Reticence Around Unveiling Clinical Trials

Posted on October 17, 2016 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not a recent trend:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A contemporary example:

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

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

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

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

Product claim – then:

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

In a study of patients with Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) statin therapy reduced the relative risk of mortality by 50 percent in those > 80-years-old, 44 percent in those 65- to 79-years-old, and 30% in those < 65 years old, compared to CAD patients in the same age group not taking statin therapy (Ref. Chloe, Allen A., et al. ‘Statin Therapy Is Associated With Reduced Mortality Across All Age Groups of Individuals With Significant Coronary Disease, Including Very Elderly Patients’. JACC. 40: 10; 1777-1785)

An analysis of 18 trials, including 56,934 patients, primarily without CVD, demonstrated statins conferred a relative risk reduction (RRR) in all-cause mortality by 14 percent and stroke by 22 percent (Ref. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013 Jan 31; 1:CD004816).

Research findings for the same drug – now:

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

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

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

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

Examples of other drugs:

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

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

The Cochrane Collaboration, a nonprofit organization based in London that reviews health care information, concluded that unlike its promotional claims, Roche’s Tamiflu only shortened symptoms of influenza by one day, and it did not prevent hospitalizations or complications from influenza.

AstraZeneca reportedly paid US$ 647 million in lawsuit settlements for failing to inform the public of Seroquel’s side effects.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals reportedly settled lawsuits claiming the company’s anti-diabetic drug Actos caused bladder cancer, for US$ 2.37 billion.

In July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline reportedly pleaded guilty and agreed to pay US$ 3 billion to settle charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice for failing to report clinical data on its anti-diabetic drug Avandia.

Johnson & Johnson was reportedly accused of hiding some dangerous side effects like, diabetes, substantial weight gain, stroke and gynecomastia – or breast development in boys for its product Risperdal – used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in adults and adolescents and autism spectrum disorders in children and adolescents. The company reportedly settled claims in Kentucky, Texas and Montana for a total of more than US$ 340 million and settled multiple cases in Pennsylvania for undisclosed amounts.

As reported by ‘Financial Times’ on February 03, 2015, Novartis was accused of manipulating trial data in favor of its anti-hypertensive drug – Diovan, and concealing side-effects associated with its Tasigna – for leukemia treatment. As a result, the company reportedly faced a temporary suspension of its business in Japan, as punishment for alleged manipulation of clinical trial data.

Possible reasons:

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

Researchers publish positive findings more often than negative findings as a result of human bias. Scholars want their work to contribute to medical advancement and not deter it.

Researchers do not want to put their time and energy into writing studies about negative results.

Journals seek positive results, and publish them more quickly to increase publicity.

Trial sponsors want to publish positive results to increase profit.

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

Indian scenario:

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

In August 2015, the European Union reportedly banned the marketing of around 700 generic medicines for alleged manipulation of clinical trials conducted by the domestic research company GVK Biosciences. This was reported as the largest EU-wide suspension of sales and distribution of generic drugs ordered by the European Commission that was applicable to all its 28 member nations.

In July 2016, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) reportedly recommended suspending the sale of dozens of generic medicines over concerns about “flawed” studies that were conducted by the Semler Research Center, located in Bengaluru. Many of these drugs are sold by Novartis and Teva Pharmaceuticals.

In September-October 2015, US-FDA also found “significant instances of misconduct and violations of federal regulations by the same research center, which includes substitution and manipulation of study subject samples.”

This year, the World Health Organization (WHO) also had issued a notice to Semler for the same reasons. After, examining the company’s computer servers, early and late last year, WHO reportedly found a spreadsheet file containing detailed instructions for manipulating drug samples that were used in clinical trials for its clients.

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

The upshot:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain

Posted on June 30, 2014 by Tapan Ray

June 2014 underscores a significant development for the generic drug exporters of India. Much-delayed and highly expected launch of generic Diovan (Valsartan) is now on its way, as Ranbaxy has reportedly received US-FDA approval to launch the first generic version of this blood pressure drug in the United States.

As deliberated in my earlier blog titled “Big Pharma’s Windfall Gain From Indian Pharma’s Loss, Costs American Patients Dear”, delay in launch of the generic equivalent of Diovan caused a windfall gain for Novartis from US$ 1.7 billion US sales of this drug last year, instead of usual declining turnover of an innovative molecule post patent expiry.

The generic version of Diovan (Valsartan) is estimated to contribute around US$ 200 million to Ranbaxy’s sales and US$ 100 million to its profit after tax, during the exclusive sale period. Against these numbers, delay in the launch of generic Diovan has reportedly cost payers and consumers in America around US$ 900 million in the first 18 months.

Since four Ranbaxy manufacturing facilities in India are now facing US-FDA ‘import bans’ due to violations of ‘Good Manufacturing Practices’ of the American regulator, its Ohm Laboratories unit located in New Jersey has been allowed to make generic Valsartan for the US.

Go for gold:

Hopefully, Ranbaxy would soon get similar approvals from the US drug regulator for its ‘first to launch’ generic versions of Nexium (AstraZeneca) and Valcyte (Roche), as well.

It is worth mentioning that around 90 percent price erosion would take place with intense competition, as soon the period of exclusivity for such ‘first to launch’ generics gets over.

Nonetheless, this is indeed a very interesting development, when the global generic pharmaceutical segment is reportedly showing signals of a tough chase for overtaking the branded pharmaceuticals sector in terms of sales turnover too.

India has a huge a stake in this ball game, as it supplies around 30 to 40 percent of the world’s generic medicines and is well poised to improve its pharma exports from around US$ 15 billion per year to US$ 25 billion by 2016. Since 2012, this objective has remained an integral part of the country’s global initiative to position India as the “pharmacy to the world.”

However, considering the recent hiccups of some Indian pharma majors in meeting with the quality requirements of the US-FDA, though this target appears to be a challenging one for now, the domestic pharma players should continue to make all out efforts to go for the gold by moving up the generic pharmaceutical value chain. In this context, it is worth noting that penetration of the generic drugs in the US is expected to increase from the current 83 percent to 86-87 percent very shortly, as the ‘Obamacare’ takes off with full steam.

Moving up the value chain:

In the largest pharma market of the world – the United States, global generic companies are increasingly facing cutthroat price competition with commensurate price erosion, registering mixed figures of growth. Even in a situation like this, some companies are being immensely benefited from moving up the value chain with differentiated generic product launches that offer relatively high margin, such as, specialty dermatologicals, complex injectibles, other products with differentiated drug delivery systems and above all biosimilars.

As a consequence of which, some Indian generic companies have already started focusing on the development of value added, difficult to manufacture and technology intensive generic product portfolios, in various therapy areas. Just to cite an example, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) is now reportedly set to take its complex generic drug Fondaparinux sodium injection to Canada and two other emerging markets.

Thus, those Indian pharma companies, which would be able to develop a robust product portfolio of complex generics and other differentiated formulations for the global market, would be much better placed in positioning themselves significantly ahead of the rest, both in terms of top and the bottom lines.

One such key opportunity area is the development of a portfolio of biosimilar drugs – the large molecule proteins.

Global interest in biosimilars:

According to the June 2014 report of GlobalData, a leading global research and consulting firm, the biosimilars industry is already highly lucrative. More than 100 deals involving companies focused on the development of biosimilars have been completed over the past 7 years, with a total value in excess of US$10.7 billion.

GlobalData further states, there are a number of factors driving the initiative toward global adoption of biosimilars, from austerity measures and slow economic growth in the US, to an aging population and increasing demand for healthcare in countries, such as Japan.

The costs of biosimilars are expected to be, at least, 20 to 30 percent lower than the branded biologic therapies. This still remains a significant reduction, as many biologics command hundreds of thousands of dollars for 1 year’s treatment.

According to another media report, biosimilars are set to replace around 70 percent of global chemical drugs over the next couple of decades on account of ‘safety parameters and a huge portion of biologic products going off patent’.

Biosimilar would improve patient access:

Although at present over 150 different biologic medicines are available globally, just around 11 countries have access to low cost biosimilar drugs, India being one of them. Supporters of biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as the time passes by.

It has been widely reported that the cost of treatment with innovative and patented biologic drugs can vary from US$ 100,000 to US$ 300,000 a year. A 2010 review on biosimilar drugs published by the Duke University highlights that biosimilar equivalents of novel biologics would improve access to such drugs significantly, for the patients across the globe.

Regulatory hurdles easing off:

In the developed world, European Union (EU) had taken a lead towards this direction by putting a robust system in place, way back in 2003. In the US, along with the recent healthcare reform process of the Obama administration, the US-FDA has already charted the regulatory pathway for biosimilar drugs, though more clarifications are still required.

Not so long ago, the EU had approved Sandoz’s (Novartis) Filgrastim (Neupogen brand of Amgen), which is prescribed for the treatment of Neutropenia. With Filgrastim, Sandoz will now have at least 3 biosimilar products in its portfolio.

Key global players:

At present, the key global players are Sandoz (Novartis), Teva, BioPartners, BioGenerix (Ratiopharm) and Bioceuticals (Stada). With the entry of pharmaceutical majors like, Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the global biosimilar market is expected to be heated up and grow at a much faster pace than ever before. Removal of regulatory hurdles for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US would be the key growth driver.

Globally, the scenario for biosimilar drugs started warming up when Merck announced that the company expects to have at least 5 biosimilars in the late stage development by 2012.

Most recent global development:

A key global development in the biosimilar space has taken place, just this month, in June 2014, when Eli Lilly has reportedly won the recommendation of European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for launch of a biosimilar version (Abasria insulin) of Sanofi’s Lantus insulin. This launch would pave the way for the first biosimilar version of Sanofi’s top-selling drug clocking a turnover of US$7.8 billion in 2013. Eli Lilly developed Abasria with Boehringer Ingelheim of Germany.

In May 2014, Lantus would lose patent protection in Europe. However, biosimilar competition of Lantus in the US could get delayed despite its patent expiry in February, as Sanofi reportedly announced its intention of suing Eli Lilly on this score.

Global Market Potential:

According to a 2011 study, conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., worldwide market for biosimilar drugs is estimated to reach US$ 4.8 billion by the year 2015, the key growth drivers being as follows:

Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs
Cost containment measures of various governments
Aging population
Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries
Recent establishment of regulatory pathways for biosimilars in the US

IMS Health indicates that the US will be the cornerstone of the global biosimilars market, powering a sector worth between US$ 11 billion and US$ 25 billion in 2020, representing a 4 percent and 10 percent share, respectively, of the total biologics market.

The overall penetration of biosimilars within the off-patent biological market is estimated to reach up to 50 percent by 2020.

Challenges for India:

Unlike commonly used ‘small molecule’ chemical 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.

According to IMS Health, the following would be the key areas of challenge:

High development costs:

Developing a biosimilar is not a simple process but one that requires significant investment, technical capability and clinical trial expertise. Average cost estimates range from US$ 20-100 million against much lesser cost of developing traditional generics, which are typically around US$ 1-4 million.

Fledgling regulatory framework:

In most markets apart from Europe, but including the United States, the regulatory framework for biosimilars is generally still very new compared to the well-established approval process for NCEs and small-molecule generics.

Intricate manufacturing issues:

The development of biosimilars involves sophisticated technologies and processes, raising the risk of the investment.

Overcoming ‘Branded Mentality’:

Winning the trust of stakeholders would call for honed skills, adequate resources and overcoming the branded mentality, which is especially high for biologics. Thus, initiatives to allay safety concerns among physicians and patients will be particularly important, supported by sales teams with deeper medical and technical knowledge. This will mean significant investment in sales and marketing too.

Indian business potential:

The biosimilar drugs market in India is expected to reach US$ 2 billion in 2014 (Source: Evalueserve, April 2010).

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies, such as, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Lupin, Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Glenmark, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute, Hetero, Intas and Reliance Life Sciences.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies is to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Domestic players on the go:

Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) in India has already developed Biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. DRL has also developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India. DRL has launched the first generic Darbepoetin Alfa in the world for treating nephrology and oncology indications and Peg-grafeel, an affordable form of Pegfilgrastim, which is used to stimulate the bone marrow to fight infection in patients undergoing chemotherapy. The company reportedly sold 1.4 million units of its four biosimilars, which have treated almost 97,000 patients across 12 countries. Besides, in June 2012, DRL and Merck Serono, of Germany, announced a partnership deal to co-develop a portfolio of biosimilar compounds in oncology, primarily focused on monoclonal antibodies (MAbs). The partnership covers co-development, manufacturing and commercialization of the compounds around the globe, with some specific country exceptions.

Another Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla, has reportedly invested Rs 300 Crore in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab in China and announced in June 19, 2014 collaboration with Hetero Drugs to launch a biosimilar drug with Actroise brand name for the treatment of anemia caused due to chronic kidney disease. Actorise is a biosimilar of ‘Darbepoetin alfa’, which is marketed by US-based Amgen under the brand Aranesp.

In 2011, Lupin reportedly signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly would use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs in the field of oncology. Again, in April 2014, Lupin entered into a joint venture pact with Japanese company Yoshindo Inc. to form a new entity that will be responsible both for development of biosimilars and obtaining marketing access for products in the Japanese market.

In November 2013, The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) approved a biosimilar version of Roche’s Herceptin developed jointly by Biocon and Mylan.

In June 2014, Ipca Laboratories and Oncobiologics, Inc. of USA reportedly announced the creation of an alliance for the development, manufacture and commercialization of biosimilar monoclonal antibody products.

Many more such initiatives reportedly are in the offing.

Oncology becoming biosimilar development hot spot:

Many domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies are targeting Oncology disease area for developing biosimilar drugs, which is estimated to be the largest segment globally with a value turnover of around US$ 60 billion growing over 17 percent.

As per recent reports, about 8 million deaths take place all over the world per year due to cancer.

Indian Government support:

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 immune-biological, 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 and put in place ‘Regulatory Guidelines for Biosimilar Drugs’ in conformance with the international quality and patient safety standards. This is a big step forward for India in the arena of biosimilar drugs.

In June 2014, under the advanced technology scheme of Biotechnology Industry Partnership Program (BIPP), the DBT has reportedly invited fresh proposals from biotech companies for providing support on a cost sharing basis targeted at development of novel and high risk futuristic technologies mainly for viability gap funding and enhancing existing R&D capacities of start-ups and SMEs in key areas of national importance and public good.

However, the stakeholders expect much more from the government in this area, which the new Indian government would hopefully address with a sense of urgency.

Conclusion:

According to IMS Health, biosimilar market could well be the fastest-growing biologics segment in the next few years, opening up oncology and autoimmune disease areas to this category of drugs for the first time ever. Moreover, a number of top-selling biologic brands would go off patent over the next five years, offering possibilities of reaping rich harvest for the biosimilars players of the country. Critical therapy areas such as cancer, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis are expected to spearhead the new wave of biosimilars.

While moving up the generic pharma value chain, Indian pharma players desiring to encash on the emerging global biosimilars opportunities would require to do a thorough analysis, well in advance, to understand properly the key success factors, core value propositions, financial upsides and risks attached to investments in this area.

Indian companies would also need to decide whether moving ahead in this space would be through collaborations and alliances or flying solo would be the right answer for them. Thereafter would come the critical market access strategy – one of the toughest mind games in the long-haul pharma marketing warfare.

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.

Big Pharma’s Windfall Gain From Indian Pharma’s Loss, Costs American Patients Dear

Posted on June 19, 2014 by Tapan Ray

According to US-FDA, its ‘Import Bans’ on quality grounds of the drugs manufactured at various Indian facilities, such as, Ranbaxy’s Paonta Sahib, Dewas and Mohali and Toansa plants, were reportedly solely directed at negating the health safety risks of American patients consuming those medicines.

US Media now raises a critical question:

Interestingly, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has now flagged a very valid question, whether such US-FDA drug ‘Import Bans’ have really worked in the best interest of American patients, as it has cost the US consumers millions of dollars.

Vindicates past apprehensions:

I also had raised similar apprehensions, at least twice, in my blog posts, one in March 17, 2014 in an article titled, “Loss of Ranbaxy, Gain of Big Pharma…And Two Intriguing Coincidences” and the other on June 9, 2014 in another article titled, “Drugs From The Same Indian Plant: Safe For Europe, Unsafe For America, Why?”

Cheaper generic launches got interrupted:

The report states that the ‘Import Bans’ of products manufactured in the above four plants of Ranbaxy kept the Indian company away from its ‘first to launch’ opportunities of at least two blockbuster drugs, namely, Diovan of Novartis and Nexium of AstraZeneca, besides Valcyte of Roche.

As a result of these ‘Import Bans’ of the US-FDA, the concerned global pharma majors were able to continue selling their high priced brands even long after the respective patent expiries, causing hardship to many patients.

Caused windfall gain to Big Pharma:

WSJ reports, these ‘Import Bans’ hugely helped the Big Pharma, as the combined sales of those three drugs in the US totaled US$ 8 billion in 2013. It also states that unavailability of those three generic equivalents would cost US$125 million annually just in 39 counties of upstate New York. This is mainly because once generics are available, patented drug prices usually fall by 80 percent or more.

Thus, the net losers became the purchasers and patients, along with the federal government, the report says.

A serious question to ponder even for the US:

Quoting Columbia Law School professor Scott Hemphill, the report highlights a serious question over whether the US-FDA rules are too complex to manage, or to anticipate strange, unusual and unfortunate consequences that result from them. It also expresses concern over how such delays in generic entry raising the drug treatment costs in the United States.

A repetitive saga:

The saga of losing ‘first to launch’ opportunities, seems to be repetitive in nature for Ranbaxy.

As I stated earlier in my above blog posts, it is also worth noting from another report that:

“Nexium is the third drug for which a Ranbaxy generic has been delayed. Novartis’ heart drug Diovan went off patent in September of 2012. Instead of seeing its sales of the drug plunge last year, the Swiss drug maker earned US $1.7 billion from it, according to the drug maker’s annual report. Roche’s antiviral Valcyte has also escaped competition after going off patent last year. Roche doesn’t break down U.S. sales but reported global revenues of $ 672 million last year, up 10%.”

The same plant meets drug safety standards of Europe, but ‘unsafe’ for America!

In this context it is worth noting, according to another recent media report, quite contrary to the stern actions by US-FDA, European drug regulators have commented as follows on a plant that has been banned by the american regulator:

“The inspection team concluded that there was no evidence that any medicines on the EU market that have an active pharmaceutical ingredient manufactured in Toansa were of unacceptable quality or presented a risk to the health of patients taking them.”

They further added, “This conclusion was supported by tests of samples of these medicines, all of which met the correct quality specifications.”

Isn’t this indeed intriguing?

Conclusion:

The USFDA quagmire in India raises more questions than answes, but one critical trend, where the ultimate gainer is the Big Pharma and the net losers are the American patients and the Indian pharma industry.

Be that as it may, it is about time to for the Modi Government to take up this important issue at the highest level in the United States, as the losers would continue to be the domestic pharma manufacturers in India and in the American patients, Big Pharma being the main beneficiary.

Considering all these, doesn’t this jigsaw puzzle require to be resolved once and for all, without any further dilly-dally?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Drugs From The Same Indian Plant: Safe For Europe, Unsafe For America, Why?

Posted on June 9, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Good number of stories on US-FDA banning several drug manufacturing facilities of major domestic players of India over serious quality related issues, have been doing the rounds since about a year and almost at a regular interval.

The quagmire has snowballed into serious apprehensions on the quality of Indian generic drugs, across the globe. Various statements of US-FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, during her much talked about maiden visit to India, in February 2014, added further credence to the issue.

“If you want our market, meet our standards”:

During Hamburg’s India visit, her reported candid warning to the Indian drug exporters to America added further fuel to the above concern in India. She clearly underscored:

“If you want our market, meet our standards.”

Even in the face of this stern warning, when major drug manufacturers of India, such as, Ranbaxy, Wockhardt, Sun Pharma and some others continued to fail in meeting US-FDA drug quality standards in their respective plants, I wrote the following in one of my earlier blog posts titled, “Does India Believe in Two Different Drug Quality Standards?”:

“In a situation like this, especially when many Indian manufacturers are repeatedly failing to meet the American quality standards, the following questions come up:

Is the US-FDA manufacturing requirement too troublesome, if not oppressive?

If not, do the Indian and other patients too deserve to have drugs conforming to the same quality standards?

Answers to these questions are absolutely vital to convince ourselves, why should Indian patients have access to drugs of lower quality standards than Americans, with consequential increase in their health risks?”

The first question on ‘troublesomeness’ now partly answered?

This is because another recent media report brought to the fore that, having completed their assessment of drug manufacturing violations at Ranbaxy’s facility in Toansa, European regulators have said although deficiencies were found, they pose no risk to public health. The regulators said they were satisfied by corrective measures put in place by the company after U.S. regulators found deviations in January.

The report also highlights that this assessment of the European regulators stands in stark contrast to the response of US regulators to the deficiencies found at the same plant.

It is worth noting that US-FDA continues to restrict Ranbaxy from making and selling pharmaceutical ingredients from the Toansa facility “to prevent substandard quality products from reaching US consumers.”

The same plant meets drug safety standards of Europe, but ‘unsafe’ for America!

Quite contrary to the above stern statement of US-FDA, according to the above report from Reuters, European drug regulators commented as follows:

The further added, “This conclusion was supported by tests of samples of these medicines, all of which met the correct quality specifications.”

Regulatory audit standards were the same for both EU and US regulators:

It is also interesting to note from the report that according to a statement from the US-FDA:

“EMA and FDA inspected the Toansa facility using similar quality standards and underlying principles of current good manufacturing practices.”

Was the decision of US-FDA ‘import ban’ subjective?

This critical question arises because of another US-FDA statement that states as follows:

“While inspections were similar, the two regulatory authorities applied their own, differing, regulatory and legal standards to address the violations.”

Subjectivity in decision-making could encourage “Conspiracy Theory”:

Generic drugs currently contribute over 80 percent of prescriptions written in the US. Around 40 percent of prescriptions and Over The Counter (OTC) drugs that are now sold in the United States come from India. Almost all of these are cheaper generic versions of patent expired drugs. Total annual drug export of India, currently at around US$ 15 billion, is more than the domestic turnover of the pharma industry. Hence, India’s commercial stake in this area is indeed mind-boggling.

In a situation like this, the apprehension of subjectivity in the decision making process of US-FDA related to ‘import bans’, if linked with, say for example, even the missed opportunities for ‘first to launch’ generic versions of several patent-expired blockbuster drugs in the United States by Ranbaxy, could lead to much undesirable ‘Conspiracy Theory’, further souring the relationship between India and America.

As I mentioned in one of my earlier blog posts titled “Loss of Ranbaxy Gain of Big Pharma…And Intriguing Coincidences”, when the emerging dots associated with the missed opportunities for ‘first to launch’ generic versions of drugs like, Lipitor (Pfizer), Diovan (Novartis) and Nexium (AstraZeneca) are connected, an uncomfortable pattern could emerge favoring Big Pharma and obviously adversely affecting Indian companies like Ranbaxy.

The First Dot: Uncertainty over Lipitor generic launch:

Like many other large Indian players, ‘first to launch’ strategy with the new generic drugs has been the key focus of Ranbaxy since long, much before its serious trouble with the US-FDA begun in 2008. ‘Import Bans’ on two of its manufacturing facilities by the US regulator in that year created huge uncertainty in its launch of a generic version of Pfizer’s anti-lipid blockbuster drug Lipitor in 2011. On time launch of a generic version of Lipitor was estimated to have generated a turnover of around US$ 600 million for Ranbaxy in the first six months and commensurate loss to Pfizer for the generic entry.

Despite its neck deep trouble with the US-FDA at that time, Ranbaxy ultimately did somehow manage to launch generic Lipitor, after partnering with Teva Pharmaceutical of Israel.

The Second Dot: Indefinite delay in Diovan generic launch:

Lipitor story was just the beginning of Ranbaxy’s trouble of not being able to translate its ‘first to launch’ advantage of patent-expired blockbuster drugs into commercial success, thus allowing the Big Pharma constituents to enjoy market monopoly with their respective blockbuster drugs even after patent expiry.

Despite Ranbaxy holding the exclusive rights to market the first generic valsartan (Diovan of Novartis and Actos of Takeda) for 180 days, much to its dismay, even after valsartan patent expiry in September 2012, a generic version of the blockbuster antihypertensive is yet to see the light of the day. However, Mylan Inc. has, now launched a generic combination formulation of valsartan with hydrochlorothiazide.

US-FDA drug ‘Import Ban’ from the concerned manufacturing facility of Ranbaxy gave rise to this hurdle favoring the Big Pharma, as discussed above.

As a result, Novartis in July 2013 reportedly raised its guidance announcing that the company now expects full-year sales to grow at a low single-digit rate, where it had earlier predicted net sales to turn up flat. It also guided for core earnings to decline in the low single digits, revising guidance for a mid-single-digit drop.

The Third Dot: Delay in Nexium generic launch:

Ranbaxy had earlier created for itself yet another opportunity to become the first to launch a generic version of the blockbuster anti-peptic ulcerant drug of AstraZeneca – Nexium in the United States, as the drug went off patent on May 27, 2014. However, due to recent US-FDA import ban from its Toansa plant, this opportunity too seems to be fading away for Ranbaxy.

Delay in the launch of generic Nexium, which incidentally is the second-biggest seller of AstraZeneca, would make a big impact on the predator-chased company’s profit.

With the global sales of Nexium at US$ 3.87 billion and US sales at US$ 2.12 billion in 2013, retaining its monopoly status in the all-important US market beyond the end of May would not only limit a forecast decline in AstraZeneca’s 2014 earnings, but would also protect bonuses for top management of the British pharma giant, as the above report says.

Conclusion:

Let me hasten to add yet again, while highlighting the stark differences of interpretations on drug quality standards of the same plant between the European and American regulators and connecting the dots of significant missed opportunities of the Indian drug manufacturers, I do not intend to postulate any ‘Machiavellian Hypothesis’.

I just wanted to establish that both alleged ‘subjective’ decision making process of the US-FDA and coincidences of a series of missed opportunities encountered by the Indian drug manufacturers related to first to launch generics in America are now realities, which if remain unaddressed could germinate into a ‘Conspiracy Theory’, at least in some corners. This could further sour existing Indo-US relationship.

While, I am confident that the new government of India with its, so far, well demonstrated ‘Can Do’ spirit would take these critical issues up in the ensuing bilateral ministerial level meetings, an immediate and in-depth study should also be initiated with valuable inputs from the independent experts to ferret out the real reasons behind these facts, including:

Why are the cGMP related issues in India repeatedly arising mainly with the US-FDA?
Are the requirements of the US-FDA though too onerous for the Indian drug manufacturers, yet reasonable as per global norms?
If so, how come the drugs manufactured in the same Indian plant though declared unsafe by the US-FDA, considered safe by the European regulators?

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Takeover Magician To Tango Again On A Bold New ‘Sunny’ Tune

Posted on April 14, 2014 by Tapan Ray

The consolidation process of the Indian pharmaceutical industry continues in its own pace. Most recently, the homegrown pharma takeover magician is all set to tango yet again with a bold ‘Sunny’ tune. The low profile creator of high value ‘Sun Pharmaceuticals’, that he painstakingly built from the scratch facing many turbulent weather over nearly three decades, is ready to go for the gold, yet again.

The cool, composed and the decisive business predator is now in the process of gobbling up, quite unexpectedly, the much ailing prey – Ranbaxy. This acquisition of a distressed asset, would make Sun Pharmaceuticals a pharma behemoth not just in India with a jaw-dropping 9.33 percent share of the Indian Pharma Market (IPM), but also would help catapulting the company to become the 5^th largest generic pharmaceutical company globally.

Ranbaxy – A sad example of value destruction:

It is worth recapitulating that in 2008, Daiichi Sankyo paid reportedly US$ 4.6 billion to acquire 63.8 percent stake in Ranbaxy.

After Sun Pharma’s acquisition of Ranbaxy with US$ 3.2 billion in 2014, Daiichi Sankyo will hold just 9 per cent of Sun Pharma, which is currently worth US$ 2 billion. Such an example of value erosion of a pharma giant in a little over 5 year period is not just unique, but very sad indeed.

Keeping the “Sunny” side up”:

It is expected that post acquisition, Sun Pharma would continue to keep its ‘Sunny Side’ up, maintaining the corporate name of the merged entity as ‘Sun Pharma’.

Ranbaxy name, in any case, is not so popular, either inside or outside India after the US-FDA fiasco, casting aspersions on the quality of products that it manufactures.

Moreover, the history indicates that this is exactly what happened when Abbott acquired Piramal Healthcare, Zydus bought over Biochem or even Torrent took control of Elder.

Ranbaxy name could probably exist as a division of Sun pharma in future, if at all.

Post acquisition IPM league table:

According to AIOCD AWACS, extrapolating the post acquisition scenario on the league table (MAT February 2014) of the Top 10 Pharma majors in India, it looks as follows:

Rank	Company	Value Rs. Crore	Market Share %	Growth %
1	Sun Pharma Group	6,741	9.33	8.8
2	Abbott Group	4,758	6.59	4.6
3	Cipla	3,493	4.84	8.5
4	Zydus Group	3,116	4.31	9.7
5	GSK	2,727	3.78	-14.7
6	Lupin	2,457	3.40	12.4
7	Alkem Group	2,433	3.37	10.1
8	Mankind	2,257	3.12	7.6
9	Pfizer + Wyeth	2,150	2.98	3.0
10	Emcure Group	2,048	2.83	15.5
Total	IPM	72,236	100.00	6.0

(Source: AIOCD AWACS)

Distancing from No. 2 by a mile:

With the above unprecedented chunk of the IPM, Sun Pharma would distance itself from the (would be) second ranking Abbott with a whopping 2.74 percent difference in market share, which would be equivalent to the turnover of the 10th ranking pharma player in the domestic pharma market.

In its pursuit of corporate excellence, Sun Pharma has made 13 acquisitions between 1990s and 2012. Post merger, the revenue of the combined entity is estimated to be around US$ 4.2 billion with EBITDA of US$ 1.2 billion for the 12-month period that ended on December 31, 2013.

Merger consolidates ‘Domestic Pharma’ market share:

This acquisition would also tilt the balance of ‘Domestic Pharma’ Vs. ‘Pharma MNC’ market share ratio in the IPM very significantly, as follows:

	Current Market Share Ratio	Post Acquisition Market Share Ratio
Domestic Pharma Vs. Pharma MNC	73.4 : 26.6	77.2 : 22.8

(Source: AIOCD AWACS)

Further, this trend is also expected to allay the lurking fear of many about the robustness and future growth appetite of the domestic pharma industry, thus becoming an easy prey of pharma MNC predators. It is believed that such an apprehension was prompted by a series of large ‘Brownfield FDIs’ coming into the Indian pharma industry to acquire a number of important local assets.

The key challenges:

1. Sun Pharma too is under US-FDA radar:

As we know that along with Ranbaxy, Wockhardt and some others, Sun Pharma has also come under the USFDA radar for non-compliance of the Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs).

Under the prevailing circumstances, it would indeed be a major challenge for Sun Pharma to place its own house in order first and simultaneously address the similar issues to get US-FDA ‘import bans’ lifted from four manufacturing plants of Ranbaxy in India that export formulations and API to the United States. This is quite a task indeed.

2. Pending Supreme Court case on Ranbaxy:

Prompted by a series of ‘Import Bans’ from US-FDA on product quality grounds, the Supreme Court of India on March 15, 2014 reportedly issued notices to both the Central Government and Ranbaxy against a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking not just cancellation of the manufacturing licenses of the company, but also a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the allegation of supplying adulterated drugs in the country.

Ranbaxy/ Sun pharma would now require convincing the top court of the country that it manufactures and sells quality medicines for the consumption of patients in India. No doubt, all these issues were factored-in for relatively cheap valuation of Ranbaxy.

3. CCI scrutiny of the deal:

Out of the Top 10 Therapy Areas, the merged company would hold the top ranking in 4 segments namely, Cardiac, Neuro/CNS, Pain management and Gynec and no. 2 ranking in two other segments namely, Vitamins and Gastrointestinal.

Noting the above scenario and possibly many others, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), after intense scrutiny, would require to take a call whether this acquisition would adversely affect market competition in any of those areas. If so, CCI would suggest appropriate measures to be completed by these two concerned companies before the deal could take effect. This would also be a task cut out for the CCI in this area.

4. SEBI queries:

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), has sought information from Sun Pharmaceutical on stock price movement and the deal structure.

According to reports, this is due to “Ranbaxy shares showing good movement on three occasions: first in December, then in January and subsequently in March 2014, just before the deal was announced.” This has already attracted SEBI’s attention and has prompted it to go into the details.

The opportunities:

That said, there are many opportunities for Sun Pharma to reap a rich harvest out of this acquisition. The most lucrative areas are related to Ranbaxy’s missed opportunities for ‘first to launch’ generic versions of two blockbuster drugs – Diovan (Novartis) and Nexium (AstraZeneca).

Diovan (Novartis):

Despite Ranbaxy holding the exclusive rights to market the first generic valsartan (Diovan of Novartis and Actos of Takeda) for 180 days, much to its dismay, even after valsartan patent expired on September 2012, a generic version of the blockbuster antihypertensive is still to see the light of the day. However, Mylan Inc. has, now launched a generic combination formulation of valsartan with hydrochlorothiazide.

Nexium (AstraZeneca):

Ranbaxy had created for itself yet another opportunity to become the first to launch a generic version of the blockbuster anti-peptic ulcerant drug of AstraZeneca – Nexium in the United States, as the drug goes off patent on May 27, 2014. However, due to recent US-FDA import ban from the concerned plant of Ranbaxy, it now seems to be a distant reality. Unless…

Sun Pharma has reportedly 10 manufacturing plants in India and 8 in the US, besides having other production facilities in Israel, Mexico, Hungary, Canada, Bangladesh and Brazil. Post acquisition, the combined entity will have operations in 65 countries with 47 manufacturing facilities spanning across 5 continents, providing a solid platform to market specialty and generic products globally. With all these, the above key issues would perhaps be addressed expeditiously.

Leaving aside those two big opportunities, post merger, Sun Pharma is expected to have around 629 ANDAs waiting for approval, including first-to-file opportunities in the United States, besides the current ongoing businesses of the merged company.

What about cost synergy?

Though Sun pharma promoters have given an indication about the revenue synergy, nothing is known, as yet, about the targeted details of cost synergy after this acquisition.

Conclusion:

I reckon, the consolidation process in the Indian pharmaceutical industry would continue, though with a different pace at different times, involving both the domestic pharma and MNCs as the predators.

Even before ‘The Breaking News’ of this brand new well hyped acquisition came from Reuters, in the ‘Corporate World’ of India, Dilip Shanghvi used to be known as an unassuming and astute self-made business tycoon blessed with a ‘magic wand’ deeply concealed in between his two ears, as it were. Folks say, at an opportune time, wielding this ‘wand’, he confidently turns distressed pharma assets into money-spinners and has proved it time and again with grit, grace and élan in equal measures.

Can he do it again? Well…Why not?

Thus, while acquiring the ailing Ranbaxy with a value for money, the takeover magician, prepares for his best shot ever, wielding the same magic wand yet again, to steer the new company from an arduous, dark and complex path, hopefully, to a bright frontier of sustainable excellence.

Let’s hope for the best, as the ‘Tango’ begins…on a bold new ‘Sunny’ tune.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Loss of Ranbaxy, Gain of Big Pharma…And Two Intriguing Coincidences

Posted on March 17, 2014 by Tapan Ray

In March 2014, the largest pharma player of India by market capitalization, Sun Pharma, became the latest of the large Indian pharma exporters facing the US-FDA ‘Import Ban’ for drugs manufactured at its Gujarat-based plant. This news came as a shocking surprise to many, including the stock market, as the home grown company has now attained an international stature being governed by a professional management team and steered by a Board that is chaired by a well-regarded non-Indian with decades of experience in the global pharmaceutical industry.

Just before that in January 2014, being slapped with the US-FDA drug ‘Import Ban’ of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) manufactured in its Toansa Plant of Punjab, the pharmaceutical business of Ranbaxy in the United States, with the products manufactured in its approved manufacturing facilities in India, came to a screeching halt.

It is worth noting that similar ‘Import Bans’ are already in place for the same company’s Dewas, Paonta Sahib, and Mohali production facilities. The combined impact of these bans now makes Ohm Laboratories plant of Ranbaxy, located in New Jersey, its sole generic drug manufacturing facility for the US market.

Considering that the US sales of Ranbaxy reportedly used to be around 57 percent of its total global turnover even in 2012, these import bans are undoubtedly a huge blow to the company, both financially as well as in terms of its business reputation.

Thus, the top priority of Ranbaxy under this situation is effectively addressing all the issues as raised by the US-FDA, especially in the area of documentation, as in the buyers’ market sellers cannot be the choosers.

A ‘Double Whammy’:

Meanwhile, prompted by theses ‘Import Bans’ on product quality ground and adding further woes to the company, the Supreme Court of India on March 15, 2014 reportedly issued notices to both the Central Government and Ranbaxy on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking not just cancellation of the manufacturing licenses of the company, but also a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the allegation of supplying adulterated drugs in the country.

Thus, it is a double whammy for Ranbaxy. The company would now require convincing the top court of the country that it manufactures and sells quality medicines for consumption of the patients in India.

However, Ranbaxy reportedly insisted that the drugs sold by it in the Indian market are safe and effective and that the company complies with all regulations of the country.

Could the situation now get even murkier?

During the process of judicial scrutiny, if the Supreme Court gets convinced with the above reply of Ranbaxy on this issue, the question that could possibly emerge is, how come the same company produces high quality drugs for the patients in India and allegedly substandard quality drugs for the patients of the United States? This could make the subject more complicated, if not murkier, internationally.

Two intriguing coincidences:

In the midst of all these, while connecting various similar looking and important dots, emerged during the last few years, a couple of clear coincidences comes to the fore, as follows:

1. Is the drug quality issue in India for exports limited only to US-FDA?

This brings us to the first interesting coincidence of drug ‘Import Bans’, involving large Indian drug exporters, coming mostly, if not only, from the US-FDA, although there are so many other drug importing countries, including rest of the developed world.

Moreover, none of the Indian domestic companies had ever faced similar number of USFDA ‘Import Bans’ in the past, though they have been exporting to the United States from their FDA approved and inspected plants since quite a while. Therefore, it is worth figuring out why has it started happening now, that too repeatedly, and involving some of the largest global generic drug manufacturers from India.

Ranbaxy too is a large global player for generic pharmaceutical products. Besides India and the United States, the company markets its products both in East and West Europe, Latin America, Africa, Middle East, South Asia, South-East Asia and Asia-Pacific regions. Interestingly, though its saga related to US-FDA cGMP conformance in the four plants, culminating into drug ‘Import Bans’ in the United States, commenced as early as 2008, the company does not seem to have any issue with any other drug regulator anywhere in the world, not just yet.

According to the media report, UK and Australian drug regulators had commented that they are assessing the impact of the US action on Ranbaxy products sold in their countries. However, as on date Ranbaxy’s drug export to all those countries continue to remain as normal as before.

If over a period of time, it is proved that other foreign drug regulators do not have any similar quality related issues with Ranbaxy manufactured products, a serious joint evaluation of the entire chain of events related to Ranbaxy and others by the global regulatory experts would perhaps be warranted to provide a lasting solution on the subject.

2. Missed opportunities for ‘first to launch’ generic versions of blockbuster drugs:

The second coincidence is related to a series of missed opportunities, especially for Ranbaxy, related to ‘first to launch’ generic versions of several patent expired blockbuster drugs in the United States.

When the emerging dots associated with such lost opportunities for drugs like, Lipitor (Pfizer), Diovan (Novartis) and Nexium (AstraZeneca) are connected, a clear pattern emerges favoring Big Pharma and obviously adversely affecting companies like Ranbaxy.

Saga started with uncertainty over Lipitor generic Launch:

Like many other large Indian players, ‘first to launch’ strategy with new generic drugs has been the key focus of Ranbaxy since long, much before its serious trouble with the US-FDA begun in 2008. ‘Import Bans’ on two of its manufacturing facilities by the US regulator in that year created huge uncertainty in its launch of a generic version of Pfizer’s anti-lipid blockbuster drug Lipitor in 2011. On time launch of a generic version of Lipitor was estimated to have generated a turnover of around US $ 600 million for Ranbaxy in the first six months.

Despite its neck deep trouble with the US-FDA at that time, Ranbaxy ultimately did manage to launch generic Lipitor, after partnering with Teva Pharmaceutical of Israel.

The story continued with indefinite delay of Diovan generic launch:

Lipitor story was just the beginning of Ranbaxy’s trouble of not being able to translate its ‘first to launch’ advantage of patent-expired blockbuster drugs into commercial success, thus allowing the Big Pharma constituents to enjoy the market monopoly with their respective blockbuster drugs even after patent expiry.

US-FDA drug ‘Import Ban’ from the concerned manufacturing facility of Ranbaxy gave rise to this hurdle favoring the Big Pharma, as discussed above.

Would it also delay the launch Nexium generic?

Ranbaxy had earlier created for itself yet another opportunity to become the first to launch a generic version of the blockbuster anti-peptic ulcerant drug of AstraZeneca – Nexium in the United States, as the drug goes off patent on May 27, 2014. However, due to another recent US-FDA import ban from the concerned plant of Ranbaxy, it now seems to be a distant reality.

That said, it has now been reported that Ranbaxy is in talks with at least two companies on sourcing ingredients for the generic version of Nexium to be able to launch its generic formulations in the United States immediately after the patent expiry.

In this context, any delay in the launch of generic Nexium, which incidentally is the second-biggest seller of AstraZeneca, would have a big impact on the company’s profit.

No Machiavellian Hypothesis:

By highlighting these coincidences, I have no intention to even attempting to postulate something like a ‘Machiavellian Hypothesis’. I just want to establish that intriguing coincidences do exist whatever may be the reasons.

Probably an in-depth study by independent experts in this field would be able to ferret out the real reasons behind these coincidences, including, why are the cGMP issues repeatedly arising only with the US-FDA?

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, delayed generic launches of Nexium (AstraZeneca) with US sales of US$ 2.12 billion, together with the same for Actos (Takeda) and Diovan (Novartis) recording a combined sales for US$ 8.55 billion, have indeed created almost a wind-fall gain for the respective ‘Big Pharma’ constituents and consequent huge losses for Ranbaxy. The first-to-file bonus on Actos alone was estimated to be more than US$ 200 million.

Though the US-FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg has reportedly clarified that the United States is ‘not targeting’ Indian pharma companies but just following a strict quality control regime for all products being imported into America, the following critical questions still float at the top of mind:

- Are all these missed opportunities of Ranbaxy, which favored Big Pharma immensely, just sheer coincidences of clash in timings between USFDA ‘Import Bans’ from four of its manufacturing facilities and the respective launch dates in the United States for the first generic versions of the three blockbuster drugs?

- When Indian generic drug manufacturers continue to export across the world without any problem thus far, why is a series of unprecedented ‘Import Bans’ on quality grounds now coming from the US-FDA in a quick succession decimating the image of Indian generic drug manufacturers?

At the end of the narrative, some wise men could well say that I am trying to connect the dots that do not exist at all. These are all imaginary or at best, sheer coincidences. It could well be just that, who knows? But…

By: Tapan J. Ray

No More Payment for Prescriptions: Pharma at A Crossroads?

Posted on December 23, 2013 by Tapan Ray

“ARE there different and more effective ways of operating than perhaps the ways we as an industry have been operating over the last 30, 40 years?”

“TRY and make sure we stay in step with how the world is changing.”

Those are some introspective outlooks of Sir Andrew Witty – the Chief Executive of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) related to much contentious pharmaceutical prescription generation processes now being practiced by the drug industry in general, across the world.

The ‘Grand Strategy’ to effectively address these issues, in all probability, was still on the drawing board, when Sir Andrew reportedly announced on December 16, 2013 that GSK:

Will no longer pay healthcare professionals to speak on its behalf about its products or the diseases they treat to audiences who can prescribe or influence prescribing.

Will stop tying compensation of sales representatives to number of prescriptions the doctors write.

Will stop providing financial support to doctors to attend medical conferences.

These iconoclastic intents, apparently moulded in the cast of ethics and values and quite possibly an outcome of various unpleasant experiences, including in China, is expected to take shape worldwide by 2016, as the report indicates.

Acknowledgment of unbefitting global practices:

Reacting to this announcement, some renowned experts, as quoted in the above report, said, “It’s a modest acknowledgment of the fact that learning from a doctor who is paid by a drug company to give a talk about its products isn’t the best way for doctors to learn about those products.”

The world envisages a refreshing change:

A December 11 article in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) stated that there exists a serious financial ‘Conflict of Interest (COI)’ in the relationship between many Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) and the drug and medical device industries spanning across a wide range of activities, including:

Promotional speakers
Industry-funded ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ programs
Free access of sales representatives to its faculty, trainees and staff
The composition of purchasing and formulary committees

Such types of relationships between doctors and the pharmaceutical companies across the world, including in India, as studies revealed, have been custom crafted with the sole purpose of influencing prescription behavior of doctors towards more profitable costlier drugs, many of which offer no superior value as compared to already available cheaper generic alternatives.

Cracking the nexus is imperative:

Yet another report says, “Ghost-writing scandals, retracted journal papers, off-label marketing settlements, and a few high-profile faculty dust-ups triggered new restrictions at some schools.”

To address this pressing issue of COI, cracking the Doctor-Industry alleged nexus, which is adversely impacting the patients’ health interest, is absolutely imperative. An expert task force convened by the ‘Pew Charitable Trusts’ in 2012, made recommendations in 15 areas to protect the integrity of medical education/training and the practice of medicine within AMCs.

Some of those key recommendations involving relationships of medical profession with pharmaceutical companies are as follows:

No gifts or meals of any value
Disclosure of all industry relationships to institutions
No industry funded speaking engagement
No industry supported Continuing Medical Education (CME)
No participation at industry-sponsored lectures and promotional or educational events
No meeting with pharmaceutical sales representative
No industry-supported clinical fellowships
No ghostwriting and honorary authorship
No ‘Consulting Relationship’ for product marketing purpose

The above report also comments, “if medical schools follow new advice from a Pew Charitable Trusts task force, ‘No Reps Allowed’ signs will soon be on the door of every academic medical center in the United States.”

MNC pharma associations showcase voluntary ‘Codes of Marketing Practices’:

Most of the global pharma associations have and showcase self-regulating ‘Codes of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices’. However, the above GSK decision and hefty fines that are being levied to many large global companies almost regularly in different countries for marketing ‘malpractices’, prompt a specific question: Do these well-hyped ‘Codes’ really work on the ground or are merely expressions of good intent captured in attractive templates and released in the cyberspace for image building?

Global status overview:

In this context an updated article of December 11, 2013 states that Medical Faculty, Department Chairs and Deans continue to sit on the Board of Directors of many drug companies. At the same time, many pharma players support programs of various medical schools and teaching hospitals through financial grants. Company sales representatives also enjoy free access to hospital doctors to promote their products.

In most states of the United States, doctors are required to take accredited CMEs. The pharmaceutical industry provides a substantial part of billions of dollars that are spent on the CME annually, using this support as marketing tools. This practice is rampant even in India.

The above article also highlights incidences of lawsuits related to ‘monetary persuasion’ offered to doctors. In one such incidence, two patients reportedly fitted with faulty hips manufactured by Stryker Orthopedics discovered that the manufacturer paid their surgeon between US$ 225,000 and US$ 250,000 for “consultation services,” and between US$ 25,000 and US$ 50,000 for other services.

However, since August 2013, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the United States demands full disclosure of gifts and payments made to doctors by the pharma players and allied businesses. Effective March 31, 2014, all companies must report these details to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), or else would face punitive fines as high as US$1 million per year. CMS would publish records of these payments to a public website by September 31, 2014. India needs to take a lesson from this Act to help upholding ethics and values in the healthcare system of the country.

Overview of status in India:

As reported by both International and National media, similar situation prevails in India too.

Keeping such ongoing practices in mind and coming under intense media pressure, the Medical Council of India (MCI) on December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ for the medical profession of India. The notification specified stricter regulations for doctors in areas, among others, gifts, travel facilities/ hospitality, including Continuing Medical Education (CME), cash or monetary grants, medical research, maintaining professional Autonomy, affiliation and endorsement in their relationship with the ‘pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry’.

However, inability of the Indian regulator to get these guidelines effectively implemented and monitored, has drawn sharp flak from other stakeholders, as many third party private vendors are reportedly coming up as buffers between the industry and the physicians to facilitate the ongoing illegal financial transactions, hoodwinking the entire purpose, blatantly.

Moreover, it is difficult to fathom, why even four years down the line, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India is yet to implement its much hyped ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for the entire pharmaceutical industry in India.

Learning from other self-regulatory ‘Codes of Pharma Marketing Practices’, in my view, a law like, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the United States, demanding public disclosure of gifts and all other payments made to doctors by the pharma players and allied businesses, would be much desirable and more meaningful in India.

Conclusion:

Research studies do highlight that young medical graduates passing out from institutions enforcing gift bans and following other practices, as mentioned above, are less likely to prescribe expensive brands having effective cheaper alternatives.

The decision of GSK of not making payments to any doctor, either for participating or speaking in seminars/conferences, to influence prescription decision in favor of its brands is indeed bold and laudable. This enunciation, if implemented in letter and spirit, could trigger a paradigm shift in the the prescription demand generation process for pharmaceuticals brands.

However, this pragmatic vow may fall short of stemming the rot in other critical areas of pharma business. One such recent example is reported clinical data fabrication in a large Japanese study for Diovan (Valsatran) of Novartis AG. Had patient records been used in their entirety, the Kyoto Heart Study paper, as the report indicates, would have had a different conclusion.

That said, if all in the drug industry, at least, ‘walk the line’ as is being demarcated by GSK, a fascinating cerebral marketing warfare to gain top of mind brand recall of the target doctors through well strategized value delivery systems would ultimately prevail, separating men from the boys.

Thus, the moot point to ponder now:

Would other pharma players too jettison the decades old unethical practices of ‘paying to doctors for prescriptions’, directly or indirectly, just for the heck of maintaing ethics, values and upholding patients’ interest?

By: Tapan J. Ray

USFDA ‘Import Bans’: The Malady Calls For Strong Bitter Pills

Posted on November 11, 2013 by Tapan Ray

It is a matter of pride that Indian pharmaceutical industry is the second largest exporter of drugs and pharmaceuticals globally, generating revenue of around US$ 13 billion in 2012 with a growth of 30 percent (Source: Pharmexcil).

Though sounds awkward, it is a reality that India is a country where ‘export quality’ attracts a premium. Unintentionally though, with this attitude, we indirectly accept that Indian product quality for domestic consumption is not as good.

‘Export quality’ being questioned seriously:

Unfortunately today, increasing number of even ‘export quality’ drug manufacturing units in India are being seriously questioned by the regulators of mainly United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) on the current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) being followed by these companies. In many instances their inspections are culminating into ‘Import Bans’ by the respective countries to ensure dug safety for the patients.

Are drugs for domestic consumption safe?

Despite intense local and global furore on this subject, Indian drug regulators at the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), very strangely, do not seem to be much concerned on this critical issue, at least, not just yet. Our drug regulators seem to act only when they are specifically directed by the Supreme Court of the country.

A recent major incident is yet another example to vindicate the point. In this case, according to media reports of November 2013, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has ordered the Indian pharma major Sun Pharmaceuticals to suspend clinical research activities at its Mumbai based bio-analytical laboratory, after discovering that the company does not have the requisite approval from the central government for operating the laboratory. The DCGI has decided not to accept future applications and will not process existing new drug filings that Sun Pharma has made from the Mumbai laboratory until the company gets an approval.

Considering the blatant violations of cGMP standards that are increasingly coming to the fore related to ‘export quality’ of drugs in India, after inspections by the foreign drug regulators, one perhaps would shudder to think, what could possibly be the level of conformance to cGMP for the drugs manufactured in India solely for the local patients.

This question comes up as the record of scrutiny on adherence to cGMP by the Indian drug regulators is rather lackadaisical. The fact that no such warnings, as are being issued by the foreign regulators, came from their local counterpart, reinforces this doubt.

USFDA ‘Import Bans’:

Be that as it may, in this article let me deliberate on this particular drug regulatory issue as is being raised by the USFDA and others.

It is important to note that in 2013 till date, USFDA issued ‘Import Alerts/Bans’ against 20 manufacturing facilities of the Indian pharmaceutical exporters, sowing seeds of serious doubts about the overall drug manufacturing standards in India.

The sequence of events post USFDA inspection:

Let us now very briefly deliberate on the different steps that are usually followed by the USFDA before the outcomes of the inspections culminate into ‘Import Alerts’ or bans.

After inspections, depending on the nature of findings, following steps are usually taken by the USFDA:

Issue of ‘Form 483’
The ‘Warning letter’
‘Import Alert’

Revisiting the steps:

Let me now quickly re-visit each of the above action steps of the USFDA.

‘Form 483’:

At the conclusion of any USFDA inspection, if the inspecting team observes any conditions that in their judgment may constitute violations of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) and other related Acts, a Form 483 is issued to the concerned company, notifying the firm management of objectionable conditions found during inspection.

Companies are encouraged to respond to the Form 483 in writing with their corrective action plan and then implement those corrective measures expeditiously. USFDA considers all these information appropriately and then determines what further action, if any, is appropriate to protect public health in their country.

The ‘Warning Letter’:

The ‘Warning Letter’ is a document usually originating from the Form 483 observations and results from multiple lacking responses to Form 483 requiring quick attention and action. It may be noted that higher-level USFDA agency officials and not the investigator issue the ‘Warning Letters’.

‘Import Alert/ Ban’:

‘Import Alerts’ are issued whenever USFDA determines that it already has sufficient evidence to conclude that concerned products appear to be adulterated, misbranded, or unapproved. As a result, USFDA automatically detains these products at the border, costing the related companies a lot of money. The concerned company’s manufacturing unit remains on the import alert till it complies with USFDA cGMP.

What happens normally?

Most of the USFDA plant inspections are restricted to issue of Form 483 observations and the concerned company’s taking appropriate measures accordingly. However, at times, ‘Warning Letters’ are issued, which are also mostly addressed by companies to the regulator’s satisfaction.

Import Bans are avoidable:

Considering the above steps, it is worth noting that there is a significant window of opportunity available to any manufacturing facility to conform to the USFDA requirements by taking appropriate steps, as necessary, unless otherwise the practices are basically fraudulent in nature.

The concern:

Currently, there is a great concern in the country due to increasing frequency of ‘Import Alerts’. As per USFDA data, in 2013 to date, about 20 drug manufacturing facilities across India attracted ‘Import Alerts’ as against seven from China, two each from Australian, Canadian and Japanese units and one each from South African and German facilities.

The matter assumes greater significance, as India is the second-largest supplier of pharmaceuticals to the United States. In 2012, pharmaceutical exports from India to the US reportedly rose 32 percent to US$ 4.2 billion. Today, India accounts for about 40 percent of generic and Over-The-Counter (OTC) drugs and 10 percent of finished dosages used in the US.

Ranbaxy cases: ‘Lying’ and ‘fraud’ allegations:

In September 2013, after the latest USFDA action on the Mohali manufacturing facility of Ranbaxy, all three plants in India of the company that are dedicated to the US market have been barred from shipping drugs to the United States. The magnitude of this import ban reportedly impacts more than 40 percent of the company’s sales. However, Ranbaxy has a total of eight production facilities across India.

This ‘Import Alert’ was prompted by the inspection findings of the USFDA that the Mohali factory of Ranbaxy had not met with the cGMP.

Other two plants of Ranbaxy’s located at Dewas and Paonta Sahib faced the same import alerts in 2008, and are still barred from making drug shipments to the US.

The import ban on he Mohali manufacturing facility of Ranbaxy comes after the company pleaded guilty in May 2013 to the felony (criminal) charges in the US related to drug safety and agreed to pay a record US$ 500 million in fines.

In addition, the company also faced federal criminal charges that it sold batches of drugs that were improperly manufactured, stored and tested. Ranbaxy also admitted to lying to the USFDA about how it tested drugs at the above two Indian manufacturing facilities.

Heavy consequential damages with delayed launch of generic Diovan:

The ‘Import Alert’ of the USFDA against Mohali plant of Ranbaxy, has resulted in delayed introduction of a cheaper generic version of Diovan, the blockbuster antihypertensive drug of Novartis AG, after it went off patent.

It is worth noting that Ranbaxy had the exclusive right to sell a generic version of Diovan from September 21, 2012.

Gain of Novartis:

This delay will help Novartis AG to generate an extra one-year’s sales for Diovan. This is expected to be around US$ 1 billion, only in the US. This development prompted Novartis in July this year to raise its profit and sales forecasts accordingly.

Wockhardt cases: Non-compliance of cGMP

Following Ranbaxy saga, USFDA inspection of Chikalthana plant of Wockhardt in Maharashtra detected major quality violations. Second time this year USFDA noted 16 violations of cGMP in the company’s facility. Earlier, in July 2013, the Agency issued a ‘Warning Letter’ and ‘Import Alert’ banning the products manufactured at the company’s Waluj pharmaceutical production facility.

Moreover, in September 2013, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had pulled the GMP certificate of the company’s unit based in Nani Daman, after an inspection conducted by the UK regulator showed poor manufacturing standards.

Again, in October 2013, the MHRA withdrew its cGMP certificate for the Chikalthana plant of Wockhardt. This move would ban import of drugs into the UK, manufactured in this particular plant of the company.

However, MHRA has now decided to issue a restricted certificate, meaning Wockhardt will be able to supply only “critical” products from these facilities. This was reportedly done, as the UK health regulator wants to avert shortage of certain drugs essential for maintaining public health. The impact of the withdrawal of cGMP certificate on existing business of the company can only be ascertained once Wockhardt receives further communications from the MHRA.

Earlier in July 2013, MHRA had reportedly also imposed an import alert on the company’s plant at Waluj in Maharashtra and issued a precautionary recall for sixteen medicines made in this unit.

RPG Life Sciences cases: allegedly ‘Adulterated’ products:

In June 2013, USFDA reportedly issued a ‘Warning Letter’ to RPG Life Sciences for serious violation of cGMP in their manufacturing plants located at Ankleshwar and Navi Mumbai.

USFDA investigators had mentioned that “These violations cause your Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) and drug products to be adulterated …the methods used in, or the facilities or controls used for, their manufacture, processing, packing, or holding do not conform to, or are not operated or administered in conformity with cGMP.”

Strides Arcolab case: Non Compliance of cGMP

In September 2013, Strides Arcolab announced that its sterile injectable drug unit – Agila Specialties (now with Mylan) had received a warning letter from the USFDA after its inspection by the regulator in June 2013. However, Strides Arcolab management said, “the company was committed to work collaboratively and expeditiously with the USFDA to resolve concerns cited in the warning letter in the shortest possible time.”

USV case: allegation of ‘data fudging’:

Recently, USFDA reportedly accused Mumbai-based drug major USV of fudging the data.

After an inspection of USV’s Mumbai laboratory in June 2013, the US drug regulator said the company’s “drug product test method validation data is falsified”. The USFDA has also reprimanded USV for not training its staff in cGMP.

Probable consequences:

USFDA import bans and a similar measure by the UKMHRA would lead to the following consequences:

Significant revenue losses by the companies involved, till the concerned regulators accept their remedial actions related to cGMP.
Increasing global apprehensions about the quality of Indian drugs.
Possibility of other foreign drug regulators tightening their belts to be absolutely sure about cGMP followed by the Indian drug manufacturers, making drug exports from India more difficult.
Huge opportunity cost for not being able to take advantage from ‘first to launch’ generic versions of off patent blockbuster drugs, such as from Diovan of Novartis AG.
Indian patients, including doctors and hospitals, may also become apprehensive about the general quality of drugs made by Indian Pharma Industry, as has already happened in a smaller dimension in the past.
Opposition groups of Indian Pharma may use this opportunity to further their vested interests and try to marginalize the Indian drug exporters.
MNCs operating in India could indirectly campaign on such drug quality issues to reap a rich harvest out of the prevailing situation.
Unfounded ‘foreign conspiracy theory’ may start gaining ground, prompting the Indian companies moaning much, rather than taking tangible remedial measures on the ground to effectively come out of this self created mess.

Conclusion:

Repeated cGMP violations made by the Indian drug exporters, as enunciated by the USFDA, have now become a malady, as it were. This can be corrected, only if the reality is accepted without attempting for justifications and then swallowing strong bitter pills, sooner.

Thereafter, the domestic pharma industry, which has globally demonstrated its proven capability of manufacturing quality medicines at affordable prices for a large number of patients around the world and for a long time, will require to tighten belts for strict conformance to cGMP norms, as prescribed by the regulators. This will require great tenacity and unrelenting mindset of the Indian Pharma to tide over the crisis.

Any attempt to trivialize the situation, as indicated above, could meet with grave consequences, jeopardizing the thriving pharma exports business of India.

That said, any fraud or negligence in the drug quality standards, for whatever reasons or wherever these may take place, should be considered as fraud on patients and the perpetrators must be brought to justice forthwith by the DCGI, with exemplary punitive measures.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Diovan

Reticence Around Unveiling Clinical Trials

Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain

Big Pharma’s Windfall Gain From Indian Pharma’s Loss, Costs American Patients Dear

Drugs From The Same Indian Plant: Safe For Europe, Unsafe For America, Why?

The Takeover Magician To Tango Again On A Bold New ‘Sunny’ Tune

Loss of Ranbaxy, Gain of Big Pharma…And Two Intriguing Coincidences

No More Payment for Prescriptions: Pharma at A Crossroads?

USFDA ‘Import Bans’: The Malady Calls For Strong Bitter Pills