therapies, and both are available in India:

  • Autologous stem cell therapy: uses the adult patient’s own stem cells obtained from the blood, bone marrow.
  • Allogenic stem cell therapy: uses donated stem cells, but faces chances of donor stem cell rejection.

As articulated in the revised stem cell guidelines, stem cells can’t be offered to patients in India as ‘therapy’ unless these are proven effective and safe supported by unequivocal clinical trial data and approved by the DCGI. Otherwise, these can be used only in ‘clinical trials’ as will be approved by the DCGI. The only exception to this is the use of haematopoietic (blood forming) stem cells for treating blood disorders, which is considered as ‘a proven therapy,’ according to available reports.

The Market – Global and India:

September 14, 2015 issue of ‘The Pharma Letter’ stated based on a recent report that the global stem cells market was valued at US$ 26.23 billion in 2013, and is estimated to be worth US$ 119.52 by 2019, registering at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 24.2 percent. Whereas, in India, the stem cell market is expected to be around US$ 600 million by 2017. Another report, titled ‘India Stem Cells Market Forecast & Opportunities, 2020’ of ‘Pharmaion’, states that stem cells market in India is expected to grow at a CAGR of over 28 percent during 2015 – 2020.

In terms of services offered, stem cells market in India has been segmented into two main categories, namely SC banking, and SC research. The latter dominated the market in 2014, and is likely to continue its dominance through 2020. Adult stem cells accounted for the majority share in India’s SC market in 2014, as a lot of research being carried out using adult stem cells, besides growing adult stem cell banking and other associated applications in therapeutics.

The major growth drivers for SC market are: increasing patient awareness, an increase in the approval for clinical trials in stem cell research, growing demand for stem cell banking services,

Government support, rising investments in research, and ascending trend of development for regenerative treatment to meet unmet medical needs.

The first stem cell based product approval in India:

On May 30, 2016, a Press Release of ‘Stempeutics Research’ of Bengaluru announced that for the first time in India, DCGI has granted limited approval for manufacturing and marketing of its allogeneic cell therapy product named Stempeucel® for the treatment of Buerger’s Disease – a rare and severe disease condition affecting the blood vessels of the legs, which finally may require amputation. Stempeucel® treatment is designed to enhance the body’s limited capability to restore blood flow in ischemic tissue by reducing inflammation and improving neovascularization. The prevalence of Buerger’s Disease is estimated to be 1,000,000 in India and two per 10,000 persons in the EU and US, as the release stated. Stempeutics Research’ is a company of Manipal Education & Medical Group and a Joint Venture with Cipla Group.

Conclusion:

Research on stem cells, across the world, is taking rapid strides. It has already demonstrated its healing power in changing many human lives either by significantly stalling the progression of several serious ailments, such as Multiple Sclerosis (MS), or reversing the disease conditions, such as serious damage to the heart caused by massive myocardial infarction.

An increasing number of stem cell banks coupled with growing public and private investments in stem cell research, positive narratives are getting scripted for this space in India. With rapidly growing middle class population and comparatively less stringent rules and regulations, India is emerging as a perfect destination for many more global and local stem cell banking companies. Consequently, the stem cell market in the country is expected to witness robust growth in the coming years.

However, only future research on stem cells will be able to unravel whether an Alzheimer’s victim will get back the stolen memory; a cancer patient won’t have to mentally prepare to die of cancer anytime soon, besides spending a fortune towards cancer therapy; an insulin dependent diabetic will no longer require insulin; an individual with damaged heart won’t have to continue with lifelong medication, and it goes on and on.

Nevertheless, if it does… and God willing – it will, ‘Stem Cell Therapy’ would not just be a life changer for many patients, it will be a game changer too for several others, including the pharma, biotech companies and many more within the healthcare sector. If any skeptic still asks, will it really happen? My counter question, in response, will be: Why not?… Why the hell not?

By: Tapan J. Ray  

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

 

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

Voices against this ‘unethical practice’ getting louder:                                             

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

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

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

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

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

Independent experts’ views differed from the innovator companies:

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

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

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

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

A crusader emerged in Canada:

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

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

This example is worth imbibing elsewhere.

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

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

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

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Pharma's serious apprehensions on greater Public transparency:  

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

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

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

Gross non-compliance, endangering patients’ health safety:

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

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

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

The paper reported the results as follows:

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

Based on the findings, the authors concluded asunder:

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

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

Unethical practices skewing medical science:

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

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

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

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

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

Despite vindication no tangible outcome yet:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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.

Pharma Outlook 2015: A Glimpse Of Some Drivers and Barriers

Posted on by
Reply

Looking ahead, the brand new year 2015 appears quite interesting to me both from the global and also from the local pharmaceutical industry perspective. In this article I shall try to give a glimpse of some of the important drivers and barriers for success of the industry as the year unfolds, based on recent and ongoing developments.

Let me start with the global outlook of 2015, where in the midst of all gloom and doom of the past years, I notice formation of a distinct and new silver lining, mainly due to the following two reasons:

1. Record number of new drugs approval in 2014 spanning across10 therapy areas:

As indicated in its website, USFDA has approved 41 novel medicines in 2014, which is 14 more than the previous year and is the second highest after 1996 that witnessed 53 approvals. Many of these new drugs are with blockbuster potential.

According to another report, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has also recommended 82 new medicines in 2014, which though includes generic drugs in its list. However, this number too shows an increase from 79 in 2013 and 57 in 2012.

According to January 02, 2014 report from Forbes, very interestingly, infectious diseases dominated with 12 approvals (27 percent), cancer with 8 approvals (18 percent), followed by rare diseases with 5 (11 percent). Just two of these new approvals are for Hepatitis treatment and the rest are for bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic infections.

AstraZeneca received the highest number of 4 approvals followed by Eli Lilly with 3.

2. Patent expired blockbuster drugs in 2015 would have low generic impact:

Though drugs worth sales turnover of US$ 44 billion would go off patent in 2015, patent expiries will have minimal impact on the top line as 2015 sales will grow close to four times that of patent losses. Following are the top 10 drugs among those:

No. Brand Company Disease Sales2013 (US$ Bn) Patent Expiry
1. Lantus Sanofi Diabetes 7.9 Feb 2015
2. Abilify Otsuka/Bristol-Myers Squibb Schizophrenia/ Other neurological conditions 7.8 April 2015
3. Copaxone Teva Multiple sclerosis 4.33 Sept 2015
4. Neulasta Amgen Infection reduction in cancer patients on chemotherapy 4.4 Oct 2015
5. Tracleer Actelion Pulmonary arterial hypertension 1.57 Nov 2015
6. Namenda Actavis Alzheimer’s disease 1.5 April 2015
7. Avodart/Jalyn GSK Benign prostatic hypertrophy 1.34 Nov 2015
8. Zyvox Pfizer Gram-positive bacterial infections 1.35 May 2015
9. AndroGel Abbvie Low testosterone  1.03 Early 2015
10. Synagis AstraZeneca Monoclonal antibody to prevent respiratory syncytial virus infection in infants  1.1 Oct 2015

(Compiled from FiercePharma data)

As a significant number of these drugs are biologics, such as Lantus, Abilify, Neulasta and Synagis, the generic impact on those large brands, post patent expiry, would be minimal, at least, for several more years.

However, Lantus sales could soon be impacted, as its biosimilar versions from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly have already received approval in Europe, and may be launched in the United States, as well.

Biosimilar versions of other drugs that will go off patent in 2015, do not seem to be anywhere near launch soon to make immediate dent in the sales of the original biologics. I had deliberated on various possible reasons for delay in biosimilar entry, especially in the US, in my earlier blog post of August 25, 2014, titled “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”

Taking all these into consideration, EvaluatePharma has estimated that out of patent expiry related sales turnover of US$44 billion, just around US $16 billion would get impacted in 2015 by their generic equivalents.

Global market outlook 2015:

According to IMS Health, spending on medicines will reach nearly $1,100 billion in 2015 with a growth rate of 3-6 percent over the last five-year period.

According to EvaluatePharma, the overall outlook of the global pharma industry in 2015 and beyond is expected to be as follows:

  • A dozen products launched in 2015 are forecast to achieve blockbuster sales by 2020
  • Drugs treating high cholesterol and heart failure will dominate the field with a combined 2020 sales forecast of US$8 billion
  • Sovaldi and its combination product Harvoni will take the number one worldwide seller spot with forecasted sales of $15.3 billion in 2015
  • Patent expiries will have minimal impact on the top line as 2015 sales will grow close to four times that of patent losses
  • Financing climate appears friendly and deals will continue at a steady pace but M&A activity unlikely to match the frenzy of 2014

Moreover, Oncology therapy area brings a huge promise with novel immuno-oncology drugs. As Reuters have reported, Merck & Co’s Keytruda and Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Opdivo, which work by blocking a protein called Programmed Death receptor (PD-1), are the first in a coming wave of immuno-therapies that analysts believe could generate annual sales of more than US$30 billion a year.

Indian pharma industry outlook 2015:

Indian pharmaceutical industry, dominated by branded generic drugs, is estimated to register a turnover of around US$ 33.8 billion with an average growth of 10.3 percent in 2014 – 2018 period, according to Deloitte. Increasing number of diagnosis and treatment of chronic ailments, fuelled by ascending trend in the per capita income, would be the key factors to drive this double-digit growth rate.

In 2013-14, pharma exports of the country with a turnover of US$ 14.84 billion grew at a meager 1.2 percent, which is the slowest growth in nearly the last 15 years. Pharmexcil attributed its reason to USFDA related regulatory issues and increasing global competition. India still stands exposed in this area, unless meaningful corrective measures are taken forthwith. It is worth noting, although India exports drugs to over 200 countries in the world, the United States (US) alone accounts for about 25 percent of India’s pharma exports.

Key issues and challenges in ‘The Exports Front’:

Generic drugs currently contribute over 80 percent of prescriptions written in the US. Around 40 percent of prescriptions and Over The Counter (OTC) drugs that are sold there, come from India and account for around 10 per cent of finished dosages in the US.

Almost all of these are cheaper generic versions of patent expired drugs, which are mainly produced in around 200 USFDA approved drug-manufacturing facilities located in India. Hence, India’s commercial stake in this space is indeed mind-boggling.

Indian drug exports were taking place satisfactorily without any major regulatory hitches since quite some time. Unfortunately, over the last few years, mostly the Federal Drug Administration of the US (USFDA) and the United Kingdom (UK)’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have started raising serious doubts on the quality of medicines manufactured in India, creating an uncertainty on drug exports in those countries.

To overcome this critical issue and keep marching ahead with distinction in the drug exports front, Indian pharma would require to successfully dealing with the following two areas:

A. Data integrity:

Since quite a while, USFDA has been raising serious concerns on ‘Data Integrity’ in their previously approved production facilities of a large number of Indian pharma players. The details of each of these concerns are available in the USFDA website.

This worrying development is now posing a huge threat to future growth potential of Indian drug exports, as in this area the Indian government had set an objective, in its strategy document, to register a turnover of US$ 25 billion in 2014-15. In all probability, it would fall far short of this target at the end of this fiscal, predominantly for related reasons. However, the good news is, considering the criticality of the situation, the Indian government is now working with the USFDA to resolve this problem.

I discussed a part of this area in my Blog Post of September 29, 2014 titled “Make in India…Sell Any Where in The World”: An Indian Pharma Perspective

B. Credibility of Clinical Trial Data from India:

Credibility of ‘Clinical Trial Data’ generated by the domestic players in India, has also become a cause of great concern, as the regulators in France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg suspended marketing approval for 25 drugs over the genuineness of clinical trial data from India’s GVK Biosciences.

Key issues and challenges in ‘The Domestic Front’:

Though 2015 would also witness the following important issues and challenges, meeting with this challenge of change should not be difficult with a proper mindset and right strategies:

A. The Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013):

Change in the mechanism of drug price control from earlier ‘cost based’ to newer ‘market based’ one and the specified provisions to neutralize inflationary impact of the input costs on the bottom line, based on the WPI, have already been considered as welcoming changes for the industry. As a result, despite implementation of the DPCO 2013, the pharma shares continued to do well in 2014 despite doomsayers’ predicaments, not just in the past, but even today.

I believe, the DPCO 2013 would not cause any significant negative impact further in 2015 on the performance of pharma companies, as the price controlled drugs would in all probability continue to be around 20 percent of the total pharma market. Moreover, now annual price increases are linked to the WPI for the controlled products and the companies can increase prices of remaining 80 percent of decontrolled products, upto 10 percent every year, irrespective of inflationary trend.

That said, due to huge inter-brand price differences, in July 2014 the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) had brought under price control 50 more cardiovascular and anti-diabetic drugs in addition to 348 drugs that featured under price control in the DPCO 2013.

If the pharma players do not take note of such abnormal inter-brand price variation of the same drugs without meaningful reasons, there could possibly be further move by the NPPA in this direction.

Additionally, any mechanism for patented products’ pricing, if announced in 2015, would have far-reaching impact, especially on the MNCs marketing such drugs.

B. Unethical practices in Clinical trial:

In the Clinical Trial arena of India, responding to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court of the country and separately the Parliamentary Standing Committee had indicted the drug regulator and charted out some action areas. The Parliamentary Committee in its report had even mentioned about a nexus existing between the drug regulator and the industry in this area.

Driven by the directives of the Apex Court of the country, the union ministry of health of the government of India has already strengthened some areas of past laxity in drug regulatory control, such as mandatory registration of clinical trials, constitution of committees to oversee the trial approval, its execution and above all ethical treatment of patients, including compensation.

Although, these are all requisite measures to create an appropriate longer-term eco-system for clinical trials in India, it has reportedly ruffled many feathers, such as CROs in the country who work mainly for pharma MNCs and some global pharma players too. This is mainly because of inordinate delays in drug approvals during the regulatory rectification process, besides cost of clinical trials going up. An orderly drug regulatory environment must prevail, instead of allegedly ‘free for all’ clinical trial environment in the country, costing many innocent lives and livelihoods.  Responding to this changing clinical trial environment, some MNCs have already articulated that they are reconsidering their drug trial strategy in India and some Indian players, possibly with vested interests and echoing similar sentiments, are also saying that they would shift their clinical trial projects out of India, which would adversely impact the country’s clinical trial industry.

Be that as it may, it appears now that under the directive of the Supreme Court of the country, the decisions taken by the government in clinical trial area are irreversible, for the long-term interest of the country.

C. Intellectual Property (IP) issues:

Reacting to some well-justified measures taken by India in the IP area to make healthcare affordable to all, the US and its some key allies, continuously pressured by their powerful pharma lobby groups, continue to push India hard to broaden the IP protections. ‘Big Pharma’ lobbyists are reportedly trying to compel India to amend its IP laws that would suit their business interest at the cost of patients.

Fortunately, many stakeholders, including media, have started raising their voices against such strong-arm tactics, further fueling the credibility erosion of ‘Big Pharma’ and creating important pressure groups for the government.

Simultaneously, concerned pharma MNCs are also seeking legal recourse over issues mainly related to the section (3d) and Compulsory Licensing of the Indian Patents Act. However, most of the judicial verdicts vindicate the quality of decisions taken by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in these areas.

Though very unlikely, any amendment or tweaking of the existing patent laws of India in 2015 would provide an unfair advantage to MNCs with negative impact on public health interest.

D. Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices:

Compared to the actions that are now being taken by the law enforcers overseas against pharmaceutical marketing malpractices, India has been showing a rather lackadaisical attitude in these areas, until recently. It astonishes many that unlike even China; no pharmaceutical company has been investigated thoroughly and hauled up by the government for alleged bribery and other serious allegations of corrupt practices.

However, frequent reporting by the Indian media had triggered a debate in the country on the subject. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on this subject is now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing in the near future. It is worth noting that in 2010, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ also had expressed its deep concern by stating that the “evil practice” of inducement of doctors by the pharma companies is continuing unabated as the revised guidelines of the Medical Council of India (MCI) have no jurisdiction over the pharma industry.

The Government, until recently, has shown no active interest in this area either, though the new Union Health Minister, J.P. Nadda decried the unethical nexus between the doctors and pharma companies, amounting violations of medical ethics in the country. He reportedly has stated that in majority of the cases, the pharma companies are luring the doctors by giving gifts and other benefits for prescribing the brand of medicines of their choice to the patients.

As the saying goes, ‘better late than never’, on December 12, 2014, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India announced details of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, which would be effective across the country from January 1, 2015 for all pharma players to implement, across India.

However, I reckon, the document in its current form is rather weak in its effective implementation potential. Meaningful and transparent deterrent measures to uphold public health interest are also lacking. The entire process also deserves a well-structured monitoring mechanism and digital implementation tools that can be operated with military precision. I discussed this issue in my Blog Post of December 29, 2014, titled “India’s Pharma Marketing Code (UCPMP): Is It Crafted Well Enough To Deliver The Deliverables?”

On UCPMP a survey done by E&Y has highlighted the following points, besides other areas:

  • More than 50 percent of the respondents are of the opinion that the UCPMP may lead to manipulation in recording of actual sampling activity.
  • Over 50 percent of the respondents indicated that the effectiveness of the code would be very low in the absence of legislative support provided to the UCPMP committee.
  • 90 percent of the respondents felt that pharma companies in India should focus on building a robust internal controls system to ensure compliance with the UCPMP.

In my view as well, the self-regulatory measures prescribed in the UCPMP of the DoP are unlikely to make any significant impact in 2015, unless pharma companies start focusing on building robust internal controls system to ensure compliance with the UCPMP.

Conclusion:

I would now put on the balance of probabilities, the new ‘Silver Linings’ of the Global pharmaceutical industry as discussed above, the issues and challenges of 2015 for the Indian pharma and also other important factors that I have not been able to discuss in this article. The overall emerging picture depicts that the pharma industry, both global and local, would fare much better than what it did in the recent past, provided the industry, as a whole, does not continue to ignore the storm signals outright.

Thus, based on the available data, the year 2015, as appears to me, would provide an enormous opportunity with promises of an interesting time ahead that the pharmaceutical industry should try to leverage on…and then cherish it for a long while…most probably as a turning point of the same ball game with different success requirements.

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.

 

Beyond ‘The Magic Moment’ of New Drug Marketing Approval

Posted on by
Reply

“Uncontrolled clinical trials are causing havoc to human life. There are so many legal and ethical issues involved with clinical trials and the government has not done anything so far.”

This is exactly what the Supreme Court of India observed while responding to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the subject in January 2013.

While Indian regulators with the active intervention of the Supreme Court are trying to grapple with, besides others, the basic ‘human rights’ aspect of the Clinical Trial (CT), many countries in different parts of the world are moving much ahead at a brisker pace. They have started thinking and putting in place more patient centric newer drug approval systems and also, in tandem, hastening the process of bringing new drugs to the market.

Current general scenario in CT:

Currently, after pre-clinical studies and before applying for regulatory approval, a new drug has to be tested on volunteers in randomized studies to prove its efficacy and safety on patients. Relatively short duration of new drug trials can hardly establish long-term safety and efficacy, which are now arrived at through extrapolation of data collected during CT period.

It is worth noting, the overall situation changes dramatically after launch of these products, as their usage expands from a relatively smaller number of CT volunteers to millions of real-world patients.

In a situation like this, unrealistic expectation of patients’ safety in perpetuity based primarily on extrapolation of very limited CT data is being increasingly questioned today.

That is why, on going post-marketing surveillance, which is also known as a Phase IV CT, is considered as a much more effective process to gauge relative superiority of the drug against the existing ones in terms of both efficacy and safety on a longer term.

That said, today one reads and hears umpteen number of accusations for almost lack of any meaningful response on the part of the pharmaceutical companies, in general, towards revelations of post-marketing surveillance data. This could, in turn, expose the patients to various types of risks, including wasteful healthcare expenditure.

The ‘Magic Moment’ in the present regulatory process:

A recent paper highlights a single “Magic Moment” between pre and post-licensing processes in the current drug-approval model in many countries. In this system, the use of a drug is tightly controlled in a narrowly defined pre-licensing population. Thus, CTs are also conducted on such pre-defined and relatively homogeneous volunteers, who are generally free from complicating conditions.

However, after ‘The Magic Moment’ of marketing approval, a large number of heterogeneous patient population, with many of them on multiple therapy, also use these new products in uncontrolled settings. Situations as these had led to post-marketing major drug withdrawals like, Vioxx and Avandia due to patients’ safety.

These grave concerns have led to a strategic shift in the drug regulatory approval scenario throwing open new ideas in the drug approval process.

Adaptive Licensing:

To find the right answer to this vexing issue the drug regulators in many countries are  reportedly seriously contemplating to imbibe a process that will continuously help analyzing information through ongoing post-marketing surveillance data. Continuous medical data analysis like this will enable the regulators to modify their earlier decisions on marketing approval and also medical reimbursements related to pricing reasons.

This new process is called ‘Adaptive Licensing (AL)’, which is expected to benefit the overall healthcare system, by not allowing medical reimbursement of treatments with those drugs, which will provide negligible benefit over existing low cost therapies.

Difference between current mechanism and AL:

According to a ‘Health Canada’ paper titled, “The Path to Adaptive Drug Regulation”, the difference between the two is as follows:

Current system:

As explained above, post-licensing i.e. after ‘The Magic Moment’ of regulatory approval, treatment population grows rapidly and treatment experiences do not contribute to evidence generation.

Adaptive Licensing:

After initial license, treated patients grow more slowly due to regulatory restrictions. Patient experience is captured to contribute to real-world information. The marketing license is also modified accordingly from time to time.

Most desirable for many drugs:

Experts in this field opine that AL will help bringing in alignment of all required processes so important for a new drug seen from patients’ perspective like, R&D, regulatory approval and market access with the active involvement of all stakeholders like, the pharmaceutical companies, the drug regulator, payors/insurance companies and also the researchers.

In the AL system, a transparent drug development process will provide enough data on risk-benefit profile of the concerned drug to satisfy the drug regulator for its quick marketing authorization on pre-determined types of patients.

Such approval will follow real-life monitoring of efficacy and safety for modification of the drug license accordingly, wherever and whenever required.

Thus, AL is expected to strike a right balance balance between timely access to new drugs for the patients and the need to evaluate real time evolving information on safety and efficacy leading to a well-informed patient centric decisions by the drug regulators.

A continuous regulatory evaluation and decision-making process:

AL intends to evaluate a drug through its entire life span.  It has been reported that during this long period, clinical and other data will “Continue to be generated on the product through various modalities, including active surveillance and additional studies after initial and full licensing. The artificial dichotomy of pre vs. post licensing stages (‘The Magic Moment’) will be replaced by graded, more tightly managed, but more timely and potentially more cost-effective market entry and market stability.”

Not necessary for all drugs in the near term:

It is worth noting that AL system may not perhaps be required for all pharmaceutical or biologic products and will not totally replace the current system of drug licensing process, at least in the near term.

AL process may immediately be followed only for those products with a favorable risk-benefit drug profile as demonstrated in the initial data and there is a robust reason for early market entry of this drug to meet unmet needs, simultaneously with ongoing studies.

The ‘Magic Moment’ freezes in India…in perpetuity:

As per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, after obtaining drug marketing approval from the regulators, concerned pharmaceutical companies are required to follow the pharmacovigilance system in the country to own the responsibility and liability of the drugs as enunciated in the Schedule Y of the Act. Unfortunately, this is hardly being followed in India, ignoring patients’ safety blatantly.

With the plea that most products launched in India are already being marketed in many developed markets of the world, the concerned companies prefer to depend on clinical experiences in those markets. This attitude totally bypasses the regulatory requirement to follow a robust pharmacovigilance system in India. Indian drug regulators also do not seem to be much concerned about this important patients’ safety related requirements, very surprisingly not even for biosimilar drugs.

However, the current ground realities are quite different. As we witness today, there does not seem to be much difference in time between international and India launch of innovative products. Thus, the argument of gaining medium to long-term experience on safety and efficacy from international data related to these drugs, does not seem to hold any water at all.

On the contrary, some drugs withdrawn from the international markets on safety grounds are still available in India, despite ire and severe indictment even from the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee.

In a situation like this, AL process of Marketing approval for selected newer and innovative drugs may be considered by the Indian Drug Regulators, just not to be more patient centric, but also to help evaluating  pricing decisions of innovative drugs failing to demonstrate significantly better treatment outcomes as compared to the existing ones.

A recent example of AL:

One of the latest drugs, which reportedly will undergo such regulatory scrutiny of USFDA is Tacfidera (dimethyl fumarate) used for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, approved in April 2013 and costing US$ 54,900 per patient per year.  Interestingly, Tacfidera, before the drug can find itself on a formulary, will need to demonstrate its effectiveness in the real world.

The report indicates, “the first six months after a drug launch are always about educating payers about its benefits, and while most large payers are likely to make a decision to reimburse the drug in the next twelve months, data collection will continue and changes in policies might be made at a later date.”

Thus, in the years ahead, whether a new drug will become a blockbuster or not will very largely be decided by the ongoing real world data. If the promise of a drug diminishes at any point of time through clinical data, it will certainly going to have consequential financial and other adverse impacts.

Another interesting recent development:

Under new pharmacovigilance legislation in Europe, the European Medicines Agency has reportedly announced the list of over 100 drugs that soon will bear the “black triangle” logo. This initiative is directed to encourage both the doctors and patients to report side effects to enable close monitoring of drug safety.

Criteria to include drugs under additional monitoring are:

  • Medicines authorized after January 1, 2011 that contain a new active substance.
  • Biologics for which there is limited post-marketing experience.
  • Medicines with a conditional approval or approved under exceptional circumstances.
  • Medicines for which the marketing-authorization holder is required to carry out a post-authorization safety study (PASS).
  • Other medicines can also be placed under additional monitoring, based on a recommendation from the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC).

Conclusion:

Global regulatory experts do believe that in the concept of AL, there are still some loose knots to be tightened expeditiously to make it a fully implementable common drug marketing authorization process.  Appropriate pilot projects need to be undertaken in this area to establish beyond any doubt that AL will be decisively more preferable to the current regulatory process.

As and when AL will become the preferred drug-licensing pathway across the world, it is expected to offer greater real benefits of new drug development to the patients for their optimal use at an affordable price.

That said, some other experts do opine as follows:

“No matter how fast the authorization process operates, the merits of innovation will not be felt until they reach patients. And the barrier between authorization and patient access remains, in most of Europe, the issue of reimbursement.”

While all these are fast developing in the global CT scenario, in the jangle of Clinical Trials‘ in India, ‘Adaptive Licensing’ has still remained a critical missing ingredient even to encourage a wider debate.

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.

Patented Drugs’ Pricing: Apprehensive Voices Could Turn into a Self-Defeating Prophecy

Posted on by
Reply

On February 21, 2013, the Department of Pharmaceuticals in a communication to the stakeholders announced that the committee to examine the issues of ‘Price Negotiations for Patented Drugs’ has since submitted its report to the Department. Simultaneously the stakeholders were requested to provide comments on the same urgently, latest by March 31, 2013.

This committee was constituted way back in 2007 to suggest a system that could be used for price negotiation of patented medicines and medical devices ‘before their marketing approval in India’.

In that process, the Committee reportedly had 20 meetings in two rounds, where the viewpoints of the Pharmaceutical Industry including FICCI, NGOs and other stakeholders were taken into consideration.

Simultaneously, the Committee had commissioned a study at the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law and Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur to ascertain various mechanisms of price control of Patented Drugs in many countries, across the world. The Committee reportedly has considered this ‘Expert Report’ while finalizing its final submission to the Government.

Scope of recommendations:

The Committee in its final report recommends price negotiations for Patented Drugs only for:

  • The Government procurement/reimbursement
  • Health Insurance Coverage by Insurance Companies

Issues to remain unresolved despite price negotiation:

In the report, the Committee expressed the following view:

  • Even after calibrating the prices based on Gross National Income with Purchasing Power Parity of the countries where there are robust public health policies, with the governments having strong bargaining power in price negotiation, the prices of patented medicines will still remain unaffordable to a very large section of the population of India. Such countries were identified in the report as UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand
  • The government should, therefore, extend Health Insurance Scheme covering all prescription medicines to all citizens of the country, who are not covered under any other insurance /reimbursement scheme.

Three categories of Patented Drugs identified:

The committee has identified three categories of patented drugs, as follows:

1. A totally new class of drug with no therapeutic equivalence

2. A drug that has therapeutic equivalence but also has a therapeutic edge over the  existing ones

3. A drug that has similar therapeutic effectiveness compared to the existing one

The Committee recommended that these three categories of Patented Drugs would require to be treated differently while fixing the price.

A bullish expectation of the Government on Patented Drugs market:

The report highlights that the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry has currently registered a turnover exceeding US$ 21 billion with the domestic turnover of over US$ 12 billion.

The report also estimates that the total value turnover of patented medicines in India, which is currently at around US$ 5 million, is expected to grow at a brisk pace due to the following reasons:

  • Rapid up-gradation of patent infrastructure over the past few years to support new patent laws with the addition of patent examiners.
  • Decentralization of patent-filing process and digitization of records.
  • Increase of population in the highest income group from present 10 million to 25 million in next 5 years.

All these, presumably have prompted the Government to come out with a ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’ mechanism in India.

Pricing Mechanism in China: 

Just to get a flavor of what is happening in the fast growing neighboring market in this regard, let us have a quick look at China.

In 2007, China introduced, the ‘New Medical Insurance Policy’ covering 86 percent of the total rural population. However, the benefits have so far been assessed as modest. This is mainly because the patients continue to incur a large amount out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare.

There does exist a reimbursement mechanism for listed medicines in China and drug prices are regulated there with the ‘Cost Plus Formula’.

China has the following systems for drug price control:

  • Direct price control and competitive tendering

In this process the Government directly sets the price of every drug included in the formulary. Pharmaceutical companies will require making a price application to the government for individual drug price approval.The retail prices of the drugs are made based on the wholesale price plus a constant rate.

Interestingly, unlike Europe, the markup between the retail and wholesale price is much higher in China.

Apex body for ‘Patented Drugs Price Negotiation’: 

The Report recommends a committee named as ‘Pricing Committee for Patented Drugs (PCPD)’ headed by the Chairman of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to negotiate all prices of patented medicines.

As CGHS, Railways, Defense Services and other Public/Private institutions cover around 23 percent of total healthcare expenditure, the members of the committee could be invited from the Railways, DGHS, DCGI, Ministry of Finance and Representatives of top 5 health insurance companies in terms of number of beneficiaries.

Recommended pricing methodology:

For ‘Price Negotiation of Patented Drugs’, the report recommends following methodologies for each of the three categories, as mentioned earlier:

  1. For Medicines having no therapeutic equivalence in India:
  • The innovator company will submit to the PCPD the details of Government procurement prices in the UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand for the respective Patented Drugs.
  • In the event of the concerned company not launching the said Patented Drug in any of those reference countries, the company will require to furnish the same details only for those countries where the product has been launched.
  • The PCPD will then take into consideration the ratio of the per capita income of a particular country to the per capita income of India.
  • The prices of the Patented Drug would be worked out for India by dividing the price of the medicine in a particular country by this ratio and the lowest of these prices would be taken for negotiation for further price reduction.
  • The same methodology would be applicable for medical devices also and all the patented medicines introduced in India after 2005.

2. For medicines having a therapeutic equivalent in India:

  • If a therapeutically equivalent medicine exists for the Patented Drug, with better or similar efficacy, PCPD may consider the treatment cost for the disease using the new drug and fix the Patented Drug price accordingly
  • PCPD may adopt the methodology of reference pricing as stated above to ensure that the cost of treatment of the Patented Drug does not increase as compared to the cost of treatment with existing equivalent medicine

3. For medicines introduced first time in India itself:

  • PCPD will fix the price of such drugs, which are new in the class and no therapeutic equivalence is available, by taking various factors into consideration like cost involved, risk factors and any other factors of relevance.
  • PCPD may discuss various input costs with the manufacturer asking for documented evidence.
  • This process may be complex. However, the report indicates, since the number of medicines discovered and developed in India will not be many, the number of such cases would also be limited.

Negotiated prices will be subjected to revision:

The report clearly indicates that ‘the prices of Patented drugs so fixed will be subjected to revision either periodically or if felt necessary by the manufacturer or the regulator as the case may be.’

Strong voices of support and apprehension:

A.  Support from the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Interestingly there have emerged strong voices of support on this Government initiative from the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, as follows:

  • Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA) has commented, “This policy is in the right direction as we know that Compulsory License (CL) cannot address the need of price control for all patented drugs, so this policy takes care of that issue of a uniform regulation of price control for all patented drugs”. IPA had also suggested that the reference pricing should be from the developed countries like UK, Australia and New Zealand where the 80 percent of the expenditure being incurred on public health is borne and negotiated by the government.
  • Pharmexcil - another pharma association has commented, “This report is balanced and keeps India’s position in the global market in mind while recommending a pricing formula.”
  • Federation of Pharma Entrepreneurs (FOPE) & Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (CIPI) had submitted their written views to the Committee stating that FOPE supports price negotiation mechanism for Patented Drugs and strongly recommends that Compulsory License (CL) provisions should not get diluted while going for price negotiation.
  • Indian Drug Manufacturer Association (IDMA) supported price negotiation for all Patented Drugs and recommended that the issue of CL and price negotiation should be dealt separately.

However, the Organization of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI) feels, as the report indicates, ‘Price Negotiations for Patented Products’ should be made only for Government purchases and not be linked with ‘Regulatory Approval’. They have already expressed their serious concern on the methodology of ‘Patented Products Pricing’, as detailed in the above report.

B. Apprehension within the Government

Even more interestingly, such apprehensive voices also pan around the Government Ministries.

Though the DoP has proposed in the report that once the Patented Drug Policy is implemented the issuance of CL may be done away with, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has reportedly commented with grave caution, as under:

“If it is decided that Price Negotiations on Patented Drugs should be carried out then, the following issues must be ensured:

(i) Negotiations should be carried out with caution, as the case for Compulsory License on the ground of unaffordable pricing of drugs [Section 84(b) of the Patent Act] will get diluted.

(ii) Re-Negotiations of the prices at periodic intervals should be an integral part of the negotiation process.”

C. Apprehension of other stakeholders 

The NGOs like, “Lawyer’s Collective HIV/Aids Unit” and “Medicines Sans Frontiers (MSF)” reportedly have urged that the price negotiation should not be allowed to weaken the position of CL for the Patented Drugs.

They had mentioned to the Committee as follows:

“As regards the plea of the patent holder that they had spent a large sum on R&D, one should note that most of the funds for R&D come from the Governments of their respective countries”. They further stated, “when the cost of production of the patented drugs is not known, it would be impossible to negotiate the price in a proper manner.”

The DoP report states that the other members of the NGOs also seconded these views.

Conclusion:

Not so long ago, on January 12, 2013, one of the leading dailies of India first reported that in a move that is intended to benefit thousands of cancer patients, Indian Government has started the process of issuing Compulsory Licenses (CL) for three commonly used anti-cancer drugs:

-       Trastuzumab (or Herceptin, used for breast cancer),

-       Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy)

-       Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia)

For a month’s treatment drugs like, Trastuzumab, Ixabepilone and Dasatinib reportedly cost on an average of US$ 3,000 – 4,500 or Rs 1.64 – 2.45 lakh for each patient in India.

I reckon, a robust mechanism of ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ could well benefit the global pharmaceutical companies to put forth even a stronger argument against any Government initiative to grant CL on the pricing ground for expensive innovative drugs in India. At the same time, the patients will have much greater access to patented drugs than what it is today, due to Government procurement of these drugs at a negotiated price.

On the other hand, apprehensive voices as are now being expressed on this issue, just hoping for drastic measures of grant of frequent CL by the Government for improved patients’ access to innovative drugs, could well turn into a self-defeating prophecy – making patients the ultimate sufferers, yet again, as happens most of the time.

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.