Tag Archives: Issues

Why Do Drug Companies Now Need More Focus On The 5th “P” Of Marketing?

Posted on by
Reply

Astute marketers understand that over several decades, the much-known phraseology – ‘marketing mix’, has remained the bedrock of marketing a product or a service. The ‘Father of Modern Marketing’ - Philip Kotler defined this terminology as the “the set of controllable variables that the firm can use to influence the buyer’s response.” In this context, the controllable variables are referred to as the 4 ‘P’s - Product, Price, Place and Promotion, which remained the basic focus areas in the brand building strategy of pharma marketers, as well.

With an unprecedented transformative impact within the pharmaceutical and biotech industry during the Covid-19 pandemic – for various reasons, ‘purpose’ is fast slotting itself as the 5th fundamental ‘P’ of the marketing-mix. The changing market - triggered by changing customer dynamics, entails the need to clearly define, to the satisfaction of customers, the”purpose” of a business, brand, or service.

As it is increasingly critical to achieve business excellence in the changing paradigm, in this article I will focus on this area from the point of view of goal-oriented pharmaceutical marketing. Although, I wrote before on the need of creating purpose driven brands, this discourse is with a different perspective.

A classic concept gets a fresh impetus in Covid pandemic:

Peter Drucker, whom the Business Week magazine termed as ‘The Man Who Invented Management,’ in 2005, once wrote: “The aim of marketing is to know and understand the customer, so well the product or service fits him and sells itself… The aim of marketing is to make selling superfluous.” I reckon, this vision epitomizes the core concept of ‘purpose driven marketing.’

Understanding ‘purpose driven marketing’:

In an article, published on February 01, 2021, Ad Council wrote that after 22 years – a recent CEO roundtable deliberation decided to amend the definition of ‘purpose-driven marketing.’  The previous one was centered around ‘maximizing shareholder return.’ Whereas the amended one, in addition to serving shareholders, defined ‘purpose-driven marketing’ as ‘a strategy used by an organization to center its external communication efforts around a social cause that aligns with its core values. The goal of purpose-driven marketing is for an organization to develop a deeper rapport with their consumers by creating authentic connections based on shared values.’

This new statement reflected the changing culture in the days before the Covid-19 pandemic, when many people are more vocal about their expectations and spending. For which, they are even switching brand or service preferences in line with their values.

Covid prompts consumers rediscovering the value the industry delivers:

Covid -19 crisis has driven the positive consumer sentiment way up, as people are rediscovering the value the industry delivers to meet their new reckoning. This was also articulated in a related article. This was published in the Fierce Pharma, on August 13, 2020, as the pandemic overwhelmed the world. The same consumer sentiment also gets reflected in a first of its kind global study - ‘The 2020 Zeno Strength of Purpose Study,’ published on June 17, 2020.

The survey was carried out against the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic, covering 8,000 consumers across eight countries - United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Singapore, Malaysia. The findings of the research ‘sheds new light and unequivocal proof that the companies leading with Purpose will prevail.’ Vast majority of the respondents ‘have spoken and stand ready to give their hearts, voices and wallets in support of Purposeful brands.’

Especially, the healthcare consumers are now stepping up to stand for something more than hard facts on the features and benefits of products and services – something very meaningful that can influence positive changes in their minds. When it happens, the companies’, in tandem, will also be positively impacted to significantly improve their bottom-lines.

Some key findings of the study:

After in-depth study over 75 brands, the researchers of the above study found that:

  • 94 percent of the respondents value the companies with a strong sense of purpose and are willing to reciprocate through brand loyalty.
  • They are 4 to 6 times more likely to trust, buy, champion, and protect companies with a strong purpose over weaker ones.
  • Only 37 percent believe today’s companies are reaching their potential on this front

The paper concluded, ‘it has never been more important for companies to not only articulate their Purpose, but to consistently demonstrate that Purpose – how they operate, support issues and engage with all stakeholders.’ As the above Ad Council article articulated, the above findings also ‘mean that purpose-driven marketing can’t be cosmetic. It must be reflected in every aspect of a brand’s business model and culture, or that brand or organization can expect to be called out for hypocrisy – more on that later.’

Who’s driving the ‘purpose driven marketing?’

As I wrote in my previous article, today’s new generations, such as, Millennials - regarded as ‘digital pioneers,’ and Gen Z – the true digital natives, approach their health care in drastically different ways with new sets of expectations. These are quite different from the members of the Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, or Gen X. As the core concept of ‘purpose driven marketing’ is meeting Gen Z’s one such expectation, this population is regarded as the key driver of ‘purpose driven marketing’, in the pandemic-driven changes in the paradigm of the old normal.

I quoted in the above article, ‘Gen Z people are likely to turn the health industry on its head with their unique expectations for how healthcare should be delivered.’ Moreover, this genre of growing population is slowly but steadily gaining a critical mass to hasten the process of change that pharma marketers should take note of.

According to a paper of the World Economic Forum, published on November 08, 2021, there are 1.8 billion Gen Z around the world, equal to 23% of the global population. Yet, another paper of August 11, 2020, reconfirms that Gen Z comprises 1.8 billion people, making up for almost a quarter of the global population. India stands out with a population that includes 375 million Gen Z people – 27% of the total. Thus, Gen Z and millennial populations are considered at the forefront of shaping this new purpose-driven culture.

The Gen Z populations prefer companies contributing to social causes:

The third annual, international study of Gen Z, conducted by The Center for Generational Kinetics and commissioned by WP Engine, launched on July 07, 2020, reveals some interesting facts. These relate to new expectations for the web by Generation Z in comparison to other generations, including Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers. The findings reiterate, ‘72% of Gen Z are more likely to support a company that contributes to social causes.’ It further emphasized, Gen Z is acutely aware that in today’s digital world, anyone can use their voice to ignite change, and that includes those brands which don’t take explicitly socially responsible stand in their branding strategy. Thus, imbibing ‘purpose driven marketing’ is likely to help pharma players to effectively engage this new breed of the target audience for desired long-term financial returns.

Further, based on the same logic, it is not difficult to fathom that ‘stakeholder-trust’ will also play a pivotal role, while delivering consumer expected value, and demonstrating the purpose driven actions of the business – to the Millennial and Gen Z population.

Stakeholder ‘Trust’ is critical in a value and purpose driven business:

This is a new reality, as vindicated by several recent global surveys that include India too. According to Edelman Trust Barometer 2022, ‘business holds on to its position as the most trusted institution, with even greater expectations due to government’s failure to lead during the pandemic.’ This survey – conducted against the backdrop of the pandemic, involved 36,000+ respondents in 28 global markets, including India to look at how institutions are trusted against the backdrop of the pandemic.

Some key findings of this latest study:

  • All stakeholders want business to fill the void, with nearly 60 percent of consumers buying brands based on their values and beliefs,
  • Almost 6 in 10 employees choose a workplace based on shared values and expect their CEO to take a stand on societal issues,
  • 64 percent of investors looking to back businesses aligned with their values.
  • Most respondents (59 percent) said they tend to distrust until seeing evidence that something is trustworthy,
  • 64 percent believe people in their country lack the ability to have constructive and civil debates.
  • Technology (74 percent) was the most trusted sector, followed by education (69 percent) and healthcare (69 percent). Social media (44 percent) continued its decline with a 2-point slide, solidifying its spot as the least trusted sector.
  • While Germany (65 percent) and Canada (65 percent) remained the most trusted country brands, India (36 percent) and China (34 percent) remain the least trusted.

The evolving trend indicates that the new generation, ‘wants to be a part of something bigger than themselves and they are looking to their employers to curate a fulfilling, stimulating and purpose-driven environment,’ as the article underscored. In that sense, ‘purpose-driven marketing’ has also the potential for pharma players to attract the best talents of the new generation. Conversely, it is quite likely that any organizations inability to do so, willingly, or otherwise, could help gather rust, blunting its cutting-edge for performance excellence.

Conclusion:

There isn’t any doubt that Covid-19 pandemic has initiated a paradigm shift in the expectations of the stakeholders, especially the customers and the employees from the companies. They no longer expect the organization just to focus on profit goals. Alongside, most of them also want the employers to focus, in equal measure, stakeholder value, expectation, dignity, besides social purpose and goals.

When a pharma player is seen solving societal issues, e.g., protecting the patient-health in a patient friendly manner, or saving the environment - with concrete, quantifiable measures, it creates a competitive edge for the company, fetching significant business returns from stakeholders. Surly, the pandemic is further augmenting expectations of the growing population of Gen Z – for responsible business operations = driven by value, purpose, and goals of the society – where we live in.

Consequently, it’s now becoming clearer that sustainable business excellence of pharma players can no longer be just on ‘maximizing shareholder’ returns, in terms of profit. Thus, it calls for the purpose-driven marketing, where organizational contribution to society would provide a significant competitive advantage. From this perspective, in my view, the Indian pharma marketers would now need much greater focus on the 5th ‘P’ of the marketing-mix – more than ever before.

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.

 

Focus On All 3 Areas of Innovation For Affordable Access To Innovative Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

Medical treatment has made astonishing advances over the years. But the packaging and delivery of that treatment are often inefficient, ineffective, and consumer unfriendly. This was articulated in an article on innovation in healthcare, published in the Harvard Business Review, way back, in its May 2006 issue.

Highlighting soaring healthcare cost, including ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, and its impact on public health, the paper recommended innovative solutions for every related aspect of health care. These encompass – healthcare delivery, unleashing the power of technology, and customer-centric business models. Interestingly, despite enormous investment in drug innovation, the access to affordable health care for all, continued over the years.

The consequential scenario was well articulated in another paper on rising consumerism among healthcare consumers, published in the Deloitte Review issue 16, 2015. It noted, the existing business models are increasingly being challenged by all concerned. The aim is to find new sources of value – as expected by patients and deliver them effectively with innovative approaches for better outcomes. This has, initiated a recalibration of the healthcare system, as it were, in many parts of the world, including many -both developed and developing countries, across the globe.

In this article, I shall try to explore this area, especially from the perspective of relevance of innovative business models for affordable access to innovative drugs in the new normal. Let me start with three basic innovation needs in the pharma business that may help chart out a meaningful pathway to attain this goal.

3 innovation areas to make health care better and cheaper:

In pharma industry, people mostly talk about product or treatment innovation. Although, this is of paramount importance to make healthcare more and more effective with time, but may not help save or heal more patients, commensurately.

Going by the ‘health care innovation catalog,’ as charted by the above Harvard Business Reviewarticle, ‘three kinds of innovation can make health care better and cheaper.’ These innovations are primarily related to:

  • Use of ‘technology’ to develop new products and treatments or to improve care
  • Bringing in innovative changes the ways ‘consumers’ buy and use healthcare.
  • Generating new ‘business models’, particularly those that involve the horizontal or vertical integration of separate health care organizations or activities.

As I have deliberated in the past, related to the first two areas, this discourse will deliberate on the third type of innovation to explore the above specified area. Let me hasten to add that several studies published in the later dates, echoed similar approach.

Subsequent studies reinforce the point:

One such example, is the paper titled ‘Innovative Approaches to Increase Access to Medicines in Developing Countries’, published in the Frontiers in Medicine on December 07, 2017. This study also captured: ‘Access to essential medicines is problematic for one third of all persons worldwide. The price of many medicines (i.e., drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics) is unaffordable to the majority of the population in need, especially in least-developed countries, but also increasingly in middle-income countries.’

The paper highlighted, several innovative approaches, based on partnerships, intellectual property, and pricing, can further stimulate innovation, promote healthcare delivery, and reduce global health disparities, significantly. It underscored: ‘No single approach suffices, and therefore stakeholders need to further engage in partnerships promoting knowledge and technology transfer in assuring essential medicines to be manufactured, authorized, and distributed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in an effort of making them available at affordable and acceptable conditions.’

Changing business model concept gaining steam during Covid pandemic:

The issue of affordable access to innovative medicines drew attention of all stakeholders, even the common man, during the Covid pandemic – more than ever before. Several publications raised a flag on this barrier to public health, especially amid a pandemic or epidemic like situation.

One of these papers, titled ‘COVID-19 and the global public health: Tiered pricing of pharmaceutical drugs as a price-reducing policy tool’, was published in the Journal of Generic Medicines, on October 07, 2020. The paper emphasized, COVID-19 has raised serious concerns about affordable and equitable access to critically needed innovative medicines and other health technologies. It pointed out: ‘Patent exclusivities add to the cost of healthcare by allowing supra-competitive prices of protected technologies’, it commented. At the same time, ‘the prices and availability of drugs also depend on certain other factors that are not related to IP protection.’

Here comes the concept of ‘differential pricing’ or ‘tiered pricing’. This is a voluntary price-reducing policy option of the innovator to sell innovative drugs at lower prices in developing countries – compared to developed nations. The study articulated, more and more innovators imbibing this option in the future, could be a way forward to address for the future. Could it be a win-win solution for this critical issue?

Is it a win-win solution to this critical issue?

Since, at least, the last decade, the concept of differential pricing or tiered pricing ‘has received widespread support from industry, policymakers, civil society, and academics as a way to improve access to these life-saving products.’ This was also noted in the paper - ‘A critical analysis of tiered pricing to improve access to medicines in developing countries,’ published in the journal Globalization and Health, on October 12, 2011.

Even at that time, the paper said: ‘International tiered pricing has been proposed as an alternative to high prices when separable high- and low-to-middle-income markets exist for a medicine and when the seller exerts significant power over pricing, such as when there is limited or no competition due to patent protection, data exclusivity, or other market-entry barriers.’

Interestingly, despite above findings, tiered pricing has not been a widely followed concept in the old normal to ensure affordable access to life-saving innovative drugs, for all. One of its reasons could possibly be commercial considerations. Company specific business threshold of tiered pricing may not necessarily be able to offer a price that is equitable or affordable for all. That said, there are a few laudable initiatives of some major innovator companies in the past.

Some laudable past initiatives for affordable access to innovative drugs:

Since the beginning of this millennium, one can witness some laudable pricing initiatives for affordable access to critical, innovative drugs to save lives in developing countries and poorer nations. Let me give a few reported examples below:

  • Abbott Laboratories – the patent holder of lopinavir and ritonavir had initially announced a tiered price of $650 in 2001 for African countries and 16 non-African least developed countries. In 2002, the Company reduced the price to $500 for these countries and in August 2009 dropped it to $440 – slightly below the lowest generic price.
  • In 2001, Novartis offered “at-cost” tiered price of $2.40 per adult treatment course for artemether-lumefantrine FDC to WHO for developing countries After 5 years when a generic version of the same was available, Novartis decreased its tiered price to $1.80, thereafter to $1.50.
  • Eli Lilly’s two key DR-TB drugs, capreomycin and cycloserine were not widely available from other suppliers even after it went off patent. In 2002, Lilly transferred the drug manufacturing technology to several generic drug companies in TB-endemic countries. Eli Lilly’s tiered price has consistently remained below the generic prices for these drugs.

More examples of voluntary licensing during Covid pandemic:

Gilead signed non-exclusive voluntary licensing agreements with generic pharmaceutical manufacturers based in Egypt, India and Pakistan to manufacture remdesivir for distribution in 127 countries that face significant obstacles to healthcare access.

Notably, the licenses are royalty-free until the World Health Organization declares the end of the Public Health Emergency of International Concern regarding COVID-19, or until a pharmaceutical product other than remdesivir or a vaccine is approved to treat or prevent COVID-19, whichever is earlier.

On May 11, 2021, several media reports revealed that ‘US pharma giant Eli Lilly has issued royalty-free, non-exclusive voluntary licenses to three Indian drug makers – Cipla, Sun Pharmaceuticals and Lupin – to manufacture and distribute Baricitinib, which is being used to treat Covid-19.

As announced on October 27, 2021, the global drug major MSD and Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) entered into a voluntary licensing agreement to facilitate affordable global access for molnupiravir, an investigational oral COVID-19 antiviral medicine. This agreement will help create broad access for molnupiravir use in 105 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) including India following appropriate regulatory approvals. The Indian companies, reportedly, include, Sun Pharma, Cipla, Dr Reddy’s, Emcure Pharma and Hetero Labs.

On November 16, 2021, Pfizer Press Release stated: Pfizer and MPP has signed a voluntary license agreement for Pfizer’s COVID-19 oral antiviral treatment candidate PF-07321332, which is administered in combination with low dose ritonavir (PF-07321332; ritonavir). Under the terms of the license agreement, qualified generic medicine manufacturers worldwide that are granted sub-licenses, will be able to supply this combination drug to 95 countries, covering up to approximately 53% of the world’s population.

Conclusion:

Covid Pandemic, which apparently, is refusing to vanish anytime soon, makes the issue of making affordable access to critical innovative drugs for all, more intense. Since long, researchers, academicians, practitioners, and the stakeholders involved in addressing this healthcare challenge for the majority of the population have suggested several innovative approaches.

These include, focus on three kinds of innovation simultaneously, and with similar zest, can make health care better and cheaper. One such area is changing pharma business models for critical innovative drugs. The good news is a few pharma players have already charted on this pathway in the past, successfully, by extending royalty-free, voluntary licenses to manufacturers in the developing countries and poorer nations. Some of them even tried to match their tiered pricing with equivalent generic drug prices. But the overall response was rather lukewarm in the old normal. Interestingly, the new normal signals a mindset change in this regard within a larger number of global innovators.

The current trend gives a hope to many that an increasing number of global innovators will sincerely explore – not just one, but all the three areas of innovation for affordable access to innovative drugs. This could possibly reduce, if not eliminate the future need for the grant of compulsory licenses for such drugs, as happened during the peak of Covid pandemic, especially in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray      

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

Criticality of Drug Quality In The Moment Of Truth

Posted on by
Reply

When global health emergencies strike unannounced – in the scale and magnitude of new coronavirus, it shakes the health care system of all countries, in varying degree though, irrespective of the robustness of the economy. In such situation, the robustness of health care infrastructure, stringent manufacturing quality standards, operational flexibility for seamless sourcing of all drug ingredients in the required quantities, besides speed and agility of the delivery system – are put to the acid test.

Anytime readiness to effectively neutralize this crisis is of utmost importance. Accordingly, the key national goal should be to create a robust ‘whole’ that is much more than the sum total of each of each of the above factors – a sturdy ‘drug security system’ for the country. The most populous country of the world – China may have succeeded in building a 1,600-bed hospital coronavirus hospital in just 10 days, completing on February 05, 20120. But it is still looking for necessary drugs from other countries, such as the United States.

Curiously, China hasn’t yet disclosed its reason. More so, when the country is the top global supplier of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), including antiretroviral (ARV) drugs, along with India, according to the World Health Organization (W.H.O). This draws many to look at the general apprehension on the questionable quality of drugs that China, allegedly, produces. But, could this be the reason?

Nevertheless, regardless of inquisitiveness to know the reason, the question mark on its drug quality remains. And this is also not the risk-taking time for any nation, as it could possibly endanger lives of scores of the impacted population. The criticality of drug quality in ‘The Moment of Truth,’ such as, the new coronavirus emergency, can only be wished away at one’s own peril.

On the other hand, the confidence expressed in India, as we shall see below, in ‘drug security’, just based on adequate ARV drug availability appears to be coming from a different plane, although the drug quality issue is exactly the same in India, if not more concerning. From the above perspective, my today’s article will focus on this subject, purely based on available data, starting with the request of the Chinese authorities for ARV drugs from the United States.

Chinese request for ARV drugs:

‘U.S. Drugmakers Ship Therapies to China, Seeking to Treat Coronavirus – AbbVie, Gilead, others respond to Chinese authorities’ requests for antiviral drugs to test effectiveness against deadly respiratory illness.’ This was reported by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on January 27, 2020. It goes without saying that these antiviral drugs also include Anti-Retrovirals (ARVs).

AbbVie Inc. and Johnson & Johnson  are among the drug makers that have begun shipping drugs approved to treat HIV, while Gilead Sciences Inc. is exploring whether it should send an antiviral therapy it is developing.

It isn’t known whether the drugs would be able to help contain the explosion of respiratory virus infections sweeping the country or provide relief to infected patients. Chinese authorities have requested the shipments to test the drugs’ effectiveness in containing the new coronavirus, the report added.

An intriguing difference between India and China:

Interestingly, China is looking for sourcing some of these ARV drugs from the United States and not from India, either – one of the top producers of these drugs, as W.H.O reported.

In contrast, according to an Indian report of February 04, 2020: ‘Leading domestic drug companies have said they are ready with supply of anti-retrovirals (ARVs) that seem to work in treating the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).’

As I said earlier, although, China hasn’t yet specified the reasons behind their decision on ARV drug import from the United States, but could it have any link on the internal general apprehension of these drugs quality, safety and effectiveness?

Acknowledging for a moment that this is global allegation on Chinese drugs, in general. So is regarding India, as we shall see below. Then where does India stand on this score, especially in view of the confidence with ARV drugs, as exhibited in the above media report from India? That said, the logical question that surfaces now – why is the request for ARV drugs?

Why ARV drugs?

Although W.H.O said that there is ‘No known effective treatments’ for new coronavirus, as yet, various reports do indicate the use of ARV drugs in the treatment of 2019-nCoV:

  • A combination of flu and HIV medications are helping treat severe cases of the new coronavirus in Thailand.
  • Chinese health officials are already administering the HIV and flu drugs to fight the coronavirus, but the combination of the three together in a cocktail seemed to improve the treatment.

The Scientist, on February 02, 2020 reported that large doses of the flu drug oseltamivir combined with HIV drugs lopinavir and ritonavir, reportedly, improved the conditions of several patients in Bangkok, Thailand.

Global dependence on Chinese and Indian generic drugs:

About 80 percent of the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), including many ARVs, which are used for manufacturing of drug formulations in the United States are said to come from China and other countries like India. This appeared in the article titled, ‘U.S. Dependence on Pharmaceutical Products From China,’ published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on August 14, 2019.

India’s dependence on Chinese APIs:

Latest statistics from Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics tabled in the Parliament show that in 2017-18, Indian imports of APIs and drug intermediates from China increased to 68.36 per cent. The same at 67.56 per cent in 2018-19, still remained the largest share in total Indian imports, with the overall India’s dependence on imports going up by 23 per cent from 2016-17 to 2018-19.

As reported in the media on November 22, 2019, India’s national strategies, such as, “2015 – Year of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients” or ‘Make in India’ campaign, to promote indigenous means of production continue to be relegated on paper. Even, the current National Security Advisor had warned that Chinese dependence on API can be a national security threat.

According to the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), Chinese API imports are due to economic considerations, which are essentially cheaper and more cost-effective for the Indian drug manufacturers, the above report highlighted.

Against this backdrop, the above local media report indicating, leading domestic drug companies are ready to supply anti-retrovirals (ARVs), may invite more questions than answers. Added to this come the critical quality issues with drugs manufactured in China and India.

Quality issues with Chinese drugs:

Credible documents highlight, as China’s pharmaceutical industry is not effectively regulated by the Chinese government, its regulatory apparatus is inadequately resourced to oversee thousands of Chinese drug manufacturers. Even if Beijing made such oversight a greater priority. This has resulted in significant drug safety scandals.

Although, the drug quality related concerns seem to be even more related to India, the drug industry of the country, reportedly, remains in a denial over most of such charges involving drug-quality.

India tops with the most quality related FDA warning letters in 2019:

The author of the above article reiterates, ‘Americans are expecting India, which supplies a significant percentage of the finished drug supply in the U.S., to get its act together to improve the quality of the medicines it makes, I am afraid they will be waiting a long time for that to happen. The only solution is for American lawmakers to enact new regulations focused on holding those who intentionally put public health at risk to account.’

To avoid ‘your-opinion-versus-my-opinion’ type of a debate with this article, let us look at some hard facts. These are from the ‘warning letters’ on drug quality, issued to various pharma companies, across the world, by the USFDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). The details were well captured in an article, titled ‘The country with the most FDA warning letters in 2019,’ published by Pharma Manufacturing on January 20, 2020.

Some key CDER findings:

As I consider, the top three CDER findings may be summarized as follows:

  • In 2019, CDER issued dozens warning letters for manufacturing issues to pharma companies outside the U.S. One country in particular – India – received the highest number of letters.
  • CDER’s office of Manufacturing Quality Letters issued 43 letters to companies outside of the U.S. Of those letters:

-   20 were aimed at facilities in India.

-   With 11, China received the second most manufacturing quality warning letters.

-   The rest of the letters were distributed among plants in Europe, Costa Rica, Singapore, Turkey and others.

  • The data from CDER shows that India has the poorest rate of FDA inspections with acceptable outcomes (83 percent) — much lower than China (90 percent) and the U.S. (93 percent).

Conclusion:

Today, a host of effective drugs and vaccines are available to treat a number of both non-infectious and infectious ailments, including many life-threatening viral diseases. However, the effectiveness of these medicines in treating such diseases, as well as many other illnesses, gets significantly compromised by questionable quality and distribution of these medicinal products. Even way back, a similar concern was deliberated in an article captioned, ‘Substandard drugs: a potential crisis for public health’, published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (BJCP), on November 29, 2013..

It may ordinarily remain undetected, sans stringent and wide-scale regulatory scrutiny. Additionally, a number of involved countries still remain in a denial mode. It’s also a fact, several governments may not have wherewithal for the same, particularly when the manufacturing units are too many, such as in China and India.

However, when a critical national health emergency strikes, unannounced, like the new coronavirus, the moment of truth dawns. Obviously, the national governments would want to be risk averse and prefer sourcing the best of drugs, to rapidly contain the spread of the disease, saving more lives. It’s not difficult to fathom, either, any country is unlikely to admit this reality, in public, even while taking measures for the same.

China’s sourcing of ARV and other drugs from the United States may or may not be due to the drug quality reasons. Nonetheless, I reckon, the criticality of drug quality issues can possibly be best realized, mostly when the ‘Moment of Truth’ arrives. Unannounced! Just like a bolt from the blue!

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Is India in The Eye of The AMR Storm?

Posted on by
Reply

‘With 700,000 people losing battle to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) per year and another 10 million projected to die from it by 2050, AMR alone is killing more people than cancer and road traffic accidents combined together.’ This was highlighted in the Review Article, ‘Antimicrobial resistance in the environment: The Indian scenario,’ published in the Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR), on June 03, 2019.

The article further noted, ‘AMR engendered from the environment has largely remained neglected so far,’ which has a snowballing effect. Illustrating the enormity of its impact, the researchers recorded: ‘Economic projections suggest that by 2050, AMR would decrease gross domestic product (GDP) by 2-3.5 percent with a fall in livestock by 3-8 percent, costing USD100 trillion to the world.’

Besides International media, fearsome consequences of AMR are also being highlighted by the Indian media from time to time. For example, on November 21, 2018, a leading national business daily carried an apt headline: ‘India in the firing line of antimicrobial resistance.’ More intensive coverage of such nature for this public menace, would hopefully appeal to the conscience of all those who can meaningfully address this situation, especially the government.

Against this backdrop, I shall explore in this article, whether India is really in the eye of this AMR storm, which is posing an unprecedented threat to many lives, perhaps more in India. 

India is being called the AMR capital of the world: 

Analyzing the emerging research data in this area, India was referred to as ‘the AMR capital of the world,’ in the 2017 Review Article, title ‘Antimicrobial resistance: the next BIG pandemic.’ Curiously, besides umpteen number of published papers documenting this scary development, very few enlightened individuals would dare to push an argument to the contrary. Whereas, besides framing a policy document on AMR,nothing much is changing in India on this score. This is happening, even when it is evidenced that a gamut of the most powerful antibiotics, are not working against many deadly bacteria. Added to it, India still doesn’t have a public database that provides death due to AMR.

Are adequate resources being deployed to fight the menace:

Today one would witness with pride that India’s ‘Chandrayaan 2’ lunar mission is moving towards the Moon’s south polar region, where no country has ever gone before. At the same time, despite AMR threat, India’s budgetary allocation for health in 2018-2019, reportedly, shows a 2.1 percent decrease of the total Union Budget from the 2.4 percent in 2017-2018.

It is interesting to note that India: ‘Despite being the world’s sixth largest economy, public health spending has languished at under 1.5 percent of GDP, one of the lowest rates in the world. For comparison, the United Kingdom shelled out 9.6 percent of its GDP in 2017 on health. The United States’ health expenditure is 18 percent of GDP.’

‘Ayushman Bharat’ and health care infrastructure:

Recently lunched public health program - Ayushman Bharat, although is not a Universal Health Care (UHC) program, it has targeted to cover ‘less than half the population and excluding 700 million people’. While giving a thumbs-up to this initiative, if one looks at the overall health infrastructure in India to make it possible as intended, it may not encourage many.

To illustrate this point, let me quote only the salient points, as captured in a 2018 study, published in the British Medical Journal, as follows:

  • The total size of health workforce estimated from the National Sample Survey (NSS) data was 3.8 million as of January 2016, which is about 1.2 million less than the total number of health professionals registered with different councils and associations.
  • The density of doctors and nurses and midwives per 10,000 population is 20.6 according to the NSS and 26.7 based on the registry data.
  • Health workforce density in rural India and states in eastern India is lower than the WHO minimum threshold of 22.8 per 10,000 population.
  • More than 80 percent of doctors and 70 percent of nurses and midwives are employed in the private sector.
  • Approximately 25 percent of the current working health professionals do not have the required qualifications as laid down by professional councils, while 20 percent of adequately qualified doctors are not in the current workforce.

The intent to deliver health care as announced by various governments from time to time is good. But, the available health infrastructure to deliver these meaningfully are grossly inadequate, creating a huge apprehension among many. This is not just because of the grossly inadequate number of hospitals, doctors, nurses and paramedics, but also their even uneven spread in the country. The cumulative impact of these, fueled by corruption, ‘missing doctors, ill-equipped health professionals, and paucity of required funds’ continue creating a humongous problem for the public, at large, to get affordable health care.

At the same time, there is ‘a serious lack of new antibiotics under development to combat the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance.’ Imagine, a situation when India gets caught in the eye of the AMR storm and imagine the consequences of that, as you deem appropriate.

Lack of new antibiotics under development to combat AMR:

The World Health Organization (WHO) report - ‘Antibacterial agents in clinical development – an analysis of the antibacterial clinical development pipeline, including tuberculosis’, launched on September 20, 2017 shows ‘a serious lack of new antibiotics under development to combat the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance.’

It further reported: ‘Most of the drugs currently in the clinical pipeline are modifications of existing classes of antibiotics and are only short-term solutions.’ The report also found, very few potential treatment options for those antibiotic-resistant infections identified by WHO as posing the greatest threat to health, including drug-resistant tuberculosis which kills around 250 000 people each year.

Thus, the point to ponder simultaneously is, whether there is any decline in global investments for antibiotic research, both by the drug industry and the public funders.

Declining investment on new antibiotic R&D: 

As stated in the May 2016 paper, titled ‘Tackling Drug-Resistant Infections Globally. As the report indicates: ‘The UK Prime Minister commissioned the Review on Antimicrobial Resistance to address the growing global problem of drug-resistant infections. It is chaired by Jim O’Neill and supported by the Wellcome Trust and UK Government, but operates and speaks with full independence from both.’

The report acknowledges that new antibiotic research and development has been suffering from decades of under-investment by companies and governments. The reason being, antibiotic discovery and development are no longer an attractive proposition for commercial drug developers, for a key fundamental reason:

And this is, lack of a dependable, commercially-attractive market for antibiotics that meet large unmet medical needs. As a result, the volume of sales of a such new antibiotics will be low, and restricted only to multi-drug resistant bacteria. Otherwise, older and cheaper antibiotics will still work against most other infections. In that scenario, patented new antibiotics will have to compete with generics, keeping the price low. This combination of price pressure and low volumes makes antibiotics unattractive as a commercial proposition for many drug developers.

Which is why, as the report says: ‘Less than 5 percent of venture capital investment in pharmaceutical R&D between 2003 and 2013 was for antimicrobial development.’ Against total venture capital investment of USD 38 billion in pharmaceutical R&D, antimicrobial venture capital investment was mere USD 1.8 billion, during the same period. Coming back to India specific concerns, let’s have a look at the sociocultural issues in the country, associated with AMR.

Sociocultural issues are fueling the fire:

Understandably, the AMR problem remains intricately intertwined with a number of sociocultural issues of India. It has been established in several studies that social level, socioeconomic and socio-cultural status can play a significant role in the health status of people. Most research done on this subject indicates that higher level of socioeconomic classes reflects at a higher level of health and longevity. Much of this comes from the fact that there is a higher level of education and health care that is available for ‘this class level’.

Sociocultural issues in India also includes, poor hygienic practices, inadequate clean water and good sanitation facilities across the country, besides improper implementation and lack of good governance of health policies, rules and regulations. These factors are also aggravating the AMR problems in the country, as stated in the article, titled ‘‘Public Health Challenges in India,’ published in the Indian Journal of Community Medicine, in its April-June 2016 issue. Which is why, just addressing the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and restricting its wide consumption, aren’t not enough, any longer.

Is India in the eye of the AMR storm?

‘Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has emerged as a major threat to public health estimated to cause 10 million deaths annually by 2050. India carries one of the largest burdens of drug-resistant pathogens worldwide.’ This was highlighted in the research paper, titled ‘Antimicrobial resistance: Progress in the decade since the emergence of New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase in India’, published in the Indian Journal of Community Medicine, on March 12, 2019.

The article noted, ‘AMR has been identified as a global health threat with serious health, political, and economic implications.’ The paper concluded with a serious note, which is worth taking note of. It found, the full throttle efforts to tackle the AMR challenge in India still requires significant efforts from all stakeholders. It underscored, ‘Despite the adoption of a national policy and significant activities already underway, progress is limited by a lack of clear implementation strategy and research gaps.’ 

Suggested areas of focus in India:

As ‘the Sword of Damocles’, in the form of AMR, hangs over the head of Indian population, there are certain important measures that the country can definitely take to contain AMR, whereas some other critical ones will be challenging to roll out, immediately.

It is unlikely, during this period India will have the requisite wherewithal to focus on discovery and development of new antibiotics to tackle AMR. Similarly, only framing rules and regulations for doctors, patients, dispensing chemists or hospitals to prevent antibiotic misuse, which are not persuasively yet strongly implemented, won’t also yield desired results. Nevertheless, efforts must continue for their effective compliance.

That said, what the country can seriously focus on, sans much constraints, is on taking collective measures in resolving some of the crucial but intimately associated sociocultural issues, with all sincerity and precision. A few of these important areas include, intense public awareness campaigns on the growing threat to life due to AMR, clubbing the benefits of availing good sanitation facilities, hygienic lifestyle and everyday practices.

Moreover, misuse of antibiotics in poultry, animal farming and agriculture should be curbed. Alongside, mass vaccination program for prevention of bacterial and viral infections, should be made available all over the country. Monitoring of the incidence of death due to AMR, on an ongoing basis, is another practice should also feature in the must-do list, providing access to this database to public. Responding meaningfully to International coalition for country-specific action, is also very important. To attain this goal a healthy socioeconomic environment needs to be encouraged, with corruption free efficient governance.

Conclusion:

That India is in the eye of the AMR storm, can’t be wished away any longer. Thus, the fight against AMR will need to be a well-orchestrated one, engaging all stakeholders as partners. The private sector should also actively participate in the AMR awareness programs under public–private partnership (PPP) or through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives.

The whole process should be backed by a creative strategy, having buying-in from all concerned, but spearheaded by the government. That’s the minimum that, I reckon, should happen when the country is in the eye of the impending AMR storm.

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.

 

Sharper Focus On Vaccine: A Huge Scope To Reduce Disease Burden In India

Posted on by
Reply

Several international research studies have conclusively established that the aggressive application of nationally recommended prevention activities could significantly reduce the burden of disease in several areas. Immunization or vaccination program is one such critical areas.

Several ailments, which used to be so common all over the world, can now be effectively prevented through vaccination. The most common and serious vaccine-preventable diseases are: diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae serotype b (Hib), hepatitis B and C, measles, meningitis, mumps, pertussis, poliomyelitis, rubella, tetanus, tuberculosis, rotavirus, pneumococcal disease and yellow fever.  The list of the World Health Organization (WHO) indicates that vaccines are now available for 25 different diseases.

Thus, vaccination can save millions of lives and morbidity that such diseases still cause to a very large number of global population. Thanks to vaccines, two most scary diseases – small pox (totally) and polio (almost totally), have been eliminated from the world.

No doubt, why vaccination was voted as one of the four most important developments in medicine of the past 150 years, alongside sanitation, antibiotics and anesthesia by readers of the ‘British Medical Journal (BMJ)’ in 2007. It has been decisively proved that vaccines are one of the most successful and cost-effective public health interventions, which help preventing over 3 million deaths every year, throughout the world, topping the list in terms of lives saved.

In tandem, concerted efforts need to be made by both the industry and the Governments to improve affordable access to all these vaccines for a larger section of the population, especially in the developing world.

A crying need still exists:

Nevertheless, there is still a crying need for greater encouragement, more resource deployment and sharper focus towards newer vaccine development for many more dreaded and difficult diseases. One such area is malaria vaccine.

Some areas of new vaccine development:

Following is an example of some newer therapy areas where novel vaccines are now reportedly under development:

  • Malaria vaccine
  • Cancer vaccine
  • AIDS
  • Alzheimer’s disease

Malaria vaccine:

A July 24, 2015 article of the BBC News states, the ‘European Medicines Agency (EMA)’ gave a positive scientific opinion after assessing the safety and effectiveness of the first anti-malarial vaccine of the world – Mosquirix, developed by the British pharma major GlaxoSmithKline.

The vaccine reportedly targets the ‘P. falciparum’, the most prevalent malaria parasite and the deadlier of the two parasites that transmit the disease. At present, in the absence of any licensed vaccines for malaria, the main preventive measures to contain the spread of this parasitic disease are spraying of insecticides, use of other mosquito repellent and mosquito nets.

However, it was observed during its clinical trial that he best protection with this vaccine was achieved among children aged five to 17 months, receiving three doses of the vaccine a month apart, plus a booster dose at 20 months. In this group, cases of severe malaria were cut by a third over a four-year period, the report said.

Some concern was also expressed, as the effectiveness of the vaccine waned over time, making the booster shot essential, without which the vaccine did not cut the rate of severe malaria over the trial period. Moreover, the vaccine did not prove very effective in protecting young babies from severe malaria.

This caused a dilemma for the ‘World Health Organization (WHO)’. On the one hand, the stark reality of malaria killing around 584,000 people a year worldwide, and on the other, lack of conclusiveness in the overall results for this vaccine. Therefore, the world health body decided at that time to further consider about it, soon after the experts’ deliberation on whether to recommend it for children, among whom trials have yielded mixed results, gets completed.

The good news is, on November 18, 2016, Newsweek reported the announcement of the W.H.O, that Mosquirix will be piloted across sub-Saharan Africa in 2018, after a funding approval of US$ 15 million for this purpose.

Cancer vaccines:

According to the National Cancer Institute, which is a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States, cancer vaccines belong to a class of substances known as biological response modifiers. Biological response modifiers work by stimulating or restoring the immune system’s ability to fight infections and disease. There are two broad types of cancer vaccines:

  • Preventive (or prophylactic) vaccines, which are intended to prevent cancer from developing in healthy people.

-       Persistent infections with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types can cause cervical cancer, anal cancer, oropharyngeal cancer, and vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers. Three vaccines are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent HPV infection: Gardasil®, Gardasil 9®, and Cervarix®.

-       Chronic Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection can lead to liver cancer. The FDA has approved multiple vaccines that protect against HBV infection, such as, Engerix-B and Recombivax HB, which protect against HBV infection only.

  • Treatment (or therapeutic) vaccines, which are intended to treat an existing cancer by strengthening the body’s natural immune response against the cancer. Treatment vaccines are a form of immunotherapy.

-       In April 2010, the USFDA approved the first cancer treatment vaccine. This vaccine, sipuleucel-T (Provenge®), is approved for use in some men with metastatic prostate cancer. It is designed to stimulate an immune response to prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP), an antigen that is found on most prostate cancer cells.

Another type of cancer vaccine is currently being developed, known as the Universal Cancer Vaccine.

  • Universal Cancer Vaccine,  June 1, 2016 issue of ‘The Independent’ reported that scientists of Johannes Gutenberg University in Germany have taken a “very positive step” towards creating a universal vaccine against cancer that makes the body’s immune system attack tumors as if they were a virus. The researchers had taken pieces of cancer’s genetic RNA code, put them into tiny nanoparticles of fat and then injected the mixture into the bloodstreams of three patients in the advanced stages of the disease. The patients’ immune systems responded by producing “killer” T-cells designed to attack cancer.

The vaccine was found to be effective in fighting “aggressively growing” tumors in mice. At the same time, such vaccines are fast and inexpensive to produce, and virtually any tumor antigen (a protein attacked by the immune system) can be encoded by RNA, the report said.

The analysts forecast the global cancer vaccines market to grow at a CAGR of 27.24 percent over the period 2014-2019.

HIV/AIDS Vaccine:

The 21st International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2016) held in Durban, South Africa from July 18 to 22, 2016, revealed that a vaccine against HIV will be trialed in South Africa later in 2016, after meeting the criteria needed to prove it, could help fight the epidemic in Africa. A small trial, known as HVTN100, took place in South Africa in 2015 to test the safety and strength of immunity the vaccine could provide, ahead of any large-scale testing in affected populations.

This development reportedly has its origin in a large landmark 2009 trial of RV 144 vaccine in Thailand, demonstrating the proof of concept that a preventive vaccine with a risk reduction of 31 percent could effectively work.  The trial was supported by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS. The clinical trial participants who received Vacc-4x, reportedly “experienced a 70 percent viral load decrease relative to their level before starting Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART), compared with no notable reduction among placebo recipients.”

Alzheimer’s disease vaccine:

A vaccine for Alzheimer’s disease could be trialed in human within the next 3-5 years, after researchers from the United States and Australia have uncovered a formulation that they say successfully targets brain proteins, which play a role in the development and progression of the disease, states a July 18, 2016 report published in the ‘Medical News Today (MNT)’.

This vaccine generates antibodies that target beta-amyloid and tau proteins in the brain – both of which are considered hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease. In their study, the researchers found that the formulation was effective and well-tolerated in Alzheimer’s mouse models, with no reports of adverse reactions. The vaccine was also able to target the proteins in brain tissue from patients with Alzheimer’s.

Study co-author Prof. Michael Agadjanyan, Institute for Molecular Medicine, California said: “This study suggests that we can immunize patients at the early stages of AD (Alzheimer’s disease), or even healthy people at risk for AD, using our anti-amyloid-beta vaccine, and, if the disease progresses, then vaccinate with another anti-tau vaccine to increase effectiveness.”

If the vaccine continues to show success in these preclinical trials, the researchers envisage that they could be testing the vaccine in individuals at high risk for Alzheimer’s, or those in the early stages of the disease, within the next 3-5 years.

More details on vaccine development:

A 2012 report on vaccines, published by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) give details of vaccines under development.

Vaccine requirements of the developing world: 

Developing countries of the world are now demanding more of those vaccines, which no longer feature in the immunization schedules of the developed nations. Thus, to supply these vaccines at low cost will be a challenge, especially for the global vaccine manufacturers, unless the low margins get well compensated by high institutional demand.

Issues and challenges:

To produce a safe, effective and marketable vaccine, besides R&D costs, it takes reportedly around 12 to 15 years of painstaking research and development process.

Moreover, one will need to realize that the actual cost of vaccines will always go much beyond their R&D expenses. This is mainly because of dedicated and highly specialized manufacturing facilities required for mass-scale production of vaccines, and then for the distribution of the same mostly using cold-chains.

Around 60 percent of the production costs of vaccines are fixed in nature (National Health Policy Forum. 25. January 2006:14). Thus, such products will need to have a decent market size to be profitable. Unlike many other medications for chronic ailments, which need to be taken for a long duration, vaccines are administered for a limited number of times, restricting their business potential.

Thus, the long lead time required for the ‘mind to market’ process for vaccine development together with high cost involved in their clinical trials/marketing approval process, special bulk/institutional purchase price and limited demand through retail outlets, restrict the research and development initiatives for vaccines, unlike many other pharmaceutical products.

Besides, even the newer vaccines will mostly be required for the diseases of the poor, like Malaria, Tuberculosis, HIV and ‘Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs)’ in the developing countries, which may not necessarily guarantee a decent return on investments for vaccines, unlike many other newer drugs. Thus, the key issue for developing a right type of newer vaccine will continue to be a matter of pure economics.

India needs a vibrant vaccine business sector:

For a greater focus on all important disease prevention initiatives, there is a need to build a vibrant vaccine business sector in India. To achieve this objective the government should create an enabling ecosystem for the vaccine manufacturers and the academics to work in unison. At the same time, the state funded vaccine R&D centers should be encouraged to concentrate more on the relevant vaccine development projects, ensuring a decent return on their investments for long-term economic sustainability.

Often, these stakeholders find it difficult to deploy sufficient fund to take their vaccine projects successfully through various stages of clinical development to obtain marketing approval from the drug regulator, while earning a decent return on investments. This critical issue needs to be urgently addressed by the Government to make the disease prevention initiatives in the country sustainable.

A possible threat to overcome: 

As per reports, most Indian vaccine manufacturers get a major chunk of their sales revenue from exports to UN agencies, charitable organizations like, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, and other country-specific immunization programs.

The report predicts, the virtual monopoly that Indian vaccine manufacturers have enjoyed in these areas, will now be challenged by China, as for the first time in 2012, the Chinese national regulatory authority received ‘pre-qualification’ certification of WHO that allows it to approve locally manufactured vaccines to compete for UN tenders.

Conclusion:

Keeping this in perspective, vaccine related pragmatic policy measures need to be taken in the country for effective disease prevention, covering all recommended age groups, of course, with an equal focus on their effective implementation, without delay. Consequently, this will not only help reduce the disease burden in the country, but also provide the much-awaited growth momentum to the vaccine market in India.

Alongside, increasing number of modern imported vaccines coming in, would help India address one of its key healthcare concerns effectively, and in a holistic way.

It is about time to aggressively garner adequate resources to develop more modern vaccines in the country. In tandem, a rejuvenated thrust to effectively promote and implement vaccine awareness campaigns, would help immensely in the nation’s endeavor for disease prevention with vaccines, that offers a huge scope to reduce disease burden, for a healthier India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Reticence Around Unveiling Clinical Trials

Posted on by
Reply

While scanning through various publications, we now get to know, almost at regular intervals, about new clinical trials capturing the newer ways of treating different ailments. Such information instils an invigorating hope in the minds of doctors and the patients alike, to more successfully and predictably fight the battle against diseases in the ongoing pursuit for a better quality of life.

However, for independent and impartial assessment of any new drug before it comes to the market, an ethical and transparent process of unveiling clinical trials, sans any reticence whatsoever, are absolutely essential. Only this process would be able to satisfactorily establish, beyond an iota of doubt, the safety and efficacy levels of, especially, the new drugs. To move in that direction, the fundamental requirements will be diligently recording and publishing all types of data – positive, not so positive, and also negative, arising out of all clinical trials, conducted anywhere in the world, for the same drug.

Thus, there should be a system of open access to all clinical trial data, as each trial is completed. Otherwise, pharma companies’ publication bias, overwhelmingly on positive results, would continue, as alleged by many across the world. It is worth noting that over 60 percent of all clinical trials for new drugs are sponsored by the pharma and biotech companies.

There isn’t any dearth of examples of new drugs’ getting not just the required regulatory approval, riding on the back of robust ‘positive’ clinical trial data on safety and efficacy, but also becoming highly dependable money-spinners for the companies, and in no time, as it were. These cash churning new brands would also get well protected for monopolistic pricing all through their respective patent life, and sometimes even after that, in various different ways.

Nevertheless, at a later date, mostly post patent expiry, not all pre-launch new drug trials could be universally accepted as robust and conclusive, especially on their efficacy and safety claims. On the contrary, a number of detailed and deep-stick independent studies indicate that some new drugs are, in fact, much less effective, if not ineffective, and cause more serious side effects than what were published earlier.

Hence, some critical questions are now being asked by many stakeholders, with greater assertiveness than ever before and backed by solid evidence, in this arena. Although it has now started creating a snowballing effect, still, nothing much seems to have changed on the ground, just yet.

Why aren’t all clinical trial results, and for all new drugs not still published, or otherwise made available for public scrutiny, unveiled, and of course after protecting any reasonable commercial interest? Does business consideration, then continue to prevail over the need for transparency in clinical trial data disclosure for patients’ health and safety? The sneaking fear behind the reasons of this reticence of pharma players, in general, continues to torment many. I shall discuss this point in this article backed by recently published data.

Not a recent trend:

This isn’t a recent trend either, and continuing for decades, without any effective remedial measures by the appropriate authorities. I would give just a couple of examples, one from 1998 and the other from 2014, to drive home this point.

A  British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (BJCP) article, published way back in August 1998 would vindicate this point. This study revealed the following on clinical trial data:

“Substantial evidence of selective reporting was detected, since trials with positive outcome resulted more often in submission of final report to regulatory authorities than those with inconclusive or negative outcomes.”

Another study published on September 10, 2014 in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) states as follows:

“Thirty-five percent of published reanalysis led to changes in the findings that implied conclusions different from those of the original article about the types and number of patients who should be treated.”

That said, I shall now focus on a very recent controversy in this area, related to a blockbuster drug that has now gone off-patent.

A contemporary example:

Statin class of drugs, especially, Atorvastatin is one of many such examples.

Pfizer launched Atorvastatin with the brand name Lipitor in early 1997. At that time, it was the fifth in the statin class of drugs for the treatment of hyperlipidemia.

It was launched on the back of a 1996 clinical study that concluded, Lipitor reduces bad cholesterol significantly more than the other statins, from the very onset of treatment to as long as the treatment continues. After that it’s a history in the pharma industry, Pfizer marketing turned it into the best-selling drug ever, in the history of pharmaceuticals, so far.

Over 14.5 years, Lipitor reportedly made over US$ 125 billion in sales, and provided up to a quarter of Pfizer Inc.’s annual revenue for years.

Product claim – then:

Claiming that in ‘one year alone, statins reduced numerous cases of cardiovascular-related complications and saved thousands of lives’, a Pfizer Paper on “The Value of Statin”, reiterated the drug’s role both in the treatment and prevention of Coronary Artery Diseases (CAD). I am quoting below from this paper to cite just one example each – treatment and prevention:

  • In a study of patients with Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) statin therapy reduced the relative risk of mortality by 50 percent in those > 80-years-old, 44 percent in those 65- to 79-years-old, and 30% in those < 65 years old, compared to CAD patients in the same age group not taking statin therapy (Ref. Chloe, Allen A., et al. ‘Statin Therapy Is Associated With Reduced Mortality Across All Age Groups of Individuals With Significant Coronary Disease, Including Very Elderly Patients’. JACC. 40: 10; 1777-1785)
  • An analysis of 18 trials, including 56,934 patients, primarily without CVD, demonstrated statins conferred a relative risk reduction (RRR) in all-cause mortality by 14 percent and stroke by 22 percent (Ref. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013 Jan 31; 1:CD004816).

Research findings for the same drug – now:

Among several other publications on statins, a July 26, 2015 article, published in the ‘World Journal of Cardiology’ concludes as follows:

“History has proven otherwise, and the global prevalence of Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), despite worldwide statin usage and cholesterol lowering campaigns, has reached pandemic proportions. Coronary heart disease is an extremely complex malady and the expectation that it could be prevented or eliminated by simply reducing cholesterol appears unfounded. After twenty years we should concede the anomalies of the cholesterol hypothesis and refocus our efforts on the proven benefits of a healthy lifestyle incorporating a Mediterranean diet to prevent CHD.”

To give one more example, let me quote from a contemporary study, published on June 12, 2016 in the ‘BMJ Open’, which also comes to a similar conclusion, as follows:

“High LDL-C (Low-Density Lipoproteins – Cholesterol) is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (i.e., that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic). Since elderly people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis. Moreover, our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies.”

Examples of other drugs:

Lipitor should not stand out as a solitary example, in this field. To establish this point, let me now put forth, just as illustrations, a few more examples of similar bias on positive results in clinical trial publications, besides many others.

An October 4, 2016 article titled, “Big Pharma’s Role in Clinical Trials”, published in the ‘Drug Watch’, quotes several other companies sailing in the same boat, as follows:

  • The Cochrane Collaboration, a nonprofit organization based in London that reviews health care information, concluded that unlike its promotional claims, Roche’s Tamiflu only shortened symptoms of influenza by one day, and it did not prevent hospitalizations or complications from influenza.
  • AstraZeneca reportedly paid US$ 647 million in lawsuit settlements for failing to inform the public of Seroquel’s side effects.
  • Takeda Pharmaceuticals reportedly settled lawsuits claiming the company’s anti-diabetic drug Actos caused bladder cancer, for US$ 2.37 billion.
  • In July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline reportedly pleaded guilty and agreed to pay US$ 3 billion to settle charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice for failing to report clinical data on its anti-diabetic drug Avandia.
  • Johnson & Johnson was reportedly accused of hiding some dangerous side effects like, diabetes, substantial weight gain, stroke and gynecomastia – or breast development in boys for its product Risperdal – used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in adults and adolescents and autism spectrum disorders in children and adolescents.  The company reportedly settled claims in Kentucky, Texas and Montana for a total of more than US$ 340 million and settled multiple cases in Pennsylvania for undisclosed amounts.
  • As reported by ‘Financial Times’ on February 03, 2015, Novartis was accused of manipulating trial data in favor of its anti-hypertensive drug – Diovan, and concealing side-effects associated with its Tasigna – for leukemia treatment. As a result, the company reportedly faced a temporary suspension of its business in Japan, as punishment for alleged manipulation of clinical trial data.

Possible reasons:

The above ‘Drug Watch’ article attributed several reasons to positive data bias in publications, as follows:

  • Researchers publish positive findings more often than negative findings as a result of human bias. Scholars want their work to contribute to medical advancement and not deter it.
  • Researchers do not want to put their time and energy into writing studies about negative results.
  • Journals seek positive results, and publish them more quickly to increase publicity.
  • Trial sponsors want to publish positive results to increase profit.

The article emphasized, “Big Pharma funds 60 percent of all clinical trials, and takes advantage of its power to persuade researchers and influence institutions.  The result is an under-informed, and misinformed medical community giving advice to patients with false or incomplete data. The byproducts of industry cover-ups are scores of deaths and millions of dollars in industry profits.”

Indian scenario:

India is also not immune from such alleged wrongdoings. Indian clinical trial organizations have also been accused of trial related scams, and that too on a mega scale, reaching beyond the shores of the country. I am quoting below two such recent examples:

  • In August 2015, the European Union reportedly banned the marketing of around 700 generic medicines for alleged manipulation of clinical trials conducted by the domestic research company GVK Biosciences. This was reported as the largest EU-wide suspension of sales and distribution of generic drugs ordered by the European Commission that was applicable to all its 28 member nations.
  • In July 2016, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) reportedly recommended suspending the sale of dozens of generic medicines over concerns about “flawed” studies that were conducted by the Semler Research Center, located in Bengaluru. Many of these drugs are sold by Novartis and Teva Pharmaceuticals.
  • In September-October 2015, US-FDA also found “significant instances of misconduct and violations of federal regulations by the same research center, which includes substitution and manipulation of study subject samples.”
  • This year, the World Health Organization (WHO) also had issued a notice to Semler for the same reasons. After, examining the company’s computer servers, early and late last year, WHO reportedly found a spreadsheet file containing detailed instructions for manipulating drug samples that were used in clinical trials for its clients. 

It is even more unfortunate that such malpractices are continuing, even after the Supreme Court of India’s widely reported observation in early 2013 that ‘Uncontrolled clinical trials are causing havoc to human life.’ The apex court of the country made this remark in response to a petition filed by the human rights group Swasthya Adhikar Manch (SAM).  

The upshot:

Recent scrutiny of all original clinical trial findings of many new drugs by the independent experts, including statins, even if taken just as raising controversies, the question would still remain, why did such controversies not surface much earlier, or during the product patent life? No company would possibly be willing to unveil the fact behind this raging debate.

The good news is, pharma companies operating in Europe and the United States have decided to share trial data with qualified researchers, effective 2014, presumably in response to mounting pressure from clinical trial transparency campaigners, for quite some time.

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) have jointly released a set of principles detailing plans to allow greater access to information from clinical trials. However, it fell short of public availability of all clinical trial data. Let’s wait, watch and hope that this seemingly good intent would be translated into reality by all their member companies.

Some pharma companies and their trade associations continue to raise issues of the various legalities against related to public disclosures of all trial data. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that in April 2014, a legislation was approved in Europe by the European Parliament to increase transparency in clinical trials by making the trial results publicly available. EMA was commissioned by the European Parliament to create a database where all interested parties could view comprehensive data from clinical trials. The transparency rules for the European Clinical Trial Regulation entered into force on January 1, 2015 and apply to clinical trial reports contained in all marketing authorization applications submitted on or after this date. On March 3, 2016, EMA announced the detailed guidance on the requirements for pharmaceutical companies to comply with the agency’s policy on publication of clinical trials data for all medicines. Chapter Three of this publication gives guidance to companies on how to anonymize clinical reports for the purpose of publication.

The EMA initiative of transparency of clinical trial data  aims at ensuring that drug companies are aware of what is expected of them, and that they are ready for the publication of these critical data.

Besides Europe, in the United States too, though there is a clear mandate of the federal government that all clinical trial results related to serious or life-threatening diseases require to be published and uploaded on ClinicalTrials.gov – the database of the Government covering all clinical trials in America. However, this government mandate also seems to be hardly followed, both in its letter and spirit, according to reports. Similar scenario, reportedly, still prevails in most other developed countries, as well. India does not seem to be any different in this matter, either.

Intriguingly, the whole issue continues to remain polemical, with more number of initial clinical trial conclusions reportedly turning out to be not as transparent as these ought to be, carrying a significant bias towards positive treatment outcomes.

As a result, prevailing reticence around unveiling all clinical trials, including those of blockbuster drugs, is eventually pushing many patients to the brink of much avoidable and unforeseen serious health risk.

By: Tapan J. Ray  

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

A Patient-Centric State Initiative To Revolutionize Disease Treatment

Posted on by
Reply

In his State of the Union address, just before the recent visit to India in January 2015, President Barack Obama articulated the need to develop “Precision Medicine” in his country – a bold, giant and perhaps unprecedented State initiative to remarkably improve effectiveness of disease treatment.

To set the ball rolling, in his budget proposal for the year 2016, President Obama earmarked an amount of US$ 215 million for this purpose. This includes an allocation of US$130 million for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to create a national research database of about a million American volunteers by studying their genetics together with other relevant factors, such as the environments they live in and the microbes that live in their bodies.

‘Precision Medicine’ initiative is similar to path breaking 13-year and US$3 billion Human Genome Project, that has formed the bedrock of modern genomics, President Obama said. He also expressed hope that the private healthcare sector too, including universities and foundations, will get involved to “lay the foundation” for this new initiative of the Government for the interest of patients.

Why is this approach so relevant in today’s healthcare?

In an article published in the ‘British Medical Journal (BMJ) in October 2012, Richard Smith - an editor of BMJ until 2004 and a Director of the United Health Group’s chronic disease initiative wrote:

“Doctors know that many of the patients they treat with drugs will not benefit. Many patients know that too.”

Dr. Smith also emphasized, for centuries medicine classified diseases by what could be seen, felt, and smelt. Thereafter, medical scientists in this area started defining diseases anatomically, physiologically, and biochemically. Even today, this is by and large the paradigm where most medicines fall.

Smith underscored, because of imprecise diagnosis the treatment also becomes haphazard. There is big variation in how individuals respond to drugs and yet that variation is not usually recorded. The regulators approve drugs based on their average performance even today.

The White House release also reiterates, most medical treatments have been designed for the “average patient.” This “one-size-fits-all-approach,” treatments can be very successful for some patients but not for others.

This calls for broadening the scope of disease treatment – from the conventional and error-prone ‘Disease Oriented’ approach, to relatively more unconventional and better targeted with greater value – ‘Patient-Centric’ ones, wherever needed.

Two current trends:

To address this key deficiency in the effective treatment of several dreaded diseases for many patients, following two are the current trends, as stated by William Pao, M.D., Ph.D., who led Roche’s Oncology Discovery & Translational Area research unit since May 2014:

  • We now know that on a molecular level every cancer is different – not only between different tumors, but even between different areas within a single tumor! This means that we need to match the right drug to the patient who we know will respond best to the drug, at the right time during the course of treatment.
  • Patients will have their tumors profiled not only for genetic drivers, but also for predictive immunotherapy markers at different time points in their course of treatment.

Personalized and Precision Medicine:

The above trends in the endeavor of making treatments more patient specific – thus more effective, have thrown open scientific discourse and intense research on ‘Personalized’ and ‘Precision’ medicines.

As Pfizer has described in its website:

Personalized Medicine is a unique approach to medical practice in which the individual aspects of a patient are directly considered to guide treatment planning, including his or her genetic make-up, key biomarkers, prior treatment history, environmental factors and behavioral preferences. This approach can be used to optimize pharmaceutical treatments and overall care.

Whereas, Precision Medicine is an approach to discovering and developing medicines and vaccines that deliver superior outcomes for patients, by integrating clinical and molecular information to understand the biological basis of disease. Precision medicine is the biopharmaceutical research and development paradigm that will help enable more patient-centered clinical practice, including treatment decision-making based on genetic information – an emerging standard now often described as “personalized medicine”.

As President Obama said while announcing the proposal on January 30, 2015, ‘Precision Medicine’ promises delivery of the right treatment at the right time, every time, to the right person.

He also said that the new effort will “bring us closer to curing diseases like cancer and diabetes…and give all of us access to the personalized information we need to keep ourselves and our families healthier.”

‘Precision Medicines’ Dominate Oncology segment: 

In the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2014 Congress, pharma majors reported their latest advances on precision medicines in the cancer care. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and Merck & Co. were among the companies presented updates of their most promising cancer drugs closer to this area.

According to a large pharma lobby group in the United States – The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA):

“Recent advances in diseases such as cancer and cystic fibrosis are delivering on the promise of targeted treatments, and between 12 and 50 percent of all compounds currently being researched by the industry are potential personalized medicines. These advances hold great promise in improving patient outcomes and controlling costs by targeting the right medicines to the right patients.”

‘DCAT Connect’ Report of September 2014 also indicates significant increase in ‘Precision Medicines’ in the pipelines of the leading global pharma companies, which is a key change over the past decade.

In 2013, targeted therapies increased their share of the global oncology market, accounting for 46 percent of total sales, up from 11 percent a decade ago. According to IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, the global oncology drug market reached US$ 91 billion in 2013 with CAGR of 5.4 percent from 2008 to 2013.

Taking note of this trend, it appears that in the near future ‘Precision Medicines’ would possibly be the most promising class in the treatment of cancer, particularly in breast cancer, lung cancer and certain types of leukemia. This is mainly because medical scientists are already quite acquainted with the molecular signatures of different types of cancer related tumors.

Medical scientists and researchers are also working on ‘Precision Medicines’ to more effectively address many other diseases, such as, diabetes, cardiovascular and ailments related to several types of infections.

Increasing potential:

Realization of the potential of ‘Precision Medicines’ to improve care and speed the development of new treatments has just only begun to be tapped.

In recent times, scientists and researchers have accelerated efforts to understand more about biomarkers for this purpose. A study conducted by the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (vfa) indicates that more than 20 percent of clinical trials carried out since 2005 focused not just on agents, but also on biomarkers. Before 1990, only one in twenty clinical trials addressed biomarkers.

According to another report, last year, 20 percent of all new drug approvals in the United States were for “Precision Medicine” treatments. This vindicates, yet again, the immense potential to turn genetic discoveries into innovative disease treatments for patients.

A bold state sponsored research initiative:

State funded, ‘Precision Medicine’ initiative is a bold new step of the American Government to revolutionize improvement in healthcare and treating disease. It is expected to pioneer a new model of patient-powered research that promises to accelerate biomedical discoveries and provide clinicians with new tools, knowledge, and therapies to select which treatments will work best for which patients.

As the White House release reiterates, most medical treatments have been designed for the “average patient.” As a result of this, “one-size-fits-all-approach” treatments can be very successful for some patients but not for others. This is changing with the emergence of ‘Precision Medicine’, an innovative approach to disease prevention and treatment that takes into account individual differences in people’s genes, environments, and lifestyles.

In this process, ‘Precision Medicine’ gives clinicians tools to better understand the complex mechanisms underlying a patient’s health, disease, or condition, and to better predict which treatments will be most effective.

Opposite view:

In an op-ed titled, ‘Moonshot’ Medicine Will Let Us Down, published recently in The New York Times, the author argued with his differing viewpoints.

I am quoting below three of those arguments:

  • “For most common diseases, hundreds of genetic risk variants with small effects have been identified, and it is hard to develop a clear picture of who is really at risk for what. This was actually one of the major and unexpected findings of the Human Genome Project. In the 1990s and early 2000s, it was thought that a few genetic variants would be found to account for a lot of disease risk. But for widespread diseases like diabetes, heart disease and most cancers, no clear genetic story has emerged for a vast majority of cases.”
  • “Another unexpected finding of the Human Genome Project was the problem of ‘missing heritability.’ While the statistics suggest that there is a genetic explanation for common conditions and diseases running in families or populations, it turns out that the information on genetic variants doesn’t explain that increased risk.”
  • “The idea behind the “war on cancer” was that a deep understanding of the basic biology of cancer would let us develop targeted therapies and cure the disease. Unfortunately, although we know far more today than we did 40-plus years ago, the statistics on cancer deaths have remained incredibly stubborn.”

I am sure, you will analyze the above points with the facts that you have at your disposal on this subject to arrive at a logical conclusion.

Current Applications:

Though these are still early days, initial benefits of ‘Precision Medicines’ have been reported in many areas, such as:

  • Genetic analysis of patients dealing with blood clots: Since 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been recommending genotyping for all patients being assessed for therapy involving Warfarin.
  • Colorectal cancer: For colon cancer patients, the biomarker that predicts how a tumor will respond to certain drugs is a protein encoded by the KRAS gene, which can now be determined through a simple test.
  • Breast cancer: Women with breast tumors can now be effectively screened to determine which receptors their tumor cells contain.
  • Cystic fibrosis: In America, patients with a rare form of cystic fibrosis now can choose a drug designed specifically to target the genetic defect causing their illness. Specialized medical centers, such as “individualized medicine centers” at the Mayo Clinic, are also available to the patients for effective treatment.

Ethical issues:

While following this pursuit of excellence of the genetic scientists in the realm of disease treatment, some experts have reportedly raised flags of caution. They strongly feel that DNA code sequencing brings to light a “very real privacy concerns” of individuals.

GeneWatch UK is an organization that investigates how genetic science and technologies will impact on our food, health, agriculture, environment and society. They have been strongly arguing, if genome sequencing is extended to entire population, individuals and their relatives could then be identified and tracked by matching their DNA with the genome stored in the respective health records. This move, as contemplated by them, could “wipe out privacy” with an impact on the society.

Thus, the ethical and social issues in the development of ‘Precision Medicine’ primarily in the area of genetic testing need to be effectively addressed, sooner.

Conclusion:

The quest for moving away from conventional and error-prone ‘Disease Oriented Treatment’ paving the way for unconventional and value added individual patient-specific ones, may soon come to fruition.

Advances in ‘Precision Medicine’ have already led to powerful new discoveries and several new treatments that are tailored to specific characteristics of individuals, such as a person’s genetic makeup, or the genetic profile of an individual’s tumor.  This is leading to a transformation in the way the world can treat diseases such as cancer.

Patients with breast, lung, and colorectal cancers, melanomas and leukemia, for instance, should be provided with facilities in specialist hospitals to undergo molecular testing as a part of patient care, enabling physicians to select treatments that improve chances of survival and reduce exposure to adverse effects.

Although, the potential for precision medicine to improve care and speed the development of new treatments has only just begun to be tapped, some skeptics do say that tailoring medical treatments to individual characteristics of each patient is both overly optimistic and cost-prohibitive.

Be that as it may, in the balance of probability the benefits of prudent use of ‘Precision Medicine’ far outweigh the concerns expressed. This evolving new paradigm would help saving not just significant expenses, but also precious time that is usually spent on ‘trial-and-error treatments’, by enabling clinicians to determine quickly which therapies are most likely to succeed.

Though lot many grounds would still need to be covered in this area, the State sponsored ‘Precision Medicine’ initiative of America to revolutionize disease treatment, in my view, is indeed a laudable one, every way.

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.

India – Young Today, Old Tomorrow: Emerging Issues of Aging, Health and Socioeconomic Profile of the Country

Posted on by
Reply

‘World Health Day’ is celebrated every year on April 7, the day ‘World Health Organization (WHO)’ was founded in 1948.

Each year, on this day, people from all walks of life across the globe are invited by WHO to focus on a particular emerging health challenge of global relevance, which becomes the theme of the ‘World Health Day’ for the year.

In 2012, the theme for this day was, “Aging and health: Good health adds life to years”. It focuses on how good health throughout the life span can help the senior citizens to lead a full and productive life and in turn makes them valuable and experienced resources not just to their respective families, but also to the societies and communities they belong to.

Aging affects all:

The process of aging, without any exception, affects the entire population, young or old, male or female, rich or poor, alike, across the world and is considered as one of the key factors of social transformations through the passage of time.

With the advancement in medical science coupled with increasing social awareness for living a healthy life, the average life expectancy of the population in the 20th century reportedly increased by around 30 years in the developed world and is expected to maintain similar growth trend in the 21st century, as well.

Now, with an increasing life expectancy even in the developing world, the issue is assuming greater magnitude and at a much faster pace.

In the language of Steve Jobs:

Steve Jobs, the global icon and the former CEO of Apple Inc., during his commencement speech to Stanford in 2005, very aptly articulated as follows:

“No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is, as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.”

In a normal situation old age precedes death and just like the inevitability of death, everybody, even a baby born today will need to embrace the old age before being cleared away by death. Thus, as the population will age as a natural process, there will be growing need to make even the old age more meaningful. Sounds like a tall call, but quite pertinent indeed.

Although, an average elderly person of today is much healthier than of the past generations, they will still need appropriate health management and social security plans, especially for an emerging economy, like India.

World population aging faster:

Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations in its publication titled, “World Population Aging:  1950-2050”, described the trend of ageing of the global population and highlighted the following:

  • Population aging is unprecedented : This is unparallel in human history and the current century will witness even more rapid aging than the previous one.
  • Population aging is pervasive:  It is affecting every man, woman and child across the world, though currently it is at different stages of progress in different countries.
  • Population aging is enduring:  The world will not return to the young populations of our ancestors.
  • Population aging has profound implications:  It affects many facets of lives of human beings.

Increasing burden of disease:

The burden of some serious age related diseases increases by manifold as the life progresses towards its ‘twilight zone’. Even now, the treatment costs and overall burden of age related diseases, both in the developed and the developing countries, are escalating in an alarming proportion.

Age related diseases:

According WHO, in the industrialized countries over 75 percent of deaths in people of over 65 years of age are due to cancer, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, in addition to disabilities like, loss of bone density leading to osteoporosis.

As per published reports, the incidence of age related Alzheimer’s disease, which is now incurable, will almost double every 20 years to reach around 66 million in 2030 and over 115 million in 2050.

Research for delaying the onset:

Reuters in an article titled, “Is aging a disease?” published in May 20, 2010 reported that many scientists from various parts of the world are now studying the genetic mechanisms of the old persons to help delay, if not overcome, the onset of diseases like Alzheimer’s, cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular ailments and many other age-related illnesses to help leading a better quality of life during old age of the human population.

Elderly population and the impact:

As per an estimate of the United Nations (UN), there will be around 1200 million people over 65 years of age by 2025. Currently, from across the world millions of aging people are denied of proper health care for various reasons. The situation in India is much worse.

It is envisaged by many that failure, either on the part of the Government or society at large, to address this critical issue today, could have a snowballing effect tomorrow.

In Japan, currently half of the national health budget is spent on the elderly individuals, which constitute around a whopping 23 percent of the country’s population. According to another estimate of the Japanese Government, by 2055 half of their total population will constitute of retired senior citizens.

India:

With over 65 percent of the population of India being now below 30 years of age, the country is  well poised to have one of the largest numbers of young and productive population in the world, though 7 percent of country’s 1.13 billion people are now over 60 years of age and the number is growing.

The Median Age of the population will keep on increasing over a period of time as follows:

Aging Profile: India and other countries

Year 2000 2015 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050
Median Age–India 23.4 27.2 30.3 31.4 33.5 35.0 37.9
Median Age–World 26.4 29.5 31.9 33.0 34.0 34.9 36.8
Median Age–More Developed Regions 37.3 41.2 43.3 44.2 45.0 45.4 45.2
Median Age–Less Developed Regions 24.1 27.5 30.0 31.2 32.4 33.5 35.7
Median Age–Least Developed Regions 18.1 19.6 21.2 22.2 23.3 24.5 27.1

(Source: Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United

Nations Secretariat)

Growth of elderly population is much faster than the population:

As as per the paper titled, “Implications of an Aging Population in India: Challenges and Opportunities” presented at ‘The Living to 100 and Beyond Symposium’ of the Society of Actuaries in Orlando on January 12–14, 2005, the Indian population has approximately tripled during the last 50 years, but the number of elderly Indians has increased more than fourfold.

Assuming continuation of this trend, the United Nations have predicted that the Indian population will again grow by 50 percent in the next 50 years, with the elderly population recording another fourfold growth.

Changing demographic profile:

The situation in India, therefore, by no means is a trivial one and needs to be addressed with a right earnest and sooner, mainly because of the changes in the demographic profile of the country, as follows:

Projected Changes in Indian Demography (in Million)

Age Group

2000

2015

2025

2030

2035

2040

2050
0-14 Years

347

345

337

327

313

300

285
15-59 Years

593

782

865

895

919

937

938
>60 Years

77

119

167

195

223

248

308
Total

1,017

1,246

1,369

1,417

1,455

1,485

1,531

(Source: Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat)

Thus, over a period of time in India, increasing number of less productive elderly people and the declining trend of the younger population, could adversely impact the overall socioeconomic profile and and the disease burden of the nation.

Conclusion:

In India, there has been hardly any support in terms of social security, especially for a vast majority of people, who are unable to work after becoming senior citizens of the country.

In a situation like this, the Government of India, civil society and the private sector enterprises of the country should work in tandem to give shape to appropriate policy measures to effectively address the issues of the increasing number aging population of the country, over a period of time.

This is necessary not just for the socioeconomic reasons, but also to arrest any significant increase in the overall disease burden of the nation with its possible adverse impact on the growing economy of the country.

Continuing lack of interest to work out a long term social and policy measures to address the important issues related to population aging in India, in a holistic way, could significantly impede the pace of economic growth of the country, celebration of the ‘World Health Day’ on April 7, 2012 notwithstanding.

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.