Covid Propels Healthcare Into A Virtual World: A New Growth Driver For Pharma?

Posted on October 19, 2020 by Tapan Ray

Amid ongoing Covid pandemic, most discussions on pharma specific ‘digitalization’ initiatives continue to predominantly hover around its traditional business growth drivers. In fact, even before the Covid time, it was no different, in a smaller scale and with a lesser intensity, though.

Incidentally, since quite some time, with the explosion of different types of web-based businesses, offering opportunities to buy and receive, virtually everything, at one’s doorstep, many things started changing rapidly. Almost all businesses started offering the state of the art, easy to use smartphone app-based e-commerce solutions, in different formats, to grow their businesses. Alongside, more and more people started managing their daily needs and wants online, even in India. Intriguingly, despite the availability of telemedicine, telehealth and e-pharmacies, even in the old normal, most people continue to prefer in-person health care solutions, including buying medicines.

Then came a bolt from the blue – the unprecedented global health crisis, caused by Covid-19. Almost overnight, amid requirements of maintaining stringent personal measures to keep Covid at bay, making in-person doctor-calls for brand demand generation activities, posed a great challenge. Doctors, too, became hesitant to meet general patients and medical representatives, in that situation. Thus, to keep the business up and running, most pharma companies gave top priority in finding out a digital solution for the brand demand generation processes. Interestingly, this was happening, when many patients, especially those with non-Covid ailments, also faced a similar situation to meet their health care needs.

Finding no other viable alternatives, many patients were pushed to search for a robust digital solution for health care needs, as well – just as they were already meeting their other regular needs – online. In that sense, Covid propelled many patients to step into a new virtual world of healthcare - telehealth or telemedicine. As mentioned above, although, these services were up there in pre-Covid days, many patients, apparently rediscovered them, in a new Avatar, to get relief from ailments and also save their lives.

On a hindsight, it appears, why the need to leverage telehealth or telemedicine in that crisis, did not appear to be a priority for most pharma companies to foster patient-centric growth of the business. Thus, continuing with the core concept of my previous article, – this article, will focus on the possibility of pharma spearheading the process, aiming for a win-win outcome – boosting access to high quality affordable care for all, on the one hand. And simultaneously, harnessing this new growth driver to excel in the business, on the other.

Telehealth or e-health will grow just as other e-businesses, unhindered:

With the Government of India issuing guideline for telemedicine practices on March 25, 2020 and later, on May 12, 2020, publishing those guidelines in the gazette, ‘Telemedicine’ has been made a high priority health care enabler. The notified guidelines also make telemedicine consultation provided by a Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP) under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, legally permissible. In addition, effective October 01, 2020, Telemedicine costs will be covered under medical insurance in accordance with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India’s (IRDAI) new guidelines.

The net effect of these measures will not just help reduce pressure on the fragile public healthcare infrastructure of the country, but will also expand access to lower cost and high-quality private care to a large number of people.

Telemedicine is here to stay and be a key pharma growth driver:

With Covid propelling health care into virtual platforms, providing and receiving medical care through telehealth has become a necessity for many people, for different reasons. However, the question that surfaces, will patients return to the old normal, if and when the pandemic ends?

The article – ‘3 reasons telehealth is here to stay,’ published by the MedCity News on October 09, 2020, presents a practicing physician’s perspective on this issue. The author envisages, ‘telemedicine will continue to gain traction with my colleagues and most likely, become a permanent clinical option for patient care.’ Going by such hands-on experience, I reckon, telemedicine will continue to grow for several important reasons, such as:

Technology to make telehealth increasingly user friendly: Ongoing IT innovation is making telehealth platforms simple and more effective for doctors and a large number of patients belonging to all age groups. “All they have to do is click a link on their smartphones, which is sent to them via text automatically.” Thus, these tools will increasingly become the best option for treating a broad range of conditions, long after the pandemic subsides.

Telemedicine costs are covered under medical insurance, now: Effective October 01, 2020,Telemedicine costs will be covered under medical insurance, even in India. Moreover,‘Telemedicine’ has now been made a high priority health care enabler, carrying a permanent legal status in India.

Health Equity and affordable care: Access to affordable health care is not evenly distributed across the India. Telehealth can help fill these gaps, with increased affordable access for all, even in rural India, as patient location won’t be a problem in getting prompt and quality care at a low cost.

From the above perspective, it appears, it’s high time for pharma to leverage Telemedicine and Telehealth as a major growth driver, powered by innovative business strategies.

Is there any difference between Telemedicine and Telehealth?

Very often these two words are used interchangeably. Mostly because, both telemedicine and telehealth are the practice of medicine using technology to deliver care at a distance.

Telemedicine offers remote clinical services, such as, virtual consultations, diagnosis, prescriptions, preventative care, monitoring via telecommunication platforms, including text, video chat, wearable devices or even phone calls. Whereas, telehealth, in addition, can include remote non-clinical services, such as health care training, administrations and continuing medical education.

Reasons for pharma’s cashing on this new growth driver at a low cost:

Besides Government’s support to telehealth and telemedicine, growing health care consumer demand and user-friendly technologies, are catapulting virtual care to the mainstream health care delivery systems. In tandem, driven by unique and long-term value offerings, telemedicine is being increasingly recognized as a critical means to get prompt care for minor but urgent ailments. Consequently, moreusers are getting attracted to its convenience and benefits, which may have a snowballing effect. Some of which are as follows:

Prompt access to disease treatment services, as and when needed by patients, without any long waiting time, for any reason.

Significant health care cost saving for all – more for rural population who will be able to avoid long distance travel, involving both time and money, besides associating hassles.

Prompt follow-up consultation facilities, will help avoid disease complications, reducing the burden to hospitals for secondary or tertiary care.

Further, pharma can offer even greater patient satisfaction by leveraging virtual healthcare platforms, as these will help ensure more effective follow-up and enhanced treatment convenience than traditional in-person visits. Several studies, such as the article, published in ‘The American Journal of Managed Care,’ on January 15, 2020, vindicate this point.

In short, accelerating rate of use – with the increasing need for prompt, easy and affordable access to care, are driving telemedicine to be an integral part of healthcare service delivery system. Which is why, expansion of pharma business in this new virtual space, with well-integrated collaborative strategies, could prove to be a key growth driver – over a long period of time.

Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be any need to deploy a large and cost-intensive field force, as is usually followed for expansion of pharma business in newer areas. This is because, ‘telemedicine requires a different approach to promotion.’

Telemedicine requires a different approach to promotion

That telehealth requires a different approach to marketing and promotion from traditional pharma marketing, was deliberated by ZS in the article -‘Four telemedicine myths for pharma to avoid,’ published on July 05, 2020. The paper underscored, ‘instead of building brand awareness and engaging patients in education and information, telehealth promotion needs to drive patients to take one specific action: call today!’ It further elaborated:

Brands that bury the telehealth link on page 8 of their website or make linking to a physician one of more than 20 different calls to action, will find low patient engagement and low pull through.

As virtual health care is here to stay, telehealth itself should be a strategy for active promotion, by optimizing the steps to get patients connected to a physician in the shortest and the easiest way possible.

From this perspective, brands that will find the right pathway for engaging in telehealth, will reap the benefits of increased engagement with patients and telehealth physicians. To achieve this objective, with a robust, commercial strategy, the first step for each brand will start with understanding the needs of patients and physicians that needs to be addressed on priority. Then comes, mapping out how the brand will get used to meet those needs.

Conclusion:

We are still in the midst of an unprecedented new Coronavirus pandemic. As of October 18, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 7,494,551 of Coronavirus cases with 114,064 deaths.

With the pandemic severely curbing most patients’ access to care – following the traditional process, Covid propelled health care into a virtual world, almost in no time. Telemedicine brought to the fore, its game changing potential to provide expanded access to high quality and affordable health care, through multiple channels, sans physical presence. Location of a patient or of a competent physician isn’t an issue, any longer, in the disease treatment process. With telemedicine patients will be able to get treated as and when they will want.

The future of Telehealth or telemedicine appears to be promising even beyond Covid time, with more people preferring digital platforms for affordable and more convenient medical care than in-person visits. With virtual care getting integrated into traditional health care delivery systems, pharma players will need to explore this space, as a new growth driver – for wider reach, and greater share of mind of customers for their respective brands.

For Telemedicine to be successful – benefitting a vast majority of both urban and rural populations, country’s health policy makers and, especially the pharma industry should work in unison. Only then, the net outcome will offer a win-win situation – both for the Government and also for the drug industry. It will help expand access to high quality and affordable care to all – seamlessly, irrespective of location. Consequently, pharma marketers will get access to another powerful business growth driver – in telemedicine. Its time about time for all to act – sooner the better.

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 India A Success Story With Biosimilar Drugs?

Posted on February 25, 2019 by Tapan Ray

How Indian generic companies are expanding, if not shifting their business focus on biosimilar and complex generic drugs, may be a current trend of general discourse – but the initiative is not a current one. This journey commenced decades ago with an eye on the future. In those days, Indian players were already dominating the global markets of small molecule generic drugs. Interestingly, it started much before the big global players decided to enter into this segment – especially post patent expiry of large molecule blockbuster drugs.

This strategy not just exhibits a sound business rationale, but also benefits patients with affordable access to biosimilar versions of high cost biologic drugs. In this article, I shall dwell on this subject, basically to understand whether India is a success story with large molecule biosimilar drugs, both in terms of drug development, and also in its commercial performance.

India’s journey began with the dawn of the new millennium:

About two decades back from now, some Indian pharma companies decided to step into an uncharted frontier of large molecule biosimilar drugs. According to the ‘Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI)’, in 2000 – the first biosimilar drug, duly approved by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), was launched in the country. This was hepatitis B vaccine from Wockhardt – Biovac-B.

I hasten to add, in those years, there were no specific regulatory pathways for approval of large molecule biosimilar drugs in India. Thus, the same marketing approval guidelines as applicable to small molecule generic drugs, used to be followed by the DCGI for this purpose. Specific guidelines for biosimilar drugs were implemented on September 15, 2012, which was subsequently updated in August 2016. To date, around 70 large molecule biosimilar drugs, including biopharmaceuticals, have been introduced in India, as the GaBI list indicates.

It is equally important to note that well before any other countries, domestic pharma companies launched in India, AbbVie’s blockbuster Humira (adalimumab) and Roche’s breast cancer treatment Herceptin (trastuzumab). In this context, it is worth mentioning that US-FDA approved the first biosimilar product, Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), in March 2015.

Will India be a key driver for global biosimilar market growth?

According to the Grand View Research Report of July 2018, increasing focus on biosimilar product development in countries, such as India, China and South Korea, is a major growth driver of the global biosimilar market. As this report indicates, the global biosimilars market size was valued at USD 4.36 billion in 2016, which is expected to record a CAGR of 34.2 percent during 2018-25 period.

Europe has held the largest revenue market share due to a well-defined regulatory framework for biosimilars was in place there for quite some time, and was followed by Asia Pacific (AP), in 2016. Growing demand for less expensive therapeutic products and high prevalence of chronic diseases in the AP region are expected to contribute to the regional market growth – the report highlighted.

Further, the Report on ‘Country-wise biosimilar pipelines number in development worldwide 2017’ of Statista also indicated that as of October 2017, India has a pipeline of 257 biosimilar drugs, against 269 of China, 187 of the United States, 109 of South Korea, 97 of Russia and 57 of Switzerland. However, post 2009 – after biosimilar regulatory pathway was established in the United States, the country has gained significant momentum in this segment, presenting new opportunities and also some challenges to biosimilar players across the world.

Is Indian biosimilar market growth enough now?

An important point to ponder at this stage: Is Indian biosimilar market growth good enough as of now, as compared to its expected potential? Against the backdrop of India’s global success with generic drugs – right from the initial stages, the current biosimilar market growth is certainly not what it ought to be. Let me illustrate this point by drawing an example from theAssociated Chambers of Commerce of India’s October 2016 White Paper.

According to the Paper, biosimilars were worth USD 2.2 billion out of the USD 32 billion of the Indian pharmaceutical market, in 2016, and is expected to reach USD 40 billion by 2030. This represents a CAGR of 30 percent. A range of biologic patent expiry in the next few years could add further fuel to this growth.

A similar scenario prevails in the global market, as well. According to Energias Market Research report of August 2018, ‘the global biosimilar market is expected to grow significantly from USD 3,748 million in 2017 to USD 34,865 million in 2024, at a CAGR of 32.6 percent from 2018 to 2024.’

Many other reports also forecast that the future of biosimilar drugs would be dramatically different. For example, the ‘World Preview 2017, Outlook to 2022 Report’ of Evaluate Pharma estimated that the entry of biosimilars would erode the total sales of biologics by as much as 54 percent through 2022, in the global markets. It further elaborated that biologic sales may stand to lose up to USD 194 billion as several top blockbuster biologic drugs will go off-patent during this period.

Although, current growth rate of the biosimilar market isn’t at par with expectations, there is a reasonable possibility of its zooming north, both in India and the overseas markets, in the near future. However, I would put a few riders for this to happen, some of which are as follows:

Some uncertainties still exist:

I shall not discuss here the basic barriers that restrict entry of too many players in this segment, unlike small molecule generics. Some of which are – requisite scientific and regulatory expertise, alongside wherewithal to create a world class manufacturing facility a complex nature. Keeping those aside, there are some different types of uncertainties, which need to be successfully navigated to succeed with biosimilars. To get an idea of such unpredictability, let me cite a couple of examples, as hereunder:

1. Unforeseen patent challenges, manufacturing and regulatory issues:

Wherewithal to effectively navigate through any unexpected labyrinth of intricate patent challenges, which are very expensive and time-consuming. It may crop up even during the final stages of development, till drug marketing, especially in potentially high profit developed markets, like for biosimilars of Humira (AbbVie) in the United States or for Roche’s Herceptin and Avastin in India.

It is expensive, time consuming and risk-intensive to correct even a minor modification or unforeseen variation in the highly controlled manufacturing environment to maintain quality across the system, to ensure high product safety. For example, what happened to Biocon and Mylan with Herceptin Biosimilar. As the production volume goes up, the financial risk becomes greater.

There are reports that innovator companies may make access to supplies of reference products difficult, which are so vital for ‘comparability testing and clinical trials.’ This could delay the entire process of development of biosimilar drugs, inviting a cost and time-overrun.

Current regulatory requirements in various countries may not be exactly the same, involving significant additional expenditure for overseas market access.

2. User-perception of biosimilar drugs:

Studies on perception of biosimilar vis-à-vis originator’s biologic drugs have brought out that many prescribing physicians still believe that there can be differences between originator’s biologic medicine and their biosimilar equivalents. With drug safety being the major concern of patients, who trust their physician’s decision to start on or switch to a biosimilar, this dilemma gets often translated into doctors’ preferring the originator’s product to its biosimilar version. One such study was published in the September 2017 issue of Bio Drugs. Thus, the evolution of the uptake of biosimilars could also depend mainly on similar perception of physicians.

What happens if this perception continues?

Whereas, the W.H.O and drug regulators in different countries are quite clear about comparable safety and efficacy between the originator’s product and its biosimilar variety, some innovator companies’ position on biosimilar drug definition, could help creating a perception that both are not being quite the same, both in efficacy and safety.

To illustrate this point, let me reproduce below how a top ranked global pharma company - Amgen, defines biosimilar drugs, starting with a perspective of biologic medicines:

“Biologic medicines have led to significant advances in the treatment of patients with serious illnesses.These medicines are large, complex molecules that are difficult to manufacture because they are made in living cells grown in a laboratory. It is impossible for a different manufacturer to make an exact replica of a biologic medicine due to several factors, including the inherent complexity of biologics and the proprietary details of the manufacturing process for the original biologic medicine, often referred to as the reference product.It is because of this that copies of biological products are referred to as “biosimilars”; they are highly SIMILAR but not identical to the biologic upon which they are based.”

Could dissemination of the above concept through a mammoth sales and marketing machine to the target audience, lead to creating a better perception that the originators’ biologic drugs are better than their biosimilar genre?

Other realities:

Despite the availability of a wide array of biosimilar drugs, the prescription pattern of these molecules is still very modest, even in India. One of its reasons, as many believe, these are still not affordable to many, due to high out-of-pocket drug expenses in India.

Thus, where other biosimilars of the same category already exist, competitive domestic pricing would play a critical role for faster market penetration, as happens with small molecule generic drugs.

Another strategic approach to address cost aspect of the issue, is to explore possibilities of sharing the high cost and risks associated with biosimilar drug development, through collaborative arrangements with global drug companies. One good Indian example in this area is Biocon’s collaboration with Mylan.

Conclusion:

The question on whether Indian biosimilar market growth is good enough, assumes greater importance, specifically against the backdrop of domestic players’ engagement in this segment, since around last two decades. Apart from the important perception issue with biosimilars , these medicines are still not affordable to many in India, owing to high ‘out of pocket’ drug expenditure. Just focusing on the price difference between original biologic drugs and their biosimilars, it is unlikely to get this issue resolved. There should be enough competition even within biosimilars to drive down the price, as happened earlier with small molecule generics.

That said, with around 100 private biopharmaceutical companies associated with development, manufacturing and marketing of biosimilar drugs in India, the segment certainly offers a good opportunity for future growth. Over 70 such drugs, most of which are biosimilar versions of blockbuster biologic, are already in the market. Today, Indian companies are stepping out of the shores of India, expecting to make their presence felt in the global biosimilar markets, as they did with generic drugs.

The future projections of biosimilar drugs, both in the domestic and global markets are indeed very bullish. But to reap a rich harvest from expected future opportunities, Indian players would still require some more grounds to cover. Overall, in terms of biosimilar drug development since 2000, India indeed stands out as a success story, but a spectacular commercial success with biosimilars is yet to eventuate.

By: Tapan J. Ray

A ‘Toxin’ Delaying Success of Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on August 6, 2018 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

‘Toxin’ that delays biosimilar drug launch:

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

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

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

Protecting own patents Big Pharma challenging rivals’ patents:

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

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

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

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

Doctors’ attitude on biosimilar prescription:

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

Between 54 and 74 percent of the specialists are confident in the safety, efficacy, manufacturing and Pharmacovigilance of biosimilars.

71 percent of specialists agreed that they would prescribe biosimilars for all or some conditions meeting relevant clinical criteria.

Specialists are less confident about indication extrapolation and switching patients from an existing biologic.

The most common situations that they would not prescribe a biosimilar was where there was a lack of clinical data supporting efficacy (32 percent), or evidence of adverse effects.

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

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

Any therapeutic difference between the original biologic and biosimilars?

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

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

The invisible barriers to biosimilar drugs in India:

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

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

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

A recent experience on biosimilar drug interchangeability in India:

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

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

Is an original biologic generally superior to Indian biosimilars?

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Nutraceuticals: Still An Oasis Amidst Well-Regulated Pharmaceuticals

Posted on November 28, 2016 by Tapan Ray

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

Clinical Trials: Critical Need To Improve Patient Participation With Informed Consent

Posted on April 18, 2016 by Tapan Ray

On April 13, 2016, an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) titled, “Clinical Trials Need More Subjects” underscored an important point that the rate at which the clinical researchers are able to recruit and retain patients for ‘Clinical Trials (CT)’, has now hit an all-time low. This is vindicated by studies that indicate less than 10 percent of Americans now participate in clinical trials, and only 3 to 5 percent of patients sign up for trials of new cancer therapies, in the largest CT market of the world.

As a result, about 40 percent of CTs do not recruit enough patients to meet their goals, the article highlights. Consequently, a large number of pharma industry sponsored CTs are now, reportedly, moving away from the United States. India should, therefore, take note of this development and pull up the socks.

If similar situation gets replicated in other countries too, and persists, it would be very unlikely that critical and credible medical and scientific knowledge that can significantly improve the treatment outcomes in many serious disease conditions could be meaningfully gathered and put to practice. Its other serious fallouts too, are also not terribly difficult to imagine.

A key medical research tool:

In pursuit of the advancement of medical knowledge and patient care, CT of drugs is universally considered to be a key medical research tool, as it is the best way to learn what works best in treating various types of diseases. It goes without saying that drugs for all new types of treatments would need to be discovered first through a long and painstaking process of discovery research. These are then purified, and tested in preclinical studies, before a final decision is taken for commencement of CT on human against preset parameters, as deemed necessary.

While going through this stringent process some drugs are found to be safe and effective on human subjects and some others are not, on the contrary may be harmful.

There lies the crucial importance of CT for all scientific evidence based medicines. According to the Department of Health & Human Services of the United States, Clinical research is done only if doctors don’t know:

whether a new approach works well with people and is safe and
which treatments or strategies work best for certain illnesses or groups of people

CT, though a small part in the important and lengthy process of developing newer treatments, significantly helps the health care decision makers to decide on the treatments that work best for any patient.

Broad types:

Pharmaceutical companies usually sponsor CT for new drugs and treatments, which are carried out by the designated research teams, consisting of doctors and other related professionals in different specialized areas.

There are 4 phases in any CT, which are broadly as follows:

Phase I: Here, for a new treatment, an investigational drug is tested for the first time in small numbers, usually between 20 and 100, on healthy volunteers, to identify the proper dosage ranges for drug administration, while critically monitoring its method of absorption, adverse effects and toxicity profile.

Phases II: This phase, just as Phase I studies, also tests the drug on, usually between 100 and 300 patients, suffering from the targeted disease conditions. Safety is the main goal of this phase of CT and is programmed towards adjusting treatment doses, monitoring the common side effects, and whether patient’s disease condition improve as a result of the drug. These studies are usually randomized and double-blinded, where neither the patient nor the researchers would know whether a patient is receiving the investigational drug, or a placebo, or a standard treatment.

Phase III: In this phase, the investigational new drug goes through rigorous testing of safety, efficacy, and proper dosage levels in a large group of subjects, which may even exceed several thousand, with a specific illness or disease. The key objective is to enable the doctors to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the treatment for various groups of patients, such as, men versus women, elderly versus young, besides many others.

Phase IV: Such studies are done after the drug receives the marketing approval from the drug regulator. The basic objective of these trials is usually to monitor whether the treatment offers desired benefits or gives rise to long-term side effects, which were not seen in the phase II and III trials. This phase may involve even several hundreds and thousands of patients.

It is worth noting that CT is essential to obtain marketing approval for any new treatment, as required by the drug regulators in the different countries, and takes around 6 to 8 years.

The role of patients:

Patients play a critical role in the entire scientific value chain of any drug evaluation process, especially on human. It is absolutely necessary, particularly in the regulated markets of the world, that all medicines are fully vetted through highly regulated, stringently monitored and well-scrutinized CTs, to ensure safety and effectiveness of each new drug and treatment for the patients.

No CT can take place sans the willingness and informed consent for participation of thousands of patients for any such studies held across the world. Without adequate patient participation in a CT, the drug performance data may also not be credible and thus acceptable to the drug regulator. This would, consequently, make it impossible to bring any new drug for prevention or treatment of various, often life threatening, disease conditions.

Major reasons for not enough patient participation:

There are many reasons for not enough patients volunteering to participate in the CT, even in India. Some of the major reasons have been identified as follows:

Patients often are not aware that such trials also offer a treatment option. In many cases, their doctors too may not be explaining it effectively to them, as a part of their professional discourse. Several studies conclude that trust in a physician is a main reason patients decide to participate in CT.

Some patients, after reading media reports, interacting with some NGOs and also from word of mouth, mistrust the CT process and suffer from fear of being a guinea pig.

At times, complicated protocols, and eligibility requirements may also be discouraging.

Many patients, especially in India, are not very clear about the exact insurance (financial) cover the study provides for them, along with other payments for the care that they would receive during the trial, or for any drug-related long term untoward incident even after completion of the CT.

All these need to be effectively addressed.

India attractiveness for CT:

The number of CT conducted in India had increased with a rapid pace till 2012, driven by cost arbitrage, treatment-naïve patient population, qualified English speaking medical research professionals that the country offers. According to available reports, in 2009, outside the United States, India was the second most preferred country to conduct CT. Incidentally, at that time, the CT guidelines in India were too loose, quite discretionary, patient-unfriendly and with many gaping holes. This scenario has changed dramatically since 2013, with consequent adverse impact on the number of CT in India.

A 2009 study conducted by Ernst & Young and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (FICCI), states that India participates in over 7 percent of all global phase III and 3.2 percent of all global phase II trials. The major reasons of India attraction of the global players to conduct CT in the country, were highlighted as follows:

Cost of Clinical Trial (CL) is significantly less in India than most other countries of the world
Huge treatment-naïve patient pool with different disease pattern and demographic profile
Easy to enroll volunteers, as it is not very difficult to persuade poor and less educated people as ‘willing’ participants. This may not be so easy now with the recent amendment of CT guidelines.

However, there is an urgent need for a world class capacity building in this area to reap a rich harvest.

Improving CT regulations in India:

Not so long ago, it came to light with the help of ‘Right To Information (RTI)’ query that more than 2,000 people in India died as a result of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) caused during drug trials from 2008-2011 and only 22 of such cases, which is just around 1 percent, received any compensation. That too was a meager average sum of around US$ 4,800 per family.

It has been widely reported that pharmaceutical companies often blame deaths, that occur during trials, on a person’s pre-existing medical condition, and not related to CT.

This gloomy situation is now gradually improving. According to an August 2015 research article titled “Impact of new regulations on clinical trials in India”, published in International Journal of Clinical Trials, 2015 Aug; 2 (3): 56-58, there was a need of strict vigilance and regulations for conducting CT in India, which was much easier than in North America or Europe. In India, the trial participants were exploited because of illiteracy, poverty and lack of awareness of their basic rights in this area. The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) has now taken a noteworthy step by launching online Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI) ensuring accountability, transparency and information sharing on clinical trials in the public domain.

Followed by a tough intervention of the Supreme Court in 2013, Indian Government brought in amendments to the CT guidelines of Schedule Y, in December 2014 which came into force effective June 2015. These long-overdue amendments are expected to strengthen the CT process in India and effectively protect the rights, desired safety and general well-being of the participating subjects, while generating authentic clinical data for new drugs or treatment.

Informed consent:

Obtaining informed consent of the participating patients, is absolutely necessary for the researchers. This has recently been made stringent in India effective June 07, 2013. From that date, to make the sCT process transparent and ensure requisite confidentiality, an audio-visual recording of the ‘informed consent’ process has been made mandatory in the country.

A valid consent would mean that the participants have well understood the risks and benefits of the treatment during the CT period and after, along with the general procedures that he or she would need to undergo during the given time-frame.

However, the question that is still being debated, primarily because of the continuing challenge in defining in each case, beyond any scope of doubt, what should be universally considered as an adequate level of information given to the patients to obtain consent of participation in the CT.

Financial compensation process:

Currently, the calculation of financial compensation, wherever applicable, is based on a well-defined formula. This system has been made mandatory for the sponsor in India for any trial related injuries or death. Such compensation has to be paid, even when the trial related injury is discerned after the completion of the CT. The concerned participants would receive this compensation over and above the free medical management of injury, which in any case has to be provided by the sponsor.

Hence patient safety and compensation related issues pertaining to CT in India have, to a great extent, been addressed, though there is still more scope for improvement on an ongoing basis.

Another major issue still to be addressed:

It is generally expected that when CT of a new drug is conducted by the global pharma players in India with the participation of Indian patients, the same drug when launched in other countries would also be made available in India for the benefit of Indian patients.

Unfortunately, the situation is not so, as indicated by a paper titled, “A critical appraisal of clinical trials conducted and subsequent drug approvals in India and South Africa”, published in the BMJ Open on August 31, 2015.

The objective of this study was to assess the relation between the number of clinical trials conducted and respective new drug approvals in India and South Africa.

The study found that out of CTs with the participation of test centers in India and/or South Africa, 39.6 percent (India) and 60.1 percent (South Africa) CTs led to market authorization in the EU/USA, without a New Drug Application (NDA) approval in India or South Africa.

The paper concluded, despite an increase in CT activities, there is a clear gap between the number of trials conducted and market availability of these new drugs in India and South Africa. Hence, the drug regulatory authorities, investigators, institutional review boards and patient groups should direct their efforts to ensuring availability of new drugs in the market that have been tested and researched on their population, the article suggested.

I hope, the CDSCO would take remedial measures to address this situation, soon.

Indian pharma players should get their act together:

In view of the international media reports on alleged ‘CT data fudging’ by some of the larger Indian players in the pharma and relator sectors, there is an urgent need of the Indian pharma players to get their acts together, without any further delay.

On April 15, 2016, Reuters reported, “India’s Alkem Laboratories has been accused by Germany’s health regulator of fudging data on clinical trials of an antibiotic and brain disorder drug, becoming the third Indian firm to be scrutinized since 2014 for suspected manipulation of trial data.” However, a day later Alkem said that it was submitting suitable clarifications to the European Medical Agency (EMA).

Be that as it may, if the allegation for such gross violations of basic ethical standards is true, it would bring shame not just to the companies concerned, but also to India as a trusted source for pharma products and services. Such alleged foul play has the potential to ultimately shatter the stakeholders’ confidence, including patients, on CTs done by the Indian players, both for the local and global markets.

Conclusion:

At the long last, after a grueling experience and tough intervention of the Supreme Court of India, CTs conducted in India are now reasonably well regulated and generally seem to comply with ethical requirements and standards. The question of human ‘guinea pigs’ and its associated concerns have also been adequately addressed by the CDSCO now.

Gradually improving the CT regulatory environment in India, barring some avoidable aberrations, offers some significant direct and indirect benefits to all concerned. Indian pharma is, therefore, expected to handle this sensitive opportunity with great care and following the highest ethical standards.

This, in turn, would help bring to the market robust evidence-based new drugs and treatment for many types of diseases, and at the same time could facilitate their early access to many patients, at a time of dire need.

Through increasing access to CT, the participating patients would be able to avail several important benefits, such as, new and still unavailable treatment options, especially for those serious ailments, where other existing drugs either are not working effectively with satisfactory results, not affordable to many, or not working at all. In that sense, CT could offer to a sizeable number patients several other treatment options to choose from, especially, for many life-threatening diseases. This important benefit needs to be explained to the patients from credible sources, and thus merits serious consideration by the practicing medical professionals.

However, it is also a fact, particularly, in India that some people are lured to, or voluntarily enroll themselves for CT with an objective to make some extra money. Let me hasten to add that there are many other patients for whom the compensation for participation in the CT is no more than just an extra bonus.

Hence, improved patient participation with informed consent, to avail an important medical option in the disease treatment process, encouraged by the doctors without having any vested interest, has a great potential to create a win-win situation, for all concerned.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Biosimilar Drugs: First Indian Foot Print In An Uncharted Frontier

Posted on April 4, 2016 by Tapan Ray

A homegrown Indian biologic manufacturer is now about to leave behind its first foot-print, with a ‘made in India’ biosimilar drug, in one of the largest pharma market of the world. This was indeed an uncharted frontier, and a dream to realize for any Indian bio-pharma player.

On March 28, 2016, by a Press Release, Bengaluru based Biocon Ltd., one of the premier biopharmaceutical companies in India, announced that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) of Japan has approved its biosimilar Insulin Glargine in a prefilled disposable pen. The product is a biosimilar version of Sanofi’s blockbuster insulin brand – ‘Lantus’.

The Company claims that Glargine is a high quality, yet an affordable priced product, as it will reportedly cost around 25 percent less than the original biologic brand – Lantus. This ‘made in India’ biosimilar product is expected to be launched in Japan in the Q1 of 2017. Incidentally, Japan is the second largest Glargine market in the world with a value of US$ 144 Million. Biocon will co-market this product with its partner Fujifilm.

Would it be a free run?

Although it is a very significant and well-deserved achievement of Biocon, but its entry with this biosimilar drug in Japan’s Lantus market, nevertheless, does not seem to be free from tough competition. This is because, in 2015, both Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim also obtained Japanese regulatory approval for their respective biosimilar versions of Lantus. In the same year, both these companies also gained regulatory approval from the US-FDA, and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) for their respective products.

Moreover, Sanofi’s longer acting version of Lantus – Lantus XR, or Toujeo, to treat both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, has already been approved in Japan, which needs to be injected less, expectedly making it more convenient to patients.

Key barriers to a biosimilar drug's success:

Such barriers, as I shall briefly outline below, help sustaining monopoly of the original biologic even after patent expiry, discourage investments in innovation in search of biosimilars, and adversely impacts access to effective and much less expensive follow-on-biologics to save patients’ precious lives.

These barriers can be broadly divided in two categories:

A. Regulatory barriers:

1. Varying non-proprietary names:

A large number of biosimilar drug manufacturers, including insurers and large pharmacy chains believe, just as various global studies have also indicated that varying non-proprietary names for biosimilars, quite different from the original biologic, as required by the drug regulators in the world’s most regulated pharma markets, such as, the United States, Europe, Japan, and Australia, restrict competition in the market for the original biologic brands.

However, the innovator companies for biologic drugs hold quite different views. For example, Roche (Genentech), a developer of original biologic, reportedly explained that “distinguishable non-proprietary names are in the best interest of patient safety, because they facilitate Pharmacovigilance, and mitigate inadvertent product substitution.”

Even, many other global companies that develop both original biologic and also biosimilar products such as, Amgen, Pfizer and others, also reportedly support the use of ‘distinguishable nonproprietary names’.

That said, the Biosimilars Council of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association argues that consistent non-proprietary naming will ensure robust market formation that ultimately supports patient access, affordability, Pharmacovigilance systems currently in place and allow for unambiguous prescribing,

2. Substitution or interchangeable with original biologics:

Besides different ‘non-proprietary names’, but arising primarily out of this issue, automatic substitution or interchangeability is not permitted for biosimilar drugs by the drug regulators in the major pharma markets of the world, such as, the United States, Europe and Japan.

The key argument in favor of interchangeability barrier for biosimilar drugs is the fact that the biological drugs, being large protein molecules, can never be exactly replicated. Hence, automatic substitution of original biologic with biosimilar drugs does not arise. This is mainly due to the safety concern that interchangeability between the biosimilars and the original biologic may increase immunogenicity, giving rise to adverse drug reactions. Hence, it would be risky to allow interchangeability of biosimilar drugs, without generating relevant clinical trial data.

On the other hand, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) and the Biosimilars Council, vehemently argue that a biosimilar drug has a lot many other unique identifying characteristics “including a brand name, company name, a lot number and a National Drug Code (NDC) number that would readily distinguish it from other products that share the same nonproprietary name.”

Further, the interchangeable status for biosimilar drugs would also help its manufacturers to tide over the initial apprehensions on safety and quality of biosimilar drugs, as compared to the original ones.

3. 12-year Data Exclusivity period for biologics in the United states:

Currently, the new law for biologic products in the United States provides 12 years of data exclusivity for a new biologic. This is five years more than what is granted to small molecule drugs.

Many experts believe that this system would further delay the entry of cost-effective biosimilar drugs, restrict the biosimilar drug manufacturers from relying on the test data submitted to drug regulator by the manufacturers of the original biologic drugs while seeking marketing approval.

A rapidly evolving scenario in the United States:

The regulatory space for approval of biosimilar drugs is still evolving in the Unites States. This is vindicated by the fact that in March 2016, giving a somewhat positive signal to the biosimilar drug manufacturers, the US-FDA released another set of a 15-page draft guidelines on how biosimilar products should be labeled for the US market. Interestingly, it has come just around a year of the first biosimilar drug approval in the United States – Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis.

The US-FDA announcement says that all ‘comments and suggestions regarding this draft document should be submitted within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register of the notice announcing the availability of the draft guidance.’ Besides labeling issues, this draft guidance document, though indicates that the ‘interchangeability’ criteria will be addressed in the future, does not still throw enough light on how exactly to determine ‘interchangeability’ for biosimilar drugs.

That said, these key regulatory barriers are likely to continue, at least in the foreseeable future, for many reasons. The biosimilar drug manufacturers, therefore, would necessarily have to work within the set regulations, as applicable to different markets of the world.

I deliberated a related point in my article of August 25, 2014, titled “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”

B. Prescribers’ skepticism:

Initial skepticism of the medical profession for biosimilar drugs are, reportedly, due to the high voltage advocacy of the original biologic manufacturers on the ‘documented variability between original biologic and biosimilars. Which is why, any substitution of an original biologic with a related biosimilar drug could lead to increase in avoidable adverse reactions.

‘The medical platform and community QuantiaMD’, released a study just around September 2015, when by a Press Release, Novartis announced the launch of the first biosimilar approved by the US-FDA – Zarxio(TM) (filgrastim-sndz). However, in 2006, Novartis after suing the US-FDA, got the approval for its human growth hormone – Omnitrope, which is a biosimilar of the original biologic of Genentech and Pfizer. At that time a clear regulatory guideline for biosimilar drugs in the United States, was not in place.

The QuantiaMD report at that time said, “Only 12% of prescribing specialists are ‘very confident’ that biosimilars are as safe as the original biologic version of the drug. In addition, a mere 17% said they were ‘very likely’ to prescribe a biosimilar, while 70% admitted they were not sure if they would.”

Since then, this scenario for biosimilar drugs is changing though gradually, but encouragingly. I shall dwell on that below.

The major growth drivers:

The major growth drivers for biosimilars, especially, in the world’s top pharmaceutical markets are expected to be:

Growing pressure to curtail healthcare expenditure
Growing demand for biosimilar drugs due to their cost-effectiveness
Rising incidences of various life-threatening diseases
Increasing number of off-patent biologics
Positive outcome in the ongoing clinical trials
Rising demand for biosimilars in different therapeutic applications, such as, rheumatoid arthritis and blood disorders.

This in turn would probably usher in an unprecedented opportunity for the manufacturers of high quality biosimilar drugs, including in India.

Unfolding a huge emerging opportunity with biosimilars:

This unprecedented opportunity is expected to come mainly from the world’s three largest pharma market, namely the United States, Europe and Japan, due to very high prices of original biologic drugs, and simultaneously to contain rapidly escalating healthcare expenditure by the respective Governments.

Unlike in the past, when the doctors were apprehensive, and a bit skeptic too, on the use of new biosimilars, some new studies of 2016 indicate a rapid change in that trend. After the launch of the first biosimilar drug in the US, coupled with rapidly increasing incidences of various complex, life-threatening diseases, better knowledge of biosimilar drugs and their cost-effectiveness, doctors are now expressing much lesser concern, and exhibiting greater confidence in the use of biosimilars in their clinical practice.

Yet another, March 2016 study indicates, now only 19.5 percent of respondents feel little or no confidence in the use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies compared to 61percent of respondents to a previous version of the survey undertaken in 2013 by the same market research group. The survey also shows that 44.4 percent of respondents consider that the original biologic and its biosimilar versions are interchangeable, as compared with only 6 percent in the 2013 survey.

As a result of this emerging trend, some global analysts of high credibility estimate that innovative biologic brands will lose around US$110 billion in sales to their biosimilar versions by 2025.

Another March, 2016 report of IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics states that lower-cost biosimilar versions of complex biologic, could save the US and Europe’s five top markets as much as US$112 billion by 2020,

These encouraging developments in the global biosimilar arena are expected to encourage the capable Indian biosimilar drug players to invest in this high-tech format of drug development, and reap a rich harvest as the high priced blockbuster biologic brands go off-patent.

Conclusion:

Putting all these developments together, and considering the rapidly emerging scenario in this space, it now appears that challenges ahead for rapid acceptance of biosimilar drugs though are still many, but not insurmountable, at all.

The situation necessitates application of fresh and innovative marketing strategies to gain doctors’ confidence on biosimilar medicines, in total conformance with the regulatory requirements for the same, as they are, in the most important regulated markets of the world.

It goes without saying that success in the generation of enough prescriptions for biosimilar drugs is the fundamental requirement to benefit the patients, which, in turn, would lead to significant savings in health care cost, as estimated above, creating a win-win situation for all, in every way.

As more innovator companies start joining the biosimilar bandwagon, the physicians’ perception on these new varieties of medicines, hopefully, would also change, sooner.

Biocon’s grand announcement of its entry with a ‘made in India’ biosimilar drug in one of the word’s top three pharma markets, would probably be a great encouragement for all other Indian biosimilar drug manufacturers. It clearly showcases the capabilities of an Indian drug manufacturer to chart in an uncharted and a highly complex frontier of medicine.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Does India Produce ‘World Class’ Medicines, For All?

Posted on October 12, 2015 by Tapan Ray

India has already achieved a staggering number In terms of quantity or volume of generic medicines that it produces not just for India, but for many developed, developing and poorer countries, across the world. For this reason, India is popularly known as ‘The Pharmacy of The World’. No one questions this number at all, rather looks at India with a sense of admiration in this regard.

Nevertheless, for driving this volume growth trend further north, in a consistent and sustainable way, Indian pharma sector must ensure that its huge volume growth engine remains firmly placed on a solid bedrock of ‘world class’ drug quality, always. Any compromise in this crucial area, could strike a critical blow to this ‘tower of national pride’.

Ongoing several embarrassing incidents related to the drug manufacturing quality standards in India, are increasingly fueling the apprehension, whether or not India produces ‘World Class’ medicines for all patients across the world, independent of any other criteria, financial or otherwise. The debate has now taken an interesting turn, especially after near confirmation of this apprehension by the top drug regulator of India.

In this article, I shall discuss this important issue that hugely impacts all of us, giving my own perspective to it. Let me begin with one of the most recent incidents on the subject, involving the numero-uno of Indian pharmaceutical industry.

An overseas new product launch got prematurely aborted?

On September 25, 2015, by a Press Release, Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company Ltd. (SPARC) announced a major set back for the company. The set back may not be so much in terms of the company’s estimated revenue loss, but more on public perception across the world, about the manufacturing quality standards followed even by the top most pharma company of India.

SPARC made a public announcement through media that on March 2015 it had received a final approval from the Food and Drug Administration of the United States (USFDA) for the anti-epileptic drug – Elepsia XR (Levetiracetam extended-release tablets 1000 mg and 1500 mg). However, in the Complete Response letter (CRL) to the company’s New Drug Application (NDA) for the product, the USFDA has revoked its earlier approval, citing that the compliance status of the manufacturing facility was not acceptable on the date of approval. Elepsia XR is to be manufactured at Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (SPIL)’s Halol facility in Gujarat, the announcement said.

Sun Pharma had reportedly indicated in June 2015 that the Company had been working “very aggressively” to find partners for the product. It had “some advanced discussions” and aimed to launch the drug by the second half of fiscal 2016.

The international media lapped it up and reported this development with eye-catching headlines, one such was:

“India’s Sun Pharma research arm sees FDA nod for Elepsia XR yanked by FDA on manufacturing.”

Not a one-off isolated incident:

This matter can no way be treated as a one-off and an isolated incident, as it fits in well with a series of similar events, spanning over the last few years.

Looking at these disturbing adverse reports from the foreign drug regulators on the drug manufacturing quality standards in India, together with recent comments of the Indian drug regulator on the subject, serious health safety concerns on overall drug quality in the country, are being expressed now. The concern includes the local patients in India, as well.

Can the core issue be wished away?

Up until today, USFDA has altogether warned 39 manufacturing sites of 27 Indian pharma companies for breach of data integrity and not following specified manufacturing quality standards. The agency has also expressed that it treats these as potentially dangerous medicines for the consumption of patients in the US.

In 2015 alone, USFDA has reportedly detected such serious ‘short comings’ with 6 Indian drug makers, till September. A report from Financial Times (FT) states that the above numbers do not include the testing facilities facing sanctions from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in the GVK Biosciences related cases or from the World Health Organizations (WHO).

What is most worrying, none can possibly still fathom, if these alleged ‘reprehensible’ manufacturing practices are restricted to just a few players or are all pervasive across the Indian drug industry.

When the foreign regulators, such as USFDA and Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) of the United Kingdom (UK) continue raising the red flags on the manufacturing standards of the top pharma players of India, including the numero uno, a chilling sensation flows through the spine, as it were. The moot question that comes up: Are all the drugs manufactured in India safe for the local patients, offering desirable efficacy?

Keeping these in perspective, would it be prudent to wish away the drug quality related critical issues, raising a conspiracy theory against the US or EU or suspend discussions on any Foreign Trade Agreement (FTA)? I don’t reckon so, and would touch upon this point in course of my discussion below.

The murmur among the US doctors:

According to an article from Reuters of March 18, 2014, titled “Unease grows among US doctors over Indian drug quality”, some US doctors are also expressing concerns about the quality of generic drugs supplied by Indian manufacturers, following a flurry of recalls and ‘import bans’ by the USFDA.

This concern has been prompted by the fact that India supplies about 40 percent of generic and over-the-counter drugs used in the United States, making it the second-biggest supplier after Canada.

Not much complaint from the Indian doctors:

This is intriguing. Despite so much of furore of the regulatory agencies in the US and EU on the Indian drug quality standards, not much concern on the same has been expressed by the medical practitioners in India, just yet.

It appears, by and large, Indian doctors believe that branded generics are generally of good quality, and the quality of generics without a brand name is not as reliable, always.

This logic is beyond my comprehension. How come just fixing a brand name on a generic formulation makes it more acceptable in terms of quality, when both branded generics and generics without a brand name, have obtained the same regulatory approval from the same drug regulators in India and following the same regulatory process?

As you will see below, the situation has changed further now, especially after the admission of the DCGI about non-compliance of global manufacturing quality standards by majority of the formulation manufacturers in India, as reported by the media. The only silver lining to it is that whatever is being currently manufactured in India, presumably meets the regulators approval in conformance to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of the country, without any credible data to the contrary.

Does India produce drugs of ‘World Class’ quality for all?

The key question that is being raised today: Does India produce ‘world class’ drugs and for all? This is mainly because, manufacturers of ‘world class’ drug quality always aim at competing for quality on the best global standards to remain competitive in the international markets, in all parameters. This should hold good even for the domestic Indian market, for all drugs, consumed by all the local patients, irrespective of their financial status.

A lurking fear keeps lingering, primarily apprehending that Indian drug manufacturing quality related issues are not confined only to the importers in the developed world, such as, the United States, European Union or Canada. There is no reason to vouch for either, that such gross violations are not taking place with the medicines consumed by the patients in India or in the poorer nations of Africa and other similar markets.

A recent international study on Indian drug quality:

The following study further aggravates the angst.

The September 2014 ‘Working Paper 20469’ of ‘The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)’ Cambridge, USA, titled “Poor Quality Drugs and Global Trade: A Pilot Study’, epitomizes the following:

Experts claim that some Indian drug manufacturers cut corners and make substandard drugs for markets with non-existent, under-developed or emerging regulatory oversight, notably Africa.

The study assessed the quality of 1470 antibiotic and tuberculosis drug samples that claim to be made in India and were sold in Africa, India, and five mid-income non-African countries and found:

– 10.9 percent of these products fail a basic assessment of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API)

- The majority of the failures are substandard (7 percent) as they contain some correct API but the amount of API is under-dosed.

– The distribution of these substandard products is not random, they are more likely to be found as unregistered products in Africa than in India or non-African countries.

Claiming that the findings are robust, the NBER study points towards one likely explanation that Indian pharmaceutical firms and/or their export intermediaries do indeed differentiate drug quality according to the destination of consumption.

Incomprehensible?

The above facts are alarming, especially when these flow from a survey report of a credible international institution. This is incomprehensible too, as all these are medicines, and are meant to be for relief or cure of ailments that the patients are suffering from, irrespective of whether they are from the developed, developing or poorer countries.

If it is still happening today, why are those manufacturers allowed by the Indian drug regulators to discriminate between the patients of the developed countries and the developing world, including India, to meet the same health care needs? This is absolutely cruel by any standard, undoubtedly.

‘As you sow, so shall you reap’:

Just as the above well-known proverb says that the actions or deeds repay in kind, reasonably frequent ‘import bans’ by the foreign drug regulators on drug quality norms, has probably prompted booming generic drug exports of Indian pharma now slowing down to US$15.3 billion in 2014-15, from US $14.84 billion in 2013-14.

Along side, these avoidable incidents have significantly dented India’s image as the ‘pharmacy of the world’, manufacturing affordable and high quality generic formulations for the patients across the world.

Indian drug regulator too now thinking afresh?

Yet another relevant question comes up. What happens, if during treatment of serious ailments such drugs fail to act for inferior quality? How would one possibly know in India, whether a death has occurred due to unresponsive poor quality of drugs or on account of severity of the ailments? How helpless are the patients in such a situation?

This sad feeling gets even stronger, when well after a prolonged defense of the high quality of drugs manufactured in India, no less than the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), airs his second thought on the same issue. This is vindicated by recent media reports on this subject.

On September 30, 2015, a media report stated that being virtually flustered by the USFDA and the drug regulators in the European Union, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) would place a proposal before the Ministry of Health, within the next six months, for an amendment to the existing pharmaceutical manufacturing laws under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, in order to ‘bring them on par with international standards’.

The DCGI now believes that this remedial measure would raise drug manufacturing standards in India in line with the global cGMP standards, recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Currently, out of around 8,000 drug manufacturers in India, only 10 to15 percent are following the WHO guidelines, the report stated quoting the DCGI.

The new revelation further strengthens the apprehension about quality of drugs that Indian patients are consuming in the country with a strong hope for relief from the diseases that they suffer from.

The DCGI apparently admitted it, when he was quoted saying in the above report, “India has become a pharmacy of the world. So, we cannot live in isolation and will have to meet their expectations. Our system is in the process of improving.”

DCGI statement follows an important Government decision:

It is worth noting that the above comment of the DCGI comes close on the heels of an important Government decision in this regard.

On August 12, 2015, The Press Trust of India (PTI) reported that to facilitate domestic manufacture of quality medical products, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) on that day approved a proposal of strengthening and upgrading the drug regulatory system both at the Central and state level. The committee approved a budget of of INR17.5 billion (US$270 million) on this account.

The up gradation and strengthening of the system will also include setting up of new laboratories and training academy for regulatory and drug testing officials, the report added.

Yet Another significant development:

On October 5, 2015, in yet another significant development in this direction, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) of the United Kingdom (UK), by a ‘Press Release’, announced signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of India.

This agreement will increase collaboration between India and UK in the area of medicines and medical devices with the aim of further improving public safety in both the countries. It is worth noting, around 25 percent of generic drugs consumed in the UK are made in India. Hence, the concern of MHRA over the safety of those medicines is understandable.

I wrote in this Blog on USFDA ‘Import Bans’ in my article of November 11, 2013, titled ‘USFDA ‘Import Bans’: The Malady Calls For Strong Bitter Pills.’

Conclusion:

A valid question that is being asked by many in India today, why the issues like, alleged cGMP non-compliance, data fudging and falsification of other documents, especially with USFDA, have multiplied suddenly over the last few years. Why not as many of such issues were raised by the USFDA before around 3 to 4 years?

This is primarily because, of late the inspectors from the USFDA have significantly increased their efforts to ensure the drug manufacturing facilities from where both generic Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and formulations are exported to the US, strictly follow the drug manufacturing standards, as stipulated by the USFDA. The fact that India supplies about 40 percent of generic and over-the-counter drugs currently used in the United States, has prompted this requirement to safeguard health safety of the American patients.

Such stringent USFDA audits commenced in 2012, when US Congress passed the FDA Safety and Innovation Act. This legislation, among others, requires the USFDA auditing all foreign facilities that make drugs for export to the US, as frequently as it does for the domestic drug manufacturing plants. Thereafter, we have seen a spurt in the USFDA inspections of the pharma manufacturing facilities in India, where from drugs are exported to the US. Hence, there does not seem to be any other credible ‘conspiracy theory’ on this issue.

As reported in ‘The New York Times’ of February 14, 2014, the same DCGI almost brushing aside the gravity of the situation arising out of repeated ‘import bans’, commented at that time, “If I have to follow US standards in inspecting facilities supplying to the Indian market, we will have to shut almost all of those.”

The top drug regulator seems to have changed his mind since then, and presumably is thinking differently now, as the Indian media very recently quoted the DCGI saying “India has become a pharmacy of the world. So, we cannot live in isolation and will have to meet their expectations. Our system is in the process of improving.”

This is a good omen, especially for the patients in India. If and when it gets translated into reality, with Kudos to the DCGI, we all would feel very proud saying, “The Pharmacy of the World now produces the World-Class drugs, for all” …God willing!

By: Tapan J. Ray

Biosimilar Drugs: Why Prescriptions Aren’t Still Enough?

Posted on September 14, 2015 by Tapan Ray

On September 3, 2015, in a Press Release, Novartis announced, “Zarxio(TM) (filgrastim-sndz) is now available in the United States. Zarxio is the first biosimilar approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the first to launch in the US.” Zarxio is being marketed by the generic drug unit of Novartis – Sandoz.

The company highlighted: “With the launch of Zarxio, we look forward to increasing patient, prescriber and payor access to filgrastim in the US by offering a high-quality, more affordable version of this important oncology medicine.” This statement may be interpreted as an acknowledged of a research based global pharma major that high-priced biologics create a notable access barrier to a large number of patients, even in a rich country such as the United States. It also underscores the increasing prescription opportunities for cheaper biosimilar drugs.

Zarxio will initially be available with a 15 percent discount. This needs to be viewed against usual price drop of around 20-30 percent for biosimilar drugs in Europe, as compared to the original molecules. It is expected that price differences between biosimilar drugs and the original ones, would vary widely from as low as 10 percent to a hefty 60 percent, in the global markets.

Prior to Novartis’s Press Release, USFDA announced Zarxio’s approval in a separate ‘FDA News Release on March 6, 2015, indicating that it can be prescribed by a health care professional for:

patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving induction or consolidation chemotherapy
patients with cancer undergoing bone marrow transplantation
patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell collection and therapy a
patients with severe chronic neutropenia.

Though such types of drugs are available in the important markets such as, Europe, Australia and India, the launch of Zarxio heralds the dawn of a new era of biosimilar drugs in the United States – the numero uno of the global pharma market.

Incidentally, USFDA’s approval of biosimilar drugs is an outcome of a relatively recent healthcare reform in the United States, when President Obama signed into law the ‘Affordable Care Act’ on March 23, 2010.

The key benefit:

In its above ‘Press Release’, Novartis captured well the key benefits of biosimilar drugs , as follows:

“While biologics have had a significant impact on how diseases are treated, their cost and co-pays are difficult for many patients and the healthcare budget in general. Biosimilars can help to fill an unmet need by providing expanded options, greater affordability and increased patient access to life-saving therapies.”

Major growth drivers:

According to July 2015 report of ‘MarketsandMarkets (M&M)’ the global biosimilars market is expected to grow to US$6.22 Billion by 2020 from US$2.29 Billion in 2015, growing at a CAGR of 22.1 percent from 2015 to 2020.

The major growth drivers of the global biosimilars market are expected to be:

Growing pressure to curtail healthcare expenditure
Growing demand for biosimilar drugs due to their cost-effectiveness
Rising incidences of various life-threatening diseases
Increasing number of off-patented biologics
Positive outcome in the ongoing clinical trials
Rising demand for biosimilars in different therapeutic applications such as rheumatoid arthritis and blood disorders.

European Union (EU) had a head start of 5 to 7 years to put its regulatory pathway for biosimilar drug development and approval process. Thus, at present practically most the entire value sales of biosimilar drugs take place in the EU.

As, cheaper biosimilars would continue to hit the US market, insurance companies are expected to encourage the use of such drugs instead of highly expensive original ones.

According to Express Scripts report released in December 2014, the US healthcare system could clock savings in drug costs around US$250 billion in the first decade of availability of biosimilars drugs and the approval of Zarxio would help patients saving more than US$5 billion in the the world’s largest market for biologics.

By 2020, several blockbuster biological products with global sales of more than US $67 billion would go or are going off-patent, creating great opportunities for biosimilar drugs the world over. Some of these drugs are Avastin (Roche), Humira (AbbVie), Synagis (AstraZeneca), Aranesp (Amgen) and Enbrel (Amgen, Pfizer).

However, the crux of its success, to a great extent, would lie on physicians’ confidence to prescribe large molecule biosimilar drugs, as these are new and not exact replicas of the original biologic molecules, unlike the small molecule generic drugs.

Possible growth barriers:

The success requirements of large molecule biosimilar drugs would not mimic the same for small molecule generics, anywhere in the world.

In my view, there are two types of critical barriers to success with biosimilars, both tangible and intangible in nature.

The same M&M report lists the following factors as possible tangible barriers to fast growth of biosimilar drugs:

High manufacturing complexities and costs
Stringent regulatory requirements in countries
Innovative strategies by biologic drug manufacturers to restrict the entry of new players

I would very briefly touch upon each one of these, hereunder:

I. High manufacturing complexities and costs:

This is primarily because, the therapeutic characteristics of biosimilar drugs are significantly influenced by their manufacturing methods. For example, it is quite possible that based on the manufacturing system that is adopted, the same starter ingredients may give substantially different results.

II. Stringent regulatory requirements:

Among many other stringent regulatory requirements, I would highlight in this article just the following two:

A. The labeling:

It is noteworthy that USFDA has named Zarxio with the placeholder nonproprietary name “filgrastim-sndz” and not as ‘filgrastim’, the nonproprietary name for Amgen’s, Neupogen, for which Zarxio has been approved as a biosimilar.

To quickly recapitulate its background, in July 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO), which oversees the system of International Nonproprietary Names (INN), recommended that biosimilar drugs would receive the same nonproprietary name, but with a four-letter code at the end.

This is primarily because, innovator biologic drug companies and also some doctors’ groups argue that molecular structures of biosimilar drugs are similar, but not exact replicas of the original ones. Hence, there is a need to differentiate them, while assigning INN.

They reiterate that giving biosimilars the same INN as the original biologic molecule may cause confusion among both the doctors and the patients. It could also make the tracking of adverse reactions, as and when these will be reported, more challenging.

Consequently, it has now been accepted by the regulators that biosimilars would receive the same nonproprietary name but with a four-letter code at the end to differentiate such drugs from the original biologics.

B. Interchangeability:

The above labelling issue, in turn, creates a barrier to possible interchangeability or automatic substitution of expensive original biologics with much cheaper equivalent of biosimilar drugs. I reckon, this could pose a critical obstacle in the initial take-off of the later.

According to a July 4, 2015 article, titled “Fate of cost-saving biosimilar drugs may hinge on naming policy”, published in ‘Modern Healthcare’, the USFDA has the following two pathways for licensing of biosimilar drugs:

For being designated as “similar” in efficacy and safety to an original biologic.

For being approved as being “interchangeable,” which requires a much higher review standard and could take years and millions of dollars to obtain the needed clinical trial data.

According to this article, none of the biosimilar products currently under USFDA review are in the interchangeable pathway.

III. Innovative strategies to restrict entry of new players:

All the above innovative strategic moves and arguments, where biologic drug manufacturers are allegedly involved, may seriously restrict not just the entry of newer biosimilars, but also their faster prescription throughput.

Safety concern (immunogenicity):

Additionally, a critical safety concern on biosimilar drugs is being raised by the manufacturers of original biologics. This concern involves immunogenicity, which means the way a biosimilar drug provokes an immune response in the body. Original biologic drug manufacturers contend, since biosimilar molecules are not exactly the same as originals and their long term safety, related to immunogenicity, has not been tested, these drugs cannot be construed as having the same safety profile as the innovators’ biologics.

Besides, ‘Free-Trade-Agreements (FTAs)’ are also likely to be cleverly used by the original biologic drug manufacturers through their respective Governments, to the extent possible, for safeguarding the beachhead from the marketing onslaught of biosimilar drugs.

A perception barrier too:

Here comes an important perception-based intangible barrier to desirable prescription growth for biosimilar drugs.

Probably gauging it, post Zarxio launch, none other than the CEO of Novartis – Joe Jimenez, reportedly said: “He’s not expecting too much of a splash before 2020.”

This is understandable, as the doctors’ favorable disposition towards biosimilar drugs would be a crucial factor for prescription growth of these medicines.

A recent doctor community survey from QuantiaMD primarily captures the doctors’ thoughts and feelings on biosimilar drugs. This study was done with 300 specialists and primary care physicians.

Some of the notable findings of the report are as follows:

While 78 percent of the doctors polled said they were familiar with the term “biosimilar,” only 38 percent could name a biosimilar that’s under consideration for USFDA approval and would be relevant to their patient population.

Only 33 percent could name a biosimilar at all.

Researchers then narrowed down the original 300 physicians polled into a group of 120 “prescribing specialists.” This group of 120 doctors are currently prescribing biologics and most likely to prescribe biosimilar drugs in the years ahead. The study reported:

Only 17 percent of that segment said they are “very likely” to prescribe biosimilars.

And 70 percent said they either aren’t sure or are “somewhat likely’” to prescribe a biosimilar.

Only 12 percent of prescribing specialists are “very confident” that biosimilars are as safe as the original biologic version of the drug.

That said, 12-year ‘Data Exclusivity’ period for biologics in the United States, is one additional barrier to early introduction of cheaper biosimilar drugs, as considered by many.

On this issue GPhA – the generic drug makers’ group in America reportedly issued a statement, criticizing a paper of Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), saying:

“Market exclusivity acts as an absolute shield to their weak patents. Thus, from a practical perspective, extending market exclusivity beyond the Hatch-Waxman period would block the introduction of generic competition for almost 20 years, derailing any potential cost savings by Americans.”

The challenges ahead:

Considering all these together, the challenges ahead for quick acceptance of biosimilar drugs are indeed mind-boggling. The situation necessitates enough innovative and painstaking work by all concerned to gain the doctors’ confidence on biosimilar medicines. It goes without saying that success in generation of enough prescriptions for these drugs is the fundamental requirement to benefit the patients, which, in turn, would lead to significant savings in health care cost, as estimated above.

As more innovator companies start joining the biosimilar bandwagon, the physicians’ perception on these medicines, hopefully, would change sooner.

The status in India:

Although it appears strange, but a fact nonetheless. Biosimilar drugs approved in India till August 2012, followed the requirements of the regulators as provided mostly in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for small molecule drugs, which are incidentally quite a different kettle of fish.

According to GaBI-online, the first locally produced biosimilar drug was approved and marketed in the year 2000. India announced implementation of its ‘Guidelines’ for ‘Similar Biologics’ much later, on September 15, 2012.

Indian ‘Guidelines’ for ‘Similar Biologics’ were jointly developed by the Department of Biotechnology (DoB) and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO). The ‘Guidelines’ outline requirements for pre-clinical evaluation of biological products, claiming ‘similar to already approved biologics’. Thus, Indian regulators will partly rely on data from the already approved products to ensure safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of these drugs.

A wide variety:

A wide variety of biosimilar drugs have been approved and marketed in India, since then.

According to International Journal of Applied Basic Medical Research (2014 Jul-Dec; 4.2: 63–66), biosimilars in India consist primarily of vaccine, monoclonal antibodies, recombinant proteins and diagnostics, insulin, erythropoietin, hepatitis B vaccine, granulocyte colony stimulating factor, streptokinase, interferon alpha-2B and epidermal growth factor receptor.

The above article states that there are about 100 biopharmaceutical companies actively involved in research and development, manufacturing and marketing of biosimilar therapeutic products in India. Only 14 therapeutic drugs (similar biologics) were available in 50 brands in 2005. This number had grown to 20 therapeutic drugs in 250 brands in 2011.

The status of similar biologics approved and marketed in India is elaborated in this Table 1.

Some of the key Indian players of biosimilar drugs are Dr. Reddy’s Laboratory (DRL), Lupin, Zydus Cadila, Serum Institute of India, Biocon, Reliance Life Sciences, Wockhardt, Zenotech Laboratories and Intas.

I wrote on a related subject in this blog dated December 15, 2014 titled, “A Great News! But…Would This ‘Golden Goose’ Lay Golden Eggs?”

Conclusion:

Opportunities for biosimilar drugs are expected to expand significantly all over the world, basically driven by the need for affordable biologics and healthcare cost containment pressure in many countries.

As I had articulated before, unlike small molecule generics, unlocking the true potential of large molecule biosimilar drugs in a sustainable way would demand innovative, clear, razor sharp and highly focused business strategies across the value chain.

For faster growth in prescriptions, biosimilars would call for a hybrid marketing model of small molecule (branded) generics and large molecule original biologics. Ability to craft impactful value proposition and ensuring its effective delivery for each stakeholder, smart and innovative use of interactive and participative digital tools both for doctors’ and patients’ engagement, of course sans complexities, would decide the ultimate commercial fate for each of these types of products.

To effectively reap rich harvest from the new space thus being created, the challenges are also too many. The concerns expressed on biosimilars may also be genuine, but the regulators should take care of those before granting marketing approval to benefit the patients, in a meaningful way.

Overall key drivers and barriers for success with biosimilar drugs would remain almost the same, both for global and local players. However, carving out and thereafter expanding share in this market, sizably, won’t be a piece of cake for any company, understandably.

Quite naturally, the innovator companies for biologics would go all out to retain their turf as much as possible, despite the entry of cheaper biosimilars. This is expected to continue by reinforcing the belief of the physicians and the patients that biosimilars are not quite the same as the original biologic molecules.

Effective proactive measures need to be initiated, soon, by the regulators and all other stakeholders to spread the right message, protecting the patients’ interest. Otherwise, apprehension of the doctors on biosimilars in general, regarding safety, efficacy, substitution and interchangeability may persist for some time to come, negatively impacting faster and desirable prescription growth of these drugs all over the world, including India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Guidelines

Covid Propels Healthcare Into A Virtual World: A New Growth Driver For Pharma?

Is India A Success Story With Biosimilar Drugs?

A ‘Toxin’ Delaying Success of Biosimilar Drugs

Nutraceuticals: Still An Oasis Amidst Well-Regulated Pharmaceuticals

Biosimilar Drugs: First Indian Foot Print In An Uncharted Frontier

Does India Produce ‘World Class’ Medicines, For All?

Biosimilar Drugs: Why Prescriptions Aren’t Still Enough?