Tag Archives: DMF

Key Drivers And Long-Term Impact of Pharma M&A in India

Posted on by
Reply

Corporate M&A is increasingly considered an integral part of the organization’s growth strategy for value creation, by a large number of pharma companies, across the world. In tandem, it throws open many other doors of opportunities, such as reduction of business risks and massive corporate restructuring.

In the post globalization era, mostly the large to medium sized Indian players are imbibing this strategy to gain a competitive edge, in the highly crowded generic drug market, not just in India, but also in various other parts of the world. At the same time, it is equally true that there are many other pharma biggies who have moved into the top 10 of the domestic league table in India, following mainly the organic growth path, and are still staying that way.

For example, the league table ranking (MAT October 2017) of the Indian domestic pharma market, published by AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd, reflects a similar scenario. It shows, not many local Indian drug players seem to be too aggressive in Merger and Acquisition (M&A) within the country. In fact, among companies featuring in the TOP 10, only around half seems to have not gone for any major domestic M&A. The remaining half pursued a predominantly organic route, for a quantum growth in the Indian market.

In this article, I shall try to fathom, both the critical drivers and the long-term impact of pharma M&A initiatives – both inbound and outbound, with their either origin or destination being in India.

Are the key drivers different?

India is overwhelmingly a branded generic market. So are its key players. Thus, most pharma M&As in India are related to generic drugs.

Thus, unlike research-based global pharma players, where one of the most critical drivers for M&A, is related to new drug innovation to maintain sustained growth of the organization, the drivers for the same in India is somewhat different. Neither are these exactly the same for exports and the domestic market, with occasional overlaps in a few cases, though.

Export markets:

To expand and grow the pharma business in the export markets is obviously the main overall objectives. To attain this, the acquiring companies generally take into consideration some common critical factors, among others. Each of which is carefully assessed while going through the valuation process and arriving at the final deal price for the company to be acquired. A few examples of which are as follows:

  • The span and quality of market access and the future scope for value addition
  • Opportunities for value creation with available generic products, active ANDAs and DMFs
  • A competitive portfolio, especially covering specialty products, novel drug delivery systems and even off-patent biologic drugs
  • Market competitors’ profile
  • Product sourcing alternatives and other available assets

Domestic market:

Similarly, in the domestic market too, there could be several critical drivers. The following, may be cited just as an illustration. There could well be some overlaps here, as well, with those of export markets:

  • Moving up the pharma value chain, e.g., from bulk drug producer to formulation producer with marketing, intending to climb further up
  • A new range and type of the generic product portfolio
  • Expansion of therapeutic and geographic reach
  • Expansion of consumers and customers base
  • Greater reach, depth, efficiency and productivity of the distribution channel
  • Acquiring critical manufacturing and other related tangible and intangible assets

A glimpse at the 2016-17 M&A trend in India:

An E&Y paper titled, “Transactions 2017” says, India continues to enjoy a prominent position in the global generic pharma space, due to many preferred advantages available within the country, such as a large number of USFDA approved sites coupled with low Capex and operating costs. As a result, the pharmaceuticals sector witnessed 51 pharma deals in the year 2016, with an aggregate disclosed deal value of USD4.6 billion.

However, according to Grant Thornton Advisory Pvt. Ltd, there have been around 27 M&A deals in pharma and healthcare sector by Q3 2017, valued at USD719 million. This appears to be way below 54 deals, valued at USD4.7 billion in calendar year 2016.

Cross-border activity dominated the sector:

Highlighting that cross-border activity dominated the sector, the E&Y paper said, “outbound and domestic transactions drove most of the deal activity, with 21 deals each. In terms of the disclosed deal value, outbound and inbound activity stood at USD2.1 billion each. Domestic deal-making was concentrated in smaller value bands with an aggregate deal value of USD342 million, of which USD272 million (4 deals) worth of deals were restructuring deals.”

Inbound and a domestic M&A occupied the center stage:

It is interesting to note that despite initial hiccups, inbound overseas interest in sterile injectable continued, along with a range of different generic formulations. The notable among which, as captured in the above paper, are as follows:

  • China-based Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical (Group) Company Limited announced the acquisition of an 86 percent stake in Gland Pharma Limited for up to USD1.26 billion.
  • US-based Baxter International Inc. entered into an agreement to acquire Claris Injectable Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Claris Lifesciences Limited, for USD625 million.
  • In November 2017, India’s Torrent Pharmaceuticals acquired more than 120 brands from Unichem Laboratories in India and Nepal, and its manufacturing plant at Sikkim for USD558 million.

Outbound M&A:

Facing continuous pricing and other pressures in the largest pharma market in the world – United States, Indian pharma players sharpened their focus on Europe and other under-penetrated markets, with a wider range of product portfolio. Following are a few examples of recent outbound M&As for the year, done predominantly to serve the above purpose, besides a couple of others with smaller deal values:

  • Intas Pharma, through its wholly owned subsidiary inked an agreement to acquire Actavis UK Limited and Actavis Ireland Limited from Teva Pharmaceutical for an enterprise value of USD767 million.
  • Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories entered into an agreement with Teva Pharmaceutical and an affiliate of Allergan plc to acquire a portfolio of eight ANDAs in the US for USD350 million.
  • Sun Pharma stepped into the Japanese prescription drug market by acquiring 14 brands from Novartis for USD293 million.
  • Lupin also strengthened its position in Japan by acquiring 21 products from Shionogi & Company Limited for USD150 million. In 2017, Lupin also acquired US-based Symbiomix Therapeutics – a privately held company focused on bringing innovative therapies to market for gynecologic infections. The acquisition value stands at USD 150 million.
  • Two other relatively large outbound acquisitions in 2017 were Piramal Enterprises’ acquisition of anti-spasticity and pain management drug portfolio of Mallinckrodt for USD171 million and Aurobindo Pharma’s Generis Farmaceutica USD142.5 million.

Long term business impact of M&A on the merged entity:

So far so good. Nevertheless, a key point to ponder, what is the long-term impact of M&A on the merged entities in India. It may impact several critical areas, such as financial ratios, reputation on drug quality standards or even its impact on employee morale. Sun Pharma’s acquisition of Ranbaxy in 2015 may be an example in this regard. Not too many credible studies are available for Indian pharma companies in this regard, it could be an interesting area for further research, though.

A research paper titled “Post-Merger Performance of Acquiring Firms: A Case Study on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry”, published by the International Journal of Research in Management & Business Studies (IJRMBS), in its July-September 2015 issue, captured an interesting point. It found, that M&As have a significant impact on the merged company performance as compared to the pre-merger period, but the impact is evident more in the immediate year after the merger.

The paper concluded, although the profitability had improved in the merged company as indicated in the financial ratios, like PBIT, Cash Profit margin and Net profit margin, but the improvement in the performance is observed only up to 1 year of the merger. As far as operating performance is concerned the short term positive impact can be observed, but again it lasts up to 1 year only. The overall study results, therefore, indicate the positive impact of merger on the operating and financial performance only in the short run (+1 year).

Is it a mixed bag?

Nevertheless, there are also other studies in this regard, which concluded the favorable impact of M&As on corporate performance. However, those studies adopted certain other parameters of measuring the financial and operational improvements in the merged companies. Some more research findings in this area – ferreted out from literature review and are available in the same issue of IJRMBS), revealing a mixed bag. Let me quote some these findings, starting from the earlier years, as follows:

Kruze, Park and Suzuki (2003): With a sample of 56 mergers of manufacturing companies from the period 1969 to 1997 concluded that the long term operating performance of control firms was positive but insignificant and high correlation existed between pre and post-merger performance.

Beena (2004): Analyzed the pre and post-merger performance of firms belonging to pharma manufacturing industries with samples of 115 acquiring firms between the period 1995 and 2000. For the purpose of analysis four sets of financial ratios were considered and it was tested using t –test. The study showed no improvement in the performance, as compared to the pre-merger period for the sample companies. 

Vanitha. S and Selvam. M (2007): With a sample of 58, to study the impact of merger on the performance in the Indian manufacturing sector from 2000 to 2002, the study concluded, overall financial performance is insignificant for 13 variables.

Pramod Mantravadi and Vidyadhar Reddy (2008): Investigated a sample of 118 cases of mergers in their study. They found, more impact of merger was noticed on the profitability of banking and finance industry, pharmaceutical, textile and electric equipment sector, whereas the significant decline was seen in chemical and Agri-Products sector.

More Indian studies are expected in this interesting area to understand the possible long-term impact of pharma M&A in India.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, inbound and outbound consolidation and expansion of the Indian pharma industry through M&A will continue. However, this likely to happen at a varying pace, depending upon both the opportunities and constraints for business growth. This will include both in the export and the domestic markets.

Increasingly complex business environment, intense drug pricing pressure in the US, dwindling much differentiated product pipeline, impending patent expiry of blockbuster drugs, will drive the inbound M&A. Whereas, the domestic players would like to spread their wings in search of greater market access, across the world. This process is likely to include a different type of product-mix, including specialty and biologic products, creating some barrier to market entry for many other generic players.

Going forward, the critical drivers for pharma M&A in India, both inbound and outbound, are unlikely to undergo any radical change. Interestingly, available research studies regarding its long-term impact on the companies involved in this process are not yet conclusive. However, many researchers on the subject still believe, especially the financial impact of M&As on the merged entities in India last no more than short to medium term.

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.

Utility Model: Would It Work In India For Pharma?

Posted on by
Reply

The revised draft of India’s IPR Policy penned by the Government constituted ‘Think-Tank’ in 2014, suggests enactment of new laws, such as for ‘Utility Models’ and Trade Secrets, to fill some gaps in the country’s IPR ecosystem .

However, media reports of May 21, 2015 indicate, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) is not in favor of changing the country’s ‘Patents Law’ framework to allow grant of utility patents, as suggested by the ‘Think-Tank’.

Though comments from the other Ministries and Departments on the revised draft IPR Policy is still awaited, DIPP reportedly feels, ‘Utility Models’ being less-stringent form of intellectual Property (IP) protection, could ultimately lead to ‘ever-greening’ of patents.

A volte-face?

This development is indeed interesting because on May 13, 2011 the same DIPP uploaded in its website a Discussion Paper on “Utility Models”. Many believed at that time, it as a precursor of a new policy initiative of DIPP on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) to encourage innovation in the country, without diluting the prevailing strict criteria for patentability. The above Discussion Paper highlighted, among others:

“…minor technical inventions which frugally use local resources in a sustainable manner need to be encouraged by providing a legal framework for their protection and commercial exploitation. Such useful, low cost and relatively simple innovations which create new mechanical devices or contribute to the optimal functioning of existing ones may have commercial value only for a limited time period, before they are replaced by other products or rendered redundant by change of technology.”

In that paper DIPP also highlighted that many countries of the world, for example; Australia, China, Japan, Germany, France, Korea and Netherlands still find the ‘Utility Model’ as an extensively used tool to foster innovation within the local industries.

We shall also touch upon this point below.

The Discussion Paper did trigger a healthy national debate on this subject at that time, though Government did not make known to the public the outcome of this public discourse.

The definition:

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) defines ‘Utility Model’ as follows:

“Utility Model is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which allows the right holder to prevent others from commercially using the protected invention, without his authorization, for a limited period of time. In its basic definition, which may vary from one country (where such protection is available) to another, a utility model is similar to a patent. In fact, utility models are sometimes referred to as petty patents or innovation patents.”

Or in other words “A utility model is similar to a patent in that it provides a monopoly right for an invention.”

However, utility models are much cheaper to obtain, the requirements for grant of a ‘Utility Model’ are usually less stringent and the term is shorter – mostly between 7 and 10 years, as against up to 20 years term of protection for a patent. 

Major differences between Utility Models and Patents:

According to WIPO, the main differences between ‘Utility Models’ and patents can be summarized as follows:

  • The requirements for acquiring a ‘Utility Model’ are less stringent than for patents. While the requirement of “novelty” is always to be met, that of “inventive step” or “non-obviousness” may be much lower or absent altogether.  In practice, protection for ‘Utility Models’ is often sought for innovations of rather incremental in character, which may not meet the patentability criteria.
  • The term of protection for ‘Utility Models’ is shorter than for patents and varies from country to country (usually between 7 and 10 years without the possibility of extension or renewal).
  • In most countries where ‘Utility Model’ protection is available, patent offices do not examine applications as to substance prior to registration. This means that the registration process is often significantly simpler and faster, taking on an average about six months.
  • ‘Utility Models’ are much cheaper to obtain and to maintain.
  • In some countries, ‘Utility Model’ protection can only be obtained for certain fields of technology and only for products but not for processes.

Countries providing ‘Utility Model’ protection:

Many countries do not grant ‘Utility Models’. However, the major countries granting ‘Utility Models’, as stated above, include: Australia, China, Japan, Germany, France, Spain and Italy.

According to WIPO, currently the countries and regions that provide ‘Utility Models’ are as follows:

Albania, Angola, Argentina, ARIPO, Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belize, Brazil, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Chile, China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Malaysia, Mexico, OAPI, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay and Uzbekistan.

Interestingly, ‘Utility Models are not available in the United Kingdom or the United States.

A recent allegation of ‘Utility Model’ infringement against a global pharma: 

Quite recently, in November 2014, Copenhagen headquartered Forward Pharma A/S reportedly filed a lawsuit against Biogen Idec GmbH, Biogen Idec Internaional GmbH and Biogen Idec Ltd. in the Regional Court in Dusseldorf, alleging infringement of its German ‘Utility Model’ DE 20 2005 022 112 due to Biogen Idec’s marketing of Tecfidera® in Germany.

Tecfidera® – a product containing dimethyl fumarate (DMF) as the active ingredient, is used for the treatment of Myasthenia Gravis (MS).

Forward Pharma asserted that its above ‘Utility Model’ precludes anyone from selling in Germany, without the Company’s consent, drugs with DMF as the sole active pharmaceutical ingredient for the treatment of MS at a daily dose of 480 mg.

With this lawsuit Forward Pharma did not seek to stop sales of Tecfidera® to MS patients, but rather sought damages for what the Company believes are Biogen Idec’s unlawful sales of Tecfidera® in Germany.

Although ‘Utility Models’ are registered without substantive examination, the Company reiterated its belief in the validity and enforceability of the said ‘Utility Model.’

Subsequently, on April 14, 2015 Forward Pharma A/S announced that an interference was declared by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on April 13, 2015 between the Company’s patent application 11/576,871 (the “’871 patent application”) and Biogen’s issued patent 8,399,514 (the “’514 patent”).

The PTAB reportedly designated Forward Pharma A/S as the “Senior Party” in the interference based on the Company’s earlier patent application filing date.

Would ‘Utility Model’ be useful in pharma?

Utility Models (UM) are considered particularly suited for SMEs that make “minor” improvements to, and adaptations of, existing products. It is worth noting that UMs are primarily used for mechanical innovations.

However, in India, the ‘Utility Model’ concept in pharma would be directly conflicting with the intent and spirit of the section 3(d) of the Patents Act 2005 of the country, which clearly stipulates that mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known ‘clinical’ efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant, is not patentable.

Therefore, section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005, is considered as one of the most important safeguards against “evergreening” of patents, usually done through alleged “molecular manipulation or tweaking”, that delays entry of affordable generic equivalents, adversely impacting the public health interest.

In that sense, enactment of a new law granting protection to pharma ‘Utility Models’ in India could seriously jeopardize both short and long term health interests of the patients, in general.

This is primarily because, being denied of a 20 year product patent under section 3(d), the same company would then be eligible to apply and may also probably get a monopoly status for that molecule, though for a shorter term with ‘Utility Models’.It would obviously happen at the cost of quicker entry of equivalent affordable generics.

Conclusion: 

Considering all these, and having witnessed a serious allegation of a ‘Utility Model’ (which goes through no more than a liberal regulatory scrutiny) infringement, against a major patented pharma product that passed through the acid test of stringent and cost intensive regulatory requirements, it appears that ‘Utility Models’ need to be excluded, especially for pharmaceuticals in India.

This is purely for the sake of patients’ interest, at least on the following two counts:

  • All new/novel drugs, without any compromise whatsoever, should pass through the stringent acid test of the drug regulatory requirements for requisite efficacy, safety and quality standards.
  • ‘Evergreening’ of patents, under any garb, delaying entry of affordable equivalent cheaper generics, should not be encouraged in the country.

Thus, in my view, Indian Government should continue to remain firm with its bold stance on the relevance of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act. Any possibility of its dilution by a grant of market monopoly, though for a much shorter period, covering incremental innovations that do not conform to the country’s IP laws, must be openly discouraged with robust reasons.

In that sense, the flag raised by the DIPP on the intriguing recommendation of the IPR Policy ‘Think Tank’ for enacting new laws in India for ‘Utility Model’, appears to be pragmatic and far sighted, specifically in the context of pharmaceuticals.

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.

Just Born A Pharma Goliath: Would India Be Impacted?

Posted on by
Reply

Just born a potential pharma Goliath, as Actavis – the Dublin-based one of the largest global generic drug makers, in its biggest ever purchase, acquires New York based R&D based pharma major – Forest Laboratories, for a whopping US$ 25 billion.

It is worth noting that as on date Actavis has grown mainly through Mergers and Acquisition (M&A) route. In 2012, the company took over American generic drug major Watson Pharma for €4.5 bn and then Ireland’s Warner Chilcott, marketing patented drugs for gastrointestinal and urological conditions, for US $8.5 bn. Post buy out of Forest Laboratories, Actavis would have annual sales turnover of US$15 bn.

So far, mostly R&D based Pharma players acquired generic drug makers:

This acquisition is interesting. The reason being, since the last few years, mostly research based global pharmaceutical companies are taking over generic pharma players in the emerging markets with a reasonable speed. To cite a few examples:

In June, 2010, British drug major GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced acquisition of ‘Phoenix’, a leading Argentine pharmaceutical company focused on the development, manufacturing and marketing of branded generic products, for a cash consideration of around US $253 million. With this acquisition, GSK planned to accelerate its business growth in Argentina and the Latin American region.

Similarly, Paris based Sanofi with the acquisition of Zentiva, became an important player in the European generic drug market. Zentiva, is also a leading generic player in the Czech, Turkish, Romanian, Polish, Slovak and Russian markets, besides the Central and Eastern European region. In addition to Zentiva, in the same year 2009, Sanofi also acquired other two important generic players, Medley in Brazil and Kendrick in Mexico.

In February 2014, the German Drug major Bayer reportedly announced that it would buy Dihon Pharmaceutical Group Co of China, expanding the German company’s footprint in a key growth country. Dihon’s products are also sold in Nigeria, Vietnam, Myanmar and Cambodia. Privately held Dihon specializes in ‘Over-The-Counter (OTC)’ and herbal ‘Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)’ products.

Back home, MNCs acquired the following generic companies from 2006 to 2011:

Year Indian Companies Multinational Companies

Value ($Mn)

 Type of Deal
2006 Matrix Labs Mylan 736 Acquisition
2008 Ranbaxy Labs Daiichi Sankyo 4,600 Acquisition
Dabur Pharma Fresenius Kabi 219 Acquisition
2009 Shantha Biotech Sanofi-aventis 783 Acquisition
2010 Orchid Chemicals Hospira 400 Acquisition
Piramal Healthcare Abbott 3,720 Acquisition
Paras Pharma Reckitt Benckiser 726 Acquisition
2011 Universal Medicare Sanofi 110 Acquisition
2013 Mylan Agila Specialities 1750 Acquisition

Key drivers for generic acquisition:

From 2012 to 2015 patented drugs with a combined turnover of US$ 183 billion have already faced or would face intense generic competition resulting in, as high as, around 90 percent price erosion for those products. It is not just patent expirations that are exerting pressure on innovator companies. Added to this, a relatively weak R&D pipeline and increasing focus of various governments to reduce healthcare costs, have forced many research based global pharma players to imbibe the inorganic growth strategy in the generic space to quickly grab a sizable share of this large and fast growing market, especially in the emerging economies of the world.

Actavis acquisition is different:

In the above light Actavis’s acquisition of Forest Laboratories is quite different. Here, instead of a predominantly research-based company’s acquiring a generic player, a basically generic drug major has bought a research based global pharmaceutical player.

Interestingly, Forest Laboratories follows a unique R&D model. It is focused on, instead of discovering on its own, identifying strong medically relevant product candidates and guiding them through the complex development lifecycle, from proof-of-concept through post-marketing.

Strong global portfolio of both generic and patented drugs:

Post buy out, Actavis would have a strong combo-portfolio of generic drugs together with a relatively robust line-up of a diverse range of patented products, spanning across therapy areas such as Anti-Infective, Respiratory, Cardiovascular, Central Nervous System, Gastrointestinal, Obstetrics and Pain Management and that too not just in the emerging markets, but globally, unlike many others.

In addition, acquisition of Forest Laboratories would also provide Actavis access to former’s large US sales teams, transforming the merged entity a formidable force to reckon with in the topmost pharmaceutical market of the world, besides many others.

An intriguing recent decision:

That said, it is interesting to note that in January 2014, Actavis, then the second-biggest generic drug maker by market capitalization, announced that it would quit China as “It is not a business friendly environment… China is just too risky”. This is indeed intriguing, because by 2015, China’s generic market is expected to be close to US$ 82 billion.

Be that as it may, post acquisition Actavis would be in a position to offer all its customers in all the markets of the world a rainbow of products from patented to generics, carving out a critical strategic advantage for itself in the global pharmaceutical market.

Impact in India:

The question now boils down to what would be the impact of the just born Goliath on the domestic pharmaceutical industry in India.

Differentiated generic business:

The generic drugs market is usually classified as simple generics, super-generics and biosimilars. To differentiate, by adding value in the generic medicines, many domestic players are gradually entering into the ‘Super Generic’ and ‘biosimilar’ category of drugs. For example, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories has reportedly chosen to go for a difficult to copy drug formulation with its blood-thinner Fondaparinux. Sun Pharma, on the other hand, is focusing on innovative delivery platforms for its ophthalmic drugs and oral contraceptives. Cadila is looking at newer drug delivery modes for its painkiller Diclofenac. So is Lupin in other areas. In the biosimilar arena, Biocon has already developed Trastuzumab formulation of Roche. Moreover, the biosimilar business of Dr Reddy’s Laboratories continues with its impressive growth trend, besides many other Indian players in the same fray.

Simultaneously, India is improving its effectiveness in ‘Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS) space. As we have recently witnessed in India the alliances between Merck & Co and Cipla and earlier with Sun Pharma. Even prior to that, collaborative agreements of Pfizer with Aurobindo Pharma; GSK with Dr Reddy’s Laboratories; Abbott India with Cadila and many more, would vindicate this point.

Merck Serono of Germany also announced a partnership to co-develop a portfolio of biosimilar compounds in oncology, primarily focused on monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) with Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories. The partnership covers co-development, manufacturing and commercialization of the compounds around the globe, with some specific country exceptions. Mylan has also signed similar agreement with Biocon.

Glenmark Pharma has chosen yet another route, by entering into collaboration with Forest Laboratories (now Actavis) in 2013, for the development of a novel mPGES-1 inhibitor for chronic inflammatory conditions, including pain management.

Advantage India, provided…

Global generic drugs market would get its next booster dose with reportedly around 46 drugs going off patent opening a market of another US$ 66 billion from monopolistic to intense generic competition in 2015.

Details of ANDA status from the US-FDA source, as I indicated in my earlier blog post, probably indicate that several Indian players have already started moving in that direction at a brisk pace, keeping their eyes well fixed on the crystal ball. Over 30 percent of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) and around half of the total Drug Master Filings (DMF) now come from the Indian Companies. In 2013 alone, the US-FDA granted 154 ANDAs and 38 tentative ANDAs to the Indian companies.

Despite all these, a serious apprehension does creep in, which finds its root in much-publicized fraudulent behavior of a few large Indian drug manufacturers, seriously compromising with the cGMP standards of some high profile global drug regulators. This challenge has to be overcome, sooner, to reap rich harvest out of the emerging global opportunities in the space of generic drugs.

Conclusion: 

Geographically, North America is the largest consumer of generic drugs followed by Europe and Japan. However, the highest growth of the generic drugs market is observed in the Asia-Pacific region. Besides Actavis, some of the major generic drugs manufacturers of the world are Mylan, Apotex, Hospira, Par Pharmaceutical., Sandoz International and Teva Pharmaceutical.

From India, Ranbaxy Laboratories (before the recent fiasco), Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Lupin and Sun Pharma, besides many others, are competing quite well in the global generic drugs market with success.

Though Actavis has its manufacturing operations in India with its registered office located in Mumbai, the company is not yet engaged in serious local marketing operations in the country. In 2006 as Watson Pharma Pvt Ltd., the company acquired Sekhsaria Chemicals in a move to push forward its generic drug agenda globally. In 2005, it acquired a manufacturing facility in Goa from Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories to produce solid dosage generic drugs for the US market.

Taking all these into considerations, if much deliberated cGMP issues with the foreign drug regulators are resolved sooner, Actavis is not expected to make any major difference for Indian pharma players either in the domestic market or for that matter globally, any time soon.

Thus Indian pharma players are unlikely to be adversely impacted with the emergence of this new potential Goliath in the global pharmaceutical landscape.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

The domestic API players are fast losing their dominance in the Indian API market

Posted on by
Reply

There are two broad categories of markets for the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) across the world namely, highly regulated and semi regulated markets. Countries like, USA, Europe and Japan will fall under highly regulated category with high entry barriers for the global API players like, robust Intellectual Property (IP) regime and stringent regulatory requirements to meet their product quality standards. Such an environment prompts a premium price for the APIs. On the other hand, the semi regulated markets, which offer low entry barriers with not so stringent IP and regulatory requirements, attract more number of API players engaging in cut throat price competition.

The top three markets for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) are the US, Europe and Asia Pacific. According to ‘Business Wire (July 13, 2011), the API market in the Asia-Pacific is expected to grow from 6.7% between 2005 and 2010 to 9.6% between 2010 and 2016.

Currently a perceptible shift in API manufacturing is being noticed from the western markets to the emerging markets like, India and China. In the Asia Pacific region Japan and China enjoy the highest market share for API with 42.8% and 20.8%, respectively. India accounts for 10.3%, while South Korea holds an 8.1% share of the market. To avoid price erosions now seen in the US, Indian manufacturers have started exporting more APIs to Japan.

In 2010, contribution of generic API from the Asia-Pacific market was at 71.5%, with patented APIs contributing for the rest, where Japan enjoys a larger share than India and China. While this is the current scenario, many experts in this field contemplates that important players from the regulated markets will soon start making significant inroads in India.

Current API Market in India:
In 2007 the API output value in India was around US $4.1 billion registering a 5 year CAGR of around 19% and ranking fourth in the world API output. According to the Tata Strategic Management Group, Indian API export value is expected to increase to US $12.75 billion in 2012.

Currently in India about 400 different types of APIs are manufactured in around 3000 plants, Ranbaxy Laboratories, Lupin, Shasun Pharmaceuticals, Orchid Chemicals, Aurobindo Pharma, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Ipca Laboratories and USV being the top API manufacturers of the country. Indian domestic companies source almost 50 percent of their API requirements from China, because of lower cost in that country.

In terms of global ranking, India is now the third largest API producers of the world just after China and Italy and by end 2011 is expected to be the second largest producer after China. However, in Drug Master File (DMF) filings India is currently ahead of China.

In addition, India scores over China in ‘documentation’ and ‘Environment, Health and Safety (EHS)’ compliance. All these have contributed to India having around 125 US-FDA approved world class manufacturing facilities, which is considered the largest outside the USA.
Indian API manufacturers are facing a cut throat competition from their Chinese counterparts mainly because of lower costs in China. Considerably higher economies of scale and various types of support that the Chinese API manufacturers receive from their Government are the main reasons for such cost differential.
Growing competition from the regulated markets:
We now observe a new trend within the API space in India. Many of the global innovators and generic companies are keen to enter into the API space of India.

It is known that API manufacturers from the regulated markets are already selling their products in India. However, at present, the numbers of Indian registrations for API applied by some of the large global companies, as reported by ‘Thomson Reuters Newport Horizon Premium’, are quite significant, which are as follows:

1. Novartis, Switzerland: 20 2. Pfizer, USA: 16 3. Sanofi-Aventis, France: 26 4. Teva, Israel: 45 5. MSD, USA: 39 6. BASF: 37 7. DSM: 26 8. EON AG: 16 9. Kyowa Hakko: 23

All these companies, who are entering into the API business space in India, I reckon, have worked out a grand design to compete not only with the low cost domestic API manufacturers, but also with the cheaper imports, particularly from China.

China an emerging global force to reckon with in the API market:

An economy of scale leading to cost leadership is fast establishing China in the global API market as a force to reckon with. Dominant presence of China even in the bulk intermediate category with high level of technical expertise, especially in the fermentation technology, strong manufacturing base, supported by increasing standard of regulatory compliance and better IP protection, as perceived by the global pharmaceutical community, are helping the API manufacturers of China to gradually increase their presence even in the highly regulated markets of the world.

In this emerging scenario, when China throws a tough competition to the API producers of India,  developing and manufacturing niche APIs will be the key differentiating factors for the Indian players to maintain their global presence in future, especially with APIs involving non-fermentation technology.

What will then be the competitive edge of these companies in India?
It appears that each of these companies has weighed very carefully the existing strategic opportunities in the API sectors of India, both in terms of technology as well as domestic demand.

Strategic gap in API manufacturing technology:
India, undeniably, is one of the key global hubs in the API space, with competitive edge mainly in ‘non-fermentation technology’ product areas. This leaves a wide and perceptible technological gap in the areas of products requiring ‘fermentation technology‘.

Significant demand from domestic formulations manufacturing:
India is much ahead of China in pharmaceutical formulations manufacturing, especially in the area of exports to the regulated markets like, the USA and EU. Over 25 domestic Indian companies are currently catering to exports demand of the U.S market. However, it is interesting to note that the global manufacturers like Sandoz, Eisai, Watson, Mylan have already set up their formulations manufacturing facilities in India and some more are expected to follow suit over a period of time. Hence, fast growing domestic demand for APIs, especially for exports, will drive the business plan of the global API players for India.

Is the cost arbitrage of India sustainable?
Indian API manufacturers although currently have a cost advantage compared to their counterparts in the regulated market, this advantage is not sustainable over a period of time because of various reasons. The key reason being sharp increase in cost related to more stringent environmental and regulatory compliance, besides spiraling manpower and other overhead costs.

Indian regulatory requirements for the global API players:
To sell their APIs into India, global companies are now required to obtain the following regulatory approvals from the Indian authorities:

1. Foreign manufacturing sites for the concerned products

2. APIs which will be imported in the country

The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has stipulated a fee of U.S$1,500 to register the manufacturing premises and U.S$1,000 to register each individual API. Since January 2003, around 1,200 registration certificates have been issued in India. Large number of Indian registrations is attributed by many to the strategic technology gap in India, as stated above, demand of high-quality API for finished formulations required by the regulated markets like the U.S and EU, and relatively cheaper product registration process.

As we see above Teva has gone for maximum number of Indian registrations, so far and most probably selling the APIs to their contract formulations manufacturers in India. Similarly, Schering-Plough and Sanofi, if not Pfizer are perhaps catering to the API demand of their respective formulations manufacturing plants in the country.

Apprehension of counterfeit APIs from the emerging markets:

Growing apprehensions of counterfeit APIs from the emerging markets like, India and China must also be addressed expeditiously by all concerned.

‘The New York Times’ dated August 15, 2011 reported that APIs from India, China and elsewhere now constitute 80% of the active ingredients in US drugs. The US FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg was quoted saying, “Supply chains for many generic drugs often contain dozens of middlemen and are highly susceptible to being infiltrated by falsified drugs.”

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, some key global players mainly China, as mentioned above, are now exporting APIs at a much larger scale to India and in that process have started curving out a niche for themselves in the Indian API market. Impressive growth of the domestic pharmaceutical formulations manufacturing market fueled by increasing domestic consumption and exports to the regulated markets, coupled with gradual improvement in the regulatory environment of the country and some global collaboration for the pharmaceutical formulations sourcing from India, are expected to drive the growth of API business of the global players in India. However, the moot question still remains: will the Indian API players be able to thrive or even survive the tough competition from the global players, especially China?

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

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry could well be a contender for global supremacy by the next decade, competing effectively with China

Posted on by
Reply

By the next decade of this millennium both India and China are expected to be the top two emerging markets of the world in the pharmaceutical sector, registering a scorching pace of growth all around. The quality of consistency and sustainability of growth, will determine who will be the main contender of supremacy and the ultimate winner in this game of wealth creation for the respective countries and be the ‘Eldorado’ of the global pharmaceutical companies.

The financial reform measures in the run up to the process of globalization started earlier in China, in 1980 as against 1990 in India. In that sense China took a plunge to be an active member of the ‘global village of commerce’ at least a decade earlier than India.

Reform process started earlier in China:

The Product Patent regime in India was reintroduced in January 1, 2005. Well before that China started creating and encouraging a large number of independently funded pharmaceutical R&D institutions to create an environment of innovation within the country. Many of these institutions are now viable profit centres, creating wealth for the country.

At the same time, focusing on global ‘economies of scale’, Chinese pharmaceutical players have now become globally competitive, may be a shade better than India. Clear dominance of China in the business of ‘Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)’ among many other, will vindicate this point. On the other hand in the formulations business, India is miles ahead of China, catering to over 20% of the global requirements for the generic pharmaceuticals. Moreover, in ANDA and DMF filings, as well, India is currently much ahead of China.

FDI in India and China:

The Pharmaceutical Industry in India has now started attracting increasing Foreign Direct Investments (FDI). As per the reply to question No. 615 tabled in the Parliament of India (Rajya Sabha) on November 25, 2009 by Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia, Minister of State, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, from the year 2006-07 up to September 2009, India attracted FDI of US $ 817.30 million for Drugs and Pharmaceuticals with a compounded growth rate of around 60%. USA, Canada, Singapore, UAE and Mauritius contributed 82% to this FDI, which in turn helped significantly to fuel further development and growth of the Industry.

According to ‘The Survey of Foreign Investments in China’s Medicine Industry’ of the Government of China, the FDI in the pharmaceutical industry of the country for the three year period commencing from 2006 to 2008 was around US $ 1772 million, over one third of which coming from Hong Kong and around 11% from the USA.

It is worth noting that the financial and policy reform measures were initiated in China much earlier, as compared to India, which in turn have enabled China to attract more FDIs in the pharmaceutical sector, thus far. In the new paradigm of the post product patent regime both the countries are expected to grow at a scorching pace attracting more and more FDIs for their respective countries.

In this article, I would like to focus on some of these comparisons to assess the progress made so far by both the countries, in a comparative yardstick and the key factors, which will decide the pace-setter.

Country ranking both in value and growth terms:

In global ranking, China is currently the seventh (India: 14) largest pharmaceutical market and is expected to be the fifth (India: 10) largest market by 2015 and the third largest by 2020. Chinese pharmaceutical market is expected to grow by over 15% per annum in the next five years, which is higher than India.

Healthcare coverage of population:

China is racing ahead and gradually but surely distancing itself from India, widening the performance gap with rapid increase of domestic consumption of modern medicines. It is worth mentioning that as per WHO, the access to modern medicines in China is around 85% as against just 35% in India. Of a population of 1.3 billion, 250 million of Chinese are covered by health insurance, another 250 million partially covered by insurance and balance 800 million are not covered by any insurance. In India total number of people who are having some sort of healthcare financing coverage will be around 200 million and penetration of health insurance will be just around 3.5% of the population.

Currently India is losing grounds to China mainly in healthcare infrastructure development, with inadequate healthcare delivery systems and delay in rolling out a long overdue comprehensive healthcare reform process in the country.

Strong commitment of the Chinese Government to the globalization process:

Strong commitment of the Chinese Government to make China a regional hub of R&D and contract research and manufacturing (CRAM) activities within next seven to ten years is paying rich dividends.
Department of Pharmaceuticals recently expressed its intention to make India a R&D hub in not too distant future. This cannot be achieved just through investments of couple of million US $ through Public Private Partnership (PPP). A strong commitment of the Government to hasten regulatory reform processes will be the key factor. The new product patent regime for the pharmaceutical industry has ushered in a new paradigm, with the Government planning to strike a right balance between TRIPs compliant IPR regime and the ‘Public Interest’ and NOT one at the cost of the other.

India and China competing well in Pharma outsourcing business:

Since last 5 years both India and China have made rapid strides in the space of pharma outsourcing. Today the evolving business model of ‘Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS)’, is shaping up quite well. To make India a global hub for Pharmaceutical outsourcing of all types, the pharmaceutical industry of the country has all the ingredients. India has the potential to emerge as a serious contender for global supremacy, in this fast growing sector, especially in ‘contract manufacturing’ area, having largest number of US-FDA approved manufacturing plants, outside the USA.

According to ‘Global Services”, in 2009 Pharmaceutical outsourcing market in China and India was of US $ 1.77 billion and US $ 1.42 billion, respectively with China growing at a faster pace. The future growth potential for both the countries is huge, as each enjoyed just 2% share of this outsourcing market in 2009.

It has been forecasted that China will have more environmental growth accelerators than India due to greater continuing fiscal stimulus and policy support by their Government, which could catapult the country ahead of India, just beyond 2010.

‘Country Attractiveness Index’ for clinical trials:

‘A.T. Kearney’ developed a ‘Country Attractiveness Index (CAI)’ for clinical trials, for the use of, especially, the pharmaceutical industry executives to make more informed decision on offshore clinical trials. As per this study, the CAI of China is 6.10 against 5.58 of India.

Pharmaceutical patent filing:

In patent filing too China seem to be ahead of India. Based on WIPO PCT applications, it has been reported that 5.5% of all global pharmaceutical patent applications named one inventor or more located in India as against 8.4% located in China. This will give an Indication how China is making rapid strides in R&D areas, as well.

Where India is regarded clearly as a preferred destination:

However, India is globally considered as a more mature arena for chemistry and drug-discovery activities than China. Most probably because of this reason, companies like, DRL, Aurigene, Advinus, Glenmark, Nicholas Piramal and Jubilant Organosys could enter into long-term deals with Multinational Companies (MNCs) to discover and develop New Chemical Entities (NCEs).

Pharmaceutical exports, by end 2010:

India is currently an attractive pharmaceutical outsourcing destination across the globe. Pharmaceutical exports of India is currently far ahead of China. However, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) reports that China may reverse this trend by the end of 2010, establishing itself as the largest country for Pharmaceutical exports. In API exports China has already overtaken India, way back in 2007. The report titled, “The Changing dynamics of pharmaceutical outsourcing in Asia” indicates that in 2007 against API exports of U.S$ 1.7 billion of India, China clocked a figure of US$ 5.6 billion. By the end of 2010, China is expected to widen the gap further with API export of U.S$ 9.9 billion against India’s U.S$ 2.8 billion.

Korn/Ferry International reports that more and more Indian talent is being pulled to China to fill key roles, especially in the API sector, signaling ‘brain drain’ from India to China.

Conclusion:

As I said earlier and as has been reported by Korn/Ferry, China’s current overall infrastructure in the pharmaceutical space is better than India primarily due to firm commitment of the Chinese government to initiate reform measures to fetch maximum benefits of globalization process in the country. Government of India seems to be lacking in its commitment to play its role both as a provider and also as an effective enabler in this important space of ‘knowledge economy’ of the world.

India has all the potential to surge ahead with more rapid strides in this ball game. To achieve this cherished goal, the government, other stakeholders and the domestic pharmaceutical Industry should play the ball well, effectively, and in tandem.

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.