Tag Archives: biologics

Biosimilar Drugs: Why Prescriptions Aren’t Still Enough?

Posted on by
Reply

On September 3, 2015, in a Press Release, Novartis announced, “Zarxio(TM) (filgrastim-sndz) is now available in the United States. Zarxio is the first biosimilar approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the first to launch in the US.” Zarxio is being marketed by the generic drug unit of Novartis – Sandoz.

The company highlighted: “With the launch of Zarxio, we look forward to increasing patient, prescriber and payor access to filgrastim in the US by offering a high-quality, more affordable version of this important oncology medicine.” This statement may be interpreted as an acknowledged of a research based global pharma major that high-priced biologics create a notable access barrier to a large number of patients, even in a rich country such as the United States. It also underscores the increasing prescription opportunities for cheaper biosimilar drugs.

Zarxio will initially be available with a 15 percent discount. This needs to be viewed against usual price drop of around 20-30 percent for biosimilar drugs in Europe, as compared to the original molecules. It is expected that price differences between biosimilar drugs and the original ones, would vary widely from as low as 10 percent to a hefty 60 percent, in the global markets.

Prior to Novartis’s Press Release, USFDA announced Zarxio’s approval in a separate ‘FDA News Release on March 6, 2015, indicating that it can be prescribed by a health care professional for:

  • patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
  • patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving induction or consolidation chemotherapy
  • patients with cancer undergoing bone marrow transplantation
  • patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell collection and therapy a
  • patients with severe chronic neutropenia.

Though such types of drugs are available in the important markets such as, Europe, Australia and India, the launch of Zarxio heralds the dawn of a new era of biosimilar drugs in the United States – the numero uno of the global pharma market.

Incidentally, USFDA’s approval of biosimilar drugs is an outcome of a relatively recent healthcare reform in the United States, when President Obama signed into law the ‘Affordable Care Act’ on March 23, 2010.

The key benefit:

In its above ‘Press Release’, Novartis captured well the key benefits of biosimilar drugs , as follows:

“While biologics have had a significant impact on how diseases are treated, their cost and co-pays are difficult for many patients and the healthcare budget in general.  Biosimilars can help to fill an unmet need by providing expanded options, greater affordability and increased patient access to life-saving therapies.”

Major growth drivers:

According to July 2015 report of ‘MarketsandMarkets (M&M)’ the global biosimilars market is expected to grow to US$6.22 Billion by 2020 from US$2.29 Billion in 2015, growing at a CAGR of 22.1 percent from 2015 to 2020.

The major growth drivers of the global biosimilars market are expected to be:

  • Growing pressure to curtail healthcare expenditure
  • Growing demand for biosimilar drugs due to their cost-effectiveness
  • Rising incidences of various life-threatening diseases
  • Increasing number of off-patented biologics
  • Positive outcome in the ongoing clinical trials
  • Rising demand for biosimilars in different therapeutic applications such as rheumatoid arthritis and blood disorders.

European Union (EU) had a head start of 5 to 7 years to put its regulatory pathway for biosimilar drug development and approval process. Thus, at present practically most the entire value sales of biosimilar drugs take place in the EU.

As, cheaper biosimilars would continue to hit the US market, insurance companies are expected to encourage the use of such drugs instead of highly expensive original ones.

According to Express Scripts report released in December 2014, the US healthcare system could clock savings in drug costs around US$250 billion in the first decade of availability of biosimilars drugs and the approval of Zarxio would help patients saving more than US$5 billion in the the world’s largest market for biologics.

By 2020, several blockbuster biological products with global sales of more than US $67 billion would go or are going off-patent, creating great opportunities for biosimilar drugs the world over. Some of these drugs are Avastin (Roche), Humira (AbbVie), Synagis (AstraZeneca), Aranesp (Amgen) and Enbrel (Amgen, Pfizer).

However, the crux of its success, to a great extent, would lie on physicians’ confidence to prescribe large molecule biosimilar drugs, as these are new and not exact replicas of the original biologic molecules, unlike the small molecule generic drugs.

Possible growth barriers:

The success requirements of large molecule biosimilar drugs would not mimic the same for small molecule generics, anywhere in the world.

In my view, there are two types of critical barriers to success with biosimilars, both tangible and intangible in nature.

The same M&M report lists the following factors as possible tangible barriers to fast growth of biosimilar drugs:

  • High manufacturing complexities and costs
  • Stringent regulatory requirements in countries
  • Innovative strategies by biologic drug manufacturers to restrict the entry of new players

I would very briefly touch upon each one of these, hereunder:

I. High manufacturing complexities and costs:

This is primarily because, the therapeutic characteristics of biosimilar drugs are significantly influenced by their manufacturing methods. For example, it is quite possible that based on the manufacturing system that is adopted, the same starter ingredients may give substantially different results.

II. Stringent regulatory requirements:

Among many other stringent regulatory requirements, I would highlight in this article just the following two:

A. The labeling:

It is noteworthy that USFDA has named Zarxio with the placeholder nonproprietary name “filgrastim-sndz” and not as ‘filgrastim’, the nonproprietary name for Amgen’s, Neupogen, for which Zarxio has been approved as a biosimilar.

To quickly recapitulate its background, in July 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO), which oversees the system of International Nonproprietary Names (INN), recommended that biosimilar drugs would receive the same nonproprietary name, but with a four-letter code at the end.

This is primarily because, innovator biologic drug companies and also some doctors’ groups argue that molecular structures of biosimilar drugs are similar, but not exact replicas of the original ones. Hence, there is a need to differentiate them, while assigning INN.

They reiterate that giving biosimilars the same INN as the original biologic molecule may cause confusion among both the doctors and the patients. It could also make the tracking of adverse reactions, as and when these will be reported, more challenging.

Consequently, it has now been accepted by the regulators that biosimilars would receive the same nonproprietary name but with a four-letter code at the end to differentiate such drugs from the original biologics.

B. Interchangeability:

The above labelling issue, in turn, creates a barrier to possible interchangeability or automatic substitution of expensive original biologics with much cheaper equivalent of biosimilar drugs. I reckon, this could pose a critical obstacle in the initial take-off of the later.

According to a July 4, 2015 article, titled “Fate of cost-saving biosimilar drugs may hinge on naming policy”, published in ‘Modern Healthcare’, the USFDA has the following two pathways for licensing of biosimilar drugs:

  • For being designated as “similar” in efficacy and safety to an original biologic.
  • For being approved as being “interchangeable,” which requires a much higher review standard and could take years and millions of dollars to obtain the needed clinical trial data.

According to this article, none of the biosimilar products currently under USFDA review are in the interchangeable pathway.

III.  Innovative strategies to restrict entry of new players:

All the above innovative strategic moves and arguments, where biologic drug manufacturers are allegedly involved, may seriously restrict not just the entry of newer biosimilars, but also their faster prescription throughput.

Safety concern (immunogenicity):

Additionally, a critical safety concern on biosimilar drugs is being raised by the manufacturers of original biologics. This concern involves immunogenicity, which means the way a biosimilar drug provokes an immune response in the body. Original biologic drug manufacturers contend, since biosimilar molecules are not exactly the same as originals and their long term safety, related to immunogenicity, has not been tested, these drugs cannot be construed as having the same safety profile as the innovators’ biologics.

Besides, ‘Free-Trade-Agreements (FTAs)’ are also likely to be cleverly used by the original biologic drug manufacturers through their respective Governments, to the extent possible, for safeguarding the beachhead from the marketing onslaught of biosimilar drugs.

A perception barrier too:

Here comes an important perception-based intangible barrier to desirable prescription growth for biosimilar drugs.

Probably gauging it, post Zarxio launch, none other than the CEO of Novartis – Joe Jimenez, reportedly said: “He’s not expecting too much of a splash before 2020.”

This is understandable, as the doctors’ favorable disposition towards biosimilar drugs would be a crucial factor for prescription growth of these medicines.

A recent doctor community survey from QuantiaMD primarily captures the doctors’ thoughts and feelings on biosimilar drugs. This study was done with 300 specialists and primary care physicians.

Some of the notable findings of the report are as follows:

  • While 78 percent of the doctors polled said they were familiar with the term “biosimilar,” only 38 percent could name a biosimilar that’s under consideration for USFDA approval and would be relevant to their patient population.
  • Only 33 percent could name a biosimilar at all.

Researchers then narrowed down the original 300 physicians polled into a group of 120 “prescribing specialists.” This group of 120 doctors are currently prescribing biologics and most likely to prescribe biosimilar drugs in the years ahead. The study reported:

  • Only 17 percent of that segment said they are “very likely” to prescribe biosimilars.
  • And 70 percent said they either aren’t sure or are “somewhat likely’” to prescribe a biosimilar.
  • Only 12 percent of prescribing specialists are “very confident” that biosimilars are as safe as the original biologic version of the drug.

That said, 12-year ‘Data Exclusivity’ period for biologics in the United States, is one additional barrier to early introduction of cheaper biosimilar drugs, as considered by many.

On this issue GPhA – the generic drug makers’ group in America reportedly issued a statement, criticizing a paper of Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), saying:

“Market exclusivity acts as an absolute shield to their weak patents. Thus, from a practical perspective, extending market exclusivity beyond the Hatch-Waxman period would block the introduction of generic competition for almost 20 years, derailing any potential cost savings by Americans.”

The challenges ahead:

Considering all these together, the challenges ahead for quick acceptance of biosimilar drugs are indeed mind-boggling. The situation necessitates enough innovative and painstaking work by all concerned to gain the doctors’ confidence on biosimilar medicines. It goes without saying that success in generation of enough prescriptions for these drugs is the fundamental requirement to benefit the patients, which, in turn, would lead to significant savings in health care cost, as estimated above.

As more innovator companies start joining the biosimilar bandwagon, the physicians’ perception on these medicines, hopefully, would change sooner.

The status in India:

Although it appears strange, but a fact nonetheless. Biosimilar drugs approved in India till August 2012, followed the requirements of the regulators as provided mostly in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for small molecule drugs, which are incidentally quite a different kettle of fish.

According to GaBI-online, the first locally produced biosimilar drug was approved and marketed in the year 2000. India announced implementation of its ‘Guidelines’ for ‘Similar Biologics’ much later, on September 15, 2012.

Indian ‘Guidelines’ for ‘Similar Biologics’ were jointly developed by the Department of Biotechnology (DoB) and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO). The ‘Guidelines’ outline requirements for pre-clinical evaluation of biological products, claiming ‘similar to already approved biologics’. Thus, Indian regulators will partly rely on data from the already approved products to ensure safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of these drugs.

A wide variety:

A wide variety of biosimilar drugs have been approved and marketed in India, since then.

According to International Journal of Applied Basic Medical Research (2014 Jul-Dec; 4.2: 63–66), biosimilars in India consist primarily of vaccine, monoclonal antibodies, recombinant proteins and diagnostics, insulin, erythropoietin, hepatitis B vaccine, granulocyte colony stimulating factor, streptokinase, interferon alpha-2B and epidermal growth factor receptor.

The above article states that there are about 100 biopharmaceutical companies actively involved in research and development, manufacturing and marketing of biosimilar therapeutic products in India. Only 14 therapeutic drugs (similar biologics) were available in 50 brands in 2005. This number had grown to 20 therapeutic drugs in 250 brands in 2011.

The status of similar biologics approved and marketed in India is elaborated in this Table 1.

Some of the key Indian players of biosimilar drugs are Dr. Reddy’s Laboratory (DRL), Lupin, Zydus Cadila, Serum Institute of India, Biocon, Reliance Life Sciences, Wockhardt, Zenotech Laboratories and Intas.

I wrote on a related subject in this blog dated December 15, 2014 titled, “A Great News! But…Would This ‘Golden Goose’ Lay Golden Eggs?”

Conclusion:

Opportunities for biosimilar drugs are expected to expand significantly all over the world, basically driven by the need for affordable biologics and healthcare cost containment pressure in many countries.

As I had articulated before, unlike small molecule generics, unlocking the true potential of large molecule biosimilar drugs in a sustainable way would demand innovative, clear, razor sharp and highly focused business strategies across the value chain.

For faster growth in prescriptions, biosimilars would call for a hybrid marketing model of small molecule (branded) generics and large molecule original biologics. Ability to craft impactful value proposition and ensuring its effective delivery for each stakeholder, smart and innovative use of interactive and participative digital tools both for doctors’ and patients’ engagement, of course sans complexities, would decide the ultimate commercial fate for each of these types of products.

To effectively reap rich harvest from the new space thus being created, the challenges are also too many. The concerns expressed on biosimilars may also be genuine, but the regulators should take care of those before granting marketing approval to benefit the patients, in a meaningful way.

Overall key drivers and barriers for success with biosimilar drugs would remain almost the same, both for global and local players. However, carving out and thereafter expanding share in this market, sizably, won’t be a piece of cake for any company, understandably.

Quite naturally, the innovator companies for biologics would go all out to retain their turf as much as possible, despite the entry of cheaper biosimilars. This is expected to continue by reinforcing the belief of the physicians and the patients that biosimilars are not quite the same as the original biologic molecules.

Effective proactive measures need to be initiated, soon, by the regulators and all other stakeholders to spread the right message, protecting the patients’ interest. Otherwise, apprehension of the doctors on biosimilars in general, regarding safety, efficacy, substitution and interchangeability may persist for some time to come, negatively impacting faster and desirable prescription growth of these drugs all over the world, including 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.

 

A Great News! But…Would This ‘Golden Goose’ Lay Golden Eggs?

Posted on by
Reply

On December 9, 2014, international media flashed across the world a great news item from the Indian pharma industry:

“The first biosimilar of the world’s top-selling medicine Humira (adalimumab) of AbbVie has been launched in India by Zydus Cadila.”

This exhilarating news has undoubtedly got frozen in time flagging a well-cherished moment of pride for the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Along side, taking note of many contemporary factors in this area, a lurking apprehension too does creep in. It raises an awkward and uncomfortable question – would this ‘Golden Goose” born out of a laudable ‘reverse engineering’ effort be able to lay ‘Golden Eggs’, signaling its global commercial success for the company?

In this article, I shall try to dwell on on this important issue.

In one my earlier blog posts of August 25, 2014 titled, “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”, I discussed another related concern in this area.

Born a ‘Golden Goose’:

Just to recapitulate, the original product Humira (Adalimumab) of Abbvie, a fully human anti-TNF alpha monoclonal antibody was first globally approved for marketing in 2002. Since then Humira has emerged as the most preferred therapy to reduce the signs and symptoms of patients suffering from moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, moderate to severe polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, moderate to severe Crohn’s disease and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. However, Humira is not available in the Indian market, at present.

Zydus Cadila has announced that its biosimilar version of Humira (Adalimumab), has been approved by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and will be marketed under the brand name ‘Exemptia’ for the treatment of autoimmune disorders as indicated for Humira.

As claimed by the company, ‘Exemptia’ is a ‘fingerprint match’ with the original drug Humira in terms of purity, safety and potency. Zydus Cadila has also stated that the novel non-infringing process for Adalimumab and a novel non-infringing formulation have been researched, developed and produced by scientists in its own Research Centre.

With this the world took note of the ‘Golden Goose’, born out of brilliant ‘Reverse Engineering’ in India. However, the apprehension of many continued to linger: Would this ‘Golden Goose’ be able to lay ‘Golden Eggs’?

The product and the price:

According to an estimate, over 12 million patients in India suffer from the above chronic conditions of autoimmune disorders, which progressively deteriorate and lead to lifelong pain and in some cases, even disability. To treat these indications, Exemptia is recommended as a 40 mg subcutaneous injection once every alternate week. Patients normally would have to take the treatment for six months.

Media reports indicate that ‘Exemptia’ of Zydus Cadila will be priced in India equivalent to US$ 200 a vial against Humira price in the United States of US$ 1,000. Initial overall reaction for this local price does not seem to be quite favorable for India.

The global market:

A recent report from Thomson Reuters indicates, as blockbuster drugs with sales turnover of around US$100 billion lose patent protection, the global biosimilars market is expected to grow around US$ 25 billion by the end of the decade.

According to a 2013 report of the credit rating agency Fitch, eight of the current 20 top-selling global pharmaceuticals are biologics that will face patent expiry by 2020.

EvaluatePharma reported that the current the anti-rheumatics market makes up the second largest treatment area by sales, with worldwide revenues of US$ 41.1 billion, closely behind the oncology therapy area, which registered sales of US$68 billion in 2012 with a high growth rate.

The report also states, despite biosimilar entry Anti-rheumatics segment is expected to record a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 4 percent with a turnover of around S$52.1 billion in 2018.

The local potential:

Over the last several years, China and India have been emerging as the promising destinations for international outsourcing of biopharmaceutical manufacturing. In the recent times, China and India are reportedly showing promises to become the industry’s top potential destinations for offshoring over the next five years, ahead of traditional bio manufacturing hubs in the US and Western Europe.

More than 40 biosimilar products are now available in the Indian market. Over 10 pharma players are competing in this area with around 15 epoetin, 8 G-CSF and 4 insulin “biosimilars”, besides a few others.

Although India has the second largest USFDA approved drug manufacturing plants next to the United States, none of the products manufactured in these facilities can possibly be considered as “true biosimilars”.

Humira expected to remain strong:

EvaluatePharma also forecasts that Humira of AbbVie would continue to remain the best selling drug of the world at least till 2018 with sales of US$12.8 billion, despite its US patent expiry in 2016.

Moreover, to succeed Humira that will go off patent between end 2016 and 2018 (Europe), AbbVie reportedly has seven new drugs in clinical development for Rheumatoid Arthritis. These patented new drugs could also significantly cannibalize the sales of Humira.

Physicians’ attitude towards biosimilars:

According to an October 2014 Report of IMS Institute from Europe’s perspective, within each country’s health system, physicians display a range of attitudes and behaviors that influence their prescribing of biosimilars.

IMS observed three broad segments of prescribers as follows:

  • Conservative prescribers: These doctors tend to be late adopters of new technologies, are more likely to follow published clinical treatment guidelines, and may not be aware of or educated on the availability of potential use of biosimilars.
  • Open-minded prescribers: This archetype includes physicians who tend to be the most responsive to new information about treatment options, particularly where experience and knowledge of biologics may be low and educational program can be effective in impacting usage.
  • Enterprising prescribers: This segment of prescribers is most likely to search out information from all sources, and be open to trying different options for patient care including biosimilars as well as innovative treatments.

In addition to these archetypes, the report states, physicians’ attitudes and prescribing behavior may also be influenced or determined by prescribing guidelines, if any, the use of prescribing incentives, as well as the use of promotional activities by either originator or biosimilar manufacturers.

The US biosimilar challenge:

According to reports, despite two pharma players filing biosimilar applications at the USFDA, there are still many issues to be sorted out in this space by the drug regulator of the country.

Though an interchangeable biosimilar in the United States still appears to be several years away, there are initiatives in some American states to restrict interchangeable biosimilar for substitution against the reference product.

Moreover, USFDA’s draft guidance on clinical pharmacology of May 2014 has invited strong adverse comments from the innovator companies, lobby groups and the industry associations.

However, just in the last week, both the innovator companies and biosimilar manufacturers have reportedly agreed to support state legislation that allows pharmacies to automatically substitute biosimilars for corresponding branded biologics. But pharmacies must give prescribers a heads up afterward “within a reasonable time.”

For biosimilars makers, it’s a big improvement on the alternative, as the biotech developers wanted to require pharmacists to check with doctors before making the switch.

That said, the USFDA is yet to determine exactly how to classify biosimilars and their “reference products” as interchangeable. This guidance for classification would be necessary for the above mentioned pharmacy switches. This guidance is important especially for the statutory language, which dictates that interchangeability is proven for “any given patient”. This could also be construed as requiring studies in all the approved indications for a brand name biologic, i.e. Humira has around five different indications.

Thus, the path ahead still remains challenging for the biosimilar players in the United States, and more so for the Indian Companies, as compared to other global pharma majors with deep pockets.

Several other Humira biosimilars under development too:

As indicated earlier, the US and Europe patents of Humira with worldwide sales of US$ 11.02 billion in 2013 would expire by end 2016 and 2018, respectively. Thus, the product has become among the most sought-after biosimilar target prototypes for many pharma and biotech companies across the world.

The global biotech major Amgen has already indicated that its ABP 501 biosimilar has shown comparable efficacy and safety to Humira (adalimumab) in a late-stage trial in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis after treatment duration of 16 weeks. The product, reportedly, has also matched Humira in stimulating immune response in patients.

Experts believe, Amgen could be in a position to compete directly with Humira when it loses patent protection, if similar results are obtained in the second phase III trial.

Moreover, according to available reports, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sandoz (Novartis) and Coherus are also progressing well with the development of Humira biosimilars.

Zydus Cadila expects that in 2019 it would be ready to launch the biosimilar of Humira (Adalimumab) in the United States.

Marketing challenges for biosimilars:

Today, the global biosimilars market is indeed in a nascent stage, even for the Indian players.

For successful commercialization of biosimilars, I envisage, a well-crafted hybrid marketing-model of small molecule generics on the one hand and large molecule biologics of the originators’ on the other would be appropriate, in the years ahead.

In the early marketing phase, biosimilar marketers are expected to follow the same branding, communication and detailing strategies of the originators, which ultimately would transform into a generic matrix as more players chip in with the price competition intensifying.

Unlike small molecule generics, affordable price of a biosimilar would be just one of the many critical considerations for its commercial success in the biologics market.

Sustained efforts and initiatives to allay safety concerns with biosimilars among both the doctors and also the patients would be a dire necessity. Providing in-depth medical, technical and domain knowledge to the sales team should never be compromised, though these would require additional initial investments. Post marketing surveillance or pharmacovigilance for biosimilars must be ongoing, even in India. Here too, Indian players do not seem to be very strong, as yet.

Thus, unlike small molecule generics, marketing a large molecule biosimilar would require clear, razor sharp and focused strategies across the value chain to unlock its true potential. Crafting impactful value propositions, avoiding complexities, for each stakeholder, would decide the commercial fate of the product.

‘Made in India’ issue for pharma needs to be addressed expeditiously:

High credibility clinical trial data and manufacturing quality standards would also play a decisive role, especially for India made biosimilars.

This is mainly due to widespread reports of frequent USFDA allegations related to falsification and doctoring of manufacturing data in several manufacturing plants of India.

Ethical and quality issues for drugs made in India, such as these, assumed even greater dimension, as the regulators in France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg reportedly suspended marketing approval for 25 drugs over the genuineness of clinical trial data from India’s GVK Biosciences. This is yet another blow to ‘Made in India’ image for medicines, which has arrested the global attention, for all the wrong reasons, just the last week. 

Conclusion:

Considering all the above points, let me now try to make a fair personal guess on whether or not the ‘Golden Goose’ would be successful enough to lay ‘Golden Eggs’, as required by the company.

Firstly, in the Indian perspective, the key point that strikes me is the cost of a treatment course with ‘Exemptia’ per patient in the country. On a rough calculation, it comes around Rs. 1,50,000 per course/per patient. This appears rather high according to the income level of an average Indian.

However, Zydus Cadila expects sales between Rs.1 billion (US$16.16 million) and 2 billion for ‘Exemptia’ only from the Indian market.

I reckon, with relatively high per course treatment cost with Exemptia, it may be quite challenging for the company to achieve this goal in the domestic market.

Thus, the global success of this biosimilar brand would mainly depend on its degree of success in the United States and Europe, post patent expiry of Humira.

Going by the possible availability of other Humira biosimilars from manufacturers with robust global marketing muscle, skill sets, experience and other wherewithal, the path of global success for Exemptia of Zydus Cadila, if the company decides to fly solo, appears to be strewn with many odds.

I would now stick my neck out to zero in with specificity in this area, while envisaging the possible future scenario.

Considering the evolving macro scenario together with the commercial success requirements in this space, I reckon, despite presence of several possible competitors of Humira biosimilars, including one from Zydus Cadila, the biotech domain expertise of Amgen, fuelled by its marketing muscle, would in all probability make its ABP 501 biosimilar the toughest competitor to Humira after its patent expiry in the US and Europe…and then…why doesn’t it try to succeed in India 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.

‘Herceptin Biosimilars’ Seriously Questioned

Posted on by
Reply

The news struck as an anticlimax, close on the heels of high decibel product launch of ‘Herceptin Biosimilars’ in India, being hyped as the first in the world, bringing much needed relief to many diagnosed breast cancer patients for their economical pricing.

At the same time, this legal challenge has now come as an acid test for the regulator to prove that ‘Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion’ for any new drug approval and especially if it is a complex biosimilar used for the treatment of patients suffering from dreaded diseases, such as, breast cancer.

It’s not patent this time:

Interestingly, this is not a patent infringement case, as Roche has reportedly given-up its patent on Trastuzumab (Herceptin) in India last year.

Alleged violations: 

The above media report highlights, in Delhi High Court Roche has sued Biocon of India and its US based generic partner – Mylan along with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) related to launch of ‘Herceptin Biosimilar’ versions in India.

The allegation against Biocon and Mylan is that their recently launched drugs are being misrepresented as ‘biosimilar Trastuzumab’ or ‘biosimilar version of Herceptin’ without following the due process in accordance with the ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics‘, necessary for getting approvals of such drugs in India.

‘Caesar’s wife’ under suspicion too:

The DCGI has also been sued by Roche for giving permission for launch of this product allegedly not in conformance with the above biosimilar guidelines, which were put in place effective August 15, 2012.

Roche reportedly argued that the above guidelines on similar biologics laid down a detailed and structured process for comparison of biosimilar with the original product and all the applications for manufacturing and marketing authorization of biosimilars are necessarily required to follow that prescribed pathway before obtaining marketing approval from the DCGI. Roche has also stated that there is no public record available, in the clinical trial registry India (CTRI) or elsewhere to show that these two players actually conducted phase-I or II clinical trials for the drug.

According to report Roche claims that DCGI has approved the “protocol and design study for testing” of Biocon related to the proposed drug just before the above regulatory guidelines were made effective, predominantly for patients’ health and safety reasons.

Interim restrain of the Delhi High Court:

In response to Roche’s appeal, the Delhi High Court has reportedly restrained Mylan and Biocon from “relying upon” or “referring to Herceptin” or any data relating to it for selling or promoting their respective brands Canmab (Biocon) and Hertaz (Mylan) till the next hearing.

The relevance of ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’:

The ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’ clearly articulated:

“Since there are several biosimilar drugs under development in India, it is of critical importance to publish a clear regulatory pathway outlining the requirements to ensure comparable safety, efficacy and quality of a similar biologic to an authorized reference biologic.”

Thus for patients’ health and safety interest the above regulatory pathway must be followed, the way these have been prescribed without any scope of cutting corners. This is even more important when so important pharmacovigilance system is almost non-functional in India.

Attempts to dilute the above guidelines from some quarters:

It was earlier reported that strong representations were made to the drug regulator in writing by powerful domestic players in this area urging to dilute the above ‘Guidelines’, otherwise it will be difficult for them to compete with the pharma MNCs.

This argument is ridiculous by any standard and smacks of putting commercial considerations above patients’ health interest.

The key issue:

As I see it, four quick questions that float at the top of my mind are as follows:

  • If the ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’ have not been followed either by the applicants or by the DCGI, how would one establish beyond an iota of doubt that these drugs are biosimilar to Trastuzumab, if not ‘Biosimilar to Herceptin’?
  • If these drugs are not proven biosimilar to Trastuzumab, as specified in the ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’, how can one use Trastuzumab data for their marketing approvals and the DCGI granting the same?
  • If these drugs were not biosimilars to Trastuzumab, would these be as effective, reliable and safe as Herceptin in the treatment of breast cancer?
  • Further, how are references related to Herceptin being used to promote these drugs both pre and post market launch?

Conclusion:

I guess, predominantly commercial considerations prompted Roche to sue Biocon, Mylan and also the DCGI on ‘Trastuzumab biosimilars’, launched recently in India.

Be that as it may, for the interest of so many diagnosed breast cancer patients in the country, there is crying need for the facts to come out in the open, once and for all. Are these drugs truly Trastuzumab biosimilars with comparable safety, efficacy, quality and reliability of Herceptin?

If the answer comes as yes, there would be a huge sigh of relief from all corners inviting millions of kudos to Biocon and Mylan.

However, if by any chance, the allegations are proved right, I do not have an iota of doubt that the honorable Delhi High Court would ferret out the truth, unmask the perpetrators and give them exemplary punishments for playing with patients’ lives.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Pharma Horizon: Cloud, Rainbow And Smear

Posted on by
Reply

Some recent papers contemplated that the patent cliff for blockbuster drugs has already reached the zenith and early signs of recovery should be visible from 2013 onwards. However, from analysis of the currently available data, contrary to the above belief, I reckon, the downtrend in global pharma is far from over, not just yet.

One of the telltale signs of this slump is near-term patent expiry of today’s blockbuster drugs, the impact of which will continue to keep the global pharma sky overcast with clouds for some more time, especially in absence of replaceable equivalents. Interestingly, on the flip side, a beautiful rainbow, as it were, also takes shape in the horizon, ushering-in a hope to a large number of patients for improved access to newer drugs, just as it does to the generic players for accelerating business growth.

That’s the good part of it, though for the generic drug industry. However, the bad part of the emerging scenario gives rise to a lurking fear of gloom and doom, emanating from self-created evitable smears and taints, blended in vessels of despicable mindsets.

Clouds:

While having a glimpse at that following table, the underlying impact of the dark clouds looming large on the global pharma horizon cannot just be wished away:

Total Patent Expiry:

Year Value US$ Billion
2015 66
2014 34
2013 28
2012 55
Total 183 

(Compiled from FiercePharma data)

Thus, the negative impact from sales lost to patent expiry of blockbuster drugs of today, though declined from US$ 55 billion in 2012 to US$ 28 billion in 2013, the same would start climbing-up again to US$ 66 billion in 2015.

If we take a look at the product-wise details, the picture pans out as under:

Top 10 ‘Patent Expiry’ in 2014:

No. Brand Company Disease Sales 2012   US$ Million Expiry
1. Copaxone Teva MultipleSclerosis 3996 May 2014
2. Nexium AstraZeneca Acid peptic 3994 May 2014
3. Micardis/HCT BoehringerIngelheim Hypertension 2217 Jan 2014
4. Sandostatin LAR Novartis Cancer 1512 June 2014
5. Exforge/HCT Novartis Hypertension 1352 Oct 2014
6. Nasonex Merck Resp. Allergy 1268 Jan 2014
7. Trilipix Abbvie Anti-lipid 1098 Jan 2014
8. Evista Eli Lilly Osteoporosis 1010 Mar 2014
9. Renagel Sanofi Chronic Kidney Disease  861 Sep. 2014
10. Restasis Allergan Chronic Dry Eye  792 May 2014

(Compiled from FiercePharma data)

The above figures, therefore, do reinforce the hypothesis that the following factors would continue to make the best brains of global pharma burning the midnight oil in search of sustainable strategic blueprints, at least, for some more time:

-       Mostly, high growth emerging markets of the world are generic drugs driven

-       Increasing cost containment pressure of Governments and/or other payor

-       Challenges from Intellectual Property (IP) and Market Access related  issues

-       Declining R&D productivity

-       Shift in overall focus for new drugs on expensive biologics

-       Markets turning more Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA)

Current strategy to deliver shareholder-value not sustainable:

Since last several years, one has witnessed, despite slowing down of sales growth, big pharma players, by and large, have not failed in delivering impressive shareholder returns. This has been possible mainly due to ruthless cost cutting across the board, restructuring of operational framework and taking measures like, increase in dividends and share repurchases.

These strategic measures, though laudable to keep the head above water, are just not sustainable over a period of time sans strong cashflow.

Thus, for a long haul, robust and consistent business growth with commensurate impact on the bottom-line generating smooth cashflow, is imperative for all these companies.

In this difficult ball game of developing sustainable cutting-edge strategies at an equally challenging time, the consolidation process within the industry would gain further momentum, where only the fittest corporations, led by great corporate brains, would manage to survive and thrive.

However, who all would successfully be able to squarely face the moments of truth, triumphantly seizing the opportunities frozen in time, in the fast changing paradigm of a seemingly VUCA world, is not more than a matter of speculation now.

The Rainbow:

As stated above, while this canopy formed with dark clouds keeps looming large at the global pharma horizon, a beautiful rainbow is simultaneously seen taking shape for the domestic Indian drug manufacturers to cash-on with well-orchestrated strategic measures. One of the critical success requirements for this sprint, is touching the tape in the finishing line to become first to introduce generic versions of the patent expired drugs, especially in the US market.

Indian pharma players have already demonstrated in the past that they do have the wherewithal of making such rare opportunities meaningful by offering affordable new drugs of high quality standards to a large number of patients, while simultaneously accelerating growth of their respective business operations.

Proven acumen even in biologics:

India has recently proven its acumen in the area of biologics too, by developing a biosimilar version of the complex biologic drug – Trastuzumab (Herceptin) of Roche, used for the treatment of breast cancer, and that too in a record time.

As is known to many, earlier in 2013 Roche decided not to defend its patents on Herceptin in India, which reportedly recorded local sales of about US$ 21 million in 2012. Many people opined at that time, it would not be easy for any company to develop biosimilar version of Trastuzumab, mainly due to the complexity involved in its clinical development. Hence, some diehards kept arguing, Roche would not be commercially impacted much for taking the above decision, at least in the near to mid term.

Surprising almost everybody, Biocon and its MNC partner Mylan not only developed an affordable biosimilar version of Trastuzumab successfully, but also got its marketing approval from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), thereby immensely benefitting a large number of breast cancer patients in India and hopefully even beyond.

Keeping ‘Eye on the ball’?

Details of ANDA status from the USFDA source probably indicate that several Indian players have started gearing up to move in that direction at a brisk pace, keeping their eyes well fixed on the ball.

The following table further indicates that in 2012 India ranked second, after the United States (US) in terms of number of ANDA approvals and in 2013 till October India ranks number one, overtaking the United States (US):

ANDA’s Granted in 2012 and upto October 2013):

Country ANDA 2012 ANDA (October 2013) Total Since 2007
United States 183 119 1191
India 196 138 993
Switzerland 20 12 134
Israel 28 13 133
Canada 27 13 116
Germany 20 6 107
UK 11 15 95
China 7 10 29

Smears:

Unfortunately, just out side the frame of the above kaleidoscope, one can see large spots of self created slimy smears, which can make the ‘Rainbow’ irrelevant, maintaining the horizon as cloudy even for the Indian generic players.

Continuous reports from US-FDA and UK-MHRA on fraudulent regulatory acts, lying and falsification of drug quality data by some otherwise quite capable Indian players, have just not invited disgrace for the country in this area, but also reportedly prompted regulators from other nations trying to assess whether such bans might suggest issues for drugs manufactured for their respective countries, as well.

Such despicable mindsets of the concerned key players, if remain unleashed, could make Indian Pharma gravitating down, stampeding all hopes of harvesting the incoming opportunities. 

We have one such ready example before us and that too is not an old one. The ‘Import Alert’ of the USFDA against Mohali plant of Ranbaxy, has already caused inordinate delay in the introduction of a cheaper generic version of Diovan, the blockbuster antihypertensive drug of Novartis AG, after it went off patent. It is worth noting that Ranbaxy had the exclusive right to sell a generic version of Diovan from September 21, 2012.

Another report of November 2013 states, “The Drug Controller General of India has ordered Sun Pharmaceutical, the country’s largest drug maker by market capitalization to suspend clinical research activities at its Mumbai based bio-analytical laboratory, a move that could slow down the company’s regulatory filings in India and possibly overseas as well.”

The outcome of such malpractices may go beyond the drug regulatory areas, affecting even the valuations of concerned Indian pharma companies. According to a recent report Strides Arcolab will not get US$ 250 million of the US$ 1.75 billion anticipated from the sale of its injectable drugs unit to Mylan Inc unless regulatory concerns at Agila Specialities in Bangalore are resolved.

Thus the smears though for now are confined to a few large manufacturing units of Indian Pharma, including some located overseas, may eventually play the spoil sport, trashing all hopes seen through the rainbow in the bins of shame.

Conclusion:

In the balance of probability, I believe, the clouds of uncertainty would continue to loom large over the global pharma, at least, till 2015.

However, in the midst of it, heralds a ‘never before opportunity’ for Indian pharma to cash on the early fruits of forthcoming patent expiries of today’s blockbuster drugs, not just for them, but for patients at large.

Already demonstrated capabilities of the homegrown players, trigger expectations of making it happen. The encouraging trend of grant of ANDAs in the US further reinforces this belief.

Despite all these, a lurking fear does creep in. This evitable fear finds its root in repeated fraudulent behavior of some Indian drug manufacturers, seriously compromising with cGMP standards of global drug regulators, including lying and falsification of data generated, thus playing a spoil sport by ‘snatching defeat from the jaws of victory’, as it were.

That said, the question to ponder now is: In the ‘Pharma Horizon’ what would ultimately prevail in the short to medium term, especially in the Indian context – Clouds, The Rainbow or Smears?

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.

Supreme Court Suspends New Drug Trials in India…Time to Shape Up?

Posted on by
Reply

On September 30, 2013, with a damning stricture to the Drug Regulator, the Supreme Court, in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Swasthya Adhikar Manch, stayed approvals for 162 applications for local Clinical Trials (CTs) of new drugs approved by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) earlier.

The apex court of the country granted the DCGI two weeks time to furnish evidence to the court that adequate patients’ safety and other related mechanisms have been put in place for CTs of all New Chemical Entities (NCEs) and New Molecular Entities (NMEs) in the country.

According to reports, during July and August 2013, the DCGI received 1,122 CT applications, out of which, 331 related to approval of global CTs. The New Drug Advisory Committee (NDAC) approved 285 drugs in AIDS, oncology, cardiology, neurology, psychiatry, metabolism and endocrinology therapy areas. Finally, 162 drugs received the green signal from the DCGI. Now all these trials have come to a halt.

At the same time, the court also directed the Ministry of Health to come out with a plan within 10 weeks to strengthen the regulatory framework for CTs in India based on various suggestions received from the state governments, other stakeholders and experts groups.

A casual approach?

Just to recapitulate, prior to this, on January 3, 2013, against the PIL, the bench of Honorable Justices R.M Lodha and A.R Dave of the Supreme Court reportedly observed that uncontrolled Clinical Trials (CT) are creating ‘havoc’ to human lives causing even deaths to many subjects in India.

In an interim order, the bench directed the Government that CTs could be conducted only under the supervision of the Health Secretary of India. Holding the Government responsible, the bench further observed, “You (Government) have to protect health of citizens of the country. It is your obligation. Deaths must be arrested and illegal trials must be stayed.”

Thereafter, though the Health Secretary of India approved the above 162 CTs, presumably following the above Supreme Court directive, it is an irony that when asked by the Apex Court, the government could not immediately explain precisely what systems and mechanisms have been put in place for proper conduct of these 162 CTs. It sought 2 weeks’ time to justify the action taken by the drug regulator in this regards.

Compromise on patients’ safety continues unabated: 

During another hearing early in October 2013 on a petition filed by the NGO ‘Swasthya Adhikar Manch regarding violations of norms during CTs, the Supreme Court reportedly sought details from the Union Government on the irregularities during the drug trial using Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccines by the Seattle (USA) based organization PATH in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat states of India.

This intervening application by the NGO was based on the 72nd Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Health and Family Welfare report dated August 30, 2013, where it was recommended that action should be taken against PATH, state governments of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and other government officials including Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) for alleged violations on the subject.

The report highlights, HPV vaccines were given to 14,091 girls in Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh and 10,686 girls in Vadodra, Gujarat. These girls were between age group of 10 and 14, of which seven girls died due to such illegal vaccine trials.

Eventually, these trials were stopped, but only after the matter received media attention.

As per reports, the vaccines were provided by two pharma MNCs – Merck and GlaxoSmithKline through PATH. It also stated as follows:

“Vaccines were given to children irrespective of age in the case of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine. While permission was given to use GSK’s Cervarix vaccine in children of 10 to 14 years, CTs had been conducted on subjects in the age group of 18 to 35 years. Thus the safety and well being of subjects were completely jeopardized.”

No options but to shape-up:

It is worth mentioning, the above PIL had alleged that large scale drug trials being conducted across the country, mainly by the pharma MNC, are using Indian patients as ‘guinea pigs’, as it were. The NGO also told the Supreme Court that several pharmaceutical companies continue to conduct CTs quite indiscriminately, in various states of India, endangering lives of poorly/un-informed trial subjects.

In an affidavit to the Court, the Government admitted that between 2005 and 2012, 2,644 people died during CTs of 475 NCEs/NMEs with serious adverse events related deaths taking 80 lives.

Thus, coming under immense pressure from the civil society and now the scrutiny of the Supreme Court for so many CT related deaths and consequential patients’ compensation issues, the Government does not seem to have any other options left now but to bring US$ 500 million CT segment of the country, which is expected to cross a turnover of US$ 1 Billion by 2016, under stringent regulations.

Experts believe that the growth of the CT segment in India is driven mainly by the MNCs for easy availability of a large treatment naive patient population with varying disease pattern and demographic profile at a very low cost, as compared to many other countries across the world.

CT related deaths in India:

As per the Ministry of Health following are the details of deaths related to CTs registered in India from 2008 to August 2012:

Year Total no of deaths CT related deaths Compensation                  paid to patients:
2012 (up to August) 272 12 NA
2011 438 16 16
2010 668 22 22
2009 737 NA NA
2008 288 NA NA

It is estimated that over the last four years, on an average, 10 persons have died every week in India related to CT.

DCGI hauled-up 9 MNCs on patients’ compensation:

It is worth noting, absolutely unacceptable level of compensation, by any standard, are being paid by the concerned companies, including large MNCs, for the lives lost during CTs.

According to another report quoting the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), 25 people died in clinical trials conducted by 9 pharma MNCs, in 2010. Unfortunately, families of just five of these victims received” compensation for trial related deaths, which ranged from an abysmal Rs 1.5 lakh (US$ 2,500) to Rs 3 lakh (US$ 5,000) to the families of the diseased.

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

The 9 pharma MNCs summoned by the DCGI to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to CTs were reported as Wyeth, Quintiles, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Sanofi, PPD and Pfizer.

The report also indicated that after this ultimatum, all the 9 MNCs had paid compensation to the concerned families of the patients, who died related to the CTs.

Prior indictment by Indian Parliamentary Committee:

On May 8, 2012, 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.

The report made the following scathing remarks on CDSCO under its point 2.2:

“The Committee is of the firm opinion that most of the ills besetting the system of drugs regulation in India are mainly due to the skewed priorities and perceptions of CDSCO. For decades together it has been according primacy to the propagation and facilitation of the drugs industry, due to which, unfortunately, the interest of the biggest stakeholder i.e. the consumer has never been ensured.”

Action just not enough yet:

Acting on the damning stricture by the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Health by a gazette notification of January 30, 2013 made the norms of compensation to patients participating in CTs more stringent. ‘Patient Compensation’ was proposed to include injury or death, even if those are not related to the drugs being tested in the CTs.

Understandably, reacting to this notification, some pharma companies, industry lobby groups and also Clinical Research Organizations (CROs) expressed concerns in areas like:

  • Lack of distinction between study-related injuries and non-study related injuries.
  • Use of placebos in placebo-controlled trials.
  • Lack of any arbitration mechanism in case of disagreement on causality/quantum of compensation and also lack of clarity on who constitutes the Expert Committee and its composition.

In addition, the DCGI requested the stakeholders’ to share their inputs to the independent experts advisory committee chaired by Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury along with six other distinguished members namely, Dr V. P. Kamboj, Dr BT Kaul, Dr Vasantha Muthuswamy, Dr Mira Shiva 
and Dr Uma Tekur, to help formulating policy, guidelines and SOPs for approval of NCEs/NMEs and procedures for CTs, including the conduct of ethics committees, the accreditation of trials sites, inspections of trials sites, the ongoing monitoring of trials and banning of drugs. The Government on February 6, 2013 constituted this Committee.

This decision of the regulator, though under pressure, was praiseworthy. Unfortunately nothing substantially changed on the ground for CTs in India even thereafter, as no substantive action has yet been taken on the above expert committee recommendations.

The report of the experts committee:

Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury experts committee in its 99-page report has reportedly recommended some radical changes in the CT space of India. Among others, the report includes the following:

  • Setting up of a Central Accreditation Council (CAC) to oversee the accreditation of institutes, clinical investigators and ethics committees for CTs in the country.
  • Only those trials, which will be conducted at centers meeting these requirements, be considered for approval by the DCGI. 
  • For speedy clearance of applications, a broad expertise based Technical Review Committee (TRC) will replace 12 New Drug Advisory Committees (NDACs), which are currently functioning for NCE/NME approvals.
  • The TRC would be assisted, as required, by appropriate subject experts selected from the ‘Roster of Experts’.
  • For any Adverse Effects (AEs) or Serious Adverse Effects (SAEs) during a CT, the sponsor investigator will be responsible for providing medical treatment and care to the patient at its/their cost till the resolution of the AEs/SAEs.
  • This is to be provided irrespective of whether the patient is in the control group, placebo group, standard drug treatment group or the test drug administered group.
  • A Special Expert Committee should be set up independent of the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) to review all drug formulations in the market and identify drugs, which are potentially hazardous and/or of doubtful therapeutic efficacy.
  • A mechanism should be put in place to remove these drugs from the market by the CDSCO at the earliest.

Though some of the above provisions were vigorously objected by the industry during stakeholders’ consultations, the committee in its final report has upheld those recommendations.

The main worry – costs of CTs will go up:

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

Any savings in this area, both in terms of time and money, will add significantly to the profit margin of the product. In that context, the above suggestions, if implemented to create a safety net for the patients participating in CTs, will make these trials more expensive for the concerned companies with increased liability.

Hence, we hear a hue and cry, especially from the pharma MNCs. This is mainly because, India was, thus far, a low cost CT destination for them with virtually no liability for the drug trial patients. This is because, the poor and ill-informed subjects are left in the lurch by many companies exploiting the gaping holes existing in the fragile CT system of the country. After the intervention of the Supreme Court in this regard, some foreign players have reportedly suspended their CTs in India for reasons best known to them.

Exploitation of CT regulations:

The system of CT in India has created a huge ruckus, as it has long been tainted with widespread malpractices, abuses and misuses by many players, both global and local. The issue is not just of GCP or other CT related standards but more of an ethical mind-set and well-reported rampant exploitation of uninformed patients, especially in case of trial-related injuries or even death.

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

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

Industry reactions:

Very interestingly, there have been a divergent sets of reactions from the industry on this issue.

An influential section in the CT space of the country has reacted, with gross indiscretion, to the most recent SC order banning CTs for NCEs/NMEs till a robust mechanism in India is put in place.

Commenting on the verdict, an industry leader has reportedly said:

“A black day for Indian science and a sad reflection on our judiciary”.

Such comments probably vindicate much talked about crony capitalistic mindset of this class. They do not hesitate a bit to display their scant respect even to the highest judiciary of the country, leave alone their glaring indifference to the important public health interest related issue. All such actions possibly emanate from the intense greed to protect and further the vested interests, not withstanding the gross injustice being meted out to the drug trial subjects as a consequence.

On the other hand, supporting the Supreme Court’s view, The Indian Society for Clinical Research (ISCR) reportedly has said:

“As a professional organization representing clinical research professionals across the stakeholder spectrum, ISCR is fully supportive of the need for a more robust and regulated environment for the conduct of clinical trials in India which ensures the practice of the highest standards of ethics and quality and where patient rights and safety are protected”.



ISCR further said, “As in every profession and industry, there will always be players who operate at both ends of the spectrum. While we do not condone any irregularities, we must acknowledge, there are several hundreds of clinical trials taking place in the country in compliance with international and local guidelines. There have been over 40 US FDA clinical trial audits done in India with no critical findings reported. There have also been several European regulatory audits of Indian clinical trial sites, again with no critical findings.”

That said, Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee, had commented on a ‘nexus between the industry and the drug regulator’ for continuation of such sorry state of affairs, since long.

‘Industry-pharma nexus’ in the USA too?

Recently, similar tricky relationship between the regulator and the pharma companies was unearthed again with the later paying hefty fees to attend meetings of a panel that advises the US FDA.

The article highlighted, an investigative report in the ‘Washington Post’ found that pharma companies paid as much as US$ 25,000 to attend sessions convened by a scientific panel on painkillers, and has led to claims that the industry was being given an opportunity to influence federal policy in this area.

Expected Government action:

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the matter on October 24, 2013.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health reportedly held meetings with concerned officials to chalk out the strategy before the Court, when this case would come up for hearing after two weeks.

The report says, the Government is planning to place before the court a comprehensive plan with details of the existing mechanism and ongoing efforts like, bringing the the new Drugs and Cosmetic (Amendment) Bill 2013 and incorporation of Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury expert committee recommendations, to plug the loopholes in the new drug trial mechanism of the country. 

Conclusion:

While the importance of CTs to ensure better and more effective treatment for millions of patients in India is immense, it should not be allowed at the cost of patients’ safety, under any garb.  If the regulator overlooks this critical factor and some pharmaceutical players keep exploiting the system, judiciary has no option but to effectively intervene in response to PILs, as happened in this particular case too. 

Thus, I reckon, appropriate safety of human subjects participating in CTs and a fairplay in compensation, whenever justified, should be non-negotiable for the indian drug regulator. Despite reactions with indiscretion from a section of the industry, the Supreme Court is absolutely right to direct the DCGI to stop CTs for all NCEs/NMEs until the apex judiciary is satisfied that a robust system is in place for such trials in India. This will ensure, the scientific objectives of the CTs are properly achieved without any compromise on patients’ safety.

Breaking the nexus decisively between a section of the powerful pharmaceutical lobby group and the drug regulator, as highlighted even in the above Parliamentary Committee report, the Ministry of Health should, without any further delay, put in place a robust and transparent CT mechanism in India, come what may.

This well thought-out new system, besides ensuring patients’ safety and fairplay for all, will have the potential to help reaping a rich economic harvest through creation of a meaningful and vibrant CT industry in India, simultaneously benefitting millions of patients, as we move on.

That said, the moot question still remains: Will the drug regulator be able to satisfy the Supreme Court, as the two weeks expire, that appropriate mechanisms are in place to resume smooth conduct of CTs for the new drugs 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.

 

More Glivec Like Deals in China and Mounting Global Challenges: Innovators poised Joining Biosimilar Bandwagon

Posted on by
Reply

Pressure from the emerging markets on pricing of patented products is mounting fast. This time the country involved is China.

Recently, the Health Minister of China who stepped down last month after a seven-year stint in the top health job reportedly commented that western drugmakers will require to give hefty subsidies and forgo significant amount of profit on expensive cancer drugs, if they want access to huge market of China. He further voiced as follows:

“If the cost (of patented drugs) is too high, maybe only a few percent of patients can benefit. If we can arrange an appropriate, acceptable, affordable price, then you can have a huge market.”

‘Glivec deal’ in China: 

In the same report, it was indicated that in China Novartis ultimately agreed to donate three doses of its leukemia drug Glivec for every one sold to the government.

It is expected that many more such deals will take place in China.

The situation to get more challenging in the emerging markets: 

Many experts believe that due to high cost of patented drugs, especially biologics, negotiating hefty discounts with the Governments may be the best alternative for the innovator companies to avoid any possibilities of Compulsory Licensing (CL), like what happened to Bayer’s cancer drug Nexavar in India.

An opportunity in biosimilar drugs: 

Biologic drugs came to the international market slightly more than three decades ago, in 1980s. Growing at a scorching pace, the value turnover of these products exceeded US$ 138 billion in 2010 (IMS Health).

Launch of biologics like, Recombinant Insulin, Human Growth Hormone (HGH), Alteplase, Erythropoietin (EPOs), Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factors (G-CSFs) and Monoclonal Antibodies (MAbs) kept fueling the market growth further.

Patent expiry of a number of biologic drugs over a period of next five years, especially in areas like, various types of cancer, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, besides many others, will help opening a huge window of opportunity for the global biosimilar players, including from India, to reap a rich harvest.

Global innovators joining the bandwagon: 

After a dream-run with high priced patented drugs for a reasonably long time, now stung by the current reality in various developed and emerging markets and factoring-in the width/depth/robustness of their own research pipeline, many global players have started taking a hard look at the emerging opportunities offered by biosimilar drugs.

Moreover, high price of original biologic drugs, cost containment pressure by various Governments, encouragement of generic prescriptions, large number of such drugs going off patent and growing demand of their low cost alternatives across the world, are making biosimilar market more and more lucrative from the global business perspective to all interested players, including from India.

According to Bloomberg Industries (2013), during the next six years biologic drugs with a total annual sales turnover of US$ 47 billion in 2012, will go off patent.

Sniffing opportunities for business growth, as stated above, many hard-nosed large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, currently fighting a challenging battle also in the ground of a tougher ‘patent cliff’, have started venturing into the biosimilar market, that too in a mega scale.

Some of them have already initiated developing biosimilar versions of blockbuster biologics, as reported below:

Originator Product Indication Biosimilar development by:
Roche/Genentech Rituxan Rheumatoid arthritis Boehringer Ingelheim
Roche/Genentech Herceptin, Rituxan Breast Cancer, Rheumatoid arthritis Pfizer
Roche/Genentech Rituxan Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma Novartis
Johnson & Johnson Remicade Rheumatoid arthritis Hospira

Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek

Thus, I reckon, continuous quest for development of cost-effective alternatives to high-priced biologic medicines would keep on propelling the growth of biosimilar drugs, across the world.

Glivec maker Novartis fought a court battle to launch the first ‘Biosimilar drug’ in America: 

In mid-2006, US FDA approved its first ‘biosimilar drug’-Omnitrope of Sandoz, the generic arm of the Glivec maker Novartis, following a Court directive. Omnitrope is a copycat version of Pfizer’s human growth hormone Genotropin. Interestingly, Novartis had also taken the US FDA to court for keeping its regulatory approval pending for a while in the absence of a well-defined regulatory pathway for ‘biosimilar drugs’ in the USA at that time.

More interestingly, having received the US-FDA approval, the CEO of Sandoz (Novartis) had then commented as follows:

“The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like, Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”.

Biosimilar market started shaping-up:

Internationally most known companies in the biosimilar drugs space are Teva, Stada, Hospira and Sandoz. Other large research based global innovator pharmaceutical companies, which so far have expressed interest in the field of biosimilar drugs, are Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Merck and Eli Lilly.

Following are examples of some biosimilar drug related initiatives of the global players as the market started developing:

  • Merck announced its entry into the biosimilar drugs business on February 12, 2009 with its acquisition of Insmed’s portfolio for US$ 130 million. The company also paid US$ 720 million to Hanwha for rights to its copy of Enbrel of Amgen.
  • Samsung of South Korea has set up a biosimilars joint venture with Quintiles to create a contract manufacturer for biotech drugs.
  • Celltrion and LG Life Sciences have expressed global ambitions in biosimilar drugs.
  • Some leading global innovator biotech companies also like, Biogen Idec and Amgen have reportedly been mulling entry into biosimilar market.

According to Reuter (June 22, 2011), Merck, Sandoz, Teva and Pfizer are expected to emerge stronger in the global biosimilar market, in the years ahead. 

Why is still so low penetration of lower cost biosimilar drugs?

Although at present over 150 different biologic medicines are available globally, just around 11 countries have access to low cost biosimilar drugs, India being one of them. Supporters of biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as time passes by.

It has been widely reported that the cost of treatment with patented biologic drugs can vary from US$ 100,000 to US$ 300,000 a year. A 2010 review on biosimilar drugs published by the Duke University highlights that biosimilar equivalent of the respective biologics would not only reduce the cost of treatment, but would also improve access to such drugs significantly for the patients across the globe. (Source: Chow, S. and Liu, J. 2010, Statistical assessment of biosimilar products, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 20.1:10-30)

Now with the entry of global pharma majors, the biosimilar market is expected to get further heated up and develop at a much faster pace with artificial barriers created by vested interests, if any, being removed.

Recent removal of regulatory hurdles for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US  will indeed be the key growth driver.

Other growth drivers:

According to a study (2011) conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., besides recent establishment of the above regulatory guidelines for biosimilars in the US, the key growth drivers for global biosimilar market, will be as follows:

▪   Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs

▪   Cost containment measures of various governments

▪   Aging population

▪   Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries

The business potential in India:

The size of biotech industry in India is estimated to be around US$ 4 billion by 2015 with a scorching pace of growth driven by both local and global demands (E&Y Report 2011).

The biosimilar drugs market in India is expected to reach US$ 2 billion in 2014 (source: Evalueserve, April 2010).

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies like, Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), besides others.

DRL is the largest biosimilar player in India with an impressive product portfolio. Reditux of DRL is the world’s first Biosimilar monoclonal antibody, which is a copy version of Mabthera/ Rituxan of Roche and costs almost 50 percent less than the original brands.

Some of the Biosimilar products of the Indian Companies are as follows:

Indian Company

Biosimilar Product
Dr Reddy’s Lab Grafeel, Reditux, Cresp
Intas Neukine, Neupeg, Intalfa, Epofit
Shantha Biotech/Merieux Alliance Shanferon,Shankinase,Shanpoietin
Reliance Life Sciences ReliPoietin, ReliGrast, ReliFeron, MIRel
Wockhardt Wepox, Wosulin
Biocon Eripro, Biomab, Nufil, Myokinase, Insugen

(Source: Stellarix Consultancy Services)

The cost of development of Biosimilars in India is around US$ 10-20 million, which is expected to go up, as “Biosimilar Guidelines” are now in place for marketing approval of such products in India.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies will be to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU, either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Indian players making rapid strides:

As stated above, biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. It also has developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India.

Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF.

On the other hand Glenmark reportedly is planning to come out with its first biotech product soon from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla reportedly has invested around US$ 60 million in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab in China and is planning to launch a biosimilar drug in the field of oncology by 2013.

Another large pharmaceutical company of India, Lupin signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly will use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs in the field of oncology, the first one of which, will reportedly be launched in India by 2013.

The global Market:

In 2011 the turnover of Biologic drugs increased to over US$ 175 billion in the total market of US$ 847 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 10 best selling global brands in 2012 with Humira of AbbVie emerging as the highest-selling biologics during the year.  Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies.

According to IMS Health report, by 2015, sales of biosimilars are expected to reach between US$ 1.9 – 2.6 billion. The report also states that this market has the potential to be the single fastest-growing biologics sector in the next five years.

Cost of biosimilar development in the developed markets:

The process of developing a biosimilar drug is complex and requires significantly more investment, technical capabilities and clinical trial expertise than any small molecule generic drug. As per industry sources, average product developmental cost ranges between US$ 100 and 250 million in the developed markets, which is several times higher than the same associated with development of small molecule generics, ranging around US$ 1to 4 million.

All these factors create a significant market entry barrier for many smaller players with similar intent but less than adequate wherewithal.

Even higher market entry barrier with ‘second generation’ biosimilar drugs:

Emergence of second generation branded biosimilar products such as PEGylated products and PegIntron (peginterferon alpha), Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) and insulin analogs have the potential to reduce the market size for first generation biosimilar drugs creating significant entry barrier.

Negotiating the entry barriers:

As stated above, the barriers to market entry for biosimilar drugs are, in general, are much higher than any small molecule generic drugs. In various markets within EU, many companies face the challenge of higher development costs for biosimilar drugs due to stringent regulatory requirements and greater lead-time for product development.

Navigating through such tough regulatory environment will demand different type of skill sets, especially for the generic companies not only in areas of clinical trials and pharmacovigilance, but also in manufacturing and marketing. Consequently, the investment needed to take biosimilar drugs from clinical trials to launch in the developed markets will indeed be quite significant.

The future potential:

According to an IMS Health study, the emerging markets will drive biosimilar market growth with significantly more number of patients. The report estimates that over a period of time US will emerge as the number one global biosimilars market.

By 2020, emerging markets and the US are expected to register a turnover of US$11 billion and US$ 25 billion representing a share of 4 percent to 10 percent of the total global biologics market, respectively.

The report estimates that overall penetration of biosimilars within the off-patent biological market will reach up to 50 percent by 2020, assuming a price discount in the range of 20 to 30 percent.

Is 12 years exclusivity in the US a significant entry barrier?

In the US, the innovator companies get 12 years exclusivity for their original biologic drugs from the date of respective marketing approvals by the USFDA.

The BPCI Act clearly specifies that applications for ‘biosimilar drugs’ to the USFDA will not be made effective by the regulator before 12 years from the date of approval of the innovators’ products. In addition, if the original product is for pediatric indications, the 12-years exclusivity may get an extension for another six months.

The key point to note here is, if the USFDA starts its review process for the ‘biosimilar drugs’ only after the ’12 year period’, the innovator companies will effectively get, at least, one additional year of exclusivity over and above the ’12 year period’, keeping applicants for ‘biosimilar drugs’ waiting for that longer.

Conclusion:

As stated above, with around 40 percent cost arbitrage and without compromising on the required stringent international regulatory standards, the domestic ‘biosimilar’ players should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for such drugs, just as small molecule generic medicines.

With experience in conforming to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards, having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside USA, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in the country. Now with significant improvement in conformance to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) and honed skill sets in the field of biologics, Indian biosimilar players are clearly poised to catapult themselves to even a higher growth trajectory, either on their own or with appropriate collaborative arrangements with the international partners.

Thus, the initiatives of joining the biosimilar bandwagon by the hard-nosed research based global players, I reckon, will ultimately get translated into a win-win advantage for India in the rapidly evolving pharmaceutical space of the world.

Besides, like what they had to do in China, working with the Government to put in place a robust and win-win mechanism of ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ in India could augur well for the global players of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. This mechanism may also help putting forth even a stronger argument against any Government initiative to grant CL on the pricing ground for expensive patented drugs in India.

With all these developments, patients will be the ultimate winners having much greater access to both innovative medicines and biosimilar drugs than what they have today, fetching a huge relief to all right thinking population in the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

The Ghost Keeps Haunting: NCD Dogs Cancer in ‘Compulsory License’ Debate of India

Posted on by
Reply

In November 2012, as a part of the ‘Campaign for Affordable Trastuzumab’ for the treatment of breast cancer, a citizens’ collective, reportedly sent an ‘Open Letter’ signed by around 200 cancer survivors, women’s groups, human rights and health rights campaigns and treatment activists from across the world to the Indian Prime Minister, urging him to ensure that the breast-cancer drug Trastuzumab is made affordable for treating cancer patients in the country.

Trastuzumab was named because of the following reasons:

  • Breast-cancer affects around 28-35 per cent of all cancers among women in major cities of India.
  • No other drug against HER+2 cancer can reduce patients’ mortality as Trastuzumab and reduce the spread of malignancy to other parts of the body.
  • Majority of women with HER+2 breast cancer do not have access to a complete course of the drug, which reportedly costs anywhere between Rs 6 to 8 lakhs (US$ 11,000 to US$ 14,500).

Reaping reach harvest: 

According to a media report, three homegrown Indian companies are currently developing biosimilar drugs to this protein molecule to reap a reach harvest arising out of the emerging opportunities.

However, this is expected to be an arduous, expensive and challenging endeavor, as the concerned companies will require pursuing a complicated biotechnological route to create follow-on biologics for Trastuzumab.

The ‘Trigger Factor’: 

It is widely believed that the above ‘Open Letter’ to the Prime Minister had prompted the Ministry of Health to form an ‘Experts Committee’ to evaluate the situation and make recommendations accordingly.

Thereafter, within a short period of time, in January, 2013, in a move that is intended to benefit thousands of cancer patients, Ministry of Health forwarded the report of the above ‘Experts Committee’ to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) for its consideration to issue Compulsory Licenses (CL) for three commonly used anti-cancer drugs namely, Trastuzumab (used for breast cancer), Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy) and Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia). Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), among other experts, also reportedly had participated as a member of this ‘Experts Committee’,

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

 A ‘Technology Transfer’ discouraged: 

Such a rapid development in the CL landscape of India is indeed intriguing, especially after a voluntary announcement by Roche in 2012 that it will produce Trastuzumab and Rituximab in India through transfer of technology to an Indian contract manufacturer.

Consequently for a month’s treatment, the price of Trastuzumab will come down from around US$ 2,000 to US$ 1, 366, i.e. by 31 percent and Rituximab from around US$ 1,456 to US$ 682 i.e. by 53 percent. This was reportedly announced by none other than the Minister of State of Chemicals and Fertilizers of India Mr. Srikant Jena.

Despite this voluntary decision of technology transfer and price reduction of two life saving drugs in India by Roche, reported Government consideration for grant of CL for Trastuzumab, without getting engaged in any form of a win-win dialogue with the Company, could ultimately prove to be counter productive and may discourage further technology transfer of expensive patented drugs to India.

Increasing incidence of cancer in India: 

Cancer is just not a dreaded disease, but also making a devastating impact, financial and otherwise, on the lives and families of thousands of sufferers in India.

According to ‘The Lancet’, published on 28 March 2012, in India 556 400 people died of cancer only in 2010.

The paper also comments that only half of the estimated 9.8 million total deaths per year is captured by the CRS in India, fewer than 4 percent are medically certified, while more than 75 percent of deaths occur at home.

The Lancet study clearly highlights that most cancer patients in India die without medical attention and drugs. Cancer is, therefore, increasingly becoming a public sensitive disease area with high socioeconomic impact in the country. High treatment cost of this near terminal disease is beyond reach of majority of population in the country.

In a written reply to a question in the ‘Upper House’ of the Indian Parliament, the Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare on March 4, 2012 said that according to “Three Year Report on Population Based Cancer Registries 2006 – 08″ of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the estimated numbers of cancer patients for 2015 and 2020 are 1.16 million and 1.27 million respectively. There is a gradual rise in the prevalence of cancer in India, though the government has initiated several measures in this area.

High incidence of breast cancer: 

As per a recent report, an estimated 1, 00,000 – 1, 25,000 new patients suffer from breast cancer every year in India and this number is expected to double by 2025.

Government is mulling CL for NCD: 

Currently the DIPP appears to be planning to extend the provision of Compulsory License  (CL) beyond cancer drugs to other Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) in the country, like diabetes. 

Domestic Pharma Association supports the move: 

A major domestic pharmaceutical industry association, as per media reports, supports this move by clearly articulating, “Over the years, more deaths are taking place on account of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) than communicable ones. It is, therefore, natural that this provision (CL) will be used for NCDs as well.”

UN declaration on NCD provides flexibilities in TRIPS Agreement: 

Experts believe that this new move on CL for drugs related to NCDs is a consequence of India’s signing the United Nation (UN) declaration on the prevention of NCDs in the country by, among others, using flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement to increase availability of affordable drugs for such diseases.

The Government has already launched a “National Program for Prevention & Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardio Vascular Diseases and Stroke (NPCDCS)” as a pilot project covering 150 million people in 100 inaccessible and most backward districts during the financial year 2011-2012 at a cost of US$ 275 million.

Socio-economic impact of NCDs in India: 

Indian Journal of Community Medicine (IJCM) in an article titled, “Social and Economic Implications of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in India” has highlighted, among others as follows:

  • NCDs account for 62 percent of the total disease burden in India with a significant ascending trend both in terms of overall mortality and morbidity.
  • This burden is likely to increase in the years to come.
  • Due to chronic nature of the disease and technological advancements in care, costs of treatment are high leading to access barriers, or ‘catastrophic expenditures’ for those who undergo treatment.
  • There are evidences of greater financial implications for the poorer households suffering from NCDs.
  • Most estimates suggest that the NCDs in India account for a significant economic burden ranging from 5 to 10 percent of GDP.
  • An urgent multi-sectoral Government action is strongly warranted both on grounds of economic arguments and social justice.
  • Action needs focus on addressing the social determinants of NCDs for prevention and strengthening of health systems to meet the challenge.
  • A framework for monitoring, reporting, and accountability is essential to ensure that the returns on investments in NCDs meet the targets and expectations set in the national plans.

Innovator companies contemplating legal recourse: 

Reacting to all these developments, the global pharmaceutical companies have, once again, expressed strong commitment to protect and continue to defend their Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) within the legal framework of India.

They have also reiterated their belief that a robust IPR regime will encourage innovation in the country making available more and more innovative drugs for the patients in India.

An interesting WHO report on a ‘robust IPR regime’: 

In this regard a World Health Organization (WHO) research report titled “Patents, Price Controls and Access to New Drugs: How Policy Affects Global Market Entry” makes some interesting observations on a ‘robust IPR regime’.

The report highlights the following four important points:

1. Increasing the strength of a patent system to include long-term protection on pharmaceutical products appears to spur market entry mostly in the high-income countries.

For the low- and middle-income countries that are currently being encouraged to move to stronger protection through trade policies, the evidence that extending protection enhances access to new pharmaceuticals is mixed.

2. There is some evidence that high level of protection might encourage more frequent entry of innovative products in the short term. However, in the longer term the same domestic capacity could well be an alternative source of entry of such drugs.

3. Intellectual Property (IP) holders frequently assert that the poor quality of enforcement in developing countries undermines the value of their patent rights. However, it is quite evident now that patent laws in these countries are at least broadly meaningful commensurate to their respective domestic requirements.

4. The standard argument on price regulation that it will dissuade market entry for innovative drugs appears to have more relevance among the high-income countries and not so for the poorer countries.

The authors further indicate:

“There we find that while price regulation makes it less likely that new drugs will be available quickly, it does not appear to prevent new products from being launched eventually.”

Conclusion: 

Following all these recent developments and weighing pros and cons, one could well imagine that pressure on the Government from various stakeholders for CL on drugs for Cancer and NCDs will keep mounting, unless an alternative measure like, ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ is put in place by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, sooner than later, in 2013.

The recent judgment of the ‘Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)’ on CL to Natco may further add fuel to this raging debate.

It is now quite clear from the Finance Minister’s speech on the ‘Union Budget Proposal’ for 2013-14 that eagerly awaited ‘Universal Health Coverage’ or ‘Free Distribution of Essential Medicines to all’ schemes will not be implemented, at least for now.

Thus in all probability, the ghost of CL will keep haunting the innovators in India unabated, unless an effective, scalable and sustainable model for improving access to patented drugs for majority of population in the country is put in place. This will call for demonstrative, innovative and constructive Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) initiatives, sooner. In this effort  all concerned should at first be aligned with the cause, in principle, and try to be a constructive partner to get it translated into reality together, rather than just playing the role of vociferous critics in perpetuity .

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.

Takes ‘Two to Tango’: Encashing Opportunities with Biologic drugs in India

Posted on by
Reply

Despite current ‘Patent Cliff’ ongoing research on biologics is now at the forefront of the Global Pharmaceutical Industry.  The bottom-line impact of a successful new biologic molecule to treat intractable ailments like, cancer, blood disorders, Parkinson’s, Myasthenia Gravis, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s diseases, will be huge.

Currently, faster growth of this segment as compared to conventional small molecules is primarily driven by novel technologies and highly targeted approaches, the final outcome of which is being more widely accepted by both physicians and patients.

Lesser generic competition makes it more attractive:

After patent expiry, innovators’ small molecule brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion.This is mainly because  these small molecules are relatively easy to replicate by many generic manufacturers and the process of getting their regulatory approval is also not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biologic drugs involve difficult, complex and expensive processes for development. Such resource intensive scientific expertise together with stringent regulatory requirements for obtaining marketing approval, especially in the developed markets of the world like, EU and USA, help creating a significant market entry barrier for many players. That is why even after patent expiry, biologics enjoy significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, in many cases.

It is for this reason brands like the following ones are expected to go relatively strong even for some more time, without any significant competition from biosimilar drugs in many of the major markets of the world:

Brand Company Launch date
Rituxan Roche/Biogen idec 1997
Herceptin Roche 1998
Remicade Centocor/J&J 1998
Enbrel Amgen/Pfizer 1998

Global Market:

In 2011 the turnover of Biologic drugs increased to over US$ 175 billion in the total market of US$ 847 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 10 best selling global brands in 2012 with Humira of AbbVie emerging as the highest-selling biologics during the year.  Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies.

According to IMS Health, by 2015, sales of biosimilars are expected to reach between US$ 1.9 – 2.6 billion, an increase from US$ 378 million for the year to the first half of 2011.

Attractiveness:

The answer to the key question of why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space of the business, in summary, could lie in the following:

  • Truly innovative small molecule discovery is becoming more and more challenging and expensive with the low hanging fruits already being plucked.
  • More predictable therapeutic activity of biologics with better safety profile.
  • Higher percentage of biologics have turned into blockbuster drugs in the recent past.
  • Market entry barrier for biosimilar drugs, after patent expiry of the original molecule, is much tougher than small molecule generics.
  • A diverse portfolio of both small and large molecules will reduce future business risks.

A 2012 report by PwC titled ‘From Vision to Decision: Pharma 2020’ states that “the next few years may look bleak for pharma, but we’re convinced that the following decade will bring a golden era of renewed productivity and prosperity.”

The document also points out that the global pharmaceutical industry is now focusing its R&D initiatives on biologics for the treatment of cancer and rare diseases. Nearly 30 percent of the 7,891 molecules currently in clinical testing cover cancer and autoimmune conditions.

Another emerging opportunity:

As stated above, unlike commonly used ‘small molecule’ drugs, ‘large molecule’ biologics are developed from living cells using very complex processes.

It is virtually impossible to replicate these protein substances, unlike the ‘small molecule’ drugs. One can at best develop a biologically similar molecule with the application of high degree of biotechnological expertise. These drugs are known as ‘Biosimilar Drugs’ and usually cost much less than the original ones.

Biosimilar drugs market is currently fast evolving across the world with varying degree of pace and stages of developments. The U.S currently holds the leadership status in the production of biologics, with around 45 percent of the total share. India’s share, now being at 7 percent is continuously increasing.

Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) in the Pipeline:

Company

Location

Biosimilar mAbs

Development Status
BioXpress

Switzerland

16

Preclinical
Gene Techno Science

Japan

6

Preclinical
Zydus Cadilla

India

5

Preclinical
PlantForm

Canada

3

Preclinical
BioCad

Russia

3

Preclinical
Celltrion

South Korea

2

Phase 3
LG Life Sciences

South Korea

2

Preclinical
Gedeon Richter

Hungary

2

Preclinical
Cerbios-Pharma

Switzerland

1

Preclinical
Hanwha Chemical

South Korea

1

Preclinical
PharmaPraxis

Brazil

1

Preclinical
Probiomed

Mexico

1

Phase 3
Samsung BioLogics

South Korea

1

Preclinical
Novartis

Switzerland

1

Phase 2
Teva

Israel

1

Phase 2
Zenotech

India

1

Phase 3
Spectrum

US

1

Preclinical
Biocon/Mylan

India/US

1

Preclinical

(Source: PharmaShare; as of September 10, 2011 from Citeline’s Pipeline database)

Future business potential with cost arbitrage of India:

In 2013, products like, Avonex of Biogen Idec, Humalog of Eli Lilly, Rebif of Merck KgaA, Nupugen of Amgen will go off-patent, paving the way of entry for lower priced biosimilar drugs. The sum total of revenue from all such drugs comes to over U.S$ 15 billion.

The report from the ‘Business Wire’ highlights that, ‘the manufacture and development of a biosimilar molecule requires an investment of about US$ 10 to 20 million in India, as compared to US$ 50 to 100 million in developed countries’, vindicates the emergence of another lucrative business opportunity for India for such drugs with significant cost arbitrage.

Government support in India:

In India, the government seems to have recognized that research on biotechnology has a vast commercial potential for products in human health, including biosimilars, diagnostics and immunobiologicals, among many others.

To give a fillip to the Biotech Industry in India the National Biotechnology Board was set up by the Government under the Ministry of Science and Technology way back in 1982. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) came into existence in 1986. The DBT currently spends around US$ 300 million annually to develop biotech resources in the country and has been reportedly making reasonably good progress.

The DBT together with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has now prepared ‘Regulatory Guidelines for Biosimilar Drugs’ in conformance to international quality and patient safety standards.

Currently, a number of both financial and non-financial incentives have been announced by the Central and the State Governments to encourage growth of the biotech industry in India, which include tax incentives, exemption from VAT and other fees, grants for biotech start-ups, financial assistance with patents, subsidies on investment from land to utilities and infrastructural support with the development of ten biotech parks through ‘Biotechnology Parks Society of India’.

A commendable DBT initiative:

Towards this direction, the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) of the Government of India has taken a commendable step to encourage the small and medium scale business outfits by setting-up ‘The Small Business Innovation Research Initiative (SBIRI)’. This scheme has been launched to boost ‘Public-Private-Partnership (PPP)’ projects in the country.

SBIRI supports ‘the high-risk pre-proof-of-concept research’ and ‘late stage development’ in small and medium size companies to get them involved in the development of biologics.

Some examples:

Examples of some among many of the PPP initiatives in the healthcare space under SBIRI are as follows:

No.

Company Name with Collaborator

Title of the Project Supported
1. IcubedG Ideas Private Limited, New Delhi Risk based Process Design for large scale Manufacturing of male injectable contraceptive
(Phase I)
2. Incozen Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad Discovery and Development of Novel, Selective and Potent Dihydroorotate Dehydrogenase Inhibitors in Inflammatory Bowel diseases.
(Phase I)
3. Mediclone Biotech Private Limited, Chennai Commercial Production of Monoclonal Antibodies as an import substitute with special reference to Red Blood Cell Phenotyping (Phase II)
4. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai in collaboration with AU-KBC Research Center, Chennai Development and validation of a cell-tissue co-culture model for aiding liver specific studies and drug discovery applications. (Phase I)
5. Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai An open label, multicenter, prospective clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tissue engineered R-STE-001 in patients with symptomatic cartilage defect of femoral condyle (Phase II)
6. USV Limited, Mumbai Development of a Vaccine capable for eliciting immunological memory for the prevention of Typhoid (Phase II)
7. Virchow Biotech Private Limited, Hyderabad Development of commercialization of a recombinant uricase for the prevention and treatment of tumor lysis syndrome associated with leukemia, lymphoma & solid tumor malignancies (Phase II)
8. Virchow Biotech Private Limited, Hyderabad Indigenous development of a recombinant Fuzeon for the treatment of AIDS (Phase II)
9. Zenotech Laboratories Limited., Hyderabad Development of humanized monoclonal antibodies against human epidermal growth factor receptor (Phase I)
10. Advanced Neuro-Science Allies Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore in collaboration with Vittal Mallya Scientific Research Foundation, Bangalore Pre-clinical studies of Human mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) isolated and characterized from different sources in autoimmune disease, namely rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and type 1 diabetes (TIDM)(Phase I)
11. Avesthagen Ltd., Bangalore Hepatocyte-like cells generated from human embryonic stem cells (hESC) for hepatotoxicity screening of xenobiotics in the drug discovery process(Phase I)
12. Avesthagen Limited, Bangalore Scale-up and evaluation of high-value biosimilar product (Etanercept) aimed at providing cost-effective healthcare solutions to the emerging markets(Phase II)
13. Bharat Serum and Vaccines Limited, Mumbai Expression of recombinant proteins for development of synthetic pulmonary surfactant for Respiratory Distress Syndrome(Phase I)
14. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad Development of Mycobacterium was an adjuvant for anti – rabies vaccine(Phase I)

Besides, Indian pharmaceutical majors like Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Reliance Life Science, Shantha Biotech, Ranbaxy, Biocon, Wockhardt and Glenmark have made good investments in biotech drugs manufacturing facilities keeping an eye on the emerging opportunities with Biosimilar drugs in the developed markets of the world.

Funding remains a critical issue:

That said, many industry experts do feel that R&D funding for the Biotech sector in the country is grossly inadequate. Currently, there are not many ‘Venture Capital’ funds for this sector and ‘Angel Investments’ almost being non-existent, Indian biotech companies are, by and large, dependent on Government funding.

Making India a global hub for biosimilar manufacturing:

However, with around 40 percent cost arbitrage, adequate government support and without compromising on the required stringent international regulatory standards, the domestic ‘biologic’ players should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for particularly ‘biosimilar drugs’.

Experience in conforming to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards, having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside USA, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in India. Significant improvement in conformance to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) standards will offer additional advantages.

Conclusion:

With increasing support from the government and fueled by creative, scientific and technological inputs from various experts and entrepreneurs in the country, India has the potential to emerge as one of Asia’s best powerhouses in the field of biosimilars drugs by the end of this decade. It will take ‘two to tango’.

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.