Tag Archives: DCGI

Is Fraud or Negligence in Drug Quality Standards Not a Fraud on Patients?

Posted on by
Reply

As we know, a substance is called a drug when it has scientifically proven and well documented efficacy and safety profile to reduce both mortality and morbidity of patients. Any fraud or negligence in the drug quality standards, for whatever may be the reasons or wherever these take place, is a fraud on patients and should warrant zero tolerance.

A perception survey on drug quality:

According to a poll released in 2010 by the ‘Pew Charitable Trusts’s Prescription Project’ of the United States:

  • More than three out of four voters are confident that prescription drugs made in the USA are free from contamination
  • While less than one in 10 feel confident about medications made in India or China.
  • 54 percent of Americans distrusted Indian drugs and 70 percent distrusted Chinese drugs.
  • “When you buy a shirt, it will say right on the label where it was made, but when you get a pharmaceutical, you don’t know.”

Despite all these, the survey points out that in 2007, 68 percent of the ingredients of all drugs sold worldwide came from India or China, as compared to 49 percent in 2004.

Experts comment that USFDA does not have either people or resources required to monitor manufacturing in the geographically widespread locations, as these are today.

Recent spate of charges against Indian pharmaceutical companies – a vindication?

Recent spate of charges against some top ranked Indian companies, will further dent the image of India not just in the United States or Europe, but also as a pharmacy of high quality yet low cost generic drugs for the developing countries of the world.

In May 2013, well known India-based pharma major Ranbaxy reported to have pleaded guilty to criminal charges of manufacturing and distributing some adulterated medicines, produced at its Paonta Sahib and Dewas, facilities and agreed to US$ 500-millon settlement. Can this be considered as a vindication of the above perception on the quality of ‘made in India’ drugs?

The view of WHO:

Interestingly the World Health Organisation (WHO) even after the above USFDA indictment has commented that at present it has no evidence that Ranbaxy manufactured medicines that are currently prequalified by WHO are of unacceptable quality.

Indian drug regulator initiates action:

It is good to know that the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) and the Ministry of Health will reportedly decide the way forward in this matter on completion of a fact-finding study initiated by the Central Drugs Standards Control Organization (CDSCO) on the subject.

Other incidents in India:

Following are examples of other reported serious regulatory violations involving the domestic pharmaceutical companies:

No.

Year

Company

Issue

Status
2009 Lupin USFDA warning for Mandideep plant Resolved in 2010
2010 Claris Life Sciences USFDA ban products for manufacturing norms violations Ban revoked in 2012
2011 Zydus Cadila USFDA warns Co. over Moraiya, Gujarat Facility Ban revoked in 2012
2011 Dr Reddy’s USFDA bans sale of drugs from Mexico facility Ban revoked in 2012
2013 Jubilant Life Sciences Gets USFDA warning for Canada facility Company taking corrective steps
2013 Wockhardt Banned from exporting products from its Aurangabad factory to the US due to quality concerns In discussion

Source: The Economic Times (May 22, 2013), Financial Express (May 25, 2013)

Though some other countries also have faced bans from exporting products, it cannot be taken, I reckon, as any consolation by anyone.

A Mumbai Hospital demonstrated the mood of zero tolerance:

The above expression of good intent should not just remain as a ‘lip service’. Indian drug regulator is expected to take a leaf out of all these allegations and initiate appropriate audit as required. Otherwise, exhibiting zero tolerance, like Jaslok Hospital of Mumbai, many other institutions will ask their doctors not to prescribe products of these companies to protect patients’ interest. More hospitals reportedly are mulling similar action against Ranbaxy.

IMA expresses apprehension:

Even ‘The Indian Medical Association (IMA)’ has reportedly asked the DCGI to investigate quality of medicines manufactured by Ranbaxy.

It happens in the ‘heartland’ too just as in the ‘hinterland’:

Contrary to the above poll released in 2010 by the ‘Pew Charitable Trusts’s Prescription Project’, pointing accusing fingers, in this respect, exclusively to India and China, may not be just fair. Incidents of such regulatory violations are not just restricted to Indian pharmaceutical companies either. Unfortunately, these happen with the global majors too.

None of these should be condoned in any way by anyone and attract as much global publicity, public wrath and zero tolerance, as all these would possibly deserve.

Following are some examples:

No

Company

Issues with USFDA

Consent decree signed (year)

Issue status

Penalty amount
Schering-Plough GMP violations affecting four manufacturing sites and 125 products

Yes (2002)

Closed (2007)

 $500 Mn.
GlaxoSmithKline Manufacturing deficiencies found at Puerto Rico facility

Yes (2005)

Pending

 $650 Mn. Bond
Wyeth GMP violations at plant in Pennsylvania and New York which were producing FluShield

Yes (2000)

Pending

 $297 Mn. Plus 18.5% of sales of FluShield
Abbott Labs Non-conformance with quality system regulations for in vitro diagnostic products at an Illinois facility

Yes (1999)

Pending

 $212 Mn.
Boehringer Ingelheim To bring its Ohio facility into compliance with regulatory requirements

Yes (2013)

Pending

 Not specified

Source: Financial Express (May 25, 2013)

Further, in December 1998 the US FDA reportedly had stopped shipments of Abbott Laboratories’ clot-busting drug Abbokinase till the company had resolved undisclosed manufacturing problems at its plant. Abbott subsequently resolved this to the satisfaction of the drug regulator.

Even end May 2011, the USFDA reportedly raised concerns about contamination of drugs of the American pharmaceutical major – Hospira, at its Indian manufacturing facility.This issue was highlighted as the latest in a string of manufacturing and quality problems dogging the company since 2010.

American lawmakers demand thorough review of USFDA oversight procedures:

Pressure has reportedly started mounting in the United States for a thorough review into the effectiveness of oversight procedures for all bulk drugs and formulations manufactured in foreign facilities.

Simultaneously, there is also a specific demand for an in-depth review of all actions of the US regulator for so many years, which allowed Ranbaxy’s ‘massive fraud to remain unchecked’.

Beyond regulatory oversight, need robust internal system driven model as a fire-wall:

To address such issues only drug regulators interventions may not be just enough, maintaining total integrity of ‘Supply Chain’ of an organization proactively in a well structured, fool-proof and a system-driven way, will continue to play the most critical role. This will help creating ‘fire-wall’, which will be difficult to breach.

The scope of Supply Chain:

The scope of ‘Supply Chain’, which is comprised of the entire network of entities from vendors who supply raw and packaging materials, manufacturers who convert these materials into medicines, together with warehouses, distributors, retailers and healthcare centers who will reach these medicines ultimately to patients exactly the way these will deserve.

Thus, just not in the manufacturing process, any breach of security at any place of the supply chain can cause serious problems to patients. 

Accordingly, pharmaceutical companies need to adequately invest along with appropriate staff training programs to ensure that the Supply Chain Integrity is maintained, always.

Supply Chain Security (SCS) is critical:

SCS, therefore, deserves to be of prime importance for the pharmaceutical companies across the globe. Recent high profile SCS related cases, as mentioned above, have exposed the vulnerability in addressing this global menace effectively.

All pharmaceutical players should realize that not just ‘show-off’, an effective integrated approach is of paramount importance to eliminate this crime syndicate, which is taking lives of millions of patients the world over.

Mixing-up counterfeit drugs with this menace may not be prudent:

Shouting for counterfeit drugs involving mainly intellectual property related issues, may be  important, but will in no way help resolving self-created menaces arising out of breach of supply chain integrity endangering million of lives, in another way.

Though an expensive process, can’t be compromised:

It is worth repeating, securing pharmaceutical supply chain on a continuous basis is of critical importance for all the pharmaceutical players across the globe. However, the process will no doubt be expensive for any company.

Like other industries, in the pharmaceutical sector, as well, cost effective procurement is critical, which entices many pharmaceutical players, especially, in the generic industry not to go for such expensive process just to maintain the SCS.

A serious SCS related tragedy:

I would like to reinforce my argument on the importance of SCS with the following example of the ‘Heparin tragedy’ where the supply chain integrity was seriously violated with ‘ingeneuity’.

In the beginning of 2008, there were media reports on serious adverse drug events, some even fatal, with Heparin, a highly sulfated glycosaminoglycan of Baxter International. Heparin is widely used as an injectable anticoagulant. Baxter voluntarily recalled almost all their Heparin products in the U.S. Around 80 people died from contaminated Heparin products in the U.S. The US FDA reported that such contaminated Heparin was detected from at least 12 other countries.

A joint investigation conducted by Baxter and the US FDA ascertained that the Heparin used in batches associated with the serious adverse drug events was contaminated with Over Sulfated Chondroitin Sulfate (OSCS). It was reported that Heparin Scientific Protein Laboratories, Changzhou, China supplied Heparin to Baxter.

The cost of OSCS is just a fraction of the ingredient used in Heparin. Being driven by the criminal profiteering motive the manufacturers in Changzhou, China had reportedly used OSCS for highly sulfated glycosaminoglycan, as the former could not be detected by the pharmacopeia test in use, until 2008. This is because OSCS mimics Heparin in the pharmacopeia test. Post this criminal event, at present, all over the world more specific pharmacopeia test methods have been adopted for Heparin.

Stakeholders need to be extremely vigilant:

Considering all these, pharmaceutical players and the drug regulators from across the world should put proper ‘fool proof’ systems in place to eliminate the growing menace of criminal adulteration of APIs, drug intermediates, excipients entering in the supply chain together with preventing any breach in their logistics support systems.

Apprehension against generic drugs as a class:

Taking advantage of the situation, one can possibly say, as some vested interests have already started propagating that generic equivalents of the branded drugs are really not quite the same in quality.

However, the point that cannot be ignored is the comment of a senior USFDA, who was quoted in the same article saying, “I have heard it enough times from enough people to believe that there are a few products that aren’t meeting quality standards.“

Generic drug manufacturers should make serious note of such comments and act accordingly to allay prevailing lurking fear on the use of generic medicines, in general, though small in number.

Conclusion:

Following the recent series of incidents including that of Ranbaxy, the image of India as a low cost generic drugs manufacturer of high quality could get adversely impacted. Although there are enough instances that such things happen in the developed world, as well, including the United States.

Moreover, in the backdrop of high decibel quality concerns raised by USFDA, the level of apprehension regarding effectiveness of generic drugs made in India may increase significantly, unless some tangible, well thought out and highly publicized remedial measures are taken forthwith.

The decision of Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai advising their doctors for not using Ranbaxy products to patients on the same ground, will further strengthen the public apprehension.

Whatever may be the reason, as long as any company is in the business of manufacturing medicines, there should be demonstrable zero tolerance on any compromise, fraud or negligence in the drug quality standards. Any fraud and negligence in drug quality, I reckon, is virtually a fraud against humanity.

That said, changing mindset towards a strong corporate governance by walking the talk, all pharmaceutical companies must guarantee safe and high quality medicines to the society, come what may.

This, I believe, could be achieved by putting in place a robust SCS system and ensuring that this is not compromised in any way… anywhere…ever… for patients’ sake…both globally and locally.

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.

 

 

New ‘Patient Compensation’ Norms on Clinical Trials in India: Overdue Action, Sharp Reaction and Ethical Issues

Posted on by
Reply

Responding to the damning stricture made by the Supreme Court on January 3, 2013, the Ministry of Health, as expected, by a gazette notification of January 30, 2013 has made the norms of compensation to patients participating in Clinical Trials (CT) more stringent.

‘Patient Compensation’ will now include injury or death, even if those are not related to the drugs being tested in the CT.

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

Just a day after, on February 1, 2013, the Ministry of Health also notified final regulations on the conditions under which CT sites will be authorized by the local licensing and the inspection authorities of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO).

Key features of the new Government ‘Action’ on patient compensation:

Following are the key features in the new norms for patient compensation:

1. The sponsors of CTs will now be liable for injuries or deaths, which will take place during the course of a clinical trial and will be required to pay compensation to the patients or their families.

2. The investigator of the CT must inform the concerned pharmaceutical company, the Clinical Research Organization (CRO) and the Ethics Committee regarding injury or death during CT within 24 hours.

3. It will be mandatory for all CT Ethics Committees to be pre-registered with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), unlike the old system where this was not required and trial sponsors reportedly could staff the committee.

4. The pharmaceutical companies and the CROs will get 10 days time to submit a detailed report on related serious adverse event to the Ethics Committee, which in turn will get another 10 to 11 days to convey its evaluation on compensation to be paid to the independent expert committee. The Expert Panel will then advise the DCGI of an appropriate financial compensation within 30 days from the date of receiving the above report.

5. It will no longer require inclusion of specific amount of compensation for injury or death in the informed consent form and does not refer to insurance coverage for potential liability.

6. It requires the sponsors of CTs to provide the trial subject with free “medical management” for as long as it will require.

Will make CT more expensive in India:

Clinical Trials (CT), as we know, are of critical importance for obtaining marketing approval of any new drug and at the same time forms a major cost component in the new drug development process, across the world.

Any savings in this area, both in terms of time and money, will add significantly to the profit margin of the product. In that context the above notification will now make CT more expensive in India.

Sharp ‘reaction’ of CT related industry:

Understandably, reacting to this notification, some Clinical Research Organizations have expressed concerns in areas like:

  1. Lack of distinction between study-related injuries and non-study related injuries
  2. The use of placebos in placebo-controlled trials,
  3. Lack of any arbitration mechanism in case of disagreement on causality/quantum of compensation and the lack of clarity on who constitutes the Expert Committee and its composition.

Some other Experts related CT industry do highlight a few more troubling issues in the notification, as follows:

1. Compensation to be paid for ‘failure of an investigational product to provide intended therapeutic effect.’ This, they expressed, is intriguing as the very nature of a CT is to ascertain whether the investigational drug is efficacious or not.

2. If compensation is not paid as required, a sponsor or CRO may be banned from conducting any further trials in the country. This, they feel, provision could make India a challenging place to conduct CT.

3. There should also be clarity on the formula to determine compensation, the process for determining a compensation amount, and how an appeal process would work.

The bottom-line is, due to this new policy on ‘Patient Compensation’ CT expenses may go up considerably in India.

Other expert views:

On the other hand, some other experts opined to the International Weekly Journal on Science – ‘nature’ as follows:

“These reforms should go further to restore public confidence and the Indian government should establish special courts to deal quickly with allegations of medical misconduct, such as not fully disclosing to participants the risks involved in a clinical trial”.

Global concern on ethical issues with ‘Placebo Controlled’ studies:

In this context, though issues related to ‘Placebo Controlled’ trials have been raised by the CT related industry in India, very interestingly a paper of Research Administration of the University of California on the ethical issues with ‘Placebo Controlled’ studies’ clearly articulates that the use of a placebo in clinical research has remained a contentious issue in the medical community since long.

Some strongly argue that use of placebos is often unethical because alternative study designs would produce similar results with less risk to individual research participants. Others argue that the use of placebos is essential to protect society from the harm that could result from the widespread use of ineffective medical treatment.

However, as per the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) guidebook, “Placebos may be used in clinical trials where there is no known or available (i.e. US-FDA-approved) alternative therapy that can be tolerated by subjects.”

This issue also needs to be deliberated and effectively addressed by the Indian drug regulator in the debate of patient compensation for ‘placebo controlled trials’.

A perspective on CT in India:

Interestingly, in this critical area India is fast evolving as a major hub. This is vindicated by a study conducted by Ernst & Young and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (FICCI), which states that India now participates in over 7 per cent of all global phase III and 3.2 per cent of all global phase II trials. The key points of attraction of the global players, so far as India is concerned, were reported as follows:

1. Cost of Clinical Trial (CL) is significantly less in India than most other countries of the world

2. Huge patient pool with different disease pattern and demographic profile

3. Easy to enroll volunteers, as it is easy to persuade poor and less educated people as ‘willing’ participants.

Such opportunities, experts believe, should have ideally made the clinical research industry to demonstrate greater responsibility to ensure that patients’ safety needs are adequately taken care of. Unfortunately, despite such expectations, some important areas like ‘patient compensation’ have still remained blatantly neglected.

It has now come to light with the help of ‘Right To Information (RTI)’ query that more than 2,000 people in India died as a result of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) caused during drug trials from 2008-2011 and only 22 of such cases, which is just around 1 percent, received any compensation. That too was with a meager average sum of around US$ 4,800 per family.

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

DCGI had hauled-up 9 companies for blatant negligence:

According to another report quoting the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), 25 people died in clinical trials conducted by nine pharmaceutical companies, in 2010. Unfortunately, families of just five of these victims received” compensation for trial related death, which ranged from Rs 1.5 lakh (US$ 3000) to Rs 3 lakh (US$ 6000).

This report also highlighted that arising out of this critical negligence, for the first time ever, the then DCGI was compelled to summon these nine pharmaceutical companies on June 6, 2011 to question them on this issue and with a clear directive to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to clinical trial by June 20, 2011, or else all other CTs of these nine companies, which were ongoing at that time or yet to start, will not be allowed.

The report also indicates that after this ultimatum all the nine companies as mentioned therein had paid the compensation to the families of the patients who had died related to the CT.

Long exploitation of the fragile CT regulations in India:

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

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

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

“Pharmaceutical industry seeks to run studies in countries with lower costs”:

There seems to be nothing basically wrong in this approach per se. However, a recent report does highlight as follows:

“Clinical trials conducted by global drug makers and their proxies have generated increased scrutiny in recent years as the pharmaceutical industry seeks to run studies in countries with lower costs and populations where patients are not exposed to as many medications that can confound results. India has been a prime example”.

A lesson to learn by the Indian Drug Regulator:

It is worth noting that US-FDA in a communication meant for the consumers has stated as follows:

“The Food and Drug Administration’s job is to make sure medical treatments are safe and effective for people to use. FDA staff members meet with researchers, and perform inspections of clinical trial study sites to protect the rights of participants and to verify the quality and integrity of the data.”

The above approach seems to be drastically missing with the drug regulator in India as on date.

Conclusion:

Over a long period of time, a blatant negligence on reasonable care and financial compensation was allowed to continue by the Drug Regulator and the sponsors alike on the CTs conducted in India. A perceptible intent of justice to the patients, with the enforcement of stricter compensation laws and regulations for CT though belated, could dramatically change the CT scenario in India for the better in the years ahead.

In the fine balance of national priority for this area, patients’ safety and interest, I reckon, should always weigh more than the possibility of increase in the costs of CT in India. Thus,  the new norms of Patient Compensation indeed bring with it a breath of fresh air for the concerned stakeholders.

That said, the lose knots in some areas of the new norms, as discussed above, must be properly addressed and adequately tightened for greater clarity of the CT process, for all concerned.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Takes ‘Two to Tango’: Encashing Opportunities with Biologic drugs in India

Posted on by
Reply

Despite current ‘Patent Cliff’ ongoing research on biologics is now at the forefront of the Global Pharmaceutical Industry.  The bottom-line impact of a successful new biologic molecule to treat intractable ailments like, cancer, blood disorders, Parkinson’s, Myasthenia Gravis, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s diseases, will be huge.

Currently, faster growth of this segment as compared to conventional small molecules is primarily driven by novel technologies and highly targeted approaches, the final outcome of which is being more widely accepted by both physicians and patients.

Lesser generic competition makes it more attractive:

After patent expiry, innovators’ small molecule brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion.This is mainly because  these small molecules are relatively easy to replicate by many generic manufacturers and the process of getting their regulatory approval is also not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biologic drugs involve difficult, complex and expensive processes for development. Such resource intensive scientific expertise together with stringent regulatory requirements for obtaining marketing approval, especially in the developed markets of the world like, EU and USA, help creating a significant market entry barrier for many players. That is why even after patent expiry, biologics enjoy significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, in many cases.

It is for this reason brands like the following ones are expected to go relatively strong even for some more time, without any significant competition from biosimilar drugs in many of the major markets of the world:

Brand Company Launch date
Rituxan Roche/Biogen idec 1997
Herceptin Roche 1998
Remicade Centocor/J&J 1998
Enbrel Amgen/Pfizer 1998

Global Market:

In 2011 the turnover of Biologic drugs increased to over US$ 175 billion in the total market of US$ 847 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 10 best selling global brands in 2012 with Humira of AbbVie emerging as the highest-selling biologics during the year.  Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies.

According to IMS Health, by 2015, sales of biosimilars are expected to reach between US$ 1.9 – 2.6 billion, an increase from US$ 378 million for the year to the first half of 2011.

Attractiveness:

The answer to the key question of why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space of the business, in summary, could lie in the following:

  • Truly innovative small molecule discovery is becoming more and more challenging and expensive with the low hanging fruits already being plucked.
  • More predictable therapeutic activity of biologics with better safety profile.
  • Higher percentage of biologics have turned into blockbuster drugs in the recent past.
  • Market entry barrier for biosimilar drugs, after patent expiry of the original molecule, is much tougher than small molecule generics.
  • A diverse portfolio of both small and large molecules will reduce future business risks.

A 2012 report by PwC titled ‘From Vision to Decision: Pharma 2020’ states that “the next few years may look bleak for pharma, but we’re convinced that the following decade will bring a golden era of renewed productivity and prosperity.”

The document also points out that the global pharmaceutical industry is now focusing its R&D initiatives on biologics for the treatment of cancer and rare diseases. Nearly 30 percent of the 7,891 molecules currently in clinical testing cover cancer and autoimmune conditions.

Another emerging opportunity:

As stated above, unlike commonly used ‘small molecule’ drugs, ‘large molecule’ biologics are developed from living cells using very complex processes.

It is virtually impossible to replicate these protein substances, unlike the ‘small molecule’ drugs. One can at best develop a biologically similar molecule with the application of high degree of biotechnological expertise. These drugs are known as ‘Biosimilar Drugs’ and usually cost much less than the original ones.

Biosimilar drugs market is currently fast evolving across the world with varying degree of pace and stages of developments. The U.S currently holds the leadership status in the production of biologics, with around 45 percent of the total share. India’s share, now being at 7 percent is continuously increasing.

Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) in the Pipeline:

Company

Location

Biosimilar mAbs

Development Status
BioXpress

Switzerland

16

Preclinical
Gene Techno Science

Japan

6

Preclinical
Zydus Cadilla

India

5

Preclinical
PlantForm

Canada

3

Preclinical
BioCad

Russia

3

Preclinical
Celltrion

South Korea

2

Phase 3
LG Life Sciences

South Korea

2

Preclinical
Gedeon Richter

Hungary

2

Preclinical
Cerbios-Pharma

Switzerland

1

Preclinical
Hanwha Chemical

South Korea

1

Preclinical
PharmaPraxis

Brazil

1

Preclinical
Probiomed

Mexico

1

Phase 3
Samsung BioLogics

South Korea

1

Preclinical
Novartis

Switzerland

1

Phase 2
Teva

Israel

1

Phase 2
Zenotech

India

1

Phase 3
Spectrum

US

1

Preclinical
Biocon/Mylan

India/US

1

Preclinical

(Source: PharmaShare; as of September 10, 2011 from Citeline’s Pipeline database)

Future business potential with cost arbitrage of India:

In 2013, products like, Avonex of Biogen Idec, Humalog of Eli Lilly, Rebif of Merck KgaA, Nupugen of Amgen will go off-patent, paving the way of entry for lower priced biosimilar drugs. The sum total of revenue from all such drugs comes to over U.S$ 15 billion.

The report from the ‘Business Wire’ highlights that, ‘the manufacture and development of a biosimilar molecule requires an investment of about US$ 10 to 20 million in India, as compared to US$ 50 to 100 million in developed countries’, vindicates the emergence of another lucrative business opportunity for India for such drugs with significant cost arbitrage.

Government support in India:

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

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

The DBT together with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has now prepared ‘Regulatory Guidelines for Biosimilar Drugs’ in conformance to international quality and patient safety standards.

Currently, a number of both financial and non-financial incentives have been announced by the Central and the State Governments to encourage growth of the biotech industry in India, which include tax incentives, exemption from VAT and other fees, grants for biotech start-ups, financial assistance with patents, subsidies on investment from land to utilities and infrastructural support with the development of ten biotech parks through ‘Biotechnology Parks Society of India’.

A commendable DBT initiative:

Towards this direction, the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) of the Government of India has taken a commendable step to encourage the small and medium scale business outfits by setting-up ‘The Small Business Innovation Research Initiative (SBIRI)’. This scheme has been launched to boost ‘Public-Private-Partnership (PPP)’ projects in the country.

SBIRI supports ‘the high-risk pre-proof-of-concept research’ and ‘late stage development’ in small and medium size companies to get them involved in the development of biologics.

Some examples:

Examples of some among many of the PPP initiatives in the healthcare space under SBIRI are as follows:

No.

Company Name with Collaborator

Title of the Project Supported
1. IcubedG Ideas Private Limited, New Delhi Risk based Process Design for large scale Manufacturing of male injectable contraceptive
(Phase I)
2. Incozen Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad Discovery and Development of Novel, Selective and Potent Dihydroorotate Dehydrogenase Inhibitors in Inflammatory Bowel diseases.
(Phase I)
3. Mediclone Biotech Private Limited, Chennai Commercial Production of Monoclonal Antibodies as an import substitute with special reference to Red Blood Cell Phenotyping (Phase II)
4. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chennai in collaboration with AU-KBC Research Center, Chennai Development and validation of a cell-tissue co-culture model for aiding liver specific studies and drug discovery applications. (Phase I)
5. Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai An open label, multicenter, prospective clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tissue engineered R-STE-001 in patients with symptomatic cartilage defect of femoral condyle (Phase II)
6. USV Limited, Mumbai Development of a Vaccine capable for eliciting immunological memory for the prevention of Typhoid (Phase II)
7. Virchow Biotech Private Limited, Hyderabad Development of commercialization of a recombinant uricase for the prevention and treatment of tumor lysis syndrome associated with leukemia, lymphoma & solid tumor malignancies (Phase II)
8. Virchow Biotech Private Limited, Hyderabad Indigenous development of a recombinant Fuzeon for the treatment of AIDS (Phase II)
9. Zenotech Laboratories Limited., Hyderabad Development of humanized monoclonal antibodies against human epidermal growth factor receptor (Phase I)
10. Advanced Neuro-Science Allies Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore in collaboration with Vittal Mallya Scientific Research Foundation, Bangalore Pre-clinical studies of Human mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) isolated and characterized from different sources in autoimmune disease, namely rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and type 1 diabetes (TIDM)(Phase I)
11. Avesthagen Ltd., Bangalore Hepatocyte-like cells generated from human embryonic stem cells (hESC) for hepatotoxicity screening of xenobiotics in the drug discovery process(Phase I)
12. Avesthagen Limited, Bangalore Scale-up and evaluation of high-value biosimilar product (Etanercept) aimed at providing cost-effective healthcare solutions to the emerging markets(Phase II)
13. Bharat Serum and Vaccines Limited, Mumbai Expression of recombinant proteins for development of synthetic pulmonary surfactant for Respiratory Distress Syndrome(Phase I)
14. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad Development of Mycobacterium was an adjuvant for anti – rabies vaccine(Phase I)

Besides, Indian pharmaceutical majors like Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Reliance Life Science, Shantha Biotech, Ranbaxy, Biocon, Wockhardt and Glenmark have made good investments in biotech drugs manufacturing facilities keeping an eye on the emerging opportunities with Biosimilar drugs in the developed markets of the world.

Funding remains a critical issue:

That said, many industry experts do feel that R&D funding for the Biotech sector in the country is grossly inadequate. Currently, there are not many ‘Venture Capital’ funds for this sector and ‘Angel Investments’ almost being non-existent, Indian biotech companies are, by and large, dependent on Government funding.

Making India a global hub for biosimilar manufacturing:

However, with around 40 percent cost arbitrage, adequate government support and without compromising on the required stringent international regulatory standards, the domestic ‘biologic’ players should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for particularly ‘biosimilar drugs’.

Experience in conforming to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards, having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside USA, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in India. Significant improvement in conformance to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) standards will offer additional advantages.

Conclusion:

With increasing support from the government and fueled by creative, scientific and technological inputs from various experts and entrepreneurs in the country, India has the potential to emerge as one of Asia’s best powerhouses in the field of biosimilars drugs by the end of this decade. It will take ‘two to tango’.

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.

 

 

 

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

Better late than never:

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

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

Clinical trial related deaths in India:

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

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

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

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

A huge ruckus:

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

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

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

 Inadequate auditing:

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

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

 Indian Parliament intervened:

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

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

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

 Jolted drug regulator initiates action: 

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

  • Permission to conduct CT
  • Compensation of the CT victims

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

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

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

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

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

Poor patient compensation:

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

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

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

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

Higher patient compensation expected:

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

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

Increasing public scrutiny:

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

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

Year Total Number
2009 181
2010 313
2011 513

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion and also do not contribute to any other blog or website with the same article that I post in this website. Any such act of reproducing my articles, which I write in my personal capacity, in other blogs or websites by anyone is unauthorized and prohibited.

 

 

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

A key point to ponder from the Report:

The report begins with the following observations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drug Regulator

The ‘Mission Statement’
1

CDSCO, India

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

USFDA, USA

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

MHRA, UK

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

TGA, Australia

 Safeguarding public health & safety in Australia by regulatingMedicines…

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

Some very critical findings:

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

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

The Report named some pharmaceutical companies:

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

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

A scathing remark against CDSCO:

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

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

Allegation of possible collusion needs to be thoroughly probed:

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

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

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

Some probes already initiated:

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

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

Some remedial measures - Mashelkar Committee Recommendations:

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

Why does India need CDA?

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

The committee has been mandated to:

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

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

By: Tapan Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Patients’ Safety, regulatory approval of Biosimilar Drugs in India and WHO Biosimilar guidelines

Posted on by
Reply

Biopharmaceutical drugs are broadly defined as:

”Those medicines produced using a living system or genetically modified organism. These drugs are different from traditional chemical medicines in many ways. Size of the molecule is one of the most obvious distinctions: the molecules of a biopharmaceutical medicine are much larger, have far more complex spatial structures and are much more diverse (“heterogeneous”) than the chemical molecules which make up classical drugs.”

The Biosimilar drugs:

Biosimilar drugs are follow-on versions of original biopharmaceutical medicines. Biosimilar medicines are intended to have the same mechanism of action for the same diseases as the original biopharmaceutical drugs.

The term “bio generic” will be misleading for off patent biopharmaceutical products, as no two biopharmaceutical products could possibly be exactly identical. This is mainly because of the following reason:

“Whereas generics of chemistry based medicines are identical in the molecular structure and therefore copies of the original product, based on a strict definition of “sameness”, a corresponding definition cannot be established for biosimilar medicines because of their nature and the complexity of their manufacturing process. Here post-translational modifications are dependent of the host cell and the process.”

Thus the common terminologies used to describe such products when the original products go off-patent are follow-on biologics and biosimilars.

Manufacturing Conditions of biosimilars ultimately define the final product:

Unlike chemical drugs, the manufacturing conditions and the process followed to produce biopharmaceutical drugs largely define the final product and its quality. Any alteration to the manufacturing process may result in a completely different product. Additionally proteins are relatively unstable. Thus additional measures in their storage, formulation and delivery are very critical.

Key concerns with the existing regulatory approval process for Biosimilar drugs:

• Small changes in the manufacturing process of biosimilar drugs could significantly affect the safety and efficacy of the molecule.

• Due to the very nature of a biologic it is virtually impossible for two different manufacturers to manufacture two identical biopharmaceutical drugs. Identical host expression systems, processes and equivalent technologies need to be demonstrated in extensive comparability trials. Thus, as stated above, a ‘bio generic’ cannot exist.

• As against the situation applicable for generics of chemical molecules which can be replicated, biosimilar drugs cannot be replicated. At the most such biopharmaceuticals can be at the most “similar” but not “identical” to the original reference products. To ensure desired efficacy and safety of biosimilar products, these products should only be approved after charting out a formal and well validated regulatory pathway for the biosimilar drugs in India.

• Currently biosimilar drugs are given marketing approval by the regulator without such guidelines for large molecule biological and following just the bioequivalence model as specified in the Schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (D&CA) of India for small molecule chemical entities only, as the current Drugs and cosmetics Acts of India, very unfortunately, do not differentiate between large and small molecular drugs. This could, in turn, endanger patients’ safety with serious medical consequences.

Although, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) and the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) are responsible for approvals of the new drug applications, health being a state subject, respective state regulatory authorities are responsible for granting manufacturing license to the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers setting up facilities in the states, where regulatory oversight and incidences of weaker enforcement are common, will be able to market their products, including biosimilars, across the country. It is alleged that there are hardly any regulatory control over the mistakes or offences committed by the State Drug authorities who permit manufacture of drugs even unapproved by the DCGI. The existing issue of mushrooming of various irrational Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC) products in India will vindicate this point.

The Government’s response to this public health concern:

Express Pharma in its June 30, 2009 edition reported Dr M K Bhan, Secretary, Government of India, DBT, saying, “The first question is do we have written guidelines available to people? Currently, we have a large committee of about 30 people in the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) which frequently discusses the current FDA and EMEA guidelines and makes sure that it is updated as per the guidelines in case by case approvals.”

He acknowledged, to make sure that the product is identical or original is harder for biological than for chemical entities and said, “So the next question is, what is the degree of difficulty you create to be sure that some of the products in the in vitro laboratories and the strength of the biomolecule, are to be characterized in details, and the other side is how expensive should the chemical evaluation be? At this moment, RCGM is seeing the issues and is in touch with both the FDA and the EMEA, and they are taking case by case decisions while trying to standardize the minimum information that is required to show how companies have characterized their products.”

“If we ask a big established company on this issue they will tell us to be strict, whereas a smaller company will suggest otherwise. What we are trying to do is being very scientific and come to a conclusion,” reported Express Pharma quoting Dr. Bhan.

The current practice:

Much water has flown down the bridge since the above interview was published. Nothing much has changed on ground regarding this critical issue, thus far. The industry sources allege that even today regulatory approval of biosimilar drugs (large molecules) are granted based on Phase III clinical trials, as specified in the schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts for the small molecules (chemicals) and that too conducted mostly on just 40 to 45 patients. At times the number of patients studied is even lesser. Immunogenicity study, which is so important for biosimilar drugs is, more often than not, overlooked. This could seriously compromise patients’ safety with such category of drugs.

Conclusion:

It is, indeed, quite surprising that in our country there is still no separate transparent and published guidelines for regulatory approval of Biosimilar drugs even when the World Health Organization (WHO) has come out with the same and India had actively participated in that exercise.
The question, therefore, comes to my mind whether the Biosimilar drugs manufactured in India would conform to international quality and safety standards, like in the U.K or what has been recently announced in the USA? If not, who will address the safety concerns of the patients administering these life saving medicines?

Such a concern gets vindicated by widely reported serious quality problems, detected by the drugs regulatory authorities, at some large and well known Biosimilar drug’s manufacturing units in India, in not too distant past and also from the condition of some vaccine manufacturing units in our country. The recent example of WHO cancelling the pre-qualification of ‘Shan 5’ (Shanta Biotech) vaccines for quality related problems, perhaps may help opening the eyes of our regulators, on the related patients’ safety issues arising out of regulatory laxity.

This issue assumes even greater importance considering the very recent development of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) unfolding an interesting scheme to encourage development of biosimialr dugs in India by offering financial support to the domestic pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industry.

The proposed new regulatory pathway for the marketing approval of Biosimilar drugs in India will immensely help paving the way for the Biopharmaceuticals drugs manufacturers in India to adequately prepare themselves to grab a significant share of the fast emerging Biosimilar drugs markets, particularly, in Europe and the USA, in the years to come.

The Ministry of Health and the Department of Biotechnology of the Government of India should, therefore, urgently and jointly consider amending the Drugs & Cosmetics Acts of India accordingly and establish robust regulatory guidelines for marketing approval of biosimilar drugs in the country, acknowledging the widespread concern for patients’ safety.

By Tapan Ray

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

 

Generics’ Lobby, Innovators’ Lobby and the Pharmaceutical Data Protection in India – A Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

To meet the unmet needs of the patients and improve access to healthcare in India mere discovery of a new pharmaceutical entity is not enough. The journey from mind to market is indeed an arduous one.

For the patients’ sake:

From the viewpoint of patients, proper evaluation of the safety, quality and efficacy of medicines are critical. Towards this direction, substantial clinical data needs to be generated through extensive pre-clinical and clinical trials to satisfy the regulatory authorities for marketing approval of a New Molecular Entity (NME).

Reasons why the innovators data will need protection:

Irrespective of what has been indicated in Article 39.3 of TRIPS, Data Protection (DP) is justifiable on the following grounds:

a. Generation of data by the originator to ensure safety and efficacy of the drugs for the patients involves considerable cost, time and efforts.

b. Submission of detail clinical data is a regulatory requirement for the interest of the patients. Without such obligation to the Government, the data would have remained completely under control of the originator. It is, therefore, a reasonable obligation for the Government to respect confidentiality of the data in terms of non-reliance and non-disclosure.

c. Since the data is proprietary during the patent period, any access to such data for commercial use by the second applicant without the concurrence of the originator is unfair on grounds of propriety and business ethics.
d. Any failure by the Government to provide the required protection to the data would lead to “unfair commercial use”.

e. Without DP, the originator of the innovative drugs would be placed at an unfair commercial disadvantage as compared to their generic counterparts. Generic players do not incur similar huge costs for meeting the mandatory requirements of the regulatory authorities for NMEs.

Patent Protection and Data Protection – two different IPRs:

The distinctiveness of the two incentives, namely, Patent Protection and Data Protection or Data Exclusivity is recognized in countries which are leading in research and development in pharmaceuticals.

Data Protection will provide substantial benefits to the stakeholders:

Benefits to Patients:

DP ensures stringent evaluation of overall safety and efficacy of drugs launched in the market. Mere proving of Bioequivalence/ Bioavailability (sometimes on as low as 12 healthy volunteers in India) does not guarantee drug safety as the impurities profile of the duplicator’s drug is likely to be different than that of the originator.

Benefits to Doctors:

Doctors continuously seek scientific information. Clinical evaluation becomes valuable from this perspective. Once provisions for DP are made, comprehensive and quality data can be collected and the detail scientific information be provided to the doctors to update their knowledge for the ultimate benefits of the patients.

Benefits to Researchers:

Clinical researchers in India can win substantial share of this global market with DP as an effective driver in the evolving scenario. There will be increased R&D collaborations. India’s cost arbitrage, speed and skills in clinical trial and research could be leveraged more effectively.

An Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, an eminent scientist, also highlighted the significance of DP, as follows:

“In order to ensure enabling environment, the regulatory division dealing with the applications concerning new drugs and clinical trials would be required to develop suitable mechanisms to ensure confidentiality of the submissions.”

Benefits to Pharmaceutical Industry:

Research is a key driver for the Pharmaceutical Industry. Scientists prefer to work in research laboratories in those countries which provide full-fledged protection to IPR. DP is one of the Intellectual Property Rights. Reversal of brain drain and retention of scientific talents will help the developing economies, like India intensify its R&D efforts. More Indian pharmaceutical companies, while globalizing the business, will engage themselves in partnerships and collaborations with research based global companies.

Indian scientists would need DP to protect their Intellectual Property as many Indian pharmaceutical companies have already started increasing their R&D budgets.

Benefits to Governments:

Once India moves from a stand-alone position to one which aligns itself with the world in terms of IPRs, including DP, India is likely to increase trade not only in ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations), MERCOSUR countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay & Uruguay) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), but even in regulated markets like USA and Europe. There will be increase in scientific education, technology transfer and quality employment.

Could Data Protection affect the legal generics or delay their launch?

Unfortunately, a bogey is raised to create an impression that DP provisions will act as a barrier to the development of generics, adversely affecting the domestic and export business of the local players. Following facts will prove the irrelevance of the arguments propounded by this lobby:

• DP refers only to new products patented in India. It will not affect the generic drugs already in the market.

• USA is an outstanding example, which demonstrates that research based global companies and the generic industry can co-exist, offering dual benefits of innovative drugs and cheaper off-patent generic medicines to the patients.

• More number of patented medicines will ensure faster growth of the generic industry, after the former goes off-patent. In the USA which has a long standing DP regime, the market penetration of generics is amongst the highest in the world and stands at over half of all the prescriptions. After introduction of Hatch Waxman Act in 1984 that provided for a 5 year period of DP in the USA, there were spurt of development of New Drugs together with quicker entry of generics into the market.

• The apprehension that growth of the generic market will slow down with DP, is ill-founded. Indian companies, on the contrary, are aggressively seeking growth opportunities for generics in markets like the USA and Europe where DP is already in place.

• Domestic Indian companies will be dependent upon implementation of a fully compliant TRIPs regime, including DP for their business growth in these markets.

• DP does not prevent generic manufacturers from submitting their own pharmacological, toxicological and clinical data within the period of DP and thus gain marketing approval for their products.

DP controversy is based on a narrow perspective, as it is not an issue of “Generics vs. R&D based companies”. It is a much larger issue. DP and patents are important for all research based companies irrespective of their Indian or foreign origin.

Data Protection is not ‘Evergreening’:

DP is not ‘Evergreening’ either. In most of the cases, the period of patent protection and DP will run concurrently.

During the debate on the subject some people argue that DP and patents offer “double protection”. They do not. Fundamentally, these two forms of Intellectual Property are like different elements of a house which needs both a strong foundation and a roof to protect its inhabitants. DP cannot extend the life of a patent which is a totally separate legal instrument. While patent protects the invention underlying the product, DP protects the clinical Dossier submitted to the regulatory authority from their unfair commercial use. The duration of DP is typically half or less than that of a patent.

Most WTO member countries have Data Protection:

A review of National Laws relating to the protection of Registration Data in the major WTO Member-States reveals that most of the countries have recognized and appreciated the role of DP.
Although there is no uniform standard that is followed by the countries while enacting and implementing the Laws related to DP. The period of DP is typically between 5 to 10 years.

Conclusion:

Dr. Satwant Reddy Committee Report, dated November 30, 2006, submitted to the Government of India, very clearly recommends that DP will benefit India, as it has done in many other countries of the world, including China. Unfortunately, the report does not specify a timeline for its implementation. Thus having accepted the importance and relevance of the DP, the Government should implement the same in the country, without any further delay.

Data Protection should be provided by making an appropriate amendment in Schedule Y of the Drugs Act to bring India in conformity with the practices of other WTO Members of the developing and developed countries.

By Tapan Ray

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