Tag Archives: drugs

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Posted on by
Reply

Novel biologic medicines have unlocked a new frontier offering more effective treatment for a host of chronic and life-threatening diseases, such as varieties of cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes, to name just a few. However, these drugs being hugely expensive, many patients do not have any access, or adequate access, to them. According to the Biosimilar Council of GPhA, only 50 percent of severe Rheumatoid Arthritis patients receive biologic medicines, even in the United States, Europe and Japan, leave aside India.

Realizing the gravity of this situation, a need to develop high quality, reasonably affordable and similar to original biologic brands, was felt about ten years ago. These were intended to be launched immediately after patent expiry of the original biologic. Such medicines are termed as biosimilar drugs. It is worth noting, even biosimilar drug development involves complex manufacturing processes and handling, while dealing with derivatives of highly sensitive living organisms.

The regulatory approval process of these drugs is also very stringent, which demands robust clinical data, demonstrating high similarity, both in effectiveness and safety profile, to original biologic brands, known as the reference product. The clinical data requirements for all new biosimilars include data on patients switching from the originator’s brand, and also between other biosimilars. Clinical evidences such as these, are expected to provide enough confidence to physicians for use of these products.

An article published in the PharmaTimes magazine in January 2016, reiterated that over the last couple of years, a wealth of supporting data has been published in medical journals and presented at global congresses, including real-world data of patients who have been switched to the new drug from the originator. This has led to a positive change in physician and patient attitudes towards biosimilars.

The good news is, besides many other regulated markets, as of May 2017, five biosimilar drugs have been approved even by the US-FDA, and several others are in the pipeline of its approval process.

That said, in this article I shall mainly focus on the two key barriers for improving patient access to biosimilar drugs, as I see it.

Two major barriers and their impact:

As I see it, there appear to be the following two key barriers for more affordable biosimilar drugs coming into the market, improving patients’ access to these important biologic medicines:

  • The first barrier involves fierce legal resistance from the original biologic manufacturers of the world, on various grounds, resisting entry of biosimilar varieties of their respective brands. This compels the biosimilar drug manufacturers incurring heavy expenditure on litigation, adding avoidable cost. A glimpse of this saga, we are ‘privy’ to witness even in India, while following Roche versus Biocon and Mylan case related to ‘Trastuzumab’. This barrier is one of the most basic types, that delays biosimilar drug entry depriving many new patients to have access to lower priced effective biologic for the treatment of serious diseases.
  • The other major barrier that exists today, involves ‘interchangeability’ of original biologic with biosimilar drugs. It simple means that in addition to being highly similar, a biosimilar drug manufacturer would require producing indisputable clinical evidence that it gives the same result for any given patient just as the original biologic. We shall discuss the reason behind this regulatory requirement later in this article. However, this is an expensive process, and the absence of it creates a barrier, making the physicians hesitant to switch all those existing patients who are on expensive original biologic drugs with less expensive available biosimilar alternatives.

The first or the initial barrier:

The first or the initial barrier predominantly involves patent related legal disputes, that can only be settled in a court of law and after incurring heavy expenditure towards litigation. Provided, of course, the dispute is not mutually resolved, or the law makers do not amend the law.

An interesting case in India:

Interestingly, in India, a similar dispute has knocked the doors of both the high court and the Competition Commission of India (CCI). From a common man’s perspective, it appears to me that the laws under which these two institutions will approach this specific issue are seemingly conflicting in nature. This is because, while the patent law encourages no market competition or a monopoly situation for a patented product, competition law encourages more market competition among all related products. Nonetheless, in this specific case CCI is reportedly investigating on the alleged ‘abuse of the regulatory process’, as it has opined ‘abuse of regulatory process can constitute an abuse of dominance under the (CCI) Act.’                                                                                            

The second barrier:

I am not going to discuss in this article the relevance of this barrier, in detail. Nevertheless, this one is also apparently equally tough to comply with. The very fact that none out of five biosimilar drugs approved in the United States, so far, has been considered ‘interchangeable’ by the US-FDA, vindicates the point.

That this specific regulatory demand is tough to comply with, is quite understandable from the requirements of the US-FDA in this regard, which goes as follows:

“To support a demonstration of interchangeability, the data and information submitted to FDA must show that a proposed interchangeable product is biosimilar to the reference product and that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient. Also, for products that will be administered more than once, the data and information must show that switching a patient back and forth between the reference product and the proposed interchangeable product presents no greater risk to the patient in terms of safety or diminished efficacy when compared to treating them with the reference product continuously.”

The reasoning of innovative biologic drug makers:

On this subject, the stand taken by different innovative drug makers is the same. To illustrate the point, let me quote just one of them. It basically sates, while biosimilar drugs are highly similar to the original medicine, the patient’s immune system may react differently due to slight differences between the two medicines when they are alternated or switched multiple times. This phenomenon, known as immunogenicity, is not a common occurrence, though. But there have been rare instances when very small differences between biologic medicines have caused immune system reactions that changed the way a medicine was metabolized, or reduced its effectiveness.

It further reiterates, the US-FDA requirements to establish ‘interchangeability’ between a biosimilar drug and the original one, or between biosimilars may seem like nuances, but are important because ‘interchangeability’ allows pharmacists to substitute biosimilars without consulting the doctor or patient first.

It may, therefore, indicate to many that innovative biologic drug manufacturers won’t want substitution of their expensive biologic with more affordable biosimilar drugs, on the ground of patient safety issues related to immunogenicity, though its instances are rather uncommon.

Some key players in biosimilar drug development:

Having deliberated on the core subject of this article, let me now very briefly name the major players in biosimilar drug development, both in the developed world, and also in India.

The first biosimilar drug was approved by the US-FDA in 2006, and the product was Omnitrope (somatropin) of Novartis (Sandoz). It was the same in the European Union (EU), as well. Subsequently, many other companies reportedly expressed interest in this field, across the globe, including Pfizer, Merck, Johnson and Johnson, Amgen, AbbVie, Hospira, AstraZeneca and Teva, among many others.

Similarly, in India, the major players in this field include, Biocon, Sun Pharma, Shantha Biotech, Dr. Reddy’s Lab, Zydus Cadila, Panacea Biotech and Reliance Life Sciences.

As featured on the Amgen website, given the complexity and cost of development and manufacturing, biosimilars are expected to be more affordable therapeutic options, but are not expected to generate the same level of cost savings as generics. This is because, a biosimilar will cost US$100 to US$200 million and take eight to ten years to develop. Whereas, a small molecule generic will cost US$1 to US$5 million and take three to five years to develop.

The market:

According to the 2017 report titled “Biosimilar Market: Global Industry Analysis, Trends, Market Size & Forecasts to 2023” of Research and Markets, the market size of the global biosimilar market was valued over US$ 2.5 billion during 2014, and it surpassed US$ 3.30 billion during 2016. The global biosimilar market is projected to surpass US$ 10.50 billion by 2023, growing with a CAGR between 25.0 percent and 26.0 percent from 2017 to 2023.

According to this report, gradually increasing awareness, doctors’ confidence and the lower drug cost are expected to boost the demand and drive the growth of the global biosimilar market during the forecast period. Segments related to diabetes medicine and oncology are expected to attain faster growth during the forecast period. Patent expiry of several blockbuster drugs is a major basic factor for growth of the global biosimilar market, as it may encourage the smaller manufacturers to consider producing such biologic drugs in those segments.

Conclusion:

Biosimilar drugs are expected to benefit especially many of those patients who can’t afford high cost biologic medicines offering better treatment outcomes than conventional drugs, in the longer term. These drugs are now being used to effectively manage and treat many chronic and life-threatening illnesses, such cardiac conditions, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, HIV/AIDS and cancer.

However, improving patient access to high quality biosimilar drugs, at an affordable price, with increasing competition, could be a challenge, as two key barriers are envisaged to attain this goal. Overcoming these meaningfully, I reckon, will involve choosing thoughtfully a middle path, creating a win-win situation, both for the patients, as well as the industry.

Adequate competition in the biologic drug market is essential – not only among high-priced original biologic brands and biosimilars, but also between biosimilar drugs. This is so important to increase patient access to biologic drugs, in general, across the world, including India.

The current situation demands a sense of urgency in searching for a middle path, which may be created either through a legal framework, or any other effective means as would deem fair and appropriate, without compromising with patient safety, at least, from where it is 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.

Making ‘National Policy For Rare Diseases’ More Meaningful With ‘Orphan Drugs Act’

Posted on by
Reply

In November 2016, while hearing a related case, the Delhi High Court reportedly directed the Union Government to finalize and implement a policy on rare diseases, with a provision for free treatment with the expensive medications, as will be required by patients.

Earlier in 2014, while passing the judgement in response to a petition filed by a seven-year-old son of a rickshaw puller seeking affordable treatment for the rare disease that he is suffering from, the Delhi High Court concluded that, “every person has a fundamental right to quality health care that is affordable, accessible and compassionate.”

Currently, the treatment for rare diseases costs the patients an arm and a leg, ranging between Rs. 40 lakhs (US$ 62,000 approx.) to Rs 1.70 crores (US$ 267,000 approx.), which is way beyond the reach of most Indians.

Subsequently, on May 26, 2017, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare filed an affidavit before the honorable Court, submitting a copy of the National Policy for Rare Diseases 2017, stating that it will aim to facilitate effective diagnosis and affordable treatment. This development is indeed good news, especially considering around 6 to 8 percent of the world population suffer from ‘rare diseases’, and India is no exception.

The key highlights of the new policy:

As per available information, following are the 10 major highlights of the National Policy for Rare Diseases 2017:

  • The Union Government to create a corpus with an initial funding of Rs 100 crores (US$ 16 million). The State Governments would also provide for a similar fund with a 60 percent contribution from the Centre. This corpus is primarily for the treatment of genetic disorders, excluding rare blood diseases, such as, thalassemia and sickle-cell anemia.
  • For the sustainability of the corpus, Public Sector Units and Corporates will be encouraged for the contribution in these earmarked funds, as part of their corporate social responsibility.
  • Appropriate institutions will be accredited by the government for diagnosis and treatment of rare diseases.
  • To ensure adequate availability and reasonable affordability of the drugs for rare diseases, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) will consider amending the Drug and Cosmetics Act with requisite provisions to make clinical trials and import of ERTs possible.
  • The Department of Financial Services to ensure coverage of rare diseases under insurance schemes.
  • Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) will explore whether the ceiling limit of funding the treatments for rare diseases can be increased through suitable amendments.
  • The policy recognizes that rare diseases are, in most cases, serious, chronic, debilitating and life-threatening, often requiring long – specialized treatments, and may also lead to some form of handicap, at times extremely severe in nature.
  • About 50 percent of new cases of rare diseases are in children and responsible for 35 percent of deaths before the age of one, 10 percent between the ages of one, and five years and 12 percent between five and 15 years.
  • As a preventive measure, the policy may consider the feasibility of providing pre-conception and ante-natal genetic counselling and screening programs for diagnosing genetic disorders, which would provide a choice to parents about giving birth to children with genetic disorders, especially for families that have a diagnosed genetic disorder, or a high risk profile for it.
  • The policy gives Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) the responsibility of creating a patient registry, as India has no epidemiological data on rare diseases.

Rare diseases – definition:

There is no universal definition of rare diseases. For example, while the US defines a rare disease as one that affects less than 200,000 people nationwide, in China, this number changes to 1 in 500,000 people (or neonatal morbidity of less than 1 in 10,000). India doesn’t yet have a clear definition for the same – not even in its new policy for rare diseases.

However, according to Rare Diseases India (RDI) – a foundation for research on rare diseases and disorders, any disease having fewer than 100 patients per 100,000 population fall into this category. Whereas, those ones affecting 2 patients per 100,000 population are described as ultra-rare diseases.

Rare Diseases in India:

The Organization for Rare Diseases in India (ORD), states that 1 in 20 Indians is affected by such diseases. About 6000 to 8000 rare diseases, mostly genetic in nature, have been identified in India. It was initially estimated that over 31 million Indians are suffering from such disorders in the country, many of which still do not have any cure. Moreover, epidemiological data for most of these ailments is hardly available.

To increase awareness for rare diseases, Rare Diseases Day was observed for the first time in India (New Delhi) on February 28, 2010.

Orphan diseases and orphan drugs:

According to RDI, rare diseases are often referred to as ‘orphan’ diseases. Consequently, the drugs that are specifically developed to treat ‘orphan’ or ‘rare disease conditions’ are called ‘orphan drugs’. The reason being, pharma companies do not generally take such drugs through further stages of development for market launch, or in other words, these are orphaned for economic considerations, though are important to save many precious lives.

Need to encourage orphan drug development in India:

According to SanOrphan SA, Geneva, Switzerland, around 65 percent of rare diseases is serious and disabling. Interestingly, about 250 new rare diseases are discovered each year, corresponding to five new rare diseases per week. As the scenario is no different in India, it prompts the need to encourage development of effective and affordable orphan drugs in the country.

However, without appropriate ecosystem being in place, developing an orphan drug in India, specifically to treat a very small number of such patient populations, through a cost intensive R&D initiative with a low potential of return on investments, is indeed a challenging proposition for many pharma players. Although, in the western world, this trend has started changing now, driven by various other commercial reasons.

Why should ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ follow the National Policy on rare diseases?

National Policy for Rare Diseases is undoubtedly a good beginning, though was brought under the directive of Delhi High Court. Nevertheless, to encourage ‘Orphan Drugs’ development within the country, a robust ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ should now logically follow.

One may well ask, why is this Act is so necessary in India? This is because, the new ‘National Policy for Rare Diseases’ charts just the pathway of a course of action that the Government is planning to take in this area. Policies, as we know, though, are a set of well-articulated intents, do not guarantee that these will be successfully followed to achieve the pre-set long-term goals. Whereas, all legislative Acts or duly enacted laws, are legally enforceable. It is worth noting, while the national policies can be formulated by the government, an Act must be passed by the lawmakers in the Parliament.

Consequently, it is now a well-accepted fact that ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ encourages development of drugs for rare diseases. In an article titled, “What the Orphan Drug Act has done lately for children with rare diseases: a 10-year analysis”, published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), U.S, National Library of Medicine, the authors highlighted that in the U.S. 1138 orphan drugs were designated and 148 received marketing approval, of which 38 (26 percent) were for pediatric diseases, from 2000 to 2009. The percentage of approvals for pediatric products increased from 17.5 (10 of 57) in the first half of the decade, as compared to 30.8 (28 of 91) in the second half. Based on these data, the paper concluded that the incentives provided in the ‘Orphan Drugs Act (ODA)’ of the United States of America, have led to increased availability of specific drugs for the treatment of ‘Rare Diseases’ in the country.

Other countries did – why not India?

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

Following similar footsteps, India should also encourage its domestic pharmaceutical industry to get engaged in research to discover drugs for rare diseases by putting an ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ in place, extending financial support, tax exemptions and regulatory concessions like smaller and shorter clinical trials, among several other areas, without delay.

Opportunities galore:

The above constraints in the development of orphan drugs have now been turned into an opportunity galore by the global pharma industry, where the domestic players should not lag much behind. Orphan drugs, backed by adequate financial incentives provided by laws in different countries, are now seen as a research and development priority to significantly boost the top and the bottom-line of pharma business.

As IgeaHub has highlighted, orphan drugs, though, cater to a small patient pool, the remunerative price of these drugs offsets the commercial challenges, as mentioned earlier. For example, in 2010, Soliris, which treats paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) that affects 1 out of 500,000, was considered as the industry’s most expensive drug amounting to US$ 409,000 per year of treatment, which generated a total of US$ 541 million revenue for Alexion Pharmaceuticals in that year. In 2012, Soliris recorded a sales turnover of US$ 1.13 billion, which is expected to cross the mark of US$ 3.40 billion in 2018. Further, in 2012, the top selling orphan drug in the USA – Rituxan of Roche – used for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, generated US$ 7.15 billion in total sales. Post patent expiry, in 2018, the same drug is expected to yield a revenue of US$ 6.99 billion.

The market:

Evaluate Pharma’s Orphan Drug Report 2017 estimates the worldwide Orphan Drug Sales of total US$ 209 billion, with CAGR of +11 percent for 2017 to 2022 period, which is double of the overall prescription Market Growth. Excluding generics orphan drugs are set to contribute 21.4 percent of Worldwide Prescription Sales by 2022.

Big pharma dominates this segment. Seven of the top 10 companies’ orphan drug sales are from global industry players, who have won approval for their biggest products in various niche indications.

Other commercial benefits:

Thomson Reuters reported additional commercial opportunities with an appropriate ODA, which in the United States are as follows:

  • 15 percent of the ‘Orphan Drugs’ analyzed by them had subsequent launches for other rare illnesses.
  • 6 out of the top 10 ‘Orphan Drugs’ had more than one rare disease indication, with an average peak sales of US$ 34.3 billion in overall sales potential, against around US$ 8.1 billion of the same for drugs with single indication.
  • Time taken for Clinical Trials (CT) focused on orphan drugs is significantly shorter with much quicker review time than trials involving non-orphan drugs.

Conclusion:

Some of the ‘orphan diseases’ are now being diagnosed also in India, and with precision. As the nation takes rapid strides in the medical science, more of such rare diseases are likely to be diagnosed in our country. The global pharma industry has already started taking rapid strides in this area, supported by ODA in various countries. Similar opportunities, both for the patients, as well as, for the industry, need to be made available in India too.

One of the ways to encourage the orphan drug development in India is to follow the model of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’ (OSDD)’ with both global and local partnerships and collaboration.

However, speedy enactment of an appropriate ODA for the country, providing adequate financial incentives to the pharma players, for developing and marketing such drugs, both in the local and global markets, at a reasonably affordable price, would go a long way, and be a win-win situation for all.

Alongside, leveraging the knowledge of OSDD acquired by the CSIR, and framing a robust win-win Public Private Partnership (PPP) model to discover and commercialize the orphan drugs, India could well demonstrate the zeal of the country to move beyond the National Policy for Rare Diseases. In that process, it would be able to offer more meaningful and sustainable benefits, both to the domestic pharma industry and the patients, alike, for a long time to come.

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.

Generic Drug Quality: Cacophony Masks An Important Note, Creates A Pariah

Posted on by
Reply

In the ongoing debate between branded-generics and generic drugs without brand names, the concern about drug quality is occupying the center stage, with the former generally being painted in white, and the later in black – with no shades of gray in-between. Interestingly, many large domestic companies manufacture and sell both these genres of generic medicines, and the marketing approval process of both is no different, in a relative yardstick. The degree of difficulty in testing their quality standards, across the country, is no different, either.

On February 25, 2017, even the USFDA, reportedly, raised concerns, for the first time, on the quality and efficacy of medicines, in general, being sold within India. The news report further highlighted: ‘Over the past two years, many domestic majors, including Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s, Cipla and Zydus Cadila have faced regulatory ire over quality of medicines exported from here and sold in the US and other overseas markets’.

It is undeniable, if prescriptions in generic names are made mandatory, there could be direct job losses within the industry, just as loss of significant business clientele of many professional service providers for branded generic business, directly or indirectly. Its net impact needs to be factored-in too, while taking a final decision on this subject.

Lack of enough credible scientific data establishing superiority of branded-generics over their non-branded equivalents are also striking, so are few instances of doctors filing Pharmacovigilance reports with the DCGI on the inferior quality of non-branded generic drugs. Neither is the most competent body in this area – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), has concurred with any such claims, so far. Without these, the whole debate based on seemingly over the top claims of superiority of branded generics as a class, is based no more than a matter of conjecture.

I discussed most of these points in one of my earlier articles published in this blog on April 24, 2017. Thus, in this article, I shall focus mostly on an important generic-drug-quality related amendment, very recently made in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, which hasn’t received as much attention as it deserves. This finer note in the drug regulatory playbook, in fact, got nearly masked in the high-decibel cacophony of arguments and counterarguments on Prime Minister Modi’s recent hint on making prescriptions in generic drug names mandatory.

The core issue remains the same, both for non-branded and branded generics:

In the marketing approval process of any branded generic or a non-branded generic drug, Bioequivalence (BE) studies hold immense scientific importance. It ascertains whether the generic equivalent possesses similar efficacy and safety profile as the original molecule for interchangeability. Which is why, in most countries, including Europe and the United States, BE testing is mandatory for approval of any generic drug. Even the large buyers of these drugs, such as the World Health Organization, buy only those generics with proven BE.

Nonetheless, like many other nations, in India, as well, the marketing approval standards for all generic drugs, with or without a brand name, are exactly the same. However, this approval process gets alarmingly relaxed, for both these generic types, with the passage of time, which is the core issue.

New drug definition in India:

According to section 122-E of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (D&C Rules) new drugs will include unapproved drugs, modified or new claims, such as, indications, dosage forms (including sustained release dosage form) and route of administration of already approved drugs and combination of two or more drugs. A new drug shall continue to be considered as new for a period of four years from the date of its first approval or its inclusion in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, whichever is earlier.

BE studies necessary only for ‘New Drugs’:

For all such new drugs and their Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC), including those which are not covered by a patent, if introduced for the first time in India, would necessarily require its applicant to submit the marketing approval documents well-supported by phase III clinical trial data, which includes BE studies against the original molecules. BE of a drug product is achieved if its extent and rate of absorption do not show statistically significant differences from those of the reference product when administered at the same molar dose.

After the 4-year period BE tests not necessary:

Interestingly, after the 4-year period, D&C rules allow subsequent manufacturers of similar drugs to generally rely on the data generated by other pharma companies to obtain marketing approvals for their drugs. In other words, after this 4-year period, manufacturers of branded or non-branded generic drugs are not required to establish comparable safety and efficacy of their formulations with the original molecule through BE and other studies. It is worth noting here, unlike India, BE tests are mandatory for approval of all generic drugs at any time, in most countries across the world.

How would a doctor select only those branded-generics with BE studies?

As there isn’t any easy way to know and identify, both by the doctors and also the patients, which branded or non-branded generics were introduced without BE studies, both these categories pose equal risks to patients – not just the cheaper generic drugs sans brand names.

Changes recommended:

This laxity in the regulatory framework in India did create a lot of uneasiness about the quality of branded and non-branded generic medicines approved by the drug regulators and sold in the country. Responding to this issue, Professor Ranjit Roy Chowdhury Committee Report recommended in July 2013 to make BE and bio­availability studies mandatory for all types of generic drugs, even after the 4-year period.

Cacophony masks an important note:

The good news is, on April 3, 2017, by a Gazette Notification, Indian Government enacted amendments to the Drug and Cosmetics Act (1940) requiring mandatory BE studies for marketing approval of all generic drugs even beyond the 4-year period of the ‘new drug’ definition. It says, “The applicant shall submit the result of bioequivalence study referred to in Schedule Y, along with the application for the grant of a license of the oral dosage form of drugs specified under category II and category IV of the biopharmaceutical classification system.”

Biopharmaceutics Classification System:

The Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) is a scientific framework to differentiate the drug formulations based on their aqueous solubility and intestinal permeability, and mainly depends on two factors:

  • How well the drug dissolves in the stomach and intestinal fluids (drug solubility)
  • How readily the drug passes through the intestinal wall into the blood flow (drug permeability)

The BCS was introduced by Gordon L. Amidon in 1995 to classify drugs into the four categories based on these parameters, as follows:

  • Class I: High Solubility – High Permeability
  • Class II: Low Solubility – High Permeability
  • Class III: High Solubility – Low Permeability
  • Class IV: Low Solubility – Low Permeability

CDSCO still needs to find the right answer to a key question:

Interestingly, this so important note in the regulatory playbook of India got masked in the high-voltage cacophony on branded and non-branded-generics. However, CDSCO would still require finding out the right answer to a key question: how would a doctor or a patient possibly know on which branded and non-branded generic drugs BE tests were not carried out, before the above amendment came into force.

Reported data on substandard drugs in India:

Quoting CDSCO data, the September-October 2015 issue of the ‘Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism’ summarized that ‘during the years 2011-2014, the regional laboratories tested samples at 91 percent of the installed capacity, but their overall detection rate of sub-standard drugs were only 3.6 percent’. Many have expressed doubts about these numbers though, nevertheless, these are Government data, and don’t fall in the realm of any conjecture.

In any case, the Union Ministry of Health doesn’t seem to concur that the issue of substandard drugs in India, that includes both the branded and non-branded generics, has assumed a public health menace in India or even alarming.

No qualms on value added branding of generic drugs, but fix the loophole for all:

It is understandable, when generic drugs are branded for tangible value-added product differentiation even within the identical or the same drug molecules. There are no qualms on such branding per se, though it comes at a high cost.

Marketing approval requirements being the same for all branded and non-branded generic drugs with the same pitfalls of no mandatory BE-testing requirement after the 4-year period, branding should add commensurate tangible value. Otherwise, why should most patients pay a significantly extra amount for heavily promoted branded-generics? Is it to help the pharma companies fighting with each other to increase their respective pies of revenue and profit on an essential commodity? Instead, stakeholders should now focus on easy detection of all those branded and non-branded generic drug formulations that avoided mandatory BE studies, prior to April 3, 2017.

In conclusion:

Despite CDSCO’s statistical data on substandard drugs, the general concern regarding the efficacy and safety of medicines manufactured in India is often raised both inside the country, as well as by some well-respected overseas drug regulators. Curiously, when raising the same concern CDSCO banned hundreds of branded FDCs, as these drugs came to the market without carrying out required scientific tests due to some major lacunae in the regulatory system, there was a huge protest in the country raised by almost the same people, as business interests prevailed over patients’ health interest.

Interestingly, displaying a sharp contradiction in today’s cacophony, patients’ health interest has been put in the forefront to protect business interests, especially when the CDSCO has raised no such concern, whatsoever.

The reverberating claims on superior drug quality for branded-generics as a class, over their cheaper non-branded equivalents, with the former generally being painted in white, and the later in black – with no shades of gray in-between, as I said before, is based mostly on conjecture rather than enough hard facts. Thus, the question comes up, who is responsible for ensuring drug efficacy and safety for the patients in India – CDSCO or non-fact based claims being raised mostly by those who have a direct or indirect financial interest in branded-generic business?

Keeping this in perspective, it is indeed intriguing, why such an important regulatory step of April 3, 2017 requiring mandatory BE studies for marketing approval of all generic drugs, even after the 4-year period, is getting masked in the cacophony, mostly favoring the branded-generics as a category. However, it’s no-brainer to understand that this din would continue, projecting all generic drugs sans brand names – a pariah!

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.

Prescriptions in Generic Names Be Made A Must in India?

Posted on by
Reply

Would prescriptions in generic names be made a must in India?

Yes, that’s what Prime Minister Modi distinctly hinted at on April 17, 2017, during the inauguration function of a charitable hospital in Surat. To facilitate this process, his government may bring in a legal framework under which doctors will have to prescribe generic medicines, the PM assured without any ambiguity whatsoever.

“In our country doctors are less, hospitals are less and medicines are expensive. If one person falls ill in a middle-class family, then the financial health of the family gets wrecked. He cannot buy a house, cannot conduct the marriage of a daughter,” he reiterated.

“It is the government’s responsibility that everybody should get health services at a minimal price,” the Prime Minister further reinforced, as he referred to the National Health Policy 2017. His clear assurance on this much-debated issue is indeed music to many ears.

Some eyebrows have already been raised on this decision of the Prime Minister, which primarily include the pharma industry, and its traditional torch bearers. Understandably, a distinct echo of the same one can also be sensed in some English business dailies. Keeping aside these expected naysayers, in this article, after giving a brief backdrop on the subject, I shall argue for the relevance of this critical issue, in today’s perspective.

Anything wrong with generic drugs sans brand names?

At the very outset, let me submit, there aren’t enough credible data to claim so. On the contrary, there are enough reports vindicating that generic drugs without brand names are generally as good as their branded equivalents. For example, a 2017 study on this subject and also in the Indian context reported, ‘93 percent of generic and 87 percent branded drug users believed that their drugs were effective in controlling their ailments.’

Thus, in my view, all generic medicines without any brand names, approved by the drug regulatory authorities can’t be inferred as inferior to equivalent branded generics – formulated with the same molecules, in the same strength and in the same dosage form; and vice versa. Both these varieties have undergone similar efficacy, safety and quality checks, if either of these are not spurious. There isn’t enough evidence either that more of generic drugs sans brand names are spurious.

However, turning the point that generic drugs without brand name cost much less to patients than their branded generic equivalents on its head, an ongoing concerted effort of vested interests is systematically trying to malign the minds of many, projecting that those cheaper drugs are inferior in quality. Many medical practitioners are also not excluded from nurturing this possible spoon-fed and make-believe perception, including a section of the media. This reminds me of the famous quote of Joseph Goebbels – the German politician and Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany till 1945: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

The lower prices of generic drugs without brand names are primarily because their manufacturers don’t need to incur huge expenditure towards marketing and sales promotion, including contentious activities, such as, so called ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ for the doctors in exotic locales, and several others of its ilk.

Thus, Prime Minister Modi’s concern, I reckon, is genuine to the core. If any doctor prescribes an expensive branded generic medicine, the concerned patient should have the legal option available to ask the retailer for its substitution with a less expensive generic or even any other branded generic equivalent, which is supposed to work just as well as the prescribed branded generic. For this drug prescriptions in INN is critical.

Provide Unique Identification Code to all drug manufacturers:

When in India, we can have a digitally coded unique identification number, issued by the Government for every individual resident, in the form of ‘Aadhaar’, why can’t each drug manufacturer be also provided with a similar digitally coded number for their easy traceability and also to decipher the trail of manufacturing and sales transactions. If it’s not possible, any other effective digital ‘track and trace’ mechanism for all drugs would help bringing the wrongdoers, including those manufacturing and selling spurious and substandard drugs to justice, sooner. In case a GST system can help ferret out these details, then nothing else in this regard may probably be necessary.

Past initiatives:

In India, ‘Out of Pocket (OoP) expenditure’ as a percentage of total health care expenses being around 70 percent, is one of the highest in the world. A study by the World Bank conducted in May 2001 titled, “India – Raising the Sights: Better Health Systems for India’s Poor” indicates that out-of-pocket medical costs alone may push 2.2 percent of the population below the poverty line in one year. This situation hasn’t improved much even today, as the Prime Minister said.

Although, ‘prescribe drugs by generic names’ initiative was reported in July 2015, in the current context, I shall focus only on the recent past. Just in the last year, several initiatives were taken by the current Government to help patients reduce the OoP expenses on medicines, which constitute over 60 percent of around 70 percent of the total treatment cost. Regrettably, none of these steps have been working effectively. I shall cite hereunder, just three examples:

  • On February 29, 2016, during the Union Budget presentation for the financial year 2016-17 before the Parliament, the Finance Minister announced the launch of ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Yojana (PMJAY)’ to open 3,000 Stores under PMJAY during 2016-17.
  • On August 04, 2016, it was widely reported that a new digital initiative of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), named, “Search Medicine Price”, would be launched on August 29, 2016. According to NPPA, “Consumers can use the app before paying for a medicine to ensure that they get the right price.”
  • In October 2016, a circular of the Medical Council of India (MCI), clearly directed the medical practitioners that: “Every physician should prescribe drugs with generic names legibly and preferably in capital letters and he/she shall ensure that there is a rational prescription and use of drugs”

A critical hurdle to overcome:

Besides, stark inefficiency of the MCI to implement its own directive for generic prescriptions, there is a key legal hurdle too, as I see it.

For example, in the current situation, the only way the JAS can sell more of essential generic drugs for greater patient access, is by allowing the store pharmacists substituting high price branded generics with their exact generic equivalents available in the JAS. However, such substitution would be grossly illegal in India, because the section 65 (11) (c) in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 states as follows:

“At the time of dispensing there must be noted on the prescription above the signature of the prescriber the name and address of the seller and the date on which the prescription is dispensed. 20 [(11A) No person dispensing a prescription containing substances specified in 21 [Schedule H or X] may supply any other preparation, whether containing the same substances or not in lieu thereof.]”

A move that faltered:

To address this legal issue, the Ministry of Health reportedly had submitted a proposal to the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), for consideration. In the proposal, the Health Ministry reportedly suggested an amendment of Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to enable the retail chemists substituting a branded drug formulation with its cheaper equivalent, containing the same generic ingredient, in the same strength and the dosage form, with or without a brand name.

However, in the 71st meeting of the DTAB held on May 13, 2016, its members reportedly turned down that proposal of the ministry. DTAB apparently felt that given the structure of the Indian retail pharmaceutical market, the practical impact of this recommendation may be limited.

The focus should now move beyond affordability:

In my view, the Government focus now should move beyond just drug affordability, because affordability is a highly relative yardstick. What is affordable to an average middle class population may not be affordable to the rest of the population above the poverty line. Similarly, below the poverty line population may not be able to afford perhaps any cost towards medicines or health care, in general.

Moreover, affordability will have no meaning, if one does not have even easy access to medicines. Thus, in my view, there are five key factors, which could ensure smooth access to medicines to the common man, across the country; affordable price being one of these factors:

1. A robust healthcare infrastructure
2. Affordable health care costs, including, doctors’ fees, drugs and diagnostics
3. Rational selection and usage of drugs by all concerned
4. Availability of health care financing system like, health insurance
5. Efficient logistics and supply chain support throughout the country

In this scenario, just putting in place a legal framework for drug prescription in generic names, as the Prime Minister has articulated, may bring some temporary relief, but won’t be a long-term solution for public health care needs. There arises a crying need to put in place an appropriate Universal Health Care (UHC) model in India, soon, as detailed in the National Health Policy 2017.

Brand names aren’t going to disappear:

Prime Minister Modi’s assertion to bring in a legal framework under which doctors will have to prescribe generic medicines, probably will also legally empower the retailers for substitution of high priced branded generics with low priced generic or branded generic equivalents.

This promise of the Prime Minister, when fulfilled, will facilitate making a larger quantum of lower price and high quality generic drugs available to patients, improving overall access to essential medicines. Hopefully, similar substitution will be authorized not just for the JAS outlets, but by all retail drug stores, as well.

Brand names for generic drugs will continue to exist, but with much lesser relevance. the Drugs & Cosmetic Rules of India has already made it mandatory to mention the ‘generic names or INN’ of Drugs on all packing labels in a more conspicuous manner than the trade (brand) name, if any. Hence, if a doctor prescribes in generic names, it will be easier for all retail pharmacists and even the patients, to choose cheaper alternatives from different available price-bands.

Possible changes in the sales and marketing strategies:

If it really happens, the strategic marketing focus should shift – from primarily product-brand marketing and stakeholders’ engagement for the same, to intensive corporate-brand marketing with more intense stakeholder engagement strategies, for better top of mind recall as a patient friendly and caring corporation.

Similarly, the sales promotion strategy for branded generics would possibly shift from – primarily the doctors to also the top retailers. It won’t be unlikely to know that the major retailers are participating in pharma company sponsored ‘Continuing Pharmacy Education (CPE)’ in similar or even more exotic places than the doctor!

There are many more.

International examples:

There are enough international examples on what Prime Minister Modi has since proposed in his speech on this issue. All these are working quite well. To illustrate the point with a few examples, I shall underscore that prescribing in generic name or in other words “International Nonproprietary Name (INN)’ is permitted in two-thirds of OECD countries like the United States, and is mandatory in several other nations, such as, France, Spain, Portugal and Estonia. Similarly, pharmacists can legally substitute brand-name drugs with generic equivalents in most OECD countries, while such substitution has been mandatory in countries, such as, Denmark, Finland, Spain, Sweden, Italy. Further, in several different countries, pharmacists have also the obligation to inform patients about the availability of a cheaper alternative.

However, the naysayers would continue saying: ‘But India is different.’

Impact on the pharma industry:

The March 2017 report of ‘India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF)’ states that Indian pharmaceutical sector accounts for about 2.4 per cent of the global pharmaceutical industry in value terms, 10 per cent in volume terms and is expected to expand at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 15.92 per cent to US$ 55 billion by 2020 from US$ 20 billion in 2015. With 70 per cent market share (in terms of value), generic drugs constitute its largest segment. Over the Counter (OTC) medicines and patented drugs constitute the balance 21 percent and 9 percent, respectively. Branded generics constitute around 90 percent of the generic market. In my view, if the above decision of the Prime Minister is implemented the way I deliberated here in this article, we are likely to witness perceptible changes in the market dynamics and individual company’s performance outlook. A few of my top of mind examples are as follows:

  • No long-term overall adverse market impact is envisaged, as ‘the prices of 700 essential medicines have already been capped by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). However, some short-term market adjustments are possible, because of several other factors.
  • There could be a significant impact on the (brand) market shares of various companies. Some will have greater exposure and some lesser, depending on their current sales and marketing models and business outlook.
  • Valuation of those companies, which had acquired mega branded generics, such as Piramal brands by Abbott Healthcare, or Ranbaxy brands by Sun pharma, may undergo considerable changes, unless timely, innovative and proactive measures are taken forthwith, as I had deliberated before in this blog.
  • Together with much awaited implementation of the mandatory Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) sooner than later, the sales and marketing expenditure of the branded generic players could come down significantly, improving the bottom-line.
  • Pharma marketing ballgame in this segment would undergo a metamorphosis, with brighter creative minds scoring higher, aided by the cutting-edge strategies, and digital marketing playing a much greater role than what it does today.
  • A significant reduction in the number of field forces is also possible, as the sales promotion focus gets sharper on the retailers and digitally enabled patient engagement initiatives.

The above examples are just illustrative. I hasten to add that at this stage it should not be considered as any more than an educates guess. We all need to wait, and watch how these promises get translated into reality, of course, without underestimating the quiet lobbying power of the powerful pharma industry. That said, the long-term macro picture of the Indian pharma industry continues to remain as bright, if appropriate and timely strategic interventions are put well in place, as I see it.

In conclusion:

It is an irony that despite being the 4th largest producer of pharmaceuticals, and catering to the needs of 20 percent of the global requirements for generic medicines, India is still unable to ensure access to many modern medicines to a large section of its population.

Despite this situation in India, Prime Minister Modi’s encouraging words on this issue have reportedly attracted the wrath of some section of the pharma industry, which, incidentally, he is aware of it, as evident from his speech.

Some have expressed serious concern that it would shift the decision of choosing a specific generic formulation of the same molecule for the patients from doctors to chemists. My counter question is, so what? The drug regulator of the country ensures, and has also repeatedly affirmed that there is no difference in efficacy, safety and quality profile between any approved branded generic and its generic equivalents. Moreover, by implementing an effective track and trace system for all drugs, such misgiving on spurious generic medicines, both with or without brand names, can be more effectively addressed, if not eliminated. Incidentally, reported incidences of USFDA import bans on drug quality parameters and breach of data integrity, include many large Indian branded generic manufacturers. Thus, can anyone really vouch for high drug quality even from the branded generics in India?

Further, the expensive branding exercise of essential medicines, just for commercial gain, and adversely impacting patients’ access to these drugs, has now been questioned without any ambiguity, none else than the Prime Minster of India. The generic drug manufacturers will need to quickly adapt to ‘low margin – high volume’ business models, leveraging economies of scale, and accepting the stark reality, as was expressed in an article published in Forbes – ‘the age of commodity medicines approaches’. Even otherwise, what’s wrong in the term commodity, either, especially when generic medicines have been officially and legally classified as essential commodities in India?

Overall, the clear signal from Prime Minister Modi that ‘prescriptions in generic names be made a must in India ‘, well supported by appropriate legal and regulatory mechanisms – is indeed a good beginning, while paving the way for a new era of Universal Health Care in India. God willing!

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.

Nutraceuticals: Still An Oasis Amidst Well-Regulated Pharmaceuticals

Posted on by
Reply

On November 24, 2016, the food-safety watchdog of India announced that health supplements or Nutraceuticals cannot be sold as ‘medicines’ anymore. This new regulatory standard has been set for the manufacturers of Nutraceuticals and food supplements, and is aimed at controlling mislabeling of such brands. The fine prints of the notification are yet to be assessed.

On the face of it, this new announcement seems to be a good step, and would largely address a long-standing issue on the such products. Prevailing undesirable practices of labeling some pharma brands as food supplements or Nutraceuticals, with some tweaking in the formulations, mainly to avoid the risk of price control, is also expected to be taken care of by the food-safety authority of India, while granting marketing approval.

Nevertheless, it is often construed that off-label therapeutic claims, while promoting these products to the doctors, help achieving brand positioning objective as medicines, though indirectly. Appropriate authorities in India should probably resolve this issue, expeditiously.

In this article, I shall focus on the rationale behind different concerns over the general quality standards, claimed efficacy and safety profile of Nutraceuticals and food supplements, in general, and how the regulatory authorities are responding to all these, slowly, albeit in piecemeal, but surely.

The ‘gray space’ is the issue:

The close association between nutrition and health has assumed a historical relevance. Growing pieces of evidence, even today, suggests that nutritional intervention with natural substances could play an important role, especially in preventive health care. The World Health Organization (WHO) has also highlighted that mortality rate due to nutrition related factors in the developing countries, like India, is nearly 40 percent.

However, as one of the global consulting firm of repute has aptly pointed out, “At one end of this natural nutrition spectrum, are functional foods and beverages as well as dietary supplements, aimed primarily at maintaining health. On the other, more medical end of the spectrum, are products aimed at people with special nutritional needs. In the middle, is an emerging gray area of products that have a physiological effect to reduce known risk factors, such as high cholesterol, or appear to slow or prevent the progression of common diseases such as diabetes, dementia or age related muscle loss.”

This gray space between Pharmaceutical and Nutraceuticals, therefore, holds a significant business relevance, from various perspectives.

An Oasis amidst highly-regulated pharmaceuticals:

Mostly because of this gray space, several pharma companies and analysts seem to perceive the Nutraceutical segment virtually an oasis, lacking any transparent regulatory guidelines, amidst well-regulated pharma business. This perception is likely to continue, at least, for some more time.

Such pattern can be witnessed both within the local and global pharma companies, with some differences in approach, that I shall deliberate later in this article.

However, regulators in many countries, including India, have started expressing concerns on such unfettered manufacturing, marketing and other claims of Nutraceuticals. Many of them even ask, do all these Nutraceuticals deliver high product quality, claimed effectiveness and safety profile to their consumers, especially when, these are promoted by several pharma companies, though mostly off-label, to generate physicians’ prescriptions for various disease treatments?

Not just domestic pharma companies:

This concern is not restricted to the domestic companies in India.

Global pharma players, who generally believe in scientific evidence based medicines, have been reflecting an iffiness towards Nutraceuticals. For example, whereas both Pfizer and Novartis reportedly hived off their nutrition businesses, later Pfizer invested to acquire Danish vitamins company Ferrosan and the U.S. dietary supplements maker Alacer. Similarly, both Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline also reportedly invested in mineral supplements businesses that could probably pave the way of the company’s entry into medical foods.

However, it is worth underscoring that generally the consumer arms of global pharma companies focus on OTC, and Nutraceuticals do not become an integral part of the pharma business, as is common in India.

Interestingly, not very long ago, Indian pharma industry witnessed a global pharma major virtually replicating the local marketing model involving Nutraceuticals. It also became an international news. On August 24, 2011, ‘Wall Street Journal (WSJ)’ reported that ‘Aventis Pharma Ltd. (now Sanofi India) agreed to buy the branded nutrition pharmaceuticals business of privately held Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd for an undisclosed amount, as its French parent Sanofi looks to expand in the fast-growing Indian market.’

Universal Medicare, which posted about US$ 24.1 million revenue in the year ended March 31, 2011, will manufacture these branded Nutraceutical products and Aventis will source them from Universal Medicare on mutually agreed terms. Around 750 of the Universal Medicare’s employees also moved to the French Company along with its around 40 Nutraceutical brands, the report said.

If all these acquired brands, do not fall under the new FSSAI guidelines related to the required composition of food supplements and Nutraceuticals in India, it would be worth watching what follows and how.

Nutraceuticals are also promoted to doctors:

Let me reemphasize, India seems to be slightly different in the way most of the pharma companies promote Nutraceuticals in the country. Here, one can find very few standalone ‘Over the Counter (OTC)’ pharma or Nutraceutical product company. For this reason, Nutraceutical brands owned by the pharma companies, usually become an integral part of their prescription product-portfolio. Mostly, through off-label promotion Nutraceuticals are often marketed for the treatment or prevention of many serious diseases, and promoted to the doctors just as any other generic pharma brand.

Need to generate more scientific data based evidences:

A 2014 study of the well-known global consulting firms A.T. Kearney titled, “Nutraceuticals: The Front Line of the Battle for Consumer Health”, also recommended that ‘a solid regulatory framework is crucial for medical credibility, as it ensures high-quality products that can be relied on to do what they say they do.’

This is mainly because, Nutraceuticals are not generally regarded by the scientific community as evidence based medicinal products, going through the rigors of stringent clinical trials, including pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics studies, and is largely based on anecdotal evidence. Besides inadequacy in well-documented efficacy studies, even in the areas of overall safety in different age groups, other side-effects, drug interactions and contraindications, there aren’t adequate scientific evidence based data available to Nutraceutical manufacturers, marketers, prescribers and consumers.

There does not seem to be any structured Pharmacovigilance study is in place, either, to record adverse events. In this scenario, even the ardent consumers may neither realize, nor accept that Nutraceuticals can cause any serious adverse effects, whatsoever.

From this angle, the research study titled, “Emergency Department Visits for Adverse Events Related to Dietary Supplements”, published in the  New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on October 15, 2015, becomes very relevant. The paper concluded as follows:

“More than 23,000 emergency department visits annually in the United States from 2004 through 2013 were for adverse events associated with dietary supplements. Such visits commonly involved cardiovascular adverse effects from weight-loss or energy herbal products among young adults, unsupervised ingestion of micronutrients by children, and swallowing problems associated with micronutrients among older adults. These findings can help target interventions to reduce the risk of adverse events associated with the use of dietary supplements.”

Fast growing Nutraceutical industry continues to remain largely unregulated. It persists, even after several previous studies had revealed dangerous levels of harmful ingredients, including amphetamine, in some Nutraceuticals.

Indian regulatory scenario:

In India, the ‘Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)’, established under the Food Safety and Standard Act of 2006, is the designated Government body responsible for the regulation and approval of Nutraceuticals in the country.

In July 2015, FSSAI proposed draft regulations for Nutraceuticals, Functional Foods, Novel Foods and Health Supplements for comments from all stakeholders within the stipulated time limit. This draft regulation defines Nutraceuticals as follows:

“Nutraceuticals means a naturally occurring chemical compound having a physiological benefit or provide protection against chronic disease, isolated and purified from food or non-food source and may be prepared and marketed in the food-format of granules, powder, tablet, capsule, liquid or gel and may be packed in sachet, ampoule, bottle, etc. and to be taken as measured unit quantities.”

In this draft FSSAI also proposed that therapeutic claims of Nutraceuticals and all such foods are required to be based on sound medical and nutritional evidence, backed by scientific as well as clinical evidence.

In 2011, FSSAI constituted a product approval committee, whose members were supposed to use similar parameters as drugs, to assess Nutraceuticals for this purpose. However, FSSAI had to jettison this idea, in compliance with the order dated August 19, 2015 of the Supreme Court questioning the procedure followed for approvals by the food regulator.

In April 2016, FSSAI restricted enforcement activity against Nutraceuticals and health supplement companies to only testing of products till new standards are notified.

The latest regulatory developments:

There are, at least, the following two recent developments reflect that the regulatory authorities, though trying, but are still grappling with the overall product quality, efficacy and safety concerns for Nutraceuticals:

  • Responding to the growing demand for regulatory intervention in this important matter, on November 30, 2015, by a gazette notification, the Government of India included phytopharmaceutical drugs under a separate definition in the Drugs & Cosmetics (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 2015, effective that date.
  • Again, on November 24, 2016, FSSAI reportedly announced that health supplements or Nutraceuticals cannot be sold as ‘medicines’ anymore. This new regulatory standard set for the manufacturers of Nutraceuticals and food supplements is aimed at controlling mislabeling of such brands. On its enforcement, every package of health supplement should carry the words ‘health supplement’ as well as an advisory warning ‘not for medicinal use’ prominently printed on it.

It further added: “The quantity of nutrients added to the articles of food shall not exceed the recommended daily allowance as specified by the Indian Council of Medical Research and in case such standards are not specified, the standards laid down by the international food standards body namely the Codex Alimentarius Commission shall apply.”

However, these regulations will be enforced from January 2018.

Curiously, in September 2016, National Institutes of Health in United States announced plans to put some more scientific eyes on the industry, the NIH reportedly announced plans to spend US$ 35 million to study natural products, ranging from hops to red wine’s resveratrol to grape seed extract. The new grants, reportedly, are expected to fathom the basic science behind many claims that Nutraceuticals can improve health.

The market:

The August 2015 report titled, ‘Indian Nutraceuticals, Herbals, and Functional Foods Industry: Emerging on Global Map,’ jointly conducted by The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) and the consulting firm RNCOS, estimates that the global Nutraceuticals market is expected to cross US$ 262.9 billion by 2020 from the current level of US$ 182.6 billion growing at Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of about 8 percent.

Driven by the rising level of awareness of health, fitness and changing lifestyle pattern, increasing co-prescription with regular drugs, and focus on preventive health care, India’s Nutraceuticals market is likely to cross US$ 6.1 billion by 2020 from the current level of US$ 2.8 billion growing at CAGR of about 17 percent, the report states.

The United States (US) has the largest market for the Nutraceuticals, followed by Asia-Pacific and European Union. Functional food is the fastest growing segment in the US Nutraceutical market, followed by Germany, France, UK and Italy in Europe.

Conclusion:

Today, both manufacturing and marketing of Nutraceuticals keep charting in a very relaxed regulatory space, in India. There are no robust and transparent guidelines, still in place, for product standardization and scientifically evaluate the safety and efficacy of all these products on an ongoing basis. Neither is there any stringent requirement for conformance to the well-crafted cGMP standards.

The reported discussions within the Union Ministry of Ayush for setting up a structured regulatory framework, within the CDSCO, for all Ayush drugs and to allow marketing of any new Ayurvedic medicine only after successful completion of clinical trials to ensure its safety and efficacy, are indeed encouraging. This may be followed for all those Nutraceuticals, which want to be promoted as medicines, claiming direct therapeutic benefits.

Be that as it may, November 24, 2016 announcement of FSSAI, that health supplements or Nutraceuticals cannot be sold as ‘medicines’ anymore to control mislabeling of such brands, is a step in the right direction.

Another major issue of many pharma brands being put under Nutraceuticals with some tweaking in formulations and labelled as food supplements, would also probably be largely addressed, as FSSAI would continue to be the sole authority for marketing approval of Nutraceuticals.

However, it is still not very clear to me, as I am writing this article, what happens to those Nutraceutical brands, which are already in the market, with compositions not conforming to the new FSSAI norms. Fairness demands reformulation and relabeling of all those existing Nutraceuticals, strictly in conformance to the new guidelines, and obtain fresh approval from FSSAI. This will help create a level playing field for all Nutraceutical players in India.

While there is a pressing need to enforce a holistic regulatory discipline for the Nutraceuticals to protect consumers’ health interest, the commercial interest of such product manufacturers shouldn’t be ignored, either. This is primarily because, there exists enough evidence that proper nutritional intervention with the right kind of natural substances in the right dosage form, could play an important role, especially in the preventive health care.

As the comprehensive regulatory guidelines are put in place, Nutraceuticals not being essential medicines, should always be kept outside price control, in any guise or form. In that process, the general pharma perception of Nutraceutical business, as an ‘Oasis’ amidst well-regulated and price-controlled pharmaceuticals, would possibly remain that way, giving a much-needed and well-deserved boost to this business.

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.

Counterfeit Drugs In India: A Malady Much Deeper

Posted on by
Reply

Many debates and discussions continue being lined up in India almost regularly, generally by the pharma trade associations, besides a few others, on the issue of counterfeit drugs. A good number of these events are sponsored by the global and local anti-counterfeit product manufacturers and the related service providers, presumably to get a captive pharma audience. By and large, these gatherings are well publicized, and very rightly so, to focus for a while on this growing menace in the country.

One of the key objectives of such proceedings, I reckon, besides recommending the immediate action steps for the government in saddle, is to encourage the manufacturers of high quality drugs to protect their brands from the onslaught of counterfeiters through anti-counterfeit measures. Several of these involve a state of the art non-cloning technology. The core message that gets filtered-through, in most of these occasions is, if the suggested steps are followed by the drug companies with the related products and services, these won’t just help protect the patients’ health interest, but also provide a boost to the top and bottom lines in the pharma business, significantly.

There are no qualms about this initiative, not at all. Nonetheless, can this be considered a holistic approach to tackle the menace of counterfeit drugs, especially by the pharma players in India, and considering various other different ways the menace keep striking the patients, so surreptitiously?

Thus, in this article, my point of focus will be on a critical question, which is not asked with the same vigor always in many of the above events: Hasn’t the malady of counterfeit drugs in India spread much wider, and taken its root considerably deeper?

Counterfeit drugs and what it includes?

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), there is currently no universally agreed definition among its member states in what is widely known as ‘Counterfeit medicines’. Nevertheless, W.H.O does indicate that the term ‘counterfeit’ is widely used to include falsified, unlicensed, falsely packaged, stolen and substandard medical products. Jurisdictions across the world define counterfeit medicines in many different ways.

It’s worth noting here, according to W.H.O, substandard medical products also belong to this category. In 2009, W.H.O defined ‘substandard’ drugs as “genuine medicines produced by the manufacturers authorized by the NMRA (national medicines regulatory authority) which do not meet quality specifications set for them by national standards”.

Hence, notwithstanding whatever will be accepted as the general consensus of the W.H.O members on the definition of counterfeit drugs, from the patients’ perspective, any drug failing to meet with the claimed efficacy, safety and quality standards, should come under the same ‘category definition’, including substandard drugs.

Controversy over the term ‘Counterfeit’:

Many W.H.O member countries believe that the term counterfeit is closely associated and legally defined within the Intellectual Property (IP) legislation, and concentrates on trademark protection. Consequently, usage of this terminology has been perceived to have reduced the focus from what is first and foremost a public health issue. Thus, it has become quite important for W.H.O to separate the different categories of what is widely used as ‘counterfeit drug’, for the purpose of analysis and identifying strategies, to effectively address the issue of the public health menace that such activities give rise to.

Types of counterfeit drugs:

A Review Article titled “Anti-counterfeit Packaging in Pharma Industry” dated February 17, 2011, published in the “International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences”, divided the types of counterfeit mechanisms into five categories, in which drugs are manufactured or distributed without proper regulatory clearance, and do not meet the determined standards of safety, quality, and efficacy:

  • No active ingredient (43 percent)
  • Low levels of active ingredient (21 percent)
  • Poor quality drugs (24 percent)
  • Wrong ingredients (2 percent)
  • Wrong packaging or source (7 percent)

This particular article will dwell mainly on a very important segment in this category – the substandard or poor quality drugs.

The magnitude of the problem:

On May 17, 2016, a Research Article titled, “Public Awareness and Identification of Counterfeit Drugs in Tanzania: A View on Antimalarial Drugs”, published in ‘Advances in Public Health’ – a peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes original research articles, highlighted something that should cause a great concern not just for the Indian drug regulators, but also the Indian pharma manufacturers, in general.

The research paper, besides other points, underscored the following:

“Currently, it is estimated that 10–15 percent of the global drugs supplied are counterfeit. The prevalence is higher in developing countries in Africa and in parts of Asia and Latin America where up to 30–60 percent of drugs on the market are counterfeit. India is a major supplier of poor quality drugs whereby 35–75 percent of fake/counterfeit drugs globally originate from India.”

Another report of ‘Pharmexcil’ dated October 04, 2010 also states: “According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 75 percent of fake drugs supplied world over have origins in India, followed by 7 percent from Egypt and 6 percent from China. India is also a leading source of high quality generic and patent drugs in the legitimate commerce worldwide. Since drugs made in India are sold around the world, the country’s substandard drug trade represents a grave public health threat that extends far beyond the subcontinent.”

Substandard drugs: a potential crisis in public health:

An article with the above title, published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology on November 29, 2013 cautioned on the potential crisis in public health with substandard drugs, as follows:

“Poor-quality medicines present a serious public health problem, particularly in emerging economies and developing countries, and may have a significant impact on the national clinical and economic burden. Attention has largely focused on the increasing availability of deliberately falsified drugs, but substandard medicines are also reaching patients because of poor manufacturing and quality-control practices in the production of genuine drugs (either branded or generic). Substandard medicines are widespread and represent a threat to health because they can inadvertently lead to health care failures, such as antibiotic resistance and the spread of disease within a community, as well as death or additional illness in individuals.”

Hence, the potential of health crisis with various substandard drugs is quite similar to other types of counterfeit drugs.

Substandard drugs and small pharma players:

As I said before, the malady of counterfeit, fake and substandard drugs are spreading much wider and deeper in India. What’s happening around today in this area prompts us to believe, it may no longer be proper to keep all the large pharma manufacturers away from the ambit of discussion on substandard or counterfeit drugs. This apprehension is raising its head, as it is generally believed that only small, unknown, or fly-by-night type of drug manufacturers, are responsible for substandard, fake or counterfeit drugs. Whereas, the reality seems to be different. There are now ample reasons to believe that even some large drug manufacturers, both local and global, who have been caught by the regulator for the same wrongdoing, are also equally responsible for causing similar adverse health impact on patients.

Substandard drugs and large pharma players:

That the issue of substandard drugs is quite widespread in India, involving both global and local pharma players – small and large, is also quite evident from the following report, published in the May 14, 2016 edition of the well-reputed national daily – Hindustan Times:

“A day after French major Sanofi announced a recall of some batches of its popular painkiller Combiflam, India’s drug regulator said over 102 medicines have been highlighted for quality concerns and withdrawal in the last five months. The list includes several popular painkillers.”

The report also indicated that these are generic medicines, both with and without brand names, such as, CIP-ZOX of Cipla, Orcerin of MacLeod Pharma, Zerodol-SP of Ipca Laboratories, Pantoprazole of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Norfloxacin of Karnataka Antibiotics & Pharmaceutical Ltd. According to the public notices of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), these batches were manufactured in June 2015 and July 2015, and carried expiry dates of May 2018 and June 2018.

The CDSCO also reportedly said that in notices posted on its website in February and April, 2015, it found some batches of Combiflam to be “not of standard quality” as they failed disintegration tests. The point to note is, according to the US-FDA, disintegration test is used to assess the time it takes for tablets and capsules to break down inside the body and are used as a quality-assurance measure.

“All drugs listed under the drug alert list should be recalled with immediate effect. We have found some serious problems with the making of the drug because of which we have highlighted quality concerns. Hence, recall is necessary for all companies,” GN Singh, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), reportedly told the above newspaper.

Should the ‘intent behind’ be considered as the key differentiating factor?

This takes me to another question: What’s the ‘intent behind’ manufacturing substandard drugs? It is not difficult to make out that the only ‘intent behind’ manufacturing substandard drugs by illegal, some small or fly-by-night type of drug operators would be to make quick money, by cutting corners, and criminally falsifying the entire process.

Until recently, I used to strongly believe that those large manufacturers who are getting caught for releasing substandard drugs to the market, have made sheer mistakes, and these are no more than minor aberrations. However, recent findings by the US-FDA, after rigorous manufacturing quality audit of several production facilities of large and small generic drug producers of India, make me wonder whether this thin differentiating line of ‘intent behind’ manufacturing substandard drugs, though still exists, has started getting blurred. The foreign regulators have imposed import ban on drugs produced in those facilities on the ground of willingly compromising drug quality, and grossly falsifying data.

I am not going into those much discussed details here, once again, as the drugs involved in the above cases are meant for exports and the import bans, by the foreign regulators were aimed at protecting the health and safety of citizens of those countries. In this article my focus is on India, and health interest of the local Indian population.

Thus fathoming a different ‘intent behind’ manufacturing substandard drugs, especially by the large and well-known manufacturers, is the real challenge. What sort of anti-counterfeit events will be able to possibly address this perturbing issue, that is now getting revealed much faster than even before?

Who in India ensures that all drugs are safe?

Possibly none, not even the drug regulators and the enforcers of the drug laws, as a number of national and international media reports reveal. General public doesn’t get any assurance from any authorities that the medicines sold by the drug retail outlets, pan India, are all standard quality and genuine.

At the same time, it is equally challenging for anyone to ascertain, with absolute certainty, that it’s a counterfeit, substandard or a fake drug, in whatever name we call it, is responsible for avoidable suffering or even death of an individual. In such a sad eventuality, one has no other choice but to accept that the causative factor was either a wrong diagnosis of the disease, or delayed onset of treatment.

Is CDSCO still in a denial mode?

It’s an irony that the government sources often highlight that the incidence of substandard, spurious or fake drugs in India has declined from around 9 percent in the 1990s, to around 5 percent in 2014-15, quoting the CDSCO sample survey findings.

Nevertheless, while looking at the same CDSCO survey results of the last four years – from 2011-12 to 2014-15, the incidence of spurious and substandard drugs in India appears to be static, if not marginally increased, as follows:

Year Tested Samples Substandard Samples Spurious or Adulterated samples % Failed
2011-12 48,082,00 2,186.00 133.00 4.82
2012-13 58,537.00 2,362.00 70.00 4.15
2013-14 72,712.00 3,028.00 118.00 4.32
2014-15 74,199.00 3,702.00 83.00 5.10

Source: Central Drugs Control Organization (CDSCO)

In my view, these CDSCO results should be taken perhaps with dollops of salt, not merely the sample size for these surveys is too small, but also the complexity involved in the collection of the right kind of samples that will always pass the acid test of independent experts’ scrutiny.  Right representational sample size – state-wise, is so important, primarily considering that India is the world’s third-largest pharmaceutical market by volume, consumes 383 billion medicines per annum, according to a 2015 Government report, and is quite a heterogeneous pharma market.

A September 06, 2016 media report well captured the palpable hubris of the Government on this worrying subject. It quoted the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) – Dr. G N Singh as saying: “This is an encouraging trend when it comes to comparing Indian made generics with that produced in regulated markets. This will help us dispel the myth that India is a source of substandard drugs as compared to any other regulated market.”

Interestingly, other studies and reports do indicate that this menace could well be, at least, thrice as large.

Be that as it may, according to an October 22, 2016 media report, CDSCO is expected to release the findings of the latest survey on ‘spurious drugs’ in India by end October 2016.

Two recent good intents of CDSCO:

Apparently, as a response to the widespread public criticism on this issue, despite being in a denial mode earlier, CDSCO has recently expressed two good intents to address this issue, as follows:

  • As reported on October 18, 2016, it has sent a recommendation to the Union Ministry of Health to amend the Drugs & Cosmetics Act to facilitate implementation of bar coding and Unique Identification Number (UIN) on every pack of domestic pharma products.
  • To ensure consistency and uniformity in the inspection process, on May 26, 2016, by a Public Notice, it issued a new draft checklist of ‘Risk Based Inspection of the Pharma Manufacturing Facilities’ for verification of GMP compliance as per the provisions stated under Schedule M of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, and sought suggestions from the stakeholders. This checklist would be used by drug regulatory enforcement agencies as a science based tool. It also envisaged that the pharma industry would find this checklist useful for self-assessment.

Let’s now wait and watch, to get to know the timeline of translating these good intents into reality on the ground, and the impact that these decisions will make to reverse the current worrying trend of counterfeit and substandard drugs in India.

Conclusion:

The malady of counterfeit or substandard drugs is not just India centric. Various credible sources have estimated that around a million people fall victim to such so called ‘medicines’, each year. However, unlike many other countries, India still doesn’t have any structured and effective regulatory or other mechanisms, not even any spine-chilling deterrent, in place to address this public health menace of humongous implications.

That said, besides serious health hazards, the adverse financial impact of substandard drugs on patients is also significant. Such drugs, even when non-fatal, are much less effective, if not ineffective or trigger other adverse reactions. Thus, a longer course of treatment, or switching over to a different medication altogether, may often be necessary, multiplying the cost of treatment.

In that sense, substandard, spurious, fake or counterfeit drugs, in whatever name one describes these, increase the disease burden manifold, besides being life-threatening. This issue assumes greater significance in India, where 58.2 percent of the total health expenditure is incurred out-of-pocket by a vast majority of the population. Medicines alone, which are mostly purchased from private retail outlets, across India, account for between 70 and 77 per cent of the individual out of pocket health spending, according to a W.H.O report.

High decibel campaigns on various anti-counterfeit technology solutions for fast selling, or expensive brands of large pharma companies, whether sponsored by placing the commercial interest at the top of mind, or even otherwise, are welcome, so are the two recent good intents of the Union Government, in this area.

However, the desirable proactive focus on curbing the menace of substandard medicines in India, which cause similar health risks as any other type of counterfeit drugs, does not seem to be as sharp, not just yet, barring the pharma export sector. Nor does this issue attract similar zest for a meaningful discourse related to patients’ health and safety within the country, as associated with various other anti-counterfeiting technology solution oriented events. The anomaly remains intriguing, especially when the malady spreads, with its root reaching deeper.

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. 

Declining MR Access to Doctors Prompts Increased Digital Engagement

Posted on by
Reply

The trigger point for a disruptive change in the pharma marketing playbook now seems to be not just on the horizon, but could soon move to a countdown stage, in India.

On Friday, September 16, 2016, at a seminar on the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) organized at Bengaluru, Sudhanshu Pant, Joint Secretary (Policy), Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), India, reportedly said that the mandatory UCPMP is now in its last leg of clearance with the Union Government, after incorporating the inputs received from the pharma industry and other stakeholders.

He clearly articulated in his address, once a level playing field is created with mandatory UCPMP, both the pharma industry and the medical professionals will be restricted to offer and receive freebies, respectively, which is the in-thing today to generate prescriptions from the doctors.

“Our intent is that the new code should be followed in letter and spirit. It is not a draconian law, but penalties are stringent. We are enforcing fines. The violation of this code could also lead to suspension of product marketing,” the joint secretary further clarified.

Signals a forthcoming change:

Effective implementation of the mandatory UCPMP across India, could catalyze significant changes in the allegedly dubious pharmaceutical marketing process in India, revolving round ‘give and take’ of enticing ‘freebies’ to the prescribers. According to several reports, some of these practices are followed in the guise of ‘brand-reminders’, and several others fall under ‘events associated with Continuing Medical Education (CME), mostly arranged in various exotic places around the world, with associated hospitalities and equivalents. Besides, there exists a host of different kinds of ‘carrots for prescriptions’ of numerous types, forms and costs, as highlighted frequently by the national and international media.

Nevertheless, it is widely believed by many that Medical Representatives (MR) in India are having virtually no access barrier to meet the doctors, as a large number of both the receivers and the givers of the freebies have allegedly financial interest ingrained on meeting each other.

This scenario, I reckon, will change in India with the strict enforcement of mandatory UCPMP by the Government, curbing any possible misadventure by any stakeholder in the space of ethical pharma marketing practices that would impact the health interest of patients, directly.

Drawing a similar example:

One relevant example for India could be drawn from what happened in the United States (US) in this area, relatively recently. To contain wide-spread unethical pharma marketing practices in the US, President Obama administration enacted the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, effective August 1, 2013. This new law, that requires detailed disclosures from both the physicians and the pharma players on giving and accepting the freebies, limited the financial interest of the prescribers to meet with the MRs several times in a year, for face to face product detailing. Consequently, MR access to prescribers for the same started becoming increasingly more challenging.

A number of studies indicate, a large number of doctors have now started considering the delivery of a frequent barrage sales message an avoidable noise, when alternative highly user-friendly platforms are available to keep them up-to-date on various brands.

In the same way, as the new mandatory UCPMP will come into effect in India, it is quite likely that pharma companies operating in the country would start facing similar challenges with MRs visits, especially, to the important busy doctors and for similar reasons.

Digital channels are gaining strength:

With MRs access to physicians gradually declining, many pharmaceutical companies are trying to make the best use of a gamut of customized, innovative marketing approaches pivoted on various digital platforms. These initiatives are primarily to supplement effective engagement with the doctors to generate increasing prescription demand, and in a more user-friendly manner.

The latest study on trend:

There are many studies in this area, but I shall quote the latest one. According to a 2016 study of the global sales and marketing firm ZS Associates: “The number of digital and non-personal contacts that the pharmaceutical industry now has with physicians exceeded its number of sales rep visits to doctor offices.”

Analyzing the data from 681,000 health care providers who actually engage with pharmaceutical and biotech manufacturers across promotional channels, and more than 40,000 pharmaceutical sales representatives (MRs), the study reported, among others, the following:

  • 44 percent of physicians are “accessible” (that is, they met with more than 70 percent of sales reps who try to meet with them). This is a decline from 46 percent in 2015 and nearly 80 percent in 2008.
  • 38 percent of physicians restricted access (that is, they met with 31 to 70 percent of reps who try to meet with them).
  • 18 percent of physicians “severely” restricted access (that is, they meet with 30 percent or fewer reps who try to meet with them).
  • More than half (53 percent) of marketing outreach to physicians now takes place through “non-personal” promotion, such as email and mobile alerts, as well as direct mail and speaker programs.
  • The remainder of marketing to physicians (47 percent) still takes place through in-person interactions with sales reps (MRs).
  • Today’s physician estimates that he or she already spends 84 hours per year – about two full work weeks – interacting with pharma companies via digital and other non-personal marketing channels.
  • Around 74 percent of the physicians use their smartphones for professional purposes.

Another interesting point also emerges from the report. Despite the fact that non-personal communications, including digital, comprise 53 percent of marketing outreach most drug companies still allocate around 88 percent of their total sales and marketing budget to the sales force.

Increasing ‘online professional networks’ for doctors:

Keeping pace with this change several online professional networks for doctors are coming up. One such example is Doctors.net.uk. This is claimed to be the largest and most active online professional network for all UK doctors. Each day over 50,000 doctors make use of Doctors.net.uk to network with colleagues and view information.

This particular online facility provides the doctors with a range of free secure services including an email service, clinical forums, accredited education and medical news, which help them to keep up to date, and to easily maintain their Continuing Professional Development (CPD).

Some digital initiatives of pharma companies:

Here, I would quote just a couple of interesting examples out of several others:

For continuous online engagement with doctors:

In January 2013, the top global pharma major Pfizer launched an online digital platform for the doctors named ‘Pfizerline’. It provides access to the latest information on Pfizer products ‘when, where and how’ the doctors want it. As claimed by the company, ‘Pfizerline’ is regularly updated and forms part of the company’s ongoing commitment to keep the doctors informed about their products and services.

Some say that with ‘Pfizerline’, ‘Pfizer has begun using digital drug representatives to market medicines, leaving the decision as to whether they want to see them in doctors’ hands.’

For new product launch:

According to the Press Release published by PMLive, the first in the pharmaceutical industry ‘digital marketing only’ campaign was launched by Abbott for its Low Dose HRT brand, in November 2013.

The campaign reportedly reached to 9,000 doctors, 45 percent of the NHS population of obstetricians and gynecologists, and nearly 23 percent of GPs who engaged with Abbott’s Low Dose HRT brand via professional network Doctors.net.uk.

According to Abbott, as quoted in this report, the digital campaign, which included interactive case studies, clinical paper summaries and an ask the expert section, helped increase the brand’s market share, with a continuous month-on-month growth in sales in 2013.

I am quoting these two examples, just to illustrate the point that serious experimentations with digital marketing for serious business initiatives, such as, doctor engagement and product launch, have already commenced.

Conclusion:

For better physician engagement, while preparing for a likely future scenario in India, any effective brand marketing strategy on digital platforms would call for in-depth understanding of the target audience preferences on the specific information needs and marketing channels. This customized approach needs to be harnessed to deliver the right message, to the right customer, through right platforms, and at a time of preferred by each prescriber.

The ball game of pharma marketing is gradually but surely changing. Clear signals are now coming from various Governments to the pharma companies to jettison the widely perceived unethical practices of alluring the drug prescribers with ‘freebies’ of different kinds and values, against patients’ health interest.

Unless various third parties come-up just to camouflage continuation of the same unethical marketing practices of many companies, at a cost, getting unfettered MR access to busy prescribers is likely to be increasingly more challenging. Otherwise, effective enforcement of mandatory UCPMP is likely to usher-in this change in India, sooner, just as what the ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ did in the US. The countdown for the new paradigm in the country is expected to commence soon, as reportedly articulated by the Joint Secretary (Policy) of the Department of Pharmaceuticals, recently.

However, there are a couple of points to ponder. It is also widely believed, even today, and also in the US that, while various digital platforms offer never before opportunity to effectively engage with ‘difficult to meet’ prescribers, their use should be prudent and well thought of. Any mass-scale and imprudent general switch to digital communications, is unlikely to fetch the best outcome, to meet with this evolving challenge of change, at least, in the foreseeable future.

At the same time, if pharma companies continue increasing investment in less expensive digital communications sans diligent homework for scaling up, the prescribers may feel so overwhelmed that they will start ignoring them, just as what’s happening with frequent MRs’ visits. Hence, for sustainable business excellence while confronting with forthcoming disruptive changes, the notes of the pharma marketing playbook need to be recomposed, afresh.

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. 

What Happens To Pharma’s Incredible Ride On The ‘Gravy Train’?

Posted on by
Reply

India continues to be one of the fastest growing pharmaceutical market of the world with its over 40 percent of the total pharmaceutical produce is exported around the world. Over half of the total exports constitute of formulations, and the balance comprises of bulk drugs. India has been consistently maintaining its supremacy in the formulation exports since my salad days.

According to Export Statistics (2014-15) published by the Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council of India (Pharmexcil), United States (US) is the largest market for the India’s pharmaceutical exports with a share of 27 percent of the total, followed by the United Kingdom (UK), South Africa, Russia, Nigeria, Brazil and Germany.

A red flag raised: 

Up until recently, it has almost been like walking over a bed of roses in this front for Indian pharma exporters. However, it does not seem to be so now, and at least in the foreseeable future, for a number of reasons.

The Press Release of ‘CRISIL Research’ dated May 17, 2016 has also raised a red flag in this area. The report foresees growth in pharma formulations (in US dollar terms) declining sharply to 10-12 percent annually over the next 5 years, as compared with a growth of ~19% seen in the last decade.

This adverse impact will be felt mostly in the US – the largest export destination of India, followed by the UK.

I reckon, there are three basic reasons for this changing scenario, namely, pricing, quality and lesser number of branded small-molecule blockbuster drugs going off patent.

The ride on the ‘gravy train’:

Pharma companies across the world consider that doing business in the US market would provide them a lot of money without facing any head wind, fundamentally driven by the drug pricing freedom in the country, as compared to any other market of the world.

This unfettered freedom of charging a hefty price premium in the largest pharma market of the world, on an ongoing basis, has been a critical factor of attraction for many pharma players to do business in the US, coming from various corners of the globe, including India, just as honey attracts the bees, as it were.

Thus far, it has been an incredible ride on the ‘gravy train’, as it were, for most of them.

However, ongoing activities of a large number of drug companies, dominated by blatant self-serving interests, have now given rise to a strong general demand for the Government to initiate robust remedial measures, soon. The telltale signs of which indicate that this no holds barred pricing freedom may not be available to pharma, even in the US, any longer.

In this article, I shall focus mainly on this point, drawing both global and local examples, as this development has a strong potential to add more to the existing miseries of many Indian drug exporters, of course in tandem with many other large MNCs.

Some recent developments: 

The April 21, 2016 issue of ‘The Financial Times’ quoted Joe Jimenez, the Global Chief Executive (CEO) of Novartis, where he said that pharma companies can no longer count on the “hockey-stick” trajectories for new products in the US. This is primarily due to the aggressive control of the drug expenses by the insurers and other healthcare payers, besides lawmakers and the public at large, of this most lucrative pharma market of the world.

As Jimenez said in the report, yesterday’s business model that pharma companies have followed since long, has now changed, slowing the pace of growth of innovative patented products in the US.

This trend is now heading north, primarily driven by the consolidation among the US insurers and healthcare providers. Consequently, the payers are making effective use of their greater bargaining power over the drug companies, especially to avail new incentives for cost savings, as provided in President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, the article highlights.

To give a feel of it, I am quoting the example of a Novartis drug from the same ‘Financial Times’ article. It states, “Entresto, a treatment for heart failure, launched last year on the back of stellar clinical trial results, has so far sold more quickly in Europe than the US, marking a reversal of usual patterns in the pharma industry.”

A key differentiator in global ranking:

In this emerging scenario, all global companies will be adversely impacted for increasing pricing pressure in the US market.

This factor remaining the same for all the pharma players in the world, one of the key differentiating factors that would now play even more important role, is the richness of the advanced stage R&D pipeline of each innovator company.

For example, according to ‘Evaluate Pharma World Preview 2016, Outlook to 2022’ report, the overall R&D pipeline value of Roche is US$ 43.2 billion, far ahead of the same of Novartis’ US$ 24.1 billion and AstraZeneca’s at US$ 23.2 billion, followed by Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Pfizer, Sanofi, Celgene, Biogen and J&J and in that order. As a result, Roche is expected to overtake Novartis and Pfizer in the ranking by 2022, just when the global pharma industry would possibly cross as US$ 1Trillion mark.

Currently Novartis, though quite a small player in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) holding the rank of 23 (AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS retail audit report, MAT August 2016), is number three in the global ranking, just ahead of Roche.

Indian generic players to feel the heat:

According to the Reuters report of September 11, 2016, US Department of Justice has sent summons this month to the US arm of Sun Pharma – Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Inc. and its two senior executives seeking information on generic drug prices. In 2010, Sun Pharma acquired a controlling stake in Taro Pharmaceutical Industries.

On September 14, 2016, quoting a September 8, 2016 research done by the brokerage firm IIFL, ‘The Economic Times’ reported that some large Indian generic drug manufacturers, such as, Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s, Lupin, Aurobindo and Glenmark have also hiked the prices of some of their drugs between 150 percent and 800 percent in the US. This invites even more apprehensions in the prevailing scenario.

As I wrote in this Blog on September 12, 2016, the subject of price increases even for generic drugs has also reverberated in the ongoing Presidential campaign in the US.

The Democratic Party’s presidential nominee – Hillary Clinton has already promised, if elected in November 2016, she would constitute an ‘Oversight Panel’ to protect the consumers of her country from hefty price increases for long-available life-saving drugs.

Import bans:

In the midst of all this, import bans of a large number of formulations and bulk drugs by the US-FDA from several manufacturing facilities of Indian drug manufacturers of various scales and sizes, have further compounded the future risk potential of Indian pharma business growth in the US.

As investors are raising concerns, the following comment of the Co-Chairman and Chief Executive of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, reported by ‘Financial Express’ on August 24, 2015, well captures the pharma business risks in this area:

“The U.S. market is so big that there is no equivalent alternative. We just have to get stronger in the U.S., resolve our issues, build a pipeline and be more innovative to drive growth.”

However, this still remains a good intent. It is worth noting, for most Indian pharma exporters, the US is the single largest export market, with a stake, as high as nearly half of most of these companies’ annual revenue, and probably much more in profit, both of which are now showing a declining trend.

Price control coming in the UK:

On September 15, 2016, the Department of Health of the United Kingdom (UK) reportedly introduced a new Bill in Parliament to use its statutory power to limit the price of generic medicines where competition in the market fails, and pharma companies charge the NHS unreasonably high prices.

The Bill would also allow the government to apply penalties for non-compliance and to recover any payments owed through the courts following a right of appeal to a tribunal. The penalties can be a single penalty not exceeding £100,000 or a daily penalty not exceeding £10,000.

UK drug regulatory authorities had also announced import bans of APIs and formulations from some manufacturing facilities of a couple of leading Indian drug manufacturers, but on a lesser scale as compared to the USFDA.

Action in EU:

As reported by Bloomberg on July 22, 2016, The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has called for a halt to sales of hundreds of medicines that were tested in India, after an inspection of a research site found “substitution and manipulation” of the study samples. The affected companies include both large Indian and multi-national players.

According to a PTI report of July 27, 2015, after this incident Pharmexcil estimated that exports worth US$ 1-1.2 billion are likely to be affected, if cancellation of 700 generic drugs by the EU stands.

Conclusion:

All these developments, particularly on pricing and mostly in the US, could have a retarding effect on the business growth trend of a large number of global and local pharma companies.

Focusing nearer home, the evolving scenario in the world’s top pharma market, viewed together with what’s happening in Europe, both on pricing and the data integrity fronts, send a strong cautionary signal to the Indian drug exporters, in general.

Inadequate remedial measures could unleash this pressure to reach a dangerous threshold, impacting sustainable performance of the concerned companies. On the other hand, adequate remedial action, both strategic and operational in nature, could lead to significant cost escalation, with no space available for its neutralization through price increases, gradually squeezing the margin.

As I see it, ease of doing pharma business in these top export markets will no longer be quite the same as in the past. Many believe, pharma industry has invited these measures sans perceptible self-control, over a long period of time.

Is it mostly a self-inflicted injury of the industry players? The drug companies, in general, don’t believe so. Will this change be irreversible?  Only the future could unravel this. However, regarding the possibility of future US Government legislation on drug pricing, it’s now a wait and watch game for the stakeholders. On a shorter time-frame, the ghost in this area, would keep haunting globally, primarily for business in the US market, at least, till the end of this year.

However, for the Indian pharma exporters, pricing appears to be just one among several other critical issues, especially, in the two most lucrative markets of the world. The overall situation in this area, by and large, remains unchanged till today, besides expression of a plethora of good intents.

Thus, pharma analysts’ quest to ferret out an answer to the Gordian knot on the continuity of Indian pharma exporters’ incredible long ride on the ‘gravy train’, has also not been plain sailing, so far. Further mired by the local manufacturers’ prolonging errors of judgement, the status quo ante is expected to still remain elusive, at least, for now.

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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