India’s China Dependence On API: A Time To Think ‘Outside The Box’

Posted on September 21, 2015 by Tapan Ray

The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) has declared the Year 2015 as the Year of ‘Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)’. Following it up on February 25, 2015, the Union Minister of Chemicals & Fertilizers Ananth Kumar assured the Pharmaceutical Industry that appropriate decisions will be taken soon to make India self-sufficient in Bulk Drugs (APIs).

The Minister also confirmed having received the recommendations of high level ‘Katoch Committee’ that was set up by the Government on October 8, 2013 to look into various issues concerning the API. This would be implemented expeditiously after taking the Union Cabinet’s approval, as the Bulk Drugs constitute the backbone of the Pharma Industry and the sector needs to be incentivized to take on the challenges from cheaper imports.

According to a recent report, in June 2015, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizer has floated a draft cabinet note with the recommendations of the ‘Katoch Committee’. Quoting a senior official of the DoP the report mentioned that the cabinet note also proposes formation of a separate bulk drug authority, which will look into the implementation of such schemes.

The DoP Secretary Dr. V.K. Subburaj has lately reiterated that there is an urgent need to bring about self-sufficiency in the field of API.

In this article, I shall restrict my discussion only to those APIs, which are required for manufacturing the essential medicines in India.

Significant dependence on China:

For a large number of essential medicines, India heavily depends on API imports from China.

On December 12, 2014, the Minister of Commerce and Industry informed the Indian Parliament that in case of 12 essential drugs namely: Paracetamol, Metformin, Ranitidine, Amoxicillin, Ciprofloxacin, Cefixime, Acetyl salicylic acid, Ascorbic acid, Ofloxacin, Ibuprofen, Metronidazole and Ampicillin, there is significant dependence on imports. Approximately 80-90 percent of these imports are from China. He mentioned that the decision to import, and the country of origin for such imports, are based on economic considerations.

The Minister also informed the Parliament that a Committee of Secretaries, under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Department of Health Research was set up on October 8, 2013 to study and identify the APIs of critical importance and to work out a package of interventions/concessions required to build domestic production capabilities, and examine the cost implication.

Interestingly, rapid and consistent increase in API import from China has been reported as follows:

Year	API import from China (Rs. Crore)
April-September in 2014-15	6,521
2013-14	11,865
2012-13	11,000
2011-12	8,798

Ironically, though India manufactures over 30 percent of global generic drug consumption, more than 80 percent of APIs required to produce these medicines come from China.

In ‘RIS Policy Brief’ February 2015, Dr. Y. K. Hamied, Chairman of CIPLA was also quoted sounding an alarm bell, as follows:

“If China decided one bright day to stop export to India, we would be finished. The pharma industry is zero, both domestic and export, and we are looking at that danger objectively”.

Even, the National Security Adviser of India has reportedly expressed similar concern and urged to create adequate infrastructural facilities to make India self-reliant, at least, on the essential medicines, without further delay.

Another recent industry report:

A July 2014 report of ASSOCHAM, titled “Pharmaceuticals Sector in India: Challenges Faced & Suggested Way Forward” also underscores, since a very significant volume of India’s drug imports are concentrated in China, this lack of self–sufficiency in APIs poses significant risk to the drug security of the country. Any deterioration in relationships with China can potentially cause severe domestic shortages in the supply of essential drugs.

Additionally, China could easily increase prices of some of these drugs where it enjoys virtual monopoly, noted the ASSOCHAM study.

The report further points out that this risk extends beyond the domestic market to export markets, as Chinese pharmaceutical companies, that have traditionally focused on large-volume intermediates and unregulated markets are beginning to “forward integrate”, with increasing focus on exports to regulated markets.

This emerging trend is supported by the recent improvements in local Chinese cGMP and product quality standards, increase in the number of manufacturing sites approved by the USFDA, and current filings of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) by the local companies of China. Given their overall dominance in intermediates and API manufacturing, Chinese players can pose a serious competitive threat to their Indian counterparts, much beyond the APIs for essential drugs, the above study noted.

‘Katoch Committee’ recommendations:

The recommendations of the ‘Katoch Committee’, as revealed by the the Minister to the law makers of India, appears to me a long list of ‘Things to Do’ without addressing the intricacies involved with the complicated core issue.

On May 8, 2015, the Minister of State of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers informed the Rajya Sabha of the Indian Parliament that in its report on API manufacturing in India, the Katoch Committee has inter-alia recommended:

Establishment of Mega Parks for APIs with common facilities such as common Effluent Treatment Plants (ETPs), Testing facilities, Captive Power Plants/assured power supply by state systems, Common Utilities/Services such as storage, testing laboratories, IPR management, designing, etc., maintained by a separate Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV)

A scheme for extending financial assistance to states to acquire land and also for setting up common facilities

Revival of public sector units for starting the manufacturing of selected and very essential critical drugs (e.g., penicillins, paracetamol etc.)

Financial investment from the Government for development of clusters which may be in the form of a professionally managed dedicated equity fund for the promotion of manufacture of APIs

Extending fiscal benefits to creation of the entire community cluster infrastructure and individual unit infrastructure

Extension of fiscal and financial benefits to promote the bulk drugs sector

Promoting stronger industry-academia interaction

Synergizing R&D promotion efforts by various government agencies

Incentivizing scientists

Duty exemptions for capital goods imports

On the face of it, the recommendations appear to be good. However, are these not too simplistic, based on just what is visible on the surface, without going into the complexity of the issue?

I shall now briefly dwell upon some of these areas, from my own perspective of the core issue and the key challenges involved.

Major challenges:

Profitability is undoubtedly a major reason why the indigenous production of important APIs, required to formulate widely used essential medicines, has paved the way for low priced Chinese equivalents. This has been acknowledged by all concerned and has happened more with APIs involving fermentation technology.

Besides other factors, API profitability and commensurate return on capital employed (RoCE) are primarily driven by the product design, process technology in use together with its associated requirements, cost of capital goods and utilities, working capital requirement, quality of sustainable demand generated and achievement of ‘economies of scale’. The last one is so important, as it signifies that proportionate saving in costs is gained by an increased level of production. Simply speaking, the greater the yield and the quantity of a API produced, the lower will be the per-unit fixed cost, as these costs are shared over a larger number of goods.

Additionally, ‘any time cGMP-audit preparedness’ for the big customers, make the running of the operation really unenviable.

Highly competitive generic API market, with larger number of manufacturers, is driven by its customers’ requirement of the lowest possibly cost for any quality product. With this ascending trend, global API manufacturing business has started slowly shifting from the long time much preferred big-name players of the western world, to the upcoming ones in India and China. Unfortunately, now even India has started importing APIs in significant volume from China. APIs of Chinese origin for Indian essential drugs are not just cheaper, but are also available almost on the shelf.

This fiercely competitive scenario has compelled a sizeable number of bulk drug manufacturers to shut shops in India. Many other ‘API only’ Indian manufacturers are now venturing into production and marketing of higher margin formulations, moving up the pharma value chain.

Some API producers have also entered into contract manufacturing of formulations in large quantities. A few others have already entered or are trying to enter into their API based formulation manufacturing agreements with large pharma MNCs for the regulated markets, and by filing DMFs and ANDAs.

To sum up, the challenges before the API sector, in my view, are predominantly as follows:

Intense price competition

Requirement of attaining ‘economies of scale’ for business sustainability, at times leading to overcapacity

Low profitability and RoCE

‘Any time technical audit’ preparedness for high-end customers

Capital intensive business

High inventory carrying cost both for intermediates and finished goods

Long credit demand

High working capital requirement

Undifferentiated capabilities

Product obsolescence with changing disease profile or newer off-patent molecules coming in the same therapy area

Need to think ‘outside the box’:

I do not have access to the complete report of the Katoch Committee, just yet. However, going by what the Government has reported to the Indian Parliament on this subject, it appears that overall recommendations made by the Committee of Secretaries on the subject, are steps in the right direction.

If all the suggestions are implemented, the cost of manufacturing infrastructure and utilities are expected to come down. However, I am not quite sure, whether just these steps would be good enough making India self-reliant on APIs required to manufacture the essential medicines.

Nevertheless, to achieve the desired goal, some critical questions would still need to be answered with high clarity, such as:

Despite lowering cost of manufacturing, would it still be enough to neutralize Chinese competition?

Stakes being very high for China, if it feels threatened of loosing the booming API generic business from India, won’t the Chinese Government not find out ways and means to retain its ground? If so, are there proactive measures ready to negate the possible counter-move by China?

Would this cost reduction help most of the Indian API manufacturers achieving ‘economies of scale’ for reasonable sustainability, with cost competitiveness in the business?

Most of the essential drugs are low cost products. Thus, what happens, if Indian API manufacturers in clusters, thus created, decide to produce and sell only higher margin APIs and intermediates, including for the global innovator companies, without getting engaged in APIs for essential medicines?

Since this crucial problem is multi-faceted one, the recommendations should address all possible ‘what if’ scenarios, thinking ‘outside the box’. Mere creation of infrastructural and financial support base, may not help addressing all the key challenges, effectively. After all, it’s an open market competition, and Chinese players are tough nuts to crack, as they have been demonstrating time and again in various fields of activities.

Conclusion:

Having achieved dominance in the Indian generic API market, Chinese bulk drug manufacturers are now concentrating on continuous improvement in process technology to drive down the cost further. According to available reports, they are achieving it too, with great success, focusing on multiple critical areas starting from product and reactor design to much wider use of catalysis.

To effectively compete with Chinese APIs, especially for essential drugs, Indian API manufacturers in the clusters would require to start, at least, from where China is today in this area, and take off from there. This is possible, though quite challenging too.

Moreover, manufacturing overcapacity for generic APIs is already existing in China. If it gets further aggravated with overcapacity created in India for the same molecule, the overall scenario may lead to a desperate sales and marketing situation of survival for the fittest.

No doubt, over-dependence on Chinese APIs for the essential medicines may pose a threat to the drug security of India, as many have already opined, including the National Security Advisor of the country. Nonetheless, the situation could possibly turn even worse, without imposition of artificial tariff barrier, if India decides to rely on a simplistic solution for a multi-factorial complex problem.

‘Katoch Committee’ report is a good initiative for the domestic API business, in general. Nonetheless, to significantly reduce over-dependence on imported Chinese bulk drugs and be self reliant on high quality and competitively priced APIs for essential medicines, India would need to think ‘outside the box’, undoubtedly.

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.

‘Patent Linkage’: Can The Core Issue Be Resolved?

Posted on February 23, 2015 by Tapan Ray

On February 10, 2015, a leading business daily of India, quoted the Commerce Secretary of India – Rajeev Kher, saying, “India needs to relook at its Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy with a view to bring in a differentiated regime for sectors that have a greater manufacturing potential.”

In the present Government regime, it appears virtually impossible to make such important comments out of turn by a senior bureaucrat without the blessings of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). I hold this view, despite the fact that the Commerce Secretary reportedly added that his suggestion is “a highly controversial subject and if I discussed this in the government, I think I will be shot down in the very first instance”.

Be that as it may, as I indicated in my just previous article, several recent media reports also speculated, around the same time, that the Government of India is probably considering putting in place ‘Patent Linkages’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act 2005 of the country.

As I had indicated in my blog post of January 19, 2015 titled, “New ”National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”, these speculations originated mainly from the following events:

During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the United States in September 2014, a high-level Indo-US working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries.

Almost immediately after the Prime Minister’s return to India, in October 2014, the Government formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’ to draft the ‘National IPR Policy’ and suggest ways and legal means to handle undue pressure exerted by other countries in IPR related areas. The notification mandated the ‘Think Tank’ to examine the current issues raised by the industry associations, including those that have appeared in the media and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce and Industry as appropriate.

Speculations arising out of these two events were almost simultaneously fuelled by the following developments:

A. US Trade Representative Mike Froman’s reported affirmation of the following to the US lawmakers during a Congressional hearing held on January 27, 2015:

- “We have been concerned about the deterioration of the innovation environment in India, and we have engaged with the new government since they came into office in May of last year about our concerns.”

- “We held the first Trade Policy Forum in four years in November. I just returned from India yesterday as a matter of fact … and in all of these areas, we have laid out a work program with the government of India to address these and other outstanding issues.”

- “We are in the process of providing comments on that draft policy proposal on IPR, and we are committed to continuing to engage with them to underscore areas of work that needs to be done in copyright, in trade secrets as well as in the area of patents.”

- “We’ve got a good dialogue going now with the new government on this issue, and we’re committed to working to achieve concrete progress in this area.”

B. Union Minister of Commerce and Industry of India specifically seeking American Government’s inputs in the finalization process of the new National IPR policy of the country.

Keeping these in perspective, let me try to explore whether or not it would be fair for India deciding to put in place ‘Patent Linkages’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act of the country.

In this article, I shall deliberate on my personal take on ‘Patent Linkage’ and in the next week’s article on ‘Data Exclusivity’.

Definition:

Patent linkage is broadly defined as the practice of linking market approval for generic medicines to the patent status of the originator reference product.

A brief background in India:

The ‘Patent Linkage’ saga has an interesting background in India. I would now try to capture the essence of it, as stated below.

About 7 years ago, probably prompted by intense lobbying by the Pharma MNCs, the then Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly informed the media, on April 28, 2008, the following:

“We (DCGI) are going to seek the list of the drugs from innovator companies that have received patent in India. Once we have the database of the drugs which have been granted patent, we will not give any marketing approval to their generic versions…The DCGI has issued internal guidelines to this effect and it will also co-ordinate with the health ministry to give a formal shape to the initiative. The government expects to finalize a proper system within the next 2-3 months.”

It was also reported in the same article that Patent attorney Pratibha Singh, who along with Arun Jaitley was representing Cipla in the Tarceva case against Roche said:

“The DCGI does not have the authority to reject marketing application of a generic drug on the grounds that an innovator company has received the patent for the same drug in the country.”

Immediately following the above reported announcement of the DCGI on ‘Patent Linkage’, another media report flashed that the domestic drug companies are strongly objecting to the DCGI’s plans to link marketing approval for a drug with its patent status in the country, citing requirement of additional resources for the same and concern that it could block access to affordable medicines by suppressing competitive forces.

Despite this objection of the domestic Indian pharma companies, a senior official in DCGI office reportedly reaffirmed the DCGI’s intent of establishing the linkage so that no slips happen in the future. The same media report quoted that Government official as saying:

“We will have to amend the rules in the Act. We have to put it before the Drugs Consultative Committee first and this could be around the end of this year.”

Current ‘administrative’ status in India:

Currently in India, there is no provision for ‘Patent Linkage’, either in the Statute or through any administrative measure.

After those potboiler reports, it is quite challenging to fathom, what exactly had happened for the reverse swing thereafter at the DCGI’s office. The bottom line is, the above initiative of the then DCGI for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India ultimately got killed in the corridors of power. Hence, there does not exist any direct or indirect measure for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India, as I write this article.

Current legal status:

In 2008 Bayer Corporation had filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court against Union of India, the DCGI and Cipla seeking an order that the DCGI should consider the patent status of its drug, Sorefenib tosylate, and refuse marketing approval to any generic versions of this drug.

It is worth mentioning, Sorefenib tosylate is used to treat renal cancer and was being reportedly sold in India by Bayer at Rs. 2,85,000 for 120 tablets for a monthly course of treatment.

The appeal in the Delhi High Court was filed against a judgment delivered by Justice Ravindra Bhat on 18 August 2009, rejecting Bayer’s attempt to introduce the patent linkage system in India through a court direction. But, in a landmark judgment on February 9 2010, a division bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Bayer Corporation in this regard. Thereafter, Bayer Corporation moved Supreme Court against this Delhi High Court order.

However, in December 01, 2010, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by Bayer Corporation against the February 2010 decision of the Delhi High Court. The Apex Court of India ordered, since the Drugs Act does not confer power upon the DCGI to make rules regarding the ‘Patent Linkage’, any such attempt would constitute substantive ultra vires of the delegated power.

RTI helps to get the marketing approval status of drugs:

Currently relevant information on marketing approval application status of generic drugs are not available at the CDSCO website. Hence, some innovator companies have resorted to using Right To Information (RTI) Act to ferret out such details from the DCGI office and initiate appropriate legal measures for patent infringement, well before the generic version of the original drug comes to the market.

A middle ground:

In view of the above order of the Supreme Court, the government of India may try to seek a middle ground without amending any provision of the Patents Act, in any way.

Even avoiding the word ‘Patent Linkage’, the Ministry of Health can possibly help the pharma MNCs achieving similar goal, through administrative measures. It can instruct the DCGI to upload the ‘Marketing Approval’ applications status for various generic products in the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) website. If for any patented drugs, applications for marketing approval of generic equivalents are made, the available information would enable the patent holder taking appropriate legal recourse for patent infringement, much before the drug is marketed at a heavily discounted price.

It is quite possible that the interested constituents had put requests for such administrative measures even before the earlier Government. As no tangible action has been taken even thereafter, the erstwhile Government probably felt, if introduced, such a system would adversely impact quick and early availability of the generic drugs in the market place.

Conclusion:

I wrote an article on similar issue in my blog post of August 24, 2009 titled, “Recent Bayer Case Judgment: Patent Linkage: Encouraging Innovation in India.”

Taking all these into consideration, in my view, it is quite possible for the present Indian Government to resolve the core issue related to ‘Patent Linkage’ through administrative measure, without amending any Acts or breaching any case laws of the land.

In the present IPR imbroglio, the above administrative measure could well be a win-win solution for all.

It would help facilitating early judicial intervention by the patent holder in case of prima facie patent infringements, enabling the Government to send a clear reiteration that the patents granted to pharmaceutical products will be appropriately enforced and protected in the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Awaiting ‘The Moment of Truth’ on ‘Working of Patents’ in India

Posted on November 3, 2014 by Tapan Ray

By a letter dated October 21, 2014 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of India, the domestic pharma major Cipla has sought for the revocation of five patents of Novartis AG’s respiratory drug Indacaterol (Onbrez) in India, under Sections 66 and 92 of the Indian Patents Act.

Launch of a generic equivalent:

Cipla also announced its decision to launch shortly a generic equivalent of Indacaterol with the brand name Unibrez Rotacaps to satisfy the unfulfilled requirement of the new drug in India.

The Maximum Retail Price for a strip of 10 capsules of Unibrez Rotacaps 150 mcg would cost Rs.130.00 to patients against the equivalent strength of Onbrez of Novartis costing Rs.677.00, which is 420 percent more expensive than the price at which Cipla would sell this drug.

What do the Sections 66 and 92 of the Indian Patents Act say?

- Section 66 of the Indian Patents Act:

“66. Revocation of patent in public interest: Where the Central Government is of the opinion that a patent or the mode in which it is exercised is mischievous to the State of generally prejudicial to the public, if any, after giving the patentee an opportunity to be heard, make a declaration to that effect in the Official Gazette and thereupon the patent shall be deemed to be revoked.”

- Section 92 of the Indian Patents Act:

“92. Special provision for compulsory licenses: (1) If the Central Government is satisfied, in respect of any patent in force in circumstances of national emergency or in circumstances of extreme urgency or in case of public non- commercial use, that it is necessary that compulsory licenses should be granted at any time after the sealing thereof to work the invention, it may make a declaration to that effect, by notification in the Official Gazette, and thereupon the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say –

(i) The Controller shall on application made at any time after the notification by any person interested, grant to the applicant a license under the patent on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit;

(ii) In settling the terms and conditions of a license granted under this section, the Controller shall endeavor to secure that the articles manufactured under the patent shall be available to the public at the lowest prices consistent with the patentees deriving a reasonable advantage from their patent rights.

(2) The provisions of sections 83, 87, 88, 89 and 90 shall apply in relation to the grant of licenses under this section as they apply in relation to the grant of licenses under section 84.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2), where the Controller is satisfied on consideration of the application referred to in clause (i) of sub- section (1) that it is necessary in –

(i) A circumstance of national emergency; or

(ii) A circumstance of extreme urgency; or

(iii) A case of public non- commercial use, which may arise or is required, as the case may be, including public health crises, relating to Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome, Human Immuno Deficiency Virus, tuberculosis, malaria or other epidemics, he shall not apply any procedure specified in section 87 in relation to that application for grant of license under this section:

Provided that the Controller shall, as soon as may be practicable, inform the patentee of the patent relating to the application for such non-application of section 87.”

Two key reasons:

Anchored on the above two sections of the Indian Patents Act, the two key reasons cited by Cipla for revocation of five patents granted to Indacaterol of Novartis AG are, very briefly, as follows:

Lack of inventive steps and ‘evergreening’ of patents:

The exclusivity given to five patents of Indacaterol is contrary to law due to lack of inventive step, being obvious inventions. Novartis allegedly has indulged in ‘evergreening’ with a number of patents to extend monopoly of the drug much beyond the term of the first patent. Indian law expressly bars ‘evergreening’ as it impedes drug access to a large majority of the patients.

Lack of working of the patents:

Cipla also claimed lack of “working” of those patents in the country, as a mere 0.03 percent of the drug requirement is currently being fulfilled in India. This leaves the percentage of inadequacy in the requirement of the drug per year at a staggering number of around 99.97 percent.

With supporting details, Cipla has stated in its letter that Indacaterol under the brand name Onbrez is imported by Novartis through its licensee Lupin Pharma only. It further pointed out that the Indian law requires all patents to be “worked” within the territory of India.

While adequate quantity of imports may qualify as working, the present case is one in which the patents in question have not been worked through imports of adequate quantity of the drug. Thus reasonable requirements of the public have not been fulfilled, at all.

Abysmally low drug access to Indian patients:

According to Cipla, when there has been a necessity for the availability of Indacaterol to a much larger number of patients afflicted by COPD, that has assumed magnitude of an epidemic, just a miniscule of 0.03 percent of the total drug requirement is currently being met in the country. In 2013, the import of Indacaterol, as reportedly declared in Form 27 by Novartis to the Patent office, was just 53,844 units, which could meet this drug requirement at best of only 4,500 out of 15 million patients, annually.

Despite accepted drug benefits, the doctors are unable to adequately prescribe Indacaterol in India, due to low quantity of the drug import for the public.

Thus, while announcing the launch of cheaper generic equivalents of the drug, Cipla emphasized that its Unibrez Rotacaps would fulfill the requirements of the public, meet public health interest and at the same time increase access to this medicine, with an affordable alternative, for a large number of patients.

Increasing incidence of COPD in India:

In its application to the DIPP, Cipla underscored that Indacaterol is one of the preferred medications to treat widely prevalent Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) that has reached the magnitude of an epidemic in India with about 15 million Indians afflicted with the ailment.

COPD is now among the top ten causes of disease burden in India. According to Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the overall prevalence rates of COPD in India are 5.0 and 3.2 percent respectively in men and women of and over 35 years of age. The World Health Organization (WHO) also reported that COPD is the cause of death of more people than HIV-AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis all put together in the South East Asian Region.

Cipla quoted an Indian Study on “Epidemiology of Asthma, Respiratory Symptoms and Chronic Bronchitis in Adults (INSEARCH)”, which estimated that about 7 percent of deaths annually are a result of Chronic Respiratory Diseases in India.

Importance of Indacaterol in COPD treatment:

Cipla reiterated that Indacaterol is the preferred drug over other beta adrenoceptor agonists, as it has to be consumed only once a day. Moreover, it has a higher potency and prolonged effect as compared to other beta adrenoceptor agonists.

Strong arguments make the case interesting:

Though appropriate legal authorities would take a final call on the subject, prima facie, Cipla seems to have a strong case resting on the pillars of Sections 66 and 92 of the Indian Patents Act.

Since, Cipla has already gone ahead and announced the launch of cheaper generic equivalent of Indacaterol in India, it gives a sense about the company’s confidence in its argument against five valid patents of Novartis on this drug.

On the other hand, one may also justifiably say that Cipla should have waited for the final verdict of the court of law on the validity of five Indacaterol patents in India, before deciding to actually launch a generic version of the patented drug.

It is worth noting that in 2013, Novartis lost a legal battle related to patent grant for its anti-leukemia drug Glivec in the Supreme Court of India. The case lasted over seven years in various courts of law. Interestingly, Cipla had followed similar course of action in the Glivec case too, and had won the case decisively.

‘Form 27’ and the Indian Patent office (IPO):

At this stage it is worth noting, a ‘Public Notice’ dated December 24, 2009 was issued by the Controller General of Patents, Design & Trade Marks, directing all ‘Patentees and Licensees’ to furnish information in ‘Form No.27’ on ‘Working of Patents’ as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act read with Rule 131 of the Patents Rule 2003.

The notice also drew attention to penalty provisions in the Patents Act, in case of non-submission of the aforesaid information.

The information sought by the IPO in ‘Form 27’ can be summarized as follows:

A. The reasons for not working and steps being taken for ‘working of the invention’ to be provided by the patentee.

B. In case of establishing ‘working of a patent’, the following yearly information needs to be provided:

The quantity and value of the invention worked; which includes both local manufacturing and importation.
The details to be provided, if any licenses and/or sub-licenses have been granted for the products during the year.
A statement as to whether the public requirements have been met partly/adequately to the fullest extent at a reasonable price.

The ‘Public Notice’ also indicated that:

• A fine of up to (US$ 25,000 may be levied for not submitting or refusing to submit the required information by the IPO.

• And providing false information is a punishable offence attracting imprisonment of up to 6 months and/or a fine.

The important point to ponder now is, if Cipla’s allegation is correct, what has been the IPO doing with the ‘Form 27’ information to uphold the spirit of Indian Patents Act 2005, thus far?

Conclusion:

For various reasons, it would now be interesting to follow, how does the IPO deal with this case right from here. In any case, information provided through ‘Form 27’ cannot remain a secret. ‘The Right to Information Act (RTI)’ will help ferret more such details out in the open.

As the ‘Moment of Truth’ unfolds in this case, one would be quite curious to fathom how the strong voices against ‘non-working of patents’ and ‘evergreening’ drive home their arguments before the court of justice.

On the other hand, the global innovator companies, their highly paid lobby groups and the USTR are expected to exert tremendous pressure on the Indian Government to protect the global pharma business interests in India, come what may. All these would indeed create a potboiler, as expected by many.

In this complex scenario, striking a right balance between rewarding genuine innovation, on the one hand, and help improving access to affordable modern medicines to a vast majority of the population in the country, on the other, would not be an enviable task for the Indian Government.

As the juggernaut of conflicting interest moves on, many would keenly await for a glimpse of ‘the moment of truth’ based on the judicial interpretation of ‘evergreening’ and ‘working of patents’, for this case in particular.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India

Posted on September 22, 2014 by Tapan Ray

I had mentioned in my blog post of August 4, 2014, titled “Hepatitis C: A Silent, Deadly Disease: Treatment beyond reach of Most Indians” that in line with Gilead’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company would offer to license production of sofosbuvir (brand name Sovaldi) to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing knowhow, allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.

Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) is a once-a-day patented drug of Gilead for cure of chronic hepatitis C infection in most patients. Sovaldi has been priced at Rs 60,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet in the developed markets with a three-month course costing Rs1.8 Crore (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a tablet. This treatment cost is being considered very high even for many Americans and Europeans.

Gilead has also announced that it has set a minimum threshold price for Sovaldi of US$ 300 (Rs.18,000) a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost of Sovaldi per patient would be about US$ 900 (Rs.54,000) for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000 (Rs1.8 Crore). The company would offer this price to at least 80 countries.

Breaking-news in India:

On September 15, 2014, International media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also reported that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Indian companies would require paying 7 per cent of their revenues as royalty to Gilead, which, in turn would ensure full technology transfer to them to produce both the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and finished formulations. The generic version of Sovaldi is likely to be available in India in the second or third quarter of 2015, at the earliest.

Another reason of Gilead’s selecting the Indian generic manufacturers could possibly be, that of much of the global supply of generic finished formulations is manufactured in India, especially for the developing countries of the world.

Patent status, broad strategy and the possibility:

It is worth noting here that the Indian Patent Office (IPO) has not recognized Sovaldi’s (sofosbuvir) patent for the domestic market, just yet. This patent application has been opposed on the ground that it is an “old science, known compound.”

It is interesting that the Indian Pharmaceutical Association (IPA) and others, such as, Delhi Network of Positive People and Natco have reportedly opposed Sovaldi’s (sofosbuvir) patent application. If the patent for this drug does not come through, low priced generic versions of Sovaldi, without any licensing agreement with Gilead, would possibly capture the Indian market.

Conversely, due to unaffordable price of Sovaldi for most of the Hepatitis C patients, even if a patent is granted for this drug in India, the sword of Compulsory License (CL) on the ground of ‘reasonably affordable price’ looms large on this product.

To negate the possibility of any CL, in the best-case scenario of a patent grant, Gilead seems to have decided to enter into licensing agreement with seven other Indian generic manufacturers to create a sense of adequate competition in the market, as many believe.

However, if the IPO considers sofosbuvir not patentable in India, it would indeed be a double whammy for Gilead. Without any patent protection, all these in licensing agreements may also fall flat on the face, paving the way of greater access of much lesser priced generic sofosbuvir to patients, as indicated above.

The action replay:

If we flash back to the year 2006, we shall see that Gilead had followed exactly the same strategy for another of its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

1. Voluntary license:

At that time also Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead.

Gilead did sign a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

The arrangement was somewhat like this. Gilead would charge a royalty of 5 percent on the access price of US$ 200 a year for the drug. Any company that signs a manufacturing agreement with Gilead to manufacture API of tenofovir would be able to sell them only to those generic manufacturers that have voluntary license agreements with Gilead.

Interestingly, by that time Cipla had started selling one of the two versions of tenofovir, not licensed by Gilead. Cipla’s generic version was named Tenvir, available at a price of US$ 700 per person per year in India, against Gilead’s tenofovir (Viread) price of US$ 5,718 per patient per year in the developed Markets. Gilead’s target price for tenofovir in India was US$ 200 per month, as stated above.

2. Patent challenge:

Like sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), Gilead had filed a patent application for tenofovir (Viread) in India at that time. However, the ‘Indian Network for People Living with HIV/AIDs’ challenged this patent application on similar grounds.

3. Patent grant refused:

In September 2009, IPO refused the grant of patent for tenofovir to Gilead, citing specific reasons for its non-conformance to the Indian Patents Act 2005. As a result, the voluntary license agreements that Gilead had already signed with the Indian generic manufacturers were in jeopardy.

Current status:

In 2014, while planning the launch strategy of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) for India, Gilead seems to have mimicked the ‘Action Replay’ of 2006 involving tenofovir, at least, in the first two stages, as detailed above. Only the patent status of sofosbuvir from the IPO is now awaited. If IPO refuses patent grant for sofosbuvir, Gilead’s fate in India with sofosbuvir could exactly be the same as tenofovir, almost frame by frame.

Gilead and the two top players in India:

Very briefly, I would deliberate below the strategic stance taken by two top generic players in india, from 2006 to 2014, in entering into voluntary licensing agreements with Gilead for two of its big products, as I understand.

Ranbaxy:

In my view, the stand of Ranbaxy in Gilead’s India strategy of voluntary licensing in the last eight years has remained unchanged. It involves both sofosbuvir and tenofovir.Thus, there has been a clear consistency in approach on the part of Ranbaxy on this issue.

Cipla:

Conversely, an apparent shift in Cipla’s strategic position during this period has become a bone of contention to many. For tenofovir, Cipla did not sign any voluntary license agreement with Gilead. On the contrary, it came out with its own version of this product, that too much before IPO refused to grant patent for this drug.

However, unlike 2006, Cipla decided to sign a voluntary license agreement with Gilead for sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) in 2014, though no patent has yet been granted for this product in India.

Has Cipla changed its position on drug patent?

I find in various reports that this contentious issue keeps coming up every now and then today. Some die-hards have expressed disappointments. Others articulated that the new dispensation in Cipla management, has decided to take a different stance in such matter altogether.

In my view, no tectonic shift has taken place in Cipla’s position on the drug patent issue, just yet.

The owner of Cipla, the legendary Dr.Yusuf Hamied has always been saying: ‘I Am Not Against Patents … I Am Against Monopolies’

He has also reportedly been quoted saying: “About 70 per cent of the patented drugs sold worldwide are not invented by the owning companies”.

He had urged the government, instead of having to fight for CL for expensive lifesaving medicines by the generic drug makers, where voluntary licenses are not forthcoming, the government needs to pass a law giving the generic players “automatic license of rights” for such drugs, making these medicines affordable and thereby improving access to patients. In return, the local generic manufacturers would pay 4 percent royalty on net sales to patent holders. He was also very candid in articulating, if Big Pharma would come into the developing markets, like India, with reasonable prices, Cipla would not come out against it.

According to Dr. Hamied, “When you are in healthcare, you are saving lives. You have to have a humanitarian approach. You have to take into account what it costs to make and what people can pay.”

Considering all these, I reckon, the core value of Cipla and its stand on patents have not changed much, if at all, for the following reasons:

The voluntary license agreement of Cipla with Gilead for sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) along with six other generic manufacturers of India, unlike tenofovir, still vindicates its strong opposition to drug monopoly, respecting product patents.

Cipla along with manufacturing of sofosbuvir, maintains its right to market the product at a price that it considers affordable for the patients in India.

Conclusion:

Indian Patents Act 2005 has the requisite teeth to tame the most aggressive and ruthless players in drug pricing even for the most feared diseases of the world, such as, HIV/AIDS, cancer, Hepatitis C and others.

Many global drug companies, resourceful international pharma lobby groups and governments in the developed world are opposing this commendable Act, tooth and nail, generating enormous international political pressure and even chasing it in the highest court of law in India, but in vain. Glivec case is just one example.

Some pharma majors of the world seem to be attempting to overcome this Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest in India. Their strategy includes not just voluntary licenses, but also not so transparent, though well hyped, ‘Patient Access Programs’ and the so called ‘flexible pricing’, mostly when the concerned companies are able to sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act 2005.

It has happened once with even Gilead in 2006. The drug was tenofovir. Following the same old strategy of voluntary licenses and relatively lower pricing, especially when its drug patent is pending with IPO post patent challenges, Gilead intends to launch Sovaldi in India now.

Carrying the baggage of its past in India, Gilead seems to have been caught between a rock and the hard place with sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) launch in the country. On the one hand, the risk of uncertain outcome of its patent application and on the other, the risk of CL for exorbitant high price of the drug, if the patent is granted by the IPO. Probably considering all these, the company decided to repeat its 2006 tenofovir strategy of voluntary licenses, yet again in 2014, for Sovaldi in India.

As of today, Sovaldi strategy of Gilead in India appears to be progressing in the same direction as tenofovir, the way I see it. However, the final decision of IPO on the grant of its patent holds the key to future success of similar high-voltage, seemingly benign, marketing warfare of pharma majors of the world.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Does Patent Expiry Matter Less For Difficult To Copy Drugs?

Posted on September 8, 2014 by Tapan Ray

“Patent expiry matters much less for difficult to copy drugs”.

Not so long ago, this is what many used to believe in the pharma industry. However, looking at the current trend involving the tech savvy generic players, it appears, gone are those days even for the home grown companies in India. As we witness today, a number of global generic players, including some from India, are overcoming the tough challenge of technological barrier of the original drugs with technology, boldly and squarely, and that too with reasonably good speed.

A global CEO felt quite the same:

Possibly encouraged by this commercial dogma, the Chief Executive of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Sir Andrew Witty reportedly felt in not too distant past that his company’s blockbuster drug Advair/Seretide, used for the treatment of asthma, would continue to remain a major product, despite losing US patent in end 2010. Witty thought so considering the intricate technology involved in making its high tech inhalation drug delivery system with exacting precision.

Technology based entry barrier:

Although, Advair/Seretide is a respiratory inhalation drug, it is not quite like a typical aerosol inhaler consisting of a pressurized canister filled with liquid medicine formulation. In such system, as the canister is compressed, the liquid inside comes out as a spray that is breathable in an amount as required for desirable clinical efficacy for the patients.

With the application of complex technology, Advair/Seretide was formulated not as a liquid, but as pre-determined fixed dose combination of powders that patients inhale into their respiratory tracts with a device called ‘Diskus’, which involves a complex and difficult to copy inhaler technology with a long patent life.

This precision technology was expected to create the requisite entry barrier for generic equivalents of this important medicine.

“Diskus” patent to continue:

It is important to note, though Advair/Seretide had gone off patent in end 2010, the patent protection for the “Diskus” device that dispenses the powder version of the fixed dose drugs combination, continues till 2016. For the inhaler device that dispenses the aerosol version of the same drugs, the patent remains valid until 2025.

New USFDA guidance:

Keeping these factors in mind, the USFDA in its latest guidance has clearly enunciated the characteristics that an inhaler should have, including a similar size and shape to Diskus. This new USFDA guidance for inhaled drugs, like Advair/Seretide, now requires only “relatively basic” preclinical tests and a short clinical trial.

Many believe that this new guidance is mainly to ensure that other generic devices also qualify for the GSK’s asthma drug combo, after its patent expiry.

Nevertheless a challenging task:

Despite this new USFDA guidance for inhaled drugs, some large generic manufacturers apprehended, even way back in 2010, that they doubt whether it will be possible for them to adequately replicate Advair/Seretide to meet the stringent “substitution” requirements of the USFDA on generics. This is exactly what Witty had envisaged earlier.

Almost two years after its patent expiry, in October 2012, the world’s largest generic drug maker Teva also announced that the company does not expect to see true substitutes for Advair/Seretide before 2018.

No immediate sales impact post-patent expiry:

As a result, in 2012, even a couple of years after its patent expiry, Advair/Seretide could successfully weather the impending storm, though GSK reported a lackluster overall business performance. The brand at that time was virtually immune to substitution threats from generic equivalents. The key reason being, as stated above, much unlike a patented chemical drug substance, the ‘Diskus’ system of the GSK inhaler is a hell of a task to copy by meeting the regulatory requirements of substitution.

In 2013, close to three years after its patent expiry, Advair/Seretide ranked fourth within the top 10 global best-selling drugs of that year, clocking annual revenue of US $8.25 billion.

The first competition:

In the midst of all these, the first generic equivalent of Advair/Serevent with a new inhalation device, carrying a name AirFluSal Forspiro from the Sandoz unit of Novartis, started warming up to obtain regulatory approval from several countries within the European Union (EU).

The product was first approved in Denmark on December, 2013 with subsequent marketing authorizations received in Germany, Sweden, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Norway.

The heat started being felt now:

The overall position of the brand started changing thereafter. According to published reports, sales trend of Advair/Seretide in Europe and other markets are on the decline in 2014. In Europe, the drop was around 3 percent and in the US around 19 percent in the last quarter, due to a combined impact of many factors.

According to Bloomberg, the sales of Advair/Seretide are expected to drop from US$8.25 billion in 2013 to US$5.9 billion in 2016 with the entry of generics.

A large and growing market to invest into:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), in every 10 seconds, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) that includes conditions such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema kills one person globally. It is expected to be the third leading cause of death worldwide by 2030. However, though more number of people suffers from asthma globally, its mortality rate is still much less, WHO says.

Bloomberg estimates that COPD market, including asthma, is expected to reach over US$30 billion by 2018.

Cipla came next crossing the ‘technology hurdle’:

Though the leader in the global generic market – Teva, expressed its inability to introduce the generic version of Advair/Seretide before 2018, this month, the Indian pharma major Cipla introduced its version of the product in two European countries, just next to Novartis. Consequently, Cipla demonstrated its ability to overcome the technological hurdle of the product faster than most others and mastering the intricate NDDS technology in record time, with precision.

The Cipla product is named as ‘Serroflo’ in Germany and ‘Salmeterol/Fluticasone Cipla’ in Sweden. As reported in the media quoting Cipla Chairman Dr. Yusuf Hamied, the product has also been launched in Croatia. By now, Cipla has obtained regulatory approvals of this product in 10 countries in total, with an approval pending in the GSK’s own domestic turf, the United Kingdom (UK). Other country-wise launches in Europe would probably take place much before the end of 2014, according to Dr. Hamied.

The product is expected to be launched in the US in the next three to four year’s time, though one media report mentioned about its 2015 launch in that market. Dr. Hamied also said that his company is now planning its first-ever manufacturing plant in America, which might focus on producing HIV medicines.

On a conservative estimate, the market analysts expect Cipla to generate around US$50 million in sales from the EU markets by 2016 and around US$110 million by 2018, as the company gains increasing market access with not more than 4-5 generic competitors competing in this segment.

Be that as it may, getting regulatory approval for launch of a generic version of Advair/Seretide in the regulated markets, by itself, is a huge achievement of technological prowess that Cipla has demonstrated, yet again.

Not too many generic competition expected:

Because of high quality technological requirements to develop a replaceable generic version of the GSK product, not too much competition is expected in this segment.

Thus far, another global generic drug major Mylan is expected to file for a generic version of Advair/Seretide in the US by the third quarter of 2015 for a 2016 launch. Besides Cipla and Novartis, Mylan, Teva and Actavis are expected come out with the generic version of this drug.

Opportunities in ‘difficult to copy’ drugs:

According to a recent ‘RnR Market Research Report’, over 1,400 drugs with New Drug Delivery System (NDDS) have since been approved globally. This includes inhalation devices too.

The oral drugs contribute the largest share of the overall NDDS market with over 52 percent of the total pie. This segment is expected to attain a turnover of over US$90 billion by 2016 at a CAGR of 11 percent. The injectable new drug delivery market is expected to reach a turnover of over US $29billion by 2015, according to this report.

I have deliberated this subject in one of my earlier blog posts titled. “Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain”.

Another high tech area – biosimilar drugs:

As the high priced biologic drugs of the innovator companies go off patent, large molecule biosimilar drugs, involving high technology, would emerge as another lucrative growth opportunity for the generic players having requisite wherewithal.

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies. Some of the Indian companies that have already entered into the biosimilar segment are Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Lupin, Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Glenmark, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute, Hetero, Intas and Reliance Life Sciences, besides others.

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

Overall improvement in the quality of ANDA filings:

In the last few years, overall quality of ANDA filings of the domestic Indian pharma players has also improved significantly. Their regulatory filing schedules now include many complex molecules, injectibles, oral contraceptives, ophthalmic preparations, inhalers/other drug delivery systems and biosimilars, beside Para IV/FTFs. All these are now contributing a growing share in their new product initiatives for the regulated markets.

Conclusion:

In the largest pharma market of the world – the United States, global generic companies are increasingly facing cutthroat price competition with steep price erosion, registering mixed figures of business performance and growth.

However, a new trend is fast emerging. Even when global innovator companies are including increasing number of difficult to copy medicines in their product portfolio, some pharma players are reaping a rich harvest by moving up the value chain with the generic versions of those products, post patent expiry. These copycats offer much higher margin than non-differentiated generics.

Some Indian generic companies too have started focusing on building value added, difficult to manufacture, and technology intensive generic product portfolios in various therapy areas. DRL is reportedly all set to take its complex generic drug Fondaparinux sodium injection to Canada and two other emerging markets.

Those Indian pharma companies, which would be able to develop a robust product portfolio of complex generics and other differentiated formulations for the global market, would now be much better placed in positioning themselves significantly ahead of the rest, both in terms of top and the bottom line performance.

The myth, as epitomized in the good old saying, “Patent expiry matters less for difficult to copy drugs”, seems to be partly true in delaying entry of generics immediately after the end of the monopoly period, at least, for now. However, I reckon, this gap of delay would eventually get much reduced, if not eliminated altogether, as we move on. Armed with cutting edge technology Cipla has almost busted the myth, as it came close second to Novartis with the launch of a complex generic equivalent of Advair/Seretide in the EU and other markets.

Pharma majors of the country, such as, DRL, Cipla, Lupin and Biocon, to name a few, are taking great strides, setting examples for many others to emulate and excel in this area. The groundswell has already begun for a long haul global journey of the Indian pharma into the El Dorado of high tech generics fetching higher rewards.

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.

Alarming Incidence of Cancer: Fragile Infrastructure: Escalating Drug Prices

Posted on July 28, 2014 by Tapan Ray

According to the ‘Fact-Sheet 2014′ of the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer cases would rise from 14 million in 2012 to 22 million within the next two decades. It is, therefore, no wonder that cancers figured among the leading causes of over 8.2 million deaths in 2012, worldwide.

A reflection of this scary scenario can also be visualized while analyzing the growth trend of various therapy segments of the global pharmaceutical market.

A recent report of ‘Evaluate Pharma (EP)’ has estimated that the worldwide sales of prescription drugs would reach US$ 1,017 bn by 2020 with a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 5.1 percent between 2013 and 2020. Interestingly, oncology is set to record the highest sales growth among the major therapy categories with a CAGR of 11.2 percent during this period, accounting for US$ 153.4 bn of the global pharmaceutical sales.

The key growth driver is expected to be an exciting new class of cancer products targeting the programmed death-1 (PD-1) pathway with a collective value of US$ 14 bn in 2020, says the report.

Another recent report from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics also highlights that global oncology spending touched US$ 91 billion in 2013 growing at 5 percent annually.

Consequently, Oncology would emerge as the biggest therapeutic class, more than twice of the anti-diabetic category, which features next to it.

Key global players:

Roche would continue to remain by far the largest player in the oncology market in 2020 with a 5 percent year-on-year growth between 2013 and 2020 with estimated total sales of over US$ 34bn in 2020 against US$ 25bn in 2013.

In 2020, besides Roche, other key players in the oncology segment would, in all probability, be Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Merck & Co, the EP report says.

Escalating costs of cancer drugs:

As IMS Health indicates, the overall cost for cancer treatments per month in the United States has now reached to US$10,000 from US$ 5,000 just a year ago. Thus, cancer drugs are fast becoming too expensive even in the developed markets, leave aside India.

The following table would help fathom how exorbitant are the costs per therapy of the common cancer drugs, though these are from the United States:

Generic	Diagnosis	Cost/ Dose (US$)	Cost of Therapy/ 28 days (US$)	Cost per Therapy (US$)
brentuximab	Hodgkins lymphoma	14,000	18,667	224,000
Pertuzumab	Breast cancer	4,000	5,333	68,000
pegylated interferon	Hepatitis C	700	2,800	36,400
Carfilzomib	Multiple myeloma	1,658	9,948	129,324
ziv-aflibercept	CRC	2,300	4,600	59,800
Omacetaxine	CML	560	3,920	50,960
Regorafenib	CRC	450	9,446	122,800
Bosutinib	CML	278	7,814	101,580
Vemurafenib	Melanoma	172	4,840	62,915
Abiraterone	Prostate	192	5,391	70,080
Crizotinib	NSCLC	498	27,951	363,367
Enzalutamide	Prostate	248	6,972	90,637
ado-trastuzumab emtansine	Breast – metastatic	8,500	8,115	105,500
Ponatinib	Leukemia	319	8,941	116,233
Pomalidomide	Multiple myeloma	500	10,500	135,500

(Source: ION Solutions)

Even US researchers concerned about high cancer drugs cost:

It is interesting to note, that in a review article published recently in ‘The Lancet Oncology’, the US researchers Prof. Thomas Smith and Dr. Ronan Kelly identified drug pricing as one area of high costs of cancer care. They are confident that this high cost can be reduced, just as it is possible for end-of-life care and medical imaging – the other two areas of high costs in cancer treatment.

Besides many other areas, the authors suggested that reducing the prices of new cancer drugs would immensely help containing cancer costs. Prof. Smith reportedly said, “There are drugs that cost tens of thousands of dollars with an unbalanced relationship between cost and benefit. We need to determine appropriate prices for drugs and inform patients about their costs of care.”

Cancer drug price becoming a key issue all over:

As the targeted therapies have significantly increased their share of global oncology sales, from 11 percent a decade ago to 46 percent last year, increasingly, both the Governments and the payers, almost all over the world, have started feeling quite uncomfortable with the rapidly ascending drug price trend.

In the top cancer markets of the world, such as, the United States and Europe, both the respective governments and also the private insurers have now started playing hardball with the cancer drugs manufacturers.

There are several instances in the developed markets, including the United States, where the stakeholders, such as, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) are expressing their concerns about manufacturers’ charging astronomical prices, even for small improvements in the survival time.

Following examples would give an idea of global sensitivity in this area:

After rejecting Roche’s breast cancer drug Kadcyla as too expensive, NICE reportedly articulated in its statement, “A breast cancer treatment that can cost more than US$151,000 per patient is not effective enough to justify the price the NHS is being asked to pay.”

In October 2012, three doctors at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center announced in the New York Times that their hospital wouldn’t be using Zaltrap. These oncologists did not consider the drug worth its price. They questioned, why prescribe the far more expensive Zaltrap? Almost immediately thereafter, coming under intense stakeholder pressure, , Sanofi reportedly announced 50 percent off on Zaltrap price.

Similarly, ASCO in the United States has reportedly launched an initiative to rate cancer drugs not just on their efficacy and side effects, but prices as well.

India:

India has already demonstrated its initial concern on this critical issue by granting Compulsory License (CL) to the local player Natco to formulate the generic version of Bayer’s kidney cancer drug Nexavar and make it available to the patients at a fraction of the originator’s price. As rumors are doing the rounds, probably some more patented cancer drugs would come under Government scrutiny to achieve the same end goal.

I indicated in my earlier blog post that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of India by its notification dated July 10, 2014 has decided to bring, among others, some anticancer drugs too, not featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011), under price control.

Not too long ago, the Indian government reportedly contemplated to allow production of cheaper generic versions of breast cancer drug Herceptin in India. Roche – the originator of the drug ultimately surrendered its patent rights in 2013, apprehending that it would lose a legal contest in Indian courts, according to media reports. Biocon and Mylan thereafter came out with biosimilar version of Herceptin in the country with around 40 percent lesser price.

Hence, responsible pricing of cancer drugs would continue to remain a key pressure-point in the days ahead.

Increasing R&D investments coming in oncology:

Considering lucrative business growth opportunities and financial returns from this segment, investments of global pharma players remain relatively high in oncology, accounting for more than 30 percent of all preclinical and phase I clinical product developments, with 21 New Molecular Entities (NMEs) being launched and reaching patients in the past two years alone, according to IMS Health.

However, it is also worth noting that newly launched treatments typically increase the overall incremental survival rate between two and six months.

Opportunities for anti-cancer biosimilars:

With gradual easing out of the regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs in the developed markets, especially in the US, a new competitive dynamic is evolving in the high priced, over US$ 40 billion, biologics market related to cancer drugs. According to IMS Health, on a global basis, biosimilars are expected to generate US$ 6 to12 billion in oncology sales by 2020, increasing the level of competition but accounting for less than 5 percent of the total biologics market even at that time.

Alarming situation of cancer in India:

A major report, published in ‘The Lancet Oncology’ states that In India, around 1 million new cancer cases are diagnosed each year, which is estimated to reach 1.7 million in 2035.

The report also highlights, though deaths from cancer are currently 600,000 -700,000 annually, it is expected to increase to around 1.2 million during this period.

Such high incidence of cancer in India is attributed to both internal factors such as, poor immune conditions, genetic pre-disposition or hormonal and also external factors such as, industrialization, over growth of population, lifestyle and food habits.

The Lancet Oncology study showed that while incidence of cancer in the Indian population is only about a quarter of that in the United States or Europe, mortality rates among those diagnosed with the disease are much higher.

Experts do indicate that one of the main barriers of cancer care is its high treatment cost, that is out of reach for millions of Indians. They also believe that cancer treatment could be effective and cheaper, if detected early. Conversely, the treatment would be more expensive, often leading to bankruptcy, if detected late and would, at the same time, significantly reduce the chances of survival too.

The fact that cancer is being spotted too late in India and most patients lack access to treatment, would be quite evident from the data that less than even 30 percent of patients suffering from cancer survive for more than five years after diagnosis, while over two-thirds of cancer related deaths occur among people aged 30 to 69.

Unfortunately, according to the data of the Union Ministry of Health, 40 percent of over 300 cancer centers in India do not have adequate facilities for advanced cancer care. It is estimated that the country would need at least 600 additional cancer care centers by 2020 to meet this crying need.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer, accounting for over 1 in 5 of all deaths from cancer in women, while 40 percent of cancer cases in the country are attributable to tobacco.

Indian Market and key local players:

Cancer drug market in India was reported to be around Rs 2,000 Crore (US$ 335 million) in 2013 and according to a recent Frost & Sullivan report, is estimated to grow to Rs 3,881 Crore (US$ 650 million) by 2017 with a CAGR of 15.46 percent, throwing immense business growth opportunities to pharma players.

Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) is one of the leading Indian players in oncology. DRL has already developed biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche, Filgastrim of Amgen and has also launched the first generic Darbepoetin Alfa and Peg-grafeel.

Other major Indian players in this field are Cipla, Lupin, Glenmark, Emcure, Biocon, Ipca, Natco, Intas, Reliance Life Science, Zydus Cadila and some more. These home grown companies are expected to take a leading role in the fast growing oncology segments of India, together with the major MNC players, as named above.

Analysis of detailed opportunities that would be available to these companies and consequent financial impacts could be a subject of separate discussion.

Conclusion:

Unlike many other developed and developing countries of the world, there is no system yet in place in India to negotiate prices of innovative patented drugs with the respective manufacturers, including those used for cancer. However, NPPA is now moving fast on reducing prices of cancer drugs. It has reportedly pulled up six pharma for not providing pricing data of cancer drugs sold by them.

Further, CL for all patented anti-cancer drugs may not be a sustainable measure for all time to come, either. One robust alternative, therefore, is the intense price negotiation for patented drugs in general, including anti-cancer drugs, as provided in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012).

This important issue has been under consideration of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) since 2007. The report produced by the committee formed for this specific purpose, after dilly-dallying for over five years, now hardly has any takers and gathering dusts.

I reckon, much discussed administrative inertia, insensitivity and abject lack of sense of urgency of the previous regime, have desisted the DoP from progressing much on this important subject, beyond of course customary lip services, as on date. Intense lobbying by vested interests from across the world, seems to have further helped pushing this envelope deep inside an inactive terrain.

The new Government would hopefully make the DoP break its deep slumber now to resolve this critical issue decisively, in a time bound manner, assigning clear accountability, without any further delay.

At the same time, shouldn’t both the Honorable Ministers of Health and Chemicals & Fertilizers, taking the State Governments on board, put their collective resources together to create the following, expeditiously:

- A robust national health infrastructure for cancer care

- A transparent mechanism to prevent escalating cancer drug prices and other treatment costs

Hope, the good days would come to the cancer patients of India, at least, sooner than never.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain

Posted on June 30, 2014 by Tapan Ray

June 2014 underscores a significant development for the generic drug exporters of India. Much-delayed and highly expected launch of generic Diovan (Valsartan) is now on its way, as Ranbaxy has reportedly received US-FDA approval to launch the first generic version of this blood pressure drug in the United States.

As deliberated in my earlier blog titled “Big Pharma’s Windfall Gain From Indian Pharma’s Loss, Costs American Patients Dear”, delay in launch of the generic equivalent of Diovan caused a windfall gain for Novartis from US$ 1.7 billion US sales of this drug last year, instead of usual declining turnover of an innovative molecule post patent expiry.

The generic version of Diovan (Valsartan) is estimated to contribute around US$ 200 million to Ranbaxy’s sales and US$ 100 million to its profit after tax, during the exclusive sale period. Against these numbers, delay in the launch of generic Diovan has reportedly cost payers and consumers in America around US$ 900 million in the first 18 months.

Since four Ranbaxy manufacturing facilities in India are now facing US-FDA ‘import bans’ due to violations of ‘Good Manufacturing Practices’ of the American regulator, its Ohm Laboratories unit located in New Jersey has been allowed to make generic Valsartan for the US.

Go for gold:

Hopefully, Ranbaxy would soon get similar approvals from the US drug regulator for its ‘first to launch’ generic versions of Nexium (AstraZeneca) and Valcyte (Roche), as well.

It is worth mentioning that around 90 percent price erosion would take place with intense competition, as soon the period of exclusivity for such ‘first to launch’ generics gets over.

Nonetheless, this is indeed a very interesting development, when the global generic pharmaceutical segment is reportedly showing signals of a tough chase for overtaking the branded pharmaceuticals sector in terms of sales turnover too.

India has a huge a stake in this ball game, as it supplies around 30 to 40 percent of the world’s generic medicines and is well poised to improve its pharma exports from around US$ 15 billion per year to US$ 25 billion by 2016. Since 2012, this objective has remained an integral part of the country’s global initiative to position India as the “pharmacy to the world.”

However, considering the recent hiccups of some Indian pharma majors in meeting with the quality requirements of the US-FDA, though this target appears to be a challenging one for now, the domestic pharma players should continue to make all out efforts to go for the gold by moving up the generic pharmaceutical value chain. In this context, it is worth noting that penetration of the generic drugs in the US is expected to increase from the current 83 percent to 86-87 percent very shortly, as the ‘Obamacare’ takes off with full steam.

Moving up the value chain:

In the largest pharma market of the world – the United States, global generic companies are increasingly facing cutthroat price competition with commensurate price erosion, registering mixed figures of growth. Even in a situation like this, some companies are being immensely benefited from moving up the value chain with differentiated generic product launches that offer relatively high margin, such as, specialty dermatologicals, complex injectibles, other products with differentiated drug delivery systems and above all biosimilars.

As a consequence of which, some Indian generic companies have already started focusing on the development of value added, difficult to manufacture and technology intensive generic product portfolios, in various therapy areas. Just to cite an example, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) is now reportedly set to take its complex generic drug Fondaparinux sodium injection to Canada and two other emerging markets.

Thus, those Indian pharma companies, which would be able to develop a robust product portfolio of complex generics and other differentiated formulations for the global market, would be much better placed in positioning themselves significantly ahead of the rest, both in terms of top and the bottom lines.

One such key opportunity area is the development of a portfolio of biosimilar drugs – the large molecule proteins.

Global interest in biosimilars:

According to the June 2014 report of GlobalData, a leading global research and consulting firm, the biosimilars industry is already highly lucrative. More than 100 deals involving companies focused on the development of biosimilars have been completed over the past 7 years, with a total value in excess of US$10.7 billion.

GlobalData further states, there are a number of factors driving the initiative toward global adoption of biosimilars, from austerity measures and slow economic growth in the US, to an aging population and increasing demand for healthcare in countries, such as Japan.

The costs of biosimilars are expected to be, at least, 20 to 30 percent lower than the branded biologic therapies. This still remains a significant reduction, as many biologics command hundreds of thousands of dollars for 1 year’s treatment.

According to another media report, biosimilars are set to replace around 70 percent of global chemical drugs over the next couple of decades on account of ‘safety parameters and a huge portion of biologic products going off patent’.

Biosimilar would improve patient access:

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

It has been widely reported that the cost of treatment with innovative and patented biologic drugs can vary from US$ 100,000 to US$ 300,000 a year. A 2010 review on biosimilar drugs published by the Duke University highlights that biosimilar equivalents of novel biologics would improve access to such drugs significantly, for the patients across the globe.

Regulatory hurdles easing off:

In the developed world, European Union (EU) had taken a lead towards this direction by putting a robust system in place, way back in 2003. In the US, along with the recent healthcare reform process of the Obama administration, the US-FDA has already charted the regulatory pathway for biosimilar drugs, though more clarifications are still required.

Not so long ago, the EU had approved Sandoz’s (Novartis) Filgrastim (Neupogen brand of Amgen), which is prescribed for the treatment of Neutropenia. With Filgrastim, Sandoz will now have at least 3 biosimilar products in its portfolio.

Key global players:

At present, the key global players are Sandoz (Novartis), Teva, BioPartners, BioGenerix (Ratiopharm) and Bioceuticals (Stada). With the entry of pharmaceutical majors like, Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the global biosimilar market is expected to be heated up and grow at a much faster pace than ever before. Removal of regulatory hurdles for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US would be the key growth driver.

Globally, the scenario for biosimilar drugs started warming up when Merck announced that the company expects to have at least 5 biosimilars in the late stage development by 2012.

Most recent global development:

A key global development in the biosimilar space has taken place, just this month, in June 2014, when Eli Lilly has reportedly won the recommendation of European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for launch of a biosimilar version (Abasria insulin) of Sanofi’s Lantus insulin. This launch would pave the way for the first biosimilar version of Sanofi’s top-selling drug clocking a turnover of US$7.8 billion in 2013. Eli Lilly developed Abasria with Boehringer Ingelheim of Germany.

In May 2014, Lantus would lose patent protection in Europe. However, biosimilar competition of Lantus in the US could get delayed despite its patent expiry in February, as Sanofi reportedly announced its intention of suing Eli Lilly on this score.

Global Market Potential:

According to a 2011 study, conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., worldwide market for biosimilar drugs is estimated to reach US$ 4.8 billion by the year 2015, the key growth drivers being as follows:

Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs
Cost containment measures of various governments
Aging population
Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries
Recent establishment of regulatory pathways for biosimilars in the US

IMS Health indicates that the US will be the cornerstone of the global biosimilars market, powering a sector worth between US$ 11 billion and US$ 25 billion in 2020, representing a 4 percent and 10 percent share, respectively, of the total biologics market.

The overall penetration of biosimilars within the off-patent biological market is estimated to reach up to 50 percent by 2020.

Challenges for India:

Unlike commonly used ‘small molecule’ chemical drugs, ‘large molecule’ biologics are developed from living cells using very complex processes. It is virtually impossible to replicate these protein substances, unlike the ‘small molecule’ drugs. One can at best develop a biologically similar molecule with the application of high degree of biotechnological expertise.

According to IMS Health, the following would be the key areas of challenge:

High development costs:

Developing a biosimilar is not a simple process but one that requires significant investment, technical capability and clinical trial expertise. Average cost estimates range from US$ 20-100 million against much lesser cost of developing traditional generics, which are typically around US$ 1-4 million.

Fledgling regulatory framework:

In most markets apart from Europe, but including the United States, the regulatory framework for biosimilars is generally still very new compared to the well-established approval process for NCEs and small-molecule generics.

Intricate manufacturing issues:

The development of biosimilars involves sophisticated technologies and processes, raising the risk of the investment.

Overcoming ‘Branded Mentality’:

Winning the trust of stakeholders would call for honed skills, adequate resources and overcoming the branded mentality, which is especially high for biologics. Thus, initiatives to allay safety concerns among physicians and patients will be particularly important, supported by sales teams with deeper medical and technical knowledge. This will mean significant investment in sales and marketing too.

Indian business potential:

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

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies, such as, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Lupin, Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Glenmark, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute, Hetero, Intas and Reliance Life Sciences.

Domestic players on the go:

Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) in India has already developed Biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. DRL has also developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India. DRL has launched the first generic Darbepoetin Alfa in the world for treating nephrology and oncology indications and Peg-grafeel, an affordable form of Pegfilgrastim, which is used to stimulate the bone marrow to fight infection in patients undergoing chemotherapy. The company reportedly sold 1.4 million units of its four biosimilars, which have treated almost 97,000 patients across 12 countries. Besides, in June 2012, DRL and Merck Serono, of Germany, announced a partnership deal to co-develop a portfolio of biosimilar compounds in oncology, primarily focused on monoclonal antibodies (MAbs). The partnership covers co-development, manufacturing and commercialization of the compounds around the globe, with some specific country exceptions.

Another Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla, has reportedly invested Rs 300 Crore in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab in China and announced in June 19, 2014 collaboration with Hetero Drugs to launch a biosimilar drug with Actroise brand name for the treatment of anemia caused due to chronic kidney disease. Actorise is a biosimilar of ‘Darbepoetin alfa’, which is marketed by US-based Amgen under the brand Aranesp.

In 2011, Lupin reportedly signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly would use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs in the field of oncology. Again, in April 2014, Lupin entered into a joint venture pact with Japanese company Yoshindo Inc. to form a new entity that will be responsible both for development of biosimilars and obtaining marketing access for products in the Japanese market.

In November 2013, The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) approved a biosimilar version of Roche’s Herceptin developed jointly by Biocon and Mylan.

In June 2014, Ipca Laboratories and Oncobiologics, Inc. of USA reportedly announced the creation of an alliance for the development, manufacture and commercialization of biosimilar monoclonal antibody products.

Many more such initiatives reportedly are in the offing.

Oncology becoming biosimilar development hot spot:

Many domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies are targeting Oncology disease area for developing biosimilar drugs, which is estimated to be the largest segment globally with a value turnover of around US$ 60 billion growing over 17 percent.

As per recent reports, about 8 million deaths take place all over the world per year due to cancer.

Indian Government support:

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

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

The DBT together with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has now prepared and put in place ‘Regulatory Guidelines for Biosimilar Drugs’ in conformance with the international quality and patient safety standards. This is a big step forward for India in the arena of biosimilar drugs.

In June 2014, under the advanced technology scheme of Biotechnology Industry Partnership Program (BIPP), the DBT has reportedly invited fresh proposals from biotech companies for providing support on a cost sharing basis targeted at development of novel and high risk futuristic technologies mainly for viability gap funding and enhancing existing R&D capacities of start-ups and SMEs in key areas of national importance and public good.

However, the stakeholders expect much more from the government in this area, which the new Indian government would hopefully address with a sense of urgency.

Conclusion:

According to IMS Health, biosimilar market could well be the fastest-growing biologics segment in the next few years, opening up oncology and autoimmune disease areas to this category of drugs for the first time ever. Moreover, a number of top-selling biologic brands would go off patent over the next five years, offering possibilities of reaping rich harvest for the biosimilars players of the country. Critical therapy areas such as cancer, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis are expected to spearhead the new wave of biosimilars.

While moving up the generic pharma value chain, Indian pharma players desiring to encash on the emerging global biosimilars opportunities would require to do a thorough analysis, well in advance, to understand properly the key success factors, core value propositions, financial upsides and risks attached to investments in this area.

Indian companies would also need to decide whether moving ahead in this space would be through collaborations and alliances or flying solo would be the right answer for them. Thereafter would come the critical market access strategy – one of the toughest mind games in the long-haul pharma marketing warfare.

By: Tapan J. Ray

“Fire in The Blood”: A Ghastly Patents Vs Patients War – for Pricing Freedom?

Posted on October 7, 2013 by Tapan Ray

International award winning documentary film, ‘FIRE IN THE BLOOD’ could possibly set a raging fire in your blood too, just like mine. It made me SAD, REFLECTIVE and ANGRY, prompting to share ‘MY TAKE AWAYS’ with you on this contentious subject, immediately after I put across a brief perspective of this yet to be released film in India.

FIRE IN THE BLOOD is an intricate tale of ‘medicine, monopoly and malice’ and narrates how western pharmaceutical companies and governments aggressively blocked access to low-cost HIV/AIDS drugs in African countries post 1996, causing ten million or more avoidable deaths. Fortunately, in the midst of further disasters in the making, some brave-hearts decided to fight back.

The film includes contributions from global icons, such as, Bill Clinton, Desmond Tutu and Joseph Stieglitz and makes it clear that the real struggle of majority, out of over 7 billion global population, for access to life-saving affordable patented medicines is far from over. This film has been made by Dylan Mohan Gray and narrated by Academy Award winner, William Hurt.

Two trailers worth watching:

Please do not miss watching, at least, the trailer of this the sad and cruel movie by clicking on the link provided on the word ‘trailer’ above and also here. To get an independent perspective, please do watch the review of the film along with interesting interviews by clicking here.

(Disclaimer: I have no personal direct or even remotely indirect interest or involvement with this film.)

International newspaper reviews:

The NYT in its review commented as follows:

“The only reason we are dying is because we are poor.” That is the heartbreaking refrain heard twice in the documentary “Fire in the Blood,” about an urgent and shameful topic: the millions of Africans with AIDS who have died because they couldn’t afford the antiretroviral drugs that could have saved their lives. Former President Bill Clinton, the intellectual property lawyer James Love, the journalist Donald G. McNeil Jr. of The New York Times and others offer perspectives on this situation and also on the concern that pharmaceutical companies value profits over lives.”

The Guardian reviewed the film as follows:

“A slightly dry, yet solid reportage on a humanitarian disgrace: the failure of western pharmaceutical companies to provide affordable drugs to patients in the developing world. As presented, the corporate defense sounds horribly racist: that poorer Africans’ inability to read packaging or tell the time leaves them ill-suited to following any medication program… hope emerges in the form of the Indian physicist Yusuf Hamied, whose company Cipla undertook in the noughties to produce cheap, generic drugs in defiance of the Pfizer patent lawyers.”

MY TAKE AWAYS:

Discrimination between human lives?

Life, as we all have been experiencing, is the greatest miracle of the universe and most astonishing creation of the Almighty. Among all types of lives, the human lives indeed have been playing critical roles in the development and progress of humanity over many centuries. These lives irrespective of their financial status, cast, creed, color and other inequities need to be protected against diseases by all concerned and medicines help achieving this objective.

What’s the purpose of inventing medicines?

“The purpose of business is to create and keep a customer”, said the management guru of global repute, Peter F. Drucker. What is then the purpose of inventing new medicines in today’s world of growing financial inequity?

Further, in his well acclaimed book, “Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits”, C.K. Prahalad, explained that the world’s over five billion poor make up the the fastest growing market in the world. Prahalad showed how this segment has vast untapped buying power, and represents an enormous potential for companies, who can learn how to serve this market by providing the poor with innovative products that they need. Do the Big Pharma players have any lesson to learn from this doctrine?

R&D is not free, has costs attached to it:

Medicines protect human lives against various types of diseases. Pharmaceutical companies surely play a critical role in this area, especially the innovator pharma players, by making such medicines available to patients.

These companies identify new products largely from academic institutions and various research labs, develop and bring them to the market. This has obviously a cost attached to it. Thus, R&D cannot be considered as free and the prices of patented products should not be equated with off-patent generic drugs. Innovators must be allowed to earn a decent return on their R&D investments to keep the process of innovation ongoing, though the details of such costs are not usually made available for scrutiny by the experts in this field.

Discourage insatiable fetish for profiteering:

Respective governments must always keep a careful vigil to ensure that earning a decent profit does not transgress into a limitless fetish for profiteering, where majority of people across the world will have no other alternative but to succumb to diseases without having access to these innovative medicines. This situation is unfair, unjust and should not be allowed to continue.

Big Pharma – strongest propagators of innovation…bizarre?

It is indeed intriguing, when patients are the biggest beneficiaries of pharmaceutical innovations, why mostly the Big Pharma MNCs, their self-created bodies and cronies, continue to remain the most powerful votaries of most stringent IPR regime in a country, though always in the garb of ‘encouraging and protecting innovation’.

Thinking straight, who do they consider are really against innovation in India? None, in fact. Not even the Government. India has under its belt the credit of many pioneering innovations over the past centuries, may not be too many in the field of medicine post 2005, at least, not just yet. Do we remember the disruptive invention of ‘Zero’ by the Indian mathematician Brahmagupta (597–668 AD) or the amazing ‘Dabbawalas’ of Mumbai? India experiences innovation daily, it has now started happening in the domestic pharma world too with the market launch of two new home grown inventions.

Coming back to the context, India, as I understand, has always been pro-innovation, in principle at least, but is squarely and fairly against obscene drug pricing, which denies access to especially newer drugs to majority of patients, in many occasions even resorting to frivolous innovations and evergreening of patents.

Mighty pharma MNCs are increasingly feeling uncomfortable with such strong stands being taken by a developing nation like India, in this regard. Thus, expensive and well orchestrated intense lobbying initiatives are being strategized to project India as an anti-innovation entity, while pharma MNCs, in general, are being highlighted as the sole savior for encouraging and protecting innovation in India. The whole concept is indeed bizarre, if not an open display of shallow and too much of self-serving mindset.

This analysis appears more convincing, when genuine patients’ groups, instead of supporting the pharma MNCs in their so called ‘crusade’ for ‘innovation’, keep on vehemently protesting against obscene drug pricing, across the world.

Obscene pricing overshadows the ‘patient centric’ facade:

Obscene pricing of patented medicines, in many cases, overshadows the façade of much hyped and overused argument that ‘innovation must be encouraged and protected for patients’ interest’. This self-created ‘patient centric’ facade must now be properly understood by all.

I reckon, India has now assumed a critical mass attaining a global stature. This will not allow any successive governments in the country to change the relevant laws of the land, wilting under intense pressure of global and local lobbying and expensive PR campaigns.

Genuine innovation must be protected:

Genuine innovations, as explained in the Patents Act of India, must be encouraged and protected in the country, but not without sending a strong and clear signal for the need of responsible pricing.

It is also a fact, though some people may have different views, that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) encourage innovation.

At the same time, the real cost of R&D must be made transparent by all innovators and available for scrutiny by the experts in this field to put all doubts to rest on the subject.

When Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is being widely discussed globally, which has now been made mandatory in India, these players keep arguing almost unequivocally that, thinking about ‘have nots’ is the sole responsibility of the Government.

Patents guarantee market exclusivity, NOT absolute pricing freedom:

Patent gives right to the innovators for 20 years market exclusivity, but NOT absolute pricing freedom in the absence of any significant market competition in that area.

Innovator companies do argue that patented products also compete in their respective therapeutic classes. This is indeed baloney. If patented products meet the unmet needs, how can it be ‘me too’ even in a therapy class? Unless of course, insatiated fetish of Big Pharma for market monopoly with free pricing even for ‘me too’ types of so called ‘innovative products’, becomes the key motive behind such an argument.

Who benefits more with patented medicines?

Who gets benefited more with these patented medicines? Certainly a small minority living in the developed world and NOT the vast majority of the developing world.

At the same time, huge profits earned by these companies from a small minority of these patients make them so rich and inexplicably arrogant that they do not bother at all for others without having adequate deep pockets, even in India.

Conclusion:

I have a huge problem in accepting the pharma MNCs’ argument that ‘IPR’ and lack of ‘Access’ to IP protected drugs for ‘affordability’ reasons, are unrelated to each other. For heaven’s sake, how can they be?

As I said before, absolute pricing freedom for patented drugs is obscene, if not vulgar and must be curbed forthwith with the application of intelligent and well-balanced sensible minds and also in a way, which is just for all, both the innovators and the patients.

Big pharma MNCs can no longer afford to remain just as huge profit making entities, responsible only to their shareholders, shorn of societal needs for affordable medicines, required for around six out of over seven billion human lives of the world.

Modern society, key opinion leaders and respective governments should not allow them to shirk their responsibility in this area any more, as we move on.

If not, will narratives like ‘FIRE IN THE BLOOD’, not keep us haunting again, again and again, on similar incidents taking place in some other countries, at some other time, involving extinction of millions of precious lives for not having access to affordable new drugs? They may be ‘have nots’, so what?

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Cipla

India’s China Dependence On API: A Time To Think ‘Outside The Box’

‘Patent Linkage’: Can The Core Issue Be Resolved?

Awaiting ‘The Moment of Truth’ on ‘Working of Patents’ in India

Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India

Does Patent Expiry Matter Less For Difficult To Copy Drugs?

Alarming Incidence of Cancer: Fragile Infrastructure: Escalating Drug Prices

Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain

“Fire in The Blood”: A Ghastly Patents Vs Patients War – for Pricing Freedom?