Tag Archives: Clinical

Combating Covid Pandemic: When ‘Something Is Better Than Nothing’

Posted on by
Reply

As the new Coronavirus overwhelms the world, since its global outbreak, up until November 29, 2020, over 1,458,305 people have died from this pandemic. Understandably, the Governments in all countries are frantically searching for some robust remedial measures to prevent these unfortunate deaths, besides protecting livelihoods of a vast majority of people.

For this purpose, experts considered effective preventive measures, such as vaccines could help taming this menace, alongside existing personal prevention measures. Accordingly, scientists around the world, have are hard to accelerate development and manufacturing of safe and effective Covod-19 vaccines, within the prescribed guidelines. Equally important is the fact these vaccines must be safe with predictable effectiveness- for all age groups.

The good news is, vaccines are now a distinct possibility in the near future, with the positive interim Phase III clinical trial reports pouring in. It gets reflected in the remark of the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), on November 23, 2020, at the media briefing on Covid-19. He said: There is now real hope that vaccines – in combination with other tried and tested public health measures – will help to end the pandemic.

Interestingly, amid these reports, a lurking fear of many experts also surfaces – on the impact of possible side effects, that Covid vaccine may cause, besides their medium to long term efficacy in human subjects. But, with the mounting number of deaths, near collapse of the global economy, including India, there isn’t any more time to watch and wait.

Apparently, all governments now want some scientifically relevant vaccines, instead of nothing. This article will deliberate on the one hand – an unprecedented achievement, alongside some critical concerns – voiced even by the Indian Prime Minister. Let me begin with the apprehensions, as expressed by some domain experts on some rough edges, as it were, in the process of its development.

Queries on vaccine dosing, efficacy, safety and testing:

On November 23, 2020, AstraZeneca and Oxford reported interim results of their vaccine with the average efficacy of 70% prevention. This sounded good to many, as it falls within the expectations of above a 50% standard that the FDA had set for Covid vaccines. However, the puzzling part in this result was – bigger (standard) doses of the vaccines were less efficacious. The vaccine was only 62% effective in a group that got two full doses spaced about a month apart. But among about 2,700 people who got a half-dose followed by a full, the number rose to 90%, the report highlighted. This incident prompted several questions about the most effective dose of AstraZeneca and Oxford vaccine, including its safety record and the approach to testing. Consequently, apprehensions surfaced whether the Drug regulators will clear it, based on the currently available data.

It now appears, AstraZeneca ‘s Covid-19 vaccine is ‘headed for an additional global trial as the drug maker tries to clear up the uncertainty and confusion surrounding favorable results in its current study.’ Incidentally, in India - AstraZeneca and Oxford vaccine will be manufactured by Pune-based Serum Institute of India (SII) under a collaborative arrangement. Let me now dwell on a broader as aspect in this space.

Could current Covid vaccines become useless in the future?

There isn’t an iota of doubt that developing Covid vaccine in ten months, which otherwise takes around ten years – is an unprecedented achievement. However, there are several other important areas in this space, where pundits have expressed uneasiness through various articles.

One such paper is titled, ‘Don’t rush to deploy COVID-19 vaccines and drugs without sufficient safety guarantees,’ published in the Nature on March 16, 2020. According to the author, a critical point in this regard is to consider ‘the potential for emerging and re-emerging Coronaviruses to cause future outbreaks.’

This is because, ‘the virus behind COVID-19 might mutate in ways that would make previously effective vaccines and antivirals useless.’ Testing vaccines and medicines without taking the time to fully understand safety risks, could bring unwarranted setbacks during the current pandemic, and into the future. ‘Despite the genuine need for urgency, the old saying holds – ‘measure twice, cut once’, the author commented.

The article concluded by suggesting, ‘any regulatory agency considering ways to accelerate treatments into testing should also weigh up how likely these drugs are to work beyond this particular Coronavirus.’ Moreover, according to the WHO, it’s too early to know if COVID-19 vaccines will provide long-term protection.

Possible side-effects of COVID-19 vaccines:

As people’s hopes swell, expecting Covid vaccines to ultimately end the deadly global pandemic, experts caution about their reported – annoying and unpleasant side effects. The November 12, 2020 paper – ‘Time to Discuss Potentially Unpleasant Side Effects of COVID Shots? Scientists Say Yes,’ published by the Kaiser Health News (KHN), also articulated similar apprehension.

It said, most Covid vaccines, including much publicized ones from Pfizer and Moderna, will require two doses to work, injections that must be given weeks apart, as company protocols show. Scientists anticipate the shots will cause enervating flu-like side effects — including sore arms, muscle aches and fever — that could last days and temporarily sideline some people from work or school.

Even with the Pfizer vaccine, which is touted to be over 90% effective, 1 in 10 recipients would still be vulnerable. There could also be a possibility that a vaccine may not suit everyone due to side-effects, especially the most vulnerable elderly population. That means, at least in the short term, as population-level immunity grows, people can’t stop social distancing and throw away their masks, the report emphasized. Even Prime Minister Modi has informed the nation about possible side effects of Covid vaccines.

PM Modi also warns of possible vaccine side-effects:

Being adequately briefed on the above perspectives related to Covid vaccines, the PM has also warned the nation about the possible side-effects. This is probably to ensure that the unpleasant experience of side-effects, after being administered the first dose, do not catch the population off-guard. Mostly because, no one should miss the second dose of vaccine for the same.

He said, during a recent video conference with the state chief ministers, ‘like many other popular medicines, any COVID-19 vaccine could lead to side-effects in some people.’ Emphasizing that both speed and safety are equally important in launching a vaccine, he assured that ‘the government would only go by science in finalizing a vaccine for the country.’

Is something better than nothing?

In the current situation, it appears so, as there is no other alternatives, except maintenance of social distancing, frequent hand sanitizing and wearing masks while outdoors. The Prime Minister also articulated sans any ambiguity: ‘Whatever vaccine makes it through the world’s certified processes, we will have to accept them and move ahead.’

In the meantime, he urged the states to keep distribution infrastructure, such as cold storages ready, the report said. Interestingly, according to Serum Institute CEO Adar Poonawalla, India could approve the emergency use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine by December 2020.

That said, for mass vaccination of the population across India, another factor that is extremely important to decide which vaccine to go for – is the required storage temperature of various Covid Vaccines under development.

Required cold chain storage temperature of various Covid vaccines:

Required cold chain storage temperatures of various Covid vaccines are as follows:

Company

Type

Doses

Effectiveness*

Storage
Oxford-AstraZeneca Viral Vector (genetically modified virus) Two 62-90%** Regular fridge temp.
Moderna RNA (part of virus genetic code) Two 95% -20C up to six months
Pfizer-BioNTech RNA Two 95% -70C
Gamaleya (Sputnik V) Viral Vector Two 92% Regular fridge temp.

Source: Respective Companies, WHO – BBC News. *Preliminary Phase III results. **Two full doses: 62%, A half dose followed by a full dose: 90%, Average: 70%

From the above table, it appears, from the perspective of continuous cold chain storage facility of vaccines – till these are administered to each person, Oxford-AstraZeneca and Russian Sputnik vaccines will be more practical, despite issues with them. Viewing from this perspective, as well, it appears ‘something is better than nothing’ term can be applied in this area, as well.

Conclusion:

The Covid pandemic continues to worry India, immensely. As on November 29, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 9,393,039 of Coronavirus cases with 136,733 deaths. The threat of subsequent waves for further spread of Covid infection now looms large in many states.

Unprecedented speed in developing vaccines to effectively combat Covid Pandemic has created some initial issues. Some of these Covid vaccine challenges include, vaccine side effects, its future usefulness, or challenges towards maintaining required stringent cold chain storage requirements, especially in a country like India. Powder version of Covid vaccines, in the future, would possibly resolve this issue for all countries, across the world.

Currently, in tandem with keeping the cold-chain distribution infrastructure ready, at least, for vaccines that require regular fridge temperature, there is a need to make people aware of Covid vaccine side-effects. Otherwise, after getting first shot of a Coronavirus vaccine, many people may get so scared of its side effects that they may not come back for the second dose. If this happens, the very purpose of mass vaccination will get defeated.

However, from the Indian perspective, Covid vaccines that the country, hopefully, will shortly get, may not be the best, out of the available ones, in terms of safety and efficacy. But, for combating Covid Pandemic across India at this juncture, I reckon, the good old dictum still holds good – ‘something is better than nothing.’

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.

 

Create Greater Patient–Value To Excel With Repurposed Covid Brands

Posted on by
Reply

Regular introduction of new molecules, line extensions or a Novel Drug delivery System (NDDS) has remained the life blood for pharma to rejuvenate a company’s product portfolio for driving organizational growth. But, Covid’s unprecedented and devastating assault on human lives and livelihoods, has pushed many of these initiatives off track. Covid infection was declared pandemic by the World health organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020, compelling the industry to primarily focus on finding solutions for survival, especially in the product development areas.

As the fight against time, the need for survival became so intense, there was no time for pharma companies going back to primary research, to discover new effective Covid specific drug molecules. Vaccines – at the initial stage of the pandemic, were considered by experts could be the only ‘magic bullet’, to get the humanity back again on its feet, after a fierce knockout blow by the virus. As on date, although vaccines seem to be nearer the finishing line of creating adequate initial immunity against Covid, still there are no scientifically proven drugs to predictably cure this infection.

Meanwhile, the focus of all concerned is on the existing drugs, to examine their effectiveness against Covid-19. Accordingly, right from hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone to a number of already existing antiviral agents were repurposed for Covid treatment, under emergency approval by country regulators, pending detailed clinical trials.

For various critical reasons, experts now feel that the use various NDDS technologies in repurposing existing drugs, would create greater value for patients in Covid treatment. At the same time, this will help pharma companies to create a cutting-edge differentiator for their repurposed brands – being more patient centric. In this article, I shall dwell in this area, starting with the current status and issues with repurposed Covid drugs, as of date.

Current status and issues with repurposed Covid drugs:

According to recent reports, such as one titled ‘Formulation and delivery strategies for COVId-19 drugs,’ published by the AIchE in June 2020, more than 40 different drugs are currently being explored for efficacy against COVID-19. Unfortunately, side effects of many of these repurposed drugs limit their use in most severe cases, besides preventing their use as prophylactics.

A large proportion of repurposed Covid drugs are small-molecule medications, antivirals, and immune-modulating antibodies. These are already approved for other indications (like hydroxychloroquine, ribavirin, favipiravir), or under clinical trials, but not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA (like, remdesivir, galidesivir, leronlimab).

If proven effective, these drugs would offer several advantages from a rapid- response perspective, such as the availability of safety data. In addition, several of these drugs offer broad-spectrum activity that makes it more likely they will remain functional even if the SARS-CoV-2 virus mutates. However, there are also exists some critical issues with repurposed Covid drugs.

Some critical issues with repurposed Covid drugs:

Let me cite below two examples, just to drive home the point of some critical medical issues, now existing with these repurposed Covid drugs:

  • Hydroxychloroquine – the malaria drug, when used as directed, commonly produces nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, besides muscle weakness. Importantly, at higher concentrations – only two to three times the daily dose, it can cause potentially fatal acute cardiovascular toxicity. Thus, the possibility of severe side effects makes the drug unattractive as a preventive measure. Drug formulation and delivery strategies, such as controlled release and targeted delivery could expand the use of such existing drugs, the report recommends.
  • The HIV drug combination lopinavir and ritonavir, which is under evaluation as a COVID-19 treatment, has side effects that include diarrhea, nausea, and liver damage. With a half-life of about 4–6 hours, the systemic concentrations can vary by a factor of eight between peak and trough. Developing a controlled-release formulation that maintains the minimum effective drug concentration, could mitigate side effects by reducing the steady-state drug concentration by as much as eightfold and reducing the burden on the liver by 81%, the above study, published by the AIchE in June 2020, highlighted.

At this point, for greater clarity, let me recapitulate what NDDS really means.

NDDS – clinical and marketing relevance:

Novel Drug Delivers Systems or NDDS generally ‘refers to the approaches, formulations, technologies, and systems for transporting a pharmaceutical compound in the body as needed to safely achieve its desired therapeutic effects.’

This process was lucidly explained in a contemporary article, which also inferred that the method by which a drug is delivered can have a significant effect on its efficacy and safety profile.

Yet another paper underscored, ‘if therapeutic agents can be made more efficacious and safer, using an improved drug delivery system, could achieve both –lucrative marketing opportunities for pharmaceutical companies, alongside advancement in the treatment of diseases of mankind.’ Moreover, NDDS can also help maintain the drug concentration in the therapeutic range for a longer period of time and deliver the content to the site of action if required.

Leaving aside the technical details behind these mechanisms let me underscore - that NDDS will be a boon for the repurposing of drugs, was also discussed in detail in an article titled, ‘Role of Novel Drug Delivery Systems in Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19): Time to Act Now,’ published on September 09, 2020.

Some broad categories of NDDS and new initiatives:

For this purpose, some of the broad categories of NDDS may include the following:

  • Sustained- or controlled drug delivery systems provide drug action at a pre-determined rate.
  • Localized drug delivery devices for drug release in the vicinity of the target.
  • Rate – pre-programed drug delivery systems.
  • Targeted drug delivery provides drug action by using carries, which recognize their receptor at the target.

It goes without saying that NDDS mechanism may be used both for new molecules that may eventually be developed, and also for the existing repurposed drugs for Covid treatment.

Some encouraging initiatives of NDDS for Covid drugs:

The encouraging news is pharma initiatives in this regard has already commenced. For example, unprecedented interest in inhaled delivery of antiviral drugs has led to Aerogen’s involvement in multiple COVID-19 drug development initiatives, with more than 15 leading pharmaceutical companies - worldwide.

Several of these collaborations are already in clinical trials. Others are also on track to enter studies on moderately and severely ill COVID-19 patients, the Press Information of Aerogen dated October 22, 2020 highlighted. Let me cite below two more examples in this area, to explain the intensity of work that has commenced in the NDDS space for repurposed Covid drugs.

Covis Pharma’s inhaled glucocorticoid, Alvesco (ciclesonide) has entered Phase III safety and efficacy trial in 400 non-hospitalized patients  -12 years of age and older with symptomatic COVID-19. The product is delivered twice daily via a pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI).

Senzer Pharmaceuticals - a UK based company, is also in the process of formulating two specific medicines with antiviral properties, to allow them to be inhaled directly into the respiratory tract. The primary aim is to reduce the number of COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care treatment. Senzer is also using a pMDI for targeted drug delivery of actives through inhalation, as it offers potential advantages over oral intake. These include, ease of administration, assisting early treatment, allowing a lower dose by reducing unwanted side effects and supporting the safety profile of the products.

Experts consider preparations of inhalable particles for local delivery is a simpler approach. This is because the lungs comprise only about 2% of the total body weight, targeted delivery could reduce the amount of drug required by a factor of 50 or more, as compared to oral administration.

Be that as it may, the primary purpose of all such initiatives is to ensure more effective and safer drug delivery to Covid patients. It is now up to the pharma marketing leadership to ascertain how to leverage such NDDS opportunities to deliver extra patient-value, simultaneously creating a cutting edge for marketing these repurposed brands.

Impact of Covid on the NDDS market segments:

The May 11, 2020 report titled, ‘Drug Delivery Systems Market Forecast, Trend Analysis & Competition Tracking – Global Market Insights 2020 to 2025,’ presents some interesting details in this area. It forecasts, the global drug delivery systems market shall register an upswing, expanding at a strong CAGR of 7.0% during the forecast period (2020-2025).

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is expected to further heighten prospects of NDDS, with the number of infections still increasing every day. Consequently, many leading pharma companies have accelerated production of essential drug delivery systems, as stated above. According to the above report, the key growth drivers of the NDDS market include:

  • Targeted drug delivery - being most dominant, is expected to capture nearly half of the global NDDS market, expanding at a healthy CAGR of 6.8% across the above forecast period.
  • Polymeric drug delivery segment is anticipated to be the second-most lucrative area, expanding at a CAGR of 7.3% across the forecast period. The popularity of this delivery type is attributed to its efficiency in localized drug delivery in large amounts, alongside lowering drug toxicity rate. The polymeric drug delivery segment is expected to capture more than 1/3rd of the global drug delivery systems market during the forecast period.
  • Application of nanotechnology is another key growth determinant for the segment. Insertion of nanoparticles help penetrate the targeted tissue in a much better manner. These particles are easily absorbed by cells, facilitating efficient drug delivery.
  • Microneedle drug delivery helps deliver vaccines or other drugs across various barriers.

Conclusion:

The Covid clock keeps ticking. As on November 22, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 9,095,908 of Coronavirus cases with 133,263 deaths. The average number of daily new cases appeared, after the festive season, have started climbing up again. The threat of subsequent waves for further spread of Covid infection now looms large.

In this regard, many experts initially thought that Covid vaccines will be magic bullets to win the war against the new Coronavirus. But in the most recent times, this situation has changed, and it is no longer so – not even Pfizer vaccine. Indian media also deliberated the same on November 05, 2020.

Under this backdrop, Arthur L. Caplan, professor of bioethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, who wrote a 2017 book on vaccine ethics and policy have also made a profound comment. He said recently: “We’re going to have to continue our behavioral efforts - the masking and distancing and the quarantining and the testing and so on — in parallel with vaccination because it would be very, very surprising if we got a very highly effective vaccine first one out of the box.”

Currently, the world doesn’t have any clinically proven new Covid treatment drugs, either. What we have now is a number of repurposed Covid drugs, many of these are in advanced stage of clinical trials. As and when these are approved by the country’s regulators, pharma marketers will have a task cut to excel with those – among many ‘me-too’ types. In this scenario, there will be a critical need to create greater patient-value with a company’s own repurposed brand, where right application of NDDS technology could play a game changing role. The time to keep pondering is over. Time to decide is – now.

By: Tapan J. Ray     

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

 

 

Pharma’s Dual Challenge – To Save Lives And Livelihood

Posted on by
Reply

“Jaan hai to jahan hai” (If you have life, you have the world). Prime Minister Modi - with a skillful tweak, used the couplet of the 18th century poet - Mir Taqi Mir, while announcing the criticality of 21-day national lockdown from March 24, 2020 due to Covid-19 global pandemic. Many Indians lapped up this concept, considering it as a short haul sacrifice to save lives. Possibly, because the Prime Minister had said at that time, ‘Mahabharata battle won in 18 days, war against Coronavirus will take 21 days.’

As the Covid-19 went on a rampage despite the national lockdown, the Prime Minister, on April 11, 2020, changed it to ‘jaan bhi and jahan bhi’ (life also, the world also). This slogan seems to be more relevant in the emerging scenario.

After over a couple of months stringent national lockdown, the necessity and urgency of restarting active life started assuming a priority status for all concerned. But, the restarting process won’t be a piece of cake either – for anybody. As it would not only involve saving lives, but also – ensuring proper means of livelihood, making the industries gradually return to normal, and thereby revival of the country’s economy.

Dr. Ashish Jha, Director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, has summarized the nature of this challenge concisely, as quoted by the article – ‘Five key questions about India’s rising Covid-19 infections.’ This was published by BBC News on June 15, 2020. Acknowledging that India is in a very difficult situation, Dr. Jha said, “We are still early in the pandemic and we have a good year or so to go before we turn the corner. The question is what is the plan to get India through the next 12 to 16 months?”

Like many other industries, this is an arduous task to accomplish even for the drug industry, and for that matter – by any country. From the pharma industry perspective, I reckon, the commencement of the ‘restarting’ process, would pose a tough and dual challenge for many players – for different reasons. The current expectations require them going much beyond developing and delivering effective drugs and vaccine to win the Covid-19 war, and include the following, as well:

  • The population needs to develop either a vaccine-induced or a herd immunity, for a long-term protection against Covid-19. Pharma companies can facilitate the former one.
  • The entire population should have access to scientific evidence-based Coronavirus drugs and vaccine – at a price that most people can afford, to achieve the goal of vaccine-induced immunity.

In this article, I shall explore the ground issues in this area while confronting this dual challenge by the pharmaceutical industry, in general.

Developing herd immunity not an option for India: 

As it is known to many, even without an effective vaccine, it is possible for the population to develop a herd immunity. However, in this situation, a very large population will need to get infected, with its consequent impact on healthcare infrastructure and people’s lives. But, it will possibly be foolhardy to even think about this option, particularly for any country, such as India.

Dr. Ashish Jha in the above article on the BBC News, has also captured this challenge, aptly. He articulated, ‘India cannot wait for 60% of its people to get infected to achieve herd immunity and stop the virus. ‘That would mean millions of people dead. And that is not an acceptable outcome.’ Moreover, India’s Covid-19 infection curve has not started flattening – there is no consistent and steady decline, just yet. Thus, a vaccine-induced immunity seems to be the only prudent choice for the country.

Other reasons why an early intervention is necessary:

A national lockdown in India was certainly necessary to save lives. However, its prolonged duration of over 3 months, has caused a widespread confusion, anxiety, and fear among the public regarding the disease. Consequently, it has created several unintended social consequences, such as disease related stigma, discrimination, besides triggering several serious health hazards. The World Health Organization (W.H.O) also recognizes this problem.

Instances of stigma and discrimination against medical personnel – doctors and health care workers are common and have already been reported. Similarly, those working in aviation, especially on flights that were sent to bring the Indians back from COVID-19 affected foreign land, also met the same fate. Interestingly, such instances are not uncommon even within various housing societies for high income groups and communities. The stigma associated with COVID-19 is real and here to stay, at least for some time.

Serious health hazards like, panic, depression and anxiety have also gone viral as the nation was observing lockdown. Experts, reportedly, have opined that the fear of contracting viruses, compulsorily going to institutional quarantine centers and rising number of deaths, among others, are big triggers for all. Many believe, various communications – formal and informal – to keep people indoors, have given rise to such unintended consequences involving average Indians.

These developments further reinforce the critical need for an early therapeutic intervention in the disease treatment and prevention areas, such as an effective vaccine, where pharma can deliver what it does the best, and sooner.

Green shoots of overcoming the first challenge are visible:

Although, the world has not reached there, just yet, some green shoots of overcoming the first challenge with scientific-evidence-based drugs and vaccine, are now in sight. Treating Covid-19 effectively with the old warhorse – dexamethasone at a very affordable price, is almost a reality today. W.H.O has also called to ramp up dexamethasone production for Covid-19 patients.

Meanwhile, a few other drugs, such as remdesivir and favipiravir have also received marketing authorization of DCGI for treatment of Coronavirus in India. Similarly, Oxford University and AstraZeneca’s experimental Covid-19 vaccine have, reportedly, entered the final stages of clinical trials. Scientists are now in the final assessment of how well the vaccine works in protecting people from becoming infected by the virus.

A shift in the most vulnerable population poses another tough challenge:

As the need to restart the economy of the country becomes paramount, alongside the urgency of saving lives and livelihood, a shift in the most vulnerable population for Covid-19 infection is clearly visible.

As many would know, Coronavirus pandemic started with the more affluent class of the society who mainly travel abroad for work or studies. However, it is now spreading fast in the lesser privileged social strata, including poor migrant labors and other marginalized population. The spread now spans across from affluent communities, right through densely populated slum areas. The trend keeps going north, as each day passes, as of now.

In such a situation, to contain the disease effectively, Covid-19 drugs and vaccine must be accessible and affordable to all. Making this requirement another tough challenge for the pharma industry – as and when the therapies receive marketing approval of drug regulators.

Recently available drugs are expensive, even in India:

From the recent trend it appears, unlike hydroxychloroquine or dexamethasone, most of these emergency use Covid-19 drugs, such as remdesivir or favipiravir may not be accessible and affordable to a vast majority of the population, as discussed below.

Like remdesivir, favipiravir is also, reportedly, the subject of at least 18 clinical trials involving more than 3,000 patients across India, USA, Canada, Italy, China, France, UK and other countries. Encouragingly, for the Oxford University developed Coronavirus vaccine, Serum Institute is expected to price it at Rs.1,000 per vaccine. Thus, for a family of 4 persons, it would cost around Rs. 4000. Be that as it may, lets have a look at the comparative clinical efficacy of cheaper and relatively expensive repurposed older drugs, against their respective costs.

Comparative efficacy and cost of a cheaper and expensive repurposed drugs: 

While comparing the relative clinical efficacy of cheaper and relatively expensive repurposed drugs – against their respective costs, some interesting facts surface, as follows:

According to the reported results, published by FiercePharma in an article on June 24, 2020, dexamethasone treatment led to a 35 percent reduction in death rate among patients on invasive mechanical ventilation and 20 percent for those receiving oxygen without invasive ventilation. The dose used was, 6 mg of dexamethasone in a single dose per day – either orally or via intravenous injection – for ten days at a stretch. Whereas, the cost of Dexamethasone (0.5mg) in India, for a strip of 30 Tablets, is around Rs.6.00.

Similarly, the same article reported, remdesivir has been found to reduce the death rate among severe patients to 7.7 percent from 13 percent for placebo, a difference that was not statistically significant.Whereas, remdesivir in India, will cost around Rs 5,000-6,000/dose. And its recommended dose for adults and pediatric patients weighing 40 kg and higher, is a single loading dose of 200 mg on Day 1 followed by once daily maintenance doses of 100 mg from day 2 up to 5 to 10 days.

Similarly, favipiravir will be available in India as a 200 mg tablet at a Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of Rs 3,500 for a strip of 34 tablets. Whereas, its recommended dose is 1,800 mg twice daily on day one, followed by 800 mg twice daily up to day 14, according to its manufacturer.

An interesting fallout of Dexamethasone study:

An interesting fallout of the dexamethasone study on arriving at a fair price for remdesivir for treating Covid-19 patients, is worth noting. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) had earlier highlighted the “cost-effectiveness” benchmark price of remdesivir ranges from $4,580 to $5,080. However, ‘a new scenario analysis assuming the likely incorporation of dexamethasone as standard of care, produces a lower benchmark price range for remdesivir of $2,520 to $2,800.’

Conclusion:

As on June 28, 2020 morning, crossing half a million mark, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country have reached 529,577 with 16,103 deaths. And the climb continues. In the context of the same disease, a publication of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) had recently articulated: ‘In less than 3 months, COVID-19 has become a global pandemic of proportions we have not experienced this century. This has led to some of the largest economies in the world racing to develop a vaccine to combat the disease. However, in this time of urgency, patent laws may conflict with the equal provision of these future medicines worldwide.’

In sync with this sentiment, apprehensions of profiteering on drugs, tests, or vaccines used for the COVID-19 pandemic are mounting in almost all countries. Governments are now being encouraged to suspend and override patents and take other measures, such as price controls, to ensure availability, reduce prices and save more lives.

According to reports, Canada, Chile, Ecuador and Germany have already taken steps to make it easier to override patents by issuing ‘compulsory licenses’ for COVID-19 medicines, vaccines and other medical tools. Similarly, the government of Israel issued a compulsory license for patents on a medicine they were investigating for use for COVID-19.

From the industry, a strong demand for fiscal stimulus, such as the removal of the Health Cess and Customs Duty, to support patient access to critical medical products, is also gaining momentum, alongside the early release of Government payment to providers.

Thus, while exploring the dual challenge lying ahead for many pharma companies – to save both lives and livelihood – delivering effective drugs and vaccine may probably be an easier task than improving access to those – for all, in a meaningful way.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Pharma Branding At Tough Times

Posted on by
Reply

“About two-thirds of drug launches don’t meet expectations. Improving that record requires pharmaceutical companies to recognize the world has changed and adjust their marketing accordingly.” This appeared in an article – “The secret of successful drug launches,” published by McKinsey & Company in March 2014. There isn’t any recent evidence, either, that this situation has improved now.

Even innovative drugs no longer guarantee a commercial success, as greater competition is building up there, as well. Today, the number of such drugs per indication has risen by 37 percent since 2006 making the task tougher, according to another article of McKinsey & Company, titled ‘Why innovative products aren’t enough for a successful pharma launch,’ brought out in August 2017.

Top marketers’ intimate involvement in these launches, backed by robust marketing strategies notwithstanding, large scale ‘brand failures’ or rather ‘branding failures,’ still remains unavoidable. Although, its telltale signs are more often visible immediately after launch, but may happen even several years after.

Pundits are just not scratching their heads, but doing extensive research to fathom why it happens. However, with changing times – the market dynamics and the research outcomes/inferences keep changing too. And that will be the focus of my today’s discussion in this article, while I explore various facets of the same.

Is pharma branding just a marketing exercise?

That pharma branding is not just a marketing exercise and its failure at any stage – from launch to even years after, I reckon, isn’t the sole responsibility of the pharma marketer. This is mainly because, doctors would ideally prefer to prescribe specific pharma brands and patients would feel confident to use those, because of successful construction of a positive brand bias. Which in turn creates a higher perceived efficacy and a low anticipated safety concern with the brand.

Although, it will be right to assume that good pharma marketers are solely responsible for the creation of this intangible brand asset, but the tangible intrinsic brand value should necessarily be ingrained into each dose of the same that patients consume, always.

Thus, tangible brand value creation, its maintenance, if not enhancement, span across many other functional domains of a drug company. Some of these include, unbiased reporting with expected disclosures of all clinical trial results, maintaining a robust and highly efficient supply chain network or high-quality manufacturing facilities, besides a few others. Evidences exist that irrational pricing could also result in a kind of brand failure. Considering these aspects in totality, creating a positive bias during a pharma brand-building process, is a collective responsibility, and not just of the marketers.

Why creating a positive brand bias is a collective responsibility?

There are ample examples to substantiate that creating a positive stakeholder bias during its brand-building process, is a collective responsibility. Let me illustrate this point by drawing a few examples of branded failures prompted by supply-chain network, disclosures on clinical development and of course perceived ‘irrational’ pricing that falls basically in the marketing domain. It is worth noting, similar incidents may also be related to the manufacturing process, even for top selling generic drugs.

Supply-chain: In the beginning of 2008, serious adverse drug events, some even fatal, were reported with Heparin (Baxter), which used to be widely used as an injectable anticoagulant. Around 80 people died from contaminated Heparin products in the U.S. The US FDA reported that such contaminated Heparin was detected from at least 12 other countries. The primary reason of the same was a serious breach in the supply-chain integrity.

Disclosures on clinical trial results: On 30 September 2004, Vioox (rofecoxib), a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that had been on the market since 1999, was suddenly withdrawn by its manufacturer MSD, owing to concerns about its effect on cardiovascular health.

‘Irrational’ pricing: Like a lot of new cancer drugs, Zaltrap (aflibercept) wasn’t cheap carrying a price tag of USD 9,600 a month. But its price was quickly taken down. This followed some serious public flak, such as, doctors from Memorial Sloan-Kettering (MSK) wrote a blistering review for The New York Times in November 2012. They declared that MSK was taking the drug off the institution’s formulary, because less expensive and just as good alternative angiogenesis inhibitors were available. Although, Sanofi initially defended the price, it subsequently backed down, cutting down the price by half.

Manufacturing process: On September 13, 2019, the FDA announced that preliminary tests found low levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in ranitidine (Zantac), a heartburn medication. Consequently, almost all companies, including Novartis (through its generic division, Sandoz), GSK, Apotex and many others announced its withdrawal from a large number of markets. Interestingly, these announcements came after a Connecticut-based online pharmacy informed the FDA that it had detected NDMA in multiple ranitidine products under certain test conditions. The NDMA impurity was believed to have been introduced by changes in the manufacturing process. There are several other well-reported examples, as well.

These examples vindicate that creating a positive brand bias remains a collective responsibility throughout the product lifecycle. And it involves several functional areas of drug companies. That said, let me now focus on the creation of a positive bias for pharma brands.

Creating a positive brand bias:

Skillful creation of a positive brand-bias, supported by high quality – tangible and intangible value offerings, is the net outcome of any successful branding process. It augments stakeholder confidence, leading to an increased prescription generation, alongside a favorable patient experience.

More often than not, a positive brand-bias successfully brings into being greater perceived brand-efficacy and higher perceived brand-quality, with lesser anticipated safety concerns. Consequently, the process invigorates an emotional bonding with customers for a long-term brand-loyalty. A positive brand-bias also creates a strong brand equity that often helps in working out a good pricing strategy for the company.

An interesting strategy prescribed – recently:

The October 8, 2019 issue of Fierce Pharma featured an article on creating a positive brand-bias with “Prime and prompt” marketing strategies, outlined by CMI/Compas.

According to Changing Minds: ‘Priming works by providing people with information that is easily brought to mind. The prompt that brings the information to mind can be an implanted and specific trigger or can be an associated term that will naturally bring back the primed information.’ Illustrating the point, it adds: ‘Prime-and-prompt can be a bit like firing a gun, where priming cocks and prompting pulls the trigger.’

Putting this concept in the pharma industry perspective, the CMI/Compas officials explained in the above article, ‘pharma marketers can create primes with product messages that condition people to recall their product when they need medicine or are diagnosed with a condition.’

Hence, a pharma marketer’s adroitness in the ‘priming’ strategy helps ‘prompt’ the desirable action, such as, going to a doctor to ask about a product. Hence, the persuasion technique is termed – ‘prime and prompt’, the paper explained. Naturally, the question that follows: what are the key principles behind this strategy?

Key principles behind ‘prime and prompt’ strategy:

As elucidated by the Changing Minds, when thinking and deciding, we are influenced by related information from the past. At that time, our memories would supply that information, which helps us understand, make sense, decide and act on the subject at hand. Thus, those things that come at the top of mind will have a more immediate and disproportionate influential effect, while those things which are long forgotten may have little or no effect.

It further adds: ‘Priming is driven by implicit memory, where recall is entirely unconscious as the person ‘just knows’ without having to think hard or otherwise put effort into remembering or working things out.’

How to apply the ‘prime and prompt’ strategy in pharma?

It’s no-brainer that to use ‘priming’ in the persuasion process, say for increasing prescription support, the marketers need to provide stakeholders with relevant information beforehand, and more importantly, in a different setting. And only thereafter, they need to focus on a normal brand persuasion strategy. One may most appropriately comment, this is easier said than done in the drug industry.

Taking a cue from the above interview with the CMI/Compas officials, some of the broad steps of the ‘prime and prompt’ strategy, I reckon, may be summarized as follows:

  • Consistent messaging through omnichannel media achieving target reach and frequency, as I had explained before.
  • For intended top of mind recall, a combination of print, digital, social, search, display at appropriate places and in TV, especially for OTC drugs, should consistently surround the target audience for ‘priming.’
  • According to a recent research, the most highly rated ‘priming’ spots for pharma ads for physicians are medical journals, conferences and the likes. Similarly, for patients, appropriate displays at doctors’ clinics and similar places also appeared to be one of the top-rated ‘priming’ spots.

Consequently, a well thought-out ‘priming’ strategy, skillfully executed – based on research findings, is expected to be effective. It will then help trigger desirable ‘prompts’ for the target-audience, augmenting a successful branding process. However, it comes with a caveat that the tangible intrinsic value of the brand, especially those which originate in other functional areas, don’t get compromised or changed in any way.

Conclusion:

Branding exercise in the pharma industry has never been more challenging, as it is today – both for innovative and generic drugs. As stated above, the number of innovative drugs per indication has risen by 37 percent since 2006, making the market competition tougher. Likewise, product proliferation with cut-throat pricing for branded generics, is also making the generic drug marketers grasping at straws, as it were.

In this challenging situation, creating a positive stakeholder bias for brands, as the net outcome of the pharma branding process, is a collective responsibility. Any non-marketing misstep in the tangible brand value offering, could sweep a brand away to oblivion – not just during launch, but at any stage of its life-cycle. Pharma marketers will of course be solely responsible to create the critical intangible brand assets, such as a positive stakeholder bias for brands.

At this tough time for pharma branding, several fresh marketing concepts like, ‘prime and prompt’ are now being seriously evaluated. Thus, I reckon, its also a time for astute marketers in the pharma industry to test the water, in pursuit of excellence.

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.

 

Blockchain: Pharma Keeps An Eye On The Ball

Posted on by
Reply

On April 24, 2017, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) came out with an interesting headline, “Dubai Aims to Be a City Built on Blockchain.” Some may have taken note of it seriously. However, a vast majority of its readers possibly equated the article with something, which is far from reality – like a distant dream.

However, looking at the rapid transformational phase of digital technology, nothing apparently is a dream – not even ‘a distant one.’ The following recent example, in a similar but not exactly the same context, would vindicate this point.

On January 09, 2018, Reuters reported with a headline, “JPMorgan’s Dimon regrets calling bitcoin a fraud.” Interestingly, at a conference held in September 2017, the same Dimon – the Chief Executive of JPMorgan, had commented: “The currency isn’t going to work. You can’t have a business where people can invent a currency out of thin air and think that people who are buying it are really smart.”

I cited the example of ‘Bitcoin’ while deliberating on ‘Blockchain’, primarily because ‘Bitcoin’ – an unregulated virtual or cryptocurrency was built on ‘Blockchain’ technology. This technology reportedly facilitates absolutely transparent, smooth, safe and corruption-free transaction of ‘Bitcoin’, without any third-party intervention at any stage.

Currently, moving beyond Bitcoin, many industries – including pharma, have started finding various uses of Blockchain in their respective businesses. Domain experts envisage, this technology has the potential to offer game changing values – revolutionizing various business processes.

In this article, I shall focus on how the healthcare industry, in general, and more specifically some global pharma players are contemplating to leverage the path breaking ‘Blockchain’ technology to add unprecedented value in the business. The technology being rather a complex one, I shall put it across in a way that an ordinary man like me can easily absorb. Which is why, I start with the first basic question that comes to the fore: ‘What exactly is ‘Blockchain’?

‘Blockchain’:

‘Blockchain’ is a technology that was reportedly conceptualized by an anonymous individual or a group known as Satoshi Nakamoto, in 2008. It was implemented in 2009, as a core component of ‘Bitcoin’ transactions – in an altogether different form of Internet. The technology provides in its network access to transparent digital information that no user can corrupt or probably even hack, leave aside taking copies. The December 13, 2017 article, featured in the Computerworld on this ‘Most disruptive tech in decades’, describes Blockchain as:

  • “Blockchain is a public electronic ledger – similar to a relational database – that can be openly shared among disparate users. It creates an unchangeable record of their transactions, each one time-stamped and linked to the previous one. Each digital record or transaction in the thread is called a block (hence the name), and it allows either an open or controlled set of users to participate in the electronic ledger. Each block is linked to a specific participant.”
  • “Blockchain can only be updated by consensus between participants in the system, and when new data is entered, it can never be erased. The Blockchain contains a true and verifiable record of each and every transaction ever made in the system.”
  • “As a peer-to-peer network, combined with a distributed time-stamping server, Blockchain databases can be managed autonomously to exchange information between disparate parties. There’s no need for an administrator. In effect, the Blockchain users are the administrators.”

Blockchain has, therefore, been meticulously designed to reveal any interference with the contents, ensuring a very high level of data security and access for all its users. Thus, many domain experts justifiably believe, what ‘open-source’ software did almost two and half decades ago, ‘Blockchain’ technology is possibly on a similar threshold of changing much of the ball game in Information Technology (IT), globally.

Big corporate houses of several industries, such as Fintech, Healthcare and Shipping envisage that ‘Blockchain’ technology has a great potential, as they start making limited use of it. It is still in its infancy for scalable use in most industries, probably other than ‘Bitcoin’ transactions.

Use of ‘Blockchain’ in pharma and healthcare:

Let me now explore the potential of ‘Blockchain’ in healthcare and pharma. A paper titled, “Healthcare rallies for Blockchains: Keeping patients at the center” by IBM Institute for Business Value, provides some important insight on its application in healthcare sector. This study is based on a survey of 200 healthcare executives in 16 countries, conducted by The Economist Intelligence Unit. The key highlights are as follows:

  • 16 percent of pharma and healthcare respondents expected to have a commercial Blockchain solution at scale in 2017, as compared to 15 percent of the Banks and 14 percent of Financial enterprises. Thus, it appears, the adoption of Blockchain by healthcare entities are taking place at a faster pace than the other two.
  • 6 in 10 anticipate Blockchains will help them access new markets, and new and trusted information they can keep secure.
  • 7 in 10 of them expect the greatest Blockchain benefits to be in clinical trial records, regulatory compliance and medical/ health records.

Accordingly, the authors posed a few questions: How valuable would it be to have the full history of an individual’s health? What if every vital sign that has been recorded, of all the medicines taken, information associated with every doctor’s visit, illness, operation and more, could be efficiently and accurately captured – and securely stored?

If and when all this is put to scalable use, the designated users will get access to the historic and real-time patient data of various types, of high credibility. In turn, it is expected to significantly reduce many other costs, including the cost towards data reconciliation. Consequently, the quality and coordination of care would rise manifold, with lesser risk, if at all. I shall give below just a couple of examples to drive home the point:

I. Adds credibility and value to Clinical Trials:

The issue of not reporting around half of all clinical trial data, conducted by pharma players while obtaining marketing approval for innovative products, has become a topic of raging debates, across the world. The reason for the same is apparently the intent for the deliberate creation of an information-gap, by cherry picking more favorable trial data. This could eventually lead to compromising patient safety, seriously.

Allegations continue for not just mostly favorable trial data being presented to drug regulators and policymakers to obtain marketing and other approvals, but also for product promotion to doctors. This prompts many believing, “if the clinical trials are supported by Blockchain solution, all results, protocols, and other related information would be time-stamped and immutable, resulting in less data snooping and errors.” Consequently, it would help enhance the dwindling public trust on pharma, especially in this area.

II. Adds unprecedented security and transparency in SCM:

Another example of its effective use is in making a tamper-evident pharma Supply Chain Management (SCM), with unprecedented built-in security features to prevent drug counterfeiting and circulation of substandard drugs. Moreover, ‘Blockchain’ would ensure supply chain tracking even at the individual Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) level by establishing proof of ownership for specific sources of any product. This is especially important in the backdrop of the WHO report, highlighting that 30 percent of such drugs are sold primarily in developing countries.

Global pharma keeping an eye on the ball:

An article titled, ‘Big Pharma Seeks DLT Solution for Drug Costs’, published on January 09, 2018 by the CoinDesk – a digital media and information services company, discussed on this fascinating subject.

It reported, at least, three global pharma heavyweights – Pfizer, Amgen and Sanofi, are pondering, whether ‘Blockchain could be used to actually save lives?’ To achieve this goal with combined efforts, they are now exploring a Blockchain framework to streamline the process of developing and testing new drugs. These early initiators believe, as areas such as this, are of industry-wide importance, there is a need to create a growing momentum for collaboration on foundational issues. And, Blockchain framework that can address the current issues in drug development and clinical trials, will fetch a win-win outcome, both for the innovators and patients, besides other stakeholders.

To reduce the time and cost of bringing new drugs from research labs to patients, improved data management and movement is critical. Blockchain technology could hasten this process, by automating communication between pharma companies, researchers and patients. At the same time, it will ensure a very high level of data integrity, which is so important for health and safety interest of patients.

This area has assumed greater relevance in the recent years, when pharma innovators are facing different challenges to bring new, more personalized drugs to market – faster and at affordable prices, the paper highlights.

Areas of initial use by Indian pharma:

In my article “SCM: Embracing Technology For Patients’ Safety”, published in this Blog on December 18, 2017, I discussed a similar point, not in context of ‘Blockchain’, though. I wrote that by a notification dated January 05, 2016, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) has made encoding and printing of unique numbers and bar codes as per GSI Global Standard mandatory. This would cover tertiary, secondary and primary packaging for all pharmaceuticals manufactured in India and exported out of the country to facilitate tracking and tracing.

Although, the ‘Track and Trace’ system in India for drugs is currently applicable only to pharma exports, will ultimately cover drugs in the domestic market, as well. This is evident from a draft proposal of the Government to the stakeholders in June 2015, in this regard.

Blockchain-based public electronic ledgers that can be openly shared among disparate users, creating an unchangeable record of their transactions, with each one time-stamped and linked to the previous one, would be of immense importance for all concerned towards the reliability of medicines in India.

Similarly, as Indian players venture into more complex clinical trials, such as with biosimilars, Blockchain could catapult the narrative on reliability of Indian clinical data to a much higher level of trust.

Blockchain has come to stay:

As I said in the beginning, ‘Blockchain’ technology has started coming to the fore of many discussions and debates, mainly for its critical role in transparent transaction and distribution process of the cryptocurrency – Bitcoin.

December 16, 2017 issue of the Gulf News reported that UAE’s central bank is working on a joint cryptocurrency, based on Blockchain, with its counterpart in Saudi Arabia. Just prior to that, in August 31, 2017 issue of the Financial Times also reported: “Six of the world’s biggest banks have joined a project to create a new form of digital cash that they hope to launch next year for clearing and settling financial transactions over Blockchain, the technology underpinning bitcoin.”

And just this month, we got to know about the combined efforts of Pfizer, Amgen and Sanofi, to use a Blockchain framework for streamlining the process of developing and testing new drugs.

Besides many other industries, even several Governments are envisaging to unleash the transformative potential of Blockchain in various Governance processes. It may include the confidential data procured and used by Governments to confirm the identity or identification of individuals for different purpose, or even to ensure that the country’s election process is transparent and beyond corruption.

An expression of interest on the use of Blockchain by some State Governments in India, gets reflected in what the Chief Minister (CM) of Maharashtra said while inaugurating the Maharashtra Technology Summit (MTECH), jointly organized by FICCI and Govt. of Maharashtra in Mumbai on January 17, 2018.

The CM clearly indicated, as Blockchain can transform the e-governance, the State Governments must start interacting with technology providers to make Public delivery of goods and services transparent. This will reduce the trust deficit between businesses, and citizens with government departments. He admitted, in the space of technology, ‘Blockchain is one level up and it’s not just Internet of Thing, but it is Internet of trust, Internet of values, that can change the entire space of governance’.

Conclusion:

Blockchain may be just a technological component, but, nonetheless, a game changing one. Thus, the good news is, several pharma players are also taking great interest to step into this never ever experienced – and a new kind of digital paradigm.

It is heartening to note that a number of global pharma head honchos, such as of Novartis, Takeda, and several others, are creating a new global position of chief digital officer. GSK, reportedly, is the latest one to initiate similar step.

Indian pharma players, I reckon, can also reap a rich harvest, both tangible and intangible, by putting ‘Blockchain’ technology in place. It may start with building a transparent, incorruptible ‘Track and Trace’ system for medicines, in addition to achieving high degree of international reliability in its clinical trials, especially on biologic drugs.

The benefits built into the Blockchain technology for pharma, apparently, are far too many than perceived constraints to leverage it effectively. Encouragingly, global pharma seems to be keeping an eye on the ball – but what about Indian pharma?

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.

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Posted on by
Reply

Novel biologic medicines have unlocked a new frontier offering more effective treatment for a host of chronic and life-threatening diseases, such as varieties of cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes, to name just a few. However, these drugs being hugely expensive, many patients do not have any access, or adequate access, to them. According to the Biosimilar Council of GPhA, only 50 percent of severe Rheumatoid Arthritis patients receive biologic medicines, even in the United States, Europe and Japan, leave aside India.

Realizing the gravity of this situation, a need to develop high quality, reasonably affordable and similar to original biologic brands, was felt about ten years ago. These were intended to be launched immediately after patent expiry of the original biologic. Such medicines are termed as biosimilar drugs. It is worth noting, even biosimilar drug development involves complex manufacturing processes and handling, while dealing with derivatives of highly sensitive living organisms.

The regulatory approval process of these drugs is also very stringent, which demands robust clinical data, demonstrating high similarity, both in effectiveness and safety profile, to original biologic brands, known as the reference product. The clinical data requirements for all new biosimilars include data on patients switching from the originator’s brand, and also between other biosimilars. Clinical evidences such as these, are expected to provide enough confidence to physicians for use of these products.

An article published in the PharmaTimes magazine in January 2016, reiterated that over the last couple of years, a wealth of supporting data has been published in medical journals and presented at global congresses, including real-world data of patients who have been switched to the new drug from the originator. This has led to a positive change in physician and patient attitudes towards biosimilars.

The good news is, besides many other regulated markets, as of May 2017, five biosimilar drugs have been approved even by the US-FDA, and several others are in the pipeline of its approval process.

That said, in this article I shall mainly focus on the two key barriers for improving patient access to biosimilar drugs, as I see it.

Two major barriers and their impact:

As I see it, there appear to be the following two key barriers for more affordable biosimilar drugs coming into the market, improving patients’ access to these important biologic medicines:

  • The first barrier involves fierce legal resistance from the original biologic manufacturers of the world, on various grounds, resisting entry of biosimilar varieties of their respective brands. This compels the biosimilar drug manufacturers incurring heavy expenditure on litigation, adding avoidable cost. A glimpse of this saga, we are ‘privy’ to witness even in India, while following Roche versus Biocon and Mylan case related to ‘Trastuzumab’. This barrier is one of the most basic types, that delays biosimilar drug entry depriving many new patients to have access to lower priced effective biologic for the treatment of serious diseases.
  • The other major barrier that exists today, involves ‘interchangeability’ of original biologic with biosimilar drugs. It simple means that in addition to being highly similar, a biosimilar drug manufacturer would require producing indisputable clinical evidence that it gives the same result for any given patient just as the original biologic. We shall discuss the reason behind this regulatory requirement later in this article. However, this is an expensive process, and the absence of it creates a barrier, making the physicians hesitant to switch all those existing patients who are on expensive original biologic drugs with less expensive available biosimilar alternatives.

The first or the initial barrier:

The first or the initial barrier predominantly involves patent related legal disputes, that can only be settled in a court of law and after incurring heavy expenditure towards litigation. Provided, of course, the dispute is not mutually resolved, or the law makers do not amend the law.

An interesting case in India:

Interestingly, in India, a similar dispute has knocked the doors of both the high court and the Competition Commission of India (CCI). From a common man’s perspective, it appears to me that the laws under which these two institutions will approach this specific issue are seemingly conflicting in nature. This is because, while the patent law encourages no market competition or a monopoly situation for a patented product, competition law encourages more market competition among all related products. Nonetheless, in this specific case CCI is reportedly investigating on the alleged ‘abuse of the regulatory process’, as it has opined ‘abuse of regulatory process can constitute an abuse of dominance under the (CCI) Act.’                                                                                            

The second barrier:

I am not going to discuss in this article the relevance of this barrier, in detail. Nevertheless, this one is also apparently equally tough to comply with. The very fact that none out of five biosimilar drugs approved in the United States, so far, has been considered ‘interchangeable’ by the US-FDA, vindicates the point.

That this specific regulatory demand is tough to comply with, is quite understandable from the requirements of the US-FDA in this regard, which goes as follows:

“To support a demonstration of interchangeability, the data and information submitted to FDA must show that a proposed interchangeable product is biosimilar to the reference product and that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient. Also, for products that will be administered more than once, the data and information must show that switching a patient back and forth between the reference product and the proposed interchangeable product presents no greater risk to the patient in terms of safety or diminished efficacy when compared to treating them with the reference product continuously.”

The reasoning of innovative biologic drug makers:

On this subject, the stand taken by different innovative drug makers is the same. To illustrate the point, let me quote just one of them. It basically sates, while biosimilar drugs are highly similar to the original medicine, the patient’s immune system may react differently due to slight differences between the two medicines when they are alternated or switched multiple times. This phenomenon, known as immunogenicity, is not a common occurrence, though. But there have been rare instances when very small differences between biologic medicines have caused immune system reactions that changed the way a medicine was metabolized, or reduced its effectiveness.

It further reiterates, the US-FDA requirements to establish ‘interchangeability’ between a biosimilar drug and the original one, or between biosimilars may seem like nuances, but are important because ‘interchangeability’ allows pharmacists to substitute biosimilars without consulting the doctor or patient first.

It may, therefore, indicate to many that innovative biologic drug manufacturers won’t want substitution of their expensive biologic with more affordable biosimilar drugs, on the ground of patient safety issues related to immunogenicity, though its instances are rather uncommon.

Some key players in biosimilar drug development:

Having deliberated on the core subject of this article, let me now very briefly name the major players in biosimilar drug development, both in the developed world, and also in India.

The first biosimilar drug was approved by the US-FDA in 2006, and the product was Omnitrope (somatropin) of Novartis (Sandoz). It was the same in the European Union (EU), as well. Subsequently, many other companies reportedly expressed interest in this field, across the globe, including Pfizer, Merck, Johnson and Johnson, Amgen, AbbVie, Hospira, AstraZeneca and Teva, among many others.

Similarly, in India, the major players in this field include, Biocon, Sun Pharma, Shantha Biotech, Dr. Reddy’s Lab, Zydus Cadila, Panacea Biotech and Reliance Life Sciences.

As featured on the Amgen website, given the complexity and cost of development and manufacturing, biosimilars are expected to be more affordable therapeutic options, but are not expected to generate the same level of cost savings as generics. This is because, a biosimilar will cost US$100 to US$200 million and take eight to ten years to develop. Whereas, a small molecule generic will cost US$1 to US$5 million and take three to five years to develop.

The market:

According to the 2017 report titled “Biosimilar Market: Global Industry Analysis, Trends, Market Size & Forecasts to 2023” of Research and Markets, the market size of the global biosimilar market was valued over US$ 2.5 billion during 2014, and it surpassed US$ 3.30 billion during 2016. The global biosimilar market is projected to surpass US$ 10.50 billion by 2023, growing with a CAGR between 25.0 percent and 26.0 percent from 2017 to 2023.

According to this report, gradually increasing awareness, doctors’ confidence and the lower drug cost are expected to boost the demand and drive the growth of the global biosimilar market during the forecast period. Segments related to diabetes medicine and oncology are expected to attain faster growth during the forecast period. Patent expiry of several blockbuster drugs is a major basic factor for growth of the global biosimilar market, as it may encourage the smaller manufacturers to consider producing such biologic drugs in those segments.

Conclusion:

Biosimilar drugs are expected to benefit especially many of those patients who can’t afford high cost biologic medicines offering better treatment outcomes than conventional drugs, in the longer term. These drugs are now being used to effectively manage and treat many chronic and life-threatening illnesses, such cardiac conditions, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, HIV/AIDS and cancer.

However, improving patient access to high quality biosimilar drugs, at an affordable price, with increasing competition, could be a challenge, as two key barriers are envisaged to attain this goal. Overcoming these meaningfully, I reckon, will involve choosing thoughtfully a middle path, creating a win-win situation, both for the patients, as well as the industry.

Adequate competition in the biologic drug market is essential – not only among high-priced original biologic brands and biosimilars, but also between biosimilar drugs. This is so important to increase patient access to biologic drugs, in general, across the world, including India.

The current situation demands a sense of urgency in searching for a middle path, which may be created either through a legal framework, or any other effective means as would deem fair and appropriate, without compromising with patient safety, at least, from where it is today.

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.

Reticence Around Unveiling Clinical Trials

Posted on by
Reply

While scanning through various publications, we now get to know, almost at regular intervals, about new clinical trials capturing the newer ways of treating different ailments. Such information instils an invigorating hope in the minds of doctors and the patients alike, to more successfully and predictably fight the battle against diseases in the ongoing pursuit for a better quality of life.

However, for independent and impartial assessment of any new drug before it comes to the market, an ethical and transparent process of unveiling clinical trials, sans any reticence whatsoever, are absolutely essential. Only this process would be able to satisfactorily establish, beyond an iota of doubt, the safety and efficacy levels of, especially, the new drugs. To move in that direction, the fundamental requirements will be diligently recording and publishing all types of data – positive, not so positive, and also negative, arising out of all clinical trials, conducted anywhere in the world, for the same drug.

Thus, there should be a system of open access to all clinical trial data, as each trial is completed. Otherwise, pharma companies’ publication bias, overwhelmingly on positive results, would continue, as alleged by many across the world. It is worth noting that over 60 percent of all clinical trials for new drugs are sponsored by the pharma and biotech companies.

There isn’t any dearth of examples of new drugs’ getting not just the required regulatory approval, riding on the back of robust ‘positive’ clinical trial data on safety and efficacy, but also becoming highly dependable money-spinners for the companies, and in no time, as it were. These cash churning new brands would also get well protected for monopolistic pricing all through their respective patent life, and sometimes even after that, in various different ways.

Nevertheless, at a later date, mostly post patent expiry, not all pre-launch new drug trials could be universally accepted as robust and conclusive, especially on their efficacy and safety claims. On the contrary, a number of detailed and deep-stick independent studies indicate that some new drugs are, in fact, much less effective, if not ineffective, and cause more serious side effects than what were published earlier.

Hence, some critical questions are now being asked by many stakeholders, with greater assertiveness than ever before and backed by solid evidence, in this arena. Although it has now started creating a snowballing effect, still, nothing much seems to have changed on the ground, just yet.

Why aren’t all clinical trial results, and for all new drugs not still published, or otherwise made available for public scrutiny, unveiled, and of course after protecting any reasonable commercial interest? Does business consideration, then continue to prevail over the need for transparency in clinical trial data disclosure for patients’ health and safety? The sneaking fear behind the reasons of this reticence of pharma players, in general, continues to torment many. I shall discuss this point in this article backed by recently published data.

Not a recent trend:

This isn’t a recent trend either, and continuing for decades, without any effective remedial measures by the appropriate authorities. I would give just a couple of examples, one from 1998 and the other from 2014, to drive home this point.

A  British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (BJCP) article, published way back in August 1998 would vindicate this point. This study revealed the following on clinical trial data:

“Substantial evidence of selective reporting was detected, since trials with positive outcome resulted more often in submission of final report to regulatory authorities than those with inconclusive or negative outcomes.”

Another study published on September 10, 2014 in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) states as follows:

“Thirty-five percent of published reanalysis led to changes in the findings that implied conclusions different from those of the original article about the types and number of patients who should be treated.”

That said, I shall now focus on a very recent controversy in this area, related to a blockbuster drug that has now gone off-patent.

A contemporary example:

Statin class of drugs, especially, Atorvastatin is one of many such examples.

Pfizer launched Atorvastatin with the brand name Lipitor in early 1997. At that time, it was the fifth in the statin class of drugs for the treatment of hyperlipidemia.

It was launched on the back of a 1996 clinical study that concluded, Lipitor reduces bad cholesterol significantly more than the other statins, from the very onset of treatment to as long as the treatment continues. After that it’s a history in the pharma industry, Pfizer marketing turned it into the best-selling drug ever, in the history of pharmaceuticals, so far.

Over 14.5 years, Lipitor reportedly made over US$ 125 billion in sales, and provided up to a quarter of Pfizer Inc.’s annual revenue for years.

Product claim – then:

Claiming that in ‘one year alone, statins reduced numerous cases of cardiovascular-related complications and saved thousands of lives’, a Pfizer Paper on “The Value of Statin”, reiterated the drug’s role both in the treatment and prevention of Coronary Artery Diseases (CAD). I am quoting below from this paper to cite just one example each – treatment and prevention:

  • In a study of patients with Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) statin therapy reduced the relative risk of mortality by 50 percent in those > 80-years-old, 44 percent in those 65- to 79-years-old, and 30% in those < 65 years old, compared to CAD patients in the same age group not taking statin therapy (Ref. Chloe, Allen A., et al. ‘Statin Therapy Is Associated With Reduced Mortality Across All Age Groups of Individuals With Significant Coronary Disease, Including Very Elderly Patients’. JACC. 40: 10; 1777-1785)
  • An analysis of 18 trials, including 56,934 patients, primarily without CVD, demonstrated statins conferred a relative risk reduction (RRR) in all-cause mortality by 14 percent and stroke by 22 percent (Ref. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013 Jan 31; 1:CD004816).

Research findings for the same drug – now:

Among several other publications on statins, a July 26, 2015 article, published in the ‘World Journal of Cardiology’ concludes as follows:

“History has proven otherwise, and the global prevalence of Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), despite worldwide statin usage and cholesterol lowering campaigns, has reached pandemic proportions. Coronary heart disease is an extremely complex malady and the expectation that it could be prevented or eliminated by simply reducing cholesterol appears unfounded. After twenty years we should concede the anomalies of the cholesterol hypothesis and refocus our efforts on the proven benefits of a healthy lifestyle incorporating a Mediterranean diet to prevent CHD.”

To give one more example, let me quote from a contemporary study, published on June 12, 2016 in the ‘BMJ Open’, which also comes to a similar conclusion, as follows:

“High LDL-C (Low-Density Lipoproteins – Cholesterol) is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (i.e., that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic). Since elderly people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis. Moreover, our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies.”

Examples of other drugs:

Lipitor should not stand out as a solitary example, in this field. To establish this point, let me now put forth, just as illustrations, a few more examples of similar bias on positive results in clinical trial publications, besides many others.

An October 4, 2016 article titled, “Big Pharma’s Role in Clinical Trials”, published in the ‘Drug Watch’, quotes several other companies sailing in the same boat, as follows:

  • The Cochrane Collaboration, a nonprofit organization based in London that reviews health care information, concluded that unlike its promotional claims, Roche’s Tamiflu only shortened symptoms of influenza by one day, and it did not prevent hospitalizations or complications from influenza.
  • AstraZeneca reportedly paid US$ 647 million in lawsuit settlements for failing to inform the public of Seroquel’s side effects.
  • Takeda Pharmaceuticals reportedly settled lawsuits claiming the company’s anti-diabetic drug Actos caused bladder cancer, for US$ 2.37 billion.
  • In July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline reportedly pleaded guilty and agreed to pay US$ 3 billion to settle charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice for failing to report clinical data on its anti-diabetic drug Avandia.
  • Johnson & Johnson was reportedly accused of hiding some dangerous side effects like, diabetes, substantial weight gain, stroke and gynecomastia – or breast development in boys for its product Risperdal – used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in adults and adolescents and autism spectrum disorders in children and adolescents.  The company reportedly settled claims in Kentucky, Texas and Montana for a total of more than US$ 340 million and settled multiple cases in Pennsylvania for undisclosed amounts.
  • As reported by ‘Financial Times’ on February 03, 2015, Novartis was accused of manipulating trial data in favor of its anti-hypertensive drug – Diovan, and concealing side-effects associated with its Tasigna – for leukemia treatment. As a result, the company reportedly faced a temporary suspension of its business in Japan, as punishment for alleged manipulation of clinical trial data.

Possible reasons:

The above ‘Drug Watch’ article attributed several reasons to positive data bias in publications, as follows:

  • Researchers publish positive findings more often than negative findings as a result of human bias. Scholars want their work to contribute to medical advancement and not deter it.
  • Researchers do not want to put their time and energy into writing studies about negative results.
  • Journals seek positive results, and publish them more quickly to increase publicity.
  • Trial sponsors want to publish positive results to increase profit.

The article emphasized, “Big Pharma funds 60 percent of all clinical trials, and takes advantage of its power to persuade researchers and influence institutions.  The result is an under-informed, and misinformed medical community giving advice to patients with false or incomplete data. The byproducts of industry cover-ups are scores of deaths and millions of dollars in industry profits.”

Indian scenario:

India is also not immune from such alleged wrongdoings. Indian clinical trial organizations have also been accused of trial related scams, and that too on a mega scale, reaching beyond the shores of the country. I am quoting below two such recent examples:

  • In August 2015, the European Union reportedly banned the marketing of around 700 generic medicines for alleged manipulation of clinical trials conducted by the domestic research company GVK Biosciences. This was reported as the largest EU-wide suspension of sales and distribution of generic drugs ordered by the European Commission that was applicable to all its 28 member nations.
  • In July 2016, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) reportedly recommended suspending the sale of dozens of generic medicines over concerns about “flawed” studies that were conducted by the Semler Research Center, located in Bengaluru. Many of these drugs are sold by Novartis and Teva Pharmaceuticals.
  • In September-October 2015, US-FDA also found “significant instances of misconduct and violations of federal regulations by the same research center, which includes substitution and manipulation of study subject samples.”
  • This year, the World Health Organization (WHO) also had issued a notice to Semler for the same reasons. After, examining the company’s computer servers, early and late last year, WHO reportedly found a spreadsheet file containing detailed instructions for manipulating drug samples that were used in clinical trials for its clients. 

It is even more unfortunate that such malpractices are continuing, even after the Supreme Court of India’s widely reported observation in early 2013 that ‘Uncontrolled clinical trials are causing havoc to human life.’ The apex court of the country made this remark in response to a petition filed by the human rights group Swasthya Adhikar Manch (SAM).  

The upshot:

Recent scrutiny of all original clinical trial findings of many new drugs by the independent experts, including statins, even if taken just as raising controversies, the question would still remain, why did such controversies not surface much earlier, or during the product patent life? No company would possibly be willing to unveil the fact behind this raging debate.

The good news is, pharma companies operating in Europe and the United States have decided to share trial data with qualified researchers, effective 2014, presumably in response to mounting pressure from clinical trial transparency campaigners, for quite some time.

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) have jointly released a set of principles detailing plans to allow greater access to information from clinical trials. However, it fell short of public availability of all clinical trial data. Let’s wait, watch and hope that this seemingly good intent would be translated into reality by all their member companies.

Some pharma companies and their trade associations continue to raise issues of the various legalities against related to public disclosures of all trial data. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that in April 2014, a legislation was approved in Europe by the European Parliament to increase transparency in clinical trials by making the trial results publicly available. EMA was commissioned by the European Parliament to create a database where all interested parties could view comprehensive data from clinical trials. The transparency rules for the European Clinical Trial Regulation entered into force on January 1, 2015 and apply to clinical trial reports contained in all marketing authorization applications submitted on or after this date. On March 3, 2016, EMA announced the detailed guidance on the requirements for pharmaceutical companies to comply with the agency’s policy on publication of clinical trials data for all medicines. Chapter Three of this publication gives guidance to companies on how to anonymize clinical reports for the purpose of publication.

The EMA initiative of transparency of clinical trial data  aims at ensuring that drug companies are aware of what is expected of them, and that they are ready for the publication of these critical data.

Besides Europe, in the United States too, though there is a clear mandate of the federal government that all clinical trial results related to serious or life-threatening diseases require to be published and uploaded on ClinicalTrials.gov – the database of the Government covering all clinical trials in America. However, this government mandate also seems to be hardly followed, both in its letter and spirit, according to reports. Similar scenario, reportedly, still prevails in most other developed countries, as well. India does not seem to be any different in this matter, either.

Intriguingly, the whole issue continues to remain polemical, with more number of initial clinical trial conclusions reportedly turning out to be not as transparent as these ought to be, carrying a significant bias towards positive treatment outcomes.

As a result, prevailing reticence around unveiling all clinical trials, including those of blockbuster drugs, is eventually pushing many patients to the brink of much avoidable and unforeseen serious health risk.

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. 

Clinical Trials: Critical Need To Improve Patient Participation With Informed Consent

Posted on by
Reply

On April 13, 2016, an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) titled, “Clinical Trials Need More Subjects” underscored an important point that the rate at which the clinical researchers are able to recruit and retain patients for ‘Clinical Trials (CT)’, has now hit an all-time low. This is vindicated by studies that indicate less than 10 percent of Americans now participate in clinical trials, and only 3 to 5 percent of patients sign up for trials of new cancer therapies, in the largest CT market of the world.

As a result, about 40 percent of CTs do not recruit enough patients to meet their goals, the article highlights. Consequently, a large number of pharma industry sponsored CTs are now, reportedly, moving away from the United States. India should, therefore, take note of this development and pull up the socks.

If similar situation gets replicated in other countries too, and persists, it would be very unlikely that critical and credible medical and scientific knowledge that can significantly improve the treatment outcomes in many serious disease conditions could be meaningfully gathered and put to practice. Its other serious fallouts too, are also not terribly difficult to imagine.

A key medical research tool: 

In pursuit of the advancement of medical knowledge and patient care, CT of drugs is universally considered to be a key medical research tool, as it is the best way to learn what works best in treating various types of diseases. It goes without saying that drugs for all new types of treatments would need to be discovered first through a long and painstaking process of discovery research. These are then purified, and tested in preclinical studies, before a final decision is taken for commencement of CT on human against preset parameters, as deemed necessary.

While going through this stringent process some drugs are found to be safe and effective on human subjects and some others are not, on the contrary may be harmful.

There lies the crucial importance of CT for all scientific evidence based medicines. According to the Department of Health & Human Services of the United States, Clinical research is done only if doctors don’t know:

  • whether a new approach works well with people and is safe and
  • which treatments or strategies work best for certain illnesses or groups of people 

CT, though a small part in the important and lengthy process of developing newer treatments, significantly helps the health care decision makers to decide on the treatments that work best for any patient.

Broad types: 

Pharmaceutical companies usually sponsor CT for new drugs and treatments, which are carried out by the designated research teams, consisting of doctors and other related professionals in different specialized areas.

There are 4 phases in any CT, which are broadly as follows:     

  • Phase I: Here, for a new treatment, an investigational drug is tested for the first time in small numbers, usually between 20 and 100, on healthy volunteers, to identify the proper dosage ranges for drug administration, while critically monitoring its method of absorption, adverse effects and toxicity profile.
  • Phases II: This phase, just as Phase I studies, also tests the drug on, usually between 100 and 300 patients, suffering from the targeted disease conditions. Safety is the main goal of this phase of CT and is programmed towards adjusting treatment doses, monitoring the common side effects, and whether patient’s disease condition improve as a result of the drug. These studies are usually randomized and double-blinded, where neither the patient nor the researchers would know whether a patient is receiving the investigational drug, or a placebo, or a standard treatment.
  • Phase III: In this phase, the investigational new drug goes through rigorous testing of safety, efficacy, and proper dosage levels in a large group of subjects, which may even exceed several thousand, with a specific illness or disease. The key objective is to enable the doctors to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the treatment for various groups of patients, such as, men versus women, elderly versus young, besides many others. 
  • Phase IV: Such studies are done after the drug receives the marketing approval from the drug regulator. The basic objective of these trials is usually to monitor whether the treatment offers desired benefits or gives rise to long-term side effects, which were not seen in the phase II and III trials. This phase may involve even several hundreds and thousands of patients.

It is worth noting that CT is essential to obtain marketing approval for any new treatment, as required by the drug regulators in the different countries, and takes around 6 to 8 years.

The role of patients:

Patients play a critical role in the entire scientific value chain of any drug evaluation process, especially on human. It is absolutely necessary, particularly in the regulated markets of the world, that all medicines are fully vetted through highly regulated, stringently monitored and well-scrutinized CTs, to ensure safety and effectiveness of each new drug and treatment for the patients.

No CT can take place sans the willingness and informed consent for participation of thousands of patients for any such studies held across the world. Without adequate patient participation in a CT, the drug performance data may also not be credible and thus acceptable to the drug regulator. This would, consequently, make it impossible to bring any new drug for prevention or treatment of various, often life threatening, disease conditions. 

Major reasons for not enough patient participation:

There are many reasons for not enough patients volunteering to participate in the CT, even in India. Some of the major reasons have been identified as follows:

  • Patients often are not aware that such trials also offer a treatment option. In many cases, their doctors too may not be explaining it effectively to them, as a part of their professional discourse. Several studies conclude that trust in a physician is a main reason patients decide to participate in CT.
  • Some patients, after reading media reports, interacting with some NGOs and also from word of mouth, mistrust the CT process and suffer from fear of being a guinea pig.
  • At times, complicated protocols, and eligibility requirements may also be discouraging.
  • Many patients, especially in India, are not very clear about the exact insurance (financial) cover the study provides for them, along with other payments for the care that they would receive during the trial, or for any drug-related long term untoward incident even after completion of the CT.

All these need to be effectively addressed. 

India attractiveness for CT:

The number of CT conducted in India had increased with a rapid pace till 2012, driven by cost arbitrage, treatment-naïve patient population, qualified English speaking medical research professionals that the country offers. According to available reports, in 2009, outside the United States, India was the second most preferred country to conduct CT. Incidentally, at that time, the CT guidelines in India were too loose, quite discretionary, patient-unfriendly and with many gaping holes. This scenario has changed dramatically since 2013, with consequent adverse impact on the number of CT in India.

A 2009 study conducted by Ernst & Young and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (FICCI), states that India participates in over 7 percent of all global phase III and 3.2 percent of all global phase II trials. The major reasons of India attraction of the global players to conduct CT in the country, were highlighted as follows:

  • Cost of Clinical Trial (CL) is significantly less in India than most other countries of the world
  • Huge treatment-naïve patient pool with different disease pattern and demographic profile
  • Easy to enroll volunteers, as it is not very difficult to persuade poor and less educated people as ‘willing’ participants. This may not be so easy now with the recent amendment of CT guidelines. 

However, there is an urgent need for a world class capacity building in this area to reap a rich harvest.

Improving CT regulations in India:

Not so long ago, it came to light with the help of ‘Right To Information (RTI)’ query that more than 2,000 people in India died as a result of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) caused during drug trials from 2008-2011 and only 22 of such cases, which is just around 1 percent, received any compensation. That too was a meager average sum of around US$ 4,800 per family.

It has been widely reported that pharmaceutical companies often blame deaths, that occur during trials, on a person’s pre-existing medical condition, and not related to CT.

This gloomy situation is now gradually improving. According to an August 2015 research article titled “Impact of new regulations on clinical trials in India”, published in International Journal of Clinical Trials, 2015 Aug; 2 (3): 56-58, there was a need of strict vigilance and regulations for conducting CT in India, which was much easier than in North America or Europe. In India, the trial participants were exploited because of illiteracy, poverty and lack of awareness of their basic rights in this area. The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) has now taken a noteworthy step by launching online Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI) ensuring accountability, transparency and information sharing on clinical trials in the public domain.

Followed by a tough intervention of the Supreme Court in 2013, Indian Government brought in amendments to the CT guidelines of Schedule Y, in December 2014 which came into force effective June 2015. These long-overdue amendments are expected to strengthen the CT process in India and effectively protect the rights, desired safety and general well-being of the participating subjects, while generating authentic clinical data for new drugs or treatment.

Informed consent:

Obtaining informed consent of the participating patients, is absolutely necessary for the researchers. This has recently been made stringent in India effective June 07, 2013. From that date, to make the sCT process transparent and ensure requisite confidentiality, an audio-visual recording of the ‘informed consent’ process has been made mandatory in the country.

A valid consent would mean that the participants have well understood the risks and benefits of the treatment during the CT period and after, along with the general procedures that he or she would need to undergo during the given time-frame.

However, the question that is still being debated, primarily because of the continuing challenge in defining in each case, beyond any scope of doubt, what should be universally considered as an adequate level of information given to the patients to obtain consent of participation in the CT. 

Financial compensation process:

Currently, the calculation of financial compensation, wherever applicable, is based on a well-defined formula. This system has been made mandatory for the sponsor in India for any trial related injuries or death. Such compensation has to be paid, even when the trial related injury is discerned after the completion of the CT. The concerned participants would receive this compensation over and above the free medical management of injury, which in any case has to be provided by the sponsor.

Hence patient safety and compensation related issues pertaining to CT in India have, to a great extent, been addressed, though there is still more scope for improvement on an ongoing basis.

Another major issue still to be addressed:

It is generally expected that when CT of a new drug is conducted by the global pharma players in India with the participation of Indian patients, the same drug when launched in other countries would also be made available in India for the benefit of Indian patients. 

Unfortunately, the situation is not so, as indicated by a paper titled, “A critical appraisal of clinical trials conducted and subsequent drug approvals in India and South Africa”, published in the BMJ Open on August 31, 2015.

The objective of this study was to assess the relation between the number of clinical trials conducted and respective new drug approvals in India and South Africa.

The study found that out of CTs with the participation of test centers in India and/or South Africa, 39.6 percent (India) and 60.1 percent (South Africa) CTs led to market authorization in the EU/USA, without a New Drug Application (NDA) approval in India or South Africa. 

The paper concluded, despite an increase in CT activities, there is a clear gap between the number of trials conducted and market availability of these new drugs in India and South Africa. Hence, the drug regulatory authorities, investigators, institutional review boards and patient groups should direct their efforts to ensuring availability of new drugs in the market that have been tested and researched on their population, the article suggested. 

I hope, the CDSCO would take remedial measures to address this situation, soon.

Indian pharma players should get their act together:

In view of the international media reports on alleged ‘CT data fudging’ by some of the larger Indian players in the pharma and relator sectors, there is an urgent need of the Indian pharma players to get their acts together, without any further delay.

On April 15, 2016, Reuters reported, “India’s Alkem Laboratories has been accused by Germany’s health regulator of fudging data on clinical trials of an antibiotic and brain disorder drug, becoming the third Indian firm to be scrutinized since 2014 for suspected manipulation of trial data.” However, a day later Alkem said that it was submitting suitable clarifications to the European Medical Agency (EMA).

Be that as it may, if the allegation for such gross violations of basic ethical standards is true, it would bring shame not just to the companies concerned, but also to India as a trusted source for pharma products and services. Such alleged foul play has the potential to ultimately shatter the stakeholders’ confidence, including patients, on CTs done by the Indian players, both for the local and global markets. 

Conclusion:

At the long last, after a grueling experience and tough intervention of the Supreme Court of India, CTs conducted in India are now reasonably well regulated and generally seem to comply with ethical requirements and standards. The question of human ‘guinea pigs’ and its associated concerns have also been adequately addressed by the CDSCO now.

Gradually improving the CT regulatory environment in India, barring some avoidable aberrations, offers some significant direct and indirect benefits to all concerned. Indian pharma is, therefore, expected to handle this sensitive opportunity with great care and following the highest ethical standards. 

This, in turn, would help bring to the market robust evidence-based new drugs and treatment for many types of diseases, and at the same time could facilitate their early access to many patients, at a time of dire need.

Through increasing access to CT, the participating patients would be able to avail several important benefits, such as, new and still unavailable treatment options, especially for those serious ailments, where other existing drugs either are not working effectively with satisfactory results, not affordable to many, or not working at all. In that sense, CT could offer to a sizeable number patients several other treatment options to choose from, especially, for many life-threatening diseases. This important benefit needs to be explained to the patients from credible sources, and thus merits serious consideration by the practicing medical professionals.

However, it is also a fact, particularly, in India that some people are lured to, or voluntarily enroll themselves for CT with an objective to make some extra money. Let me hasten to add that there are many other patients for whom the compensation for participation in the CT is no more than just an extra bonus.

Hence, improved patient participation with informed consent, to avail an important medical option in the disease treatment process, encouraged by the doctors without having any vested interest, has a great potential to create a win-win situation, for all concerned.

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.