Tag Archives: interest

Continues ‘The Cat And Mouse Game’ In Pharma Business?

Posted on by
Reply

Many are already aware of the critical factors that make generic drugs so important for patients – virtually for all. These don’t just facilitate greater access to health care – offering affordable alternatives to high-priced off-patent innovative drugs. This is as relevant in the largest pharma market in the world – the United States (US), just as in India. Let me illustrate this point with two examples – one from the US and the other from India.

According to US-FDA, ‘9 out of 10 prescriptions filled, are for generic drugs’ in the United states, as off-patent branded generic drugs cost more than their generic equivalents. The US drug regulator explains, ‘Increasing the availability of generic drugs helps to create competition in the marketplace, which then helps to make treatment more affordable and increases access to healthcare for more patients.’

However, unlike the US, there prevails a unique perception difference even within generic drugs – between branded and unbranded generics. The Indian Survey, undertaken to review and analyze various facts on branded and equivalent unbranded generic medicines, found a huge difference in prices between them in the country. Interestingly, as the researchers also noted, although, more consumers want an economical alternative to high priced branded generics, most physicians do not prefer unbranded generic medicines.

There is another important point worth noting regarding India made generic drugs. Although, Indian pharma sector caters to around 40 percent of generic demand in the US, as IBEF reports, many Americans nurture serious apprehensions on the quality of generic drugs manufactured even by India’s top drug companies. 

This is quite similar to apprehension that exists in India between the quality branded and unbranded generic medicines in India. The only difference is – the above perception in India is not based on impartial and credible scientific studies, whereas it is not so in America. The New York Times report, published on May 11, 2019 vindicates this point. It questioned: “Americans Need Generic Drugs. But Can They Trust Them? The fake quality-control data, bird infestations and toxic impurities at the overseas plants that could be making your medication.” Incidentally, there aren’t any such large-scale accusations regarding dubious quality of drugs manufactured by Big Pharma. 

On the other hand, big pharma players have long been accused of drug price gouging or price-fixing of life-saving drugs, primarily to maximize earnings by ‘extending’ product patent-life. Curiously, in recent times, even the generic drug players are being accused of following a similar practice. Thus, in this article, I shall explore how generic drug players are also trying to hoodwink measures to bring down the drug price, either through price control or through the encouragement of intense competition – playing a ‘cat and mouse game’, as it were, whenever an opportunity comes. If it continues and probably it will, what is the way ahead? Let me begin by recapitulating a historic pace-setting move in the global generic market by an Indian drug player.

A historic pace-setting move by an Indian generic drug player:

Being a major exporter of generic drugs in many developed, developing and even poor countries around the world, India is often termed as ‘the pharmacy of the world.’ That apart, a historical move in this space, by a top domestic player – Cipla, earned global accolades, at the turn of this new millennium. In 2001, Cipla slashed the price of its triple-therapy drug ”cocktails” for HIV-AIDS – being sold by MNCs, ranging from USD 10,000/ USD 15,000 a year to USD 350 a year per patient to a doctors’ group working in Africa.With the generic industry’s focus on a deeper bottom line, the scenario has changed now. Finding ways and means for the price increase, evading both competitive pressure and also drug price control, as in India, has turned into a ‘cat and mouse game’, as it were.

Generic drug pricing – ‘a cat and mouse game?’

Pricing pressure, especially for generic drugs, from patients, payers, politicians and governments, is gradually becoming more intense. More the pressure greater is the effort of affected players to come out of it, in any way –akin to a ‘cat and mouse game’, as it were. Although, it has recently started in the USA, the same exists in India, since 1970, when the first drug price control was introduced in the country. Intriguingly, in the midst of this toughest ever drug price control, phenomenal rise of almost all top Indian companies, including the top ranked company in the Indian pharma market commenced – from scratch. Nonetheless, to get a feel of how is this game being played out, let me start with the Indian scenario.

How this game is played in India to evade price control:

Instead of taking a deep dive into the history of drug price control in India, let me give a bird’s eye view of a few mechanisms, out of many, used to evade price control, since it commenced. The idea is to give just a feel of how this ‘cat and mouse game’ game pans out, with a few of such examples in a sequential order, since 1970, as much as possible, by:

  • Including price decontrolled molecule in the FDC formulations.
  • Replacing a price-controlled molecule by a similar decontrolled one, keeping the brand name unchanged, when the number of controlled molecules came down.
  • Making a major shift towards selling more of higher-priced decontrolled molecules, jettisoning low priced controlled molecules.
  • Resorting to vigorous campaigns, when the government started encouraging prescription of low-priced generic molecules, to ensure further shift to branded FDC prescriptions, alongside image enhancement of branded generics over equivalent unbranded ones. Its outcome is visible in the above Indian Survey on the image of branded and unbranded generics.

Has Indian pharma industry succeeded in this game?

It appears so and gets reflected in the CAGR of the industry. According to IBEF, “The country’s pharmaceutical industry is expected to expand at a CAGR of 22.4 per cent over 2015–20 to reach US$ 55 billion.” I underscore, this is value growth.

Thus, the point, I reckon, that the government should ponder: How both can happen, at the same time – price control is bringing down drug prices, extending real benefits to patients on the ground, and at the same time the industry is recording an impressive growth rate in value terms?  Whatever it means, let’s now try to explore, how such ‘cat and mouse game’ is being played to increase generic drug prices in the United States.

How similar game is played in the US to increase generic drug price:

On May 10, 2019, international media reported that ‘44 US states announced a lawsuit alleging an anti-competitive conspiracy to artificially inflate prices for more than 100 drugs, some by more than 1,000 percent.’ This lawsuit is based on an investigation involving a number of generic drug companies. The process, which took five-years to complete, accused twenty generic drug players. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, whose parent company is based in Israel was, reportedly, named as the ringleader of the price-fixing. The company raised prices of around 112 generic formulations.

Other companies, reportedly, named in the complaint, include Pfizer, Novartis subsidiary Sandoz, Mylan, and seven Indian drug companies, including Lupin, Aurobindo, Dr. Reddy’s, Wockhardt, Taro Pharmaceutical Industries (a subsidiary of Sun Pharma) and Glenmark. Some of the 15 senior company executives who were individually named in the lawsuit for their involvementin this alleged “multibillion-dollar fraud ”belong to Teva, Sandoz and Mylan.

The ‘cat and mouse game’ in this case is slightly different. Instead of government price control, the US drug regulator encouraged intense generic competition to bring down the price. When the priced did not come down as expected, the State of Connecticut, reportedly, began investigating select generic drug price increases in July 2014. Subsequently, other states also joined the investigation, and uncovered the reason for prices not coming down.

According to the complaint, between July 2013 and January 2015, Teva significantly raised prices on approximately 112 different generic drugs. Of those 112 different drugs, Teva had colluded with its competitors on at least 86 of them. The complaint noted: “Teva had understandings with its highest quality competitors to lead and follow each other’s price increases, and did so with great frequency and success, resulting in many billions of dollars of harm to the national economy over a period of several years.” In this way, the impact of intense competition on drug prices, was made ineffective.

Not the first time, it was detected:

The 2019 anti-trust lawsuit against the generic drug makers may be ‘the biggest price-fixing scheme in the US history’, but not the first lawsuit of this kind in America. A similar lawsuit for illegal price-fixing against six generic companies, was filed by the states in 2016, as well, which is still being litigated. The 2019 case is a sweeping version of the same and is the result of a much wider investigation. It indicates, instead of taking corrective measures, the ‘cat and mouse game’ still continues. However, almost all the companies have vehemently denied this allegation.

Is this game existential in nature of the business?

One may well argue that such ‘cat and mouse game’ with the government is existential in nature, for the generic drug business. When price control or intense market competition brings down the price to such a level, it becomes a matter of survival of most businesses. There doesn’t seem to remain enough financial interest for them to remain in the market. If and when it happens, causing shortage of cheaper generic drugs, patients’ health interest gets very adversely affected. It also prompts the manufacturers to find a way out for the survival of the business. This is understandable. But it needs to be established, supported by scientific studies.

An off the cuff solution:

A general and off the cuff solution to the above issue would naturally be, there should be a right balance between affordability of most consumers and the business interest of the drug makers. This broad pointer is also right and understandable. But again, no one knows the expected upper limit of the generic drug profit margin for their manufacturers – where hardly any breakthrough and cost-intensive R&D is involved. Equally challenging is to know – below what margin, generic players, by and large, loose interest in this business?

What do some available facts indicate?

According to the year-end report of the Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council (Pharmexcil) the total pharma exports from India has been pegged at USD 19.14 billion for 2018-19. This represents a growth of 10.72 per cent over USD 17.28 billion in thelast year. It further reported, “The top 25 export destinations contribute 76.52 per cent of the formulation exports amounting to USD 10.38 billion. Among these, the US continues to be the largest export destination with over 38.62 per cent of the total generic exports to that country at USD 5.24 billion.” Does it mean business as usual, despite ‘price-fixing’ law suits in the US, since 2016?

Similar impression one would probably get from the Indian scenario, as well. Notably, despite price control, which is continuing since last five decades, the growth rate of the Indian pharma market, which is dominated by branded generics, remains very impressive.According to the January 2019 report of IBEF: “The country’s pharmaceutical industry is expected to expand at a CAGR of 22.4 per cent over 2015–20 to reach USD 55 billion.” So also the same game, probably!

Conclusion:

It appears, there is certainly a huge reputation or image crisis for the generic drug industry, as such, due to such alleged delinquencies. However, from the business perspective, the manufacturers are still having enough leeway to move on with similar measures, supported by fresh thinking. At the same time, it seems unlikely to have any form of drug price control in the United States, at least, in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, price pressure due to cut-throat competition could even be more intensive, as it gets reflected even in the US-FDA statements.

Nearer home, the Indian generic drug business has been hit with a double whammy – allegations for dubious drug quality standards, on the one hand, and price manipulation on the other, besides dented reputation and image – widening trust gap with patients and governments.

Moreover, unlike the best export market even for generic drugs – the United States, India has been following some patchy policy measures for health care, as a whole. The drug price control system is one such. Till a holistic policy on health care is put in place for all, backed by an effective monitoring system, The Indian price control system may remain like a ‘maze’, as it were, with several ways to hoodwink it.

Hence, the ‘cat and mouse game’, albeit in a different format, is likely to continue, until one gets caught, or till all concerned puts their act together – putting patients at the center of the core business strategy.

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.

Will ‘Patent Thicket’ Delay Biosimilar Drug Entry in India?

Posted on by
Reply

Do pharma and biotech investors encourage companies indulging in ‘patent thicket?’ This question recently grabbed media headlines. On April 02, 2019, one such report brought out: AbbVie investors are calling for the Chair-CEO power split, flagging the CEO’s USD 4 million bonus payout, fueled by the company’s Humira ‘patent thicket’ strategy related aggressive price hikes. It prolonged the brand’s market monopoly, blocking entries of its cheaper biosimilar equivalents.

I have discussed some related issues in this blog, previously. As the issue is gaining relevance also in the Indian context, this article will deliberate the ill-effects of ‘patent thicket’ on patient health-interest. The sole beneficiaries for the creation of this self-serving labyrinth are the manufacturers of high-priced patented drugs, as reported above. Before I proceed further, let me recapitulate what exactly is a ‘patent thicket.’

‘Patent Thicket’:

The dictionary definition of patent thicket is: ‘A group of patents in a field of technology which collectively impede a party from commercializing its own patents or products in that field.’In the current context, it means a dense web of overlapping patent rights that restrict a generic or a biosimilar drug maker from commercializing its cheaper equivalents post expiry of the original patent.

This scenario has been well-captured by the above media report, which states: “AbbVie leadership has also been accused of creating a ‘patent thicket’ in its battle to stave off biosimilar competitors to Humira.” Boehringer Ingelheim is among the few still fighting AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ hoping to launch its Humira biosimilar - Cyltezo, even after receiving US-FDA approval on August 29, 2017. ‘Top biosimilar makers, including Novartis’ Sandoz unit and Mylan, have settled their own Humira patent fights with deals that put off launches until 2023,’ the report indicated.

In its favor: AbbVie says, Cyltezo infringes about 70 patents the company currently holds for Humira. Whereas, ‘Boehringer’s lawyers say AbbVie’s copious patents overlapped in an attempt to exclude competitors from the market.’ Notably, in March this year, New York’s UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, reportedly, also accused AbbVie of using overlapping patents to exclude biosimilars.

‘Patent thicket’ – a way of ‘evergreening’ beyond 20 years patent term:

Much concern is being raised about various ploys of especially by the drug MNC and their lobby groups – directly or under a façade, to delay entry of cheaper generic drugs for greater patient access. Mostly the following two ways are followed for patent ‘evergreening’ beyond the term of 20 years:

  • ‘Incremental innovation’ of the existing patented drugs through molecular manipulation, with its clinical performance and safety profile remaining similar to the original one. As the cost benefits of such drugs are not shared with patients, cannibalizing the sales of the older molecular version with the newer one highlighting its newness, the sales revenue can be protected. With this approach, coupled with marketing muscle power with deep-pocket the impact of generic entry of the older version can almost be made redundant. For example: Omeprazole was first marketed in 1989 by AstraZeneca, under the brand name Losec (later changed to Prilosec at the behest of the US-FDA). When Prilosec’s US patent expired in April 2001, AstraZeneca introduced esomeprazole (Nexium) as a patented replacement drug. Both are nearly identical in their clinical efficacy and safety.
  • ‘Patent thicket’ is yet another tool for ‘evergreening’, delaying launch of similar drugs, or resorting to ‘pay for delay’ sort of deals. As another recent report reiterates, AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ for Humira, has deterred other potential challengers, such as Amgen, Samsung Bioepis and most recently Mylan, each of which struck settlements with AbbVie to delay their biosimilar challenges in the United States.

Goes against patients’ health interest:

On May 09, 2018, the Biosimilars Council reported, just as generic medicines saved Americans USD 1.67 trillion in the last decade, biosimilars are poised to do the same – ‘if they aren’t thwarted by delaying tactics instituted by some pharmaceutical companies.’ Echoing similar concern, the outgoing US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb also, reportedly said, ‘some drugmakers are using unacceptable tactics such as litigation and rebate schemes to stall the entry of cheaper copies.’

‘Of the nine biosimilars the FDA has approved to date, only three have made it into the hands of patients – an alarmingly small number. Patients can’t access the six others due to barriers thrown in their way by pharmaceutical companies that want to protect their monopolies and keep prices high,’ highlights the Biosimilars Council report. Net sufferer of this self-serving ‘patent thicket’ strategy of pharma and biotech players to extend product patents beyond 20 years, are those patients who need these drugs the most – to save their lives.

Despite law, patent ‘evergreening’ still not uncommon in India:

With section (3d) on the Indian Patents Act 2005 in place, the country is expected to protect itself from patent ‘evergreening’ through ‘incremental innovation.’ This section articulates:“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.”

On this ground, Indian Patent Office (IPO) rejected Novartis’ drug Glivec (imatinib mesylate) patent application, which was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in 2013. Nevertheless, a study report of April 30, 2018 emphasized: ‘Though the law with regard to anti-evergreening, upheld and clarified by Indian courts, remains on the books, its application by the IPO has been far from satisfactory.’

The esteemed author of the report, after analyzing about 2,300 drug patents, granted between 2009 and 2016 concluded that evergreening practices may be rampant in India. The report pointed out, ‘the IPO could be operating with an error rate as high as 72 percent for secondary patents, despite provisions to keep them in check.’

Are these IPO’s mistakes, or due to external pressure?

As the paper, published in the January 2016 edition of the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) said,‘The multi-national pharma companies (MNCs) and the US-India Business Council (USIBC) have suggested in their report for elimination of Section 3 (d) so that drug patents can be granted in India for incremental improvement and modification. As per US 301 report, India is listed among countries with inadequate IP regime.’ Keeping all these aspects into consideration, the article expressed some key concerns pertaining to the impact of Section 3 (d) with special emphasis on its interpretation. Does it mean any possibility of wilting under such extraneous and high impact pressure?

A fresh pressure from drug MNC on the DCGI:

Since long drug MNCs have been attempting to delay the entry of even those generics, which are fully compliant with the Indian Patent Law 2005. One such effort was their demand for ‘patent linkage’ with the marketing approval of new generic drugs. However, it could not pass through legal scrutiny – first by the Delhi High Court in the Bayer Cipla case in 2010, and then by the Supreme Court – on the same case. The Court, reportedly, ‘noted the Indian patent system was distinct from the drug regulatory system with no linkage between them and so Bayer can’t prevent DCGI from granting marketing approval to generic versions of patented drugs.’

According to another recent media report of April 04, 2019, in a fresh endeavor ‘to delay launch of low priced generic medicine, multinational drug makers have asked the government to create a registry providing information about all drug applications pending manufacturing and marketing approval. The proposal, which is still pending with the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), if accepted, could involve the generic players into expensive and time-consuming litigations, delaying early market entry of the cheaper generic or biosimilar equivalents.

To date, the health ministry has opposed the proposal, as it will be “unfair to local drug manufacturers to disclose their product strategy” and also has “the potential to substantially increase health care costs for the public.” The government further argued, “such information about product applications filed for approval are not disclosed anywhere in the world.”

India encourages new drug innovation, but not at any cost:

Despite shrill and disparaging comments of MNC lobbyists and the strong vested interests, that India’s Patent Law 2005, doesn’t encourage innovation, many independent international experts do praise the same for the following reasons:

  • Does encourage new drug innovation
  • Does extend product exclusivity for twenty years
  • Strikes a right balance with patients’ health interest
  • Indian judicial system deals with patient infringements and disputes, just as any other developed countries
  • Even 14 years after the enactment of patent laws, just one compulsory license has been granted, which is much less than other countries, including the United States.

What India doesn’t legally allow is, unfettered profit making through ‘evergreening of drug patents’ – at the cost of millions of patients-lives. Nonetheless, powered by deep pockets, the pharma and biotech players are unlikely to cease from this practice, anytime soon. Only patient-awareness, and stringent counter-legal measures can contain this unfair game of drug monopoly practices – in the name of ‘encouraging innovation’.

Conclusion:

The article titled, ‘Over patented, overpriced: How Excessive Pharmaceutical Patenting is Extending Monopolies and Driving up Drug Prices’ revealed:“Top grossing drugs have on average 125 patent applications, which are filed with a strategic intent to extend the commercial monopolies far beyond the intended twenty years of protection.” It also quoted American President Donald Trump as saying, “Our patent system will reward innovation, but it will not be used as a shield to protect unfair monopolies.”

Coming back to ‘patent thicket’ and the same classic case, another report of March 20, 2019 indicated, a new class action lawsuit filed by New York’s largest grocery union has accused AbbVie of violating antitrust and consumer protection laws, which AbbVie has defended by saying that its patent strategy for Humira has protected the investments that are necessary to “advance healthcare.”

Pharma and biotech companies’ maintaining patent monopolies far beyond twenty years has significant consequences on India’s healthcare system. Only patent lawyers and experts can possibly answer whether or not the Indian Patent Law 2005 can effectively deal with the practice of ‘evergreening’ with patent thicket. Intriguingly, taking a cue from recent developments, it seems many pharma and biotech investors too, deem ‘patent thicket’ rather distracting for longer-term undiluted focus on new product development, and sustainable investors’ return.

That apart, the question also comes, whether just as ‘antitrust and consumer protection laws’ in the US, the Competition Law of India will be able to do contain such unfair practices? Otherwise, with MNC lobbyists’ renewed activities in this area, ‘patent thicket’, especially for expensive biologic drugs, will delay market-entry of their cheaper biosimilar versions in India, as well, just as what is happening in the developed nations.

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.

A ‘Toxin’ Delaying Success of Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

‘Toxin’ that delays biosimilar drug launch:

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

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

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

Protecting own patents Big Pharma challenging rivals’ patents:

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

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

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

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

Doctors’ attitude on biosimilar prescription:

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

  • Between 54 and 74 percent of the specialists are confident in the safety, efficacy, manufacturing and Pharmacovigilance of biosimilars.
  • 71 percent of specialists agreed that they would prescribe biosimilars for all or some conditions meeting relevant clinical criteria.
  • Specialists are less confident about indication extrapolation and switching patients from an existing biologic.
  • The most common situations that they would not prescribe a biosimilar was where there was a lack of clinical data supporting efficacy (32 percent), or evidence of adverse effects.

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

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

Any therapeutic difference between the original biologic and biosimilars?

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

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

The invisible barriers to biosimilar drugs in India:

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

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

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

A recent experience on biosimilar drug interchangeability in India:

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

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

Is an original biologic generally superior to Indian biosimilars?

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

 

Patient Services Aren’t Optional Any More For Pharma Business Excellence

Posted on by
Reply

In the modern world of abundance of information through various sources and platforms, patients are increasingly looking for greater engagement in their healthcare decision-making process with the doctors, slowly but steadily, and in that process seeking better services from different service providers in this area, including the pharmaceutical companies.

This trend has now been well-captured, globally. Various research studies have conclusively established that greater patient’s engagement in health care contributes to improved health outcomes. The obvious question that surfaces in this context is what is this patient engagement?

Patient engagement:

It broadly means a process that realizes the importance of providing adequate knowledge, skills and related services to people effectively, making them understand various disease management and alternative treatment measures, and thereby facilitating them to be an integral part of their health care related interventions, for better health outcomes.

When patients, physicians, other related constituents, including the pharma companies share both the process and goal of disease management or treatment processes, a win-win situation evolves to everybody’s full satisfaction. This has immense commercial relevance too.

Deserves to be a part of the grand design:

In that sense, pharmaceutical companies, especially those operating in India, would need to roll up sleeves and pull up socks to play a greater role in delivering a better experience for patients through effective engagement and offering relevant high quality services. This exercise now deserves to be an integral part of a grand design and planning of any sales and marketing strategy. A recent survey by Accenture Consulting also concluded that patient services from pharma companies are most important to patients.

Key patient service providers:

Besides several others, especially the following two important constituents can play defining roles as patient service providers by directly engaging with patients, to achieve this objective:

  • Patient advocacy groups or organizations (PAO): These entities provide a special attention to patient care and protection of their rights, and engage them accordingly. Patient advocates of these groups are a liaison between patients and various healthcare providers to improve or maintain a high quality of health care for the former. Some global drug players also recognize that these groups possess a highly influential voice in the healthcare system.
  • Pharmaceutical, biotech or device companies: Some of these companies, mostly in the developed world have established strategic patient advocacy functions within their corporate structure to foster relationships with patients, their caregivers, and the disease-specific nonprofit advocacy groups usually support them. These interactions should ideally ensure that the voice of patients is understood across every function within the company, from R&D to commercialization, as articulated in a recent Whitepaper of BioNJ on this subject.

There is a need to strengthen this approach within the Indian pharma industry, as well, for the benefit of local patients, of course, by scrupulously avoiding any possible serious controversy, which I shall discuss below.

A recent study:

A 2016 report by Accenture concludes that patient services are no longer optional for pharma companies, as they are gradually becoming a cutting edge competitive driver. In a situation like this, the question isn’t whether they should really gear up to offer such services, the immediate need, instead, is to put their ears on the ground to carefully decide which ones would be most appropriate for the individual players, and how best to offer them.

For this study, Accenture surveyed more than 200 patient services executives, covering seven therapeutic areas: heart, lungs, brain, immune systems, bones, hormone/metabolism and cancer. The respondents agreed that much work and greater resources need to be invested in this area to gain a competitive edge in business.

This is further evident from the trend that around 84 percent of pharma companies in the United States plans to invest more in patient-centric services, such as adherence, remote monitoring and medication delivery – over the next 18 months, as the report highlights.

For marketing patient services alone to facilitate direct communications to patients, the digital platforms are most preferred with social media and web page usages being 51 percent and 49 percent, respectively.

A serious concern:

Providing various health related services useful to patients, by the PAOs or by pharma, biotech or device companies separately, without any form of financial relationship or influence of any kind to one another, would probably earn a great appreciation from all stakeholders.

Nevertheless, serious concerns are often expressed on the core intent of various pharma company’s generous funding to various patient advocacy organizations, including the eminent ones involved with patients suffering from cancer, HIV, Alzheimer’s, and other diseases. Several of them don’t even report such contributions, besides providing justifiable explanations on the objectives and actual use of such financial contributions.

If one wants to draw a simile, this is what exactly allegedly happening today, because of such type relationship, between pharma, biotech or device companies on the one hand, and doctors, many other health care providers, including retail chemists, on the other. In the Indian context, as well, it holds good. A paper from ‘CUTS International’, aptly drives home this point. Another September 17, 2016 article published in ‘The New York Times’, reiterates the same.

What’s wrong in funding PAOs?

Some may argue, what’s wrong with pharma industry’s funding the PAOs. On the face of it, there may not appear to be anything wrong either. However, scholarly articles still express serious concern on such practices, mainly for conflicts of interest. For example, a September 2013 article titled, “Patient Advocacy Organizations: Institutional Conflicts of Interest, Trust, and Trustworthiness”, published in The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics unambiguously states as follows:

“Numerous studies have found that even established and respected researchers and physicians are influenced by drug company money and gifts, which can bias study conclusions and encourage increased prescribing of potentially harmful medications. There is no reason to believe that PAOs are any less susceptible to such influence. In fact, there is little oversight of relations between PAOs and their for-profit donors, which in itself increases the potential for undue influence. Similar concerns regarding the lack of oversight have been raised regarding the physician professional groups that develop clinical care guidelines.”

Why is it a potential conflict of interest?

Many construe such financial relationships as potential conflicts of interest, because pharma players appear to be more interested in earning maximum possible profit through high drug pricing, while PAOs advocate for highly efficacious, safer and more affordable medicines for all, besides some other interests and rights of patients. Moreover, some large constituents of patient advocacy groups aren’t even seen lending their voices to the concerted protests of other stakeholders, including the political leaders – irrespective of their affiliations, against the sharp increase in prices of many life-saving drugs, covering both patented and generic medicines.

Several studies on this concern: 

A March 02, 2017 report titled, “Conflicts of Interest for Patient-Advocacy Organizations”,

published in ‘The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)’, probably vindicates this point. This is mainly because, if pharma funding gets reciprocated through their remaining quiet, passive or even indirectly supporting any possible bias in the physicians prescribing decisions for high cost drugs – having other cheaper alternatives, that may not be in the best health and economic interest of many patients.

After examining and analyzing 104 large patient-advocacy organizations with an annual revenue of minimum USD 7.5 million, the researchers of the above study found that 83 percent of PAOs receive significant financial support from drug, device and biotechnology companies; and more interestingly, industry executives often serve on these groups’ governing boards.

Another article on this report commented though, that this study may have some limitations as the most organizations examined in this study did not provide exact figures for their reported donations, besides only 10 percent of patient-advocacy organizations revealed how they used the industry donations.

This NEJM study is not just one of its kind, another January 2017 report published in JAMA Internal Medicine, also concluded that there is a need to improve this conflict of interest issue of the patient advocacy groups or PAOs on their conflict of interest policies to help maintain public trust.

In conclusion:

Keeping aside altogether the contentious issue of funding PACs by the pharma, biotech or device companies, I would submit that it’s about time that the pharma industry in India realizes that patients have started perceiving themselves as consumers of health care. This perception is increasing by a manifold with improving access to not just the Internet, but consequent word of mouth sharing of such information with even those who do not have digital or health literacy.

The quest of many patients to ride the crest of this wave by gaining relevant information, especially through numerous digital platforms, besides word of mouth, is increasing. A lot more would eventually seek a wide range of relevant information on various disease treatment options and their effective management processes. Facilitated by this knowledge, many patients would opt only for those ones offering the best value within their respective economic means. Some enlightened individuals have already started expressing their preference to take part in the treatment and prescribing decision making process with the doctors. This visibly ascending trend is unstoppable now, as patients increasingly perceive themselves as consumers of health care.

Consequently, the pharma, biotech or device players in India would require to deeply understand the patients’ needs on the ground, not what they think those are, and treat patients as the key partner for business excellence – at least, as much as what they consider for other stakeholders, such as doctors and hospitals, if not even much more than that. Some companies are trying to make it happen through doctors, which don’t seem to be working as much as these should, according to another Accenture study.

Currently, several global pharma, biotech or device players claim that they follow ‘patient-centered’ approaches, and try to drive home this point through advocacy campaigns. However, many stakeholders don’t buy it any more. This is because such an approach must always lead to a win-win outcome. It, therefore, requires passing the acid test of conformance to the very definition of a ‘patient-centered’ approach, which requires establishing a partnership to ensure that all related decisions would respect patients’ wants, needs and preferences and solicit patients’ input on the education and support they need to make decisions.’

Thus, respective players in this arena need to shift gears fast, as the ball game is fast changing with its traditional version unlikely to yield the desired business results any longer. The name of the new version of this game is ‘direct engagement with patients’ to impart high quality of meaningful services in the therapy areas that the respective companies are in, by charting clear, innovative and well integrated strategies, and not just through single minded focus on sales and marketing. It’s important for all of us to realize that providing patient services aren’t optional any more for pharma business excellence.

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.

In a Quandary of Drug Quality, Price Control, Innovation and Patient Interest in India

Posted on by
Reply

The patients in India have every reason to apprehend, whether the prescription drugs that they consume are efficacious, safe and conform to the government approved prices, alongside another important question: Do they affordable access to the fruits of innovation?

The regulator responsible for drug quality in India is responsible for ensuring the first two, and the drug price regulator of the country ensures the remaining two.

Apparently, both these esteemed government bodies, are sure that they are doing the best jobs in their respective areas. Moreover, in these days of social media blitzkrieg, it won’t be uncommon to witness some of them, creating hype on some issues that many feel is better avoided, and at times even contradictory in nature.

Amid this seemingly chaotic continuity of the same or a bit deteriorating scenario, patients are often caught in an unenviable footing.

In this article, I shall discuss on these concerns afresh, quoting a few recent examples. My objective is to encourage all concerned to move away from incessant hype creation by accepting the reality, as the patients feel. This is necessary, because anyone, including the regulators can fall victim of such unfettered developments, at any point of time.

Thus, it may be appropriate for all to jettison any residual arrogance or a faint shade of narcissism, before putting the nose to the grindstone to resolve these pressing issues decisively, for patients’ sake.

Are we consuming effective and safe medicines?

I raised this question first in an article titled, “Are We Taking Safe and Effective Medicines?” published in this blog on November 13, 2013. That deliberation was primarily based on US-FDA ‘import bans’ from various drug manufacturing facilities in India, involving even the top Indian pharma players. Based on their own quality and safety audits, the US regulator had concluded that drugs produced in those factories are not safe for consumption by the patients in America.

This apprehension has now almost reached its crescendo, when on February 24, 2017, probably for the first time ever, US-FDA publicly voiced its apprehension about the efficacy of medicines being sold and consumed by patients in India.  The observation came from the India director of the US-FDA in an annual conference of a large pharma trade association of some of the top domestic pharma companies. While commenting, “I do not think any one of us wants to take such drugs which lack efficacy”, the official reportedly revealed, he occasionally gets samples sent from the US embassy health unit in Delhi, and complaints are usually about the medicines not giving the desired results.

It is noteworthy, as earlier, rubbishing claims levelled by media expressing growing concern among overseas regulators over the quality of Indian made drugs, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) had reportedly strongly reiterated that there have been no lapse or compromise on quality parameters of the drugs manufactured throughout the country, as the efficacy of the drugs and safety of the patients have always remained the top priority of DCGI.

Yet another news article of August 22, 2016 reported that after a year-long survey involving Government, civil society and pharmacy professionals, and testing nearly 50,000 drug samples across the country during this period, the Ministry of health of India found that medicines produced in India are safe and effective. This study was kicked off in the wake of rising concerns that several medicines made in the country posed risks to patients, the report highlighted.

Should ‘Self-certification’ by industry prevail?

Intriguingly, when questions on drug quality manufactured in India, are regularly being raised by other equally responsible drug authorities, we find ‘self-certification’, in this regard, coming from all those who are expected to resolve this issue beyond an iota of doubt, always prevails.

Apparently, not just the drug regulator and the Union Ministry of Health are in a sustained denial mode, many large pharma companies also seem to be in the same mode. On March 01, 2017, the media reported, “Close on the heels of US FDA India office raising concerns over the quality of medicines marketed in India, pharma leaders came together to defend the quality of their products. There is no question of compromising quality of Indian products meant for domestic market and export, they pointed out.” This rebuttal was expected. Nevertheless, the apprehension lingers: Should such self-certification by pharma players prevail?

That said, one may try to justify this quandary by saying that effectively regulating over 20,000 domestic pharmaceutical companies, including third party and loan license manufacturers, poses a serious challenge to the DCGI and the State Drug Controllers. However, the moot point is, who has been encouraging such over-proliferation of drug manufacturing facilities over a long period of time, in any case? In that sense, whose prime responsibility is it to ensure that drugs consumed by patients in India are efficacious and safe?

The answer to these vexing questions continues to remain unanswered.

Did patients benefit from drug price control orders?

Let me first draw a brief sketch on the global perspective of price increases in generic drugs. It appears that in all those countries where there is no drug price control in place, the entire pharma industry is being adversely impacted by huge generic drug price inflation. This finding has been well captured in a study by Elsevier. It shows, between November 2013 and November 2014, out of its research sample of 4421 generic drug groups, there were price increases in 222 drug groups by 100 percent or more. In 17 drug groups price increases were taken even over 1000 percent, which include even tetracycline. With this trend sharply moving north, many patients, across the world, are struggling hard to find ways to survive in this situation. With this backdrop, I now get back to its India perspective.

I have read some media editorials questioning, just as the pharma industry, whether it is the right approach to make essential medicines affordable through drug price control in India? Nevertheless, there isn’t an iota of doubt in my mind that yes, it is, in the prevailing health care scenario of the country sans universal health care, with out of pocket expenses on medicines being the highest in the world and when market competition doesn’t bring down the price of medicines, for obvious reasons. My questions, on the contrary, will be, is drug price control being enforced in India the way it should? Are the patients getting commensurate benefits out of it? If not, why?

However, on the face of it, the answer to the question above “Did patients benefit from drug price control orders”, may appear to be an affirmative one. This is mainly because, on July 28, 2017, no less than the Union minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers, in a written reply to the Rajya Sabha reportedly conveyed that the Indian consumers have saved nearly Rs 5,000 crore due to the Government fixing the prices of essential medicines under the Drugs Price Control Order (DPCO) 2013.

The ground reality of drug price control:

Let me try to explore a bit in this area with some recent examples.

According to the data from India’s drug pricing watchdog – the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), compliance to various Drug Price Control Orders (DPCO) is far from satisfactory. Outstanding dues for non-compliance to notified ceiling prices, including penalty, from scores of pharma companies, have now reportedly piled up over the past two decades exceeding Rs. 4,551 crore (around USD 700 million). Thus, the same question haunts: Has drug price control benefitted the patients in India, as was intended to?

The situation is no different, even with DPCO 2013. On February 23, 2017, NPPA notified the ‘Suspected cases of Noncompliance of Ceiling Price by Pharmaceutical Companies,’ of 634 drugs, along with a ‘Public Notice’ for the same. This listed included the products marketed by some leading pharma companies in India, such as, Cipla, Abbott India, Alkem Labs, AstraZeneca, Dr Reddys Lab and Cadila, among many others.

Yet another fresh allegation related to drug pricing has just come to light. Interestingly, it relates to an anti-diabetic drug that falls outside DPCO 2013. On March 01, 2017, a news articled reported, “India’s drug regulator will look into allegations that four leading pharmaceutical companies are colluding to set the price of anti-diabetic drug Vildagliptin, a move that may rattle the almost Rs. 10,000 Crore (around USD 1540 million) market in the country.” Vildagliptin is a proprietary drug of Novartis, which has licensed it to three other companies. All of them sell Vildagliptin in India under their own brand names. Abbott sells it as Zomelis, USV as Jalra and Emcure as Vysov. The combined sales of these brands stood at Rs. 822 Crore (around USD 125 million) last year, the report states.

Be that as it may, the bottom line, as many believe, continues to remain unchanged, as it has always been – the patients don’t derive intended benefits due to lackluster and apparently ineffective enforcement of the drug price control in India.

Another crucial player:

Besides the two important and powerful Government authorities – DCGI and NPPA, there is another very critical player in this game – the Indian drug industry. Without whole-hearted cooperation and result-oriented action by all the three players, in tandem, nothing can possibly change this agonizing status quo, in this area.

The industry too is in a denial mode:

Quite like the other two critical constituents, who always deny any serious allegation on their actions, not being good enough to fetch the intended benefits for the patients, the drug industry too doesn’t seem to be any different. It always appears to be in a pre-programmed denial mode against all such allegations, irrespective of whether these are on drug quality, price, or on frequent misuse of the term innovation. They always try to justify their action, playing the victim card, as it were, and expecting other stakeholders to believe that they are doing right, always.

Let me now explore each of these areas separately, basically from the pharma industry perspective:

Drug quality: Pharma players, just as the Indian drug regulator, do not seem to accept that many drugs in India do not provide desirable benefits to patients, as alleged even by the US-FDA after studying some test results, following complaints from their local establishments. Many of us, at an individual level, may also have experienced just the same, and nurture the same doubt on the efficacy and safety profile of some branded generics that we consume, but have no wherewithal to prove the same. Doctors just change the brands, when any patient comes with such complaints, as Pharmacovigilance has not taken-off in the country with full steam, just yet. Thus, both the government regulators and the industry are in sync with each other, on this issue.

Drug price control: In this specific area, unlike the issue of drug quality, the respective stands of the government and the industry are poles apart. The former believes that it is working well, and the latter says, it isn’t.

The industry, as I see it, wants to project an impression that drug price control is the root cause of all evils, including compromises on drug quality, and some drugs going out of the market. The industry further highlights that drug price control offers a crippling blow to innovation, as they can’t garner enough financial resources through increased drug prices. It is another matter that they can’t possibly claim, drug price control offers a telling blow on their profit, as despite price control pharma is one of the highest profit making industry in India and globally too.

What innovation means to patients:

Interestingly, both the domestic and multinational pharma players often use the term of innovation, mostly construed as a façade, as it were, in their different advocacy initiatives, and during media outreach, as well. For global players, it primarily means innovation of new products, which offers monopolistic marketing and pricing advantage. Whereas, for generic players, it is generally process innovation, and different generic or biosimilar product development.

This is fine, but why should patients pay high drug prices, only because pharma players want to spend more on innovation, either for a new drug or a new process? I reckon, almost none will be willing to pay just for the heck of it.

Commensurate incremental price for incremental value:

Many patients, on the other hand, will be willing to pay more for any commensurate incremental value that a drug or a process will offer for a speedy recovery from illness, or to live a better quality of life, or for a lesser net treatment cost. Thus, the price of any brand is considered by stakeholders as a function of the value that it promises to offer. Consequently, brand marketing is deemed a value delivery system. For medicines, this value must be easily perceptible, quantifiable and scientific research based. Accordingly, the outcome of any such innovation should convince the regulators, doctors, hospitals and ultimately the patients – what value delivery – path breaking or incremental, for which patients need to pay commensurate incremental prices.

Various ways of ensuring it:

There are several different ways of addressing it, even for branded generics in India. For example, when branded generics of the same drug or similar FDCs of different drugs, are marketed by different companies with a huge price difference, the pharma players should necessarily submit before appropriate authorities, prior to marketing approval, all data regarding incremental and quantifiable value offerings, especially for those branded generics falling at the top of the price band. This is necessary, as an increasing number of brands in the market of the same generic molecules or the same FDCs, may not necessarily lead to greater competition with any significant impact on price. I shall argue on this point below.

What happens, generally:

For any drug falling outside price control in India, branded generic drug makers, usually set prices based on whatever each of them considers the market will accept. This consideration is highly elastic in nature, varying from a very low to a very high price, for any specific molecule and its FDCs. As I said before, it has been well-established by now that competition doesn’t play any significant role to bring down the branded generic drug prices, unlike many other consumables in different industries.

Why market competition doesn’t work for medicines?

This is primarily because, the purchasing decision for medicines does not depend on individual patients, unlike many other consumables. This decision is taken by the doctors while writing prescriptions for them. It is widely alleged, all over the world, that many important doctors are heavily influenced by the drug companies, often through dubious and highly cost intensive means, to prescribe their respective brands or branded generics in the process of treatment of a wide variety of medical conditions. In this rat race of generation of more and more prescriptions, pharma companies require to have a deep pocket to achieve their financial goals. Thus, many brands attract high prices to generate more profit and keep moving this vicious circle. Value based brand differentiation for many leading branded generics or even me-too patented products, aren’t mostly robust enough to stand any scientific or peer scrutiny. Consequently, the prescription demand of a most branded generics or me-too patented products do not have any linear relationship with the nature of market completion, and therefore, on their prices. In this perspective, setting a price for a pharma brand doesn’t depend on quantifiable value offerings for patients, as someone said before, “It is not a science. It is a feel.”

In conclusion:

The overall concern spans across several important public health and safety related issues, which also involve general quality standards of medicines, the effectiveness of drug price control, the core intent of so frequent use of the term ‘innovation’ in various pharma advocacy initiatives, including media outreach.

In this scenario, is the pharma industry, together with the drug quality and pricing watchdogs, failing to fathom the grave residual impact of continuity of this situation? In my view, this specific assumption appears too simplistic, naïve, and unrealistic. Or else, could it be that they are actually in a quandary, not being able to decide what would be the most effective actionable blueprint to resolve these issues?

I reckon, this is high time now for all concerned to accept the reality, seriously introspect on these critical issues, opt for a dip-stick expert analysis to assess the real status, and then work out a time-bound action plan with assigned accountability on the ground.

Together they may wish to address the following queries, among several others:

  • Why are they still running on a treadmill, as it were, over the last four decades, to come nearer these issues for better understanding, without moving an inch on the ground, despite public outcry?
  • Are they really in a quandary?
  • Are these concerns not an outcome of basically governance related failures?
  • Why hypes are being created all around on significant savings over out of pocket expenses on medicines because of ‘good enforcement’ of DPCOs, when it doesn’t seem so?
  • What prompts all the key players to be in a consistent denial mode on dubious drug quality standards in India, when foreign drug regulators are pointing it out in public?
  • Isn’t the term ‘innovation’ being rampantly misused, more as a major tool for advocacy to gain free pricing advantage?
  • Shouldn’t ‘Que Sera, Sera’ days change now?

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.

Awaiting The Two To Tango: Pharma Innovation And Public Health Interest

Posted on by
Reply

“The rewards for the breakthrough drug discovery must be substantial, but if prices are the only mechanism through which returns on research flow, affordability will be compromised,” articulated an article titled, ‘Pharmaceutical Policy Reform – Balancing Affordability with Incentives for Innovation’, published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on February 25, 2016.

The article arrived at this conclusion, on the backdrop of the high prices of prescription drugs becoming an issue of paramount concern, not just in the United States, but across the world. This concern is so acute that it found its way into policy proposals from both the prime candidates, in the American Presidential election held on November 8, 2016.

Through last several decades, healthcare sector in general and particularly the pharmaceutical industry, witnessed many innovations that cure and effectively manage ailments to improve the general quality of life. It enormously impacted the lives of many in the developed countries, and a few others which offer high quality Universal Health Care in a comprehensive format, for all.

A trickle-down impact:

Nevertheless, even no more than its just a trickle-down impact, helped increase overall life expectancy of the population in many developing and poor countries, mostly driven by the expanding number of cheaper generic drugs, fueled by more treatment and disease management options.

The paper titled, ‘World Population Prospects – The 2015 Revision’ of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division of the United Nations’ reported that the life expectancy at birth rose by 3 years between 2000-2005 and 2010-2015, that is from 67 to 70 years. All major areas shared in the life expectancy gains over this period, but the greatest increases were in Africa, where life expectancy rose by 6 years in the 2000s, after rising by only 2 years in the previous decade.

Similarly, the global life expectancy at birth is projected to rise from 70 years in 2010-2015 to 77 years in 2045- 2050 and to 83 years in 2095-2100. Africa is projected to gain about 19 years of life expectancy by the end of the century, reaching 70 years in 2045-2050 and 78 years in 2095-2100. Such increases are contingent on further reductions in the spread of HIV, and combating successfully other infectious as well as non-communicable diseases.

The availability of cheaper generics gave some respite:

Out of a total population of 7.3 billion, as the above report says, the World Bank estimated that in 2013, 767 million people still lived on less than US$ 1.90 a day. Unfortunately, despite the greater availability of a large variety of cheaper generic drugs, the basic health care remains elusive to hundreds of millions of people in the world.

What causes more concern is the fact that 6 percent of people in low and middle-income countries are tipped into or pushed further into extreme poverty because of health spending, as the June 12, 2015 report of the World Health Organization (W.H.O) and the World Bank highlights. W.H.O has estimated that over a billion population of the world still suffer from neglected tropical diseases.

How many people benefitted from pricey patented drugs?

Nevertheless, despite so much innovation in the pharma industry, access to these new drugs remains elusive to a large section of even some the most developed nations, such as the United States, as they can’t afford these high-priced drugs. The overall situation, in this regard, is going from bad to worse. For example, the March 16, 2015 study published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings reveals that the average annual cost of cancer drugs increased from roughly US$ 10,000 prior to 2000 to an astounding over US$  100,000 by 2012.

Further, an August 31, 2015 article published in the ‘Health Affairs’ also gave examples of Biogen Idec’s multiple sclerosis drug, Tecfidera, which costs US$ 54,900 per patient per year; hepatitis C cures from Gilead Sciences, with a sticker price of $84,000 per patient; and Orkambi, a cystic fibrosis drug from Vertex Pharmaceuticals approved this month, priced at a whopping US$ 259,000 per year. A Kaiser Health Tracking Poll last July 2015 found that 73 percent of Americans find the cost of drugs to be unreasonable, and most blamed drug manufacturers for setting prices too high, the article stated.

The health care scenario in India is no better:

A study conducted by the ‘National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO)’ from January to June 2014, which was the 71st round of the ‘National Sample Survey’, and published in the ‘Health in India’ report, narrates a very gloomy picture for India, especially for a clear majority of those who incur ‘out of pocket’ expenses on medicines. The report states, out of all health expenditure, 72 percent in rural and 68 percent in urban areas was for buying medicines for non-hospitalized treatment.

Thus, many patients cannot afford health services, even when these are needed the most. As many as 68 percent of patients in urban India and 57 percent in rural areas attributed “financial constraints” as the main reason to take treatment without any medical advice, the report adds.

In this situation, the challenges that the Governments and the civil society are facing in many developing, and to some extent even in some developed countries, though for different reasons, are multi-factorial. It has been well established that the humongous global health care challenges are mostly of economic origin.

Pharma innovation benefitted the developed countries more:

A study  titled, ‘Pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease in developing and developed countries’ of Columbia University and National Bureau of Economic Research, to ascertain the relationship across diseases between pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease both in the developed and developing countries, reported that pharmaceutical innovation is positively related to the burden of disease in the developed countries but not so in the developing countries.

Making the two to tango:

These facts prompt the need to make the pharma innovation and public health interest to tango. Several suggestions have been made and initiatives taken in this direction. Some of which are as follows:

  • Responding to this need, in 2006 W.H.O created the ‘Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG)’. The primary focus of IGWG is on promoting sustainable, needs-driven pharmaceutical R&D for the diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries. One positive effect of this global debate is that some global pharmaceutical companies have initiated their R&D activities for neglected tropical diseases, such as, Malaria and Tuberculosis. Many charitable organizations like, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Clinton Foundation, are allocating significant funds for this purpose.
  • A paper  titled, “Optional reward for new drugs for developing countries” published by the Department of Economics, University of Calgary, Institute of Health Economics, proposed an optional reward fund for pharmaceutical innovation aimed at the developing world to the pharmaceutical companies, which would develop new drugs while ensuring their adequate access to the poor. The paper suggests that innovations with very high market value will use the existing patent system, as usual. However, the medicines with high therapeutic value but low market potential would be encouraged to opt for the optional reward system. It was proposed that the optional reward fund should be created by the governments of the developed countries and charitable institutions to ensure a novel way for access to innovative medicines by the poor.
  • ‘Open Innovation’ or the ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ is another model of discovering a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). Imbibing ‘Open Innovation’ for commercial results in pharmaceuticals, just has what has happened to android smartphones, would encourage drug discovery initiatives, especially for the dreaded disease like cancer, to make these drugs affordable for a very large section of people across the globe. 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. This concept was successfully used in the ‘Human Genome Project’ where many scientists, and microbiologists participated from across the world to sequence and understand the human genes. Currently, pharmaceutical R&D is a well-protected in-house initiative of innovator global companies to maximize commercial benefits. For this reason, only a limited number of scientists working for the respective innovator companies will have access to these projects. In India, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is the champion of the OSDD movement, locally. CSIR believes that for a developing country like India, OSDD will help the common man to meet his or her unmet medical needs in the areas of mainly neglected tropical diseases.

Conclusion:

Thus, the ongoing heated debate on Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Public Health Interest is gathering steam all over the globe.

Argumentative Indians are also participating in this raging debate. I reckon rightly so, as India is not only the largest democracy of the world contributing 16.7 percent of the global population, it is also afflicted with 21 percent of the global burden of disease. Considering this, the reason for similar heated debate in our country is indeed no-brainer to anyone.

Many would possibly not disagree, both encouraging innovation and safeguarding the public health interest are equally important to any society, be it in the developed nations or developing countries. Nevertheless, some constituents of ‘Big Pharma’ and their trade association still highlight that ensuring access to high price innovative drugs is the responsibility of the respective Governments. Any other regulatory mechanism to bring down such prices will be construed as a barrier to encouraging, protecting and rewarding innovation.

Be that as it may, most other stakeholders, across the world, especially the patients, are awaiting these two goals to tango. From that point, I reckon, giving a quick shape to commercially well-tested initiatives, such as, ‘Open Innovation’ model could well be an important step to ensure access to innovative new medicines for a larger number of patients of the world, meeting their unmet medical needs with greater care.

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.

Counterfeit Drugs In India: A Malady Much Deeper

Posted on by
Reply

Many debates and discussions continue being lined up in India almost regularly, generally by the pharma trade associations, besides a few others, on the issue of counterfeit drugs. A good number of these events are sponsored by the global and local anti-counterfeit product manufacturers and the related service providers, presumably to get a captive pharma audience. By and large, these gatherings are well publicized, and very rightly so, to focus for a while on this growing menace in the country.

One of the key objectives of such proceedings, I reckon, besides recommending the immediate action steps for the government in saddle, is to encourage the manufacturers of high quality drugs to protect their brands from the onslaught of counterfeiters through anti-counterfeit measures. Several of these involve a state of the art non-cloning technology. The core message that gets filtered-through, in most of these occasions is, if the suggested steps are followed by the drug companies with the related products and services, these won’t just help protect the patients’ health interest, but also provide a boost to the top and bottom lines in the pharma business, significantly.

There are no qualms about this initiative, not at all. Nonetheless, can this be considered a holistic approach to tackle the menace of counterfeit drugs, especially by the pharma players in India, and considering various other different ways the menace keep striking the patients, so surreptitiously?

Thus, in this article, my point of focus will be on a critical question, which is not asked with the same vigor always in many of the above events: Hasn’t the malady of counterfeit drugs in India spread much wider, and taken its root considerably deeper?

Counterfeit drugs and what it includes?

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), there is currently no universally agreed definition among its member states in what is widely known as ‘Counterfeit medicines’. Nevertheless, W.H.O does indicate that the term ‘counterfeit’ is widely used to include falsified, unlicensed, falsely packaged, stolen and substandard medical products. Jurisdictions across the world define counterfeit medicines in many different ways.

It’s worth noting here, according to W.H.O, substandard medical products also belong to this category. In 2009, W.H.O defined ‘substandard’ drugs as “genuine medicines produced by the manufacturers authorized by the NMRA (national medicines regulatory authority) which do not meet quality specifications set for them by national standards”.

Hence, notwithstanding whatever will be accepted as the general consensus of the W.H.O members on the definition of counterfeit drugs, from the patients’ perspective, any drug failing to meet with the claimed efficacy, safety and quality standards, should come under the same ‘category definition’, including substandard drugs.

Controversy over the term ‘Counterfeit’:

Many W.H.O member countries believe that the term counterfeit is closely associated and legally defined within the Intellectual Property (IP) legislation, and concentrates on trademark protection. Consequently, usage of this terminology has been perceived to have reduced the focus from what is first and foremost a public health issue. Thus, it has become quite important for W.H.O to separate the different categories of what is widely used as ‘counterfeit drug’, for the purpose of analysis and identifying strategies, to effectively address the issue of the public health menace that such activities give rise to.

Types of counterfeit drugs:

A Review Article titled “Anti-counterfeit Packaging in Pharma Industry” dated February 17, 2011, published in the “International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences”, divided the types of counterfeit mechanisms into five categories, in which drugs are manufactured or distributed without proper regulatory clearance, and do not meet the determined standards of safety, quality, and efficacy:

  • No active ingredient (43 percent)
  • Low levels of active ingredient (21 percent)
  • Poor quality drugs (24 percent)
  • Wrong ingredients (2 percent)
  • Wrong packaging or source (7 percent)

This particular article will dwell mainly on a very important segment in this category – the substandard or poor quality drugs.

The magnitude of the problem:

On May 17, 2016, a Research Article titled, “Public Awareness and Identification of Counterfeit Drugs in Tanzania: A View on Antimalarial Drugs”, published in ‘Advances in Public Health’ – a peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes original research articles, highlighted something that should cause a great concern not just for the Indian drug regulators, but also the Indian pharma manufacturers, in general.

The research paper, besides other points, underscored the following:

“Currently, it is estimated that 10–15 percent of the global drugs supplied are counterfeit. The prevalence is higher in developing countries in Africa and in parts of Asia and Latin America where up to 30–60 percent of drugs on the market are counterfeit. India is a major supplier of poor quality drugs whereby 35–75 percent of fake/counterfeit drugs globally originate from India.”

Another report of ‘Pharmexcil’ dated October 04, 2010 also states: “According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 75 percent of fake drugs supplied world over have origins in India, followed by 7 percent from Egypt and 6 percent from China. India is also a leading source of high quality generic and patent drugs in the legitimate commerce worldwide. Since drugs made in India are sold around the world, the country’s substandard drug trade represents a grave public health threat that extends far beyond the subcontinent.”

Substandard drugs: a potential crisis in public health:

An article with the above title, published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology on November 29, 2013 cautioned on the potential crisis in public health with substandard drugs, as follows:

“Poor-quality medicines present a serious public health problem, particularly in emerging economies and developing countries, and may have a significant impact on the national clinical and economic burden. Attention has largely focused on the increasing availability of deliberately falsified drugs, but substandard medicines are also reaching patients because of poor manufacturing and quality-control practices in the production of genuine drugs (either branded or generic). Substandard medicines are widespread and represent a threat to health because they can inadvertently lead to health care failures, such as antibiotic resistance and the spread of disease within a community, as well as death or additional illness in individuals.”

Hence, the potential of health crisis with various substandard drugs is quite similar to other types of counterfeit drugs.

Substandard drugs and small pharma players:

As I said before, the malady of counterfeit, fake and substandard drugs are spreading much wider and deeper in India. What’s happening around today in this area prompts us to believe, it may no longer be proper to keep all the large pharma manufacturers away from the ambit of discussion on substandard or counterfeit drugs. This apprehension is raising its head, as it is generally believed that only small, unknown, or fly-by-night type of drug manufacturers, are responsible for substandard, fake or counterfeit drugs. Whereas, the reality seems to be different. There are now ample reasons to believe that even some large drug manufacturers, both local and global, who have been caught by the regulator for the same wrongdoing, are also equally responsible for causing similar adverse health impact on patients.

Substandard drugs and large pharma players:

That the issue of substandard drugs is quite widespread in India, involving both global and local pharma players – small and large, is also quite evident from the following report, published in the May 14, 2016 edition of the well-reputed national daily – Hindustan Times:

“A day after French major Sanofi announced a recall of some batches of its popular painkiller Combiflam, India’s drug regulator said over 102 medicines have been highlighted for quality concerns and withdrawal in the last five months. The list includes several popular painkillers.”

The report also indicated that these are generic medicines, both with and without brand names, such as, CIP-ZOX of Cipla, Orcerin of MacLeod Pharma, Zerodol-SP of Ipca Laboratories, Pantoprazole of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Norfloxacin of Karnataka Antibiotics & Pharmaceutical Ltd. According to the public notices of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), these batches were manufactured in June 2015 and July 2015, and carried expiry dates of May 2018 and June 2018.

The CDSCO also reportedly said that in notices posted on its website in February and April, 2015, it found some batches of Combiflam to be “not of standard quality” as they failed disintegration tests. The point to note is, according to the US-FDA, disintegration test is used to assess the time it takes for tablets and capsules to break down inside the body and are used as a quality-assurance measure.

“All drugs listed under the drug alert list should be recalled with immediate effect. We have found some serious problems with the making of the drug because of which we have highlighted quality concerns. Hence, recall is necessary for all companies,” GN Singh, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), reportedly told the above newspaper.

Should the ‘intent behind’ be considered as the key differentiating factor?

This takes me to another question: What’s the ‘intent behind’ manufacturing substandard drugs? It is not difficult to make out that the only ‘intent behind’ manufacturing substandard drugs by illegal, some small or fly-by-night type of drug operators would be to make quick money, by cutting corners, and criminally falsifying the entire process.

Until recently, I used to strongly believe that those large manufacturers who are getting caught for releasing substandard drugs to the market, have made sheer mistakes, and these are no more than minor aberrations. However, recent findings by the US-FDA, after rigorous manufacturing quality audit of several production facilities of large and small generic drug producers of India, make me wonder whether this thin differentiating line of ‘intent behind’ manufacturing substandard drugs, though still exists, has started getting blurred. The foreign regulators have imposed import ban on drugs produced in those facilities on the ground of willingly compromising drug quality, and grossly falsifying data.

I am not going into those much discussed details here, once again, as the drugs involved in the above cases are meant for exports and the import bans, by the foreign regulators were aimed at protecting the health and safety of citizens of those countries. In this article my focus is on India, and health interest of the local Indian population.

Thus fathoming a different ‘intent behind’ manufacturing substandard drugs, especially by the large and well-known manufacturers, is the real challenge. What sort of anti-counterfeit events will be able to possibly address this perturbing issue, that is now getting revealed much faster than even before?

Who in India ensures that all drugs are safe?

Possibly none, not even the drug regulators and the enforcers of the drug laws, as a number of national and international media reports reveal. General public doesn’t get any assurance from any authorities that the medicines sold by the drug retail outlets, pan India, are all standard quality and genuine.

At the same time, it is equally challenging for anyone to ascertain, with absolute certainty, that it’s a counterfeit, substandard or a fake drug, in whatever name we call it, is responsible for avoidable suffering or even death of an individual. In such a sad eventuality, one has no other choice but to accept that the causative factor was either a wrong diagnosis of the disease, or delayed onset of treatment.

Is CDSCO still in a denial mode?

It’s an irony that the government sources often highlight that the incidence of substandard, spurious or fake drugs in India has declined from around 9 percent in the 1990s, to around 5 percent in 2014-15, quoting the CDSCO sample survey findings.

Nevertheless, while looking at the same CDSCO survey results of the last four years – from 2011-12 to 2014-15, the incidence of spurious and substandard drugs in India appears to be static, if not marginally increased, as follows:

Year Tested Samples Substandard Samples Spurious or Adulterated samples % Failed
2011-12 48,082,00 2,186.00 133.00 4.82
2012-13 58,537.00 2,362.00 70.00 4.15
2013-14 72,712.00 3,028.00 118.00 4.32
2014-15 74,199.00 3,702.00 83.00 5.10

Source: Central Drugs Control Organization (CDSCO)

In my view, these CDSCO results should be taken perhaps with dollops of salt, not merely the sample size for these surveys is too small, but also the complexity involved in the collection of the right kind of samples that will always pass the acid test of independent experts’ scrutiny.  Right representational sample size – state-wise, is so important, primarily considering that India is the world’s third-largest pharmaceutical market by volume, consumes 383 billion medicines per annum, according to a 2015 Government report, and is quite a heterogeneous pharma market.

A September 06, 2016 media report well captured the palpable hubris of the Government on this worrying subject. It quoted the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) – Dr. G N Singh as saying: “This is an encouraging trend when it comes to comparing Indian made generics with that produced in regulated markets. This will help us dispel the myth that India is a source of substandard drugs as compared to any other regulated market.”

Interestingly, other studies and reports do indicate that this menace could well be, at least, thrice as large.

Be that as it may, according to an October 22, 2016 media report, CDSCO is expected to release the findings of the latest survey on ‘spurious drugs’ in India by end October 2016.

Two recent good intents of CDSCO:

Apparently, as a response to the widespread public criticism on this issue, despite being in a denial mode earlier, CDSCO has recently expressed two good intents to address this issue, as follows:

  • As reported on October 18, 2016, it has sent a recommendation to the Union Ministry of Health to amend the Drugs & Cosmetics Act to facilitate implementation of bar coding and Unique Identification Number (UIN) on every pack of domestic pharma products.
  • To ensure consistency and uniformity in the inspection process, on May 26, 2016, by a Public Notice, it issued a new draft checklist of ‘Risk Based Inspection of the Pharma Manufacturing Facilities’ for verification of GMP compliance as per the provisions stated under Schedule M of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, and sought suggestions from the stakeholders. This checklist would be used by drug regulatory enforcement agencies as a science based tool. It also envisaged that the pharma industry would find this checklist useful for self-assessment.

Let’s now wait and watch, to get to know the timeline of translating these good intents into reality on the ground, and the impact that these decisions will make to reverse the current worrying trend of counterfeit and substandard drugs in India.

Conclusion:

The malady of counterfeit or substandard drugs is not just India centric. Various credible sources have estimated that around a million people fall victim to such so called ‘medicines’, each year. However, unlike many other countries, India still doesn’t have any structured and effective regulatory or other mechanisms, not even any spine-chilling deterrent, in place to address this public health menace of humongous implications.

That said, besides serious health hazards, the adverse financial impact of substandard drugs on patients is also significant. Such drugs, even when non-fatal, are much less effective, if not ineffective or trigger other adverse reactions. Thus, a longer course of treatment, or switching over to a different medication altogether, may often be necessary, multiplying the cost of treatment.

In that sense, substandard, spurious, fake or counterfeit drugs, in whatever name one describes these, increase the disease burden manifold, besides being life-threatening. This issue assumes greater significance in India, where 58.2 percent of the total health expenditure is incurred out-of-pocket by a vast majority of the population. Medicines alone, which are mostly purchased from private retail outlets, across India, account for between 70 and 77 per cent of the individual out of pocket health spending, according to a W.H.O report.

High decibel campaigns on various anti-counterfeit technology solutions for fast selling, or expensive brands of large pharma companies, whether sponsored by placing the commercial interest at the top of mind, or even otherwise, are welcome, so are the two recent good intents of the Union Government, in this area.

However, the desirable proactive focus on curbing the menace of substandard medicines in India, which cause similar health risks as any other type of counterfeit drugs, does not seem to be as sharp, not just yet, barring the pharma export sector. Nor does this issue attract similar zest for a meaningful discourse related to patients’ health and safety within the country, as associated with various other anti-counterfeiting technology solution oriented events. The anomaly remains intriguing, especially when the malady spreads, with its root reaching deeper.

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. 

Against Pharma Marketing Malpractices: A Gutsy Step

Posted on by
Reply

January 7, 2016 edition of ‘The Financial Times (FT)’ reported that responding to escalating pressure on the drug industry, related to its ‘Conflict of Interest’ with the doctors and other related professionals, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has decided taking a very unorthodox step.

According to this news report, GSK has decided not to promote its brands by making payments to doctors in any form. The company also strongly expressed its belief that to refurbish the dented image of the industry, in general, its competitors, as well, would start following the same steps, sooner than later.

Whatever it may be, GSK has apparently decided to avoid the above ‘conflict of interest’ and not to ride on the trendy wave for drug promotion, any longer.

Although, many restrictions have already been put in place by different countries, to curb these practices to the extent required, many pharma companies always find effective ways to circumvent those restrictions, as many report highlights.

In this scenario, GSK has taken a bold and calculated decision to swim against the tide. Respecting public outcry and sensitiveness on the subject, it has decided against engaging paid physician speakers, as an integral of the brand marketing strategy, any longer. More importantly, this decision of the company is absolutely voluntary, transparent, and its faithful implementation level can also be monitored externally. 

The consequences of this ‘Conflict of Interest’: 

Available reports indicate that the consequences of alleged marketing malpractices of any kind, attract some serious financial consequences for the pharma players, provided of course, if one gets caught, especially in the United States or Europe.

A February 24, 2014 article highlights that in the last few years alone, pharmaceutical companies have agreed to pay over US$13 billion to resolve only U.S. Department of Justice allegations of ‘fraudulent marketing practices’.

Dwelling on the subject, a November 6, 2014, BBC News commented, “Imagine an industry that generates higher profit margins than any other and is no stranger to multi-billion dollar fines for malpractice.”

It is worth noting, all those pharma players paying hefty fines due to alleged marketing misadventures of humongous proportion, also prominently display their well-crafted code of ethics of pharma marketing practices in their respective websites, vowing for strict voluntary adherence. Nevertheless, the (mal)practice goes on, unabated.

Did a recent deterrent work in America? 

Despite recent enactment of “Physician Payments Sunshine Act”, such practices of pharma companies continue unabated even in the World’s largest pharma market – the United States.

As is known by many, the ‘Physician Payments Sunshine Act’ is a healthcare law enacted in the United States in 2010 to increase transparency of financial relationships between health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This Act requires manufacturers of drugs, medical devices and biologicals that participate in US federal health care programs to submit annual data on payment and other transfers of value that they make to physicians and teaching hospitals. The data submission period is followed by 45 days for physicians to review their ‘Open Payments’ data and dispute errors before the public release.

On July 1, 2015, ‘ProPublica’ – an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest, published an article titled, “Dollars for Docs: How Industry Dollars Reach Your Doctors.” Quoting the public database, it reported that in 2014, 1,630 pharma companies in the United States disclosed a hefty total payment of US$ 3.53 billion to 681,432 doctors. The maximum total payment received by a single doctor during this period was US$ $43.9 million. 

Published names of ‘Top 20 Companies’: 

According to ‘ProPublica’, the money that the following 20 companies spend on interactions with doctors in the United States, excluding research and royalties, is as follows:

  • Pfizer: $30M,
  • Janssen Pharmaceuticals: $20.5M
  • Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals: $19.1M
  • Forest Laboratories: $17.2M
  • Allergan: $15.5M
  • Otsuka America Pharmaceutical: $15M
  • Sanofi and Genzyme: $14.6M
  • AbbVie: $13.5M
  • Genentech: $12.9M
  • Intuitive Surgical: $12.8M
  • Novo Nordisk: $12.4M
  • Depuy Synthes Sales: $12M
  • Bristol Myers Squibb: $11.9M
  • Eli Lilly: $11.7M
  • Teva: $11.6M
  • Novartis: $11.5M
  • Boehringer Ingelheim: $10.8M
  • Stryker: $10.3M
  • Merck Sharp & Dohme: $10.3M
  • Takeda: $9.68M
GlaxoSmithKline not featuring in the list: 

Interestingly, I could not locate GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) featuring in this specific list of the top 20 companies in the United States. Some industry watchers comment that this could well be an outcome of other unorthodox measures taken by GSK earlier to revamp its reputation, dented by the widely reported Chinese bribery scandal and also a huge settlement of US$3 billion with the Government of the United States, for alleged marketing malpractices. Whatever it is, GSK has now initiated some tangible policy decisions in this regard, unlike most of its counterparts.

Alleged pharma malpractices are rampant in India too:

Frequent reports of Indian media have already triggered a raging debate in the country on the same subject. It has also been reported that a related case is now pending before the Supreme Court against a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for the hearing.

On May 08, 2012, the ‘Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare’ presented its 58th Report to both the Lower and the Upper houses of the Indian Parliament. The committee, with a strong indictment against the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), observed that the DoP should take decisive action, without any further delay, in making the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ mandatory, so that effective checks could be ensured on ‘huge promotional costs and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices’.

Unfortunately, nothing substantive has happened on the ground regarding this issue as on date, excepting announcement of voluntary implementation of the DoP’s ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, effective January 1, 2015 for six months for its assessment. Thereafter, the date extension process on the voluntary implementation of the UCPMP has become a routine exercise for the DoP, on the pretext of continuing discussion on the subject with the pharma trade associations and other stakeholders.

Nevertheless, incidences of alleged marketing malpractices are still unfolding today and getting dragged into the futile public debate. In a situation like this, I reckon, the Government is expected to play a more proactive role by all, instead of maintaining the status quo, any longer.

‘Voluntary practice’ concept alone, has not worked, anywhere:

Strong internal and external business performance pressures, while navigating through turbulent business environment with strong headwinds, could temporarily unnerve even the seasoned managers with nerves made of steel, as it were. It has been happening all the time, now more frequently, despite having stringent ‘voluntary pharma marketing practices’ codes in place, for many different reasons.

This  has been vindicated by a recent research published by ‘PLOS Medicine’ on January 26, 2016.

The study states that European Union law prohibits companies from marketing drugs off-label. However, in the United Kingdom (UK), as in some other European countries, but unlike the United States, pharma industry self-regulatory bodies are tasked with supervising compliance with marketing rules. The objectives of this study were to characterize off-label promotion rulings in the UK compared to the whistleblower-initiated cases in the US and also) shedding light on the UK self-regulatory mechanism for detecting, deterring, and sanctioning off-label promotion.

The paper provided credible evidence of the limited capacity of the UK’s self-regulatory arrangements to expose marketing violations. It recommended that the UK authorities should consider introducing increased incentives and protections for whistleblowers combined with US-style governmental investigations and meaningful sanctions.

Thus, all-weather ‘voluntary practice of ethical pharma marketing code model’ alone, is either failing or has failed, almost everywhere in the world. GSK’s is a novel, but solo attempt and may not necessarily be imbibed by others.

Appropriate regulations and robust laws, instilling not just the ‘fear of God’ to the violators, but also promising justice to all, would always be a strong deterrent in those trying situations, especially in countries like, India, unless of course, any person or a legal entity is a hardcore manipulator with its key focus just on profiteering.

Restoring tarnished image:

GSK has taken the above bold step to restore its tarnished image, after receiving body blows related to several scandals, as it were. Commendably, it did not continue doing the same, unlike many others. Instead, the leadership of the Company demonstrated sensitivity to public outrage.

GSK won’t be a solitary example of pharma marketing malpractices. There are other large drug companies too, who even after meeting with similar public disgrace, keep charting the same old path to maximize brand sales by paying for the doctors, either directly or in several other forms, as many reports have alleged.

To offset all such marketing related expenses, and thereafter earn a huge profit, many of them keep the new drug prices exorbitantly high, adversely impacting the access of those drugs to many of those, who need them the most. This is besides taking hefty annual increases on existing brand pricing, even when inflation is very low to moderate.

Access to drugs for all needy patients is ‘Government responsibility’: 

To justify access barrier to high priced drugs for a large number of patients globally, most pharma players and their trade associations have a ready answer in their advocacy toolkit. It says, ensuring access to drugs for all needy patients is the responsibility of the Government, not of the drug companies.

As a result, the trust deficit between the pharma industry and the general public is increasing, further denting its image. At present, when many national Governments are initiating action or are contemplating to do so, to contain such insensitive practices, the industry probably would require to pause for a while, take a step back and ponder – what next? 

Restoring the tarnished image of the drug industry is a challenging ball game, far beyond the capabilities of even the richest pharma associations of the world, and their over-paid lobbyists. Crafty creation of any facade to hoodwink all, is no longer working to achieve their self serving purposes. Today, the public, in general, seems to understand much more about their reasonably affordable healthcare needs and wants, than what these trade associations’ possibly think about them.

Otherwise, why would Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton – one of the strongest contenders for American Presidency this time, would tweet on January 28, 2016 addressing her voters and admirers with the following vow:

“We will go after pharmaceutical companies that gouge patients with pricing. They are wrong, and we will stop them.”

My experience tells me that astute pharma CEOs, by and large, still command much higher credibility than their trade associations. Thus, the top leadership of the respective organizations would require taking the ‘image revamping exercise’ in their own hands, directly. It is essential to publicly demonstrate that most of them are aligned and in sync with the emerging new paradigm of changing aspirations, needs and wants of the patients and other key stakeholders. Future business excellence would demand inclusive growth. GSK is just an example of a CEO’s bold response to address this challenge of change – ‘a small step but a giant leap’ in this direction.

Conclusion:

In my view, all these contentious practices are basically being prompted by the strong intent of most of the pharma CEOs to ‘play safe’, in order to deliver expected shareholder value.

Any unorthodox approach to rebuild the tarnished image is usually risky, generally frowned upon and discouraged by the industry. Other vested interests often join them too. All these retarding forces express grave apprehensions on any fresh look by a company to mend fences with its key stakeholder – the patients and the public, in general. 

The recent GSK example is no exception. Apprehensions have already been expressed, whether this untested fresh thinking, against a widely perceived corrupt practice of paying physician speakers for indirect brand promotion would really be able to boost its image, without cutting into revenue. Some would take a step further and question, would a rejuvenated image ultimately fetch expected growth in sales revenue and profit? 

Only time will tell us the consequences of this uncommon and unorthodox decision taken by a courageous leader in the pharma industry.

In India, even the Government seems to have gone into a deep slumber on this issue. Despite reported discussions with the stakeholders several times, Government’s UCPMP still remains voluntary, with the DoP holding the same old ground, where it started from on January 1, 2015. It is difficult to fathom, whether intense industry lobbying is influencing a long overdue decision in favor of the patients’ overall interest.

However, there is good news also. According to a February 6, 2016 media report, ‘The Medical Council of India (MCI), for the first time ever, is set to notify specific punishments for errant doctors based on the value of favors or freebies received from drug players, under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) (Amendment) Regulations, 2015. 

That apart, to revamp its dented image, the decision of GSK against paid physician speakers as an integral part of brand promotion, is not just a gutsy step with a sharp focus on restoring business ethics and values, but more laudably a voluntary one. Would others follow it too, including in India? 

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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