Tag Archives: drugs

Pharma Policy Execution Gap Limits Access To Affordable Medicines?

Posted on by
Reply

“The cost of new drugs is putting increasing pressure on people in both rich and poor countries”- was eloquently expressed in an article, titled “Why do new medicines cost so much, and what can we do about it?”. This was published by “The Guardian” on April 09, 2018.

Almost synchronically, expressing concern on this issue, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) advised the world leaders ‘to take bold new approaches’ for increasing access to medicines for all. A UN high-level panel on ‘access to medicines’ spent almost a year deliberating over related issues. The panel members were from pharma companies, as well as civil society and academics. The final report coming in September, backed de-linkage of the costs of R&D from the eventual price of the drug. Notably, the author who is also the health editor of the above publication, feels that any positive outcome in this direction is unlikely to materialize soon.

The majority of big pharma constituents, with the possible exception of GSK, whose then chief executive Sir Andrew Witty was unenthusiastic about the UN report. Probably because, it supported governments’ right to invoke ‘a get-out’ from the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS agreement. This is to bypass drug patents and make cheaper versions of the respective generic equivalents, in the interests of public health, in accordance with the 2001 Doha declaration. However, the author is hopeful that, “as happened with AIDS, each new crisis over access to medicines – whether concerning a common liver disease or a rare cancer, and particularly over the antibiotics that are under threat and vital to all our lives – is likely to put pressure on companies to find ways to bring the costs of medicines down.”

Stakeholder pressure for increasing access to medicines continues. Even in smaller developed countries, such as Switzerland, a section of the public demands that “Swiss authorities must act to make lifesaving drugs more affordable by introducing compulsory licensing.” Or, one can now see reports saying,“Irish patients are being denied access to nine drugs that are widely available across Europe, largely, on cost grounds.”

Nevertheless, regardless of mounting pressure for drawing a reasonable symmetry between cost of, especially new drugs and their improved access to patients, ongoing status-quo continues. In this article, I shall dwell on this concern from the Indian perspective, focusing on an agonizingly stark implementation-gap related to the current Indian pharma pricing policy.

Under pressure, pharma now recognizes the need for affordable drugs:

Coming under intense pressure of patients and other stakeholders, even the largest trade association of Big Pharma has recently changed its stance on this issue, though clearly sharking any responsibility for the same. It just recognized the need for affordable medicines for improved patient access to treatments by saying: “Too often patients have to fight to access breakthrough medicines that are revolutionizing how we fight disease.” It also accepted the fact that “many Americans are struggling to afford their medicines.”

“We can improve patient access and affordability by moving toward a system that prioritizes results for patients. Biopharmaceutical companies are working with insurers to develop innovative and flexible ways to pay for medicines that focus on results, lower out-of-pocket costs and enable patients to access the right treatments the first time” – it added.

What it really means: 

What it really means ‘treatment outcomes-based drug pricing’ or ‘value-based drug pricing (VBP)’. In other words, a situation where drug prices are set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, against other available products. This model will also ensure that patients’ money doesn’t get wasted from drugs that aren’t effective on them. The VBP model is, thus, significantly different from product pricing, based on ‘undisclosed’ cost of ongoing innovation for new drugs.

Is this Big Pharma’s new way to change optics?

The intent for imbibing VBP, as expressed by the above pharma association, throws open the door for discussion of its core intent. Is the intention real, or another Big Pharma way of changing general optics on the sensitive issue of new drug pricing? This doubt creeps in from the findings of some important studies on this issue. One such is an interesting paper, titled “Pricing for Survival” from KPMG. The analysis highlighted very limited application of VBP concept, and also why it is not yet viable – despite the hype being created around it.

According to KPMG, “there were 25 drugs engaged in various types of VBP with payers in the fragmented United States market as of September 2017. The problem is, these models appear to be limited in applicability to disease states with more standardized protocols and dominated by drug therapies with single indications – notably osteoporosis, diabetes and hepatitis C.” To date, VBP models seem to be facing several constraints, such as it is appealing mostly to payers that are fully integrated with healthcare delivery i.e., closed-loop payer-provider health systems or integrated delivery networks.

“The takeaway is, when it comes to specialty and orphan drugs, outcomes-based pricing simply faces too many barriers at present” – the article elaborated. Be that as it may, let me now explore the relevance of VBP in India.

Any relevance of VBP in India?

VBP has been tried in a health care environment where payers and drug companies are two critical players for access to affordable medicines, as we see in the KPMG study. Under any value-based pricing agreements for pharmaceuticals, both payers and pharma companies agree to link payment for a medicine to the value achieved, rather than volume.

Whereas, in the Indian healthcare scenario, as we are experiencing today, payers are mostly individuals.  Despite various well-publicized health schemes, expenditure on health, including drugs, remains by and large ‘out of pocket (OoP)’ – for a large Indian population. Hence, copying western framework for implementation VBP in India, would call for scores of ‘pharma – individual payer agreements.’ This would be a daunting task, if not impractical, to even try it out.

In this context, let me touch upon the Ayushman Bharat scheme that was launched by the Prime Minister on September 23, 2018, but just in one of the 29 states of India – Jharkhand. If, or as and when it will cover the entire country, the scheme is expected to bring 107.4 million families and more than 550 million people under health insurance coverage. However, the work seems to be still in progress.

There are three financing models for this scheme – insurance model, trust model and hybrid model – and the 19 states that have come on board for the scheme’s implementation in the country, have chosen a trust model, according to the Union Health Minister. The minister also reiterated: “Things are still unfolding. Only when the letters reach the beneficiaries will they understand and react.”

Nevertheless, the Union Health Minister himself, just like his counterparts in the previous governments, exhibited confidence that the country is “moving towards universal health cover with Ayushman Bharat scheme,” – as was the headline of the above media report.

Going by the past and current outcomes of several such government schemes in the country, and what the minister himself articulated on September 17, 2018, a large section of the Indian population still remains  apprehensive on the fast pan-India rollout and overall success of this ambitious health scheme. Hence, at this stage, I reckon, it may not be relevant to discuss the application of VBP model on Ayushman Bharat project. I wrote about such apprehensions in this Blog on June 18, 2018.

Having said that, VBP still remains relevant when we look at the government’s intent captured in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy (NPPP) 2012,’ as I shall discuss below.

VBP and the policy implementation gap:

For making the point clearer, let me keep the Ayushman Bharat scheme aside because of its associated uncertainties. Even in the current health care environment of high OoP expenditure on drugs, especially on high priced new drugs, if one tries to make use of the VBP model, it is very much possible.

This is because, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012, under point 4 (XV) on ‘Patented Drugs, categorically states:  “There is a separate Committee constituted by the Government order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented drugs would be taken based on the recommendations of the Committee.”

Curiously, even 6 years down the line, no meaningful decision has been taken on patented drug pricing in India by the successive governments. As I wrote in this Blog on December 12, 2016, Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still A Policy Paralysis.

Parliamentary Standing Committee intervenes:

Six years after the constitution of the committee by the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP), the long-awaited report was eventually submitted with a vague formula for pricing patented drugs in India. Intriguingly,the issue remained as such, until the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s August 2016 report was placed before the parliament. It strongly criticized the DoP’s efforts to recommend measures in regulating prices of life-saving patented drugs, despite government assurances for the same.

On September 23, 2016, media reported: “Upbraided by the parliamentary standing committee for its gross negligence and lackadaisical attitude, the department of pharmaceuticals has set about seeking suggestions from different ministries on price regulation of patented drugs.”

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was formed thereafter, under the chairmanship of one of the Joint Secretaries of the DoP to suggest a new mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country.
The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary – Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary – Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary – National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). But, the saga continues – at the cost of patients’ health interest.

Conclusion:

As it appears, there still lies a clear opportunity for Indian drug pricing policy makers introduce VBP concept for patented drugs in the country. Following this model, the prices of new and innovative drugs under patents can be set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, over the available existing products. Health Technology Assessment (HTA), for example, could be an effective tool in this process.

Additionally, the VBP model could also minimize, if not eliminate the risk of patients paying a high a price for new drugs coming through incremental innovation, adding too little clinical and economic value over existing drugs. There may, of course, be some teething trouble or even important issues in arriving at consensus on value-metrics for VBP. But, this can be sorted out through meaningful engagement with concerned parties.

Strikingly, even after 6 years since the NPPP 2012 was announced, nothing tangible has been made known to stakeholders on the execution of ‘patented drug pricing policy’ in India. An avoidable policy execution gap continues, limiting access to affordable new medicines to a vast majority of the Indian population, even today.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

For Patient-Centricity: Emerging a C-Suite Role

Posted on by
Reply

Regardless of skepticism of many, the formidable power of physicians to take all treatment decisions for patients, is gradually getting moderated, globally. Although, its pace may vary from country to country. An increasing number of more informed patients are carving out a greater role for themselves in this important process.

The central focus for brand demand generation can no longer remain just on the doctors. This is because, as I wrote this in my article, published in this Blog on July 06, 2015: “Slowly but steadily the process of taking treatment decisions for the patients is undergoing a metamorphosis, where well informed patients no longer want to play just a passive role. These patients want the doctors to take a final decision on their treatment only after meaningful interactions with them.” Besides a broad prescription pattern, this includes the medicines that they will consume, including meaningful details on product cost against the benefits to be accrued.

The age-old practice of doing a little bit on patient education or compliance, are grossly inadequate in an evolving new scenario. The good news is, many pharma companies have started realizing that appropriate engagement with patients to deliver what they want and more, can lead to better financial performance.

Consequently, the ball game for prescription demand generation is showing early signs of a change – somewhat radical in nature. To spearhead this unavoidable metamorphosis for the organization, there surfaced a brand-new role of a CxO – The Chief Patient Officers (CPO).

This new senior management position is expected to direct organizational focus on patients. Understand their concerns, needs, wants and goals, particularly in the disease areas where the company represents. And finally, give shape to new multichannel well-coordinated platforms of patient engagement, for better commercial returns. In this article, I shall try to explore how this transformation pans out, if at all.

The direction is right, but patients must feel the change:

As I said before, some pharma players have started accepting the reality. The crucial need for an organization to become ‘Patients-Centric’ can’t be wished away anymore. For example, a 2015 “Industry Healthcheck” survey where 1600 pharma executives participated, found that 85 percent of respondents agreed that ‘Patient-Centricity’ is the best route to improve profitability, in the fast changing business environment.

It is perhaps well understood that the pharma industry has arrived at this point due to increasing access of the general population to easily available, all-kind of information on the cyber space, including health care. The enabling facility has already prompted many patients evaluating various treatment options for a disease, including choice of drugs and their cost.

As a result, pharma companies felt the necessity to have a new leader who will give a new perspective and direction in creating a new value for the organization, for a sustainable progress. This involves charting a comprehensive pathway to gradually shift the entire company focus on ‘patients for products’, and not on ‘products for patients.’

According to reports, a few global pharma majors, such as Merck and Sanofi already have their CPO in place, but patients are yet to feel any difference on the ground even for these companies, as many say.

What exactly is ‘Patient-Centricity?’ – Two perspectives:

It won’t be a bad idea to get to know two different perspectives on what ‘Patient-Centricity’ exactly is – one from a CPO and the other from patient groups, as follows:

A. 3 three pillars of ‘Patient-Centricity’ from the CPO perspective:

To get a ringside perspective to this question from the industry, let me quote from the first CPO - Anne C. Beal appointed in a top-10 pharma – Sanofi, on March 31, 2014, though the CPO position is in existence, since 2012.

On December 2014, at the 11th annual Patient Summit USA conference, Anne Beal, reportedly deliberated on the three pillars of her company’s patient-centric strategy, which I shall describe, as follows:

  • Utilizing patients’ input to get a better sense of their needs in order to design and deliver solutions that help fulfill them.
  • Engaging and supporting patients to ensure the solutions that the company delivers help enhance their lives and improve outcomes.
  • Involving with the company employees and supporting them to create an engaged community and patient-centric culture.

B. 9 attributes of ‘Patient-Centricity’ from the patients’ perspective:

‘Patient View’ – a UK-based research, publishing, and consultancy group, arrived at the ‘9 Key Attributes’ of ‘Patient-Centricity’. This is based on the analysis of feedbacks (2016-17) from 2,000 patient groups worldwide, 50+ different medical specialties in 100+ countries. The critical attributes of the same that patients want to see in a drug company can be summarized, as follows:

  • Demonstrate integrity and authenticity through all company actions.
  • Understand all the issues that patients face ‘beyond the pill’ and help in dealing with them.
  • Transparency in drug pricing policy, research, results, funding relationship.
  • Ensure that all patients are included in access strategies, regardless of the returns to the company.
  • Products to provide quantifiable value to patients.
  • Reliable supply and comprehensive patient safeguard.
  • Provide quality product information – Consistent, current, balanced and usable.
  • Patient group relation – good intention, effective governance, communication and training.
  • Ensure patients are engaged and their opinions are sought at each stage of R&D.

On a broader canvas, the two perspectives on ‘Patient-Centricity’ – one from the CPO and the other from the patients’ groups, do have some important similarities. Nevertheless, I reckon, the CPOs would still need to cover more ground to match patients’ expectations from a ‘Patient-Centric’ pharma company. 

Claimants of ‘patient-centric’ focus are many, but few deliver consistently:

Quite expectedly, there are many claimants for a ‘patient-centric’ organizational focus. Interestingly, few actually deliver consistently. This was vindicated in the article – ‘How patient-centric is the pharma industry’, published by PDD - a design and innovation consultancy firm on June 06, 2016.

The paper indicates both the up and downside of pharma company claims on ‘Patient-Centricity.’ The upside is that the hype has influenced, at least, some drug players to openly talk about the need to shift the company focus more on patients. A few have initiated some tangible action, as well. Whereas, the downside of it is the lack of consistency in the enthusiasm of ‘patient-centric’ actions by these companies. To illustrate the point, let me quote the following two examples from the article:

  • In the 2013 survey on ‘Patient-Centricity’ by the research firm ‘Patient View’, ViiV Healthcare (the GSK & Pfizer joint venture focused on HIV therapies), Gilead, AbbVie, Menarini and Janssen occupied the top 5 spots.
  • However, in the ‘eyeforpharma Barcelona Awards 2016 ’ that too focuses on ‘Patient-Centricity’, none of these companies featured in the “Most Valuable Patient Initiative or Service” category. Whereas, Sanofi took the top spot, and Merck, Roche, Novartis and TEVA were the remaining nominees.

The criteria of the two selection processes, apparently being similar, this is interesting. More so, when the ‘patient-centric’ focus of an organization is an ongoing strategy, with a ‘top priority’ tag attached to it.

Be that as it may, that some serious efforts being made by a few companies in this area, can’t be brushed aside, either, regardless of the fact that the CPO position came into existence, since 2012. It flagged, at that time, the criticality of ‘Patient-Centricity’ in the pharmaceutical business and possibly, sent a signal to pharma players for a course correction, in this direction, soon enough.

Conclusion:

In an interview, published in December 2016 issue of McKinsey Quarterly, LEO Pharma’s president and CEO, Gitte Aabo, aptly summarized the process of ‘Patient-Centricity’, as follows:

“Patient-Centricity means being deeply entrenched in the patient’s needs, not just thinking about how to develop new products and new features. It means reaching out to patients and considering treatments that will help them in whatever situation they find themselves in.”

However, since long, most drug manufacturers are apparently solely driven by commercial considerations, both for new drug discovery and also in generic product development. Subsequent marketing strategies are obviously an integral component of the same organizational thought leadership and value chain. Several examples from the current status of the R&D pipeline for multi-drug resistant antibiotics, or what is happening even with the generic drug pricing in many countries, including the United States, will vindicate this point.

That said, a mild wind of change on the sails of traditional pharma mindset seems to be slowly catching up, as some CPOs position themselves in the saddle. Hopefully, this will  ultimately make patients the centerpiece of pharma business. Can more of this kind of actions be construed as signals for imbibing ‘Patient-Centricity’ by the drug companies? Will its impact be visible and felt by all – in real life, soon?

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.

A ‘Toxin’ Delaying Success of Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

The above comment, although sounds a bit harsh, was made recently by none other than Scott Gottlieb - the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner of the United States. He expressed his anguish while explaining the reasons for a delayed launch of several important biosimilar drugs.

We know, this new genre of drugs has a potential to be a quick game changer, significantly improving access to affordable biologic medicines for many patients. Unfortunately, much desired accelerated progress in this direction, got considerably retarded in the face of a strong headwind, craftily created by the innovator companies, as is widely believed. There are various ways of creating the same. However, the two major ones can be ascribed to:

  • Getting caught in the labyrinth of complex patent challenge.
  • General apprehensions of many doctors on the efficacy and safety of biosimilars as compared to reference drugs.

This is happening in major markets, including India, in varying degree, though.  In this article, I shall deliberate on this issue, starting with the largest pharma market of the world and then focusing on India.

‘Toxin’ that delays biosimilar drug launch:

“Americans could have saved $ 4.5 billion in 2017, if all of the FDA-approved biosimilars were actually available in the United States, instead of getting delayed because of litigations or other agreements.” The Food and Drug Administration Commissioner of the United States – Scott Gottlieb, reportedly, made this comment on July 18, 2018.

Gottlieb referred to some of these as a “toxin” that have prevented other drug makers from launching biosimilar medicines. He accused the manufacturers of pricey biologic medicines of using “unacceptable” anti-competitive tactics to keep competitors off the market. These cost Americans billions of dollars – the report highlighted.

These tactics, as the US FDA commissioner said, are being deliberately used by the innovator pharma and biotech companies and can be corroborated with several examples. One such is the fact that despite the expiration ofthe ‘composition of the matter’ patent for Humira (adalimumab) in December 2016, its ‘non-composition of the matter’ patent would expire not earlier than 2022. The company has therefore made settlement agreements with Amgen and Samsung Bioepis, delaying the launch of adalimumab biosimilars until January 2023.

Protecting own patents Big Pharma challenging rivals’ patents:

Both these are happening for original biologic and biosimilar equivalents, often by the same manufacturers. For example, the Reuters report of October 02, 2016, titled  ‘Big Pharma vs Big Pharma in court battles over biosimilar drugs’ highlighted, although Novartis and Amgen are at each other’s throats in court over the Swiss drug maker’s Enbrel copy, but the two are still cooperating on a drug for migraines.

“One of the biggest surprises has been the number of innovator Biopharma companies, like Amgen, now developing biosimilars to compete with the products of other innovator companies,” the article observes. It also reports that Sanofi, Merck, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Biogen are also embroiled in lawsuits over biosimilars.

This trend vindicates that the line dividing makers of brand-name drugs and copycat medicines is blurring as companies known for innovative treatments queue up to peddle copies of rivals’ complex biological medicines, Reuters noted. Consequently, they are now doing both – protecting their high-price products from biosimilars drugs,while simultaneously challenging rivals’ patent claims.

There is another interesting side to it. Notwithstanding, biosimilars are a cost-effective alternative to biologic drugs that could improve patients’ access to expensive biological medicines, prescribers’ perception of biosimilar medicines are still not quite positive, just yet.

Doctors’ attitude on biosimilar prescription:

To illustrate this point, let me quote from recent research findings in this area. One such is the May 2017 study on “Medical specialists’ attitudes to prescribing biosimilars.” The key points are as follows:

  • Between 54 and 74 percent of the specialists are confident in the safety, efficacy, manufacturing and Pharmacovigilance of biosimilars.
  • 71 percent of specialists agreed that they would prescribe biosimilars for all or some conditions meeting relevant clinical criteria.
  • Specialists are less confident about indication extrapolation and switching patients from an existing biologic.
  • The most common situations that they would not prescribe a biosimilar was where there was a lack of clinical data supporting efficacy (32 percent), or evidence of adverse effects.

Overall, medical specialists held positive attitudes towards biosimilars, but were less confident in indication extrapolation and switching patients from the original biologic. Several experts believe that constantly highlighting the fear factors against biosimilar drugs, such as possible risks of interchangeability with reference product, or immunogenicity related serious consequences, though very rare, are fueling the fire of apprehensions on the wide use of biosimilar medicines.

However, several reviews, like the one that I am quoting here finds that ‘switching from the reference product to related biosimilar drug is not inherently dangerous.’I discussed this issue, with details in one of my articles, published in this blog on July 31, 2017.

Any therapeutic difference between the original biologic and biosimilars?

As the US-FDA says: “Patients and their physicians can expect that there will be no clinically meaningful differences between taking a reference product and a biosimilar drug when these products are used as intended. All reference products and biosimilar products meet FDA’s rigorous standards for approval for the indications (medical conditions) described in product labeling.”

The key point to take note of is that the US drug regulator categorically reiterates: “Once a biosimilar has been approved by the FDA, patients and health care providers can be assured of the safety and effectiveness of the biosimilar, just as they would for the reference product.”

The invisible barriers to biosimilar drugs in India:

Although, there are no specific data requirements for interchangeability of biosimilar drugs with the reference product, as mentioned in the latest Indian Guidelines on similar biologic, other visible and visible barriers are restricting the rapid growth of drugs belonging to this genre.

An interesting research study finds, like many other drugs, the cost of biosimilars is a major barrier to the rapid growth of the market in India. The Deloitte Report, titled “Winning with biosimilars: Opportunities in global markets” also articulated: “Approximately 70 percent of the country’s population is considered rural and will focus on the cost of therapy – a 20-30 percent discount on originator biologics may not be sufficient.”

Moreover, many patients who are on original biologic drugs, costing higher than related biosimilars and want to switch over to affordable equivalents, are not able to do so. In many cases, doctors’ do not encourage them to do so, for various reasons, including the general assertion that original biologic drugs are more effective. India being considered as the global capital of diabetes, let me cite an example from this disease area, just to drive home the point.

A recent experience on biosimilar drug interchangeability in India:

Just the last week, I received a call from a friend’s wife living in Delhi who wanted to know whether Lantus 100 IU/ml of Sanofi can be replaced with Glaritus 100 IU/ml of Wockhardt, as the latter costs much less. I advised her to consult their doctor and request accordingly. She said, it has already been done and the doctor says Lantus is a better product.

To get a fact-based idea on what she told me, I referred to two circulars of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) – one for Glaritus and the other one for Lantus and found that both are under drug price control and have respective ceiling prices. As both the circulars are of 2009, these may probably be treated as an indicative price difference. NPPA notified price for a 3 ml cartridge of Glaritus reads as Rs.135. 24. Whereas, the same for Lantus was mentioned as Rs.564.84.

Is an original biologic generally superior to Indian biosimilars?

US-FDA has already reiterated, “Once a biosimilar has been approved by the FDA, patients and health care providers can be assured of the safety and effectiveness of the biosimilar, just as they would for the reference product.”

However, to get India-specific, evidence-based information in this area, I checked, whether Lantus has any clinically proven therapeutic superiority over Glaritus. Interestingly, I came across the results of a 12-week study concluding that biosimilar insulin glargine, Glaritus, is comparable to the reference product, Lantus – providing a safe and effective option for patients with T1DM. Nevertheless, the researchers did say that more studies are required in this area.

The core question that needs to be addressed why is the doctor’s perception so different and the reasons for the same?

Conclusion:

In view of all that has been discussed in this article, I find it challenging to fathom that in the absence of any credible and conclusive specific study, how could a doctor possibly infer that higher priced imported original biologic drugs are generally superior to lower priced biosimilar equivalents? More so, when in India, there are no regulatory issues on interchangeability between original biologic and its biosimilar equivalent.

Or for that matter, a branded generic product is superior to all other equivalent generic drugs without a brand name? This can happen, especially when the vested interests actively work on ensuring that such a perception gains ground, boosting the sales revenue and mostly at the cost of patients’ interest.

As one would witness in many other spheres of life that creating a blatantly self-serving, positive target audience perception, by any means, primarily aimed at destroying the same of others, is assuming increasing importance. Are we seeing the reflection of the same, even in the field of evidence based medical science?

I reckon, it raises a flag for all to ponder, particularly after reading the recent candid comments of the US-FDA commissioner, as quoted above.

Could this be one of those ‘Toxins’, which delays success of biosimilar drugs?

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.

 

Blockchain: A Game Changer For Safe Medicines

Posted on by
Reply

‘Your medicine box may have fake drugs’ was the March 18, 2018 headline of a popular pan Indian news daily. Just the year before, the 2017 report of the World Health Organization (WHO), also flagged that around 10.5 percent of all medicines in low-and middle-income countries, including India are substandard or fake. Even prior to this, another news headline of February 15, 2016 highlighted: ‘1 In 7 Indian Drugs Revealed As Substandard.’ These reports paint a scary situation for consumers of medicine in India, especially when the same incidence is just around one percent in the high-income countries of the world. Nevertheless, getting into a protracted discussion to prove the veracity of this issue, may not yield much, either. Some may even term these as efforts to ‘sensationalizing’ the situation.

That said, the good news is, the Government Think Tank Niti Aayog and also the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) of India,are reportedly contemplating to combat this menace with cutting-edge technology. In this article, I shall dwell on this threat, starting with its profound impact, not just on human health, but also on the economic and the socioeconomic space of India.

Why is it so important?

The most obvious fallout of this hazard is of course borne by the consuming patient.  The other two critical impact areas has also been well captured by the World Health Organization (WHO) in its 2017 study, titled ‘A study on the public health and socioeconomic impact of substandard and falsified medical products’. I am summarizing those 3 key impact areas hereunder:

A. Health impact: 

  • Adverse effects (for example, toxicity or lack of efficacy) from incorrect active ingredients
  • Failure to cure or prevent future disease, increasing mortality, morbidity and the prevalence of disease
  • Progression of antimicrobial resistance and drug-resistant infections, loss of confidence in health care professionals, health programs and health systems

B. Economic impact:

  • Increased out-of-pocket and health system spending on health care
  • Economic loss for patients, their families, health systems and manufacturers (and other actors in the supply chain) of quality medical products
  • Waste of human effort and financial outlay across the health system, further straining resources, staff and infrastructure
  • Increased burden for health care professionals, national medicine regulatory authorities, law enforcement and criminal justice systems.

C. Socioeconomic impact:

  • Lost income due to prolonged illness or death
  • Lost productivity costs to patients and households when seeking additional medical care, the effects of which are felt by businesses and the wider economy
  • Lack of social mobility and increased poverty

What the Government contemplates in India? 

According to the April 09, 2018 news report, “Indian policy think tank Niti Aayog is working to put the entire inventory of drugs made and consumed in the country on blockchain with an intent to crack down on counterfeit and spurious drugs, according to two government sources. The government wants to complete a proof of concept (PoC) solution by the year-end and begin implementation in 2019.”

On May 16, 2018, DTAB reportedly deliberated and approved a Track and Trace mechanism to address this issue. The proposal is a stand-alone measure to combat fake or counterfeit drugs covering 300 pharma products. However, it does not intend to cover the entire drug supply chain integrity with Blockchain technology, in a comprehensive manner.

According to the above report, this particular approach involves asking the pharma manufacturers to print a unique 14-digit alphanumeric code on the package of the drug. While buying any medicine, the individual can inquire via a text message, whether the drug bearing that code is genuine or not.

I wrote an article in this Blog on the use Blockchain by pharma players, on January 22, 2018. You may wish to refer that to know more about it in context of the pharma industry.

Recent Blockchain initiatives by global pharma majors:

Some global pharma layers have already covered some ground with Blockchain, especially in this area.On September 21, 2017, an article titled ‘Big Pharma Turns to Blockchain to Track Meds’, published in Fortune, presented some interesting facts. It indicated: to stop a flow of fake, spurious or counterfeit medicines entering the supply chain and reaching patientshow the pharma industry appears to be on the verge of resolving this long-time problem with the intervention of one of the most modern technology – Blockchain.

A group of companies, including Genentech and Pfizer has announced the MediLedger Project for creating blockchain tools to manage pharmaceutical supply chains. The group, has completed a successful pilot program to track medicines, where all concerned – from drug manufacturers to wholesalers to hospitals and retailers will be recording drug deliveries on a blockchain. This would ensure that, at each step of the distribution process, a network of computers will vouch for the ‘provenance and authenticity’ of a drug shipment—making it virtually impossible for counterfeiters to introduce fake drugs – the article highlighted.

Quoting domain experts, the authors underscored the key difference between current practices in this area and managing supply chain through Blockchain technology. At present, most companies use various software to manage the supply chain. However, these usually consist of a mishmash of different databases. ‘The introduction of a Blockchain system, in which each participant controls a node on the network, and transactions require a consensus, is thus a significant leap forward’ – the experts noted.

On scaling up, if this project achieves the intended goals, it would possibly be a game changer for the pharma companies in addressing the counterfeit or fake drug menace, effectively.

How will Blockchain combat fake or counterfeit drugs?

In India, there are basically four constituents in the pharma supply chain: source of procurement of various ingredients – manufacturers – C&F Agents – wholesalers – retailers, besides hospitals and dispensaries. To avoid counterfeit or fake/spurious drugs in a comprehensive way, it is critical for these constituents to see and share relevant data based on a modern and tamper-proof technology platform. Unfortunately, the current practices mostly fail to address this serious threat in a holistic way.

Experts envisage Blockchain delivering a superior value in this area, as it has the potential to cover end-to-end supply chain network of a pharma business. A November 14, 2017 article appeared in a Harvard Business School publication of Technology and Operations Management (TOM) explains its rationale very well. The paper is titled “Can blockchain help solve the problem of counterfeit drugs?”

In the context of a supply chain it says, blockchain can be used to track the flow of goods and services between businesses and even across borders. At each step of the distribution process, a network of computers can unmistakably indicate the provenance and authenticity of a shipment, making it harder or counterfeiters to introduce fake drugs. The key advantage of this technological process is that

it is virtually impossible for malicious actors to alter the event logs. Another advantage is speed: should a shipment be disrupted or go missing, the data stored on the common ledger would provide a rapid way for all parties trace it, and determine who handled the shipment last, the author elaborates.

Common anti-counterfeit-measures:

In many countries, including India, drug regulators are focusing on putting in place various anti-counterfeit measures, such as, ‘track and trace’ and ‘mass serialization.’ In some nations these mandatory in nature. At present, the most common process, globally, is to have machine-readable codes carrying a serial number featuring on each and every pack of medicines. Many anti-counterfeit solution providers call these in various different names, to position themselves on a marketing high ground. Other such measures include, forensic markers, cloud-based supply chain data repositories are also being talked about.

So far so good, but the current reality continues to remain scary for patients, probably more in India. Each year ‘tens of thousands dying from $30 billion fake drug trade,’ – reported Reuters just recently – on November 28, 2017. As reported by IntelligentHQ on November 3, 2016, ‘studies have shown that the pharmaceutical industry still struggles on two main counts: interoperability between all the participants, from the manufacturer to the dispenser and data management, to better integrate the serialization systems. Being able to avoid drug counterfeiting is just one of the reasons for which it is so critical to successfully track products down the supply chain.’

Conclusion:

Ensuring safety and security of the pharma supply chain – from sourcing to manufacturing to logistics to retail chemist and ultimately to the final consumer, is now possible with the application of Blockchain. In fact, this process has already been developed, and tried in many continents of the world, including Africa (video).

Thus, in my view, for an effective anti-counterfeiting system to work or even a substandard drug ingredient going into any original final product that ultimately will be consumed by patients, the most important requirement is to ensureend-to-end supply chain visibility and integrity.Any stand-alone anti-counterfeit measure can’t possibly provide such holistic solution.

Just to emphasize on this point – what happens, if anything goes wrong during sourcing of ingredients, or during the manufacturing of the original drug? The drug in question, although could be substandard, can’t be termed counterfeit. Hence, any standalone anti-counterfeit mechanism will obviously indicate ‘all is well’ for the patients to consume this original medicine – before the product is ultimately recalled, if and when the defect is detected by other means.

From this perspective, the application of Blockchain technology covering end-to-end supply chain network has the wherewithal of being a game changer – offering safe medicines to patients.

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.

Why MNC Pharma Still Moans Over Indian IP Ecosystem?

Posted on by
Reply

Improving patient access to expensive drugs, paving the way for entry of their cheaper generic equivalents, post patent expiry, and avoiding evergreening, is assuming priority a priority focus area in many countries. The United States is no exception, in this area. The Keynote Address of Scott Gottlieb, Commissioner of Food and Drug at the 2018 Food and Drug Law Institute Annual Conference inWashington, DC by, on May 3, 2018, confirms this. Where, in sharp contrast with what the MNC Pharma players and their trade associations propagated, the US-FDA commissioner himself admitted by saying, “Let’s face it. Right now, we don’t have a truly free market when it comes to drug pricing, and in too many cases, that’s driving prices to unaffordable levels for some patients.”

Does US talk differently outside the country?

At least, it appears so to many. For example, in April 2018, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its 2018 Special 301 Report. In this exercise, the USPTO names the country’s trading partners for not adequately protecting and enforcing Intellectual Property (IP) rights or otherwise deny market access to U.S. innovators that rely on the protection of their IP rights.’ Accordingly, U.S. trading partners are asked to address IP-related challenges, with a special focus on the countries identified on the Watch List (WL) and Priority Watch List (PWL).

In 2018, just as the past years, India continues to feature, along with 11 other countries, on the PWL, for the so called longstanding challenges in its IP framework and lack of sufficient measurable improvements that have negatively affected U.S. right holders over the past year.

From Patient access to affordable drugs to Market access for Expensive Drugs: 

Curiously, the USTR Report highlights its concerns not just related to IP, but also on market access barriers for patented drugs and medical devices, irrespective of a country’s socioeconomic compulsion. Nevertheless, comparing it to what the US-FDA Commissioner articulated above, one gets an impression, while the US priority is improving patient access to affordable drugs for Americans, it changes to supporting MNC pharma to improve market access for expensive patented drugs, outside its shores.

Insisting others to improve global IP Index while the same for the US slides:

In the context of the 2018 report, the U.S. Trade Representative, reportedly said, “the ideas and creativity of American entrepreneurs’ fuel economic growth and employ millions of hardworking Americans.” However, on a closer look at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s annual Global IP Index for 2018, a contrasting fact surfaces, quite clearly. It shows, America, which once was at the very top of the overall IP Index score, is no longer so – in 2018, the world rank of the US in offering patent protection to innovators, dropped to 12thposition from its 10thglobal ranking in 2017. Does it mean, what the US is asking its trading partners to follow, it is unable to hold its own ground against similar parameters, any longer.

Should IP laws ignore country’s socioeconomic reality? 

MNC Pharma often articulated, it doesn’t generally fall within its areas of concern, and is the Government responsibility. However, an affirmative answer, echoes from many independent sources on this issue. No wonder, some astute and credible voices, such as an article titled “U.S. IP Policy Spins Out of Control in the 2018 Special 301 Report”, published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on May 01, 2018, termed 2018 Special 301 Report – ‘A Tired, Repetitive Report.’ It reiterates in no ambiguous term: ‘The report maintains the line that there is only one adequate and effective level of IP protection and enforcement that every country should adhere to, regardless of its social and economic circumstances or its international legal obligations.

The ever-expanding MNC Pharma list of concerns on Indian IP laws:

The areas of MNC Pharma concern, related to Indian IP laws, continues to grow even in 2018. The letter dated February 8, 2018 of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, Washington, DC to the USTR, makes these areas rather clear. I shall quote below some major pharma related ones, from this ever-expanding list:

  • Additional Patentability Criteria – section 3 (d): The law makes it difficult for them to secure patent protection for certain types of pharma inventions.
  • TADF (Technology Acquisition and Development Fund)is empowered to request Compulsory Licensing (CL) from the Government:Section 4.4 of India’s National Manufacturing Policy discusses the use of CL to help domestic companies access the latest patented green technology.This helps in situations when a patent holder is unwilling to license, either at all or “at reasonable rates,” or when an invention is not being “worked” within India.
  • India’s National Competition Policyrequires IP owners to grant access to “essential facilities” on “agreed and nondiscriminatory terms” without reservation. They are not comfortable with it.
  • Regulatory Data Protection: The Indian Regulatory Authority relies on test data submitted by originators to another country when granting marketing approval to follow-on pharma products. It discourages them to develop new medicines that could meet unmet medical needs.
  • Requirement of local working of patents: The Controller of Patents is empowered to require patent holders and any licensees to provide details on how the invention is being worked in India. Statements of the Working, (Form 27),must be provided annually.Failure to provide the requested information is punishable by fine or imprisonment. It makes pharma patent holders facing the risk of CL, if they fail to “work” their inventions in India within three years of the respective patent grant.
  • Disclosure of Foreign Filings: Section 8 of India’s Patent Act requires disclosure and regular updates on foreign applications that are substantially “the same or substantially the same invention.” They feel it is irrelevant today.

Pharma MNCs’ self-serving tirade is insensitive to Indian patient interest:

Continuing its tirade against some developed and developing countries, such as India, the US drug manufacturers lobby group – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has urged the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) to take immediate action to address serious market access and intellectual property (IP) barriers in 19 overseas markets, including India, reports reported The Pharma Letter on February 28, 2018. It will be interesting to watch and note the level active and passive participation of India based stakeholders of this powerful US lobby group, as well.

Government of India holds its ground… but the saga continues:

India Government’s stand in this regard, including 2018 Special 301 Report, has been well articulated in its report released on January 24, 2018, titled “Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India – An Overview”, released by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Ministry of Commerce and Industry (DIPP). The paper also includes asummary of some of the main recommendations, as captured in the September 2016 Report of the High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, constituted by the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon of the United Nations in November 2015.  Some of these observations are as follows:

  • WTO members must make full use of the TRIPS flexibilities as confirmed by the Doha Declaration to promote access to health technologies when necessary.
  • WTO members should make full use of the policy space available in Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement by adopting and applying rigorous definitions of invention and patentability that are in the interests of public health of the country and its inhabitants. This includes amending laws to curtail the evergreening of patents and awarding patents only when genuine innovation has occurred.
  • Governments should adopt and implement legislation that facilitates the issuance of Compulsory Licenses (CL). The use of CL should be based on the provisions found in the Doha Declaration and the grounds for the issuance left to the discretion of the governments.
  • WTO members should revise the paragraph 6 decision in order to find a solution that enables a swift and expedient export of pharmaceutical products produced under compulsory license.
  • Governments and the private sector must refrain from explicit or implicit threats, tactics or strategies that undermine the right of WTO Members to use TRIPS flexibilities.
  • Governments engaged in bilateral and regional trade and investment treaties should ensure that these agreements do not include provisions that interfere with their obligations to fulfill the rights to health.

The DIPP report includes two important quotes, among several others, as follows:

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize for Economics (2001) – an American Citizen:

-       “If patent rights are too strong and maintained for too long, they prevent access to knowledge, the most important input in the innovation process. In the US, there is growing recognition that the balance has been too far tilted towards patent protection in general (not just in medicine).”

-       “Greater IP protection for medicines would, we fear, limit access to life-saving drugs and seriously undermine the very capable indigenous generics industry that has been critical for people’s well-being in not only India but other developing countries as well”.

Bernie Sanders, an American Citizen and Senior U.S. Senator:

-      “Access to health care is a human right, and that includes access to safe and affordable prescription drugs. It is time to enact prescription drug policies that work for everyone, not just the CEOs of the pharmaceutical industry.”

-      “Healthcare must be recognized as a right, not a privilege. Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income.”

Conclusion:

Why is then this orchestrated moaning and accompanying pressure for making Indian IP laws more stringent, which apparently continues under the façade of ‘innovation at risk’, which isn’t so – in any case. But, cleverly marketed high priced ‘me too’ drugs with molecular tweaking do impact patient access. So is the practice of delaying off-patent generic drugs entry, surreptitiously. Instead, why not encourage Voluntary Licensing (VL) of patented drugs against a mutually agreed fee, for achieving greater market access to the developing countries, like India?

Whatever intense advocacy is done by the vested interests to change Indian patent laws in favor of MNC pharma, the intense efforts so far, I reckon, have been akin to running on a treadmill – without moving an inch from where they were, since and even prior to 2005. The moaning of MNC Pharma on the Indian IP ecosystem, as I see it, will continue, as no Indian Government will wish to take any risk in this area. It appears irreversible and is likely to remain so, for a long time to come. The time demands from all concerned to be part of the solution, and not continue to be a part of the problem, especially by trying to tamper with the IP ecosystem of the country.

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.

‘Rigged’ Payment System Limits Biosimilar Access

Posted on by
Reply

As often discussed, market entry of biosimilars, in general, brings a new hope not just for many patients, but also to biosimilar drug manufacturers – planning to get marketing approvals of these drugs in the United States, the El Dorado of global pharma industry.

Stakeholder expectations keep increasing manifold as biosimilars offer cheaper treatment options with biologic drugs in many life-threatening and rare diseases. However, biosimilars still remain an unfulfilled promise.

The January 2018 paper by Trinity Partners on “The State of US Biosimilars Market Access” in the largest drug market of the world makes an important observation in this regard. It says, the promise of biosimilars offering cost-saving competition in the lucrative US biologic market, remains largely unfulfilled.

As on date, adoption of biosimilars has been hindered by lack of market access due to complex contracting dynamics, besides regulatory and legal uncertainty, and a general lack of clinical comfort with biosimilars.

Consequently, current state of biosimilar acceptance and access appear too insignificant. More so, as compared to traditional small molecule generic markets where their use is fueled by automatic substitution and payer formularies, over higher priced branded reference drugs.

It would not have been difficult, especially for the innovative biologic drug makers to brush this important study aside, had the US-FDA Commissioner – Scott Gottlieb would not have voiced what he did in March this year.

With this perspective, I shall discuss in this article, how access to biosimilar drugs are getting limited. In doing so, I shall begin with what the US-FDA Commissioner has recently highlighted in this area.

Yet another barrier:

As reported by Bloomberg on March 07, 2018, the US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb unambiguously expressed that biologic drug manufacturers enter into exclusive arrangements with Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and insurers, who agree to cover only the old brands in return for rebates or discounts. This “rigged” payment scheme might quite literally scare the biosimilar competition out of the market altogether, he articulated, categorically.

US-FDA Commissioner delivered this speech at the National Health Policy Conference for America’s Health Insurance Plans. During this deliberation, Gottlieb criticized some unwanted and avoidable practices that stifle biosimilar development.

He observed, of the 9 approved biosimilars in the US, only 3 could be launched market. In many instances, patent litigation is the reason for such delay in launch, post FDA approval. Connecting the dots, the Commissioner observed, even after being in the market, biosimilars continue facing more uncertainty due to a ‘rigged payment scheme.’

Started with a great promise:

It is worth noting, till 2010 no regulatory pathway for marketing approval of biosimilars was in place in the world’s largest pharma market – the United States. Hence, despite biosimilar drugs being a treatment option in many countries over the last two decades, the first biosimilar was launched in the US, following this pathway, only in 2015. It was Zarxio ((Filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis – indicated for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Since then, US-FDA has approved nine biosimilars. Ironically biosimilar market size still remains small and much below the general expectations. Most biosimilar manufacturers are navigating through multiple tough hurdles for market launch of this relatively new genre of complex drugs.

Navigating through tough hurdles:

There are tough hurdles to navigate through, while launching biosimilars, especially in the US. Some of which are as follows:

Protracted litigations: The development and launch of most biosimilars get stuck in the multiple patent web-lock, created around original biologic molecules, leading to long drawn expensive litigations.

Pricing: Following small molecule generic drugs, most payers and consumers expect biosimilar pricing too will be no different. However, in practice, most biosimilars are priced just around 15 percent to 20 percent less than original biologics.

Interchangeability: Lack of interchangeability among presently approved biosimilars in the US limits payers’ and consumer choice for a shift from the reference biologic drugs to suitable biosimilars. This virtually restricts the use of biosimilars mostly to such drug-naïve patients.

Confidence: For various reasons, the confidence and familiarity of both physicians and the consumers on biosimilars remain suboptimal. Whether relatively cheaper biosimilars can be used in the same indications as the reference biologic to the new patients – as an alternative choice, is still not clear to many of them. This situation calls for increasing awareness programs involving all stakeholders.

Manufacturing: The manufacturing process of large molecule biosimilars is quite costly as compared to small molecule generic drugs. Hence, these are unlikely to follow a similar pricing pattern, attracting as high a discount as around 80 percent, compared to original branded drugs.

Some of these barriers I have discussed in my article, titled ‘Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers’, published in this blog on July 31, 2017.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, drug manufacturers continue to see tremendous opportunity in biosimilars. The interest is heating up, as about six of the top 10 biologic drugs are expected to go off-patent in the US by 2019.

Despite all this, it is generally believed, the prevailing situation will change even in the US. The regulator is expected to facilitate smoother market entry of biosimilars, facing much less obstacles on the way. As many strongly believe, these are possibly an outcome of intense industry lobbying, with the high-level policy makers.  Many of these hurdles can be removed by the regulators, themselves, including drug interchangeability.

The US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has already said in a meeting on March 07, 2018, the FDA will start educating doctors and patients to minimize clinical and other concerns related to biosimilars. Therefore, going forward, greater competition in the biosimilar space is expected to increase the long-awaited price differential, as compared to reference biologic.

With greater support from the regulators, biosimilars still show a unique promise of greater acceptance and access to patients – occasionally ‘Rigged’ maneuvers by the vested interests notwithstanding.

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.

‘Made-to-Measure’ Marketing for ‘Made-to-Measure’ Medicines

Posted on by
Reply

We have entered into a new era of innovation in medical science where ‘one size fits all’ type of treatment is making a sizeable space for a new ‘made-to-measure’ variety of the same. Such medicines are being developed particularly for life-threatening and rare diseases, where individual genetic differences in patients play a key role in the choice of therapy.

The marketers of such drugs, at the same time, will need to make sure that the right sets of messages are delivered to the right person, in the right way and at the right time, for brand success. This isn’t a piece of cake, as it will be akin to finding out a needle from a haystack. It would call for craftily ferreting out from an enormous database, both the patients’ and the prescribers detail profile virtually in each stage of the treatment process.

Such information would form the bedrock for effective brand value creation and its delivery, to achieve best possible business results and also patient outcomes. Thus, ‘made-to-measure’ marketing would be a whole new ball game for many pharma marketers – a  completely different situation that, very often, they know little about.

In this article, I shall dwell on this subject. Let me begin with a brief description of the emerging ‘made-to-measure’ variety of treatments.

‘Made-to-measure’ treatment:

There are many serious and life-threatening disease conditions where ‘One Size Fits All’ sort of treatment approach doesn’t work too well. One such dreaded disease is cancer. Conventionally, following standard treatment guidelines, doctors generally opt for similar treatment for patients suffering from the same type and stage of cancer. Interestingly, it has been conclusively established over a period of time that this approach often yields different outcomes to different patients.

With the progress of genetic science, the researchers have unraveled this mystery from the genetic difference of patients. This understanding heralded the dawn of a new era of targeted or ‘made-to-measure’ drug therapies. These are called “personalized medicine” or “precision medicine”. According to the National Research Council, “personalized medicine” is an older term with a meaning similar to “precision medicine.”

Personalized medicines:

According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), understanding a patient’s genetic makeup and ascertaining how certain gene changes during cancerous tumor growth, doctors can now choose more effective treatment options for each patient. In other words, based on genetic test results, oncologists can now opt for a customize treatment, based on each patient’s specific needs. Such drugs can block or turn off the signals that tell malignant cells to grow and divide, keep cells from living longer than normal, or kill the cancer cells altogether.

Moreover, by performing genetic tests both on the cancer and normal cells, doctors can also:

  • Find out the chances of a person developing cancer and selecting the screening strategies to lower the risk
  • Match patients with treatments that are likely to be more effective and cause fewer side effects
  • Predict the risk of recurrence, which means the return of cancer

The new era began in 1998:

The era of ‘personalized medicine’ for cancer, in all practical purposes, commenced in 1998, when the US-FDA approved the targeted therapy, Herceptin (trastuzumab). Breast cancer patients having high levels of a biomarker, known as “HER-2,” are more likely to be susceptible to this drug.

Since then, the development of targeted therapies has grown rapidly. As reported by the American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC), published on January 31, 2018, one in every 4 drugs approved by the US-FDA over the past 4 years was a personalized medicine, and the agency approved a record-breaking 16 personalized therapy in 2017. The same year, US-FDA also approved the first biosimilar of a personalized medicine - trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri) for HER-2-positive breast cancer patients. This biosimilar was developed with Herceptin as its reference.

The February 2018 report of Research and Markets titled, ‘Personalized Medicine – Scientific and Commercial Aspects’ says, the aim of ‘personalized medicine’ is to match the right drug to the right patient and, in some cases, even to design the appropriate treatment for a patient according to his/her genotype. I deliberated on genotype-based treatment in my article titled, ‘A Disruptive Innovation to Fight and Cure Intractable Diseases’, published in this blog on October 30, 2017.

At this point, let me hasten to add that the development of personalized medicine raises some ethical issues, as well. Currently, this debate is mostly limited to the area of genetic testing.

Personalized dosage:

An article published on March 23, 2015 in the ‘FDA Voice’ of the US-FDA states, since the 1990s, the agency is also working on personalized drug dosing. This is because individuals differ in how they eliminate a drug. Some eliminate it much more slowly than most other people, and thus are susceptible to overdosing, while others eliminate it much faster, and may not get the desired therapeutic effect. There are biomarkers to identify people who may have these unusual results. Personalized drug dosing makes sure that drug efficacy for such patients are not compromised, or they are not at high risk of any severe side effects.

Marketing ‘personalized medicine’ a whole new ball game:

All this vindicates that ‘personalized medicine’ is not just a flash in the pan. With each passing year, it’s moving ahead at a brisk pace. In this emerging scenario, what happens to marketing of these drugs? Will the marketing of ‘personalized medicine’ remain just the same as the conventional one, or it warrants radically different cerebral inputs?

The opportunities for personalization in pharma marketing are immense. ‘Personalized medicines’ offer a greater scope in leveraging its potential that is yet to be fathomed, meaningfully. Broadly, this will mean targeting customers or potential consumers even at the individual level, to add greater differential value.

This, in turn, will involve making the marketing content, the message format and choosing the effective value delivery platforms, virtually ‘made-to-measure’ for the target audience. Marketing interaction of this ilk, has proven to offer a cutting-edge experience to the target groups with greater outcomes, in tandem, yielding superior financial results to the concerned pharma players.

Recent reports:

On December 18, 2017, Cambridge BioMarketing – one of the world’s leading rare disease agency highlighted, as personalized medicine continues to take hold, it will be more important than ever for healthcare companies to incorporate the ‘hyperpersonalized’ experience in marketing and communications. Patients’ voice has already started becoming more important than ever before, in various facets of pharma business. In 2018, one may expect to witness more pharma companies tapping the experts who can help explain the life-changing benefits of a treatment for the patient, effectively – the report predicted.

Moving forward, patients embarking on new treatments will be better empowered to take charge of their well-being. Physicians and nurses will also be better connected to their patients, along with other care providers, with the support of enhanced digital connections and mobile apps. Interestingly, one can find it happening in several developed countries, especially, in areas like rare diseases, where ‘personalized medicines’ will be used more – underscored this agency.

On January 22, 2018, quoting the same Cambridge BioMarketing, FiercePharma also reported, more ‘personalized medicines’ also mean more ‘personalized marketing’ – and the ‘hyperpersonalization’ trend goes to extremes. Crunching data gathered from multiple sources, such drug marketers need to identify small groups that could be receptive to specific messaging. Advanced data and analytics, would facilitate the marketers to whittle down their targets and tailor messages to consumer audiences, sometimes as small as one person – the report asserted.

Conclusion:

As the February 2018 report of ‘Research and Markets’ highlights, increase in efficacy and safety of treatment by individualizing it, has benefitted in financial terms too. Available information indicates that ‘personalized medicine’ will ultimately be cost-effective in healthcare systems. This would also eliminate the need for various assumptions in the process of diagnosing a disease.

Thus, conventional pharma marketing based on the mostly segmentation strategy used for blockbuster molecules may not work for a ‘personalized medicine’. Instead, ‘personalized marketing, focused on smaller and exclusive markets – identified based on robust research and analytical data, will be the name of the new game for business excellence in this specialized area.

Thus, I reckon, as we move ahead, ‘made-to-measure’ marketing will no doubt be one of the key success requirements to make ‘made-to-measure’ medicines’ – a money spinner.

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.

Why Branded Generics Promise High Quality For Patients?

Posted on by
Reply

Why most branded generic drugs don’t carry any stigma of quality, even when these are manufactured by small companies? The corollary to it is, why non-branded generics always carry a general stigma of inferior quality, even when produced by large Indian pharma companies?

While pondering over the answers to these questions, several other related facts also float at the top of mind, simultaneously, such as:

1. Just as many non-branded generics don’t go through the regular drug quality scrutiny of the regulators, branded generics are no different in this regard.

2. A large number of both branded and non-branded generics gets manufacturing approval by various State Drug Authorities.

3. The process of regulatory approval is exactly the same for both branded and non-branded generics. Even for branded generics regulatory approvals come only in the generic names and not with the brand names.

4. One can find hundreds of varieties of both branded and non-branded generics of the same molecules or of similar fixed dose combinations in the market.

5. Reports of substandard drugs of both non-branded and branded generics are also not significantly different.

6. Legal measures of reasonably stringent punishment in the country are no different between branded and non-branded generics.

This list is not exhaustive. Nevertheless, in this scenario, it is intriguing to fathom the reason of so much of contempt for non-branded generics within the industry, supported by a section of the media. This disgust gets invariably well-displayed as and when any serious discussion revolves around non-branded cheaper generic drug prescriptions in India.

Is it just a perception or based on solid facts?

This is a million-dollar question, but the optics is interesting. This also gets reflected in the recent media report on February 26, 2018. It writes, ‘The central government’s National Health Protection Scheme (NHPS) is going to put all of its focus on quality generic medicines, and not just the branded generic medicines, said Union Chemical and Fertilizer Minister Ananth Kumar while addressing a closed-door session with chief executives (CEOs) of pharmaceutical companies in Bengaluru on February 15.”

Curiously, in his statement the Minister also used the term ‘Quality’ only against non-branded generics and not against branded generics. Does it mean anything? If it does, is that just a perception or based on solid facts?

In this article, I shall try to assess why is this generally negative perception against cheaper non-branded generics gaining strength among many of us?

A general impression:  

An often-repeated fascinating argument is, branding of a generic drug is important as it will ensure high product quality. This reasoning persists, regardless of the fact that the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) often makes public announcements to the contrary, as happened even recently.

Risks of NSQ drugs don’t lie solely on non-branded generics:

According to the ‘National Drug Survey, 2014-16’, conducted in association with the National Institute of Biologicals, out of the 47,012 samples tested from the country, 13 samples (0.0245 percent) were ‘Spurious’ and 1,850 samples (3.16 percent) were found ‘Not of Standard Quality (NSQ)’.

The data on 1,850 NSQ samples showed that these were from 569 manufacturing units. Of these, 10 percent of manufacturing units were responsible for about 50 percent of NSQ samples. Further, one third of total NSQ samples were from 22 manufacturing units.

Further, quoting the survey carried out through the National Institute of Biologicals, a September 04, 2017 media report also articulated: ‘During its recent survey, the drug regulator found well-known drug manufacturers failing quality tests. In the survey, samples tested from top drug companies were found not to be of standard quality.’

The names of some of these large drug manufacturers in India, including the multinationals, along with their smaller counterparts, appeared in the Public Notice of July 21, 2017 of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of India. Thus, the risks of NSQ medicines can’t possibly be attributed solely to the small time non-branded generic drug manufacturers. This public notice is expected to draw attention of many stakeholders.

More facts:

On April 22, 2017, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) reported that popular branded drugs like D-Cold Total, Cetrizine, Combiflam, Panza-40 tablets, Ibuprofen, and antibiotics with ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, Amoxycillin, Ciprofloxacin have tested sub-standard. Before this, media reports of July 8, 2016 highlighted, “The DCGI has again found Sanofi’s popular painkiller drug, Combiflam, of sub-standard quality, in its latest test last month. It had found the same defect in the medicine in February and April, too.’

Conclusion:

Considering these facts, it is difficult to comprehend why branded generic drugs, irrespective of who manufacturers, will be of high quality perceptually – always. Conversely, non-branded generic drugs, even when manufactured by a reputed manufacturer, say for example – Cipla, are perceptually no good for patients, in terms of quality standard.

Nevertheless, the hard facts indicate, quality is a general issue both for branded and non-branded generic drugs in India, and not particularly for the later one.

This brings me back to where I started from: Do Branded Generics Promise High Quality for Patients? To find the right answer to this question, one should look at the scientific data on the same – sans any perception. Otherwise, it becomes ‘your view’ versus ‘my view’ sort of a mindless, though a highly passionate debate.

I shall refrain from being judgmental in this area. The readers may wish to ponder over it, seriously, and arrive at a well-considered inference on the very basis of this discourse – from the patients’ perspective.

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.