Tag Archives: counter

How Relevant Is A Pharma Brand Name To Patients?

Posted on by
Reply

Are brand names necessary for medicines? Well – its’s a contentious issue, at least, as on date. It becomes the subject of a raging debate when the same question is slightly modified to: – Are brand names necessary for prescription drugs?

The current reality is, almost all pharma companies believe, and have been following this practice. This has been happening for decades, regardless of the fact that unlike other branded non-pharma products, each and every drug also carries another specific name – the generic name. Which is why, questions are often raised, why can’t drugs be prescribed only in generic names by the doctors?

Before I proceed further, let me recapitulate the definition of a ‘brand’. One of the most comprehensive definitions of a brand is: Unique design, sign, symbol, words, or a combination of these that identifies a product and differentiates it from its competitors. It helps create a level of credibility, quality, and satisfaction in the consumer’s mind, by standing for certain benefits and value. And, the creative marketing practices followed in this process is termed as ‘branding’. Keeping this at the center, in this article, let me try to arrive at a relevant perspective on this subject.

The arguments in favor:

Votaries of pharma branding believe that a pharma brand helps establish an emotional connect with the consumers on various parameters, including quality, efficacy, safety and reliability. This is expected to establish a preferential advantage of a brand over its competitors. Quoting the ‘father of advertising’ David Ogilvy, some of these proponents relate the outcome of branding to offering ‘intangible sum of a product’s attributes’ to its consumers, and also prospective consumers.

Entrepreneur India puts across such favorable outcome of ‘branding’ very candidly, which is also applicable to branding medicines – both patented and generic ones. It says, “Consistent, strategic branding leads to a strong brand equity, which means the added value brought to your company’s products or services that allows you to charge more for your brand than what identical, unbranded products command.”

The general belief within the pharma industry is that, ‘branding’ facilitates doctors in choosing and prescribing medicines to patients, especially in those situations where the choices are many. Aficionados of pharma product branding argue, that to save time, doctors usually select those top of mind products, which they are familiar with and feel, can serve the purpose well. This belief prompts the necessity to go all out for ‘branding’ by the pharma companies, even when the process is an expensive one.

Where pharma ‘branding’ is necessary:

There are a few old publications of the 1980’s, which claim that studies based on human psychology have found that medicines with brand names can have a better perceived impact on the actual effectiveness of ‘Over the Counter (OTC)’ medications. One of the examples cited was of aspirin.

Be that as it may, the relevance of branding for OTC pharmaceutical products is undeniable, where a medicinal product is generally treated just as any other Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) goods. Establishing an emotional connect of OTC brands with consumers is, therefore, considered an important process to create a preferential perceived advantage over its competitors.

There is no well-laid out legal or procedural pathway, as yet, for pharma OTC brands in India. No ‘Direct to Consumer (DTC) promotion is allowed in the country for Schedule H and Schedule X drugs – the only exceptions being Ayurvedic proprietary medicines and for homeopathy drugs. That said, the question continues to haunt, how relevant is branding for prescription drugs – now?

Relevance of ‘branding’ for prescription drugs:

The juggernaut of ‘branding prescription drugs’, riding mostly the wave of vested interests – of many hues and color, has been made to be perceived as necessary to ensure drug quality and safety for patients. It continues to move on, up until today, even for highly specialized prescription drugs. Nonetheless, some initiatives are visible from some Governments to gradually shift this contentious paradigm.

This move has been catalyzed by a blend of changing times with changing expectations of a large number of patients. They want to be an integral part in their treatment decisions, receive more personalized healthcare from both doctors and pharma companies. Patients, ultimately, want to feel confident that they’re receiving the best treatment – says a fresh study.

A number of other research papers also confirm that, a virtually static bar of patients’ expectations, in the disease treatment process – either for themselves or their near and dear ones, is slowly but surely gaining height, measurably. For better outcomes, patients have started expecting new types of services both from their doctors and the drug manufacturers. This process begins, even before a final decision is taken in the treatment process. As this paradigm shifts, pharma players would be significantly impacted – in several parameters.

Fast expanding digital empowerment options for all, across the world, is expediting this process further, including India. Placing oneself in the midst of it, one may ponder – how relevant is pharma branding today, as is being highlighted by many, since long.

In my view, a part of the answer to the above question arguably lies in a study titled, “Product Launch: The Patient Has Spoken”. The Key findings from the survey that covered 8,000 patients from three generations in the US, the UK, Germany and France, were published by ‘Accenture Life Sciences’ in January 2018. The research reveals how these patients evaluate and select new treatments in eight therapeutic areas (immune system, heart, lungs, brain, cancer, hormone/ metabolism and eye disease) across three generations, spanning across – Baby boomers, Generation X and Millennials.

Brands don’t matter to most patients…outcomes do:

69 percent of patients said, the benefits of the product are more important to them than the brand of the product. The four top factors influencing patients’ while making decisions about their healthcare are listed in the report as:

  • The doctor/ physician relationship: 66 percent
  • The patient’s ability to maintain their current lifestyle: 55 percent
  • Patients’ ease of access to health care they’ll need: 53 percent
  • Patients’ financial situation / ability to pay: 51 percent. When this is read with another finding where, 48 percent of patients believe that their doctors discuss the whole range of product options with them, a more interesting scenario emerges.

Further, lack of knowledge about the treatments available, as expressed by 42 percent of patients obviously indicate, pharma players’ intent to better inform patients by educating the doctors through brand promotion is not working. Interestingly, brand loyalty or popularity appeared relatively unimportant, ranking twelfth out of 14 influencing factors. Just 25 percent of patients characterized themselves as having a strong affinity with brands in a healthcare setting – the above report revealed.

Could there be an alternative approach?

An effective ‘branding’ exercise should lead to creating a ‘brand loyalty’ for any product. For pharma companies, doctors’ brand loyalty should lead to more number of its brand prescriptions. This expectation emanates from the idea that the prescription brand will represent something, such as quality, trust, assured relief, or may well be anything else. That means pharma product ‘branding’ is primarily aimed at the medical profession.

In an alternative approach to the current practice, an article titled, “From Managing Pills to Managing Brands”, published sometime back in the March-April 2000 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR), finds its great relevance, even today. It says, pharma companies can retain the loyalty of customers by building a franchise around specific therapeutic areas based on a focused approach to R&D. In other words, their corporate brand can replace individual drug brands. For example, a doctor looking for a treatment for – say asthma, would look for the latest GlaxoSmithKline medicines. Let me hasten to add, I used this example just to illustrate a point. This may appear as a long shot to some. Nonetheless, it would significantly reduce the cost of marketing, and subsequently the cost of a drug to patients. Incidentally, I also wrote about the relevance of ‘Corporate Branding’ in this Blog on June 15, 2015.

Conclusion:

With this fast-emerging backdrop, the Accenture Study raises an important issue to this effect. It wonders, whether the expenses incurred towards branding medicines, especially, during product launch be significantly reduced and be made more productive?

Illustrating the point, the report says, in 2016, the US pharmaceutical and healthcare industry alone spent US$ 15.2 billion in marketing. To earn a better business return, could a substantial part of this expenditure be reallocated to other programs that matter more to patients, such as access to patient service programs, and creating ‘Real-World Evidence (RWE)’ data that can document improved health outcomes, particularly those that matter to patients?

Well-crafted pharma branding and other associated initiatives, targeted predominantly to the medical profession, may make a doctor emotionally obligated to prescribe any company’s specific brands, for now. However, in the gradually firming-up ‘patient outcomes’-oriented environment, where patients want to participate in the treatment decision making process, will it remain so?

Dispassionately thinking, to most patients, a brand is as good or bad as the perceived value it delivers to them in the form of outcomes. Or, in other words, prescription pharma brands may not even matter to most of them, at all, but the outcomes will be. Hopefully, before it is too late pharma players would realize that, especially the well-informed patients are becoming co-decision makers in choosing the drug that a doctor will prescribe to them. If not, the current targeted process of pharma prescription drug branding, may lose its practical relevance, over a period of time.

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.

India needs ‘Orphan Drugs Act (ODA)’ to counter growing threat of dreaded rare diseases and simultaneously boost global growth potential of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Posted on by
Reply

An orphan disease is a rare and uncommon disease and an ‘Orphan Drug’ is a pharmaceutical substance that has been developed to treat an orphan disease. The US FDA defines a rare disease, with a prevalence of 1 in 5,000 of the general population, whereas in the European Union (EU) defines it as a disease with a prevalence of 5 in 10,000 of the population.

Around 6-8% of the world population is manifested by such rare diseases. There are around 5000 of reported rare diseases with an ascending growth trend.

Despite such trend, high drug development cost coupled with low return on investment, do not encourage many innovator pharmaceutical companies to get engaged in R&D initiatives for such drugs. However, this perception is fast changing, as we shall see below.

US took the first step to encourage commercialization of ‘Orphan Drugs’:

Public awareness drives for ‘Orphan Diseases’ first originated in the USA with the formation of a rare disease support group representing around 200,000 patients suffering from such diseases. This awareness campaign ultimately culminated into a path breaking legislation in the US named, ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ (ODA), in 1983. The key purpose of ODA was to incentivize initiatives towards development of such drugs to treat around 25 million Americans suffering from ‘Orphan diseases’. The incentives included:

- Funding towards investigation for “Orphan Disease’ treatment
- Tax credit for Clinical Research
- Waiver of fees for New Drug Application (NDA)
- Offering more lucrative incentive than product patent (product patent requires the drug to be novel), as the orphan designation of the product by the US FDA and product approval by them are the only requirements for 7 year market exclusivity of an ‘Orphan Drug’ for the same indication.
- Market exclusivity of ‘Orphan Drugs’ become effective from the date of regulatory approval, unlike product patent, product development time remains outside this period.
- The drugs, which are not eligible for product patent, may be eligible for market exclusivity as an ‘Orphan Drug’ by the US-FDA

Thanks to this Act, currently around 230 ‘Orphan Drugs’ are available in the US for the treatment of around 11 million patients suffering from rare diseases. With the help of ‘Human Genome Project’ more orphan diseases are expected to be identified and newer drugs will be required to treat these rare ailments of human population.

1983 signaled the importance of ‘Orphan Drugs’ with the ODA in the US. A decade after in 1993, Japan took similar initiative followed by Australia in 1999. Currently, Singapore, South Korea, Canada and New Zealand are also having their country specific ODAs.

India needs ODA:

Unfortunately in India, we do not have any ODA, as of now. Such legislation could give a new fillip to the Indian Pharmaceutical and Bio-Pharmaceutical industry and at the same time usher in a new hope to thousands of patients suffering from rare diseases in India, with the availability of relatively lower cost medications to them.

The global market:

The global market of ‘Orphan Drugs’ is expected to grow to US $ 112 billion in 2014 from US $85 billion in 2009. Biotech products contribute around 70% of this turnover with relatively higher CAGR growth rate of around 7%. However, reluctance of the insurance companies to cover ‘Orphan Drugs’ due to higher price still remains a global issue.

Orphan drugs to create a paradigm shift in the Pharmaceutical Industry: says Frost & Sullivan:

“While the pharmaceutical industries have been focusing on ‘blockbuster’ small molecules (chemical drugs) for high revenue generation in the past, it is expected that in 5 years, around $90.0 billion worth of branded drugs will lose their exclusivity. The current economic situation plus the huge generic competition shifted the focus of pharmaceutical companies and they are moving to a new business model – ‘Niche busters’, also called Orphan drugs.”

It is believed that Orphan drugs will now offer an attractive opportunity to the pharmaceutical companies than ever before to significantly absorb the impact of the ‘Patent Cliff’. Various financial incentives provided by the governments of various countries under the ODA coupled with many smaller collaborative projects towards this direction will further encourage the global pharmaceutical players to develop ‘Orphan Drugs.

Currently, EU has granted over 700 ‘Orphan Designations’ and over 60 new drugs have received favorable response for Market Authorization.

Sales potential for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

Generally ‘Orphan Drugs’ were not expected to be very high revenue earners. However, about 4 year ago in the year 2006, about 50 ‘Orphan Drugs’ were reported to had crossed a sales turnover of US $200 million. In 2006 the following ‘Orphan Drugs’ with expired market Exclusivity in the US, had assumed blockbuster status:

- Enbrel (Immunex): US $ 4.38 billion
- Rituxan (Genentech): US$ 3.97 billion
- Nupogen/Neulasta (Amgen): US $ 3.92 billion
- Epogen (Amgen): US $ 2.50 billion
- Avonex (Biogen): US $ 1.70 billion
- Betaseron (Novartis & Bayer): US $ 1.33 billion
- Intron A/ PEG-Intron (Schering): US $ 1.07 billion
- Kogenate (Bayer): US $ 1.07 billion
- Ceredase/Cerezyme (Genzyme): US $ 1.00 billion

Key growth drivers for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

In my view the following key factors will play critical role in driving the growth for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

- Market exclusivity options for a number of FDA recognized ‘Orphan Indications’ for the same drug
- Market exclusivity for seven years in the U.S. and ten years in the EU for each of the ‘Orphan Indications’
- Oncology could be a good segment to get such multiple ‘Orphan Indications’ for the same molecule

Glivec of Novartis obtained approval for around five new ‘Orphan Indications’, the key indications being Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) and Gastrointestinal Stomal Tumors. The product has already assumed a global blockbuster status with an estimated sales turnover of over US $4 billion by 2011.

Biotech companies are champions for the development of ‘Orphan Drugs’, globally:

Since long, the Biotech companies are taking initiatives for the development of ‘Orphan Drugs’. The path breaker in this respect was Genentech of the US, which developed two growth hormone molecules with names Protophin and Nutrophin, way back in 1985. Now, having realized the hidden potential of this segment more number of pharmaceutical players are entering into this arena. Thus, it is no wonder that 13 out of 19 blockbuster ‘Orphan Drugs’ were biologics in the year 2006.

Conclusion:

It is interesting to note that some of the ‘orphan diseases’ are now being diagnosed in India, as well. As India takes rapid strides in the medical science, more of such ‘Orphan Diseases’ are likely to be known in our country. Thus the moot question is how does India address this issue with pro-active measures?
Currently, India is curving out a strong niche for itself in the space of biogenerics. Pfizer-Biocon deal will vindicate this point.

Moreover, with Pharmacogenomics keep gaining ground at a faster pace, as I mentioned earlier, there will be a shift towards personalized medicines, in not too distant future, in which case the blockbuster drugs as defined today, will be effective only for a smaller number of patients. If the Government of India visualizes this scenario sooner, and comes out with appropriate ODA for the country, domestic pharmaceutical industry of India, in general and biopharmaceuticals industry of the country, in particular, will be able emerge as a force to reckon with, in this important global space, much faster than what one would currently anticipate.

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.

George Washington University Law School’s “The India Project” – Arguments and Counter Arguments

Posted on by
Reply

Recently we witnessed yet another huge controversy on the ‘IP Summit’ organized by the George Washington University Law School (GWULS), USA. It was alleged that this summit supported by law firms, some pharmaceutical companies and others, was intended to influence the participating sitting judges on the pharmaceutical patent related cases currently being fought in various courts in India.

The Arguments:

However, the GWULS reiterated that this summit is intended to help India to build capacity in the IP law of the country. GWULS states the following in its magazine of winter 2009:

“From New Delhi to Bangalore, GW Law is building bridges of understanding between the United States and Indian legal communities through its fast-growing India Project, a collaborative enterprise fostering broad-based relationships and heightened international dialogue on issues of mutual concern”.

During their recent visit to India, in an announcement to the media GWULS explained the following:

“We have contributed to education by heightening the dialogue and understanding between India and the U.S. on IP law. We have done so in a collaborative way, as we have much to learn from our Indian counterparts. For example, the new Indian patent law, enacted in 2005, involves a range of issues that require clarification, and the project has resulted in a two-way discussion of real importance to the future of IP protection in India and across the world. Is the new law in compliance with Indian constitutional standards? How does it compare with U.S. law in addressing issues that arise during the processing of a patent application? (With regard to this question we recently held educational sessions with patent examiners at various Indian patent offices). Is it consistent with international standards? These are just some of the issues that attract the attention of people associated with GW’s India Project.”

The Counter Arguments:

The other group strongly counter argues highlighting that Indian judiciary and lawmakers have a long history of dealing with the patent laws since 1911. Although in between from 1970 to 2004, the situation slightly changed with the abolition of ‘Pharmaceutical Product Patent’, the re-introduction of the same effective January 1, 2005, does not call for an ‘un-called for’ indirect intervention in the judicial process of the country by law schools located beyond the shores of India.

This group feels that GWULS indirectly casts aspersions on the legal standard of the country and the competence of Indian judiciary, which needs to be protested, unequivocally. Moreover, the group argues, “even if IP awareness had to be taken to the people once again after the 2005 amendment, why did GWULS mount such a major campaign here?”

So far the Patent Law is concerned; this group accepts that our Patent Attorneys and particularly those lawyers who will argue the cases in front of the judges must possess impeccable knowledge in the nuances of patent law with all its nitty- gritty. Thus lawyers rather than judges should regularly update their knowledge on the details of patent related issues.

Laws are by and large country specific, with an exception probably of international law. After hearing the arguments of respective lawyers, this group feels that the judge will interpret the law of the land and give his/her judgment accordingly, as happens in any other comparable sphere of law. Just as for laws related to ‘terrorist’ act, India will not require its judges to be trained by other countries, this group reiterates, the same argument holds good for patent law, as well.

The Times of India (March 29, 2010), a leading daily of the country, reported the following in a news item titled, “’Vested interests behind discussion on patents”:

“Several civil society groups have come together to question the commerce and industry ministry’s alleged complicity in allowing meetings and interactions undermining India’s legal position on intellectual property (IP). These interactions are being organized annually with Indian judges and policy makers by the George Washington University Law School (GW Law), under its India Project, with funding from multinational pharmaceutical companies, industry associations and corporate law firms”.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, the arguments from either side do not seem to be unbiased without any vested interests and are not convincing enough. In a globalized economy, from such comments it appears that the one group is feeling that Indian legal system is inefficient, if not incompetent, to deal with its patent related cases involving global pharmaceutical companies. On the other side, the local voice seems to be afraid of a ‘foreign hand’ intruding into the judicial space of India, which in my view is stretching the imagination far too much.

Overall, Indian Judiciary has a long tradition of keeping the institution robust enough and free from any external influences, whatsoever, notwithstanding GWULS coming to India almost every year, since around 2005.

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.