Tag Archives: Challenges

Pharma To Leverage The Art of Turning Challenges Into Opportunities, Now

Posted on by
Reply

Since, the dawn of the year 2020, the human population living in different countries, across the world are facing ‘lockdowns in different forms. Although essential, it severely restricts normal daily essential and other important activities of all. A large number of populations in India, is also experiencing the same – for nearly 4 months, almost at a trot, as on date.

The fear of getting infected by COVID-19, fueled by uncertainty about a comprehensive way to surely avert infection and apprehension about what happens if someone gets infected, have been haunting many for several months. Moreover, the possible impact of several related essential measures, such as, social distancing and wearing a mask mostly while being outdoors, on both life and livelihood, is profound. It has already started causing an unprecedented – both physical and mental stress on many individuals, besides the economy of the nation.

Living amid ‘lockdown’ conditions is not just an unpleasant experience for all, it’s almost a ‘prison like’, experience for a vast number of people – particularly, both young and old with comorbidly. “It’s very similar to being trapped in a bunker with no access outside,” as expressed by a person with similar issues, which, may be construed as a universal feeling of common individuals. Interestingly, this was quoted in an article -  ‘What patients need right now’, published in the Reuters Events Pharmaon July 07, 2020. The article also highlighted that many other fellow sufferers, especially non-Covid-19 patients, are enduring pandemic enforced isolation without much hope. “They are staying in limbo until help is available and adapting to the worsening of their health conditions,” the article added.

Further, as captured in the McKinsey article – ‘COVID-19 and commercial pharma: Navigating an uneven recovery,’ published on April 21, 2020 – not just patients, health care professionals including doctors, are also facing unprecedented challenges. Especially, because of the need to address fundamental changes in the treatment of patients with conditions other than COVID-19. This is happening across medical specialties and therapeutic areas, besides of course in advising and treating patients with suspected and confirmed cases of COVID-19.

In some instances, some doctors do also worry about their financial security, as practices and health systems face unprecedented financial issues, the above article emphasized. However, at the same time, many of them are now rapidly adjusting how they deliver care, such as through increased use of telemedicine in different forms and ways, the survey found. Which is why, the support they need from pharma companies is also changing.

Taking cognizance of these critical developments, pharma players would require rewriting their playbook for business operations and for its urgent implementation. This article will focus on this important area of pharma business, by leveraging the art of turning a problem or a challenge into an opportunity.

Leveraging the art of turning a challenge into an opportunity:

Turning a problem or challenge into an opportunity in managing business operations, isn’t a cup of tea of all managers, across domains. More so, when it’s caused by an unprecedented disruptive change, such as the Covid-19 pandemic.

The first and the foremost prerequisite from a manager is a mindset to make it happen – driven by uncluttered thinking, with a clear focus on what needs to be achieved, how and when – step by step. Each element of a change has to be analyzed in-depth – supported by credible data, with possible barriers envisaged on the way. In tandem, weighing the chances of success in these initiatives based on data – and not gut feeling, within a predetermined timeframe will be critical. The net outcome of this process will help pharma players acquire a differentiated competitive edge for excellence, amid today’s all-pervasive quandary.

Under this backdrop, leveraging the art of turning a problem or challenge into an opportunity – in an organized manner, for a successful outcome of the present and future pharma business, appears to be a crying need.

The points to ponder:

Effectively moving in this direction will call for – at its very onset, a careful and unbiased data-based assessment of several critical areas, which will include:

  • Whether customer engagement platforms, medium, processes and also the core content of communication of pre Covid-19 days remain equally relevant today, and will remain so in the foreseeable future, for productive business outcomes.
  • Mapping changes with the extent for each, in all touchpoints of disease treatment processes is important – involving both patients and doctors, and simultaneously capturing their new preferences in those areas.
  • Arriving at what strategic and tactical changes the new normal calls for, to effectively engage with especially, non-Covid patient treating doctors and non-Covid infected patients, for other disease areas.
  • How doctors are delivering care, particularly to these patients today?

Accordingly, the pathway for required changes has to be charted out in detail, specifying the end point of each, on a time-bound and ongoing basis. The good news is, several pharma players have already taken several praiseworthy initiatives to combat this crisis.

What pharma companies have done so far:

So far, many pharma companies – both global and local, have taken some commendable steps to address the immediate fallouts of the crisis. These include,

  • Repurposing old medicines – starting from hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir to dexamethasoneand probably beyond. All these drugs are currently being used for the treatment of Covide-19, although conclusive scientific evidences are still awaited – for most of such repurposed drugs.
  • Covid-19 vaccine development started almost immediately, including the homegrown ones.

As the above McKinsey article – ‘COVID-19 and commercial pharma: Navigating an uneven recovery,’ also reconfirms, now most pharma companies are largely focusing on ‘the immediate crisis, including by facilitating access to medicine; supporting HCP, institution, and patient needs in new ways; safeguarding employees; and enabling employees to operate in a new environment.’

The areas where pharma needs to focus more amid immediate crisis:

Another, responsibility of pharma to help tide over the immediate crisis, is to ensure that critical drugs, such as remdesivir, do not go in short supply. And also, avoiding unnecessary hype on a COVID-19 vaccine, which a global CEO termed as a grave disservice‘ to the public.

Nearer home, it also happened – not by any pharma company, but by the country’s premier, state-run medical research organization – the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). The head of the ICMR has announced that India is planning to launch the Covid-19 vaccine by August 15, 2020. This was later retracted under heavy adverse criticism.

Future focus areas need to be in sync with the changing customer behavior:  

While converting several challenges into opportunities in sync with the future requirements of their business operations, drug companies should try to derive the first mover advantages. For this purpose, creative use of almost real-time data will be vital. In this endeavor, I reiterate, one of the top priorities will be to ensure that all touchpoints of the consumer engagement process take into account the changing customer behavior, as captured by data.

To have a productive value delivery system in the new normal, cerebral use of modern technology-based tools and platforms could provide a sharp cutting edge. A similar process may be adopted – even a stage earlier – during the differential value creation process of the business. Nevertheless, the name of the game for the future, would still remain delighting the customers at all the touch points, especially while navigating through strong headwinds.

Another major impact area of pharma business:

The onslaught of Covid-19 pandemic has also resulted in some significant behavioral changes among many health care consumers. These spans across several areas, as I wrote earlier. For example, a number of surveys have revealed that fewer number of non-Covid-19 patients are now visiting doctors’ clinics.

The study quoted by the above McKinsey article highlights some important points in this regard, such as:

  • Among surveyed HCPs, 82 percent report declines in patient volumes, with more than half describing the declines as “significant”.
  • 40 percent of the surveyed patients reported having a doctor cancel an appointment, while an additional 30 percent or so canceled the appointments themselves.
  • Half of surveyed physicians worry that their patients will not be able to receive timely care for new or existing conditions, particularly those that are not COVID-19 related.
  • The overall reduction in volume is widespread, but variation exists. For example, the number of oncology-related visits have declined far less than those related to cardiology or dermatology, perhaps reflecting patient or physician perceptions of urgency.
  • Such data represent a snapshot of a time still early in the trajectory of this crisis, but the HCPs surveyed expect the trends to continue—and to accelerate, potentially.

Another challenge is surfacing, the talent gap to squarely deal with the crisis.

The problem of talent gap, an opportunity? 

While preparing a company to succeed amid new challenges of the new normal, pharma leadership will notice some critical talent gaps in important areas of business. This is indeed a problem or a challenge. But can this also be converted into a new opportunity? … I guess, this is an opportunity of reskilling the company to meet with the future challenges, to move ahead at a faster pace.

In pursuit of this goal, top pharma decision makers may wish to evaluate a well-balanced mix of two approaches:

  • Reskilling competent existing employees for the new world.
  • Hiring new and ready – suitable talents, for immediate results.

Conclusion:

Reuters reported last Friday, with over 1 million Covid-19 cases, ‘India joins U.S., Brazil in the grim Coronavirus club.’ As on July 19, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country reached 10,77,874 with 26,828 deaths. According to the Indian Medical Association (IMA), the spike in the number of Covid-19 cases in India has resulted in the community spread of the Coronavirus disease. It further added: “This is now an exponential growth. Every day the number of cases is increasing by more than around 30,000. This is really a bad situation for the country.” The pace of climb continues going north.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister of India has also urged all concerned to convert Covid-19 related challenges into opportunities. He said, it’s time to initiate reforms in several areas of governance by all the Indian State Governments.

Call it, the Prime Minister’s advice, or a basic management tool – most appropriate to leverage at this hour, the concept is worth considering by pharma players, as well, instead of getting overwhelmed by the crisis. Thus, in my view, it’s about time for pharma companies to identify critical Covid-19 related challenges, both immediate and also of the future – and convert those into opportunities – powered by technology-based cerebral inputs, in the new world order.
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

 

Cacophony Over Coronavirus Lockdown

Posted on by
Reply

Currently, the entire India is trying hard to comply with the 21-day lockdown of the country, as communicated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the nation at 8 pm on March 24, 2020. The very next day,  while addressing his parliamentary constituency of Varanasi via video, he said, “the Mahabharata war was won in 18 days but this war against Coronavirus will take 21 days.”

After this announcement most people’s life, as I myself can feel it, has changed as never before in the past. Unlike the West, in India most of us are too much dependent on domestic help, for routine chores of the family. How difficult these are, at least, I never experienced in the past. Will life, in its entirety, ever be the same gain?

In addition, shortages of most of the essential items were felt everywhere, be these vegetables, grocery items or medicines. Leave aside, the non-essential necessities. But, the bottom-line is, the lockdown has to be followed. There isn’t any other effective alternative to protect ourselves, those working for us to make our lives easier and comfortable, our respective neighborhood and thereby our country. In its midst, a cacophony over this decision is palpable, whatever may be the reason. Many are from highly credible sources.

Exploring various facets of the cacophony, this article will dwell on the question that will arise at the moment of truth – on or after April 15, 2020: What happened after 21-day lockdown of the entire nation. I shall try to focus on this question with the most relevant facts.

The Government’s rationale behind 3 weeks lockdown:

As explained by the Prime Minister and later by several Indian experts, the rationale behind the 21-day lockdown will include primarily the following:

  • The incubation period of Covid19 is around 5 to 14 days. This is also the potential transmission period of the microbe. Effective social distancing of all, may contain or even stop its spread.
  • As all viruses can sustain or exist only by replicating, they are completely dependent on a host cell for survival and can’t reproduce outside a cell. Social distancing may help in this area, as well.
  • Since, the world doesn’t have any vaccine for Covid19, as yet, prevention alternatives are limited.

Cacophony includes: Is complete national lockdown the only answer?

Several highly credible voices are asking: Is the complete lockdown of the nation the only answer? For example, Professor Vikram Patel at Harvard Medical School, wondered about the relevance of national lockdown in his article of March 26, 2020. He wrote, without any widespread community transmission of the disease, the Government might have staved off the worst without a sledge-hammer approach of national lockdown, which no country at India’s stage of the epidemic has imposed.

Elaborating the alternative approach, he suggested to intensify case finding approach through testing and contact tracing, quarantining those who are infected, physical distancing by everyone, graded travel restrictions, preparing the health system to cater to those who may need intensive care and protect health care workers. Even locking-down limited populations with community transmission will be prudent. When properly implemented these steps ‘could have stopped the epidemic in its tracks.’ Citing examples, he wrote, many of our Asian neighbors have done it successfully. Even China, the original epicenter of the epidemic, did not lock down the entire country.

According to other reports, as well, the countries, such as, Singapore, Germany, Turkey, Taiwan and China, have so far handled Covid19 much better than other countries in containing the pandemic. They all ‘refrained from imposing a complete, nationwide curfew-like lockdown.’ China did bring only the Hubei province under complete lockdown, but not the whole country. Scientists expect that Covid19 will exist despite lockdown – till an effective vaccine is developed and made available for all.

Are our doctors adequately protected against Covid19?

Today, even the doctors and other health care workers remain extremely vulnerable to the disease.  Even in AIIMS doctors, reportedly, are using masks and sanitizers made by themselves or buying them. There is already a shortage of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), which doctors are worried about. PPE includes face masks, eye shield, shoe cover, gown and gloves. These can be used for only five or six hours before having to discard them. Even N-95 face masks cannot be used for more than a day or two. And there is an elaborate protocol in place, as well, on how to dispose them. As the report said, doctors fighting Covid19 asked: ‘Not just claps, give us personal protective gear.’

Further, the Huffpost article of March 20, 2020 had emphasized with details: “Staying home can be hard, but it’s not even an option for the health care workers and scientists on the front lines of our global effort to thwart the COVID-19 pandemic. They have to arm themselves to face potentially infected patients and deadly viruses every day.” This gets vindicated by a March 26, 2020 report. It brought to our notice that 900 people have been quarantined after a Delhi Doctor unprotected by PPE tests COVID19 positive.

Another news article reported: “A day after the entire nation flocked to their balconies to clap for the heroes in the medical field, who are working relentlessly to arrest the Coronavirus pandemic, doctors in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh were greeted with humiliation and assault.”

Cacophony expands to religious solutions and explanations:

With the panic on Coronavirus spreading, the cacophony also includes religious solutions to the disease. For example, as reported by Reuters on March 14, 2020, ‘Hindu group offers cow urine in a bid to ward off Coronavirus.’ Another YouTube video also shows: ‘Hindu activists in India drink cow urine to ‘protect’ themselves from Coronavirus.’ According to many there are many takers of such concepts, whether one likes it or not.

Intriguingly, a top film star with 40.7 million twitter followers twitted on March 22, justifying public clapping at 5 pm during ‘Janata curfew’ and attributing a bizarre reason to it: ‘clapping vibrations destroy virus potency,’ which he later deleted against strong adverse comment from the scientific community. However, a number of, apparently responsible people, a few of whom are also known to me, often comment – such things can happen and do happen in a vast country like India. It isn’t a big deal. The cacophony goes on.

Be that as it may, regardless of enthusiastic public clapping and availability of cow-urine based solutions – fighting deadly Covid19 of potentially infected patients – without PPE, I reckon, is quite akin to asking a professional army to fight a tough battle without having adequate battle-gear.

Level of India’s preparedness just before national lockdown:

To ascertain this, leaving aside other critical areas, such as, quarantine and isolation facilities, let me cite a few examples related to PPE and testing kits. A news that came just a day before the national lockdown, reported a Government official commenting on a textile material used for masks and other PPEs: “Currently, demand is for 8 lakh bodysuits and N95 masks of the material. Orders for these have been placed.”

However, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), reportedly, banned the export of textile material for masks and coveralls, under the Foreign Trade (Development) and Regulation Act, just recently. Interestingly, as Reuters reported on March 28, 2020, ‘India needs at least 38 million masks and 6.2 million pieces of personal protective equipment as it confronts the spread of Coronavirus.”

Further, when testing is the only acid test to diagnose Covide19 infection – as on March 19, 2020, India, reportedly, had tested 14,175 people in 72 state-run labs, which is regarded as one of the lowest testing rates in the world. This is because: India has limited testing facilities. Thus, only those people who have been in touch with an infected person or those who have travelled to high-risk countries, or health workers managing patients with severe respiratory disease and developing Covid-19 symptoms are eligible for testing. Whereas, according to W.H.O, “All countries should be able to test all suspected cases, they cannot fight this pandemic blindfolded”.

However, after declaration of the national lockdown, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) on March 25, 2020, reportedly, invited quotations from manufacturers for supply of 1 million kits to test patients suspected of suffering from COVID-19. After getting a glimpse of the cacophony over the national lockdown for Coronavirus supported by a few examples, let us see what steps the W.H.O advises for all countries to follow in this pandemic. 

The steps W.H.O recommends following:

On March 16, 2020, the Director General (DG) of the World Health Organization (W.H.O) said: “We have a simple message to all countries – test, test, test.” On that day, observing that more cases and deaths have been reported in the rest of the world than in China, as compared to the past week, the DG elaborated the following:

  • Although, there has been a rapid escalation in social distancing measures, like closing schools and cancelling sporting events and other gatherings, but, not an urgent enough escalation in testing, isolation and contact tracing – which is the backbone of the response.
  • Social distancing measures can help reduce transmission and enable health systems to cope with. Handwashing and coughing into your elbow can also reduce the risk for yourself and others. But on their own, they are not enough to extinguish this pandemic. It’s the combination that makes the difference. Thus, all countries must take a comprehensive approach.
  • The most effective way to prevent infections and save lives is breaking the chains of transmission. And to do that, you must test and isolate. You cannot fight a fire blindfolded. And we cannot stop this pandemic if we don’t know who is infected. We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test. Test every suspected case.
  • If they test positive, isolate them and find out who they have been in close contact with up to 2 days before they developed symptoms, and test those people too. Every day, more tests are being produced to meet the global demand.

Curiously, even three months after the massive outbreak of the Coronavirus epidemic in China, India doesn’t seem to have procured enough PPEs for the doctors and testing kits to diagnose the disease. Besides, lack of advance preparation to create adequate quarantine and isolation facilities in the country make the situation even more complex to effectively deal with.

Other challenges and frugal options:

With eight doctors per 10,000 people in India, compared to 41 in Italy and 71 in Korea and one state-run hospital for more than 55,000 people, the general population has developed a much avoidable habit, over a period of time. It is quite likely, even in the event of getting flu-like symptoms, the majority may not go to doctors. Instead, may try home remedies or go to a retail chemist for drugs. Some may even resort to self-medication, until a full-blown disease surfaces, complicating the situation further.

Hence, only two options are left. One – for each individual to take care of personal hygiene and physical distancing, and second – for the Government to announce a national lockdown, through its second sudden and late evening order, effective midnight of the same day. This took almost everybody by surprise and possibly creating a widespread panic – not so much about the disease – at least initially, but more for regular availability of essential daily necessities – food and for many people – medicines, besides means for daily living of scores of families. This was further fueled by the gross lack of empathy by the law enforcers.

Conclusion:

As reported, if Covid19 continues to spread at its current pace, India could face between around 100,000 and 1.3 million confirmed cases of the disease caused by the new Coronavirus by mid-May, according to a team of scientists based mainly in the United States. It’s important to note that with just 6.8 tests per million, one of the lowest rates in the world, India has been criticized for not testing enough.

Moreover, besides panic and economic fallout of the disease, the long-term impact that Covid19 may have on the mental health of different people, for various reasons, will also need to be ascertained. As Professor Vikram Patel of Harvard Medical School said in his above article, ‘the deliverable is not how many people clanged pots and pans’ or how many obediently followed the Prime Minister’s advice of staying indoors. “The deliverable is how many people got tested, how many doctors have protective gear, how many ventilators the government managed to manufacture or buy overnight.” Another deliverable is isolation centers, temporary hospitals in indoor stadia and quarantine facilities that are fit for human beings, he added.

On November 24, 2020 – when 21-day national lockdown commenced, the total number of confirmed cases in the country were reported as 564. Just at the beginning of the 5th day of the lockdown on March 29, 2020, as I write this piece, as many as 1032 people have been tested positive for Covid19 with 28 deaths. Against the above backdrop, some critical points that surfaced while exploring the cacophony over the national lockdown, can possibly be wished away only at one’s own peril.

Nevertheless, under the prevailing circumstances, there was no other alternative for the Government, but to announce immediate national lockdown, which all should abide by, religiously. However, whether Coronavirus will be won in India with 21-day of national lockdown – just three days more of what the Mahabharata war took, as the Prime Minister expects, will start revealing from April 15, 20120 – as the moment of truth arrives.

By: Tapan J. Ray  

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

 

Is India A Success Story With Biosimilar Drugs?

Posted on by
Reply

How Indian generic companies are expanding, if not shifting their business focus on biosimilar and complex generic drugs, may be a current trend of general discourse – but the initiative is not a current one. This journey commenced decades ago with an eye on the future. In those days, Indian players were already dominating the global markets of small molecule generic drugs. Interestingly, it started much before the big global players decided to enter into this segment – especially post patent expiry of large molecule blockbuster drugs.

This strategy not just exhibits a sound business rationale, but also benefits patients with affordable access to biosimilar versions of high cost biologic drugs. In this article, I shall dwell on this subject, basically to understand whether India is a success story with large molecule biosimilar drugs, both in terms of drug development, and also in its commercial performance.

India’s journey began with the dawn of the new millennium:

About two decades back from now, some Indian pharma companies decided to step into an uncharted frontier of large molecule biosimilar drugs. According to the ‘Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI)’, in 2000 – the first biosimilar drug, duly approved by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), was launched in the country.  This was hepatitis B vaccine from Wockhardt – Biovac-B.

I hasten to add, in those years, there were no specific regulatory pathways for approval of large molecule biosimilar drugs in India. Thus, the same marketing approval guidelines as applicable to small molecule generic drugs, used to be followed by the DCGI for this purpose. Specific guidelines for biosimilar drugs were implemented on September 15, 2012, which was subsequently updated in August 2016. To date, around 70 large molecule biosimilar drugs, including biopharmaceuticals, have been introduced in India, as the GaBI list indicates.

It is equally important to note that well before any other countries, domestic pharma companies launched in India, AbbVie’s blockbuster Humira (adalimumab) and Roche’s breast cancer treatment Herceptin (trastuzumab). In this context, it is worth mentioning that US-FDA approved the first biosimilar product, Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), in March 2015.

Will India be a key driver for global biosimilar market growth?

According to the Grand View Research Report of July 2018, increasing focus on biosimilar product development in countries, such as India, China and South Korea, is a major growth driver of the global biosimilar market. As this report indicates, the global biosimilars market size was valued at USD 4.36 billion in 2016, which is expected to record a CAGR of 34.2 percent during 2018-25 period.

Europe has held the largest revenue market share due to a well-defined regulatory framework for biosimilars was in place there for quite some time, and was followed by Asia Pacific (AP), in 2016. Growing demand for less expensive therapeutic products and high prevalence of chronic diseases in the AP region are expected to contribute to the regional market growth – the report highlighted.

Further, the Report on ‘Country-wise biosimilar pipelines number in development worldwide 2017’ of Statista also indicated that as of October 2017, India has a pipeline of 257 biosimilar drugs, against 269 of China, 187 of the United States, 109 of South Korea, 97 of Russia and 57 of Switzerland. However, post 2009 – after biosimilar regulatory pathway was established in the United States, the country has gained significant momentum in this segment, presenting new opportunities and also some challenges to biosimilar players across the world.

Is Indian biosimilar market growth enough now?

An important point to ponder at this stage: Is Indian biosimilar market growth good enough as of now, as compared to its expected potential? Against the backdrop of India’s global success with generic drugs – right from the initial stages, the current biosimilar market growth is certainly not what it ought to be. Let me illustrate this point by drawing an example from theAssociated Chambers of Commerce of India’s October 2016 White Paper.

According to the Paper, biosimilars were worth USD 2.2 billion out of the USD 32 billion of the Indian pharmaceutical market, in 2016, and is expected to reach USD 40 billion by 2030. This represents a CAGR of 30 percent. A range of biologic patent expiry in the next few years could add further fuel to this growth.

A similar scenario prevails in the global market, as well. According to Energias Market Research report of August 2018, ‘the global biosimilar market is expected to grow significantly from USD 3,748 million in 2017 to USD 34,865 million in 2024, at a CAGR of 32.6 percent from 2018 to 2024.’

Many other reports also forecast that the future of biosimilar drugs would be dramatically different. For example, the ‘World Preview 2017, Outlook to 2022 Report’ of Evaluate Pharma estimated that the entry of biosimilars would erode the total sales of biologics by as much as 54 percent through 2022, in the global markets. It further elaborated that biologic sales may stand to lose up to USD 194 billion as several top blockbuster biologic drugs will go off-patent during this period.

Although, current growth rate of the biosimilar market isn’t at par with expectations, there is a reasonable possibility of its zooming north, both in India and the overseas markets, in the near future. However, I would put a few riders for this to happen, some of which are as follows:

Some uncertainties still exist:

I shall not discuss here the basic barriers that restrict entry of too many players in this segment, unlike small molecule generics. Some of which are – requisite scientific and regulatory expertise, alongside wherewithal to create a world class manufacturing facility a complex nature. Keeping those aside, there are some different types of uncertainties, which need to be successfully navigated to succeed with biosimilars. To get an idea of such unpredictability, let me cite a couple of examples, as hereunder:

1. Unforeseen patent challenges, manufacturing and regulatory issues:

  • Wherewithal to effectively navigate through any unexpected labyrinth of intricate patent challenges, which are very expensive and time-consuming. It may crop up even during the final stages of development, till drug marketing, especially in potentially high profit developed markets, like for biosimilars of Humira (AbbVie) in the United States or for Roche’s Herceptin and Avastin in India.
  • It is expensive, time consuming and risk-intensive to correct even a minor modification or unforeseen variation in the highly controlled manufacturing environment to maintain quality across the system, to ensure high product safety. For example, what happened to Biocon and Mylan with Herceptin Biosimilar. As the production volume goes up, the financial risk becomes greater.
  • There are reports that innovator companies may make access to supplies of reference products difficult, which are so vital for ‘comparability testing and clinical trials.’  This could delay the entire process of development of biosimilar drugs, inviting a cost and time-overrun.
  • Current regulatory requirements in various countries may not be exactly the same, involving significant additional expenditure for overseas market access.

2. User-perception of biosimilar drugs:

Studies on perception of biosimilar vis-à-vis originator’s biologic drugs have brought out that many prescribing physicians still believe that there can be differences between originator’s biologic medicine and their biosimilar equivalents. With drug safety being the major concern of patients, who trust their physician’s decision to start on or switch to a biosimilar, this dilemma gets often translated into doctors’ preferring the originator’s product to its biosimilar version. One such study was published in the September 2017 issue of Bio Drugs. Thus, the evolution of the uptake of biosimilars could also depend mainly on similar perception of physicians.

What happens if this perception continues?

Whereas, the W.H.O and drug regulators in different countries are quite clear about comparable safety and efficacy between the originator’s product and its biosimilar variety, some innovator companies’ position on biosimilar drug definition, could help creating a perception that both are not being quite the same, both in efficacy and safety.

To illustrate this point, let me reproduce below how a top ranked global pharma company - Amgen, defines biosimilar drugs, starting with a perspective of biologic medicines:

“Biologic medicines have led to significant advances in the treatment of patients with serious illnesses.These medicines are large, complex molecules that are difficult to manufacture because they are made in living cells grown in a laboratory. It is impossible for a different manufacturer to make an exact replica of a biologic medicine due to several factors, including the inherent complexity of biologics and the proprietary details of the manufacturing process for the original biologic medicine, often referred to as the reference product.It is because of this that copies of biological products are referred to as “biosimilars”; they are highly SIMILAR but not identical to the biologic upon which they are based.”

Could dissemination of the above concept through a mammoth sales and marketing machine to the target audience, lead to creating a better perception that the originators’ biologic drugs are better than their biosimilar genre?

Other realities:

Despite the availability of a wide array of biosimilar drugs, the prescription pattern of these molecules is still very modest, even in India. One of its reasons, as many believe, these are still not affordable to many, due to high out-of-pocket drug expenses in India.

Thus, where other biosimilars of the same category already exist, competitive domestic pricing would play a critical role for faster market penetration, as happens with small molecule generic drugs.

Another strategic approach to address cost aspect of the issue, is to explore possibilities of sharing the high cost and risks associated with biosimilar drug development, through collaborative arrangements with global drug companies. One good Indian example in this area is Biocon’s collaboration with Mylan.

Conclusion:

The question on whether Indian biosimilar market growth is good enough, assumes greater importance, specifically against the backdrop of domestic players’ engagement in this segment, since around last two decades. Apart from the important perception issue with biosimilars , these medicines are still not affordable to many in India, owing to high ‘out of pocket’ drug expenditure. Just focusing on the price difference between original biologic drugs and their biosimilars, it is unlikely to get this issue resolved. There should be enough competition even within biosimilars to drive down the price, as happened earlier with small molecule generics.

That said, with around 100 private biopharmaceutical companies associated with development, manufacturing and marketing of biosimilar drugs in India, the segment certainly offers a good opportunity for future growth. Over 70 such drugs, most of which are biosimilar versions of blockbuster biologic, are already in the market. Today, Indian companies are stepping out of the shores of India, expecting to make their presence felt in the global biosimilar markets, as they did with generic drugs.

The future projections of biosimilar drugs, both in the domestic and global markets are indeed very bullish. But to reap a rich harvest from expected future opportunities, Indian players would still require some more grounds to cover. Overall, in terms of biosimilar drug development since 2000, India indeed stands out as a success story, but a spectacular commercial success with biosimilars is yet to eventuate.

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.

Sharper Focus On Vaccine: A Huge Scope To Reduce Disease Burden In India

Posted on by
Reply

Several international research studies have conclusively established that the aggressive application of nationally recommended prevention activities could significantly reduce the burden of disease in several areas. Immunization or vaccination program is one such critical areas.

Several ailments, which used to be so common all over the world, can now be effectively prevented through vaccination. The most common and serious vaccine-preventable diseases are: diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae serotype b (Hib), hepatitis B and C, measles, meningitis, mumps, pertussis, poliomyelitis, rubella, tetanus, tuberculosis, rotavirus, pneumococcal disease and yellow fever.  The list of the World Health Organization (WHO) indicates that vaccines are now available for 25 different diseases.

Thus, vaccination can save millions of lives and morbidity that such diseases still cause to a very large number of global population. Thanks to vaccines, two most scary diseases – small pox (totally) and polio (almost totally), have been eliminated from the world.

No doubt, why vaccination was voted as one of the four most important developments in medicine of the past 150 years, alongside sanitation, antibiotics and anesthesia by readers of the ‘British Medical Journal (BMJ)’ in 2007. It has been decisively proved that vaccines are one of the most successful and cost-effective public health interventions, which help preventing over 3 million deaths every year, throughout the world, topping the list in terms of lives saved.

In tandem, concerted efforts need to be made by both the industry and the Governments to improve affordable access to all these vaccines for a larger section of the population, especially in the developing world.

A crying need still exists:

Nevertheless, there is still a crying need for greater encouragement, more resource deployment and sharper focus towards newer vaccine development for many more dreaded and difficult diseases. One such area is malaria vaccine.

Some areas of new vaccine development:

Following is an example of some newer therapy areas where novel vaccines are now reportedly under development:

  • Malaria vaccine
  • Cancer vaccine
  • AIDS
  • Alzheimer’s disease

Malaria vaccine:

A July 24, 2015 article of the BBC News states, the ‘European Medicines Agency (EMA)’ gave a positive scientific opinion after assessing the safety and effectiveness of the first anti-malarial vaccine of the world – Mosquirix, developed by the British pharma major GlaxoSmithKline.

The vaccine reportedly targets the ‘P. falciparum’, the most prevalent malaria parasite and the deadlier of the two parasites that transmit the disease. At present, in the absence of any licensed vaccines for malaria, the main preventive measures to contain the spread of this parasitic disease are spraying of insecticides, use of other mosquito repellent and mosquito nets.

However, it was observed during its clinical trial that he best protection with this vaccine was achieved among children aged five to 17 months, receiving three doses of the vaccine a month apart, plus a booster dose at 20 months. In this group, cases of severe malaria were cut by a third over a four-year period, the report said.

Some concern was also expressed, as the effectiveness of the vaccine waned over time, making the booster shot essential, without which the vaccine did not cut the rate of severe malaria over the trial period. Moreover, the vaccine did not prove very effective in protecting young babies from severe malaria.

This caused a dilemma for the ‘World Health Organization (WHO)’. On the one hand, the stark reality of malaria killing around 584,000 people a year worldwide, and on the other, lack of conclusiveness in the overall results for this vaccine. Therefore, the world health body decided at that time to further consider about it, soon after the experts’ deliberation on whether to recommend it for children, among whom trials have yielded mixed results, gets completed.

The good news is, on November 18, 2016, Newsweek reported the announcement of the W.H.O, that Mosquirix will be piloted across sub-Saharan Africa in 2018, after a funding approval of US$ 15 million for this purpose.

Cancer vaccines:

According to the National Cancer Institute, which is a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States, cancer vaccines belong to a class of substances known as biological response modifiers. Biological response modifiers work by stimulating or restoring the immune system’s ability to fight infections and disease. There are two broad types of cancer vaccines:

  • Preventive (or prophylactic) vaccines, which are intended to prevent cancer from developing in healthy people.

-       Persistent infections with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types can cause cervical cancer, anal cancer, oropharyngeal cancer, and vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers. Three vaccines are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent HPV infection: Gardasil®, Gardasil 9®, and Cervarix®.

-       Chronic Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection can lead to liver cancer. The FDA has approved multiple vaccines that protect against HBV infection, such as, Engerix-B and Recombivax HB, which protect against HBV infection only.

  • Treatment (or therapeutic) vaccines, which are intended to treat an existing cancer by strengthening the body’s natural immune response against the cancer. Treatment vaccines are a form of immunotherapy.

-       In April 2010, the USFDA approved the first cancer treatment vaccine. This vaccine, sipuleucel-T (Provenge®), is approved for use in some men with metastatic prostate cancer. It is designed to stimulate an immune response to prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP), an antigen that is found on most prostate cancer cells.

Another type of cancer vaccine is currently being developed, known as the Universal Cancer Vaccine.

  • Universal Cancer Vaccine,  June 1, 2016 issue of ‘The Independent’ reported that scientists of Johannes Gutenberg University in Germany have taken a “very positive step” towards creating a universal vaccine against cancer that makes the body’s immune system attack tumors as if they were a virus. The researchers had taken pieces of cancer’s genetic RNA code, put them into tiny nanoparticles of fat and then injected the mixture into the bloodstreams of three patients in the advanced stages of the disease. The patients’ immune systems responded by producing “killer” T-cells designed to attack cancer.

The vaccine was found to be effective in fighting “aggressively growing” tumors in mice. At the same time, such vaccines are fast and inexpensive to produce, and virtually any tumor antigen (a protein attacked by the immune system) can be encoded by RNA, the report said.

The analysts forecast the global cancer vaccines market to grow at a CAGR of 27.24 percent over the period 2014-2019.

HIV/AIDS Vaccine:

The 21st International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2016) held in Durban, South Africa from July 18 to 22, 2016, revealed that a vaccine against HIV will be trialed in South Africa later in 2016, after meeting the criteria needed to prove it, could help fight the epidemic in Africa. A small trial, known as HVTN100, took place in South Africa in 2015 to test the safety and strength of immunity the vaccine could provide, ahead of any large-scale testing in affected populations.

This development reportedly has its origin in a large landmark 2009 trial of RV 144 vaccine in Thailand, demonstrating the proof of concept that a preventive vaccine with a risk reduction of 31 percent could effectively work.  The trial was supported by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS. The clinical trial participants who received Vacc-4x, reportedly “experienced a 70 percent viral load decrease relative to their level before starting Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART), compared with no notable reduction among placebo recipients.”

Alzheimer’s disease vaccine:

A vaccine for Alzheimer’s disease could be trialed in human within the next 3-5 years, after researchers from the United States and Australia have uncovered a formulation that they say successfully targets brain proteins, which play a role in the development and progression of the disease, states a July 18, 2016 report published in the ‘Medical News Today (MNT)’.

This vaccine generates antibodies that target beta-amyloid and tau proteins in the brain – both of which are considered hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease. In their study, the researchers found that the formulation was effective and well-tolerated in Alzheimer’s mouse models, with no reports of adverse reactions. The vaccine was also able to target the proteins in brain tissue from patients with Alzheimer’s.

Study co-author Prof. Michael Agadjanyan, Institute for Molecular Medicine, California said: “This study suggests that we can immunize patients at the early stages of AD (Alzheimer’s disease), or even healthy people at risk for AD, using our anti-amyloid-beta vaccine, and, if the disease progresses, then vaccinate with another anti-tau vaccine to increase effectiveness.”

If the vaccine continues to show success in these preclinical trials, the researchers envisage that they could be testing the vaccine in individuals at high risk for Alzheimer’s, or those in the early stages of the disease, within the next 3-5 years.

More details on vaccine development:

A 2012 report on vaccines, published by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) give details of vaccines under development.

Vaccine requirements of the developing world: 

Developing countries of the world are now demanding more of those vaccines, which no longer feature in the immunization schedules of the developed nations. Thus, to supply these vaccines at low cost will be a challenge, especially for the global vaccine manufacturers, unless the low margins get well compensated by high institutional demand.

Issues and challenges:

To produce a safe, effective and marketable vaccine, besides R&D costs, it takes reportedly around 12 to 15 years of painstaking research and development process.

Moreover, one will need to realize that the actual cost of vaccines will always go much beyond their R&D expenses. This is mainly because of dedicated and highly specialized manufacturing facilities required for mass-scale production of vaccines, and then for the distribution of the same mostly using cold-chains.

Around 60 percent of the production costs of vaccines are fixed in nature (National Health Policy Forum. 25. January 2006:14). Thus, such products will need to have a decent market size to be profitable. Unlike many other medications for chronic ailments, which need to be taken for a long duration, vaccines are administered for a limited number of times, restricting their business potential.

Thus, the long lead time required for the ‘mind to market’ process for vaccine development together with high cost involved in their clinical trials/marketing approval process, special bulk/institutional purchase price and limited demand through retail outlets, restrict the research and development initiatives for vaccines, unlike many other pharmaceutical products.

Besides, even the newer vaccines will mostly be required for the diseases of the poor, like Malaria, Tuberculosis, HIV and ‘Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs)’ in the developing countries, which may not necessarily guarantee a decent return on investments for vaccines, unlike many other newer drugs. Thus, the key issue for developing a right type of newer vaccine will continue to be a matter of pure economics.

India needs a vibrant vaccine business sector:

For a greater focus on all important disease prevention initiatives, there is a need to build a vibrant vaccine business sector in India. To achieve this objective the government should create an enabling ecosystem for the vaccine manufacturers and the academics to work in unison. At the same time, the state funded vaccine R&D centers should be encouraged to concentrate more on the relevant vaccine development projects, ensuring a decent return on their investments for long-term economic sustainability.

Often, these stakeholders find it difficult to deploy sufficient fund to take their vaccine projects successfully through various stages of clinical development to obtain marketing approval from the drug regulator, while earning a decent return on investments. This critical issue needs to be urgently addressed by the Government to make the disease prevention initiatives in the country sustainable.

A possible threat to overcome: 

As per reports, most Indian vaccine manufacturers get a major chunk of their sales revenue from exports to UN agencies, charitable organizations like, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, and other country-specific immunization programs.

The report predicts, the virtual monopoly that Indian vaccine manufacturers have enjoyed in these areas, will now be challenged by China, as for the first time in 2012, the Chinese national regulatory authority received ‘pre-qualification’ certification of WHO that allows it to approve locally manufactured vaccines to compete for UN tenders.

Conclusion:

Keeping this in perspective, vaccine related pragmatic policy measures need to be taken in the country for effective disease prevention, covering all recommended age groups, of course, with an equal focus on their effective implementation, without delay. Consequently, this will not only help reduce the disease burden in the country, but also provide the much-awaited growth momentum to the vaccine market in India.

Alongside, increasing number of modern imported vaccines coming in, would help India address one of its key healthcare concerns effectively, and in a holistic way.

It is about time to aggressively garner adequate resources to develop more modern vaccines in the country. In tandem, a rejuvenated thrust to effectively promote and implement vaccine awareness campaigns, would help immensely in the nation’s endeavor for disease prevention with vaccines, that offers a huge scope to reduce disease burden, for a healthier 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.

Wide Gap Between Health Care Needs, And Delivery: Is The Bridge Still Too Far?

Posted on by
Reply

“Health inequities which abound in India must be corrected through investments in a robust primary health care system,” said Professor K Srinath Reddy, chairman, Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), not too long ago.

The equity gap between health care needs and delivery for the general population of India continues to widen.

As the next Union Budget of India is coming nearer, the question in this regard that comes at the top of mind is:

Would adequate resources be allocated by the Union Finance Minister to bridge this gap effectively now or the elusive bridge continue to remain too Far?

The growing challenges: 

Up until now, despite making some progress in improving access to health care, India continues to face the growing challenges of:

  • Gross inequalities in this area by socioeconomic status, geography and gender. 
  • High out-of-pocket health expenditure pushes its ever increasing financial burden overwhelming on the private households, that accounts for over three-quarters of health spending in India.
  • Exorbitant out-of-pocket health spending is also responsible for mercilessly driving into poverty more than half of Indian households, or around 39 million Indians, each year.

The paper titled, “Health care and equity in India”, published by ‘The Lancet’ on February 05, 2011, well deliberated on this issue. 

The paper identifies 3 key challenges to equity in health care:

  • In service delivery
  • In financing
  • In financial risk protection

In the article titled, “My Expectations From The Union Budget (2016-17)”, written in this Blog on December 07, 2015, I also suggested that adequate resource deployment be made by the Government now in power, in all these three areas, while presenting the forthcoming Union Budget on February 28, 2016.

The root cause of inequity in healthcare:

I reckon, there are, at least, the following three key reasons that can be attributed to this failure, on the part of various Governments in power, till today:

  • Inability, primarily on the part of the central government, to effectively integrate healthcare with socioeconomic, social hygiene, education, nutrition and sanitation related issues of the nation. 
  • Health being a state subject, not much of coordinated and robust planning has so far been taken place in this area, between the Central and the State Governments, to effectively address the pressing health care related growing inequity across the country, in general.
  • Budgetary allocation and other fiscal measures towards health care, both by the central and most of the state governments, are grossly inadequate. 

As I said before, in another article published by this blog titled, “With Highest Billionaire Wealth Concentration, India Tops Malnutrition Chart in South Asia” on January 26, 2015, it is a well accepted fact that reduction of social inequalities ultimately helps to effectively resolve many important health care issues.

Otherwise, only a much smaller population of the country having adequate access to knowledge, social and monetary power, will continue to have the necessary resources to address their health care needs, appropriately.

UNICEF highlights stark inequalities in India:

According to UNICEF, every year, 1 million children below the age of five years die, due to malnutrition related causes in India. This number is worrisome as it is far higher than the emergency threshold, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of the severity of malnutrition.

Highlighting stark inequality in India, the report says, “The net worth of a household that is among the top 10 per cent can support its consumption for more than 23 years, while the net worth of a household in the bottom 10 percent can support its consumption for less than three months.”

Are so called “patient centric approaches” real?

Patients are also bearing a different kind of brunt altogether, from several other corners, on their health related issues.

Today, most of the important stakeholders of the health care industry, in general, seem to be using various facades of ‘patient centric approaches’, just for petty commercial gains, or for gaining some key strategic commercial advantages.

Such entities could well be pharmaceutical industry, doctors, hospitals, diagnostic centers, politicians or any other stakeholders.

It is unfortunate that most of them, at various different times, either pontificate about following ‘patient centric approaches’ or use the patients cleverly just to achieve their respective commercial or political goals, solely driven by vested interests. While on the ground, growing inequity in health care keeps marching north.

A recent paper of NITI Ayog:

In a discussion paper of July 18, 2015 titled, “Health System in India: Bridging the Gap Between Current Performance and Potential”, The National Institution for Transforming India Aayog (NITI Aayog), the policy think tank of the new Indian Government, has also accepted the following 3 critical realities, currently prevailing in the health care environment of India: 

  • India’s progress in health outcomes has been slower in comparison to other countries with comparable incomes and at similar stages of development. 
  • Impressive gains in per capita income should match with an increase in life expectancy or health status. 
  • Out of pocket expenditure in India is high (70 percent of total health expenditure). This is catastrophic for the poor and pushes an estimated 37 million into poverty every year. 

The NITI Ayog paper also emphasized, although health is a subject allotted to the State List, under the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, the Central Government is jointly responsible for items in the Concurrent List. 

Conclusion:

Currently, India is the global numero uno in the GDP growth rate. Thus, there cannot probably be any better time for the nation to leapfrog in the health care space, with a quantum increase in public financial commitments, to radically revamp the fragile public health system in the country. 

I repeat, incremental progress in the public health care system is just not enough for the country, extensive application of cutting edge Information Technology (IT) effectively, dovetailing with the creation of modern brick and mortar public health care infrastructure, top class human resource namely, doctors, nurses and related skill development process, on an ongoing basis.                                                                             

The Government should also ensure that the domestic health care industry comes forward to shoulder higher responsibility to enable the country in offering greater equity in health care, in tandem with the Union Ministry of Health and the State Governments.

This path, in my view, would help building a more equitable health system with a strong foundation of public health for more than 1.2 billion Indians. In that process the fast widening gap in equity, between health care needs and availability, could be bridged much sooner, and in a sustainable way.

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.

In VUCA World: Changing Dynamics of Prescription Generation Process

Posted on by
Reply

The acronym VUCA is often being used to emphasize upon the Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity in various situations. The term has been derived from military vocabulary and is being used since 1990s in the business management parlance. VUCA is also considered as a practical code for awareness and readiness.

I find all the elements of VUCA playing an active role in the prescription demand generation space too, as it is based on various assumptions of what will work and what won’t in a fast changing pharmaceuticals business environment. 

The interplay:

Primary interplay in the sustainable prescription demand generation process of today’s digitally empowered VUCA environment, I reckon, could be as follows:

  • Volatility: Fast changing dynamics of medical communication with interfaces made of emerging modern technological tools carrying high risks of rapid obsolescence.
  • Uncertainty: Lack of predictability in assessing outcomes of increasingly expensive product detailing inputs, coupled with too many surprise elements popping-up in the environment almost from nowhere and more frequently.
  • Complexity: Multi-factorial Doctor-Medical Representative (MR) interactions, which get even more complicated with increasing time constraints for effective product detailing to take place.
  • Ambiguity: Difficult to fathom changing needs of the doctors/payors, leading to increasing cause-and-effect confusion by the pharma marketing strategy planners.

Keeping these in view, today I shall deliberate on the ‘Criticality of Optimal Mix of Human and State of Art Digital Interfaces’ for sustainable prescription demand generation in a VUCA environment.

The key influencer – a new study:

A research study published in June 2013, in the ‘American Heart Journal (AHJ)’ establishes that the interaction between physicians and MRs, though essential for  improvement of medical care, is indeed complex. This is mainly because of the apprehension that conflict of interests may affect the doctors’ prescription decision-making process. 

However, the fact comes out, the doctors tend to prescribe more of expensive medical products after interacting with MRs from the concerned manufacturing companies, which, in turn, raises the treatment costs for patients.

Study established MRs influence prescription decision:

This particular AHJ study compared the use of Bare-Metal Stents, Drug-Eluting Stents (DES), and Balloon Catheters according to company presence in the hospital. It concluded that MR presence was associated with increased use of the concerned company’s stents during percutaneous coronary interventions. The effect was more pronounced on the use of DES, and resulted in higher procedural cost of US$ 250 per patient.

In this particular study, it was found that DESs were used in about 56 percent of the cases, when the MRs concerned were at the hospital, against 51 percent when they weren’t there.

Interestingly on such interactions between the MRs and the drug/devices industry two opposite viewpoints emerge.

‘MR-Doctor interaction important‘ – Industry:

Quoting the Associate General Counsel and Director of Legal and Medical Affairs at the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a medical technology trade association, Reuters reported, “interactions between sales representatives and doctors benefit patients and are supported by professional medical organizations.”

‘MR interaction should not influence prescription decision’ – Doctors:

In the same report, the study’s lead author was quoted saying, “We need to evaluate carefully any interactions with medical industry to ensure that we minimize an effect on our decision making process.”

The bottom-line, though the debate continues:

This debate will keep continuing even in the years ahead. Be that as it may, the key fact that emerges out of the above study is, MRs do play a critical role in the prescription decision-making process of the doctors, especially for expensive medical products . Consequently, the pharmaceutical companies will prefer maintaining such ‘influencing’ roles of MRs to boost revenues of their respective brands.

This process assumes even greater importance in a VUCA world, as situation specific more frequent human interventions, strongly backed by state of art technological supports, would need to be effectively deployed for generation of sustainable prescription demand to excel in business.

The X-Factor:

However, one of the most challenging issues even in a VUCA situation is that pharma players continue and will continue to target the same sets of prolific prescribers for any given class of products in pursuit of success. As a result, time being so limited, very often even after waiting for hours MRs may not be able to meet the key prescribers.

Moreover, as and when the meeting takes place, it may well get restricted to just a very brief discussion due to the X Factor – paucity of the doctors’ time. Thus, delivering an effective product message in such a short time becomes increasingly challenging. Further, the difficulty in arresting un-interrupted attention of the busy practitioners due to X-Factor when they are with patients, compounds the problem.

Pivotal role of state of art technological tools:

The effectiveness of connection between respective brands of different drug makers and the doctors can be greatly facilitated with the application of state of art technology and modern internet based tools in varying proportions, as the sales and marketing communication strategy would dictate.

This area is emerging as a crafty game, which calls for wide-scale application of analytics.

Traditional strategies not enough:

In a VUCA world, while traditional face-to-face product detailing to doctors may continue to be the primary means for prescription demand generation, experimentation with a good number of new Internet based initiatives has already been started, as I discussed in my earlier article.

Hence, the concepts of digital marketing and e-detailing are gaining ground fast. Such initiatives of augmented digital communication of key marketing messages to doctors, would also help driving the key customers’ traffic to respective product Websites of the concerned companies for more detailed and convincing medical treatment solutions, as and when required by the busy doctors.

Types of digital interventions:

These digital interventions may include:

  • Highly targeted brand specific e-mailing responding to pre-identified needs of individual doctors
  • Sample ordering as per requirements of doctors
  • Live online product presentations at a time convenient to individual doctors
  • Quick and need-based problem solution centric online chats 24×7
  • Strategic usage of social media, backed by a robust pre-decided key output measuring matrix

However, the mix of each of these digital applications will need to be carefully worked out as robust supporting measures to key prescription demand generation activities, spearheaded by the MRs. 

MRs to remain as ‘Spearheads’:

In my view, MRs would still remain the frontline force in the emerging world (dis)order, may be lesser in number, for sustainable prescription demand generation process. Therefore, there is an urgent need to take them on board upfront and train suitably to make the modern digital interfaces successful as powerful differentiating support tools.

Technology based training on digital marketing and e-detailing as empowering initiatives, demonstrating tangible benefits that such high tech-interventions can offer in the overall sales performance of MRs, would play a critical role. Such efforts would, in turn, immensely help making digital augmentation strategies for pharma detailing successful, in the long run.

MR involvement is critical:

In my view, to be successful in a VUCA environment with all these endeavors, however tech-intensives those may be, there will be a critical need to make the MRs understand and learn the process. In tandem, it is equally important to actively engage them in the execution of the integrated medical communication strategy of the concerned companies.

Keeping this perspective in mind, I guess, it will be quite apt to quote Ben Franklyn, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a leading author, printer, political theorist, politician, scientist, musician, inventor and economist, all in one, who once wrote:

“Tell me and I forget, 

 Teach me and I remember,

 Involve me and I learn”

Thus, MRs would continue to have a critical role to play in the demand generation process for prescription medicines. However, they must be properly trained to be able to provide the types of knowledge and information that the doctors may not have ready access from elsewhere.

The entire process would, at the same time, require massive technological interventions, not incremental in nature but radical in scope and dimensions, and at a much wider scale than what we have been attempting today.

Challenges in India:

The very concept of VUCA in the changing dynamics of sustainable prescription demand generation, brings to the fore the issue of quality of MRs in India.

Currently there is a wide, both inter and intra company, variation in the educational qualifications, relevant product and disease area knowledge, professional conduct and ethical standards between MRs in our country.

Employability of MR in a VUCA world:

Just when we talk about augmented digital interfaces in medical communications, there exists a huge challenge in the country to strike a right balance between the level/quality of sales pitch generated by the MRs for a brand.

At times, many of them may not be properly armed with requisite scientific knowledge, and the basic norms of professional conduct/ ethical standards, while rendering their services.

They may not also be able to handle the sophisticated technological tools with quick application of minds. Hence, the subject of employability of MR in a VUCA world needs to be addressed afresh in India.

‘One size fits all’ strategies:

To make it happen, the pharmaceutical players would require to jettison, ‘one size fits all’ types of strategies in a VUCA world.

In tandem, pharma marketing strategists will need to be intimately conversant with a relatively difficult process of cerebral gymnastics to help formulating individual key prescriber-centric communication strategies, where MRs can play a key role with optimal digital interventions.

This is possible, if supported by the respective employers creating an environment of empowerment, backed by requisite product training, technological tools, modern behavioral inputs and above all by making investments to create of a large sustainable emotional capital for longer term  business excellence.

Conclusion:

All the elements of VUCA would keep playing very critical roles in sustainable prescription demand generation process in the years to come, more than ever before.

There is a critical need to understand the interplay between each of these dynamics on an ongoing basis to make strategic modifications quickly, whenever required. This is important, as the prowess to introduce right changes at right times will differentiate men from the boys in this ultimate ball game of the pharma industry. 

To succeed in a VUCA environment, pharmaceutical companies may choose to predominantly focus on harnessing their technological expertise. 

However, to face the waves of virtually unpredictable continuous change, only technology based efforts, I reckon, are less likely to fructify. Unless, these high- tech interventions are spearheaded by time-specific fast enough and intelligent skilled human responses in form of MRs. 

Having said that, it would be foolhardy to even think of completely taming VUCA with whatever human and technological wherewithal that any pharma player may be able to garner to achieve its goals. It is, in fact, a matter of relativity in managing VUCA in a given situation at a given time. 

Thus I believe, there is, on the contrary, a need to leverage a VUCA environment, for creation of an ‘Optimal Mix of Human and State of Art Digital Interfaces’ in the product detailing process with a high sense of urgency. This would be critical to gain cutting edge advantages for generation of increased prescription demand in a sustainable way.

For the pharmaceutical marketing strategists, this new ball game would obviously not be a piece of cake either, as the key success factors would involve the right mindset of first unlearning and then relearning the process on an ongoing basis, virtually in all time to come

With this perspective, I conclude by quoting the famous American writer and futurist Alvin Toffler, who once said,

“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

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.

 

New Drug Price Control Order of India: Is it Directionally Right Improving Access to Medicines?

Posted on by
Reply

The last Drug Policy of India was announced in 2002, which was subsequently challenged by a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Karnataka High Court on the ground of being inflationary in nature. The Honorable Court by its order dated November 12, 2002 issued a stay on the implementation of the Policy.

This judgment was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay vide its order dated March 10, 2003 and ordered as follows:

“We suspend the operation of the order to the extent it directs that the Policy dated February 15, 2002 shall not be implemented. However we direct that the petitioner shall consider and formulate appropriate criteria for ensuring essential and lifesaving drugs not to fall out of the price control and further directed to review drugs, which are essential and lifesaving in nature till 2nd May, 2003”.

As a result DPCO 1995 continued to remain in operation, pending formulation of a new drug policy as directed by the honorable court.

In the recent years, following a series of protracted judicial and executive activities, the New National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) came into effect on December 7, 2012. In the new policy the span of price control was changed to all drugs falling under the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and the price control methodology was modified from the cost-based to market based one. Accordingly the new Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) was notified on May 15, 2013.

However, the matter is still subjudice, as the new policy would require to pass the judicial scrutiny.

In this article, I shall try to explore whether the new DPCO 2013 is directionally right in improving access to medicines for a vast majority of population in the country .

An overview:

As stated above, the new DPCO 2013 has just been notified after an agonizing wait of about 18 years, bringing all 652 formulations under 27 therapeutic segments of the National List of Essential Medicines under price control.

As prescribed in the Drug Policy 2012, in the new DPCO the cost based pricing mechanism has been replaced with a market-based one, where simple average price of all brands with a market share above 1% in their respective segments will be considered.

Only decrease in price and no immediate increase:

Companies selling medicines above the new Ceiling Prices (CP), as will be notified by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) soon, would have to slash prices to conform to the new CP level. However, those selling these scheduled drugs below the ceiling price will not be allowed to raise prices, resulting in significant price reduction of most essential drugs with price increases in none. Prices of all these formulations will be frozen for a year. Although a silver lining is that manufacturers will be permitted an annual increase in the CPs in line with the Wholesale Price Index (WPI).

The span:

The span of DPCO 2013 will cover approximately 18% of US$ 13.6 billion domestic pharmaceutical market. However, the total coverage will increase to around 30%, for a year, after coupling it with existing price controlled medicines, as these will continue with the current prices for a year.

No change in retail margin:

DPCO 2013 continues with the provision of DPCO 1995, fixing margin for the Retailers at 16% of Ceiling Price, excluding Taxes.

Benefit to consumers:

Indian consumers will undoubtedly be the biggest beneficiaries of the new DPCO, as ceiling prices will now be based on roughly 91% of the pharmaceutical market by value, resulting upto 20% price reduction in 60% of the NLEM medicines. The prices of some drugs will fall by even upto 70%.

Overall impact:

In the short-term, Indian pharma market may shrink by around 2.3 per cent on implementation of the new policy, according to an analysis by market research firm AIOCD AWACS. The impact could be more pronounced for multinationals, given their premium pricing strategy for key brands. For the patients, anti-infective, cardio-vascular, gastro-intestinal, dermatology and painkillers would witness relatively steeper drop in prices.

However, despite initial adverse impact, higher volume growth over the next few years may help the pharmaceutical companies to recover and pick-up the growth momentum.

More transparent and less discretionary:

Moreover, the industry reportedly feels that the shift in the methodology of price control from virtually opaque and highly discretionary cost based system to relatively more transparent market based one, is directionally right and more prudent. They point out, even WHO in its feedback to the Department of Pharmaceuticals welcomed the intent to move away from cost-based pricing as it has been abandoned elsewhere.

The drafting of DPCO 2013 also appears to have reduced the discretionary criteria for the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to bare minimum.

Check on any essential drug going out of market:

DPCO 2013 has tried to prevent any possibility of an essential drug going out of the market without the knowledge of NPPA by incorporating the following provision in the order:

“Any manufacturer of scheduled formulation, intending to discontinue any scheduled formulation from the market shall issue a public notice and also intimate the Government in Form-IV of schedule-II of this order in this regard at least six month prior to the intended date of discontinuation and the Government may, in public interest, direct the manufacturer of the scheduled formulation to continue with required level of production or import for a period not exceeding one year, from the intended date of such discontinuation within a period of sixty days of receipt of such intimation.” 

Patented Products:

DPCO 2013 does not include pricing of patented products, as the Department of pharmaceuticals (DoP) has already circulated the report of an internal committee, specially constituted to address this issue, for stakeholders’ comments.

Encourages innovation:

The new DPCO encourages innovation and pharmaceutical R&D offering significant pricing freedom. It states all locally developed new drugs, new drug delivery systems and new manufacturing processes will remain exempted from any price control for a five-year period.

Implementation:

Interestingly, the changes in prices will be effective after 45 days (15 days in the earlier DPCO 1995) from the date of  respective CP notifications. This increased number of days is expected to allow the trade to liquidate stocks with existing prices.

However, the industry feels that its hundred percent implementation at the retail level, even within extended 45 days, for previously sold residual stocks lying in remote locations, could pose a practical problem.

The Government reportedly answers to this apprehension by saying, the provisions and wordings for implementation of new CPs in DPCO 2013 are exactly the same as DPCO 1995. Only change is that the time limit for implementation has been extended from 15 days to 45 days in favor of the industry. Hence, those who implemented DPCO 1995, on the contrary, should find effecting DPCO 2013 changes in the CPs much easier.

Opposite views:

  • Reduction in drug prices with market-based pricing methodology is significantly less than the cost based ones. Hence, consumers will be much less benefitted with the new system.
  • A large section in the industry reportedly does not co-operate with the NPPA in providing details, as required by them, to make the cost based system more transparent.
  • Serious apprehensions have been expressed about the quality of outsourced market data, which will form the basis of CP calculations.

Key challenges:

I reckon, there will be some key challenges in the implementation of DPCO 2013. These are as follows:

  • Accuracy of the outsourced market data based on which Ceiling Prices will be calculated by the NPPA.
  • In case of any gross mistakes, the disputes may get dragged into protracted litigation.
  • Outsourced data will provide details only of around 480 out of 652 NLEM formulations. How will the data for remaining products be obtained and with what level of accuracy?
  • The final verdict of the Supreme Court related to the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the NPPP 2012, based on which DPCO 2013 has been worked out, is yet to come. Any unfavorable decision of the Honorable Court on the subject may push the NPPP  2012 and DPCO 2013 back to square one.

Conclusion:

Thus, DPCO 2013 should achieve the objectives of the Government in ensuring essential medicines are available to those who need them most by managing prices in the retail market and balancing industry growth on a longer term perspective. Interestingly, it also encourages indigenous innovation and R&D.

Thus, DPCO 2013, at long last, seems to be a well balanced one.

That said, making drug prices affordable to majority of population in the country is one of most important variables to improve access to medicines. This is an universally accepted fact today, though not an end by itself.

It is worth noting, price control of medicines since the last four decades have certainly been able to make the drug prices in India one of the lowest in the world coupled with intense cut-throat market competition. Unfortunately, this solitary measure is not good enough to improve desirable access to modern medicines for the common man due to various other critical reasons, which we hardly discuss and deliberate upon with as much passion and gusto as price control.

Therefore, industry questions, why despite so many DPCOs and rigorous price control over the last four decades, 47% of hospitalization in rural area and 31% of the same in urban areas are still financed by private loans and selling of assets by individuals?

Others reply with equal zest by saying, the situation could have been even worse without price control of medicines.

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.

 

 

 

Does the Landmark Glivec Judgment Discourage Innovation in India?

Posted on by
Reply

No, I do not think so. The 112 pages well articulated judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered on April 1, 2013, does not even remotely discourage innovation in India, including much talked about ‘incremental innovation’. This landmark judgment reconfirms the rules of the game for pharmaceutical innovation, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005.

When one reads the judgment, point 191 in page number 95 very clearly states as follows:

“191. We have held that the subject product, the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, does not qualify the test of Section 3(d) of the Act but that is not to say that Section 3(d) bars patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances. It will be a grave mistake to read this judgment to mean that section 3(d) was amended with the intent to undo the fundamental change brought in the patent regime by deletion of section 5 from the Parent Act. That is not said in this judgment.”

Thus all ‘incremental innovations’, which some people always paint with a general broad brush of ‘evergreening’, should no longer be a taboo in India. The judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and arguments of Novartis.

To me, the judgment does also not signal that no more Glivec like case will come to the Supreme Court in future. It vindicated inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act 2005.

It is interesting to note that honorable Supreme Court itself used the terminology of ‘incremental innovation’ for such cases.

That said, I find it extremely complex to imagine what would have happened, if the judgment had gone the opposite way.

A critical point to ponder:

The judgment will also mean that all those products, having valid product patents abroad, if fail to meet the requirements of Section 3(d), will not be patentable in India, enabling introduction of their generic equivalents much sooner in the country and at the same time causing a nightmarish situation for their innovators.

However, this again, in no way, is an outcome of this judgement or a new development, as stated above. It is just vindication of the intent behind inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act, when it was enacted by the Parliament of India in 2005.

Patentability of ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

Patentability criteria for any ‘incremental innovations’ has been defined in the Section 3(d) of the Indian statute as follows:

“The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

Supreme Court interpretation of the term “Efficacy” in Section 3(d): 

The Honorable Supreme Court in page 90 of its above order under point 180 stated that in case of medicines, efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”, which must be judged strictly and narrowly. The interpretation goes as follows:

180. “What is “efficacy”? Efficacy means ‘the ability to produce a desired or intended result’. Hence, the test of efficacy in the context of section 3(d) would be different, depending upon the result the product under consideration is desired or intended to produce. In other words, the test of efficacy would depend upon the function, utility or the purpose of the product under consideration. Therefore, in the case of a medicine that claims to cure a disease, the test of efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”.

The Honorable Court under the same point 180 further elaborated:

“With regard to the genesis of section 3(d), and more particularly the circumstances in which section 3(d) was amended to make it even more constrictive than before, we have no doubt that the “therapeutic efficacy” of a medicine must be judged strictly and narrowly…Further, the explanation requires the derivative to ‘differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy’. What is evident, therefore, is that not all advantageous or beneficial properties are relevant, but only such properties that directly relate to efficacy, which in case of medicine, as seen above, is its therapeutic efficacy.” 

Based on this interpretation of Section 3(d), the Honorable Supreme Court of India ordered that Glivec does not fulfill the required criteria of the statute.

The rationale behind Section 3(d):

A report on ‘Patentability of the incremental innovation’ indicates that the policy makers keeping the following points in mind formulated the Indian Patents Act 2005:

  • The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industry, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.
  • A stringent patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs to a large number of populations in India.
  • Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will be able to demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

IPA challenges: 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by IPO fall under Section 3(d):

A study by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Possible implications to IPA challenge:

If the argument, as expressed above in the IPA study, is true by any stretch of imagination, in that case, there exists a theoretical possibility of at least 86 already granted product patents to get revoked. This will invite again another nightmarish situation for innovators.

Examples of revocation of patents in India:

On November 26, 2012, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Gefitinib on the ground that the molecule lacked invention.

The report also states that AstraZeneca suffered its first setback on Gefitinib in June 2006, when the Indian generic company Natco Pharma opposed the initial patent application filed by the global major in a pre-grant opposition. Later on, another local company, GM Pharma, joined Natco in November 2006.

After accepting the pre-grant opposition by the two Indian companies, the Indian Patent office (IPO) in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Prior to this, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the large Indian pharma player – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a “novel” product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’, as required by Section 3(d) of Patents Act of India 2005.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys.

Similarly the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib) granted by IPO in 2007, was revoked by the IPAB in October, 2012 after a post grant challenge by Cipla and Natco Pharma on the ground that the claimed ‘invention’ does not involve inventive steps.

Patent challenges under section 3(d) may come up even more frequently in future:

Some observers in this field have expressed, although ‘public health interest’ is the primary objective for having Section 3(d) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, many generic companies, both local and global, have already started exploiting this provision as a part of their ‘business strategy’ to improve business performance in India, especially when an  injunction is usually not being granted by the honorable Courts for such cases on public health interest ground.

Thus, as stated above, there is likely to be many more cases like, Glivec coming before the Supreme Court in the years ahead.

Another related development of the last week:

It has been reported that American pharma major MSD has last week filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against Indian pharma major – Glenmark for alleged patent violation of its leading anti-diabetic drugs Januvia and Janumet. In this case also no interim injunction has reportedly been granted to MSD by the Honorable Delhi High Court.

Glenmark has stated through a media report, “It is a responsible company and has launched the products after due diligence and research.” The company has also announced that their version of the molecule named Zita and Zita Met will be available to patients at a 20 percent discount to MSD’s price.

Hence, once again, the Indian court to decide, the balance of justice would now point to which direction.

Government has no role to play – patent challenge is a legal process across the world:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue, ‘Patent Challenge’ is a legal process all over the world, the Government has hardly got any role to play in settling such disputes. The law should be allowed to take its own course for all disputes related to the Patents Act of the country, including Section 3(d).

They also opine that India must be allowed to follow the law of justice without casting aspersions on the knowledge and biases of the Indian judiciary for vested interests.

That said, there is certainly an urgent need to add speed to this legal process by setting up ‘Fast-track Courts’ for resolving all Intellectual Property (IP) related disputes in a time bound manner.

Arguments against Section 3(d):

Opposition to the Section 3(d) counter-argues by saying, this is a critical period for India to help fostering an appropriate ecosystem for innovation in the country. This group emphasizes, “Providing the right incentives for incremental pharmaceutical innovation can move India forward on this path and encourage the development of drug products that meet the needs of Indian patients. Reforming Section 3(d) to encourage and protect incremental pharmaceutical innovation would create such incentives and help India become a true powerhouse of innovation.”

Another group says that the main reason in favor of Section 3(d) being the provision will prevent grant of frivolous patents, the ultimate fallout of which will result in limited access to these drugs due to high price, is rather irrelevant today. This, they point out, is mainly because the Government is now actively mulling a structured mechanism of price negotiation for all patented drugs to improve their access to patients in India.

Importance of ‘Incremental Innovation’ in India:

Incremental innovations are indeed very important for the country and have been benefiting the patients immensely over decades, across the world.

A report titled, “The Value Of Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation” highlighted as follows:

  • As per the National Knowledge Commission, while 37.3% of Indian companies introduced breakthrough innovations in recent years, no fewer than 76.4% introduced incremental innovations.
  • 60 percent of the drugs on the World health Organization’s essential Drug list reflect incremental improvements over older drugs.

The report indicates some of the benefits of ‘Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation’ for India as follows:

  1. Improved quality of drug products, including products that are better suited to India’s climate.
  2. Development of treatments for diseases that are prevalent in India for which new drug discovery is currently limited or otherwise inadequate.
  3. Increasing likelihood that for every therapeutic class, there is a treatment to which an Indian patient will respond.
  4. Development of the R&D capacity and expertise
 of Indian pharmaceutical companies.
  5. Reduction of healthcare and other social costs in India through improved drug quality and selection.
  6. Increased access to medicine as a result of price competition.

The study concluded by saying that Section 3(d) potentially precludes the patenting of hundreds of incremental pharmaceutical innovations that Indian companies are attempting to patent and commercialize outside India.

There are umpteen numbers of examples that can ably demonstrate, ‘incremental innovation’ of the pharmaceutical innovators help significantly improving the efficacy and safety of existing drugs. All such innovations should in no way be considered “frivolous” as they have very substantial and positive impact in improving conditions of the ailing patients.

Be that as it may, the Supreme Court judgment has categorically mentioned that all ‘Incremental innovations’ should conform to the requirement of the Section 3(d) of the statute.

“West should learn from India’s high patent standards”

An article appeared just yesterday written by a well-regarded Indian economist recommended, “West should learn from India’s high patent standards”. It observed that    over-liberal patent system of the West is now broken and it should learn from India’s much tougher patent system.

Patent monopolies needs to be given only for genuine innovations, as defined in the Indian Patents Act 2005, where the public benefits clearly exceed the monopoly cost.

The author concluded by saying, “This means setting a high bar for innovation. High standards are desirable for patents, as for everything else.”

View of the Glivec inventor: 

In another interview titled, “If you erode patents, where will innovations come from?” Dr Brian Druker, whose work resulted in the development of Glivec, re-emphasizing the need for R&D by the pharmaceutical industry, commented,  “I’m going to stay away from the legal judgment … but as a physician, I do recognize that the advances will come from new products, not modifications.”

Are discordant voices out of step with time?

The interpretation of the Section 3(d) of the statute by the Honorable Supreme Court of India is the last word for all, despite a few voices of discord from within and mostly outside India. These voices, many would reckon, could well be out of step with time, especially in relatively fast growing, modern, independent, thinking and assertive young  India.

Conclusion:

In my view, nothing materially has changed on the ground before and after the Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case so far as the Indian Patents Act is concerned and also in its interpretation.

While encouraging all types of innovations, including incremental ones and protecting them with an effective IPR regime are very important for any country. No nation can afford to just wish away various socioeconomic expectations, demands and requirements not just of the poor, but also of the growing middle class intelligentsia, as gradually getting unfolded in many parts of the globe.

Available indicators do point out that the civil society would continue to expect in return, just, fair, responsible and reasonably affordable prices for the innovative medicines, based on the overall socioeconomic status of the local population.

This critical balancing factor is essential not only for the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, but also to alleviate sufferings of the ailing population of the country, effectively.

For arguments sake, in an ideal scenario, if the Central and State Governments in India decide to buy such drugs to supply to all patients free of cost, just like any ‘welfare state’, will even the Government be able to afford these prices and fund such schemes in India?

It is, therefore, now widely expected that innovator pharmaceutical companies, which play a pivotal role in keeping population of any nation healthy and disease free to the extent possible, should also proactively find out ways to help resolving this critical issue in India, working closely with the Government of 1.2 billion Indians, including other concerned stakeholders.

In that context, the landmark Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case has vindicated the need of striking a right balance between encouraging and protecting innovation, including incremental ones and the public health interest of 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.