Tag Archives: Lantus

A Game-Changing Non-Covid Drug Approval In the Pandemic Milieu

Posted on by
Reply

Amid high decibel deliberations on Covid-19 pandemic, something similar to groundbreaking happened – involving Biosimilar drugs, in just a couple of months ago. On July 28, 2021, in the Eldorado of the pharma industry, the US-FDA approved  the first ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drug, for wider access to modern and much affordable treatment of diabetes. This is expected to open new vistas of opportunity for biosimilar drugs, in general, across the world.

The development is even more interesting, as the product named Semglee belongs to India’s largest biopharmaceutical company - Biocon Biologic. It’s an ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar insulin glargine, referencing Sanofi’s, reportedly  the second best-selling product in 2020 - Lantus. Notably, the Biocon product was launched in 2020 without the ‘interchangeability’ designation.

Although, the patent of this long-acting insulin (glargine) – used to treat diabetes type I and II, expired during 2015, in 2020 also Lantus generated some 2.7 billion U.S. dollars worldwide. Many envisage, the approval of this first ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar insulin glargine will foster stronger competition in the insulin market, which is currently dominated by a handful of brands, like Lantus – and characterized by their stubbornly high prices.

In today’s article, I shall focus on what it means to pharma marketers for greater market access to ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drugs.

What ‘interchangeability’ really means:

As I wrote in my article on July 31,2017, there are two key barriers to improving patient access to biosimilar drugs, and one of which is the issue of their ‘interchangeability’ with original biologic drugs. It means, besides being highly similar, a biosimilar drug would require indisputable clinical evidence – that it gives the same result to patients, just as the original biologic medicine.

Thus, lack of the ‘interchangeability’ designation makes many physicians hesitant to switch, for all those existing patients who are on expensive original biologic drugs, to less expensive available biosimilar alternatives. Only new patients in that case, are prescribed biosimilar drugs, sans ‘interchangeability’ label from the drug regulator, especially in the US.

Overcoming a tough barrier to biosimilar market growth:

This was echoed by another article on ‘Interchangeability’ of biosimilars, published in the Pharmaceutical Journal on July 22, 2020. It wrote, ‘One of the hurdles in the adoption of biosimilars is the lack of interchangeability with reference biologics.’ While interchangeability is an important issue for doctors, ‘different definitions and regulatory frameworks that exist in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions add to the complexity.’

What the ‘interchangeable’ designation of Semglee will really mean, in terms of affordability to patients, was lucidly explained in an article, published in the AJMC – the center for Biosimilars – on July 29, 2021. It underscored: ‘An interchangeable designation means that Semglee can be substituted for Lantus automatically by pharmacists without physicians’ permission.’ As reported, Semglee will cost nearly 3 times less than the list price of Sanofi’s Lantus, which in 2019 clocked in at $283.56 for a single vial and $425.31 for a box of five pens, in the US.

Are interchangeable biosimilars superior to other biosimilars?

The ‘interchangeable’ designation is not meant to suggest that such biosimilars are superior to ones without this label. However, to obtain the ‘interchangeable’ designation, biosimilar manufacturers are required to perform ‘switching studies.’ These provide evidence that patients who are using originator’s biologic drug, when switch to a comparable biosimilar, do not experience higher rates of adverse events or decreased efficacy. The same has also been clearly explained in the AJMC article of July 29, 2021, as mentioned above.

But, if marketed well, ‘interchangeable’ biosimilars can provide a cutting edge to encourage consumers to switch to the less-expensive ‘interchangeable’ versions of the original higher priced biologic drugs. Consequently, more economical ‘interchangeable’ biosimilars would carve out a larger market share, creating a win-win situation. For patients, it will expand affordable access to biologic drugs- and for the company increased revenue from the expanding biosimilar market, as several studies point out.

Expanding biosimilar market:

According to the IQVIA report of March 04, 2021, the global biosimilars market currently shows double-digit growth and is expected to maintain a similar level of uptake in the coming years. This will be driven by the rising incidence of chronic diseases and the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars, especially as more stringent cost-containment measures are likely – post COVID-19 pandemic.

The paper concluded, biosimilars will continue to register impressive growth in their market share, aided by patent expiries and regulatory improvements which will permit easier and more rapid market access. Many pharmaceutical companies – having witnessed this trend, are now preparing to leverage the biosimilar opportunity. However, marketing large molecule biosimilar drugs will not be quite the same as marketing small molecule generics. 

Estimated savings to patients with biosimilars – in Covid-19 context:

As the IQVIA Institute estimates, over the next five years biosimilars could globally contribute a cumulative $285 billions of savings to patients and payers. To put this in context, it says, over the same period, around $150 billion will be spent on COVID-19 vaccines. According to a senior IQVIA official, as quoted by Reuters Events of July 2, 2021: “The five-year savings from biosimilars could almost double the amount of incremental spending that will be going out to get everybody vaccinated around the world.”

Going by the IQVIA data, biosimilars are between 20% and 50% more affordable. And this is especially at a time when affordability drives a lot of healthcare - sustainability that has emerged as a major issue during the pandemic.

Conclusion:

Currently, in many countries of the world, alongside Covid vaccination drive in top gear, creation of a disruptive pandemic-specific – a robust health infrastructure for the future, is yet to be in place. More importantly, public health facilities, especially in India, are still struggling hard to meet affordable health care needs of patients – sans restrictions or apprehensions of getting infected by Covid-19.

Against this backdrop, the very first approval of an ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drug, in the Eldorado of pharma business – the US, brings a new hope to many patients, in 2021. An expectation of reducing their healthcare burden, significantly. This will happen, as the prescribers muster enough confidence to advise patients switching from highly expensive original biologic to more affordable ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar drugs, as and when these are launched.

In tandem, with this growing new confidence, others – even ‘non-interchangeable’ biosimilar drugs, will be able to deliver more value being, besides greater affordability – wider access to sustainable-treatments for patients.

This comes, possibly with a caveat. Biosimilar drug marketers will need to chart a new marketing frontier, without holding on to their pre-covid strategies – especially for large molecule biosimilar drugs.

From this perspective, the US-FDA’s regulatory approval of the first ‘interchangeable’ biosimilar insulin to Sanofi’s high-priced Lantus, carries a game-changing potential in the biosimilar drug market, for astute pharma marketers to leverage.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

A ‘Toxin’ Delaying Success of Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

‘Toxin’ that delays biosimilar drug launch:

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

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

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

Protecting own patents Big Pharma challenging rivals’ patents:

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

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

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

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

Doctors’ attitude on biosimilar prescription:

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

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

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

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

Any therapeutic difference between the original biologic and biosimilars?

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

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

The invisible barriers to biosimilar drugs in India:

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

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

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

A recent experience on biosimilar drug interchangeability in India:

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

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

Is an original biologic generally superior to Indian biosimilars?

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

 

Patent Expiry No Longer End of The Road

Posted on by
Reply

Who says that the phenomenal success of blockbuster drugs is mostly eaten away by  ‘look-alikes’ of the same, immediately after respective patent expiry? It doesn’t seem to be so any longer, not anymore! Several examples will vindicate this emerging trend. However, I shall quote just a few of these from the published reports.

In 2016, the patent of AbbVie’s Humira (Adalimumab), indicated in the treatment of autoimmune diseases and moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, expired in the United States (US). It will also expire in Europe by 2018. This event was expected to create significant opportunities for lower priced Adalimumab biosimilars in the US market, increasing the product access to many more patients at affordable prices. Just as it happens with patent expiry of small molecule blockbuster drugs. One of the classic examples of which, is a sharp decline in sales turnover and profit from Pfizer’s Lipitor (Atorvastatin), as its patent expired on November 30, 2011.

However, Humira topped the prescription-drug list of 2016 with an annual growth of 15 percent, accounting for USD 16 billion sales, globally. More interestingly, according to a recent report of EvaluatePharma, AbbVie’s Humira will continue to retain its top most ranking in 2020 with expected sales of USD 13.9 billion. Nevertheless, possible threat from biosimilars has slightly slowed down its growth. Although, there are many other similar examples, I would quote just three more of these to illustrate the point, as follows:

  • Rituxan (Rituximab, MabThera) indicated in the treatment of cancer and co-marketed by Biogen and Roche, went off-patent in 2015. However, in 2016, the product held 4th position in the prescription drug market with a revenue growth of nearly 3 percent. Even five years after its patent expiry, Rituxan is still expected to occupy the 17th rank with an estimated turnover of over USD 5 billion in 2020, according to the EvaluatePharma report.
  • Remicade (Infliximab) indicated for autoimmune diseases and manufactured by J&J and Merck, lost market exclusivity in 2015. But, in 2016 it still held 5th place in the global ranking. Five years after it goes off patent, Remicade is expected to feature in the 6th rank in 2020, with an estimated turnover of over USD 6.5 billion, according to the same report as above.
  • The US product patent for Lantus – a long-acting human insulin analog manufactured by Sanofi, expired in August 2014. However, in 2016, clocking a global turnover of USD 6.05 billion, Lantus still ranked 10 in the global prescription brand league table. Six years after its patent expiry – in 2020, Lantus will continue to feature in the rank 20, as the same EvaluatePharma report estimates.

These examples give a feel that unlike small molecule blockbuster drugs, patent expiry is still not end of the road to retain this status for most large molecule biologics, across the world. In this article, I shall discuss this point taking Humira as the case study.

What about biosimilar competition?

In any way, this does not mean that related biosimilars are not getting regulatory approval in the global markets, post-patent expiry of original biologic drugs, including the United States. Nonetheless, biosimilar makers are facing new challenges in this endeavor, some of which are highly cost intensive, creating tough hurdles to make such drugs available to more patients at an affordable price, soon enough. It happened for the very first biosimilar to Humira, as well. On September 23, 2016, almost immediately after its patent expiry in 2016, the USFDA by a Press Release announced approval for the first biosimilar to Humira (adalimumab). This was Amgen’s Amjevita (adalimumab-atto), indicated for multiple inflammatory diseases.

The second biosimilar to AbbVie’s Humira – Boehringer Ingelheim’s Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm), was also approved by the USFDA in August 2017. So far, six biosimilars have been introduced in the United states. But, none of these got approved as an ‘interchangeable’ product. Some of these, such as Cyltezo could not even be launched, as yet. I shall discuss this point later in this article. Thus, Humira is expected to retain its top global prescription brand ranking in 2020 – over 4 years after its patent expiry.

In Europe, two marketing authorizations were reportedly granted by the European Commission (EC) in March 2017 for Amgen’s biosimilars to Humira, named Amgevita (adalimumab) and Solymbic (adalimumab). Later this year, in November 2017 Boehringer Ingelheim’s – Cyltezo also received its European marketing approval.

It is worth noting that in December 2014, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly granted marketing approval for Zydus Cadila’s Adalimumab biosimilar (Exemptia) for treating rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune disorders in India. The company claims: “This novel non-infringing process for Adalimumab Biosimilar and a novel non-infringing formulation have been researched, developed and produced by scientists at the Zydus Research Centre. The biosimilar is the first to be launched by any company in the world and is a ‘fingerprint match’ with the originator in terms of safety, purity and potency of the product.”

Several important reasons indicate why a full throttle competition is lacking in the  biosimilar market early enough – immediately after patent expiry of original biologic molecules. I shall cite just a couple of these examples to illustrate the point. One is related to aggressive brand protection, creating a labyrinth of patents having different expiry dates. And the other is a regulatory barrier in the form of drug ‘interchangeability’ condition, between the original biologic and related biosimilars:

In the labyrinth of patents:

The most recent example of innovator companies fiercely protecting their original biologic from the biosimilar competition by creating a labyrinth of patents is Boehringer Ingelheim’s Cyltezo. This is biosimilar to AbbVie’s Humira, approved by the USFDA and EC in August 2017 and November 2017, respectively.

According to reports: “BI does not intend to make the drug commercially available in Europe until the respective SPC (supplementary protection certificate) for adalimumab, which extends the duration of certain rights associated with a patent, expires in October 2018. Cyltezo is also not yet available in the US despite its approval there in August, because of ongoing patent litigation with AbbVie. AbbVie reportedly holds more than 100 patents on Humira, and believes that Boehringer could infringe 74 of these with the launch of its biosimilar. Similarly, the firm has also taken Amgen to court to block the launch of its proposed Humira biosimilar.”

Another interesting example is the epoch-making breast cancer targeted therapy Trastuzumab (Herceptin of Roche/Genentech). The patent on Herceptin reportedly expired in 2014 in Europe and will expire in the United States in 2019. The brand registered a turnover of USD 2.5 billion in 2016. However, a November 21, 2017 report says that creating a series of hurdle in the way of Pfizer’s introduction to Herceptin biosimilar, Roche has sued Pfizer for infringement of 40 patents of its blockbuster breast cancer drug. Pfizer hasn’t yet won approval for its Herceptin biosimilar, though, USFDA accepted its application in August 2017 – the report highlights

‘Interchangeability’ condition for biosimilars:

In the largest global pharma market – the United States, USFDA classifies biosimilars into two very distinct categories:

  • Biosimilars that are “expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product”
  • Biosimilars that are “interchangeable,” or able to be switched with their reference product

According to reports, experts’ argument over ‘interchangeability’ in the US range from “whether pharmacists should be allowed to switch a biologic for its biosimilar without a doctor’s notification, to whether interchangeable biosimilars might be perceived as better or safer than their non-interchangeable counterparts.” This debate has somewhat been resolved by the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) issuance of draft guidance in January 2017, specifying what should be submitted to support an interchangeable application, the report says.

The article also indicates, “the draft makes clear that switching studies to help gain this designation should evaluate changes in treatment that result in two or more alternating exposures (switch intervals) to the proposed interchangeable product and to the reference product. Study design, types of data and other considerations are also included in that draft.” Nonetheless, compliance with this regulatory requirement is expected to be highly cost intensive, too.

Quoting a senior USFDA official, a report dated June 26, 2017 mentioned: “interchangeable biosimilars will come to market within the next two years, though possibly sooner. And the first interchangeable biosimilar will likely be reviewed by an FDA advisory committee of outside experts.” Still the bottom line remains no biosimilar has yet been approved by the USFDA as ‘interchangeable’. Hence, the optics related to desirable success for biosimilars continue to remain somewhat apprehensive, I reckon.

Patent related litigations on Trastuzumab (Herceptin) were filed by Roche in India, as well. However, it’s good to note that on December 01, 2017, by a Press Release, USFDA announced the approval of Mylan’s biosimilar variety of Roche’s blockbuster breast cancer drug – Herceptin. Mylan’s Ogivri was co-developed with Biocon in India to treat breast or stomach cancer, and is the first biosimilar approved in the United States for these indications. It is noteworthy that Ogivri also has not been approved as an interchangeable product.

The global and local scenario for biosimilars:

Be that as it may, the July 26, 2017 study of Netscribes – a global market intelligence and content management firm estimates that the global biosimilar market will be worth USD 36 billion by 2022. Some of the major findings of this study are as follows:

  • With a cumulative share of nearly 85%, North America, Europe, and Japan are the major contributors to global biological and biosimilar sales. Asia and Africa account for 13.2% and 1.2%, respectively.
  • Pfizer is the leading player in the biologic market, with sales of nearly USD 45.9 billion in 2016 followed by Novartis (41.6 billion) and Roche (39.6 billion).
  • Biosimilar approvals are estimated to be around of around 16 to 20 biosimilars between 2018 to 2021 in both US and EU.
  • The US is not a favorable market for biosimilars due to a number of reasons, such as poor access to biologic drugs and an unfavorable regulatory environment.
  • South Africa is one of the best-suited markets for biosimilars due to a favorable regulatory environment and prescriber acceptance.

According to the April 2017 analysis of Research And Markets, biosimilars have started winning key government tenders in countries like Mexico and Russia, and being purchased by a growing number of patients in self-pay markets such as India. The aggregate sales of ‘copy biologics’ in the six BRIC-MS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, Mexico, and South Korea) countries would now almost certainly exceed USD 1.5 billion. Yet Another estimate  expects the Indian biosimilar market to increase from USD 186 million in 2016 to USD 1.1 billion in 2020. It is up to individual experts to assess whether or not this growth trend for biosimilars is desirable to adequately benefit a large number of patients, the world over.

Conclusion:

In my view, if what usually happens to sales and profit for small molecule blockbuster drugs post patent expiry, would have happened to the large molecule biologic drugs, the market scenario for biosimilars would have been quite different. In that scenario, one would have witnessed a plethora of biosimilar competition against high priced and money churning biologics, such as Humira, being launched with a significantly lesser price than the original brand.

Prices of biosimilars would have been much lesser primarily because, the litigation cost, now built into the biosimilar prices for successfully coming out of the labyrinth of patents after the basic patent expiry, would have been minimal. Moreover, restrictions on drug ‘interchangeability’ would not have made the target market smaller, especially in the United states.

Alongside, compliance with the regulatory need to meet the ‘interchangeability’ condition in the US, would drive the product cost even higher. More so, when this specific regulatory requirement is not necessary in other developed markets, like Europe. Both these factors would adversely impact affordability and access to sophisticated biologic drugs for patients, even after the fixed period of market exclusivity.

That said, a virtually impregnable patent labyrinth mostly ensures that going off-patent isn’t end of the road for blockbuster biologic drugs to continue generating significant revenue and  profit, any longer – and it would remain so at least, in the short to medium term.

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.

Biosimilar Drugs: First Indian Foot Print In An Uncharted Frontier

Posted on by
Reply

A homegrown Indian biologic manufacturer is now about to leave behind its first foot-print, with a ‘made in India’ biosimilar drug, in one of the largest pharma market of the world. This was indeed an uncharted frontier, and a dream to realize for any Indian bio-pharma player.                                                      

On March 28, 2016, by a Press Release, Bengaluru based Biocon Ltd., one of the premier biopharmaceutical companies in India, announced that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) of Japan has approved its biosimilar Insulin Glargine in a prefilled disposable pen. The product is a biosimilar version of Sanofi’s blockbuster insulin brand – ‘Lantus’.

The Company claims that Glargine is a high quality, yet an affordable priced product, as it will reportedly cost around 25 percent less than the original biologic brand – Lantus. This ‘made in India’ biosimilar product is expected to be launched in Japan in the Q1 of 2017. Incidentally, Japan is the second largest Glargine market in the world with a value of US$ 144 Million. Biocon will co-market this product with its partner Fujifilm.

Would it be a free run? 

Although it is a very significant and well-deserved achievement of Biocon, but its entry with this biosimilar drug in Japan’s Lantus market, nevertheless, does not seem to be free from tough competition. This is because, in 2015, both Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim also obtained Japanese regulatory approval for their respective biosimilar versions of Lantus. In the same year, both these companies also gained regulatory approval from the US-FDA, and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) for their respective products.

Moreover, Sanofi’s longer acting version of Lantus – Lantus XR, or Toujeo, to treat both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, has already been approved in Japan, which needs to be injected less, expectedly making it more convenient to patients.

Key barriers to a biosimilar drug's success: 

Such barriers, as I shall briefly outline below, help sustaining monopoly of the original biologic even after patent expiry, discourage investments in innovation in search of biosimilars, and adversely impacts access to effective and much less expensive follow-on-biologics to save patients’ precious lives. 

These barriers can be broadly divided in two categories: 

A. Regulatory barriers:

1. Varying non-proprietary names:

A large number of biosimilar drug manufacturers, including insurers and large pharmacy chains believe, just as various global studies have also indicated that varying non-proprietary names for biosimilars, quite different from the original biologic, as required by the drug regulators in the world’s most regulated pharma markets, such as, the United States, Europe, Japan, and Australia, restrict competition in the market for the original biologic brands. 

However, the innovator companies for biologic drugs hold quite different views. For example, Roche (Genentech), a developer of original biologic, reportedly explained that “distinguishable non-proprietary names are in the best interest of patient safety, because they facilitate Pharmacovigilance, and mitigate inadvertent product substitution.”

Even, many other global companies that develop both original biologic and also biosimilar products such as, Amgen, Pfizer and others, also reportedly support the use of ‘distinguishable nonproprietary names’.

That said, the Biosimilars Council of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association argues that consistent non-proprietary naming will ensure robust market formation that ultimately supports patient access, affordability, Pharmacovigilance systems currently in place and allow for unambiguous prescribing, 

2. Substitution or interchangeable with original biologics:

Besides different ‘non-proprietary names’, but arising primarily out of this issue, automatic substitution or interchangeability is not permitted for biosimilar drugs by the drug regulators in the major pharma markets of the world, such as, the United States, Europe and Japan.

The key argument in favor of interchangeability barrier for biosimilar drugs is the fact that the biological drugs, being large protein molecules, can never be exactly replicated. Hence, automatic substitution of original biologic with biosimilar drugs does not arise. This is mainly due to the safety concern that interchangeability between the biosimilars and the original biologic may increase immunogenicity, giving rise to adverse drug reactions. Hence, it would be risky to allow interchangeability of biosimilar drugs, without generating relevant clinical trial data.

On the other hand, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) and the Biosimilars Council, vehemently argue that a biosimilar drug has a lot many other unique identifying characteristics “including a brand name, company name, a lot number and a National Drug Code (NDC) number that would readily distinguish it from other products that share the same nonproprietary name.”

Further, the interchangeable status for biosimilar drugs would also help its manufacturers to tide over the initial apprehensions on safety and quality of biosimilar drugs, as compared to the original ones.

3. 12-year Data Exclusivity period for biologics in the United states:

Currently, the new law for biologic products in the United States provides 12 years of data exclusivity for a new biologic. This is five years more than what is granted to small molecule drugs. 

Many experts believe that this system would further delay the entry of cost-effective biosimilar drugs, restrict the biosimilar drug manufacturers from relying on the test data submitted to drug regulator by the manufacturers of the original biologic drugs while seeking marketing approval.

A rapidly evolving scenario in the United States:

The regulatory space for approval of biosimilar drugs is still evolving in the Unites States. This is vindicated by the fact that in March 2016, giving a somewhat positive signal to the biosimilar drug manufacturers, the US-FDA released another set of a 15-page draft guidelines on how biosimilar products should be labeled for the US market. Interestingly, it has come just around a year of the first biosimilar drug approval in the United States – Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis.

The US-FDA announcement says that all ‘comments and suggestions regarding this draft document should be submitted within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register of the notice announcing the availability of the draft guidance.’ Besides labeling issues, this draft guidance document, though indicates that the ‘interchangeability’ criteria will be addressed in the future, does not still throw enough light on how exactly to determine ‘interchangeability’ for biosimilar drugs.

That said, these key regulatory barriers are likely to continue, at least in the foreseeable future, for many reasons. The biosimilar drug manufacturers, therefore, would necessarily have to work within the set regulations, as applicable to different markets of the world.

I deliberated a related point in my article of August 25, 2014, titled “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns” 

B. Prescribers’ skepticism:  

Initial skepticism of the medical profession for biosimilar drugs are, reportedly, due to the high voltage advocacy of the original biologic manufacturers on the ‘documented variability between original biologic and biosimilars. Which is why, any substitution of an original biologic with a related biosimilar drug could lead to increase in avoidable adverse reactions.

‘The medical platform and community QuantiaMD’, released a study just around September 2015, when by a Press Release, Novartis announced the launch of the first biosimilar approved by the US-FDA – Zarxio(TM) (filgrastim-sndz). However, in 2006, Novartis after suing the US-FDA, got the approval for its human growth hormone – Omnitrope, which is a biosimilar of the original biologic of Genentech and Pfizer. At that time a clear regulatory guideline for biosimilar drugs in the United States, was not in place.

The QuantiaMD report at that time said, “Only 12% of prescribing specialists are ‘very confident’ that biosimilars are as safe as the original biologic version of the drug. In addition, a mere 17% said they were ‘very likely’ to prescribe a biosimilar, while 70% admitted they were not sure if they would.” 

Since then, this scenario for biosimilar drugs is changing though gradually, but encouragingly. I shall dwell on that below.

The major growth drivers:

The major growth drivers for biosimilars, especially, in the world’s top pharmaceutical markets are expected to be:

  • Growing pressure to curtail healthcare expenditure
  • Growing demand for biosimilar drugs due to their cost-effectiveness
  • Rising incidences of various life-threatening diseases
  • Increasing number of off-patent biologics
  • Positive outcome in the ongoing clinical trials
  • Rising demand for biosimilars in different therapeutic applications, such as, rheumatoid arthritis and blood disorders. 

This in turn would probably usher in an unprecedented opportunity for the manufacturers of high quality biosimilar drugs, including in India.

Unfolding a huge emerging opportunity with biosimilars: 

This unprecedented opportunity is expected to come mainly from the world’s three largest pharma market, namely the United States, Europe and Japan, due to very high prices of original biologic drugs, and simultaneously to contain rapidly escalating healthcare expenditure by the respective Governments. 

Unlike in the past, when the doctors were apprehensive, and a bit skeptic too, on the use of new biosimilars, some new studies of 2016 indicate a rapid change in that trend. After the launch of the first biosimilar drug in the US, coupled with rapidly increasing incidences of various complex, life-threatening diseases, better knowledge of biosimilar drugs and their cost-effectiveness, doctors are now expressing much lesser concern, and exhibiting greater confidence in the use of biosimilars in their clinical practice.

Yet another, March 2016 study indicates, now only 19.5 percent of respondents feel little or no confidence in the use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies compared to 61percent of respondents to a previous version of the survey undertaken in 2013 by the same market research group. The survey also shows that 44.4 percent of respondents consider that the original biologic and its biosimilar versions are interchangeable, as compared with only 6 percent in the 2013 survey.

As a result of this emerging trend, some global analysts of high credibility estimate that innovative biologic brands will lose around US$110 billion in sales to their biosimilar versions by 2025.

Another March, 2016 report of IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics states that lower-cost biosimilar versions of complex biologic, could save the US and Europe’s five top markets as much as US$112 billion by 2020,

These encouraging developments in the global biosimilar arena are expected to encourage the capable Indian biosimilar drug players to invest in this high-tech format of drug development, and reap a rich harvest as the high priced blockbuster biologic brands go off-patent.

Conclusion:

Putting all these developments together, and considering the rapidly emerging scenario in this space, it now appears that challenges ahead for rapid acceptance of biosimilar drugs though are still many, but not insurmountable, at all.

The situation necessitates application of fresh and innovative marketing strategies to gain doctors’ confidence on biosimilar medicines, in total conformance with the regulatory requirements for the same, as they are, in the most important regulated markets of the world.

It goes without saying that success in the generation of enough prescriptions for biosimilar drugs is the fundamental requirement to benefit the patients, which, in turn, would lead to significant savings in health care cost, as estimated above, creating a win-win situation for all, in every way.

As more innovator companies start joining the biosimilar bandwagon, the physicians’ perception on these new varieties of medicines, hopefully, would also change, sooner.

Biocon’s grand announcement of its entry with a ‘made in India’ biosimilar drug in one of the word’s top three pharma markets, would probably be a great encouragement for all other Indian biosimilar drug manufacturers. It clearly showcases the capabilities of an Indian drug manufacturer to chart in an uncharted and a highly complex frontier of medicine.

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.

Pharma Outlook 2015: A Glimpse Of Some Drivers and Barriers

Posted on by
Reply

Looking ahead, the brand new year 2015 appears quite interesting to me both from the global and also from the local pharmaceutical industry perspective. In this article I shall try to give a glimpse of some of the important drivers and barriers for success of the industry as the year unfolds, based on recent and ongoing developments.

Let me start with the global outlook of 2015, where in the midst of all gloom and doom of the past years, I notice formation of a distinct and new silver lining, mainly due to the following two reasons:

1. Record number of new drugs approval in 2014 spanning across10 therapy areas:

As indicated in its website, USFDA has approved 41 novel medicines in 2014, which is 14 more than the previous year and is the second highest after 1996 that witnessed 53 approvals. Many of these new drugs are with blockbuster potential.

According to another report, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has also recommended 82 new medicines in 2014, which though includes generic drugs in its list. However, this number too shows an increase from 79 in 2013 and 57 in 2012.

According to January 02, 2014 report from Forbes, very interestingly, infectious diseases dominated with 12 approvals (27 percent), cancer with 8 approvals (18 percent), followed by rare diseases with 5 (11 percent). Just two of these new approvals are for Hepatitis treatment and the rest are for bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic infections.

AstraZeneca received the highest number of 4 approvals followed by Eli Lilly with 3.

2. Patent expired blockbuster drugs in 2015 would have low generic impact:

Though drugs worth sales turnover of US$ 44 billion would go off patent in 2015, patent expiries will have minimal impact on the top line as 2015 sales will grow close to four times that of patent losses. Following are the top 10 drugs among those:

No. Brand Company Disease Sales2013 (US$ Bn) Patent Expiry
1. Lantus Sanofi Diabetes 7.9 Feb 2015
2. Abilify Otsuka/Bristol-Myers Squibb Schizophrenia/ Other neurological conditions 7.8 April 2015
3. Copaxone Teva Multiple sclerosis 4.33 Sept 2015
4. Neulasta Amgen Infection reduction in cancer patients on chemotherapy 4.4 Oct 2015
5. Tracleer Actelion Pulmonary arterial hypertension 1.57 Nov 2015
6. Namenda Actavis Alzheimer’s disease 1.5 April 2015
7. Avodart/Jalyn GSK Benign prostatic hypertrophy 1.34 Nov 2015
8. Zyvox Pfizer Gram-positive bacterial infections 1.35 May 2015
9. AndroGel Abbvie Low testosterone  1.03 Early 2015
10. Synagis AstraZeneca Monoclonal antibody to prevent respiratory syncytial virus infection in infants  1.1 Oct 2015

(Compiled from FiercePharma data)

As a significant number of these drugs are biologics, such as Lantus, Abilify, Neulasta and Synagis, the generic impact on those large brands, post patent expiry, would be minimal, at least, for several more years.

However, Lantus sales could soon be impacted, as its biosimilar versions from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly have already received approval in Europe, and may be launched in the United States, as well.

Biosimilar versions of other drugs that will go off patent in 2015, do not seem to be anywhere near launch soon to make immediate dent in the sales of the original biologics. I had deliberated on various possible reasons for delay in biosimilar entry, especially in the US, in my earlier blog post of August 25, 2014, titled “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”

Taking all these into consideration, EvaluatePharma has estimated that out of patent expiry related sales turnover of US$44 billion, just around US $16 billion would get impacted in 2015 by their generic equivalents.

Global market outlook 2015:

According to IMS Health, spending on medicines will reach nearly $1,100 billion in 2015 with a growth rate of 3-6 percent over the last five-year period.

According to EvaluatePharma, the overall outlook of the global pharma industry in 2015 and beyond is expected to be as follows:

  • A dozen products launched in 2015 are forecast to achieve blockbuster sales by 2020
  • Drugs treating high cholesterol and heart failure will dominate the field with a combined 2020 sales forecast of US$8 billion
  • Sovaldi and its combination product Harvoni will take the number one worldwide seller spot with forecasted sales of $15.3 billion in 2015
  • Patent expiries will have minimal impact on the top line as 2015 sales will grow close to four times that of patent losses
  • Financing climate appears friendly and deals will continue at a steady pace but M&A activity unlikely to match the frenzy of 2014

Moreover, Oncology therapy area brings a huge promise with novel immuno-oncology drugs. As Reuters have reported, Merck & Co’s Keytruda and Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Opdivo, which work by blocking a protein called Programmed Death receptor (PD-1), are the first in a coming wave of immuno-therapies that analysts believe could generate annual sales of more than US$30 billion a year.

Indian pharma industry outlook 2015:

Indian pharmaceutical industry, dominated by branded generic drugs, is estimated to register a turnover of around US$ 33.8 billion with an average growth of 10.3 percent in 2014 – 2018 period, according to Deloitte. Increasing number of diagnosis and treatment of chronic ailments, fuelled by ascending trend in the per capita income, would be the key factors to drive this double-digit growth rate.

In 2013-14, pharma exports of the country with a turnover of US$ 14.84 billion grew at a meager 1.2 percent, which is the slowest growth in nearly the last 15 years. Pharmexcil attributed its reason to USFDA related regulatory issues and increasing global competition. India still stands exposed in this area, unless meaningful corrective measures are taken forthwith. It is worth noting, although India exports drugs to over 200 countries in the world, the United States (US) alone accounts for about 25 percent of India’s pharma exports.

Key issues and challenges in ‘The Exports Front’:

Generic drugs currently contribute over 80 percent of prescriptions written in the US. Around 40 percent of prescriptions and Over The Counter (OTC) drugs that are sold there, come from India and account for around 10 per cent of finished dosages in the US.

Almost all of these are cheaper generic versions of patent expired drugs, which are mainly produced in around 200 USFDA approved drug-manufacturing facilities located in India. Hence, India’s commercial stake in this space is indeed mind-boggling.

Indian drug exports were taking place satisfactorily without any major regulatory hitches since quite some time. Unfortunately, over the last few years, mostly the Federal Drug Administration of the US (USFDA) and the United Kingdom (UK)’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have started raising serious doubts on the quality of medicines manufactured in India, creating an uncertainty on drug exports in those countries.

To overcome this critical issue and keep marching ahead with distinction in the drug exports front, Indian pharma would require to successfully dealing with the following two areas:

A. Data integrity:

Since quite a while, USFDA has been raising serious concerns on ‘Data Integrity’ in their previously approved production facilities of a large number of Indian pharma players. The details of each of these concerns are available in the USFDA website.

This worrying development is now posing a huge threat to future growth potential of Indian drug exports, as in this area the Indian government had set an objective, in its strategy document, to register a turnover of US$ 25 billion in 2014-15. In all probability, it would fall far short of this target at the end of this fiscal, predominantly for related reasons. However, the good news is, considering the criticality of the situation, the Indian government is now working with the USFDA to resolve this problem.

I discussed a part of this area in my Blog Post of September 29, 2014 titled “Make in India…Sell Any Where in The World”: An Indian Pharma Perspective

B. Credibility of Clinical Trial Data from India:

Credibility of ‘Clinical Trial Data’ generated by the domestic players in India, has also become a cause of great concern, as the regulators in France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg suspended marketing approval for 25 drugs over the genuineness of clinical trial data from India’s GVK Biosciences.

Key issues and challenges in ‘The Domestic Front’:

Though 2015 would also witness the following important issues and challenges, meeting with this challenge of change should not be difficult with a proper mindset and right strategies:

A. The Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013):

Change in the mechanism of drug price control from earlier ‘cost based’ to newer ‘market based’ one and the specified provisions to neutralize inflationary impact of the input costs on the bottom line, based on the WPI, have already been considered as welcoming changes for the industry. As a result, despite implementation of the DPCO 2013, the pharma shares continued to do well in 2014 despite doomsayers’ predicaments, not just in the past, but even today.

I believe, the DPCO 2013 would not cause any significant negative impact further in 2015 on the performance of pharma companies, as the price controlled drugs would in all probability continue to be around 20 percent of the total pharma market. Moreover, now annual price increases are linked to the WPI for the controlled products and the companies can increase prices of remaining 80 percent of decontrolled products, upto 10 percent every year, irrespective of inflationary trend.

That said, due to huge inter-brand price differences, in July 2014 the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) had brought under price control 50 more cardiovascular and anti-diabetic drugs in addition to 348 drugs that featured under price control in the DPCO 2013.

If the pharma players do not take note of such abnormal inter-brand price variation of the same drugs without meaningful reasons, there could possibly be further move by the NPPA in this direction.

Additionally, any mechanism for patented products’ pricing, if announced in 2015, would have far-reaching impact, especially on the MNCs marketing such drugs.

B. Unethical practices in Clinical trial:

In the Clinical Trial arena of India, responding to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court of the country and separately the Parliamentary Standing Committee had indicted the drug regulator and charted out some action areas. The Parliamentary Committee in its report had even mentioned about a nexus existing between the drug regulator and the industry in this area.

Driven by the directives of the Apex Court of the country, the union ministry of health of the government of India has already strengthened some areas of past laxity in drug regulatory control, such as mandatory registration of clinical trials, constitution of committees to oversee the trial approval, its execution and above all ethical treatment of patients, including compensation.

Although, these are all requisite measures to create an appropriate longer-term eco-system for clinical trials in India, it has reportedly ruffled many feathers, such as CROs in the country who work mainly for pharma MNCs and some global pharma players too. This is mainly because of inordinate delays in drug approvals during the regulatory rectification process, besides cost of clinical trials going up. An orderly drug regulatory environment must prevail, instead of allegedly ‘free for all’ clinical trial environment in the country, costing many innocent lives and livelihoods.  Responding to this changing clinical trial environment, some MNCs have already articulated that they are reconsidering their drug trial strategy in India and some Indian players, possibly with vested interests and echoing similar sentiments, are also saying that they would shift their clinical trial projects out of India, which would adversely impact the country’s clinical trial industry.

Be that as it may, it appears now that under the directive of the Supreme Court of the country, the decisions taken by the government in clinical trial area are irreversible, for the long-term interest of the country.

C. Intellectual Property (IP) issues:

Reacting to some well-justified measures taken by India in the IP area to make healthcare affordable to all, the US and its some key allies, continuously pressured by their powerful pharma lobby groups, continue to push India hard to broaden the IP protections. ‘Big Pharma’ lobbyists are reportedly trying to compel India to amend its IP laws that would suit their business interest at the cost of patients.

Fortunately, many stakeholders, including media, have started raising their voices against such strong-arm tactics, further fueling the credibility erosion of ‘Big Pharma’ and creating important pressure groups for the government.

Simultaneously, concerned pharma MNCs are also seeking legal recourse over issues mainly related to the section (3d) and Compulsory Licensing of the Indian Patents Act. However, most of the judicial verdicts vindicate the quality of decisions taken by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in these areas.

Though very unlikely, any amendment or tweaking of the existing patent laws of India in 2015 would provide an unfair advantage to MNCs with negative impact on public health interest.

D. Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices:

Compared to the actions that are now being taken by the law enforcers overseas against pharmaceutical marketing malpractices, India has been showing a rather lackadaisical attitude in these areas, until recently. It astonishes many that unlike even China; no pharmaceutical company has been investigated thoroughly and hauled up by the government for alleged bribery and other serious allegations of corrupt practices.

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

The Government, until recently, has shown no active interest in this area either, though the new Union Health Minister, J.P. Nadda decried the unethical nexus between the doctors and pharma companies, amounting violations of medical ethics in the country. He reportedly has stated that in majority of the cases, the pharma companies are luring the doctors by giving gifts and other benefits for prescribing the brand of medicines of their choice to the patients.

As the saying goes, ‘better late than never’, on December 12, 2014, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India announced details of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, which would be effective across the country from January 1, 2015 for all pharma players to implement, across India.

However, I reckon, the document in its current form is rather weak in its effective implementation potential. Meaningful and transparent deterrent measures to uphold public health interest are also lacking. The entire process also deserves a well-structured monitoring mechanism and digital implementation tools that can be operated with military precision. I discussed this issue in my Blog Post of December 29, 2014, titled “India’s Pharma Marketing Code (UCPMP): Is It Crafted Well Enough To Deliver The Deliverables?”

On UCPMP a survey done by E&Y has highlighted the following points, besides other areas:

  • More than 50 percent of the respondents are of the opinion that the UCPMP may lead to manipulation in recording of actual sampling activity.
  • Over 50 percent of the respondents indicated that the effectiveness of the code would be very low in the absence of legislative support provided to the UCPMP committee.
  • 90 percent of the respondents felt that pharma companies in India should focus on building a robust internal controls system to ensure compliance with the UCPMP.

In my view as well, the self-regulatory measures prescribed in the UCPMP of the DoP are unlikely to make any significant impact in 2015, unless pharma companies start focusing on building robust internal controls system to ensure compliance with the UCPMP.

Conclusion:

I would now put on the balance of probabilities, the new ‘Silver Linings’ of the Global pharmaceutical industry as discussed above, the issues and challenges of 2015 for the Indian pharma and also other important factors that I have not been able to discuss in this article. The overall emerging picture depicts that the pharma industry, both global and local, would fare much better than what it did in the recent past, provided the industry, as a whole, does not continue to ignore the storm signals outright.

Thus, based on the available data, the year 2015, as appears to me, would provide an enormous opportunity with promises of an interesting time ahead that the pharmaceutical industry should try to leverage on…and then cherish it for a long while…most probably as a turning point of the same ball game with different success requirements.

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.

 

MNCs to Challenge MNC Patents in India: Boon for Patients?

Posted on by
Reply

Close on the heels of a reasonably successful patent challenge by the German pharma Multinational Corporation (MNC) Fresenius Kabi for the breast cancer drug Tykerb of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in India, another MNC Mylan, with its headquarter in the United states, has explicitly expressed its plan to challenge frivolous and weak patents of MNCs, in conformance to the Indian Patents Act, to provide less expensive generic drugs to patients.

This is indeed another interesting development, which could possibly culminate into robust, cleverly crafted and fiercely competitive business strategies of many other MNCs, revolving around patent challenges in India, for business excellence in the country.

Mylan develops new products in India:

Mylan is now reportedly working with the local Indian player Biocon to develop a strong new product pipeline, which would include a portfolio of biosimilar drugs. The advanced breast cancer drug Trastuzumab (Herceptin) of Roche is just one of many in the list. Mylan has also expressed its intent to market ‘Herceptin’ at a price, which will be affordable to many more cancer patients of India.

It is worth mentioning that some other domestic Indian companies like, Reliance Life Sciences and BDR Pharma are reportedly working on generic Trastuzumab (Herceptin), besides some South Korean bio-pharma players.

Mylan has also inked an agreement with Biocon to develop and market an insulin drug derived from the global major Sanofi’s expensive patented product Lantus.

All these developments apparently augur well for India.

Weak patent?…Recapitulating Herceptin saga in india:

Though Roche decided to discontinue its patent rights for Herceptin in India, it reportedly lost this patent earlier in Europe. This vindicates the views of experts that Herceptin patent was weak, as it would probably not be able to clear the litmus test of a stringent patent scrutiny. The report, therefore, argues that core reason for withdrawal of Herceptin patent in India by Roche cannot be attributed, even remotely, to the ‘weak IP ecosystem’ in India.

To extend the patent right for Herceptin, in early September 2013, Roche reportedly announced that the European Commission has approved a new formulation of its breast cancer drug Herceptin, which allows the medicine to be administered more quickly.

A tough market, yet difficult to ignore:

For global innovator pharma majors, India still remains a tough market to crack, despite strong overseas political pressures of various types, intense collective and individual lobbying efforts and deployment of expensive global ‘Public Relations’ firms working in full steam.

Their strong success factors of the yesteryears in this area, which worked so well across the world, are getting mostly negated by the ‘evolving patient friendly IP laws’ of the emerging economies.

Considering the vast business potential of the pharmaceutical market of 1.2 billion people in India, it is now envisaged by many, more like-minded MNCs will gradually jump into this fray with similar intent of patent challenges in conformance with the Indian Patents Act 2005.

If this scenario assumes a cascading effect on a broader canvas, ultimate beneficiary will be the ailing patients, having much greater access to more affordable newer drugs for many dreaded diseases, like cancer.

Other countries too tightening up the patent laws:

To provide less-expensive generic drugs to patients, other countries also have started following India to leash astronomical prices for new drugs, especially for life threatening and intensely debilitating ailments. China has reportedly strengthened its compulsory licensing provisions already for dealing with costly drugs, paving the way to force entry of generic drugs in the Chinese market well before patent expiry.

In 2012, Indian Patent Office, in a path breaking decision granted Compulsory License (CL) to a local company, Natco Pharma, to manufacture the patented kidney-cancer drug, Nexavar of Bayer reportedly at a cost of Rs. 8,800 (around US$ 176) for a month’s therapy of 120 capsule against Bayer’s price of Rs. 280,000 (around US$ 5,600) for the same.

This is the first-ever case of CL granted in India thus far to make life saving drugs affordable to patients.

On September 3, 2012, the Indonesian government took the unprecedented step of overriding the patents on seven HIV and hepatitis treatments, citing urgent need to improve patient access. These drugs were reportedly beyond the reach of most of the patients in Indonesia.

Thailand has also used this provision more than once, and countries like, Brazil has reportedly threatened quite often for invoking CL during price negotiations of such drugs with global pharma majors.

Winds of Change in South Africa:

Now South Africa has also exhibited its firm intent to have a tight leash on the grant of pharmaceutical patents of all types.

A recent report indicates that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) of the Government of South Africa is calling for comments on its proposed ‘National Policy on Intellectual Property’ by October 4, 2013, which if implemented, would significantly curb patent evergreening and expand production of generics.

The same report mentions that at present, South Africa does not examine patent applications. Instead, the system allows pharmaceutical companies to obtain multiple patents on the same drug, even for inventions, which do not fall under the country’s definition of innovation. This allows the pharma players to extend their respective patent lives, blocking competition and charging exorbitant prices.

The report also points out, while in 2008, South Africa granted 2,442 pharmaceutical patents, Brazil approved only 278 in the 5 years between 2003 and 2008.

Patents revoked in India:

Since November 2010 following 8 MNC patents have been revoked in India after respective patent challenges:

  • Combigan and Ganfort of Allergan (for specified eye conditions)
  • Tykerb of GSK (for breast cancer)
  • Sutent of Pfizer (for liver and kidney cancer)
  • Pegasys of Roche (for hepatitis C)
  • Iressa of AstraZeneca (Anti-cancer)
  • Anti-asthma FDC aerosol suspension of Merck & Co (Anti-asthma)
  • Dulera of Novartis (Anti-asthma)

China and Brazil revoked patents: 

In August 2013, just about a year after China introduced the country’s amended patent law, its State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has reportedly revoked the patent on HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B drug – Viread (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) of Gilead Science Inc.

Aurisco, the largest manufacturer of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) in China, challenged this patent. The ground of patent revocation was that the drug lacked novelty and was not entitled to protection.

In 2008 Brazil also declared the patent of tenofovir invalid. It is worth mentioning that tenofovir of Gilead is the third-best-selling drug of the company, clocking sales of US$ 849 million in 2012.

Top 10 ‘jaw-dropping’ most expensive medicines of the world:

No. Name Disease Price US$ /Year
1. ACTH Infantile spasm 13,800,00
2. Elaprase Hunter Syndrome 657,000
3. Soliris Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria 409,500
4. Nagalazyme Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome 375,000
5. Folotyn T-Cell Lymphoma 360,000
6. Cinryze Hereditary Angioedema 350,000
7. Myozyme Pompe 300,000
8. Arcalyst Cold Auto-Inflammatory Syndrome 250,000
9. Ceredase / Cerezyme Gaucher Disease 200,000
10. Fabrazyme Fabry Disease 200,000

(Source: Medical Billing & Coding, February 6, 2012)

The good news is, protests against such ‘immoral and obscene pricing’ have started mounting, which are expected to have a snow-balling effect in the years ahead.

Mounting global protests:

Probably due to this reason, drugs used for the treatment of rare diseases are being reported as ‘hot properties for drug manufacturers’, all over the world.

The above report highlighted a changing and evolving scenario in this area.

In 2013, the Dutch Government had cut the prices of new enzyme-replacement therapies, which costs as high as US$ 909,000. Similarly, Ireland has reduced significantly the cost of a cystic fibrosis drug, and the U.K. rejected a recommendation to expand the use of a drug for blood disorders due to high costs.

Soon, the United States is also expected to join the initiative to reduce high prices of orphan drugs as both the government and private insurers increasingly come under the cost containment pressure.

Emerging markets – the Eldorado:

Competition within MNCs is expected to be even more fierce in the coming years as the developed markets continue to slow down, as follows, due to various reasons:

No. Country

USD Bn.

% Share

Val. Gr.
Global Pharma Market

961

100

5
USA

329

38

-1
Japan

112

13

0
China

82

10

24
Germany

42

5

-6
France

37

4

-8
Brazil

29

3

6
Italy

27

3

-8
13. India

14

1

11

Source: IMS Knowledge Link Global Sales 2012

This compelling scenario is prompting a change in the dynamics of competition within  MNCs in the emerging pharmaceutical markets. The intents of Fresenius Kabi and Mylan, as enunciated above, I reckon, are just very early signals of this challenge of change.

All these would probably help turning the tide in favor of a seemingly win-win solution to bring down the prices of patented medicines at an affordable level, improving their access to vast majority of patients in the world.

Scope for more patent challenges in India:

Quoting a study, a recent media report highlighted that only 3% of the patent applications filed in India since 2006 were challenged. The study concluded:

“This demonstrates that given the various resource constraints faced by the Indian patent office, one can never really be sure of the patent quality unless the patent is challenged.”

Therefore, this process is expected to gain momentum in the years ahead as more MNCs join the fray of patent challenges, though driven primarily by business interests, but nevertheless, would benefit the patients, in the long run.

Further, as indicated in my previous columns, a study indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Since, most of the above patents have not been challenged, as yet, the quality of these patents cannot be ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt, as we discuss today. If challenged, some experts envisage, these patents may not be able to stand the scrutiny of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act.

In that sense, if the pharma MNCs with deep pockets, challenge these patents, there stands a good chance of making generic equivalents of those products at affordable prices for the Indian patients.

However, considering different degree and elements of market entry barriers, it appears, most of the patent challenges in India by the MNCs would probably be for biologics, as compared to small molecule chemicals.

Flow of newer drugs in the Indian market is now irreversible:

Taking stock of the emerging scenario, it appears, India will continue to see newer drugs coming into the market at a lower price in the years ahead, come what may. This flow seems to be unstoppable due to the following reasons:

  • Stricter implementation of Section (3d) of the Patents Act in India will ensure that NCEs/NMEs not conforming to this act will not be granted patents. In that case, those products will be open to generic copying by all, in India. Thus, in the absence of a market monopoly situation and fuelled by intense price competition, the patients will have access to those newer drugs.
  • More patent challenges of already granted patents could lead to revocation of more number of patents paving the way for entry of their generic equivalents.
  • If any MNC decides not to launch a new product in India having obtained its patent from the IPO, after three years, as per the statute, the same product becomes a candidate for CL in the country.
  • If any patented new product is launched without ‘reasonably affordable price’, again as per statute, the possibility of applications for CL coming to the IPO from the local players will loom large.

Hence, considering all these points, it appears, if the new products do not conform to the Indian Patents Act and are not launched with responsible pricing, the possibility of their generic entry at much lower prices is almost inevitable.

Conclusion: 

Legal battle is expensive, even in India, and patent challenges are perhaps more expensive. All those new products, which are not patentable in India or may otherwise be challenged against other statutes of the Patents Act, will carry risks of getting caught in protracted litigations or generic competition.

MNCs with deep pockets coming forward with such intent, though may be based purely on their business interest in India, would ultimately offer spin-off benefits of affordable pricing, especially, to the patients suffering from life threatening and fast debilitating illnesses like, cancer.

That said, do all these developments unravel yet another way to improve access to newer medicines in India, signaling a boon for patients?

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.