Tag Archives: drugs

Biologic Medicine: Ushers in a different ‘Mega Race’ for inorganic growth

Posted on by
Reply

During the last several years the success of biologics compared to conventional small-molecule drugs to meet the unmet needs of patients, is gradually but surely changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A. Over a period of so many years, the small-molecule blockbuster drugs business model made pharmaceuticals a high-margin industry. However, it now appears that the low hanging fruits to make blockbuster drugs have mostly been plucked.

These low hanging fruits involved therapy areas like, anti-ulcerants, anti-lipids, anti-diabetics, cardiovascular, anti-psychotic etc. and their many variants, which were relatively easy R&D targets to manage chronic ailments. Hereafter, the chances of successfully developing drugs for cure of these chronic ailments, with value addition, would indeed be a very tough call.

Deploying expensive resources towards finding a cure for so called ‘chronic diseases’ may also not promise a strong commercial incentive, as the treatment for ulcer, lipid disorders, diabetics, hypertension etc. are currently continues lifelong for a patient and a cure will limit the treatment to a short to medium term period.

Greater promise in biologics:

On the other hand, the bottom-line impact of a successful R&D outcome with safer and effective drugs to treat intractable ailments like,various types of cancer and blood disorders, auto-immune and Central Nervous System (CNS) related diseases, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Myasthenia gravis, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s diseases etc., will be huge. It is believed that well targeted drugs of biologic origin could well be successful treatment for such intractable diseases.

The golden opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologics, especially in high-growth therapeutics, as mentioned above, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust.

Biologic versus conventional drugs:

Biologics Conventional and NME drugs
Large molecules (>5000 molecular weight) Small molecules (~500 molecular weight)
Bio-technologically produced or isolated from living sources Chemically synthesized
Complex structure/mixtures (tertiary structure, glycosylated) Simple well-defined structure
High target specificity Less target specificity
Generally parenteral administration (e.g., intravenous) Oral administration possible (pills)

(Source: MoneyTreeTM Report. PWC, 2009)

According to IMS, Biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$120 billion MAT March 2009. As we see today, gradually more and more global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales in R&D, are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in a fast evolving market of biologics through mainly M&A route. This is also driven by their strategic intent to make good the loss in income from the blockbuster drugs going off patent and at the same time fast dwindling R&D pipeline.

A shift from small molecule based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one:

Frost & Sullivan forecasts a shift from small molecules-based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one for the global pharmaceutical majors, just as biologics like Enbrel ,Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira, as mentioned below, have already proved to be money spinners.

The top 10 global brands in 2009:

Rank Product Chemical/Biologic Global Sales US$ Mn
1 Lipitior Chemical 12,511
2 Plavix Chemical 9,492
3. Seretide/Advair Chemical 7,791
4. Enbrel Biologic 6,295
5. Diovan Chemical 6,013
6. Remicade Biologic 5,924
7. Avastin Biologic 5,744
8. Rituxan Biologic 5,620
9. Humira Biologic 5,559
10. Seroquel Chemical 5,121

(Source: EvaluatePharma)

Faster growth of biologics attracting attention of large pharma players:

Currently, faster growth of biologics as compared to conventional new chemical entities is driven by novel technologies and highly targeted approach, the final outcome of which is being more widely accepted by both physicians and patients. The large global pharmaceutical companies are realizing it pretty fast. The type and quality of their recent acquisitions, vindicate this point.

Mega race for biologics and vaccines:

Driven by the above factor, in 2009 Pfizer acquired Wyeth for US $68 billion, Roche acquired Genentech for US $ 47 billion and Merck acquired Schering-Plough for US $ 41 billion. Only the above three M&A are valued more than US $ 150 billion and that too at a time of global financial meltdown.

Acquisition of Wyeth enabled Pfizer to expand its product-mix with vaccines, animal health and consumer products businesses and at the same time leveraging from Wyeth’s biologics capability.

Similarly, Merck got tempted to acquire Schering-Plough mainly because of latter’s rich R&D pipeline with biologics.

Roche, which was basically a pharmaceutical company, post-acquisition of Genentech, became a major bio-pharmaceutical company with a great promise to deliver in the years ahead.

Other M&As, which would signify a shift toward the growing space for biologics are the acquisition of MedImmune by AstraZeneca and Insmed by Merck and the recent bid of Sanofi-Aventis for Genzyme.

Faster growth of biologics:

As mentioned above, despite patent cliff, biologics continue to contribute better than small molecules to overall growth of the R&D based global pharmaceutical industry.  Most of these biologics are sourced either through acquisition or  collaborative arrangements.

Currently cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factors, etc. are becoming attractive acquisition targets, mainly by large pure pharmaceutical companies with deep pockets.

Another M&A model:

Besides mega race for mega acquisitions, on the other hand, relatively smaller pharmaceutical players have started acquiring venture-backed biotech companies to enrich their product pipelines with early-stage drugs at a much lesser cost. For example, with the acquisition of Calistoga for US $ 600 million and venture-backed Arresto Biosciences and CGI Pharmaceuticals, Gilead known for its HIV drugs, expanded into blood cancer, solid tumor and inflammatory diseases. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs.

Smaller biotech companies, because of their current size do not get engaged in  very large deals, unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and usually successful deals.

Another commercial advantage for biologics – lesser generic competition :

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

On the other hand biologics, which involve difficult, complex and expensive biological processes for development together with stringent regulatory requirements for getting marketing approval of biosimilar drugs especially in the developed markets of the world like, EU and USA, offer some significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, even after patent expiry.

It is for this reason, brands like the following ones are expected to go strong for some more time to come, without any significant competition from biosimilar drugs:

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

Change of appetite:

In my view, the voracious appetite of large pharmaceutical companies for inorganic growth through mega M&As, will ultimately subside for various compelling reasons.  Instead, smaller biotech companies, especially with products in Phase I or II of clinical trials without further resource to take them to subsequent stages of development, will be prime targets for acquisition by the pharma majors at an attractive valuation.

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors are experimenting with pure biotech companies in terms of acquisitions and alliances, it will be interesting to see the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ between these companies’ business models, organization and work/employee culture and market outlook to improve their overall global business performance, significantly. Only future will tell us whether or not just restructuring of the R&D set up of companies like, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and perhaps Sanofi-aventis at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged companies.

In this context, Frost & Sullivan had commented: “Widely differing cultures at Roche and Genentech could make retaining top scientists a huge challenge. Roche is Swiss and a stickler for precision and time, while Genentech has a more ‘Californian attitude’ and is laid back and efficient in its work”.

Though the long-term overall financial impact of the ‘mega race for mega deals’, as mentioned above, is less clear to me, acquisition of biotech companies, especially well thought through smaller ones, seems to be a pretty smart move towards inorganic growth by the global innovator companies.

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.

Explore the Emerging Markets with the ‘Wings of Courage’.

Posted on by
Reply

Overall growth rate of the global pharmaceutical industry is currently hovering around 5%. Similar situation has been prevailing since last several years. There is no indication of acceleration of growth rate from any of the top 3 regions of the world namely the USA, EU and Japan, at least in the near future.

According to IMS, the global pharmaceutical market is expected to grow around 5%-7% in 2011 to US$ 880 billion, as compared to around 4%-5% of 2010.

The reasons of the slowdown, I have discussed several times in the past through this column and do not intend to dwell on that, at least, in this Article.

The Emerging Markets of the World:

Unlike developed markets, emerging pharmaceuticals market of the world, like, India, China, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Turkey and Korea, are showing a robust growth rate, quite commensurate to the ascending GDP growth trend of these countries.

According to IMS, the projected CAGR trend of the developed and Emerging Markets for the period of 2007–11, are as follows:

Mature Markets

CAGR 2007-11

Emerging Markets

 CAGR 2007-11
USA 4-7% China 13-16%
Canada 6-9% Korea 8-11%
Japan 2-5% Brazil 9-12%
Germany 3-6% Russia 17-20%
France 2-5% Mexico 6-9%
Italy 3-6% India 11-14%
UK 4-7% Turkey 9-12%
Spain 5-8%

(Source IMS)

Branded Generics/Generics are now key growth drivers in the Emerging Markets:

It is worth noting, unlike the developed markets of the world, where high priced branded patented drugs drive the value growth of the industry, in the emerging markets, where investment towards R&D is relatively less, branded generic and the generic products are the key growth drivers.

Such an evolving situation has prompted large global majors like Pfizer, GSK, Sanofi-aventis, Daiichi Sankyo and Abbott Laboratories, to name a few, either to acquire large generic or Biosimilar drug companies or ink various interesting and win-win collaborative deals, in these markets, to maintain their respective business growth with the branded generic and generic products in the fast growing emerging markets of the world.

Will Emerging Markets be lucrative enough only with Generic and Branded Generic products, in the long run?

Some experts do feel that, in the long run, the emerging pharmaceutical markets, like India, may not prove to be as lucrative to the global pharmaceutical majors.

The key reason being, around 80% ‘out of pocket’ expenditure for medicines in India, could be the key impediment to expanded access to higher priced innovative medicines, in general. Such a situation could seriously limit the success of branded patented drugs in India following their global strategy, compared to the developed markets of the world. The issue of affordability of such medicines will continue to be a key factor for their improved access in India, if the ground reality remains unchanged. Top line business growth only with Generics and Branded Generics in the emerging markets may not be sustainable enough, in the long run, for the innovator companies to adequately fund their R&D initiatives to meet the unmet needs of the patients.

The other school of thought:

The other school of thought, however, argues that ‘out-of pocket” characteristic of  India is indeed more sustainable in terms of cost containment pressure, than those  markets where the government or health insurance companies cover a large part of the medical expenses for the population.

Every year around 1% of population comes above the poverty line in India together with a growing ‘middle income’ segment with increasing purchasing power. This cycle, in turn, will keep fueling the growth of healthcare space, contributing significantly to the progress of the pharmaceutical industry of the country.

‘One size fits all’ global strategy unlikely to succeed in the ‘Emerging Markets’:

In my view ‘One size fits all’ type of strategy, especially in the area of pricing, is unlikely to succeed in the emerging markets of the world. Pharmaceutical Companies will need to have  different types of ‘tailor made’ strategic approaches for markets like Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Mexico, Korea and Turkey.

Pricing Strategy will be a key determinant to success:

For better access to medicines, ‘differential pricing strategy’ has been the stated policy of large global companies like, GSK and MSD. If this trend continues, a win-win situation could be created, when unmet needs of a large number of patient groups could be met with innovative medicines, paving the way for the innovator companies to register a healthy, both top and bottom line, business growth in these markets to effectively fund their R&D projects, besides others.

The most successful brand launch in India, so far:

The credit for the most successful new patented product launch (launched in 2008) in the recent times, I reckon, should go to Januvia (Sitagliptin), an oral anti-diabetic molecule from the global major MSD. The reported global sales of Januvia in 2008 was US $1.4 billion and the sales reported in India was around Rs. 77 Crore (around US $17 million) in just over two years with around 2.4% market share in the large and fragmented Oral Ant-Diabetic segment (IMS, MAT March 2010). This could happen, in my view, not only due to a brilliant business strategy executed with military precision but also because of a differential pricing strategy adopted by the company for this particular product in India.

In recent times, it has not been difficult to record a turnover of around US $ 20 – 25 million by a large pharmaceutical brand either in India or China.

Conclusion:

If this does not happen, due to one reason or the other, it would arguably be quite challenging for the global innovators to be able to keep engaged in the high-cost and high-risk R&D initiatives, by driving their business growth mainly with generic and branded generic medicines in the fast growing emerging markets of the world.

Thus the name of the game for the global innovator companies will be to Explore the Emerging Markets with the ‘Wings of Courage’.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

The issue of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ in India: An “Ostrich Syndrome’

Posted on by
Reply

Ellen‘t Hoen, former Policy Advocacy Director of MSF’s Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines wrote in April 2009 as follows:

“People often seem to confuse counterfeit, substandard and generic medicines – using the terms interchangeably. But they are very separate issues and clearly defining their differences is critical to any discussion”.

In November 7, 2009, Financial Express reported with a headline, “Generic drug companies see a bitter pill in counterfeit“, because some believe that it has an in-built intellectual property right connotation.
The WHO debate:

‘Intellectual property Watch’ in May 20, 2010 reported as follows:

“Brazil and India claimed that WHO’s work against counterfeit and substandard medicines is being influenced by brand-name drug producers with an interest in undermining legitimate generic competition. The Brazilian ambassador told Intellectual Property Watch there is a “hidden agenda” against generics from countries like Brazil.

“India and Brazil filed requests for consultations with the European Union and the Netherlands over the seizure of generics medicines in transit through Europe. This is the first step towards a dispute settlement case, and if issues cannot be resolved via consultations then formation of a dispute settlement panel could be requested in the coming months”.

In response to such allegations the International Federation on Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) released a document titled, “ten principles on counterfeit medicines” and categorically stated that “patents have nothing to do with counterfeiting and counterfeiting has nothing to do with patents.”

In this seemingly volatile scenario, the key point to understand is the definition of a ‘Counterfeit Drug’.

The dictionary definition:
The word ‘Counterfeit’ may be defined as follows:
1. To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud
2. To carry on a deception or dissemble
4. To make fraudulent copies of something valuable
5. A fraudulent imitation.
What does the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act say?
Presumably in the spirit of the above definition, the Drugs and cosmetics Act (D&CA) of India has specified that manufacturing or selling of the following types of drugs are punishable offence:
Section 17: Misbranded drugs
Section 17-A: Adulterated drugs
Section 17-B: Spurious drugs
The question therefore arises, as misbranding could involve trademark and design, why does it fall under D&CA?
This was done in the past by the law makers, as they believed that any attempt to deliberately and fraudulently pass off any drug as something, which it really is not, could create a serious public health issue, leading to even loss of lives.
Be that as it may, the pharmaceutical industry all over the world sincerely believes that counterfeit drugs involve heinous crime against humanity.

Another argument:

Some voices in India have also expressed that ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ are a Health issue. Why are we then mixing up non-health IPR issues like trademarks and designs along with it?

Should the definition of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ cover all types of medicines, which are not genuine?

Definition of counterfeit drugs should, therefore, cover the entire gamut of medicines, which are not genuine. Such medicines could be a fraudulent version of patented, generic or even traditional medicines and have nothing to do with patents or patent infringements.
At the same time it sounds very reasonable that a medicine that is authorized for marketing by the regulatory authority of one country but not by another country should not be regarded as counterfeit on this particular ground in any country, unless it has been made available fraudulently. It will be absolutely improper for anyone to term generic drugs as counterfeits, in the same way.

The magnitude of the problem:

International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Task Force (IMPACT) reported in 2006 as follows:

“Indian pharmaceutical companies have suggested that in India’s major cities, one in five strips of medicines sold is a fake. They claim a loss in revenue of between 4% and 5% annually. The industry also estimates that spurious drugs have grown from 10% to 20% of the total market.”

CDSCO surveys on ‘Spurious’ and ‘Sub-standard’ drugs in India:

Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of the Government of India has released the following details on ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ in India from 2006 to 2010.

Year Drugs samples tested % of sub-standard drugs % of spurious drugs Prosecution for crime Persons arrested
2006 – 07

34738

5.8

0.22

115

12
2007 – 08

39117

6.2

0.19

120

122
2008 – 09

45145

5.7

0.34

220

133
2009 -10

39248

4.95

0.29

138

147

TOTAL

158248

5.66

0.26

593

414

It is indeed very surprising to note from the above CDSCO report that from 2006 to 2010 the number of both arrests and prosecutions for this heinous crime in India is abysmally low.

To assess the magnitude of the menace of counterfeit drugs, Financial Express dated November 12, 2009 reported that much hyped “world’s largest study on counterfeit drugs” conducted by the Ministry of Health of the Government of India with the help of the Drug Controller General of India’s office, has come to the following two key conclusions:
1. Only 0.046% of the drugs in the Indian market were spurious
2. Only 0.1% of drugs are of sub-standard quality in India

Is there really nothing to worry about?

From these reports, it appears that India, at this stage, has nothing to worry about this public health hazard!

It is indeed equally baffling to understand, why did the government keep ‘misbranded drugs’, as specified in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, outside the purview of this study.
In my opinion, the above recent survey has raised more questions than what it had attempted to answer. Such questions are expected to be raised not only by the pharmaceutical industry of India, its stakeholders and the civil society at large, but by the international community, also.
The problem of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ is more prevalent in countries where regulatory enforcement is weak:
The menace of counterfeit medicines is not restricted to the developing countries like, India. It is seen in the developed countries, as well, but at a much smaller scale. Thus it is generally believed that the issue of counterfeit drugs is more common in those countries, where the regulatory enforcement mechanism is weak.
A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits.
The role of ‘The World health Organization (WHO)’:
To effectively eliminate this global menace, the leadership role of the WHO is extremely important. Across the world, patients need protection from the growing menace of ‘Counterfeit Medicines’. As a premier organization to address the needs of the global public health issues and especially for the developing world, the WHO needs to play a key and much more proactive role in this matter.

Conclusion:
All stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry must be made aware, on a continuous basis, of the health hazards posed by counterfeit medicines in India. Authorities and organizations like the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and its regulatory and enforcement agencies, healthcare professionals, patients, all pharmaceutical manufacturers, drug distributors, wholesalers and retailers should collaborate to play a very active and meaningful role in curbing the counterfeit drugs from reaching the innocent patients.

Instead of all these, as we witness today, the country keeps on demonstrating an ‘Ostrich Syndrome’, shouting from the roof top, as it were, that no health hazards due to prevalence of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ exist 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

EU-FTA, TRIPS-Plus provisions, Data Exclusivity, Public Interest and India

Posted on by
Reply

Business Standard in its January 27, 2011 edition reported, “Data Exclusivity still key hurdle to India-EU FTA”
Before deliberating on this important issue of “Free Trade Agreement (FTA)”, let me touch upon very briefly, for the benefit of all concerned, the pros and cons of the FTAs.
Free Trade Agreements (FTAs):
Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), as we know, are treaties signed between the governments of two or more countries, where the countries agree to partially or completely lift the import tariffs, taxes, quotas, special fees, other trade barriers and regulatory issues to allow increased business, benefitting each country.
The Pros and Cons:
Consumers of each country are the key beneficiaries of FTAs with increased supply of various products of wider choices at lesser prices with consequent increase in market competition and market penetration.
The cons of the FTAs are apprehensions that arising out of fierce competition and increasing supply of imported products at lesser prices, the demand for domestic goods decline, leaving an adverse impact on the domestic business performance with consequent job losses, especially, in the manufacturing sector. In addition, because of lower import tariff, revenue collection of the government may also get adversely affected.
The scenario is no different for the pharmaceutical sector of the country.
A recent example:
The most recent example is the FTA between India and Japan. This will include both trade and investments, increasing the bilateral trade and commerce between the two countries to around US$ 11 billion. With this Agreement, Indian pharmaceutical products will be able to get access to the highly regulated and the second largest pharmaceutical market of the world.
The key issues with EU FTA:
1. It wants to include IPR issues like Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) or Data Exclusivity (DE) 2. RDP is a TRIPS-plus provision and its inclusion will delay the launch of generics 3. Delayed launch of generics would adversely impact the ‘public interest’.
A paradigm shift has taken place in India:
As we know, January 1, 1995 ushered in a new era, when the agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), became effective for its member countries. This Agreement significantly changed the international Intellectual Property (IP) regime with the introduction of the principle of minimum intellectual property standards.
This would, therefore, mean that any IP related agreement that will be negotiated subsequent to TRIPS between WTO members can only create higher than the specified minimum standards.
What is ‘TRIPS Plus’?
The ‘TRIPS-plus’ concept usually would encompass all those activities, which are aimed at increasing the level of IP protection for the right holders beyond what is stipulated in the TRIPS Agreement.
Some section of the civil society nurtures a view that ‘TRIPS Plus’ provisions could significantly jeopardize the ability, especially, of developing countries to protect the ‘public interest’.
Some common examples of ‘TRIPS Plus’ provisions:
Common examples of ‘TRIPS plus’ provisions could include:
- Extension of the patent term beyond usual twenty-year period – Introduction of provisions, which could restrict the use of Compulsory    Licenses (CL) – Delaying the entry of generics
Is section 39.3 an example of ‘TRIPS Plus’ provision?
The raging debate around Regulatory Data Protection (Data Exclusivity) as indicated under Article 39.3 of TRIPS is perhaps unique in terms of apprehension of the generic pharmaceutical industry on its possible adverse impact on their business and very recently of the Government of India because of the share of voice of the pressure groups following the EU-FTA.
Be that as it may, the moot question is, even if these provisions are ‘TRIPS Plus’, are these good for India?

Key arguments in favor of RDP in India:
1. It will not extend Patent life and promote evergreening:
However, there is hardly any evidence that RDP does not get over well before the patent expires. Thus RDP does extend the patent life of a product and hence is not ‘Evergreening’.
2. It will not delay the launch of generics because of safeguards provided in the Indian Patent Act, just like in the USA:
A robust ‘Data Exclusivity (DE)’ regime is effective in the USA since over decades. Despite DE, the world witnesses quickest launch of generic products in that country without any delay whatsoever. This has been possible in the USA, because of existence of the‘Bolar Provision’, which allows the generic players to prepare themselves and comply with all regulatory requirements, using the innovators data wherever required and keep the generic product ready for launch immediately after the patent of the innovator product expires in the country.
I reckon similar ‘Bolar like provision‘ exists in the section 107A of the Indian Patent Act. This particular section allows, in a similar way that generic entry is not delayed in India after patent expiry of the respective innovator products.
Though the generic players of India, by and large, are up in arms against RDP (protection against disclosure and unfair commercial use of the test data) in India, highest number of ANDAs are being filed by the Indian companies, just next to the USA, despite a stringent DE provisions being in force there.
Moreover, inspite of very stringent IPR regulations, Generic prescriptions are quite popular in the USA. Around 62% of the total prescriptions in that country are for generic pharmaceuticals.
Thus the key apprehension that the RDP provision in the EU-FTA will delay the launch of generic  pharmaceutical products in India and will go against ‘Public Interest’ seems to be unfounded to me.
Government report indicates RDP is good for India:
The Government of India appointed ‘Satwant Reddy Committee’ report (2007) also categorically recommended that RDP is good for the country and should be introduced in a calibrated way.The committee examined two industries:
- Pharmaceuticals – Agrochemicals
Meanwhile, a 3 year RDP for Agrochemicals has been accepted by the Government of India, vindicating the fact that even if section 39.3 is considered as ‘TRIPS Plus’, RDP, as such, is good for the country.
Thus the question whether Section 39.3 is ‘TRIPS Plus’ or not, does not appear to be relevant while discussing EU-FTA, after following the above sequence of events in India.
Conclusion:
The issue of RDP appears to me more a regulatory than an IPR related subject in EU-FTA negotiation process and should be treated as such. It means RDP is more related to the ‘Drugs and Cosmetics Act’ of India rather than the ‘Patent Act 2005′. The media hype that an IPR issue in the form of RDP is being taken up in the EU-FTA negotiation also seems to be misplaced.
Let me hasten to add that I do not hold any brief directly or indirectly for or against the EU-FTA. Neither do I wish to make any general comment on the EU-FTA as such, because the agreement will deal with various other important issues of our nation’s interest involving intensive negotiations between the sovereign countries, at the government level.
However, even without going into the merits or demerits of the EU-FTA, it appears to me that the arguments put forth by a group of people against RDP related to the EU-FTA are indeed not robust enough and possibly have been prompted more by the vested interest groups rather than the ‘Public Interest’.

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.

Are Indian patients victims of “unnecessary tests and procedures, rewards for referrals and irrational use of drugs?” A perspective

Posted on by
Reply

Since quite some time, serious concerns have been expressed by the media, government and the civil society at large about the means adopted by the pharmaceutical industry in general to get their respective brands prescribed by the doctors and why do some of the doctors prescribe what they prescribe to the patients out of multiple available choices.
The MCI Guidelines:
Being concerned mainly by the media outcry, the Medical Council of India (MCI), a year ago, amended their related guidelines for the doctor, clearly articulating what they can and cannot do during their interaction and transaction with the pharmaceutical and related industries.
The Ministry of Health believes that these guidelines, if strictly enforced, would severely limit what the doctors can receive from the pharmaceutical companies in terms of free gifts of wide ranging financial values, entertainments, free visits to exotic locations under various commercial reasons, lavish lunch and dinner etc. in exchange of prescribing specific brands of the concerned companies more…more…and more.
“The Lancet” report:
Let me now combine this scenario with a recent report on India dated January 11, 2011, published in ‘The Lancet’, which states in a similar, though not the same context, as follows:
1. “Reported problems (which patients face while getting treated at a private doctor’s clinic) include unnecessary tests and procedures, rewards for referrals, lack of quality standards and irrational use of injection and drugs. Since no national regulations exist for provider standards and treatment protocols for healthcare, over diagnosis, over treatment and maltreatment are common.”
2. “Most people accessed private providers for outpatient care – 78% in rural areas and 81% in urban areas.”
3. “India’s private expenditure of nearly 80% of total expenditure on health was much higher than that in China, Sri Lanka and Thailand.”
Considering the above three critical issues of India, as reported by ‘The Lancet’, the need to follow a transparent code of pharmaceutical marketing practices by the entire pharmaceutical industry is of utmost importance. Recently amended MCI guidelines for the doctors are welcome steps in the right direction.
Are patients just the pawns?
In the absence of all these, the patients of all socio-economic strata will continue to be exploited as pawns by some unscrupulous healthcare players to satisfy their raw greed for making fast bucks at the cost of the intense agony of the ailing patients and their near and dear ones.
As stated earlier, this phenomenon is not new at all. Over a period of time, many stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry and the public at large have been raising the issue of physicians being influenced in their prescription decisions by various types of payments made to them by the pharmaceutical companies. Such types of significant and seemingly avoidable expenditures, presumed to be considered by the respective companies as a part of their ‘marketing costs’, are believed to be included in the maximum retail price (MRP) of medicines, making them more expensive to the patients.
On the other hand, most physicians believe that free entertainment, gifts, their travel costs and seminar sponsorships in no way influence their prescription decision for the patients.
This is not a just India specific issue. Some skeptics believe that it has now become an all pervasive global scandal.
Self-regulation by the industry is most desirable:
To address this issue effectively, some national and international pharmaceutical associations have come out with their own codes of ethical marketing practices along with appropriate stakeholder grievance redressal mechanism, effectively.
Despite all these, it is an undeniable fact that overall perceptual image of the pharmaceutical industry in this respect to the stakeholders, in general, is not as good as it should have been.
The Government intervened in India:
Being alarmed by various media reports on the alleged pharmaceutical marketing (mal) practices in the country, the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP) had advised the pharmaceutical industry to develop an ‘Uniform Code of Marketing Practices (UCMP)’, which will be applicable to the entire pharmaceutical industry in India.
It has been reported that the said UCMP with its stakeholder grievance redressal mechanism in a transparent procedural format, was submitted to the government by the major pharmaceutical industry associations in India. However, because of dissent of some section of the industry, the UCMP has not received the ‘green signal’ of the government, as yet. It was expected that all stakeholders will help maintaining the sanctity of the UCMP to address this sensitive global and local issue, effectively.
An emerging trend of public disclosure:
Around third quarter of 2008, in an industry first step, Eli Lilly announced its intent of full disclosure of payments that the company made to the physicians for various commercial reasons. Eli Lilly indicated disclosure of payments of more than US $500 to the physicians for advice and speaking at the seminars. Over a period of time, the company indicated that it will expand such disclosure to include other forms of payments to the physicians like gifts, various entertainment and travel.
Eli Lilly was soon followed in this direction by global pharmaceutical majors like, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).
However, in India, such instances have not been reported, as yet.
Skepticism with voluntary disclosure:
Some are still skeptical about announcements of such ‘voluntary disclosure of payment to the physicians’ by the global pharmaceutical majors to bring in better transparency in the functioning of the industry.

This section of people believes, there are hundreds and thousands of other pharmaceutical companies, who will not follow such precedence of voluntary disclosure in the absence of any properly enforced regulation.
Conclusion:
In all the countries and India is no exception, pharmaceutical companies, by and large, try to follow the legal ways and means to maximize turnover of their respective brands. Many follow transparent and admirable stringent self-regulations, stipulated either by themselves or by their industry associations.
‘Self-regulation with pharmaceutical marketing practices’ and ‘voluntary disclosure of payment to the physicians’ by some leading global pharmaceutical companies are laudable steps to address this vexing issue. However, the moot question still remains, are all these good enough for the entire industry?
It is about time that all players in the healthcare space realize, in case these voluntary measures of the industry and the guidelines of the regulators like MCI, do not work effectively for any reason, there will be no other option but for the government to step in with iron hand and ‘fool proof’ regulations.
The popular dictum, especially, used in the healthcare industry, “all these are for the patients’ interest” should not be allowed to be misused or abused, any further, by some unscrupulous elements and greedy profiteers, to squeeze out even the last drop of financial resource from the long exploited population of ailing patients of 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.

Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) are hitting the poor even harder, economically: a time to ponder and a time to act

Posted on by
Reply

November 11, 2010 edition of ‘The Lancet’ published an article titled, “Raising the priority of preventing chronic diseases: a political process”. The article enumerated the following:

“Chronic diseases, especially cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer, and chronic obstructive respiratory diseases, are neglected globally despite growing awareness of the serious burden that they cause. Global and national policies have failed to stop, and in many cases have contributed to, the chronic disease pandemic. Low-cost and highly effective solutions for the prevention of chronic diseases are readily available; the failure to respond is now a political, rather than a technical issue.”

The situation is no different in India. The disease pattern in India is also showing a perceptible shift from age old ‘Infectious Diseases’ to ‘Non-infectious Chronic Illnesses’. As reported by IMS, incidence of chronic ailments in India has increased from 23 percent in 2005 to 26 percent in 2009. It has been estimated that chronic illnesses will be the leading cause of both morbidity and mortality by the next decade.

As a consequence of such findings healthcare needs and systems of the country should need to undergo a paradigm shift with the emergence of a carefully planned concept of ‘Preventive Healthcare’ in the country.

It is a myth that non-infectious illnesses are more prevalent in higher socio-economic strata:
There is a common perception that non-communicable diseases are more prevalent within higher socio-economic strata of the society, a national survey done in India shows that diseases related to misuse of alcohol and tobacco are higher in the poorest 20 percent quintile of our society.

Current healthcare system in India:

Currently the medical alleviation of the acute symptoms and the disease that a particular patient is suffering from is the key concern of all concerned starting from the doctor to the patient and his/her family. The process of the medical treatment revolves round symptom relief, diagnostic measures and appropriate treatment protocols and procedures conforming to the proper diagnosis of the ailments. While addressing the acute problems of the patients’ ailments is very important, proper assessment of the underlying diseases or evaluation of their risk factors do not get as much or no attention. As a result the important advice on preventive healthcare from the doctor properly highlighting its importance is not available to most of the patients.

Keeping such common practices in view and noting that ‘Preventive Healthcare’ is significantly different from ‘Curative Healthcare’, developing an appropriate protocol for ‘Preventive Healthcare’ has become the crying need of the hour.

‘Preventive Healthcare’ in India should be made mandatory:

The ‘Preventive Healthcare’ system in India is in its very nascent stage. If appropriate measures are taken in this area, like learning to reduce the impact of stress, avoiding sedentary life style, taking healthy diet, avoidance of tobacco and alcohol consumption, leading healthy sex life etc., it can in turn help the population to remain disease free and thereby to improve their respective work productivity in a very significant way.

Taking all these points into consideration, through policy initiative, The Medical Council of India (MCI) should make ‘Preventive Healthcare’ an integral part of each interaction of a patient with a doctor through appropriate regulations.

Chronic illnesses will significantly increase the disease burden of the country:

Many of the diseases like cancer, chronic respiratory disorders, cardiovascular, diabetes can be identified with preventable risk factors and. Therefore, such diseases can be prevented effectively, provided the healthcare policy of the country supports the ‘Disease Prevention’ process, program and initiatives through adequate resource allocation.

Role of a medical professional in customized ‘disease prevention plan’:

Role of medical professionals in the disease prevention process is also very important. The interaction of the patients with the doctors when they meet to address any ailment provides huge opportunity to the doctors to advice the patients about the ways of specific disease prevention, for which the individual patients have high exposure.

Need to raise general public and political awareness towards ‘Preventive Healthcare’:

Raising the level of awareness for ‘Preventive Healthcare’ is indeed very important. It requires a change in the mindset of the community in general together with healthcare policy makers, medical profession, employers, patients and their families.

National Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) prevention program of the government:

As per the Planning Commission, the government of India has reported to have initiated structured measures for the prevention of NCD, the main features of which are as follows:

• “Health education for primary and secondary prevention of NCDs through mobilizing community action
• Development of treatment protocols for education and training of physicians in the prevention and management of NCDs
• Strengthening/creation of facilities for the diagnosis and treatment of CVD and stroke, and the establishment of referral linkages
• Promotion of the production of affordable drugs to combat diabetes, hypertension, and myocardial infarction
• Development and support of institutions for the rehabilitation of people with disabilities
• Research support for: Multispectral population-based interventions to reduce risk factors
• The role of nutrition and lifestyle-related factors
• The development of cost effective interventions at each level of care”

Conclusion:

Many diseases in India with proper ‘Disease Prevention’ measures can be effectively averted. Some common measures which can be easily practiced through community initiatives are maintenance of proper hygiene, sanitation, adequate physical activities, moderation in alcohol and tobacco consumption, healthy sexual activities, avoidance of unhealthy food etc.

To address this issue ‘The Lancet’ November 11, 2010, in the article, as mentioned above, prescribed three specific strategies as follows:

1. “Reframe the debate to emphasize the societal determinants of disease and the inter-relation between chronic disease, poverty, and development
2. Mobilize resources through a cooperative and inclusive approach to development and by equitably distributing resources on the basis of avoidable mortality
3. Build on emerging strategic and political opportunities, such as the World Health Assembly 2008—13 Action Plan and the high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly in 2011 on chronic disease”.

The government should spearhead the paradigm shift towards this direction with appropriate regulation, generating increased societal and political awareness within the country and through mobilization of adequate resources. All these will ultimately help us to translate the well-known dictum into reality, ‘prevention is better than cure’.

Otherwise, especially the poorer section of the society will continue to get caught in the vicious cycle of debt and illness, seriously jeopardizing the economic progress of the country.

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

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

Reform process started earlier in China:

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

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

FDI in India and China:

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

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

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

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

Country ranking both in value and growth terms:

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

Healthcare coverage of population:

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

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

Strong commitment of the Chinese Government to the globalization process:

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

India and China competing well in Pharma outsourcing business:

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

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

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

‘Country Attractiveness Index’ for clinical trials:

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

Pharmaceutical patent filing:

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

Where India is regarded clearly as a preferred destination:

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

Pharmaceutical exports, by end 2010:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

India needs ‘Orphan Drugs Act (ODA)’ to counter growing threat of dreaded rare diseases and simultaneously boost global growth potential of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Posted on by
Reply

An orphan disease is a rare and uncommon disease and an ‘Orphan Drug’ is a pharmaceutical substance that has been developed to treat an orphan disease. The US FDA defines a rare disease, with a prevalence of 1 in 5,000 of the general population, whereas in the European Union (EU) defines it as a disease with a prevalence of 5 in 10,000 of the population.

Around 6-8% of the world population is manifested by such rare diseases. There are around 5000 of reported rare diseases with an ascending growth trend.

Despite such trend, high drug development cost coupled with low return on investment, do not encourage many innovator pharmaceutical companies to get engaged in R&D initiatives for such drugs. However, this perception is fast changing, as we shall see below.

US took the first step to encourage commercialization of ‘Orphan Drugs’:

Public awareness drives for ‘Orphan Diseases’ first originated in the USA with the formation of a rare disease support group representing around 200,000 patients suffering from such diseases. This awareness campaign ultimately culminated into a path breaking legislation in the US named, ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ (ODA), in 1983. The key purpose of ODA was to incentivize initiatives towards development of such drugs to treat around 25 million Americans suffering from ‘Orphan diseases’. The incentives included:

- Funding towards investigation for “Orphan Disease’ treatment
- Tax credit for Clinical Research
- Waiver of fees for New Drug Application (NDA)
- Offering more lucrative incentive than product patent (product patent requires the drug to be novel), as the orphan designation of the product by the US FDA and product approval by them are the only requirements for 7 year market exclusivity of an ‘Orphan Drug’ for the same indication.
- Market exclusivity of ‘Orphan Drugs’ become effective from the date of regulatory approval, unlike product patent, product development time remains outside this period.
- The drugs, which are not eligible for product patent, may be eligible for market exclusivity as an ‘Orphan Drug’ by the US-FDA

Thanks to this Act, currently around 230 ‘Orphan Drugs’ are available in the US for the treatment of around 11 million patients suffering from rare diseases. With the help of ‘Human Genome Project’ more orphan diseases are expected to be identified and newer drugs will be required to treat these rare ailments of human population.

1983 signaled the importance of ‘Orphan Drugs’ with the ODA in the US. A decade after in 1993, Japan took similar initiative followed by Australia in 1999. Currently, Singapore, South Korea, Canada and New Zealand are also having their country specific ODAs.

India needs ODA:

Unfortunately in India, we do not have any ODA, as of now. Such legislation could give a new fillip to the Indian Pharmaceutical and Bio-Pharmaceutical industry and at the same time usher in a new hope to thousands of patients suffering from rare diseases in India, with the availability of relatively lower cost medications to them.

The global market:

The global market of ‘Orphan Drugs’ is expected to grow to US $ 112 billion in 2014 from US $85 billion in 2009. Biotech products contribute around 70% of this turnover with relatively higher CAGR growth rate of around 7%. However, reluctance of the insurance companies to cover ‘Orphan Drugs’ due to higher price still remains a global issue.

Orphan drugs to create a paradigm shift in the Pharmaceutical Industry: says Frost & Sullivan:

“While the pharmaceutical industries have been focusing on ‘blockbuster’ small molecules (chemical drugs) for high revenue generation in the past, it is expected that in 5 years, around $90.0 billion worth of branded drugs will lose their exclusivity. The current economic situation plus the huge generic competition shifted the focus of pharmaceutical companies and they are moving to a new business model – ‘Niche busters’, also called Orphan drugs.”

It is believed that Orphan drugs will now offer an attractive opportunity to the pharmaceutical companies than ever before to significantly absorb the impact of the ‘Patent Cliff’. Various financial incentives provided by the governments of various countries under the ODA coupled with many smaller collaborative projects towards this direction will further encourage the global pharmaceutical players to develop ‘Orphan Drugs.

Currently, EU has granted over 700 ‘Orphan Designations’ and over 60 new drugs have received favorable response for Market Authorization.

Sales potential for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

Generally ‘Orphan Drugs’ were not expected to be very high revenue earners. However, about 4 year ago in the year 2006, about 50 ‘Orphan Drugs’ were reported to had crossed a sales turnover of US $200 million. In 2006 the following ‘Orphan Drugs’ with expired market Exclusivity in the US, had assumed blockbuster status:

- Enbrel (Immunex): US $ 4.38 billion
- Rituxan (Genentech): US$ 3.97 billion
- Nupogen/Neulasta (Amgen): US $ 3.92 billion
- Epogen (Amgen): US $ 2.50 billion
- Avonex (Biogen): US $ 1.70 billion
- Betaseron (Novartis & Bayer): US $ 1.33 billion
- Intron A/ PEG-Intron (Schering): US $ 1.07 billion
- Kogenate (Bayer): US $ 1.07 billion
- Ceredase/Cerezyme (Genzyme): US $ 1.00 billion

Key growth drivers for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

In my view the following key factors will play critical role in driving the growth for ‘Orphan Drugs’:

- Market exclusivity options for a number of FDA recognized ‘Orphan Indications’ for the same drug
- Market exclusivity for seven years in the U.S. and ten years in the EU for each of the ‘Orphan Indications’
- Oncology could be a good segment to get such multiple ‘Orphan Indications’ for the same molecule

Glivec of Novartis obtained approval for around five new ‘Orphan Indications’, the key indications being Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) and Gastrointestinal Stomal Tumors. The product has already assumed a global blockbuster status with an estimated sales turnover of over US $4 billion by 2011.

Biotech companies are champions for the development of ‘Orphan Drugs’, globally:

Since long, the Biotech companies are taking initiatives for the development of ‘Orphan Drugs’. The path breaker in this respect was Genentech of the US, which developed two growth hormone molecules with names Protophin and Nutrophin, way back in 1985. Now, having realized the hidden potential of this segment more number of pharmaceutical players are entering into this arena. Thus, it is no wonder that 13 out of 19 blockbuster ‘Orphan Drugs’ were biologics in the year 2006.

Conclusion:

It is interesting to note that some of the ‘orphan diseases’ are now being diagnosed in India, as well. As India takes rapid strides in the medical science, more of such ‘Orphan Diseases’ are likely to be known in our country. Thus the moot question is how does India address this issue with pro-active measures?
Currently, India is curving out a strong niche for itself in the space of biogenerics. Pfizer-Biocon deal will vindicate this point.

Moreover, with Pharmacogenomics keep gaining ground at a faster pace, as I mentioned earlier, there will be a shift towards personalized medicines, in not too distant future, in which case the blockbuster drugs as defined today, will be effective only for a smaller number of patients. If the Government of India visualizes this scenario sooner, and comes out with appropriate ODA for the country, domestic pharmaceutical industry of India, in general and biopharmaceuticals industry of the country, in particular, will be able emerge as a force to reckon with, in this important global space, much faster than what one would currently anticipate.

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.