Tag Archives: bizarre

For Improving Drug Quality in India – A Bizarre Intent

Posted on by
Reply

On January 16, 2017, quoting a Government source, a media report revealed, “India’s drug regulator is looking to inspect US pharmaceutical facilities, making critical medicines so that only high-quality products are imported from them.”

This intent follows a similar decision of the apex regulatory body – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), against some Chinese manufacturers on drug quality concern. The latest proposal to this effect was sent to the health ministry the previous week – the above report adds.

In this article, I shall explore the fundamental basis of this specific initiative. If it has any, I shall try to fathom whether it’s yet another case of misplaced priority of the decision makers, if not a bizarre one.

The current perspective:

About a couple of years ago, an article published in the global financial daily – the Financial Times, on September 9, 2015 titled, ‘Indian drugs: not what the doctor ordered’, articulated that the Indian pharma industry ‘now face a serious credibility crisis, as they battle to allay western regulators’ concerns about their manufacturing practices — especially the reliability of data from trials of their medicines.’

The report also pointed out: ‘Overseas regulators have been scrutinizing and banning products from some of India’s biggest and most reputable groups — including Sun Pharmaceuticals, IPCA, and Wockhardt – many of which have ongoing relationships with large multinational drug companies.’

Has anything changed now?

Nothing perceptibly seems to have changed in this area since then, to set our ‘own house in order’. Not even after witnessing a barrage of drug quality related ‘import bans’ by the US-FDA that involves Indian manufacturers of all sizes and scale. Instead, CDSCO turns its focus on setting-right ‘others’ manufacturing houses with its reportedly meagre manpower resources. Curiously, these initiatives include even those countries, which are globally acclaimed for having stringent regulatory frameworks well in place, such as the United States (US) and the European Union (EU).

Where a justifiable reason exists:

On Chinese API import by different countries, the article titled “Imports To Fuel India’s Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients’ Requirements,” published by Bloomberg | Quint on November 15, 2017 brings out a nice comparison. It says: ‘Among the top emerging and developing economies, India is a major importer of bulk drugs from China at 54 percent, followed by Indonesia at 24 percent, Brazil at 12 percent and South Africa at 8 percent.’ It also writes, in comparison, most of the developed markets of the world import in the range of just 2-3 percent from China.’

Going by this fact, Indian drug regulator’s inspection of some of the Chinese API plants is, by all means, understandable – mainly for two reasons. One, India is largely dependent on Chinese bulk drugs for formulations manufacturing and consumption in the country, besides exports. And the second, some incidents of compromised Chinese drug ingredients have already been reported. For example, citing quality issues, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has recently, reportedly banned import of such questionable drug constituents from six major Chinese pharma companies. This is not a solitary instance. Similar incidents involving Chinese drugs were  reported in the past, as well.

An irony:

When international media agencies flash headlines, such as “U.S. and EU regulators urge Indian drug companies to step up standards,” Indian drug regulators decide to inspect overseas manufacturing plants, as well. Such a decision becomes intriguing, especially when it includes those countries, where from imports are meager, besides their stringent drug quality standards being globally acclaimed.

This is an irony, as the recent local media headlines like, “India among countries where 10% of drugs are substandard: WHO” or “… 27 medicines sold by top firms ‘fail’ quality tests in seven states”, unfold the veracity of drug regulatory laxity within the country.

The basis of the recent proposal becomes more incomprehensible, when the DCGI himself reportedly admits, even today that: “Substandard medicines are a major issue in India and we are looking out for ways to tackle the problem. As quality regulator, we are developing proper mechanisms to stop manufacturing and sale of counterfeit drugs so that they don’t reach the patients.”

The reasons cited for overseas plant inspection:

According to media reports, the reasons cited in the CDSCO proposal for Indian Drug Inspectors’ (DI) inspecting other overseas manufacturers, including those in the US and Europe, are broadly as follows:

  • Most of over 28 manufacturing sites registered in India from the US, manufacture critical formulations or critical new therapies, which are not available in other countries, as they fall into high-risk categories.
  • Inspections will not only result in compliance to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules, but also give exposure to Indian drugs inspectors to new technology adopted in the manufacturing and state-of-the-art facilities.
  • The sites will be inspected if they have made substandard drugs, received quality complaints, or faced action by other regulatory authorities.
  • Companies shortlisted for the proposed inspections include those making biologic and anti-cancer medicines.

Let me hasten to add, there is nothing wrong with this intent as such, but the moot point is: what’s the core issue that we are talking about? While addressing this point, let’s first have a quick look at India’s import of pharmaceutical product around the last two decades.

India’s import of pharmaceutical products – 1996 – 2018:

According to ‘Trading Economics’ (last updated in January of 2018), India’s import of pharmaceutical products decreased to USD 254.57 Million in 2016 from USD 795.34 Million in 2015. Average drug imports are shown as USD 645.06 USD Million from 1996 until 2016, reaching an all-time high of USD 1747.65 Million in 2012, and a record low of USD 64.32 Million in 1996.

Nonetheless, the micro- picture of India’s bulk drugs or API import isn’t quite the same. On December 19, 2017 in a written reply to the Lok Sabha, the Minister of State, Chemicals and Fertilizers gave details of India’s bulk drug imports from top five countries, as follows:

Country Import value Rs Crore Import value $ Million (Approx.)
China 12,254.97 1915 (66%)
United States 820.18 128 (4.5%)
Italy 701.85 110 (3.8%)
Germany 485.11 76 (2.6%)
Singapore 422.01 66 (2.3%)
Total 18,372.54 2871

It’s worth noting, although the overall value of API import has declined, including from China, its volume share still remains too high in India. More importantly, Indian drug import from the United States and the European countries, are not only very small, there doesn’t seem to be enough instances of substandard drugs imported from these countries to India, either.

The core issue:

Taking a serious note of the reported incidences of widespread substandard drugs by various reports, including the WHO, the core issue becomes rather obvious. What else could possibly be the core issue other than taking effective remedial regulatory measures to contain the menace of substandard drugs circulating within the country?

An article titled, “Correcting India’s Chronic Shortage of Drug Inspectors to Ensure the Production and Distribution of Safe, High-Quality of Medicines,” published by the International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) on April 27, 2017, made an important observation in this regard.

It reiterated: Good drug regulation requires an effective system for monitoring and inspection of manufacturing and sales units. In India, despite widespread agreement on this principle, ongoing shortages of drug inspectors have been identified as a major hindrance to this effort by the national committees, since 1975. Rapid growth of India’s pharmaceutical industry and its large export market makes the problem more acute.

Thus, the major remedial measure that CDSCO needs to take on priority to effectively address this core issue, is the chronic shortage of competent drug inspectors in the country.

An assessment of the current situation:

On the ground, the above situation continues to prevail almost in every state of the country, with a varying degree, though. However, at this point, I shall quote just three such instances – only to illustrate the gravity of the situation.

Example 1 – Delhi:

The article titled, “Delhi’s pharmacy woes: Only 21 inspectors for city’s 25,000 chemists,” published by ‘India Today’ on November 25, 2017, well-captured the latest scenario in this regard, of India’s national capital – New Delhi.

It wrote, there’s no guarantee that the medicine you are buying from a pharmacy is safe. The drug regulatory body does not have enough manpower to conduct regular inspections of the city’s mushrooming chemist shops and wholesale units.

Against the sanctioned posts of 31 drug inspectors, the department has only 21 DI for keeping an eye on Delhi’s 25,000 medical stores, and blood banks. Quoting Government officials the report reiterated, while the number of DI has declined – or at best remained constant – over the past 40 years, the number of pharmacies has increased from 5,000 to 25,000.

Whereas, going by the Centre’s recommendation, Dr. Mashelkar Committee report and the Task Force Committee’s observation, there should be one drug inspector for every 50 manufacturing units. Considering the magnitude of the problem, the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB), in a recent meeting, reportedly suggested, there should be one official for every 200 sales outlets, and one official for every 50 manufacturing units.

Example 2 – Kerala:

Another report of July 08, 2017, with a similar headline – “Remedial action needed in medicine market”, focused on one more important state – Kerala. It wrote that the Kerala has just 47 drug inspectors to monitor the entire State drug market that has over 20,000 drug stores, excluding those located in the hospitals. “In Kerala – the consumer of about 15 to 20 percent of drugs manufactured in the country, there are no quality checks taking place owing to the manpower shortage” – the article cautioned.

Example 3 – Maharashtra:

Yet another national media report of March 16, 2017 carried a headline ‘FDA faces staff shortage again.’ It discussed the same issue for a major State where the financial capital of India is located – Maharashtra. Giving details, the article pointed out that out of 160 posts of drug inspectors across Maharashtra, only 90 have been filled so far and of the 250 food safety officer posts, just 180 have been filled. More than 50,000 pharmacies, 15,000 wholesalers and over 8,000 manufacturing units, are supposed to be properly governed as per the regulatory rules and godliness, to ensure high quality drug safety standards, by this meager DI staff strength of the State.

Conclusion:

Against the above backdrop, it appears absolutely minimum to expect that CDSCO would make the public know, how does it plan to make the drugs manufactured for domestic consumption of high quality standards, as a safeguard to patients’ health and safety.

This calls for strict quality audits by the DIs of the individual states, at pre-determined periodicity, just as what US-FDA does to ensure exactly the same, for patients in their own country. With dwindling resources of DI, CDSCO seems to be continually failing in achieving this critical goal. There doesn’t seem to be any specific and transparent accountability criteria in place, for the CDSCO to comply with.

In this situation, the plan to audit the overseas manufacturing plants located in the US and EU for drug quality assessment, carving out a slice from the existing DI manpower strength, appears rather foolhardy. Moreover, the safety-risk for those imported medicines is apparently low, not just due to meager quantity of drug import, but also for stringent regulatory environment prevailing in those countries.

In view of all this, the media report on CDSCO’s plan to inspect US and EU pharma facilities, making ‘critical’ drugs to ensure high product-quality, is interesting. If it holds any water, the initiative may be construed by many not merely a case of misplaced priority, but a bizarre one, to say the least.

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.

On Serious Healthcare, Some Bizarre Decisions

Posted on by
Reply

On August 04, 2016, it was widely reported by the media that the Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Anant Kumar, would launch a new digital initiative of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), named, “Search Medicine Price”, on August 29, 2016.

This is an app developed by the National Informatics Centre, for android smartphones ‘that will enable patients to check the prices of essential medicines on-the-go’. It will be an extension of NPPA’s “Pharma Jan Samadhan” web-portal facility. The Indian price regulator believes that wide use of this app would successfully reduce the instances of overcharging the consumers by the pharma companies and retail chemists, especially for lifesaving, and other expensive medicines. 

India’s drug pricing watchdog is planning to introduce this app to enable the patients check the prices of essential medicines on-the-go, and expects that this measure will hold drug companies and medicine retail outlets more accountable to patients.

In the test version of the app, which has since been released for stakeholder feedback, patients can search for the ceiling price of all medicines under the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM), on the basis of its generic name and the state they’re buying it from.

The Chairman of NPPA, reportedly, further said, “Consumers can use the app before paying for a medicine to ensure that they get the right price. At present, whatever action we take against the companies, including recoveries, the consumer does not get back the overcharged amount he or she has paid.”

Good intent with a basic flaw:

The intent of the Government in this regard is indeed laudable. However, the initiative seems to underscore the blissful ignorance of the prevailing ground realities in India.

The media report highlights that with this app, the patients can search for the ceiling price of all medicines featuring in the NLEM on the basis of their generic names.

Whereas, the ground reality to make any meaningful use of this app is quite different. This is primarily because, in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), over 90 percent of drugs are branded generics. An overwhelming majority of the doctors, as well, follow this trend while writing prescriptions for their patients, in general. For any single ingredients or Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) formulation, there are as many as even 30 to 40 brands, if not more. 

In that case, when the prescriptions given to patients are mostly for branded generic drugs, how would that person possibly get to know their generic names, to be able to check their ceiling prices with the help of the new “Search Medicine Price” app?

Not just a solitary example: 

This is just not a solitary instance of ignorance of the Government decision makers on the realities prevailing in the country.

With an admirable intent of making drugs more affordable for increased access, especially, to all those patients incurring out-of-pocket health expenditure, the Government has been taking several such measures, and is also trying to create a hype around these. Unfortunately, most of these efforts, miss the core objective of increasing access to drugs at the right price, by miles. 

Another recent example: 

This particular example, in my view, is even more bizarre.

It happened on February 29, 2016, the day when the Union Budget proposal for the financial year 2016-17 was presented before the Parliament of India.

In this budget proposal, the Union Finance Minister announced the launch of ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Yojana (PMJAY)’. 3,000 Stores under PMJAY will be opened during 2016-17.

Many consider this scheme as a repackaged old health care initiative, only adding the new words ‘Pradhan Mantri’ to it.

Just to recapitulate, Jan-Aushadhi is an ongoing campaign launched by the Department of Pharmaceuticals in 2008, in association with Central Pharma Public Sector Undertakings (PSU), to provide quality medicines at affordable prices to the masses.

Under this scheme, Jan Aushadhi Stores (JAS) are being set up to provide generic drugs, which are available at lesser prices, but are equivalent in quality and efficacy as expensive branded drugs.

The Department of Pharmaceuticals had initially proposed to open at least one JAS in each of the 630 districts of the country, so that the benefit of “quality medicines at affordable prices” is available to at least one place in each district of India.

If the initiative becomes successful, based on its inherent merit and the cooperation of all stakeholders, the scheme was to be extended to sub divisional levels as well as major towns and village centers by 2012. However, after 5 years, i.e. up to February, 2013, only 147 JAS were opened, and out of those only 84 JASs are functional. 

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

Tardy progress:

The tardy progress of the scheme was largely attributed to:

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

There is no doubt, however, the intent of ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Scheme’ of 2016 is as laudable as the earlier “Jan-Aushadhi Scheme”, launched by the Department of Pharmaceuticals in 2008, was at that time. But, the moot question that comes at the top of mind:  Is it robust enough to work effectively in the present situation? 

Why it may not fetch the desired outcome?

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

A critical challenge:  

Since, the generic drugs available from ‘Jan Aushadhi’ retail outlets are predominantly prescription medicines, patients would necessarily require a doctor’s physical prescription to buy those products.

Despite some State Government’s circulars to the Government doctors for generic prescription, and the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, that states: “Every physician should, as far as possible, prescribe drugs with generic names and he/she shall ensure that there is a rational prescription and use of drugs”, the doctors, in India, prescribe mostly branded generics. It includes even many of those prescriptions, generated from a large number of the Government hospitals.

The legal hurdle for generic substitution:

In a situation such as this, the only way the JAS can sell more for greater patient access to essential drugs, if the store pharmacists are allowed to substitute a high price branded generic with exactly the same generic molecule that is available in the JAS, without carrying any brand name, but in the same dosage form and strength, just as the branded ones. 

However, this type of substitution would be grossly illegal in India. This is because, the section 65(11)(c) in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 states as follows:

“At the time of dispensing there must be noted on the prescription above the signature of the prescriber the name and address of the seller and the date on which the prescription is dispensed. 20[(11A) No person dispensing a prescription containing substances specified in 21[Schedule H or X] may supply any other preparation, whether containing the same substances or not in lieu thereof.]” 

Thus, I reckon, the most important way to make ‘Jan Aushadhi’ drugs available to patients for greater access, is to legally allow the retailers substituting the higher priced branded generic molecules with their lower priced equivalents, sans any brand name.

A move that did not work:

Moving towards this direction, the Ministry of Health had reportedly submitted a proposal to the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), for consideration.

In this proposal, the Health Ministry reportedly suggested an amendment of Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to enable the retail chemists substituting a branded drug formulation with its cheaper equivalent, containing the same generic ingredient, in the same strength and the dosage form, with or without a brand name.

However, in the 71st meeting of the DTAB held on May 13, 2016, its members reportedly turned down that proposal of the ministry. DTAB apparently felt that given the structure of the Indian retail pharmaceutical market, the practical impact of this recommendation may be limited.

Conclusion:

Considering all this, just as ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan Aushadhi Yojana’, the likes of ‘Search Medicine Price app’, apparently, are not potentially productive health care related initiatives, if not just one-offs, ‘feel good’ type of schemes for the general population. 

These are not robust enough either, to survive the grueling of reality, impractical for effective implementation, and thus, seriously handicapped to fetch any meaningful benefits for the patients, on the ground.

It is, therefore, still unclear to me, how would the needy patients, and the Indian population at large, could derive any benefit from such bizarre decisions, on so serious a subject as health care.

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.

Transparency in Drug Trial Data: Thwarted by Lobbyists or Embroiled in Controversy?

Posted on by
Reply

Based on a leaked letter from overseas pharma industry bodies, a leading international daily in late July 2013 reported:

“Big pharma mobilizing patients in battle over drugs trials data.”

Some experts consider it as a poignant, if not a bizarre moment in the history of drugs development, keeping patients’ interest in mind. However, the concerned trade bodies could well term it as a business savvy strategy to maintain sanctity of ‘Data Exclusivity’ in real sense.

That said, it is important for the stakeholders to figure out where exactly does this strategy stand between the larger issue of patients’ drug safety and efficacy concerns and the commercial interest of the innovator companies to grow  their business.

Lack of transparency in drug trials data and consequences:

Outside pharmaceutical marketing, some of the biggest scandals in the drug industry have been alleged hiding of data related to negative findings in drug Clinical Trials (CTs) by the innovator companies.

Many stakeholders have already expressed their uneasiness on this wide spread allegation that research based pharmaceutical companies publish just a fraction of their CT data and keep much of the drug safety related information to themselves. Not too distant withdrawals of blockbuster drugs like Vioxx (Merck) and Avandia (GSK) will vindicate this point.

Examples of global withdrawals of drugs, including blockbuster ones, available from various publications, are as follows. 

Brand

Company

Indication

Year of Ban/Withdrawal

Reason

Vioxx

Merck

Anti Inflammatory

2004

Increase cardiovascular risk

Bextra

Pfizer

Anti Inflammatory

2005

Heart attack and stroke

Prexige

Novartis

Anti Inflammatory

2007

Hepatotoxicity

Mylotarg

Wyeth

Acute Myelogenous Leukemia

2010

Increased patient death/No added benefit over conventional cancer therapies

Avandia

GSK

Diabetes

2010

Increased cardiovascular risk

Reductil

Abbott

Exogenous Obesity

2010

Increased cardiovascular risk

Paradex

Eli Lilly

Analgesic, Antitussive and Local Anaesthetic

2010

Fatal overdoses and heart arrhythmias

Xigris

Eli Lilly

Anti-Thrombotic, Anti-Inflammatory, and Profibrinolytic

2011

Questionable efficacy for the treatment of sepsis

A recent example:

A recent report indicates that Japan (Tokyo) based Jikei University School of Medicine plans to withdraw a paper on the hypertension drug Diovan of Novartis from the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) due to “data manipulation,” suggesting the drug could help treating other ailments.

The report also indicates that an investigative panel formed by the university to look into the allegations of ‘rigged data’ for Diovan concluded that the results were cooked.

The decision of the Japanese University to withdraw this paper is expected to hurt the reputation of Novartis Pharma AG and at the same time raise ethical concerns about the company’s behavior concerning its best-selling hypertension drug, the report says.

Drug regulators contemplating remedial measures:

Now being cognizant about this practice, some drug regulators in the developed world have exhibited their keenness to disband such practices. These ‘gatekeepers’ of drug efficacy and safety are now contemplating to get the entire published CT data reanalyzed by the independent experts to have a tight leash on selective claims by the concerned pharma companies.

A review reportedly estimates that only half of all CTs were published in full and that positive results are twice as likely to be published than negative ones.

Recently the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has published a draft report for public consideration on greater openness of CT data. As stated above, this proposal allows independent experts to conduct a detail analysis on the safety and effectiveness of new drugs.

Mobilizing patients to thwart transparency?

Interestingly, as stated in the beginning, it has recently been reported that to thwart the above move of the drug regulator in favor of patients’ interest:

“The pharmaceutical industry has mobilized an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drugs trials.”

The same report highlights that two large overseas trade associations had worked out a grand strategy, which is initially targeted at Europe. This is for the obvious reason that the EMA wants to publish all of the clinical study reports that drug companies have filed, and where negotiations around the CT directive could force drug companies to publish all CT results in a public database.

Embroiled in controversy:

It has also been reported simultaneously, “Some who oppose full disclosure of data fear that publishing the information could reveal trade secrets, put patient privacy at risk, and be distorted by scientists’ own conflicts of interest.”

Pharmaceutical trade associations in the west strongly argue in favor of the need of innovator companies to keep most of CT data proprietary for competitive reasons. They reiterate that companies would never invest so much of time and money for new drug development, if someone could easily copy the innovative work during the patent life of the product.

However, the report also states, “While many of these concerns are valid, critics say they can be addressed, and that openness is far more important for patients’ drug safety reasons.“

Addressing the concerns:

To address the above concerns the EMA has reportedly separated clinical data into three categories:

  • Commercially confidential information.
  • Open-access data that doesn’t contain patients’ personal information.
  • Controlled-access data that will only be granted after the requester has fulfilled a number of requirements, including signing of a data-sharing agreement.

However experts do also reiterate, “Risks regarding data privacy and irresponsible use cannot be totally eliminated, and it will be a challenge to accommodate diverse expectations across the scientific and medical community. However, the opportunity to benefit the health of individuals and the public must outweigh these concerns.”

Some laudable responses:

Amidst mega attempts to thwart the move of EMA towards CT data transparency surreptitiously, there are some refreshingly good examples in this area, quite rare though, as follows:

  • As revealed by media, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has recently announced that it would share detailed data from all global clinical trials conducted since 2007, which was later extended to all products since 2000. This means sharing more than 1,000 CTs involving more than 90 drugs. More recently, to further increase transparency in how it reports drug-study results, GSK reportedly has decided to disclose more individual patient data from its CTs. GSK has also announced that qualified researchers can request access to findings on individual patients whose identities are concealed and confidentiality protected.The company would double the number of studies to 400 available by end 2013 to researchers seeking data of approved medicines and of therapies that have been terminated from development.
  • Recently Canada reportedly announced the launch of Canadian Government’s new public database of Health Canada-authorized drug CTs. It is believed that providing access to a central database of clinical trials is an initial step that will help fill an existing information gap as the government works to further increase transparency around CTs.
  • The well-known British Medical Journal (BMJ) in one of its editorials has already announced, “BMJ will require authors to commit to supplying anonymised patient level data on reasonable request from 2013.”

All these are indeed laudable initiatives in terms of ensuring long term drug safety and efficacy for the patients.

Conclusion:

It is quite refreshing to note that a new paradigm is emerging in the arena of CT data transparency, for long-term health interest of patients, despite strong resistance from powerful pharmaceutical trade bodies, as reported in the international media. This paradigm shift is apparently being spearheaded by Europe and Canada among the countries, the global pharma major GSK and the medical Journal BMJ.

A doubt still keeps lingering on whether or not independent expert panels will indeed be given access to relevant CT data for meaningful impartial reviews of new drugs, as the issue, in all probability, would increasingly be made to get embroiled in further controversy.

Moreover, if the innovator companies’ often repeated public stand – “patients’ interest for drug efficacy and safety is supreme” is taken in its face value, the veiled attempt of thwarting transparency of CT Data, with an utterly bizarre strategy, by the lobbyists of the same ‘patient caring’ constituent, can indeed be construed as a poignant moment, now frozen in time, in the history of drug development for mankind.

Be that as it may, to resolve this problem meaningfully and decisively, I reckon, a middle path needs to be carefully charted out between reported thwarting moves by pharma lobbyists and the embroiled controversy on the burning issue.

Thus, the final critical point to ponder:

Would the commerce-driven and cost-intensive pharma innovation also not be in jeopardy, affecting patients’ interest too, if the genuine concerns of the innovator companies over ‘CT Data Protection’ are totally wished away? 

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.