Why MNC Pharma Still Moans Over Indian IP Ecosystem?

Posted on May 14, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Improving patient access to expensive drugs, paving the way for entry of their cheaper generic equivalents, post patent expiry, and avoiding evergreening, is assuming priority a priority focus area in many countries. The United States is no exception, in this area. The Keynote Address of Scott Gottlieb, Commissioner of Food and Drug at the 2018 Food and Drug Law Institute Annual Conference inWashington, DC by, on May 3, 2018, confirms this. Where, in sharp contrast with what the MNC Pharma players and their trade associations propagated, the US-FDA commissioner himself admitted by saying, “Let’s face it. Right now, we don’t have a truly free market when it comes to drug pricing, and in too many cases, that’s driving prices to unaffordable levels for some patients.”

Does US talk differently outside the country?

At least, it appears so to many. For example, in April 2018, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its 2018 Special 301 Report. In this exercise, the USPTO names the country’s trading partners for not adequately protecting and enforcing Intellectual Property (IP) rights or otherwise deny market access to U.S. innovators that rely on the protection of their IP rights.’ Accordingly, U.S. trading partners are asked to address IP-related challenges, with a special focus on the countries identified on the Watch List (WL) and Priority Watch List (PWL).

In 2018, just as the past years, India continues to feature, along with 11 other countries, on the PWL, for the so called longstanding challenges in its IP framework and lack of sufficient measurable improvements that have negatively affected U.S. right holders over the past year.

From Patient access to affordable drugs to Market access for Expensive Drugs:

Curiously, the USTR Report highlights its concerns not just related to IP, but also on market access barriers for patented drugs and medical devices, irrespective of a country’s socioeconomic compulsion. Nevertheless, comparing it to what the US-FDA Commissioner articulated above, one gets an impression, while the US priority is improving patient access to affordable drugs for Americans, it changes to supporting MNC pharma to improve market access for expensive patented drugs, outside its shores.

Insisting others to improve global IP Index while the same for the US slides:

In the context of the 2018 report, the U.S. Trade Representative, reportedly said, “the ideas and creativity of American entrepreneurs’ fuel economic growth and employ millions of hardworking Americans.” However, on a closer look at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s annual Global IP Index for 2018, a contrasting fact surfaces, quite clearly. It shows, America, which once was at the very top of the overall IP Index score, is no longer so – in 2018, the world rank of the US in offering patent protection to innovators, dropped to 12^thposition from its 10^thglobal ranking in 2017. Does it mean, what the US is asking its trading partners to follow, it is unable to hold its own ground against similar parameters, any longer.

Should IP laws ignore country’s socioeconomic reality?

MNC Pharma often articulated, it doesn’t generally fall within its areas of concern, and is the Government responsibility. However, an affirmative answer, echoes from many independent sources on this issue. No wonder, some astute and credible voices, such as an article titled “U.S. IP Policy Spins Out of Control in the 2018 Special 301 Report”, published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on May 01, 2018, termed 2018 Special 301 Report – ‘A Tired, Repetitive Report.’ It reiterates in no ambiguous term: ‘The report maintains the line that there is only one adequate and effective level of IP protection and enforcement that every country should adhere to, regardless of its social and economic circumstances or its international legal obligations.

The ever-expanding MNC Pharma list of concerns on Indian IP laws:

The areas of MNC Pharma concern, related to Indian IP laws, continues to grow even in 2018. The letter dated February 8, 2018 of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, Washington, DC to the USTR, makes these areas rather clear. I shall quote below some major pharma related ones, from this ever-expanding list:

Additional Patentability Criteria – section 3 (d): The law makes it difficult for them to secure patent protection for certain types of pharma inventions.

TADF (Technology Acquisition and Development Fund)is empowered to request Compulsory Licensing (CL) from the Government:Section 4.4 of India’s National Manufacturing Policy discusses the use of CL to help domestic companies access the latest patented green technology.This helps in situations when a patent holder is unwilling to license, either at all or “at reasonable rates,” or when an invention is not being “worked” within India.

India’s National Competition Policyrequires IP owners to grant access to “essential facilities” on “agreed and nondiscriminatory terms” without reservation. They are not comfortable with it.

Regulatory Data Protection: The Indian Regulatory Authority relies on test data submitted by originators to another country when granting marketing approval to follow-on pharma products. It discourages them to develop new medicines that could meet unmet medical needs.

Requirement of local working of patents: The Controller of Patents is empowered to require patent holders and any licensees to provide details on how the invention is being worked in India. Statements of the Working, (Form 27),must be provided annually.Failure to provide the requested information is punishable by fine or imprisonment. It makes pharma patent holders facing the risk of CL, if they fail to “work” their inventions in India within three years of the respective patent grant.

Disclosure of Foreign Filings: Section 8 of India’s Patent Act requires disclosure and regular updates on foreign applications that are substantially “the same or substantially the same invention.” They feel it is irrelevant today.

Pharma MNCs’ self-serving tirade is insensitive to Indian patient interest:

Continuing its tirade against some developed and developing countries, such as India, the US drug manufacturers lobby group – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has urged the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) to take immediate action to address serious market access and intellectual property (IP) barriers in 19 overseas markets, including India, reports reported The Pharma Letter on February 28, 2018. It will be interesting to watch and note the level active and passive participation of India based stakeholders of this powerful US lobby group, as well.

Government of India holds its ground… but the saga continues:

India Government’s stand in this regard, including 2018 Special 301 Report, has been well articulated in its report released on January 24, 2018, titled “Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India – An Overview”, released by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Ministry of Commerce and Industry (DIPP). The paper also includes asummary of some of the main recommendations, as captured in the September 2016 Report of the High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, constituted by the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon of the United Nations in November 2015. Some of these observations are as follows:

WTO members must make full use of the TRIPS flexibilities as confirmed by the Doha Declaration to promote access to health technologies when necessary.

WTO members should make full use of the policy space available in Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement by adopting and applying rigorous definitions of invention and patentability that are in the interests of public health of the country and its inhabitants. This includes amending laws to curtail the evergreening of patents and awarding patents only when genuine innovation has occurred.

Governments should adopt and implement legislation that facilitates the issuance of Compulsory Licenses (CL). The use of CL should be based on the provisions found in the Doha Declaration and the grounds for the issuance left to the discretion of the governments.

WTO members should revise the paragraph 6 decision in order to find a solution that enables a swift and expedient export of pharmaceutical products produced under compulsory license.

Governments and the private sector must refrain from explicit or implicit threats, tactics or strategies that undermine the right of WTO Members to use TRIPS flexibilities.

Governments engaged in bilateral and regional trade and investment treaties should ensure that these agreements do not include provisions that interfere with their obligations to fulfill the rights to health.

The DIPP report includes two important quotes, among several others, as follows:

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize for Economics (2001) – an American Citizen:

- “If patent rights are too strong and maintained for too long, they prevent access to knowledge, the most important input in the innovation process. In the US, there is growing recognition that the balance has been too far tilted towards patent protection in general (not just in medicine).”

- “Greater IP protection for medicines would, we fear, limit access to life-saving drugs and seriously undermine the very capable indigenous generics industry that has been critical for people’s well-being in not only India but other developing countries as well”.

Bernie Sanders, an American Citizen and Senior U.S. Senator:

- “Access to health care is a human right, and that includes access to safe and affordable prescription drugs. It is time to enact prescription drug policies that work for everyone, not just the CEOs of the pharmaceutical industry.”

- “Healthcare must be recognized as a right, not a privilege. Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income.”

Conclusion:

Why is then this orchestrated moaning and accompanying pressure for making Indian IP laws more stringent, which apparently continues under the façade of ‘innovation at risk’, which isn’t so – in any case. But, cleverly marketed high priced ‘me too’ drugs with molecular tweaking do impact patient access. So is the practice of delaying off-patent generic drugs entry, surreptitiously. Instead, why not encourage Voluntary Licensing (VL) of patented drugs against a mutually agreed fee, for achieving greater market access to the developing countries, like India?

Whatever intense advocacy is done by the vested interests to change Indian patent laws in favor of MNC pharma, the intense efforts so far, I reckon, have been akin to running on a treadmill – without moving an inch from where they were, since and even prior to 2005. The moaning of MNC Pharma on the Indian IP ecosystem, as I see it, will continue, as no Indian Government will wish to take any risk in this area. It appears irreversible and is likely to remain so, for a long time to come. The time demands from all concerned to be part of the solution, and not continue to be a part of the problem, especially by trying to tamper with the IP ecosystem of the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Should ‘Pharma Marketing’ Be In The Line of Fire?

Posted on November 27, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Close to half a century ago, Peter Drucker – the Management Guru wrote: As the purpose of business is to create customers, any business enterprise has two basic functions: marketing and innovation. Drucker’s concept is so fundamental in nature that it will possibly never change, ever.

That innovation is the lifeblood of pharma industry is well-accepted by most people, if not all. However, when similar discussion focuses on pharma marketing, the industry virtually exposes itself in the line of fire, apparently from all directions. This trend, coupled with a few more in other areas, is making a significant dent in the reputation of the pharma industry, triggering a chain of events that create a strong headwind for business growth.

The consequences of such dent in pharma reputation get well-reflected in an article titled “How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time,” published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on February 3, 2017. The author observed:

“This worrisome mix of little growth potential and low reputation is the main explanation for why investors are increasingly interested in how pharma companies manage access-to-medicine opportunities and risks, which range from developing new treatments for neglected populations and pricing existing products at affordable levels to avoiding corruption and price collusion.”

On the above backdrop, this article will try to explore the relevance of Drucker’s ‘marketing’ concept in the pharma business – dispassionately. Alongside, I shall also deliberate on the possibility of a general misunderstanding, or misinterpretation of facts related to ‘pharma marketing’ activities, as these are today.

Communicating the intrinsic value of medications:

Moving in this direction, let me recapitulate what ‘pharma marketing’ generally does for the patients – through the doctors.

Despite being lifeblood that carries the intrinsic value of a medication from research lab to manufacturing plants and finally to patients, ‘pharma marketing’ is, unfortunately under incessant public criticism. It continues to happen, regardless of the fact that one of the key responsibilities of pharma players is to disseminate information on their drugs to the doctors, for the benefits of patients.

One may justifiably question any ‘marketing practice’ that is not patient-friendly. However, the importance of ‘marketing’ in the pharma business can’t just be wished away – for patients’ sake.

Way back in 1994, the article titled, “The role and value of pharmaceutical marketing” captured its relevance, aptly articulated:

“Pharmaceutical marketing is the last element of an information continuum, where research concepts are transformed into practical therapeutic tools and where information is progressively layered and made more useful to the health care system. Thus, transfer of information to physicians through marketing is a crucial element of pharmaceutical innovation. By providing an informed choice of carefully characterized agents, marketing assists physicians in matching drug therapy to individual patient needs. Pharmaceutical marketing is presently the most organized and comprehensive information system for updating physicians about the availability, safety, efficacy, hazards, and techniques of using medicines.”

The above relevance of ‘pharma marketing’, whether globally or locally, remains unchanged, even today, and would remain so, at least, in the foreseeable future.

It’s a serious business:

As many would know, in many respect ‘pharma marketing’, especially of complex small and large molecules, is quite a different ball game, altogether. It’s markedly different from marketing activities in most other industries, including Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), where customers and consumers are generally the same.

In contrast, in prescription drug market customers are not the consumers. In fact, most consumers of any prescription medicine don’t really know much, either about the drugs or their prices. They get to know about their costs while actually paying for those directly or indirectly. Healthcare providers, mostly in those countries that provide Universal Healthcare (UHC) in any form, may also be customers for the drug manufacturers. Even Direct to Consumer (DTC) drug advertisements, such as in the United States, can’t result into a direct choice for self-medication, other than Over the Counter (OTC) drugs.

Additionally, pharma market is highly regulated with a plethora of Do’s and Don’ts, unlike most other industries. Thus, for the drug manufacturers, medical professionals are the real customers, whereas patients are the consumers of medicines, as and when prescribed by doctors.

With this perspective, ‘Pharma marketing’ assumes a critical importance. It is too serious a strategic business process to be jettisoned by any. There exists a fundamental responsibility for the drug manufacturers to communicate important information on various aspects of drugs to individual physicians, in the interest of patients. This has to happen, regardless of any controversy in this regard, though the type of communication platforms, contents used and the degree of leveraging technology in this process may widely vary from company to company.

Assuming that the marketing practices followed by the industry players would be ethical and the regulators keep a strict vigil on the same, effective marketing of a large number of competing molecules or similar brand increases competition, significantly. In that process, it should ultimately enable physicians to prescribe drugs that will suit each patient the most, in every way. There can’t possibly be any other alternative to this concept.

A common allegation:

Despite these, a common allegation against ‘pharma marketing’ keeps gathering momentum. Reports continue pouring in that pharma companies spend far more on marketing drugs than on developing them. One such example is a stinging article, published by the BBC News on November 6, 2014.

Quoting various published reports as evidence, this article highlighted that – 9 out of 10 large pharma players spend more on marketing than R&D. These examples are generally construed as testimony for the profiteering motive of the pharma companies.

Is the reason necessarily so?

As any other knowledge-based industry, effective communication process of complex product information with precision, to highly knowledgeable medical professionals individually, obviously makes pharma marketing cost commensurately high. If the entire process of marketing remains fair, ethical and patient centric, such costs may get well-neutralized by the benefits accrued from the medicines, including lesser cost of drugs driven by high competition.

Further, a successful pharma marketing campaign is the ultimate tool that ensures a reasonable return on investments for further fund allocation, although in varying degree, to offer more new drugs to patients – both innovative and generics.

Marketing decision-support data generation is also cost-intensive:

Achieving short, medium and long-term growth objectives are as fundamental in pharma as in any other business. This prompts that investments made on ‘pharma marketing’, fetch commensurate returns, year after year. To succeed in this report, one of the prime requirements is to ensure that the content, platform and ultimate delivery of the product communication is based on current and credible research data having statistical significance.

With increasing brand proliferation, especially in competing molecules or branded generic market, arriving at cutting-edge brand differentiation has also become more challenging than ever before. Nevertheless, identification of well-differentiated patient-centric product value offerings will always remain ‘a must’ for any persuasive brand communication to be effective.

It calls for generating a vast amount of custom made decision-support data on each aspect of ‘pharma marketing’, such as target market, target patients, target doctors, competitive environment, differential value offering, and scores of others. The key to success in this effort is to come out with that ‘rare commodity’ that separates men from the boys. This is cost intensive.

What ails pharma marketing, then?

So far so good – the real issue is not, therefore, whether ‘pharma marketing’ deserves to be in the line of fire. The raging debate on what ails ‘pharma marketing’ should primarily focus on – how to ensure that this process remains ethical and fair, for all.

Thus, when criticism mounts on related issues, it may not necessarily mean that ‘marketing’ is avoidable in the pharma business. Quite often, critics do mix-up between the crucial ‘importance of pharma marketing’ and ‘malpractices in pharma marketing.’ Consequently, public impressions take shape, believing that the pharma marketing expenses are generally higher due to malpractices with profiteering motives.

As a result, we come across reports that draw public attention with conclusions like: “Imagine an industry that generates higher profit margins than any other and is no stranger to multi-billion dollar fines for malpractice.”

A similar article published ‘Forbes’ on February 18, 2015 also reiterates: “The deterioration of pharma’s reputation comes from several sources, not the least of which is the staggering amount of criminal behavior that has resulted in billions of dollars’ worth of fines levied against the industry.”

One cannot deny these reports – lock, stock and barrel, either. Several such articles named many large pharma players, both global and local.

Conclusion:

In my view, only pharma marketers with a ‘can do’ resolve will be able to initiate a change in this avoidable perception. No-one else possibly can do so with a total success in the foreseeable future – not even the requirement of a strict compliance with any mandatory code having legal teeth, such as mandatory compliance of the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) that the Indian Government is currently mulling.

I guess so because, after a strong deterrent like mandatory UCPMP is put in place, if reports on marketing malpractices continue to surface, it will invite more intense public criticism against ‘pharma marketing’ – pushing the industry’s reputation further downhill, much faster.

Be that as it may, it’s high time for all to realize, just because some pharma players resort to malpractices, the ‘pharma marketing’ process, as such, doesn’t deserve to be in the line of fire – in any way.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Posted on July 31, 2017 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two major barriers and their impact:

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

The first barrier involves fierce legal resistance from the original biologic manufacturers of the world, on various grounds, resisting entry of biosimilar varieties of their respective brands. This compels the biosimilar drug manufacturers incurring heavy expenditure on litigation, adding avoidable cost. A glimpse of this saga, we are ‘privy’ to witness even in India, while following Roche versus Biocon and Mylan case related to ‘Trastuzumab’. This barrier is one of the most basic types, that delays biosimilar drug entry depriving many new patients to have access to lower priced effective biologic for the treatment of serious diseases.

The other major barrier that exists today, involves ‘interchangeability’ of original biologic with biosimilar drugs. It simple means that in addition to being highly similar, a biosimilar drug manufacturer would require producing indisputable clinical evidence that it gives the same result for any given patient just as the original biologic. We shall discuss the reason behind this regulatory requirement later in this article. However, this is an expensive process, and the absence of it creates a barrier, making the physicians hesitant to switch all those existing patients who are on expensive original biologic drugs with less expensive available biosimilar alternatives.

The first or the initial barrier:

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

An interesting case in India:

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

The second barrier:

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

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

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

The reasoning of innovative biologic drug makers:

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

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

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

Some key players in biosimilar drug development:

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

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

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

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

The market:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

Dwindling Drug Innovation: Declining Image: Unchanged Business And Advocacy Models

Posted on February 20, 2017 by Tapan Ray

A report of ‘The United States International Trade Commission (USITC)’ released on December 22, 2014 suggested, if tariffs and investment restrictions were fully eliminated, and standards of IP protection were made comparable to the U.S and Western European levels, American exports to India would rise by two-thirds.

A year later, on February 01, 2015 an interesting news article highlighted that the flashpoint of this issue “has clearly been pharmaceutical companies and their lobby group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which have made some of the strongest representations to the US government against India’s IPR regime.” The same report also indicated that many other companies including the aircraft maker Boeing and the generic drug giant Abbott felt that India offered adequate IP protection and that they had not experienced major IP problems in the country.

The above stance of USITC continued echoing right from the beginning of this year. In January 2017, the CEO of US Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) reportedly told our Prime Minister Narendra Modi, ‘if he follows western practices on intellectual property protection, his country would see a “tidal wave” of biotech industry investment.’

On February 08, 2017, when the fifth edition of ‘U.S. Chamber International IP Index’ report was released by the ‘Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC)’, India featured in the 43^rd rank out of 45 countries. With this India remained virtually at the bottom of the IP index for the fourth year on the trot. The GIPC report underscored India’s “anaemic IPR policy”, Section 3.d of the Indian Patents Act, besides several others, as major market access barriers.

On February 14, 2017, another news article reported that America’s pharma sector has asked the US Trade Representative (USTR) to continue to keep India on its Priority Watch List (PWL), which includes countries that are alleged violators of US patent laws, claiming that the environment on the ground remains ‘challenging’ in India. Among the areas of concern for the US pharma companies operating in India, unpredictable IP environment, high tariffs and taxes on medicines, regulatory data protection failure, discriminatory and non-transparent market access policies and unpredictable environment for clinical research were listed among others.

With this backdrop, the key question that haunts many industry watchers, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no complaint with the Indian Patents Act 2005, and finds it TRIPS compliant, why are these reports coming from the United States consistently emphasizing that the current IP regime of the country is a key barrier to market access, especially for research-based pharma companies?

Is the core issue of the global pharma industry in India is predominantly not encouraging innovation well enough, or the dearth of inadequate Intellectual Property (IP) protection – or it is something beyond that, and is more fundamental in nature. In this article, I shall dwell in this area, first in the global perspective, and then zeroing-in to India.

A global perspective:

“The past 60 years have seen huge advances in many of the scientific, technological and managerial factors that should tend to raise the efficiency of commercial drug research and development (R&D). Yet the number of new drugs approved per billion US dollars spent on R&D has halved roughly every 9 years since 1950, falling around 80-fold in inflation-adjusted terms. There have been many proposed solutions to the problem of declining R&D efficiency. However, their apparent lack of impact so far and the contrast between improving inputs and declining output in terms of the number of new drugs make it sensible to ask whether the underlying problems have been correctly diagnosed,” articulated an important article published on March 01, 2012 in the Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

This trend continues, virtually unchanged. R&D efficiency continues to remain a cause of great concern to the research-based global pharmaceutical companies. Accordingly, a 2016 report of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions titled, ‘Measuring the return of pharmaceutical innovation’, among other findings, has captured the following:

Annual projected pharma R&D return declines to 3.7 percent from 10.1 percent in 2010
Peak sales per asset fall 11.4 percent year-on-year since 2010

What then is its basic solution?

When the right solution eludes:

In this scenario, when the right solution is still eluding, to record growth in corporate profit and earning to meet shareholders’ expectations, keeping the existing business model intact, the global research-based pharma companies have the following two limited options, which they are actively pursuing:

Take high price increases for the existing products
Launch the limited new products at a very high price

A report published in The First Word Pharma on October 06, 2015 quoting The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) vindicated exercising the first option. It reported that many drug makers have succeeded in increasing revenue on products despite a flat or declining demand by consistently increasing prices. An analysis revealed that revenue for the top 30 products in the United States zoomed by 61 percent over the past five years, three times the increase in the number of prescriptions sold over that period. While another report by Credit Suisse illustrated that 80 percent of the growth in net profit for the top 20 drug makers was attributable to price hikes.

To substantiate application of the second option, I quote from the CBS News, which on April 05, 2016 reported that an investigation into the cost of prescription drugs revealed huge price hikes over the past five years. Several brand name medications more than doubled in price. Again, on August 24, 2016, it gave a sense of this trend with the following examples, covering the launch price of innovative drug, and price increases of generic drugs:

Gilead fixed their new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi’s cost at US$ 900 – 1,000 per pill
Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ increased the cost of its anti-allergic drug EpiPen from about US$ 57 in 2007 to more than US$ 500 in 2016
Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the price of the anti-malaria drug Daraprim by 5,000 percent last year, charging US$ 750 per pill for a drug that used to cost US$ 13.50 per pill.

PhRMA – the often quoted trade association in America, representing the country’s leading pharma and bio-pharmaceutical research-based companies, reportedly said in a statement: “Focusing solely on the list prices of medicines is misleading because it ignores the significant discounts and rebates negotiated by insurers and pharmacy benefit managers.”

Even if, this argument is accepted as such, the tough impact of regular hefty drug price increases on the consumers is real, unquestionably.

The current business model leaves behind many patients:

The ‘Access to Medicine Index 2016’ report also finds that companies generally do not systematically target populations with the highest needs in their registration, pricing and licensing actions. Although, we continue to make progress toward major public health goals, such as, polio is close to being eradicated, as is guinea worm; more than 45 percent of people living with HIV/AIDS have access to ARVs; important vaccines for malaria and dengue fever are being implemented, still business models for providing healthcare are leaving many people behind. Globally, two billion people cannot access the medicines they need, most of whom live hand to mouth.

Particularly, the big global pharma companies, as the innovators and producers of life-saving medicines, need to act much earlier in the patients’ value chain. Without or inadequate action by these companies, alongside governments, NGOs and others, it will be impossible to bring modern medicine to everyone.

Public outrage over high drug prices:

Many studies indicate that the research-based global pharma and biotech companies, still strive hard to stick to their existing overall business models with a sharp focus on improving both the top and bottom lines of the business, though the R&D projects are becoming lesser and lesser productive. This prompts them resorting to hefty price increases, and introducing new products with high price. Fueled by this self-serving mindset, a simmering public outrage, globally, over high drug prices is fast catching up, further undermining the trust in the industry, as another report says.

No wonder why in the Gallup Poll of August 15, 2016, pharmaceutical industry featured just one above the bottom among the ‘Worst-Rated U.S. Business Sectors’. Moreover, even the Harris Poll released on January 17, 2017 found that 91 percent of U.S. consumers believe pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies put profits over patients.

The industry continues chasing rainbows:

In response to this mounting stakeholders’ criticism, arguably the richest pharma association in the world in its member subscriptions – PhRMA, reportedly launched a new ad campaign costing tens of millions of dollars on January 25, 2017. It aims to highlight innovation and scientific breakthroughs to change the public’s negative perception of the industry. This campaign will span across television, print, digital, and radio, the report elaborates.

Following is an example, as reported, listing three important and interesting comments on this campaign for pharma image revamp from some of those who matter:

Lawmaker Peter Welch, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus’ task force on drug pricing, said, “The issue here is not whether drugs have some benefits … The issue is whether pharma is going to be able to kill us with their pricing power or whether we will get transparency and competition.” He added, “The campaign is all about defending their pricing power and pushing their product.”

Similarly, another lawmaker Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “This is [PhRMA] trying to change the subject and to try and divert people’s attention away from drug pricing. Continuing to ignore drug pricing is probably not going to work.”

Ameet Sarpatwari, a drug pricing policy researcher at Harvard University said, “It’s really a matter of being tone deaf in terms of thinking somehow that this is going to change public perception”

Isn’t a great example of chasing rainbows by the industry association, in the number one pharma and biotech market of the world, instead of amending to the root cause of this burning issue?

The situation in India:

In this backdrop, amid a tough global situation, let me assess the related Indian scenario.

The research-based global pharma companies, apparently want to introduce the whole range of their patented products at a high price and in a monopolistic situation in India too, for much higher growth in revenue and profits. Thus, they are consistently pushing hard, with all guns blazing, for major changes in the Indian Patents Act 2005, which would involve jettisoning many patients’ health interest related safeguard conditions enshrined in the Act, such as Section 3.d that restricts ever-greening of patents, and introducing several other tougher IP measures, such as data exclusivity under the garb of imaginary patient safety issues with generic drugs.

They don’t seem to like price control of essential drugs in India, either. While intensely lobbying for it, the lobbyists vehemently argue in favor of the absurd, which is the affordability of medicines does not help to increase drug access to all those who need these most, even when on the ground, the out of pocket expenses for drugs in the country is as high as around 65 percent and universal health care does exist in the country, much to the dismay of many.

It has now been generally established by many global experts, including our own National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) that market competition does not necessarily bring down drug prices, including for generics, quite unlike many other industries, but various pressure groups, including the media, can catalyze it, and quite effectively. What has happened recently with the cardiac stents price in the country, is just an example.

Is the devil in the traditional pharma business model?

An article titled, “How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time”, published on February 03, 2017 in The Harvard Business Review, emphatically states: “It’s a fact that the current business model of pharma companies is not working efficiently.” It suggests, besides enhancing the current unenviable public image of the industry, expanding access to medicines will help pharma companies enhance shareholder value. The success of a new business model depends on both the willingness and the ability of pharmaceutical companies to fully integrate access to medicine into their business strategies, the article emphasizes.

A July 2015 paper of McKinsey & Company titled, “Pharma’s next challenge”, also reiterates that in the developed economies, market access is chiefly concerned with pricing, and with satisfying local conditions. Whereas, in the emerging markets, to overcome the barriers, pharma players need to shift the focus of their commercial models from marketing and sales to access, and from brand-by-brand access planning to integrated cross-brand planning.

In pursuit of a new model:

Based on the above premises, the search for a new pharma business model, especially for the research-based pharma companies, in my view, may broadly focus on the following areas:

Learn from innovation models of the IT industry: Win-Win collaborative innovation models, including ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’, if scaled up, could reduce the cost of innovation significantly and making the new innovative drugs generally affordable. Thus, larger volume sales may adequately offset a voluntary cut in the product margin, creating a multiplier effect.

Be a part of the solution and not the problem: Because of fiercely pushing the blatant self-serving agenda, inconveniencing many patients, the core mindset of the pharma industry is considered by many as an integral part of the main problem. While pharma industry, quite rightly, seek more market access, they need to act as a facilitator too, to improve general access to medicines, in various imaginative ways, which is, of course, possible. This will make the pharma industry to be a part of the solution to the national problem, over a period of time.

Walk the talk: While pharma industry speaks all right things, in terms of ethical conduct of business, at a time when both national and international media frequently expose their gross wrongdoings. This continues, unabated. Sales and marketing functions are indeed very important, but not at the cost of good corporate governance. I am aware, all compliance rules exist immaculately on paper for many companies, but the senior management officials should demonstrate that they walk the talk, giving exemplary punishment to the wrongdoers, including their peers.

Change the current advocacy model: The current advocacy model of the research-based pharma companies is too self-serving. For example, in India it mostly demands, which is bordering obsession, to change the IP laws of a sovereign country, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no problem with these, whatsoever. There is a need for them to demonstrate, sans any shade of arrogance, visible respect to any country’s general sentiment on its Patents Act, as it’s their own decision to operate in those countries. An imaginative win-win change in this area, would significantly help to create a strong bond and mutual respect with other important stakeholders.

Are senior citizens in pharma business a barrier to change?

A recent white paper of ‘Eye for Pharma’, says in its conclusion “many of those now running pharma organizations have come through the ‘golden age’ of pharma and so may be reluctant to change”. Does this issue need to be addressed first by the Independent Directors of the respective Boards of the pharma companies?

In conclusion:

Many questions do spring up while addressing this issue. One common belief is that, pharma industry, in general, is reluctant to change its traditional business model, beyond just tweaking, despite declining overall productivity and in its public image.

In advocacy initiatives, while drawing stakeholders’ attention to the core grievance agenda, though they try hard to project their business focus on patients, especially using the buzzwords, such as, ‘patient centric approach’ or ‘patient engagement’, among many others, has anything visibly changed, just yet?

As the business environment is getting tougher and consumer expectations are fast changing, drug innovation is also steadily dwindling, so is the declining industry image. However, pharma business and advocacy models continue to remain mostly unchanged. It remains intriguing, why are the ‘wise guys’ of pharma business still so deeply obsessed with chasing rainbows, with so much of zeal, hectic activity and money, while majority of patients keeps bearing the brunt?

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.

At The Indian IPR Front: ‘Ground Control, There’s No Major Storm’

Posted on September 5, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The incessant pressure of the developing countries on India, from 2005 to date, to include various restrictive conditions in the Indian Patents Act 2005, still continue. This demand spans across the inclusion of even those provisions, which many experts term as TRIPS-Plus, as these are not required by the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. More interestingly, the pressure group also insists on the simultaneous deletion or dilution of some existing important provisions in the statute that guarantee public health interest of the nation.

This pressure is expected to mount in the G20 summit of September 4-5, which is now being held in China.

Refreshingly, on 30 August 2016, just ahead of this summit, the eminent economist Dr. Arvind Panagariya, who is also the incumbent Vice Chairman of Niti Aayog of India, and India’s Sherpa at the G20 summit reiterated, as follows, in an interview to a leading National English Business Daily:

“India has strongly opposed the language of the draft on Intellectual Property Protection (IPR) to be taken up at the upcoming G20 meeting in Beijing.”

In the interview, having re-emphasized the critical point that “there is a certain flexibility that we have under the TRIPS agreement and anything that dilutes that flexibility is not acceptable to India,” Dr. Panagariya clearly reaffirmed, yet again that ‘Indian IPR laws and policies are absolutely TRIPS compliant’.

This statement indeed sends a very positive signal to all on the ground, regarding the robust position maintained by the Government, to ward off any move by the overseas vested business interest to derail the flexibility that Indian well-balanced patent regime offers today, not just for public health, but also to foster innovation ecosystem in the country.

At the same time, India’s Sherpa at G20 summit also reportedly clarified that the IPR framework being proposed at the G20, in its strictest sense, cannot be construed as TRIPS-Plus. Nevertheless, some language used in the proposed G20 draft could be subject to interpretation, and India feels that it should not leave any room for ambiguity that has the potential to stretch this demand further, as we move on.

According to Dr. Panagariya: “Right now, these documents have some language where people in the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) feel that it impinges a bit. We have to fight it out at the summit.”

The basis of apprehension:

There are many reasons for the recent apprehension that India may buckle under the US pressure to dilute its IP laws and policies. One of the reasons could well be a possibility that India has come to an understanding with USTR in this area.

An interesting article published in the ‘spicyip’ on March 14, 2016 also captured this scenario pretty well. I am reproducing below in verbatim a paragraph of this paper, just as an example:

“Last month, the Indian government privately assured the US-India Business Council (“USIBC’’) that it would not invoke compulsory licensing for commercial purposes, as reported in their submissions (available here) to the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) for the 2016 Special 301 Review. The USIBIC stated that it would be “further encouraged” if the government of India were to make a public commitment, or a written declaration to only issue compulsory licenses in the event of public health emergencies, and not for commercial purposes. This, in their eyes, would “greatly enhance legal certainty for innovative industries”. While such a private assurance doesn’t give rise to any legal commitments, it may well be indicative of a policy shift.”

Prior to this, among many others, a March 3, 2016 ‘The Wire’ report captioned “India Assures the US it Will Not Issue Compulsory Licenses on Medicines”, also raised the same red flag.

The pressure continues even post engagement:

Be that as it may, America has been, repeatedly, raising its concerns over India’s patent regime, driven by its powerful pharma lobby groups.

To keep the kettle boiling, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in its 2016 Special 301 Report released this year on April 12, continued to keep India, along with 11 countries, on the Priority Watch List (PWL) for the current year.

USTR reportedly expressed serious concern about Indian IP policies stating that the regime apparently ‘favor’ indigenous manufacturing or Indian innovators. It also alleged that such direction ‘damages’ the patent infrastructure not just in India, but across the world.

It is believed by many that the Special 301 Report is, in fact, a formal posturing of the country on their unilateral IP related business hurdles for the year, exhibiting the power to implement unilateral trade sanctions when the US demands are not met.

In that context, the 2016 Special 301 Report caught many by surprise, as the Indian ‘IPR Think Tank’ (a body of the Union Government-selected experts) was also working closely with the United States to identify and address their issues of concern, such as, patent system, copyright infringement, trademark and counterfeiting, among others.

At that time, this discussion was possibly in its final stage as, just a month after, on May 12, 2016, the Union Cabinet approved the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy (IPR) of India, as proposed by the ‘Think Tank’, in consultation with, among others, especially the United States, which reportedly expressed its overall satisfaction with the final IPR policy.

Key concerns:

From the pharma industry perspective, the key IP concerns are centered, primarily, in the following three areas, besides a few others:

Patentability
Compulsory Licensing (CL)
Data Exclusivity

I would, therefore, concentrate briefly on these three areas to argue how reasonable is the Indian Patents Act 2005 to create a win-win situation both for the patients and the industry while fostering pharma innovation in the country.

Patentability:

One of their key concerns on patentability, revolves round an important provision in the statute – Section 3 (d).

Pharma Multinational Corporations (MNCs), and their trade associations have been going overboard, since long, to lobby hard to make all concerned believe that section 3 (d) is a stumbling block for pharma innovation, as it does not allow patent protection on known chemical substances lacking any significant improvement in clinical efficacy.

This provision of the statute prevents ever-greening of patents with frivolous incremental innovation. Consequently, it blocks the possibility of pricing such ‘me too’ new molecules, exorbitantly, and persuading the prescribers of the existing molecule switching over to the new brand, backed by contentious marketing campaigns, adversely impacting affordability and access to the majority of the patients in India.

Notwithstanding the shrill voices of vested interests, Section 3 (d) has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the famous Glivec case of Novartis against Cipla.

The Submission of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) to USTR for the Review of ‘2016 Special 301 Report’, categorically also states that the Indian Patent Act prescribes a higher threshold on inventive step for medicines, which is in keeping with the TRIPS Agreement, Paris Convention and the Doha Declaration. Hence, Section 3 (d) is sound in terms of the TRIPS, Public policy and Health policy.

Compulsory License (CL):

Besides the hard fact that India has, so far, granted just one CL in a span of more than the last ten years, the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement related public health clearly provides the flexibility to all its member states to decide on the necessary grounds for granting CL. It is noteworthy that for public health interest, TRIPS flexibilities for CL has been used even by the developed countries, such as, Canada, United States and Germany, in the not too distant past.

Data exclusivity:

The terminologies ‘Data Exclusivity’ and ‘Data Protection’ are quite often used interchangeably by many, creating a great deal of confusion on the subject. However, in a true sense these are quite different issues having a critical impact on the public health interest of a nation.

In an article published in ‘ipHandbook’, titled “Data Protection and Data Exclusivity in Pharmaceuticals and Agrochemicals”, the author Charles Clift, a former Secretary, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health, World Health Organization; differentiated these two terminologies as follows:

Data Protection (DP): Protection of commercially valuable data held by the drug regulator against disclosure and unfair commercial use.

Data Exclusivity (DE): A time bound form of Intellectual Property (IP) protection that seeks to allow companies recouping the cost of investment in producing data required by the regulatory authority.

According to Charles Clift, Article 39.3 only articulates widely accepted trade secret and unfair competition law, and is not an invitation to create new IP rights, per se, for test data. Nor does it prevent outside parties from relying on the test data submitted by an originator, except in case of unfair commercial practices.

Some developed countries, such as the United States and the European Union have argued that Article 39.3 of TRIPS requires countries to create a regime of DE, which is a new form of time-limited IP protection. However, it is worth noting that in both these countries DE regime was adopted prior to the TRIPS Agreement. Hence, many experts construe such approaches and pressure, thus created for DE, as ‘TRIPS-Plus’.

In its new IPR Policy, India has successfully resisted the demands of TRIPs-Plus provisions, such as, data exclusivity, patent linkage and patent-term extension.

Even the draft IPR policy had reiterated that India accepts: “Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity.”

Any near-term possibility of a change in the statute?

While the new IPR Policy of India focuses on consolidating institutional mechanisms to create a robust IPR ecosystem in the country, besides resolving some pressing issues, such as, expediting approval processes involving patents or trademarks, it does not indicate any possible change in the important provisions in the Patents Act 2005, including the much talked about Section 3 (d) and compulsory licensing, despite concerns expressed by the US and pharma companies.

Moreover, a May 13, 2016 Press Trust of India (PTI) report on the Union Cabinet approval of Indian IPR Policy quoted a Government official, as follows, negating the apprehensions that the government may yield to the pressure of developed countries with regard to its IR regime:

“India will never go beyond its current commitments in the TRIPS. Section 3 (d), patent linkage, data exclusivity and compulsory licensing are red lines.”

On the same day and in the same context, Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley also reportedly stressed that India’s IPR policies are TRIPS-compliant and encourage invention of life-saving drugs, while at the same time, “we must also be conscious of the need to make it available at a reasonable cost so that drug cost does not become prohibitive as has become in some parts of the world”, he articulated, unambiguously.

Conclusion:

Despite all these developments, reiterations and interpretations, a lurking fear on India’s diluting the current patent regime of the nation was refusing to die down in the country.

Many experts were also quite apprehensive about what would be India’s stand on IP in the G 20 summit on September 4-5, currently being held in China.

Is it, then, just a storm in a tea cup on the ground?

This is not a very easy question to answer, though, as many industry watchers sense. Nonetheless, yet another emphatic statement on the subject coming from a top Government echelon and none other than Dr. Arvind Panagariya, the Vice Chairman of Niti Aayog and India’s Sherpa at G20 summit, possibly sends a clear message, at least for now, to all those holding ground in the Indian IPR front:

‘Ground Control, There’s No Major Storm’.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Biosimilar Drugs: First Indian Foot Print In An Uncharted Frontier

Posted on April 4, 2016 by Tapan Ray

A homegrown Indian biologic manufacturer is now about to leave behind its first foot-print, with a ‘made in India’ biosimilar drug, in one of the largest pharma market of the world. This was indeed an uncharted frontier, and a dream to realize for any Indian bio-pharma player.

On March 28, 2016, by a Press Release, Bengaluru based Biocon Ltd., one of the premier biopharmaceutical companies in India, announced that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) of Japan has approved its biosimilar Insulin Glargine in a prefilled disposable pen. The product is a biosimilar version of Sanofi’s blockbuster insulin brand – ‘Lantus’.

The Company claims that Glargine is a high quality, yet an affordable priced product, as it will reportedly cost around 25 percent less than the original biologic brand – Lantus. This ‘made in India’ biosimilar product is expected to be launched in Japan in the Q1 of 2017. Incidentally, Japan is the second largest Glargine market in the world with a value of US$ 144 Million. Biocon will co-market this product with its partner Fujifilm.

Would it be a free run?

Although it is a very significant and well-deserved achievement of Biocon, but its entry with this biosimilar drug in Japan’s Lantus market, nevertheless, does not seem to be free from tough competition. This is because, in 2015, both Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim also obtained Japanese regulatory approval for their respective biosimilar versions of Lantus. In the same year, both these companies also gained regulatory approval from the US-FDA, and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) for their respective products.

Moreover, Sanofi’s longer acting version of Lantus – Lantus XR, or Toujeo, to treat both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, has already been approved in Japan, which needs to be injected less, expectedly making it more convenient to patients.

Key barriers to a biosimilar drug's success:

Such barriers, as I shall briefly outline below, help sustaining monopoly of the original biologic even after patent expiry, discourage investments in innovation in search of biosimilars, and adversely impacts access to effective and much less expensive follow-on-biologics to save patients’ precious lives.

These barriers can be broadly divided in two categories:

A. Regulatory barriers:

1. Varying non-proprietary names:

A large number of biosimilar drug manufacturers, including insurers and large pharmacy chains believe, just as various global studies have also indicated that varying non-proprietary names for biosimilars, quite different from the original biologic, as required by the drug regulators in the world’s most regulated pharma markets, such as, the United States, Europe, Japan, and Australia, restrict competition in the market for the original biologic brands.

However, the innovator companies for biologic drugs hold quite different views. For example, Roche (Genentech), a developer of original biologic, reportedly explained that “distinguishable non-proprietary names are in the best interest of patient safety, because they facilitate Pharmacovigilance, and mitigate inadvertent product substitution.”

Even, many other global companies that develop both original biologic and also biosimilar products such as, Amgen, Pfizer and others, also reportedly support the use of ‘distinguishable nonproprietary names’.

That said, the Biosimilars Council of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association argues that consistent non-proprietary naming will ensure robust market formation that ultimately supports patient access, affordability, Pharmacovigilance systems currently in place and allow for unambiguous prescribing,

2. Substitution or interchangeable with original biologics:

Besides different ‘non-proprietary names’, but arising primarily out of this issue, automatic substitution or interchangeability is not permitted for biosimilar drugs by the drug regulators in the major pharma markets of the world, such as, the United States, Europe and Japan.

The key argument in favor of interchangeability barrier for biosimilar drugs is the fact that the biological drugs, being large protein molecules, can never be exactly replicated. Hence, automatic substitution of original biologic with biosimilar drugs does not arise. This is mainly due to the safety concern that interchangeability between the biosimilars and the original biologic may increase immunogenicity, giving rise to adverse drug reactions. Hence, it would be risky to allow interchangeability of biosimilar drugs, without generating relevant clinical trial data.

On the other hand, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) and the Biosimilars Council, vehemently argue that a biosimilar drug has a lot many other unique identifying characteristics “including a brand name, company name, a lot number and a National Drug Code (NDC) number that would readily distinguish it from other products that share the same nonproprietary name.”

Further, the interchangeable status for biosimilar drugs would also help its manufacturers to tide over the initial apprehensions on safety and quality of biosimilar drugs, as compared to the original ones.

3. 12-year Data Exclusivity period for biologics in the United states:

Currently, the new law for biologic products in the United States provides 12 years of data exclusivity for a new biologic. This is five years more than what is granted to small molecule drugs.

Many experts believe that this system would further delay the entry of cost-effective biosimilar drugs, restrict the biosimilar drug manufacturers from relying on the test data submitted to drug regulator by the manufacturers of the original biologic drugs while seeking marketing approval.

A rapidly evolving scenario in the United States:

The regulatory space for approval of biosimilar drugs is still evolving in the Unites States. This is vindicated by the fact that in March 2016, giving a somewhat positive signal to the biosimilar drug manufacturers, the US-FDA released another set of a 15-page draft guidelines on how biosimilar products should be labeled for the US market. Interestingly, it has come just around a year of the first biosimilar drug approval in the United States – Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis.

The US-FDA announcement says that all ‘comments and suggestions regarding this draft document should be submitted within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register of the notice announcing the availability of the draft guidance.’ Besides labeling issues, this draft guidance document, though indicates that the ‘interchangeability’ criteria will be addressed in the future, does not still throw enough light on how exactly to determine ‘interchangeability’ for biosimilar drugs.

That said, these key regulatory barriers are likely to continue, at least in the foreseeable future, for many reasons. The biosimilar drug manufacturers, therefore, would necessarily have to work within the set regulations, as applicable to different markets of the world.

I deliberated a related point in my article of August 25, 2014, titled “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”

B. Prescribers’ skepticism:

Initial skepticism of the medical profession for biosimilar drugs are, reportedly, due to the high voltage advocacy of the original biologic manufacturers on the ‘documented variability between original biologic and biosimilars. Which is why, any substitution of an original biologic with a related biosimilar drug could lead to increase in avoidable adverse reactions.

‘The medical platform and community QuantiaMD’, released a study just around September 2015, when by a Press Release, Novartis announced the launch of the first biosimilar approved by the US-FDA – Zarxio(TM) (filgrastim-sndz). However, in 2006, Novartis after suing the US-FDA, got the approval for its human growth hormone – Omnitrope, which is a biosimilar of the original biologic of Genentech and Pfizer. At that time a clear regulatory guideline for biosimilar drugs in the United States, was not in place.

The QuantiaMD report at that time said, “Only 12% of prescribing specialists are ‘very confident’ that biosimilars are as safe as the original biologic version of the drug. In addition, a mere 17% said they were ‘very likely’ to prescribe a biosimilar, while 70% admitted they were not sure if they would.”

Since then, this scenario for biosimilar drugs is changing though gradually, but encouragingly. I shall dwell on that below.

The major growth drivers:

The major growth drivers for biosimilars, especially, in the world’s top pharmaceutical markets are expected to be:

Growing pressure to curtail healthcare expenditure
Growing demand for biosimilar drugs due to their cost-effectiveness
Rising incidences of various life-threatening diseases
Increasing number of off-patent biologics
Positive outcome in the ongoing clinical trials
Rising demand for biosimilars in different therapeutic applications, such as, rheumatoid arthritis and blood disorders.

This in turn would probably usher in an unprecedented opportunity for the manufacturers of high quality biosimilar drugs, including in India.

Unfolding a huge emerging opportunity with biosimilars:

This unprecedented opportunity is expected to come mainly from the world’s three largest pharma market, namely the United States, Europe and Japan, due to very high prices of original biologic drugs, and simultaneously to contain rapidly escalating healthcare expenditure by the respective Governments.

Unlike in the past, when the doctors were apprehensive, and a bit skeptic too, on the use of new biosimilars, some new studies of 2016 indicate a rapid change in that trend. After the launch of the first biosimilar drug in the US, coupled with rapidly increasing incidences of various complex, life-threatening diseases, better knowledge of biosimilar drugs and their cost-effectiveness, doctors are now expressing much lesser concern, and exhibiting greater confidence in the use of biosimilars in their clinical practice.

Yet another, March 2016 study indicates, now only 19.5 percent of respondents feel little or no confidence in the use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies compared to 61percent of respondents to a previous version of the survey undertaken in 2013 by the same market research group. The survey also shows that 44.4 percent of respondents consider that the original biologic and its biosimilar versions are interchangeable, as compared with only 6 percent in the 2013 survey.

As a result of this emerging trend, some global analysts of high credibility estimate that innovative biologic brands will lose around US$110 billion in sales to their biosimilar versions by 2025.

Another March, 2016 report of IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics states that lower-cost biosimilar versions of complex biologic, could save the US and Europe’s five top markets as much as US$112 billion by 2020,

These encouraging developments in the global biosimilar arena are expected to encourage the capable Indian biosimilar drug players to invest in this high-tech format of drug development, and reap a rich harvest as the high priced blockbuster biologic brands go off-patent.

Conclusion:

Putting all these developments together, and considering the rapidly emerging scenario in this space, it now appears that challenges ahead for rapid acceptance of biosimilar drugs though are still many, but not insurmountable, at all.

The situation necessitates application of fresh and innovative marketing strategies to gain doctors’ confidence on biosimilar medicines, in total conformance with the regulatory requirements for the same, as they are, in the most important regulated markets of the world.

It goes without saying that success in the generation of enough prescriptions for biosimilar drugs is the fundamental requirement to benefit the patients, which, in turn, would lead to significant savings in health care cost, as estimated above, creating a win-win situation for all, in every way.

As more innovator companies start joining the biosimilar bandwagon, the physicians’ perception on these new varieties of medicines, hopefully, would also change, sooner.

Biocon’s grand announcement of its entry with a ‘made in India’ biosimilar drug in one of the word’s top three pharma markets, would probably be a great encouragement for all other Indian biosimilar drug manufacturers. It clearly showcases the capabilities of an Indian drug manufacturer to chart in an uncharted and a highly complex frontier of medicine.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Ease of Doing Pharma Business in India: A Kaleidoscopic View

Posted on March 28, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Ensuring ease of doing any ethical business activity in India, is a new focus area of the Government and is very rightly so. Creating ease of doing ethical pharma business too, falls under this overall national objective.

In this article, restricting myself to the drug sector, I shall deliberate on various aspects, which are now being considered by the pharma industry, related to the ‘ease of doing pharma business in India’. My discussion would cover all subsets of pharma players, irrespective of whether they fall under Multinational (MNC) or purely homegrown Indian companies, with different scales of operations – large, medium, small, or micro.

To help the Government facilitating the ‘‘ease of doing pharma business in India’, it is just not enough to make the business models for all subsets of the Indian pharma sector looking ethical, conforming to all relevant laws, policies, rules and norms. Each pharma player need also to maintain an ongoing strict internal vigil, religiously, to ensure that the requirements of high quality clinical development, manufacturing and selling practices for effective, safe and rational medicines, are properly understood and strictly followed by all the employees within the organization.

A Kaleidoscopic View:

The above situation is something that ought to happen, as the Government keeps striving to improve the ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India. However, while looking through a Kaleidoscope, as it were, the colors of industry expectations in this area keep changing rapidly, as the new contentious issues keep emerging. Consequently, the ground reality of assessing the same, by a large section of the pharma players in India, seems to veer only around different types of just self-serving demands, expecting those to act as a powerful tailwind pushing their business interests rapidly forward.

Such expectations keep surfacing, rather frequently, from all the subsets of the pharma industry, be they MNCs and their trade associations or the Companies of purely Indian origin and their trade bodies. The accusation to the Government pertaining to all these issues, is a common one: ‘Where is the ease of doing pharma business in India?’

Citing even some recent incidents, they are voicing with equal gusto, that the root causes of all these problems lie miles outside the pharma industry. The causative factor, they indicate, is rooted at the very doorsteps of the Government, as its ministries initiate tough action to root out corruption in the pharma industry as concurrent measures, disturbing their business comfort zones, and upsetting the apple carts.

The Government has its task cut out:

I hasten to add that I have no intention to paint it as a confrontation between the Government and the pharma industry, in any way. The Government is also facing the brunt from the various stakeholders, relentlessly, for its utter negligence of public health care, and public expenditure over it.

The impact of this Government indifference, though also comes on the patients, the industry does not seem to have much to crib over it as a direct impediment to the ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India.

Probably as a diversionary tactic, the industry keeps using this critical Government inaction in the hope of diverting the public, or media attention from its own alleged business malpractices, even at a time when these are being covered both by the national and international media, regularly. Nevertheless, the industry credibility on these issues, seems to have started waning fast, as the genie is out of the bottle.

A common punching bag of all industry dissatisfaction on the Government:

It is worth noting that despite some key differences between the MNC and Indian pharma companies, which I shall discuss later, the common punching bag of the industry dissatisfaction on various Government decisions, always has been the lack of ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in the country.

This discontentment may be well justified. I have no qualms about it. However, when this dissatisfaction gets tagged with some recent Government action, taken to protect public health interests and does not have much to do with the ‘ease of doing ethical pharma business’, many eyebrows are obviously raised.

Against some of these critical patient-centric actions, the industry continues to express its annoyance in unison, while for some other Government decisions, it speaks in different voices – some are happy ones, and the others are not so. However, the common thread of expression of all such dissatisfactions is always linked with the lack of ‘ease of doing business’ in India.

A. Where the pharma Industry in India speaks in unison:

I shall now give two major examples of the key Government decisions, that have irked the entire pharma industry immensely, and makes it voicing that those Government actions grossly violate the fundamental requirements of its smooth running of business. Is that fair? Let me analyze that below with these two examples:

1. Drug price control:

The industry, by and large, opines that individual drug company should be allowed to decide the way it would price any drug, as the market forces, especially for generic drugs, would determine its price.

Indian Parliament, the Supreme Court of India, the Government in power at different times, most of the independent experts and the NGOs, on the contrary, consider drug price control is necessary in India, especially for essential drugs. It makes high quality essential medicines affordable and accessible to the general population.

National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has also announced and explained that the competition does not work on controlling prices for pharma products, where the consumers are not the decision makers. The key prescribing decision makers for the patients are the doctors, who are mostly and unethically influenced by the drug companies having vested interest in making such decisions. This unholy nexus has been widely alleged globally, and also established through umpteen number of studies of high credibility.

Nevertheless, the doctors, from across the globe, including in India, have long disputed that any payments, if and when they receive from pharmaceutical companies, have no relationship to how they prescribe drugs.

A March 17, 2016 study of ProPublica has conclusively established that: “The more money doctors receive from drug and medical device companies, the more brand-name drugs they tend to prescribe. Even a meal can make a difference.” This study may be in the context of the Unites States, but India in this in this regard is no exception, as captured even in the parliamentary Committee reports.

Thus, conceding to high voltage pharma advocacy, made on the pretext of ‘encouraging innovation’ and ‘ease of doing business in India’, if any Government contemplates the abolition of drug price control in India is, it would make not just essential drugs inaccessible to a large section of society, but encourage blatant corrupt practices. This caution has come, besides many others, also from a Parliamentary Committee report, unambiguously. Incidentally, the present Government too strongly speaks against corruption, in any form.

Thus, I reckon, if the industry believes that the price control of essential drugs, which are for public health interest, goes against ease of doing pharma business in India, so be it.

2. Manufacturing and selling of irrational FDCs:

A Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drug may appear irrational to drug regulators and well-qualified experts, after necessary scientific scrutiny, for various reasons. This may happen, primarily because of the following reasons:

When the medical rationale of the FDC along with the ingredient details, submitted to the regulatory authority for marketing approval, are considered scientifically inappropriate.

When the evolving medical science establishes the irrationality of the FDC after a period of time.

When the analysis of ‘Adverse Drug Event’ reports from the ongoing Pharmacovigilance studies signals a red alert.

Widespread uncontrolled misuse or abuse of FDCs, where the consumers’ health risks far outweigh the drug benefits, as provided in the drugs Act, for public health interest.

Some regulatory loopholes were misused by the drug manufacturers in the past to get the irrational FDCs approved by the State Drug Authorities, violating the new FDC regulatory approval Policy.

Any irrational FDC so identified by the drug regulators and experts, by putting a system of scrutiny in place, must be banned forthwith, in public health interest. There should not be any scope of negotiation with drug manufacturer to make the bans effective.

Incidentally, realizing the gravity of public health risks posed by irrational FDCs, even the NPPA has reportedly decided to review afresh all new applications for price fixations of FDC and examine their safety and efficacy profile.

Moving towards this direction, the NPPA Chairman, has reportedly sent back more than 200 applications for price fixation of FDCs, instructing the concerned manufacturing and marketing companies to apply again with a declaration that their formulations are not “irrational.” It was also reported that the price regulator has also brought under the lens third-party drug makers and pharma companies that outsource to them, to check illegal sales of irrational FDCs and spurious drugs.

Two key questions being raised now:

Despite all these, the industry keeps repeating, especially, the following two questions, which are worth looking at, one by one:

1. Why is the ban now?

I discussed the issue of FDC ban in my previous article in this Blog on March 21, 2016 titled, “The Recent Ban On Irrational FDCs: History Repeats Itself”.

In the above article, I also argued that large section of the industry and its associations are protesting against the Government ban of 344 irrational FDCs, and questioning vigorously, even outside the Delhi High Court – ‘why is the ban now?’

The point ‘why now’ is absolutely irrelevant, as not taking any action ever, against a wrong doing ignored over a long period time for whatever reasons, does not confer any regulatory legitimacy to an irrational FDC formulation to be considered as a rational one for all time to come, and thereby, exposing patients to serious health risks, knowingly.

2. Why is this ban so sudden, and in some cases after decades?

Sudden banning of drugs, which are in the market for a long time, is not a recent Indian phenomenon in India. In 2011, according to a report, in the world’s largest pharma market – the United States, the FDA banned 500 prescription drugs that had been on the market and working for decades. USFDA ban also happened suddenly, and that includes cough syrups too. Thus, it is intriguing, why is this fuss created by the Industry in India now?

In the midst of it, one odd, knee-jerk, apparently ‘spoon-fed’ and ill-informed editorial in some Indian business daily, raises more questions about its real intent, rather than help finding answers to the poorly sketched problems.

I would hope, the Government would stay firm and be able to convince the Delhi High Court today, i.e. on March 28, 2016, with its robust data-based arguments, accordingly.

Be that as it may, in my perspective, if the industry still believes that bans of irrational FDCs to protect public health interest, as decided by the independent experts after long and structured deliberations, would go against ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India, so be it.

B. Where the pharma industry in India speaks in different voices:

As stated above, there are several other key areas, where the MNC and Indian Pharma players have sharp differences in their perspectives. Despite these differences, the aggrieved section does not even blink a bit to attribute those Government actions to the lack of ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in the country.

In this area, I shall give just the following three examples:

1. The Patents Act:

MNCs say that section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005, which is aimed at curbing patent ever-greening or frivolous inventions, is against the ease of doing business in India. However, the Indian Pharma players, do not think so, at all. Similar disagreement also exists in other critical areas too, such as, ‘Data Exclusivity (DE)’ and ‘Compulsory Licensing (CL)’.

Thus, in my opinion, if some ‘public health interest’ related provisions of the robust Indian Intellectual Property (IP) Act, such as, section 3 (d), DE and CL, are considered as going against the ‘ease of doing pharma business in India’ by the MNCs, so be it.

2. Mandatory Uniform Code of Pharma Marketing Practices (UCPMP):

Need to have a mandatory UCPMP, though, is reportedly supported by the MNCs, Indian pharma players do not seem to be quite in sync with this idea. I am not sure, whether the delay in the announcement of mandatory UCPMP, almost in every 3 months, has any coincidence with it or not. However, the reality is, no one still knows clearly, when would it definitely come, if at all.

Media reports on pharma MNC support to mandatory UCPMP, and repeated reiteration that its members in India rigidly follow the IFPMA Code of Marketing Practices, though commendable, seem to grossly lack in credibility.

Interestingly, despite the existence of this code and high-decibel vouch for its rigid conformance, maximum number of MNCs have been fined billions of dollars, by the Government in various countries, for alleged gross marketing and other business malpractices. It has been happening over a long period of time, and is being reported by the international media, frequently.

What is really happening, especially, on the so called total support of ethical marketing practices by the MNCs? Are they trying to create just good optics by craftily framing and supporting such showpiece codes, and blatantly defying these to achieve self-serving goals? The voice gets shriller, even when they are being levied hefty fines, after getting caught red handed, as reported by the global media? I guess, the future would ultimately unfold the reality. But would it, at all?

The Indian Scenario:

Even in India, such alleged marketing malpractices involving even a top pharma MNC have often been reported by the media. Just to illustrate, “Prescribe a drug maker’s medicine and get a free vacation”, reported a news article. There are several other similar reports too. Hence, the credibility of pharma MNC statements regarding strict conformance to ethical marketing codes, ably formulated by the well-known pharma trade associations, such as, IFPMA, appears to be very low, if exists at all.

The well-reputed medical Journal BMJ in one of its articles titled, “Corruption ruins the doctor-patient relationship in India”, published on May 8, 2014, expressed serious concern on this issue.

It concluded that corruption, kickbacks and the nexus between doctors and pharmaceutical firms are rampant India. This eventually prompted the BMJ, in June 2014, to launch a campaign reportedly called ‘Corruption in Medicine’.

On this issue, way back in May 08, 2012, even the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 58th Report, placed before the Parliament on May 08, 2012, expressed its serious concern.

Indian lawmakers, recommended in the report that the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) should take decisive action, without further delay, in making the UCPMP mandatory, so that effective checks could be ensured on ‘huge promotional costs’ and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices. Unfortunately, despite a change in the Government in 2014, UCPMP has still not been mandatory.

It is anybody’s guess, despite all these reports, what type of external pressure, if at all, the DoP is still facing to put in place a robust mandatory UCPMP with strong deterrent measures.

Under this backdrop, in my view, if mandatory UCPMP having enough teeth, to curb ongoing blatant marketing malpractices to protect patients’ health interest in India, is considered by any as going against the ‘ease of doing pharma business in India’, so be it.

3. Drug manufacturing quality:

Enough discussions have already been made on import ban of USFDA from over 45 drug manufacturing facilities of Indian Companies, of all sizes and scale of operations, on the ground of drug quality standards. USFDA considered drugs manufactured in those banned facilities are unsafe for the consumption of American patients. Some other foreign drug regulators, from the developed countries, have also taken similar action.

Taking advantage of this development, it was reported that attempts are indirectly being made to establish that MNC marketed generic drugs are superior to similar ones, manufactured even by the large Indian drug producers.

The fact, apparently, is quite different. MNCs operating in India has not come under the USFDA scanner in this regard as much, probably not because of their far superior drug manufacturing quality standards in India, as compared to even the best of their Indian counterparts. I reckon, it is mainly because, very few MNC drug manufacturing facilities in India export India manufactured drugs for consumption in the United States.

It may not, therefore, make any real sense to conclude that MNC marketed generic drugs in India, either manufactured my themselves or under loan & license or under a third party, are generally better in quality than the similar ones manufactured even by the large Indian manufacturers.

In any case, I feel that there is a huge scope for Indian drug regulators to ensure uniformly high drug quality standards. This is necessary for Indian patients’ health and safety. There also should be stringent regular quality audits in all drug manufacturing facilities in India, where non-conformance with prescribed standards would attract serious punitive measures. The Union Ministry of Health, together with the State Governments would require increasing the number of auditors accordingly.

However, the reality is, many Indian drug manufacturers have expressed that maintaining stricter drug manufacturing standards (cGMP) would involve huge expenditure, which they will not be able to afford. Consequently, this would go against the ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India.

Again, in my view, if the stringent regulatory requirements for maintaining high drug manufacturing standards in India to protect public health interest, is considered as going against the ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India, so be it.

Conclusion:

Improving ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India is an absolute necessity, just as all other businesses. Pharma sector deserves it very badly too, as it has been experiencing excruciating delay in multiple regulatory clearances. Single window clearances of all applications, with a much greater sense of urgency, without bureaucratic red tapes and avoiding other unnecessary delays, is certainly the way forward for India. It would require urgent policy reforms, maintaining a right balance between, public, consumers and business interests.

Pharma sector is not all villain, either, by any yardstick. It is instrumental in saving and improving the quality of lives of so many people across the globe, since a very long time, with its both innovative and generic medicines. All must acknowledge it, and the Government does it too, openly, several times.

That said, the space of focus of the pharma industry appears to be getting increasingly narrowed down to more of its self-serving acts, and in their hard selling, through hugely expensive advocacy campaigns, even at the huge cost of attracting frequent self-defeating scathing criticisms, across the world.

At the same time, the Governments in different times hugely disappointed its citizens, in charting a clear road map for quality and affordable health care for all in India, along with appropriate budgetary allocations and policy reforms, and thereafter, in its implantation with military precision.

However, that doesn’t mean, in any way, while facilitating ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India, the Government would turn a blind eye on the rapidly breeding corruption in the pharma business practices, and give in to unjustified industry muscle-flexing, sacrificing the health interest of its citizens in the country.

While looking through this Kaleidoscope, it appears to me, if the pharma sector considers the appropriate Government actions to protect public health interest, against the unacceptable industry practices, would also go against the ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India… Well, so be it.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process

Posted on January 18, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Fathoming the details of just a short span of time, not going beyond the last 10 years, I find from the published data that many new drugs, such as, Alatrofloxacin, Aprotinin, Drotrecogin alfa, Lumiracoxib, Propoxyphene, Rofecoxib, Rosiglitazone, Sibutramine, Tegaserod, Tetrazepam, were withdrawn from a number of important global markets. Quite a few of those were withdrawn also from the world market.

The key reason for almost all these withdrawals was serious safety concerns for the patients while using these medicines. Interestingly, some of these new molecules were withdrawn even after attaining the blockbuster status, such as Rofecoxib.

Tens of thousands of patients have died only because of this reason, according to reports.

It is widely believed by the experts in this area, if full public disclosure of the entire data of drug clinical trials was made, most of these new drugs would not have seen the light of the day and without putting many patients’ health safety in jeopardy.

All this is a part of a curious conundrum in the new drug approval process, across the world, for various reasons. In this article, I would try to dwell on this issue.

Voices against this ‘unethical practice’ getting louder:

On December 22, 2015, ‘CBC News’ published an interesting article, titled “Researcher issues ‘call to action’ to force release of hidden drug safety data: Bringing drug industry data into the light of public scrutiny.”

The article echoed the same belief of other global experts and, in fact, went a step forward. It categorically reiterated, if full disclosure of the entire data of drug clinical trials is made public, medical practice might have been quite different.

To drive home this point, the article cited the example of the arthritis drug rofecoxib (Vioxx), which has been linked to tens of thousands of deaths related to heart attacks.

It highlighted, although this risk was very much known to the regulatory authority of the United States, the relevant data was not released to the public for an impartial scrutiny.

Quoting different sources, the paper observed, almost half of the drug trials remain secret and the studies that are published, overwhelmingly report results that make the drug in question look good.

Independent experts’ views differed from the innovator companies:

In some cases, when researchers were able to see what is hiding in the filing cabinets of the drug innovator companies, a different picture altogether emerged on the overall profile of those drugs.

One group looked at 12 antidepressants, comparing the published studies with the internal US FDA assessments. They found that 94 per cent of the published studies were positive, as compared to 51 per cent, when they included all of the studies assessed by the drug regulator.

Based on a detailed study, the authors concluded, without considering all the data, drug effectiveness can often be exaggerated, leading doctors and patients to assume that the medications work better than what they actually do. The ongoing practice of the drug players may help them to significantly diminish the risks, related to the benefits offered by these medicines.

A few months ago, another group analyzed the data from an unpublished drug company study about the effect of Paxil on teen depression and found that the drug did not work and was not safe for the patients. This result completely contradicted the original, unpublished study on this drug.

A crusader emerged in Canada:

Interestingly, the same article, as above, states that Mathew Herder , the health law associate professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada is now taking up the fight. He is now “calling on other doctors, researchers and journalists to bombard Ottawa with their own demands for drug industry data, using the new legislative lever called the ‘Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act,’, which was passed late last year in Canada.

He has also created a template to help doctors, researchers and journalists access drug safety data at Health Canada. Herder reportedly could even include biomedical researchers, doctors who prescribe medicine, investigative journalists pursuing questions about drug safety, and other activists and patient groups.

This example is worth imbibing elsewhere.

The ‘Rule Books’ are in place, though with loopholes:

To curb such alleged patient unfriendly practices of the innovative drug manufacturers, while obtaining the marketing approval of new drugs, various rules and procedure were put in place, by various authorities.

I shall deliberate below a few of these rules, and enough loopholes therein, enabling the interested parties to hoodwink the external experts, at the cost of patients.

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform:

Much before Herder, following a ministerial summit on Health Research in 2004, a World Health Assembly Resolution passed in 2005 called for unambiguous identification of all interventional clinical trials. This resolution led to the establishment of the ‘World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform’. It collates information on trials that have been notified in a network of clinical trial registries.

According to W.H.O, “The registration of all interventional trials is a scientific, ethical and moral responsibility”.

In the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki, it reiterates, “Every research study involving human subjects must be registered in a publicly accessible database before recruitment of the first subject.”

It unambiguously states, “Researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research …. Negative and inconclusive as well as positive results must be published or otherwise made publicly available”.

Understandably, W.H.O statement underscores, “There is an ethical imperative to report the results of all clinical trials, including those of unreported trials conducted in the past.”

It is worth mentioning here that on January 1, 2015, by a new policy on publication of clinical data, ‘European Medicines Agency (EMA)’ also decided to proactively publish all clinical reports submitted as part of marketing-authorization applications for human medicines, by the by pharmaceutical companies.

Big Pharma's serious apprehensions on greater Public transparency:

Before finalization of the above policy, EMA sought comments on its draft from various state holders. On September 5, 2013, in its remarks on the draft, ‘The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, EFPIA’ expressed its apprehension about the public health safety oriented proactive move by the EMA as follows:

“We are worried by a move towards greater transparency of clinical trials data that appears to be putting transparency – at whatever cost – ahead of public health interests. Our detailed response to the EMA draft policy speaks to this concern. While EFPIA values other voices and opinion in the conversation surrounding clinical trials data, we believe there are better alternatives than what the EMA is presenting.”

This is of course understandable. That said, it also gives satisfaction to note that EMA did not wilt under any pressure on this score, whatever the anecdotal might of the external force be.

Gross non-compliance, endangering patients’ health safety:

Although, the standards and requirements of “Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Results” have been well specified now, and even in most of the Big Pharma websites one can find disclosure norms of clinical trial data, their overall compliance on the ground, is still grossly inadequate, endangering patients’ health safety.

An article published in the BMJ Open on November 12, 2015 titled, “Clinical trial registration, reporting, publication and FDAAA compliance: a cross-sectional analysis and ranking of new drugs approved by the FDA in 2012”, well captured the magnitude of this issue.

Nevertheless, the study analyzed just a subset of drugs approved in a single year, 2012. The researchers only examined whether clinical trials were registered and reported, not what that data suggested about how the drugs worked.

The paper reported the results as follows:

“In 2012, the US FDA approved 39 novel new medicines, known as NMEs, and 35 novel drugs. Combining these lists, the FDA approved a total of 48 new drug entities, 15 of which were sponsored by 10 large pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies with market capitalizations valued over US$19 billion. A total of 342 trials were conducted to gain regulatory approval of the 15 drugs, 24 of which were excluded from our analysis, leaving 318 trials involving 99 599 participants relevant to our study, a median of 17 trials per drug.”

Based on the findings, the authors concluded asunder:

“Trial disclosures for new drugs remain below legal and ethical standards, with wide variation in practices among drugs and their sponsors. Best practices are emerging. 2 of our 10 reviewed companies disclosed all trials and complied with legal disclosure requirements for their 2012 approved drugs. Ranking new drugs on transparency criteria may improve compliance with legal and ethical standards and the quality of medical knowledge.”

Simultaneously, The Washington Post in an article of November 12, 2015, titled, “How pharma keeps a trove of drug trials out of public view”, summarized this report by highlighting to the general public that one third of the clinical trial results that US FDA reviewed to approve drugs made by large pharmaceutical companies in 2012, were never publicly reported.

Unethical practices skewing medical science:

On July 25, 2015, ‘The Economist’ published an article titled, “Spilling the beans’. It highlighted again that the failure to publish the results of all clinical trials is skewing medical science.

This article also brought to the public attention that half of the clinical trial results are never published over several decades. It broadened the discourse with the observation that this specific unwanted practice, distorts perceptions of the efficacy of not just drugs, but devices and even surgical procedures too, in a well planned and a systematic manner. What is most important to note is, it has seriously compromised with patients’ health interest, across the world.

It keeps on happening, as there are no firm obligations on the part of drug companies for making public disclosure of all such data, both for and against, though all these data are required to be filed with the regulatory authorities. Hence, the overall assessment of the drugs, weighing all pros and cons, is just not possible for any outside expert agency.

For granting necessary marketing approval, the designated authorities, at least theoretically, ensure that the drugs are reasonably safe, and have, at least, ‘some beneficial effects’. However, the prescribing doctors would continue to remain ignorant of the untold facts, the article states.

According to ‘The Economist’, although in the United States the relevant laws were modified, way back in 2007, to address this issue, it still remains as a theory, the actual practices in this regard are mostly not so.

Despite vindication no tangible outcome yet:

As I said earlier, this fact got vindicated through extensive research by the ‘BMJ Online’ article and many other contemporary medical publications.

For example, the evidence released earlier on April 10, 2014 by the Cochrane Collaboration of London, UK, also shows that a large part of negative data generated from the clinical trials of various drugs were not disclosed to the public.

Again, like Vioxx, though the US FDA was aware of all such data, for a well known drug Tamiflu, unfortunately the prescribing doctors were not. As a result, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which doesn’t have the same access to unpublished data as the regulators, recommended this medicine not being able to evaluate it holistically.

However, as the findings from the unpublished clinical trials eventually surfaced, CDC expressed serious apprehension on the overall efficacy of Tamiflu, quite contrary to the assessment of the concerned big pharma player.

Hence, despite quite a large number of vindications by the experts, no tangible outcome has been noticed on this pressing issue, just yet.

Conclusion:

Based on all this discussion, the moot question that springs up: Why do the doctors still prescribe such drugs, even after being aware of the full facts?

In this regard, an article titled, “Big Pharma Plays Hide-The-Ball with Data”, published in the Newsweek on November 13, 2014 raised a very valid question.

It commented, even if Tamiflu does nothing, and there is just a slight chance of life-threatening side effects, why was it approved by the US FDA, in the first place?

Even more intriguing is: Why do the doctors continue prescribing these, especially after the Cochrane Collaboration took the Tamiflu’s maker, Roche, to task about many of its claims, in April 2014.

Incidentally, the Cochrane Collaboration is widely regarded as one of the most rigorous reviewers of health science data. It takes results of multiple trials, looks for faults and draws conclusions. It doesn’t accept funding from businesses with a stake in its findings.

The answer to this question may perhaps be too obvious to merit any elaborate discussion here.

Be that as it may, this curious conundrum of ‘New Drug Approval’ with ‘Partial Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Data’ needs to effectively addressed, without further delay. If not, patients’ health interest would continue to get seriously compromised with the continuation of prevailing laxity in its implementation process by the drug regulators.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: data

Why MNC Pharma Still Moans Over Indian IP Ecosystem?

Should ‘Pharma Marketing’ Be In The Line of Fire?

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Dwindling Drug Innovation: Declining Image: Unchanged Business And Advocacy Models

At The Indian IPR Front: ‘Ground Control, There’s No Major Storm’

Biosimilar Drugs: First Indian Foot Print In An Uncharted Frontier

Ease of Doing Pharma Business in India: A Kaleidoscopic View

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process