Exploiting India’s Weakness For Monopolistic Commercial Gain?

Posted on May 8, 2023 by Tapan Ray

Public access to healthcare in India is a complex issue with several challenges. While India has been making progress over the years in improving healthcare access and reducing the burden of disease, there are still significant disparities in healthcare access and outcomes across the country. The three primary barriers continue to remain:

Affordable access to quality healthcare: This arises out of the shortage of healthcare infrastructure and resources, more in rural areas. The shortage includes an inadequate number of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, as well as inadequate facilities and equipment.

Cost of healthcare: While India has a largely publicly funded healthcare system, the quality of care in public hospitals is often poor, and many people are forced to opt for private healthcare, which can be expensive.

Access to affordable drugs: Despite India being a major producer of generic drugs, many people in India still lack access to essential medicines. This is due in part to the high cost of branded medicines, which are often out of reach for many people, as well as a lack of availability of certain medicines in some areas.

Undoubtedly, this remains a weak area for the country, till date. Successive Indian governments have taken steps to address these challenges. However, public funding on healthcare as a percentage of GDP and implementation of policies to increase access to medicine, continue to remain below par. Much work needs to be done to ensure that all people have access to quality healthcare and essential medicines.

Amid this situation, especially on the international political front, drug MNCs are continuously blaming India for the fact that the Indian Patents Act is not robust enough to protect their drug patents on NMEs and technologies. For example, in its 2022 Special 301 Report, the USTR designated seven countries on the Priority Watch List. These are Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, and Venezuela. To give some more examples from the available reports:

In February 2021, PhRMA, a trade group representing multinational pharmaceutical companies, raised concerns about India’s policies related to IP rights and access to medicines. PhRMA argued that India’s policies were undermining innovation and investment in the pharmaceutical industry, and that multinational pharmaceutical companies were facing difficulties in doing business in India.

In March 2021, Pfizer’s CEO also expressed concerns about India’s policies related to IP rights and access to medicines. He said that Pfizer was facing challenges in obtaining patents for its products in India, and that the lack of adequate patent protection was discouraging investment in research and development.

In May 2021, Novartis’s CEO criticized India’s policies related to IP rights and access to medicines. HE stated that the lack of adequate patent protection in India was discouraging innovation and investment in the pharmaceutical industry, and that multinational pharmaceutical companies were facing difficulties in doing business in India.

Against this backdrop, in today’s article I shall deliberate on this vexing issue – starting from some key grievances of drug MNCs in this regard. Thereafter we will look at the Indian industry response to drug MNCs’ concern about the robustness of the Indian Patents Acts. This could possibly help us to understand the key question – Is it then an attempt to exploit India’s weakness regarding inadequate overall access to medicines for monopolistic gain by the vested interest?

Key grievances of drug MNCs for poor access to medicines in India:

One can recall that the Patent Act in India was amended in 2005 to comply with the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. The amendment made it more difficult for multinational pharmaceutical companies to obtain patents for their products in India for the ‘me too’ type of innovation, which has led to lower prices for medicines and increased access to affordable drugs for the Indian population.

However, drug MNCs generally argue that:

The lack of adequate patent protection in India discourages innovation and investment in research and development, which ultimately limits the availability of new drugs for patients in India.

They have also criticized the Indian government’s use of compulsory licensing, which allows the government to authorize a third party to produce a patented drug without the consent of the patent holder. They argue that this undermines their intellectual property rights and discourages investment in research and development, which ultimately limits access to new and innovative drugs for patients in India.

Counter argument by Indian companies:

Indian companies, on the contrary, defend their position and policies related to access to medicines and healthcare in India, and have responded to the accusations made by drug MNCs in the following ways:

Provides adequate patent protection: The Indian Patents Act provides adequate IP protection, in accordance with the TRIPS agreement. They have also pointed out that the patent laws in India allow for the grant of patents for genuine inventions, while preventing the grant of frivolous or secondary patents (the me-too types), which can result in excessive monopolies and high prices for medicine.

Encourage innovation: Indian policies have not discouraged innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. They have pointed out that Indian companies invest heavily in research and development and have developed several innovative drugs that have been approved by regulatory authorities in India and around the world.

Rare occurrence of Compulsory licensing: The use of compulsory licensing is a legitimate tool under international law and is aimed at promoting public health and ensuring that life-saving drugs are accessible and affordable to patients in India. They have also pointed out that the use of compulsory licensing is a rare occurrence in India and is only used in exceptional circumstances.

Overall, Indian drug companies have emphasized their commitment to improving access to medicines and healthcare in India, while ensuring that their policies are in line with international laws and regulations. They have also emphasized the need for collaboration and dialogue with multinational pharmaceutical companies to find mutually acceptable solutions that benefit patients in India and around the world.

Examples of innovative drugs developed by Indian drug companies:

It’s interesting to note that in the same IP scenario, Indian companies with limited resources, are developing innovative drugs that have been approved by regulatory authorities around the world. Here are a few examples, as reported at different times:

Lipaglyn: Developed by Zydus Cadila, Lipaglyn is the first-ever drug approved for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia. It has been approved in India and several other countries, including the European Union.

Tafinlar: Developed by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Tafinlar is a kinase inhibitor that has been approved by the US FDA for the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Mycapssa: Developed by Sun Pharma, Mycapssa is a novel oral formulation of octreotide, a hormone therapy used to treat acromegaly. It has been approved by the US FDA.

Saroglitazar: Developed by Zydus Cadila, Saroglitazar is a dual PPAR agonist that has been approved in India for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Nexavar: This much discussed drug, originally developed by Bayer and by Natco Pharma, is a kinase inhibitor that has been approved by the US FDA for the treatment of liver and kidney cancers.

Conclusion:

The IP issues keep haunting India and are being captured in different Special 301 Reports of the USTR, even after The Indian Patents Act 2005 came into force – till 2022. Any change to this Act seems very unlikely now as this is an important piece of legislation that helps balance the interests of protecting intellectual property, promoting innovation and access to affordable medicines. Any dilution of this Act could have negative consequences for India and its citizens.

From this perspective, I reckon, any further pressure in this area may be construed as an attempt to exploit India’s weakness of inadequate access to medicines for monopolistic gain by vested interests.

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.

Unfettered ‘Access To Drug Innovation’ – An Oxymoron?

Posted on September 6, 2021 by Tapan Ray

The mass paranoia, as it were, over Covid pandemic has now started fading with drug regulators’ ‘emergency approval’ of several Covid -19 vaccines, and its free of cost access to all, generally in most countries. As the endgame of the pandemic, supposedly, depends on the speed of Covid-19 vaccination, the drug industry’s public reputation in the interim period, driven by its rapid response to the crisis, got an unsurprising boost (62%). This was captured by the Harris Poll, released on March 15, 2021.

Interestingly, soon after the high of 62% approval rating, the decline began. It came down to 60% in May and then 56% in June 2021—and now down three more percentage points, according to the Harris Polls that followed. No wonder, why the FiercePharma article of August 24, 2021, carried a caption: ’Pharma’s reputation drops again. Could it foreshadow a return to the bottom?’

Further, in the new normal, especially when customer expectations and requirements from drug companies have significantly changed, MNC Pharma industry still appears to be in the old normal mode in this space. It still, reportedly, ‘believes that the need for innovation must be balanced with the necessity for more accessible medicines, within a robust IP and regulatory environment,’ in India.

The hidden purpose of the same could possibly be, as several industry watchers believe – availing benefits of greater access to one kind innovation, making access to other kind of innovation more difficult. Consequently, two critical points are reemerging, even in the new normal, as follows:

Aren’t Indian IP and regulatory ecosystems still conducive enough for MNC pharma players’ access to drug innovation?

In the name of greater access to pharma product innovation, are they creating barriers to pharma process innovation, delaying market access to complex generics and Biosimilar drugs – besides systematically eroding consumer confidence on such products?

In this article, under the above backdrop, I shall try to explore why the epithet – ‘access to drug innovation’ is considered an oxymoron – with contemporary examples from around the word, including India.

Aren’t Indian IP and regulatory ecosystems conducive to drug innovation?

This allegation doesn’t seem to hold much water, as several successful local initiatives in Covid-19 vaccine development will confirm the same. Besides, already marketed Covaxin, developed by Bharat Biotech in collaboration with the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and Zydus Cadila’s ZyCov-D, there are several others waiting in the wings. These include domestic drug makers like, Hyderabad based Biological-E, Bengaluru-based medical pharma startup’s – Mynvax, and Pune-based Gennova Biopharmaceutical’s m-RNA vaccine candidates. However, only critical difference is – Indian made Covid vaccines are more affordable and accessible to patients, as against those manufactured by MNCs, such as, Pfizer, Moderna and J&J.

If we look back to the old normal, one will also find similar instances of new drug discovery in India, which deliberated in my article of September 02, 2013. Let me give just a couple of examples below:

Ranbaxy developed and launched its first homegrown ‘New Drug’ for malaria - Synriam, on April 25, 2012

Zydus Cadila announced in June 2013 that the company is ready for launch in India its first New Chemical Entity (NCE) for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia –Lipaglyn.

Hence, meager wherewithal for R&D notwithstanding, as compared to the MNCs, Indian pharma players don’t seem to find the country’s IP and regulatory ecosystems not conducive to innovation of affordable new drugs with wider patient access.

Off-patent drugs also involve another type of major innovation:

Discovering an NCE is, unquestionably, a product of drug innovation. Similarly, developing a new – cost-effective, non-infringing manufacturing process to market off-patent drugs, like biosimilars, also involve another type of major innovation. Intriguingly, when the MNC pharma industry talks about ‘access to innovation’, the latter type of innovation isn’t publicly acknowledged and included in their drug innovation spectrum. This practice, reportedly, remains unchanged in their advocacy campaign, even in the new normal.

However, the fact is, the manufacturers of off-patent drugs, such as biosimilars, also need to follow a major innovative process, for which they require access to innovation. This was also captured in an editorial of the newsletter – Biosimilar Development. The deliberation addressed the question - Do biosimilars fit into the innovation paradigm? The editor began by articulating – hardly anyone publicly argues that the development of new manufacturing process of Biosimilar drugs is not an innovation. The industry can’t call them as a copy of an existing innovation, either.

This is also vindicated in the Amgen paper, published on February 11, 2018. It acknowledges, “Unlike small molecule generic drugs, biosimilars are not identical to the reference biologic or to other approved biosimilars of the same reference biologic, because they are developed using different cell lines and undergo different manufacturing and purification processes.” Moreover, biosimilars also carry a different International Nonproprietary Name (INN), because of their molecular differences from the reference drug. This has been specified in the nonproprietary naming Guidance document of the US-FDA of January 2017.

From this perspective, the next question that logically follows: Is process innovation as important as product innovation?

Is process innovation as critical a capability as product innovation?

This question was unambiguously answered by a pharma industry-centric Harvard Business Review(HBR) article – ‘The New Logic of High-Tech R&D’, published in its September–October 1995, issue. The paper emphasized, for the commercial success of a product ‘manufacturing-process innovation is becoming an increasingly critical capability for product innovation.’

When to meet patient-needs ‘access to innovation’ an oxymoron:

‘Access to innovation’ is an interesting epithet that is often used by many drug companies for meeting unmet needs of patients. However, the same is also often used to create barriers to meeting unmet needs of more patients with cheaper biologic drugs, like Biosimilars, immediately after their basic patent expiry. This is mostly practiced by creating a patent thicket. Hence, drug companies’ advocacy for greater access to innovation is an oxymoron to many.

The same was echoed in another article – ‘How originator companies delay generic medicines,’ published by GaBI. It wrote, such practices delay generic entry and lead to healthcare systems and consumers paying more than they would otherwise have done for medicines. These include the following:

Strategic patenting
Patent litigation
Patent settlements
Interventions before national regulatory authorities
Lifecycle strategies for follow-on products.

A very recent piece on the subject, published by Fierce Pharma on August 31, 2021, vindicates that the patent life extension through the patent thicket is happening on the ground – denying patients access to cheaper equivalent, especially of off-patent biologic drugs within a reasonable time period. It highlighted:

The exclusivity of AbbVie’s Humira, which hit the market in 2002 and generated nearly $20 billion in sales last year was extended by 130 patents.

The same company has applied for 165 patents for its another blockbuster Imbruvica. Launched in 2013, Imbruvica has already generated sales of $5.3 billion for AbbVie.

No wonder, why in February 2021, during a Senate Finance Committee hearing, Sen. John Cornyn blasted the company saying:

“I support drug companies recovering a profit based on their research and development of innovative drugs,” Cornyn said. “But at some point, that patent has to end, that the exclusivity has to end, to be able to get it at a much cheaper cost.”

More reports are also available on attempts to erode consumer confidence in Biosimilar drugs, as compared to the originals.

Work for innovation sans eroding consumer confidence in Biosimilars:

Making affordable new drugs and vaccines available to patients with ‘access to innovation’, deserves inspiration from all concerned. Curiously, even in the new normal, some big companies continue trying to erode consumer confidence in off-patent drugs, especially Biosimilars and complex generics.

For example, an article on Biosimilars moving to the center stage, published in the Pharmaceutical Executive on August 12, 2021, quoted an interesting development in this space. The article highlighted that US legislators are now ‘eyeing measures to deter innovator promotional messages that disparage follow-on competitors.’ This initiative was spurred by US-FDA criticism of an Amgen promotional communication for undermining consumer confidence in Biosimilars to its Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) injection.

On July 14, 2021, US-FDA’s Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) sent a letter to Amgen carrying a caption ‘FDA notifies Amgen of misbranding of its biological product, Neulasta, due to false or misleading promotional communication about its product’s benefit.

The letter, as reported in the above article, criticized the company for making a false claim of greater adverse events with the injection system used by Biosimilars compared to the Amgen product. OPDP advised Amgen and other firms to “carefully evaluate the information presented in promotional materials for reference products, or Biosimilar products” to ensure correct product identification and avoid consumer confusion.

Conclusion:

When the point is, creating a conducive ecosystem to promote access to innovation, it should be patient-centric – always, and, more so in the new normal, considering changing needs and expectations of health care customers.

The innovation of usually pricey new molecular entities, no doubt, meets unmet needs of those who can afford these. Whereas, manufacturing process innovation expands access to the same molecule, particularly when they go off-patent, by making them affordable to a vast majority of the population.

But powerful industry lobby groups continue pressing harder for unfettered ‘access to innovation’ with greater relaxation of the IP and regulatory framework of countries, like India. The situation prompts striking a right balance between encouraging more profit by helping to extend patent exclusivity and encouraging greater access to off-patent cheaper Biosimilars as soon as the basic patent expires.

The bottom-line is, both need to be actively encouraged, even if it requires new laws to discourage practices like, creating patent thickets or undermining the use of generics or Biosimilars, and the likes. The good news is lawmakers have started deliberating on this issue – along with increasing public awareness, which gets reflected in the pharma industry’s current reputation ratings.

Left unresolved soon, such piggyback ride on ‘access to drug innovation’ bandwagon to serve self-serving interests, would continue denying speedy entry of cheaper Biosimilars. From this perspective, it isn’t difficult to fathom, why unfettered access to drug innovation is considered an oxymoron, by many.

By: Tapan J. Ray

To Allay Customers’ New Apprehensions Pharma Needs A New Conversation

Posted on May 17, 2021 by Tapan Ray

Since the beginning of 2020, witnessing the rapid spread of Covid pandemic with very high global fatality rate – virtually the entire global populations – directly or indirectly, have been looking up to the health care industry for help. This, of course, includes the drug industry – with high expectations of people on deliverables, blended with palpable apprehensions on what’s happening around.

Amid the wave after wave attack of Covid-19, many have realized that there will neither be any quick-fix or immediate solution to tame the virus. As India goes through the Covid 2.0 catastrophe, while waiting for Covid 3.0, a similar situation prevails in the country – with a sense of lurking fear for future uncertainties, slowly but steadily creeping in.

Thus, an unprecedented public expectation for speedy disentanglement of Covid-19 disruptions, confer a huge responsibility to all health care providers and entities, such as, the drug industry, which will be my key focus in this article. Just as any extraordinary situation calls for extraordinary initiatives, this national tragedy also demands from pharma professionals to start a new and proactive conversation, driven by ‘out of-box’ thinking.

I shall explore in this article, in which areas pharma needs to roll out a new conversation to meet with new expectations of its stakeholders, formed during the Covid Pandemic. This engagement needs to go beyond drugs and vaccines, spanning across key contemporary developments that are bothering pharma customers. The aim should be to help customers visualize a brighter horizon based on scientific reasons, in not-too-distant future, such as:

How several pharma companies are taking novel initiatives, as a part of their corporate objectives to save lives and livelihoods, faster.
How pharma players are thinking ‘out of the box’ to allay Covid related public apprehensions and neutralizing gross misinformation on Covid cure – based on scientific reasons, often selectively deploying their staff members.

In this regard, let me start with a recent advice of a top pharma veteran of global repute, especially on political and public expectations of ‘the endpoint’ for successful prevention and effective treatment of Covid-19 infections.

When focus is on ‘the end point – the price point’, it needs pharma’s attention:

Former CEO of Novartis Joe Jimenez – Ex-Novartis CEO and CEO & Cofounder of Aditum Bio, advised the same in an interview with Reuters Events, published on April 06, 2021. Although this was against the backdrop of the United States, the same is applicable to India, as well.

There, Jimenez said: “And I think the political focus in the United States is too often on the end point, the price point, which definitely needs attention, but not enough on the whole pipeline. And that absolutely needs attention and can bring down the price point at the end of the day.”

“It’s the pharmaceutical industry’s responsibility to show how their drug can lower total costs through the system, whether it’s reducing hospitalization or whether it is reducing other health care costs and comorbidities that lead to ever increasing budgets. If the industry focuses on that, I think I think that’s going to result in better launch success in the next few years,” he added.

However, there is another endpoint – of equal importance, especially in the Covid-19 prevention and the treatment process.

The other end point is equally important, as there may be an extended need for Covid vaccines:

Wider access to Covid drugs and vaccines is another political and general public’s ‘end point’ of expectations, besides price. As I wrote in my previous article, on October 02, 2021, India and South Africa had proposed at the WTO about an IP waiver for Covid-19 drugs and vaccines to resolve the issues of access and affordability for these products.

Thereafter, on May 05, 2021, the United States also issued a statement supporting the IP waiver for Covid-19 vaccines at the WTO, in its ‘service of ending this pandemic.’ As reported on May 13, 2021, even China now backs the drugs and vaccine IP waiver at the WTO.

Patent waiver for Covid drugs and vaccines make sense for the coming years, especially, in view of the reports that ‘Pfizer, Regeneron CEOs see extended need for COVID-19 vaccines, treatments as pandemic enters the next phase.’ Adding that the data stressed a “need” for re-vaccinations, the Pfizer CEO said, while protection remains high for those six months, it does “go down by time.” Thus, the need for Covid vaccine may continue to remain as important as of date, to prevent the pandemic over, at least, a couple of years, if not beyond.

That apart, some interesting developments followed soon – coincidentally or otherwise.

Meanwhile, some pharma companies responded with laudable initiatives:

Presumably, for wider availability and affordability of Covid drugs and vaccines, several pharma players alone or in association with governments, took some laudable initiatives. A few examples are, as follows:

On May 10, 2021, BioNTech, which has partnered with Pfizer to produce its COVID-19 vaccine, said it plans to set up a new manufacturing site in Singapore, with a capacity to produce several hundred million doses of mRNA-based vaccine.

As reported on the same day, as above, Eli Lilly promised to supply India with thousands of tablets of baricitinib for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. It also pledged to sign a royalty-free, non-exclusive voluntary licensing agreements with Cipla, Lupin and Sun Pharma—to expand baricitinib’s availability in the country. Notably, in this month itself, the DCGI has authorized baricitinib plus remdesivir combo for emergency use of ‘hospitalized patients requiring supplemental oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).’ Baricitinib has also faced a shortage of during the Covid 2.0 surge.

As per reports of May 12, 2021: ‘The US is looking at joint production of Johnson and Johnson’s Covid vaccine in India and ways to help manufacturers like Serum Institute of India (SII) to boost production,’

Pharma’s new role to allay public apprehensions in many Covid related areas:

In this complex scenario, various public apprehensions on Covid vaccines and drugs, need to be explained with scientific evidence – in a common man’s language. These include frequent changes in the dosage interval between two doses of some vaccines, whereas for other vaccines there isn’t any change in this area. Or why in India even within a group of fully vaccinated individuals, wearing masks or maintaining social distancing norms are necessary, when these requirements have been relaxed for fully vaccinated people in the United States. Or, when reports like: ‘Covid Cases Double In World’s Most-Vaccinated Nation, Raising Concerns,’ add fuel to the fire of public apprehensions in this regard.

Drug companies, especially those who are engaged in the global battle against Covid-19 – in their research lab, product development process, including clinical trials, can play an additional stellar role in this area, too. With ‘out of the box ideas’ for Covid related public engagement, they can scientifically respond to all public apprehensions with scientific reasons, in a simple language, on what is happening around most people, nowadays. Selective deployment of their own staff members can also make the initiative more meaningful.

This conversation may also include, science-based response to some bizarre claims of ‘Covid cure’ – from religious leaders having significant followers, and even by Union Ministers, without hurting their feelings or sentiments. These ‘advices’ were widely circulated by the mainstream global and local media, including the Wall Street Journal.

For example, one such report said: The president of a century-old religious organization declared that “consuming cow urine and cow dung will stop the effect of infectious coronavirus.” The swami added that a “person who chants ‘om namah shivay’ and applies cow dung” on his body “will be saved.” However, it was also reported that ‘Indian doctors warn against cow dung as Covid cure.’ Similar advice in different forms, even by elected politicians, keeps misguiding many unsuspected members of the public.

Conclusion:

A series of Covid related contemporary needs and apprehensions, besides the traditional ones are surfacing. These are to be mitigated, on an ongoing basis. Pharma players – individually and collectively, instead of being always reactive, may wish to volunteer to proactively address these issues to help people move in the right direction.

As Covid appears to be a medium to long-haul battle – unlike most other pandemics, pharma companies need to think ‘out of the box’ to create innovative – new – and proactive conversation models in this space. In turn, the initiatives will help them win long-term trust and loyalty of customers – that will always remain as invaluable assets, fueling sustainable growth in business.

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.

Impact of Covid Vaccines’ Possible IP Waiver In India

Posted on May 10, 2021 by Tapan Ray

Just when Covid 2.0 rages in India with almost 4,000 people died in just 24 hours, scientists warn that Covid 3.0, and further waves are now ‘inevitable, reported Reuters on May 06, 2021. With hospitals running short of beds and oxygen during the onslaught of Covid 2.0, the World Health Organization (WHO) highlighted, ‘India accounted for nearly half the coronavirus cases reported worldwide last week, and a quarter of the deaths.’

The report revealed some more heartrending details: ‘Many people have died in ambulances and car parks waiting for a bed or oxygen, while morgues and crematoriums struggle to deal with a seemingly unstoppable flow of bodies.’

No visible overall improvements with ‘here and now decisions’ or maybe the lack of it, of the National Covid Management Team, is perceptible, just yet. It’s also a matter of further concern that unlike what happened during Covid 1.0, the second wave of the virus, reportedly, ‘started hitting even young adults hard – leaving countless children to fend for themselves.’

Ironically, alongside a rapid surge in infections, India witnesses a sharp decline in Covid vaccination numbers though more people are eligible. The key reasons being supply chain related problems, despite India being one of the largest vaccine producers, globally. In my last article published in this blog, I broached on finding a possible exit to this covid 2.0 maze in India. However, this article will explore some unprecedented developments of the last week in this area. To give a perspective, let me start by exploring whether the people responsible for Covid Governance in India, grossly misjudged the situation, claiming the ‘endgame’ of Covid-19, too soon.

‘India announced its triumph over Covid-19 early’:

A third Covid-19 wave is inevitable, but the timing could not be predicted, said India’s principal scientific advisor on May 05, 2021. Intriguingly, less than two months back, the national Government announced its triumph over Covid-19. On March 08, 2021, as Covid vaccination process for senior citizens and people above 45 years with comorbidities had just commenced, the Union Health Minister claimed, ‘India is in the endgame of the novel coronavirus pandemic.’ Just about a couple of months later, it sounded akin to a note of hubris for many, which prevailed, by and large, across the nation.

Acknowledging the same, on May 04, 2021, even Uday Kotak, MD&CEO Kotak Mahindra Bank and President CII commented, ‘India announced triumph over Covid-19 early’. He further urged: “We have to do whatever it takes to save lives first, even as we battle for livelihoods. And if our healthcare capacity is currently going through its challenges, we must be ready to curtail non-essential economic activities.” The latest editorial from ‘The Lancet’ also highlighted the same.

India’s Covid 2.0 – “A self-inflicted national catastrophe” – The Lancet

Yes. The editorial of the latest – May 08, 2021 issue of The Lancet, also reiterated so. It emphasized, ignoring warnings about the risks of super spreader events, the government allowed congregations of millions of people from across India in religious festivals, along with huge political rallies with utter disregard to Covid appropriate behavior. ‘The message that COVID-19 was essentially over also slowed the start of India’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign, which has vaccinated less than 2% of the population.’ India’s national vaccination plan soon fell apart with the government abruptly expanded vaccination to all 18 years, draining supplies, ‘and creating mass confusion and a market for vaccine doses in which states and hospital systems competed.’

The IHME estimates a staggering 1 million deaths from COVID-19 in India by Aug 01, 2021. ‘If that outcome were to happen, Modi’s Government would be responsible for presiding over a self-inflicted national catastrophe. India squandered its early successes in controlling COVID-19. Until April, the government’s COVID-19 task force had not met in months,’ The Lancet editorial revealed.

Besides, India also misjudged the complexities involved in procurement, distribution and for speedy inoculation of affordable Covid vaccines, at least, to its entire adult population. But, before delving into that area, let me highlight an interesting mismatch.

India’s vaccine shortage when Pfizer logs a record vaccine turnover during pandemic:

Two contrasting scenario surfaces – as the world is reeling under unprecedented disruptions caused by successive waves of Covid-19. Witnessing India’s unparalleled healthcare tragedy in Covid 2.0, the W.H.O director general said: “The situation in India is beyond heartbreaking.” Outlining the reason for the same a separate report commented: A ‘complete collapse’ of preventive health: How India’s 2nd COVID wave exploded.

Concomitantly, one reads news items, which bring out, ‘Pfizer eyes $26B in COVID-19 vaccine sales for the year, with $3.5B already in the bag.’ Notably, most vaccine companies received huge public funding much before Covid vaccines were rolled out. For example, ‘The New York Times’ article of July 22, 2020 came with a headline: ‘Pfizer Gets $1.95 Billion to Produce Coronavirus Vaccine by Year’s End.’

The Scientific American also reported on November 18, 2020, ‘For Billion-Dollar COVID Vaccines, Basic Government-Funded Science Laid the Groundwork.’ It added: ‘Much of the pioneering work on mRNA vaccines was done with government money, though drugmakers could walk away with big profits.’ That’s exactly, I reckon, is the reality today.

Similarly, Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine generated $1.73 billion in revenue during the first quarter, as compared to $3.5 billion of Pfizer’s Covid vaccine in the same quarter. Moderna now predicts its vaccine will generate $19.2 billion by year’s end. Interestingly, through its COVID-19 vaccine partnership with the U.S. government, Moderna also received nearly $1 billion in research aid. The Company is now joining a list of other vaccine players to take a supply order from the federal government.

By the same token, Serum Institute of India (SII) – the contract manufacturer of Covishield, developed and owned by Oxford University and AstraZeneca has also received initial advance funding from the governments, prior to its manufacturing.

Was India’s ‘Vaccine Maitri’ a pragmatic step?

Today, India is one such country facing the brunt of Covid vaccine shortage alongside arriving at an affordable price per dose of the same – a part of which is due to ‘unrealistic’ planning, as many experts believe.

For example, on January 20, the Indian government launched Vaccine Maitri – an ambitious program to export the two Indian-made shots – Covishield and Covaxin – to the world. On that exact date, India counted 14,112 fresh cases of Covid-19. Going by a report of May 01, 2021: ‘According to the government’s own submission before the Parliament, more shots were sent out of the country than administered to Indians as of mid-March.’ Many, therefore, wonder, whether this was a pragmatic decision that helped save lives of Indians during Covid pandemic.

An unprecedented development on vaccine IP waiver:

This is regarding IP waivers for Covid vaccines. In my last article, I wrote about it, stating, on October 02, 2021, India and South Africa had proposed at the WTO about an IP waiver for Covid-19 drugs and vaccines to resolve the issues of access and affordability for these products. It was also widely reported: ‘Richer members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) blocked a push by over 80 developing countries to waive patent rights in an effort to boost production of COVID-19 vaccines for poor nations.’

However, on May 05, 2021, a statement of the U.S. Trade Representative said, ‘as the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic call for extraordinary measures, in its service of ending this pandemic the US also supports the IP waiver for Covid-19 vaccines, although the US administration supports IP protections generally. As expected, Big Pharma lobby groups, including PhRMA, reportedly, have strongly criticized the move.

Let me hasten to add, there is, at least, one exception in this area. Months ago, on October 8, 2020, Moderna said, ‘it won’t enforce its vaccine patents against other companies during the pandemic.’ Without specifying any names, the Company revealed, ‘other Covid-19 vaccines in development might already be using Moderna-patented technology.

The WTO process is expected to begin now, but how long will it take?

As the Reuters report dated May 06, 2021 indicated – with the U.S. backing a proposed waiver of Covid-19 vaccine IP rights, the next stop is for the World Trade Organization to hammer out a deal – a process that could take months. “At a minimum, it’s going to be a month or two,” said a former Trump White House trade official who previously worked at the U.S. trade mission to the WTO in Geneva. The waiver, if happens, could also be significantly narrower in scope and shorter in duration than the one initially proposed by India and South Africa.

The relevance of IP waiver:

Currently, only drug companies which own patents or their authorized manufacturers like SII can produce Covid vaccines. A global decision on patent waiver may encourage the patentees to share the formula and manufacturing technology, instead of reverse engineering, as is done for off-patent small molecules and some biotech drugs. All companies with requisite resources may legally manufacture Covid vaccines, in that situation, leading to cheaper, and significantly more quantity of generic versions of Covid vaccines. This may help overcoming vaccine shortages, making the vaccines affordable, as well.

Some counter arguments and response:

As I wrote in my last article, the following three critical questions may arise in that scenario:

Will IP waiver help solve the immediate issues of vaccine shortages?
Can Covid vaccines be reverse engineered by domestic pharma industry without inventors sharing ‘Know-How’?
If yes, how long can it take?

The answer to the first question is – it may not help resolve the immediate crisis. But, for a medium to long term solution, there will be an emphatic yes, as Covid-19 fight is expected to be a long-haul one, as experts caution about subsequent waves of rapidly mutating new Coronavirus.

Moreover, Pfizer – BioNTech vaccine took less than a year from ‘mind to market,’ with support from all concerned. This is evident from Pfizer’s Press Release for the launch of Covid vaccine in the United States last year, on December 11, 2020. Thus, an efficient reverse engineering may also take that much time to respond to medium and long-term issues with Covid vaccines, especially in India.

Subsequent Covid-19 waves could be triggered by unpredictable compliance to Covid appropriate behavior of people. W.H.O has also warned: “When personal protective measures are being relaxed, when there are mass gatherings, when there are more contagious variants and the vaccination coverage is still low this can create a perfect storm in any country,”

Conclusion:

‘The pandemic is not a competition between companies and will not end without more-equal distribution of coronavirus vaccines,’ wrote Nature on March 30, 2021. It suggested: ‘It’s time to consider a patent reprieve for COVID vaccines.’

The world needs around 11 billion doses of Coronavirus vaccines to immunize 70% of the global population – assuming two doses per person. Interestingly, around 6 billion doses are meant for high- and upper-middle-income countries, against advance orders. Poorer nations, accounting for 80% of the global population, so far, have access to less than one-third of the available vaccines. ‘Unless manufacturing and supply can be distributed more evenly, researchers forecast that it will be at least another two years before a significant proportion of people in the lowest-income countries are vaccinated’, the paper concluded.

In this situation, I reckon, a temporary IP waiver would help in accelerating the end of the pandemic. It may not help immediately, but certainly in the foreseeable future, as discussed above. It may also call for an efficient and well thought out ‘Hub and Spoke’ distribution model. Simultaneously, of course, similar systems for raw and ancillary materials for vaccine production need to put in place to avoid intermittent shortages.

As reported on May 08, 2021, India registered a record 4,187 Covid death with 4.01 Lakh new cases, in 24 hours. Capturing the depth of the Indian crisis, ‘India Today’ is coming out with a cover page article in its May 17 issue, with the headline – ‘Covid 2.0 – The Failed State.’ Another article terms India as the ‘Flailing state in Covid storm.’

As I reasoned above, if this unprecedented step of IP waiver for Covid vaccines is finally taken by the WTO, it will significantly help India – along with the world – may not be immediately, but certainly in the foreseeable future. Only adverse impact that the decision could possibly make, is curbing Big Pharma’s unprecedented profit on Covid vaccines, and that too, during a deadly global pandemic.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Posted on April 22, 2019 by Tapan Ray

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

Why MNC Pharma Still Moans Over Indian IP Ecosystem?

Posted on May 14, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Improving patient access to expensive drugs, paving the way for entry of their cheaper generic equivalents, post patent expiry, and avoiding evergreening, is assuming priority a priority focus area in many countries. The United States is no exception, in this area. The Keynote Address of Scott Gottlieb, Commissioner of Food and Drug at the 2018 Food and Drug Law Institute Annual Conference inWashington, DC by, on May 3, 2018, confirms this. Where, in sharp contrast with what the MNC Pharma players and their trade associations propagated, the US-FDA commissioner himself admitted by saying, “Let’s face it. Right now, we don’t have a truly free market when it comes to drug pricing, and in too many cases, that’s driving prices to unaffordable levels for some patients.”

Does US talk differently outside the country?

At least, it appears so to many. For example, in April 2018, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its 2018 Special 301 Report. In this exercise, the USPTO names the country’s trading partners for not adequately protecting and enforcing Intellectual Property (IP) rights or otherwise deny market access to U.S. innovators that rely on the protection of their IP rights.’ Accordingly, U.S. trading partners are asked to address IP-related challenges, with a special focus on the countries identified on the Watch List (WL) and Priority Watch List (PWL).

In 2018, just as the past years, India continues to feature, along with 11 other countries, on the PWL, for the so called longstanding challenges in its IP framework and lack of sufficient measurable improvements that have negatively affected U.S. right holders over the past year.

From Patient access to affordable drugs to Market access for Expensive Drugs:

Curiously, the USTR Report highlights its concerns not just related to IP, but also on market access barriers for patented drugs and medical devices, irrespective of a country’s socioeconomic compulsion. Nevertheless, comparing it to what the US-FDA Commissioner articulated above, one gets an impression, while the US priority is improving patient access to affordable drugs for Americans, it changes to supporting MNC pharma to improve market access for expensive patented drugs, outside its shores.

Insisting others to improve global IP Index while the same for the US slides:

In the context of the 2018 report, the U.S. Trade Representative, reportedly said, “the ideas and creativity of American entrepreneurs’ fuel economic growth and employ millions of hardworking Americans.” However, on a closer look at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s annual Global IP Index for 2018, a contrasting fact surfaces, quite clearly. It shows, America, which once was at the very top of the overall IP Index score, is no longer so – in 2018, the world rank of the US in offering patent protection to innovators, dropped to 12^thposition from its 10^thglobal ranking in 2017. Does it mean, what the US is asking its trading partners to follow, it is unable to hold its own ground against similar parameters, any longer.

Should IP laws ignore country’s socioeconomic reality?

MNC Pharma often articulated, it doesn’t generally fall within its areas of concern, and is the Government responsibility. However, an affirmative answer, echoes from many independent sources on this issue. No wonder, some astute and credible voices, such as an article titled “U.S. IP Policy Spins Out of Control in the 2018 Special 301 Report”, published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on May 01, 2018, termed 2018 Special 301 Report – ‘A Tired, Repetitive Report.’ It reiterates in no ambiguous term: ‘The report maintains the line that there is only one adequate and effective level of IP protection and enforcement that every country should adhere to, regardless of its social and economic circumstances or its international legal obligations.

The ever-expanding MNC Pharma list of concerns on Indian IP laws:

The areas of MNC Pharma concern, related to Indian IP laws, continues to grow even in 2018. The letter dated February 8, 2018 of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, Washington, DC to the USTR, makes these areas rather clear. I shall quote below some major pharma related ones, from this ever-expanding list:

Additional Patentability Criteria – section 3 (d): The law makes it difficult for them to secure patent protection for certain types of pharma inventions.

TADF (Technology Acquisition and Development Fund)is empowered to request Compulsory Licensing (CL) from the Government:Section 4.4 of India’s National Manufacturing Policy discusses the use of CL to help domestic companies access the latest patented green technology.This helps in situations when a patent holder is unwilling to license, either at all or “at reasonable rates,” or when an invention is not being “worked” within India.

India’s National Competition Policyrequires IP owners to grant access to “essential facilities” on “agreed and nondiscriminatory terms” without reservation. They are not comfortable with it.

Regulatory Data Protection: The Indian Regulatory Authority relies on test data submitted by originators to another country when granting marketing approval to follow-on pharma products. It discourages them to develop new medicines that could meet unmet medical needs.

Requirement of local working of patents: The Controller of Patents is empowered to require patent holders and any licensees to provide details on how the invention is being worked in India. Statements of the Working, (Form 27),must be provided annually.Failure to provide the requested information is punishable by fine or imprisonment. It makes pharma patent holders facing the risk of CL, if they fail to “work” their inventions in India within three years of the respective patent grant.

Disclosure of Foreign Filings: Section 8 of India’s Patent Act requires disclosure and regular updates on foreign applications that are substantially “the same or substantially the same invention.” They feel it is irrelevant today.

Pharma MNCs’ self-serving tirade is insensitive to Indian patient interest:

Continuing its tirade against some developed and developing countries, such as India, the US drug manufacturers lobby group – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has urged the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) to take immediate action to address serious market access and intellectual property (IP) barriers in 19 overseas markets, including India, reports reported The Pharma Letter on February 28, 2018. It will be interesting to watch and note the level active and passive participation of India based stakeholders of this powerful US lobby group, as well.

Government of India holds its ground… but the saga continues:

India Government’s stand in this regard, including 2018 Special 301 Report, has been well articulated in its report released on January 24, 2018, titled “Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India – An Overview”, released by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Ministry of Commerce and Industry (DIPP). The paper also includes asummary of some of the main recommendations, as captured in the September 2016 Report of the High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, constituted by the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon of the United Nations in November 2015. Some of these observations are as follows:

WTO members must make full use of the TRIPS flexibilities as confirmed by the Doha Declaration to promote access to health technologies when necessary.

WTO members should make full use of the policy space available in Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement by adopting and applying rigorous definitions of invention and patentability that are in the interests of public health of the country and its inhabitants. This includes amending laws to curtail the evergreening of patents and awarding patents only when genuine innovation has occurred.

Governments should adopt and implement legislation that facilitates the issuance of Compulsory Licenses (CL). The use of CL should be based on the provisions found in the Doha Declaration and the grounds for the issuance left to the discretion of the governments.

WTO members should revise the paragraph 6 decision in order to find a solution that enables a swift and expedient export of pharmaceutical products produced under compulsory license.

Governments and the private sector must refrain from explicit or implicit threats, tactics or strategies that undermine the right of WTO Members to use TRIPS flexibilities.

Governments engaged in bilateral and regional trade and investment treaties should ensure that these agreements do not include provisions that interfere with their obligations to fulfill the rights to health.

The DIPP report includes two important quotes, among several others, as follows:

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize for Economics (2001) – an American Citizen:

- “If patent rights are too strong and maintained for too long, they prevent access to knowledge, the most important input in the innovation process. In the US, there is growing recognition that the balance has been too far tilted towards patent protection in general (not just in medicine).”

- “Greater IP protection for medicines would, we fear, limit access to life-saving drugs and seriously undermine the very capable indigenous generics industry that has been critical for people’s well-being in not only India but other developing countries as well”.

Bernie Sanders, an American Citizen and Senior U.S. Senator:

- “Access to health care is a human right, and that includes access to safe and affordable prescription drugs. It is time to enact prescription drug policies that work for everyone, not just the CEOs of the pharmaceutical industry.”

- “Healthcare must be recognized as a right, not a privilege. Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income.”

Conclusion:

Why is then this orchestrated moaning and accompanying pressure for making Indian IP laws more stringent, which apparently continues under the façade of ‘innovation at risk’, which isn’t so – in any case. But, cleverly marketed high priced ‘me too’ drugs with molecular tweaking do impact patient access. So is the practice of delaying off-patent generic drugs entry, surreptitiously. Instead, why not encourage Voluntary Licensing (VL) of patented drugs against a mutually agreed fee, for achieving greater market access to the developing countries, like India?

Whatever intense advocacy is done by the vested interests to change Indian patent laws in favor of MNC pharma, the intense efforts so far, I reckon, have been akin to running on a treadmill – without moving an inch from where they were, since and even prior to 2005. The moaning of MNC Pharma on the Indian IP ecosystem, as I see it, will continue, as no Indian Government will wish to take any risk in this area. It appears irreversible and is likely to remain so, for a long time to come. The time demands from all concerned to be part of the solution, and not continue to be a part of the problem, especially by trying to tamper with the IP ecosystem of the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Dwindling Drug Innovation: Declining Image: Unchanged Business And Advocacy Models

Posted on February 20, 2017 by Tapan Ray

A report of ‘The United States International Trade Commission (USITC)’ released on December 22, 2014 suggested, if tariffs and investment restrictions were fully eliminated, and standards of IP protection were made comparable to the U.S and Western European levels, American exports to India would rise by two-thirds.

A year later, on February 01, 2015 an interesting news article highlighted that the flashpoint of this issue “has clearly been pharmaceutical companies and their lobby group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which have made some of the strongest representations to the US government against India’s IPR regime.” The same report also indicated that many other companies including the aircraft maker Boeing and the generic drug giant Abbott felt that India offered adequate IP protection and that they had not experienced major IP problems in the country.

The above stance of USITC continued echoing right from the beginning of this year. In January 2017, the CEO of US Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) reportedly told our Prime Minister Narendra Modi, ‘if he follows western practices on intellectual property protection, his country would see a “tidal wave” of biotech industry investment.’

On February 08, 2017, when the fifth edition of ‘U.S. Chamber International IP Index’ report was released by the ‘Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC)’, India featured in the 43^rd rank out of 45 countries. With this India remained virtually at the bottom of the IP index for the fourth year on the trot. The GIPC report underscored India’s “anaemic IPR policy”, Section 3.d of the Indian Patents Act, besides several others, as major market access barriers.

On February 14, 2017, another news article reported that America’s pharma sector has asked the US Trade Representative (USTR) to continue to keep India on its Priority Watch List (PWL), which includes countries that are alleged violators of US patent laws, claiming that the environment on the ground remains ‘challenging’ in India. Among the areas of concern for the US pharma companies operating in India, unpredictable IP environment, high tariffs and taxes on medicines, regulatory data protection failure, discriminatory and non-transparent market access policies and unpredictable environment for clinical research were listed among others.

With this backdrop, the key question that haunts many industry watchers, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no complaint with the Indian Patents Act 2005, and finds it TRIPS compliant, why are these reports coming from the United States consistently emphasizing that the current IP regime of the country is a key barrier to market access, especially for research-based pharma companies?

Is the core issue of the global pharma industry in India is predominantly not encouraging innovation well enough, or the dearth of inadequate Intellectual Property (IP) protection – or it is something beyond that, and is more fundamental in nature. In this article, I shall dwell in this area, first in the global perspective, and then zeroing-in to India.

A global perspective:

“The past 60 years have seen huge advances in many of the scientific, technological and managerial factors that should tend to raise the efficiency of commercial drug research and development (R&D). Yet the number of new drugs approved per billion US dollars spent on R&D has halved roughly every 9 years since 1950, falling around 80-fold in inflation-adjusted terms. There have been many proposed solutions to the problem of declining R&D efficiency. However, their apparent lack of impact so far and the contrast between improving inputs and declining output in terms of the number of new drugs make it sensible to ask whether the underlying problems have been correctly diagnosed,” articulated an important article published on March 01, 2012 in the Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

This trend continues, virtually unchanged. R&D efficiency continues to remain a cause of great concern to the research-based global pharmaceutical companies. Accordingly, a 2016 report of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions titled, ‘Measuring the return of pharmaceutical innovation’, among other findings, has captured the following:

Annual projected pharma R&D return declines to 3.7 percent from 10.1 percent in 2010
Peak sales per asset fall 11.4 percent year-on-year since 2010

What then is its basic solution?

When the right solution eludes:

In this scenario, when the right solution is still eluding, to record growth in corporate profit and earning to meet shareholders’ expectations, keeping the existing business model intact, the global research-based pharma companies have the following two limited options, which they are actively pursuing:

Take high price increases for the existing products
Launch the limited new products at a very high price

A report published in The First Word Pharma on October 06, 2015 quoting The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) vindicated exercising the first option. It reported that many drug makers have succeeded in increasing revenue on products despite a flat or declining demand by consistently increasing prices. An analysis revealed that revenue for the top 30 products in the United States zoomed by 61 percent over the past five years, three times the increase in the number of prescriptions sold over that period. While another report by Credit Suisse illustrated that 80 percent of the growth in net profit for the top 20 drug makers was attributable to price hikes.

To substantiate application of the second option, I quote from the CBS News, which on April 05, 2016 reported that an investigation into the cost of prescription drugs revealed huge price hikes over the past five years. Several brand name medications more than doubled in price. Again, on August 24, 2016, it gave a sense of this trend with the following examples, covering the launch price of innovative drug, and price increases of generic drugs:

Gilead fixed their new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi’s cost at US$ 900 – 1,000 per pill
Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ increased the cost of its anti-allergic drug EpiPen from about US$ 57 in 2007 to more than US$ 500 in 2016
Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the price of the anti-malaria drug Daraprim by 5,000 percent last year, charging US$ 750 per pill for a drug that used to cost US$ 13.50 per pill.

PhRMA – the often quoted trade association in America, representing the country’s leading pharma and bio-pharmaceutical research-based companies, reportedly said in a statement: “Focusing solely on the list prices of medicines is misleading because it ignores the significant discounts and rebates negotiated by insurers and pharmacy benefit managers.”

Even if, this argument is accepted as such, the tough impact of regular hefty drug price increases on the consumers is real, unquestionably.

The current business model leaves behind many patients:

The ‘Access to Medicine Index 2016’ report also finds that companies generally do not systematically target populations with the highest needs in their registration, pricing and licensing actions. Although, we continue to make progress toward major public health goals, such as, polio is close to being eradicated, as is guinea worm; more than 45 percent of people living with HIV/AIDS have access to ARVs; important vaccines for malaria and dengue fever are being implemented, still business models for providing healthcare are leaving many people behind. Globally, two billion people cannot access the medicines they need, most of whom live hand to mouth.

Particularly, the big global pharma companies, as the innovators and producers of life-saving medicines, need to act much earlier in the patients’ value chain. Without or inadequate action by these companies, alongside governments, NGOs and others, it will be impossible to bring modern medicine to everyone.

Public outrage over high drug prices:

Many studies indicate that the research-based global pharma and biotech companies, still strive hard to stick to their existing overall business models with a sharp focus on improving both the top and bottom lines of the business, though the R&D projects are becoming lesser and lesser productive. This prompts them resorting to hefty price increases, and introducing new products with high price. Fueled by this self-serving mindset, a simmering public outrage, globally, over high drug prices is fast catching up, further undermining the trust in the industry, as another report says.

No wonder why in the Gallup Poll of August 15, 2016, pharmaceutical industry featured just one above the bottom among the ‘Worst-Rated U.S. Business Sectors’. Moreover, even the Harris Poll released on January 17, 2017 found that 91 percent of U.S. consumers believe pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies put profits over patients.

The industry continues chasing rainbows:

In response to this mounting stakeholders’ criticism, arguably the richest pharma association in the world in its member subscriptions – PhRMA, reportedly launched a new ad campaign costing tens of millions of dollars on January 25, 2017. It aims to highlight innovation and scientific breakthroughs to change the public’s negative perception of the industry. This campaign will span across television, print, digital, and radio, the report elaborates.

Following is an example, as reported, listing three important and interesting comments on this campaign for pharma image revamp from some of those who matter:

Lawmaker Peter Welch, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus’ task force on drug pricing, said, “The issue here is not whether drugs have some benefits … The issue is whether pharma is going to be able to kill us with their pricing power or whether we will get transparency and competition.” He added, “The campaign is all about defending their pricing power and pushing their product.”

Similarly, another lawmaker Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “This is [PhRMA] trying to change the subject and to try and divert people’s attention away from drug pricing. Continuing to ignore drug pricing is probably not going to work.”

Ameet Sarpatwari, a drug pricing policy researcher at Harvard University said, “It’s really a matter of being tone deaf in terms of thinking somehow that this is going to change public perception”

Isn’t a great example of chasing rainbows by the industry association, in the number one pharma and biotech market of the world, instead of amending to the root cause of this burning issue?

The situation in India:

In this backdrop, amid a tough global situation, let me assess the related Indian scenario.

The research-based global pharma companies, apparently want to introduce the whole range of their patented products at a high price and in a monopolistic situation in India too, for much higher growth in revenue and profits. Thus, they are consistently pushing hard, with all guns blazing, for major changes in the Indian Patents Act 2005, which would involve jettisoning many patients’ health interest related safeguard conditions enshrined in the Act, such as Section 3.d that restricts ever-greening of patents, and introducing several other tougher IP measures, such as data exclusivity under the garb of imaginary patient safety issues with generic drugs.

They don’t seem to like price control of essential drugs in India, either. While intensely lobbying for it, the lobbyists vehemently argue in favor of the absurd, which is the affordability of medicines does not help to increase drug access to all those who need these most, even when on the ground, the out of pocket expenses for drugs in the country is as high as around 65 percent and universal health care does exist in the country, much to the dismay of many.

It has now been generally established by many global experts, including our own National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) that market competition does not necessarily bring down drug prices, including for generics, quite unlike many other industries, but various pressure groups, including the media, can catalyze it, and quite effectively. What has happened recently with the cardiac stents price in the country, is just an example.

Is the devil in the traditional pharma business model?

An article titled, “How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time”, published on February 03, 2017 in The Harvard Business Review, emphatically states: “It’s a fact that the current business model of pharma companies is not working efficiently.” It suggests, besides enhancing the current unenviable public image of the industry, expanding access to medicines will help pharma companies enhance shareholder value. The success of a new business model depends on both the willingness and the ability of pharmaceutical companies to fully integrate access to medicine into their business strategies, the article emphasizes.

A July 2015 paper of McKinsey & Company titled, “Pharma’s next challenge”, also reiterates that in the developed economies, market access is chiefly concerned with pricing, and with satisfying local conditions. Whereas, in the emerging markets, to overcome the barriers, pharma players need to shift the focus of their commercial models from marketing and sales to access, and from brand-by-brand access planning to integrated cross-brand planning.

In pursuit of a new model:

Based on the above premises, the search for a new pharma business model, especially for the research-based pharma companies, in my view, may broadly focus on the following areas:

Learn from innovation models of the IT industry: Win-Win collaborative innovation models, including ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’, if scaled up, could reduce the cost of innovation significantly and making the new innovative drugs generally affordable. Thus, larger volume sales may adequately offset a voluntary cut in the product margin, creating a multiplier effect.

Be a part of the solution and not the problem: Because of fiercely pushing the blatant self-serving agenda, inconveniencing many patients, the core mindset of the pharma industry is considered by many as an integral part of the main problem. While pharma industry, quite rightly, seek more market access, they need to act as a facilitator too, to improve general access to medicines, in various imaginative ways, which is, of course, possible. This will make the pharma industry to be a part of the solution to the national problem, over a period of time.

Walk the talk: While pharma industry speaks all right things, in terms of ethical conduct of business, at a time when both national and international media frequently expose their gross wrongdoings. This continues, unabated. Sales and marketing functions are indeed very important, but not at the cost of good corporate governance. I am aware, all compliance rules exist immaculately on paper for many companies, but the senior management officials should demonstrate that they walk the talk, giving exemplary punishment to the wrongdoers, including their peers.

Change the current advocacy model: The current advocacy model of the research-based pharma companies is too self-serving. For example, in India it mostly demands, which is bordering obsession, to change the IP laws of a sovereign country, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no problem with these, whatsoever. There is a need for them to demonstrate, sans any shade of arrogance, visible respect to any country’s general sentiment on its Patents Act, as it’s their own decision to operate in those countries. An imaginative win-win change in this area, would significantly help to create a strong bond and mutual respect with other important stakeholders.

Are senior citizens in pharma business a barrier to change?

A recent white paper of ‘Eye for Pharma’, says in its conclusion “many of those now running pharma organizations have come through the ‘golden age’ of pharma and so may be reluctant to change”. Does this issue need to be addressed first by the Independent Directors of the respective Boards of the pharma companies?

In conclusion:

Many questions do spring up while addressing this issue. One common belief is that, pharma industry, in general, is reluctant to change its traditional business model, beyond just tweaking, despite declining overall productivity and in its public image.

In advocacy initiatives, while drawing stakeholders’ attention to the core grievance agenda, though they try hard to project their business focus on patients, especially using the buzzwords, such as, ‘patient centric approach’ or ‘patient engagement’, among many others, has anything visibly changed, just yet?

As the business environment is getting tougher and consumer expectations are fast changing, drug innovation is also steadily dwindling, so is the declining industry image. However, pharma business and advocacy models continue to remain mostly unchanged. It remains intriguing, why are the ‘wise guys’ of pharma business still so deeply obsessed with chasing rainbows, with so much of zeal, hectic activity and money, while majority of patients keeps bearing the brunt?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Cancer Care: Dawns A New Era Of Precision Medicine In India

Posted on August 22, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The concept of ‘Precision Medicine’ has started gaining increasing importance, in the treatment process of many serious diseases, such as cancer. It is now happening in many countries of the world, including India.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States, describes ‘Precision Medicine’ as:

“An emerging approach for disease treatment and prevention that takes into account individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle for each person.”

This is quite in contrast to the widely practiced “one-size-fits-all” type of drug treatment approach, where disease treatment and prevention strategies are developed for the average person, with less consideration for the differences between individuals.

It continues, irrespective of the fact that the same drug doesn’t always work exactly the same way for everyone. It can be difficult for a physician to predict, which patient will benefit from a medication and who won’t, besides having any advance inkling on who will experience Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) with it, and who will not.

Whereas, the treatment path of ‘Precision Medicine’ allows doctors to predict more accurately which treatment and prevention strategies will work most effectively for a particular disease, and in which groups of people. This is mainly because, ‘Precision Medicine’ looks at the root cause of the ailment for each patient.

For example, in cancer care, use of the term ‘Precision Medicine’ would mean a treatment process for patients with similar tumors, that has been immaculately worked out in accordance with their unique genetic, physical, psychosocial, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Thus, especially for the treatment of life-threatening diseases, a gradual shift from “one-size-fits-all” types of medicines to ‘Precision Medicines”, could bring a new hope of longer survival or remission, for many such patients.

For example, in precision cancer care, it is all about analyzing a patient’s tumor to determine with specificity what drug or combination of drugs will work best with least side effects for that particular individual.

In this article, I shall focus on the development, use and benefits of ‘Precision Medicine’ in cancer, especially in India.

Not a radically new concept:

Several examples of ‘Precision Medicine’ can be found in a few other areas of medicine, as well, though its use in everyday health care is not very widespread, as on date.

One such example can be drawn from the blood transfusion area. A person requiring it, is not given blood from a randomly selected donor. To minimize the risk of any possible post-transfusion related complications, the blood for transfusion is selected only after scientific confirmation that the donor’s blood type matches to the recipient.

Difference between ‘Precision’ and ‘Personalized’ Medicines:

There is a significant overlap between these two terminologies. According to the National Research Council (NRC) of the United States, ‘Personalized Medicine’ is an older term having a meaning similar to ‘Precision medicine’, but may not always be exactly the same.

This change was necessitated as the term ‘Personalized’ could be interpreted to imply that treatments and preventions are being developed uniquely for each individual. Whereas, in ‘Precision Medicine’, the focus is on identifying which approaches will be effective for which patients based on genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors, as stated above. The NRC, therefore, preferred the term ‘Precision Medicine’ to ‘Personalized Medicine’ to avoid such confusions or misunderstandings. Nevertheless, these two terms are still being used interchangeably.

Another terminology – ‘Pharmacogenomics’ is also used by some, in the same context, which is, in fact, a part of ‘Precision Medicine’. According to National Library of Medicine, United States, Pharmacogenomics is the study of how genes affect a person’s response to particular drugs. This relatively new field combines pharmacology (the science of drugs) and genomics (the study of genes and their functions) to develop effective, safe medications and doses that will be tailored to variations in a person’s genes.

Global initiatives taking off:

Currently, in various parts of the world, there are many initiatives in this area. However, one singular state sponsored initiative, I reckon, is exemplary and stands out.

According to NIH, in early 2015, President Obama announced a research effort focusing on bringing ‘Precision Medicine’ to many aspects of health care. The President’s budget for fiscal year 2016 included US$216 million in funding for the initiative for the NIH, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) – the NIH institute focused on cancer research, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

‘The Precision Medicine Initiative’ has both short-term and long-term goals:

The short-term goals involve expanding precision medicine in the area of cancer research. Researchers at the NCI hope to use this approach to find new, more effective treatments for various kinds of cancer based on increased knowledge of the genetics and biology of the disease.

The long-term goals focus on bringing ‘Precision Medicine’ to all areas of health and healthcare on a large scale.

The market:

According to a July 2016 research report by Global Market Insights, Inc., the ‘Precision Medicine’ market size was over US$39 billion in 2015, and has been estimated to grow at 10.5 percent CAGR from 2016 to 2023, expanding the market to US$ 87.79 billion by end 2023.

The demand for ‘Precision Medicine’ is expected to significantly increase, specifically in cancer treatments, and also would be driven by advancements in new healthcare technologies, and favorable government regulations, in this area.

Faster US regulatory approval:

According to an August 15, 2016 article, published in the ‘MedCity News’ – a leading online news source for the business of innovation in health care, companion diagnostics, this trend is gaining currency as novel drugs are being paired up with tests that determine which patients will have a higher chance of responding to that drug.

This is vindicated by an expert analysis of a recent study, which found that the probability of a drug approval jumped three-times to 25.9 percent of those drugs that were approved with a predictive biomarker, from 8.4 percent for drugs without one. This means a threefold increase in success, as determined by FDA registration, if any pharma or biologic drug company had a predictive marker in its new product development strategy. This indication would expectedly encourage more drugs to come with companion diagnostics than without, as the analysis underscored.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States defines ‘Biomarkers’ or ‘Biological Markers’ as, “a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biological processes, pathogenic processes, or pharmacological responses to a therapeutic intervention.”

‘Precision Medicine’ in India:

In the Indian health care space, ‘Precision Medicine’ is still in its nascent stage. This is despite its need in the country being high, especially while treating life threatening ailments, such as cancer, with greater precision, predictability and, therefore, more effectively than at present.

In several focus group studies too, the local medical specialists have also concurred with the global estimation of the inherent potential of ‘Precision Medicine’, as it rapidly evolves in India, particularly for use in oncology.

Local research:

Studies related to ‘Precision Medicine’ have already commenced, though in a modest scale, in a number of Government research centers, such as, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), National Institute of Biomedical Genomics (NIBMG) and Institute of Genomics & Integrative Biology (IGIB).

Some large Government Hospitals too, like, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), and even in Tata Memorial Hospital are making good progress in this area.

Local potential and market impact:

In March 2016, a leading daily of India had reported with examples that oncologists have started using ‘Precision Medicine’, in the country.

In this report, a molecular geneticist was quoted saying, “We see patients with blood, breast, lung, and colon cancer being referred for genetic testing on a routine basis. This testing is either for predictive purposes or for precision medicine guidance, where genetic tests are increasingly being used to determine which drug may be used for treatment.”

“We have had more than a few cases where patients respond well after being put on a new drug based on the results of these tests,” the expert said.

According to a May 2016 report of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), in the year 2016, the total number of new cancer cases is expected to be around 14.5 lakh (1.5 million), and the figure is likely to reach nearly 17.3 lakh (1.7 million) of new cases in 2020.

Over 7.36 lakh (736,000) people are expected to succumb to this disease in 2016 while the figure is estimated to shoot up to 8.8 lakh (880,000) by 2020. The data also revealed that only 12.5 percent of patients come for treatment in early stages of the disease.

Taking note of this fast ascending trend, it would be quite reasonable to expect that treatment with ‘Precision Medicine’, using advanced genetic profiling, would catch up, and grow proportionally in some section of the population, sooner than later. This trend is expected to keep pace with the commensurate increase in the anti-cancer drug market of India.

In tandem, the demand for preventive measures, especially, for cancer, cardiovascular, psychosomatic and many chronic metabolic diseases at the onset or prior to even onset stages, based on genome-based diagnostics, are also expected to go north. This would primarily be driven by increasing health awareness of the younger generation of India.

The spin-off commercial benefits for the pharma and diagnostic players in India, competing in these segments, could well be a significant boost even in the market potential of the older generic drugs in new patient groups, prompted by many out-of- box diagnostic and disease treatment strategies.

Another interesting article on genomic diagnostics for ‘Precision Medicine’, published on March 15, 2016 by ‘Pistoia Alliance’ – a global, not-for-profit alliance in life science that aims at lowering barriers to innovation in R&D, also expressed similar views regarding the future potential of ‘Precision Medicine’ in India.

Some key strategic steps:

Taking proactively some key strategic steps for business planning and development by the domestic pharma and diagnostic players, is now more important than ever before. This may call for developing some critical studies that would accelerate working out novel strategies for ‘Precision Medicine’ in India, besides obtaining required regulatory approvals in the coming years. The studies may include, among others:

Detailed analysis of target patient populations
Their genetic makeup for different types, or sub-types of diseases
Addressable sub populations
Their current treatment strategies, costs, affordability and differentiated value offerings of each, if any.

Conclusion:

Genomic research in India is now mainly directed towards routine genome-based diagnostics for a number of conditions, mostly for cancer. The country needs to encourage taking rapid strides to first sharpen and then gradually broaden this area, in various ways, for more effective and predictable treatment outcomes with ‘Precision Medicine’. As on date, most of such studies are carried out in the United States and Europe.

Alongside, a robust regulatory framework is required to be put in place, for wider usage of ‘Precision Medicine’ in India, without causing any concern to stakeholders. Government should also explore the need of clearly defining, and putting in place transparent, patient-friendly and robust Intellectual Property (IP) policies in the ‘Precision Medicine’ related areas to encourage innovation.

Healthcare expenditure being out-of-pocket for a vast majority of the population in India, the additional cost to be incurred for genomic sequencing tests, still remains a huge concern for many. Nevertheless, the good news is, many players have now gradually started entering into this area, spurring a healthy competition. This process would also gain accelerated momentum, as we move on.

This is just a dawn of a new era of ‘Precision Medicine’ in India. Its rapid development, is expected to be driven by a large number of startups, equipped with state-of-art technology, and hopefully, with greater health insurance penetration and the support from the Government. All this would bring the ‘Precision Medicine’ treatment cost affordable to a sizeable section of the population in the country, particularly for the treatment of cancer. The evolving scenario appears to be a win-win one, both for the patients, as well as the pharma and diagnostic players in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: IP

Exploiting India’s Weakness For Monopolistic Commercial Gain?

Unfettered ‘Access To Drug Innovation’ – An Oxymoron?

To Allay Customers’ New Apprehensions Pharma Needs A New Conversation

Impact of Covid Vaccines’ Possible IP Waiver In India

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

Why MNC Pharma Still Moans Over Indian IP Ecosystem?

Dwindling Drug Innovation: Declining Image: Unchanged Business And Advocacy Models

Cancer Care: Dawns A New Era Of Precision Medicine In India