Tag Archives: biopharma

Winning By Creating A Strong Pharma ‘Brand Identity’

Posted on by
Reply

Since the beginning of 2022, several top global pharma majors are exhibiting their renewed focus on creating a new corporate ‘brand-identity’. Its key purpose is to chart a new strategic frontier where their brands will stand out in the highly competitive pharma market – gaining a greater share of mind of the customers.

This happened recently with GSK, as reported on June 9, 2022. Prior to this announcement, on February 03, 2022, the French pharma major Sanofi, reportedly, undertook a similar change to refocus on a new brand-identity. It began with a new simplified logo of plain “Sanofi,” apparently, signifying a nod to the tech world.

Against the above backdrop, in this article, I shall deliberate in the process of winning a marketing warfare by creating, and effectively leveraging a strong pharma corporate ‘Brand Identity.’

Instead of starting this discussion with what changes the above companies have made and why, let me try to be on the same page on two important facets in this area. First – what is generally considered as critical ingredients of a ‘brand identity.’ And then – why initiatives of creating a targeted and stronger pharma ‘brand identity’ are gaining increasing importance to pharma marketers of many top companies, across the word.

Some critical ingredients of brand identity:

As defined by the April 11, 2022, issue of Investopedia: ‘Brand identity’ reflects the intent behind branding with the visible elements of a brand, such as color, design, and logo, that identify and distinguish the brand in customers’ minds.

The ‘brand identity’, therefore, encompasses, appropriate brand name selection, designing a logo commensurate to the company intent, well-thought through color selection, use of shapes and other visual elements that will facilitate brand promotion. Above all, employees who are at touch points of patients’ disease treatment process need to be thoroughly explained and appropriately trained to effectively leverage the purpose of change.

‘Brand identity’ is different from ‘brand image’:

It’s important to note that ‘brand identity’ is quite different from ‘brand image.’ While ‘brand identity’ relates to the intent behind the branding – creating and cultivating a strong ‘brand image’ in the customers’ mind – is its purpose. ‘Brand image’ educates customers about both intrinsic and extrinsic values that the brand offers through ‘Omnichannel’ targeted communication. This process helps create customer loyalty.

Increasing importance of stronger pharma ‘brand identity’:

A new trend alerted many pharma leaders, as brand new Covid-19 vaccines started being available to the public. For a vast majority of the population, across the world, vaccines were construed to be the only savior against the unprecedented life and livelihood disruptor – Covid-19 pandemic.

Interestingly, right from the regulatory approval of the first Covid-19 vaccine, although, all such vaccines had brand names – general public, doctors, media, even the World Health Organization, or Governments, started calling vaccines, predominantly, by company names. For example. AstraZeneca Covid Vaccine, Pfizer Covid vaccine, Moderna Covid vaccine, J&J Covid vaccine, and so on. Even the Corporate head honchos of respective vaccines and Covid related drugs, came to the fore with corporate branding to establish a meaningful relationship with the customers. Accordingly, in the marketplace, establishing a strong corporate brand identity has assumed greater importance, more than before. 

Studies vindicate this point:

That a strong corporate ‘brand identity’ helps create a differentiable product image, has been captured in several studies. For example, a study published by PharmaVoice on August 28, 2014, came to an interesting conclusion. After analyzing a situation in which multiple pharmaceutical companies developed a similar oncology product for the same indication, it said: “All things about the product being identical, including the price, we asked which company’s product would the oncologists recommend. The companies with the best company brand images scored highest, proving that company image alone would have a significant impact on recommendation behaviors.”

Would pharma’s strong corporate ‘brand identity’ impact the bottom line?

Several independent studies have also proven the same. For example, a mere 5% improvement in the strength of the company’s brand image and reputation could be expected to produce, on average, a 1.5% uplift in the share price over the year, translating to about a $550 million increase in market capitalization.

Acknowledging this point the above paper underscores: “Thus, any pharmaceutical company that wants to succeed and sustain a healthy, long-term competitive advantage, create differentiation in the short term, and insulate itself from weather storms of clinical disappointment, which invariably occur in pharma, would want to invest in corporate brand identity development that includes all drivers of reputation and relationship.”

It is happening more, especially in post Covid-19 pandemic period:

Let me now go back to where I started from. I started by saying: ‘Since the beginning of 2022, several top global pharma majors are articulating their renewed focus on brand-identity.’ I also wrote about deliberating what changes, especially the two pharma majors have made to strengthen their corporate ‘brand identity’ – for different reasons.

Let me start with GSK:

According to June 09, 2022, edition of the ENDPOINT NEWS, GSK – as it transforms into a pure Biopharma company – unveiled the reinvented company and the corporate brand to its employees first – on June 08, 2022, with the intent to bring everyone in the global company together.

The Company says, it’s about a way more than a logo. The Biopharma-only GSK believes, it has adopted a new purpose – “to unite science, technology and talent to get ahead of the disease together,” besides a new strategy, ambitions, and revamped ‘brand identity’.

The new corporate ‘brand identity’ of the corporation is a blend of familiar and modern of its vibrant orange brand color that remains. Now it’s a three letter-only corporate name - all uppercase and standalone - reimagined in a curvy contemporary logo. The new GSK logo “takes inspiration from the visual language of biosciences, genomic sequencing and data analysis, but – still feels warm and human,” as explained on the GSK website.

According to the Company, the new GSK’s ambitions also include people. It’s the final goal in its three debuted ambitions – impact the health of 2.5 billion people in the next 10 years, achieve specific competitive growth goals and make sure employees are thriving.

Coming to Sanofi:

According to Fierce Pharma of February 03, 2022, Sanofi also undertook a similar change at the start of the year. Ditching the Pasteur and Genzyme of old, the Company decided to go for a new ‘brand-identity.’ It rebranded itself as plain “Sanofi.” That switch also came with a new, simplified logo with a nod to the tech world.

According to Sanofi Press Release of February 03, 2022, the French pharma major’s ‘rebranding centers on a clean, lower case new logo. ‘The new logo is a representation of Sanofi’s new purpose and ambition, which is inspired by the simple and motion-oriented codes of the tech industry. The two purple dots embody the scientific journey between a starting point – the curiosity of questioning the status-quo and wondering “what if?” – and a finish line – the eureka moment where innovative solutions are unlocked to impact people’s lives’, it explained.

“With our new brand, we have sought to provide our people, our partners, patients and healthcare professionals with a clear and strong understanding of who we are and what we are set to achieve,” Sanofi highlighted.

The Company further reiterated: “Sanofi’s attitude is humble, authentic—and a little bit unconventional, too. We believe that our new brand and logo carve out a unique space in the healthcare industry that perfectly represents our new purpose to chase the miracles of science to improve people’s lives.”

Conclusion:

The journey of creating corporate pharma ‘brand identity’ initiatives is highly cerebral and originates from the top echelon of pharma management team.  The key objective of creating a strong corporate ‘brand identity’ is to ensure that the brand effectively depicts its own unique stance to the customers and differentiate itself from competitors in the marketplace.

I explained above, this process encompasses all branding activities of the company. The aim is to make the company to be perceived in a particular way by the target audience. Which is why, creating a strong corporate ‘brand identity’ is critical in shaping a unique corporate image, especially in generics dominated Indian pharma industry.

It goes without saying, such differentiation, in turn, helps expanding a loyal customer-base for performance excellence, more in the post Covid pandemic environment of India. Even, global pharma majors, are recreating their new brand-identity, for various reasons, and trying to leverage it effectively, to carve out a greater share of mind of more and more customers.

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.

 

Setting A Cost Of Time That Patients May Gain From A New Therapy

Posted on by
Reply

Since quite some, an intense ongoing debate about setting a cost of time, often by a few months, that patients could possibly gain from a new therapy for complex diseases. The answer still remains elusive.  Meanwhile, newer therapies for treating cancer, such as, Kymriah, priced at US$ 475,000, alongside several rare diseases, hit the market with jaw-dropping prices. The latest being - Zolgensma of Novartis, carrying a price tag of US$ 2.12 million – the most expensive treatment ever. This trend assumes greater significance as Bio – claimed as the world’s largest trade association representing biotechnology companies, and related organizations, across the United States and in more than 30 other nations, also makes some interesting points in this area.

This article will dwell on the relevance of this important issue, both in today’s and also in the future perspective. It will try to explore, why pharma and biotech companies are not keen to use a ‘transparent multi-factorial life-value calculator’, especially for prolonging life or curing an incurable disease, with a high-priced novel therapy.

Emotional ads to justify the trend, against tough practical questions: 

A part of a sleek looking advertisement from Bio, depicting the power of new therapies to prolong life, carries a headline – ‘Time. The Currency of Life,” followed by three emotive lines and two equally emotive questions: “Another decade with a spouse. A few more years with your best friend. A rich, fuller life rather than one cut short. How do we place value on these?” It then asks: “What is more precious? What is more priceless?”

Turning this emotive question on its head to a rational one, an article published in the Stat News on February 25, 2016 questioned: “How much is an extra month of life worth?” It asked the drug makers to calculate the same. The same article also quoted a Yale University economist and practicing radiologist asking: “It’s all well and good to just say life is priceless, but the reality is we are paying for it.”

Emotive ads try to justify funding towards innovation for such drugs:

The same advertisement, as above, while trying to indirectly justify such exorbitant drug costs, used yet another emotive note in its playbook. It emphasized: “By continuing to fund the innovation pipeline that has served us so well, we will be able to reduce the costs associated with modern-day health care.”

Such claims are being scientifically challenged – head on, by many important studies. To illustrate this point, I shall quote the following two, both were published in the JAMA Network. The first one in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery and the next one in JAMA Oncology.

The first article is the ‘John Conley Lecture’, carrying a title, ‘Unintended Consequences of Expensive Cancer Therapeutics—The Pursuit of Marginal Indications and a Me-Too Mentality That Stifles Innovation and Creativity,’ appeared on December 2014. On innovative drugs of such genre, the paper concluded: “The use of expensive therapies with marginal benefits for their approved indications and for unproven indications is contributing to the rising cost of cancer care. We believe that expensive therapies are stifling progress, by:

  • Encouraging enormous expenditures of time, money, and resources on marginal therapeutic indications and
  • Promoting a me-too mentality that is stifling innovation and creativity.

The second article is an ‘original investigation, titled ‘Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated with New Cancer Medicines.’ It also underscored: ‘Although innovation in the oncology drug market has contributed to improvements in therapy, the magnitude and dimension of clinical benefits vary widely, and there may be reasons to doubt that claims of efficacy reflect real-world effectiveness exactly.’

Here again, the emotional appeal is being made by creating a ‘perfect World’ scenario. Whereas, scientific analysis of the innovative and high-priced drugs, reveals the reality for other stakeholders to take note of. Different pharma trade associations, although being a part of the same orchestrated effort, try differently to take the eyes off the humongous prices of new life-saving drugs. But many continue to believe that new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control.

90 percent Biopharma companies do not earn a profit – A bizarre claim?

As is well-known, besides justifying high drug prices by highlighting ‘high R&D cost,’ drug manufacturers often say, as the Bio ad campaign makes an eyebrow raising claim – “Of the approximately 1,200 Biopharma companies in the United States, more than 90 percent do not earn a profit.”

Citing the example of the US market where drug prices are very high, it justifies, the general focus on list prices of the drugs is misplaced. This is because, the ‘manufacturers provide billions of dollars in rebates and discounts on their innovative therapies annually, to federal, state and private payors, in addition to offering direct assistance through patient assistance programs.’ It further added, these discounts vary but can result into a significant total of as much as 50 percent or greater depending on the program.

Experts have challenged even this claim that the list prices do matter, even in the US, for many, including uninsured population and those with co-payment arrangement, which are not based on the discounted prices. Leaving aside America, what happens in those countries, such as India, where out-of-pocket expenses on health care are considered the highest in the world?

With new cancer drug prices going beyond control, the price of postponing death is growing:

That the new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control, isn’t a new realization. A research paper, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on May 06, 2013, also noted emphatically: ‘Allowing the producer-dominated market to set drug prices has spiraled the cost of cancer drugs out of control.’  So did another 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective.

According to various studies, such as the one published in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, as quoted above, also found after studying over 70 of such new drugs that the median improvement in survival was around 2.1months. Some other reports indicated this number to be around 3.5 months on an average.

Interestingly, the 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective found that ‘the price of postponing death is growing. In 2013, one extra year of life for cancer patients costs US$ 207,000, on average, nearly quadruple what it did in 1995.

Is it quality of life over the quantity of life, or vice versa?

The above findings may lead one to the critical question – what type of treatment choice would create the most desirable net impact on individual cancer patients? This evaluation should include all the three parameters – the extent of prolongation of the ‘Length of Life (LoL)’, the ‘Quality of Life (QoL)’ the patients experience during this period – and the additional drug cost that needs to be incurred.

It should ideally be up to patients whether they will choose quality over quantity of life or vice versa. To facilitate this process, an informed briefing by the doctor on the most likely scenario, vis-à-vis other available treatment alternatives, is expected to help individual cancer patient exercise the best affordable individual option.

This point was scientifically addressed in a research article - ‘Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review,’ published in the Journal of Psycho-Oncology on May 15, 2019. The study noted, ‘Patients with cancer face difficult decisions regarding treatment and also the possibility of trading the Quality of Life (QoL) for Length of Life (LoL).’ Little information is available on patients’ preferences in this regard, including ‘the personal costs they are prepared to exchange to extend their life.’

Another related question that also remains equally elusive, is the relationship between the cost of a medication and the amount of quality-time that it offers to patients. Quantifiable assessment of such nature could bring more transparency in drug pricing, especially for those that help treat life-threatening ailments, such as cancer.

Similar questions are raised on pricey therapy for rare diseases:

The cost of drugs for rare diseases is threatening the health care system – articulated an article, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on April 07, 2017. The paper stated, in December 2016, US-FDA announced the market approval of nusinersen (sold as “Spinraza”), an effective Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) treatment licensed to Biogen by Ionis Pharmaceuticals. SMA is considered the most common genetic cause of infant mortality.

As the author penned, “Patients and providers greeted the approval with near ecstasy, but the celebration was bittersweet. Five days after the FDA approved, the drug, Biogen announced each dose would cost US$ 125,000. Given that patients need six doses in the first year and three per year after that, it means the drug costs US$ 750,000 per patient in the first year and US$ 375,000 annually thereafter.”

A desperate father’s reaction for the price – and the economics behind it:

The HBR article captured the reaction of the father of an infant on this price, who is desperate to save the baby – in the following words – “Then there’s Will’s heartbreaking reaction, which I’m sure echoes the sentiments of many touched by SMA. – “The Biogen announcement of the cost of nusinersen floored me in every way possible,” he says. “Words cannot describe the sickening feeling I get when I think about it.” If this could be a father’s reaction in America, one can well imagine what happens in a similar situation to people in the developing world.

At that time, Zolgensma of Novartis, wearing a price tag of US$ 2.12 million for treatment of the same disease, was also shaping up for market launch. On this drug, the author of this HBR article who also happened to be a professor, vice chair of research, and chief of the Division of Neuromuscular Medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine, wrote: “A very promising gene therapy for SMA is on the horizon, which would require only one dose and potentially render nusinersen obsolete. Did such mercenary economics influence Biogen’s pricing decision? We may never know; drug companies are not required to justify their prices.” On the contrary, as many believe, the concerned global CEOs, reportedly, get a hefty financial reward, for the same.

Conclusion:

It is not difficult to understand either, that some drugs, especially for rare diseases, will be used for treating a smaller number of patients. Hence, the optimal economies of scale in manufacturing can’t be attained. At the same time, the cost of R&D of the therapy needs to be recouped along with a reasonable profit, for investment towards future drugs. This is in addition to market exclusivity the drug will enjoy through patent thicket.

Nevertheless, despite the existence of several methods of a human life value calculation, such as in the insurance industry the use of a transparent and drug industry specific, multi-factorial live-value calculator is still not in vogue. As the drug industry often highlights, the ‘value of human life is priceless’ – regardless of the costs of drugs. In this situation, many industry experts, academics and patient groups advocate that the ongoing uncontrolled pricing mechanism for such medicines should be brought under a leash. This could come in the form of a tough price negotiation’ before the drug marketing approval, as was promised by the Government, or putting in place a stringent price regulatory system.

Be that as it may, the bottom line is to understand and find an answer to: ‘Why Does Medicine Cost So Much?’ This issue was analyzed by the Time Magazine in its April 09, 2019 edition. Quoting Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, it emphasized: It all starts with the manufacturers. There are essentially no regulations governing how new drugs are priced – drug companies select a price what they “believe the market will bear.” Blockbuster first-in-class treatments, therefore, command a stratospheric price, like what happened with Gilead’s hepatitis medication – Sovaldi, way back in 2013. It was priced at US$ 1,000 a pill, or US $84,000 for the full course of treatment. From this perspective, although, setting a cost of time that patients may gain from a new therapy has a moral and ethical relevance – but actually, it doesn’t seem to be business-friendly in the drug industry.

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.

Spirit Behind Drug Patent Grant: Secondary Patents: Impact on Drug Access

Posted on by
Reply

For more effective treatment against existing diseases, besides combating new or a more complicated form of existing ailments with precision, drug innovation is absolutely necessary and on an ongoing basis. This makes innovative drugs so important for the population, globally.

Besides academia, the pharma industry has remained in the forefront of the search for new drugs, for so long. What makes this process so crucial is, cheaper generic drugs flow from the innovative drugs, post market exclusivity period, which together form the bedrock of the pharma industry’s business model. Consequently, a robust patent protection for the new molecular entities, not only enable the drug innovators to make a reasonably good profit, but also encourage them to keep this virtuous circle moving, faster.

Although, the drug patents are granted for 20 years, after obtaining marketing approval from the respective drug regulators, a time period - ranging between 7 and 12 years, is available to the company to realize its maximum commercial benefits. Thereafter, the patent expires, paving the way of market entry of cheaper generic equivalents to make the drug accessible to a larger population. This is the playbook, which deserves to be accepted and respected by all, both in the letter and spirit.

Currently, the narrative has started changing, apparently, repudiating the spirit behind the grant of new drug patents, especially with the entry of a number of expensive, large molecule biopharmaceutical drugs. After obtaining a fixed-term market exclusivity, more intricate legal measures are being taken to extend the fixed-term market monopoly for an unknown period, delaying market entry of cheaper biosimilar equivalents, post patent expiry, as long as possible.

In this milieu, India appears to be the only country in the world, where the country’s ‘Patents Act’ provides enough safeguard to blunt those legal tools, effectively, to protect patients’ health interest. Quite expectedly, this new narrative of the drug innovators is yielding the best return in the Eldorado of the pharma world – the Unites States. It is also no secret that US vehemently opposes several provisions of the Indian Patents Act 2005, under pressure from the most powerful pharma lobby group, as many believe.

Using the spirit behind drug patent protection as the backdrop, I shall dwell in this article, how this so precious spirit is gradually losing its basic purpose, especially for blockbuster biopharma drugs. Is the key intent behind sacrificing the spirit behind drug patent grant to keep their brands money spinners and big – even after expiry of original patent – as long as possible – at the cost of patients’ health interest?

Despite the original patent expiry, biggest biologic drugs remain big:

The fact that original patent expiries have done little to halt sales of some of the industry’s biggest products – mostly biologic drugs, was clearly elucidated in an  Evaluate Pharma article – “Biopharma’s biggest sellers – the oldies that just keep giving,” published on August 14, 2019. This gets vindicated, as we look at the ‘top ten pharma brands with biggest lifetime sales – from launch to 2018’, in the following Table I:

Product Company Launch year USD Billion
1. Lipitor Pfizer 1997 164.43
2 Humira AbbVie 2003 136.55
3. Rituxan Genentech/Biogen 1997 111.50
4. Enbrel Amgen 1998 108.16
5. Epogen Amgen 1988 107.90
6. Advair GSK 1998 104.20
7. Remicade Janssen 1998   98.00
8. Zantac GSK 1981   97.42
9. Plavix Sanofi/BMS 1998   90.63
10. Herceptin Genentech/Roche 1998   87.97

(Adapted from Evaluate Pharma data of August 14, 2019)

The point to take note of:

The point worth noting here, with the exception of Advair, Zantac, Lipitor and Plavix, all others – among the top ten brands, are biologic drugs. Moreover, what is most striking in the Table I, despite the expiry of the original patents, a large number of biologic brands were able to expand their sales, pretty impressively, for well over two decades. As we shall see later, this situation is expected to continue, at least, till 2024.  As the Evaluate Pharma article states, for various reasons, these multibillion dollar brands have been able to avoid the expected post patent expiry ‘onslaught from biosimilars in the key US market’, which is incidentally the most valuable pharma market in the world.

One of the key reasons that helps delaying cheaper biosimilar drug entry expanding patient access, is a crafty strategic measure adopted by these companies through the creation of a Patent Thicket with secondary patents. As I discussed in this Blog on April 22, 2019, this is a crafty way of ‘evergreening’ patent term beyond 20 years, legally. Whether such measures conform to the spirit of granting 20 years product patent, becomes a moral question, or an issue of probity for the concerned companies, at the most. Be that as it may, a concern over this situation has been raised in many countries, including the United States.

Barrier of secondary patents: 

Biosimilar drug developers continue facing multiple non-financial challenges, such as, scientific, regulatory, pricing. I have already discussed some of these barriers in this blog on July 31, 2017. Instead, I shall focus in this article, with greater detail, on the intricate and a well-woven net of secondary patents. However,before delving into this area, it will be worthwhile to have a quick recap on the basic differences between original patents and secondary patents.

According to WIPO, “Patents on active ingredients are referred to as primary patents. In later phases of the drug development, patents are filed on other aspects of active ingredients such as different dosage forms, formulations, production methods etc. These types of patents are referred to as secondary patents.”

Another excellent paper, authored by two distinguished researchers from Columbia University and LSE, makes some important points on this subject. It says, secondary patents have become increasingly important to the pharma industry, especially in the U.S. and Europe over the past three decades. The basic purpose of ‘taking out multiple patents on different aspects of a drug in order to cordon off competitors is now standard practice in the pharmaceutical industry.’ As the authors further said, this is primarily because: ‘Secondary patents can protect market shares by extending periods of exclusivity beyond the dates in which patent protection would otherwise lapse.’

Interestingly. devising patent strategies to extend periods of market exclusivity is generally considered in the industry, as a key component of ‘product life cycle management,’ – not by the marketing whiz kids, but by astute patent attorneys. Nevertheless, as the paper articulates, critics of this practice often use the more pejorative – evergreening, to describe it.

Examples of impact of secondary patents:

Many research papers suggest, besides scientific complexity in biosimilar drug development being a key reason for their delayed market entry, secondary patents are even tougher barriers for the same. This was brought to light a few years ago in a ‘Review Article’ – ‘The Economics of Biosimilars’, published in the September/October 2013 issue of American Health & Drug Benefits.

Some of the key points made on this issue include,AbbVie plan to defend Humira (adalimumab) with more than 200 secondary patents, Merck’s giving up its biosimilar project on Enbrel when Amgen got its expanded patent life. There are many other such instances.

Its effect would last longer: 

Experts believe, the effect of creating a strong secondary patent shield around blockbuster biologic would last much longer. As the above Evaluate Pharma article underscores: ‘This ability to fend off biosimilar competition is one of the reasons Humira is set to snatch Lipitor’s crown next year as the industry’s most successful drug.’

The Table II below that lists ‘top 10 pharma brands from their respective launch date, including estimated forecast till 2024’, vindicates its long-lasting impact:

Product Company Launch year USD Billion
1. Humira AbbVie 2003 240.05
2 Lipitor Pfizer 1997 180.19
3. Enbrel Amgen 1998 139.83
4. Rituxan Genentech/Biogen 1997 136.07
5. Revlimid Celgene 2008 123.64
6. Remicade Janssen 1998 117.20
7. Epogen Amgen 1988 115.87
8. Herceptin Genentech/Roche 1998 114.89
9. Avastin Genentech/Roche 2004 114.27
10. Advair GSK 1998 113.61

(Adapted from Evaluate Pharma data of August 14, 2019)

Although, Zantac and Plavix no longer feature in this table, one drug that leapfrogged much of the competition to become one of the industry’s biggest future bestsellers is Revlimid. The projected sales of the drug over the next six years will actually outstrip its sales to date. However, much of this is dependent on whether generic competition will arrive ahead of Revlimid’s 2022 patent expiry, the paper indicated.

Concern expressed even in the US for the delay in biosimilar market entry:

Many big spending countries on health care, such as the United States expected that timely biosimilar drug entry will help contain health expenditure significantly. However, the article published in the Fierce Pharma on August 29, 2019, raises an alarm, but with a hope for the future. It says: “It’s no secret biosimilars haven’t made a big dent in U.S. drug spending. Some experts have even said it’s time to give up on copycat biologic.”

This hope gets resonated with what, ‘the former US-FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb argues’. He feels, ‘It’s too soon for that’, while ‘calling on Congress to bolster the budding market.’ However, in my personal view, this will remain a difficult proposition to implement, as biologic drug players will continue using their relatively new, but powerful weapon of filing a number of complex ‘secondary patents.’ These will help extend the market exclusivity period of their respective brands, much beyond the original patent grant period, unless a counter legal measures are taken by the lawmakers of various countries, including the United States. But, India is an exception in this regard.

Indian patent law doesn’t encourage ‘secondary patents’:

The good news is, Indian Patent Act 2005, doesn’t encourage ‘secondary patent.’ This is because, section 3 (d) of the Indian Patent Act 2005 limits grant of ‘secondary pharmaceutical patents.’ An interesting study reported on February 08, 2018, discussed about 1,700 rejections for pharma patents at the IPO spanning over the last decade. But, there is a huge scope for improvement in this area.

Which is why, the not so good news is under-utilization of the same section 3.d by the Indian Patent Office (IPO), as are being voiced in many reports. One such paper of April 25, 2018 highlighted,72 per cent of pharma patent grants are secondary patents. These were granted for marginal improvements over previously known drugs for which primary patents exist. That said, despite such reported lapses, blocking of some crucial secondary patent grant has benefited a large number of patient population of India.

Blocking secondary patent grant has helped India immensely:

While US recognizes secondary patents, blocking secondary patent grant, especially for biologic drugs has helped Indian patients immensely, with expanded access to those medicines. This was also captured in the above study. Besides the classic case of Novartis losing its secondary patent challenge for Glivec in the Supreme Court of India in 2013, several other examples of secondary patent rejection are also available. This includes, among others, Glivec of Novartis and the world’s top selling drug for several years – Humira of AbbVie.Against a month’s therapy cost of ₹1,6o, ooo for Glivec in the US, its Indian biosimilar version costs for the same period ₹11,100. Similarly, while the treatment cost with Humira in the US is ₹85,000, the same with its biosimilar version in India is ₹ 13,500, as the above study finds.

Conclusion:

The core purpose of drug innovation, as widely touted by the R&D-based drug companies, is meeting the unmet needs of patients in the battles against diseases. Thus, drug innovation of this genre must not just be encouraged, but also be adequately protected and rewarded by granting product monopoly for a 20-year period from the date of the original patent grant. Curiously, piggybacking on this basic spirit behind the drug patent grant, pharma lobby groups are now vocal on their demand for giving similar treatment to secondary patents on various molecules. The tone of demand gets shriller when it comes to section 3. d of the Indian Patents Act, which doesn’t allow such ‘evergreening’ through secondary patents.

Thus, the key question that surfaces, while the original patent grant for innovative drugs help meeting unmet needs of some patients, whose unmet needs would a secondary patent grant meet, except making the concerned company richer? Further, for highly expensive biologic drugs, delayed market entry of cheaper biosimilars in that process, would deny their expanded access – failing to meet the unmet needs of scores of others.

Hopefully, India won’t give in to pressure of multinational pharma lobby groups, channeled through various powerful overseas government entities. At the same time, I hope, the government in power at the Eldorado of the pharma industry, will consider giving a fair chance of market entry to cheaper biosimilars, including those from India, to also grow their business globally, but in a win-win way.

The key objective of all stakeholders involved in this process, should be to uphold the basic spirit behind drug patent grant. It may even call for challenging the core intent behind secondary patent applications, the world over, that deny quicker market entry for cheaper biosimilars, sans heavy litigation expenses. This will help expand access to cheaper biologic medicines to all those who can’t afford those, otherwise.

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.