Tag Archives: effectiveness

Covid-19: Will Pharma Deliver What It Can Do The Best, Soon?

Posted on by
Reply

The news of a bright possibility of finding magic bullets to significantly tame, if not totally annihilate Covid-19, is coming almost every passing day. As expected, these are being initiated mostly by drug companies, alongside various academia, located in several countries of the world, including India. It rekindles hope to return to some kind of normalcy in daily life, work and business.

However, the hype created around each of these, either too early or based on some anecdotal reports, apparently driven by the desire for a windfall commercial gain, may be counterproductive. That some remedial measures to tackle the notorious virus will come very soon, could influence a number of decisions of those who are engaged in managing the situation.

The pressing need to restart the economic activity – come what may, even before the first wave of Covid-19 subsides in a developing country like, India, comes along with a strong storm signal. Balancing life with livelihood has never been so difficult ever. In tandem, it poses a great challenge also for the pharma industry to demonstrate what it stands for the society, such as:

  • Bringing scientifically proven, safe and effective drugs and vaccine, in a specified timeframe falling close to the realm of a genuine possibility.
  • Making these drugs and vaccines available, at an affordable price and accessible to all, globally.

In this article, I shall focus on the relevance of these two critical expectations of all, where, incidentally, pharma is expected to do and deliver the very best – particularly against the prevailing and near-chaotic scenario. Let me begin with the first point first.

A great challenge:

Understandably, the above task is not a piece of cake due to many reasons. For example, according to a leading pharma trade association in the United States, ‘On average, it takes at least ten years for a new medicine to complete the journey from initial discovery to the marketplace, with clinical trials alone taking six to seven years on average.’

Thus, logically, a new drug molecule for Covid-19 can’t possibly be expected, by any stretch of imagination, within the next 12 to 18 months. What one can possibly expect for the same is, repurposing older drugs for the same. Quite logically, steps are being taken in this direction. However, even for such drugs, a clinical trial would take ‘six to seven years on average.’ Considering the urgency to combat the Covid-19 pandemic, can a fair clinical trial be completed in the next 12 to 18 months?

Therefore, the challenge in hand for the drug companies, even considering a super fast-track regulatory assessment and approval in 12 to 18 months, appear a pretty tough proposition. The challenge gets more complex, if Covid-19 starts changing.

A new issue is unraveling:  

Recently, a new dimension got added to the mounting challenge of coming out with an effective drug or vaccine to fight Covid-19 pandemic, as evident from the Bloomberg article of May 20, 2020. It carries a headline ‘China’s New Outbreak Shows Signs the Virus Could Be Changing.’

It reported, Chinese doctors are seeing the Coronavirus manifest differently among patients in the new cluster of cases of their northern provinces of Jilin and Heilongjiang, compared to the original outbreak in Wuhan. Apparently, it indicates that the pathogen may be changing in unknown ways, complicating efforts to manage the infection. Although, more details need to be unraveled in this area, this incident could flag a fresh uncertainty over the virus mutation that may hinder current efforts of developing safe and effective drugs and vaccine for Covid-19.

Still no available drugs and vaccine for Covid-19 with proven clinical efficacy:

‘The Lancet’ article of April 02, 2020 – ‘‘Global coalition to accelerate COVID-19 clinical research in resource-limited settings’ has also emphasized the above point. It reiterated, there is still no available vaccine against Covid-19 infections and no drug with proven clinical efficacy, although there are several candidates that might be effective in prevention or treatment.

As of March 24, 2020, there were 332 COVID-19 related clinical trials, 188 of which were open for recruitment and 146 trials are preparing to recruit. These clinical trials were either planned or being carried out, mostly in China, South Korea, Europe and North America. However, not many trials were planned in south and southeast Asia, Africa, and central and South America at that time, the article pointed out. But the hype for the availability of drugs continues to reverberate, generally in the media reports. Nevertheless, the work is still in progress.

Some unproven hype as on date?

Despite so much of publicity on availability of drugs for the treatment and prevention of Covid-10, starting from Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine, which the US President Donald Trump called a “game changer” for Coronavirus – right up to Remdesivir, none has demonstrated scientifically proven clinical efficacy, as yet.

For example, the latest clinical trial results for Covid-19 on 15000 people, published in The Lancet on May 22, 2014 found, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine did not benefit patients with the Coronavirus, either alone or in combination with an antibiotic. Moreover, the drugs caused an increased risk of cardiac arrhythmia. Earlier,  ‘The BMJ’ article of May 14, 2020 also found that the administration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard care alone in mild to moderate Covid-19 infections. This study also noted, adverse events with the recipients of hydroxychloroquine were higher than non-recipients.

On the other hand, in India, as reported on May 23, 2020, the Union Health Ministry has issued an advisory expanding the pool of people to be given the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a prophylactic to prevent them from contracting the infection.

Similarly, even Gilead had stated in its Press Release of April 29, 2020: ‘Remdesivir is not yet licensed or approved anywhere globally and has not yet been demonstrated to be safe or effective for the treatment of COVID-19,’ besides some  initial success reports. Notably, in India, Union Health Ministry has also recommended the use of anti-HIV drug combinations Lopinavir and Ritonavir for high-risk group patients, although there is no proven clinical evidence for its efficacy and safety in Covid-19 patients, if not against the use of this combination therapy.

Commercial activity progresses even before evidence-based regulatory approval:

Although, a single clinically proven drug is yet to come out, commercial activities for some of these drugs – in a near desperate situation – based apparently on hype created, including by the US President, have progressed or progressing. This had happened for hydroxychloroquine and has now started happening for remdesivir.

Almost every passing day one finds yet another repurposed drug being put on clinical trial by a different company, probably for similar reasons. There is nothing wrong on that, but which drugs work and which do not, must be evaluated in a more cohesive manner and sooner.

The good news is, the World Health Organization (WHO), which is concerned with recommendations for ‘administering unproven treatments to patients with COVID-19 or people self-medicating with them,’ has announced the “Solidarity” clinical trial for the new Coronavirus treatments. This is an international clinical trial, aimed at the scientific assessment of 4 treatment options to slow the disease progression or improve survival rate for COVID-19 patients.

Otherwise, a strong desire for people to survive – ‘somehow’, will prevail in this desperate situation, over what these medicines can actually deliver. Even drug companies never experienced in the past or even could even envisage such a pandemic at this humongous global scale.

A similar scenario is witnessed with some major vaccine development initiatives. For example, stock markets soared with the early signs of viral immune response of the much publicized experimental Covid-19 vaccine being developed by Moderna Inc. However, a few days later, after ‘parsing the data to gauge the company’s chances of success’ by the analysts, it was reported: ‘It’s too soon to assume success for Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine.’ Curiously, it continues to happen in the early days with almost all such well publicized initiatives. Nonetheless, the pursuit to find out safe, effective and clinically proven drugs and vaccine continues.

Which is why, bringing scientifically proven safe and effective drugs and vaccine sans the early hype, in a specified time, falling close to the realm of a genuine possibility, becomes a key deliverable of pharma players, in this situation. That said, it brings me to the second point where pharma and biotech companies are widely expected to meet the other expectations of all – making these drugs and vaccines available, affordable and accessible to all, globally.

Making Covid-19 drugs and vaccines available, affordable and accessible to all, globally:

Again, this seems to be an equally tough call for most drug players, as has been happening, generally. But Covid-19 drugs and vaccines are just not for saving life, these are also intimately related directly to the livelihood of a very large global population, especially in the developing nations, like India. Therefore, ‘Coronavirus vaccine should be for everyone, not just those who can afford it,’ as articulated in the article, published in the STAT news on March 05, 2020.

This apprehension arises among many in the United States, as well. Mainly because, as reported in the above article, vaccine coming out of the two vaccine development projects funded by the U.S. government, one by Sanofi and another by Johnson & Johnson, may not be affordable to all Americans.

Further, quite a number of countries in the world lack resources, infrastructure, and health care personnel to detect the virus and prevent it from spreading quickly and easily among populations. In which case, without drugs and vaccines, the number of cases is likely to grow exponentially, putting stress on already burdened health care workers and facilities. Consequently, it will make harder to provide timely care for those who are ill. Thus, vaccines will be an important tool for preventing such a catastrophe.

For those with resources – ‘rich countries and rich people,’ a Covid-19 vaccine will certainly be valuable to save lives. However, for most people in all countries, including India, it may be essential for the livelihood, as well. Without it, they will suffer disproportionately and unnecessarily, the article concluded. Thus, in this hour of multiple crisis of global dimension, the drug players are expected to come forward, making these drugs and vaccines available, affordable and accessible to all, globally – a task where they can deliver the best, compared to others.

Conclusion:

Amid ‘Lockdown.4’ in India, as on May 24, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases have mounted to 131,920 with 3,869 deaths. By the way, on the same day, the most populated country in the world – China, where Covid-19 struck first in December 2019, records 82,974 cases with 4634 deaths, so far.

That apart, Covid-19 is a very special situation for all countries, probably more than what happened during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, for several reasons. Comparing these two pandemics, especially during the lockdown period, has been common. Due to this pandemic, as many as 675,000 people, reportedly died only in America, many of them were previously healthy young adults. Almost similar situation is on the horizon with the Covid-19 pandemic.

Agreed, that the overall healthcare infrastructure and global scientific resources to combat these two pandemics may not be comparable. But even in the context of the 21st century, this is a very critical global situation, for both – saving life and also the livelihood. Thus, for pharma and biotech companies ‘this is not a time to make money’, as the chief executive officer of Serum Institute of India, which is helping produce a vaccine for Covid-19 developed by Oxford, puts it succinctly. Be that as it may, the answer to the two questions that I started with, still remains elusive.

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.

How Cost-Effective Are New Cancer Drugs?

Posted on by
Reply

The main reason why cancer is so serious a disease, is the ability of the malignant cells to spread in the body, both locally by moving into nearby normal tissue, and regionally to nearby lymph nodes, tissues, or organs, affecting even the distant parts of the body. When this happens, doctors term it as metastatic or stage IV (four) cancer.

Although most patients with metastatic tumors would eventually die of cancer, the treatment with various types of anticancer drugs, could help prolong life, in varying degree. No wonder, many new anticancer drugs now obtain regulatory approval based on their effectiveness on metastatic cancer patients. Consequently, it has now become almost a routine to administer newer anticancer drugs to patients with early stage of disease, after they have undergone surgery or radiotherapy.

But, these lifesaving drugs are expensive – very expensive! For example, a newer anticancer treatment is often priced at US$ 100,000 or more per patient, which, obviously, a large majority of the population can’t just afford.

Are these new drugs cost-effective?

To put in simple words, cost effectiveness of a drug is generally ‘expressed in terms of a ratio where the denominator is a gain in health from a measure (years of life, premature births averted, sight-years gained) and the numerator is the cost associated with the health gain.’

From this perspective, a January 2015 research study titled, “Pricing In The Market For Anticancer Drugs”, published by the National Bureau Of Economic Research of the United States observed that anticancer drugs like bevacizumab (US$ 50,000 per treatment episode) and ipilimumab (US$120,000 per episode) have fueled the perception that the launch prices of anticancer drugs are fast increasing over time.

To evaluate the pricing trend of these drugs, the researchers used an original dataset of 58 anticancer drugs, approved between 1995 and 2013, and found that launch-prices, adjusted for inflation and drugs’ survival benefits, increased by 10 percent, or about US$ 8,500, per year. This study was restricted to drugs administered with the primary intent of extending survival time for cancer patients and drugs for which survival benefits have been estimated in trials or modeling studies. The researchers did not consider drugs administered to treat pain or drugs that are administered to alleviate the side effects of cancer treatments.

The paper concluded, as compared to the older ones, newer anticancer treatments, generally, are less cost-effective. Despite this fact, the prices of these drugs are rising faster than their overall effectiveness.

How much do these drugs cost to prolong a year of life for cancer patients?

Another paper, titled “Cancer Drugs Aren’t As Cost-Effective As They Used To Be”, published in the Forbes magazine on September 30, 2015, expressed serious concern on the declining cost-effectiveness of new anticancer drugs. The author termed this trend as unacceptable, and more disturbing when providing just a year of life to cancer patients costs around US$ 350,000 to even US$ 800,000. High prices should reflect large benefits, and we need to demand value out of medical interventions – he recommended.

Do the claims of efficacy also reflect the real-world effectiveness?

Providing an answer to this question, a very recent article titled, “Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated With New Cancer Medicines”, published in the well reputed medical journal ‘JAMA Oncology’ on December 29, 2016, concluded as follows:

“Although innovation in the oncology drug market has contributed to improvements in therapy, the magnitude and dimension of clinical benefits vary widely, and there may be reasons to doubt that claims of efficacy reflect real-world effectiveness exactly.”

As stated above, this conclusion was drawn by the researchers after a detail study on the overall survival, quality of life, and safety benefits of recently licensed cancer medicines, as there was a dearth of evidence on the impact of newly licensed cancer medicines.

The authors analyzed in detail health technology assessment reports of 62 cancer drugs approved in the United States and Europe between 2003 and 2013, and found that these were associated with increased overall survival by an average of 3.43 months between 2003 and 2013. Following is a summary of the detail findings:

  • 43 percent increased overall survival by 3 months or longer
  • 11 percent by less than 3 months
  • 30 percent was not associated with any increase in overall survival, which means almost one third of these drugs lacked evidence to suggest their increased survival rate when compared to alternative treatments
  • Most new cancer drugs, though improved quality of life, were associated with reduced patient safety

The researchers expect this study to support clinical practice, and promote value-based decision-making in the cancer drug treatment, besides assessing their cost-effectiveness.

Some overseas Cancer Institutes protested:

In 2012, doctors at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center reportedly announced through ‘The New York Times’ that their hospital would not be using Zaltrap, a newly patented colorectal cancer drug at that time, from Sanofi. This action of the Sloan-Kettering doctors compelled Sanofi to cut the price of Zaltrap by half.

Unlike India, where prices of even cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, the top cancer specialists of the American Society of Clinical Oncology are reportedly working out a framework for rating and selecting cancer drugs not only for their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

In a 2015 paper, a group of cancer specialists from Mayo Clinic also articulated, that the oft-repeated arguments of price controls stifle innovation are not good enough to justify unusually high prices of these drugs. Their solution for this problem includes value-based pricing and NICE like body of the United Kingdom.

This Interesting Video from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

Was it a tongue-in-cheek action from India?

On March 9, 2012, India did send a signal to global pharma players on its apparent unhappiness of astronomical pricing of patented new cancer drugs in the country. The then Indian Patent Controller General, on that day, issued the first ever Compulsory License (CL) to a domestic drug manufacturer Natco, allowing it to sell a generic equivalent of a kidney cancer treatment drug from Bayer – Nexavar, at a small fraction of the originator’s price.

However, nothing has changed significantly since then on the ground for cancer drugs in the country. Hence, many construe the above action of the Government no more than mere tokenism.

In this context, it won’t be out of place recapitulating an article, published in a global business magazine on December 5, 2013 that quoted Marijn Dekkers, the then CEO of Bayer AG as follows:

“Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India, but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

Whether, CL is the right approach to resolve allegedly ‘profiteering mindset’ at the cost of human lives, is a different subject of discussion.

VBP concept is gaining ground: 

The concept of ‘Value-Based Pricing (VBP)’, has started gaining ground in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcome’ data using similar or equivalent products.

Cost of incremental value that a product delivers over the existing ones, is of key significance, and should always be the order of the day. Some independent organizations such as, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK have taken a leading role in this area.

Intriguingly, in India, public health related issues, however pressing these are, still do not seem to arrest much attention of the government to provide significant relief to a large majority of population in the country.

Conclusion:

Warren Buffet – the financial investor of global repute once said, “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” Unfortunately, this dictum is not applicable to the consumers of high priced life-saving drugs, such as, for cancer.

Prices of new drugs for the treatment of life-threatening ailments, such as cancer, are increasingly becoming unsustainable, across the world, and more in India. As articulated by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2014, this is mainly because their prices are disconnected from the actual therapeutic value of products.

Currently, a sizable number of poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life’s saving for treatment of a disease like cancer, have been virtually priced out of the patented new cancer drugs market.

The plight of such patients is worse in India, and would continue to be so, especially when no trace of Universal Health Care/Coverage (UHC) is currently visible anywhere near the healthcare horizon of the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

‘e-detailing’: The Future of Pharmaceutical Sales?

Posted on by
Reply

Pharmaceutical product detailing to doctors by Medical Representatives (MRs) is believed to fetch the single largest return on marketing investments by the pharmaceutical companies globally, as on date.

At the same time, the pharma players, across the world, are increasingly experiencing that the costs of product detailing by the MRs to the doctors are not now quite commensurate to the desired return in terms of financial results, despite bringing in many new skills and other productivity improvement measures on a regular basis.

Thus, to make such interaction between the MRs and the doctors more productive and cost efficient, increasingly the global pharmaceutical industry has been exploring various models and methods with numerous state-of-art digital Internet based applications. Some pharmaceutical companies, especially, from the western world, have already started putting such innovation into practice.

Waning productivity of traditional detailing:

This is quite apparent now that due to changing market dynamics and increasingly busy schedules of the doctors, the productivity of traditional product detailing is fast waning. As a result, pharmaceutical companies are encountering huge challenges in the process of generating prescription demand for their respective products by taking commensurate share of mind of the Physicians.

This is mainly because, the number of patients is also now fast increasing and the doctors are trying to see these large numbers of patients within their limited available time. As a result each patient is getting lesser doctors’ time, while the doctors are trying to provide optimal patient care in each patient visit. At the same time, other obligations of various kinds also overcrowd physicians’ time.

As a result, increasing number of MRs, which has almost double in the past decade, is now fiercely competing to get a share of lesser and lesser available time of the doctors. Added to this, increasing inflow of new doctors not being in line with the increasing inflow of patients is making the situation even worse.

As stated earlier, significant expenditure that the pharma companies have been incurring towards product detailing, many of them feel, is not resulting into desired top and bottom line growth for the organization, any more. Even good numbers of important specialist doctors do not seem to value this traditional MR product detailing process any longer, mainly due to immense time pressure on them and also due to their easy access to other modern product information gathering tools.

What is happening today:

Today, keeping the core concept of traditional detailing unchanged a few, especially large pharmaceutical companies in India, have introduced a number of digital interventions to eliminate some important manual processes that MRs used to follow earlier like, call planning, access to other relevant information electronically, instant reporting etc. 

Such incremental improvements in the traditional detailing model, though helpful to the MRs, do not seem to be just good enough to produce desired business results in today’s highly competitive environment. The time calls for radical technological interventions.

A new report on the trend: 

According to a new study of CMI Communication Media research report, about half of physicians restrict visits from MRs in one way or another.

It reported, just half of cancer specialists (oncologists) saying that they would interact about new products with MRs, while 47% of them indicated email as a preference.

Surveys found the oncologists being the most restrictive specialists, with only 19% allowing MRs without restrictions. On the other hand, 20% of them would not see MRs at all, with the 40% in the middle either requiring appointments or limiting visits to particular hours of the day or week.

‘e-Detailing’:

The well known consulting company Mckinsey & Company in a paper titled, ‘Making sense of e-detailing in Japan’s pharmaceutical sector’ has defined e-detailing as follows:

“e-detailing or electronic detailing refers to interacting with physicians virtually rather than physically. It often takes place through a company’s own website or through a physician portal coupled with email- driven promotions and attached explanatory videos offering up-to-date pharmaceutical product information.”

Thus, in ‘e-detailing’ Internet-based communications applications are used to provide customized services to the doctors, in many times to complement the activities of MRs.

‘e-detailing’ is now evolving as a modern technological innovation in the field of communication between MRs and doctors. It is intended to be highly customized, very interactive, more effective, quite flexible and at the same cost-efficient too. Live analytics that ‘e-detailing’ would provide instantly could be of immense use in the strategizing process of pharmaceutical marketing.

Cost effectiveness of ‘e-detailing’:

In the same paper, as mentioned above, to highlight the cost advantages of ‘e-detailing’, McKinsey & company, from its Japan experience, has reported as follows:

“While accurate, apples-to-apples data is hard to come by, we estimate each    e-detail costs between 500 and 750 Yen, depending on the scope 
of audience and the sophistication 
of content. An MR costs 7,000 Yen 
to 12,000 Yen, depending on sector, region, and hospital vs clinic The ROI (return on investment) for MR detail is in the range up to ~20x, versus ~4-6x for e-detail. In other words, the cost structure allows for sustained ROI
 for e-detailing—even when extending reach beyond the top prescribing quintiles of physicians.”

In  the Japanese context, Mckinsey & Consulting further states:

“Right now, e-detailing in Japan is more often used at the beginning of a product’s lifecycle (i.e. to win attention during product launches) or at the end (i.e. to sell established products). These are what we call ‘stay in the race’ practices; necessary, but not sufficient.”

Perceived advantages of ‘e-detailing’:

The traditional way of detailing through ‘Visual Aids’ may not be good enough today when the available time with the doctor has come down drastically.  Just providing, by and large, the usual ‘one size fits all’ types of data/information to the doctors is gradually proving to be not effective and efficient enough to generate expected outcome. There is a dire need for helping these busy doctors to get access to drug information they value and trust at a time of their need and convenience.

Thus, the process of medical detailing should be made highly flexible depending on whatever time is chosen by each doctor to satisfy his/her specific needs.

In such an environment ‘e-detailing’, as discussed above, would help creating customized, more impressive, self-guided by doctors and more focused presentations with significant reduction in the detailing cost/ product with improved productivity.

Moreover, ‘e-detailing’ would:

  • Make expensive printed promotional aids redundant
  • Eliminate time required and cost involved to deliver such material
  • Have the flexibility of change at any time
  • Ordering of just required samples online, eliminating wastage

Fast increasingly number of doctors using computers and the Internet for professional purposes, especially in the urban areas, would facilitate this process.

Key success factor:

Experts believe, besides developing an effective and user-friendly tool for e-detailing, the important success factor for such initiative by a pharmaceutical company would well depend on:

  • Well planned integration of ‘e-detailing’ into the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) strategy
  • Deep understanding of physician segments
  • Efficient application of ‘e-detailing’ to support marketing goals.

The challenges:

Though there are many benefits for ‘e-detailing’, it throws some challenges too, as follows:

  • Still many doctors continue to prefer the personal touch of the MRs in traditional detailing
  • Some doctors do give prescription support to a company based on their good relationship with the concerned MRs
  • Despite hectic schedule, many busy doctors continue to take time out to interact with such MRs.

Though such relationships do not develop with all MRs, this challenge needs to be effectively overcome to make ‘e-detailing’ successful wherever possible, probably by creating an optimal mix of traditional and ‘e-detailing’.

A recent initiative:

Recent media reports highlight one such innovation, among many others. Pfizer has reportedly come out with an interesting innovation in the field of medical detailing to the primary care doctors.  This new service of the company ‘Ask Pfizer’ claims that it can provide promotional product information to the doctors at a time convenient to them. Thus the ‘digital medical representatives’ of Pfizer leave the decision as to whether they want to see them and if so, when.

‘Ask Pfizer’, featuring in the website called ‘Pfizerline’ of the company says that the system is:

  • Simple
  • Flexible
  • Convenient
  • Calls can be arranged to suit the doctors’ busy practice schedule
  • Online meeting room provides a rich multi-media interaction where the doctor can see trained country-specific’ digital representative making product presentations and also discuss the relevant subjects with them.

Pfizer is advertising this new service called ‘digital detailing’ on the British Medical Journal (BMJ) website aiming, reportedly, at the UK doctors.

This initiative is indeed innovative, as it creates an environment of direct marketing in an indirect way with the help of simple Internet applications like Skype.

Conclusion:

Like many other industries, in the pharmaceutical industry too, across the world, communication of relevant information in an interesting way is of utmost importance. Here also. Indian pharmaceutical industry is no exception.

Since ages, the pharma players in India, in general, have been continuing to follow the traditional model of product detailing, hoping to generate more and more prescriptions from the doctors by deploying a larger and larger contingent of MRs, who highlight superiority of their respective products over competition.

Some may argue, there is nothing wrong in this model, but question would arise, is it still as productive as it used to be? This is mainly because, the doctors are now giving lesser and lesser time to the MRs.

Those pharmaceutical companies of the country who sincerely believe that innovative use of technology in the digital world of today may considerably help addressing this issue, at least in the urban areas, would possibly get a head start, as they delve into the future for business excellence in this area.

With e-detailing they will be able to provide an interesting communication option to the top-prescribers having a very busy schedule for top of mind recalls of their respective brands, leading hopefully to increase in prescription generation.

It is worth noting, though ‘e-detailing’ is emerging as an important innovation in the field of product detailing, there are still some questions that need to be answered. Some of these questions could be as follows:

  • Would many doctors prefer to schedule time for this purpose after a busy day’s schedule?
  • Would the information overload from other sources not keep them away from seeking more information through such a process?

Taking all these into consideration, the question that we need to answer:             Is ‘e-detailing’ the future of pharmaceutical sales, also in India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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