Tag Archives: Committee

‘Havoc’ and its ‘Aftermath’: Clinical Trials in India

Posted on by
Reply

Just as the New Year dawned, on January 3, 2013, in an embarrassing indictment to the Government, the bench of honorable justices R.M Lodha and A.R Dave of the Supreme Court reportedly observed that uncontrolled Clinical Trials (CT) are creating ‘havoc’ to human life causing even deaths to patients.

In an interim order, the bench directed to the Government that CTs can be conducted only under the supervision of the Health Secretary of India. Holding the Government responsible, the bench further observed, “You (Government) have to protect health of citizens of the country. It is your obligation. Deaths must be arrested and illegal trials must be stayed,”

Responding to this damning stricture by the Supreme Court, the Government has now reportedly decided that appropriate rules laying down guidelines for pharma companies and other organizations engaging in drug trials in India would be notified within January 2013. It is envisaged that thereafter, the government will also amend the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India making any violation of prescribed rules and guidelines a punishable offense under the law.

It is worth mentioning that these guidelines have been reportedly worked out after due consideration of around 300 comments received from the stakeholders on the draft proposal circulated by the Ministry of Health in July 2011, couple of rounds of discussion with the members of the Civil Society, expert groups and against reported ‘stiff opposition from the drug companies’.

Better late than never:

In conformance to the well known saying – “better late than never”, it appears that after reportedly around 2,242 deaths related to CT and under immense pressure from the civil society and the Supreme Court, the Government has now left with no options but to bring US$ 500 million CT segment of the country, which is expected to cross US$ 1 Billion by 2016, under stringent regulations.

Experts believe that the growth of the CT segment in India is driven mainly by the overseas players for easy availability of a large patient population with varying disease pattern and demographic profile at a very low cost, as compared to many other countries across the world.

Clinical trial related deaths in India:

As per the Ministry of Health following are the details of deaths related to CTs registered in India from 2008 to August 2012:

Year Total no of deaths CT related deaths  Compensation paid to:
2012 (up to August) 272 12 NA
2011 438 16 16
2010 668 22 22
2009 737 NA NA
2008 288 NA NA

It is estimated that over the last four years, on an average, 10 persons have died every week in India related to CT.

However, looking at the above reported numbers it appears that financial compensation was paid for all registered death related cases however meager such amounts may be.

A huge ruckus:

The subject of CT in India has created a huge ruckus, mainly for wide spread alleged malpractices, abuse and misuse of fragile CT regulations of the country by some players in this field. The issue is not just of GCP or other CT related standards but more of ethical mind-set and reported rampant exploitation of uninformed patients, especially in case of trial related injuries or even death.

The Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an article titled, “Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns” reported as follows:

“Drug companies are drawn to India for several reasons, including a technically competent workforce, patient availability, low costs and a friendly drug-control system. While good news for India’s economy, the booming clinical trial industry is raising concerns because of a lack of regulation of private trials and the uneven application of requirements for informed consent and proper ethics review.”

 Inadequate auditing:

It is unfortunate that focus on ‘Clinical Trial Registry’ and even ‘Auditing of Clinical Trials’ has been grossly lacking in India, which are considered so important not only in maintaining credibility of the studies, but also to demonstrate their scientific integrity and ethical values.

Unfortunately, there seems to be many loose knots in the current CT policy, practices, rules and guidelines. All these require to be adequately tightened by the Government to make the system efficient and transparent in the national endeavor of establishing India as a preferred destination for global CT without compromising safety and the health interest of the volunteers.

 Indian Parliament intervened:

On May 8, 2012, the department related ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC)’ on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59th Report on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament.

The PSC in its report made the following critical findings, besides many others:

  •  A total of 31 new drugs were approved in the period January 2008 to October 2010 without conducting clinical trials on Indian patients.
  • Thirteen drugs scrutinized by the panel are not sold in the United States, Canada, Britain, European Union and Australia, as instructed by their respective regulatory authorities.
  • Sufficient evidence is available on record to conclude that there is collusive nexus between drug manufacturers, some functionaries of CDSCO and some medical experts.
  • Due to the sensitive nature of CTs in which foreign companies are involved in a big way and a wide spectrum of ethical issues and legal angles, different aspects of CTs need a thorough and in-depth review.

 Jolted drug regulator initiates action: 

In response to the high-pitched conundrum and media glare, The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of India issued a draft notification on 17th July 2012 seeking stakeholders’ views on:

  • Permission to conduct CT
  • Compensation of the CT victims

The draft notification also says that the licensing authority, only after being satisfied with the adequacy of the data submitted by the applicant in support of proposed clinical trial, shall issue permission to conduct CT, subject to compliance of specified stringent conditions.

However, some experts do apprehend that such stringent system may give rise to significant escalation in the costs of CT for the pharmaceutical players.

Similarly, to assess right compensation for clinical trial related injuries or deaths, following parameters were mooted in the document:

  • Age of the deceased
  • Income of the deceased
  • Seriousness and severity of the disease the subject was suffering at the time of his/her participation into the trial.
  • Percentage of permanent disability

Further, unlike current practices, the government is expected to set up independent registered Ethics Committees under medical institutions for effective and smooth conduct of CTs in India.

Poor patient compensation:

Absolutely unacceptable level of compensation, by any standard, paid by the concerned companies for the lives lost during CTs are mainly attributed to the lackadaisical attitude of the drug regulators to frame rules and laws for patient compensation for such cases in India.

Information reportedly gathered through the ‘Right To Information (RTI) Act’ reveals that one pharmaceutical company paid just Rs. 50,000 each to the families of two patients who died during CT of its cancer drug. Another Ahmedabad-based Clinical Research Organization (CRO) paid a compensation of exactly the same amount to another patient for a CT related death.

The report points out that in 2011 out of 438 CT related deaths in India only 16 families of such patients received any compensation, the quantum of which varied from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. L 3.0  with one exception being of Rs. L 5.

In 2012 till August, 272 more CT related deaths have already been reported.

Higher patient compensation expected:

It has been alleged that currently the pharmaceutical companies are “getting away with arbitrary payments” sometimes as meager as Rs. 50,000, as stated above, in case of loss of life during CT, as there are no set norms for calculating compensation to those patients.

It is expected that the new rules will help putting in place a transparent formula for providing a respectable compensation for CT related serious adverse events like deaths, along with a prescribed provision for minimum compensation amount to such patients.

Increasing public scrutiny:

Over the last few years, CTs in India are increasingly coming under intense public and media scrutiny. As a result, both the concerned pharmaceutical companies as well as the CROs are facing the wrath of various stakeholders including the Supreme Court.

Following are the reported numbers of registered CTs in India from 2009 to 2011:

Year Total Number
2009 181
2010 313
2011 513

Although the total number of CTs registered in India from 2007 to 2011, as per available records, was around 1875, the number of new trials registered in the country had reportedly sharply declined in 2011 over 2010, mainly due to time-consuming regulatory approvals and increasing public scrutiny on alleged unethical practices.

According to www.clinicaltrials.gov – the website of the U.S Government, out of 118,804 human trials conducted in 178 countries, less than 2,000 or 2%, are carried out in India as compared to 9,352 or 8% in China.

It appears, all concerned players now seem to be either willingly or grudgingly waiting for the CT regulatory system to function the way it should. 

Conclusion:

Although the Ministry of Health has already started taking some positive measures, as stated above, there is an urgent need for the players in this field to reassure the Civil Society, in general, and the Government in particular about the high ethical standards that the pharmaceutical companies and CROs would comply with and continuously practice, while conducting clinical research in India.

We all understand, CTs are the core of research-based pharmaceutical industry. No new drug can come into the market without CTs, which involve both potential benefits and risks to the participants. All CTs are conducted with the primary aim of bringing to patients new medicines with a favorable benefit–risk ratio.

Global CTs being relatively new to India, no wonder, there are several misconceptions on the subject. The companies conducting clinical research need to proactively publicize their commitment to protecting the rights, safety and the well being of the trial participants.

That said, the bottom line is, without any selfish interest or pressure to the Government in any form, from within the country or outside, all concerned must ensure that CTs of all types must strictly adhere to the prescribed norms and well laid down procedures of India, as soon as these are put in place.

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 and also do not contribute to any other blog or website with the same article that I post in this website. Any such act of reproducing my articles, which I write in my personal capacity, in other blogs or websites by anyone is unauthorized and prohibited.

 

 

 

Indian Parliamentary Committee Indicts the Department of Pharmaceuticals

Posted on by
Reply

The Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare presented its 58th Report on the action taken by the Government on the recommendations / observations contained in the 45th report to both the Lower and the Upper houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012.

In this report the Committee examined, besides other important subjects, the issues related to making high quality generic/branded generic medicines, patented and imported products available to the public at affordable prices to reduce ‘out-of-pocket expenses’ of the general population of India, significantly.

The Committee also suggested that the Department of Health and Family Welfare, in coordination with the Department of Pharmaceuticals and with the active involvement of Chief Secretaries of the State Governments should formulate an effective ‘Essential Drug Supply’ policy having the following components:

  • Encouraging prescription of generic drugs
  • Adoption of essential drugs list
  • Adherence to Standard Treatment Guidelines
  • Ensuring drug procurement through open tender system
  • Distribution of low cost medicines through Government drugs stores like, ‘Jan Aushadhi’
  • Demand generation for generic drugs through public awareness program

In addition, the report captured the great concern of the committee on rampant prescription of irrational and useless drugs by many doctors with ulterior motives and expressed the need of inclusion of the essential and lifesaving drugs under strict price regulation.

Parliamentary Report indicts the Department of Pharmaceuticals:

The committee, besides other issues, observed as follows with a strong indictment to the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP):

  • The DoP seems be in the grip of policy inertia.
  • ‘Lackadaisical approach’ and ‘lack of sense of urgency’ of the DoP to iron out hindrances in establishing required number of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ stores across the country have also resulted in their ‘soft-pedaling’ the issue of intensive promotion of generic drugs through a large number of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets, as was planned by the government.
  • DoP should shed its ‘indecisiveness’ and take all possible measures to speed up the revival and modernization of Public Sector Pharma Units, so that the all-important objective of access to affordable and quality medicines by all could be realized.
  • Currently there is no mechanism to regulate the prices of new patented drugs which are imported into the country and sold at ‘super-normal profits’. Committee recommended that India as a sovereign country has every right to determine, for public health interest, prices of all drugs which are sold in the open market, by putting in place an effective price control mechanism.
  • The issue of price regulation of all imported molecules including patented ones being sold in the country at high prices should be addressed by the DoP in the New Pharmaceutical Policy which is currently under finalization.
  • The DoP should take decisive action, without further delay, in making the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ mandatory so that effective checks could be ensured on ‘huge promotional costs’ and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices.
  • The country holds a strong position in producing generic drugs. Besides, it has a robust distribution network not only in the domestic market but also in other developing and underdeveloped countries of the world. Thus, the Government should make all-out efforts to arrest the trend of acquisition of domestic pharma companies by the multinationals.
  • The DoP to move the Cabinet for its approval with a sense of urgency for setting up the Central Procurement Agency as an autonomous society, as it can help control drug prices through effective procurement process.

Looking back:

In mid-2008, Government of India had set up a new department under the Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers (MC&F), named the ‘Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP)’. The department was created primarily to have a greater focus on the pharmaceutical sector of India. Historically, issues and policies related to pharmaceutical industry mainly used to be handled by the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals. A separate Department of Fertilizers still handles all issues related to fertilizers in India. Both the departments were under the MC&F. The then Minister C&F felt that the pharmaceuticals sector has very many critical and complex issues, which are related mainly to pricing, access, availability, R&D, and other international commitments that necessitate integration of work with different ministries. A separate Department for Pharmaceuticals was, therefore, considered necessary to do justice to the pharmaceutical industry of India. The proposal, I reckon, was incubating with the government for quite some time though.

The expectations from DoP:

At that time in 2008,  it was widely expected that the DoP will be able to address the following key pharmaceutical industry related issues, with an integrated approach, to strike a right balance between the growth fundamentals of the industry and the Public Health Interest:

  • A modern, both growth and access oriented, drug policy and pricing mechanism.
  • Continuous improvement of access to high quality and affordable modern medicines for all.
  • An efficient drug price regulatory system.
  • An appropriate ecosystem to encourage R&D and foster pharmaceutical innovation.
  • Addressing the issue of high ‘out of pocket expenses’ of the general population towards medicines in particular and healthcare in general.
  • Facilitating fiscal and tax incentives required by the Micro-Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) within the pharmaceutical industry of India to further drive its growth.

As stated above, all these will necessitate a close coordination and integration of work of various departments falling under different ministries of the government, DoP being the nodal department.

The Objectives of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP):

Be that as it may, following are the stated objectives of the DoP, as mentioned in the Results-Framework Document (RFD 2011-12) of the DoP:

  1. Ensure availability of drugs at reasonable prices as per the Pharma policy
  2. Facilitate growth of Central pharma PSUs with required support
  3. Develop Pharma Infrastructure and Catalyze Drug Discovery and Innovation
  4. Launch and Position Pharma India Brand
  5. Develop Pharma Human Resources through M.Pharma and Ph.D programs in NIPERS
  6. Provide Infrastructure and staff for new NIPERs
  7. Strengthening of NIPER Mohaili
  8. ‘Jan Aushadhi Campaign’ and implementation of Business Plan for setting up of 3000 ‘Jan Aushadhi’ Stores (upto Subdivision level in the country)
  9. Incentivizing Private Sector for development of new Drugs for diseases endemic to India

It appears, the current performance of the DoP even against their stated objectives as mentioned in RFD 2011-12, has prompted the Parliamentary Committee to make the above harsh comments.

A look at ‘Jan Aushadhi’ – a scheme conceived with a great purpose:

Before going into the reasons for lackluster performance of this scheme, let us look at the following objectives of scheme as set out by the DoP:

1. To promote awareness for cost effective quality generic medicines. (However, how exactly this will be done, is yet to be known.) 2. To make available unbranded affordable quality generic medicines through  Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives. (I would support this objective may be from procurement perspective. However, so far as the delivery of these medicines to the common man is concerned, I would still argue: why do we reinvent the wheel?) 3. To encourage doctors in the Government Hospitals to prescribe such cost effective quality generic medicines. (This is again just a statement of good intent without considering the critical issue of its implementation in the predominantly branded generic market of India.) 4. To help patients save significantly towards medicines costs with ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets. 5. A national help line to increase awareness level of this initiative. The statement of intent of the DoP also highlights that the State Governments, NGOs and Charitable bodies will be encouraged to set up such generic medicine shops across the country. It also states that the existing outlets of the Government and NGOs may also be used for this cause.

Arguing for the need of a course correction for ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme: It now appears that the ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme of the DoP may not ultimately be able to achieve its cherished goals and is perhaps destined to go into the history as yet another good intention of the Government, if a course correction is not made forthwith in the right direction. The main issue in improving access to affordable quality medicines for the common man with ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme does not lie in the conceptualization of this ‘Public Health’ project, where the Government is pretty good at, armed with the support of a good number of brilliant bureaucrats. The problem in translating this laudable idea into reality, I reckon, lies not only in the understanding of the critical barriers to the project, but also in making out the key drivers of the same.

Key barriers:

In my opinion, following two  are the key barriers to the success of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme:

  • Cost-effective procurement of quality medicines in adequate quantity
  • An effective delivery mechanism involving state government, NGOs and various other related bodies.

Cost effective procurement:

As recommended by the Parliamentary Committee, the DoP should move the Cabinet for its urgent approval to set up a Central Procurement Agency for cost effective procurement of quality medicines and at the same time encourage the state governments to do the same at respective state level.

No need to ‘reinvent the wheel’ – An effective delivery system already exists:

The DoP should explore possibilities of using the existing Government Public Delivery Systems to ensure cost effective easy access and availability of such medicines to the common man after tightening the loose knots wherever exist. There does not seem to be any dire need to ‘reinvent the wheel’ in this particular case.

Two grossly underutilized Government controlled ‘Public Distribution Systems’: The Government of India has following two very unique product distribution and delivery systems within the country with deep penetration from metro cities to far-flung rural areas: 1. Public Distribution System (PDS) : Called Ration shops and is currently used for public distribution of food grains and other essential commodities.

2. Indian Post Offices (IPO): This establishment is currently adding many other products, besides postal services, for effective distribution to the public

Quite like food grains, medicines are also essential items. Why does DoP not collaborate with PDS/Ration Shops and IPOs through appropriate ministries to ensure easy availability and access to essential medicines by the common man?

This assumes even greater significance, when the Postal Department, as mentioned above, has already started collaborating with various other agencies to sell and distribute many types of products in rural areas through IPO network. In that case, what prevents the DoP to consider this alternative, as well?

In fact, I would strongly recommend the usage of both PDS and IPOs by the DoP for deeper penetration of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ across the country, especially for those who do not have adequate access to affordable modern essential medicines.

I am aware that the question of ‘in-efficiency’ of these systems may be raised by many in India. However, at the end of the day who is responsible to make these systems efficient? People responsible for managing a system are usually held accountable for its ‘efficiency’ or ‘inefficiency’. It is about time that the government fixes strict accountability in these areas too.

We have currently many excellent minds in the DoP, I hope, they may wish to explore the possibility of effectively utilizing these two already available state controlled mass distribution systems to ensure proper access and availability of “Jan Ausadhi” drugs to the common man”.

An intriguing observation in the Report:

It is indeed difficult to fathom the robustness of the reasoning of both the Parliamentary Committee and the DoP for the revival of the sick and loss making Public Sector Pharmaceutical Units in the country.

As stated above, the very second objective of the DoP also articulates as follows:

“Facilitate growth of Central pharma PSUs with required support”.

This is indeed quite baffling.

Everyone knows that all these PSUs created at the expense of tax payers’ money, miserably failed to perform time and again, despite receiving all such incentives from the government umpteen number of times, even when the Indian pharmaceutical industry has been growing at a scorching pace, decade after decade.

Thus I wonder what magic wand the Government will wield now to be able to turn around these loss making and heavily bleeding PSUs from continuous non-performance and utter failure in governance and that too in the prevailing environment of fierce competitive pressure within the industry.

Considering all these, will the decision of pouring in even more money from the national exchequer’s fund into the bottomless pits of these loss making PSUs currently under dangerous tail spins fetch any dividend at all for the common man?

I reckon, if these PSUs still attract interest of some good private buyers/investors with reasonable valuation, the government should unhesitatingly decide to unlock these values, sooner the better.

Conclusion:

Not so long ago, in July 25, 2011 a news item reported, “Department of Pharmaceuticals moots National Authority for Drugs & Therapeutics (NADT) with Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) under it”.

If I recall, some years ago, another taskforce appointed by the Government suggested integration of the offices of the DCGI, CDSCO and NPPA along with all their powers and functions to ensure adequate availability and access to high quality medicines at affordable prices for the population of the country.

Nothing has fructified, as yet, in this direction. However, it appears from all such recommendations of various task forces that a strong desire to create powerful silos has perhaps assumed higher priority of the relevant players engaged in this ball game. Failure to deliver the deliverables for public health interest almost on a continuous basis by spending national exchequers money has become more a routine than exceptions.

That said, there seems to be a silver lining catching some eyeballs in this whole process. Some brilliant minds that the government now has in the DoP, I hope, will be able to turn around the situation to everybody’s satisfaction, sooner than later.

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.

“Indian Drug Regulator Accords Primacy to Pharma Industry Instead of Safegurding Public Health and Safety” – Parliamentary Committee

Posted on by
Reply

The Department Related Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59th Report of 118 pages in total on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drug Standards Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012.

Regulations and the Regulator for the Pharmaceutical Industry of India – A snapshot:

The pharmaceutical industry in India is regulated, broadly, in the following ways:

  • Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India 1940 together with Drugs and Cosmetics Rules regulate the Pharmaceutical Industry across the country for all types of drugs, irrespective of the fact whether these are locally produced or imported from other countries of the world.
  • The office of the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) is primarily responsible for effective enforcement of most of these laws and rules across the country.
  • All issues related to clinical trials, product approval and standards, import licenses and introduction of new drugs are the direct responsibilities of the DCGI’s office.
  • Health being a state subject in India, on the ground, Foods and Drugs Administrations (FDA) of the State Governments enforce laws related to approvals for setting up pharmaceutical production facilities and obtaining licenses to stock and sell drugs in their respective states.
  • A valid license from the Drug Regulator is necessary for location-wise manufacturing of each type of drugs in the country with a mandatory requirement of periodic renewal of such licenses, as specified therein.

A key point to ponder from the Report:

The report begins with the following observations:

Medicines apart from their critical role in alleviating human suffering and saving lives have very sensitive and typical dimensions for a variety of reasons. They are the only commodity for which the consumers have neither a role to play nor are they able to make any informed choices except to buy and consume whatever is prescribed or dispensed to them because of the following reasons:

  • Drug regulators decide which medicines can be marketed
  • Pharmaceutical companies either produce or import drugs that they can profitably sell
  • Doctors decide which drugs and brands to prescribe
  • Consumers are totally dependent on and at the mercy of external entities to protect their interests.

In this prevailing condition, the committee felt that effective and transparent drug regulation, free from all commercial influences, is absolutely essential to ensure safety, efficacy and quality of drugs keeping just one objective in mind, i.e., welfare of patients.

Quite in congruence with this critical requirement the Committee examined in detail the functioning of CDSCO, which includes the office of the DCGI, as well, to ascertain whether applicable rules and laws are being implemented efficiently and honestly for the best interest of patients by the Drug Regulator of India.

Why is the ‘Mission Statement’ of CDSCO industry oriented and not patient focused?

Very interestingly, the report highlights with the following examples, how out of line the ‘Mission Statement’ of CDSCO is as compared to the same of other countries by being blatantly industry oriented instead of safeguarding Public Health and safety:

Drug Regulator

The ‘Mission Statement’
1

CDSCO, India

 Meeting the aspirations…. demands and requirements of the pharmaceutical industry.
2.

USFDA, USA

 Protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs.
3.

MHRA, UK

 To enhance and safeguard the health of the public by ensuring that medicines and medical devices work, and are acceptably safe.
4.

TGA, Australia

 Safeguarding public health & safety in Australia by regulatingMedicines…

Consequently, the Committee took a very strong exception for such utter disregard and continued neglect of patients’ interest by the Drug Regulator of India and recommended immediate amendment of the ‘Mission Statement’ of CDSCO incorporating in very clear terms that the existence of the organization is solely for the purpose of protecting the best interest of patients and their safety. It is needless to say that thereafter, it will require stringent conformance with the same with high precision.

Some very critical findings:

The committee in its report made the following critical findings, besides others:

  • “A total of 31 new drugs were approved in the period January 2008 to October 2010 without conducting clinical trials on Indian patients.
  • Thirteen drugs scrutinized by the panel are not allowed to be sold in the United States, Canada, Britain, European Union and Australia.
  • Sufficient evidence is available on record to conclude that there is collusive nexus between drug manufacturers, some functionaries of CDSCO and some medical experts.
  • When it comes to approving new drugs, too much is left to the absolute discretion of the CDSCO officials.
  • The Central Government can either issue directions under Section 33P to states to withdraw the licenses of FDCs granted without prior DCGI approval or the Central Government can itself ban such FDCs under Section 26A.
  • Though the Ministry is forming Drug Approval Committees, which are given very important powers, there is no transparent procedure for the selection of experts of such Committees.
  • Accurate information on drugs for patients is absolutely essential to prevent inappropriate use more particularly in children, elderly, during pregnancy and lactation.
  • Due to the sensitive nature of clinical trials in which foreign companies are involved in a big way and a wide spectrum of ethical issues and legal angles, different aspects of Clinical trials need a thorough and in-depth review.”

The Report named some pharmaceutical companies:

While arriving at these points, the report indicted some pharmaceutical companies, both national and international as follows (in alphabetical order):

Company Company Company
1. Bayer 8. Lundbeck 15. Ranbaxy
2. Cipla 9. Macleods 16. Sanofi
3. Centaur 10. Mars 17. Sun Pharmaceuticals
4. Emcure 11. Merck 18. Themis
5. Eli Lilly 12. Novartis 19. Theon
6. GlaxoSmithKline 13. Pharmacia (acquired by Pfizer) 20. UCB
7. Hetero 14. Phamasset Inc. (a subsidiary of Gilead) 21. Venus

A scathing remark against CDSCO:

The report made the following scathing remarks on CDSCO in its point 2.2:

“The Committee is of the firm opinion that most of the ills besetting the system of drugs regulation in India are mainly due to the skewed priorities and perceptions of CDSCO. For decades together it has been according primacy to the propagation and facilitation of the drugs industry, due to which, unfortunately, the interest of the biggest stakeholder i.e. the consumer has never been ensured.”

Allegation of possible collusion needs to be thoroughly probed:

The report also deliberates not only on the utter systemic failure of CDSCO along with the DCGI’s office to enforce law effectively, but also towards a possible collusion between CDSCO and the pharmaceutical industry to implement a self-serving agenda by hoodwinking the system. This is a very serious allegation, which needs to be thoroughly probed and the findings of which should be made public for everybody’s satisfaction.

Parliamentary Committee Report is a ‘considered advice and of persuasive value’:

Though any report of such Parliamentary Committee has been stated to have a persuasive value and be treated as considered advice given by the Committee, which in this case is to CDSCO, DCGI, Ministry of Health and also the industry.

Some probes already initiated:

Reuters in its publication of May 9, 2012 indicated that this Parliamentary Committee Report has prompted greater scrutiny even from the US regulators, which are reportedly investigating a number of drug companies under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

Initial reports also indicate that both the Indian Government and some large international pharmaceutical companies have announced detail probe based on this report at their respective ends.

Some remedial measures - Mashelkar Committee Recommendations:

Considering all these, besides taking appropriate remedial measures related to Clinical Trials of drugs in India, it is about time to reconsider the recommendations of Dr. R. A. Mashelkar Committee on the subject and make amendments in the Act accordingly to facilitate creation of a ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’ introducing, along with other measures, a centralized licensing system for the manufacture, sale, export and distribution of drugs.

Why does India need CDA?

I firmly believe that the formation of the ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’ will provide the following significant benefits to the Industry and also to the Government for the best interest of public health and safety:

  1. Achieving uniform interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act & Rules
  2. Standardizing procedures and systems for drug control across the country
  3. Enabling coordinated nationwide action against spurious and substandard drugs
  4. Upholding uniform quality standards with respect to exports to foreign countries from anywhere in India
  5. Implementing uniform enforcement action in case of banned and irrational drugs
  6. Creating a pan-Indian approach to drug control and administration
  7. Evolving a single-window system for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research undertaken anywhere in the country.

Conclusion:

As a consequence of the above report of the Parliamentary Committee identifying gross irregularities in the functioning of the CDSCO, the Minister of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) of India Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad has already announced constitution of a three-member committee to probe into the matter in depth.

Following well-known experts have been named as members of this high powered committee, which will submit its report and recommendations in two months’ time:

  • Dr. V.M. Katoch: Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR),
  • Dr. P.N. Tandon: President, National Brain Research Centre
  • Dr. S.S. Aggarwal: Former Director, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow

The committee has been mandated to:

  • Examine the validity of the scientific and statutory basis adopted for approval of new drugs without clinical trials
  • Outline appropriate measures to bring about systemic improvements in the processing and grant of statutory approvals
  • Suggest steps to institutionalize improvements in other procedural aspects of functioning of the CDSCO

The outcome of the report of this high powered committee, internal probes voluntarily initiated by some pharmaceutical companies and possible implementation of the ‘Mashelkar Committee’ recommendations on the formation of CDA in the country will hopefully bring in some systemic changes in the drug regulatory system of India, for patients’ sake.

By: Tapan 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.

‘Maira Committee’ delivers: Resolves 100% FDI issue in the pharma sector of India

Posted on by
Reply

On October 10, 2011, Dr Man Mohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India accepted the recommendation of the ‘Maira Committee’ on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the Pharmaceutical Sector of India and decided that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) will continue to scrutinize all Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) in this area to avoid any possible adverse impact on Public Health Interest arising out of such deals.

Finance Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, Health Minister Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, Commerce and Industry Minister Mr. Anand Sharma, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia and the head of the ‘Maira Committee’ Mr. Arun Maira were reported to be present in the meeting.

Finer details are still not known:

Although the details of the ‘Maira Committee Report’ nor the discussion with the Prime Minister are not known, as yet, the key recommendation, as reported by the press was to be in relaxation of the threshold limits of CCI scrutiny for pharmaceutical M&As, which under the current law involve target companies with a turnover of above Rs 750 Crore (Rs 7.5 billion) and assets worth more than Rs 250 Crore (Rs 2.5 billion).

The CCI will now be strengthened and directed to set up a standing advisory committee especially to look into M&A in the pharmaceutical sector of India to  address the concerns of the stakeholders in this matter.

The new system in CCI within six months:

The new system will be put in place within a period of six months. By the time CCI equips itself to handle the recommendations of the ‘Maira Committee’, as an interim measure, all brownfield pharma M&A proposals will be routed through Foreign Direct Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) for a period not exceeding six months.

A press note from the commerce & industry ministry announced at the same time that “India will continue to allow FDI without any limits (100 per cent) under the automatic route for Greenfield investments in the pharma sector. This will facilitate the addition of manufacturing capacities, technology acquisition and development.”

Looking back:

While looking back, the consolidation process within the Pharmaceutical Industry in India started gaining momentum since 2006 with the acquisition of Matrix Lab by Mylan. 2008 witnessed one of the biggest mergers in the Industry till that period, when Daiichi Sankyo of Japan acquired Ranbaxy of India for USD 4.6 billion.

Key apprehensions and counter arguments ‘for and against’ FDI cap:

Last year, Abbott’s acquisition of Piramal Healthcare with USD 3.72 billion followed several media reports on the Government’s keen interest in instituting new restrictions on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the pharmaceutical sector for the following apprehensions:

The first apprehension of some stakeholders was that such FDI will create ‘Oligopolistic Market’ with adverse impact on ‘Public Health Interest’. It was argued by others that Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) has over 23,000 players and around 60,000 brands. Consolidated Abbott, being the largest domestic player, enjoys a market share of just 6.1% in a highly fragmented market. Thus, the apprehension that an ‘Oligopolistic Market’ will be created through acquisitions by the MNCs is unfounded.

The second apprehension was on limiting the power of government to grant Compulsory License (CL). With a CL, the Government, under the Indian Patents Act can authorize any pharmaceutical company to manufacture any medicine required by the country in an emergency situation for ‘Public Health Interest’. On this point the argument put forth was that with more than 20,000 registered pharmaceutical manufacturing companies operating in India, many of them with high skill sets, there will always be skilled manufacturers willing and be able to make needed medicines in an emergency situation, as happened during H1N1 influenza pandemic.

Creation of a legal barrier by putting a cap on FDI to prevent domestic pharma players from voluntarily selling their respective companies at a lucrative price, just from the CL point of view, others argued, sounds highly protectionist in the globalized economy.

The third apprehension was that lesser competition will push up drug prices. The counter-argument was that equity holding of a company has no bearing on prices or access, especially when prices are governed by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) and competition pressure. Thus, prices of medicines of Ranbaxy, Shantha Biotechnics and Abbott have reportedly remained stable even after their acquisition.

India needs FDI in the Pharmaceutical sector:

Both ‘Greenfield’ and ‘Brownfield’ FDI contribute not only to the creation of high-value jobs for the country, but also improve access to high-tech equipment and capital goods. Technology cooperation with the MNCs stimulates growth in manufacturing and R&D spaces of the domestic industry. It was articulated that any restriction to FDI in the pharmaceutical industry could make overseas investment even in the R&D sector less attractive.  India has already suffered a 40% drop in FDI between 2009 and 2010 with a 17% drop in pharmaceutical FDI.

Foreign investors look up to India for cost arbitrage and expertise in Contract Research and Manufacturing Services for improved market access. Thus, it is believed by many that FDI can lead to increased domestic pharmaceutical exports by India, as happened in countries like China and Brazil, where they have programs to encourage partnerships with MNCs to bolster their domestic industry, helping the nation to benefit more from FDI.

India is against protectionist measures by other countries – Safeguards are in place:

Moreover India as a country, is known to be quite vocal and against any form of protectionist measures by other countries which will adversely impact the trade and commerce of our nation. It was perhaps felt by the ‘Maira Committee’ that any policy decision to do away with the current practice of allowing 100% FDI will be taken by the international community as a ‘protectionist measure’ in the pharmaceutical sector of India. It was reportedly felt by them that any possible adverse impact of M&A on competition could be effectively scrutinized by the Competition Commission. At the same time, it is a known fact that any unreasonable price increase is currently being effectively addressed by the NPPA. Thus it appears, effective safeguards to protect ‘Public Health Interest’ arising out of any M&A in the pharmaceutical sector of India, have been put well in place.

FDI policy needs predictability and stability to attract more investments:

Pharmaceutical sector was opened up for 100% FDI through automatic route only in 2002 as a part of the financial reform process, positioning India as an attractive investment destination for pharmaceuticals. This reform process, investors feel, needs stability, as by partnering with MNCs local drug companies have begun to gain access to international expertise, technology, resources, good manufacturing practices and markets.

It now appears that the ‘Maira Committee’, some key ministers present in the meeting and the Prime Minister himself felt that any move, at this stage of economic progressive of the country to restrict FDI in the pharmaceutical sector, especially when appropriate safeguards are in place, will be a retrograde step in the financial reform process of India. This could adversely impact FDI not only in the Pharmaceutical sector but possibly far beyond it.

Conclusion:

The final decision of the PM is a victory to all participants in this raging debate. All stakeholders seem to be satisfied with the decision, as their concerns have been well taken care of by the ‘Maira Committee’.

The issue of 100% FDI in the pharmaceutical sector, without putting any cap on it, has now been finally resolved, as it has come from the highest decision making authority of the country.

Both ‘Greenfield’ and ‘Brownfield’ FDI in the pharmaceutical industry of India, I reckon, will continue to contribute not only to high-value job creation, improving access to high-tech equipment and capital goods, boosting global technology cooperation in manufacturing and R&D spaces of the domestic industry, but will also make a significant contribution to the overall progress of the pharmaceutical industry of India.

The decision taken by the PM on the ‘Maira Committee’ report on October 10, 2011, therefore, seems to be a right step towards a long term nation building process without compromising with the ‘Public Health Interest’ of our country in any form.

‘Maira Committee’ has indeed delivered!

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.

Quick implementation of the undiluted ‘Central Drug Authority (CDA)’ Bill is essential for emerging India

Posted on by
Reply

Many industry experts after having evaluated the provisions of the original draft proposal for forming a Central Drugs Authority (CDA) in the country, commended and supported this laudable initiative of the Government. This Bill also known as, “The Drugs & Cosmetics (Amendment) Bill No.LVII of 2007 to amend the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940” was introduced in the ‘Rajya Sabha’ on August 21 2007 and was thereafter referred to ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee of Health and Family Welfare’ for review. The Committee also has submitted its recommendations to the Government since quite some time. However, the fact still remains that the proposed CDA Bill has not seen the light of the day, as yet.
Mashelkar Committee Recommendation:
It is high time to consider the recommendations of Dr. R.A. Mashelkar Committee on the subject and make amendments in Act to facilitate creation of a Central Drugs Authority (CDA) and introduce centralized licensing for manufacturing for sale, export and distribution of drugs.
Seven reasons for the dire need of the CDA in India:
I firmly believe that the formation of the ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’ will provide the following benefits to the Industry and also the Government:
1. Achieving uniform interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act & Rules
2. Standardizing procedures and systems for drug control across the country
3. Enabling coordinated nationwide action against spurious and substandard drugs
4. Upholding uniform quality standards with respect to exports to foreign countries from anywhere in India
5. Implementing uniform enforcement action for banned and irrational drugs
6. Creating a pan-Indian approach to drug control and administration
7. Evolving a single-window system for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research undertaken anywhere in the country.
Major countries have similar set up even within a federal system:
All major countries of the world have a strong federal drug control and administration system in place for the Pharmaceutical Industry. Like for example, despite strongly independent states within the federal structure of the U.S., the US – FDA is a unified and fully empowered federal government entity.
Similarly, coming together of many independent countries in Europe had led to the need for a pan-European drug control agency. This responsibility was vested on to the ‘European Medicine Agency (EMEA)’ with overriding pan-European authority and powers within the European Union (EU).
Thus, a single Central Authority that administers and regulates both pharmaceutical manufacturing and research is an absolute necessity in India’s bid to be a global hub for drug discovery.
The interim measure:
In my view, till CDA is formed, registration and marketing authorization for all new drugs and fixed-dose combinations should only be granted by Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI). I would emphasize, it is essential that a smooth transition takes place from the existing regulatory environment to the proposed CDA, carefully tightening all the loose knots in the process. All necessary infrastructures along with the required personnel must be in place, so that all permissions are granted to applicants within stipulated timeframe.
The watershed regulatory reform initiative should not get diluted:
The CDA Bill is widely considered as a watershed regulatory reform initiative in the pharmaceuticals space of India. This reform process, besides offering all other benefits as discussed above, would also be able  to update the legislation, considering significant advances the country has made since the last five decades, especially in the areas of clinical research, treatment methods, and sophisticated diagnostic and medical devices.
Conclusion:
It now appears, the Government could revive the CDA Bill and reintroduce it in the Parliament, sooner. It was to be introduced in its monsoon session. However, the plan did not fructify, as the Parliament could not function due to a logjam created by our politicians.
It is worth noting that the proposed centralize drug licensing mechanism was vehemently opposed by the state drug authorities and some section of the industry. The stated position of the opponents to the CDA Bill apprehends that the centralized structure will not be able to deliver, as the requisite infrastructure and manpower for the same are not in place, as yet.
This development bring out to the fore the lurking fear that the proposal to centralize drug licensing as a part of the proposed law, very unfortunately, may eventually get quite diluted because of vested interests.

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.

The Government of India accepts the Mashelkar Committee Report on ‘Incremental Innovation’ – what does it really mean?

Posted on by
Reply
‘The Mashelkar Committee’ re-submitted its report in March 2009, which primarily deals with incremental innovation related to Pharmaceuticals Research.The conclusion of the report on the incremental innovation reads as follows:“It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a ‘statutory exclusion of a field of technology”.

Government accepts the Mashelkar committee Report:

It has now been reported that the Government has accepted this revised report, last week. With this the questions raised in the raging debate, whether incremental innovation is TRIPS compliant or not have possibly been answered well, beyond any further doubt.

The acceptance of this report by the Government further vindicates the point that all patentable innovations are not “eureka type” or “path breaking”. Innovation is rather a continuous process and more so in pharmaceuticals. Such type of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry is quite similar to what one observes in the IT industry, where incremental innovation based on existing knowledge is more a norm than an exception. With incremental innovation not just efficacy of a product, but many other important unmet needs of the patients like safety, convenience and ease of administration of the drugs can be successfully met.

Thus innovations whether “path breaking” or “incremental” in nature, need to be encouraged and will deserve patent protection, if they are novel, have followed inventive steps and are industrially applicable or useful.

R&D based Indian Pharmaceutical industry gains considerably:

Many Indian Pharmaceutical Companies have already started working on the ‘incremental innovation’ model. Appropriate amendment of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005 will thus help all concerned – the patients, the industry and other stakeholders, as long as the prices of such medicines do not become unaffordable to majority of the population for various reasons. In any case, the Government has the law available within the patents Act to deal with any such situation, if arises at all.

Does section 3(d) warrant an amendment now?

Mashelkar committee categorically observes the following:

1. “It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a statutory exclusion of a field of technology”, as stated above.

2. “Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation. Entirely new chemical structures with new mechanisms of action are a rarity. Therefore, ‘incremental innovations’ involving new forms, analogs, etc. but which have significantly better safety and efficacy standards, need to be encouraged.”

Thus, taking these recommendations together will the DIPP now finally conclude that Section 3(d) of the Patent Acts 2005 is not TRIPS compliant and recommend necessary amendments, accordingly to satisfy the needs of the Research based pharmaceutical industry?

Wait a minute – wait a minute:

The report also suggests:

1. “The Technical Experts Group (TEG) was not mandated to examine the TRIPS compatibility of Section 3(d ) of the Indian Patents Act or any other existing provision in the same Act. Therefore, the committee has not engaged itself with these issues.”

Will this comment make the Government conclude that Section 3(d) is TRIPS compliant, which includes ‘incremental innovation’ in general, however, with the rider of ‘properties related to significant improvement in efficacy’?

2. “Every effort must be made to provide drugs at affordable prices to the people of India”.

What will these efforts mean and how will these be implemented by the Government?

3. The TEG also recommends, “every effort must be made to prevent the practice of ‘ever greening’ often used by some of the pharma companies to unreasonably extend the life of the patent by making claims based sometimes on ‘trivial’ changes to the original patented product. The Indian patent office has the full authority under law and practice to determine what is patentable and what would constitute only a trivial change with no significant additional improvements or inventive steps involving benefits. Such authority should be used to prevent ‘evergreening’, rather than to introduce an arguable concept in the light of the foregoing discussion (paras 5.6 – 5.8 and paras 5.12 – 5.29) above of ‘statutory exclusion’ of incremental innovations from the scope of patentability.”

Will the Government (mis)interpret it as a vindication of Section 3(d), which does does not mean “statutory exclusion of incremental innovations from the scope of patentability” but has just made necessary provision within this section “to prevent the practice of ‘ever greening’ often used by some of the pharma companies to unreasonably extend the life of the patent by making claims based sometimes on ‘trivial’ changes to the original patented product”, as recommended by the Mashelkar Committee?

Conclusion:

In the re-submitted report of the Mashelkar committee, the TEG has made quite a few very profound comments, recommendations and suggestions, the implications of all of which are important to all the stakeholders in various different ways. Will the acceptance of this report, as a whole, by the Government and subsequent attempt by the authorities for its implementation both in the letter and spirit, will amount to “chasing a rainbow”, as it were?

Only time will us, how this “satisfy all” zig-saw-puzzle gets solved in future.

By Tapan Ray

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

Is the revised Mashelkar Committee Report a ‘please all’ report, without taking any chance to ‘rock the boat’?

Posted on by
Reply
After repeated request and persuasion by the Government of India (GoI) in general and the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) in particular ‘The Mashelkar Committee’re-submitted its reports to the GoI under the following terms of references:
Terms of Reference of the ‘The Technical Expert Group (TEG)’ Group:Following were the terms of references of the TEG:

1. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to limit the grant of patent for pharmaceutical substance to new chemical entity or to new medical entity involving one or more inventive steps.

2. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to exclude micro-organisms from patenting.

Today I shall restrict my comments only on the point 1 of the terms of reference. Keeping this mind, let me try to analyze what various stakeholders had expected from the report. Against those expectations, what the report has actually articulated. And how have all these comments/ recommendations been able to keep almost all the stakeholders, with widely varying expectations, reasonably happy.

Why is the revised report a ‘please all’ report?

The key stakeholders who were interested in the revised report are as follows:

A. Research-based pharmaceutical companies who expressed concerns on the patentability of ‘incremental innovation’.

B. The Government of India (GoI) who may not be keen to revisit section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005, at least for now.

C. All voices supporting price regulations for patented products, in some form, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) being one of them.

D. Domestic generic pharmaceutical companies who want safeguards within Indian Patents Act 2005 against ‘ever greening’ of patents to ensure that there is no delay in launching generics after patent expiry.

Well crafted and well reasoned revised report from the TEG has been able to please all these stakeholders, to a great extent, which I shall analyze hereunder:

A. Expectations of the Research-based pharmaceutical companies from the report:

The research-based pharmaceutical companies seem to have expected that the report will recommend in specific terms that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act 2005 is not TRIPS compliant, as it restricts patentability of ‘incremental innovation’.

What the report actually says:

- “The Technical Expert Group (TEG) concludes that it would not be TRIPS compliant (Article 27 of TRIPS) to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a statutory exclusion of a field of technology”.

- “The process of innovation is continuous and progressive leading to an ever extending chain of knowledge. Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation.”

“The TEG carefully examined the flexibilities allowed under the TRIPS Agreement to the member states (especially Articles 7 & 8 ) and also as a consequence of the Doha Declaration. The detailed analysis and reassessing provided in the report has led TEG to conclude that it is debatable as to whether national interest or the flexibility allowed under the agreement to member states would be accommodated by such ‘statutory exclusion’ of an entire class of (incremental)inventions.”

Very cleverly dodging the section 3(d) issue, the report supported the argument of the research-based pharmaceutical companies that ‘incremental innovation’ in pharmaceuticals cannot summarily be kept out of the criteria of patentability.

B. Government of India (GoI):

The GoI wanted to keep section 3(d) unchanged, till some sort of stakeholders’ consensus is arrived at in favor of its amendment, if at all.

What the report actually says:

“The TEG was not mandated to examine the TRIPS compatibility of Section 3(d ) of the Indian Patents Act or any other existing provision in the same Act. Therefore, the committee has not engaged itself with these issues.”

The TEG with this comment keeps the GoI satisfied, as the lawmakers are of the view that section 3(d) is not against incremental innovation. They believe, section 3(d) helps to avoid ‘frivolous’ innovation and ‘evergreening’ of patents by ensuring that all patentable ‘incremental innovations’ have ‘properties leading to incremental efficacy’. The revised TEG report, some people argue, vindicates this important point.

C. All voices supporting some form of price regulations of patented products, which include the DoP.

Both the DoP and other stakeholders want to keep the price of patented products under GoI control.

What the report actually says:

“Every effort must be made to provide drugs at affordable prices to the people of India”.

Thus the report satisfies the proponent of ‘affordable prices’ for patented products

D. Domestic generic pharmaceutical industry:

A large majority of the domestic generic pharmaceutical companies is of the opinion that most ‘incremental innovations’, are usually attempts to ‘evergreen’ patents for sustained commercially monopoly over the products for a much longer period of time than what it should have been otherwise. Hence patentability for ‘incremental innovation’ is to be restricted by law.

What the report says:

“TEG recommends that every effort must be made to prevent the practice of ‘ever greening’ often used by some of the pharma companies to unreasonably extend the life of the patent by making claims based sometimes on ‘trivial’ changes to the original patented product. The Indian patent office has the full authority under law and practice to determine what is patentable and what would constitute only a trivial change with no significant additional improvements or inventive steps involving benefits. Such authority should be used to prevent ‘evergreening’, rather than to introduce an arguable concept in the light of the foregoing discussion (paras 5.6 – 5.8 and paras 5.12 – 5.29) above of ‘statutory exclusion’ of incremental innovations from the scope of patentability.”

Many will believe, with the above recommendations in their revised report, the TEG also meets the expectations of the domestic generic pharmaceutical industry, on this contentious issue.

Conclusion:

The revised report of ‘The Mashelkar committee’ has definitely addressed its terms of references, pretty well. However, being ‘advisory’ in nature, the report was expected to be more specific, unambiguous and directional. Unfortunately, the comments/recommendations are neither specific without any ambiguity nor directional in nature; unless, between the lines the ‘please all’ report suggests its agreement with all stakeholders in unison, with perfect balance and elan, without making even a slightest attempt to ‘rock the boat’ in any manner, whatsoever.

By Tapan 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.

Revised Mashelkar Committee Report recommends inclusion of ‘incremental innovation’ under patentability criteria.

Posted on by
Reply
In 2006, the Government of India appointed a Technical Expert Group (TEG) chaired by the eminent scientist and the then Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, with the following terms of reference:1. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to limit the grant of patent for pharmaceutical substance to new chemical entity or to new medical entity involving one or more inventive steps.2. Whether it would be TRIPS compatible to exclude micro-organisms from patenting.The TEG submitted its report to the Government on December 29, 2006. However, due to some ‘technical inaccuracies’ Dr. Mashelkar sought the permission of the Government on February 19, 2007 “to re-examine and resubmit the report, which meets with the requirements of the highest standards’’. This request was acceded by the Government on 7th of March 2007.

Much water had flown down the bridge thereafter, which we shall not deliberate upon here. Ultimately in March 2009 the TEG submitted its revised report.

In terms of overall content, the revised report is similar to the previous one, which was withdrawn earlier.

Conclusions of the revised TEG report:

The conclusions of the report against the terms of references given to the TEG are as follows:

1. “It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a ‘statutory exclusion of a field of technology’. However, every effort must be made to provide drugs at affordable prices to the people of India. Further, every effort should be made to prevent the grant of frivolous patents and ‘ever-greening’. Detailed Guidelines should be formulated and rigorously used by the Indian Patent Office for examining the patent applications in the pharmaceutical sector so that the remotest possibility of granting frivolous patents is eliminated.”

2. “Excluding micro-organisms per se from patent protection would be violative of TRIPS Agreement.”

Does section 3(d) warrant an amendment now?

It is indeed interesting to note that under Para 5.11 the TEG says, “the committee was not mandated to examine the TRIPS compatibility of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act or any other existing provision in the same Act. Therefore, the committee has not engaged itself into these issues.”

However, in Para 5.32 the report observes the following:

“Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation. Entirely new chemical structures with new mechanisms of action are a rarity. Therefore, ‘incremental innovations’ involving new forms, analogs, etc. but which have significantly better safety and efficacy standards, need to be encouraged.”

With this observation, TEG has also clarified the scope of section 3(d), indirectly though.

The report further recommends, “detailed Guidelines should be formulated and rigorously used by the Indian Patent Office for examining the patent applications in the pharmaceutical sector so that the remotest possibility of granting frivolous patents is eliminated.”

What next?

It will be interesting to watch what the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) does with this revised report. As we have seen that the report categorically states:

“It would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to New Chemical Entities only, since it prima facie amounts to a statutory exclusion of a field of technology”

And

“Innovative incremental improvements based on existing knowledge and existing products is a ‘norm’ rather than an ‘exception’ in the process of innovation. Entirely new chemical structures with new mechanisms of action are a rarity. Therefore, ‘incremental innovations’ involving new forms, analogs, etc. but which have significantly better safety and efficacy standards, need to be encouraged.”

Therefore, taking these two recommendations together my questions are as follows:

1. Will the DIPP conclude that Section 3(d) of the Patent Acts 2005 is not TRIPS compliant?

2. If so, will the DIPP recommend an amendment of this section sooner to encourage ‘incremental innovation’ within the country?

3. If not, will the DIPP clarify now the need, purpose and the importance of this report?

By Tapan 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.