Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Posted on July 31, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Novel biologic medicines have unlocked a new frontier offering more effective treatment for a host of chronic and life-threatening diseases, such as varieties of cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes, to name just a few. However, these drugs being hugely expensive, many patients do not have any access, or adequate access, to them. According to the Biosimilar Council of GPhA, only 50 percent of severe Rheumatoid Arthritis patients receive biologic medicines, even in the United States, Europe and Japan, leave aside India.

Realizing the gravity of this situation, a need to develop high quality, reasonably affordable and similar to original biologic brands, was felt about ten years ago. These were intended to be launched immediately after patent expiry of the original biologic. Such medicines are termed as biosimilar drugs. It is worth noting, even biosimilar drug development involves complex manufacturing processes and handling, while dealing with derivatives of highly sensitive living organisms.

The regulatory approval process of these drugs is also very stringent, which demands robust clinical data, demonstrating high similarity, both in effectiveness and safety profile, to original biologic brands, known as the reference product. The clinical data requirements for all new biosimilars include data on patients switching from the originator’s brand, and also between other biosimilars. Clinical evidences such as these, are expected to provide enough confidence to physicians for use of these products.

An article published in the PharmaTimes magazine in January 2016, reiterated that over the last couple of years, a wealth of supporting data has been published in medical journals and presented at global congresses, including real-world data of patients who have been switched to the new drug from the originator. This has led to a positive change in physician and patient attitudes towards biosimilars.

The good news is, besides many other regulated markets, as of May 2017, five biosimilar drugs have been approved even by the US-FDA, and several others are in the pipeline of its approval process.

That said, in this article I shall mainly focus on the two key barriers for improving patient access to biosimilar drugs, as I see it.

Two major barriers and their impact:

As I see it, there appear to be the following two key barriers for more affordable biosimilar drugs coming into the market, improving patients’ access to these important biologic medicines:

The first barrier involves fierce legal resistance from the original biologic manufacturers of the world, on various grounds, resisting entry of biosimilar varieties of their respective brands. This compels the biosimilar drug manufacturers incurring heavy expenditure on litigation, adding avoidable cost. A glimpse of this saga, we are ‘privy’ to witness even in India, while following Roche versus Biocon and Mylan case related to ‘Trastuzumab’. This barrier is one of the most basic types, that delays biosimilar drug entry depriving many new patients to have access to lower priced effective biologic for the treatment of serious diseases.

The other major barrier that exists today, involves ‘interchangeability’ of original biologic with biosimilar drugs. It simple means that in addition to being highly similar, a biosimilar drug manufacturer would require producing indisputable clinical evidence that it gives the same result for any given patient just as the original biologic. We shall discuss the reason behind this regulatory requirement later in this article. However, this is an expensive process, and the absence of it creates a barrier, making the physicians hesitant to switch all those existing patients who are on expensive original biologic drugs with less expensive available biosimilar alternatives.

The first or the initial barrier:

The first or the initial barrier predominantly involves patent related legal disputes, that can only be settled in a court of law and after incurring heavy expenditure towards litigation. Provided, of course, the dispute is not mutually resolved, or the law makers do not amend the law.

An interesting case in India:

Interestingly, in India, a similar dispute has knocked the doors of both the high court and the Competition Commission of India (CCI). From a common man’s perspective, it appears to me that the laws under which these two institutions will approach this specific issue are seemingly conflicting in nature. This is because, while the patent law encourages no market competition or a monopoly situation for a patented product, competition law encourages more market competition among all related products. Nonetheless, in this specific case CCI is reportedly investigating on the alleged ‘abuse of the regulatory process’, as it has opined ‘abuse of regulatory process can constitute an abuse of dominance under the (CCI) Act.’

The second barrier:

I am not going to discuss in this article the relevance of this barrier, in detail. Nevertheless, this one is also apparently equally tough to comply with. The very fact that none out of five biosimilar drugs approved in the United States, so far, has been considered ‘interchangeable’ by the US-FDA, vindicates the point.

That this specific regulatory demand is tough to comply with, is quite understandable from the requirements of the US-FDA in this regard, which goes as follows:

“To support a demonstration of interchangeability, the data and information submitted to FDA must show that a proposed interchangeable product is biosimilar to the reference product and that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient. Also, for products that will be administered more than once, the data and information must show that switching a patient back and forth between the reference product and the proposed interchangeable product presents no greater risk to the patient in terms of safety or diminished efficacy when compared to treating them with the reference product continuously.”

The reasoning of innovative biologic drug makers:

On this subject, the stand taken by different innovative drug makers is the same. To illustrate the point, let me quote just one of them. It basically sates, while biosimilar drugs are highly similar to the original medicine, the patient’s immune system may react differently due to slight differences between the two medicines when they are alternated or switched multiple times. This phenomenon, known as immunogenicity, is not a common occurrence, though. But there have been rare instances when very small differences between biologic medicines have caused immune system reactions that changed the way a medicine was metabolized, or reduced its effectiveness.

It further reiterates, the US-FDA requirements to establish ‘interchangeability’ between a biosimilar drug and the original one, or between biosimilars may seem like nuances, but are important because ‘interchangeability’ allows pharmacists to substitute biosimilars without consulting the doctor or patient first.

It may, therefore, indicate to many that innovative biologic drug manufacturers won’t want substitution of their expensive biologic with more affordable biosimilar drugs, on the ground of patient safety issues related to immunogenicity, though its instances are rather uncommon.

Some key players in biosimilar drug development:

Having deliberated on the core subject of this article, let me now very briefly name the major players in biosimilar drug development, both in the developed world, and also in India.

The first biosimilar drug was approved by the US-FDA in 2006, and the product was Omnitrope (somatropin) of Novartis (Sandoz). It was the same in the European Union (EU), as well. Subsequently, many other companies reportedly expressed interest in this field, across the globe, including Pfizer, Merck, Johnson and Johnson, Amgen, AbbVie, Hospira, AstraZeneca and Teva, among many others.

Similarly, in India, the major players in this field include, Biocon, Sun Pharma, Shantha Biotech, Dr. Reddy’s Lab, Zydus Cadila, Panacea Biotech and Reliance Life Sciences.

As featured on the Amgen website, given the complexity and cost of development and manufacturing, biosimilars are expected to be more affordable therapeutic options, but are not expected to generate the same level of cost savings as generics. This is because, a biosimilar will cost US$100 to US$200 million and take eight to ten years to develop. Whereas, a small molecule generic will cost US$1 to US$5 million and take three to five years to develop.

The market:

According to the 2017 report titled “Biosimilar Market: Global Industry Analysis, Trends, Market Size & Forecasts to 2023” of Research and Markets, the market size of the global biosimilar market was valued over US$ 2.5 billion during 2014, and it surpassed US$ 3.30 billion during 2016. The global biosimilar market is projected to surpass US$ 10.50 billion by 2023, growing with a CAGR between 25.0 percent and 26.0 percent from 2017 to 2023.

According to this report, gradually increasing awareness, doctors’ confidence and the lower drug cost are expected to boost the demand and drive the growth of the global biosimilar market during the forecast period. Segments related to diabetes medicine and oncology are expected to attain faster growth during the forecast period. Patent expiry of several blockbuster drugs is a major basic factor for growth of the global biosimilar market, as it may encourage the smaller manufacturers to consider producing such biologic drugs in those segments.

Conclusion:

Biosimilar drugs are expected to benefit especially many of those patients who can’t afford high cost biologic medicines offering better treatment outcomes than conventional drugs, in the longer term. These drugs are now being used to effectively manage and treat many chronic and life-threatening illnesses, such cardiac conditions, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, HIV/AIDS and cancer.

However, improving patient access to high quality biosimilar drugs, at an affordable price, with increasing competition, could be a challenge, as two key barriers are envisaged to attain this goal. Overcoming these meaningfully, I reckon, will involve choosing thoughtfully a middle path, creating a win-win situation, both for the patients, as well as the industry.

Adequate competition in the biologic drug market is essential – not only among high-priced original biologic brands and biosimilars, but also between biosimilar drugs. This is so important to increase patient access to biologic drugs, in general, across the world, including India.

The current situation demands a sense of urgency in searching for a middle path, which may be created either through a legal framework, or any other effective means as would deem fair and appropriate, without compromising with patient safety, at least, from where it is today.

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.

Prescriptions in Generic Names Be Made A Must in India?

Posted on April 24, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Would prescriptions in generic names be made a must in India?

Yes, that’s what Prime Minister Modi distinctly hinted at on April 17, 2017, during the inauguration function of a charitable hospital in Surat. To facilitate this process, his government may bring in a legal framework under which doctors will have to prescribe generic medicines, the PM assured without any ambiguity whatsoever.

“In our country doctors are less, hospitals are less and medicines are expensive. If one person falls ill in a middle-class family, then the financial health of the family gets wrecked. He cannot buy a house, cannot conduct the marriage of a daughter,” he reiterated.

“It is the government’s responsibility that everybody should get health services at a minimal price,” the Prime Minister further reinforced, as he referred to the National Health Policy 2017. His clear assurance on this much-debated issue is indeed music to many ears.

Some eyebrows have already been raised on this decision of the Prime Minister, which primarily include the pharma industry, and its traditional torch bearers. Understandably, a distinct echo of the same one can also be sensed in some English business dailies. Keeping aside these expected naysayers, in this article, after giving a brief backdrop on the subject, I shall argue for the relevance of this critical issue, in today’s perspective.

Anything wrong with generic drugs sans brand names?

At the very outset, let me submit, there aren’t enough credible data to claim so. On the contrary, there are enough reports vindicating that generic drugs without brand names are generally as good as their branded equivalents. For example, a 2017 study on this subject and also in the Indian context reported, ‘93 percent of generic and 87 percent branded drug users believed that their drugs were effective in controlling their ailments.’

Thus, in my view, all generic medicines without any brand names, approved by the drug regulatory authorities can’t be inferred as inferior to equivalent branded generics – formulated with the same molecules, in the same strength and in the same dosage form; and vice versa. Both these varieties have undergone similar efficacy, safety and quality checks, if either of these are not spurious. There isn’t enough evidence either that more of generic drugs sans brand names are spurious.

However, turning the point that generic drugs without brand name cost much less to patients than their branded generic equivalents on its head, an ongoing concerted effort of vested interests is systematically trying to malign the minds of many, projecting that those cheaper drugs are inferior in quality. Many medical practitioners are also not excluded from nurturing this possible spoon-fed and make-believe perception, including a section of the media. This reminds me of the famous quote of Joseph Goebbels – the German politician and Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany till 1945: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

The lower prices of generic drugs without brand names are primarily because their manufacturers don’t need to incur huge expenditure towards marketing and sales promotion, including contentious activities, such as, so called ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ for the doctors in exotic locales, and several others of its ilk.

Thus, Prime Minister Modi’s concern, I reckon, is genuine to the core. If any doctor prescribes an expensive branded generic medicine, the concerned patient should have the legal option available to ask the retailer for its substitution with a less expensive generic or even any other branded generic equivalent, which is supposed to work just as well as the prescribed branded generic. For this drug prescriptions in INN is critical.

Provide Unique Identification Code to all drug manufacturers:

When in India, we can have a digitally coded unique identification number, issued by the Government for every individual resident, in the form of ‘Aadhaar’, why can’t each drug manufacturer be also provided with a similar digitally coded number for their easy traceability and also to decipher the trail of manufacturing and sales transactions. If it’s not possible, any other effective digital ‘track and trace’ mechanism for all drugs would help bringing the wrongdoers, including those manufacturing and selling spurious and substandard drugs to justice, sooner. In case a GST system can help ferret out these details, then nothing else in this regard may probably be necessary.

Past initiatives:

In India, ‘Out of Pocket (OoP) expenditure’ as a percentage of total health care expenses being around 70 percent, is one of the highest in the world. A study by the World Bank conducted in May 2001 titled, “India – Raising the Sights: Better Health Systems for India’s Poor” indicates that out-of-pocket medical costs alone may push 2.2 percent of the population below the poverty line in one year. This situation hasn’t improved much even today, as the Prime Minister said.

Although, ‘prescribe drugs by generic names’ initiative was reported in July 2015, in the current context, I shall focus only on the recent past. Just in the last year, several initiatives were taken by the current Government to help patients reduce the OoP expenses on medicines, which constitute over 60 percent of around 70 percent of the total treatment cost. Regrettably, none of these steps have been working effectively. I shall cite hereunder, just three examples:

On February 29, 2016, during the Union Budget presentation for the financial year 2016-17 before the Parliament, the Finance Minister announced the launch of ‘Pradhan Mantri Jan-Aushadhi Yojana (PMJAY)’ to open 3,000 Stores under PMJAY during 2016-17.

On August 04, 2016, it was widely reported that a new digital initiative of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), named, “Search Medicine Price”, would be launched on August 29, 2016. According to NPPA, “Consumers can use the app before paying for a medicine to ensure that they get the right price.”

In October 2016, a circular of the Medical Council of India (MCI), clearly directed the medical practitioners that: “Every physician should prescribe drugs with generic names legibly and preferably in capital letters and he/she shall ensure that there is a rational prescription and use of drugs”

A critical hurdle to overcome:

Besides, stark inefficiency of the MCI to implement its own directive for generic prescriptions, there is a key legal hurdle too, as I see it.

For example, in the current situation, the only way the JAS can sell more of essential generic drugs for greater patient access, is by allowing the store pharmacists substituting high price branded generics with their exact generic equivalents available in the JAS. However, such substitution would be grossly illegal in India, because the section 65 (11) (c) in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 states as follows:

“At the time of dispensing there must be noted on the prescription above the signature of the prescriber the name and address of the seller and the date on which the prescription is dispensed. 20 [(11A) No person dispensing a prescription containing substances specified in 21 [Schedule H or X] may supply any other preparation, whether containing the same substances or not in lieu thereof.]”

A move that faltered:

To address this legal issue, the Ministry of Health reportedly had submitted a proposal to the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), for consideration. In the proposal, the Health Ministry reportedly suggested an amendment of Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to enable the retail chemists substituting a branded drug formulation with its cheaper equivalent, containing the same generic ingredient, in the same strength and the dosage form, with or without a brand name.

However, in the 71st meeting of the DTAB held on May 13, 2016, its members reportedly turned down that proposal of the ministry. DTAB apparently felt that given the structure of the Indian retail pharmaceutical market, the practical impact of this recommendation may be limited.

The focus should now move beyond affordability:

In my view, the Government focus now should move beyond just drug affordability, because affordability is a highly relative yardstick. What is affordable to an average middle class population may not be affordable to the rest of the population above the poverty line. Similarly, below the poverty line population may not be able to afford perhaps any cost towards medicines or health care, in general.

Moreover, affordability will have no meaning, if one does not have even easy access to medicines. Thus, in my view, there are five key factors, which could ensure smooth access to medicines to the common man, across the country; affordable price being one of these factors:

1. A robust healthcare infrastructure
2. Affordable health care costs, including, doctors’ fees, drugs and diagnostics
3. Rational selection and usage of drugs by all concerned
4. Availability of health care financing system like, health insurance
5. Efficient logistics and supply chain support throughout the country

In this scenario, just putting in place a legal framework for drug prescription in generic names, as the Prime Minister has articulated, may bring some temporary relief, but won’t be a long-term solution for public health care needs. There arises a crying need to put in place an appropriate Universal Health Care (UHC) model in India, soon, as detailed in the National Health Policy 2017.

Brand names aren’t going to disappear:

Prime Minister Modi’s assertion to bring in a legal framework under which doctors will have to prescribe generic medicines, probably will also legally empower the retailers for substitution of high priced branded generics with low priced generic or branded generic equivalents.

This promise of the Prime Minister, when fulfilled, will facilitate making a larger quantum of lower price and high quality generic drugs available to patients, improving overall access to essential medicines. Hopefully, similar substitution will be authorized not just for the JAS outlets, but by all retail drug stores, as well.

Brand names for generic drugs will continue to exist, but with much lesser relevance. the Drugs & Cosmetic Rules of India has already made it mandatory to mention the ‘generic names or INN’ of Drugs on all packing labels in a more conspicuous manner than the trade (brand) name, if any. Hence, if a doctor prescribes in generic names, it will be easier for all retail pharmacists and even the patients, to choose cheaper alternatives from different available price-bands.

Possible changes in the sales and marketing strategies:

If it really happens, the strategic marketing focus should shift – from primarily product-brand marketing and stakeholders’ engagement for the same, to intensive corporate-brand marketing with more intense stakeholder engagement strategies, for better top of mind recall as a patient friendly and caring corporation.

Similarly, the sales promotion strategy for branded generics would possibly shift from – primarily the doctors to also the top retailers. It won’t be unlikely to know that the major retailers are participating in pharma company sponsored ‘Continuing Pharmacy Education (CPE)’ in similar or even more exotic places than the doctor!

There are many more.

International examples:

There are enough international examples on what Prime Minister Modi has since proposed in his speech on this issue. All these are working quite well. To illustrate the point with a few examples, I shall underscore that prescribing in generic name or in other words “International Nonproprietary Name (INN)’ is permitted in two-thirds of OECD countries like the United States, and is mandatory in several other nations, such as, France, Spain, Portugal and Estonia. Similarly, pharmacists can legally substitute brand-name drugs with generic equivalents in most OECD countries, while such substitution has been mandatory in countries, such as, Denmark, Finland, Spain, Sweden, Italy. Further, in several different countries, pharmacists have also the obligation to inform patients about the availability of a cheaper alternative.

However, the naysayers would continue saying: ‘But India is different.’

Impact on the pharma industry:

The March 2017 report of ‘India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF)’ states that Indian pharmaceutical sector accounts for about 2.4 per cent of the global pharmaceutical industry in value terms, 10 per cent in volume terms and is expected to expand at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 15.92 per cent to US$ 55 billion by 2020 from US$ 20 billion in 2015. With 70 per cent market share (in terms of value), generic drugs constitute its largest segment. Over the Counter (OTC) medicines and patented drugs constitute the balance 21 percent and 9 percent, respectively. Branded generics constitute around 90 percent of the generic market. In my view, if the above decision of the Prime Minister is implemented the way I deliberated here in this article, we are likely to witness perceptible changes in the market dynamics and individual company’s performance outlook. A few of my top of mind examples are as follows:

No long-term overall adverse market impact is envisaged, as ‘the prices of 700 essential medicines have already been capped by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). However, some short-term market adjustments are possible, because of several other factors.

There could be a significant impact on the (brand) market shares of various companies. Some will have greater exposure and some lesser, depending on their current sales and marketing models and business outlook.

Valuation of those companies, which had acquired mega branded generics, such as Piramal brands by Abbott Healthcare, or Ranbaxy brands by Sun pharma, may undergo considerable changes, unless timely, innovative and proactive measures are taken forthwith, as I had deliberated before in this blog.

Together with much awaited implementation of the mandatory Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) sooner than later, the sales and marketing expenditure of the branded generic players could come down significantly, improving the bottom-line.

Pharma marketing ballgame in this segment would undergo a metamorphosis, with brighter creative minds scoring higher, aided by the cutting-edge strategies, and digital marketing playing a much greater role than what it does today.

A significant reduction in the number of field forces is also possible, as the sales promotion focus gets sharper on the retailers and digitally enabled patient engagement initiatives.

The above examples are just illustrative. I hasten to add that at this stage it should not be considered as any more than an educates guess. We all need to wait, and watch how these promises get translated into reality, of course, without underestimating the quiet lobbying power of the powerful pharma industry. That said, the long-term macro picture of the Indian pharma industry continues to remain as bright, if appropriate and timely strategic interventions are put well in place, as I see it.

In conclusion:

It is an irony that despite being the 4th largest producer of pharmaceuticals, and catering to the needs of 20 percent of the global requirements for generic medicines, India is still unable to ensure access to many modern medicines to a large section of its population.

Despite this situation in India, Prime Minister Modi’s encouraging words on this issue have reportedly attracted the wrath of some section of the pharma industry, which, incidentally, he is aware of it, as evident from his speech.

Some have expressed serious concern that it would shift the decision of choosing a specific generic formulation of the same molecule for the patients from doctors to chemists. My counter question is, so what? The drug regulator of the country ensures, and has also repeatedly affirmed that there is no difference in efficacy, safety and quality profile between any approved branded generic and its generic equivalents. Moreover, by implementing an effective track and trace system for all drugs, such misgiving on spurious generic medicines, both with or without brand names, can be more effectively addressed, if not eliminated. Incidentally, reported incidences of USFDA import bans on drug quality parameters and breach of data integrity, include many large Indian branded generic manufacturers. Thus, can anyone really vouch for high drug quality even from the branded generics in India?

Further, the expensive branding exercise of essential medicines, just for commercial gain, and adversely impacting patients’ access to these drugs, has now been questioned without any ambiguity, none else than the Prime Minster of India. The generic drug manufacturers will need to quickly adapt to ‘low margin – high volume’ business models, leveraging economies of scale, and accepting the stark reality, as was expressed in an article published in Forbes – ‘the age of commodity medicines approaches’. Even otherwise, what’s wrong in the term commodity, either, especially when generic medicines have been officially and legally classified as essential commodities in India?

Overall, the clear signal from Prime Minister Modi that ‘prescriptions in generic names be made a must in India ‘, well supported by appropriate legal and regulatory mechanisms – is indeed a good beginning, while paving the way for a new era of Universal Health Care in India. God willing!

By: Tapan J. Ray

Reticence Around Unveiling Clinical Trials

Posted on October 17, 2016 by Tapan Ray

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

‘Patent Linkage’: Can The Core Issue Be Resolved?

Posted on February 23, 2015 by Tapan Ray

On February 10, 2015, a leading business daily of India, quoted the Commerce Secretary of India – Rajeev Kher, saying, “India needs to relook at its Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy with a view to bring in a differentiated regime for sectors that have a greater manufacturing potential.”

In the present Government regime, it appears virtually impossible to make such important comments out of turn by a senior bureaucrat without the blessings of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). I hold this view, despite the fact that the Commerce Secretary reportedly added that his suggestion is “a highly controversial subject and if I discussed this in the government, I think I will be shot down in the very first instance”.

Be that as it may, as I indicated in my just previous article, several recent media reports also speculated, around the same time, that the Government of India is probably considering putting in place ‘Patent Linkages’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act 2005 of the country.

As I had indicated in my blog post of January 19, 2015 titled, “New ”National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”, these speculations originated mainly from the following events:

During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the United States in September 2014, a high-level Indo-US working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries.

Almost immediately after the Prime Minister’s return to India, in October 2014, the Government formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’ to draft the ‘National IPR Policy’ and suggest ways and legal means to handle undue pressure exerted by other countries in IPR related areas. The notification mandated the ‘Think Tank’ to examine the current issues raised by the industry associations, including those that have appeared in the media and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce and Industry as appropriate.

Speculations arising out of these two events were almost simultaneously fuelled by the following developments:

A. US Trade Representative Mike Froman’s reported affirmation of the following to the US lawmakers during a Congressional hearing held on January 27, 2015:

- “We have been concerned about the deterioration of the innovation environment in India, and we have engaged with the new government since they came into office in May of last year about our concerns.”

- “We held the first Trade Policy Forum in four years in November. I just returned from India yesterday as a matter of fact … and in all of these areas, we have laid out a work program with the government of India to address these and other outstanding issues.”

- “We are in the process of providing comments on that draft policy proposal on IPR, and we are committed to continuing to engage with them to underscore areas of work that needs to be done in copyright, in trade secrets as well as in the area of patents.”

- “We’ve got a good dialogue going now with the new government on this issue, and we’re committed to working to achieve concrete progress in this area.”

B. Union Minister of Commerce and Industry of India specifically seeking American Government’s inputs in the finalization process of the new National IPR policy of the country.

Keeping these in perspective, let me try to explore whether or not it would be fair for India deciding to put in place ‘Patent Linkages’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act of the country.

In this article, I shall deliberate on my personal take on ‘Patent Linkage’ and in the next week’s article on ‘Data Exclusivity’.

Definition:

Patent linkage is broadly defined as the practice of linking market approval for generic medicines to the patent status of the originator reference product.

A brief background in India:

The ‘Patent Linkage’ saga has an interesting background in India. I would now try to capture the essence of it, as stated below.

About 7 years ago, probably prompted by intense lobbying by the Pharma MNCs, the then Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly informed the media, on April 28, 2008, the following:

“We (DCGI) are going to seek the list of the drugs from innovator companies that have received patent in India. Once we have the database of the drugs which have been granted patent, we will not give any marketing approval to their generic versions…The DCGI has issued internal guidelines to this effect and it will also co-ordinate with the health ministry to give a formal shape to the initiative. The government expects to finalize a proper system within the next 2-3 months.”

It was also reported in the same article that Patent attorney Pratibha Singh, who along with Arun Jaitley was representing Cipla in the Tarceva case against Roche said:

“The DCGI does not have the authority to reject marketing application of a generic drug on the grounds that an innovator company has received the patent for the same drug in the country.”

Immediately following the above reported announcement of the DCGI on ‘Patent Linkage’, another media report flashed that the domestic drug companies are strongly objecting to the DCGI’s plans to link marketing approval for a drug with its patent status in the country, citing requirement of additional resources for the same and concern that it could block access to affordable medicines by suppressing competitive forces.

Despite this objection of the domestic Indian pharma companies, a senior official in DCGI office reportedly reaffirmed the DCGI’s intent of establishing the linkage so that no slips happen in the future. The same media report quoted that Government official as saying:

“We will have to amend the rules in the Act. We have to put it before the Drugs Consultative Committee first and this could be around the end of this year.”

Current ‘administrative’ status in India:

Currently in India, there is no provision for ‘Patent Linkage’, either in the Statute or through any administrative measure.

After those potboiler reports, it is quite challenging to fathom, what exactly had happened for the reverse swing thereafter at the DCGI’s office. The bottom line is, the above initiative of the then DCGI for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India ultimately got killed in the corridors of power. Hence, there does not exist any direct or indirect measure for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India, as I write this article.

Current legal status:

In 2008 Bayer Corporation had filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court against Union of India, the DCGI and Cipla seeking an order that the DCGI should consider the patent status of its drug, Sorefenib tosylate, and refuse marketing approval to any generic versions of this drug.

It is worth mentioning, Sorefenib tosylate is used to treat renal cancer and was being reportedly sold in India by Bayer at Rs. 2,85,000 for 120 tablets for a monthly course of treatment.

The appeal in the Delhi High Court was filed against a judgment delivered by Justice Ravindra Bhat on 18 August 2009, rejecting Bayer’s attempt to introduce the patent linkage system in India through a court direction. But, in a landmark judgment on February 9 2010, a division bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Bayer Corporation in this regard. Thereafter, Bayer Corporation moved Supreme Court against this Delhi High Court order.

However, in December 01, 2010, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by Bayer Corporation against the February 2010 decision of the Delhi High Court. The Apex Court of India ordered, since the Drugs Act does not confer power upon the DCGI to make rules regarding the ‘Patent Linkage’, any such attempt would constitute substantive ultra vires of the delegated power.

RTI helps to get the marketing approval status of drugs:

Currently relevant information on marketing approval application status of generic drugs are not available at the CDSCO website. Hence, some innovator companies have resorted to using Right To Information (RTI) Act to ferret out such details from the DCGI office and initiate appropriate legal measures for patent infringement, well before the generic version of the original drug comes to the market.

A middle ground:

In view of the above order of the Supreme Court, the government of India may try to seek a middle ground without amending any provision of the Patents Act, in any way.

Even avoiding the word ‘Patent Linkage’, the Ministry of Health can possibly help the pharma MNCs achieving similar goal, through administrative measures. It can instruct the DCGI to upload the ‘Marketing Approval’ applications status for various generic products in the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) website. If for any patented drugs, applications for marketing approval of generic equivalents are made, the available information would enable the patent holder taking appropriate legal recourse for patent infringement, much before the drug is marketed at a heavily discounted price.

It is quite possible that the interested constituents had put requests for such administrative measures even before the earlier Government. As no tangible action has been taken even thereafter, the erstwhile Government probably felt, if introduced, such a system would adversely impact quick and early availability of the generic drugs in the market place.

Conclusion:

I wrote an article on similar issue in my blog post of August 24, 2009 titled, “Recent Bayer Case Judgment: Patent Linkage: Encouraging Innovation in India.”

Taking all these into consideration, in my view, it is quite possible for the present Indian Government to resolve the core issue related to ‘Patent Linkage’ through administrative measure, without amending any Acts or breaching any case laws of the land.

In the present IPR imbroglio, the above administrative measure could well be a win-win solution for all.

It would help facilitating early judicial intervention by the patent holder in case of prima facie patent infringements, enabling the Government to send a clear reiteration that the patents granted to pharmaceutical products will be appropriately enforced and protected in the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

The Ghost Keeps Haunting: NCD Dogs Cancer in ‘Compulsory License’ Debate of India

Posted on March 11, 2013 by Tapan Ray

In November 2012, as a part of the ‘Campaign for Affordable Trastuzumab’ for the treatment of breast cancer, a citizens’ collective, reportedly sent an ‘Open Letter’ signed by around 200 cancer survivors, women’s groups, human rights and health rights campaigns and treatment activists from across the world to the Indian Prime Minister, urging him to ensure that the breast-cancer drug Trastuzumab is made affordable for treating cancer patients in the country.

Trastuzumab was named because of the following reasons:

Breast-cancer affects around 28-35 per cent of all cancers among women in major cities of India.

No other drug against HER+2 cancer can reduce patients’ mortality as Trastuzumab and reduce the spread of malignancy to other parts of the body.

Majority of women with HER+2 breast cancer do not have access to a complete course of the drug, which reportedly costs anywhere between Rs 6 to 8 lakhs (US$ 11,000 to US$ 14,500).

Reaping reach harvest:

According to a media report, three homegrown Indian companies are currently developing biosimilar drugs to this protein molecule to reap a reach harvest arising out of the emerging opportunities.

However, this is expected to be an arduous, expensive and challenging endeavor, as the concerned companies will require pursuing a complicated biotechnological route to create follow-on biologics for Trastuzumab.

The ‘Trigger Factor’:

It is widely believed that the above ‘Open Letter’ to the Prime Minister had prompted the Ministry of Health to form an ‘Experts Committee’ to evaluate the situation and make recommendations accordingly.

Thereafter, within a short period of time, in January, 2013, in a move that is intended to benefit thousands of cancer patients, Ministry of Health forwarded the report of the above ‘Experts Committee’ to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) for its consideration to issue Compulsory Licenses (CL) for three commonly used anti-cancer drugs namely, Trastuzumab (used for breast cancer), Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy) and Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia). Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), among other experts, also reportedly had participated as a member of this ‘Experts Committee’,

For a month’s treatment drugs like Ixabepilone and Dasatinib reportedly cost on an average of US$ 3,000 – 4,500 or Rs 1.64 – 2.45 lakh for each patient in India.

A ‘Technology Transfer’ discouraged:

Such a rapid development in the CL landscape of India is indeed intriguing, especially after a voluntary announcement by Roche in 2012 that it will produce Trastuzumab and Rituximab in India through transfer of technology to an Indian contract manufacturer.

Consequently for a month’s treatment, the price of Trastuzumab will come down from around US$ 2,000 to US$ 1, 366, i.e. by 31 percent and Rituximab from around US$ 1,456 to US$ 682 i.e. by 53 percent. This was reportedly announced by none other than the Minister of State of Chemicals and Fertilizers of India Mr. Srikant Jena.

Despite this voluntary decision of technology transfer and price reduction of two life saving drugs in India by Roche, reported Government consideration for grant of CL for Trastuzumab, without getting engaged in any form of a win-win dialogue with the Company, could ultimately prove to be counter productive and may discourage further technology transfer of expensive patented drugs to India.

Increasing incidence of cancer in India:

Cancer is just not a dreaded disease, but also making a devastating impact, financial and otherwise, on the lives and families of thousands of sufferers in India.

According to ‘The Lancet’, published on 28 March 2012, in India 556 400 people died of cancer only in 2010.

The paper also comments that only half of the estimated 9.8 million total deaths per year is captured by the CRS in India, fewer than 4 percent are medically certified, while more than 75 percent of deaths occur at home.

The Lancet study clearly highlights that most cancer patients in India die without medical attention and drugs. Cancer is, therefore, increasingly becoming a public sensitive disease area with high socioeconomic impact in the country. High treatment cost of this near terminal disease is beyond reach of majority of population in the country.

In a written reply to a question in the ‘Upper House’ of the Indian Parliament, the Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare on March 4, 2012 said that according to “Three Year Report on Population Based Cancer Registries 2006 – 08″ of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the estimated numbers of cancer patients for 2015 and 2020 are 1.16 million and 1.27 million respectively. There is a gradual rise in the prevalence of cancer in India, though the government has initiated several measures in this area.

High incidence of breast cancer:

As per a recent report, an estimated 1, 00,000 – 1, 25,000 new patients suffer from breast cancer every year in India and this number is expected to double by 2025.

Government is mulling CL for NCD:

Currently the DIPP appears to be planning to extend the provision of Compulsory License (CL) beyond cancer drugs to other Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) in the country, like diabetes.

Domestic Pharma Association supports the move:

A major domestic pharmaceutical industry association, as per media reports, supports this move by clearly articulating, “Over the years, more deaths are taking place on account of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) than communicable ones. It is, therefore, natural that this provision (CL) will be used for NCDs as well.”

UN declaration on NCD provides flexibilities in TRIPS Agreement:

Experts believe that this new move on CL for drugs related to NCDs is a consequence of India’s signing the United Nation (UN) declaration on the prevention of NCDs in the country by, among others, using flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement to increase availability of affordable drugs for such diseases.

The Government has already launched a “National Program for Prevention & Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardio Vascular Diseases and Stroke (NPCDCS)” as a pilot project covering 150 million people in 100 inaccessible and most backward districts during the financial year 2011-2012 at a cost of US$ 275 million.

Socio-economic impact of NCDs in India:

Indian Journal of Community Medicine (IJCM) in an article titled, “Social and Economic Implications of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in India” has highlighted, among others as follows:

NCDs account for 62 percent of the total disease burden in India with a significant ascending trend both in terms of overall mortality and morbidity.

This burden is likely to increase in the years to come.

Due to chronic nature of the disease and technological advancements in care, costs of treatment are high leading to access barriers, or ‘catastrophic expenditures’ for those who undergo treatment.

There are evidences of greater financial implications for the poorer households suffering from NCDs.

Most estimates suggest that the NCDs in India account for a significant economic burden ranging from 5 to 10 percent of GDP.

An urgent multi-sectoral Government action is strongly warranted both on grounds of economic arguments and social justice.

Action needs focus on addressing the social determinants of NCDs for prevention and strengthening of health systems to meet the challenge.

A framework for monitoring, reporting, and accountability is essential to ensure that the returns on investments in NCDs meet the targets and expectations set in the national plans.

Innovator companies contemplating legal recourse:

Reacting to all these developments, the global pharmaceutical companies have, once again, expressed strong commitment to protect and continue to defend their Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) within the legal framework of India.

They have also reiterated their belief that a robust IPR regime will encourage innovation in the country making available more and more innovative drugs for the patients in India.

An interesting WHO report on a ‘robust IPR regime’:

In this regard a World Health Organization (WHO) research report titled “Patents, Price Controls and Access to New Drugs: How Policy Affects Global Market Entry” makes some interesting observations on a ‘robust IPR regime’.

The report highlights the following four important points:

1. Increasing the strength of a patent system to include long-term protection on pharmaceutical products appears to spur market entry mostly in the high-income countries.

For the low- and middle-income countries that are currently being encouraged to move to stronger protection through trade policies, the evidence that extending protection enhances access to new pharmaceuticals is mixed.

2. There is some evidence that high level of protection might encourage more frequent entry of innovative products in the short term. However, in the longer term the same domestic capacity could well be an alternative source of entry of such drugs.

3. Intellectual Property (IP) holders frequently assert that the poor quality of enforcement in developing countries undermines the value of their patent rights. However, it is quite evident now that patent laws in these countries are at least broadly meaningful commensurate to their respective domestic requirements.

4. The standard argument on price regulation that it will dissuade market entry for innovative drugs appears to have more relevance among the high-income countries and not so for the poorer countries.

The authors further indicate:

“There we find that while price regulation makes it less likely that new drugs will be available quickly, it does not appear to prevent new products from being launched eventually.”

Conclusion:

Following all these recent developments and weighing pros and cons, one could well imagine that pressure on the Government from various stakeholders for CL on drugs for Cancer and NCDs will keep mounting, unless an alternative measure like, ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ is put in place by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, sooner than later, in 2013.

The recent judgment of the ‘Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)’ on CL to Natco may further add fuel to this raging debate.

It is now quite clear from the Finance Minister’s speech on the ‘Union Budget Proposal’ for 2013-14 that eagerly awaited ‘Universal Health Coverage’ or ‘Free Distribution of Essential Medicines to all’ schemes will not be implemented, at least for now.

Thus in all probability, the ghost of CL will keep haunting the innovators in India unabated, unless an effective, scalable and sustainable model for improving access to patented drugs for majority of population in the country is put in place. This will call for demonstrative, innovative and constructive Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) initiatives, sooner. In this effort all concerned should at first be aligned with the cause, in principle, and try to be a constructive partner to get it translated into reality together, rather than just playing the role of vociferous critics in perpetuity .

By: Tapan J. Ray

A Ten Step Strategy Prescribed

Posted on December 24, 2012 by Tapan Ray

In India, there are various hurdles to address the healthcare issues in a comprehensive way. Though, these do not seem to be insurmountable, the country needs a clear time-bound grand strategy to squarely address this vexing concern, which also has its consequent socioeconomic fallout.

If we look at the history of development of the industrialized countries of the world, we shall easily be able to fathom that all of them not only had heavily invested, but even now are investing to improve the socioeconomic framework of the country where education and health are the center pieces. Continuous reform measures in these two key areas are proven key drivers of economic growth of any nation.

Just as focus on education is of utmost importance to realize the economic potential of any country, so is the healthcare. It will be extremely challenging for India to realize its dream of becoming one of the economic superpowers of the world, without a sharp strategic focus and significant resource allocation in these two areas.

The World Health Statistics:

As reported by the ‘World Health Statistics 2011′, India spends around 4.2 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health, which is quite in line with other BRIC countries like, China and Russia.This has been possible mainly due to increasing participation of the private players in the healthcare sector and not so much by the government. The following table on ‘Health Expenditure’ will highlight this point:

Type	Brazil	Russia	India	China
Exp. on Health (% of GDP)	8.4	4.8	4.2	4.3
Govt. Exp. on Health(% of Total Exp. on Health)	44	64.3	32.4	47.3
Pvt. Exp. on Health (% of Total Exp. on Health)	56	35.7	67.6	52.7
Govt. Exp. on Health (% of Total Govt. Exp.)	6	9.2	4.4	10.3
Social Security Exp. on Health (% of General Govt. Exp. on Health)	-	38.7	17.2	66.3

Key healthcare goals:

As articulated in a recent paper titled ‘Meeting the Challenges of Healthcare Needs in India: Paths to Innovation’, the key healthcare goals of any country have been described as follows:

Improved quality of care and population health as measured by life expectancy and other measures of wellness

Cost containment and pooled risk-sharing by the population to allow financial access to care as well as avoid catastrophic ruin
Provide access to care in an equitable manner for all citizens

Specifically to India one of the key challenges to healthcare is ‘Universal Access’ to care and health equity. However, in terms of pure concept the country has a universal healthcare system, where theoretically any citizen is entitled to avail the public health facilities irrespective of socioeconomic status. Unfortunately, the reality is far out of the line.

Health is a ‘State subject’:

In Indian system, health is primarily a state subject and the Central Government deals with:

Health related policies
Health related regulations
Initiatives related to identified disease prevention and control

Whereas, each state needs to take care of:

Healthcare administration
Healthcare delivery
Healthcare financing
Training of personnel related to healthcare

The system:

Primary Health Centers (PHCs) of India located in the cities, districts or rural villages are expected to provide medical treatment free of cost to the local citizens. The focus areas of these PHCs, as articulated by the government, are the treatment of common illnesses, immunization, malnutrition, pregnancy and child birth. For secondary or tertiary care, patients are referred to the state or district level hospitals.
The public healthcare delivery system is grossly inadequate and does not function, by and large, with an optimal degree of efficiency, though some of the government hospitals like, All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) are among the best hospitals in India.

Most essential drugs, if available, are dispensed free of cost from the public hospitals/clinics. Outpatient treatment facilities available in the government hospitals are either free or available at a nominal cost. In AIIMS an outpatient card is available at a nominal onetime fee and thereafter outpatient medical advice is free to the patient.

However, the cost of inpatient treatment in the public hospitals though significantly less than the private hospitals, depends on the economic condition of the patient and the type of facilities that the individual will require. The patients who are from Below Poverty Line (BPL) families are usually not required to pay the cost of treatment. Such costs are subsidized or borne by the government.

Private sector is expensive:

That said, in India health facilities in the public sector being inadequate, generally under-staffed and under-financed, a large section of population still does not have access to affordable modern healthcare. As a result, more often than not, common patients are compelled to go to expensive private healthcare providers. Majority of the population of India cannot afford such high cost private healthcare, though comes with a much better quality.

Thus, as things stand today the public sector actually provides just about 20% of actual care services. The balance is catered by the private sector.

A great potential:

A 2012 report on ‘Indian Healthcare Industry’ indicates that in 2010 the size of the industry was around US$ 50 billion and is expected to register a turnover of US$ 140 billion in 2017 with a CAGR of 15 percent. This growth momentum, despite all these, positions India as one of the most lucrative markets within the developing countries of the world. On a global perspective as well, healthcare industry is one of the fastest growing segments clocking a turnover of US$ 5.5 trillion in 2010.

Growth drivers:

The main drivers of growth for the Indian healthcare industry are considered as follows:

Second highest growing economy in the world
Changing demographic profile
Increasing disposable income
Higher incidence of Non-infectious Chronic Diseases (NCD)
New investment avenues
A large talent pool
Cost-effective human resource

Besides above, other growth drivers are as follows:

Increased penetration of pharmaceuticals in the rural markets
Increased export potential for low cost and high quality generic pharmaceuticals, as a large number of patents are going to expire in the next 5 years
Emergence of various health cities and also single specialty clinics offering quality healthcare
Health insurance portability is expected to increase the penetration of insurance, improve quality of service and raise competition among insurers to retain customers
Telemedicine: E-healthcare in rural areas is gaining popularity with the involvement of both
public and private players like, ISRO, Mazumdar Shaw Cancer Center and Narayana Hrudayalaya. Some telecom companies like, Nokia and BlackBerry are also contemplating to extend the use of mobile phones for remote disease monitoring as well as diagnostic and treatment support. Introduction of 3G and in the near future 4G telecom services will
further enhance opportunities of e-healthcare through mobile phones, expanding the field of healthcare.

Promising sectors:

Within the healthcare industry, the most promising sectors are:

Pharmaceuticals
Hospitals and Nursing Homes
Medical equipment
Pathological labs and other diagnostic service providers

According to the Investment Commission of India, the healthcare sector of the country has registered a robust CAGR of over 12 percent during the last four years and the trend is expected to be ascending further.

Quite in tandem, other important areas of the healthcare sector, besides pharmaceuticals, have also recorded impressive performance as follows:

Areas	Growth %
Hospitals/Nursing Homes	20
Medical Equipment	15
Clinical Lab Diagnostics	30
Imaging Diagnostics	30
Other Services (includes Training & Education; Aesthetics & Weight loss; Retail Pharmacy, etc.)	40

Government initiatives:

On its part, the Indian government is also in the process of giving a thrust to the healthcare sector as a whole by:

Increasing public expenditure on healthcare from 1 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP in the 12th Five Year Plan Period
Encouraging public-private partnerships (PPP) in hospital infrastructure and R&D
Encouraging medical tourism
Attracting Indian and foreign players to invest in Tier-II and Tier-III cities with huge untapped market potential. For example:

- Expansion of major healthcare players in tier-II and tier-III cities of India like, Apollo, Narayana Hrudayalaya, Max Hospitals, Aravind Eye Hospitals and Fortis

- BCG Group will reportedly open shortly a multidisciplinary health mall that would provide a one-stop solution for all healthcare needs starting from doctors, hospitals, ayurvedic centers, pharmacies including insurance referral units at Palarivattom in Kochi, Kerala.

BCG’s long-term plan, as reported in the media, is to set up a health village spanning across an area of a 750,000 sq. ft. with an estimated cost of US$ 88.91 million. Along the same line, to set up more facilities for diagnostic services in India, GE Healthcare reportedly has planned to invest US$ 50 million for this purpose

Introduction of the ‘National Commission for Human Resources for Health Bill 2011( NCHRH Bill 2011)’, which will bring all independent bodies like the Medical Council of India (MCI), the Dental Council of India (DCI), the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) and the Nursing Council of India (NCI) under a centralized authority for a more cohesive action.

Attracting FDI:

According to the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP), the healthcare sector is undergoing significant transformation and attracting investments not only from within the country but also from overseas.

The Cumulative FDI inflow in the healthcare sector from April 2000 to October 2012, as per DIPP publications, is as follows:

Sector	FDI inflow (US$ million)
Hospital and diagnostic centers	1482.86
Medical and surgical appliances	571.91
Drugs and pharmaceuticals	9775.03

(Source: Fact Sheet on FDI – April 2000 to October 2012, DIPP)

Job creation:

The trend of new job creation in the healthcare sector of India is also quite encouraging, as supported by the following facts:

The Healthcare sector in India recorded a maximum post-recession recruitment to a total employee base of 36, 21,177 with a new job creation of 2, 73, 571, according to ‘Ma Foi Employment Trends Survey 2012’.

Despite slowdown in other industries, in the healthcare sector the new job creation continues at a faster pace.

With many new hospital beds added and increasing access to primary, secondary and tertiary / specialty healthcare, among others, the ascending trend in job creation is expected to continue in the healthcare sectors of India in the years ahead.

A Strategy Prescribed:

Though the report of the High Level Expert Group (HLEG) on the ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ is already in place, without going into the implementability issues of the report in this article, I would like to propose a ten pronged approach towards a new healthcare reform process to achieve the national healthcare objectives:

1. The government should focus on its role as provider of preventive and primary healthcare to all, through public hospitals, dispensaries and PHCs, including free distribution of essential medicines.

2. In tandem, the government should play the role of enabler to create Public-Private partnership (PPP) projects for secondary and tertiary healthcare services at the state and district levels with appropriate fiscal and other incentives.

3. PPP also may be extended to create a robust health insurance infrastructure urgently.

4. The insurance companies will be empowered to negotiate with concerned doctors, hospitals and other organizations, all fees payable by the patients to doctors, hospitals, for diagnostic services etc., including cost of medicines for both inpatients and outpatients treatment, with the sole objective to ensure access to affordable high quality healthcare to all.

5. Create an independent regulatory body for healthcare services to regulate and monitor the operations of both public and private healthcare providers/institutions, including the health insurance sector.

6. Levy a ‘healthcare cess’ to all, for effective implementation of this new healthcare reform process.

7. Effectively manage the corpus thus generated to achieve the healthcare objectives of the nation through the Healthcare Services Regulatory Authority (HSRA).

8. Make HSRS accountable for ensuring access to affordable high quality healthcare to the entire population of the country together with a grievance redressal mechanism.

9. Make HSRS accountable, its operation transparent to the civil society through HSRS website and cost-neutral to the government, through innovative pricing model based on economic status of an individual.

10. Allow independent private healthcare providers to make reasonable profit out of the investments made by them

Conclusion:

All the ten steps prescribed as above, will help ensure a holistic approach to healthcare needs of India and reduce prevailing socioeconomic inequalities within the healthcare delivery systems of the country.

Rapidly growing urban centric five-star private healthcare initiatives are welcome but these are now just catering to the privileged few, perpetuating the pressing healthcare issues unanswered.

Only a well-orchestrated, comprehensive, time-bound and holistic approach is capable of addressing the humongous healthcare needs of India and at the same time providing much required growth momentum to the Indian healthcare industry, positioning India as one of the most lucrative healthcare hubs within the emerging economies of the world.

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 and also do not contribute to any other blog or website with the same article that I post in this website. Any such act of reproducing my articles, which I write in my personal capacity, in other blogs or websites by anyone is unauthorized and prohibited.

Hysteria on Corporate Lobbying in India

Posted on December 17, 2012 by Tapan Ray

The ‘hysteria’ on ‘Corporate Lobbying’ influencing the key policy decisions of India, reverberated in the corridors of power of the Indian Parliament last week with consequent media attraction and triggering a raging public debate.

On Monday, December 10, 2012 the Upper House of the Indian Parliament reportedly expressed itshuge concern over a lobbying disclosure in the United States related to a contentious government policy decision India.

Taking part in the debate a distinguished Member of the Parliament and an eminent lawyer Mr.Ravishankar Prasad reportedly articulated, “Lobbying is illegal in India and is a kind of bribe. If Wal-Mart has said that hundreds of crores of rupees were spent on India, then it is a kind of bribe.Government should tell who was given this bribe.”

Responding to the opposition demand on this subject, the Government has already ordered a judicial probe on this allegation.

Corporate Lobbying:

The term ‘Lobbying’ has been defined as “a form of advocacy with the intention of influencing decisions made by the government by individuals or more usually by Lobby groups; it includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents, or organized groups”.

April 21, 2012 edition of ‘The Economist’ in an article titled. “The Chamber of Secrets - The biggest business lobby in the United States is more influential than ever”, reported that ‘Americas first chamber of commerce was founded in Charleston in 1773.

Many a times the key issues of corruption, morality and ethics are being used with ‘lobbying’ activity. However, following two different perceptions remain generally associated with this terminology:

Corporates or people with mighty socioeconomic power, by themselves or through their industry bodies, corrupt the laws to serve a self-serving agenda by bending or deflecting them away from general fairness to majority of the population.
It gives an opportunity to defend minority interest against corruption and tyranny of the majority.

An article published in the ‘The Washington Post’ on August 14, 2011 argued that “Blame for financial mess starts with the corporate lobby” in America.

In a recent book titled, “Time to Start Thinking – America and the Specter of Decline”, the author described how the big money in America has almost completely bought over the political process along with a pen picture of the organized lobbying group continuing to wield their mighty power despite reported ban of this activity in the ‘White House’ by President Barrack Obama.

Lobbying is legal in many countries:

It is worth mentioning that lobbying is a legal activity in many countries, such as, the United States of America, Europe and Canada. In the US, many Indian companies, including the government of India have been lobbying since so many years to present their cases and argument with the American law and policy makers.

When President Obama came to power in the US, it was reported: ‘one of the first acts of the Obama administration in office was to have an executive order which prohibited the Obama Administration either from hiring lobbyists – those who had lobbied within two years of joining the administration or allowing people who had left the Obama administration to service lobbyists for two years. The idea is that you want to break the chains where there is undue influence of special interest groups upon the government’.

‘Disclosure’ required in the US:

In the US, lobbying being recognized as a legitimate business activity, the companies are required to inform all such activities through quarterly disclosure reports to the US Senate.

In America, in 2012 alone and only in Washington DC there were reportedly 12,016 active registered lobbyists, who spent a whopping US$ 2.45 Billion for lobbying activities . Similarly, as per publishedreports, there are currently an estimated 15,000 individual lobbyists and 2,500 lobbyist organizations in Brussels to seek favorable business decisions through the legislative process of the European Union.

It has been reported that in the U.S. lobbying is a huge and established industry. This is quite contrary to Indian situation, where lobbying has not been legalized and the activity, going by general perception, ‘smacks of illegal gratification and is ravished by corruption scandals like 2G scams”.

Indian corporates also lobby in the US:

Records with the US House of Representatives reportedly show that around 27 Indian companies have spent money on lobbying in the US. Some examples are as follows:

Reliance Industries (RIL): Unspecified issue
Tata Sons:
Ranbaxy Lab,
The National Association of Software and Service Companies (Nasscom )
Wipro
Gems and Jewellery Export Promotion Council, among others.

Some sensational recent reports:

Following are some sensational recent reports on Corporate Lobbying:

The ‘Pharma Letter’ in its in its March 29, 2012 edition reported that “New research reveals that the pharmaceutical industry lobby is spending more than 40 million Euros (US$ 53.5 million) annually to influence decision making in European Union.”

Back home ‘Live Mint (The wall Street Journal)’ reported on October 6, 2011 as follows:

“Wal-Mart has disclosed earlier, “discussion related to India FDI (Foreign Direct Investment)” as one of the issues in its lobbying with the US lawmakers in the first two quarters of 2011, during which it spent nearly US$ 4 million on various lobbying activities.”

On December 13, 2012, ‘The Telegraph‘ reported that in a recent regulatory disclosure in the United States, Walmart has stated that it spent US$ 25 million in the last four years on lobbying for, among other its hopes for “enhanced market access for investment in India”.

Not legalized in India:

As stated above, though Lobbying is considered a legal business activity in many countries, in India it is still not considered as a legally and recognized business activity. However, many industrial sectors have formed their respective associations primarily for lobbying with the government, which is generally termed as ‘advocacy’.

A recent article published in the India Law Journal titled, ‘Corporate Lobbying and Corruption-Manipulating Capital’ articulates that “lobbying is the preferred means for exerting political influence in developed countries and corruption the preferred one in developing countries. However, lobbying and corruption are symbiotic in nature as both are ways of obtaining help from the public sector in exchange for favors.”

The article further states that corporate lobbying or advocacy has expanded in India mostly as intensive briefings and presentations to the ministers and senior bureaucrats, though it is not yet recognized in a statutory or non-statutory form in the country.

Thus, right from the debate on Bofors Guns to the telephone tapes of high profile lobbyist Niira Radia related to 2G telecom scam and then Tatra trucks scam of the Indian Army and now on Walmart debate in the Parliament, one gets a clear feel that corporate lobbying falls in a grey zone under the Indian law.

Difference between ‘Lobbying’ and ‘Advocacy’:

According to the article titled, ‘Lobbying and Advocacy—Similarities and Differences, published by Charity Lobbying for the Public Interest’, when nonprofit organizations advocate on their own behalf, they seek to positively affect majority of the society, whereas lobbying refers specifically to advocacy efforts that attempt to influence policy or legislation of a country by interested groups, irrespective of its best outcome to the society.

More debate:

In a very recent reported debate published on December 15, 2012 titled, “Is lobbying an acceptable business practice? “, one distinguished professional said, ‘While lobbying can be considered routine, the response to it should not be, as it can be deeply harmful to our country’.

In the same debate, another equally distinguished person commented, ‘Lobbying may be a legitimate activity subject to strict regulatory oversight in the US. But in India, it a sophisticated alibi for the more brazen bribe-giving, what with cash still ruling the roost with its subterranean links lubricating all sections of the economy.”

More controversy:

Not so very long ago, some consumer activists from the civil society vehemently protested against the ‘Intellectual Property Conferences’ held in India, which were allegedly sponsored by some interested groups in a guise to influence the policy makers and the judiciary of India.

It was widely reported that the consumer activists viewed these IP summits, organized by the George Washington University Law School of USA as ‘attempts to influence sitting judges on patent law enforcement issues that are pending in Indian courts.’

In a letter dated February 26, 2010 addressed to Shri Anand Sharma, Minister of Commerce and Industry of India, over 20 NGOs demanded transparency and more information on such meetings and wanted the government of India ‘to put a stop to such industry sponsored lobbying with Indian judges and policymakers to promote their own requirements for intellectual property and to lobby for either law amendments or even to plead their cases currently pending before, various courts and the Indian Patent Office.”

In raising their concerns, the civil society groups argued that the posture adopted by the lobbyists and their supporters is to “force India to adopt greater standards” of IP protection “beyond the mandatory levels” required by the WTO, which may ‘go against public health interest of India’.

The need for a middle path:

In the current volatile scenario, it is quite reasonable to expect that lobbying activities in India, especially after the current uproar in the Parliament, may come under greater scrutiny both by the media and the government. The intervention of the courts against ‘Public Interest Litigation (PIL)’ cannot also be ruled out.

However, it is also believed by many that long-term interest of India is expected to ultimately prevail in this closely watched raging debate with the acceptance of a middle path.

A strong argument in favor of lobbying/advocacy:

As stated above, there is also a strong argument in support of lobbying or advocacy, based on the following grounds:

In a democratic country like India, people from across the spectrum, including the industries and its associations, should have the right to convey their views to policy makers.
Lobbying should be regarded as a “fundamental basis to express a point of view”, industry included.
Trying to influence the government is a natural process by all, including the civil society, other stakeholders and the industry alike.

Regulating lobbying activities – An option:

Considering the fast changing environment and arising out of some recent very sensational lobbying related financial/policy scams in India, as mentioned above, the moot question, as is being raised by many across the country is: “Should the government regulate lobbying activities in the country with appropriate regulations?”

Surrogate lobbying:

The instances of ‘surrogate lobbying’ by the industries with funds coming from various parts of the world are also being raised by the civil society, media and recently by the Government. The contentious issue became the subject of a heated debate related to ‘Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant’ in Tamil Nadu.

In February 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reportedly charged that foreign NGOs for stoking protests with foreign funds at the ‘Kudankulam Nuclear power Plant’ for vested interests and ordered further investigation by the Ministry of Home Affairs to track the trails of funds.

As a result of all these developments, the Government is reportedly becoming increasingly more vigilant against direct or indirect ‘foreign hand’ through surrogate lobbying in the policy related issues of the country, against majority interest of the society. The ‘Walmart saga’ is a case in point, at this stage.

Industry observers have opined, probably many other forms of surrogate lobbying are currently operational in India, which needs to be thoroughly probed and in case of any illegal activity, the perpetrators must be brought to justice, sooner than later, whether it is related to ‘Kundamkulam Nuclear Power Plant’ or any other .

Examples of political fall-out of lobbying activities:

On June 1, 2012, FiercePharma reported as follows:

“The cat is out of the bag so to speak with the disclosure of memos today detailing the level of drug industry support for passage of President Obama’s prized healthcare reform”

It continued to state, “Big Pharma came around to support the original bill, trading about $80 billion in additional taxes and some price rebates to federal programs for an expanded pool of insured.”

Back home in India, The Outlook Magazine reported on June 6, 2010 on the political fall-out of lobbying related to 2G telecom spectrum allocation scam in India as follows:

“Since Outlook published extracts from the CD of Radia’s phone conversations (submitted to the court) taped by the I-T department and put the 140 conversations up on its website, there has been a raging debate on what they tell us about the role of lobbyists in the 2G spectrum allocation scam, how the media interplays in such a system, and how our political class and retired bureaucrats are more often than not willing partners in the game.”

“These debates do not detract from the aim of punishing the guilty behind the 2G scam; rather they raise disturbing questions we all have to answer. Who is this woman who can speak to the “highest and mightiest” in this country in this way? From where does she draw her power? And what does it tell us about our society? When ‘Outlook’ asked her, whether she would like to give her version of these recent events, Radia SMSed back: “No. Thank You.” This is her story..”

Conclusion:

Despite a long history of regulated and legalized lobbying in the US, there are still severe criticisms even in that country about the way lobbying activities have worked there in the past so many decades. India has plenty to learn from such experiences.

In the prevailing situation within India many experts often question, whether the economic/ other critical policy decisions of the country are mostly based on what the local population would require or depend on the money power of vested interests or business houses within and outside the country to influence such decisions.

To eliminate any possibility of illegal gratification, directly or indirectly or in any other manner or form, the process of lobbying or advocacy should be made absolutely transparent for all through appropriate rules and regulations, legally acceptable lobbyists and an appropriate disclosure mechanism for all such related expenses, just as exists in the United States of America.

In absence of these transparent and robust measures, lobbying or advocacy will continue to be perceived not just as an illegitimate activity, but also an ignoble and dubious profession in the eyes of majority living in India.

The fantastic vocabulary of ‘Good Governance’ should not be used just for others to practice. It is a time to ‘walk the talk’ for all stakeholders, including the government to douse histrionics of various kinds like, what happened last week on ‘Corporate Lobbying in India’.

By: Tapan J Ray

A NEW Study on Ballooning Pharma R&D Cost: Exploring a Sustainable Model for Greater Patients’ Access

Posted on December 10, 2012 by Tapan Ray

The high-decibel debate on increasing prices for patented drugs affecting patients’ access to innovative medicines gets a new fuel. A brand new study dated December 2012 carried out by the Office of Health Economics (OHE), UK, which was partly supported by a grant from AstraZeneca, estimated that the cost of developing new medicine has risen by ten times from US$100 million in the 1970s to as high as US$ 1.9 billion in 2011.

The study identifies the following key reasons for a galloping increase in the cost of research and development:

Inflation-adjusted investments
Sharp increase in the rate of failure
Stringent regulatory demands together with scientific complexity
Longer time for clinical development
Significant increase in the cost of capital

Another recent study goes even beyond:

Many experts have gone even further on this subject, arguing that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are over stated and the real cost is much less.

An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicates that the total cost from the discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in the year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 the same figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a pharmaceutical industry association. Maintaining similar trend, if one assumes that the R&D cost will increase by another 64 per cent by 2012, the cost to bring a new drug to the market through its discovery and development stages will be around US $2.16 billion. This will mean a 2.7 times increase from its year 2000 estimate, the article articulates.

The important caveat:

The authors also mentioned that the following factors were not considered while working out the 2006 figure of US$ 1.32 billion:

The tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D.
Tax write-offs amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40% of the R&D cost.
The cost of basic research (should not have been included), as these are mostly done in public funded universities or laboratories.

The article commented that ‘half the R&D costs are inflated estimates of profits that companies could have made if they had invested in the stock market instead of R&D and include exaggerated expenses on clinical trials’.

The authors alleged that “Pharmaceutical companies have a strong vested interest in maximizing figures for R&D as high research and development costs have been the industry’s excuse for charging high prices. It has also helped generating political capital worth billions in tax concessions and price protection in the form of increasing patent terms and extending data exclusivity.”

The study concludes by highlighting that “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company is probably about US$ 60 million.”

A positive side of the story:

The book titled “Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks, and Rewards”, published by the government of USA states that the three most important components of R&D investment are:

Money
Time
Risk

Money is just one component of investment, along with a long duration of time, to reap benefits of success intertwined with a very high risk of failure. The investors in the pharmaceutical R&D projects not only take into account how much investment is required for the project against expected financial returns, but also the timing of inflow and outflow of fund with associated risks. It is thus quite understandable that longer is the wait for the investors to get their return, greater will be their expectations for the same.

This publication also highlights that the cost of bringing a new drug from ‘mind to market’ depends on quality and sophistication of science and technology involved in a particular R&D process together with associated investment requirements for the same. In addition, regulatory demand to get marketing approval of a complex molecule for various serious disease types are also getting more and more stringent, significantly increasing their cost of clinical development simultaneously. All these factors when taken together make the cost of R&D not only very high, but unpredictable too.

Thus to summarize from the above study, high pharmaceutical R&D costs involve:

Sophisticated science and technology dependent high up-front financial investments
A long and indefinite period of negative cash flow
High tangible and intangible costs for acquiring technology with rapid trend of obsolescence
High risk of failure at any stage of product development

The ground reality: R&D productivity is going south

That pharmaceutical R&D productivity is fast declining has been vindicated by ‘2011 Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook’ complied by Thomson Reuters, the key highlights of which are as follows:

21 new molecular entities (NMEs) were launched in the global market in 2010, which is a decrease from 26 NMEs of the previous year.
2010 saw the lowest number of NMEs launched by major Pharma players in the last 10 years
The number of drugs entering Phase I and Phase II clinical trials fell 47% and 53% respectively during the year.

According to findings of the latest review of ‘Pharmaceutical R&D returns performance’ by Deloitte and Thomson Reuters of December 2012, the R&D Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of leading pharmaceutical companies has fallen for a second successive year to 7.2 percent in 2012 from 7.7 percent in 2011.

High cost of failure:

By challenging the status quo, Andrew Witty, the global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in his speech in Mumbai on September 27, 2011 to the members of the Indian pharmaceutical industry commented that the cost of over a billion dollar to bring a new molecule to the market through its discovery and development stages is “unacceptable.” He attributed such high R&D expenses to the ‘cost of failure’ by the industry.

Witty said, “High in-house failure rates are slowing progress on pricing affordability… We need to fail less and deliver more”.

He commented during his deliberation that success in reducing the R&D cost to make innovative drugs more affordable to the patients of all income levels, across the globe, will be the way forward in the years ahead.

Conventional thinking and an unsustainable model:

Research scientists have already articulated that sharp focus in the following areas may help containing the R&D expenditure to a great extent and the savings thus made, in turn, can fund a larger number of R&D projects:

Early stage identification of unviable new molecules and jettisoning them quickly
Newer cost efficient R&D models, like one implemented by GSK
Significant reduction in drug development time.

Unfortunately, sustainability of the above model still remains a wishful thinking and a question mark to many for various other reasons.

Exploring a seemingly ‘Sustainable Model’:

Should Pharmaceutical R&D move from the traditional models to a much less charted frontier?

Perhaps towards this direction, in November, 2010 a report of Frost & Sullivan titled, “Open Source Innovation Increasingly Being Used to Promote Innovation in the Drug Discovery Process and Boost Bottom-line”, underscored the urgent need of the global pharmaceutical companies to respond to the challenges of high cost and low productivity in their respective Research and Development initiatives, in general.

‘Open Innovation’ model, they proposed, will be most appropriate in the current scenario to improve not only profit, but also to promote more innovative approaches in the drug discovery process. Currently, on an average it takes about 8 to 10 years to bring an NCE/NME to market with a cost of around U.S$ 1.9 billion.

The concept of ‘Open Innovation’ is being quite successfully used by the Information Technology (IT) industry since nearly three decades all over the world, including India. Web Technology, the Linux Operating System (OS) and even the modern day ‘Android’ – the open source mobile OS, are excellent examples of commercially successful ‘Open innovation’ in IT.

In the sphere of Biotechnology Human Genome Sequencing is another remarkable outcome of such type of R&D model.

On May 12, 2011, in an International Seminar held in New Delhi, the former President of India Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam commented, “Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD) explores new models of drug discovery”. He highlighted the need for the scientists, researchers and academics to get effectively engaged in ‘open source philosophy’ by pooling talent, patents, knowledge and resources for specific R&D initiatives from across the world. In today’s world ‘Open Innovation’ in the pharmaceutical R&D has a global relevance, especially, for the developing world of many ‘have-nots’.

‘Open Innovation’:

As the name suggest, ‘Open Innovation’ or the ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ is an open source code model of discovering a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). In this model all data generated related to the discovery research will be available in the open for collaborative inputs. The licensing arrangement of OSDD where both invention and copyrights will be involved, will be quite different from any ‘Open Source’ license for a software development.

In ‘Open Innovation’, the key component is the supportive pathway of its information network, which is driven by three key parameters of:

Open development
Open access
Open source

As stated earlier, ‘Open Innovation’ concept was successfully used in the ‘Human Genome Project’ where a large number of scientists, and microbiologists participated from across the world to sequence and understand the human genes. However, this innovation process was first used to understand the mechanics of proteins by the experts of the biotech and pharmaceutical industries.

Making innovative drugs affordable through ‘Open Innovation’:

The key objective of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals is to encourage drug discovery initiatives at a reasonably cheaper price, especially for Non-infectious Chronic Diseases (NCD) or the dreaded ailments like Cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis etc. and also many neglected diseases of the developing countries, to make innovative drugs affordable even to the marginalized people of the world.

Multiple benefits:

According to the above report of Frost & Sullivan on the subject, the key benefits of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals will include:

Bringing together the best available minds to tackle “extremely challenging” diseases
Speed of innovation
Risk-sharing
Affordability

The key barrier: Shared IPR

Industry observers feel that the key barrier to ‘Open Innovation’ is that IPR needs to be shared. Hence, large innovator companies, by and large, have not evinced much commercial interest in this initiative as yet. Other issues for ‘Open Innovation’ model are:

Who will fund the project and how much?
Who will lead the project?
Who will coordinate the project and find talents?
Who will take it through clinical development and regulatory approval process?

However, the experts feel that all these do not seem to be an insurmountable problem at all, as the saying goes, ‘where there is a will, there is a way’.

The Global initiatives on ‘Open Innovation’:

In June 2008, GlaxoSmithKline announced that it was donating an important slice of its research on cancer cells to the cancer research community to boost the collaborative battle against this disease. With this announcement, genomic profiling data for over 300 sets of cancer cell lines was released by GSK to the National Cancer Institute’s bioinformatics grid. It has been reported that over 900 researchers actively contribute to this grid from across the industry, research institutes, academia and NGOs. Many believe that this initiative will further gain momentum to encourage many more academic institutions, researchers and even smaller companies to add speed to the drug discovery pathways and at the same time make the NCE/NME coming through such process much less expensive and affordable to a large section of the society, across the globe.

The Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is another example of a Private Public Partnership (PPP) project with an objective ‘to define the rate of progress of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease, develop improved methods for clinical trials in this area and provide a large database which will improve design of treatment trials’.

Recently announced ‘Open invitation’ strategy of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to discover innovative drugs for malaria is yet another example where GSK has collaborated with European Bioinformatics Institute and U.S. National Library of Medicine to make the details of the molecule available to the researchers free of cost with an initial investment of US$ 8 million to set up the research facility in Spain involving around 60 scientists from across the world to work in this facility.

Indian initiative:

In India, Dr. Samir Brahmachari, the Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is the champion of the OSDD movement. CSIR believes that for a developing country like India OSDD will help the common people to meet their unmet medical needs in the areas of neglected tropical diseases.

‘Open Innovation’ project of CSIR is a now a global platform to address the neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, leishmaniasis by the best research brains of the world working together for a common cause.

To fund this initiative of the CSIR the Government of India has allocated around U.S$ 40 million and an equivalent amount of funding would be raised from international agencies and philanthropists.

Conclusion:

Currently pharmaceutical R&D is an in-house initiative of innovator global companies. Mainly for commercial security reasons, only limited number of scientists working for the respective innovator companies will have access to the projects.

‘Open Innovation’ on the other hand, is believed to have the potential to create a win-win situation, bringing in substantial benefits to both the pharmaceutical innovators and the patients.

According to available reports, the key advantage of the ‘Open Innovation’ model will be substantial reduction in the costs and time of R&D projects, which could be achieved through voluntary participation of a large number of Researchers/Scientists/Institutions in key R&D initiatives. This in turn will significantly reduce ‘mind-to-market’ time of more affordable New Chemical/Molecular Entities in various disease areas making innovative medicines affordable to all.

Thus, many experts argue, high prices of new patented drugs, giving rise to low access to majority of patients, at least, in the developing world, should by and large be attributed to high R&D cost. They feel, such ballooning increase in research and development expenditures is commercially unsustainable even in the medium term.

Many thought leaders now believe, despite hard commercial consideration related to IPR, which perhaps has to be amicably sorted out willy-nilly in the long run, ‘Open Innovation’ concept could well be an important commercial model for tomorrow’s global R&D initiatives. This sustainable model would possibly address the issue of improving access to innovative affordable Medicines to a larger number of patients of the world, meeting their unmet medical needs, more effectively and with greater care.

By: Tapan J Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Legal

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Prescriptions in Generic Names Be Made A Must in India?

Reticence Around Unveiling Clinical Trials

‘Patent Linkage’: Can The Core Issue Be Resolved?

The Ghost Keeps Haunting: NCD Dogs Cancer in ‘Compulsory License’ Debate of India

A Ten Step Strategy Prescribed

Hysteria on Corporate Lobbying in India

A NEW Study on Ballooning Pharma R&D Cost: Exploring a Sustainable Model for Greater Patients’ Access