Tag Archives: Innovators

Disruptive Digital Innovation To Reduce Medication Need?

Posted on by
Reply

Application of digital technology in various spheres of not just business, but in our individual day to life also, promises a disruptive change for the better, from the traditional way of doing things and achieving goals – freeing a lot of precious time for us to do much more, and even faster. An impending tsunami of this digital revolution, as it were, is now all pervasive, with various digital application platforms becoming increasingly more cost effective, quite in tandem with the fast pace of cutting-edge innovation. This is so different from what is generally witnessed in the pharma business.

Interestingly, despite high demand for cost effective health care from all over the world, not much progress in this area is still visible within this industry, in general, and particularly in the pharma business. Various reasons may be attributed to this apathy, which I shall not venture to go into, today.

On the other hand, sniffing a huge opportunity in this largely vacant space, many tech giants and startups are investing heavily to make health care of people easier, and at the same time reap a rich harvest, far outpacing the big pharma players.

As I connect the different dots on world-class digital initiatives in the health space, a clear trend emerges on the global scenario. The way Internet revolution, to start with, followed by smartphones and many other wireless digital services is changing the rhythm of life for many making it much easier, is just amazing. These include a plethora of everyday ‘must-do’ and several other functions, such as, precise need-based information gathering, online banking, tax-filing, shopping, payment, social networking, cloud computing and storage, besides a gamut of other digital services.

Similar disruptive digital innovations are expected in the health care space too, involving many long-awaited patient-centric areas, such as, significant reduction in the cost of medication. I discussed a similar issue in one of my earlier articles, published in this blog. However, today, I shall focus on this specific area, in view of its possible huge impact on the traditional pharma business model.

May reduce need of medication:

That tech startups are developing digital tools that reduce the need of medication, was very recently reported in an article titled, ‘Digital disruptors take big pharma beyond the pill’ published in the Financial Times on April 24, 2017. For example, a California-based startup, has reportedly come out with a digital device, smaller than an iPhone and fitted with a cellular chip, that can keep instant and accurate track of blood sugar levels. If the readings fall in the danger zone, an appropriate text message will be automatically generated for the person, such as – “drink two glasses of water and walk for 15 minutes”. The individual can also seek further help over the telephone from a trained coach – a highly-qualified dietitian for further guidance, the article highlights.

The whiz kid developers of wearable digital devices and apps are now intently working on many innovative health care solutions. Many of these can help early disease detection, and chart the risk profile of persons prone to various ailments, based on an enormous amount of well researched scientific data, significantly reducing the need of medication through effective disease prevention and management protocols. For example, there are umpteen evidences, demonstrating that specific moderate physical exercises help control diabetes just as well as medication, when detected early.

Thus, I reckon, such wearable digital devices and apps carry a huge promise to detect many diseases like, diabetes at its very onset or even before, and influence the person to take the necessary measures. In case of diabetes, it could be like, walking a certain distance every day, along with regular dietary advices from a remote center. Won’t such digital interventions work out far cheaper and convenient than lifelong visits to physicians and administration of anti-diabetic drugs?

The notes of the pharma business playbook need to be rewritten?

Let me quickly elaborate this point with an example of a common chronic ailment, say, diabetes. For effective management of this disease, global pharma players prefer to focus on better and better antidiabetic drug development, and after that spend a fortune towards their effective sales and marketing for generating enough prescription demand. Branded generic manufacturers are no different. This is important for all of them as most patients will have to administer the medicines for chronic ailments for a lifetime, incurring significant recurrent expenses for effective disease control. The first access point of such disease management has always been a doctor, initially for diagnosis and then for lifelong treatment.

Disruptive digital innovation could change the first point of intervention from the doctors to various digital apps or devices. These digital tools would be able to check and capture the person concerned predisposition to chronic diseases like, hypertension and diabetes, besides many other serious ailments, including possible cancer. When detected early, primary disease management advice would be available to patients from the app or the device itself, such as, the above-mentioned device for diabetes. If the preventive practices can manage the disease, and keep it under control, there won’t be any serious need to visit a doctor or pop a pill, thus, avoiding any need of active medication.

In that sense, as the above FT article has articulated, ‘rather than buying a pill, people might buy an overall solution for diabetes’ can’t be more relevant. When it happens, it will have a multiplier effect, possibly impacting the volume of consumption of medicines, just as what disease prevention initiatives do. Consequently, the notes of the pharma business playbook may have to be rewritten with right proactive measures.

As reported, the good news is, at least a couple of global pharma players have started fathoming its impact. This is apparent from Sanofi’s collaboration on digital devices and patient support for diabetics, and to some extent with Pfizer on immuno-oncology, using expertise in data analytics to identify new drug targets.

The key players in this ‘healthcare value chain’:

When the digital health care revolution will invade the current space of traditional-health care, it will create both the winners and losers. This was clearly highlighted in an article titled, ‘A digital revolution in healthcare is speeding up’, published by ‘The Economist’ on March 02, 2017.

From this article, it appears, when viewed in the Indian context that primarily two groups of players are currently ‘fighting a war for control’ of this ‘healthcare value chain’, as follows:

  • Traditional innovators: These are pharma companies, hospitals and medical-technology companies, such as, Siemens, GE and Phillips.
  • Technology insurgents: These include Microsoft, Apple, Google, and a host of hungry digital entrepreneurs and startups – creating apps, predictive-diagnostics systems and new devices.

Where is the threat to traditional pharma innovators?

This emerging trend could pose a threat to traditional innovators as the individual and collective knowledge base gets wider and wider – the above article envisages. With the medical records getting increasingly digitized with new kinds of patient data available from genomic sequencing, sensors and even from social media, the Government, including many individuals and groups, can now get a much better insight into which treatments work better with avoidable costs, on a value-based yardstick. For example, if digital apps and wearable devices are found even equally effective as drugs, with the least cost, to effectively manage the menace of diabetes in the country, notwithstanding any strong ‘fear arising’ counter propaganda, as we often read and here and there, those will increasingly gain better acceptance from all concerned.

The moot question, therefore, arises, would the drug companies lose significantly to the emerging digital players in the health care arena, such as, Microsoft, Apple and Google?

Tech giants are moving faster:

In several disease areas like, cancer and diabetes, the tech giants are taking longer and bigger strides than the traditional pharma innovators. For example:

  • Microsoft has vowed to “solve the problem of cancer” within a decade by using groundbreaking computer science to crack the code of diseased cells so that they can be reprogrammed back to a healthy state.
  • Apple has a secret team working on the holy grail for treating diabetes. The Company has a secret group of biomedical engineers developing sensors to monitor blood sugar levels. This initiative was initially envisioned by Steve Jobs before his death. If successful, the advance could help millions of diabetes patients and turn devices, like Apple Watch, into a must-have.
  • Verily – the life sciences arm of Google’s parent company Alphabet, has been working on a “smart” glucose-sensing contact lens with Novartis for several years, to detect blood glucose levels through tears, without drawing any blood. However, Novartis has since, reportedly, abandoned its 2016 goal to start testing the autofocus contact lens on people, though it said the groundbreaking product it is “progressing steadily.” It has been widely reported that this could probably be due to the reason that Novartis is possibly mulling to sale its eye care division Alcon.
  • Calico, which is also owned by Google’s parent company Alphabet, has US$ 1.5 billion in funding to carry out studies in mice, yeast, worms and African naked mole rats for understanding the ageing process, and how to slow it, reports MIT Technology Review.

No wonder, why an article published in Forbes magazine, published on April 15, 2017 considered these tech giants as ‘The Next Big Pharma’. It said, ‘if the innovations of Google and Apple are another wake-up call for the life science industry, which oftentimes has relied on the snooze function of line extensions and extended-release drugs as the source of income and innovation.’

In conclusion:

An effective disease treatment solution based on different digital platforms has a key financial advantage, as well. This is because the process of generation of huge amounts of credible scientific data, through large pre-clinical and clinical trials, establishing the efficacy and safety of new drugs on humans for regulatory approval, is immensely expensive, as compared to the digital ones.  Intriguingly, no global pharma player does not seem to have launched any significant digital health care solution for patients to reduce the overall cost of disease burden, be it prevention or management.

In that context, it’s encouraging to note the profound comment of the Chief Operating Officer – Jeff Williams of Apple Inc., made during a radio show – ‘Conversations on Health Care’, as reported by ‘appleinsider.com’ on January 06, 2016. During the interaction, Williams reiterated that the rapid progress of technology in this direction is very real, as ‘Apple’ and other smartphone health app developers are stretching the commoditization of computer technology to serve health sciences. In not so distant future, with relatively inexpensive smartphones and supporting health apps – the doctors and researchers can deliver better standards of living, even in severely under-served areas like Africa, where there are only 55 trained specialists in autism.

Thus, it now looks reasonably certain to me that disruptive digital innovation on various chronic health care solutions is ultimately going to reduce the need of medication for many patients, across the world, including India, significantly.

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.

“Fire in The Blood”: A Ghastly Patents Vs Patients War – for Pricing Freedom?

Posted on by
Reply

International award winning documentary film, ‘FIRE IN THE BLOOD’ could possibly set a raging fire in your blood too, just like mine. It made me SAD, REFLECTIVE and ANGRY, prompting to share ‘MY TAKE AWAYS’ with you on this contentious subject, immediately after I put across a brief perspective of this yet to be released film in India.

FIRE IN THE BLOOD is an intricate tale of ‘medicine, monopoly and malice’ and narrates how western pharmaceutical companies and governments aggressively blocked access to low-cost HIV/AIDS drugs in African countries post 1996, causing ten million or more avoidable deaths. Fortunately, in the midst of further disasters in the making, some brave-hearts  decided to fight back.

The film includes contributions from global icons, such as, Bill Clinton, Desmond Tutu and Joseph Stieglitz and makes it clear that the real struggle of majority, out of over 7 billion global population, for access to life-saving affordable patented medicines is far from over. This film has been made by Dylan Mohan Gray and narrated by Academy Award winner, William Hurt.

Two trailers worth watching:

Please do not miss watching, at least, the trailer of this the sad and cruel movie by clicking on the link provided on the word ‘trailer’ above and also here. To get an independent perspective, please do watch the review of the film along with interesting interviews by clicking here.

(Disclaimer: I have no personal direct or even remotely indirect interest or involvement with this film.)

International newspaper reviews:

The NYT in its review commented as follows:

“The only reason we are dying is because we are poor.” That is the heartbreaking refrain heard twice in the documentary “Fire in the Blood,” about an urgent and shameful topic: the millions of Africans with AIDS who have died because they couldn’t afford the antiretroviral drugs that could have saved their lives. Former President Bill Clinton, the intellectual property lawyer James Love, the journalist Donald G. McNeil Jr. of The New York Times and others offer perspectives on this situation and also on the concern that pharmaceutical companies value profits over lives.”

The Guardian reviewed the film as follows:

“A slightly dry, yet solid reportage on a humanitarian disgrace: the failure of western pharmaceutical companies to provide affordable drugs to patients in the developing world. As presented, the corporate defense sounds horribly racist: that poorer Africans’ inability to read packaging or tell the time leaves them ill-suited to following any medication program… hope emerges in the form of the Indian physicist Yusuf Hamied, whose company Cipla undertook in the noughties to produce cheap, generic drugs in defiance of the Pfizer patent lawyers.”

MY TAKE AWAYS:

Discrimination between human lives?

Life, as we all have been experiencing, is the greatest miracle of the universe and most astonishing creation of the Almighty. Among all types of lives, the human lives indeed have been playing critical roles in the development and progress of humanity over many centuries. These lives irrespective of their financial status, cast, creed, color and other inequities need to be protected against diseases by all concerned and medicines help achieving this objective.

What’s the purpose of inventing medicines?

“The purpose of business is to create and keep a customer”, said the management guru of global repute,  Peter F. Drucker. What is then the purpose of inventing new medicines in today’s world of growing financial inequity? 

Further, in his well acclaimed book, “Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits”, C.K. Prahalad, explained that the world’s over five billion poor make up the the fastest growing market in the world. Prahalad showed how this segment has vast untapped buying power, and represents an enormous potential for companies, who can learn how to serve this market by providing the poor with innovative products that they need. Do the Big Pharma players have any lesson to learn from this doctrine?

R&D is not free, has costs attached to it:

Medicines protect human lives against various types of diseases. Pharmaceutical companies surely play a critical role in this area, especially the innovator pharma players, by making such medicines available to patients.

These companies identify new products largely from academic institutions and various research labs, develop and bring them to the market. This has obviously a cost attached to it. Thus, R&D cannot be considered as free and the prices of patented products should not be equated with off-patent generic drugs. Innovators must be allowed to earn a decent return on their R&D investments to keep the process of innovation ongoing, though the details of such costs are not usually made available for scrutiny by the experts in this field. 

Discourage insatiable fetish for profiteering:

Respective governments must always keep a careful vigil to ensure that earning a decent profit does not transgress into a limitless fetish for profiteering, where majority of people across the world will have no other alternative but to succumb to diseases without having access to these innovative medicines. This situation is unfair, unjust and should not be allowed to continue.

Big Pharma – strongest propagators of innovation…bizarre?

It is indeed intriguing, when patients are the biggest beneficiaries of pharmaceutical innovations, why mostly the Big Pharma MNCs, their self-created bodies and cronies, continue to remain the most powerful votaries of most stringent IPR regime in a country, though always in the garb of ‘encouraging and protecting innovation’.

Thinking straight, who do they consider are really against innovation in India? None, in fact. Not even the Government. India has under its belt the credit of many pioneering innovations over the past centuries, may not be too many in the field of medicine post 2005, at least, not just yet. Do we remember the disruptive invention of ‘Zero’ by the Indian mathematician Brahmagupta (597–668 AD) or the amazing ‘Dabbawalas’ of Mumbai?  India experiences innovation daily, it has now started happening in the domestic pharma world too with the market launch of two new home grown inventions.

Coming back to the context, India, as I understand, has always been pro-innovation, in principle at least, but is squarely and fairly against obscene drug pricing, which denies access to especially newer drugs to majority of patients, in many occasions even resorting to frivolous innovations and evergreening of patents.

Mighty pharma MNCs are increasingly feeling uncomfortable with such strong stands being taken by a developing nation like India, in this regard. Thus, expensive and well orchestrated intense lobbying initiatives are being strategized to project India as an anti-innovation entity, while pharma MNCs, in general, are being highlighted as the sole savior for encouraging and protecting innovation in India. The whole concept is indeed bizarre, if not an open display of shallow and too much of self-serving mindset. 

This analysis appears more convincing, when genuine patients’ groups, instead of supporting the pharma MNCs in their so called ‘crusade’ for ‘innovation’, keep on vehemently protesting against obscene drug pricing, across the world. 

Obscene pricing overshadows the ‘patient centric’ facade:

Obscene pricing of patented medicines, in many cases, overshadows the façade of much hyped and overused argument that ‘innovation must be encouraged and protected for patients’ interest’. This self-created ‘patient centric’ facade must now be properly understood by all.

I reckon, India has now assumed a critical mass attaining a global stature. This will not allow any successive governments in the country to change the relevant laws of the land, wilting under intense pressure of global and local lobbying and expensive PR campaigns. 

Genuine innovation must be protected:

  • Genuine innovations, as explained in the Patents Act of India, must be encouraged and protected in the country, but not without sending a strong and clear signal for the need of responsible pricing.
  • It is also a fact, though some people may have different views, that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) encourage innovation.
  • At the same time, the real cost of R&D must be made transparent by all innovators and available for scrutiny by the experts in this field to put all doubts to rest on the subject.

When Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is being widely discussed globally, which has now been made mandatory in India, these players keep arguing almost unequivocally that, thinking about ‘have nots’ is the sole responsibility of the Government.

Patents guarantee market exclusivity, NOT absolute pricing freedom:

Patent gives right to the innovators for 20 years market exclusivity, but NOT absolute pricing freedom in the absence of any significant market competition in that area.

Innovator companies do argue that patented products also compete in their respective therapeutic classes. This is indeed baloney. If patented products meet the unmet needs, how can it be ‘me too’ even in a therapy class? Unless of course, insatiated fetish of Big Pharma for market monopoly with free pricing even for ‘me too’ types of so called ‘innovative products’, becomes the key motive behind such an argument.

Who benefits more with patented medicines?

Who gets benefited more with these patented medicines? Certainly a small minority living in the developed world and NOT the vast majority of the developing world.

At the same time, huge profits earned by these companies from a small minority of these patients make them so rich and inexplicably arrogant that they do not bother at all for others without having adequate deep pockets, even in India. 

Conclusion:

I have a huge problem in accepting the pharma MNCs’ argument that ‘IPR’ and lack of ‘Access’ to IP protected drugs for ‘affordability’ reasons, are unrelated to each other. For heaven’s sake, how can they be?

As I said before, absolute pricing freedom for patented drugs is obscene, if not vulgar and must be curbed forthwith with the application of intelligent and well-balanced sensible minds and also in a way, which is just for all, both the innovators and the patients.

Big pharma MNCs can no longer afford to remain just as huge profit making entities, responsible only to their shareholders, shorn of societal needs for affordable medicines, required for around six out of over seven billion human lives of the world. 

Modern society, key opinion leaders and respective governments should not allow them to shirk their responsibility in this area any more, as we move on.

If not, will narratives like ‘FIRE IN THE BLOOD’, not keep us haunting again, again and again, on similar incidents taking place in some other countries, at some other time, involving extinction of millions of precious lives for not having access to affordable new drugs? They may be ‘have nots’, so what? 

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.

 

 

More Glivec Like Deals in China and Mounting Global Challenges: Innovators poised Joining Biosimilar Bandwagon

Posted on by
Reply

Pressure from the emerging markets on pricing of patented products is mounting fast. This time the country involved is China.

Recently, the Health Minister of China who stepped down last month after a seven-year stint in the top health job reportedly commented that western drugmakers will require to give hefty subsidies and forgo significant amount of profit on expensive cancer drugs, if they want access to huge market of China. He further voiced as follows:

“If the cost (of patented drugs) is too high, maybe only a few percent of patients can benefit. If we can arrange an appropriate, acceptable, affordable price, then you can have a huge market.”

‘Glivec deal’ in China: 

In the same report, it was indicated that in China Novartis ultimately agreed to donate three doses of its leukemia drug Glivec for every one sold to the government.

It is expected that many more such deals will take place in China.

The situation to get more challenging in the emerging markets: 

Many experts believe that due to high cost of patented drugs, especially biologics, negotiating hefty discounts with the Governments may be the best alternative for the innovator companies to avoid any possibilities of Compulsory Licensing (CL), like what happened to Bayer’s cancer drug Nexavar in India.

An opportunity in biosimilar drugs: 

Biologic drugs came to the international market slightly more than three decades ago, in 1980s. Growing at a scorching pace, the value turnover of these products exceeded US$ 138 billion in 2010 (IMS Health).

Launch of biologics like, Recombinant Insulin, Human Growth Hormone (HGH), Alteplase, Erythropoietin (EPOs), Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factors (G-CSFs) and Monoclonal Antibodies (MAbs) kept fueling the market growth further.

Patent expiry of a number of biologic drugs over a period of next five years, especially in areas like, various types of cancer, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, besides many others, will help opening a huge window of opportunity for the global biosimilar players, including from India, to reap a rich harvest.

Global innovators joining the bandwagon: 

After a dream-run with high priced patented drugs for a reasonably long time, now stung by the current reality in various developed and emerging markets and factoring-in the width/depth/robustness of their own research pipeline, many global players have started taking a hard look at the emerging opportunities offered by biosimilar drugs.

Moreover, high price of original biologic drugs, cost containment pressure by various Governments, encouragement of generic prescriptions, large number of such drugs going off patent and growing demand of their low cost alternatives across the world, are making biosimilar market more and more lucrative from the global business perspective to all interested players, including from India.

According to Bloomberg Industries (2013), during the next six years biologic drugs with a total annual sales turnover of US$ 47 billion in 2012, will go off patent.

Sniffing opportunities for business growth, as stated above, many hard-nosed large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, currently fighting a challenging battle also in the ground of a tougher ‘patent cliff’, have started venturing into the biosimilar market, that too in a mega scale.

Some of them have already initiated developing biosimilar versions of blockbuster biologics, as reported below:

Originator Product Indication Biosimilar development by:
Roche/Genentech Rituxan Rheumatoid arthritis Boehringer Ingelheim
Roche/Genentech Herceptin, Rituxan Breast Cancer, Rheumatoid arthritis Pfizer
Roche/Genentech Rituxan Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma Novartis
Johnson & Johnson Remicade Rheumatoid arthritis Hospira

Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek

Thus, I reckon, continuous quest for development of cost-effective alternatives to high-priced biologic medicines would keep on propelling the growth of biosimilar drugs, across the world.

Glivec maker Novartis fought a court battle to launch the first ‘Biosimilar drug’ in America: 

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

More interestingly, having received the US-FDA approval, the CEO of Sandoz (Novartis) had then commented as follows:

“The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like, Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”.

Biosimilar market started shaping-up:

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

Following are examples of some biosimilar drug related initiatives of the global players as the market started developing:

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

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

Why is still so low penetration of lower cost biosimilar drugs?

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

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

Now with the entry of global pharma majors, the biosimilar market is expected to get further heated up and develop at a much faster pace with artificial barriers created by vested interests, if any, being removed.

Recent removal of regulatory hurdles for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US  will indeed be the key growth driver.

Other growth drivers:

According to a study (2011) conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., besides recent establishment of the above regulatory guidelines for biosimilars in the US, the key growth drivers for global biosimilar market, will be as follows:

▪   Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs

▪   Cost containment measures of various governments

▪   Aging population

▪   Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries

The business potential in India:

The size of biotech industry in India is estimated to be around US$ 4 billion by 2015 with a scorching pace of growth driven by both local and global demands (E&Y Report 2011).

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

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

DRL is the largest biosimilar player in India with an impressive product portfolio. Reditux of DRL is the world’s first Biosimilar monoclonal antibody, which is a copy version of Mabthera/ Rituxan of Roche and costs almost 50 percent less than the original brands.

Some of the Biosimilar products of the Indian Companies are as follows:

Indian Company

Biosimilar Product
Dr Reddy’s Lab Grafeel, Reditux, Cresp
Intas Neukine, Neupeg, Intalfa, Epofit
Shantha Biotech/Merieux Alliance Shanferon,Shankinase,Shanpoietin
Reliance Life Sciences ReliPoietin, ReliGrast, ReliFeron, MIRel
Wockhardt Wepox, Wosulin
Biocon Eripro, Biomab, Nufil, Myokinase, Insugen

(Source: Stellarix Consultancy Services)

The cost of development of Biosimilars in India is around US$ 10-20 million, which is expected to go up, as “Biosimilar Guidelines” are now in place for marketing approval of such products in India.

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

Indian players making rapid strides:

As stated above, biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. It also has developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India.

Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF.

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

Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla reportedly has invested around US$ 60 million in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab in China and is planning to launch a biosimilar drug in the field of oncology by 2013.

Another large pharmaceutical company of India, Lupin signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly will use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs in the field of oncology, the first one of which, will reportedly be launched in India by 2013.

The global Market:

In 2011 the turnover of Biologic drugs increased to over US$ 175 billion in the total market of US$ 847 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 10 best selling global brands in 2012 with Humira of AbbVie emerging as the highest-selling biologics during the year.  Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies.

According to IMS Health report, by 2015, sales of biosimilars are expected to reach between US$ 1.9 – 2.6 billion. The report also states that this market has the potential to be the single fastest-growing biologics sector in the next five years.

Cost of biosimilar development in the developed markets:

The process of developing a biosimilar drug is complex and requires significantly more investment, technical capabilities and clinical trial expertise than any small molecule generic drug. As per industry sources, average product developmental cost ranges between US$ 100 and 250 million in the developed markets, which is several times higher than the same associated with development of small molecule generics, ranging around US$ 1to 4 million.

All these factors create a significant market entry barrier for many smaller players with similar intent but less than adequate wherewithal.

Even higher market entry barrier with ‘second generation’ biosimilar drugs:

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

Negotiating the entry barriers:

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

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

The future potential:

According to an IMS Health study, the emerging markets will drive biosimilar market growth with significantly more number of patients. The report estimates that over a period of time US will emerge as the number one global biosimilars market.

By 2020, emerging markets and the US are expected to register a turnover of US$11 billion and US$ 25 billion representing a share of 4 percent to 10 percent of the total global biologics market, respectively.

The report estimates that overall penetration of biosimilars within the off-patent biological market will reach up to 50 percent by 2020, assuming a price discount in the range of 20 to 30 percent.

Is 12 years exclusivity in the US a significant entry barrier?

In the US, the innovator companies get 12 years exclusivity for their original biologic drugs from the date of respective marketing approvals by the USFDA.

The BPCI Act clearly specifies that applications for ‘biosimilar drugs’ to the USFDA will not be made effective by the regulator before 12 years from the date of approval of the innovators’ products. In addition, if the original product is for pediatric indications, the 12-years exclusivity may get an extension for another six months.

The key point to note here is, if the USFDA starts its review process for the ‘biosimilar drugs’ only after the ’12 year period’, the innovator companies will effectively get, at least, one additional year of exclusivity over and above the ’12 year period’, keeping applicants for ‘biosimilar drugs’ waiting for that longer.

Conclusion:

As stated above, with around 40 percent cost arbitrage and without compromising on the required stringent international regulatory standards, the domestic ‘biosimilar’ players should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for such drugs, just as small molecule generic medicines.

With experience in conforming to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards, having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside USA, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in the country. Now with significant improvement in conformance to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) and honed skill sets in the field of biologics, Indian biosimilar players are clearly poised to catapult themselves to even a higher growth trajectory, either on their own or with appropriate collaborative arrangements with the international partners.

Thus, the initiatives of joining the biosimilar bandwagon by the hard-nosed research based global players, I reckon, will ultimately get translated into a win-win advantage for India in the rapidly evolving pharmaceutical space of the world.

Besides, like what they had to do in China, working with the Government to put in place a robust and win-win mechanism of ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ in India could augur well for the global players of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. This mechanism may also help putting forth even a stronger argument against any Government initiative to grant CL on the pricing ground for expensive patented drugs in India.

With all these developments, patients will be the ultimate winners having much greater access to both innovative medicines and biosimilar drugs than what they have today, fetching a huge relief to all right thinking population in the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Does the Landmark Glivec Judgment Discourage Innovation in India?

Posted on by
Reply

No, I do not think so. The 112 pages well articulated judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered on April 1, 2013, does not even remotely discourage innovation in India, including much talked about ‘incremental innovation’. This landmark judgment reconfirms the rules of the game for pharmaceutical innovation, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005.

When one reads the judgment, point 191 in page number 95 very clearly states as follows:

“191. We have held that the subject product, the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, does not qualify the test of Section 3(d) of the Act but that is not to say that Section 3(d) bars patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances. It will be a grave mistake to read this judgment to mean that section 3(d) was amended with the intent to undo the fundamental change brought in the patent regime by deletion of section 5 from the Parent Act. That is not said in this judgment.”

Thus all ‘incremental innovations’, which some people always paint with a general broad brush of ‘evergreening’, should no longer be a taboo in India. The judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and arguments of Novartis.

To me, the judgment does also not signal that no more Glivec like case will come to the Supreme Court in future. It vindicated inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act 2005.

It is interesting to note that honorable Supreme Court itself used the terminology of ‘incremental innovation’ for such cases.

That said, I find it extremely complex to imagine what would have happened, if the judgment had gone the opposite way.

A critical point to ponder:

The judgment will also mean that all those products, having valid product patents abroad, if fail to meet the requirements of Section 3(d), will not be patentable in India, enabling introduction of their generic equivalents much sooner in the country and at the same time causing a nightmarish situation for their innovators.

However, this again, in no way, is an outcome of this judgement or a new development, as stated above. It is just vindication of the intent behind inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act, when it was enacted by the Parliament of India in 2005.

Patentability of ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

Patentability criteria for any ‘incremental innovations’ has been defined in the Section 3(d) of the Indian statute as follows:

“The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

Supreme Court interpretation of the term “Efficacy” in Section 3(d): 

The Honorable Supreme Court in page 90 of its above order under point 180 stated that in case of medicines, efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”, which must be judged strictly and narrowly. The interpretation goes as follows:

180. “What is “efficacy”? Efficacy means ‘the ability to produce a desired or intended result’. Hence, the test of efficacy in the context of section 3(d) would be different, depending upon the result the product under consideration is desired or intended to produce. In other words, the test of efficacy would depend upon the function, utility or the purpose of the product under consideration. Therefore, in the case of a medicine that claims to cure a disease, the test of efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”.

The Honorable Court under the same point 180 further elaborated:

“With regard to the genesis of section 3(d), and more particularly the circumstances in which section 3(d) was amended to make it even more constrictive than before, we have no doubt that the “therapeutic efficacy” of a medicine must be judged strictly and narrowly…Further, the explanation requires the derivative to ‘differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy’. What is evident, therefore, is that not all advantageous or beneficial properties are relevant, but only such properties that directly relate to efficacy, which in case of medicine, as seen above, is its therapeutic efficacy.” 

Based on this interpretation of Section 3(d), the Honorable Supreme Court of India ordered that Glivec does not fulfill the required criteria of the statute.

The rationale behind Section 3(d):

A report on ‘Patentability of the incremental innovation’ indicates that the policy makers keeping the following points in mind formulated the Indian Patents Act 2005:

  • The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industry, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.
  • A stringent patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs to a large number of populations in India.
  • Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will be able to demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

IPA challenges: 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by IPO fall under Section 3(d):

A study by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Possible implications to IPA challenge:

If the argument, as expressed above in the IPA study, is true by any stretch of imagination, in that case, there exists a theoretical possibility of at least 86 already granted product patents to get revoked. This will invite again another nightmarish situation for innovators.

Examples of revocation of patents in India:

On November 26, 2012, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Gefitinib on the ground that the molecule lacked invention.

The report also states that AstraZeneca suffered its first setback on Gefitinib in June 2006, when the Indian generic company Natco Pharma opposed the initial patent application filed by the global major in a pre-grant opposition. Later on, another local company, GM Pharma, joined Natco in November 2006.

After accepting the pre-grant opposition by the two Indian companies, the Indian Patent office (IPO) in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Prior to this, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the large Indian pharma player – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a “novel” product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’, as required by Section 3(d) of Patents Act of India 2005.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys.

Similarly the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib) granted by IPO in 2007, was revoked by the IPAB in October, 2012 after a post grant challenge by Cipla and Natco Pharma on the ground that the claimed ‘invention’ does not involve inventive steps.

Patent challenges under section 3(d) may come up even more frequently in future:

Some observers in this field have expressed, although ‘public health interest’ is the primary objective for having Section 3(d) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, many generic companies, both local and global, have already started exploiting this provision as a part of their ‘business strategy’ to improve business performance in India, especially when an  injunction is usually not being granted by the honorable Courts for such cases on public health interest ground.

Thus, as stated above, there is likely to be many more cases like, Glivec coming before the Supreme Court in the years ahead.

Another related development of the last week:

It has been reported that American pharma major MSD has last week filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against Indian pharma major – Glenmark for alleged patent violation of its leading anti-diabetic drugs Januvia and Janumet. In this case also no interim injunction has reportedly been granted to MSD by the Honorable Delhi High Court.

Glenmark has stated through a media report, “It is a responsible company and has launched the products after due diligence and research.” The company has also announced that their version of the molecule named Zita and Zita Met will be available to patients at a 20 percent discount to MSD’s price.

Hence, once again, the Indian court to decide, the balance of justice would now point to which direction.

Government has no role to play – patent challenge is a legal process across the world:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue, ‘Patent Challenge’ is a legal process all over the world, the Government has hardly got any role to play in settling such disputes. The law should be allowed to take its own course for all disputes related to the Patents Act of the country, including Section 3(d).

They also opine that India must be allowed to follow the law of justice without casting aspersions on the knowledge and biases of the Indian judiciary for vested interests.

That said, there is certainly an urgent need to add speed to this legal process by setting up ‘Fast-track Courts’ for resolving all Intellectual Property (IP) related disputes in a time bound manner.

Arguments against Section 3(d):

Opposition to the Section 3(d) counter-argues by saying, this is a critical period for India to help fostering an appropriate ecosystem for innovation in the country. This group emphasizes, “Providing the right incentives for incremental pharmaceutical innovation can move India forward on this path and encourage the development of drug products that meet the needs of Indian patients. Reforming Section 3(d) to encourage and protect incremental pharmaceutical innovation would create such incentives and help India become a true powerhouse of innovation.”

Another group says that the main reason in favor of Section 3(d) being the provision will prevent grant of frivolous patents, the ultimate fallout of which will result in limited access to these drugs due to high price, is rather irrelevant today. This, they point out, is mainly because the Government is now actively mulling a structured mechanism of price negotiation for all patented drugs to improve their access to patients in India.

Importance of ‘Incremental Innovation’ in India:

Incremental innovations are indeed very important for the country and have been benefiting the patients immensely over decades, across the world.

A report titled, “The Value Of Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation” highlighted as follows:

  • As per the National Knowledge Commission, while 37.3% of Indian companies introduced breakthrough innovations in recent years, no fewer than 76.4% introduced incremental innovations.
  • 60 percent of the drugs on the World health Organization’s essential Drug list reflect incremental improvements over older drugs.

The report indicates some of the benefits of ‘Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation’ for India as follows:

  1. Improved quality of drug products, including products that are better suited to India’s climate.
  2. Development of treatments for diseases that are prevalent in India for which new drug discovery is currently limited or otherwise inadequate.
  3. Increasing likelihood that for every therapeutic class, there is a treatment to which an Indian patient will respond.
  4. Development of the R&D capacity and expertise
 of Indian pharmaceutical companies.
  5. Reduction of healthcare and other social costs in India through improved drug quality and selection.
  6. Increased access to medicine as a result of price competition.

The study concluded by saying that Section 3(d) potentially precludes the patenting of hundreds of incremental pharmaceutical innovations that Indian companies are attempting to patent and commercialize outside India.

There are umpteen numbers of examples that can ably demonstrate, ‘incremental innovation’ of the pharmaceutical innovators help significantly improving the efficacy and safety of existing drugs. All such innovations should in no way be considered “frivolous” as they have very substantial and positive impact in improving conditions of the ailing patients.

Be that as it may, the Supreme Court judgment has categorically mentioned that all ‘Incremental innovations’ should conform to the requirement of the Section 3(d) of the statute.

“West should learn from India’s high patent standards”

An article appeared just yesterday written by a well-regarded Indian economist recommended, “West should learn from India’s high patent standards”. It observed that    over-liberal patent system of the West is now broken and it should learn from India’s much tougher patent system.

Patent monopolies needs to be given only for genuine innovations, as defined in the Indian Patents Act 2005, where the public benefits clearly exceed the monopoly cost.

The author concluded by saying, “This means setting a high bar for innovation. High standards are desirable for patents, as for everything else.”

View of the Glivec inventor: 

In another interview titled, “If you erode patents, where will innovations come from?” Dr Brian Druker, whose work resulted in the development of Glivec, re-emphasizing the need for R&D by the pharmaceutical industry, commented,  “I’m going to stay away from the legal judgment … but as a physician, I do recognize that the advances will come from new products, not modifications.”

Are discordant voices out of step with time?

The interpretation of the Section 3(d) of the statute by the Honorable Supreme Court of India is the last word for all, despite a few voices of discord from within and mostly outside India. These voices, many would reckon, could well be out of step with time, especially in relatively fast growing, modern, independent, thinking and assertive young  India.

Conclusion:

In my view, nothing materially has changed on the ground before and after the Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case so far as the Indian Patents Act is concerned and also in its interpretation.

While encouraging all types of innovations, including incremental ones and protecting them with an effective IPR regime are very important for any country. No nation can afford to just wish away various socioeconomic expectations, demands and requirements not just of the poor, but also of the growing middle class intelligentsia, as gradually getting unfolded in many parts of the globe.

Available indicators do point out that the civil society would continue to expect in return, just, fair, responsible and reasonably affordable prices for the innovative medicines, based on the overall socioeconomic status of the local population.

This critical balancing factor is essential not only for the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, but also to alleviate sufferings of the ailing population of the country, effectively.

For arguments sake, in an ideal scenario, if the Central and State Governments in India decide to buy such drugs to supply to all patients free of cost, just like any ‘welfare state’, will even the Government be able to afford these prices and fund such schemes in India?

It is, therefore, now widely expected that innovator pharmaceutical companies, which play a pivotal role in keeping population of any nation healthy and disease free to the extent possible, should also proactively find out ways to help resolving this critical issue in India, working closely with the Government of 1.2 billion Indians, including other concerned stakeholders.

In that context, the landmark Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case has vindicated the need of striking a right balance between encouraging and protecting innovation, including incremental ones and the public health interest of 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. 

Generics’ Lobby, Innovators’ Lobby and the Pharmaceutical Data Protection in India – A Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

To meet the unmet needs of the patients and improve access to healthcare in India mere discovery of a new pharmaceutical entity is not enough. The journey from mind to market is indeed an arduous one.

For the patients’ sake:

From the viewpoint of patients, proper evaluation of the safety, quality and efficacy of medicines are critical. Towards this direction, substantial clinical data needs to be generated through extensive pre-clinical and clinical trials to satisfy the regulatory authorities for marketing approval of a New Molecular Entity (NME).

Reasons why the innovators data will need protection:

Irrespective of what has been indicated in Article 39.3 of TRIPS, Data Protection (DP) is justifiable on the following grounds:

a. Generation of data by the originator to ensure safety and efficacy of the drugs for the patients involves considerable cost, time and efforts.

b. Submission of detail clinical data is a regulatory requirement for the interest of the patients. Without such obligation to the Government, the data would have remained completely under control of the originator. It is, therefore, a reasonable obligation for the Government to respect confidentiality of the data in terms of non-reliance and non-disclosure.

c. Since the data is proprietary during the patent period, any access to such data for commercial use by the second applicant without the concurrence of the originator is unfair on grounds of propriety and business ethics.
d. Any failure by the Government to provide the required protection to the data would lead to “unfair commercial use”.

e. Without DP, the originator of the innovative drugs would be placed at an unfair commercial disadvantage as compared to their generic counterparts. Generic players do not incur similar huge costs for meeting the mandatory requirements of the regulatory authorities for NMEs.

Patent Protection and Data Protection – two different IPRs:

The distinctiveness of the two incentives, namely, Patent Protection and Data Protection or Data Exclusivity is recognized in countries which are leading in research and development in pharmaceuticals.

Data Protection will provide substantial benefits to the stakeholders:

Benefits to Patients:

DP ensures stringent evaluation of overall safety and efficacy of drugs launched in the market. Mere proving of Bioequivalence/ Bioavailability (sometimes on as low as 12 healthy volunteers in India) does not guarantee drug safety as the impurities profile of the duplicator’s drug is likely to be different than that of the originator.

Benefits to Doctors:

Doctors continuously seek scientific information. Clinical evaluation becomes valuable from this perspective. Once provisions for DP are made, comprehensive and quality data can be collected and the detail scientific information be provided to the doctors to update their knowledge for the ultimate benefits of the patients.

Benefits to Researchers:

Clinical researchers in India can win substantial share of this global market with DP as an effective driver in the evolving scenario. There will be increased R&D collaborations. India’s cost arbitrage, speed and skills in clinical trial and research could be leveraged more effectively.

An Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, an eminent scientist, also highlighted the significance of DP, as follows:

“In order to ensure enabling environment, the regulatory division dealing with the applications concerning new drugs and clinical trials would be required to develop suitable mechanisms to ensure confidentiality of the submissions.”

Benefits to Pharmaceutical Industry:

Research is a key driver for the Pharmaceutical Industry. Scientists prefer to work in research laboratories in those countries which provide full-fledged protection to IPR. DP is one of the Intellectual Property Rights. Reversal of brain drain and retention of scientific talents will help the developing economies, like India intensify its R&D efforts. More Indian pharmaceutical companies, while globalizing the business, will engage themselves in partnerships and collaborations with research based global companies.

Indian scientists would need DP to protect their Intellectual Property as many Indian pharmaceutical companies have already started increasing their R&D budgets.

Benefits to Governments:

Once India moves from a stand-alone position to one which aligns itself with the world in terms of IPRs, including DP, India is likely to increase trade not only in ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations), MERCOSUR countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay & Uruguay) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), but even in regulated markets like USA and Europe. There will be increase in scientific education, technology transfer and quality employment.

Could Data Protection affect the legal generics or delay their launch?

Unfortunately, a bogey is raised to create an impression that DP provisions will act as a barrier to the development of generics, adversely affecting the domestic and export business of the local players. Following facts will prove the irrelevance of the arguments propounded by this lobby:

• DP refers only to new products patented in India. It will not affect the generic drugs already in the market.

• USA is an outstanding example, which demonstrates that research based global companies and the generic industry can co-exist, offering dual benefits of innovative drugs and cheaper off-patent generic medicines to the patients.

• More number of patented medicines will ensure faster growth of the generic industry, after the former goes off-patent. In the USA which has a long standing DP regime, the market penetration of generics is amongst the highest in the world and stands at over half of all the prescriptions. After introduction of Hatch Waxman Act in 1984 that provided for a 5 year period of DP in the USA, there were spurt of development of New Drugs together with quicker entry of generics into the market.

• The apprehension that growth of the generic market will slow down with DP, is ill-founded. Indian companies, on the contrary, are aggressively seeking growth opportunities for generics in markets like the USA and Europe where DP is already in place.

• Domestic Indian companies will be dependent upon implementation of a fully compliant TRIPs regime, including DP for their business growth in these markets.

• DP does not prevent generic manufacturers from submitting their own pharmacological, toxicological and clinical data within the period of DP and thus gain marketing approval for their products.

DP controversy is based on a narrow perspective, as it is not an issue of “Generics vs. R&D based companies”. It is a much larger issue. DP and patents are important for all research based companies irrespective of their Indian or foreign origin.

Data Protection is not ‘Evergreening’:

DP is not ‘Evergreening’ either. In most of the cases, the period of patent protection and DP will run concurrently.

During the debate on the subject some people argue that DP and patents offer “double protection”. They do not. Fundamentally, these two forms of Intellectual Property are like different elements of a house which needs both a strong foundation and a roof to protect its inhabitants. DP cannot extend the life of a patent which is a totally separate legal instrument. While patent protects the invention underlying the product, DP protects the clinical Dossier submitted to the regulatory authority from their unfair commercial use. The duration of DP is typically half or less than that of a patent.

Most WTO member countries have Data Protection:

A review of National Laws relating to the protection of Registration Data in the major WTO Member-States reveals that most of the countries have recognized and appreciated the role of DP.
Although there is no uniform standard that is followed by the countries while enacting and implementing the Laws related to DP. The period of DP is typically between 5 to 10 years.

Conclusion:

Dr. Satwant Reddy Committee Report, dated November 30, 2006, submitted to the Government of India, very clearly recommends that DP will benefit India, as it has done in many other countries of the world, including China. Unfortunately, the report does not specify a timeline for its implementation. Thus having accepted the importance and relevance of the DP, the Government should implement the same in the country, without any further delay.

Data Protection should be provided by making an appropriate amendment in Schedule Y of the Drugs Act to bring India in conformity with the practices of other WTO Members of the developing and developed countries.

By Tapan 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.