Tag Archives: drugs

From ‘Blockbuster Drugs’ to ‘Personalized Medicines’ – will it revolutionize the way the patients will be treated tomorrow?

Posted on by
Reply
Financial Times quoted Jeff Kendler, the CEO of Pfizersaying, “the era of dependence on a single or a couple of blockbuster drugs should be over. Lipitor sells U.S$ 12 billion a year. You can’t build a company predicted on the belief that you are going to find such a drug.”The argument is robust, what then are the alternatives?Rapid strides in pharmacogenomic bring in a promise of radically different way of treating diseases, as major pharmaceutical companies of the world make progress in developing much more effective medicines designed to target smaller populations. These medicines are termed as ‘personalized medicines’ and are expected to be an effective alternative to now quite unwieldy ‘blockbuster drugs’ business model.

In what way ‘Personalized Medicines’ will be different?

With ‘Personalized Medicines’ the health of a patient will be managed based on personal characteristics of the individual, including height, weight, diet, age, sex etc, instead of defined “standards of care”, based on averaging response across a patient group. Pharmacogenomic tests like, sequencing of human genome will determine a patient’s likely response to such drugs.

These are expected to offer more targeted and effective treatment with safer drugs, and presumably at a lesser cost. Such medicines will also help identify individuals prone to serious ailments like, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer and help physicians to take appropriate preventive measures, simultaneously. ‘Personalized medicines’ in that process will focus on what makes each patient so unique, instead of going by the generalities of a disease.

To give a quick example, genetic differences within individuals determine how their bodies react to drugs such as Warfarin, a blood thinner taken to prevent clotting. It is of utmost importance to get the dosing right, as more of the drug will cause bleeding and less of it will not have any therapeutic effect.

‘Personalized medicines’, therefore, have the potential to bring in a revolutionary change the way patients are offered treatment by the medical profession. Genomic research will enable physicians to use a patient’s genetic code to arrive at how each patient will respond to different types of treatments.

In the field of cancer, genetic tests are currently being done by many oncologists to determine which patients will be benefitted most, say by Herceptin, in the treatment of breast cancer.

What is then the aim of ‘Personalized Medicines’?

The aim of ‘personalized medicines’ is to make a perfect fit between the drug and the patient.
It is worth noting that genotyping is currently not a part of clinically accepted routine. However, it is expected to acquire this status in the western world, by 2010.

Expected benefits from ‘Personalized Medicines’:

1. More Accurate dosing: Instead of dose being decided based on age and body weight of the patients, the physicians may decide and adjust the dose of the medicines based on the genetic profiling of the patients.

2. More Targeted Drugs: It will be possible for the pharmaceutical companies to develop and market drugs for patients with specific genetic profiles. In that process, a drug needs to be tested only on those who are likely to derive benefits from it. This in turn will be able to effectively tailor clinical trials, expediting the process of market launch of these drugs.

3. Improved Health care: ‘Personalized Medicines’ will enable the physicians to prescribe ‘the right dose of the right medicine the first time for everyone’. This would give rise to much better overall healthcare.

Role of Pharmaceutical and Biotech companies:

Many research based pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have taken a leading role towards development of ‘personalized medicines’ in line with their key role as healthcare enterprises. India is also taking keen interest in this science.

Some important issues:

However, there are some ethical and social issues in the development of ‘personalized medicines’ primarily in the area of genetic testing and consideration of race in the development of such medicines, which need to be effectively addressed, sooner.

Can it replace the‘Blockbuster Drugs’ business model?

Realization of deficiencies in the economics of ‘block buster drugs’ R&D business model, has made ‘personalized medicines’ a reality today.

Improved efficacy and safety of treatment with ‘personalized medicines’ will prove to be cost-effective in healthcare systems. Smaller and exclusive markets for ‘personalized medicines’ are expected to be profitable for the pharmaceutical companies. But such smaller segmentation of the market may not leave enough space for the conventional ‘blockbuster model’, which is the prime mover of the global pharmaceutical industry, today.

Reports indicate that some renowned global pharmaceutical companies like, Roche, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline are making good progress towards this direction through collaborative initiatives.

Approximate cost of ‘Genome Sequencing’:

When human genome was first sequenced, the reported cost was staggering U.S$ 3 billion. However, with the advancement of technology, it came down to U.S$ 1 million, last year. Currently, the cost has further come down to U.S$ 60,000. With the rapid stride made in the field of biotechnology, combined with the economies of scale, cost of such genetic tests is expected to be around U.S$ 1,000 in near future, making it possible for people to obtain the blue print of their genetic code.

Savings on cost of Clinical trials with ‘Personalized Medicines’:

Genome sequencing will help identifying a patient population, which will be far more likely to respond positively to the new treatment. In that process, if it reduces costs of clinical trial by even 5%, expected net savings for the industry towards clinical trial have been reported to be around U.S$ 5 billion.

With ‘personalized medicines’ the innovator companies will be able to significantly reduce both time, costs and the risks involved in obtaining regulatory approvals and penetrating new markets with simultaneous development of necessary diagnostic tests. Such tests will be able to identify patients group who will not only be most likely to be benefitted from such medicines, but also will be least likely to suffer from adverse drug reactions.

Therefore, considerable cost advantages coupled with much lesser risks of failure and significant reduction in the lead time for clinical trials are expected to make ‘personalized medicines’ much more cost effective, compared to conventional ‘blockbuster drugs’.

Innovative and cost effective way to market ‘Personalized Medicines’:

With ‘personalized medicines’ the ball game of marketing pharmaceuticals is expected to undergo a paradigm shift. Roche’s model of combining necessary diagnostic tests with new drugs will play a very important role in the new paradigm.

Roche is ensuring that with accompanying required diagnostic tests, the new oncology products developed at Genentech can be precisely matched to patients.

Can ‘Personalized Medicines’ be used in ‘Primary Care’ also?

To use ‘personalized medicines’ in a ‘primary care’ situation, currently there is no successful model. However, it has been reported that in states like, Wisconsin in the U.S, initiative to integrate genomic medicines with ‘primary care’ has already been undertaken. Scaling-up operations of such pilot projects will give a big boost to revolutionize the use of ‘personalized medicines’ for precision and targeted treatment of the ailing population.

In my view, there does not seem to be any possibility of looking back now. The robust business model of ‘personalized medicines’, is now the way forward, as much for the industry as for the patients. It is a win-win game.

By Tapan Ray

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

Simmering discontentment in the functioning of the Indian Patent Office (IPO) – urgent need to tighten the ‘loose knots’ in the system.

Posted on by
Reply
Indian Patent office (IPO) though is headquartered at Kolkata, because of some unknown reason, the office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM)is located in Mumbai with other two offices at New Delhi and Chennai. Moreover, the office of the ‘Patent Information System’ is located at Nagpur. Scattered location of the IPO, many believe, could be an impediment in ensuring uniformity in operations between all its units. Such an opinion is debatable though, I shall not deliberate on this issue in this article.The point that I shall argue upon is the crying need in the IPO to tighten 15 identified ‘loose knots’in its operation, which are causing considerable concern within stakeholders, who are casting serious aspersions in its efficiency.There are some areas where our IPO is doing quite well. I shall also dwell upon those areas before highlighting the areas of improvements.

The new IPR regime came into force from January 1, 2005. Even 4 years down the line, the IPO still remains grossly understaffed. Growing dissatisfaction with the current functioning of the IPO is fast sapping initial enthusiasm of the innovators on the new IPR regime in the country. ‘The glass’ now perpetually looks as ‘half empty’, as it were and will continue to do so, if corrective measures are not taken, forthwith.

The information available from the IPO website indicates that all the four centers put together, there are just 134 Examiners, 31 Assistant Controllers, 4 Deputy Controllers and 1 Joint Controller. Staff attrition rate within the IPOs has been reported to be reasonably high, which incidentally appears to be one of the key issues of their inefficiency. These trained IPO personnel are being poached mainly by the private sector enterprises, offering significantly higher remuneration. At the same time, there appears to be 3 times increase in the number of applications filed in the last five years, complicating the situation further.

The silver lining is, despite all these, the performance of IPO quantitatively speaking, is really not as poor. Around 11,000 patents were granted by the IPOs in 2007-08. This number, when translated into average number of patents granted per day, works out to be 50. This figure, when viewed in terms of number of patents granted against the number of applications made, compares reasonably well with the developed nations of the world like, USA and EU. It is worth noting that in those countries the product patent regime is in place, since long.

Indian Patent Act 2005 is believed to be more stringent than the prevailing Patent Acts in the USA or EU. It is good to note that quoting the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) it has been reported that each Indian Patent Examiner examines about 100 applications per annum against 50 to 80 in the USA and the EU. This is indeed laudable.

Indian Patent Office is currently going through ‘capacity building’ exercises. The efforts being made towards this direction are expected to make the IPOs more efficient, hopefully, in pursuit of excellence.

India has recently been approved as an International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). This, in turn, will significantly increase the workload of the IPO.

When we are mentioning about the PCT, perhaps it will not be out of place to say that some section in India argues in favour of the need to include the International Nonproprietary Names (INN) in the title of pharmaceutical patent applications by the IPO. However, as INNs are not required in the title of patent applications under Article 27(1) of the PCT, such a requirement, in my view, could appear to conflict with the PCT.

Thus, it has now become more essential that the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) tightens the ‘loose knots’ in the IPO system, immediately, to make it efficient and effective.

In this article I shall not go into much debated and discussed, ‘Indian Patent Manual’ issue. I shall only submit the following 15 suggestions towards achieving the above objective:

1. To effectively cope with its growing workload, the Patent office should upgrade its IT facilities and ensure that patent examiners are trained to handle the filing and prosecution of patent applications.

2. Electronic-filing of patent applications has been introduced, but there is no facility of paying the fees online by credit card. This facility should be introduced to make it more convenient for applicants to file patent application online. This will also add speed to the process.

3. Electronic prosecution of patent applications should be introduced to make the patent prosecution paperless and more efficient.

4. To encourage applicants to file applications electronically, incentives such as reduced fees should be offered to applicants who file their applications electronically.

5. The Patent Office has in the past experienced problems in locating and managing physical application files. It is therefore recommended that the Patent Office introduce systems for better management and storage of physical files. Using a system of bar codes on the physical files could be one such system.

6. The Patent Office should digitize all of its physical files so that file histories of each application will be available online.

7. The Indian Patents Database and the Indian Designs Database to be released without further delay.

8. An efficient system to be introduced to ensure timely publication of all patent applications and proceedings that are eligible for publication in the technical journal of the IPO. Currently there is inordinate delay, for example Delhi Patent Office is now publishing applications for 2005

9. Patent applications that are published in the official gazette have minimal information. It is therefore recommended that the official gazette include more details of the applications in order to avoid any frivolous or unnecessary oppositions being filed.

10. The Patent office does not have any centers, which provide assistance to applicants for filing or prosecuting applications. It is therefore recommended that assistance centers should be established to help applicants to file and prosecute applications in India.

11. Clear guidelines to be issued for conducting pre-grant and post grant opposition proceedings. Presently they are being handled in an arbitrary manner

12. In order to avoid any frivolous pre-grant opposition during the prosecution of the application, the Patent Office should introduce a fixed fee that has to be paid to the Patent Office at the time of filing of a pre-grant opposition. This will help to avoid frivolous delays in the grant of the patent.

13. In order to introduce an efficient system of patent prosecution, it is recommended that the Patent Office adjust patent term to compensate patentees for any delay in the grant of the patent that reduces the term of the patent, when such delay is caused solely by the Patent office.

14. Decision making and its communication to all concerned to be made faster at the IPO. A system to be instituted for issuing the operative part of the decision first, followed by details of the decision taken. These should be advertised immediately in the technical journal to close proceedings at the earliest. Delays are leading to extensive delays in the grant of patents even if the proceedings have been concluded (opposition or otherwise) attracting serial and frivolous pre-grant oppositions. Such delays are also preventing the patent applicants to get their grants and are, therefore, unable to initiate infringement proceedings against infringers quickly, defeating the very purpose of the patent and trademark system.

15. The timeline for an application to be taken up for examination to be clearly defined. Currently, there is no time defined for taking up the applications for examination.

It will indeed be great, if the DIPP and the IPO take note of these suggestions and formalize a process within the IPO to address these issues. A growing discontentment in several areas of operation within the IPO is brewing, both in India and abroad. If such discontentment increases further, it may have serious impact on the credibility of the new IPR regime in India.

Will the Government of India want that to happen? I hope not.

By Tapan Ray

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

The heated debate on WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs is now on a ‘pause’ – A time to evaluate the reasons for supporting and opposing it.

Posted on by
Reply
The World Health Organisation (WHO), in December 2008, proposed the following new definition, as prepared by the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT):“A medical product is counterfeit when there is a false representation in relation to its identity and/or source. This applies to the product, its container or other packaging or labeling information. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products. Counterfeits may include products with correct ingredients/components, with wrong ingredients/components, without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake packaging.”This definition, indeed, created a furor in India. The Ministry of Health of the Government of India initiated discussions, on this issue, with the stakeholders and by mid-January, 2009 a consensus was arrived at between the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and the generic industry on much debated definition of counterfeit drugs. It was reported that the Government had decided to place this definition before the World Health Organisation (WHO) in its next meeting on the subject. The consensus definition, after the above meeting, was reported as follows:

“A medical product (medicine, vaccine, diagnostics and medical implants/devices) is counterfeit when it is deliberately and fraudulently mislabelled with respect to its identity and/or source. Counterfeit can apply to components with wrong ingredients/components without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake package”

In end-January 2009, although it was reported that under pressure from the developing countries like, India, WHO has dropped this new definition, it is very likely that the initiative is now just on a ‘pause’ mode.

Let us now try to explore the ‘Eye’ of this stormy debate and its relevance to India. The ‘eye’ of the storm lies mainly within the following 3 key concerns of the opponents of the definition:

1. False representation of identity and source applies not only to labeling but also to the ‘product,
its container or other packaging’
2. The new definition could include Intellectual Property Right (IPR) issues and as a cosequence of
which, Indian generics could run into the risk of being branded as counterfeit
3. Removal of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ from the original definition and replacing them
with ‘false representation’ will shift the burden of proof

In India, the share of voice of those opposing this definition was undoubtedly much more than those who were supporting it. However, the rationale for supporting the definition, in Indian context, appears to be much stronger than opposing it.

While arguing on this point, I am of the view that most of the apprehensions expressed above have been abundantly clarified in the definitions of Misbranded drugs (section 17), and Spurious drugs (Section 17 B) of the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Let us now have a quick look at the Section 17 and Section 17 B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to find out whether the WHO IMPACT definition is way off the definitions for Misbranded and Spurious drugs as indicated in the above Act.

“Section 17. Misbranded drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be misbranded –

(a) If it is so coloured, coated, powdered or polished that damage is concealed or if it is made to appear of better or greater therapeutic value than it really is; or

(b) If it is not labelled in the prescribed manner ; or

(c) If its label or container or anything accompanying the drug bears any statement, design or device which makes any false claim for the drug or which is false or misleading in any particular.”

Does Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 answer the ‘concern 1’ above?

“Section 17B. Spurious drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be spurious

(a) If it is manufactured under a name which belongs to another drug; or

(b) If it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, another drug or resembles another drug in a manner likely to deceive or bears upon it or upon its label or container the name of another drug unless it is plainly and conspicuously marked so as to reveal its true character and its lack of identity with such other drug; or

(c) If the label or container bears the name of an individual or company purporting to be the manufacturer of the drug, which individual or company is fictitious or does not exist; or

(d) If it has been substituted wholly or in part by another drug or substance; or

(e) If it purports to be the product of a manufacturer of whom it is not truly a product.”

Does Section 17B of the Drugs and Cosmetics, 1940 Act answer the ‘concern 2′ above?

The ‘concern 3’ above deals with shifting the ‘burden of proof’ with replacement of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ by ‘false representation’. Many legal experts opine that this change will only mean that “criminal intent (fraudulent and deliberate) shall be considered during the legal procedures for the purpose of sanctions.”

What could then possibly be the reasons for opposing the revised WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs in India, especially when we have similar definition in place in our own Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940? Does it make sense for the Government to reinvent the wheel? Who knows?

By Tapan Ray

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

Biosimilar Drugs -A raging scientific debate with mounting global commercial interest

Posted on by
Reply
On December 11, 2008, Reuters reported that two days after Merck & Co. announced a major push into generic versions of biotechnology medicines, Eli Lilly & Co. signaled similar aspirations. This report raised many eyebrows in the global pharmaceutical industry, in the midst of a raging scientific debate on this issue. Be that as it may, many felt that this announcement ushered in the beginning of a new era. An era of intense future competition with Biosimilar drugs in the world market with immense commercial interest.Globally, the scenario for generic versions of biotechnology medicines, which are called Biosimilars, Biogenerics or follow-on Biologics, started heating up when Merck announced that the company expects to have atleast 5 follow-on biologics in the late stage development by 2012. The announcement of both Merck and Eli Lilly surprised many, as the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the U.S.A is yet to approve the regulatory pathway for generic biologic medicines. In the developed world, European Union (EU) has taken a lead towards this direction by already having a system in place for regulatory approval of Biosimilar drugs in 2003.What then prompts the research based global pharmaceutical companies like Merck and Eli Lilly to step into the arena of Biosimilar medicines? Is it gradual drying up research pipeline together with skyrocketing cost of global R&D initiatives?

The future business potential of Biosimilar medicines:

Currently, over 150 different biologic medicines are available in the Global Pharmaceutical market. However, the low cost Biosimilar drugs are available in just around 11 countries of the world, India being one of them. Supporters of Biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as time passes by. At present, the key global players are Sandoz (Novartis), Teva, BioPartners, BioGenerix (Ratiopharm) and Bioceuticals (Stada). This market is expected to develop slowly because of regulatory hurdles in the major countries of the world.

Very recently, the EU has approved Sandoz’s (Novartis) Filgrastim (Neupogen brand of Amgen), which is prescribed for the treatment of Neutropenia. With Filgrastim, Sandoz will now have 3 Biosimilar products in its portfolio.

Raging debate on Biosimilar Drugs still continues:

The debate is centered on the argument that like small chemical molecules is it possible to replicate large biological molecule of the innovator? It is widely believed that a protein cannot be absolutely replicated. How could possibly then Biosimilar drugs be considered equivalent to the original product by a regulator and marketing approval be granted to them without full scale clinical trials ignoring safety concerns of the patients? In favor of this argument some refer to the problem of red cell aplasia that affected many patients administering Johnson & Johnson’s Exprex (Epoetin) after only a minor change made in its manufacturing procedure.

Hurdles to cross for future Market entry of Biosimilar Drugs:

Emergence of second generation branded biosimilar products such as PEGylated products Pegasys and PegIntron (peginterferon alpha) and Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), and insulin analogs etc. have the potential to reduce the market size for first generation Biosimilar drugs creating significant entry barrier.

Even otherwise, the barriers to market entry of Biosimilar drugs are much higher than any small molecule generic drug. In the markets within EU, many companies face the challenge of higher development costs for biosimilar drugs because of stringent regulatory requirements and greater lead time for product development. Navigating through such a tough regulatory environment will demand a different type of skill sets from the generic companies not only in areas of clinical trials and pharmacovigilance, but also in areas of manufacturing and marketing. Consequently, the investment needed to take Biosimilar drugs from clinical trials to launch in the developed markets, will indeed be quite significant.

Current Scenario in the U.S:

Recently in the U.S.A, the new, widely reported, biotechnology policy of President Barak Obama has become one of the most closely watched healthcare policy initiatives of the country. It is expected that such a policy will help facilitate regulatory approval process of Biosimilar drugs in the USA by end 2009. This new policy initiative could have a major impact on many biotech companies who will face new generic competition, rather quickly. On the other hand, it will prove to be a boon to the new entrants in this market like, Merck and Eli Lilly, besides the existing ones.

Global Market Potential of Biosimilar Drugs:

The biosimilar drug market in the world is estimated to be around U.S. $ 16 billion by 2011. Currently, off-patent biologic blockbusters including Erythropoietin offer an excellent commercial opportunity in this category of drugs. By 2013, about 10 branded biologics with a total turnover of around U.S. $ 15 billion will go off-patent.

Biosimilar Drugs in India:

Sales of biosimilar drugs in India are estimated to be around U.S. $ 4 billion by 2011.

Biosimilar drugs fall under high growth segment within Indian pharmaceutical Industry. Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies like Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Shantha Biotech, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India, Dr. Reddy’s, Ranbaxy, etc. The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies, I am sure, will be to get regulatory approval of such products in the EU and then in the U.S. when the time comes.

It is worth mentioning here that to give a fillip to the Biotech Industry in India, the National Biotechnology Board was set up by the Government of India under the Ministry of Science and Technology in 1982 and the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) came into existence in 1986. The DBT now spends around US$ 200 million annually to develop biotech resources in the country and have been making reasonably good progress. The DBT is reported to have undertaken an initiative to prepare regulatory guidelines for Biosimilar Drugs, which is expected to conform to international quality and patients’ safety requirements.

The points to ponder with the Biosimilar Drugs in India:

It is, indeed, quite surprising that in India there is still no separate transparent and published guidelines for regulatory approval of Biosimilar drugs, although the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) seems to have a different view in this matter. The Drugs and Cosmetics Acts of India have no separate provisions either, for Biosimilar Drugs. In a situation like this, we find that many Biosimilar Drugs are still getting regulatory approval in India.

Currently India supplies 30% by volume of the global requirements of generic drugs both in regulated and non-regulated markets. In the regulated markets like North America and EU, for small molecule generic products, Indian manufacturers conform to the global safety and efficacy standards by getting these products approved by the most stringent regulators of the world like, U.S. FDA, MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) etc. The very fact that none of the Biosimilar drugs developed in India could get approval in the EU as yet, may well suggest that the stringent regulatory requirements for both efficacy and patients’ safety followed in the EU for Biosimilar drugs, could not be met by the Indian manufacturers, as yet. The question, therefore, comes to my mind whether the Biosimilar drugs manufactured in India conform to international quality and safety standards? If not, who will address the safety concerns of the patients who are or will be administering these medicines?

Such a concern gets vindicated by widely reported serious quality problems, detected by the drug regulatory authorities, at some large and well known Biosimilar drugs manufacturing units in India and also from the condition of some vaccine manufacturing units in our country.

India needs to manufacture the world class Biosimilar drugs conforming to the highest efficacy and patients’ safety standards, just the way Indian pharmaceutical manufacturers have demonstrated with ‘made in India’ generic drugs, the world over. The Indian drug regulatory authority should now take some important initiative with the publication of world class Biosimilar drugs regulatory approval guidelines, may be following the similar process as what we see in the EU.

Currently, experts from India are participating towards preparation of ‘WHO Guidelines’ for Biosimilar Drugs. The progress made towards this direction is yet to be ascertained. Simultaneously, the DBT is reported to have under taken an independent initiative to prepare similar guidelines, the progress of which is also yet to be known.

Before other developed markets open up for Biosimilar drugs, if India can align itself with its own world class regulatory standards for the same, yet another significant export opportunity could be created for the country, competing with the best performers of the world in this category.

Meanwhile, it will only be good to know that like many other initiatives, India has taken one more important initiative to address this important issue, for the sake of humanity. As the existing process of granting regulatory approval for Biosimilar drugs continues in India, the lurking fear towards patients’ safety with such drugs will remain unabated with a large majority of experts in this field.

By Tapan Ray

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

‘Orphan Drugs’ for ‘Orphan Diseases’ – is ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ platform for discovery research the way forward?

Posted on by
Reply
To meet the unmet needs of common and dreaded diseases intensive R&D activities are being undertaken by the Pharmaceutical Industry, the world over. At the same time, a percentage of human population, however small, also suffers from some rare diseases, for which there are no approved medical treatments even in the twenty first century, for the rich and poor alike.These rare diseases are also termed as ‘orphan diseases’, which are often chronic, progressive, degenerative, life-threatening or disabling. Many patients suffering from such rare diseases are denied their right to get their ailments effectively treated.It is indeed heartening to note that European Organization for Rare Diseases (EURORDIS) and National Alliances announced February 29, 2008 as the first ‘Rare Disease day’. Thereafter, the last day of February has been designated as ‘Rare Disease Day’ worldwide to call attention to the public health issues associated with rare diseases, which have been reported to affect around 30 million patients around the world.

People with rare diseases remain a medically underserved population even in a developed country. We can then well imagine the plight of such patients in India. The ‘Rare Disease Day’ is intended to bring together the patients and families with rare diseases to discuss the need for greater awareness, more research, and better access to diagnosis and treatment. I am not sure how various authorities, including our Government, are deliberating on this healthcare issue.

People suffering from ‘orphan diseases’ often face huge challenges compared to more common diseases. These include delay in getting an accurate diagnosis, few treatment options and difficulty finding medical experts. Many such rare diseases have no approved treatment. Moreover, treatments for ‘orphan diseases’ tend to be in most cases more expensive than treatments for more common diseases.

This year, the “Rare Disease Day” will be observed in India also, on February 28, though these are not very much talked about in our country, nor is there any proper definition in place for such diseases, as yet.

The drugs meant for treating ‘orphan diseases’ have been very appropriately termed as ‘orphan drugs’, mainly due to commercial reasons, as such drugs will be used on much fewer patients with commensurate return on investments towards R&D. Thus spending expensive R&D resources toward such drugs may not make sound commercial sense.

To address this need, in 1983, the Orphan Drug Act was passed by the Congress in the USA to extend financial incentives for companies to develop treatments for rare diseases. Since then, nearly 330 ‘orphan drugs’ and biologics have been approved by the U.S. FDA, which estimates that from 11 to 14 million Americans would benefit from these ‘orphan drugs’. However, despite such commendable measures taken by the US FDA, around 15 million Americans still leave with such ‘orphan diseases’ for which there is no approved treatment.

It is interesting to note that some of these ‘orphan diseases’ are now being diagnosed in India, as well. As India takes rapid strides in 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? In the USA, even by giving adequate financial incentives, this problem could not be effectively addressed for commercial reasons.

In my view, one of the ways to properly address this issue is to follow the model of our very own the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for an ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’ (OSDD) program with global partnerships, wherever required. This initiative has been pioneered by the well known scientist and Director General of CSIR Dr. Samir Brahmachari. Andrew Witty, the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline also had mooted a similar idea in another context in not too distant past.

Therefore, to address the issue of ‘orphan diseases’, in my opinion, the OSDD model with partnerships between private, public and academia will not only prove to be a viable and more practical model to discover ‘orphan drugs’, but will also help India to effectively contribute to this important global issue – not just by observing the ‘Rare Diseases Day’ on February 28 or 29, each year.

By Tapan Ray

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