Tag Archives: innovation

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

Drug innovation and access to medicines:

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

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

Current R&D model:

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

Is the model sustainable?

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

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

Are Pharmaceutical R&D expenses overstated?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making drug innovation sustainable: 

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

Example I:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain”: 

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

 

Playing Hardball, Riding the Horse of ‘Innovation’

Posted on by
Reply

Media reports are now abuzz with various stories related to intense pressure being created by Big Pharma on the United States Government to declare India as a ‘Priority Foreign Country’ for initiating ‘Trade Sanctions’.

As we know, ‘Priority Foreign Country’ is the worst classification given by the United States to “foreign countries” that deny “adequate and effective” protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) or “fair and equitable market access” to the US.

One of the key factors that infuriated Big Pharma is the ‘patentability’ criterion of the Indian Patents Act 2005 captured in its section 3(d).  This denies grant of patent to those inventions, which are mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” and do not result in increased efficacy, offering no significant treatment advantages over already existing drugs.

A brief perspective:

The sole requirement for any company to enjoy market monopoly with a medicine, for a specific period, with its associated commercial advantages, is obtaining a valid patent for that new drug substance from a competent authority of the concerned country. Marketing approval process and other requirements for the same of the drug regulators do not come in the way of the market monopoly status granted to patented products.

This is mainly because the drug regulators do not require to be convinced that a new drug is an improvement or more effective than the existing ones. As a consequence of which, there has been no compulsion for the Big Pharma to bring to the market only those New Molecular Entities (NMEs) that would significantly improve efficacy of a disease treatment benefitting the patients.

Choosing the easier path:

Developing any NME that is a breakthrough in the treatment of a disease is not just difficult and time consuming, it is very risky too. For this reason, once a new innovative drug gets well established in the market, many companies decide to produce their own versions of the same and obtain patent rights for the new ‘tweaked’ molecules, as is generally believed by many.

This approach of bringing ‘me-too’ types of so called ‘innovative’ drugs into the market is considered much less risky, takes lot lesser time in the R&D process, not as expensive and most importantly, enjoys all the commercial benefits that a break through NME would otherwise derive out of its invention, especially the market monopoly with free pricing.

In his well-known book titled ‘Bad Pharma’, Ben Goldacre stated that, as very often these ‘me-too’ drugs do not offer any significant therapeutic benefits, many people regard them as wasteful, an unnecessary use of product development money, potentially exposing trial participants to unnecessary harm for individual companies commercial gain, rather than any medical advancement.

‘Innovation’ of ‘me-too’ molecules:

Examples of some of the ‘me-too’ molecules are as follows:

  • Cemetidine – Ranitidine – Famotidine – Nizatidine – Roxatidine (to treat Acid-peptic disease)
  • Simvastatin – Pravastatin – Lovastatin – Pitavastatin – Atorvastatin – Fluvastatin – Rosuvastatin (to treat blood lipid disorder)
  • Captopril – Enalepril – Lisinopril – Fosinopril – Benzapril – Perindopril – Ramipiril – Quinalapril – Zofenopril (Anti-hypertensives)

Goldacre further highlighted in his book that despite this fact, pharma market does not behave accordingly. Unlike usual expectations that multiple competing drugs in the same disease area would bring the prices down, a Swedish data showed that the drugs considered by the US-FDA as showing no advantages over the existing ones, enter the market at the same or even at higher prices than the original ones. Consequently, the outcome of such innovations adversely impacts the patients and the payor including the government, as Big Pharma takes full advantage of market monopoly and free pricing for such drugs in the garb of innovation.

‘Innovation’ of ‘me-gain’ molecules:

Unlike the above ‘me-too’ drugs, which are new molecules, though work in a similar way to the original ones, another kind of patented drugs have now come-up in a dime a dozen.

Goldacre defined those drugs as ‘me-again’ drugs. These are the same molecule re-launched in the same market at the same price with a different patented ‘enantiomer’. Each of a pair of such molecules is a mirror image of each other e.g. esomeprazole (Nexium) is the left-handed version of the omeprazole molecule (Prilosec), which is a mixture of both left and right handed forms.

There is no dramatic difference between omeprazole and esomeprazole in any respect. Moreover, it is worth noting that concerned constituents of Big Pharma come out with ‘me-again’ drugs only at the end of the patent lives of the original ones. What then could be the reason?

Some examples of ‘me-again’ drugs are as follows:

Enantiomer/Brand Medical Condition Original Drug/Brand
Levocetirizine (Vozet) Allergies Cetirizine (Zyrtec)
Escitalopram (Lexapro) Depression Citalopram (Celexa)
Esomeprazole (Nexium) Acid reflux Omeprazole (Prilosec)
Desloratadine (Clarinex) Allergies Loratadine (Claritan)
Pregabalin (Lyrica) Seizures Gabapentin (Neurotonin)

Why do the doctors prescribe such drugs?

That is indeed a good question, why do the doctors prescribe such costly, avoidable and so called ‘innovative’ drugs? Well, don’t we know that already?

Section (3d) plugs the loophole:

To discourage market entry of high priced and avoidable ‘me-too’ and ‘me-again’ types of drugs that are also an outcome of so called pharma ‘innovations’, the Indian law makers very wisely introduced the section (3d), while amending the Indian Patents Act in 2005. This section, as indicated above, categorically states that inventions that are mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” and do not result in increased efficacy of that substance are not patentable. This law has also passed the scrutiny of the Supreme Court of India in the Glivec case of Novartis.

With this Act, India has unambiguously reiterated that it does not support the grant of patents for inventions that are minor modifications of the original ones, effectively blocking the usual path of patents grant as followed by Big Pharma across the world to enjoy monopolistic commercial advantages of ‘frivolous’ innovations, as called by many experts in this area.

Consequent ire of Big Pharma:

This above action of Indian law makers has raised the ire of Big Pharma, as it has a huge commercial interest to protect ‘me-too’ and ‘me-again’ types of innovations in India, even if that comes at the cost of patients’ health interest.

Section (3d) of the Indian Patents Act, therefore, became a major hindrance in meeting the commercial goals of its constituents in India, as such molecules constitute a large majority of the total number of NMEs innovated globally.

As intense power-packed advocacy campaigns of the global pharma companies with the Government of India did not yield any meaningful result to get the section 3(d) amended, it unleashed the might of its well funded lobby groups having free access to the corridors of political power to play hardball with India, riding the horse of innovation and pooh-poohing patients’ interests.

Playing hardball:

The question therefore arises, would India tactfully reciprocate playing hardball or give in to the pressure of trade sanctions under ‘Priority Foreign Country’ categorization of the United States?

I reckon India would not give in. To state more emphatically, India just cannot give in now, under any circumstances.

Come May 16, 2014, the new Union Government of India would almost be ready take its position on the saddle. Thereafter, even if it prefers to give in to intense US political pressure just to avoid trade sanctions, in all practicality that would virtually be a non-starter. This is because, the new Government would unlikely to be in a position to garner enough votes in the Parliament to amend the section (3d), ignoring the general sentiment on this important public health related issue and political compulsions of many of its constituents on the subject.

Would America go to WTO?

Would the United States of America ultimately complain against India in the multilateral forum of the World Trade Organization (WTO) for alleged violation of the TRIPS Agreement? That is exactly the question that many people are asking today.

In this context it is worth noting, India has reiterated time and again that Indian Patents Act 2005 is in full compliance of the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration of 2001.

Since, no country has complained to WTO against India on this issue, as yet, despite so much of posturing and the noise generated the world over, it appears improbable that the US would now do so, though Big Pharma would continue playing hardball raising the same old bogey of protection of ‘innovation’ in a much higher pitch, cleverly camouflaging its hardcore vested commercial interests.

What happens, if WTO decides in favor of India?

In the multilateral forum, if the WTO decides in favor of India, there is much to loose for Big Pharma.

In that scenario, the Indian example would encourage a large number of countries to enact similar model of Patents Act fully complying with the TRIPS agreement, as vetted by the WTO.

Some has termed it as a refreshingly fresh “Alternative Model of Patent Law’, going away from the dominant IP model as is being propagated by the US.

As I had indicated in the past, countries like the Philippines, Brazil and South Africa have either emulated or strongly favoring this alternative model that favors protection of Intellectual Property (IP) and at the same time promotes access to new inventions to a large majority of the global population.

Conclusion:

I reckon, Big Pharma’s playing hardball with India, riding the horse of ‘innovation’, could ultimately boomerang.

The Government of India, irrespective of any political color, lineage or creed, is unlikely to be bullied by Big Pharma constituents any time soon.

More importantly, even in a worse case scenario, the Government would be incapable of getting the section (3d) amended by the Indian Parliament garnering majority of the lawmakers’ support and going against strong political and public voices on this issue.

Nevertheless, Big pharma would continue to wish it to happen… and that drags me to the good old saying:

“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Is Credibility Erosion of Pharma Accelerating?

Posted on by
Reply

‘Big Pharma’ now seems to be desperately trying to gain the long lost high moral ground by pushing  hard its gigantic image makeover juggernaut, maintaining a strong pitch on the relevance of stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the lives of the patients. However, even more alert media, by reporting a number of unethical and fraudulent activities of some of its constituents on the ground, is taking much of the steam out of it. As a result, the pace of erosion of all important pharma credibility is fast accelerating.

Innovation – A critical need for any science-based business:

Innovation, which eventually leads to the issue of IPR, is generally regarded as extremely important to meet the unmet needs of patients in the battle against diseases of all types, especially the dreaded ones. Thus, it has always been considered as the bedrock of the global pharmaceutical industry. As we all know, even the cheaper generic drugs originate from off-patent innovative medicines.

At the same time, it is equally important to realize that just as the pharmaceutical or life-science businesses, innovation is critical for any other science based businesses too, such as IT, Automobile, Aviation, besides many others. Since many centuries, even when there were no ‘Patents Act’ anywhere in the world, leave aside robust ones, pharmaceutical industry has been predominantly growing through innovation and will keep becoming larger and larger through the same process, acrimonious debate over stringent IPR regime not withstanding.

India has also amply demonstrated its belief that innovation needs to be encouraged and protected with a well-balanced Intellectual Property regime in the country, when it became a member of the World Trade Organization and a part of the TRIPS Agreement, as I had discussed in my earlier blog post.

Simultaneously, a recent research report is worth noting, as well. The study reveals, though the pharmaceutical companies in the United States, since mid 2000, have spent around US$ 50 billion every year to discover new drugs, they have very rarely been able to invent something, which can be called significant improvement over already existing ones. This is indeed a matter of great concern, just as a very ‘stringent IP regime’ prompts ‘evergreening’ of patents, adversely impacting the patients’ health interest.

Though innovation is much needed, obscene pricing of many patented drugs is limiting their access to majority of the world population. On top of that, business malpractices net of fines, wherever caught, are adding to the cost of medicines significantly.

Key reasons for acceleration of credibility erosion:

I reckon, following are the three main factors accelerating credibility erosion of pharma in general and Big Pharma in particular:

  1. Large scale reported business malpractices affecting patients’ health interest
  2. Very high prices of patented medicines in general, adversely impacting patients’ access and cost of treatment
  3. Attempts to influence IP laws of many countries for vested interests

1. Accelerating credibility erosion due to business malpractices:

In the pharmaceutical sector across the world, including India, the Marketing and Clinical Trial (CT) practices have still remained very contentious issues, despite many attempts of so called ‘self-regulation’ by the industry associations. Incessant complaints as reported by the media, judicial fines and settlements for fraudulent practices of some important pharma players leave no breather to anyone.

To illustrate the point, let me quote below a few recent examples:

Global:

  • In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder. According to the Italian regulator Avastin costs up to 81 euros, against around 900 euros for Lucentis. Out of the total amount, Novartis would require to pay 92 million euros and Roche 90.5 million euros. Roche’s Genentech unit and Novartis had developed Lucentis. Roche markets the drug in the United States, while Novartis sells it in the rest of the world. Quoting the Italian regulator, the report says that the said practices cost Italy’s health system more than 45 million euros in 2012 alone, with possible future costs of more than 600 million euros a year.
  • Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges. An investigation of those former employees of Sanofi unearthed that they had made illicit payments to get more orders from pharma dealer.
  • In November 2013, Teva Pharmaceutical reportedly said that an internal investigation turned up suspect practices in countries ranging from Latin America to Russia.
  • In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.
  • In August 2012, Pfizer Inc. was reportedly fined US$ 60.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.
  • In July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline was reportedly fined US$ 3 bn in the United States after admitting to bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children. According to the report, the company encouraged sales reps in the US to ‘mis-sell’ three drugs to doctors and lavished hospitality and kickbacks on those who agreed to write extra prescriptions, including trips to resorts in Bermuda, Jamaica and California.
  • In April 2012, a judge in Arkansas, US, reportedly fined Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary more than US$1.2 billion after a jury found that the companies had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.
  • Not so long ago, after regulatory authorities in China cracked down on GlaxoSmithKline for allegedly bribing of US$490 million to Chinese doctors through travel agencies, whistleblower accusations reverberated spanning across several pharma MNCs, including Sanofi. The company reportedly paid ¥1.7 million (US$277,000) in bribes to 503 doctors around the country, forking over ¥80 to doctors each time a patient bought its products.

All these are not new phenomena. For example, In the area of Clinical Trial, an investigation by the German magazine Der Spiegel reportedly uncovered in May, 2013 that erstwhile international conglomerates such as Bayer, Hoechst (now belongs to Sanofi), Roche, Schering (now belongs to Bayer) and Sandoz (now belongs to Novartis) carried out more than 600 tests on over 50,000 patients, mostly without their knowledge, at hospitals and clinics in the former Communist state. The companies were said to have paid the regime the equivalent of €400,000 per test.

India:

Compared to the actions now being taken by the law enforcers overseas, India has shown a rather lackadaisical attitude in these areas, as on date. It is astonishing that unlike even China, no pharmaceutical company has been investigated thoroughly and hauled up by the government for alleged bribery and other serious allegations of corrupt practices.

However, frequent reporting by Indian media has now triggered a debate in the country on the subject. It has been reported that a related Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing in the near future. It is worth noting that in 2010, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ also had expressed its deep concern by stating that the “evil practice” of inducement of doctors by the pharma companies is continuing unabated as the revised guidelines of the Medical Council of India (MCI) have no jurisdiction over the pharma industry. The Government, so far, has shown no active interest in this area, either.

In an article titled, “Healthcare industry is a rip-off”, published in a leading business daily of India, states as follows:

“Unethical drug promotion is an emerging threat for society. The Government provides few checks and balances on drug promotion.”

In the drug manufacturing quality area, USFDA and MHRA (UK) has recently announced a number of ‘Import Bans’ for drugs manufactured in some facilities of Ranbaxy and Wockhardt, as those medicines could compromise with the drug safety concerns of the patients in the US and UK. Even as recent as in late March 2014, the USFDA has reportedly issued a warning letter to another domestic drug maker USV Ltd on data integrity-related violations in good manufacturing practices occurred at the company’s Mumbai facility. This is indeed a cause of added concern.

Similarly, in the Clinical Trial area of India, responding to a PIL, the Supreme Court of the country and separately the Parliamentary Standing Committee also had indicted the drug regulator. The Committee in its report had even mentioned about a nexus existing between the drug regulator and the industry in this area.

2. Accelerating credibility erosion due to high patented drugs pricing:

On this subject, another March 2014 report brings to the fore the problems associated with access to affordable newer medicines, which goes far beyond India, covering even the wealthiest economies of the world.

The report re-emphasizes that the monthly costs of many cancer drugs now exceed US$ 10,000 to even US$ 30,000. Recently Gilead Sciences fixed the price of a breakthrough drug for hepatitis C at US$ 84,000 for a 12- week treatment, inviting the wrath of many, across the world.

Why is the drug price so important?

The issue of pricing of patented drugs is now a cause of concern even in the developed countries of the world, though the subject is more critical in India. According to a 2012 study of IMS Consulting Group, drugs are the biggest component of expenditure in the total Out Of Pocket (OOP) spend on healthcare, as follows:

Items Outpatient/Outside Hospital (%) Inpatient/Hospitalization (%)
Medicines 63 43
Consultation/Surgery - 23
Diagnostics 17 16
Minor surgeries 01 -
Private Consultation 14 -
Room Charge - 14
Others 05 04

Probably for the same reason, recently German legislators have reportedly voted to continue until the end of 2017 the price freeze on reimbursed drugs, which was introduced in August 2010 and originally set to expire at end of 2013.

However in India, only some sporadic measures, like the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) for essential drugs featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM 2011), that covers just around 18 percent of the total domestic pharmaceutical market, have been taken. On top of this, unlike many other countries, there is no negotiation on price fixation for high cost patented drugs.

If caught, insignificant fine as compared to total profit accrued, has no impact:

Many stakeholders, therefore, question the business practices of especially those players who get exposed, as they are caught and fined by the judiciary and the regulatory authorities.

Do such companies prioritize high profits ahead of patients’ lives, creating a situation for only those with deep pockets or a good health insurance cover to have access to the patented medicines, and the rest of the world goes without?

It is also no surprise that highly secretive and well hyped so called “Patient Access Programs” of many of these companies, are considered by many no more than a sham and a façade to justify the high prices.

3. Accelerating credibility erosion due to unreasonable IP related demands:

Despite some well-justified measures taken by countries like, India in the IP area, the US and to a great extent extent Europe and Japan, continuously pressured by the powerful pharma lobby groups, are still pushing hard to broaden the IP protections around the globe through various Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). At the same time, Big Pharma lobbyists are reportedly trying to compel various governments to enact IP laws, which would suit their business interest at the cost of patients.

Fortunately, many stakeholders, including media, have started raising their voices against such strong-arm tactics, further fueling the credibility erosion of Big Pharma.

Conclusion:

In the midst of all these, patients are indeed caught in a precarious situation, sandwiched between unethical practices of many large pharma players and very high prices of the available life saving patented medicines, beyond the reach of majority of the global population.

That said, accelerating credibility erosion of pharma in general and the Big Pharma in particular could possibly lead to a stage, where it will indeed be challenging for them to win hearts and minds of the stakeholders without vulgar display or surreptitious use of the money power.

To avoid all these, saner voices that are now being heard within the Big Pharma constituents should hopefully prevail, creating a win-win situation for all, not by using fear of sanctions as the key in various interactions, not even raising the so called ‘trump card of innovation’ at the drop of a hat and definitely by jettisoning long nurtured repulsive arrogance together with much reported skulduggery, for patients’ sake.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

‘Big Pharma’ Prowls Falter: Triggers Off Yet Another Critical Debate

Posted on by
Reply

The ‘Big Pharma’ prowls faltered yet again exposing the ‘fault line’ to all, when the GSK global head honcho, a pharma icon in his own right, Sir Andrew Witty supported the pharmaceutical policy of India, while in the country earlier this month. This support is quite in contrary to arrogant displeasure being expressed by his MNC counterparts against the pharma regime in India up until now.

Sir Andrew reportedly spoke against the usual pharma MNC practices of charging very high prices for patented medicines during an interview and said that multinationals need to look at things from India’s perspective. 

The above comment, when analyzed especially in context of one of the recent actions of Big Pharma MNCs complaining in writing to President Obama against India’s prevailing pharmaceutical regime, the fault line gets clearly visible.

In this context, a recent report captured the anger and desperation of Big Pharma. This hostility vindicates the general apprehensions in India that MNCs are once again pushing for a stringent patent regime in the country, against the general health interest of Indian patients for access to affordable newer medicines.

Quoting US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center another report reconfirmed the impatient prowl of the mighty lobby group in the corridors of power. This piece states, “Recent policy and judicial decisions (Glivec judgment and Nexavar) that invalidate intellectual property rights, which have been increasing in India, cast a daunting shadow over its otherwise promising business climate.” 

The ‘fault line’, thus surfaced, triggers off yet another critical debate, especially related to the slugfest on a stringent pharmaceutical product patent regime in India, as follows:

“Does Stricter IPR Regime Spur Pharma Innovation?”

Global innovator companies strongly argue that stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and stricter enforcement of IP laws have strong link with fostering innovation leading to a robust economic growth for any nation.

However, another group of thought leaders opine just the opposite. They argue that strong IPR and IP laws have little, if any, to do with fostering innovation and economic growth, as there are no robust research findings to drive home the above point.

It has been noticed that the MNC lobby groups quite often very cleverly use their magic word ‘innovation’ on a slightest pretext with an underlying desire of having a ‘very strict patent regime’ in India. Thus they seem to be trying to mislead the common man, as if India is against innovation.

Comment of the Chairman of National Innovation Council of India:

On September 15, 2012, while delivering his keynote address in a pharmaceutical industry function, Dr. Sam Pitroda, the Chicago based Indian, creator of the telecom revolution in India, Chairman of the National innovation Council and the Advisor to the Prime Minister on Public Information, Infrastructure & Innovations, made a profound comment for all concerned to ponder, as follows:

“Everyone wants to copy the American model of development.  I feel that this model is not scalable, sustainable, desirable and workable.  We have to find an Indian Model of development which focuses on affordability, scalability and sustainability.”

Recent Indian stand:

On March 5, 2013, the Government of India made a profound statement on the subject of ‘Innovation and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)’ at the TRIPS Council meeting covering the following points:

  • There is no direct correlation between IP and Innovation even for the Small and Medium Industries.
  • The technological progress even in the developed world had been achieved not through IP protection but through focused governmental interventions.
  • The proponents of this Agenda Item have reached the present stage of technological development by focusing solely on the development of their own domestic industry without caring for the IPRs of the foreigners or the right holders.
  • After achieving a high level of development, they are now attempting to perpetuate their hold on their technologies by making a push towards a ‘TRIPS plus’ regime.
  • Their agenda is not to create an environment where developing countries progress technologically, but to block their progress through stringent IP regime.
  • It is essential that the flexibilities provided by the TRIPS Agreement need to be secured at any cost, if the people in the developing countries are to enjoy the benefits of innovations.

A Wharton Professor’s view:

As the Wharton professor of Healthcare Management Mark V. Pauly has been quoted saying that the link between patent protection and innovation has never been definitely proven.

However, Pauly reportedly is aware that the innovator global pharma companies do say, ‘If you don’t allow us to reap the benefits of our R&D expenditure, we won’t put as much into it, and we won’t invent as many great things’.

However, the Wharton Professor counters it by saying, “The problem is that nobody really knows how much less innovation there would be if there were less patent protection. We just don’t know what the numbers are.”

The above report says, according to Pauly, the onus to prove that patent protection matters should be on the drug industry itself.

He argues, “Rather than always just insisting you should never limit intellectual property protection, they really ought to develop some evidence to show that without that protection, there would be an impact on the rate of adoption of new products. Everybody has an opinion, but nobody knows the facts.“

A French Professor’s view:

In another WIPO seminar held on June 18, 2013, Margaret Kyle, a Professor at the Toulouse School of Economics and the Université de Toulouse I in France, reportedly presented preliminary findings of a study.

This paper explored in detail the impact of World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in various areas related to the speed of launch, price, and volume of sales of drugs across countries and across different drug products.

In this study, as the above report states, Kyle analyzed the trade-off between the dynamic and static effects of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs).

The dynamic effect of IPRs was considered as an incentive for innovation based on the general belief that patent protection, through granting market exclusivity, incentivizes companies to invest in the research and development (R&D) to develop new drugs.

On the other hand, the static effect of IPRs in the short term is that granting market exclusivity often leads to innovator companies pricing their products at levels, which will be unaffordable by a large number of patients, especially in lower-income countries.

Kyle explained that the results implied as follows:

  • IPRs are neither necessary nor sufficient to launch new pharmaceutical products.
  • The existence of a product patent does not always inhibit generic imitation, nor does the lack of such a patent necessarily deter an originator from making a product available in a given market.

Other eminent voices:

While highlighting that TRIPS-Plus intellectual property protection is passed by some developing countries in order to implement FTA obligations, another recent paper presents the following examples in support of the argument that there no correlation between strong IP laws and fostering innovation:

  • UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. 2002. (Link)

“…Strong IP rights alone provide neither the necessary nor sufficient incentives for firms to invest in particular countries… The evidence that foreign investment is positively associated with IP protection in most developing countries is lacking.”

  • Robert L. Ostergard., Jr. “Policy Beyond Assumptions: Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Growth.” Chapter 2 of The Development Dilemma: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights in the International System.  LFB Scholarly Publishing, New York. 2003

“…No consistent evidence emerged to show that IPR contributed significantly to economic growth cross-nationally.  Furthermore, when the nations are split into developed and developing countries, results to suggest otherwise did not emerge.”

  • Carsten Fink and Keith Maskus. “Why We Study Intellectual Property and What We Have Learned.” Chapter one of Intellectual Property and Development: Lessons from Economic Research. 2005. (Link)

“Existing research suggests that countries that strengthen their IPR are unlikely to experience a sudden boost in inflows of FDI.  At the same time, the empirical evidence does point to a positive role for IPRs in stimulating formal technology transfer.”

“Developing countries should carefully assess whether the economic benefits of such rules outweigh their costs. They also need to take into account the costs of administering and enforcing a reformed IPR system”

“We still know relatively little about the way technology diffuses internationally.”

  • Keith Mascus. “Incorporating a Globalized Intellectual Property Rights Regime Into an Economic Development Strategy.”  Ch. 15 of Intellectual Property, Growth and Trade. (ed. Mascus). Elsevier.  2008.

“Middle income countries must strike a complicated balance between promoting domestic learning and diffusion, through limited IP protection, and gaining greater access to international technologies through a strong regime… it makes little sense for these nations to adopt the strongly protectionist IP standards that exist in the U.S., the EU and other developed economies.  Rather, they should take advantage of the remaining policy space provided by the TRIPS Agreement.”

“It is questionable whether the poorest countries should devote significant development resources to legal reforms and enforcement of IPR.”

  • Kamal Saggi. “Intellectual Property Rights and International Technology Transfer via Trade and Foreign Direct Investment. Ch. 13 of Intellectual Property, Growth and Trade. (ed. Mascus). Elsevier.  2008.

“Overall, it is fair to say that the existing empirical evidence regarding the overall technology-transfer impacts of increased IPR protection in developing countries is inconclusive at this stage.  What is not yet clear is whether sufficient information flows will be induced to procure significant dynamic gains in those countries through more learning and local innovation.”

  • Alexander Koff, Laura Baughman, Joseph Francois and Christine McDaniel. “Study on the Economic Impact of ‘TRIPS-Plus’ Free Trade Agreements.”  International Intellectual Property Institute and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. August 2011.

“TRIPS-Plus IPRs viewed as ‘important, but not essential’ for attracting investment. Many other factors matter like, taxes, human capital, clustering, etc.”

Patients versus Patents:

Another recent  article on this subject states as follows:

“Compulsory licensing and stricter patentability standards allow domestic manufacturers to produce lower-cost versions of patented NCD medications and break into lucrative therapeutic areas, such as oncology, in which multinational drug firms are heavily invested.”

The paper clearly highlights, “If patients are pitted against patents, international support for IP protection—upon which drug firms and many other developed country industries now heavily rely—will again diminish.”

Yet another article published in The New England Journal of Medicine, July 17, 2013 states:

“Patents are government-granted monopolies. As monopolies, they can drive the prices of drugs up dramatically. For example, in 2000, when only patented antiretroviral drugs for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection were widely available, they cost approximately $10,000 per person per year, even in very poor countries. Today, these same medicines cost $150 or less if they are purchased from Indian generics companies…. patents cause especially acute problems for access to medicines in developing countries – not only because of low incomes but also because insurance and price-control systems are often absent or inadequate.” 

A WHO Report:

To chart the way forward at the backdrop of ongoing global debate elated to the relationship between intellectual property rights, innovation and public health, the World Health Assembly decided in May 2003 to give an independent Commission the task of analyzing this key issue. Accordingly, the Director-General of WHO established the Commission in February 2004. This report titled, “Public health, innovation and intellectual property rights” was published in 2006 and articulated that neither innovation nor access depend on just intellectual property rights and highlighted, among others, the following:

  • Intellectual property rights have an important role to play in stimulating innovation in health-care products in countries where financial and technological capacities exist, and in relation to products for which profitable markets exist.
  • In developing countries, the fact that a patent can be obtained may contribute nothing or little to innovation if the market is too small or scientific and technological capability inadequate.
  • In the absence of effective differential and discounted prices, patents may contribute to increasing the price of medicines needed by poor people in those countries.
  • Although the balance of costs and benefits of patents will vary between countries, according to their level of development and scientific and technological infrastructure, the flexibility built into the TRIPS agreement allows countries to find a balance more appropriate to the circumstances of each country.

India – now the most attractive global investment destination:

Trashing the anger and displeasure of pharma MNCs, as per the latest international survey, India reportedly has emerged as the most attractive global investment destination followed by Brazil and China. It is worth noting that even recently, during April- June period of 2013, with a capital inflow of around US$ 1 billion, the pharma sector became the brightest star in the FDI landscape of India.

Conclusion:

In the Indian context, a 2013 paper titled, “Intellectual Property Protection and Health Innovation: Concerns for India” published by Center for WTO Studies highlights that the regime change in the patent system has not been very supportive for improving access to medicines in India. It reiterates, it has not been established yet that a stricter patent regime in the developing countries like India, has helped health innovation and access to medicines at economically viable prices.

The paper recommends, although India is trying to incorporate all the flexibilities under TRIPS in its Patents Act, the ‘Indian Policy Makers’ should not give in to the pressure of western powers to make IPR more stringent in the country.

In the backdrop of arrogance exhibited by Big Pharma MNCs, in general, against Indian policies and judicial verdicts on this subject, the comments made by Sir Andrew on the issue, as deliberated above, are indeed profound and far reaching. However, it clearly exposes the fault line in the collective mindset of pharma MNCs, without any ambiguity.

I shall not be surprised either, if clever attempts are made now by the MNC lobby groups to negate or trivialize the profoundness of this visionary statement not just in India, but beyond its shores, as well.

Further, as stated above recent emergence of India as the most attractive global investment destination with pharma leading the deck is a point worth noting, more in the context of policy and statutes that India has decided to follow.

Be that as it may, it is beyond the scope of any doubt that innovation or for that matter encouraging innovation still remains the wheel of progress of any nation.

However, have we garnered enough evidence yet, to establish that stringent IPR regime with absolute pricing freedom would lead to fostering more innovation leading to well-being of people of the developing countries, like India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

 

 

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.

Drug, Patent and Hype: Quo Vadis Pharma Innovation?

Posted on by
Reply

A recent research report reveals, though the pharmaceutical companies in the United States since mid 2000 have spent over US$ 50 billion every year to discover new drugs, they have very rarely been able to invent something, which can be called significant improvement over already existing ones.

As per available reports, from the year 2000  to 2010, the US-FDA, on an average, approved just 24 new drugs per year. This number is a sharp decline from the same of 1990, when on an average 31 new drugs were approved per year.

These studies throw open some important questions to ponder:

  • What is then the real issue with pharma innovation? 
  • Is it declining quality or quantity (number)?
  • What impacts the patients more?

Quantity vs quality of innovation:

A recent paper explored whether declining numbers of New Molecular Entities (NMEs), approved in the United States (US) each year, is the best measure of pharmaceutical “innovation.”

Thus, studying in detail the NME approvals in the US during 1987 to 2011, the authors proposed the following three distinct subcategories of NMEs:

  • First-in-class
  • Advance-in-class
  • Addition-to-class

This classification was aimed at providing more nuanced and informative insights into underlying trends.

The paper established that trends in NME approvals were largely driven by ‘Addition-to-class’, or “Me too,” drug approvals. However, the good news is that ‘First-in-class’ approvals remained fairly steady over the study period.

Thus I reckon, there should be much greater focus with higher resource deployments for  more of ‘First-in-class’ drugs research and development.

To achieve this objective with requisite wherewithal, there will be a need to drastically cut down massive R&D expenditures on “Me-too” types of so called ‘innovative’ drugs. Such drugs, carrying exorbitant price tags,  creating a financial burden to the payers, could perhaps help increasing the number of innovations, but certainly not the quality of innovations to meet important unmet needs of patients in a cost effective manner.

Some facts: 

In 2010, the healthcare journal Prescire rated 97 new drugs or new indications. Only 4 of these provided any therapeutic advantage over the available existing drugs. Interestingly, 19 others (1 in 5) were approved despite having more harms than benefits.

According to another analysis, “About 1 in 6 new products had more harms than benefits, while more than half of all new products provided no advantages over existing options.”

Further, a different article published in Nature Reviews indicated, “doctors were more likely to rate drugs more than a decade old as transformative.”

Decline in the quality of innovation:

In this context, Dr Mark Olfson of Columbia University and statistician Steven Marcus of the University of Pennsylvania have reportedly established as follows:

“By the 1980s new drugs were less than four times better; by the 1990s, twice as good, and by the 2000s just 36 percent better than a placebo. Since older drugs were much superior to placebo and newer ones only slightly so, that means older drugs were generally more effective than newer ones.”

While even in earlier years, newer patented drugs on an average used to be 4.5 times more effective, as compared to placebo.

The winds of change?

As a result, under the new ‘Affordable Care Act’ of President Obama, “comparative effectiveness research” by an independent research institute could well conclude that older drugs or even cheaper generic equivalents are better than the high priced patented ones, which create fortunes for the innovator pharmaceutical companies at the cost of patients and payers.    

The above initiate in ‘Obamacare’, if and when fructifies, will indeed hit the ‘Me-too’ type of drug innovators, especially in the United States, very hard. Nevertheless, is a music to the ear for the private health insurance companies and the patients at large.

A ray of hope?

‘Comparative drug effectiveness analysis’, as stated above, could eventually lead to replacement of newer high priced ‘me-too’ patented drugs by older relatively low priced generic equivalents, at least, for reimbursements.

This will, no doubt, lead to huge profit erosion of the big pharmaceutical players. Hence, extensive lobbying by industry groups in top gear, against this ‘patient-centric’ proposal, is currently on, .

As the new federal healthcare law will find its roots in America, despite strong opposition  from the powerful and influential pharma lobby groups, a ray of hope is now  faintly seen in otherwise blatantly exploitative and rather cruel drug pricing environment.

Where hype is the key driver:

Despite enormous hype, being created and spearheaded by the Big pharma, on the ‘essentiality’ of most stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime in a country with patent laws blatantly in favor of commercial considerations, to enjoy a monopolistic marketing climate with pricing freedom, breakthrough pharma innovations are now indeed rather difficult to come by, as we shall deliberate below.

Reasons for decline:

Many experts believe that the following reasons, among many others, have attributed to the decline in the quality of pharmaceutical R&D output:

  • Most important drug discoveries for mankind have already been made or in other words, the low hanging fruits of pharma R&D have already been plucked. Now not so easy and rather difficult drug targets are remaining.
  • In the last decade, most of pharma R&D efforts were reportedly concentrated mainly in four major disease areas: central nervous system, cancer, cardiovascular and infectious diseases.
  • There is a need now to focus more on poorly understood and more complex therapeutic areas such as, autoimmune diseases or complex diseases related  immune system of the body, to meet greater unmet needs of patients.
  • Clinical trial volunteers are now more difficult to recruit and treat.
  • More stringent regulatory requirements for clinical trials with studies using much larger number of patients, making the clinical drug development process very expensive.

Could it be worse for Big Pharma?

The evolving situation, though very early in the day now, has the potential to turn much worse for the big pharma and good for the patients, if some key changes take place.

Many industry analysts, across the world, feel that ‘liberal’ patent laws are responsible for acceptance of minor advances over the existing products as patentable with 20 years of market exclusivity.

Thereafter, another ‘liberal’ minded drug regulatory framework allows the pharma players to market such ‘not-so-innovative patented medicines’ aggressively, enabling them to amass astronomical profits in no time at the cost of patients’ interests and payors’ financial burden , as happened in the United States and many other countries recently.

To avoid such trivial innovations the law and policy makers in the industrialized countries may well ponder as follows:

1. Align the country’s ‘Patents Act’ with similar to what Indian law makers had formulated in 2005 to avoid minor and ‘evergreening’ types of patents under section 3(d) of the Act.

2. The clinical research data must establish that the new drugs offer significantly more tangible benefits to the patients than the existing ones.

Denial of patentability for ‘me-too’ innovations and their subsequent regulatory approvals would significantly reduce the drug treatment cost with virtually no adverse impacts on patients, across the world.

If such measures are taken by the developed countries of the world and also the emerging markets, the Big Pharma would be compelled to change their respective business models, making ailing patients of varying financial status, color and creed central to their respective strategic ideation processes.

Otherwise, it is highly unlikely that anything will change for the patients from what we are all experiencing today, at least in the near to medium term.

A possible pathway:

Highly conflicting interests of Big pharma and the patients, should get resolved sooner than later and that again for the interest of both. 

Thus, to find a meaningful and generally acceptable solution to this issue, there is a dire need for a much wider global debate. The deliberations, at the same time, should include possibilities of finding ways to avoid huge wasteful expenditures on pharmaceutical R&D for developing new products that offer no significant benefits to the patients over the existing ones. On the contrary, such products burden them with exorbitant incremental drug treatment costs, 

The motions of the debate could well be in the following lines:

1.  ‘Should United States amend its patent laws by categorically stating that a mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” that does not have properties resulting in significant improvement in clinical efficacy, will not be patentable?

2. Shouldn’t the clinical research data must always establish that the new drugs offer significantly more tangible benefits to the patients than already available cheaper equivalents?

The positive outcome of this global debate, if fructifies, will indeed be considered as a paradigm shift in the new world order for all, hopefully.

Unfathomable reluctance: 

Despite all these developments, a recent report indicated that the heads of seventeen industry associations of the United States wrote a letter to President Obama complaining, among others, India’s patents regime. This includes the most powerful, yet equally controversial, pharmaceutical lobby group of America.

The letter alleged that the recent policy decisions in India undermine internationally recognized Intellectual Property (IP) standards, which are “jeopardizing domestic jobs” in America and are unacceptable to them.

Though the details of issues were not highlighted in the letter, One concern it specifically expressed that the defeat of Novartis on the Glivec case that challenged Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India has raised the bar on what can be considered a true innovation for the grant of patent in India.

Though this judgment of the apex court of India was widely acclaimed even globally, American Trade Association Lobby Groups seem to project exactly the opposite, reportedly, driven solely by profit motives of their members and shorn of patients’ interests

Interestingly, an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine, July 17, 2013 also states as follows:

“A patent law that treats incremental innovation and significant innovation in the same way, encourages companies to prioritize less important research over more important research.”

A diametrically opposite viewpoint:

Another school of thought leaders opine, ‘me too’ innovations will continue to remain alive and well. This will happen, even if such new products are starved of oxygen by ‘the tightening purse strings of the eventual customers’. These innovations are sustained by the stronger imperative to avoid clinical failures and to play relatively safe in the space of expensive R&D investments.

They feel that pharma players will continue to focus on to leaner drug discovery and development models to have healthier late-stage product pipelines of such types.  In tandem, by cutting costs even more aggressively, as we witness today, they will find space to keep the level of risk optimal for delivering real innovation, when the time comes.

This type of business model, the experts feel is based on the belief that it is far better to acquire a product with very little innovation ensuring that it can hardly fail to be approved by the regulator. Thereafter, the concerned players may figure out ways of how payors will actually pay for it, rather than focusing primarily on acquiring a genuinely innovative ‘First-in-class’ product and then discover it has ‘feet of clay’.

For example, AstraZeneca reportedly invested a little over US$1 billion in two such products in one month: another LABA combination from Pearl Therapeutics and a prescription ‘Fish Oil’ capsule from Omthera Pharmaceuticals.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, a large number of experts do opine, especially in the light of the above letter of the American Trade Associations that the verdict of the Honorable Supreme Court of India on the Glivec case, though does not serve the business interests of pharma MNCs, definitely signals the triumph of justice over ruthless patient exploitations. It also vindicates that this particular rule of law, as enacted by the Indian Parliament, is indeed for the best interest of the patients of India at large.

This verdict could well be construed as a huge lesson to learn and implement by other like minded countries, across the world.

Having a glimpse at the pharmaceutical innovations, which are often laced by crafty hypes created by expensive PR Agencies of the pharma lobby groups, the global thought leaders do tend to believe, rather strongly, that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India would encourage more ‘First-in-class’ innovations, in the long run, benefiting all.

Such a provision, if implemented by many countries, could also help saving significant wasteful expenditures towards ‘Me-too’ type pharma R&D, favorably impacting billions of lives, across the world.

That said, the question keeps haunting – ‘Sans Hype, Quo Vadis Pharma Innovation?

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.

 

 

 

R&D: Is Indian Pharma Moving Up the Value Chain?

Posted on by
Reply

It almost went unnoticed by many, when in the post product patent regime, Ranbaxy launched its first homegrown ‘New Drug’ of India, Synriam, on April 25, 2012, coinciding with the ‘World Malaria Day’. The drug is used in the treatment of plasmodium falciparum malaria affecting adult patients.  However, the company has also announced its plans to extend the benefits of Synriam to children in the malaria endemic zones of Asia and Africa.

The new drug is highly efficacious with a cure rate of over 95 percent offering advantages of “compliance and convenience” too. The full course of treatment is one tablet a day for three days costing less than US$ 2.0 to a patient.

Synriam was developed by Ranbaxy in collaboration with the Department of Science  and Technology of the Government of India. The project received support from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and conforms to the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). The R&D cost for this drug was reported to be around US$ 30 million. After its regulatory approval in India, Synriam is now being registered in many other countries of the world.

Close on the heels of the above launch, in June 2013 another pharmaceutical major of India, Zydus Cadilla announced that the company is ready for launch in India its first New Chemical Entity (NCE) for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia. The NCE called Lipaglyn has been discovered and developed in India and is getting ready for launch in the global markets too.

The key highlights of Lipaglyn are reportedly as follows:

  • The first Glitazar to be approved in the world.
  • The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has already approved the drug for launch in India.
  • Over 80% of all diabetic patients are estimated to be suffering from diabetic dyslipidemia. There are more than 350 million diabetics globally – so the people suffering from diabetic dyslipidemia could be around 300 million.

With 20 discovery research programs under various stages of clinical development, Zydus Cadilla reportedly invests over 7 percent of its turnover in R&D.  At the company’s state-of-the-art research facility, the Zydus Research Centre, over 400 research scientists are currently engaged in NCE research alone.

Prior to this in May 14, 2013, the Government of India’s Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and Indian vaccine company Bharat Biotech jointly announced positive results, having excellent safety and efficacy profile in Phase III clinical trials, of an indigenously developed rotavirus vaccine.

The vaccine name Rotavac is considered to be an important scientific breakthrough against rotavirus infections, the most severe and lethal cause of childhood diarrhea, responsible for approximately 100,000 deaths of small children in India each year.

Bharat Biotech has announced a price of US$ 1.00/dose for Rotavac. When approved by the Drug Controller General of India, Rotavac will be a more affordable alternative to the rotavirus vaccines currently available in the Indian market. 

It is indeed interesting to note, a number of local Indian companies have started investing in pharmaceutical R&D to move up the industry value chain and are making rapid strides in this direction.

Indian Pharma poised to move-up the value-chain:

Over the past decade or so, India has acquired capabilities and honed skills in several important areas of pharma R&D, like for example:

  • Cost effective process development
  • Custom synthesis
  • Physical and chemical characterization of molecules
  • Genomics
  • Bio-pharmaceutics
  • Toxicology studies
  • Execution of phase 2 and phase 3 studies

According to a paper titled, “The R&D Scenario in Indian Pharmaceutical Industry” published by Research and Information System for Developing Countries, over 50 NCEs/NMEs of the Indian Companies are currently at different stages of development, as follows:

Company Compounds Therapy Areas Status
Biocon 7 Oncology, Inflammation, Diabetes Pre-clinical, phase II, III
Wockhardt 2 Anti-infective Phase I, II
Piramal Healthcare 21 Oncology, Inflammation, Diabetes Lead selection, Pre-clinical, Phase I, II
Lupin 6 Migraine, TB, Psoriasis, Diabetes, Rheumatoid Arthritis Pre-clinical, Phase I, II, III
Torrent 1 Diabetic heart failure Phase I
Dr. Reddy’s Lab 6 Metabolic/Cardiovascular disorders, Psoriasis, migraine On going, Phase I, II
Glenmark 8 Metabolic/Cardiovascular /Respiratory/Inflammatory /Skin disorders, Anti-platelet, Adjunct to PCI/Acute Coronary Syndrome, Anti-diarrheal, Neuropathic Pain, Skin Disorders, Multiple Sclerosis, Ongoing, Pre-clinical, Phase I, II, III

R&D collaboration and partnership:

Some of these domestic companies are also entering into licensing agreements with the global players in the R&D space. Some examples are reportedly as follows:

  • Glenmark has inked licensing deals with Sanofi of France and Forest Laboratories of the United States to develop three of its own patented molecules.
  • Domestic drug major Biocon has signed an agreement with Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) for new drug candidates.
  • Piramal Life Sciences too entered into two risk-reward sharing deals in 2007 with Merck and Eli Lilly, to enrich its research pipeline of drugs.
  • Jubilant Group partnered with Janssen Pharma of Belgium and AstraZeneca of the United Kingdom for pharma R&D in India, last year.

All these are just indicative collaborative R&D initiatives in the Indian pharmaceutical industry towards harnessing immense growth potential of this area for a win-win business outcome.

The critical mass:

An international study estimated that out of 10,000 molecules synthesized, only 20 reach the preclinical stage, 10 the clinical trials stage and ultimately only one gets regulatory approval for marketing. If one takes this estimate into consideration, the research pipeline of the Indian companies would require to have at least 20 molecules at the pre-clinical stage to be able to launch one innovative product in the market.

Though pharmaceutical R&D investments in India are increasing, still these are not good enough. The Annual Report for 2011-12 of the Department of Pharmaceuticals indicates that investments made by the domestic pharmaceutical companies in R&D registered an increase from 1.34 per cent of sales in 1995 to 4.5 percent in 2010. Similarly, the R&D expenditure for the MNCs in India has increased from 0.77 percent of their net sales in 1995 to 4.01 percent in 2010.

Thus, it is quite clear, both the domestic companies and the MNCs are not spending enough on R&D in India. As a result, at the individual company level, India is yet to garner the critical mass in this important area.

No major R&D investments in India by large MNCs:

According to a report, major foreign players with noteworthy commercial operations in India have spent either nothing or very small amount towards pharmaceutical R&D in the country. The report also mentions that Swiss multinational Novartis, which spent $ 9 billion on R&D in 2012 globally, does not do any R&D in India.

Analogue R&D strategy could throw greater challenges:

For adopting the analogue research strategy, by and large, the Indian pharma players appear to run the additional challenge of proving enhanced clinical efficacy over the known substance to pass the acid test of the Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India.

Public sector R&D:

In addition to the private sector, research laboratories in the public sector under the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) like, Central Drug Research Institute (CDRI), Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IICT) and National Chemical Laboratory (NCL) have also started contributing to the growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry.

As McKinsey & company estimated, given adequate thrust, the R&D costs in India could be much lower, only 40 to 60 per cent of the costs incurred in the US. However, in reality R&D investments of the largest global pharma R&D spenders in India are still insignificant, although they have been expressing keenness for Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) mostly in the brownfield pharma sector.

Cost-arbitrage:

Based on available information, global pharma R&D spending is estimated to be over US$ 60 billion. Taking the cost arbitrage of India into account, the global R&D spend at Indian prices comes to around US$ 24 billion. To achieve even 5 percent of this total expenditure, India should have invested by now around US$ 1.2 billion on the pharmaceutical R&D alone. Unfortunately that has not been achieved just yet, as discussed above.

Areas of cost-arbitrage:

A survey done by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) in 2011 with the senior executives from the American and European pharmaceutical companies, highlights the following areas of perceived R&D cost arbitrage in India:

Areas % Respondents
Low overall cost 73
Access to patient pool 70
Data management/Informatics 55
Infrastructure set up 52
Talent 48
Capabilities in new TA 15

That said, India should realize that the current cost arbitrage of the country is not sustainable on a longer-term basis. Thus, to ‘make hay while the sun shines’ and harness its competitive edge in this part of the world, the country should take proactive steps to attract both domestic as well as Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) in R&D with appropriate policy measures and fiscal incentives.

Simultaneously, aggressive capacity building initiatives in the R&D space, regulatory reforms based on the longer term need of the country and intensive scientific education and training would play critical role to establish India as an attractive global hub in this part of the world to discover and develop newer medicines for all.

Funding:

Accessing the world markets is the greatest opportunity in the entire process of globalization and the funds available abroad could play an important role to boost R&D in India. Inadequacy of funds in the Indian pharmaceutical R&D space is now one of the greatest concerns for the country.

The various ways of funding R&D could be considered as follows:

  • Self-financing Research: This is based on:
  1. “CSIR Model”: Recover research costs through commercialization/ collaboration with industries to fund research projects.
  2. “Dr Reddy’s Lab / Glenmark Model”: Recover research costs by selling lead compounds without taking through to development.
  • Overseas Funding:  By way of joint R&D ventures with overseas collaborators, seeking grants from overseas health foundations, earnings from contract research as also from clinical development and transfer of aborted leads and collaborative projects on ‘Orphan Drugs’.
  • Venture Capital & Equity Market:  This could be both via ‘Private Venture Capital Funds’ and ‘Special Government Institutions’.  If regulations permit, foreign venture funds may also wish to participate in such initiatives. Venture Capital and Equity Financing could emerge as important sources of finance once track record is demonstrated and ‘early wins’ are recorded.
  • Fiscal & Non-Fiscal Support: Should also be valuable in early stages of R&D, for which a variety of schemes are possible as follows:
  1. Customs Duty Concessions: For Imports of specialized equipment, e.g. high throughput screening equipment, equipment for combinatorial chemistry, special analytical tools, specialized pilot plants, etc.
  2. Income tax concessions (weighted tax deductibility): For both in-house and sponsored research programs.
  3. Soft loans: For financing approved R&D projects from the Government financial institutions / banks.
  4. Tax holidays: Deferrals, loans on earnings from R&D.
  5. Government funding: Government grants though available, tend to be small and typically targeted to government institutions or research bodies. There is very little government support for private sector R&D as on date.

All these schemes need to be simple and hassle free and the eligibility criteria must be stringent to prevent any possible misuse.

Patent infrastructure:

Overall Indian patent infrastructure needs to be strengthened, among others, in the following areas:

  • Enhancement of patent literacy both in legal and scientific communities, who must be taught how to read, write and file a probe.
  • Making available appropriate ‘Search Engines’ to Indian scientists to facilitate worldwide patent searches.
  • Creating world class Indian Patent Offices (IPOs) where the examination skills and resources will need considerable enhancement.
  • ‘Advisory Services’ on patents to Indian scientists to help filing patents in other countries could play an important role.

Creating R&D ecosystem:

  • Knowledge and learning need to be upgraded through the universities and specialist centers of learning within India.
  • Science and Technological achievements should be recognized and rewarded through financial grants and future funding should be linked to scientific achievements.
  • Indian scientists working abroad are now inclined to return to India or network with laboratories in India. This trend should be effectively leveraged.

Universities to play a critical role:

Most of Indian raw scientific talents go abroad to pursue higher studies.  International Schools of Science like Stanford or Rutgers should be encouraged to set up schools in India, just like Kellogg’s and Wharton who have set up Business Schools. It has, however, been reported that the Government of India is actively looking into this matter.

‘Open Innovation’ Model:

As the name suggest, ‘Open Innovation’ or the ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ is an open source code model of discovering a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). In this model all data generated related to the discovery research will be available in the open for collaborative inputs. In ‘Open Innovation’, the key component is the supportive pathway of its information network, which is driven by three key parameters of open development, open access and open source.

Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) of India has adopted OSDD to discover more effective anti-tubercular medicines.

Insignificant R&D investment in Asia-Pacific Region:

Available data indicate that 85 percent of the medicines produced by the global pharmaceutical industry originate from North America, Europe, Japan and some from Latin America and the developed nations hold 97 percent of the total pharmaceutical patents worldwide.

MedTRACK reveals that just 15 percent of all new drug development is taking place in Asia-Pacific region, including China, despite the largest global growth potential of the region.

This situation is not expected to change significantly in the near future for obvious reasons. The head start that the western world and Japan enjoy in this space of the global pharmaceutical industry would continue to benefit those countries for some more time.

Some points to ponder:

  • It is essential to have balanced laws and policies, offering equitable advantage for innovation to all stakeholders, including patients.
  • Trade policy is another important ingredient, any imbalance of which can either reinforce or retard R&D efforts.
  • Empirical evidence across the globe has demonstrated that a well-balanced patent regime would encourage the inflow of technology, stimulate R&D, benefit both the national and the global pharmaceutical sectors and most importantly improve the healthcare system, in the long run.
  • The Government, academia, scientific fraternity and the pharmaceutical Industry need to get engaged in various relevant Public Private Partnership (PPP) arrangements for R&D to ensure wider access to newer and better medicines in the country, providing much needed stimulus to the public health interest of the nation.

Conclusion:

R&D initiatives, though very important for most of the industries, are the lifeblood for the pharmaceutical sector, across the globe, to meet the unmet needs of the patients. Thus, quite rightly, the pharmaceutical Industry is considered to be the ‘lifeline’ for any nation in the battle against diseases of all types.

While the common man expects newer and better medicines at affordable prices, the pharmaceutical industry has to battle with burgeoning R&D costs, high risks and increasingly long period of time to take a drug from the ‘mind to market’, mainly due to stringent regulatory requirements. There is an urgent need to strike a right balance between the two.

In this context, it is indeed a proud moment for India, when with the launch of its home grown new products, Synriam of Ranbaxy and Lipaglyn of Zydus Cadilla or Rotavac Vaccine of Bharat Biotech translate a common man’s dream of affordable new medicines into reality and set examples for others to emulate.

Thus, just within seven years from the beginning of the new product patent regime in India, stories like Synriam, Lipaglyn, Rotavac or the R&D pipeline of over 50 NCEs/NMEs prompt resurfacing the key unavoidable query yet again:

Has Indian pharma started catching-up with the process of new drug discovery, after decades of hibernation, to move up the industry ‘Value Chain’?

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.

Transparency in Drug Trial Data: Thwarted by Lobbyists or Embroiled in Controversy?

Posted on by
Reply

Based on a leaked letter from overseas pharma industry bodies, a leading international daily in late July 2013 reported:

“Big pharma mobilizing patients in battle over drugs trials data.”

Some experts consider it as a poignant, if not a bizarre moment in the history of drugs development, keeping patients’ interest in mind. However, the concerned trade bodies could well term it as a business savvy strategy to maintain sanctity of ‘Data Exclusivity’ in real sense.

That said, it is important for the stakeholders to figure out where exactly does this strategy stand between the larger issue of patients’ drug safety and efficacy concerns and the commercial interest of the innovator companies to grow  their business.

Lack of transparency in drug trials data and consequences:

Outside pharmaceutical marketing, some of the biggest scandals in the drug industry have been alleged hiding of data related to negative findings in drug Clinical Trials (CTs) by the innovator companies.

Many stakeholders have already expressed their uneasiness on this wide spread allegation that research based pharmaceutical companies publish just a fraction of their CT data and keep much of the drug safety related information to themselves. Not too distant withdrawals of blockbuster drugs like Vioxx (Merck) and Avandia (GSK) will vindicate this point.

Examples of global withdrawals of drugs, including blockbuster ones, available from various publications, are as follows. 

Brand

Company

Indication

Year of Ban/Withdrawal

Reason

Vioxx

Merck

Anti Inflammatory

2004

Increase cardiovascular risk

Bextra

Pfizer

Anti Inflammatory

2005

Heart attack and stroke

Prexige

Novartis

Anti Inflammatory

2007

Hepatotoxicity

Mylotarg

Wyeth

Acute Myelogenous Leukemia

2010

Increased patient death/No added benefit over conventional cancer therapies

Avandia

GSK

Diabetes

2010

Increased cardiovascular risk

Reductil

Abbott

Exogenous Obesity

2010

Increased cardiovascular risk

Paradex

Eli Lilly

Analgesic, Antitussive and Local Anaesthetic

2010

Fatal overdoses and heart arrhythmias

Xigris

Eli Lilly

Anti-Thrombotic, Anti-Inflammatory, and Profibrinolytic

2011

Questionable efficacy for the treatment of sepsis

A recent example:

A recent report indicates that Japan (Tokyo) based Jikei University School of Medicine plans to withdraw a paper on the hypertension drug Diovan of Novartis from the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) due to “data manipulation,” suggesting the drug could help treating other ailments.

The report also indicates that an investigative panel formed by the university to look into the allegations of ‘rigged data’ for Diovan concluded that the results were cooked.

The decision of the Japanese University to withdraw this paper is expected to hurt the reputation of Novartis Pharma AG and at the same time raise ethical concerns about the company’s behavior concerning its best-selling hypertension drug, the report says.

Drug regulators contemplating remedial measures:

Now being cognizant about this practice, some drug regulators in the developed world have exhibited their keenness to disband such practices. These ‘gatekeepers’ of drug efficacy and safety are now contemplating to get the entire published CT data reanalyzed by the independent experts to have a tight leash on selective claims by the concerned pharma companies.

A review reportedly estimates that only half of all CTs were published in full and that positive results are twice as likely to be published than negative ones.

Recently the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has published a draft report for public consideration on greater openness of CT data. As stated above, this proposal allows independent experts to conduct a detail analysis on the safety and effectiveness of new drugs.

Mobilizing patients to thwart transparency?

Interestingly, as stated in the beginning, it has recently been reported that to thwart the above move of the drug regulator in favor of patients’ interest:

“The pharmaceutical industry has mobilized an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drugs trials.”

The same report highlights that two large overseas trade associations had worked out a grand strategy, which is initially targeted at Europe. This is for the obvious reason that the EMA wants to publish all of the clinical study reports that drug companies have filed, and where negotiations around the CT directive could force drug companies to publish all CT results in a public database.

Embroiled in controversy:

It has also been reported simultaneously, “Some who oppose full disclosure of data fear that publishing the information could reveal trade secrets, put patient privacy at risk, and be distorted by scientists’ own conflicts of interest.”

Pharmaceutical trade associations in the west strongly argue in favor of the need of innovator companies to keep most of CT data proprietary for competitive reasons. They reiterate that companies would never invest so much of time and money for new drug development, if someone could easily copy the innovative work during the patent life of the product.

However, the report also states, “While many of these concerns are valid, critics say they can be addressed, and that openness is far more important for patients’ drug safety reasons.“

Addressing the concerns:

To address the above concerns the EMA has reportedly separated clinical data into three categories:

  • Commercially confidential information.
  • Open-access data that doesn’t contain patients’ personal information.
  • Controlled-access data that will only be granted after the requester has fulfilled a number of requirements, including signing of a data-sharing agreement.

However experts do also reiterate, “Risks regarding data privacy and irresponsible use cannot be totally eliminated, and it will be a challenge to accommodate diverse expectations across the scientific and medical community. However, the opportunity to benefit the health of individuals and the public must outweigh these concerns.”

Some laudable responses:

Amidst mega attempts to thwart the move of EMA towards CT data transparency surreptitiously, there are some refreshingly good examples in this area, quite rare though, as follows:

  • As revealed by media, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has recently announced that it would share detailed data from all global clinical trials conducted since 2007, which was later extended to all products since 2000. This means sharing more than 1,000 CTs involving more than 90 drugs. More recently, to further increase transparency in how it reports drug-study results, GSK reportedly has decided to disclose more individual patient data from its CTs. GSK has also announced that qualified researchers can request access to findings on individual patients whose identities are concealed and confidentiality protected.The company would double the number of studies to 400 available by end 2013 to researchers seeking data of approved medicines and of therapies that have been terminated from development.
  • Recently Canada reportedly announced the launch of Canadian Government’s new public database of Health Canada-authorized drug CTs. It is believed that providing access to a central database of clinical trials is an initial step that will help fill an existing information gap as the government works to further increase transparency around CTs.
  • The well-known British Medical Journal (BMJ) in one of its editorials has already announced, “BMJ will require authors to commit to supplying anonymised patient level data on reasonable request from 2013.”

All these are indeed laudable initiatives in terms of ensuring long term drug safety and efficacy for the patients.

Conclusion:

It is quite refreshing to note that a new paradigm is emerging in the arena of CT data transparency, for long-term health interest of patients, despite strong resistance from powerful pharmaceutical trade bodies, as reported in the international media. This paradigm shift is apparently being spearheaded by Europe and Canada among the countries, the global pharma major GSK and the medical Journal BMJ.

A doubt still keeps lingering on whether or not independent expert panels will indeed be given access to relevant CT data for meaningful impartial reviews of new drugs, as the issue, in all probability, would increasingly be made to get embroiled in further controversy.

Moreover, if the innovator companies’ often repeated public stand – “patients’ interest for drug efficacy and safety is supreme” is taken in its face value, the veiled attempt of thwarting transparency of CT Data, with an utterly bizarre strategy, by the lobbyists of the same ‘patient caring’ constituent, can indeed be construed as a poignant moment, now frozen in time, in the history of drug development for mankind.

Be that as it may, to resolve this problem meaningfully and decisively, I reckon, a middle path needs to be carefully charted out between reported thwarting moves by pharma lobbyists and the embroiled controversy on the burning issue.

Thus, the final critical point to ponder:

Would the commerce-driven and cost-intensive pharma innovation also not be in jeopardy, affecting patients’ interest too, if the genuine concerns of the innovator companies over ‘CT Data Protection’ are totally wished away? 

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.