Tag Archives: Guidelines

Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain

Posted on by
Reply

June 2014 underscores a significant development for the generic drug exporters of India. Much-delayed and highly expected launch of generic Diovan (Valsartan) is now on its way, as Ranbaxy has reportedly received US-FDA approval to launch the first generic version of this blood pressure drug in the United States.

As deliberated in my earlier blog titled “Big Pharma’s Windfall Gain From Indian Pharma’s Loss, Costs American Patients Dear”, delay in launch of the generic equivalent of Diovan caused a windfall gain for Novartis from US$ 1.7 billion US sales of this drug last year, instead of usual declining turnover of an innovative molecule post patent expiry.

The generic version of Diovan (Valsartan) is estimated to contribute around US$ 200 million to Ranbaxy’s sales and US$ 100 million to its profit after tax, during the exclusive sale period. Against these numbers, delay in the launch of generic Diovan has reportedly cost payers and consumers in America around US$ 900 million in the first 18 months.

Since four Ranbaxy manufacturing facilities in India are now facing US-FDA ‘import bans’ due to violations of ‘Good Manufacturing Practices’ of the American regulator, its Ohm Laboratories unit located in New Jersey has been allowed to make generic Valsartan for the US.

Go for gold: 

Hopefully, Ranbaxy would soon get similar approvals from the US drug regulator for its ‘first to launch’ generic versions of Nexium (AstraZeneca) and Valcyte (Roche), as well.

It is worth mentioning that around 90 percent price erosion would take place with intense competition, as soon the period of exclusivity for such ‘first to launch’ generics gets over.

Nonetheless, this is indeed a very interesting development, when the global generic pharmaceutical segment is reportedly showing signals of a tough chase for overtaking the branded pharmaceuticals sector in terms of sales turnover too.

India has a huge a stake in this ball game, as it supplies around 30 to 40 percent of the world’s generic medicines and is well poised to improve its pharma exports from around US$ 15 billion per year to US$ 25 billion by 2016. Since 2012, this objective has remained an integral part of the country’s global initiative to position India as the “pharmacy to the world.”

However, considering the recent hiccups of some Indian pharma majors in meeting with the quality requirements of the US-FDA, though this target appears to be a challenging one for now, the domestic pharma players should continue to make all out efforts to go for the gold by moving up the generic pharmaceutical value chain. In this context, it is worth noting that penetration of the generic drugs in the US is expected to increase from the current 83 percent to 86-87 percent very shortly, as the ‘Obamacare’ takes off with full steam.

Moving up the value chain:

In the largest pharma market of the world – the United States, global generic companies are increasingly facing cutthroat price competition with commensurate price erosion, registering mixed figures of growth. Even in a situation like this, some companies are being immensely benefited from moving up the value chain with differentiated generic product launches that offer relatively high margin, such as, specialty dermatologicals, complex injectibles, other products with differentiated drug delivery systems and above all biosimilars.

As a consequence of which, some Indian generic companies have already started focusing on the development of value added, difficult to manufacture and technology intensive generic product portfolios, in various therapy areas. Just to cite an example, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) is now reportedly set to take its complex generic drug Fondaparinux sodium injection to Canada and two other emerging markets.

Thus, those Indian pharma companies, which would be able to develop a robust product portfolio of complex generics and other differentiated formulations for the global market, would be much better placed in positioning themselves significantly ahead of the rest, both in terms of top and the bottom lines.

One such key opportunity area is the development of a portfolio of biosimilar drugs – the large molecule proteins.

Global interest in biosimilars:

According to the June 2014 report of GlobalData, a leading global research and consulting firm, the biosimilars industry is already highly lucrative. More than 100 deals involving companies focused on the development of biosimilars have been completed over the past 7 years, with a total value in excess of US$10.7 billion.

GlobalData further states, there are a number of factors driving the initiative toward global adoption of biosimilars, from austerity measures and slow economic growth in the US, to an aging population and increasing demand for healthcare in countries, such as Japan.

The costs of biosimilars are expected to be, at least, 20 to 30 percent lower than the branded biologic therapies. This still remains a significant reduction, as many biologics command hundreds of thousands of dollars for 1 year’s treatment.

According to another media report, biosimilars are set to replace around 70 percent of global chemical drugs over the next couple of decades on account of ‘safety parameters and a huge portion of biologic products going off patent’.

Biosimilar would improve patient access:

Although at present over 150 different biologic medicines are available globally, just around 11 countries have access to low cost biosimilar drugs, India being one of them. Supporters of biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as the time passes by.

It has been widely reported that the cost of treatment with innovative and patented biologic drugs can vary from US$ 100,000 to US$ 300,000 a year. A 2010 review on biosimilar drugs published by the Duke University highlights that biosimilar equivalents of novel biologics would improve access to such drugs significantly, for the patients across the globe.

Regulatory hurdles easing off:

In the developed world, European Union (EU) had taken a lead towards this direction by putting a robust system in place, way back in 2003. In the US, along with the recent healthcare reform process of the Obama administration, the US-FDA has already charted the regulatory pathway for biosimilar drugs, though more clarifications are still required.

Not so long ago, the EU had approved Sandoz’s (Novartis) Filgrastim (Neupogen brand of Amgen), which is prescribed for the treatment of Neutropenia. With Filgrastim, Sandoz will now have at least 3 biosimilar products in its portfolio.

Key global players:

At present, the key global players are Sandoz (Novartis), Teva, BioPartners, BioGenerix (Ratiopharm) and Bioceuticals (Stada). With the entry of pharmaceutical majors like, Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the global biosimilar market is expected to be heated up and grow at a much faster pace than ever before. Removal of regulatory hurdles for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US would be the key growth driver.

Globally, the scenario for biosimilar drugs started warming up when Merck announced that the company expects to have at least 5 biosimilars in the late stage development by 2012.

Most recent global development:

A key global development in the biosimilar space has taken place, just this month, in June 2014, when Eli Lilly has reportedly won the recommendation of European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for launch of a biosimilar version (Abasria insulin) of Sanofi’s Lantus insulin. This launch would pave the way for the first biosimilar version of Sanofi’s top-selling drug clocking a turnover of US$7.8 billion in 2013. Eli Lilly developed Abasria with Boehringer Ingelheim of Germany.

In May 2014, Lantus would lose patent protection in Europe. However, biosimilar competition of Lantus in the US could get delayed despite its patent expiry in February, as Sanofi reportedly announced its intention of suing Eli Lilly on this score.

Global Market Potential:

According to a 2011 study, conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., worldwide market for biosimilar drugs is estimated to reach US$ 4.8 billion by the year 2015, the key growth drivers being as follows:

  • Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs
  • Cost containment measures of various governments
  • Aging population
  • Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries
  • Recent establishment of regulatory pathways for biosimilars in the US

IMS Health indicates that the US will be the cornerstone of the global biosimilars market, powering a sector worth between US$ 11 billion and US$ 25 billion in 2020, representing a 4 percent and 10 percent share, respectively, of the total biologics market.

The overall penetration of biosimilars within the off-patent biological market is estimated to reach up to 50 percent by 2020.

Challenges for India:

Unlike commonly used ‘small molecule’ chemical drugs, ‘large molecule’ biologics are developed from living cells using very complex processes. It is virtually impossible to replicate these protein substances, unlike the ‘small molecule’ drugs. One can at best develop a biologically similar molecule with the application of high degree of biotechnological expertise.

According to IMS Health, the following would be the key areas of challenge:

High development costs:

Developing a biosimilar is not a simple process but one that requires significant investment, technical capability and clinical trial expertise. Average cost estimates range from US$ 20-100 million against much lesser cost of developing traditional generics, which are typically around US$ 1-4 million.

Fledgling regulatory framework:

In most markets apart from Europe, but including the United States, the regulatory framework for biosimilars is generally still very new compared to the well-established approval process for NCEs and small-molecule generics.

Intricate manufacturing issues:

The development of biosimilars involves sophisticated technologies and processes, raising the risk of the investment.

Overcoming ‘Branded Mentality’:

Winning the trust of stakeholders would call for honed skills, adequate resources and overcoming the branded mentality, which is especially high for biologics. Thus, initiatives to allay safety concerns among physicians and patients will be particularly important, supported by sales teams with deeper medical and technical knowledge. This will mean significant investment in sales and marketing too.

Indian business potential:

The biosimilar drugs market in India is expected to reach US$ 2 billion in 2014 (Source: Evalueserve, April 2010).

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies, such as, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Lupin, Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Glenmark, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute, Hetero, Intas and Reliance Life Sciences.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies is to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Domestic players on the go:

Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) in India has already developed Biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  DRL has also developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India. DRL has launched the first generic Darbepoetin Alfa in the world for treating nephrology and oncology indications and Peg-grafeel, an affordable form of Pegfilgrastim, which is used to stimulate the bone marrow to fight infection in patients undergoing chemotherapy. The company reportedly sold 1.4 million units of its four biosimilars, which have treated almost 97,000 patients across 12 countries. Besides, in June 2012, DRL and Merck Serono, of Germany, announced a partnership deal to co-develop a portfolio of biosimilar compounds in oncology, primarily focused on monoclonal antibodies (MAbs). The partnership covers co-development, manufacturing and commercialization of the compounds around the globe, with some specific country exceptions.

Another Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla, has reportedly invested Rs 300 Crore in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab in China and announced in June 19, 2014 collaboration with Hetero Drugs to launch a biosimilar drug with Actroise brand name for the treatment of anemia caused due to chronic kidney disease. Actorise is a biosimilar of ‘Darbepoetin alfa’, which is marketed by US-based Amgen under the brand Aranesp.

In 2011, Lupin reportedly signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly would use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs in the field of oncology. Again, in April 2014, Lupin entered into a joint venture pact with Japanese company Yoshindo Inc. to form a new entity that will be responsible both for development of biosimilars and obtaining marketing access for products in the Japanese market.

In November 2013, The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) approved a biosimilar version of Roche’s Herceptin developed jointly by Biocon and Mylan.

In June 2014, Ipca Laboratories and Oncobiologics, Inc. of USA reportedly announced the creation of an alliance for the development, manufacture and commercialization of biosimilar monoclonal antibody products.

Many more such initiatives reportedly are in the offing.

Oncology becoming biosimilar development hot spot:

Many domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies are targeting Oncology disease area for developing biosimilar drugs, which is estimated to be the largest segment globally with a value turnover of around US$ 60 billion growing over 17 percent.

As per recent reports, about 8 million deaths take place all over the world per year due to cancer.

Indian Government support:

In India, the government seems to have recognized that research on biotechnology has a vast commercial potential for products in human health, including biosimilars, diagnostics and immune-biological, among many others.

To give a fillip to the Biotech Industry in India the National Biotechnology Board was set up by the Government under the Ministry of Science and Technology way back in 1982. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) came into existence in 1986. The DBT currently spends around US$ 300 million annually to develop biotech resources in the country and has been reportedly making reasonably good progress.

The DBT together with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has now prepared and put in place ‘Regulatory Guidelines for Biosimilar Drugs’ in conformance with the international quality and patient safety standards. This is a big step forward for India in the arena of biosimilar drugs.

In June 2014, under the advanced technology scheme of Biotechnology Industry Partnership Program (BIPP), the DBT has reportedly invited fresh proposals from biotech companies for providing support on a cost sharing basis targeted at development of novel and high risk futuristic technologies mainly for viability gap funding and enhancing existing R&D capacities of start-ups and SMEs in key areas of national importance and public good.

However, the stakeholders expect much more from the government in this area, which the new Indian government would hopefully address with a sense of urgency.

Conclusion: 

According to IMS Health, biosimilar market could well be the fastest-growing biologics segment in the next few years, opening up oncology and autoimmune disease areas to this category of drugs for the first time ever. Moreover, a number of top-selling biologic brands would go off patent over the next five years, offering possibilities of reaping rich harvest for the biosimilars players of the country. Critical therapy areas such as cancer, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis are expected to spearhead the new wave of biosimilars.

While moving up the generic pharma value chain, Indian pharma players desiring to encash on the emerging global biosimilars opportunities would require to do a thorough analysis, well in advance, to understand properly the key success factors, core value propositions, financial upsides and risks attached to investments in this area.

Indian companies would also need to decide whether moving ahead in this space would be through collaborations and alliances or flying solo would be the right answer for them. Thereafter would come the critical market access strategy – one of the toughest mind games in the long-haul pharma marketing warfare.

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.

 

‘Herceptin Biosimilars’ Seriously Questioned

Posted on by
Reply

The news struck as an anticlimax, close on the heels of high decibel product launch of ‘Herceptin Biosimilars’ in India, being hyped as the first in the world, bringing much needed relief to many diagnosed breast cancer patients for their economical pricing.

At the same time, this legal challenge has now come as an acid test for the regulator to prove that ‘Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion’ for any new drug approval and especially if it is a complex biosimilar used for the treatment of patients suffering from dreaded diseases, such as, breast cancer.

It’s not patent this time:

Interestingly, this is not a patent infringement case, as Roche has reportedly given-up its patent on Trastuzumab (Herceptin) in India last year.

Alleged violations: 

The above media report highlights, in Delhi High Court Roche has sued Biocon of India and its US based generic partner – Mylan along with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) related to launch of ‘Herceptin Biosimilar’ versions in India.

The allegation against Biocon and Mylan is that their recently launched drugs are being misrepresented as ‘biosimilar Trastuzumab’ or ‘biosimilar version of Herceptin’ without following the due process in accordance with the ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics‘, necessary for getting approvals of such drugs in India.

‘Caesar’s wife’ under suspicion too:

The DCGI has also been sued by Roche for giving permission for launch of this product allegedly not in conformance with the above biosimilar guidelines, which were put in place effective August 15, 2012.

Roche reportedly argued that the above guidelines on similar biologics laid down a detailed and structured process for comparison of biosimilar with the original product and all the applications for manufacturing and marketing authorization of biosimilars are necessarily required to follow that prescribed pathway before obtaining marketing approval from the DCGI. Roche has also stated that there is no public record available, in the clinical trial registry India (CTRI) or elsewhere to show that these two players actually conducted phase-I or II clinical trials for the drug.

According to report Roche claims that DCGI has approved the “protocol and design study for testing” of Biocon related to the proposed drug just before the above regulatory guidelines were made effective, predominantly for patients’ health and safety reasons.

Interim restrain of the Delhi High Court:

In response to Roche’s appeal, the Delhi High Court has reportedly restrained Mylan and Biocon from “relying upon” or “referring to Herceptin” or any data relating to it for selling or promoting their respective brands Canmab (Biocon) and Hertaz (Mylan) till the next hearing.

The relevance of ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’:

The ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’ clearly articulated:

“Since there are several biosimilar drugs under development in India, it is of critical importance to publish a clear regulatory pathway outlining the requirements to ensure comparable safety, efficacy and quality of a similar biologic to an authorized reference biologic.”

Thus for patients’ health and safety interest the above regulatory pathway must be followed, the way these have been prescribed without any scope of cutting corners. This is even more important when so important pharmacovigilance system is almost non-functional in India.

Attempts to dilute the above guidelines from some quarters:

It was earlier reported that strong representations were made to the drug regulator in writing by powerful domestic players in this area urging to dilute the above ‘Guidelines’, otherwise it will be difficult for them to compete with the pharma MNCs.

This argument is ridiculous by any standard and smacks of putting commercial considerations above patients’ health interest.

The key issue:

As I see it, four quick questions that float at the top of my mind are as follows:

  • If the ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’ have not been followed either by the applicants or by the DCGI, how would one establish beyond an iota of doubt that these drugs are biosimilar to Trastuzumab, if not ‘Biosimilar to Herceptin’?
  • If these drugs are not proven biosimilar to Trastuzumab, as specified in the ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’, how can one use Trastuzumab data for their marketing approvals and the DCGI granting the same?
  • If these drugs were not biosimilars to Trastuzumab, would these be as effective, reliable and safe as Herceptin in the treatment of breast cancer?
  • Further, how are references related to Herceptin being used to promote these drugs both pre and post market launch?

Conclusion:

I guess, predominantly commercial considerations prompted Roche to sue Biocon, Mylan and also the DCGI on ‘Trastuzumab biosimilars’, launched recently in India.

Be that as it may, for the interest of so many diagnosed breast cancer patients in the country, there is crying need for the facts to come out in the open, once and for all. Are these drugs truly Trastuzumab biosimilars with comparable safety, efficacy, quality and reliability of Herceptin?

If the answer comes as yes, there would be a huge sigh of relief from all corners inviting millions of kudos to Biocon and Mylan.

However, if by any chance, the allegations are proved right, I do not have an iota of doubt that the honorable Delhi High Court would ferret out the truth, unmask the perpetrators and give them exemplary punishments for playing with patients’ lives.

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.

Public Healthcare Space: Evaluating Three Fresh Edicts

Posted on by
Reply

Medicines constitute a significant cost component of modern healthcare systems across the world. However, in India the situation is even worse, where as per recent studies, drugs contribute as high as around 70 percent of the total treatment cost. This is mainly because overall healthcare system in the country is fundamentally different not just from the developed world, but also from many other developing countries like, China, Brazil, South Africa and Thailand, to name a few.

In most of those countries significant expenses towards healthcare including medicines are reimbursed either by the Governments or through health insurance or similar mechanisms. However, the Indian situation is just the reverse, where around 72 percent of overall healthcare costs, including medicines, are private or Out of Pocket (OoP), incurred by the individuals/families.

According to a recent report, ‘about 38 million people in India (which is more than Canada’s population) fall below the poverty line every year due to healthcare expenses, of which 70% is on purchase of drugs’, as stated above.

In this context, it is worth noting that for patented drugs, the Drug Policy of December 2012 clearly articulates that Government of India will follow the approach of price negotiation with the respective companies. Unfortunately, work done in this so important area by the concerned authority, so far, has been rather superficial, if not shoddy. Most of the patented products, which are prohibitively expensive, continue to remain out of reach of a vast majority of patients in india.

Expenditure towards healthcare – a fundamental need:

Expenditure towards healthcare in India, which is largely private, highly exploitative and thus expensive, is absolutely essential for all, either to be able to earn a living for a family or for maintaining a reasonable quality of life.

According to an ‘Access Survey’ conducted by IMS Consulting Group in 2012, ‘Out Patient (OP)’ treatment costs in private care is ~2-3 times that of public and in case of ‘In-Patient (IP)’ care it is ~4-8 times the cost of Public care.

Focus has not been just enough:

Since 1970, the Government of India and various States have been adopting  measures including, National Health Mission (NHM), Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY), Drug Price Control Order (DPCO), besides others, to make healthcare in general and medicines in particular affordable and accessible to the common man. However, these measures though essential, have not delivered quite well when measured against the set objectives. This keeps on happening, due to lack of accountability and inefficient Government control over the processes involved together with fast increasing exploitative mindset in the private healthcare space, over the last several decades.

Health being a State subject inequity in access:

Health being a State subject in India, there has been large variations in public healthcare spend within various States of the country. Some of the poorer States have low  per capita public healthcare expenditure and some of the richer states incur significantly more, leading to huge inequity of access, especially among the poorer sections of the society. (Source: IMS Consulting 2012)

Three fresh edicts:

In the above backdrop, the decision of the Government of India to increase the National Health Expenditure Budget from 1.2% to 2.5% of GDP in the 12th Five Year Plan of India in 2012 has the potential to be a game changer in the public healthcare space of India.

It is envisaged that this decent increase in the budgetary allocation will help initiating the process of Universal Health Care (UHC) to ensure free access to essential health services for every citizen of the country, including cashless in-patient and out-patient treatment for primary, secondary and tertiary care.

Probably as a precursor to UHC, the Government of India has announced three fresh edicts:

1. Budgetary clearance for ‘Free distribution of essential medicines’ by the States

2. Notification for operationalizing the new ‘Central Medical Services Society (CMSS)’ to streamline the drug procurement system 

3. Announcement for implementation of ‘Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs)’ 

The above edicts are indeed laudatory, as these measures, if taken effectively in tandem would also help maximizing overall productivity of the public healthcare delivery systems, immensely.  This is expected mainly because, the process would require avoidance of unnecessary medicines and diagnostics tests, chain of multiple doctor visits starting from GPs, specialists to super specialists, besides simultaneous re-engineering of below par public healthcare delivery systems of the country.

1. Budgetary clearance for free distribution of essential medicines by the States:

Late 2012, the Union Government made its first major move by formally clearing Rs. 13,000 Crore  (around US$ 2.2 billion) towards providing free medicines for all through government hospitals and health centers. The State Governments under National Health Mission to utilize this fund for purchase and free distribution of essential medicines. Some State Governments are already in the process of implementing this scheme, though effective implementation of the same, across the country, still remains a challenge.

This new scheme, I reckon, has also the potential to hasten the overall growth of the pharmaceutical industry, as poor patients who could not afford will now have access to essential medicines. On the other hand, rapidly growing middle class population will continue to favor branded generic drugs prescribed by the doctors at the private hospitals and clinics.

Some people are apprehending that generic drug makers will have brighter days as the project starts rolling on. This apprehension is based on the assumption that large branded generic players will be unable to take part in this big ticket drug procurement process of the Government, which seems to be imaginary at this stage.

However, in my view, it could well be a win-win situation for all types of players in the industry, where both the generic-generic and branded-generic businesses could continue to grow simultaneously.

That said procedural delays and drug quality issues, while procuring cheaper generics, might pose to be a great challenge for the Government to ensure speedier implementation of this project. Drug regulatory and law enforcing authorities will require to be extremely vigilant to ensure that while sourcing cheaper generic drugs, “Public health and safety” due to quality issues do not get compromised in any way.

POTENTIALITY: Significant increase in access to medicines and simultaneous sharp reduction on OoP expenses.

2. Operationalization of CMSS for drug procurement:

Recently this year, the Union Health Ministry issuing the final notification reportedly has made the drug procurement system through Central Medical Services Society (CMSS) formally operational.

The drug procurement for different flagship program, of the Government like National Health Mission, will now be done through the CMSS.

The notification says:

  • The CMSS will be responsible for procuring health sector goods in a transparent and cost-effective manner and distributing them to the States/UTs by setting up an IT enabled supply chain infrastructure including warehouses in 50 locations.
  • The main objective of CMSS is to ensure uninterrupted supply of health-sector goods to the state Government, which will then maintain the flow to the govt. health facilities such as district hospitals, primary health centers and community health centers.
  • All decisions on procurement will be taken by the CMSS without any reference to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
  • The Ministry will be responsible only for policy decisions concerning procurement and for monitoring its performance.
  • The CMSS will also assist the state governments to set up similar organizations in states to reform their procurement.
  • The Government has appointed the Director General and other key persons to run the organization, which will look to eliminate deficiencies in the existing system of purchasing medicines, vaccines, contraceptives and medical equipment for all government’s flagship program.
  • At present, the ministry procures drugs departmentally and through agents, drawing flaks and raking controversies at regular intervals.

This seemingly transparent drug procurement process for public use, would prompt tough price negotiations with the manufacturers for purchase of medicines leading to significant reduction in drug prices, as evidenced already in the States like, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan.

POTENTIALITY: Significant reduction in public healthcare costs, especially for medicines.

3. Announcement for implementation of Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs):

Another recent news that Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) for 20 disciplines will soon be put in place in India is indeed a breath of fresh air. The centers of excellence for healthcare, both public and private, for around 1.2 billion population of the country, are still rather limited.

STG is usually defined as a systematically developed statement designed to assist practitioners and patients in making decisions about appropriate cost-effective treatment for specific disease areas.

For each disease area, the treatment should include “the name, dosage form, strength, average dose (pediatric and adult), number of doses per day, and number of days of treatment. STG also includes specific referral criteria from a lower to a higher level of the diagnostic and treatment requirements.

For an emerging economy, like India, formulation of STGs would ensure cost-effective healthcare benefits to a vast majority of its population.

STGs, therefore, will provide:

- Standardized guidance to practitioners

- Cost-effective ‘health outcomes’ based services

The Ministry of Health is now reportedly mulling to streamline in a phased manner the disease treatment procedures and protocols by introducing STGs in 20 disciplines under the ‘Clinical Establishments Act’ of the country. These disciplines are Cardiovascular, Endocrinology, ENT, Gastroenterology, General Surgery, Interventional Radiology, Laboratory Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Organ Transplant, Pediatrics, Oncology, Urology, Nephrology, GI Surgery, Medicine Respiratory, Medicine Non-Respiratory, Critical Care, Ophthalmology, Neurology and Orthopedics.

The National Council for Clinical Establishments (NCCE) is the apex body under the Clinical Establishments Act. STGs, therefore, will be binding on all hospitals and establishments registered under the Clinical Establishments Act 2010.

The Council has already deliberated on the draft STGs prepared by the experts in the respective disciplines of medicines. Surgical intervention in cardiovascular diseases reportedly will assume priority while implementing the STGs.

It is expected that the first of the STGs will be announced soon.

Currently only Uttar Pradesh, Mizoram, Sikkim, Rajasthan, Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Jharkhand, apart from all Union Territories, have adopted the Act. Again, health being a State subject in India, all the States of the country will need to enforce this Act to make the initiative successful. However, states like West Bengal have their own Clinical Establishment Act, while Tamil Nadu has its own STGs.

Incidentally, putting STGs in place has been one of the long-standing demands of many, including the medical insurance companies. This is mainly because, laid-down protocols will make the hospitals avoiding unnecessary procedures on insured patients, thereby reducing the cost of treatment significantly.

POTENTIALITY: Huge reduction in healthcare cost, avoiding wastage in every step of any disease treatment. This could also help the medical insurance companies containing hospitalization costs, hopefully leading to reduced insurance premium.

Conclusions: 



All these three edicts of the Government, do promise a huge potential to help containing the overall cost of treatment in general and the costs of medicines in particular.

Effective implementation of these important initiatives would call for a significant change in mindset of all concerned. Doctors, hopefully, would also avoid using those expensive drugs having no significant improvement in ‘health outcomes’ over the cheaper alternatives.

STGs would initially need to be encouraged not just through self-regulation of the medical profession, but by the pharmaceutical industry and other allied interested parties in this area, as well. If ‘self-regulation’ does not work, stringent regulatory measures must be enforced by the Government to protect patients’ health interest.

No doubt both the Union and the State Governments of India would still have lot to chew in pursuit of ensuring affordable healthcare in general and medicines in particular, to all.

That said, would expectations of crafty implementation of these edicts, at least, flicker a ray of hope in an otherwise gloomy and exploitative overall healthcare environment of the country?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Big Pharma Demands Transparency, Keeping their ‘Black-Boxes’ Tight and Safe?

Posted on by
Reply

Pharmaceutical Industry across the globe wants absolute transparency in all government laws, policies, guidelines, transactions and overall governance. They also expect the trade environment should be predictable, non-manipulative and business-friendly. These expectations are indeed well justified and deserve whole-hearted support from all concerned.

However, when similar expectations of transparency are voiced by stakeholders in the Big Pharma business operations, that will have direct or indirect impact on public health interests, one would mostly encounter a well guarded, mammoth and impregnable ‘Black Box’, wearing a ‘Top Secret’ label, with all relevant information kept inside.

Such areas of stakeholders’ interests on Big Pharma could well be related to details, like for example:

  • Actual break-up of R&D expense details,
  • Transparency in all clinical trials data for experts review,
  • Patented products’ pricing rationale,
  • Enormous total costs of lobbying and related expenses at the global level,
  • Marketing spend on doctors and other decision makers, directly or indirectly, just to name a few.

Mounting curiosity:

Continuation of such opaque practices for a long time, in turn, sparks the curiosity of the intelligentsia to know more in details, especially, about the areas as stated above.

Various research studies are now coming up, with huge revelations and strong findings in these areas. All of these together indicate, it is about time for the global pharma to also demonstrate transparency in their respective business practices and corporate governances, without further delay.

If it does not happen, probably respective governments in various countries will start acting on these areas of opaque self-serving pharma business practices, with the enactment and more importantly, stricter enforcement of requisite laws and policies. President Obama Administration in the United States has already initiated some important actions in these areas with proposals and laws, like for example,  the “Physicians Payment Sunshine Act’ .

The ‘Power Game’:

An interesting article of May 3, 2013 highlighted that the global pharmaceutical industry exerts incredible influence over the prescription medicines across the globe. This power, as many will know, flows from robust political contacts and influences over various important government agencies administrating the entire healthcare system, executed immaculately by expensive lobbying and PR campaigns by their globally integrated trade bodies.

Similar powerful influences also get extended to doctors and the people who matter to further their interests. These well crafted plans are reportedly executed through sponsored or paid opinion-modifying articles, ‘advertorials’, DTC advertisements (wherever legally permitted) and well-organized, seemingly third party, speeches to push the envelopes further.

Most probably, keeping such ongoing practices in mind and coming under intense media pressure, the Medical Council of India (MCI) on December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ for the doctors in India. Unfortunately, its implementation on the ground is rather tardy.

The above article also stated, “In fact, in the United States the industry contributes heavily to the annual budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is charged with regulating drugs and devices made by those same companies.”

Avoidable Expenditures:

The paper indicates that in the United States alone the industry associations:

  • Have 1,100-plus paid lobbyists on Capitol Hill,
  • Allocated US$ 188 million annual lobbying budget
  • Doles out around US$ 14 million to political candidates every year

The report also comments, ‘Drug companies spend substantially more on marketing than they do on research and development.’

Influencing opinion against patients’ interest?

The article in the ‘drugwatch’ also states:

“Doctors are persuaded by the pharma companies to attach their names (ghost writing), against financial considerations, to favorable article on a particular drug ensuring that it is published in a well reputable medical journal.”

The author continues that ‘Ghost writings’ are being used to promote numerous drugs to influence concerned stakeholders.

In 1998, a study of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine found that ‘out of 75 published articles, nearly half were written by authors with financial conflicts. And, worse than this, only two of the articles disclosed interests.’

Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, was quoted saying, “All journals are bought – or at least cleverly used – by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Striking facts:

Following are some striking facts as reported in the article, as mentioned above:

“Advertising instead of research: For every US$ 1 spent on “basic research,” Big Pharma spends US$ 19 on promotions and advertising.

Distribution of free drug samples: The United States has 1 pharmaceutical sales representative for every 5 office-based physicians.

Sponsorship of symposiums and medical conventions: Drug and medical device makers spend lavishly on doctors, including covering meals, travel, seminars and conventions that may look more like vacations.”

Pressure on publications:

The paper highlights that large global pharma majors may even pull its advertisements out, if the concerned medical journal will question the accuracy of an ad. Such types of threats have very serious effects on these journals in running their businesses without getting lucrative advertisement dollars from the drug manufacturers.

Making drugs looking good:

The same article highlights:

“Quite often the academics and scientists are hired hands who supply human subjects and collect data according to the instructions from their corporate employers. Sponsors keep the data, analyze, write the papers and decide whether and when and where to submit them for publication. Drug companies have discovered ways to stage-manage trials to produce predetermined outcomes that will put their products in the best light.”

With this strategy even a bad drug can allegedly be made looking good by doing many things, like for example:

  • Comparing them to a placebo
  • Comparing them to a competitor’s medication in the wrong strength
  • Pairing them with a drug that is known to work well
  • Shortening a trial before any bad results surface
  • Testing in groups too small to provide valid evidence

Pay-for-delay deals:

A recent report titled, “Top twenty pay-for-delay drugs: How Industry pay-off delay generics” highlights that ‘Pay-for-delay deals’ have forced patients in the United States to pay an average of 10 times more than necessary for at least 20 blockbuster drugs.

Key findings of the analysis on the impact of pay-for-delay deals are as follows:

  • This practice has held back generic medicines used by patients with a wide range of serious or chronic conditions, ranging from cancer and heart disease, to depression and bacterial infection.
  • These payoffs have delayed generic drugs for five years, on average, and as long as nine years.
  • These brand-name drugs cost 10 times more than their generic equivalents, on average, and as much as 33 times more.
  • These patented drug companies have made an estimated US$ 98 billion in total sales of these drugs while the generic versions were delayed.

Citing example, the paper says, a pay-for-delay deal kept a generic version of the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen off the US market for nine years, while Pfizer made $7.4 billion in sales of its cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor (atorvastatin) in 2012 alone.

The point to ponder yet again is, why such practices are being surreptitiously carried out for years sacrificing patients’ interest and without the regulators’ strong interventions, in general?

French Government has initiated a probe:

The French Competition Authority is reportedly expected to publish a report on the findings of its inquiry, initiated in February 2013, into the costs and pricing of medicines in France. The report will also look at whether industry practices are interfering with the market entry of generic drugs, including distribution arrangements between drug manufacturers, wholesalers and pharmacists.

An appreciable initiative in America, but why not in India?

There is still a simmering hope. As indicated above, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act reportedly requires that from September 2013, pharmaceutical companies will need to collect data and openly report information on payments, investment interests, ownership and items of value given to doctors and hospitals. Very unfortunately, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has not taken any such steps, as yet, despite the situation turning grave in the country.

The power of pharma lobby in the US:

According to a recent NYT report, in the United States, government health programs are forbidden from rejecting new drugs on cost grounds.

When the issue of drug prices came up as part of President Obama’s ‘Affordable Care Act’ debate, it was summarily rejected in Congress. Simultaneously, a move toward comparative-effectiveness studies, putting rival drugs or treatments through trials to determine which work better, was also decried.

The report highlights, the mere suggestion of the US government throwing its weight around on drug prices stirs up talk of ‘socialism’. The pharma lobby doesn’t have to look far for support in fighting that idea. In the US, the so-called ‘free market’ is trusted to regulate drug prices, despite the reality that the healthcare market is far from transparent, ‘with byzantine pricing mechanisms and costs that vary wildly region-by-region, pharmacy by pharmacy and even patient-by-patient’.

The usual supply/demand/pricing relationships do not apply to drug prices at the consumer level in the US too, just as it has been proved in India. 

A large part of creation of this environment is attributed to pharmaceutical and other health-products firms, who reportedly spent a total of US$ 250 million on lobbying last year. 

Big Pharma keeps failing credibility tests:

This happened very recently, when The Guardian in July 2013 reported, the pharmaceutical industry has “mobilized” an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drug trials. This is related to the news that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) could force drug companies to publish all Clinical Trial (CT) results in a public database.

The above report says, while some pharma players agreed to share data, important global pharma industry associations have resisted this plan of the EMA. The report continues, a leaked letter from two large pharma trade associations, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) of the United States and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), have drawn out a strategy to combat calls by drug regulators to force companies to publish all CT results.

The strategy reportedly shows how patient groups, many of which receive some or all of their funding from drugs companies, have been drawn into this battle by these Big Pharma lobby groups.

The e-mail reportedly seen by ‘The Guardian’ was from Richard Bergström, Director General of EFPIA, addressed to directors and legal counsel at Roche, Merck, Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis and many smaller companies.

The e-mail leaked by an employee of a pharma company describes a four-pronged campaign that starts with “mobilizing patient groups to express concern about the risk to public health by non-scientific re-use of data”.

Translated, as ‘The Guardian’ reported, “that means patient groups go into bat for the industry by raising fears that if full results from drug trials are published, the information might be misinterpreted and cause a health scare.”

This appears to be another classic case of vested interests working against patients’ interests.

Global lobbying started taking the center stage in India too:

With the above back-drop and lobbying scandals reportedly being surfaced in many other countries, it is about time that India puts its acts together with India-specific stricter disclosure policies, including R&D, Clinical Trials (CTs), Patented Products Pricing, Marketing Practices and Trade Lobbying.

Interestingly, to influence Government policies India’s top lobbying spenders in 2012 (US$ million) were reported as follows:

1 US Chamber of Commerce

136.3
2 National Association of Realtors

41.5
3 Blue Cross / Blue Shield

22.5
4 General Electric

21.1
5 American Hospital Association

19.2
6 National Cable & Telecom. Association

18.9
7 Pharmaceutical Research & Mfrs. of America (PhRMA)

18.5
8 Google

18.2
9 Northrop Grumman

17.5
10 AT&T

17.4
11 American Medical Association

16.5
12 Boeing

15.6

Source: The Center for Responsive Politics (Economic Times, June 4, 2013)

According to the latest lobbying disclosure reports filed with the US Senate and the House of Representatives, at least two dozen American companies and industry associations are reportedly lobbying hard with the US lawmakers on issues in India, which include:

  • Intellectual Property (IP)
  • Patent
  • Market access

Another recent report comments as follows:

“The US Chamber of Commerce has become a portal for dubious reports that claim India’s intellectual property regime is worse than China’s. Such “research” by paid lobbyists and disseminated through the halls of US Congress…”

Hefty fines for illegal practices, yet Black Box remains tight and safe: 

In December 2010, Healthcare advocacy group Public Citizen published a report that, for the first time, documented all major financial settlements and court judgments between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the federal and state governments of the United States since 1991.

It says, almost US$ 20 billion was paid out by the pharmaceutical industry to settle allegations of numerous violations, including illegal, off-label marketing and the deliberate overcharging of taxpayer-funded health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Three-fourths of the settlements and accompanying financial penalties had occurred in just the five-year period prior to 2010. There has been no indication that this upward trend is subsiding.

10 Largest Settlements and Judgments on Big Pharma mis governance:
(Period: Nov. 2, 1010 – July 18, 2012)

Company Amount    US$ Million Year Reasons
1. GlaxoSmithKline 3, 000 2012 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks, concealing study data, overcharging government health programs
2. Abbott  1,500 2012 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
3. Johnson & Johnson 1,200 2012 Unlawful promotion
4.  Merck 950 2011 Unlawful promotion
5. Ranbaxy 500 2012 Poor manufacturing practices, falsifying data on FDA applications.
6. Johnson & Johnson 327 2011 Unlawful promotion
7. Boehringer Ingelheim 280 2011 Overcharging government health programs
8. Mylan’s Dey Pharma unit 280 2010 Overcharging government health programs
9. Elan 203 2010 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
10. Johnson & Johnson 158 2012 Unlawful promotion

Conclusion:

All such expenditures, including expensive lobbying and court settlement charges for illegal business practices, as mentioned above, I reckon, are wasteful and avoidable. These are mostly outcomes of self serving measures, shorn of public health interest, 

If all these costs are eliminated and actual R&D expenses are reflected, in a transparent manner, there could be significant reduction in the costs of newer innovative drugs, extending their access to billions of patients, across the world.

Thus to help evaluating the innovative drugs with greater transparency, there is an urgent need for the Big Pharma to set examples by voluntarily disclosing the secrets hidden within the ‘Black Boxes’, as deliberated above. These disclosures should be made to the independent experts and the respective Governments under appropriate statutes.

Expectations of transparency in Governance should not, therefore, be restricted just to Government laws, policies and decisions, the industry should reciprocate it too, in equal measures.

To be patient-centric, transparency in governance needs to be a two-way traffic, where pharma industry should volunteer to be an integral part, sooner than later. Otherwise it may be too late for them to avoid harsh interventions of the respective regulators, as the intense pressure from intelligentsia, civil society and media, keep mounting.

That said, the question lingers:

When the ‘Big Pharma is rightly demanding transparency in all areas of public discourse, why are they so reluctant in making their intriguing ‘Black Boxes’ transparent, that too only in areas of public health interest, for fair experts review?

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.

Robust implementation of Biosimilar Guidelines could help India earn leadership status in ‘Biosimilar World’

Posted on by
Reply

Across the world, biologic drugs, in general, have a successful record in treating many life threatening and other complicated ailments. Expiration of product patents of the first major group of originators’ biologic molecules has led to the development of products that are designed to be ‘similar’ to the originators’ products, as it is virtually impossible to replicate any protein substances, unlike the ‘small molecule’ drugs.

These are known as ‘Follow-on Biologics’ or more commonly ‘Biosimilar Drugs’, which rely in part, on prior information obtained from the innovators’ products and demonstration of similarity with the originator’s molecule based on detailed and comprehensive product characterization, for their marketing approval.

The bedrock: 

India seems to have a good potential to become one of the key players in the development and manufacture of biosimilar drugs, not only to serve the needs of the local population, but also for exports to large developed and other developing markets. However, for this dream to materialize science-driven ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’ are absolutely necessary and should form the bedrock in the development process of all such drugs.

Paving the way: 

These guidelines will provide a regulatory framework or pathway to ensure that biosimilar Drugs approved in India are of good quality and demonstrably similar in efficacy, safety and immunogenicity to the original reference products.

Paving the way for such regulatory framework in the country with comprehensive sets of guidelines is of utmost importance, especially in the light of prevailing sub-optimal pharmacovigilance system in India.

Setting ground rules: 

Considerable developments have occurred across the globe in the scientific and regulatory understanding of biosimilar drugs. Nearly all developed nations and many developing countries have now defined or in the process of defining appropriate regulatory framework for the same.

However, due to lack of such guidelines in India, until recently, there have been instances of so called ‘biosimilar drugs’ being approved for marketing, reportedly with sub-optimal testing and dossiers, thereby putting into question the product quality, comparability and patient safety.

With the above backdrop, the Ministries of Health & Family Welfare and the Science and Technology have now set the ground rules and released India’s first “Guidelines on Similar Biologics: Regulatory Requirements for Marketing Authorization in India”. These Guidelines are already in place effective September 15, 2012.

A step in the right direction: 

Long awaited new ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’ of India, demonstrating an overall similarity in the philosophy and approach with the those in the U.S and Europe, though a belated move by the Government, but certainly a step in the right direction.

The global potential:

In most of the developed countries, besides regulatory issues, biosimilar drugs are considered to be a threat to fast growing high value innovative global biotech industry.

At the same time, there is an urgent need to effectively address the global concern for cheaper and more affordable biologic medicines for patients across the world. To achieve this objective, relatively smaller biotech companies, given the required wherewithal  at their disposal, could emerge as winners in this new ball game as compared to traditional generic pharmaceutical players.

Biosimilar drugs will, therefore, have immense global potential to improve access to life saving biologic medicines for the ailing population across the continents.

First ‘Biosimilar drug’ in the US: 

In mid-2006, US FDA approved its first ‘Biosimilar drug’- Omnitrope of Sandoz (Novartis) following a court directive. Omnitrope is a copycat version of Pfizer’s human growth hormone, Genotropin. Interestingly, Sandoz had also taken the US FDA to court for keeping its regulatory approval pending for a while in the absence of a well-defined regulatory pathway for ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the USA at that time.

Having received the US-FDA approval, the CEO of Sandoz had then commented, “The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”.

Despite this event, very few people at that time expected the US FDA to put regulatory guidelines in place for approval of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the largest pharmaceutical market of the world.

Global initiatives:

Internationally most known companies in the biosimilar drugs space are Teva, Stada, Hospira and Sandoz. Other large research based global innovator pharmaceutical companies, which so far have expressed interest in the field of biosimilar drugs are Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Merck and Eli Lilly.

Following are the examples of some relatively recent biosimilar drug related initiatives of the global players:

  • Merck announced its entry into the biosimilar drugs business on February 12, 2009 with its acquisition of Insmed’s portfolio for US$ 130 million in cash. The company also paid US$ 720 million to Hanwha for rights to its copy of Enbrel of Amgen
  • Samsung of South Korea has set up a biosimilars joint venture with Quintiles to create a contract manufacturer for biotech drugs.
  • Celltrion and LG Life Sciences have expressed global ambitions in biosimilar drugs.

According to Reuter (June 22, 2011), Merck, Sandoz, Teva and Pfizer are expected to emerge stronger in the global biosimilar market, as we move on. 

In India: 

  • Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) has already been marketing a biosimilar version of Rituxan of Roche since 2007.
  • Reliance Life Science is also a potential player in the biosimilar market, though it has reportedly faced a setback in Europe with the regulators asking for more data for its version of EPO prompting them to withdraw their application for now.

Many other developments are also taking place in tandem in the space of biosimilar drugs, the world over. To fetch maximum benefits out of this emerging opportunity, as mentioned above, India has already started taking steps to tighten its regulatory process for marketing approval of such drugs. This is absolutely necessary to allay general apprehensions on drug safety with inadequate clinical data for similar protein substances.

The global market:

According to Datamonitor the global market for biosimilars drugs is expected to grow from US$ 243 million in 2010 to around US $3.7 billion by 2015.

Another report points out that only in the top two largest pharmaceutical markets of the world, the USA and EU, sales of biosimilar drugs will record a turnover of US$ 16 billion in the next couple of years when about 60 biotech products will go off-patent. 

Major Indian players:

Such a lucrative business opportunity in the western world is obviously attracting many Indian players, like, Biocon, Dr. Reddy’s Labs, Ranbaxy, Wockhardt, Shantha Biotech, Reliance Life Science etc., who have already acquired expertise in the development of biosimilar drugs like, erythropoietin, insulin, monoclonal antibodies, interferon-alpha, which are not only being marketed in India, but are also exported to other non/less-regulated markets of the world.

Ranbaxy in collaboration with Zenotech Laboratories is engaged in global development of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (GCSF) formulations. Wockhardt is expected to enter into the global biosimilar drugs market shortly. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Biocon are also preparing themselves for global development and marketing of insulin products, GCSF and streptokinase formulations. 

The domestic market:

According to IMS Health March 2012, the biosimilar drugs market in India is around US$ 700 million with the main categories being as follows:

Therapy Area US $ Million
Insulin 250
Hepatitis-B Vaccine 200
Heparin 70
Human Chorionic Gonadotropin 50

Moreover, as per available reports, till March 2012 about 91 clinical trials have been lined-up in India for 20 recombinant therapeutics, as approved by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee.

Brand proliferation offering wider choices: 

Currently there has been huge brand proliferation for biosimilar products in India with around 250 brands in 20 therapeutic areas. Some examples are as follows:

Therapy Area No. of Brands
Insulin 40
Erythropoietin 55
Human Chorionic Gonadotropin 48
Streptokinase 33
Interferon 10
Heparin 10

Increasing demand:

The demand of such drugs even in India is increasing at a rapid pace. The focus of the government on various immunization programs is also getting sharper simultaneously. For example, during 2011-12, the government spent around US$ 115 million for routine immunization covering reportedly about 25 million pregnant women and children and nearly US$ 140 million towards pulse polio vaccination initiatives. This trend, though may not still be enough for the size and scale of a country like India, but praiseworthy nonetheless.

The focus on Oncology: 

Within bio-pharmaceuticals many companies are targeting Oncology disease area, which is estimated to be the largest emerging segment with a value turnover of over US$ 55 billion in 2010 growing over 17%.

As per recent reports about 8 million deaths take place all over the world every year only due to cancer. May be for this reason, the research pipeline for NMEs is dominated by oncology with global pharmaceutical majors’ sharp R&D focus and research spend being on this particular disease area.

About 50 NMEs for the treatment of cancer are expected to be launched in the global markets by 2015.

Indian market for oncology products: 

Current size of the Indian oncology market is reportedly around US$ 75 million.

Biocon has launched its monoclonal antibody based drug BIOMAb-EGFR for treating solid tumors with intent to introduce this product in the western markets as soon as they can get necessary regulatory approvals. Similarly, Ranbaxy with its strategic collaboration with Zenotech Laboratories is planning to market oncology products in various markets of the world like, Brazil, Mexico, CIS and Russia.

Government support: 

It has been reported that the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) of the Government of India has proposed funding of US$ 68 million for biosimilar drugs through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, where soft loans will be made available to the Indian biotech companies for the same.

Currently DBT spends reportedly around US$ 200 million annually towards biotechnology related projects. 

Areas of concern:

According to a research report from ‘The Decision Resources’, one of the key success factors for any such new biosimilar drugs, especially from India, will be how quickly the specialists accept them.

The report also noted a high level of concerns, if such drugs are not supported by robust sets of clinical data on the claimed treatment indications. To allay this concern robust implementation of the recent biosimilar guidelines in India will play a very critical role.

Conclusion: 

As the R&D based global innovator companies are expanding into the biosimilar space, many Indian domestic pharmaceutical companies are also poised to invest on biosimilars drugs development to fully encash the emerging global opportunities in this area. It is quite prudent for the Indian players to focus on the oncology therapy area, as it has now emerged as the fastest growing segment in the global pharmaceutical industry.

With around 40 percent cost arbitrage and without compromising on the required stringent national and international regulatory standards, the domestic biosimilar players should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for biosimilar drugs.

Experience in conformance to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside U.S, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in India.

Having progressed thus far, with adequate additional investments for similar biologics and ensuring robust implementation of new ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’, India has the potential to earn the leadership status even in the global biosimilar segment, just as it did in the generic pharmaceutical space of the world.

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.

Finance Ministry Disallows Expenses on ‘Freebies’ to Doctors by Pharma Companies in line with MCI Guidelines: A Possible Game Changer?

Posted on by
Reply

Things are unfolding reasonably faster now related to the financial relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession. All these issues are getting increasingly dragged into the public debate where government can no longer play the role of a mere bystander.

Last month, around middle of July, most of the leading English business dailies of India reported that much-awaited “Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)” authored by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, quite in line with the amended guidelines for the medical profession by the Medical Council of India (MCI), is expected to be notified by the government by August, 2012 for implementation by the entire pharmaceutical industry on a voluntary basis for six months, to start with.

Department of Revenue now steps in:

Closely following the recent series of events, it now appears that there is a good possibility of framing a robust financial regulation by the Government of India to make the disclosure of all payments made to the physicians by the pharmaceutical companies’ mandatory, like the ‘Physician Payments Sunshine Act in the USA’.

I reckon, this is just a matter of time that similar steps are taken in India, perhaps in stages.

CBDT disallows expenses on all ‘freebies’ to Doctors:

However, taking the first step closer to that direction, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), which is a part of Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance has now decided to disallow expenses on all ‘freebies’ to Doctors by the Pharmaceutical Companies in India.

A circular dated August 1, 2012 of the CBDT that the any expenses incurred by the pharmaceutical companies on gifts and other ‘freebies’ given to the doctors will no longer be allowed as business expenses.

MCI Guidelines are the basis:

The above decision of the CBDT is based on the notification of the Medical Council of India (MCI) dated December 10, 2009 amending the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002”, prohibiting the medical practitioners and their professional associations from taking any gift, travel facility, hospitality, cash or monetary grant from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industries. Amended guidelines of the MCI came into force with effect from December 14, 2009.

Areas of stricter MCI regulations: The above notification of MCI clearly specifies stricter regulations for doctors in their relationship with the ‘pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry and associations’ in the following areas: 1. Gifts 2. Travel facilities 3. Hospitality 4. Cash or Monetary grants 5. Medical Research 6. Maintaining Professional Autonomy 7. Affiliation 8. Endorsement

Tax Assessing Officers have also been instructed:

Based on this amendment, CBDT has now decided that all claims related to expenses incurred in providing the above mentioned or similar ‘freebies’ in violation of the provisions of Regulations 2002 of the MCI on ‘Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics’ of the doctors, shall now be inadmissible under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act being an expense prohibited by the law.

This disallowance shall be made in the hands of all such pharmaceutical or allied health sector industries or other assesses which have provided the ‘freebies’ mentioned above and claimed it as deductible business expenses in their respective accounts against income.

CBDT has directed its assessing officers, with the above circular, to follow this new practice.

CBDT Circular:

“INADMISSIBILITY OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN PROVIDING FREEBEES TO MEDICAL PRACTITIONER BY PHARMACEUTICAL AND ALLIED HEALTH SECTOR INDUSTRY

CIRCULAR NO. 5/2012 [F. NO. 225/142/2012-ITA.II], DATED 1-8-2012

It has been brought to the notice of the Board that some pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industries are providing freebees (freebies) to medical practitioners and their professional associations in violation of the regulations issued by Medical Council of India (the ‘Council’) which is a regulatory body constituted under the Medical Council Act, 1956.

2. The council in exercise of its statutory powers amended the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (the regulations) on 10-12-2009 imposing a prohibition on the medical practitioner and their professional associations from taking any Gift, Travel facility, Hospitality, Cash or monetary grant from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industries.

3. Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act provides for deduction of any revenue expenditure (other than those failing under sections 30 to 36) from the business Income if such expense is laid out/expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business or profession. However, the explanation appended to this sub-section denies claim of any such expense, if the same has been incurred for a purpose which is either an offense or prohibited by law.

Thus, the claim of any expense incurred in providing above mentioned or similar freebees in violation of the provisions of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 shall be inadmissible under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act being an expense prohibited by the law. This disallowance shall be made in the hands of such pharmaceutical or allied health sector Industries or other assesse which has provided aforesaid freebees and claimed it as a deductible expense in its accounts against income.

4. It is also clarified that the sum equivalent to value of freebees enjoyed by the aforesaid medical practitioner or professional associations is also taxable as business income or income from other sources as the case may be depending on the facts of each case. The Assessing Officers of such medical practitioner or professional associations should examine the same and take an appropriate action.

This may be brought to the notice of all the officers of the charge for necessary action.”

The turning point:

In 2010, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ expressed its deep concern that “the evil practice” of inducement of doctors continued because the Medical Council of India had no jurisdiction over the pharma industry and it could not enforce the code of ethics on it.’

It was widely reported that the letter of the Congress Member of Parliament, Dr. Jyoti Mirdha to the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, attaching a bunch of air tickets to claim that ‘doctors and their families were beating the scorching Indian summer with a trip to England and Scotland, courtesy a pharmaceutical company’, compelled the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to initiate inquiry and action on the subject.

The letter had claimed that as many as 30 family members of 11 doctors from all over India enjoyed the hospitality of the pharmaceutical company.

In addition Dr. Mirdha reportedly wrote to the PMO that “The malpractice did not come to an end because while medical profession (recipients of incentives) is subjected to a mandatory code, there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the healthcare industry (givers of incentives). Result: Ingenious methods have been found to flout the code.”

The report also indicated at that time that the Department of Pharmaceuticals is trying to involve the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance to explore the possibilities in devising methods to link the money trail to offending companies.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, it now appears that the new ball game of working out winning pharmaceutical marketing strategies and practices will no longer be driven by more of a ‘deep pocket’ syndrome and less of ‘cerebral power’, by all concerned.

If the new regulations are implemented effectively by the Government, I shall not be surprised to witness a dramatic change in the prescription share of various companies in the next 3 to 5 years, thereby impacting the ranking of these companies in the Indian pharmaceutical industry league table significantly, separating men from the boys.

Thus, the name of the game in the pharmaceutical marketing space, in not too distant future, is expected to be decided by the winning innovative ideas, whose time has just become ripe.

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.

Getting unfolded a global opportunity for India with Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

Over a period of time, the trend of a disease treatment process is becoming more targeted and personalized to improve effectiveness of both diagnosis and treatment. Biotechnology being the key driver to this trend, India should not fall out of line from this direction.

There are two clear opportunities for India in this fast evolving arena. One is to get more engaged in the discovery research of new large molecular entity and the other is to make a successful foray in the fast emerging and relatively high value biosimilar drugs (generic versions of biotechnology medicines) markets of the world.

In my view, India has greater probability of success in the field of biosimilar drugs, which could catapult India as a major force to reckon with in the fast growing biotechnology space of the global pharmaceutical industry.

An interesting global collaboration:

On October 19, 2010, the home grown Biotech Company Biocon with its headquarter in the Information Technology (IT) heartland of India – Bangalore created a stir in the Industry by inking an interesting international business deal with the largest global pharmaceutical company – Pfizer.

With this deal of US $350 million Biocon initiated its foray into the global biosimilar market by enabling Pfizer to globally commercialize Biocon’s biosimilar human recombinant insulin and three insulin analogues.

Before this deal, Sanofi-Pasteur, the’ vaccine business unit’ of the global major Sanofi of France had acquired Shantha Biotechnics, located in Hyderabad for a consideration of US$ 602 million, in July 2009.

Global players signal a new aspiration:

Just a year before the above acquisition in India, on December 11, 2008, Reuters reported that just two days after Merck announced a major push into biosimilar medicines, Eli Lilly signaled similar aspirations. This report, at that time, raised many eyebrows in the global pharmaceutical industry, as it was in the midst of a raging scientific debate on the appropriate regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs globally.

Be that as it may, many felt that this announcement ushered in the beginning of a new era in the pharmaceutical sector of the world, not just for the pharmaceutical players, but also for the patients with the availability of affordable lower priced biologic medicines.

The scenario is heating up with regulatory hurdles relatively easing off:

Within the developed world, European Union (EU) had taken a lead towards this direction by putting a robust system in place, way back in 2003. In the US, along with the recent healthcare reform process of the Obama administration, the regulatory pathway for biosimilar drugs is now being charted out by the US FDA. However, as of November 2011, they do not seem to have finalized the details of the process.

It is worth mentioning that during the same reform process a 12 year data exclusivity period has been granted for biosimilar drugs, against the 5-year period of the same granted to the innovators of small molecule chemical drugs.

In the recent past, the EU has approved Sandoz’s (Novartis) Filgrastim (Neupogen brand of Amgen), which is prescribed for the treatment of Neutropenia. With Filgrastim, Sandoz will now have 3 biosimilar products in its portfolio.

The trigger factor:

Globally, the scenario for biosimilar drugs started heating up when Merck announced that the company expects to have at least 5 biosimilars in the late stage development by 2012. The announcement of both Merck and Eli Lilly surprised many, as the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the USA, at that time, was yet to approve the regulatory pathway for biosimilar medicines.

What then are the trigger factors for the research based global pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck and Eli Lilly to step into the arena of biosimilar medicines? Is it gradual drying up research pipeline together with skyrocketing costs of global R&D initiatives, cost containment pressures from the payers or relatively strong market entry barrier for smaller players? I reckon, all of these.

Low penetration of lower cost biosimilar drugs:

Although at present over 150 different biologic medicines are available globally, just around 11 countries have access to low cost biosimilar drugs, India being one of them. Supporters of biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as time passes by.

It has been widely reported that the cost of treatment with innovative and patented biologic drugs can vary from US$ 100,000 to US$ 300,000 a year. A 2010 review on biosimilar drugs published by the Duke University highlights that biosimilar equivalent of such biologics could not only reduce the cost of treatment,  but would also improve access to such drugs significantly for the patients across the globe. (Source: Chow, S. and Liu, J. 2010, Statistical assessment of biosimilar products, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 20.1:10-30)

At present, the key global players are Sandoz (Novartis), Teva, BioPartners, BioGenerix (Ratiopharm) and Bioceuticals (Stada). With the entry of pharmaceutical majors like, Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck and Eli Lilly, the global biosimilar market is expected to heat up and develop at a much faster pace than ever before. Removal of regulatory hurdles (ban) for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US , as mentioned above, will be the key growth driver.

Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) in the Pipeline:

Company

Location

Biosimilar mAbs

Development Status
BioXpress

Switzerland

16

Preclinical
Gene Techno Science

Japan

6

Preclinical
Zydus Cadilla

India

5

Preclinical
PlantForm

Canada

3

Preclinical
BioCad

Russia

3

Preclinical
Celltrion

South Korea

2

Phase 3
LG Life Sciences

South Korea

2

Preclinical
Gedeon Richter

Hungary

2

Preclinical
Cerbios-Pharma

Switzerland

1

Preclinical
Hanwha Chemical

South Korea

1

Preclinical
PharmaPraxis

Brazil

1

Preclinical
Probiomed

Mexico

1

Phase 3
Samsung BioLogics

South Korea

1

Preclinical
Novartis

Switzerland

1

Phase 2
Teva

Israel

1

Phase 2
Zenotech

India

1

Phase 3
Spectrum

US

1

Preclinical
Biocon/Mylan

India/US

1

Preclinical

(Source: PharmaShare; as of September 10, 2011 from Citeline’s Pipeline database)

Global Market Potential:

According to a study (2011) conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., worldwide market for biosimilar drugs is estimated to reach US$ 4.8 billion by the year 2015, the key growth drivers being as follows:

  • Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs
  • Cost containment measures of various governments
  • Aging population
  • Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries
  • Recent establishment of regulatory guidelines for biosimilars in the US

On the other hand, according to Alan Shepard, principal of Thought Leadership, Global Generics at IMS Health: ‘Forecasting biosimilar sales is complex because of various factors including the imprecise classification of a biosimilar and pricing policies of the originator resulting in the use of the brand in place of the biosimilar. Some estimates show the market growing from US$ 66 million in 2008 to US$ 2.3 billion in 2015. Others see sales exceeding US$ 5.6 billion in 2013. Whatever the forecast, there remains a US$ 50 billion potential for biosimilars’.

Currently, off-patent biologic blockbusters including Erythropoietin offer an excellent commercial opportunity in this category. By 2013, about 10 more patented biologics with a total turnover of around U.S. $ 15 billion will go off-patent, throwing open even greater opportunity for the growth of biosimilar drugs globally.

The scenario and business potential in India:

The size of biotech industry in India is estimated to be around US$ 4 billion by 2015 with a scorching pace of growth driven by both local and global demands (E&Y Report 2011). The biosimilar drugs market in India is expected to reach US$ 2 billion in 2014 (source: Evalueserve, April 2010).

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies like Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) etc.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies will be to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Indian players are making rapid strides:

Biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. Last year Rituxan clocked a turnover of over US$ 2 billion. DRL also has developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood-cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India. Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF.

On the other hand Glenmark reportedly is planning to come out with its first biotech product by 2011 from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla reportedly has invested Rs 300 crore in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab  in China and is planning to launch a biosimilar drug in the field of oncology  by end 2012.

In June this year another large pharmaceutical company of India, Lupin  signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly will use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs  in the field of oncology, the first one of which is expected to be launched in India again by 2012.

Oncology is becoming the research hot-spot:

As indicated above, many domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies are targeting Oncology disease area for developing biosimilar drugs, which is estimated to be the largest segment globally with a value turnover of over US$ 55 billion by the end of this year growing over 17%.

As per recent reports, about 8 million deaths take place all over the world per year due to cancer. May be for this reason the research pipeline of NMEs is dominated by oncology. With the R&D focus of the deep-pocket global pharmaceutical majors’ on this particular therapy area, the trend will continue to go north.

About 50 NMEs for the treatment of cancer are expected to be launched globally by 2015.

Current market size of Oncology drugs in India is estimated to be around Rs.1,300 Crore (US$ 260 million) and is expected to double by 2014.

Greater potential for global collaborative initiatives:

It is envisaged that the recent Pfizer – Biocon deal will trigger many other collaborative initiatives between the global and the local pharmaceutical companies.

Among Indian biotech companies, Reliance Life Sciences has already marketed Recombinant Erythropoietin, Recombinant Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor, Recombinant Interferon Alpha and Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and  has been reported to have the richest pipeline of biosimilar drugs in India.

Companies like Wockhardt, Lupin, DRL and Intas Biopharmaceuticals are also in the process of developing an interesting portfolio of biosimilar drugs to fully encash the fast growing global opportunities.

‘Patent Cliff’ is hastening the process:

Many large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, after having encountered the ‘patent cliff’, are now looking at the small molecule generic and large molecule biosimilar businesses, in a mega scale, especially in the emerging markets of the world like India.

The country has witnessed major acquisitions like, Ranbaxy, Shantha Biotechnics and Piramal Healthcare by Daiichi Sankyo of Japan, Sanofi of France and Abbott of USA, respectively. We have also seen collaborative initiatives of large global companies like, GSK, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer with Indian companies like DRL, Aurobindo, Claris, Torrent, Zydus Cadila, Strides Arcolab, Sun Pharma and now Biocon to reach out to the fast growing global generic and biosimilar drugs markets.

This trend further gained momentum when immediately after Biocon deal, Pfizer strengthened its footprints in the global generics market with yet another acquisition of 40% stake in Laboratorio Teuto Brasileiro of Brazil with US$ 240 million to develop and globally commercialize their generic portfolio.

Emergence of ‘second generation’ biosimilar drugs and higher market entry barrier:

Emergence of second generation branded biosimilar products such as PEGylated products Pegasys and PegIntron (peginterferon alpha) and Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), and insulin analogs have the potential to reduce the market size for first generation biosimilar drugs creating significant entry barrier.

The barriers to market entry for biosimilar drugs are, by and large, much higher than any small molecule generic drugs. In various markets within EU, many companies face the challenge of higher development costs for biosimilar drugs due to stringent regulatory requirements and greater lead time for product development.

Navigating through such tough regulatory environment will demand a different type of skill sets from the generic companies not only in areas of clinical trials and pharmacovigilance, but also in manufacturing and marketing. Consequently, the investment needed to take biosimilar drugs from clinical trials to launch in the developed markets will indeed be quite significant.

Government support in India:

To give a fillip to the Biotech Industry in India the National Biotechnology Board was set up by the Government under the Ministry of Science and Technology way back in 1982. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) came into existence in 1986. The DBT now spends around US$ 200 million annually to develop biotech resources in the country and have been making reasonably good progress.

The DBT together with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has now prepared regulatory guidelines for biosimilar Drugs, which are expected to conform to international quality and patients’ safety standards.

Currently, a number both financial and non-financial incentives have been announced by the Central and the State Governments to encourage growth of the biotech industry in India, which include tax incentives, exemption from VAT and other fees, grants for biotech start-ups, financial assistance with patents, subsidies on investment from land to utilities and infrastructural support with the development of ten biotech parks through ‘Biotechnology Parks Society of India’.

However, many industry experts feel that R&D funding for the Biotech sector in the country is grossly inadequate. Currently, there being only a few ‘Venture Capital’ funds for this sector and ‘Angel Investments’ almost being non-existent, Indian biotech companies are, by and large, dependent on Government funding.

Conclusion:

Recent international deal of Pfizer and Biocon to globally commercialize Biocon’s four biosimilar insulin and analogues developed in India, does signal a new global status for the Indian biosimilar drugs to the international pharma majors, who were vocal critics of such drugs developed in India, until recently.

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.

Biologic Medicine: Ushers in a different ‘Mega Race’ for inorganic growth

Posted on by
Reply

During the last several years the success of biologics compared to conventional small-molecule drugs to meet the unmet needs of patients, is gradually but surely changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A. Over a period of so many years, the small-molecule blockbuster drugs business model made pharmaceuticals a high-margin industry. However, it now appears that the low hanging fruits to make blockbuster drugs have mostly been plucked.

These low hanging fruits involved therapy areas like, anti-ulcerants, anti-lipids, anti-diabetics, cardiovascular, anti-psychotic etc. and their many variants, which were relatively easy R&D targets to manage chronic ailments. Hereafter, the chances of successfully developing drugs for cure of these chronic ailments, with value addition, would indeed be a very tough call.

Deploying expensive resources towards finding a cure for so called ‘chronic diseases’ may also not promise a strong commercial incentive, as the treatment for ulcer, lipid disorders, diabetics, hypertension etc. are currently continues lifelong for a patient and a cure will limit the treatment to a short to medium term period.

Greater promise in biologics:

On the other hand, the bottom-line impact of a successful R&D outcome with safer and effective drugs to treat intractable ailments like,various types of cancer and blood disorders, auto-immune and Central Nervous System (CNS) related diseases, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Myasthenia gravis, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s diseases etc., will be huge. It is believed that well targeted drugs of biologic origin could well be successful treatment for such intractable diseases.

The golden opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologics, especially in high-growth therapeutics, as mentioned above, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust.

Biologic versus conventional drugs:

Biologics Conventional and NME drugs
Large molecules (>5000 molecular weight) Small molecules (~500 molecular weight)
Bio-technologically produced or isolated from living sources Chemically synthesized
Complex structure/mixtures (tertiary structure, glycosylated) Simple well-defined structure
High target specificity Less target specificity
Generally parenteral administration (e.g., intravenous) Oral administration possible (pills)

(Source: MoneyTreeTM Report. PWC, 2009)

According to IMS, Biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$120 billion MAT March 2009. As we see today, gradually more and more global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales in R&D, are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in a fast evolving market of biologics through mainly M&A route. This is also driven by their strategic intent to make good the loss in income from the blockbuster drugs going off patent and at the same time fast dwindling R&D pipeline.

A shift from small molecule based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one:

Frost & Sullivan forecasts a shift from small molecules-based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one for the global pharmaceutical majors, just as biologics like Enbrel ,Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira, as mentioned below, have already proved to be money spinners.

The top 10 global brands in 2009:

Rank Product Chemical/Biologic Global Sales US$ Mn
1 Lipitior Chemical 12,511
2 Plavix Chemical 9,492
3. Seretide/Advair Chemical 7,791
4. Enbrel Biologic 6,295
5. Diovan Chemical 6,013
6. Remicade Biologic 5,924
7. Avastin Biologic 5,744
8. Rituxan Biologic 5,620
9. Humira Biologic 5,559
10. Seroquel Chemical 5,121

(Source: EvaluatePharma)

Faster growth of biologics attracting attention of large pharma players:

Currently, faster growth of biologics as compared to conventional new chemical entities is driven by novel technologies and highly targeted approach, the final outcome of which is being more widely accepted by both physicians and patients. The large global pharmaceutical companies are realizing it pretty fast. The type and quality of their recent acquisitions, vindicate this point.

Mega race for biologics and vaccines:

Driven by the above factor, in 2009 Pfizer acquired Wyeth for US $68 billion, Roche acquired Genentech for US $ 47 billion and Merck acquired Schering-Plough for US $ 41 billion. Only the above three M&A are valued more than US $ 150 billion and that too at a time of global financial meltdown.

Acquisition of Wyeth enabled Pfizer to expand its product-mix with vaccines, animal health and consumer products businesses and at the same time leveraging from Wyeth’s biologics capability.

Similarly, Merck got tempted to acquire Schering-Plough mainly because of latter’s rich R&D pipeline with biologics.

Roche, which was basically a pharmaceutical company, post-acquisition of Genentech, became a major bio-pharmaceutical company with a great promise to deliver in the years ahead.

Other M&As, which would signify a shift toward the growing space for biologics are the acquisition of MedImmune by AstraZeneca and Insmed by Merck and the recent bid of Sanofi-Aventis for Genzyme.

Faster growth of biologics:

As mentioned above, despite patent cliff, biologics continue to contribute better than small molecules to overall growth of the R&D based global pharmaceutical industry.  Most of these biologics are sourced either through acquisition or  collaborative arrangements.

Currently cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factors, etc. are becoming attractive acquisition targets, mainly by large pure pharmaceutical companies with deep pockets.

Another M&A model:

Besides mega race for mega acquisitions, on the other hand, relatively smaller pharmaceutical players have started acquiring venture-backed biotech companies to enrich their product pipelines with early-stage drugs at a much lesser cost. For example, with the acquisition of Calistoga for US $ 600 million and venture-backed Arresto Biosciences and CGI Pharmaceuticals, Gilead known for its HIV drugs, expanded into blood cancer, solid tumor and inflammatory diseases. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs.

Smaller biotech companies, because of their current size do not get engaged in  very large deals, unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and usually successful deals.

Another commercial advantage for biologics – lesser generic competition :

After patent expiry of a New Chemical Entity (NCE), innovators’ brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion, as these small molecules are relatively easy to replicate by many generic manufacturers and the process of getting their regulatory approval is not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biologics, which involve difficult, complex and expensive biological processes for development together with stringent regulatory requirements for getting marketing approval of biosimilar drugs especially in the developed markets of the world like, EU and USA, offer some significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, even after patent expiry.

It is for this reason, brands like the following ones are expected to go strong for some more time to come, without any significant competition from biosimilar drugs:

Brand Company Launch date
Rituxan Roche/Biogen idec 1997
Herceptin Roche 1998
Remicade Centocor/J&J 1998
Enbrel Amgen/Pfizer 1998

Change of appetite:

In my view, the voracious appetite of large pharmaceutical companies for inorganic growth through mega M&As, will ultimately subside for various compelling reasons.  Instead, smaller biotech companies, especially with products in Phase I or II of clinical trials without further resource to take them to subsequent stages of development, will be prime targets for acquisition by the pharma majors at an attractive valuation.

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors are experimenting with pure biotech companies in terms of acquisitions and alliances, it will be interesting to see the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ between these companies’ business models, organization and work/employee culture and market outlook to improve their overall global business performance, significantly. Only future will tell us whether or not just restructuring of the R&D set up of companies like, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and perhaps Sanofi-aventis at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged companies.

In this context, Frost & Sullivan had commented: “Widely differing cultures at Roche and Genentech could make retaining top scientists a huge challenge. Roche is Swiss and a stickler for precision and time, while Genentech has a more ‘Californian attitude’ and is laid back and efficient in its work”.

Though the long-term overall financial impact of the ‘mega race for mega deals’, as mentioned above, is less clear to me, acquisition of biotech companies, especially well thought through smaller ones, seems to be a pretty smart move towards inorganic growth by the global innovator companies.

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.