Tag Archives: dubious

Drug Quality Imbroglio And ‘Culture of Bending Rules’ in India

Posted on by
Reply

“Bottle Of Lies Exposes The Dark Side Of The Generic-Drug Boom” – re-emphasized the book, released in May 2019.  This confirms, the raging debate on the questionable quality of many generic drugs manufactured in India and involving several top domestic pharma companies, is a never-ending one. Numerous articles also ascribe many different reasons to this saga, leaving an overall impression – as if, blindfolded persons are trying to describe an elephant, touching and feeling different parts of the animal’s body, each at a time.

Let me illustrate the point with the Bloomberg article of January 31, 2019. It reported, “Culture of ‘Bending Rules’ in India Challenges U.S. Drug Agency.” And further commented: ‘The FDA confronts creative improvisation in the world’s largest generic-drug exporter.’ Curiously, according to the above report it seems to be a general belief among many, even within India.

This article will take into account the above apprehension – specifically raised against Indian drug manufacturers of both branded and non-branded generics. Accordingly, my focus will be on just three points – as possible causative factors for this critical issue:

  • Is it an India specific concern – thus related to ‘Indian cultural mindset’? or it’s a global issue, involving both Indian multinational drug manufacturers.
  • Is it a systematic attempt to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide?
  • Are generic drug makers resorting to such unacceptable shortcuts due to increasing margin pressure?

Having deliberated these points, I shall try to outline a set possible remedial measures to address this issue in a holistic way, ensuring a win-win outcome. Let me first explore, whether or not this issue is specific to India, involving Indian drug manufacturers.

Is the issue India specific?

Is the issue of questionable quality of generic drugs, irrespective of whether they carry a brand name or not restricted to the shores of India? One can find its answer in the same report, as quoted above. A yearlong investigation by Bloomberg News into the generic-drug industry concluded, ‘FDA inspections at factories from West Virginia to China have found reason to doubt the data meant to prove drugs are safe and effective.’

One possible reason for such perception could be, since India is predominantly a branded generic market, voices decrying ‘questionable’ safety and efficacy of cheaper non-branded generic drugs, are too loud. Nevertheless, amidst all this, who’s who of branded generic manufacturers continue getting caught on the wrong foot by overseas regulators in the quality quagmire. Ironically, multinationals are also included in it.

Multinationals are also included in such quality quagmire:

There are several examples of non-compliance to requisite drug quality standards by multinational drug companies. Let me illustrate the point with an example that involves a top global pharma player.

The March 04, 2019 ‘Warning Letter’ of US-FDA for the Irungattukottai (Tamil Nadu) plant of Pfizer in India, clearly said: “Your quality system does not adequately ensure the accuracy and integrity of data to support the safety, effectiveness, and quality of the drugs you manufacture.”

This is not a solitary example of Pfizer’s generic hospital injectables manufactured in this plant. According to a media report dated July 17, 2018, twice before US-FDA had cited manufacturing and testing issues in this facility, containing 11 observations of the regulator, such as, workers “manipulated test sample weights to obtain passing results” for both batches of raw materials and finished product. It is a different matter that the company, later on, decided to close this plant for commercial reasons. Be that as it may, negative perception of generic drug quality is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed without further delay, holistically.

Studies have captured negative perception of generic drugs:

That this is a perception, has been well – elucidated along with its implications, in several studies. A few of which are as below:

A BMJ article concluded: “A significant proportion of doctors, pharmacists and lay people hold negative perceptions of generic medicines. It is likely these attitudes present barriers to the wider use of generics.” It further added, “Negative perceptions of medicine quality along with other drivers contribute towards choosing more expensive medicines in the private sector.”

Endorsing this point, yet another BMJ article inferred: “Negative perceptions of generic medicines and preferential promotion of branded medicines over generics by pharmaceutical companies could influence prescriber behavior and affect trust in healthcare provided in public services. To succeed, access to medicine programs need to systematically invest in information on the quality of medicines and develop strategies to build trust in healthcare offered in government health services.”

Again, in a separate survey of over 2700 physicians on perceptions of generic drugs, more than 23 percent of respondents expressed negative perceptions about their efficacy and nearly 50 percent. reported negative perceptions of generic drug quality. In the same survey, patients also expressed concerns that the lower cost of generics is associated with reduced medication quality.

Although, the above survey was conducted in the United States, the current situation in India, I reckon, is no different, but with one caveat. Here, preferential promotion of branded generic medicines over cheaper non-branded equivalents, by the respective drug manufacturers, could significantly influence prescriber behavior. Therefore, the question that follows: Is this perception-creation based on facts?

Is the negative perception fact-based?

Although, even the US-FDA clearly states that: ‘A generic medicine works in the same way and provides the same clinical benefit as its brand-name version”, I did try to find some conclusive evidence depicting brand name drugs are superior to their cheaper generic equivalents. While doing literature searches, two types of results emerged – there are studies that do not find any significant difference between generic drugs and their branded equivalents. At the same time, a few other studies do suggest that there is a difference between these two, but admitting that these studies are not conclusive. Let me give below examples of each.

No quality difference found between generic drugs and the branded variants: 

I shall quote here three studies, out of which one is India specific. The analysis reported in the above BMJ article, found that ‘the generic and branded variants of the medicines tested were of comparable quality.’

Another study, published by PLOS Medicine on March 13, 2019 also said, “In this study of 8 drug products conducted using 2 large US commercial insurance databases, we observed that use of generics provided comparable clinical outcomes as the brand products.”

An India specific researchon the same also reported, most generic and branded drug users believed that their drugs were effective in controlling their ailments with no significant difference in reported adverse effects and drug adherence.

Slightly different results were also reported with generics, but not conclusive:

One such study questioned, whether generic drugs are truly equivalent to the brand-name versions.This article was published on January 2019 by Harvard Health Publishing with the title, “Do generic drugs compromise on quality?”

This article quoted a Canadian study, published in the October 2017 issue of ‘Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes’, which found that patients who took generic versions of three different blood pressure medications in the months after the generic drugs became available saw increased rates of drug-related side effects.

Was it due to a perception bias?

To ascertain whether or not there is a perception bias, let us look into the following details of the same study along with its conclusion.

In this study, the researchers ‘looked at the numbers of emergency room visits and hospitalizations for 136,177 individuals ages 66 and over (60% of them women) who used any of three blood pressure medications: losartan (U.S. brand name Cozaar), valsartan (Diovan), and candesartan (Atacand). The investigators examined data for the periods 24 months before and 12 months after the generic versions of these medications went on the market. And found that before the generic versions became available, about one in 10 people taking the blood pressure drugs had to go to the emergency room or be hospitalized each month. In the month after each of the generics went into use, the rates of these adverse events went up: 8% for losartan, almost 12% for valsartan, and 14% for candesartan.’ The study authors commented, this might suggest performance differences between the brand-name and generic drugs.

However, analyzing this study, the Harvard article suggested further probe on the question: Did it result from quality problems with the generic versions of these medications or were there other factors that occurred in this time frame?

Another research, aimed at finding, whether patients are more adherent to generic statins than brand-name statins (lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin) and whether greater adherence improves health outcomes, also concluded, “An 8% reduction in the rate of the clinical outcome was observed among patients in the generic group versus those in the brand-name group.” This also wasn’t a conclusive one, either.

Nevertheless, the key point of a ‘perception bias’, is captured in a separate study, where the researchers did find higher rates of psychiatric hospitalization for patients taking generic and AG escitalopram and sertraline, compared with those who initiated the brand-name product. Importantly, they noted that these outcomes were likely due to either residual confounding or generic perception bias.

No quality difference also found between branded and non-branded generics in India:

There are studies, which captured no quality difference between branded generics and non-branded generics in the country. One such India specific study concluded: “Quality of branded-generics is same as for their branded version. The study highlights the need to modify the drug price policy, regulate the markups in the generic supply chain, conduct and widely publicize the quality testing of generics for awareness of all stakeholders.”

Thus, so far, we have seen in this article that concern on quality of generic drugs is neither India specific, nor is it related to ‘Indian cultural mindset.’ And this is, undoubtedly, a global issue, involving both Indian and multinational drug manufacturers. There are also ample evidences available that a systematic attempt is being made to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide. Let us now look at the third possible causative factor, as I listed above.

Is it due to margin pressure on generic drugs?

The answer to this question was deliberated in an article titled, ‘Generic drug makers feel pinch as prices crumble,’ published in the Financial Times on August 17, 2017. Quoting a top global financial analyst, it reported – global generic drug industry, where Indian manufacturers are major players,has maintained roughly 30 per cent operating margins over a long period of time, with improvements year on year. But, since last few years, there has been a margin degradation, which may possibly further go down – even lower than what it is today.

The article further highlighted, a round of consolidation among their main customers in the US: the wholesalers, have escalated the problem.  Many of these groups have clubbed together to form “mega buyers”, known as general purchasing organizations, that can command large discounts. Moreover, for the US market, another area of ‘concern’ is that the US-FDA has identified boosting competition in the generics market as one of its main priorities. As this reform opens up, it could squeeze the generic drug margins further.

Many envisage that intense cost cutting measures, could have transgressed in the drug quality assurance area, aggravating this issue. Although, it needs to be verified through credible studies, curiously, some signs of improvement in this area has recently been reported.

That said, there appears to be a strange coincidence between recent reports on Indian drug makers showing improvement in USFDA inspection outcomes and attempts to increase generic drug companies and some of their top executives slapped with price-fixing lawsuits in the U.S.This needs to be studied further.

The way forward:

The negative perception of generic drugs, in general, and non-branded generic drugs, in particular, is most likely a well-crafted business issue, rather than a genuine patient safety concern. It calls for an immediate two-pronged approach:

  • Vigorous awareness and educational campaigns on safety and efficacy of generic drugs targeted to patients, medical and paramedical professionals.
  • New regulatory measures, especially the following five:

- No pricing pressure or price control in any form of generic drugs

- Abolish brand names for generic drugs

- Make generic prescription compulsory to boost intense competition and thereby     reducing the price.

- Restrict the number of ingredients in FDC not more than two or three

- Make Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) mandatory.

Conclusion:

Thus, the questionable quality of generic drugs is not an India specific concern and involves both Indian multinational drug manufacturers. This is also evident from the analysis, as quoted above, that underscores, ‘FDA inspections at factories from West Virginia to China have found reason to doubt the data meant to prove drugs are safe and effective.’ Many studies have revealed that there is a systematic attempt to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide.

A sequence of remedial measures, as described above, also include fostering competition, instead of introducing government controls on prices of generic drugs with stringent regulatory oversight being in place.

Thus, the so called ‘belief’ that the ‘culture of bending Rules’ is culpable for dubious generic drug quality in India, is more akin to a strong perception, prevailing in India, rather than based on any scientific analysis related to this issue. This ought to change with a well-coordinated intervention – for patients’ health interest sake.

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.

Is Drug Innovation As Critical As Access To Medicines For All? [Augmented By A Video]

Posted on by
Reply

To make important medicines available to all in a sustainable way, the renowned philosopher Thomas Pogge in this very interesting video clipping titled “Medicines For The 99 Percent” suggested the following three simple, yet critical, steps to effectively run the healthcare system of any nation with a cost-effective and patient-centric approach:

  • Access to important medicines for all
  • A robust drug innovation model to meet the unmet needs of patients
  • Transparent and efficient systems to make medicines affordable to all, eliminating wastage of all kinds

To translate this process into reality Pogge proposed an out-of-box model, not just to incentivize companies for drug innovation, but also to produce those drugs in a cost-effective way . In his submission, Pogge recommended a US$ 6 billion ‘Health Impact Fund’ to revolutionize the way medicines are developed and sold. He strongly argued that the value of an innovative drug should always be ascertained by its differential “Health Impact” on patients over the equivalent available generics in the respective disease areas.

As you will see in the video, the model is interesting and deserves wholehearted support from all stakeholders, despite possible resistance from some powerful quarters prompted by vested interests.

Drug innovation and access to medicines:

As the good old saying goes, “Health is Wealth”. When a person falls sick, regaining health is all-important. Medicines play a very critical role there, for all. In the ongoing battle against various types of diseases, addressing unmet needs of the patients is also equally important. For this reason, drug innovation plays just as critical a role.

However, it is now a well-known fact that medicines, as such, are not very expensive to manufacture on a relative yardstick. Abundant availability of cheaper generic medicines, post-patent expiry, with as much as  90 percent price erosion over the concerned patented drug price, would vindicate this point.

Current R&D model:

Astronomical mark-ups on the cost of goods for the innovative-patented drugs coming out of the current R&D model, restrict access to these medicines mostly to rich people of both poor and rich countries of the world, depriving majority of the have-nots. Although in an ideal situation, all these medications should be accessible to those who need them the most.

Is the model sustainable?

Innovator companies attribute ‘astronomical’ high prices of patented drugs to hefty R&D expenditure, which probably includes high cost of failures too. Unfortunately, despite ongoing raging debates, R&D expense details are still held very close to the chest by the innovator companies, with almost total lack of transparency. Many experts, therefore, believe that this opaque, skewed and unsustainable drug R&D model of the global pharma majors needs a radical makeover now, as you would yourself see by clicking on the ‘video clipping’, as mentioned above

To ensure full access to important drugs for all, there are other R&D or innovation models too. Unfortunately, none of those appears to be financially as lucrative to the innovator companies as the one that they are currently following, thus creating a challenging logjam in the inclusive process of drug innovation.

Are Pharmaceutical R&D expenses overstated?

Some experts in this area argue that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are overstated, as the real costs are much less.

An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicated that the total cost from the discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in the year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 this figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a large pharmaceutical industry association of the United States, though with dubious credibility as considered by many.

The authors of the above article had also mentioned that the following factors were not considered while working out the 2006 figure of US$ 1.32 billion:

▪   Tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D

▪   Tax write-offs that amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40 percent of the R&D cost

▪   Cost of basic research should not have been included as those are mostly undertaken       by public funded universities or laboratories

The article observed that ‘half the R&D costs are inflated estimates of profits that companies could have made, if they had invested in the stock market instead of R&D and include exaggerated expenses on clinical trials’.

“High R&D costs have been the industry’s excuses for charging high prices”:

In line with this deliberation, in the same article the authors reinforce the above point, as follows:

“Pharmaceutical companies have a strong vested interest in maximizing figures for R&D as high research and development costs have been the industry’s excuse for charging high prices. It has also helped generating political capital worth billions in tax concessions and price protection in the form of increasing patent terms and extending data exclusivity.”

The study concludes by highlighting that “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company is probably about US$ 60 million.”

Should Pharmaceutical R&D move away from the traditional model?

Echoing philosopher Thomas Pogge’s submission, another critical point to ponder today is:

Should the pharmaceutical R&D now move away from its traditional comfort zone of expensive one company initiative to a much less charted frontier of sharing drug discovery involving many players?

If this overall collaborative approach gains broad acceptance and then momentum sooner, with active participation of all concerned, it could lead to substantial increase in R&D productivity at a much lesser expenditure, eliminating wastage by reducing the cost of failures significantly, thus benefiting the patients community at large.

Choosing the right pathway in this direction is more important today than ever before, as the R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, keeps going south and that too at a faster pace.

Making drug innovation sustainable: 

Besides Thomas Pogge’s model with ‘Health Impact Fund’ as stated above, there are other interesting drug R&D models too. In this article, I shall focus on two examples:

Example I:

A July 2010 study of Frost & Sullivan reports: “Open source innovation increasingly being used to promote innovation in the drug discovery process and boost bottom-line”.

The concept underscores the urgent need for the global pharmaceutical companies to respond to the challenges of high cost and low productivity in their respective R&D initiatives, in general.

The ‘Open Innovation’ model assumes even greater importance today, as we have noted above, to avoid huge costs of R&D failures, which are eventually passed on to the patients again through the drug pricing mechanism.

‘Open Innovation’ model, as they proposed, will be most appropriate to even promote highly innovative approaches in the drug discovery process bringing many brilliant scientific minds together from across the world.

The key objective of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals is, therefore, to encourage drug discovery initiatives at a much lesser cost, especially for non-infectious chronic diseases or the dreaded ailments like Cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis, including many neglected diseases of the developing countries, making innovative drugs affordable even to the marginalized section of the society.

Android smart phones with huge commercial success are excellent examples of ‘Open Source Innovation’. So, why not replicate the same successful model of inclusive innovation in the pharmaceutical industry too?

Example II - “Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)” initiative:

This laudable initiative has come to the fore recently in he arena of collaborative R&D, where 10 big global pharma majors reportedly decided in February 2014 to team up with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States in a ‘game changing’ initiative to identify disease-related molecules and biological processes that could lead to future medicines.

This Public Private Partnership (PPP) for a five-year period has been named as “Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)”. According to the report, this US federal government-backed initiative would hasten the discovery of new drugs in cost effective manner focusing first on Alzheimer’s disease, Type 2 diabetes, and two autoimmune disorders: rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. The group considered these four disease areas among the largest public-health threats, although the span of the project would gradually expand to other diseases depending on the initial outcome of this project.

“A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain”: 

As if to reinforce the concept, a recent HBR Article titled “A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain” also highlighted, “Open innovation projects (where organizations facing tricky problems invite outsiders to take a crack at solving them) always present cognitive challenges, of course. But they also force new, boundary-spanning human interactions and fresh perspective taking. They require people to reach out to other people, and thus foster social interaction.” This articulation further reinforces the relevance of a new, contemporary and inclusive drug innovation model for greater patient access.

Conclusion:

Taking these points into perspective, I reckon, there is a dire need to make the process of offering innovative drugs at affordable prices to all patients absolutely robust and sustainable as we move on.

Philosopher Thomas Pogge, in his above video clipping, has also enunciated very clearly that all concerned must ensure that medications get to those who need them the most. He has also shown a win-win pathway in form of creation of a “Health Impact Fund’ to effectively address this issue. There are other inclusive, sustainable and cost effective R&D models too, such as Open Innovation and Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP), to choose from.

That said, a paradigm shift in the drug innovation model can materialize only when there will be a desire to step into the uncharted frontier, coming out of the comfort zone of much familiar independent money spinning silos of drug innovation. Dove tailing business excellence with the health interest of all patients, dispassionately, would then be the name of the game.

Bringing this transformation sooner is extremely important, as drug innovation would continue to remain as critical as access to important medicines for all, in perpetuity.

However, to maintain proper checks and balances between drug innovation and access to medicines for all, the value of an innovative drug should always be ascertained by its differential ‘Health Impact’ on patients over equivalent available generics in that disease area and NOT by how much money, including the cost of R&D failures, goes behind bringing such drugs to the market, solely driven by commercial considerations.

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.

 

 

FDC Saga: Defiant Manufacturers, Sloppy Regulators and Humongous Inaction

Posted on by
Reply

“TO SIN BY SILENCE WHEN THEY SHOULD PROTEST MAKES COWARDS OF MEN”       – Abraham Lincoln

The ghost of untested, irrational and even of bizarre kind of Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs, which continue to be launched, promoted, prescribed and sold freely across the length and breadth of India, has started haunting the Ministry of Health of India, yet again, in 2013. 

Though the issue originated decades ago, in 1988 appropriate ‘Rule’ of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India was amended suitably to have a firm regulatory grip over this situation. Despite this much awaited amendment, the situation almost went astray with incessant market entry of a large number untested FDC medicines of dubious medical rationale.

A free for all situation, as it were, in the FDC arena, continued to be facilitated by blatant laxity on the part of, especially, the state drug regulators by allowing unfettered market entry of such drugs, ignoring the CDSCO directive.

On the other hand, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), despite its statutory powers,  continued to suffer from humongous inaction untill the issue resurfaced again in 2007 and then of course, now in 2013.

The WHO Model:

The 2005 ʹProcedure to update and disseminate the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, Criteria for Selection’ includes the following statement regarding Fixed Dose Combination products (FDCs):

ʺMost essential medicines should be formulated as single compounds. Fixed‐dose combination products are selected only when the combination has a proven advantage over single compounds administered separately in therapeutic effect, safety, and adherence or in delaying the development of drug resistance in malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/ AIDS.ʺ

Thus, FDCs:

  • Need to demonstrate clinical efficacy and safety beyond the individual drugs when given alone.
  • Need to ‘demonstrate bioequivalence of the single combined dose unit with the components administered in the same doses separately but concomitantly’.

‘Adherence’ aspect of WHO Model for FDCs is also important. Problems with ‘adherence’ could lead to inadequate and inconsistent dosing, which in turn could lead to development of drug resistance.

With robust and unquestionable medical rationale, FDCs are expected to provide superior efficacy and improved compliance without causing any untoward risk to patients.

A major disadvantage:

However, one of the major disadvantages with the FDCs is lack of flexibility in adjusting dose of individual ingredients, even if it is required for some patients. Internationally, most popular example is the FDCs of antiretroviral drugs for HIV infected patients like, Combivir, Trzivir, Kaletra etc.

Interestingly, in India there are FDCs for almost all disease areas from allergic disorders to Wolf-Parkinson-White syndrome (exaggerated), as it were.

Market attractiveness for FDCs in India: 

The domestic market for FDCs is very large and growing much faster, in sharp contrast to the western world. The following table will vindicate this point:

% Share

Drug

2008

2009

2010

2011

Plain

55

55

55

54
Combinations

45

45

45

46

Domestic Market: USD 13 Billion; MAT Apr 2013

Source:IMS

Thus, because of growing market demand, pharmaceutical companies in India tend to market FDCs of all different permutations and combination, at times even crossing the line of any ‘sound medical rationale’. For this reason, we find in the website of ‘Central Drugs Standard Control Organization’ (CDSCO), the banned list of so many FDCs.

A messy regulatory situation:

Introduction of new FDCs does not only warrant a ‘sound medical rationale’ but also ‘strict conformance to all prescribed regulatory requirements’ for patients’ interest. 

To check unfettered market introduction of potentially harmful FDCs, the Ministry of Health issued a Notification in September 1988, including FDCs in Rule 122 E of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules (D&CR) 1945.

In effect, it removed the powers of the State FDAs to give manufacturing or marketing approval of FDCs. After the notification was issued, all manufacturers/marketers of all new FDCs are required to apply only to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) under Rule 122E of the D&CR 1945 as a new drug, along with the stipulated fees by way of a Treasury Challan.

Since this entire process entails appropriate regulatory data generation, besides  time and expenses involved, the above ‘Rule’ was continuously and deliberately broken and manufacturing and marketing approvals for various types of FDCs falling under ‘new drug’ category were regularly sought and granted by the State Drug Controllers.

Many believe that the State FDAs were equally responsible for knowingly flouting the Law, as were the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Patients’ safety – the foremost concern:

Despite serious concerns expressed by a Parliamentary Standing Committee, this complicity resulted in the market being flooded with ‘irrational combinations’ which posed a real threat to patients’ interest and safety. The State FDAs were reminded of the notification by the earlier DCGI.

294 FDCs were banned by the DCGI in 2007. Thereafter, the important issue of patients’ interest and safety got converted into a legal quagmire, as many FDC manufacturers chose to go to the court of law to protect their business interest and also managed to obtain a ‘Stay’ order from the Madras High Court. The matter is still subjudice.

Be that as it may, those 294 FDCs banned by the Ministry of Health of India on health and safety grounds continue to be promoted, prescribed and sold to patients across India without any hindrance, whatsoever.  

Untangling the messy knot:

As the issue got entangled into prolonged litigations, the CDSCO took initiative of resolving this contentious issue again in 2009 with the help of an expert committee, involving the manufacturers.

This subcommittee cleared 48 FDCs under ‘similar FDCs already approved’, after discussing the merits and demerits, including pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, side effects, dosage, medical rationale etc. of each ingredient and the combinations. The decision of the Sub Committee was then submitted to the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB).

After formal approval of DTAB, these combinations are construed to be new drugs and any company wishing to market/manufacture the formulation would require submitting its Application in Form 44 to the DCGI to get approval in Form 45.

This decision was expected to send a clear signal to all concerned that resorting to any form of shortcuts to bypass strict adherence to prescribed regulatory requirements, could seriously jeopardize patients’ interest and safety. The same process was subsequently followed for the balance 142 FDCs, as well.

Thereafter, a special committee was again appointed by the CDSCO in 2013 to look into this matter in a holistic way. However, such sporadic knee-jerk reactions have failed to deliver any tangible results in this area – not just yet.

The saga continues:

Even after the above critical decision of the DTAB the saga still continues.

In March 2013, by a written reply, the Minister for Health and Family Welfare reportedly informed the Lok Sabha (the lower House of the Parliament) that in twenty three cases of new FDC, licenses have been granted by the State Licensing Authorities (SLAs) without the mandatory approval of the DCGI and action will be taken in all these cases.

However, no one seems to know, as yet, what action the Government has taken against those errant officials.

Current scenario:

Recently, the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) by a notification to State Drug Controllers has reportedly ordered all manufacturers of new FDC products, licensed locally before October 2012 without CDSCO permission, to submit safety and efficacy data prior to 30 August 2013.

This decision of DGHS has created a furore within the concerned FDC manufacturers, yet again, the possible outcome of which is yet to be ascertained.

The State Drug Controllers had issued manufacturing licenses for these FDCs prior to October 2012. At that time concerned manufacturers were given 18 months time period to prove efficacy and safety of these medicines to the DCGI. Regrettably, as per the above report, the DCGI has confirmed that he has received hardly any response from the FDC manufacturers till date on this regulatory requirement.

CDSCO has also stated that manufacturers, who will fail to submit the required data by the deadline run the risk of having their products banned from the market.

Before this, the State Drug Controllers were informed about this requirement on January 15, 2013.

At this point it is worth mentioning, the DCGI in October 2012 had reportedly also barred the State Drug Controllers from granting manufacturing licenses to pharmaceutical companies under brand names of the drugs, directing them to strictly issue licenses under generic name of the molecule. Additionally, he also asked the state licensing authorities not to grant licenses to combination drugs, which are technically ‘new drugs’ and fall within the domain of DCGI only.

Conclusion:

This logjam with FDCs certainly cannot continue in perpetuity, neither should such regulatory sloppiness be acceptable to any right thinking stakeholder.

All blatant violations of Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India must be stopped forthwith and the violators be brought to justice without delay. Patients’ health interest, as required by the drug regulators, is non-negotiable.

The order of DGHS asking all manufacturers of new FDCs, licensed locally before October 2012 without CDSCO permission, to submit safety and efficacy data prior to 30 August 2013, should not follow recently reported Pioglitazone type of volte face, once again, under similar outside pressure.

It is high time now for the Government to bring the unending saga of  irrational and harmful FDCs, orchestrated by defiant manufacturers, encouraged by sloppy regulators and catalyzed by humongous systemic inaction, to its logical conclusion, for patients’ sake. 

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.