Tag Archives: Based

Pharma Policy Execution Gap Limits Access To Affordable Medicines?

Posted on by
Reply

“The cost of new drugs is putting increasing pressure on people in both rich and poor countries”- was eloquently expressed in an article, titled “Why do new medicines cost so much, and what can we do about it?”. This was published by “The Guardian” on April 09, 2018.

Almost synchronically, expressing concern on this issue, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) advised the world leaders ‘to take bold new approaches’ for increasing access to medicines for all. A UN high-level panel on ‘access to medicines’ spent almost a year deliberating over related issues. The panel members were from pharma companies, as well as civil society and academics. The final report coming in September, backed de-linkage of the costs of R&D from the eventual price of the drug. Notably, the author who is also the health editor of the above publication, feels that any positive outcome in this direction is unlikely to materialize soon.

The majority of big pharma constituents, with the possible exception of GSK, whose then chief executive Sir Andrew Witty was unenthusiastic about the UN report. Probably because, it supported governments’ right to invoke ‘a get-out’ from the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS agreement. This is to bypass drug patents and make cheaper versions of the respective generic equivalents, in the interests of public health, in accordance with the 2001 Doha declaration. However, the author is hopeful that, “as happened with AIDS, each new crisis over access to medicines – whether concerning a common liver disease or a rare cancer, and particularly over the antibiotics that are under threat and vital to all our lives – is likely to put pressure on companies to find ways to bring the costs of medicines down.”

Stakeholder pressure for increasing access to medicines continues. Even in smaller developed countries, such as Switzerland, a section of the public demands that “Swiss authorities must act to make lifesaving drugs more affordable by introducing compulsory licensing.” Or, one can now see reports saying,“Irish patients are being denied access to nine drugs that are widely available across Europe, largely, on cost grounds.”

Nevertheless, regardless of mounting pressure for drawing a reasonable symmetry between cost of, especially new drugs and their improved access to patients, ongoing status-quo continues. In this article, I shall dwell on this concern from the Indian perspective, focusing on an agonizingly stark implementation-gap related to the current Indian pharma pricing policy.

Under pressure, pharma now recognizes the need for affordable drugs:

Coming under intense pressure of patients and other stakeholders, even the largest trade association of Big Pharma has recently changed its stance on this issue, though clearly sharking any responsibility for the same. It just recognized the need for affordable medicines for improved patient access to treatments by saying: “Too often patients have to fight to access breakthrough medicines that are revolutionizing how we fight disease.” It also accepted the fact that “many Americans are struggling to afford their medicines.”

“We can improve patient access and affordability by moving toward a system that prioritizes results for patients. Biopharmaceutical companies are working with insurers to develop innovative and flexible ways to pay for medicines that focus on results, lower out-of-pocket costs and enable patients to access the right treatments the first time” – it added.

What it really means: 

What it really means ‘treatment outcomes-based drug pricing’ or ‘value-based drug pricing (VBP)’. In other words, a situation where drug prices are set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, against other available products. This model will also ensure that patients’ money doesn’t get wasted from drugs that aren’t effective on them. The VBP model is, thus, significantly different from product pricing, based on ‘undisclosed’ cost of ongoing innovation for new drugs.

Is this Big Pharma’s new way to change optics?

The intent for imbibing VBP, as expressed by the above pharma association, throws open the door for discussion of its core intent. Is the intention real, or another Big Pharma way of changing general optics on the sensitive issue of new drug pricing? This doubt creeps in from the findings of some important studies on this issue. One such is an interesting paper, titled “Pricing for Survival” from KPMG. The analysis highlighted very limited application of VBP concept, and also why it is not yet viable – despite the hype being created around it.

According to KPMG, “there were 25 drugs engaged in various types of VBP with payers in the fragmented United States market as of September 2017. The problem is, these models appear to be limited in applicability to disease states with more standardized protocols and dominated by drug therapies with single indications – notably osteoporosis, diabetes and hepatitis C.” To date, VBP models seem to be facing several constraints, such as it is appealing mostly to payers that are fully integrated with healthcare delivery i.e., closed-loop payer-provider health systems or integrated delivery networks.

“The takeaway is, when it comes to specialty and orphan drugs, outcomes-based pricing simply faces too many barriers at present” – the article elaborated. Be that as it may, let me now explore the relevance of VBP in India.

Any relevance of VBP in India?

VBP has been tried in a health care environment where payers and drug companies are two critical players for access to affordable medicines, as we see in the KPMG study. Under any value-based pricing agreements for pharmaceuticals, both payers and pharma companies agree to link payment for a medicine to the value achieved, rather than volume.

Whereas, in the Indian healthcare scenario, as we are experiencing today, payers are mostly individuals.  Despite various well-publicized health schemes, expenditure on health, including drugs, remains by and large ‘out of pocket (OoP)’ – for a large Indian population. Hence, copying western framework for implementation VBP in India, would call for scores of ‘pharma – individual payer agreements.’ This would be a daunting task, if not impractical, to even try it out.

In this context, let me touch upon the Ayushman Bharat scheme that was launched by the Prime Minister on September 23, 2018, but just in one of the 29 states of India – Jharkhand. If, or as and when it will cover the entire country, the scheme is expected to bring 107.4 million families and more than 550 million people under health insurance coverage. However, the work seems to be still in progress.

There are three financing models for this scheme – insurance model, trust model and hybrid model – and the 19 states that have come on board for the scheme’s implementation in the country, have chosen a trust model, according to the Union Health Minister. The minister also reiterated: “Things are still unfolding. Only when the letters reach the beneficiaries will they understand and react.”

Nevertheless, the Union Health Minister himself, just like his counterparts in the previous governments, exhibited confidence that the country is “moving towards universal health cover with Ayushman Bharat scheme,” – as was the headline of the above media report.

Going by the past and current outcomes of several such government schemes in the country, and what the minister himself articulated on September 17, 2018, a large section of the Indian population still remains  apprehensive on the fast pan-India rollout and overall success of this ambitious health scheme. Hence, at this stage, I reckon, it may not be relevant to discuss the application of VBP model on Ayushman Bharat project. I wrote about such apprehensions in this Blog on June 18, 2018.

Having said that, VBP still remains relevant when we look at the government’s intent captured in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy (NPPP) 2012,’ as I shall discuss below.

VBP and the policy implementation gap:

For making the point clearer, let me keep the Ayushman Bharat scheme aside because of its associated uncertainties. Even in the current health care environment of high OoP expenditure on drugs, especially on high priced new drugs, if one tries to make use of the VBP model, it is very much possible.

This is because, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012, under point 4 (XV) on ‘Patented Drugs, categorically states:  “There is a separate Committee constituted by the Government order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented drugs would be taken based on the recommendations of the Committee.”

Curiously, even 6 years down the line, no meaningful decision has been taken on patented drug pricing in India by the successive governments. As I wrote in this Blog on December 12, 2016, Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still A Policy Paralysis.

Parliamentary Standing Committee intervenes:

Six years after the constitution of the committee by the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP), the long-awaited report was eventually submitted with a vague formula for pricing patented drugs in India. Intriguingly,the issue remained as such, until the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s August 2016 report was placed before the parliament. It strongly criticized the DoP’s efforts to recommend measures in regulating prices of life-saving patented drugs, despite government assurances for the same.

On September 23, 2016, media reported: “Upbraided by the parliamentary standing committee for its gross negligence and lackadaisical attitude, the department of pharmaceuticals has set about seeking suggestions from different ministries on price regulation of patented drugs.”

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was formed thereafter, under the chairmanship of one of the Joint Secretaries of the DoP to suggest a new mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country.
The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary – Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary – Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary – National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). But, the saga continues – at the cost of patients’ health interest.

Conclusion:

As it appears, there still lies a clear opportunity for Indian drug pricing policy makers introduce VBP concept for patented drugs in the country. Following this model, the prices of new and innovative drugs under patents can be set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, over the available existing products. Health Technology Assessment (HTA), for example, could be an effective tool in this process.

Additionally, the VBP model could also minimize, if not eliminate the risk of patients paying a high a price for new drugs coming through incremental innovation, adding too little clinical and economic value over existing drugs. There may, of course, be some teething trouble or even important issues in arriving at consensus on value-metrics for VBP. But, this can be sorted out through meaningful engagement with concerned parties.

Strikingly, even after 6 years since the NPPP 2012 was announced, nothing tangible has been made known to stakeholders on the execution of ‘patented drug pricing policy’ in India. An avoidable policy execution gap continues, limiting access to affordable new medicines to a vast majority of the Indian population, even 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.

Making Drug Pricing Transparent May Work Better Than Price Control

Posted on by
Reply

“Now, one-fourth of the Indian pharma market to be under price control.” This possibility was reported by some national dailies, on July 03, 2018. The new methodology of drug price control could be anything – ranging from earlier ‘cost-based’ model to the current ‘market-based’ one – to even the new pharmaceutical index, as proposed by the Government ‘think tank’ – Niti Aayog. This gives an indication of acceptance by the policy makers that none of the price control mechanisms have worked as intended, till the last 48 years. Otherwise, why are such changes taking place?

On the other hand, the drug pricing models of the pharma industry, are also not working. Drug pricing related issues, directly or indirectly, continue driving pharma reputation down south. Strong negative vibes on the industry continues, despite a vigorous and expensive advocacy of the industry trade associations, primarily positioning the need to encourage ‘drug innovation’ right at the front. No perceptible impact of this pharma strategy on the policy makers is still visible, besides a few spoon-fed media editorials – as many believe. The saga continues. The pricing focus keeps remaining solely on a company’s financial interest. How far the price of a drug can be stretched to benefit the company, is the point to ponder. Why aren’t the basis and rationale of drug pricing made transparent, voluntarily? In this article, I shall discuss on this contentious issue.

Current pricing approach becoming counterproductive: 

The good news is, of late, some global drug majors apparently have been compelled to realize that this approach is gradually becoming more and more counterproductive, inviting more drastic measures from many Governments. Even recently in the United states, ‘Trump wants U.S. Health Secretary to get tough on drug prices, opioids.’ This situation demands, more than ever before, that a measurable quantum of all-round health benefits accrued by patients with the medicine, have to be factored into the drug pricing model, now.

Can pharma too, look for an ‘Out of the box’ solution?

I found two excellent examples of ‘looking outside the box’ in an article featured in the Pharmaceutical Executive, on March 06, 2018. Both the illustrations from non-pharma companies focus on product output to the consumer rather than inputs on the same by the companies, such as the cost of a drug innovation to an innovative company. Many find difficult to accept – why for extending life of cancer patients by just three to six months, an innovative oncology drug would cost thousands of rupees more to the sufferers, or their family?

Couple of interesting ideas:

The two interesting ideas are as follows:

- Erstwhile Monsanto, the article says, ‘had historically been able to maintain its market position and technological edge in developing superior genetically modified seeds through patents and contracts with farmers. In order to fully capture the value of its genetically modified seeds, however, Monsanto went a step further and shifted to a royalty type price model, charging a fee after the crops were harvested based on the yield. This end-use fee shifted Monsanto’s price model from seed-based to yield-based pricing, i.e., from input- to output based.”

-  The second one comes from a time “when Michelin developed a new tire that lasted 25 percent longer than existing tires, the company found it difficult for customers to accept a premium” – the paper highlights. “Rather than giving away the innovation, Michelin changed its pricing model. Truck fleets, a key customer segment, track cost per mile for each truck as their revenue model is also based on charging its customers per mile. Michelin decided to adapt its pricing model and to offer the new tires on a price per mile rather than per tire basis. The company then offered a contract to replace the tires after they wore down. Under this new pricing model, customers perceived a parity price as they were not asked to pay more, while longer lasting tire from Michelin was able to capture a premium for its innovation” – the article emphasized.

Two patient-oriented pharma pricing models:

Looking somewhat ‘outside the box’ and trying to factor in patients’ overall interest, some global majors are contemplating the following two broad approaches:

  • Value based pricing (VBP)
  • Outcomes based pricing (OBP)

The Drug Pricing Lab (DPL) based at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center defines these two models as follows:

Value-based pricing: When the price of a drug is based on its measured benefits, for instance, in clinical trials leading to its approval.  Methods used to determine value-based prices are transparent, reproducible and data driven.

Outcomes-based pricing: Refers to arrangements between manufacturers and payers, in which the manufacturer is obligated to issue a refund or rebate to the payer that is linked to how well the therapy performs in a real-world population. This refund or rebate is off of a list price that the manufacturer sets.

These concepts are neither very new or untried. Nevertheless, these are being used very selectively by some global pharma majors, from time to time. There doesn’t seem to be any consistent approach with these two models, thus far. For example, in 2005, with its erectile dysfunction drug Levitra (vardenafil), Bayer entered into a “no cure, no pay” initiative in Denmark, where patients dissatisfied with the treatment get a refund. Moreover, there are several instances of interchangeable use of these two definitions, in various literature. But, I shall stick only to the above definition, in this deliberation.

Are there any takers for VBP?

A few other pharma majors, such as Eli Lilly, have accepted the need in finding a right balance between investment on innovation and providing affordable medicines, as the key to bettering the health of the world with value-based pricing. It will call for requisite engagement between the drug manufacturers and health planners, covering the following two points, especially in the Indian context:

  • Critical scientific evidence about new drugs would create a pathway to set accurate rates for better availability to patients who need treatment.
  • Making drug price regulators and health policy planners better anticipate the holistic impact of the drug on patients, leading to generation of more accurate efficacy and pricing/health economics data.

The major issue with VBP:

The critical point to note, that for a meaningful discussion on VBP, the pharma players will require to share their pricing data with the competent authorities. In this regard, the article, titled “Pricing Turning Point: The Case for Innovating Pharma’s Model,” published by Pharmaceutical Executive on March 06, 2018, flags an important reality.

It says,a drug pricing model consists of two parts – How to charge (the details of the rationale)? And how much to charge (the level)? The article reinforces that the pricing decisions in the pharma industry generally focus on ‘how much to charge’, for the last 100 years. This process is now being stretched to a mind boggling level that raises many eyebrows in ‘disbelief’. I, therefore, reckon, it would be a real challenge for the drug maker to make the basis or rationale of a pricing decision transparent to all. In that case, the moot question is, how would the value-based pricing work?

Are there any takers for OBP?

According to reports,  the erstwhile CEO of Novartis – Joe Jimenez, and his Amgen counterpart at that time – Robert Bradway, among others, publicly spoke about pegging drug costs to their outcomes. Intending to be a part of the drug pricing solution, Novartis inked performance-based contracts with Cigna and Aetna on its new heart failure medication Entresto, so did Amgen on its anti-lipid drug – Repatha. Novartis also fleshed out the details of outcomes-based pricing model in a comprehensive report, describing its benefits to address the affordability challenge. However, such initiatives have not gained momentum, just yet.

OBP may not be the right option, and why:

Thereafter,the Drug Pricing Lab (DPL), based at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center,analyzed that the methods manufacturers use to generate list prices are typically opaque, inconsistent, and driven more by market factors than clinical data. These methods are often referred to by manufacturers as “pricing to what the market will bear”.

‘The Drug Pricing Lab’ illustrated the basic difference to patients between the ‘value-based’ and ‘out-come’ based pricing models by looking into Amgen’s outcome-based refund contract with Harvard Pilgrim for Repatha (Evolocumab). Amgen had agreed to refund Harvard Pilgrim the cost of medication for patients who have a heart attack or stroke, an estimated 3.5 percent of individuals on the drug. This equates to a reduction in annual list price from US$ 14,100 to US$ 13,620. In contrast, the ‘Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’finds that a value-based price for Repatha would be US$ 2,200 to US$ 5,000 per year, one third to one fifth the expected price resulting from the outcomes-based contract.

VBP comes out as a better option:

Based on the available data, it appears that VBP is a better option that focuses on tangible value delivery of a drug to individual patients. This is quantified with the help of available statistical tools, in a transparent manner. Application of Health economics is also being tried in this area.

Thus, the core concept behind VBP is that any drug price should be a function of the differential value that it delivers over the conventional ones, generally used for treating the same disease. Unfortunately, arriving at a consensus on the ‘value assessment’ metrics for a drug, often throws a tough challenge, especially to the manufacturers.

Conclusion:

Recently, with exorbitantly high-priced new drugs coming into the market, the issue of drug pricing mechanism has become a major concern for all stakeholders. Pharma companies can’t wish it away, any longer, even with the high decibel advocacy of ‘protecting and encouraging innovation’ of new drugs. The consequent potential risks are becoming too costly.

This situation prompts the pharma players to reengage with the consumers, providing quantifiable details about the differential value that a drug offers to patients and its relationship to the price that the company charges.  This is easier said than done. It’s time for drug companies to establish a solid link between these two. As I said before, many stakeholders are refusing to accept, just to extend life for a few months, why should an innovative anti-cancer drug cost thousand or even lakhs of rupees more than a conventional one – pushing families into dire financial distress?

Pharma players can’t afford to remain a part of this critical problem, any longer. They should take responsibility to become a part of the solution. With VBP or with any other credible alternatives, making drug pricing transparent – voluntarily, may work better for them than facing mandatory price control. It’s a different ball game altogether, requiring a new mindset, and… the name of the game is: ‘out of the box’ Ideas.

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.

Nutraceuticals: Still An Oasis Amidst Well-Regulated Pharmaceuticals

Posted on by
Reply

On November 24, 2016, the food-safety watchdog of India announced that health supplements or Nutraceuticals cannot be sold as ‘medicines’ anymore. This new regulatory standard has been set for the manufacturers of Nutraceuticals and food supplements, and is aimed at controlling mislabeling of such brands. The fine prints of the notification are yet to be assessed.

On the face of it, this new announcement seems to be a good step, and would largely address a long-standing issue on the such products. Prevailing undesirable practices of labeling some pharma brands as food supplements or Nutraceuticals, with some tweaking in the formulations, mainly to avoid the risk of price control, is also expected to be taken care of by the food-safety authority of India, while granting marketing approval.

Nevertheless, it is often construed that off-label therapeutic claims, while promoting these products to the doctors, help achieving brand positioning objective as medicines, though indirectly. Appropriate authorities in India should probably resolve this issue, expeditiously.

In this article, I shall focus on the rationale behind different concerns over the general quality standards, claimed efficacy and safety profile of Nutraceuticals and food supplements, in general, and how the regulatory authorities are responding to all these, slowly, albeit in piecemeal, but surely.

The ‘gray space’ is the issue:

The close association between nutrition and health has assumed a historical relevance. Growing pieces of evidence, even today, suggests that nutritional intervention with natural substances could play an important role, especially in preventive health care. The World Health Organization (WHO) has also highlighted that mortality rate due to nutrition related factors in the developing countries, like India, is nearly 40 percent.

However, as one of the global consulting firm of repute has aptly pointed out, “At one end of this natural nutrition spectrum, are functional foods and beverages as well as dietary supplements, aimed primarily at maintaining health. On the other, more medical end of the spectrum, are products aimed at people with special nutritional needs. In the middle, is an emerging gray area of products that have a physiological effect to reduce known risk factors, such as high cholesterol, or appear to slow or prevent the progression of common diseases such as diabetes, dementia or age related muscle loss.”

This gray space between Pharmaceutical and Nutraceuticals, therefore, holds a significant business relevance, from various perspectives.

An Oasis amidst highly-regulated pharmaceuticals:

Mostly because of this gray space, several pharma companies and analysts seem to perceive the Nutraceutical segment virtually an oasis, lacking any transparent regulatory guidelines, amidst well-regulated pharma business. This perception is likely to continue, at least, for some more time.

Such pattern can be witnessed both within the local and global pharma companies, with some differences in approach, that I shall deliberate later in this article.

However, regulators in many countries, including India, have started expressing concerns on such unfettered manufacturing, marketing and other claims of Nutraceuticals. Many of them even ask, do all these Nutraceuticals deliver high product quality, claimed effectiveness and safety profile to their consumers, especially when, these are promoted by several pharma companies, though mostly off-label, to generate physicians’ prescriptions for various disease treatments?

Not just domestic pharma companies:

This concern is not restricted to the domestic companies in India.

Global pharma players, who generally believe in scientific evidence based medicines, have been reflecting an iffiness towards Nutraceuticals. For example, whereas both Pfizer and Novartis reportedly hived off their nutrition businesses, later Pfizer invested to acquire Danish vitamins company Ferrosan and the U.S. dietary supplements maker Alacer. Similarly, both Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline also reportedly invested in mineral supplements businesses that could probably pave the way of the company’s entry into medical foods.

However, it is worth underscoring that generally the consumer arms of global pharma companies focus on OTC, and Nutraceuticals do not become an integral part of the pharma business, as is common in India.

Interestingly, not very long ago, Indian pharma industry witnessed a global pharma major virtually replicating the local marketing model involving Nutraceuticals. It also became an international news. On August 24, 2011, ‘Wall Street Journal (WSJ)’ reported that ‘Aventis Pharma Ltd. (now Sanofi India) agreed to buy the branded nutrition pharmaceuticals business of privately held Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd for an undisclosed amount, as its French parent Sanofi looks to expand in the fast-growing Indian market.’

Universal Medicare, which posted about US$ 24.1 million revenue in the year ended March 31, 2011, will manufacture these branded Nutraceutical products and Aventis will source them from Universal Medicare on mutually agreed terms. Around 750 of the Universal Medicare’s employees also moved to the French Company along with its around 40 Nutraceutical brands, the report said.

If all these acquired brands, do not fall under the new FSSAI guidelines related to the required composition of food supplements and Nutraceuticals in India, it would be worth watching what follows and how.

Nutraceuticals are also promoted to doctors:

Let me reemphasize, India seems to be slightly different in the way most of the pharma companies promote Nutraceuticals in the country. Here, one can find very few standalone ‘Over the Counter (OTC)’ pharma or Nutraceutical product company. For this reason, Nutraceutical brands owned by the pharma companies, usually become an integral part of their prescription product-portfolio. Mostly, through off-label promotion Nutraceuticals are often marketed for the treatment or prevention of many serious diseases, and promoted to the doctors just as any other generic pharma brand.

Need to generate more scientific data based evidences:

A 2014 study of the well-known global consulting firms A.T. Kearney titled, “Nutraceuticals: The Front Line of the Battle for Consumer Health”, also recommended that ‘a solid regulatory framework is crucial for medical credibility, as it ensures high-quality products that can be relied on to do what they say they do.’

This is mainly because, Nutraceuticals are not generally regarded by the scientific community as evidence based medicinal products, going through the rigors of stringent clinical trials, including pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics studies, and is largely based on anecdotal evidence. Besides inadequacy in well-documented efficacy studies, even in the areas of overall safety in different age groups, other side-effects, drug interactions and contraindications, there aren’t adequate scientific evidence based data available to Nutraceutical manufacturers, marketers, prescribers and consumers.

There does not seem to be any structured Pharmacovigilance study is in place, either, to record adverse events. In this scenario, even the ardent consumers may neither realize, nor accept that Nutraceuticals can cause any serious adverse effects, whatsoever.

From this angle, the research study titled, “Emergency Department Visits for Adverse Events Related to Dietary Supplements”, published in the  New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on October 15, 2015, becomes very relevant. The paper concluded as follows:

“More than 23,000 emergency department visits annually in the United States from 2004 through 2013 were for adverse events associated with dietary supplements. Such visits commonly involved cardiovascular adverse effects from weight-loss or energy herbal products among young adults, unsupervised ingestion of micronutrients by children, and swallowing problems associated with micronutrients among older adults. These findings can help target interventions to reduce the risk of adverse events associated with the use of dietary supplements.”

Fast growing Nutraceutical industry continues to remain largely unregulated. It persists, even after several previous studies had revealed dangerous levels of harmful ingredients, including amphetamine, in some Nutraceuticals.

Indian regulatory scenario:

In India, the ‘Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)’, established under the Food Safety and Standard Act of 2006, is the designated Government body responsible for the regulation and approval of Nutraceuticals in the country.

In July 2015, FSSAI proposed draft regulations for Nutraceuticals, Functional Foods, Novel Foods and Health Supplements for comments from all stakeholders within the stipulated time limit. This draft regulation defines Nutraceuticals as follows:

“Nutraceuticals means a naturally occurring chemical compound having a physiological benefit or provide protection against chronic disease, isolated and purified from food or non-food source and may be prepared and marketed in the food-format of granules, powder, tablet, capsule, liquid or gel and may be packed in sachet, ampoule, bottle, etc. and to be taken as measured unit quantities.”

In this draft FSSAI also proposed that therapeutic claims of Nutraceuticals and all such foods are required to be based on sound medical and nutritional evidence, backed by scientific as well as clinical evidence.

In 2011, FSSAI constituted a product approval committee, whose members were supposed to use similar parameters as drugs, to assess Nutraceuticals for this purpose. However, FSSAI had to jettison this idea, in compliance with the order dated August 19, 2015 of the Supreme Court questioning the procedure followed for approvals by the food regulator.

In April 2016, FSSAI restricted enforcement activity against Nutraceuticals and health supplement companies to only testing of products till new standards are notified.

The latest regulatory developments:

There are, at least, the following two recent developments reflect that the regulatory authorities, though trying, but are still grappling with the overall product quality, efficacy and safety concerns for Nutraceuticals:

  • Responding to the growing demand for regulatory intervention in this important matter, on November 30, 2015, by a gazette notification, the Government of India included phytopharmaceutical drugs under a separate definition in the Drugs & Cosmetics (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 2015, effective that date.
  • Again, on November 24, 2016, FSSAI reportedly announced that health supplements or Nutraceuticals cannot be sold as ‘medicines’ anymore. This new regulatory standard set for the manufacturers of Nutraceuticals and food supplements is aimed at controlling mislabeling of such brands. On its enforcement, every package of health supplement should carry the words ‘health supplement’ as well as an advisory warning ‘not for medicinal use’ prominently printed on it.

It further added: “The quantity of nutrients added to the articles of food shall not exceed the recommended daily allowance as specified by the Indian Council of Medical Research and in case such standards are not specified, the standards laid down by the international food standards body namely the Codex Alimentarius Commission shall apply.”

However, these regulations will be enforced from January 2018.

Curiously, in September 2016, National Institutes of Health in United States announced plans to put some more scientific eyes on the industry, the NIH reportedly announced plans to spend US$ 35 million to study natural products, ranging from hops to red wine’s resveratrol to grape seed extract. The new grants, reportedly, are expected to fathom the basic science behind many claims that Nutraceuticals can improve health.

The market:

The August 2015 report titled, ‘Indian Nutraceuticals, Herbals, and Functional Foods Industry: Emerging on Global Map,’ jointly conducted by The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) and the consulting firm RNCOS, estimates that the global Nutraceuticals market is expected to cross US$ 262.9 billion by 2020 from the current level of US$ 182.6 billion growing at Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of about 8 percent.

Driven by the rising level of awareness of health, fitness and changing lifestyle pattern, increasing co-prescription with regular drugs, and focus on preventive health care, India’s Nutraceuticals market is likely to cross US$ 6.1 billion by 2020 from the current level of US$ 2.8 billion growing at CAGR of about 17 percent, the report states.

The United States (US) has the largest market for the Nutraceuticals, followed by Asia-Pacific and European Union. Functional food is the fastest growing segment in the US Nutraceutical market, followed by Germany, France, UK and Italy in Europe.

Conclusion:

Today, both manufacturing and marketing of Nutraceuticals keep charting in a very relaxed regulatory space, in India. There are no robust and transparent guidelines, still in place, for product standardization and scientifically evaluate the safety and efficacy of all these products on an ongoing basis. Neither is there any stringent requirement for conformance to the well-crafted cGMP standards.

The reported discussions within the Union Ministry of Ayush for setting up a structured regulatory framework, within the CDSCO, for all Ayush drugs and to allow marketing of any new Ayurvedic medicine only after successful completion of clinical trials to ensure its safety and efficacy, are indeed encouraging. This may be followed for all those Nutraceuticals, which want to be promoted as medicines, claiming direct therapeutic benefits.

Be that as it may, November 24, 2016 announcement of FSSAI, that health supplements or Nutraceuticals cannot be sold as ‘medicines’ anymore to control mislabeling of such brands, is a step in the right direction.

Another major issue of many pharma brands being put under Nutraceuticals with some tweaking in formulations and labelled as food supplements, would also probably be largely addressed, as FSSAI would continue to be the sole authority for marketing approval of Nutraceuticals.

However, it is still not very clear to me, as I am writing this article, what happens to those Nutraceutical brands, which are already in the market, with compositions not conforming to the new FSSAI norms. Fairness demands reformulation and relabeling of all those existing Nutraceuticals, strictly in conformance to the new guidelines, and obtain fresh approval from FSSAI. This will help create a level playing field for all Nutraceutical players in India.

While there is a pressing need to enforce a holistic regulatory discipline for the Nutraceuticals to protect consumers’ health interest, the commercial interest of such product manufacturers shouldn’t be ignored, either. This is primarily because, there exists enough evidence that proper nutritional intervention with the right kind of natural substances in the right dosage form, could play an important role, especially in the preventive health care.

As the comprehensive regulatory guidelines are put in place, Nutraceuticals not being essential medicines, should always be kept outside price control, in any guise or form. In that process, the general pharma perception of Nutraceutical business, as an ‘Oasis’ amidst well-regulated and price-controlled pharmaceuticals, would possibly remain that way, giving a much-needed and well-deserved boost to this business.

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.

Is Criticizing Pharma Now Just A Fad?

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

A recent example:

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

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

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

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

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

A key barrier:

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

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

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

When the narrative gets paradoxical:

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

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

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

  • Sanofi sued Merck in the US federal court over its biosimilar version of Lantus insulin with around US$7 billion in annual sales.
  • Eli Lilly reached a royalties deal with Sanofi to end a similar Lantus-related lawsuit, but their pact means the biosimilar launch was likely delayed.
  • Pfizer and Korea’s Celltrion in August beat back a court challenge from Johnson & Johnson over US$10 billion autoimmune drug Remicade, though J&J’s Janssen unit promised to appeal.
  • In a closely watched case, Novartis wants the US Supreme Court to dump a six-month marketing delay for biosimilars, in what would be the first time the high court took up a biosimilar case.
  • Samsung Bioepis, along with partner and minority shareholder Biogen Inc, filed a lawsuit against AbbVie in Britain in March to stop the US company from blocking the launch of yet another Humira biosimilar.

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

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

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

Indian scenario:

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

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

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

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

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

Are biosimilars the only examples?

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

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

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

  • Discovering new drugs, delivery systems, and finding new indications
  • Lack of transparency and widely reported bias towards mainly positive results in clinical trial data, both for publication and regulatory approval of various new drugs, and associated global furor.
  • Exorbitant high prices of many new patented medicines and some generic drugs too
  • Widely reported marketing/other malpractices, and associated fines paid by the respective players
  • Causing entry delay for cheaper small molecule generics and large molecule biosimilar drugs post patent expiry restricting gtreaterr patient access

What’s your relative score now?

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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

The Recent Ban On Irrational FDCs: History Repeats Itself

Posted on by
Reply

The recent regulatory ban on a large number of irrational Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs is not a new incident in India. A similar mega ban was announced even before, about nine years ago. Intriguingly, the saga continues, for various reasons, without any tangible outcome for the patients on the ground.

On March 11, 2016, the latest ban, again on a large number of irrational FDCs, was notified. It caused a flutter and an immediate sharp adrenaline rush to the impacted drug companies and was soon followed by an interim stay order, again by an honorable High Court of the country.

Thus, when I connect the past dots with the latest one, on mega ban of irrational FDCs in India, a similar sequence of events gets unfolded, following each of such ban notifications of the Government.

Looking back, 294 FDCs were banned by the DCGI in 2007. At that time too, the important issue of patients’ health, safety and economical interest, got converted into a legal quagmire. Many adversely affected FDC drug players chose to go to the court of law to protect their business interest, and also successfully managed to obtain a ‘Stay’ order from the Madras High Court.

Consequently, those 294 irrational FDCs, banned by the Union Ministry of Health on health and safety grounds, continued to be promoted, prescribed and sold to patients across India, without any hindrance, whatsoever.

The matter continues to remain sub judice, as we deliberate the issue here. Thus, whether the recent gazette notification on the ban of irrational FDCs would immediately be implemented, unlike the past ban, or the history would repeat itself, is indeed a big question mark, at this juncture.

Would this ban have similar outcome?  

As discussed, close to a decade after the serious legal fall-out of the ban of 294 irrational FDCs in 2007, another mega ban of 344 irrational FDCs has been announced by the Government, through a Gazette Notification dated March 11, 2016. Some well known brands, such as, Corex, Phensedyl, Crocin Cold and Flu, D-Cold Total, Nasivion and Vicks Action 500 Extra, among others, reportedly come under this ban now. Here is the complete list of 344 banned FDCs.

According to the Government, the reason for banning these drugs is that ‘they involve risk to humans and safer alternatives were available.’

Nevertheless, manufacturers of some of these mega brands have again obtained an interim injunction on the ban for their respective products, from the Delhi High Court.

Sometime during the day, i.e. on March 21, 2016, the honorable Delhi High Court is expected to take up this patient-centric issue. It apparently smacks a blatant self-serving interest of the concerned irrational FDC manufacturers, that defeats the core purpose and value of pharma products for their users.

Like most other issues, the Court directive on this issue, as well, would ultimately prevail, without any shade of doubt.

Is it a ‘bolt from the blue’ for the pharma industry? 

Many industry watchers feel that this recent ban has not come as a ‘bolt from the blue’ for the pharma players, at all, as is being claimed by a section of the pharma industry. Even the Union Ministry of Health has, reportedly, clarified the following points on the recent notification:

  • “We have tried to bring objectivity to the issue by roping in the best of scientists to study the effects of these FDCs.”
  • “Show cause notices were also issued to more than 344 companies and they were given time to make further representations after the expert committee gave their recommendations. Some of them did not even care to respond. Everybody was given ample opportunity. After that, the move was initiated. It was done after much examination.”
  • “It is necessary and expedient in the public interest to regulate by way of prohibition of manufacture for sale, sale and distribution for human use, of the said drugs in the country.”

It is worth noting, at least, one of these well known pharma brands was, reportedly, banned in one of our neighboring countries – Sri Lanka, in 2012, for wide-spread drug misuse, long after its marketing approval in the country.

Some key events leading to the recent ban: 

Besides the above articulation by the Union Ministry of Health, it is worth noting, especially, the following key developments to ascertain, whether this ban came suddenly to the irrational FDC manufacturers, and without any prior warning or appropriate communication:

  • The issue of manufacturing licenses being granted by some states for FDCs without prior approval of Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), was first discussed by the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) in the year 2000, though without any major tangible outcome till 2007. 
  • In 2007, Government banned 294 FDCs, and the consequent court proceedings had ‘Stayed’ this ban.
  • Expressing huge concern on pharma malpractices related to irrational FDCs, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 59th report (2012) also had flagged this issue. The lawmakers observed in the report that manufacturing licenses for large numbers FDCs were being issued by the State Drug Authorities, without prior approval of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), in violation of rules. The committee also noted that multiple FDCs, which are available in India had been rejected by the drug regulators in Europe, North America, and Australia, while for many others never had marketing approval applications submitted outside India (Section 7 of [6]).
  • Subsequently, in June 2013, CDSCO  announced the “Policy Guidelines for Approval of Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) In India.”
  • According to CDSCO, just 1193 FDCs were approved by the DCGI, since 1961 till November, 2014. Thus, all drug manufacturers should clearly know, which FDC has been approved by the DCGI, and when, leaving no scope for any ambiguity in this area. Thus, there should be no problem in total conformance to the above ‘FDC Policy Guidelines’ by these drug producers.
  • In the same year – 2013, a public notice was also, reportedly, issued, calling all those drug players manufacturing FDCs to apply with the requisite fee, in the prescribed form to the DCGI office, providing the required details.  
  • In 2014, a six-member committee, chaired by Prof. (Dr.) Chandrakant Kokate, Vice Chancellor, KLE University, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belgaum, Karnataka, was formed to expedite the review process of the applications. 
  • The Kokate Committee has, reportedly, reviewed about 6,600 FDCs, so far, and classified them under four categories – irrational, require further deliberations, rational and require additional data generation. 
  • According to a report, 963 FDCs were found under the irrational category, providing reasons in detail for each. 
  • In 2016, the Government finalized its action, based on the Report of Kokate Committee and also the response received (or still not received despite requests) from the concerned FDC manufacturers.
  • The March 11, 2016 Gazette Notification banned 344 ‘irrational’ FDCs, ruffling many feathers, but understandably to protect patients’ health interest.
  • On March 14, 2016, in response to an appeal against this ban through a writ petition, first by Pfizer, the Delhi High Court reportedly granted the company a stay, pending the next court hearing on March 21, 2016. Subsequently, several such stay orders by the honorable Delhi High Court have been issued with the same date of hearing. 
Adverse health and economic impact on patients:

Besides serious health risks, the patients also suffer from a huge adverse economical impact, in rupee value terms, by consuming much avoidable irrational FDC formulations, which are generally more expensive than single ingredient drugs, if taken separately at times of necessity or convenience.

The ban of 344 FDCs is estimated to cover over 2,500 brands, in different therapy categories, including chronic diseases, where medicines are taken for a long period of time. Thus, a large number of patients were consuming these irrational formulations for a long period of time without any inkling of their necessity and more importantly serious adverse health impact that these irrational FDCs could cause.

To quantify how much have the patients collectively spent on these banned medicines, in the rupee value terms, I shall quote from the estimates of one of the well reputed and much quoted pharma retail audit and market research organization of India – AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd.

According to its report of March 13, 2016, Indian Pharmaceutical Industry would lose Rs. 3,838 Crore (MAT), which is 3.1 percent of the turnover of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), when calculated based on the retail sales of these FDCs in the last 12-month period.

Paraphrasing the same finding, one can logically conclude that Indian patients withstood an adverse economic impact of Rs. 3,838 Crore in a 12-month period, by spending on these unnecessary and irrational FDCs of dubious value, besides health risks. 

To my surprise, some of the MNC pharma players contribute a major chunk to this avoidable expenditure of the patients, besides associating and avoidable health risks.

Quoting similar credible data, it is also possible to give company-wise break-up in this area, which, in my view, may not be meaningful here.

Two Critical issues to address:

Although, a lot of water has since flown down the bridges, a large number of irrational FDCs are still in the market, exposing patients to possible health hazards and economical hardship.

In this blog, I discussed this core issue in two of my articles, one on July 15, 2013 titled, “FDC Saga: Defiant Manufacturers, Sloppy Regulators and Humongous Inaction”, and the other on May 18, 2015 titled, “Booming Sales Of Unapproved Drugs: Do We Need ‘Safe In India’ Campaign For Medicines?”.

I reckon, the following two would still remain the critical issues, which need to be addressed, expeditiously, once and for all, for patients’ sake: 

  • Stringent compliance with the latest CDSCO requirements by all the manufacturers of FDCs in India must be ensured. Any non-conformance should attract strong punitive measures, through a transparent process.
  • Whether such drugs are being widely misused, creating a grave risk for health and other safety hazards, must be ascertained periodically, based on credible data.
An important example:                         

Just the other day, Reuters reported that one of the largest pharma companies operating in India, was selling a FDC of the antibiotics cefixime and azithromycin, without approval of the DCGI.

Interestingly, this particular FDC has reportedly not received marketing approval in the major global pharma markets, such as, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France or Japan.

After the ban of this irrational FDC, the company was compelled to stop manufacturing and sales of this powerful antibiotic cocktail that poses huge health risk to patients.

This Reuters report also states, the drug ‘had been promoted and administered as a treatment for a broad array of illnesses, including colds, fevers, urinary tract infections, drug-resistant typhoid and sexually transmitted diseases.’ It also found chemists who were selling the drug to prevent post-operative infection and for respiratory problems.

Many doctors and health experts have been saying that the spread and misuse of antibiotic combinations may be contributing to antibiotic resistance in India.

FDC approval must be hard evidence-based:

Since all pharmaceutical products, whether available as a single ingredient, or FDC formulations, are globally considered as ‘Evidence-Based Medicines’. Such evidences are established through robust, stringent and well regulated clinical trials for obtaining marketing approval from the drug regulators, unlike most ‘traditional medicines’.

Following this well-established global norm, and as recommended by even the World Health Organization (WHO), all irrational FDCs must be identified through a transparent and medical science-based process, and banned forthwith by the Government.

Establishing safety and efficacy for all FDCs through clinical trials, just like any other single ingredient drug, introduced for the first time in India, whenever it happens or had happened in the past, inadvertently or otherwise, should be a ‘must happen’ regulatory requirement, for all time to come.

Profit making interest through introduction of a plethora of irrational FDCs, should never be allowed to overshadow patients’ health and economical interest.

The bogey of even ‘25 to 30-year-old FDCs’ now being banned: 

Some section of the industry is also raising this point, vociferously, protesting against the bans of their respective old and top-selling FDC brands, which have now been considered by the Government as irrational, and questioning: ‘why now?’

This point is irrelevant, as not taking action ever, against a wrong doing allowed over a long period time, does not make an irrational FDC formulation a rational one, for all time to come.

Moreover, this recent action of the drug regulator can not be considered as unique either. With the advancement of medical science, in the past years too, the DCGI issued banned notifications, covering many old FDCs, considering those ‘irrational combinations’ at a given point of time, such as, analgin + pitofenone, vitamins B1 + B6 + B12, cyproheptadine + lysine, just to name a few.

Conclusion:

As is known to many, pharmacovigilance is still at a very nascent stage in India. Consequently, ‘Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR)’ or ‘Adverse Drug Events’ reporting are still abysmally poor in the country. No information on ‘Adverse Drug Events’, as claimed by the manufacturers of these irrational FDCs, should, therefore, in no way mean that these drugs are safe and efficacious and beyond any reasonable doubt.

Although the laxity of the drug regulator in this area can’t also be condoned, in any way, the enormity of the risks posed by irrational FDCs to the innocent patients, is indeed mind boggling.

If the manufacturing and sale of all irrational FDCs are not legally stopped, even after a long and rigorous scientific and medical scrutiny by the experts, the patients in the country would, unfairly, continue to remain exposed to huge health and economic risks, without any fault of theirs. This is exactly what happened in 2007 also, when, after the stay order of the ban notification for 294 irrational FDCs by the honorable Madras High Court, all those FDCs continued to be promoted, prescribed and sold to patients across India, unhindered… but at whose cost?

Yet again, the gazette notification of the Government on the recent ban on 344 FDCs, has gone for judicial scrutiny, at least, for some money spinning key brands of the large pharma players.

This time, however, there is one significant difference, the Government seems to be far more assertive and committed to ensure that only safe medicines are available in the market, despite reported intense advocacy by the industry. This commitment on the part of the Government is also evident from the media report that the (DGCI) has again sent a new list of additional 1,200 FDCs for a probe to the panel, which recommended the ban of 344 irrational FDCs in the last week, and that too, after the court stay order on the latest ban.

Further, a senior a senior official in the Health Ministry has, reportedly, reiterated that the Government will stand firm on its decision, and will support the ban with robust data, in the Delhi High Court.

Would history repeat itself, this time now? We, at least, would get a sense of it, as the proceeding of the honorable Delhi High Court commences today, on this issue.

Either way, it will possibly send a clear signal, whether the triumph of commercial profit motive with irrational FDCs would continue, unabated, over patients’ health, safety and economic interests, at least in the foreseeable future. 

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.

 

Healthcare: Unwrapping The Union Budget (2016-17)

Posted on by
Reply

February 29, 2016 was the day of high expectations for many, especially to get to know the focus areas of public resource allocations of the incumbent governments in its third year of office. Healthcare sector too awaited eager to see something substantial in the resource allocation, that would make a fundamental difference in the public health systems and services in India.

The general expectation was high, as its main ruling party had promised to deliver a robust healthcare reform in its Election Manifesto 2014, when it will be voted to power. Some of those critical promises are as follows:

  • “India needs a holistic health care system that is universally accessible, affordable and effective and drastically reduces the out of pocket spending on health.
  • NRHM has failed to meet the objectives and will be radically reformed.
  • The Party accords high priority to health sector, which is crucial for securing the economy.
  • The overarching goal of healthcare would be to provide, ‘Health Assurance to all Indians and to reduce the out of pocket spending on health care’, with the help of state governments.
  • The current situation calls for radical reforms in the healthcare system with regards to national healthcare programs and delivery, medical education and training and financing of healthcare.”
  • The manifesto then went into the details of each reform areas, after stating, “the last healthcare policy dates back to 2002; India now needs a comprehensive healthcare policy to address the complex healthcare challenges, keeping in view the developments in the healthcare sector and the changing demographics. The party will initiate the New Health Policy.”

Over three years have passed since then, unfortunately even the new and comprehensive healthcare policy is not in place, just yet.

In that backdrop, we all witnessed in the budget presentation, a well-wrapped package for healthcare in India. The ‘attractive’ packaging label, listing each element of its broad content, was outwardly impressive and attracted almost instant eulogy from a number of industry commentators.

In this article, I shall first present before you, the healthcare measures announced by the Finance Minister Mr. Arun Jaitely in his Budget speech (2016-17), and then would unwrap the package to discuss briefly the implications of each of these three key elements, and the possible impact.

Union Budgetary Proposals on healthcare:

While proposing his Union Budget Proposal (2016-17), the Minister mostly covered ‘healthcare’ in points 52, 53, 54 and 55 of his speech, as follows:

A. Improving access to healthcare: 

While proposing a key measure to improve access to healthcare, the Minister acknowledged before the Parliament:

  • Catastrophic health events are the single most important cause of unforeseen out-of-pocket expenditure which pushes lakhs of households below the poverty line every year. 
  • Serious illnesses of family members cause severe stress on the financial circumstances of poor and economically weak families, shaking the foundation of their economic security.

In the above backdrop, the Minister proposed that, in order to help such families, the Government will launch a new health protection scheme, which will provide health cover up to Rs. One lakh (Rs. 100,000) per family. For senior citizens, age 60 years and above, belonging to this category, an additional top-up package up to Rs. 30,000 will be provided.

B. Availability of quality medicines at affordable prices:

Acknowledging the fact that making quality medicines available at affordable prices has been a key challenge for the country, the Minister reiterated that the Government will reinvigorate the supply of generic drugs. Moving towards this direction, 3,000 Stores under Prime Minister’s Jan Aushadhi Yojana will be opened during 2016-17. 

C. Addressing an important need of end-stage renal disease patients:

The Minister informed the Parliament that around 2.2 lakh new patients of End Stage Renal Disease gets added in India every year, resulting in additional demand for 3.4 crore dialysis sessions. With approximately 4,950 dialysis centers in India, largely in the private sector and concentrated in the major towns, the demand is only half met. Every dialysis session costs about Rs. 2,000 – an annual expenditure of more than Rs. 3 lakhs. Besides, most families have to undertake frequent trips, often over long distances, to access dialysis services, incurring heavy travel costs and loss of wages.

To address this situation, the FM proposed to start a ‘National Dialysis Services Program’. Funds will be made available through PPP mode under the National Health Mission, to provide dialysis services in all district hospitals. To reduce the cost, he proposed to exempt certain parts of dialysis equipment from basic customs duty, excise/CVD and SAD.

Unwrapping the healthcare budget proposal: 

Let me hasten to add at this stage that I have not seen the fine prints of each of these proposals, as yet. My analysis is solely based on the budget speech. 

A. Improving access to healthcare:

At Rs. 19,037 crores, the budgetary allocation for the ‘National Health Mission (NHM)’ remains almost the same as the previous year. Overall investments to improve healthcare infrastructure still remaining absolutely meager, the ad hoc strategy of the Government to improve access to healthcare is an insurance-centered, rather than universal, free and cashless health services, as was earlier suggested by the ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ constituted earlier by the Government. 

According to the analysis of National Sample Survey (NSS) data for 2014, published in the Economic&PoliticalWeekly dated August 15, 2015, only 13.1 percent of rural and 12 percent of urban residents are covered by government-funded insurance schemes, though the official data states 25 percent coverage. The NSS data also shows an increase in the out-of-pocket expenditure in these areas.

This has happened, even after the promotion of the Governments own insurance-based schemes, such as, the RSBY by the Central Government and also similar schemes by the State Governments, such as, Arogyasri in Andhra Pradesh, over a decade.

Additionally, there are many other reports, which clearly highlight that just pushing for increased insurance coverage, does neither help the poorest of the poor of society, nor does it ensure better and more efficient financial protection.  

A paper of October 9, 2013 titled, “Universal Health Coverage – Why health insurance schemes are leaving the poor behind” reiterates that funding through progressive taxation is the key to achieving ‘Universal Health Coverage’. Even the poorest countries can raise more revenue for health through taxes. Oxfam estimates that improving tax collection in 52 developing countries could raise an additional US$269 billion, which is enough to double health budgets in these countries.

The world over, and mostly in the OECD countries, serious doubts are still being expressed about the effectiveness of targeted insurance-based health schemes, instead of public funded focus on ‘Universal Health Care’. 

Looking in isolation, while the measure of incremental health insurance coverage, as proposed by the Minister, seems to be a good intent to improve access to healthcare to some people, but is devoid of a clearly charted holistic pathway, based on the lessons learnt from the past. Just the announcement of intent may, therefore, not be effective on the ground. 

Currently, India has the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY), launched by the Labor and Employment Ministry on April 1, 2008, to provide health insurance coverage to ‘Below Poverty Line (BPL)’ families. RSBY coverage extends to five members of a family-head of the household, spouse and up to three dependents, who are entitled to hospitalization coverage of up to Rs 30,000 for most diseases. In this insurance scheme, the beneficiaries require to pay only Rs 30 as registration fee, while Central and state governments pay premium to the insurer.

It is still not clear to me, whether, the newly announced insurance coverage is a separate scheme all together with details to be announced later or a part of RSBY initiative.

Besides all these, the fundamental question, however, that would still keep haunting, how would the existing mostly rickety rural brick and mortar healthcare infrastructure; non-availability of right medicines at the right time and at the right places; acute shortages of medics and paramedics, satisfactorily address the incremental needs, thus created? 

B. ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Scheme’: 

This does not seem to be a new initiative, at all. Jan-Aushadhi is an ongoing campaign launched by the Department of Pharmaceuticals in 2008, in association with Central Pharma Public Sector Undertakings (PSU), to provide quality medicines at affordable prices to the masses. Jan Aushadhi Stores (JAS) are being set up to provide generic drugs, which are available at lesser prices, but are equivalent in quality and efficacy as expensive branded drugs. 

The Department of Pharmaceuticals had proposed to open at least one JAS in each of the 630 districts of the country, so that the benefit of “quality medicines at affordable prices” is available to at least one place in each district of India. If the initiative becomes successful, depending on the cooperation of all stakeholders, the scheme was to be extended to sub divisional levels as well as major towns and village centers by 2012. However, after 5 years, i.e. up to February, 2013, only 147 JAS were opened, and out of those only 84 JASs are functional.

More recently, according to a June 02, 2015 report, “under the new business plan approved in August 2013, a target of opening 3,000 Jan Aushadhi stores during the 12th plan period i.e. from 2013-14 to 2016-17 was fixed. As per the Standing Committee on Chemicals and Fertilizers report in March 2015, till date only 170 Jan Aushadhi stores have been opened, of which only 99 are functional.” 

The tardy progress of the scheme was largely attributed to:

  • A lackluster approach of State governments
  • Poor adherence to prescription of generic drugs by doctors,
  • Managerial/ implementation failures of CPSU/ BPPI.
  • Only 85 medicines spread across 11 therapeutic categories were supplied to the stores and the mean availability of these drugs was found to be 33.45 percent, with wide variations across therapeutic categories.

With all the available information, it appears that the same old and unsuccessful scheme, even during the tenure of the present Government, since the last 3 years, has been repackaged and announced with a new name “Pradhan Mantri Jan Aushadhi Scheme” in the Union Budget 2016-17. 

There is no doubt, however, the intent of ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Scheme’ of 2016 is as laudable as the “Jan-Aushadhi Scheme”, launched by the Department of Pharmaceuticals in 2008, was at that time, but will it start working now, all of a sudden, despite sustained failure?

Besides strong support required from the State Governments, and other factors as enlisted above, making the doctors prescribe drugs in generic names would be a critical factor to make the “Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi scheme’ a success and primarily to extend desirable benefits to a sizeable section of both the urban and rural poor. The question, thus, remains, how would the Government ensure that the doctors prescribe drugs in generic names?  

C. National Dialysis Services Program: 

The proposal for the ‘National Dialysis Services Program’ to provide dialysis services in all district hospitals, especially, due to a staggering number of around 2.2 lakh patients of ‘End Stage Renal Disease’ in India every year, is yet another laudable intent in isolation, though it emerges just as an ad hoc measure in the healthcare space of the country, sans the new National Health Policy.

Conclusion:

In my article last week titled, “Healthcare In India (2016-17): Whither Goest Thou?”, I wrote, as the new ‘National Health Policy’ is still not in place, we may, at best see in the Union Budget Proposals (2016-17), some ad hoc measures for healthcare.

While unwrapping this budget speech of the, it appears that on a broader perspective the measures proposed in the budget have turned out exactly that way.

Nonetheless, the proposal of the Finance Minister for a special patent regime with a 10 percent rate of tax on income from worldwide commercialization of patents, which are developed and registered in India, is an excellent one, by any standard, for the innovators.

With frugal public health expenditure of just around 1 percent of GDP, as compared to 3.5 percent of China and 5 percent of Brazil, with larger GDP base, successive Governments of India has been blatantly neglecting public healthcare, for far too long, which continues even today.

At a time, when the Government is mulling making health a fundamental right for Indian citizens, similar to education, and making denial of health an offense, besides its earlier other promises, these budgetary measures are disappointing to many.

Overall, the Union Budget Proposals, made by the Finance Minister for 2016-17, falls far too short of reasonable expectations of any deserving citizen of the country. Neither does any such healthcare measure appear holistic to me, besides being sustainable, as I unwrap the Minister’s healthcare package and take a closer look at it.

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.

Paying For The Best Health Outcomes At The Lowest Possible Cost

Posted on by
Reply

“Bayer CEO Dr. Marijn Dekkers is happy to have fair Outcomes-Based Pricing”, reported ‘PharmaTimes’ on December 3, 2014.

Dr. Dekkers was quoted saying, “It is okay to be tested on that in the process of price-setting, that is fine, we should only be paid for the value we bring”. However, at the same time he also reminded, “When we have a new drug that is significantly better than the previous drug but the previous drug just went generic, we are compared to the 20% price, not the 100% price”.

I reckon, the above statement of the Bayer CEO sounds quite amazing, if not bizarre, especially considering the legality in the prevailing global pharma patent regime.  Thus, any discontentment in this area, howsoever intense these are, would unlikely to be able to attract any unbiased favorable ear, across the world.

Another aspect of the aggressive patented drug pricing trend, I deliberated in one of my earlier blog posts titled, “An Aggressive New Drug Pricing Trend: What It Means To India?” of October 27, 2014.

What is it really?

As many would know, another common terminology of Outcome-Based Pricing (OBP) is Value-Based-Pricing (VBP). This approach for pricing is basically intended to offering the best value for the money spent in healthcare. It is ‘the costs and consequences of one treatment compared with the costs and consequences of alternative treatments’. For pharmaceutical players, VBP/OBP would mean not charging more than the actual real value of the product offerings.

As we shall find below, this concept is gaining ground now in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcomes’ data using similar or equivalent products. Cost of incremental value that a product will deliver is of key significance. Some independent organizations such as, the ‘National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)’in the United Kingdom (UK) has taken a leading role in this area.

An evolving scenario:

It would be worthwhile to note that over a period of time, while pricing new pharma products, manufacturers have been traditionally considering the costs of all inputs of various kinds incurred to bring these drugs into the market and thereafter adding hefty mark-ups on those medicines in a non-transparent manner to arrive at the market price.

This absolutely opaque process of patented drugs pricing is increasingly making the stakeholders, such as patients’ groups, payors, including the governments and insurers much concerned about the differential value offerings of these high priced new drugs over the existing ones for commensurate improvement in the actual health outcomes for the patients.

The relevance:

In the past decade, there has been a clear trend in the price negotiation of new and complex pharma based on health outcomes models as the pharma players are coming under increasing pressure from the payors/patients to improve the treatment cost-effectiveness.

In an article published in the Harvard Business Review of October 2013, Michael Porter and Thomas Lee had cautioned, “ In healthcare, the days of business as usual are over…it is time for a fundamentally new strategy. At its core is maximizing value for patients: that is, achieving the best outcomes at the lowest cost.”

They elucidated the relevance of value based pricing, supporting very strongly the idea of paying for “value” in healthcare.

Thus, if this trend were not checked, the healthcare spending would keep going up, as it is happening today globally, impacting access of these drugs to patients significantly due to spiraling cost pressure.

 A recent vindication:

‘Gallup’ in an articles titled, “Cost Still a Barrier Between Americans and Medical Care” published in December 5, 2014, has reported that in U.S., 33% of Americans have put off medical treatment because of cost. Interestingly, more of them put off treatment for serious conditions than non-serious and more with private insurance had put off treatment in 2014 than 2013.

Thus, to address this issue, as we shall see below, various governments either have or in the process of developing regulatory policies to rationalize new drug prices based on the Outcome/Value-Based Pricing (OBP/VBP) Models of different kinds.

In this backdrop, Bayer CEO’s acceptance of OBP/VBP is indeed a welcoming development. This process is undoubtedly one of the most reasonable ways to arrive at a patented drug price.

For a large majority of stakeholders, treatment outcomes and differential value offerings of new medicines are the most critical factors to monitor the value pathway of patients’ medical care, irrespective of types of illnesses.

The move has already commenced: 

Deloitte Center for Health Solutions in a study on Value-Based Pricing for

Pharmaceuticals, has highlighted that unlike the United States, many countries, where the government plays a decisive role in pricing and price negotiations of pharmaceuticals, have focused on reducing costs through value-based pricing agreements.

The article gives examples of Denmark, where Bayer entered into a “no cure, no pay” initiative on Levitra (vardenafil) for erectile dysfunction in 2005.  Patients not satisfied with the treatment were eligible for a refund. Similarly, in 2007, after the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom (UK) initially concluded that Velcade (bortezomib) was too expensive as compared to its estimated benefits to the population, Johnson & Johnson offered to forgo charges for patients who did not have an adequate medication response.

Further, according to the Burrill Report of October 2013, as part of an effort to regain market share for its statin Zocor, which had been losing ground to then Warner Lambert’s Lipitor, Merck had reportedly offered an out of box proposition to consumers and insurers in 1998. Merck’s “Get to Goal” guarantee offered refunds to any takers who failed to reach target cholesterol levels set by their doctors within six months of using Zocor and adjusting their diet.

Could serve the purpose of global pharma too:

The above Burrill Report also states, “The performance-based pricing also serves a simpler purpose for drug makers. It allows them to provide discounts that may be necessary to establish acceptable value in one market without affecting the price for a drug in other markets around the world as a number of payers peg the price they will pay for a drug to what price a specific country may negotiate with the drug maker.”

Following this trend it appears that like Dr. Dekkers, other head honchos of global pharma majors would ultimately be left with no option but to willy-nilly toe this line in most of the countries across the world for their patented products.

This would be necessitated due to increasing product-pricing pressure based on quantification of differential benefits of the new medicines over already existing ones, as would be reflected in the analysis of intensive cost-effectiveness data.

Defining a measure of cost-effectiveness:

One of the several other methods to measure the cost-effectiveness of a new drug, as reported in a case study published by ‘2020 Public Services Trust at the RSA’, is as under:

“The efficiency of new products can be captured through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). These are usually based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), which are a measure of how many extra months or years of reasonable quality life a patient might gain as a result of treatment, based on average life expectancy. Life expectancy is usually extrapolated from the results of clinical trials whilst the quality adjustment is based on patients’ experiential response to the level of pain, mobility and general mood which are usually expressed as a weighted utility value of between 0 and 1. The final calculation of the ratio is based on the difference in the cost to QALY ratio between the new drug and the standard available treatment. However, to make sense of the ICERs it has been necessary to establish thresholds beyond which drugs are no longer deemed cost-effective.”

As the above case study highlights, “NICE had established a notional upper limit of £20-30,000 per QALY above which a drug will generally not be recommended, although in exceptional circumstances this can be increased as was the case for beta-interferon, where it was raised to £36,000.”

The Indian perspective:

In developing countries such as India, expenditure towards medicines is considered as an investment made by patients to improve their health and productivity at work. Maximizing benefits from such spending will require avoidance of those medicines, which will not be effective together with the use of lowest cost option with comparable value and ‘health outcomes’.

For this reason, as stated above, many countries have started engaging the regulatory authorities to come out with head to head clinical comparison of similar or equivalent drugs keeping ultimate ‘health outcomes’ of patients in mind.

A day may come in India too, when the regulatory authorities will concentrate on ‘outcomes/value-based’ pricing models, both for patented and high price branded generics, where low priced equivalents are available.

However, at this stage it appears, this would take some more time. Till then for ‘health outcomes’ based medical prescriptions, working out ‘Standard Treatment Guidelines (STG)’, especially for those diseases, which are most prevalent in India, should assume high importance.

Standard Treatment Guidelines (STG):

STG is usually defined as systematically developed statements designed to assist practitioners and patients in making decisions about appropriate cost-effective treatment in specific disease areas.

For each disease area, the treatment should include “the name, dosage form, strength, average dose (pediatric and adult), number of doses per day, and number of days of treatment.” STG also includes specific referral criteria from a lower to a higher level of the diagnostic and treatment requirements.

In India, the medical experts have already developed STGs for some disease areas. However, formulation of STGs covering all major disease areas and, more importantly, their effective implementation would ensure cost-effective healthcare benefits to a vast majority of population.

The Ministry of health of the respective states of India should encourage the medical professionals/institutions to lay more emphasis on ‘health-outcomes/value based’ prescription of medicines, ensuring more cost effective treatment for their patients.

Conclusion:

The medical practitioners in their part should ideally volunteer to avoid prescribing expensive drugs offering no significant improvement in ‘health outcomes’, against the cheaper equivalents. The Government should initially encourage it through ‘self-regulation’ and if it does not work, stringent regulatory measures must be strictly enforced, within a reasonable time frame.

Be that as it may, it clearly emerges today that in the healthcare arena, effective implementation of ‘Outcomes/Value-Based-Pricing-Models’ would ensure paying for the best health outcomes at the lowest possible cost, especially for those who deserve it the most, not just in India, but across the world too.

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.

 

Nutraceuticals: An Emerging Opportunity in The Gray Area Between Pharma And Nutrition

Posted on by
Reply

Close association between nutrition and health has assumed a historical relevance. Growing pieces of evidence, even today, suggests that nutritional intervention with natural substances could play an important role, especially in the preventive healthcare. The World Health Organization (WHO) too has highlighted that mortality rate due to nutrition related factors in the developing countries, like India, is nearly 40 percent.

The ‘Gray Area’:

In the space between pharmaceutical and nutrition, there is an emerging ‘gray area with 50 shades’ having significant business relevance.

In a related publication, A.T. Kearney – a leading global management consulting firm has elaborated it as under:

“At one end of this natural nutrition spectrum, are functional foods and beverages as well as dietary supplements, aimed primarily at maintaining health. At the other, more medical end of the spectrum, are products aimed at people with special nutritional needs. In the middle, is an emerging gray area of products that have a physiological effect to reduce known risk factors, such as high cholesterol, or appear to slow or prevent the progression of common diseases such as diabetes, dementia or age related muscle loss.”

Evolution of the terminology ‘Nutraceuticals’:

Dr. Stephen DeFelice of the ‘Foundation for Innovation in Medicine’ coined the term ‘Nutraceutical’ from “Nutrition” and “Pharmaceutical” in 1989. The term nutraceutical though is now being commonly used in marketing such products has no regulatory definition, other than dietary or nutritional supplements.

It is interesting to note that the dietary supplement industry defines nutraceuticals as, “any nontoxic food component that has scientifically proven health benefits, including disease treatment and prevention.”

Probably because of this reason, it is often claimed by the manufacturers of nutraceutical products that these are not just dietary supplements, but also help in the prevention and/or treatment of many disease conditions.

In India, nutraceuticals are mostly promoted to the doctors just as any other ethical pharma products. These are also prescribed by the medical profession, not just as nutritional supplements but also for the treatment of disease conditions, ranging from obesity to arthritis, osteoporosis, cardiological conditions, diabetes, anti-lipid, gastroenterological conditions, dementia, age-related muscle loss, pain management and even fertility. All these are generally based on off-label therapeutic claims of the respective manufacturers.

Currently, this particular category of nutraceutical products, despite being out of price control and operating within much relaxed regulatory environment, is showing just a moderate growth trend in India.

The market:

According to a report of Frost & Sullivan, the global nutraceutical market has clocked maximum growth in the last decade.

Nutraceuticals as an industry emerged in the early 1990s. However, from 2002 to 2010 has been the key growth phase for the industry. From 1999 to 2002, the nutraceutical industry grew at an Annual Average Growth Rate (AAGR) of 7.3 percent, while from 2002 to 2010, the AAGR doubled to 14.7 percent, in line with the Indian Pharma Market (IPM).

The penetration of nutraceuticals in India was around 15 percent in 2013. In the same year, the turnover of the global nutraceuticals market was around US $168 billion in which India had a demand share of around 2 percent, i.e. around US $2 billion.

Growing at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 17.1 percent, the Indian market is expected to reach US$ 4 billion by 2018. China, Southeast Asia, and India are the fast-growing markets, with each experiencing growth in double digits.

In the last couple of years functional beverages have emerged as a fastest growing category for the Indian market, with many companies expanding their portfolio in the segment. This category is expected to grow at a CAGR of 21.7 percent by 2018.

However, in terms of ingredients, especially plant extracts and phytochemical, Indian manufacturers have entrenched their place as suppliers, both locally as well as globally.

Some other key findings of this report are as under:

  • India is currently a nascent market for nutraceuticals, without a robust business model in place. Both MNCs as well as domestic companies in the pharmaceutical and food and beverage space have tested the market with a variety of launches, with some degree of success.
  • The existence of alternative medicines in India, and the Indian consumer’s belief in them, could provide a platform for the nutraceutical industry to cash on.
  • The Indian consumers’ awareness about conventional nutraceutical ingredients such as omega-3 fatty acids or lutein is very limited. The nutraceutical manufacturers would require spreading awareness about their products to the Indian masses, much more effectively.
  • As compared with the developed countries such as the USA, Europe, and Japan, the percentage of population consuming nutraceuticals in India is much low. The middle to high income groups are the dominant consumers of functional foods and beverages along with dietary supplements, while the lower income groups consume mainly prescription-based dietary supplements.
  • Health awareness and an increase in the penetration of organized retail stores are expected to play a major role in driving the nutraceuticals’ consumption in India.

Current regulations in India:

The Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) of India, 2006 predominantly regulate manufacturing, storage, distribution, sale and import of nutraceuticals in India. Unlike pharma products, no other regulations are still in place, though the government reportedly is in the process of inviting suggestions from the stakeholders on the subject.

Experts feel that FSSAI needs to play a more important role in defining standards to streamline the operations for nutraceuticals business in India, which should include, besides others, the following:

  • Quality of raw materials
  • Safe manufacture of product with cGMP standards
  • Health claims
  • Labeling
  • Distribution & storage

In the absence of comprehensive regulations many companies are unable to decide on necessary investments that will be required for this business in the longer term.

Currently, nutraceuticals are much less expensive to develop, manufacture, market and distribute, offering a rainbow of business opportunities in the healthcare space.

A brand ‘New Ministry’ in place:

In all likelihood, renewed measures would now be taken to bring nutraceuticals under the mainstream healthcare.

It appears more feasible today than ever before, as the Prime Minister Modi, with an eye on reviving indigenous and traditional medicine has recently created a brand new ministry with a Minister of State (Independent Charge) at the helm to look after Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH).

Need to generate robust clinical data:

In this context, a relatively new development is worth noting. It has been reported that all new traditional medicines will need to undergo clinical trials before their regulatory marketing approval in India. However, it has also been amply clarified that “such products will include only the new patented drugs and not the classical formulations that find mention in India’s ancient texts, some of which are 5,000 years old.”

I reckon, for all nutraceutical formulations with specific therapeutic efficacy and safety claims, there is a need to generate supportive robust clinical data for the patients’ long term health interest.

Therapeutic efficacy of a drug in the treatment of a disease condition is established with pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamics, other pre-clinical and clinical studies. Some experts believe that these studies are very important for nutraceutical products too, particularly when therapeutic claims are made on them, as these substances undergo a series of reactions within the body.

Similarly, to rule out any long-term toxicity problem with such products, generation of credible clinical data is again critical. At present, these are not usually followed for nutraceutical products in India, even when therapeutic claims are made.

The experts, therefore, quite often say, “A lack of reported toxicity problems with any nutraceutical should not be interpreted as evidence of safety.”

Regulatory requirements for nutraceuticals in the USA:

In America, the Congress had passed the ‘Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act’ in 1994. This act allows ‘functional claims’ to dietary supplements, like “Vitamin A promotes good vision” or “St. Johns Wort maintains emotional well-being”, as long as the product label contains a specific disclaimer that the FDA has not evaluated the said claim and that the product concerned is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.

The above Act bestows some important responsibility on to the doctors, who are required to provide specific and accurate scientific information for nutraceutical products to their patients. This process assumes critical importance, as the patients would expect the doctors to describe to them about the usefulness of nutraceutical products as alternatives to approved drugs. In such cases, if any doctor recommends a dietary supplement instead of pharmaceutical products, the doctor concerned must be aware of the risk that the patient’s health may suffer, for which the affected patient could sue the doctor for malpractice.

Indian Health Ministry should take note of these points for ethical promotion of nutraceuticals in India.

Sanofi considered nutraceuticals as a business opportunity in India:

So far in India, Sanofi is the only Pharma MNC that has entered into nutraceuticals business in a big way. Sniffing the market opportunity in this segment, the French major acquired the nutraceuticals business of Universal Medicare Private Ltd of worth Rs.110 Crore, in August 2011. The nutraceuticals product portfolio of Universal Medicare included more than 40 brands from cod liver oil capsules, vitamins/mineral supplements and antioxidants to liver tonics.

Ambivalence of Pharma MNCs:

According to A.T. Kearney report, unlike food industry, the global pharma industry has approached nutraceuticals with a ‘great deal of ambivalence’.

Pfizer and Novartis have sold their nutrition businesses.While the same Pfizer that sold Wyeth Nutrition to Nestle, invested an undisclosed sum to acquire Danish vitamins company Ferrosan and the dietary supplements manufacturer of the United States, Alacer, reinforcing what was already a billion-dollar business enterprise.

On the other hand GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Novartis have recently announced a joint venture for consumer products business, which could probably be a stepping-stone to get into nutraceuticals. Who knows?

Food companies leading nutraceuticals business:

The A.T. Kearney report also states that at present the food companies, and not the pharma players, are in the lead, accounting for about 90 percent of nutraceuticals sales with expertise in branding, consumer market expertise and access to mass distribution channels.

A few consumer companies have also inked partnership with pharma companies. For example, Coca-Cola and Sanofi have partnered to sell health drinks in French pharmacies.

Conclusion:

Nutraceuticals business, as many believe, is an emerging opportunity in the ‘Gray Area’ between pharmaceuticals and nutritional product classes. So far, the food companies have been charting this frontier that remained uncharted by a large majority of the pharma players. This is mainly because the success requirements for nutraceutical products, including dietary supplements, are quite different.

That said, a transparent and well-charted regulatory pathway for nutraceuticals, especially for formulations with therapeutic claims, would have a significant impact on its future growth potential in India.

Many nutraceutical products in the country with specific therapeutic claims do not seem to have supporting robust clinical data, leave aside being peer reviewed and published in the reputed international journals on the claims for safety or efficacy.

The entry of one of the global majors, Sanofi, having a clear focus on Evidence Based Medicines (EBM), ushers in a new hope and promise to get the loose knots tightened in this important area, while driving the business growth of the category.

Just as EBM, scientific ‘Evidence Based Nutraceuticals (EBN)’ with therapeutic claims, should be the centerpiece of consumer confidence and interest in this emerging niche of healthcare business in India.

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.