Tag Archives: Drug

FDA ‘Import Bans’: Valuing Drug Supply Chain Security for Patients’ Safety

Posted on by
Reply

To strengthen patients’ health and safety requirements, there is a growing need to first work out and then maintain a robust Drug Supply Chain Security (DSCS) mechanism by the pharmaceutical product manufacturers located anywhere in the world.

It is, therefore, often believed that the broader objective of cGMP encompasses DSCS for the same reason.

Over a period of time DSCS has assumed enormous complexity, as it often extends beyond the geographical territory of a country, spanning across a large number of vendors and vendors’ vendors of different kinds.

A robust DSCS, besides many others, would be able to address effectively, including sourcing of finished goods from third party manufacturers, the following:

  • Health and safety concerns of patients
  • Fraudulent activities leading to drug counterfeiting
  • Stringent global regulatory scrutiny
  • Check on sourcing of unapproved or substandard material

Most common threats to DSCS:

Counterfeit goods are most common threats to DSCS mechanism of any company. According to a report of the World Health Organization (WHO) on the types of counterfeits and their magnitude, such products can be grouped into six categories:

  • Products without active ingredients: 32.1 percent
  • Products with incorrect quantities of active ingredients: 20 percent
  • Products with wrong ingredients: 21.4 percent
  • Products with correct quantities of active ingredients but with fake packaging: 15.6 percent
  • Copies of an original product: 1 percent
  • Products with high levels of impurities and contaminants: 8.5 percent.

Globalization enhances the need of DSCS:

In today’s globalized business environment, the dual need to reducing costs significantly and in tandem minimizing the risks associated with the procurement activities of the business, have compelled many pharma companies to extend their ‘Supply Chain’ related activities spreading across different parts of the globe, instead of just confining to the local space.

At the same time, a new trend is evolving with the emergence of world class outsourcing service providers in the Contract Research And Manufacturing Services (CRAMS) space, especially from the countries like India and China.

Though cost arbitrage both in India and China is a key-motivating factor, the outsourcing services encompass integrated value propositions of high order for the overseas customers, such as, desired quality including cGMP, speed in delivery process and suppliers’ integrity together with overall reliability of end products and services. Nothing in this value chain is mutually exclusive and would be left to chance. More importantly, DSCS  also must go through a set of complex algorithms striking a right balance between all agreed parameters.

Examples of serious DSCS security violations:

Following are a few at random examples of serious DSCS violations globally, at various times in the past:

  • In 1982, seven people in the Chicago area died after ingesting Extra-Strength Tylenol laced with potassium cyanide.
  • In 2007, over 300 people died in Panama of Central America after consuming a cough medication containing diethylene glycol, which was labeled as glycerin. The adulterant diethylene glycol was sourced from China and was relabeled as glycerin by a middleman in Spain, as reported by the media.
  • In March 2008, prompted by around 81 drug related deaths in the United States, the US-FDA announced a large scale recall of Heparin injection, a well-known blood thinner from Baxter Healthcare, suspecting contamination of a raw material sourced from China. Standard technology used by Baxter could not detect the contaminant, which the regulator considered as a deliberate adulteration. The contaminant was eventually identified as an over sulfated derivative of chondroitin sulfate, which costs a fraction of original heparin derivative.

The ‘Heparin tragedy’ raised, possibly for the first time, the need of working out an algorithm to put in place a robust system for DSCS, as stated above. This need has now become more critical as many pharmaceutical players, including those in India, are increasingly outsourcing the API, other ingredients and almost entire logistics from third parties.

The front-runner:

USFDA is globally recognized as the most efficient in this area having a sharp focus on patients’ health and safety interest. However, even a front-runner like this has some manpower related issues to make its global vigilance system almost watertight.  due to In this context, ‘The New York Times’ dated August 15, 2011 reported, despite the fact that US now imports more than 80 percent of APIs and 40 percent of finished drugs mainly from India, China and elsewhere, the agency conducts far fewer foreign inspections as compared to domestic inspections.

The US FDA Commissioner was quoted saying, “Supply chains for many generic drugs often contain dozens of middlemen and are highly susceptible to being infiltrated by falsified drugs.”

In another conference the FDA Commissioner said, “I think people have no idea in this country and around the world about the vulnerability of things that we count on every day and that we have a system that has big gaps in our protective mechanisms.”

Import bans of Indian drugs are related to DSCS:

In India, all may not be fully aware of intense health and safety concerns, as stated above, of the US drug regulator, when reports of repeated ‘import bans’ shake the domestic industry hard. Many even would painstakingly try to invent ‘other reasons’ behind such shameful ‘bans’, which are totally prompted by breach in DSCS going against patients’ interest of the importing country.

Stringent regulatory inspections of Indian manufacturing plants by the US-FDA and UK-MHRA, as reported by the media with great concerns are, therefore, for the same reasons.

The latest in this saga is the Toansa manufacturing facility of Ranbaxy, where USFDA reportedly detected, among others, presence of flies in sample storage room, un-calibrated instruments in its laboratory and non-adherence to sample analysis procedure, prompting yet another ‘import ban’ of drugs made at this facility by the drug regulator of the United States.

Is DSCS in place for all drugs manufactured and consumed in India?

The question therefore floats at the top mind, if for breach of DSCS the drugs manufactured in all those Indian pharma plants, that have faced ‘import bans’ from the US and UK, are unsafe for patients in those countries, how come the medicines manufactured in the same plants for domestic consumption are accepted as safe for the patients in India by the DCGI?

However, the good news is that the DCGI has, at last, taken cognizance of the unfortunate regulatory developments in India and is reportedly planning to initiate a system of sudden inspections of manufacturing facilities of all pharmaceutical players, both domestic and MNCs and would take stringent action against any non-compliance to standards. Let us hope that this is not just a knee-jerk reaction of the Indian drug regulator coming under intense pressure from all corners, the good intent would get translated into reality sooner.

Brinkmanship has failed:

That said, even after witnessing how clumsily the concerned Indian pharma players had prepared themselves for inspections by the overseas drug regulators, many other manufacturers still today continue to take the priority need of DSCS of the importing countries for granted  up until critical situations arise, such as, drug import ban orders by the overseas regulators. The mindset of ‘managing things on the stage’ has not worked. The brinkmanship has miserably failed, repeatedly in so many occasions.

Interestingly, global pharma majors, by and large, have recognized this area as a center piece of their procurement and manufacturing operations and are continuously honing their skills in this domain to avoid any unpleasant surprises on product quality and safety issues leading to loss in business, besides of course quantum damage in reputation and goodwill of the affected companies.

Conclusion: 

Strategic prioritization to maintain DSCS is a relatively a new focus area, which prompts the need to continuously nurturing material suppliers of high reliability and simultaneously explore possibilities of application of newer technologies primarily to avoid any breach in the entire supply chain, right from procurement, manufacturing to end products logistics support.

The process of ensuring a robust DSCS would undoubtedly add to overall cost of operation, especially when the industry is facing a growth challenge in the large developed markets of the world with much higher profit potential.

However, not mitigating the risk of breach in DSCS, could invite a nightmare of unsustainability in the business operations at any given point of time, as has been happening with some pharma majors in India, such as, Ranbaxy and Wockhardt.

Thus, weighing pros and cons, even if this integrated process adds to the cost of business, the option of not going for DSCS system would be foolhardy. At the same time, other operational measures like, improving order fill rate, more efficient inventory management and better buying, could help negating the adverse cost impact significantly.

That said, the bottom-line is: FDA ‘import bans’ are critical manifestations of not valuing, adequately enough,the DSCS for health and safety of patients, not just of the US and UK, but of our homeland too.

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.

 

 

NDDS as New Drug: Good for Patients, Great for Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

The Ministry of Health of India has reportedly decided to amend Rule 122 (E) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to categorize the New Drug Delivery Systems (NDDS), including ‘Controlled Release (CR)’ or ‘Modified Release (MR)’ formulations, whether a copy of studied and approved drugs or a new one, as ‘New Drugs’.

After the amendment, all vaccines and recombinant DNA (r-DNA) derived drugs would also fall under this nomenclature. Accordingly, to obtain ‘Marketing Approval’, such formulations would be subjected to requisite studies, including ‘Clinical Trials (CT), as specified for ‘New Drugs’ under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India.

It has however been clarified though, that these applications will not be treated as Investigational New Drugs (IND) and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) shall prepare appropriate regulatory guidelines for all NDDS formulations.

The main reason for the amendment is possibly much late realization of CDSCO that such formulations are vastly different from each other with respect to both efficacy and toxicity.

Besides, it has been widely alleged that some pharma companies in India, mainly to hoodwink the Drug Price Control Orders (DPCO) in the past, used to switch over from ‘Immediate Release (IR)’ formulations to products with CR/MR technology of the same molecule. However, that loophole has since been plugged in DPCO 2013, creating almost a furore in the industry.

A long overdue decision for patients’ health safety:

As stated earlier, this is indeed a long overdue decision of the Indian drug regulatory policy makers, solely considering patients’ health interest.

The primary reason being, any NDDS formulation with CR/MR technology is designed to release the drug substance in a controlled manner with high precision to achieve desired efficacy and safety, quite unlike its IR equivalent, if available in the market. It is important to note that inappropriate release of the drug in any CR/MR formulation would result in lesser efficacy or increased toxicity, jeopardizing patients’ health.

Process followed by US-FDA for CR/MR formulations:

In the United States, for marketing approval of such products, FDA usually requires submission of New Drug Applications (NDAs) providing details based on the evidence of adequate drug exposure expressed by blood levels or dose, and the response framework validated by clinical or surrogate endpoint(s).

US-FDA has three types of NDAs for MR drug products:

  • IR to CR/MR switch
  • MR/CR to MR/CR switch with unequal dosing intervals
  • MR/CR to MR/CR switch with equal dosing intervals

For switching from an IR to a CR/MR product, which is more common in India, the key requirement is to establish that the new CR/MR product has similar exposure course of the drug as compared to the previously approved IR product, backed by well-documented efficacy and safety profile. If not, one efficacy and/or safety trial would be necessary, in addition to three clinical pharmacology studies.

Good for patients:

The good news for patients is that, being categorized as ‘New Drugs’, all NDDS formulations, without any exceptions whatsoever, would henceforth obtain marketing approval only from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), after having passed through intense data scrutiny, instead of State Drug Authorities where getting a manufacturing license of such formulations is alleged to be a ‘child’s play’. Thus, with the proposed amendment, efficacy and safety concerns of CR/MR formulations are expected to be addressed adequately.

Great for Pharma:

Currently, while fixing the ‘Ceiling Prices (CP)’ under DPCO 2013, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) treats CR/MR formulations at par with IR varieties of the same molecules having the same dosage strength.

Thus, categorization of all NDDS formulations as ‘New Drugs’, irrespective of the fact whether these are copies of studied and approved drugs or new ones, would be lapped up by the manufacturers from product pricing point of view. All these formulations, after the proposed amendment, would go outside the purview of drug price control under Para 32 (iii) of DPCO 2013, which categorically states that the provisions of this order shall not apply to:

“A manufacturer producing a ‘new drug’ involving a new delivery system developed through indigenous Research and Development for a period of five years from the date of its market approval in India.”

A similar past issue still haunts:

Similar callousness was exhibited in the past, while granting marketing approval for a large number of highly questionable Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs by the same drug regulators. Unfortunately, that saga is still not over, not just yet. 

All these irrational FDC formulations, even after being identified so by the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB), have been caught in the quagmire of protracted litigations. Consequently, such dubious products are still being promoted by the respective pharma players intensively, prescribed by the doctors uninhibitedly, sold by the chemists freely and consumed by patients ignorantly. With ‘pharmacovigilance’ being almost non-functional in India, the harmful impact of these drugs on patients’ health cannot just be fathomed.

Conclusion: 

With the above examples, it is quite clear that technological precision of high order is absolutely imperative to manufacture any effective CR/MR formulation. In addition, stark regulatory laxity in the marketing approval process for these drugs is a matter of great concern.

In such a scenario, one could well imagine how patients’ health interests are being compromised by not formalizing and adhering to appropriate regulatory pathways for marketing approval of such drugs in the country, since decades.

That said, as the saying goes “Better Late, Than Never”. The ‘New Drug’ nomenclature of all CR/MR formulations or for that matter entire NDDS as a category, including vaccines and recombinant DNA (r-DNA) derived drugs, would now hopefully be implemented in India, though rather too late, a much welcoming decision nevertheless.

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.

In VUCA World: Changing Dynamics of Prescription Generation Process

Posted on by
Reply

The acronym VUCA is often being used to emphasize upon the Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity in various situations. The term has been derived from military vocabulary and is being used since 1990s in the business management parlance. VUCA is also considered as a practical code for awareness and readiness.

I find all the elements of VUCA playing an active role in the prescription demand generation space too, as it is based on various assumptions of what will work and what won’t in a fast changing pharmaceuticals business environment. 

The interplay:

Primary interplay in the sustainable prescription demand generation process of today’s digitally empowered VUCA environment, I reckon, could be as follows:

  • Volatility: Fast changing dynamics of medical communication with interfaces made of emerging modern technological tools carrying high risks of rapid obsolescence.
  • Uncertainty: Lack of predictability in assessing outcomes of increasingly expensive product detailing inputs, coupled with too many surprise elements popping-up in the environment almost from nowhere and more frequently.
  • Complexity: Multi-factorial Doctor-Medical Representative (MR) interactions, which get even more complicated with increasing time constraints for effective product detailing to take place.
  • Ambiguity: Difficult to fathom changing needs of the doctors/payors, leading to increasing cause-and-effect confusion by the pharma marketing strategy planners.

Keeping these in view, today I shall deliberate on the ‘Criticality of Optimal Mix of Human and State of Art Digital Interfaces’ for sustainable prescription demand generation in a VUCA environment.

The key influencer – a new study:

A research study published in June 2013, in the ‘American Heart Journal (AHJ)’ establishes that the interaction between physicians and MRs, though essential for  improvement of medical care, is indeed complex. This is mainly because of the apprehension that conflict of interests may affect the doctors’ prescription decision-making process. 

However, the fact comes out, the doctors tend to prescribe more of expensive medical products after interacting with MRs from the concerned manufacturing companies, which, in turn, raises the treatment costs for patients.

Study established MRs influence prescription decision:

This particular AHJ study compared the use of Bare-Metal Stents, Drug-Eluting Stents (DES), and Balloon Catheters according to company presence in the hospital. It concluded that MR presence was associated with increased use of the concerned company’s stents during percutaneous coronary interventions. The effect was more pronounced on the use of DES, and resulted in higher procedural cost of US$ 250 per patient.

In this particular study, it was found that DESs were used in about 56 percent of the cases, when the MRs concerned were at the hospital, against 51 percent when they weren’t there.

Interestingly on such interactions between the MRs and the drug/devices industry two opposite viewpoints emerge.

‘MR-Doctor interaction important‘ – Industry:

Quoting the Associate General Counsel and Director of Legal and Medical Affairs at the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a medical technology trade association, Reuters reported, “interactions between sales representatives and doctors benefit patients and are supported by professional medical organizations.”

‘MR interaction should not influence prescription decision’ – Doctors:

In the same report, the study’s lead author was quoted saying, “We need to evaluate carefully any interactions with medical industry to ensure that we minimize an effect on our decision making process.”

The bottom-line, though the debate continues:

This debate will keep continuing even in the years ahead. Be that as it may, the key fact that emerges out of the above study is, MRs do play a critical role in the prescription decision-making process of the doctors, especially for expensive medical products . Consequently, the pharmaceutical companies will prefer maintaining such ‘influencing’ roles of MRs to boost revenues of their respective brands.

This process assumes even greater importance in a VUCA world, as situation specific more frequent human interventions, strongly backed by state of art technological supports, would need to be effectively deployed for generation of sustainable prescription demand to excel in business.

The X-Factor:

However, one of the most challenging issues even in a VUCA situation is that pharma players continue and will continue to target the same sets of prolific prescribers for any given class of products in pursuit of success. As a result, time being so limited, very often even after waiting for hours MRs may not be able to meet the key prescribers.

Moreover, as and when the meeting takes place, it may well get restricted to just a very brief discussion due to the X Factor – paucity of the doctors’ time. Thus, delivering an effective product message in such a short time becomes increasingly challenging. Further, the difficulty in arresting un-interrupted attention of the busy practitioners due to X-Factor when they are with patients, compounds the problem.

Pivotal role of state of art technological tools:

The effectiveness of connection between respective brands of different drug makers and the doctors can be greatly facilitated with the application of state of art technology and modern internet based tools in varying proportions, as the sales and marketing communication strategy would dictate.

This area is emerging as a crafty game, which calls for wide-scale application of analytics.

Traditional strategies not enough:

In a VUCA world, while traditional face-to-face product detailing to doctors may continue to be the primary means for prescription demand generation, experimentation with a good number of new Internet based initiatives has already been started, as I discussed in my earlier article.

Hence, the concepts of digital marketing and e-detailing are gaining ground fast. Such initiatives of augmented digital communication of key marketing messages to doctors, would also help driving the key customers’ traffic to respective product Websites of the concerned companies for more detailed and convincing medical treatment solutions, as and when required by the busy doctors.

Types of digital interventions:

These digital interventions may include:

  • Highly targeted brand specific e-mailing responding to pre-identified needs of individual doctors
  • Sample ordering as per requirements of doctors
  • Live online product presentations at a time convenient to individual doctors
  • Quick and need-based problem solution centric online chats 24×7
  • Strategic usage of social media, backed by a robust pre-decided key output measuring matrix

However, the mix of each of these digital applications will need to be carefully worked out as robust supporting measures to key prescription demand generation activities, spearheaded by the MRs. 

MRs to remain as ‘Spearheads’:

In my view, MRs would still remain the frontline force in the emerging world (dis)order, may be lesser in number, for sustainable prescription demand generation process. Therefore, there is an urgent need to take them on board upfront and train suitably to make the modern digital interfaces successful as powerful differentiating support tools.

Technology based training on digital marketing and e-detailing as empowering initiatives, demonstrating tangible benefits that such high tech-interventions can offer in the overall sales performance of MRs, would play a critical role. Such efforts would, in turn, immensely help making digital augmentation strategies for pharma detailing successful, in the long run.

MR involvement is critical:

In my view, to be successful in a VUCA environment with all these endeavors, however tech-intensives those may be, there will be a critical need to make the MRs understand and learn the process. In tandem, it is equally important to actively engage them in the execution of the integrated medical communication strategy of the concerned companies.

Keeping this perspective in mind, I guess, it will be quite apt to quote Ben Franklyn, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and a leading author, printer, political theorist, politician, scientist, musician, inventor and economist, all in one, who once wrote:

“Tell me and I forget, 

 Teach me and I remember,

 Involve me and I learn”

Thus, MRs would continue to have a critical role to play in the demand generation process for prescription medicines. However, they must be properly trained to be able to provide the types of knowledge and information that the doctors may not have ready access from elsewhere.

The entire process would, at the same time, require massive technological interventions, not incremental in nature but radical in scope and dimensions, and at a much wider scale than what we have been attempting today.

Challenges in India:

The very concept of VUCA in the changing dynamics of sustainable prescription demand generation, brings to the fore the issue of quality of MRs in India.

Currently there is a wide, both inter and intra company, variation in the educational qualifications, relevant product and disease area knowledge, professional conduct and ethical standards between MRs in our country.

Employability of MR in a VUCA world:

Just when we talk about augmented digital interfaces in medical communications, there exists a huge challenge in the country to strike a right balance between the level/quality of sales pitch generated by the MRs for a brand.

At times, many of them may not be properly armed with requisite scientific knowledge, and the basic norms of professional conduct/ ethical standards, while rendering their services.

They may not also be able to handle the sophisticated technological tools with quick application of minds. Hence, the subject of employability of MR in a VUCA world needs to be addressed afresh in India.

‘One size fits all’ strategies:

To make it happen, the pharmaceutical players would require to jettison, ‘one size fits all’ types of strategies in a VUCA world.

In tandem, pharma marketing strategists will need to be intimately conversant with a relatively difficult process of cerebral gymnastics to help formulating individual key prescriber-centric communication strategies, where MRs can play a key role with optimal digital interventions.

This is possible, if supported by the respective employers creating an environment of empowerment, backed by requisite product training, technological tools, modern behavioral inputs and above all by making investments to create of a large sustainable emotional capital for longer term  business excellence.

Conclusion:

All the elements of VUCA would keep playing very critical roles in sustainable prescription demand generation process in the years to come, more than ever before.

There is a critical need to understand the interplay between each of these dynamics on an ongoing basis to make strategic modifications quickly, whenever required. This is important, as the prowess to introduce right changes at right times will differentiate men from the boys in this ultimate ball game of the pharma industry. 

To succeed in a VUCA environment, pharmaceutical companies may choose to predominantly focus on harnessing their technological expertise. 

However, to face the waves of virtually unpredictable continuous change, only technology based efforts, I reckon, are less likely to fructify. Unless, these high- tech interventions are spearheaded by time-specific fast enough and intelligent skilled human responses in form of MRs. 

Having said that, it would be foolhardy to even think of completely taming VUCA with whatever human and technological wherewithal that any pharma player may be able to garner to achieve its goals. It is, in fact, a matter of relativity in managing VUCA in a given situation at a given time. 

Thus I believe, there is, on the contrary, a need to leverage a VUCA environment, for creation of an ‘Optimal Mix of Human and State of Art Digital Interfaces’ in the product detailing process with a high sense of urgency. This would be critical to gain cutting edge advantages for generation of increased prescription demand in a sustainable way.

For the pharmaceutical marketing strategists, this new ball game would obviously not be a piece of cake either, as the key success factors would involve the right mindset of first unlearning and then relearning the process on an ongoing basis, virtually in all time to come

With this perspective, I conclude by quoting the famous American writer and futurist Alvin Toffler, who once said,

“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

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.

 

Supreme Court Suspends New Drug Trials in India…Time to Shape Up?

Posted on by
Reply

On September 30, 2013, with a damning stricture to the Drug Regulator, the Supreme Court, in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Swasthya Adhikar Manch, stayed approvals for 162 applications for local Clinical Trials (CTs) of new drugs approved by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) earlier.

The apex court of the country granted the DCGI two weeks time to furnish evidence to the court that adequate patients’ safety and other related mechanisms have been put in place for CTs of all New Chemical Entities (NCEs) and New Molecular Entities (NMEs) in the country.

According to reports, during July and August 2013, the DCGI received 1,122 CT applications, out of which, 331 related to approval of global CTs. The New Drug Advisory Committee (NDAC) approved 285 drugs in AIDS, oncology, cardiology, neurology, psychiatry, metabolism and endocrinology therapy areas. Finally, 162 drugs received the green signal from the DCGI. Now all these trials have come to a halt.

At the same time, the court also directed the Ministry of Health to come out with a plan within 10 weeks to strengthen the regulatory framework for CTs in India based on various suggestions received from the state governments, other stakeholders and experts groups.

A casual approach?

Just to recapitulate, prior to this, on January 3, 2013, against the PIL, the bench of Honorable Justices R.M Lodha and A.R Dave of the Supreme Court reportedly observed that uncontrolled Clinical Trials (CT) are creating ‘havoc’ to human lives causing even deaths to many subjects in India.

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

Thereafter, though the Health Secretary of India approved the above 162 CTs, presumably following the above Supreme Court directive, it is an irony that when asked by the Apex Court, the government could not immediately explain precisely what systems and mechanisms have been put in place for proper conduct of these 162 CTs. It sought 2 weeks’ time to justify the action taken by the drug regulator in this regards.

Compromise on patients’ safety continues unabated: 

During another hearing early in October 2013 on a petition filed by the NGO ‘Swasthya Adhikar Manch regarding violations of norms during CTs, the Supreme Court reportedly sought details from the Union Government on the irregularities during the drug trial using Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccines by the Seattle (USA) based organization PATH in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat states of India.

This intervening application by the NGO was based on the 72nd Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Health and Family Welfare report dated August 30, 2013, where it was recommended that action should be taken against PATH, state governments of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and other government officials including Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) for alleged violations on the subject.

The report highlights, HPV vaccines were given to 14,091 girls in Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh and 10,686 girls in Vadodra, Gujarat. These girls were between age group of 10 and 14, of which seven girls died due to such illegal vaccine trials.

Eventually, these trials were stopped, but only after the matter received media attention.

As per reports, the vaccines were provided by two pharma MNCs – Merck and GlaxoSmithKline through PATH. It also stated as follows:

“Vaccines were given to children irrespective of age in the case of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine. While permission was given to use GSK’s Cervarix vaccine in children of 10 to 14 years, CTs had been conducted on subjects in the age group of 18 to 35 years. Thus the safety and well being of subjects were completely jeopardized.”

No options but to shape-up:

It is worth mentioning, the above PIL had alleged that large scale drug trials being conducted across the country, mainly by the pharma MNC, are using Indian patients as ‘guinea pigs’, as it were. The NGO also told the Supreme Court that several pharmaceutical companies continue to conduct CTs quite indiscriminately, in various states of India, endangering lives of poorly/un-informed trial subjects.

In an affidavit to the Court, the Government admitted that between 2005 and 2012, 2,644 people died during CTs of 475 NCEs/NMEs with serious adverse events related deaths taking 80 lives.

Thus, coming under immense pressure from the civil society and now the scrutiny of the Supreme Court for so many CT related deaths and consequential patients’ compensation issues, the Government does not seem to have any other options left now but to bring US$ 500 million CT segment of the country, which is expected to cross a turnover of US$ 1 Billion by 2016, under stringent regulations.

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

CT related deaths in India:

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

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

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

DCGI hauled-up 9 MNCs on patients’ compensation:

It is worth noting, absolutely unacceptable level of compensation, by any standard, are being paid by the concerned companies, including large MNCs, for the lives lost during CTs.

According to another report quoting the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), 25 people died in clinical trials conducted by 9 pharma MNCs, in 2010. Unfortunately, families of just five of these victims received” compensation for trial related deaths, which ranged from an abysmal Rs 1.5 lakh (US$ 2,500) to Rs 3 lakh (US$ 5,000) to the families of the diseased.

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

The 9 pharma MNCs summoned by the DCGI to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to CTs were reported as Wyeth, Quintiles, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Sanofi, PPD and Pfizer.

The report also indicated that after this ultimatum, all the 9 MNCs had paid compensation to the concerned families of the patients, who died related to the CTs.

Prior indictment by Indian Parliamentary Committee:

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

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

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

Action just not enough yet:

Acting on the damning stricture by the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Health by a gazette notification of January 30, 2013 made the norms of compensation to patients participating in CTs more stringent. ‘Patient Compensation’ was proposed to include injury or death, even if those are not related to the drugs being tested in the CTs.

Understandably, reacting to this notification, some pharma companies, industry lobby groups and also Clinical Research Organizations (CROs) expressed concerns in areas like:

  • Lack of distinction between study-related injuries and non-study related injuries.
  • Use of placebos in placebo-controlled trials.
  • Lack of any arbitration mechanism in case of disagreement on causality/quantum of compensation and also lack of clarity on who constitutes the Expert Committee and its composition.

In addition, the DCGI requested the stakeholders’ to share their inputs to the independent experts advisory committee chaired by Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury along with six other distinguished members namely, Dr V. P. Kamboj, Dr BT Kaul, Dr Vasantha Muthuswamy, Dr Mira Shiva 
and Dr Uma Tekur, to help formulating policy, guidelines and SOPs for approval of NCEs/NMEs and procedures for CTs, including the conduct of ethics committees, the accreditation of trials sites, inspections of trials sites, the ongoing monitoring of trials and banning of drugs. The Government on February 6, 2013 constituted this Committee.

This decision of the regulator, though under pressure, was praiseworthy. Unfortunately nothing substantially changed on the ground for CTs in India even thereafter, as no substantive action has yet been taken on the above expert committee recommendations.

The report of the experts committee:

Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury experts committee in its 99-page report has reportedly recommended some radical changes in the CT space of India. Among others, the report includes the following:

  • Setting up of a Central Accreditation Council (CAC) to oversee the accreditation of institutes, clinical investigators and ethics committees for CTs in the country.
  • Only those trials, which will be conducted at centers meeting these requirements, be considered for approval by the DCGI. 
  • For speedy clearance of applications, a broad expertise based Technical Review Committee (TRC) will replace 12 New Drug Advisory Committees (NDACs), which are currently functioning for NCE/NME approvals.
  • The TRC would be assisted, as required, by appropriate subject experts selected from the ‘Roster of Experts’.
  • For any Adverse Effects (AEs) or Serious Adverse Effects (SAEs) during a CT, the sponsor investigator will be responsible for providing medical treatment and care to the patient at its/their cost till the resolution of the AEs/SAEs.
  • This is to be provided irrespective of whether the patient is in the control group, placebo group, standard drug treatment group or the test drug administered group.
  • A Special Expert Committee should be set up independent of the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) to review all drug formulations in the market and identify drugs, which are potentially hazardous and/or of doubtful therapeutic efficacy.
  • A mechanism should be put in place to remove these drugs from the market by the CDSCO at the earliest.

Though some of the above provisions were vigorously objected by the industry during stakeholders’ consultations, the committee in its final report has upheld those recommendations.

The main worry – costs of CTs will go up:

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

Any savings in this area, both in terms of time and money, will add significantly to the profit margin of the product. In that context, the above suggestions, if implemented to create a safety net for the patients participating in CTs, will make these trials more expensive for the concerned companies with increased liability.

Hence, we hear a hue and cry, especially from the pharma MNCs. This is mainly because, India was, thus far, a low cost CT destination for them with virtually no liability for the drug trial patients. This is because, the poor and ill-informed subjects are left in the lurch by many companies exploiting the gaping holes existing in the fragile CT system of the country. After the intervention of the Supreme Court in this regard, some foreign players have reportedly suspended their CTs in India for reasons best known to them.

Exploitation of CT regulations:

The system of CT in India has created a huge ruckus, as it has long been tainted with widespread malpractices, abuses and misuses by many players, both global and local. The issue is not just of GCP or other CT related standards but more of an ethical mind-set and well-reported rampant exploitation of uninformed patients, especially in case of trial-related injuries or even death.

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

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

Industry reactions:

Very interestingly, there have been a divergent sets of reactions from the industry on this issue.

An influential section in the CT space of the country has reacted, with gross indiscretion, to the most recent SC order banning CTs for NCEs/NMEs till a robust mechanism in India is put in place.

Commenting on the verdict, an industry leader has reportedly said:

“A black day for Indian science and a sad reflection on our judiciary”.

Such comments probably vindicate much talked about crony capitalistic mindset of this class. They do not hesitate a bit to display their scant respect even to the highest judiciary of the country, leave alone their glaring indifference to the important public health interest related issue. All such actions possibly emanate from the intense greed to protect and further the vested interests, not withstanding the gross injustice being meted out to the drug trial subjects as a consequence.

On the other hand, supporting the Supreme Court’s view, The Indian Society for Clinical Research (ISCR) reportedly has said:

“As a professional organization representing clinical research professionals across the stakeholder spectrum, ISCR is fully supportive of the need for a more robust and regulated environment for the conduct of clinical trials in India which ensures the practice of the highest standards of ethics and quality and where patient rights and safety are protected”.



ISCR further said, “As in every profession and industry, there will always be players who operate at both ends of the spectrum. While we do not condone any irregularities, we must acknowledge, there are several hundreds of clinical trials taking place in the country in compliance with international and local guidelines. There have been over 40 US FDA clinical trial audits done in India with no critical findings reported. There have also been several European regulatory audits of Indian clinical trial sites, again with no critical findings.”

That said, Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee, had commented on a ‘nexus between the industry and the drug regulator’ for continuation of such sorry state of affairs, since long.

‘Industry-pharma nexus’ in the USA too?

Recently, similar tricky relationship between the regulator and the pharma companies was unearthed again with the later paying hefty fees to attend meetings of a panel that advises the US FDA.

The article highlighted, an investigative report in the ‘Washington Post’ found that pharma companies paid as much as US$ 25,000 to attend sessions convened by a scientific panel on painkillers, and has led to claims that the industry was being given an opportunity to influence federal policy in this area.

Expected Government action:

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the matter on October 24, 2013.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health reportedly held meetings with concerned officials to chalk out the strategy before the Court, when this case would come up for hearing after two weeks.

The report says, the Government is planning to place before the court a comprehensive plan with details of the existing mechanism and ongoing efforts like, bringing the the new Drugs and Cosmetic (Amendment) Bill 2013 and incorporation of Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury expert committee recommendations, to plug the loopholes in the new drug trial mechanism of the country. 

Conclusion:

While the importance of CTs to ensure better and more effective treatment for millions of patients in India is immense, it should not be allowed at the cost of patients’ safety, under any garb.  If the regulator overlooks this critical factor and some pharmaceutical players keep exploiting the system, judiciary has no option but to effectively intervene in response to PILs, as happened in this particular case too. 

Thus, I reckon, appropriate safety of human subjects participating in CTs and a fairplay in compensation, whenever justified, should be non-negotiable for the indian drug regulator. Despite reactions with indiscretion from a section of the industry, the Supreme Court is absolutely right to direct the DCGI to stop CTs for all NCEs/NMEs until the apex judiciary is satisfied that a robust system is in place for such trials in India. This will ensure, the scientific objectives of the CTs are properly achieved without any compromise on patients’ safety.

Breaking the nexus decisively between a section of the powerful pharmaceutical lobby group and the drug regulator, as highlighted even in the above Parliamentary Committee report, the Ministry of Health should, without any further delay, put in place a robust and transparent CT mechanism in India, come what may.

This well thought-out new system, besides ensuring patients’ safety and fairplay for all, will have the potential to help reaping a rich economic harvest through creation of a meaningful and vibrant CT industry in India, simultaneously benefitting millions of patients, as we move on.

That said, the moot question still remains: Will the drug regulator be able to satisfy the Supreme Court, as the two weeks expire, that appropriate mechanisms are in place to resume smooth conduct of CTs for the new drugs in India?

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.

 

Buying Physicians’ Prescriptions in Cash or Kind: A Global (Dis)Order?

Posted on by
Reply

Recently a European business lobby reportedly raised its voice alleging pharma Multinational Corporations (MNCs) in China have been ‘unfairly targeted’ by a string of investigations into bribery and price-fixing cases despite their generally ‘strong legal compliance’ and has suggested that China ‘must step back.’

Two comments of this European lobby group, presumably with full knowledge of its past records, appear indeed intriguing, first – ‘unfairly targeted’ and the second – ‘China must step back’, that too when a reportedly thorough state investigation is already in progress.

Reality is all pervasive:

However, while looking over the shoulder, as it were, an altogether different picture emerges and that reality seems to be all pervasive.

Over the past several decades, the much charted sales and marketing frontier in the pharmaceutical industry has been engagement into a highly competitive ‘rat race’ to create a strong financial transactional relationship, of various types and forms, with the physicians, who only take the critical prescription decisions for the patients. Most of the times such relationships are cleverly packaged with, among many others,  a seemingly noble intent of ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ by the companies concerned.

Increasingly, across the globe, more questions are now being raised whether such pharmaceutical business practices should continue even today. These voices are gradually getting louder fueled by the recent moves in the United States to ‘separate sales and marketing related intents of the drug industry from the practice of medicine’, especially in large medical teaching hospitals, in tandem with the enactment and practice of ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act 2010’.

A recent article titled, “Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Lessons Learned from a Pharma-Free Practice Transformation”, published in the ‘Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine’ deliberated on an interesting subject related to much talked about relationship between the doctors and the pharmaceutical players.

The authors argue in this paper that significant improvement in the quality of healthcare in tandem with substantial reduction in the drug costs and unnecessary medications can be ensured, if the decision makers in this area show some willingness to chart an uncharted frontier.

‘Questionable’ relationship in the name of providing ‘Medical Education’:

‘The Journal of Medical Education’ in an article titled “Selling Drugs by ‘Educating’ Physicians” brought to the fore the issue of this relationship between the pharma industry and individual doctors in the name of providing ‘medical education’.

The article flags:

“The traditional independence of physicians and the welfare of the public are being threatened by the new vogue among drug manufacturers to promote their products by assuming an aggressive role in the ‘education’ of doctors.”

It further elaborates that in the Congressional investigation in the United States on the cost of drugs, pharma executives repeatedly stated that a major expenditure in the promotion of drugs was the cost of ‘educating’ physicians to use their products.

The author then flagged questions as follows:

  • “Is it prudent for physicians to become greatly dependent upon pharmaceutical manufacturers for support of scientific journals and medical societies, for entertainment and now also for a large part of their ‘education’?”
  • “Do all concerned realize the hazards of arousing wrath of the people for an unwholesome entanglement of doctors with the makers and sellers of drugs?”

Financial conflicts in Medicine:

Another academic paper of August 13, 2013 titled, “First, Do No Harm: Financial Conflicts in Medicine” written by Joseph Engelberg and Christopher Parsons at the Rady School of Management, University of California at San Diego, and Nathan Tefft from the School of Public Health at the University of Washington, states:

“We explored financial conflicts of interest faced by doctors. Pharmaceutical firms frequently pay physicians in the form of meals, travel, and speaking fees. Over half of the 334,000 physicians in our sample receive payment of some kind. When a doctor is paid, we find that he is more likely to prescribe a drug of the paying firm, both relative to close substitutes and even generic versions of the same drug. This payment-for-prescription effect scales with transfer size, although doctors receiving only small and/or infrequent payments are also affected. The pattern holds in nearly every U.S. state, but it is strongly and positively related to regional measures of corruption.”

On this paper, a media report commented:

“The findings – based on recently released data that 12 companies have been forced to make public as a result of US regulatory settlements – will rekindle the debate over the limits of aggressive pharmaceutical marketing, which risks incurring unnecessarily costly medical treatment and causing harm to patients.”

A call for reform:

The first paper, as quoted above, titled “Breaking Up is Hard to Do” reiterates that even after decades, individual practitioner still remains the subject to undue influence of the pharmaceutical companies in this respect. It categorically points out:

“The powerful influence of pharmaceutical marketing on the prescribing patterns of physicians has been documented and has led to fervent calls for reform at the institutional, professional, and individual levels to minimize this impact.”

The rectification process has begun in America:

Interestingly, even in the United States, most physicians practice outside of academic institutions and keep meeting the Medical Representatives, accept gifts and drug samples against an expected return from the drug companies.

Many of them, as the paper says, have no other process to follow to become ‘pharma-free’ by shunning this hidden primitive barrier for the sake of better healthcare with lesser drug costs.

To achieve this objective, many academic medical centers in America have now started analyzing the existing relationship between doctors and the drug companies to limit such direct sales and marketing related interactions for patients’ interest.

This unconventional approach will call for snapping up the good-old financial transactional relationship model between the doctors and Medical Representatives of the Pharma players, who promote especially the innovative and more costly medicines.

An expensive marketing process:

The authors opine that this is, in fact, a very powerful marketing process, where the pharmaceutical players spend ‘tens of billions of dollars a year’. In this process more than 90,000 Medical Representatives are involved only in the United States, providing free samples, gifts along with various other drug related details.

The study reiterates that deployment of huge sales and marketing resources with one Medical Representative for every eight doctors in the United States, does not serve the patients interests in any way one would look into it, even in terms of economy, efficacy, safety or accuracy of information.

“But Don’t Drug Companies Spend More on Marketing?”

Yet another recent article, captioned as above, very interestingly argues, though the drug companies spend good amount of money on R&D, they spend much more on their marketing related activities.

Analyzing six global pharma and biotech majors, the author highlights that SG&A (Sales, General & Administrative) and R&D expenses vary quite a lot from company to company. However, in this particular analysis the range was as follows:

SG&A 23% to 34%
R&D 12.5% to 24%

SG&A expenses typically include advertising, promotion, marketing and executive salaries. The author says that most companies do not show the break up of the ‘S’ part separately.

A worthwhile experiment:

Removing the hidden barriers for better healthcare with lesser drug costs, as highlighted in the above “Breaking Up is Hard to Do” paper, the researchers from Oregon State University, Oregon Health & Science University and the University of Washington outlined a well conceived process followed by one medical center located in central Oregon to keep the Medical Representatives of the pharmaceutical companies at bay from their clinical practice.

In this clinic, the researchers used ‘a practice transformation process’ that analyzed in details the industry presence in the clinic. Accordingly, they educated the doctors on potential conflicts of interest and improved patient outcomes of the clinical practice. The concerns of the staff were given due considerations. Managing without samples, loss of gifts, keeping current with new drugs were the key concerns.

Based on all these inputs, various educational interventions were developed to help the doctors updating their knowledge of new drugs and treatment, even better, through a different process.

The experiment established, though it is possible to become “pharma free” by consciously avoiding the conflicts of interest, implementation of this entire process is not a ‘piece of cake’, at least not just yet.

Need for well-structured campaigns:

The researchers concluded that to follow a “pharma sales and marketing free” environment in the clinical practice, the prevailing culture needs to be changed through methodical and well-structured campaigns. Although, initiation of this process has already begun, still there are miles to go, especially in the realm of smaller practices.

One researcher thus articulated as follows:

“We ultimately decided something had to be done when our medical clinic was visited by drug reps 199 times in six months. That number was just staggering.”

Where else to get scientific information for a new drug or treatment?

The authors said, information on new drugs or treatment is currently available not just in many other forum, but also come with less bias and more evidence-based format than what usually are provided by the respective pharmaceutical companies with a strong motive to sell their drugs at a high price to the patients. 

The paper indicated that there are enough instances where the doctors replaced the process of getting information supplied by the Medical Representatives through promotional literature with monthly group meetings to stay abreast on the latest drugs and treatment, based on peer-reviews.

‘Academic detailing’:

In the process of ‘Academic detailing’ the universities, and other impartial sources of credible information, offer accurate information without bias, whenever sought for. In the United States, some states and also the federal government are reportedly supporting this move now, which is widely believed to be a step in the right direction.

Moves to separate sales and marketing of the drug industry from the practice of medicine:

As stated above, there are many moves now in the United States to ‘separate the sales and marketing influence of the drug industry from the practice of medicine’, especially in large medical teaching hospitals, as the paper highlights.

The study also reported that of the 800,000 physicians practicing in the United States only 22 percent practice in the academic settings and 84 percent of primary care physicians continue to maintain close relationships with the pharmaceutical companies.

Citing examples, the new report indicated various tangible steps that primary care physicians can possibly take to effectively mitigate these concerns.

Emerging newer ways of providing and obtaining most recent information on new drugs and treatment together with educating the patients will hasten this reform process.

A commendable move by the Medical Council of India:

Taking a step towards this direction, the Medical Council of India (MCI) vide a notification dated December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″. This move was welcomed by most of the stakeholders, barring some vested interests.

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’. These guidelines came into force effective December 14, 2009.

With this new and amended regulation, the MCI, on paper, has almost imposed a ban on the doctors from receiving gifts of any kind, in addition to hospitality and travel facilities related to CMEs and others, from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector industries in India.

Moreover, for all research projects funded by the pharmaceutical industry and undertaken by the medical profession, prior approval from the appropriate authorities for the same will be essential, in addition to the ethics committee.

Although maintaining a cordial and professional relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the doctors is very important, such relationship now should no way compromise the professional autonomy of the medical profession or any medical institution, directly or indirectly.

It is expected that the common practices of participating in private, routine and more of brand marketing oriented clinical trials would possibly be jettisoned as a pharmaceutical strategy input.

However, inability of the Indian regulator to get these guidelines effectively implemented  and monitored has drawn sharp flak from all 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.

No such government guidelines for the industry yet:

MCI under the Ministry of Health, at least, came out with some measures for the doctors in 2009 to stop such undesirable practices.

However, it is difficult to fathom, why even almost 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.

‘Physicians payment induced prescriptions’ – a global phenomenon:

Besides what is happening in China today with large pharma MNCs alleged involvement in bribery to the medical profession soliciting prescriptions of their respective drugs, world media keep reporting on this subject, incessantly.

For example, The Guardian in its July 4, 2012 edition reported an astonishing story. Since quite some time many pharmaceutical giants are being reportedly investigated and fined, including out of court settlements, for bribery charges related to the physicians.

In another very recent article titled “Dollars for Docs Mints a Millionaire” the author stated as follows:

“The companies in Dollars for Docs accounted for about 47 percent of U.S. prescription drug sales in 2011. It’s unclear what percentage of total industry spending on doctors they represent, because dozens of companies do not publicize what they pay individual doctors. Most companies in Dollars for Docs are required to report under legal settlements with the federal government.”

In India, deep anguish of the stakeholders over this issue is also getting increasingly reverberated all across, without much results on the ground though. It has also been drawing attention of the patients’ groups, NGOs, media, Government and even the Parliament of the country. 

Another article titled, “Healthcare industry is a rip-off” published in a leading business daily of India states as follows:

“Unethical drug promotion is an emerging threat for society. The Government provides few checks and balances on drug promotion.”

Physician Payment Sunshine Act of 2010:

To partly address this issue under President Obama’s ‘Patient Protection Affordable Care Act’, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ came into force in the United States in 2010. 

Under this Act, any purchasing organization that purchases, arranges for, or negotiates the purchase of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply or manufacturer of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply operating in the United States, or in a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States is required to publicly disclose gifts and payments made to physicians.

Penalty for each payment not reported can be upto US$ 10,000 and the penalty for knowingly failing to submit payment information can be upto US$ 100,000, for each payment.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has already released their ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ reporting templates for 2013. The templates apply for reports dated August 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013.

Should the Government of India not consider enacting similar law in the country  without further delay?

Conclusion:

That said, these well-researched papers do establish increasing stakeholder awareness and global concerns on the undesirable financial influence of pharma players on the doctors. Product promotion practices of dubious value, especially in the name of ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME), seem to strongly influence the prescribing patterns of the doctors, making patients the ultimate sufferer.

The studies will help immensely to establish that achieving the cherished objective of a ‘pharma sales and marketing free’ clinic is not only achievable, but also sustainable for long.

The barriers to achieving success in this area are not insurmountable either, as the above article concludes. These obstacles can easily be identified and overcome with inputs from all concerned, careful analysis of the situation, stakeholder education and identifying most suitable alternatives.

Thus, I reckon, to effectively resolve the humongous ‘physician payment induced prescriptions’ issue for the sole benefit of patients, it is about time for the pharmaceutical players to make a conscientious attempt to shun the ‘road much travelled, thus far, with innovative alternatives. However, the same old apprehension keeps lingering:

“Will the mad race for buying physicians’ prescriptions in cash or kind, much against patients’ interest, continue to remain a global (dis)order, defying all sincere efforts that are being made today?  

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

 

India, China Revoke Four Pharma Patents in A Fortnight: A Double Whammy for MNCs?

Posted on by
Reply

Revocation of four pharma patents by India and China within a fortnight has raised many eyebrows, yet again, across the globe. In this short period, India has revoked three patents and China one.

While this quick development is probably a double whammy for the Multinational Corporations (MNCs) operating in both the countries, a future trend could possibly emerge by analyzing and connecting the evolving dots.

On August 8, 2013, a judicial body, the Intellectual Property Apellate Board (IPAB) of India reportedly revoked two patents of Allergan Inc on Combigan and Ganfort, both are Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs of known molecules, used in the treatment of specified eye conditions. Local pharmaceutical player Ajantha Pharma had challenged these patents granted earlier to Allergan Inc. by the Indian Patent Office (IPO), alleging that the patents were obtained on false representation, the compositions were obvious ones, mere admixture of two pharmaceutical substances and not inventions.

IPAB in its order, while revoking the patent, has also said:

  • “The revocation of the patent was sought on various grounds that the patent was obtained on a false suggestion or representation, that it is not an invention, that it is obvious and does not sufficiently disclose and that the Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970 was violated.”
  • The “respondents (Allergan Inc) have incorrectly deciphered enhancement in therapeutic efficacy as reduction in interocular pressure comparable to serial application.”
  • “The respondent has not shown that it had complied with the Section 8 of Patents Act, 1970.”

Though Allergan claimed to have achieved enhanced efficacy with reduced side effects for these FDCs, the IPAB did not find the claims justifiable. Interestingly, Ajantha’s product reportedly is much less expensive too. As compared to Allergan’s Ganfort drops (3 ml) costing about Rs 580, Ajanta’s equivalent formulation costs just Rs 131.

The other pharma patent revocation of the fortnight:

On July 27, 2013, IPAB revoked yet another patent granted earlier to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)’s Lapatinib ditosylate salt of its breast cancer drug Tykerb, while upholding the patent on the original API, Lapatinib. IPAB in its order has stated that the ditosylate salt version of Lapatinib is not patentable as per patentability criteria of the Indian Patents Act.

Experts believe, with these decisions, the Indian legal system has clearly demonstrated that despite intense anger, pressure and protests mainly from the United States and Europe, to dilute public health interest related safeguards enshrined in the current Indian patent regime, the rule of law still prevails in the country for IP disputes.

Tykerb decision of IPAB follows the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India clarifying patentability criteria for incremental innovations.

An interesting precedent set:

In case of Tykerb of GSK, unlike other occasions, for the first time one MNC has challenged the patent of another MNC in India, instead of domestic companies doing so. The German drug manufacturer, Fresenius Kabi, instead of criticizing Indian IP law like other MNCs, had challenged the British drug maker GSK’s patent on the patentability criteria as provided in the Indian Patent Law and obtained a favorable decision from the IPAB against one of their two patent challenges on Tykerb.

A different case, yet worth mentioning:

Earlier, in late 2012, Delhi High Court while recognizing the validity of Roche’s patent for Tarceva (erlotinib), ordered that Cipla’s generic equivalent of erlotinib has different molecular structures. Hence, Cipla has not infringed Roche’s patent.

The generic version of Cipla’s erlotinib is reportedly available at a price of Rs 1,600 against Roche’s price of Rs 4,800 for Tarceva. Though this is not a patent revocation, but an interesting case nevertheless.

Other patent revocations:

Besides the only Compulsory License (CL) issued, so far, by the IPO for Bayer’s Nexavar to Natco (Cost of a pack of 120 tablets of Natco generic is Rs.8,800 against Nexavar’s Rs. 280,000), such patent challenges are now taking place in India quite close on the heels of one another as follows:

Sutent (Pfizer): 

In this case, the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib), granted earlier by the IPO in 2007, was revoked by the IPAB in October 2012, after a post grant challenge by Cipla and Natco Pharma on the ground that the claimed ‘invention’ does not involve inventive steps.

However, on November 26, 2012 in a new twist to this case, the Supreme Court of India reportedly restored the patent for Sutent. Interestingly, at the same time the court removed the restraining order, which prevented Cipla from launching a copycat generic equivalent of Sunitinib.

The cost of 45 day’s treatment with Cipla generic is Rs. 50,000 against Rs. 196,000 of Sutent. (Source ET, April 7, 2013)

Pegasys (Roche):

Again, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche. It is worth mentioning, Pegasys enjoys patent protection across the world.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by IPO in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the Indian pharma major – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a ‘novel’ product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’ as required by the Patents Act of India.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, the judicial body IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys, costing Rs. 360,000 for a six month course of treatment for a patient.

Iressa (AstraZeneca):

On November 26, 2012, IPAB reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Iressa (Gefitinib) on the ground that the molecule lacked invention.

The report also states that AstraZeneca suffered its first setback on Gefitinib in June 2006, when the Indian generic company Natco Pharma opposed the initial patent application filed by the global major in a pre-grant opposition. Later on, another local company, GM Pharma, joined Natco in November 2006.

After accepting the pre-grant opposition by the two Indian companies, IPO in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Iressa Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Anti-asthma FDC aerosol suspension (Merck & Co):

Similar to Allergan case, on December 11, 2012 Indian Patent Office (IPO) reportedly revoked a patent granted to an anti-asthma FDC drug of Merck & Co on the ground of lack of invention, after the domestic pharma major Cipla Ltd challenged an earlier granted patent of this FDC drug.

This aerosol suspension combines three molecules: mometasone furoate, formoterol and heptaflouropropane.

A similar asthma treatment, Dulera, reportedly lost its Indian patent held by Novartis AG in 2010.

Patentability for ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

Patentability criteria for any ‘incremental innovation’ has been defined in the Section 3(d) of the Indian statute as follows:

“The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known 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.”

“Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

Indian Patents Act prevails: 

As is well known, way back in 2006, IPO refused to grant patent to the cancer drug Glivec of Novartis on the ground that the molecule is a mere modification of an existing substance known as Imatinib.

In that case, on April 1, 2013 the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of Section 3(d), where the rules of the game for patentability of incremental pharmaceutical innovations, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005, were cast in stone.

Court did not disallow all incremental innovations:

Point 191 in page number 95 of the Glivec judgment very clearly states as follows:

“191. We have held that the subject product, the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, does not qualify the test of Section 3(d) of the Act but that is not to say that Section 3(d) bars patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances. It will be a grave mistake to read this judgment to mean that section 3(d) was amended with the intent to undo the fundamental change brought in the patent regime by deletion of section 5 from the Parent Act. That is not said in this judgment.”

Thus, it should not be highlighted unfairly by concerned constituents that all ‘incremental innovations’ are not patentable in India. The above judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and the arguments of Novartis.

Only 3% of patents are challenged:

Quoting a study, a recent media report highlighted that only 3% of the patent applications filed in India since 2006 were challenged. The study concluded, “This demonstrates that given the various resource constraints faced by the Indian patent office, one can never really be sure of the patent quality unless the patent is challenged.”

Rejection by IPO under Section 3d is minimum – is that a key issue?

Another study done by Columbia University reportedly found that out of 214 patents filed in India last year, only 3 patents were rejected by IPO exclusively for failing to prove better efficacy, as required under Section 3d. Turning this finding on its head, would it be reasonable to ponder:

Could this be a key issue for so many patents failing to pass the acid test of judicial scrutiny when challenged?

Government has no role to play in IP disputes:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue, patent challenge is a legal process all over the world, where the Government has hardly any role to play in resolving these disputes. The law should be allowed to take its own course for all disputes related to the Patents Act of the country, including Section 3(d).

They also opine that India must be allowed to follow the law of justice without casting aspersions on the knowledge and biases of the Indian judiciary by the vested interests.

That said, there is certainly an urgent need to add speed to this legal process by setting up ‘Fast-track Courts’ for resolving all Intellectual Property (IP) related disputes in a time bound manner.

Pharma patents granted in India:

As reported in the media, pharma MNCs have been granted over 1,000 patents since 2005. Moreover out of 4,036 patents granted in the past six years, 1,130 have been awarded to MNCs, like:

  • AstraZeneca 180 patents
  • Roche with 166 patents
  • Sanofi with 159 patents
  • Novartis with 147 patents

It is therefore understandable, as pharma MNCs have secured more number of pharma patents they are facing larger number of litigations at this point of time.

China and Brazil revoke patents:

Last week, just about a year after China introduced the country’s amended patent law, its State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has reportedly revoked the patent on HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B drug – Viread (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) of Gilead Science Inc. Aurisco, the largest manufacturer of active pharmaceutical ingredients in China, challenged this patent. The ground of patent revocation was that the drug lacked novelty and was not entitled to protection.

In 2008 Brazil also declared the patent of tenofovir invalid. It is worth mentioning that tenofovir of Gilead is the third-best-selling drug of the company, clocking sales of US$ 849 million in 2012.

South Africa mulls new law to stop ‘Evergreening’:

Recently, the Department of Trade and Industry of South Africa has reportedly submitted to the South African Cabinet a draft Intellectual Property Policy with far-reaching changes to the country’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for medicines in order to increase access to cheaper drugs by making it harder for companies to obtain and extend patents.

The draft includes a proposal to introduce a patent examination office to stop pharmaceutical companies from “evergreening” where companies take out new patents based on minor changes or new uses. 

Currently, South Africa uses a depository system, in which patent applications are granted without extensive scrutiny. Experts believe, “this system allows companies to file multiple patents on the same medicine and extend the life of their monopoly, keeping prices artificially high.”

Innovators Angry:

In this context, the following report recently captured the anger of the innovator companies and stated that the US drug giants are once again pushing for stronger patent protection in India:

“A coalition of U.S. lawmakers and business groups outlined concerns about Indian policies as a threat to American exports, jobs and innovation in a letter to President Barack Obama on June 18. Among the business groups were the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Biotechnology Industry Association. On June 14, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Finance Committee urged that Kerry raise trade concerns on his visit.”

Quoting US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center another report highlighted, “Recent policy and judicial decisions that invalidate intellectual property rights, which have been increasing in India, cast a daunting shadow over its otherwise promising business climate. From the revocation of patents to the staggering rates of piracy, India stands alone as an international outlier in IP policies. This trend is bad for investment, innovation and international trade.”

Does it benefit patients? 

In the paper titled ‘TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond’, published in ‘Chicago Journal for International Law, Vol. 3(1), Spring 2002’, the author argues, though the reasons for the lack of access to essential medicines are manifold, there are many instances where high prices of drugs deny access to needed treatments for many patients. Prohibitive drug prices, in those cases, were the outcome of monopoly due to strong intellectual property protection.

The author adds, “The attempts of Governments in developing countries to bring down the prices of patented medicines have come under heavy pressure from industrialized countries and the multinational pharmaceutical industry”.

While the ‘Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)’ of the World Trade Organization (WTO) sets out minimum standards for the patent protection for pharmaceuticals, it also offers adequate safeguards against negative impact of patent protection or its abuse in terms of extraordinary and unjustifiable drug pricing. The levels of these safeguards vary from country to country based on the socioeconomic and political requirements of a nation, as in India.  

Following table is an example of price differential between patented and generic equivalents of those molecules used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS:

1

2

3

3TC (Lamivudine)

Zerit (Stavudine)

Viramune (Nevirapine)

Price / Year / Patient in US$

Price / Year / Patient in US$

Price / Year /Patient in US$

GSK

Cipla

Hetero

BMS

Cipla

Hetero

B.I.*

Cipla

Hetero

3271

190

98

3589

70

47

3508

340

202

(Source: Third World Network, *B.I: Boehringer Ingelheim) 

Patentability for ‘genuine innovations’:

A report on ‘Patentability of the incremental innovation’ indicates that the policy makers keeping the following points in mind formulated the Indian Patents Act 2005:

  • The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industry, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.
  • A stringent patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs to a large number of populations in India causing immense hardships to them.
  • Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will be able to demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

Conclusion:

A study by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Since, most of the above patents have not been challenged, as yet, the quality of these patents cannot be ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt, as we discuss today.

If the apprehension, as expressed above in the IPA study has any merit, right answers to the following questions, I reckon, would help charting out the future direction for the IP ecosystem of India:

  • Is there a theoretical possibility of revocation of all these 86 already granted product patents, if and when challenged in a court of law?
  • Is the current Patents Act of India pragmatic?
  • Does it reasonably benefit both the innovators and the Indian patients,  signifying a paradigm shift in the global IPR scenario?
  • Will it inspire other countries also to emulate similar IP system in the years ahead?
  • Will it then invite more intense ire of the global pharma innovator companies creating increasing  pressure on the Indian Government to amend the current Patents Act?
  • Being under continuous public scrutiny, would it be feasible for any Indian Government, now or in future, in the near or medium term, to amend the Indian Patents Act due to any amount of outside pressure?
  • And finally, is the Act then irreversible, at least, for quite some time from now?

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.

 

Transparency in Drug Trial Data: Thwarted by Lobbyists or Embroiled in Controversy?

Posted on by
Reply

Based on a leaked letter from overseas pharma industry bodies, a leading international daily in late July 2013 reported:

“Big pharma mobilizing patients in battle over drugs trials data.”

Some experts consider it as a poignant, if not a bizarre moment in the history of drugs development, keeping patients’ interest in mind. However, the concerned trade bodies could well term it as a business savvy strategy to maintain sanctity of ‘Data Exclusivity’ in real sense.

That said, it is important for the stakeholders to figure out where exactly does this strategy stand between the larger issue of patients’ drug safety and efficacy concerns and the commercial interest of the innovator companies to grow  their business.

Lack of transparency in drug trials data and consequences:

Outside pharmaceutical marketing, some of the biggest scandals in the drug industry have been alleged hiding of data related to negative findings in drug Clinical Trials (CTs) by the innovator companies.

Many stakeholders have already expressed their uneasiness on this wide spread allegation that research based pharmaceutical companies publish just a fraction of their CT data and keep much of the drug safety related information to themselves. Not too distant withdrawals of blockbuster drugs like Vioxx (Merck) and Avandia (GSK) will vindicate this point.

Examples of global withdrawals of drugs, including blockbuster ones, available from various publications, are as follows. 

Brand

Company

Indication

Year of Ban/Withdrawal

Reason

Vioxx

Merck

Anti Inflammatory

2004

Increase cardiovascular risk

Bextra

Pfizer

Anti Inflammatory

2005

Heart attack and stroke

Prexige

Novartis

Anti Inflammatory

2007

Hepatotoxicity

Mylotarg

Wyeth

Acute Myelogenous Leukemia

2010

Increased patient death/No added benefit over conventional cancer therapies

Avandia

GSK

Diabetes

2010

Increased cardiovascular risk

Reductil

Abbott

Exogenous Obesity

2010

Increased cardiovascular risk

Paradex

Eli Lilly

Analgesic, Antitussive and Local Anaesthetic

2010

Fatal overdoses and heart arrhythmias

Xigris

Eli Lilly

Anti-Thrombotic, Anti-Inflammatory, and Profibrinolytic

2011

Questionable efficacy for the treatment of sepsis

A recent example:

A recent report indicates that Japan (Tokyo) based Jikei University School of Medicine plans to withdraw a paper on the hypertension drug Diovan of Novartis from the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) due to “data manipulation,” suggesting the drug could help treating other ailments.

The report also indicates that an investigative panel formed by the university to look into the allegations of ‘rigged data’ for Diovan concluded that the results were cooked.

The decision of the Japanese University to withdraw this paper is expected to hurt the reputation of Novartis Pharma AG and at the same time raise ethical concerns about the company’s behavior concerning its best-selling hypertension drug, the report says.

Drug regulators contemplating remedial measures:

Now being cognizant about this practice, some drug regulators in the developed world have exhibited their keenness to disband such practices. These ‘gatekeepers’ of drug efficacy and safety are now contemplating to get the entire published CT data reanalyzed by the independent experts to have a tight leash on selective claims by the concerned pharma companies.

A review reportedly estimates that only half of all CTs were published in full and that positive results are twice as likely to be published than negative ones.

Recently the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has published a draft report for public consideration on greater openness of CT data. As stated above, this proposal allows independent experts to conduct a detail analysis on the safety and effectiveness of new drugs.

Mobilizing patients to thwart transparency?

Interestingly, as stated in the beginning, it has recently been reported that to thwart the above move of the drug regulator in favor of patients’ interest:

“The pharmaceutical industry has mobilized an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drugs trials.”

The same report highlights that two large overseas trade associations had worked out a grand strategy, which is initially targeted at Europe. This is for the obvious reason that the EMA wants to publish all of the clinical study reports that drug companies have filed, and where negotiations around the CT directive could force drug companies to publish all CT results in a public database.

Embroiled in controversy:

It has also been reported simultaneously, “Some who oppose full disclosure of data fear that publishing the information could reveal trade secrets, put patient privacy at risk, and be distorted by scientists’ own conflicts of interest.”

Pharmaceutical trade associations in the west strongly argue in favor of the need of innovator companies to keep most of CT data proprietary for competitive reasons. They reiterate that companies would never invest so much of time and money for new drug development, if someone could easily copy the innovative work during the patent life of the product.

However, the report also states, “While many of these concerns are valid, critics say they can be addressed, and that openness is far more important for patients’ drug safety reasons.“

Addressing the concerns:

To address the above concerns the EMA has reportedly separated clinical data into three categories:

  • Commercially confidential information.
  • Open-access data that doesn’t contain patients’ personal information.
  • Controlled-access data that will only be granted after the requester has fulfilled a number of requirements, including signing of a data-sharing agreement.

However experts do also reiterate, “Risks regarding data privacy and irresponsible use cannot be totally eliminated, and it will be a challenge to accommodate diverse expectations across the scientific and medical community. However, the opportunity to benefit the health of individuals and the public must outweigh these concerns.”

Some laudable responses:

Amidst mega attempts to thwart the move of EMA towards CT data transparency surreptitiously, there are some refreshingly good examples in this area, quite rare though, as follows:

  • As revealed by media, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has recently announced that it would share detailed data from all global clinical trials conducted since 2007, which was later extended to all products since 2000. This means sharing more than 1,000 CTs involving more than 90 drugs. More recently, to further increase transparency in how it reports drug-study results, GSK reportedly has decided to disclose more individual patient data from its CTs. GSK has also announced that qualified researchers can request access to findings on individual patients whose identities are concealed and confidentiality protected.The company would double the number of studies to 400 available by end 2013 to researchers seeking data of approved medicines and of therapies that have been terminated from development.
  • Recently Canada reportedly announced the launch of Canadian Government’s new public database of Health Canada-authorized drug CTs. It is believed that providing access to a central database of clinical trials is an initial step that will help fill an existing information gap as the government works to further increase transparency around CTs.
  • The well-known British Medical Journal (BMJ) in one of its editorials has already announced, “BMJ will require authors to commit to supplying anonymised patient level data on reasonable request from 2013.”

All these are indeed laudable initiatives in terms of ensuring long term drug safety and efficacy for the patients.

Conclusion:

It is quite refreshing to note that a new paradigm is emerging in the arena of CT data transparency, for long-term health interest of patients, despite strong resistance from powerful pharmaceutical trade bodies, as reported in the international media. This paradigm shift is apparently being spearheaded by Europe and Canada among the countries, the global pharma major GSK and the medical Journal BMJ.

A doubt still keeps lingering on whether or not independent expert panels will indeed be given access to relevant CT data for meaningful impartial reviews of new drugs, as the issue, in all probability, would increasingly be made to get embroiled in further controversy.

Moreover, if the innovator companies’ often repeated public stand – “patients’ interest for drug efficacy and safety is supreme” is taken in its face value, the veiled attempt of thwarting transparency of CT Data, with an utterly bizarre strategy, by the lobbyists of the same ‘patient caring’ constituent, can indeed be construed as a poignant moment, now frozen in time, in the history of drug development for mankind.

Be that as it may, to resolve this problem meaningfully and decisively, I reckon, a middle path needs to be carefully charted out between reported thwarting moves by pharma lobbyists and the embroiled controversy on the burning issue.

Thus, the final critical point to ponder:

Would the commerce-driven and cost-intensive pharma innovation also not be in jeopardy, affecting patients’ interest too, if the genuine concerns of the innovator companies over ‘CT Data Protection’ are totally wished away? 

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.

 

After Mollycoddling China Cracks Down on Pharma MNCs…But Why Now?

Posted on by
Reply

In tandem with exemplary growth in the healthcare sector, China has started confronting with some consequential hazards in form of serious regulatory violations involving, besides many others, hospitals, pharmaceutical pricing and food and drug safety, which reportedly include contaminated milk powder and rat meat sold as mutton.

A recent report indicates, there are rampant kickbacks at various stages in the healthcare delivery process. For example, hospitals get kickbacks from drug and device companies, and hospital executives give a portion of these kickbacks to their doctors, involving even the pharma MNCs.

While looking back, in 1997, China took its first healthcare reform measures to mend the earlier not so good practices, when medical services used to be considered just as any other commercial product or services in the country. As a result, staggering healthcare expenses made Chinese medical services unaffordable and difficult to access for a vast majority of the local population.

In April 2009, China, a country with over 1.35 billion population, unfolded a blueprint of a new phase of healthcare reform to provide safe, effective, convenient and affordable healthcare services to all its citizens. An incremental budgetary allocation of US$ 124 billion was made for the next three years to achieve this objective.

The core principle of healthcare reform in China:

The core principle of the new phase of Chinese healthcare reform is to provide basic health care as a “public service” to all its citizens, where more government funding and supervision will play a critical role.

This reform process will ensure availability of basic systems of public health, medical services, medical insurance and medicine supply to the entire population of China. It was also announced that priority would be given to the development of grass-root level hospitals in smaller cities and rural China. The general population will be encouraged to use these facilities for better access to affordable healthcare services. However, public non-profit hospitals would continue to remain one of the important providers of medical services in the country.

Medical Insurance and access to affordable medicines:

Chinese government has planned to set up diversified medical insurance systems to provide basic medical coverage to over 90 percent of the country’s population. In tandem, the new healthcare reform measures will ensure better availability of affordable essential medicines at all public hospitals.

Highly lucrative healthcare business destination:

New Chinese healthcare reform process carries an inherent promise of a large additional spending worth billions of US dollars every year catapulting China as one of the most lucrative healthcare markets of the world.

China’s healthcare spending has reportedly been projected to grow from US$ 357 billion in 2011 to US$1 trillion in 2020.

Consequently, this huge investment has started attracting a large number of global companies of various types, sizes and nationality competing for the right size of their respective pies of profits.

In that process, as the media reports highlight, global pharmaceutical players started fast increasing both their top-line revenue and bottom-line profits from the booming Chinese healthcare market.

Pharma MNCs growing bigger, outpacing local industry:

Another report highlighted, “60% of China’s healthcare stimulus money ended up going to non-Chinese multinationals”. Quoting a recent JP Morgan report the article indicated AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer realized over 30 percent growth from their China operations in the early part of 2011.

With the slow down of business in Europe and in the United States, even large global pharmaceutical players like, Bayer, Sanofi, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and many more have reportedly invested huge resources for capacity building in sales and distribution channels, local manufacturing and R&D.

Chinese Government woke-up:

Kick starting the reform process and in the face of high level of corruption, Chinese government initiated monitoring the effective management and supervision of healthcare operations of not only the medical institutions, but also the health services, together with basic medical insurance system, in good earnest.

It has been reported, though the public hospitals will receive more government funding and be allowed to charge higher fees for quality treatment, they will not be allowed to make profits through expensive medicines and treatment, which has been a common practice in China.

Violations meted with harsh measures:

Accordingly, with increased vigil in many of these areas since last couple of years, Chinese regulators have started cracking down on the culprits, who are being meted out severe and harsh punishments, consequently.

In 2012, seven public hospital directors were reportedly sent to jails for accepting kickbacks. One corrupt drug regulator was even executed along with two food-company managers involved in a poisoned milk scandal, as the report mentions.

Pharma MNCs targeted for alleged corrupt practices:

As stated above, the new healthcare reform measures include regulation of prices of medicines and medical services, together with strengthening of supervision of health insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies and retailers.

China has now reportedly targeted Multinational Companies (MNCs) for allegedly corrupt practices, including price-fixing, quality issues and consumer rights. This has forced some MNCs to defend their reputations in China where global brands often have a valuable edge over local competitors in terms of public trust.

Recently, in an effort to reduce drug prices, China has initiated probes involving 60 drug manufacturers.

According to a recent report, to make the pricing system for medicines more effective, the regulatory agencies in China are investigating the costs and prices of drug manufacturers including global pharma majors like:

  • GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK)
  • Merck & Co.
  • Novartis AG
  • Baxter International Inc.

The regulators are expected to go through the details of 27 companies for costs and 33 companies for pricing, as per the July 2, 2013 statement posted on China’s National Development and Reform Commission’s (NDRC) Evaluation Center of Drug Pricing.

The report highlights that a possible impetus for the NDRC to probe into pricing and costs of domestic and foreign drug companies was the announcement of China’s National Essential Drugs List in March, which increased the items on the list to 500 from 305.

Clampdown on government spending:

To exercise control on public expenditure towards drugs, the government has also reportedly clamped down on drug spending, placing some foreign drug makers’ products under price controls for the first time.

Since 2011, the Chinese Government has reduced the drug prices four times, including 15 percent reduction earlier in 2013, though the price reduction will be as much as 20 percent for the expensive drugs. At the same time, the government has reduced tax rebates on investments.

Mr. Chen Zhu, Health Minister of China has reportedly expressed that healthcare in China is still too expensive and there is still inadequate control over improper use of drugs in the country.

Another report indicates that Nestlé, Abbott Laboratories and Danone are under investigation in China for “monopolistic” pricing.

Crackdown on bribery and kickbacks:

An article in a similar context mentions that the “Chinese police started an investigation into the Chinese unit of the biggest pharmaceutical manufacturers of UK – GlaxoSmithKline and Senior executives at the unit are suspected of ‘economic crimes”.

On the same subject, a different news report also indicates, a senior Glaxo finance executive in Shanghai and employees in Beijing were detained as part of a corruption investigation.

Recently a Chinese Security Ministry official has reportedly said that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) executives in China have confessed to bribery and tax violations.

The same report quoting the ministry highlighted that the case against GSK involved a large number of staff and a huge sum of money over an extended period of time, with bribes offered to Chinese government officials, medical associations, hospitals and doctors to boost sales and prices. Concerned executives also used fake receipts in unspecified tax law violations.

Interestingly, earlier in 2012, Global CEO of GSK reportedly admitted that the company made “unacceptable” mistakes in “mismarketing” their antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin, which were the subject of a US$ 3 billion settlement with the Justice Department of the United States. At that time the CEO was reported to have said “very sorry” for the incident and “determined that this is never going to happen again.” 

Another very recent news highlights that currently China is investigating at least four pharma MNCs as it widens its probe. Chinese enforcers had suggested that these pharma companies were using the same tactics to boost their businesses in the country.

It is now learnt that anti-trust body of China - State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC)  has also visited  Shanghai office of UCB. 

Happening elsewhere too:

Reports of similar alleged malpractices have started surfacing from elsewhere in the world too. For example, in Denmark, a country known for low incidence of corrupt practices, a Norwegian cardiologist was reportedly charged with taking 2 million kronor, or about US$ 350,000, from Merck and Pfizer, despite the fact, Danish law prohibits doctors from accepting money directly from the drug makers. The concerned doctor allegedly used the cash to buy expensive furniture and salmon-fishing holidays in his home country.

Last year, both the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States reportedly charged Pfizer and its subsidiary Wyeth for paying millions of dollars in bribes to officials, doctors and healthcare professionals in Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Serbia during 2001-2007 in violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. They had also set hefty fines on the two to settle the charges.

Conclusion:

To effectively address serious and longer term healthcare related issues of the country, the Chinese Government has already started implementing its new healthcare reform measures earnestly. Possibly to maintain equity, stay on course and uproot corrupt practices, they have now started cracking down on the violators in all seriousness, be they are from within the country or beyond its shores.

So far as the pharma MNCs are concerned, such harsh measures are being taken for alleged malpractices probably for the first time ever of this scale and that too with full media glare.

All these measures coupled with pricing pressure and gradual rise of local Chinese players, would make the Chinese market increasingly challenging to  pharma MNCs.

Some global players have already started feeling the scorching heat of tough Chinese measures. But China is too powerful a country and too lucrative a market for any entity to flex its muscle to stall the current juggernaut, at least, till the ‘Dragon’  achieves its objective of bringing down public healthcare expenditure to its expectations…Or is there more to the problem than meets the eye?

Thus, the key question emerges: 

Why has China, after mollycoddling the pharma MNCs for so many years, now started cracking down on them so hard?

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.