Tag Archives: be

Pharma Governance Maladies and Corporate Leadership

Posted on by
Reply

On September 26, 2017, two media headlines related to the Indian pharma industry, possibly made many wonder – Are these some of the key reasons prompting the Government to enforce stringent and costly regulations in this sector?

Above revelations came close on the heel of a series of alleged fraudulent, collusive and even criminal behavior of many domestic pharma players, by several overseas regulators, including the US-FDA. Besides international media, similar reports often featured in the national business dailies too. Most of these allegations are related to pharma marketing practices, and drug quality related concerns. In that sense, the core issues of following two news items are no different, and were reported as follows:

  • “The income tax (IT) investigation wing claims to have unearthed a nexus between a leading pharmaceutical company and doctors, and evidence showing payments running into Crores to the latter for prescribing the company’s medicines.”
  • Reaching out to Niti Aayog, Indian drug industry lobby groups, “mainly objected to three proposals in the draft policy floated last month: one drug one brand, curbing retailer margins, and mandatory bioavailability and bioequivalence (BA/BE) test for all drugs approved by state regulators and also future renewals.”

Out of these, the objection to mandatory BA/BE tests appears more intriguing to me – for two reasons. First, the news report doesn’t mention the participation of any global pharma company or their lobby groups in this meeting. If true, it would possibly mean, the pharma MNC players operating in India aren’t unduly worried about BA/BE requirements, which are mandatory in other countries of the world, primarily to ensure high generic drug quality standards.

The second one being, when the Indian pharma industry is so vocal on ‘poor quality’ of generic drugs sans brand names, apparently to protect branded generics, why is its lobby groups opposing mandatory BA/BE tests – so critical to address the quality issue. Opposing these tests, citing some ‘reason’, appears absurd. Resolving safety concerns on ‘Unbranded’ generics is nonnegotiable – for patients’ health and safety.

The major incident that snowballed:

It reminds me of the major US-FDA related quality issue involving Ranbaxy of India that eventually snowballed, attracting global media attention. This incident was well covered by Indian Press and Television, as well. As one such business daily reported, the much talked about whistleblower Dinesh Thakur, reportedly claimed that his boss in Ranbaxy made a detailed presentation of the alleged widespread manufacturing lapses and fudging of data in the company first to “a closed-door board of directors meeting in Thailand” in September 2004, and then to its science committee on December 21, 2004. Be that as it may, Ranbaxy subsequently pleaded guilty to several charges by the US-FDA, based on Dinesh Thakur’s testimony, and paid a hefty fine of US$ 550 million. It is worth noting, although Ranbaxy had an immaculate Board of Directors at that time, including distinguished and eminent personalities as the Independent Directors, the company used to be run by the promoters, or in other words, the key shareholders of the company. It may be coincidental that the majority of such incidences reported from India, either related to dubious pharma marketing practices or drug quality standard, may find a curious link with the promoter or the key shareholder driven domestic pharma companies.

The purpose of this article is not to assign blame to anyone, or any organization, but to have an intimate look at the governance process of most of such companies, which is systemic in nature. It may be worth pondering thereafter, whether one can learn the way forward from the credible research reports, available on this important subject.

The doctrine of ‘Maximizing Shareholder Value’:

In many corporate training sessions, especially for the senior management, including pharma industry in India, the above well-known doctrine is emphasized and reemphasized – again and again. It postulates, the ‘corporate managers should make maximizing shareholder value their goal – and that boards should ensure that they do.’

Indian pharma companies predominately being the promoter or the key shareholder driven corporations, choosing ‘maximizing shareholder value’ as the primary corporate mission, I reckon, is not too uncommon, either.

The basic premises of the theory:

The details of this theory were articulated in the 1976 Journal of Financial Economics article “Theory of the Firm,” by Michael Jensen and William Meckling. The concept was further deliberated in the article titled “The Error at the Heart of Corporate Leadership” by Joseph L. Bower and Lynn S. Paine, published in the May-June 2017 issue of Harvard Business Review, and its basic premises were summarized as follows:

  • Shareholders own the corporation and are “principals” with the original authority to manage the corporation’s business and affairs.
  • The corporation’s shareholders delegate decision-making authority to the managers and are thus “agents” of the shareholders.
  • As agents of the shareholders, managers are obliged to conduct the corporation’s business in accordance with shareholders’ desires.
  • Shareholders want the business to be conducted in a way that maximizes their own economic returns. (The assumption that shareholders are unanimous in this objective is implicit throughout the article.)

A flawed corporate governance model?

Bower and Paine in their above paper lucidly analyze a number of serious flaws in the basic premises of ‘maximizing shareholder value’ model. For example, they indicate that the ultimate responsibility and accountability for good corporate governance, or lack of it, lies squarely with the concerned senior management and the Board of Directors of the company and none else – not even with its large shareholders.

Moreover, the authors caution that this theory’s doctrine of alignment spreads moral hazard throughout a company and narrows management’s field of vision.

Putting it in the context of Indian pharma industry, I reckon, such risks increase alarmingly, when promoters take all management and Governance decisions, with the senior management, including the Board of Directors doing no more than endorsing those, knowingly or unknowingly, just as what happened in case of Ranbaxy, mentioned above.

Providing a more realistic foundation for corporate governance:

Against this backdrop, and accepting the following ground realities, there evolves a critical need to have a more realistic foundation for corporate governance and shareholder engagement, as the above HBR article deliberates:

  • Corporations are complex organizations whose effective functioning depend on talented leaders and managers.
  • Corporations can prosper over the long term only if they’re able to learn, adapt, and regularly transform themselves.
  • Corporations perform many functions in society – such as providing investment opportunities and generating wealth, producing goods and services, creating employment, developing technologies, paying taxes, and making several other significant contributions to the communities in which they operate.
  • Corporations may have differing objectives and strategies in this regard – such as, what the purpose of a corporation ought to be from a societal perspective may not be quite the same as what its promoters or key shareholders believe those to be.
  • Corporations must create value for multiple constituencies – such as, companies succeed only if customers want their products, employees want to work for them, suppliers want them as partners, shareholders want to buy their stock, and communities want their presence. In contrast, the ‘creating more shareholder value’ theory’s implied decision prompts that managers should always maximize value for shareholders – oversimplifies this challenge and leads eventually to systematic underinvestment in other important relationships.
  • Corporations must have ethical standards to guide interactions with all their constituencies, including shareholders and society at large – going beyond forbearance from fraud and collusion, is essential for earning the trust companies need to function effectively over time. ‘Creating more shareholder value’ theory’s ambivalence regarding corporate ethics can set companies up for destructive and even criminal behavior -which generates a need for the costly regulations that agency theory proponents are quick to decry.

All the above eight points, especially the last one, as many consider, are so relevant for the Indian pharma industry, probably more in the promoter-driven ones, as these constitute the bulk of it. It is equally important to understand that corporations are embedded not just in a network of financial systems, but also in a political and socioeconomic matrix, whose health is vital to their sustainability. Thus, changing from ‘‘creation of more shareholder value-centered governance’ to a ‘company-centered governance’ would be more meaningful in today’s paradigm.

The merits of ‘company-centered governance’:

As the Harvard article says, following are some of the merits of changing to a ‘company-centered governance’ from ‘creating more shareholder value-centered governance:’

  • More board-level attention to succession planning and leadership development
  • More board time devoted to strategies for the company’s continuing growth and renewal
  • More attention to risk analysis and political and environmental uncertainty
  • A strategic (rather than narrowly financial) approach to resource allocation
  • A stronger focus on investments in new capabilities and innovation
  • More-conservative use of leverage as a cushion against market volatility
  • Concern with corporate citizenship and ethical issues that goes beyond legal compliance

Conclusion:

Almost all domestic pharma companies in India are currently family run, mostly by the first or second-generation entrepreneurs, with well-defined and clearly established ownership pattern.

The glorious history of the family run Indian pharma business has started facing a more challenging future, especially in addressing the types of maladies, as epitomized in the above two recent media reports. With the ongoing process of ‘creating more shareholder value’ driven governance – almost totally scripted by the promoter or the key shareholders at the helm, the task ahead remains formidable. Additionally, the reports on Ranbaxy whistleblower’s narrative, prompted many to wonder the role of Independent Directors on the Board of strong promoter driven Indian pharma companies, besides others.

In this scenario, particularly to address the Governance related maladies effectively, a highly competent corporate leadership professionals should be empowered to steer the Indian pharma organizations, in general, from ‘creation of more shareholder value centric governance’ to a well-crafted ‘company centric governance’ process, in a well-calibrated manner and sooner.

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.

Draft Pharma Policy 2017 And Branded Generics

Posted on by
Reply

In its first reading, the 18-page draft Pharma Policy, 2017 gives me a sense that the Government has followed the much-desired principle of ‘walk the talk’, especially in some key areas. One such space is what Prime Minister Modi distinctly hinted on April 17, 2017, during the inauguration function of a charitable hospital in Surat. He clearly signaled that prescriptions in generic names be made a must in India, and reiterated without any ambiguity whatsoever that, to facilitate this process, his government may bring in a legal framework under which doctors will have to prescribe generic medicines.

Immediately following its wide coverage by both the national and international media, many eyebrows were raised regarding the feasibility of the intent of the Indian Prime Minister, especially by the pharma industry and its business associates, for the reasons known to many. A somewhat muted echo of the same could be sensed from some business dailies too, a few expressed through editorials, and the rest quoting the views on the likely ‘health disaster’ that may follow, if ‘branded generics’ are not prescribed by the medical profession. Obviously, the main apprehension was centered around the ‘shoddy quality parameters’ of unbranded generic drugs in India. It’s a different matter though, that none can possibly either confirm or pooh-pooh it, backed by irrefutable data with statistical significance.

Be that as it may, making high quality generic drugs accessible to most patients at affordable prices, avoiding any possible nexus between the doctors and pharma companies, which could jeopardize the patients’ economic interest, deserves general appreciation, shrill voices of some vested interests notwithstanding.  Nonetheless, if the related proposals in the new pharma policy come to fruition as such, it would be a watershed decision of the government, leaving a long-lasting impact both on the patients, as well as the industry, though in different ways, altogether.

I raised this issue in my article titled, “Is Department of Pharmaceuticals On The same Page As The Prime Minister?”, published in this blog on May 15, 2017. However, in today’s discussion, I shall focus only on how has the draft pharma policy 2017 proposed to address this issue, taking well into consideration the quality concerns expressed on unbranded generics, deftly.

Before I do that, let me give a brief perspective on ‘brand name drugs’, ‘generic drugs’, ‘branded generics’ and ‘unbranded generic drugs’. This would basically serve as a preamble to arrive at the relevance of ‘branded generic’ prescriptions, along with the genesis of safety concern about the use of un-branded generic drugs.

No definition in Indian drug laws:

Although, Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India 1940 defines a drug under section 3 (b), it does not provide any legal definition of ‘brand name drugs’, ‘generic drugs’, ‘branded generic drugs’ or ‘un-branded generics’.  Hence, a quick landscaping of the same, as follows, I reckon, will be important to understand the pertinence of the ongoing debate on ‘branded generic’ prescriptions in India, from the patients’ health and safety perspectives:

‘Brand name’ drugs:

Globally, ‘brand name drugs’ are known as those, which are covered by a product patent, and are usually innovative New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). Respective innovator pharma companies hold exclusive legal rights to manufacture and market the ‘brand name drugs’, without any competition till the patents expire.

Generic drugs:

Post patent expiry of, any pharma player, located anywhere in the world, is legally permitted, as defined in the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regulations, to manufacture, market and sell the generic equivalents of ‘brand name drugs’. However, it’s a global norm that the concerned generic manufacturer will require proving to the competent drug regulatory authorities where these will be marketed, that the generic versions are stable in all parameters, and bioequivalent to the respective original molecules. According to US-FDA, a ‘generic drug’ will require to be the same as the original ‘brand-name drug’ in dosage, safety, strength, quality, purity, the way it works, the way it is taken and the way it should be used.

‘Branded generic’ drugs:

Branded generics are generic molecules marketed and prescribed by their respective brand names. Around 90 percent of generic formulations are branded generics in India, involving heavy sales and marketing expenditure in various forms, which has become a contentious issue today in India. The reason being, although branded generics cost significantly more than unbranded generics, the former variety of generic drugs are most preferred by the medical profession, as a group, in India. Interestingly, there is no difference whatsoever in the marketing approval process between the ‘branded generics’ and other generic varieties without any brand names.

Unbranded generic drugs:

Unbranded generic drugs are those, which are sold only in the generic names, sans any brand name. I reiterate, once again, that there is no difference in the marketing approval process between the ‘branded generics’ and ‘unbranded generic medicines’.

The core issue:

The whole debate or concern related to both efficacy and safety on the use of unbranded generic drugs in India stems from a single regulatory issue, which is widely construed as scientifically improper, and totally avoidable. If this subject is addressed in a holistic way and implemented satisfactorily in the country, by and large, there should not be any worthwhile concern in prescribing or consuming single ingredient unbranded generic drugs in India, which generally cost much less than their branded generic equivalents.

This core issue is primarily related to establishing bioequivalence (BE) with the original molecules for all generic formulations, regardless of whether these are branded or unbranded generic drugs. Thus, positive results in bioequivalence studies, should be a fundamental requirement for the grant of marketing approval of any generics in India, as is required by the regulators of most countries, across the world.

This has been lucidly articulated also in the publication of the National Institute of Health (NIH), USA, underscoring the critical importance of generic drugs in healthcare is unquestionable. The article says: “it is imperative that the pharmaceutical quality and ‘in vivo’ performance of generic drugs be reliably assessed. Because generic drugs would be interchanged with innovator products in the market place, it must be demonstrated that the safety and efficacy of generics are comparable to the safety and efficacy of the corresponding innovator drugs. Assessment of ‘interchangeability’ between the generic and the innovator product is carried out by a study of ‘in vivo’ equivalence or ‘bioequivalence’ (BE).”

The paper further highlights, “the concept of BE has, therefore, been accepted worldwide by the pharmaceutical industry and national regulatory authorities for over 20 years and is applied to new as well as generic products. As a result, thousands of high-quality generic drugs at reduced costs have become available in every corner of the globe.”

Why is BE not mandatory for marketing approval of all generic drugs in India?

It is intriguing, why is this basic scientific and medical requirement of proving BE is not mandatory for granting marketing approval of all generic drugs at all time, without any exception – covering both branded generics and their unbranded equivalents, in India.

As I have already deliberated on this subject in my article titled “Generic Drug Quality: Cacophony Masks An Important Note, Creates A Pariah ”, published in this blog on May 08, 2017, I shall now proceed further to relate this critical issue with the Draft Pharma Policy 2017.

Brand, branding and branded generics:

Nevertheless, before I focus on the draft pharma policy 2017, let me skim through the definitions of a ‘brand’ and the ‘branding process’, in general, for better understanding of the subject.

American Marketing Association defines a brand as: ‘A name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s goods or services as distinct from other sellers.’ Whereas, ‘The Branding Journal’ articulates: ‘A brand provides consumers with a decision-making-shortcut when feeling indecisive about the same product from different companies.’

Business Dictionary describes the ‘branding process’ as: ‘Creating a unique name and image for a product in the consumers’ mind, mainly through advertising campaigns with a consistent theme. Branding aims to establish a significant and differentiated presence in the market that attracts and retains loyal customers.’

How does it benefit the branded generic consumers?

One thing that comes out clearly from the above definitions that brands, and for that matter the branding process is directed to the consumers. Applying the branding process for generic drugs, the moot question that surfaces is, how does it benefit the pharma consumers, significantly?

Besides, the branding process being so very expensive, adds significant cost to a generic drug, making its price exorbitant to most patients, quite disproportionate to incremental value, if any, that a branded generic offers over its unbranded equivalents. Thus, the relevance of the branding process for a generic drug, continues to remain a contentious issue for many, especially where the out of pocket expenditure for medicines is so high, as in India.

Marketing experts’ view on the branding process for drugs:

An interesting article titled ‘From Managing Pills to Managing Brands’, authored by the Unilever Chaired Professor of Marketing and a research fellow at INSEAD, published in the Harvard Business Review made the following observations on brands and the branding process for drugs:

“…It takes a huge investment to build a successful brand, consumer goods manufacturers try to make their brands last as long as possible. Some consumer products—notably, Coca-Cola, Nescafé, and Persil (a European laundry detergent) -  have stayed at the top for decades. That’s not to say the products don’t evolve, but the changes are presented as improvements and refinements rather than as breakthroughs.”

“In the pharmaceutical business, by contrast, a new product is always given a new name. Drug companies believe that only by introducing a new name can you signal to the market that the product itself is new. Unfortunately, this approach throws out the company’s previous marketing investment entirely; it has to build a new brand with each new product. That may not have mattered when pharmaceutical companies could rely on a large, high-margin market for each drug they wheeled out. But in a crowded market with tightening margins, the new-product, new-brand strategy is becoming less and less feasible.”

The above observations when applied to expensive ‘branded generics’, which are nothing but exact ‘me too’ varieties among tens other similar formulations of the same generic molecule, do not add any additional value to the patients, in a well-functioning drug regulatory environment.

Hence, to reduce the out of pocket drug cost significantly, Prime Minister Modi hinted at bringing an appropriate legal framework to address this critical issue, which gets well-reflected in the draft pharma policy 2017, as I read it.

Six key features of the draft pharma policy related to ‘branded generics’:

Following are the six key features enshrined in the draft pharma policy 2017 to translate into reality what the Prime Minister spoke about on this subject in Surat on April 17, 2017.

1. Bio-availability and Bio-equivalence tests mandatory for all drug manufacturing permissions:

For quality control of generic drugs, Bio-availability and Bio-equivalence tests (BA/BE Tests) will be made mandatory for all drug manufacturing permissions accorded by the State Drug Regulator or by the Central Drug Regulator. This will be made compulsory even for the future renewals of manufacturing licenses for all.

2. WHO GMP/GLP mandatory for all drug units:

The government shall ensure to get the World Health Organization’s Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) adopted by all manufacturing units.

3. No branded generics for single ingredient off-patent molecules:

The government will pursue the policy of sale of single ingredient drugs by their pharmacopeial name/salt name. To keep the identity of the manufacturer, the manufacturer would be allowed to stamp its name on the drug package. For patented drugs and Fixed Dose Combination (FDCs) drugs the brand names may be used.

4. ‘One company – one drug – one brand name – one price’:

The principle of ‘one company – one drug – one brand name – one price’ would be implemented for all drugs.

5. Aid and assistance to prescribe in generic names:

To aid and assist the registered medical practitioners in prescribing medicines in the generic names, e-prescription will be put into operation whereby the prescriptions will be computerized and the medicine name will be picked up from a drop-down menu of salt names.

6. UCPMP to be made mandatory:

The marketing practices of several pharmaceutical companies create an unfair advantage. To provide a level playing field, the regulation for marketing practices which is at present voluntary will be made mandatory. Penalty will be levied for violations and an agency for implementation would also be assigned.

Conclusion:

I have focused in this article only on those specific intents of the government, as captured in the draft pharma policy 2017, to reduce the out of pocket expenses on drugs for the Indian patients, which is currently one of the highest in the world. This area assumes greater importance to many, keeping in mind what Prime Minister Modi hinted at in this regard on April 17, 2017. If implemented exactly as detailed in the policy draft, this specific area would have a watershed impact both on the patients, as well as, the pharma companies, including their related business associates, lasting over a long period time.

Far reaching consequential fall outs are expected to loom large on the way pharma players’ strategic business processes generally revolve round ‘branded generics’ in India. I hope, the Plan B of many predominantly branded generic players is also receiving final touches on the drawing board by now, as this aspect of the draft policy proposal can in no way be construed as a bolt from the blue, catching the industry totally off-guard. That said, would the same changes as proposed in the draft pharma policy 2017, if and when implemented, be a ‘wow’ moment for patients?

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.

 

Generic Drug Quality: Cacophony Masks An Important Note, Creates A Pariah

Posted on by
Reply

In the ongoing debate between branded-generics and generic drugs without brand names, the concern about drug quality is occupying the center stage, with the former generally being painted in white, and the later in black – with no shades of gray in-between. Interestingly, many large domestic companies manufacture and sell both these genres of generic medicines, and the marketing approval process of both is no different, in a relative yardstick. The degree of difficulty in testing their quality standards, across the country, is no different, either.

On February 25, 2017, even the USFDA, reportedly, raised concerns, for the first time, on the quality and efficacy of medicines, in general, being sold within India. The news report further highlighted: ‘Over the past two years, many domestic majors, including Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s, Cipla and Zydus Cadila have faced regulatory ire over quality of medicines exported from here and sold in the US and other overseas markets’.

It is undeniable, if prescriptions in generic names are made mandatory, there could be direct job losses within the industry, just as loss of significant business clientele of many professional service providers for branded generic business, directly or indirectly. Its net impact needs to be factored-in too, while taking a final decision on this subject.

Lack of enough credible scientific data establishing superiority of branded-generics over their non-branded equivalents are also striking, so are few instances of doctors filing Pharmacovigilance reports with the DCGI on the inferior quality of non-branded generic drugs. Neither is the most competent body in this area – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), has concurred with any such claims, so far. Without these, the whole debate based on seemingly over the top claims of superiority of branded generics as a class, is based no more than a matter of conjecture.

I discussed most of these points in one of my earlier articles published in this blog on April 24, 2017. Thus, in this article, I shall focus mostly on an important generic-drug-quality related amendment, very recently made in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, which hasn’t received as much attention as it deserves. This finer note in the drug regulatory playbook, in fact, got nearly masked in the high-decibel cacophony of arguments and counterarguments on Prime Minister Modi’s recent hint on making prescriptions in generic drug names mandatory.

The core issue remains the same, both for non-branded and branded generics:

In the marketing approval process of any branded generic or a non-branded generic drug, Bioequivalence (BE) studies hold immense scientific importance. It ascertains whether the generic equivalent possesses similar efficacy and safety profile as the original molecule for interchangeability. Which is why, in most countries, including Europe and the United States, BE testing is mandatory for approval of any generic drug. Even the large buyers of these drugs, such as the World Health Organization, buy only those generics with proven BE.

Nonetheless, like many other nations, in India, as well, the marketing approval standards for all generic drugs, with or without a brand name, are exactly the same. However, this approval process gets alarmingly relaxed, for both these generic types, with the passage of time, which is the core issue.

New drug definition in India:

According to section 122-E of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (D&C Rules) new drugs will include unapproved drugs, modified or new claims, such as, indications, dosage forms (including sustained release dosage form) and route of administration of already approved drugs and combination of two or more drugs. A new drug shall continue to be considered as new for a period of four years from the date of its first approval or its inclusion in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, whichever is earlier.

BE studies necessary only for ‘New Drugs’:

For all such new drugs and their Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC), including those which are not covered by a patent, if introduced for the first time in India, would necessarily require its applicant to submit the marketing approval documents well-supported by phase III clinical trial data, which includes BE studies against the original molecules. BE of a drug product is achieved if its extent and rate of absorption do not show statistically significant differences from those of the reference product when administered at the same molar dose.

After the 4-year period BE tests not necessary:

Interestingly, after the 4-year period, D&C rules allow subsequent manufacturers of similar drugs to generally rely on the data generated by other pharma companies to obtain marketing approvals for their drugs. In other words, after this 4-year period, manufacturers of branded or non-branded generic drugs are not required to establish comparable safety and efficacy of their formulations with the original molecule through BE and other studies. It is worth noting here, unlike India, BE tests are mandatory for approval of all generic drugs at any time, in most countries across the world.

How would a doctor select only those branded-generics with BE studies?

As there isn’t any easy way to know and identify, both by the doctors and also the patients, which branded or non-branded generics were introduced without BE studies, both these categories pose equal risks to patients – not just the cheaper generic drugs sans brand names.

Changes recommended:

This laxity in the regulatory framework in India did create a lot of uneasiness about the quality of branded and non-branded generic medicines approved by the drug regulators and sold in the country. Responding to this issue, Professor Ranjit Roy Chowdhury Committee Report recommended in July 2013 to make BE and bio­availability studies mandatory for all types of generic drugs, even after the 4-year period.

Cacophony masks an important note:

The good news is, on April 3, 2017, by a Gazette Notification, Indian Government enacted amendments to the Drug and Cosmetics Act (1940) requiring mandatory BE studies for marketing approval of all generic drugs even beyond the 4-year period of the ‘new drug’ definition. It says, “The applicant shall submit the result of bioequivalence study referred to in Schedule Y, along with the application for the grant of a license of the oral dosage form of drugs specified under category II and category IV of the biopharmaceutical classification system.”

Biopharmaceutics Classification System:

The Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) is a scientific framework to differentiate the drug formulations based on their aqueous solubility and intestinal permeability, and mainly depends on two factors:

  • How well the drug dissolves in the stomach and intestinal fluids (drug solubility)
  • How readily the drug passes through the intestinal wall into the blood flow (drug permeability)

The BCS was introduced by Gordon L. Amidon in 1995 to classify drugs into the four categories based on these parameters, as follows:

  • Class I: High Solubility – High Permeability
  • Class II: Low Solubility – High Permeability
  • Class III: High Solubility – Low Permeability
  • Class IV: Low Solubility – Low Permeability

CDSCO still needs to find the right answer to a key question:

Interestingly, this so important note in the regulatory playbook of India got masked in the high-voltage cacophony on branded and non-branded-generics. However, CDSCO would still require finding out the right answer to a key question: how would a doctor or a patient possibly know on which branded and non-branded generic drugs BE tests were not carried out, before the above amendment came into force.

Reported data on substandard drugs in India:

Quoting CDSCO data, the September-October 2015 issue of the ‘Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism’ summarized that ‘during the years 2011-2014, the regional laboratories tested samples at 91 percent of the installed capacity, but their overall detection rate of sub-standard drugs were only 3.6 percent’. Many have expressed doubts about these numbers though, nevertheless, these are Government data, and don’t fall in the realm of any conjecture.

In any case, the Union Ministry of Health doesn’t seem to concur that the issue of substandard drugs in India, that includes both the branded and non-branded generics, has assumed a public health menace in India or even alarming.

No qualms on value added branding of generic drugs, but fix the loophole for all:

It is understandable, when generic drugs are branded for tangible value-added product differentiation even within the identical or the same drug molecules. There are no qualms on such branding per se, though it comes at a high cost.

Marketing approval requirements being the same for all branded and non-branded generic drugs with the same pitfalls of no mandatory BE-testing requirement after the 4-year period, branding should add commensurate tangible value. Otherwise, why should most patients pay a significantly extra amount for heavily promoted branded-generics? Is it to help the pharma companies fighting with each other to increase their respective pies of revenue and profit on an essential commodity? Instead, stakeholders should now focus on easy detection of all those branded and non-branded generic drug formulations that avoided mandatory BE studies, prior to April 3, 2017.

In conclusion:

Despite CDSCO’s statistical data on substandard drugs, the general concern regarding the efficacy and safety of medicines manufactured in India is often raised both inside the country, as well as by some well-respected overseas drug regulators. Curiously, when raising the same concern CDSCO banned hundreds of branded FDCs, as these drugs came to the market without carrying out required scientific tests due to some major lacunae in the regulatory system, there was a huge protest in the country raised by almost the same people, as business interests prevailed over patients’ health interest.

Interestingly, displaying a sharp contradiction in today’s cacophony, patients’ health interest has been put in the forefront to protect business interests, especially when the CDSCO has raised no such concern, whatsoever.

The reverberating claims on superior drug quality for branded-generics as a class, over their cheaper non-branded equivalents, with the former generally being painted in white, and the later in black – with no shades of gray in-between, as I said before, is based mostly on conjecture rather than enough hard facts. Thus, the question comes up, who is responsible for ensuring drug efficacy and safety for the patients in India – CDSCO or non-fact based claims being raised mostly by those who have a direct or indirect financial interest in branded-generic business?

Keeping this in perspective, it is indeed intriguing, why such an important regulatory step of April 3, 2017 requiring mandatory BE studies for marketing approval of all generic drugs, even after the 4-year period, is getting masked in the cacophony, mostly favoring the branded-generics as a category. However, it’s no-brainer to understand that this din would continue, projecting all generic drugs sans brand names – a pariah!

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.

“Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients”: Exploring the book to be released in the Indian context

Posted on by
Reply

The title of today’s article could make some of the readers uncomfortable and angry, just as what I experienced while writing the same, being a long time follower and student of the pharmaceutical industry, both global and local.

Ethical business conduct and value standards, especially of medium, large to very large pharmaceutical corporations both in India and across the world are coming increasingly under stakeholders’ scrutiny, besides being severely criticized for non-compliance in many instances by the regulators, judiciary and public at large. We shall find many such examples over a long period of time even from within our own land.

There is no global consensus, as yet, on what is ethically and morally acceptable ‘Business Ethics and Values’ across the world, although there are some very strong common parameters that can be globally followed.

In many companies’ websites such standards are also available in their minutest details. Unfortunately, even some of those companies are also being reportedly held guilty for blatant violations of their own set standards of ethics and compliance.

This trend could prompt one to believe, sincere attempts are still lacking to ensure effective implementation of such well drafted ‘Business Ethics and Values’ in country-specific ways by many of these companies.

The most challenging obstacle to overcome in this area by the corporates, I reckon, would still remain ‘walking the talk’, owning the responsibility and taking sustainable remedial measures, at least when these violations are conclusively established followed by penal actions.

A new book with graphic details: 

In this context, ‘The Economist’ in its September 29, 2012 reviewed a book titled ‘Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients’, written by Ben Goldacre, a British doctor and science writer. According to Amazon the book is due to be released on January 8, 2013.

In this book the author describes incidences of routine corruption in the healthcare system and brings out to the fore citing details of some of the following areas, how patients’ interests are being continuously and blatantly compromised by many pharmaceutical companies unabated, just for commercial gain:

  1. Pharmaceutical companies bury clinical trials which show bad results for a drug and publish only those that show a benefit.
  2. The trials are often run on small numbers of unrepresentative patients, and the statistical analyses are massaged to give as rosy a picture as possible.
  3. Entire clinical trials are run not as trials at all, but as ‘under-the-counter advertising campaigns’ designed to persuade doctors to prescribe a company’s drug.

Dr. Ben Goldacre does not spare the drug regulators also as he writes, ‘drug regulators, who do get access to some of the hidden results, often guard them jealously, even from academic researchers, seeming to serve the interests of the firms whose products they are supposed to police.’

The author also writes that ‘many studies published in reputed medical journals are written by the commercial ghostwriters, who are paid by the pharmaceutical companies and are not written by those whose names appear as the author of those studies. He laments that based on such clinical trial reports blitzkrieg expensive marketing campaigns are conducted to influence doctors prescribing such drugs.

None of the above instances is unreported in India, may be in forms which are many shades worse than what has been described by Dr. Ben Goldacre in his above book.

‘The Economist’ recommends that ‘this is a book that deserves to be widely read, because anyone who does read it cannot help feeling both uncomfortable and angry’.

India can’t delay tightening its belt any further:

The concerns of Dr. Ben Goldacre are also being expressed in India quite vocally, almost in all the areas as mentioned above. Thus India needs to tighten its regulatory systems and ensure proper implementation of all its policies, and if required framing some new ones, so that the country can come out of this quagmire which severely hurts the patients’ interests at large.

Among many others, two critical areas where such alleged corporate malpractices are being continuously reported are as follows:

I. Clinical Trials

II. Marketing Practices 

I. Ethical concerns over Clinical Trial in India are not getting mitigated:

Clinical trial system still remains a critical area of concern in India. The Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an article titled, “Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns” reported as follows:

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

Because of this reason, on October 8, 2012 the Supreme Court reportedly asked the government to provide details of clinical trials being conducted across the country, which will include drug side effects and clinical trial related deaths, in which case compensation, if any, paid to the victims or to their family members.

This direction came from the apex court of the country while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging Indian citizens are being used as guinea pigs during clinical trials by the pharmaceutical companies all over the country, mainly due to lack of informed consent of the enrolled patients and thereafter short changing their interest citing various reasons.

Clinical-trials process of the country is now, therefore, under intense scrutiny of the government, NGOs and also of the judiciary after a number of scandals focusing on malpractices, somewhat similar to what Dr. Ben Goldacre has highlighted in his book, as mentioned above. These series of events have recently prompted the regulators to come out with proposals of reforms in this important area, for all concerned.

The Parliament intervened:

Recently the department related ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC)’ on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59th Report on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012.

The PSC in its report made, the following critical findings, besides others:

  • “A total of 31 new drugs were approved in the period January 2008 to October 2010 without conducting clinical trials on Indian patients.
  • Thirteen drugs scrutinized by the panel are not allowed to be sold in the United States, Canada, Britain, European Union and Australia.
  • Sufficient evidence is available on record to conclude that there is collusive nexus between drug manufacturers, some functionaries of CDSCO and some medical experts.
  • Due to the sensitive nature of clinical trials in which foreign companies are involved in a big way and a wide spectrum of ethical issues and legal angles, different aspects of clinical trials need a thorough and in-depth review.”

Regulators woke-up:

In response to the prevailing conundrum, ‘The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’ of the Government of India issued a draft notification on 17th July, 2012 seeking stakeholders’ views on the ‘Permission to conduct Clinical Trial’.

The draft notification says that the licensing authority only after being satisfied with the adequacy of the data submitted by the applicant in support of proposed clinical trial, shall issue permission to conduct clinical trial, subject to compliance of specified stringent conditions.

However, some experts do apprehend that such stringent system could give rise to significant escalation in the costs of clinical trials for the pharmaceutical players.

Similarly to assess right compensation for clinical trial related injuries or deaths following parameters were mooted in the document:

  • Age of the deceased
  • Income of the deceased
  • Seriousness and severity of the disease, the subject was suffering at the time of his/her participation into the trial.
  • Percentage of permanent disability.

 II. Ethical concerns on marketing malpractices in India: 

This issue has no longer remained a global concern. Frequent reports by Indian media have already triggered a raging debate in the country on the subject, involving even the Government and also the Parliament. It has been reported that a related case is now pending with the Supreme Court for hearing in not too distant future.

In 2010, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ expressed its deep concern that “the evil practice” of inducement of doctors continued because the Medical Council of India (MCI) had no jurisdiction over the pharma industry and it could not enforce the code of ethics on it.’

It was widely reported that the letter of the Congress Member of Parliament, Dr. Jyoti Mirdha to the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, attaching a bunch of photocopies of the air tickets to claim that ‘doctors and their families were beating the scorching Indian summer with a trip to England and Scotland, courtesy a pharmaceutical company’, compelled the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to initiate inquiry and action on the subject.

The letter had claimed that as many as 30 family members of 11 doctors from all over India enjoyed the hospitality of the pharmaceutical company.

In addition Dr. Mirdha reportedly wrote to the PMO that “The malpractice did not come to an end because while medical profession (recipients of incentives) is subjected to a mandatory code, there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the healthcare industry (givers of incentives). Result: Ingenious methods have been found to flout the code.”

The report also indicated at that time that the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) is trying to involve the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance to explore the possibilities in devising methods to link the money trail to offending companies and deny the tax incentives.

Incidences of such alleged malpractices related to financial relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession are unfolding reasonably faster now. All these issues are getting increasingly dragged into the public debate where government can no longer play the role of a mere bystander.

Taking the first step closer to that direction, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), which is a part of Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance has now decided to disallow expenses on all ‘freebies’ to Doctors by the Pharmaceutical Companies in India.

A circular dated August 1, 2012 of the CBDT that the any expenses incurred by the pharmaceutical companies on gifts and other ‘freebies’ given to the doctors will no longer be allowed as business expenses. 

Conclusion:

Statistics of compliance to ‘The Codes of Business Ethics & Corporate Values’ are important to know, but demonstrable qualitative changes in the ethics and value standards of an organization should always be the most important goal to drive any business corporation, the pharmaceutical industry being no exception.

The need to formulate ‘Codes of Business Ethics & Values’ and even more importantly their compliance are gradually gaining importance and relevance in the globalized business environment.

However, quite in conflict with the above initiative, at the same time, many pharmaceutical corporations across the world are being increasingly forced to come to terms with the heavy costs and consequences of ‘unethical behavior and business practices’ by the respective governments and judiciary. Unfortunately the Juggernaut still keeps moving, perhaps arising out of intense pressure for corporate business performance.

I am not quite sure though, whether such an expectation for ‘Corporate Ethics and Values’ is ‘utopian’ for the pharmaceutical industry or can be translated into reality with some amount of sincere efforts and commitment. However, if it does not happen, sooner than later, the ‘Bad Pharma’ image of the pharmaceutical industry across the world, as enunciated by Dr. Ben Goldacre in his book, will continue to linger inviting increasingly fierce public wrath along with stringent government regulatory controls and judicial interventions.

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.

Counterfeit Drugs and ACTA: Should the global menace related to ‘Public Health and Safety’ be mixed-up with Intellectual Property Rights?

Posted on by
Reply

Here in this article, I am talking about drugs or medicines, which you may ultimately land up into buying, quite innocently though, against your doctor’s prescriptions, without having an inkling that these drugs can push you into serious health hazards, instead of addressing your ailments, as your doctor would have desired to.

These are ‘Counterfeit’, ‘Fake’, ‘Spurious’ or ‘Sub-standard’ drugs, in whatever name we may call them. Such substances in the guise of drugs are therapeutically harmful for the patients and are a global menace. This needs to be addressed urgently and with a military precision.

However, public health policy experts have been arguing since long that the issues of such dimension related to critical ‘Public Health and Safety’ needs to be addressed expeditiously by all concerned with focus, without mixing it up with any other commercial considerations or IP related matter, as is being done by some vested interests across the world. India, in this case as well, is of course no exception.

Some reports:

Following are examples of some reports regarding deliberations on this critical issue:

  • A new study published recently in ‘The Lancet’ reported that 7% of anti-malarial drugs tested in India are of poor quality and many were found fake.
  • A February, 2012 report of ‘The National Initiative against Piracy and Counterfeiting’ of FICCI highlighted that the share of fake/counterfeit medicines is estimated at 15% – 20% of the total Indian pharmaceutical market.
  • Another recent report of the US Customs and Border Protection highlighted, “India and Pakistan both made it to top 10 source countries this year due to seizures of counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Pharma seizures accounted for 86% of the value of IPR seizures from India and 85% of the value of IPR seizures from Pakistan.”

However, in this context, it is worth mentioning that the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry along with the Government has been continuously questioning the original source of fake drugs with prominent ‘made in India labels’ on the outer packaging material. It will not be difficult for many to recall that a couple of years ago consignments of ‘counterfeit or fake drugs’ wearing ‘made in India’ labels were confiscated by the drug regulator of Nigeria (Africa), which after a thorough investigation were found to have originated from China.

A contrarian report – CDSCO Survey:

Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of the Government of India released the following details on ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ in India from 2006 to 2010, which shows that the issue is not as acute as it is shown above:

Year Drugs samples tested % of sub-standard drugs % of spurious drugs Prosecution for crime Persons arrested
2006 – 07

34738

5.8

0.22

115

12
2007 – 08

39117

6.2

0.19

120

122
2008 – 09

45145

5.7

0.34

220

133
2009 -10

39248

4.95

0.29

138

147

TOTAL

158248

5.66

0.26

593

414

This ‘Pan-India survey report of CDSCO’ shows that from 2006 to 2010 the percentage of both ‘Substandard’ and ‘Spurious’ drugs were quite low in India.

However, the more worrying fact, as seen in the report is, the arrests and prosecutions for this heinous crime are also abysmally low in India.

IP related ‘counterfeit’ drugs are relatively smaller in numbers: 

WHO has identified following types of counterfeit medicines:
• Without active ingredients: 32% • Wrong ingredients: 21.4% • Incorrect quantities of active ingredients: 20.2% • Right quantities of active ingredients but in fake packaging: 15.6% • High levels of impurities and contaminants: 8.5% • “Substituted ingredients of anything from paracetamol to boric acid, talcum powder, rat    poison or road paint”: 2.3%

In addition, 50% of medicines purchased online from illegal internet are ‘counterfeit or fake’

From the above data, it appears that IP related ‘counterfeit or fake’ drugs are relatively small in number.

‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’:

The subject gets more complicated when such critical ‘Public Health and Safety’ related issue is leveraged to further strengthen Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and address commercial issues in different ways.

One such initiative was ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’. This was signed mostly by the developed countries of the world in October 2011.

ACTA is a plurilateral international trade agreement aimed at countering more efficiently not only the menace of counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the internet, but also Intellectual Property (IP) related issues, including stringent enforcement of product patents.

This agreement was primarily designed to form a new forum, outside the existing ones, like for example United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO) or the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and was signed by Australia, Canada, European Union, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States. However, the agreement has not been formally approved by any of them, as yet.

According to European Commission, “ACTA is an international trade agreement that will help countries work together to tackle more effectively large-scale IPR violations. Citizens will benefit from ACTA because it will help protect Europe’s raw material – innovations and ideas.”

Two aspects of ACTA definition:

As per ACTA definition, there are two aspects for a medicine being termed as ‘Counterfeit’, which are as follows:

  1. ‘Health and safety’ issues, arising out of therapeutically harmful medicines
  2. Violation of IP rights like, patents, trademark and design

It raises more questions than answers:

ACTA definition, as mentioned above, has led to confusion mainly because, if a patent infringing product is termed ‘counterfeit or fake’ in one country, what will then the same product be called in another country where the molecule has gone off-patent? 

Moreover, countries which consider such types of drugs ‘fake’ or ‘counterfeit’, will have the full right to destroy even the in-transit consignments containing such products, not only causing economic loss to the exporter, but also jeopardizing public health interest at the destination countries. Just to site an example, in not too distant past, consignments of generic medicines exported from India to Brazil were seized at the European ports

Thus, many experts feel that ACTA poses a potential risk for global access to generic medicines endangering public health interest, as it could restrict free passage of such drugs through many ports of the world on IP grounds, as happened more than once in the past.

‘Generic medicines’ to be left unharmed:

In this context, Ellen‘t Hoen, former Policy Advocacy Director of MSF’s Campaign for ‘Access to Essential Medicines’ wrote in April 2009 as follows:

“People often seem to confuse counterfeit, substandard and generic medicines – using the terms interchangeably. But they are very separate issues and clearly defining their differences is critical to any discussion”.

Ongoing WHO debate: 

‘Intellectual Property Watch’ in May 20, 2010 reported that:

“Brazil and India claimed that WHO’s work against counterfeit and substandard medicines is being influenced by brand-name drug producers with an interest in undermining legitimate generic competition. The Brazilian ambassador told ‘Intellectual Property Watch’ there is a ‘hidden agenda’ against generics for countries like Brazil.”

“India and Brazil filed requests for consultations with the European Union and the Netherlands over the seizure of generic medicines in transit through Europe. This is the first step towards a dispute settlement case, and if issues cannot be resolved via consultations then formation of a dispute settlement panel could be requested in the coming months”.

However, as reported by ‘The International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD)’, after the Government of India had taken it up strongly with the EU, the issue of confiscation of in-transit consignments of generic drugs has since been resolved.

Three emerging views:

Arising out of all these, there are following three different clearly emerging views on the global issue of counterfeit drugs:

1. The innovator companies feel that the generic pharmaceutical industry and the drug regulators of the developing countries are not really very keen to effectively address and resolve the global issue of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’.
2. The generic companies and the drug regulators of the developing countries feel that the problem is not as acute as it is being projected to be and the innovator global pharmaceutical companies through their intense advocacy campaigns are trying to exploit the sentiment against spurious and harmful drugs to fight against generic medicines and cheaper parallel imports.
3. Some other important stakeholders, including a section of NGOs claim that an intense ‘Public Health and Safety’ related sentiment is being leveraged by the R&D based global pharmaceutical companies to extend IPR issues to “patients’ safety” related concerns, for vested interest.

The role of WHO:

The leadership role of the WHO is extremely important to effectively eliminate the global menace of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ for ‘Public Health and Safety’. Across the world, patients need protection from the growing threat of ‘Counterfeit Medicines’. As a premier global organization to address such critical issues effectively, especially for the developing world, the WHO needs to play a more proactive and stellar role in future.

A Rational Approach:

The groups opposing ACTA recommend the following approaches to address the menace of ‘Counterfeit or Fake or Spurious or Harmful Medicines’:

  1. Address the issue of ‘Public Health and Safety’ by strengthening regulatory systems, related laws of the country and the stakeholder awareness program. In case of India, recently amended Drugs and Cosmetics Act needs to be properly implemented in letter and spirit.
  2. The issue of violation of IP should be dealt with through effective enforcement of IP laws of the country.
  3. There should not be any mix-up between ‘Public Health and Safety’ and ‘IP related issues’, in any way or form.

Countries already approached WHO:

Earlier, along with countries like Indonesia and Thailand, India could make the WHO realize that mixing up the above two issues could pose serious impediment for the supply of cheaper generic medicines to the marginalized sections of the society, globally. 

Weak regulatory enforcement lead to more ‘Counterfeit/Fake’ drugs:

The menace of counterfeit medicines is not restricted to the developing countries like, India alone. It is seen in the developed countries, as well, but at a much smaller scale. Thus, it is generally believed that the issue of ‘counterfeit drugs’ is more common in those countries, where the regulatory enforcement mechanism is rather weak.

A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, ‘in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits’.

Conclusion:

In the meeting of the TRIPS Council of the World Trade Organization (WTO) held in June, 2012, developed countries continued to reiterate that ‘Counterfeiting of Drugs’ being a critical issue should be deliberated upon by the council, expeditiously.

However, emerging countries like, Brazil, India and China strongly opposed this view by reemphasizing that in the name of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ issues of IPR violations should not be clubbed with ‘Public Health and Safety’. They argued that IPR violation should in no way be confused with sub-standard drugs or therapeutically harmful medicines and any attempt to discuss the menace of harmful or substandard medicines at the WTO platform will be improper.

Developing nations, in general, have already alleged in various global forums that being unsuccessful in their efforts to use ACTA in making the IP environment even more stringent, the developed countries are now trying to use the WTO to achieve the same objective.

The debate continues and the moot question still lingers: Why should the issue of ‘Public Health and Safety’ get mixed-up with ‘Intellectual Property (IP)’ related problems?

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.

Are Preventive Medicines always cost effective to be an area of focus in healthcare management?

Posted on by
Reply

American Board of Preventive Medicine defines ‘Preventive Medicine’ as follows:

“Preventive Medicine is the specialty of medical practice that focuses on the health of individuals, communities, and defined populations. Its goal is to protect, promote, and maintain health and well-being and to prevent disease, disability and death.”

The most basic examples of preventive medicines are known to be hand washing, breast feeding and immunization.

Simple preventive measures, such as, increasing awareness against tobacco smoking, misuse of alcohol or unprotected sex, especially in an emerging economy like India, will go a long way to prevent and control such habit related diseases, help saving significant expenditure of the nation towards healthcare.

The purpose:

The primary purpose of preventive medicines could well have dual objectives as follows:

  • Disease prevention of a large section of the population
  • Reduce the healthcare expenses

Primary, secondary and tertiary prevention:

As stated above, primary disease prevention usually would include vaccination against specific disease types, whereas secondary and tertiary prevention are usually done through early detection process and screening of the target population.

Relevance to chronic diseases:

A World Health Organization (WHO) report, titled, “Preventing Chronic diseases – a vital investment” argues that globally of the 58 million deaths in 2005, approximately 35 million were due to chronic diseases, which were expected to increase by 17% in the next 10 years thereafter.

It points out that 80% of all premature heart disease, stroke and diabetes are preventable. This assumes greater significance as 80% deaths due to chronic disease occur in low and middle income nations where most of the world population lives, against only 20% of the same in the high income countries.

The report, therefore, articulates that it is absolutely necessary for the countries to review and implement a comprehensive and integrated preventive public health strategy.

Regular preventive measures:

Experts recommend following regular preventive measures, which are very relevant to India:

  • Counseling on hygienic life style
  • Routine primary vaccinations
  • Counseling on quitting smoking, alcohol misuse, protected sex, losing weight, eating healthy food, treating depression etc.
  • Regular general health check-up
  • Cancer screenings like mammograms and colonoscopies

Immense potential in India:

In a country like India, with high prevalence of many preventable diseases involving a large section of the nation’s population, preventive medicine promises immense potential to reduce the healthcare expenditure of the country significantly and at the same time would promise a much better quality of life to its population.

A counter point:

Another school of thought, primarily US based, advocates that preventive medicines, on the contrary, would raise the healthcare expenditure.

  • Preventive Medicine increases healthcare cost:

In support of this contrarian view, a paper published in ‘The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)’ on February 14, 2008 based on 599 studies between 2000 and 2005 infers that though disease prevention in some cases may reduce the cost of healthcare, more preventive medicines in many cases could, in fact, increase  the overall healthcare expenditure.

  • Screening cost is more than savings:

It says that screening cost of a disease for a large section of the population may far exceed the savings from treatment avoidance in those cases where only a small part of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures.

  • Treatment with medicine offers greater value:

The article also points out that:

“The drugs used to treat high cholesterol yield much greater value for the money, if the targeted population is at high risk for coronary heart disease, and the efficiency of cancer screening can depend heavily on both the frequency of the screening and the level of cancer risk in the screened population.”

  • Preventive medicine more expensive:

The authors argue that preventive medicine will be more expensive where to make a small populations free from a particular disease, preventive measures are taken involving a large population, most of whom even otherwise would not have suffered from that illness.

Conclusion:

Coming back to the WHO report which categorically says, contrary to the belief of some section of the society, especially in the USA that measures for control and prevention of chronic diseases are really not too expensive for any nation, not even for the low and middle income countries.

In reality, even chronic diseases can be prevented and effectively controlled to reduce the disease burden of any country very significantly. The WHO article also says that expensive patented medicines are no longer required for prevention of, for example, even cardiac ailments. The cheaper generic drugs, if used along with counseling on life style changes, will be quite affordable to a vast majority of population even in the middle and low income countries.

Weighing all pros and cons, WHO aims to reduce the death rates from all chronic diseases by 2% per year through preventive medicines, which would mean prevention of 36 million deaths due to chronic disease by 2015, mostly in the low and middle income countries.

These statistics will more than vindicate the argument that preventive measures and medicines are cost effective, in the long run for any nation, particularly for a country like 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.

Should high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, be attributed to high R&D cost?

Posted on by
Reply

Many thought leaders have been arguing since long that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are being over stated and the real cost is much less. An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicates that the total cost from discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 the same figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a pharmaceutical industry association. Maintaining similar trend, if one assumes that the R&D cost will increase by another 64 per cent by 2012, the cost to bring a new drug to the market through its discovery and development stages will be around US $2.16 billion. This will mean a 2.7 times increase from its year 2000 estimate, the article says.

The authors mentioned that the following factors were not considered while working out the 2006 figure of US$ 1.32 billion:

  • The tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D.
  • Tax write-offs amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40% of the R&D cost.
  • The cost of basic research (should not have been included), as these are mostly done in public funded universities or laboratories.

The article comments that ‘half the R&D costs are inflated estimates of profits that companies could have made if they had invested in the stock market instead of R&D and include exaggerated expenses on clinical trials’.

The authors alleged that “Pharmaceutical companies have a strong vested interest in maximizing figures for R&D as high research and development costs have been the industry’s excuse for charging high prices. It has also helped generating political capital worth billions in tax concessions and price protection in the form of increasing patent terms and extending data exclusivity.”

The study concludes by highlighting that “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company is probably about US$ 60 million.”

Declining Pharmaceutical R&D productivity:

That pharmaceutical R&D productivity is fast declining has been vindicated by ‘2011 Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook’ complied by Thomson Reuters, the key highlights of which are as follows:

  • 21 new molecular entities (NMEs) were launched in the global market in 2010, which is a decrease from 26 NMEs of the previous year.
  • 2010 saw the lowest number of NMEs launched by major Pharma players in the last 10 years
  • The number of drugs entering Phase I and Phase II clinical trials fell 47% and 53% respectively during the year.

Does pharmaceutical R&D always create novel drugs?

According to a recent report, US-FDA approved 667 new drugs from 2000 to 2007. Out of which only 75 (11%) were innovative molecules having much superior therapeutic profile than the existing ones. However, more than 80% of 667 approved molecules were not found to be better than those, which are already available in the market.  Thus, the question very often being raised by many is, why so much money is spent on discovery and development of ‘me-too’ drugs and thereafter for their prescription generation through aggressive marketing, when the patients pay for the entire cost of such drugs including the profit after being prescribed by the doctors?

A global CEO challenged the status quo:

By challenging the status quo, Andrew Witty, the global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in his speech  in Mumbai on September 27, 2011 to the members of the Indian pharmaceutical industry commented that the cost of over a billion dollar to bring a new molecule to the market through its discovery and development stages is “unacceptable.” He attributed such high R&D expenses to the ‘cost of failure’ by the industry.

Witty said, “High in-house failure rates are slowing progress on pricing affordability… We need to fail less and deliver more”.

He commented during his deliberation that success in reducing the R&D cost to make innovative drugs more affordable to the patients of all income levels, across the globe, will be the way forward in the years ahead.

Ways to reduce the R&D cost:

Some other experts articulated that sharp focus in the following areas may help containing the R&D expenditure to a great extent and the savings thus made, in turn, can fund a larger number of R&D projects:

  • Early stage identification of unviable new molecules and jettisoning them quickly
  • Newer cost efficient R&D models, like one implemented by GSK
  • Significant reduction in drug development time.

An opposite view:

The book  titled “Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks, and Rewards”, published by the government of USA states that the three most important components of R&D investment are:

  • Money
  • Time
  • Risk

Money is just one component of investment together with a long duration of time to reap the benefits of success intertwined with a very high risk of failure. The investors in the pharmaceutical R&D projects not only take into account of how much investment is required for the project against expected financial returns, but also the timing of inflow and outflow of fund with associated risks.  It is thus quite understandable that longer is the wait for the investors to get their return, greater will be their expectations for the same.

The publication also highlights that the cost of bringing a new drug from the ‘mind to market’ depends on quality and sophistication of science and technology involved in a particular R&D process together with associated investment requirements for the same. In addition, regulatory requirements to get marketing approval of a complex molecule for various serious disease types are also getting more and more stringent, increasing their cost of clinical development simultaneously. All these factors when taken together make the cost of R&D very high and unpredictable.

Thus to summarize, high pharmaceutical R&D costs involve:

  • Sophisticated science and technology dependent high up-front financial investments
  • A long and indefinite period of negative cash flow
  • High tangible and intangible costs for acquiring technology with rapid trend of obsolescence
  • High risk of failure at any stage of product development

Conclusion:

While getting engaged in to this debate, one should possibly keep in mind that effective patent exclusivity period in the pharmaceutical industry is much limited as compared to any other industry across the globe. This is mainly because a long period of 8-10 years goes between drug discovery/grant of patent, drug development and market launch of the new molecule, when it starts recovering the cost and making a profit. Thus the period of effective commercial exclusivity that a new drug enjoys through patent protection usually lasts not more than 10 to 12 year period.

For all these reasons and despite such a huge controversy, I wonder, even if the R&D expenditures are brought down to the year 2000 level of US$ 802 million through various productivity improvement measures, whether it will really be possible to develop a commercial R&D model by any pharmaceutical company to deliver low price innovative drugs ensuring high access to majority of the patients. For that one should possibly look at other R&D models like, ‘Patent Pool’ and ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ systems along with various funding options.

Thus in my view, high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, should by and large be attributed to high R&D cost. However, there is not even an iota of doubt about commercial unsustainability of such ballooning research and development expenditures even in the medium term.

That said, the arithmetic of pricing for a new marketable molecule could change dramatically, if “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company be just about US$ 60 million”, as argued by the authors of a publication quoted above, though the figure, I reckon, is quite unrealistic.

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.

From Cross-Licensing to ‘Patent Pools’ and… India: Will there be a ground swell?

Posted on by
Reply

Since many years, the global pharmaceutical industry has been making effective commercial use of cross-licensing, however, by and large, the industry still does not seem to be quite in favor of  ‘Patent Pools’ for various reasons.

The ‘Patent Pool’, as I understand is defined as, “an agreement between different owners, including companies, governments and academic bodies to make available patent rights on non-exclusive basis to manufacturers and distributor of drugs against payment of royalties.”

Thus one of the often repeated key benefits of the ‘Patent Pools’, as considered by its proponents, is that the system enables the use of innovation against payment of royalties, without the risk of patent infringement. Many believe that the concept of ‘Patent Pool’ can play an immensely useful role for productive use of Intellectual Property (IP) in the global pharmaceutical industry.

The difference between cross-licensing and ‘Patent Pools’:

The basic purposes of both Cross-Licensing and patent pools may appear to be similar, however the key difference is that in ‘Patent Pool’ system the patent owners usually agree to license to third parties who may not even contribute any patents to the pool. Moreover, ‘Patent Pools’ involve a large number of parties with its scope being narrow and well standardized.

“Patent Pools”- still a contentious issue:

The concept of ‘Patent Pools’ has become a contentious issue within the global pharmaceutical industry. Some opinion leaders vehemently argue that creation of a ‘patent pool’ will bring down the cost of any innovation significantly and save huge time, ensuring speedier and improved access to such medicines to a vast majority of ailing population across the world. This section of the experts also feels, “in the case of blocking patents as a commercial strategy, it would only be a reasonable method for making the innovation publicly available.”
In the midst of this high decibel debate, on February 13, 2009, ‘The Guardian’ reported the following comment of Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on the same issue:
“GSK will put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a patent pool, so they can be explored by other researchers”.
Andrew Witty in that interview also commented, “I think it’s the first time anybody’s really come out and said we’re prepared to start talking to people about pooling our patents to try to facilitate innovation in areas where, so far, there hasn’t been much progress… I think the shareholders understand this and it’s my job to make sure I can explain it. I think we can. I think it’s absolutely the kind of thing large global companies need to be demonstrating, that they’ve got a more balanced view of the world than short-term returns.”
Quoting Andrew Witty, ‘The Guardian’ reported, “his stance may not win him friends in other drug companies, but he is inviting them to join him in an attempt to make a significant difference to the health of people in poor countries”.
Yet another ‘out of box’ comment:
As if to prove ‘The Guardian’ right on their above comment, during his visit to India on March 2010, though in a slightly different context, Witty made the following comments, while answering a question of “The Economic Times”:
“I am relatively relaxed with the Indian regulatory environment. The government has made it clear about the direction to have an Intellectual Property (IP) mechanism and to be TRIPS compliant. Some people are unrealistic and want everything to change overnight. But we should be absolutely realistic about pricing to keep it affordable for India. If someone has the IP right, it does not mean that it should make it inaccessible for lower income people. Over the next 10-15 years India will become increasingly IP defined market.”
The rationale for ‘Patent Pools’ system:
Many experts in this area feel that the conventional patent system does not really work for the diseases of the poor, all over the world. Though the concept of ‘Patent Pools’ is quite new in the global pharmaceutical industry, this system is being very successfully and widely practiced within the Information Technology (IT) industry. ‘Patent Pool’ system, if effectively used, as stated earlier, can also help the global pharmaceutical companies to improve access of such medicines to many more developing countries of the world.

Key requirements for the ‘Patent Pools’:
Careful identification of various patents, which will be essential for the pool, will be one of the key requirements to initiate a ‘Patent Pool’ system. It makes the need to obtain individual patents, required in the process of a drug discovery, less important.

National Institute of Health (NIH), USA initiated the process:
On September 30, 2010, NIH became the first patent-holder to share its intellectual property with the Medicines Patent Pool, supported by UNITAID, by licensing a patent for ‘Darunavir’ to increase access of HIV and AIDS medicines to the suffering patients in the developing countries of the world.

UNITAID, an innovative global health financing mechanism is funded by a levy on airline tickets. This initiative was co-founded by the U.K, France, Norway, Brazil and Chile at the United Nations General Assembly in 2006 and buys drugs against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
The above move of NIH towards the noble cause was appreciated by many all over the world, urging the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, to take a leaf out of it.

India was kept out of UNITAID “Patent Pool”:

In 2009-10, UNITAID reportedly had opposed the move to include countries like, India, China and Brazil from the proposed patent pool for AIDS drugs. At least seven civil society groups from India like, the Centre for Trade and Development, the National Working Group on Patent Laws, the All India Peoples Science Network openly stated that UNITAID does not intend to share the patent pool implementation plan with these civil society groups of India. They also alleged that this development in UNITAID will have a significant impact on the ability of Indian Pharmaceutical industry to manufacture low-cost versions of patented HIV/AIDS medicines for the developing countries of the world.

At that time, it was also reported that large global pharmaceutical players had indicated to UNITAID that they could contribute to the ‘patent pool’ on a selective basis, however, over 100 middle income countries such as India, Brazil and China should not have rights to manufacture generic versions of these HIV/AIDS medicines. They felt that ‘patent pool’ will be meaningless if poor countries, who do not have the capability to manufacture these medicines, are included in the process.

However, according to UNITAID, “the patent pool in no way a means to replace or override other provisions contained in the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement or the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. The patent pool represents an additional tool to increase access to HIV treatment, and an opportunity for patent holders to voluntarily contribute to the attainment of crucial health-related goals endorsed by the international community.”

GSK kick-started the process:

Andrew Witty of GSK is undoubtedly the first CEO of a global pharmaceutical company to announce a ‘Patent Pool’ system for research on 16 neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, filariasis, leprosy and leishmaniasis. GSK has, in a real sense, kick started the process by putting more than 500 granted pharmaceuticals patents and over 300 pending applications in the ‘Patent Pool’.

J&J followed suit:

Johnson and Johnson (J&J) in January 2011 expressed its willingness to assist ‘Medicines Patent Pool Foundation (MPPF)’ to implement ‘Medicines Patent Pool (MPP)’, which aims to improve access to affordable and appropriate HIV medicines in developing countries. MPPF works through voluntary licensing of patents for public health interest, at the same time extending compensation to the innovator pharmaceutical companies.

‘Medicines Patent Pools’:

On April 7, 2011. ‘Intellectual Property Watch’ reported that the ‘Medicines Patent Pools’, an initiative to improve access to HIV drugs through voluntary licenses of patented drugs, have launched a new database of patent information on HIV medicines in developing countries. The database has been developed with the support of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Regional Patent Offices across the world. Intellectual Property Watch

Key issues with the ‘Patent Pools’ concept:
The report from a WHO conference held in April, 2006 ‘Innovation Strategy Today’ indicates that the start-up cost of a ‘Patent Pools’ for vaccines will be economically viable only if more than 25 participants holding relevant patents join the initiative.
Moreover, various types of litigation related to patents, which are being currently witnessed within the global pharmaceutical industry, could also be an impediment in getting more patents in the pool.

Recommended ‘General Principles’ for “Patent Pools”:
International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), Switzerland, suggested the following guidelines for the ‘Patent Pool’ initiatives:
1. Patent pools should be voluntary associations of entities formed without coercion 2. Objectives of any patent pool should be clearly defined 3. Patent pools should complement rather than replace elements of existing intellectual property regimes 4. Rights and obligations of contributors and licensees of contributed rights should be clear 5. Patent pools should reduce transaction costs, and not increase administrative costs, relative to other options such as direct licensing
Conclusion:
There is certainly an urgent need to communicate more on how innovation and IPR could help rather than hinder public health. At the same time all stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry need to come out with a robust solution to ever increasing problem of improving access to innovative medicines to the ailing population of the world, in the best possible way.
However, these are still very early days, before such a disrupting idea get widely accepted by the global innovators and implemented religiously not just for the ‘public health interest’, across the world, but also to create a sustainable business model to harvest ‘Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid’.

Only future will tell us whether or not the ‘Patent Pools’ initiatives become the footprints on the sands of time as the global pharmaceutical industry keeps  navigating through the challenges of change.

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.