Why MNC Pharma Still Moans Over Indian IP Ecosystem?

Posted on May 14, 2018 by Tapan Ray

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

Does US talk differently outside the country?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should IP laws ignore country’s socioeconomic reality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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.

How Cost-Effective Are New Cancer Drugs?

Posted on January 30, 2017 by Tapan Ray

The main reason why cancer is so serious a disease, is the ability of the malignant cells to spread in the body, both locally by moving into nearby normal tissue, and regionally to nearby lymph nodes, tissues, or organs, affecting even the distant parts of the body. When this happens, doctors term it as metastatic or stage IV (four) cancer.

Although most patients with metastatic tumors would eventually die of cancer, the treatment with various types of anticancer drugs, could help prolong life, in varying degree. No wonder, many new anticancer drugs now obtain regulatory approval based on their effectiveness on metastatic cancer patients. Consequently, it has now become almost a routine to administer newer anticancer drugs to patients with early stage of disease, after they have undergone surgery or radiotherapy.

But, these lifesaving drugs are expensive – very expensive! For example, a newer anticancer treatment is often priced at US$ 100,000 or more per patient, which, obviously, a large majority of the population can’t just afford.

Are these new drugs cost-effective?

To put in simple words, cost effectiveness of a drug is generally ‘expressed in terms of a ratio where the denominator is a gain in health from a measure (years of life, premature births averted, sight-years gained) and the numerator is the cost associated with the health gain.’

From this perspective, a January 2015 research study titled, “Pricing In The Market For Anticancer Drugs”, published by the National Bureau Of Economic Research of the United States observed that anticancer drugs like bevacizumab (US$ 50,000 per treatment episode) and ipilimumab (US$120,000 per episode) have fueled the perception that the launch prices of anticancer drugs are fast increasing over time.

To evaluate the pricing trend of these drugs, the researchers used an original dataset of 58 anticancer drugs, approved between 1995 and 2013, and found that launch-prices, adjusted for inflation and drugs’ survival benefits, increased by 10 percent, or about US$ 8,500, per year. This study was restricted to drugs administered with the primary intent of extending survival time for cancer patients and drugs for which survival benefits have been estimated in trials or modeling studies. The researchers did not consider drugs administered to treat pain or drugs that are administered to alleviate the side effects of cancer treatments.

The paper concluded, as compared to the older ones, newer anticancer treatments, generally, are less cost-effective. Despite this fact, the prices of these drugs are rising faster than their overall effectiveness.

How much do these drugs cost to prolong a year of life for cancer patients?

Another paper, titled “Cancer Drugs Aren’t As Cost-Effective As They Used To Be”, published in the Forbes magazine on September 30, 2015, expressed serious concern on the declining cost-effectiveness of new anticancer drugs. The author termed this trend as unacceptable, and more disturbing when providing just a year of life to cancer patients costs around US$ 350,000 to even US$ 800,000. High prices should reflect large benefits, and we need to demand value out of medical interventions – he recommended.

Do the claims of efficacy also reflect the real-world effectiveness?

Providing an answer to this question, a very recent article titled, “Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated With New Cancer Medicines”, published in the well reputed medical journal ‘JAMA Oncology’ on December 29, 2016, concluded as follows:

“Although innovation in the oncology drug market has contributed to improvements in therapy, the magnitude and dimension of clinical benefits vary widely, and there may be reasons to doubt that claims of efficacy reflect real-world effectiveness exactly.”

As stated above, this conclusion was drawn by the researchers after a detail study on the overall survival, quality of life, and safety benefits of recently licensed cancer medicines, as there was a dearth of evidence on the impact of newly licensed cancer medicines.

The authors analyzed in detail health technology assessment reports of 62 cancer drugs approved in the United States and Europe between 2003 and 2013, and found that these were associated with increased overall survival by an average of 3.43 months between 2003 and 2013. Following is a summary of the detail findings:

43 percent increased overall survival by 3 months or longer
11 percent by less than 3 months
30 percent was not associated with any increase in overall survival, which means almost one third of these drugs lacked evidence to suggest their increased survival rate when compared to alternative treatments
Most new cancer drugs, though improved quality of life, were associated with reduced patient safety

The researchers expect this study to support clinical practice, and promote value-based decision-making in the cancer drug treatment, besides assessing their cost-effectiveness.

Some overseas Cancer Institutes protested:

In 2012, doctors at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center reportedly announced through ‘The New York Times’ that their hospital would not be using Zaltrap, a newly patented colorectal cancer drug at that time, from Sanofi. This action of the Sloan-Kettering doctors compelled Sanofi to cut the price of Zaltrap by half.

Unlike India, where prices of even cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, the top cancer specialists of the American Society of Clinical Oncology are reportedly working out a framework for rating and selecting cancer drugs not only for their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

In a 2015 paper, a group of cancer specialists from Mayo Clinic also articulated, that the oft-repeated arguments of price controls stifle innovation are not good enough to justify unusually high prices of these drugs. Their solution for this problem includes value-based pricing and NICE like body of the United Kingdom.

This Interesting Video from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

Was it a tongue-in-cheek action from India?

On March 9, 2012, India did send a signal to global pharma players on its apparent unhappiness of astronomical pricing of patented new cancer drugs in the country. The then Indian Patent Controller General, on that day, issued the first ever Compulsory License (CL) to a domestic drug manufacturer Natco, allowing it to sell a generic equivalent of a kidney cancer treatment drug from Bayer – Nexavar, at a small fraction of the originator’s price.

However, nothing has changed significantly since then on the ground for cancer drugs in the country. Hence, many construe the above action of the Government no more than mere tokenism.

In this context, it won’t be out of place recapitulating an article, published in a global business magazine on December 5, 2013 that quoted Marijn Dekkers, the then CEO of Bayer AG as follows:

“Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India, but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

Whether, CL is the right approach to resolve allegedly ‘profiteering mindset’ at the cost of human lives, is a different subject of discussion.

VBP concept is gaining ground:

The concept of ‘Value-Based Pricing (VBP)’, has started gaining ground in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcome’ data using similar or equivalent products.

Cost of incremental value that a product delivers over the existing ones, is of key significance, and should always be the order of the day. Some independent organizations such as, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK have taken a leading role in this area.

Intriguingly, in India, public health related issues, however pressing these are, still do not seem to arrest much attention of the government to provide significant relief to a large majority of population in the country.

Conclusion:

Warren Buffet – the financial investor of global repute once said, “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” Unfortunately, this dictum is not applicable to the consumers of high priced life-saving drugs, such as, for cancer.

Prices of new drugs for the treatment of life-threatening ailments, such as cancer, are increasingly becoming unsustainable, across the world, and more in India. As articulated by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2014, this is mainly because their prices are disconnected from the actual therapeutic value of products.

Currently, a sizable number of poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life’s saving for treatment of a disease like cancer, have been virtually priced out of the patented new cancer drugs market.

The plight of such patients is worse in India, and would continue to be so, especially when no trace of Universal Health Care/Coverage (UHC) is currently visible anywhere near the healthcare horizon of the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Posted on July 11, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The upcoming trend of jaw dropping high prices for new patented drugs sends a ‘storm signal’ to many stakeholders, especially for its adverse impact on patient access. Even more intriguing, such high and insane prices are being fixed rather arbitrarily, without any valid reason whatsoever.

It has now been well established, very clearly, that this trend has no linkages with the necessity of keeping the wheel of cost-intensive new drug development initiatives moving, uninterruptedly.

Many believe that this dangerous inclination of the global pharma players picked up, in a major way, with the launch of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), costing around US$ 1,000 per pill in the United States. This new drug has no relationship with Gilead’s own R&D initiatives, just as many other high priced patented drugs belonging to this genre.

Additionally, the current brand pricing strategy of even those pharma companies who are developing new drugs in-house, is equally intriguing, as those drug prices too have no direct or indirect relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. As I discussed that issue in my Blog on August 18, 2014 in an article titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments”, I am not arguing on those points here again.

Nevertheless, these unholy practices did not go unnoticed. Anguish against irresponsible pricing, adversely impacting patient access, started gaining momentum, all over. A raging debate has also kick-started on this issue within a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including various Governments and other payers.

They all are questioning, should the Governments, health insurance companies and other payers support such windfall profits of the so called ‘research based’ pharma companies’?

In this article, I shall deliberate on this issue, just when the voices of disgust against this unholy trend have started multiplying.

A palpable disgust expressed in a recent article:

Against this arbitrary drug pricing trend, a good number of doctors have started raising their voices, with a discernible disgust.

“We’re all paying a high price for drug company profiteering”, thundered Dr. Daniel J. Stone, an internal medicine and geriatric medicine specialist, in an Op-Ed published in ‘The Los Angeles Times’ on July 6, 2016.

Dr. Stone further reiterated, “The drug companies are ripping us off, pill by pill, shot by shot. Instead of working to earn reasonable returns by relieving our suffering and saving lives, they now focus on profits above all. Their main targets are insurance companies. But when insurance companies take a hit, they bump up premiums to employers or the government. So we all pay - in taxes, reduced take-home pay, copayments and deductibles.”

Windfall profits:

The article focuses on this new trend in the global pharma industry, adversely affecting access to, especially, the new drugs to a vast majority of the patients. The author unambiguously highlighted that this dangerous pricing strategy got a major thrust from Gilead Sciences Inc. with its acquisition of sofosbuvir’s (Sovaldi) developer – ‘Pharmasset’ in 2011, for US$ 11 billion.

According to Dr. Stone, ‘Pharmasset’s chief executive made an estimated US$ 255 million on the deal, and its 82 employees each averaged around US$ 3.3 million, before Sovaldi came to the market. Thereafter, it’s a history. Gilead took a double markup on the drug, charging enough not just to more than cover the high cost of acquisition of ‘Pharmasset’, but also for making windfall profits.

The reason behind irresponsible pricing:

The question, therefore, arises, how do the global pharma players dare to go for such irresponsible pricing in many countries of the world?

It is possible for them because the payers, especially the health insurance companies, usually find it difficult to out rightly ignore any unique and new life saving patented medicine for various reasons. As a result, the concerned companies, allegedly effectively use these payers, and also a large section of doctors who can prescribe these brands, facilitating them to make huge profits at the cost of patients.

The justification:

To justify such pricing, these pharma companies and their trade associations are apparently using fear as the key. Through various types of communications, they keep trying to convey that any attempt to restrict their so called ‘reasonable’ prices of these medicines would seriously jeopardize the innovative drug development process, jeopardizing the long term needs of the patients.

More recently, serious attempts were made to also establish Sovaldi’s so called ‘reasonable’ pricing, and its cost effectiveness, in an interesting way.

The company highlighted that Sovaldi is cost effective, not just in comparison to paying for other health care services that the drug might prevent, it also helps avoid cost intensive liver transplant, in many cases. With those costs not being incurred with Sovaldi, the patients, on the contrary, make some savings on the possible alternative treatment cost to fight this deadly disease.

Is it not an atrocious argument?

However, according to Dr. Stone, “This argument is a lot like a plumber billing a customer US$ 20,000 to fix a leaky pipe under the sink. Considering the costs of a possible flood, it might seem defensible. In the real world, any plumber charging based on ‘what you saved’ by preventing a potential catastrophe would lose business to competitors.”

A warning sign:

The above article also highlights, Sovaldi like drug price tag is an unmistakable warning sign, and the emerging trend of patented drug pricing system is a danger to the health of any nation. According to the author:

Reforming the financing of drug development will require more creativity.

The government should consider subsidizing research and development to reduce the industry’s risk, in return for oversight on pricing that would allow reasonable returns on investment.

Not possible without many doctors’ active support:

Though it is encouraging to see that some doctors, such as, Daniel J. Stone are raising their voices and arguing against this practice, a large number of other doctors are being actively influenced by the pharma companies to prescribe such products.

This is vindicated by the latest release from the Open Payments database of the Government of the United States. It shows that the drug and device makers of the country incurred a mind boggling expenditure of US$ 2.6 billion towards payment to doctors related to speakers’ fees, meals, royalties and other payments, in 2015. Under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of America, this is the second full year of the disclosure.

The total payment made by the drug and device makers to doctors and medical institutions for the year was shown as US$ 7.52 billion.

The point to ponder:

That said, the question that surfaces, if Gilead had to sell its drugs to individuals incurring ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, how many Sovaldi like drugs would it sell with equivalent to around US$ 80,000 treatments cost?

It won’t be too difficult to ferret out its answer, if we look at the countries, like India, with very high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on health care, in general, and medicines in particular.

A possible solution:

According to an article published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on February 8, 2007, Voluntary Licensing (VL)’ practices in the pharmaceutical sector could possibly be a solution to improving access to affordable medicines.

The Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents 2005, which is generally applicable to ‘me too’ type of new products, could place India at an advantage. In the absence of a grant of evergreen type of product patents, many global companies would ultimately prefer to offer VL to Indian generic manufacturers, under specific terms and conditions, mainly to salvage the situation.

However, such a VL is unlikely to have any potential value, if the IPO refuses to grant patents to those products falling under the above section. In that case, generic competition would possibly further bring down the prices.

Has it started working in India?

Just to recapitulate, starting with a flash back to the year 2006, one can see that Gilead followed the VL strategy for India, probably for the first time, for its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

At that time Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead. The company had signed a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

Interestingly, by that time Cipla had started selling one of the two versions of tenofovir, not licensed by Gilead. Cipla’s generic version was named Tenvir, available at a price of US$ 700 per person per year in India, against Gilead’s tenofovir (Viread) price of US$ 5,718 per patient per year in the developed Markets. Gilead’s target price for tenofovir in India was US$ 200 per month, as stated above.

Following this strategy, again in 2014, Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing know how and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

Accordingly, on September 15, 2014, international media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also announced, just as tenofovir, that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Once again, in July 2016, it was reported that a drug called Epclusa – the latest breakthrough treatment for Hepatitis C virus could soon be available in India following Gilead Sciences’ getting its marketing approval from the US FDA.

Press Trust of India (PTI) reported, as part of its effort to offer affordable treatment, Gilead Sciences, together with its 11 partners in India, are pioneering a VL model that transfers technology and Intellectual Property for the latest treatments and cures for viral Hepatitis and HIV.

Some other pharma majors of the world also seem to be attempting to overcome the safeguards provided in the Indian Patents Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest. Their strategy may not include VL, but also not so transparent ‘Patient Access Programs’, and the so called ‘flexible pricing’. All these mostly happen when the concerned companies sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act.

That said, I have not witnessed the global pharmaceutical companies’ issuing a flurry of VLs in India, as yet.

Another possible solution for India:

Another possible solution for India, although was scripted in Para 4. XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and notified on December 07, 2012, unfortunately has not taken shape even after four years.

On ‘Pricing of Patented Drugs’, NPPA 2012 categorically states as follows:

“There is a separate committee constituted by the Government Order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented Drugs would be based on the recommendation of this committee.”

To utter disappointment of many, a strong will to make it happen, even by the new Government is still eluding, by far.

Conclusion:

Without having adequate access to new life-saving drugs, the struggle for life in the fierce battle against dangerous ailments, has indeed assumed an alarming dimension. This is being fuelled by the absence of Universal Health Coverage, and ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on medicines in India being one of the highest in the world.

It would continue to remain so, up until the global pharma majors consider entering into a VL agreement with the Indian pharma majors, just as Gilead. Otherwise, the Government in power should demonstrate its strong will to act, putting in place a transparent model of ‘patented drugs pricing’, without succumbing to any power play or pressures of any kind from vested interests.

Sans these strong initiatives, the dangerous trend of patented drug pricing will continue to deny access of many new medicines to a vast majority of the population to save precious lives.

By: Tapan J. Ray

For Drug Safety Concern: “Whistleblower’s Intention Should Be Nationalistic”

Posted on March 14, 2016 by Tapan Ray

In the recent weeks, three significant developments related to the Pharmaceutical Industry in India, have triggered rejuvenated concerns in the following critical areas:

A. Overall drug safety standards in the country

B. Self serving interest, rather than patients’ interest, dominate the prescribing decisions

C. Government assurance to American Trade Organization on ‘Compulsory License (CL)’ in India.

These important issues fall under three key regulatory areas of India, as follows:

The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO)
The Medical Council of India (MCI)
The Indian Patent Office

It is worth mentioning here that the Department Related Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 59^th Report, placed before both the houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012, on the functioning of the Central Drug Standards Control Organization (CDSCO), begins with the following observations:

Medicines apart from their critical role in alleviating human suffering and saving lives have very sensitive and typical dimensions for a variety of reasons. They are the only commodity for which the consumers have neither a role to play nor are they able to make any informed choices except to buy and consume whatever is prescribed or dispensed to them, for the following reasons:

Drug regulators decide which medicines can be marketed
Pharmaceutical companies either produce or import drugs that they can profitably sell
Doctors decide which drugs and brands to prescribe
Consumers are totally dependent on and at the mercy of external entities to protect their interests.

Most importantly, all these concerns, if not properly clarified and appropriately addressed by the Government, soon enough, have the potential to create an adverse snowballing impact on the uniform access to affordable quality medicines, for all sections of the society in India.

Under this backdrop, I shall discuss in this article briefly, my perspective on each of these critical areas, as they are today, and not just the drug safety concerns.

The headline of this article is expected capture not only the prevailing mood of some key regulators, but also their inertia to address critical healthcare concerns and above all how the core public health related issues are getting lost, and the trivial ones are gradually occupying the center stage.

A. Overall drug quality and safety  standards in India:

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) suit, filed against the Drugs Consultative Committee and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), was listed on the Supreme Court website for hearing on March 11, 2016.

The PIL has been filed by one Dinesh Thakur, requesting the Supreme Court to lay down guidelines by which manufacturers could be made liable for violating drug standards and also give a direction to the government to set up a ‘Drug Approvals Review Committee’ for examining criminality in the manner in which faulty drug approvals were granted.

Many may recall that the same Dinesh Thakur worked for Ranbaxy from 2003 for two years, and is now the Chief Executive of MedAssure Global Compliance based in Florida, US. Thakur’s Company now advises pharma manufacturers on drug safety and quality standards.

As reported by Reuters, Thakur had earlier exposed how the erstwhile largest drug maker of India, Ranbaxy Laboratories, failed to conduct proper safety and quality tests on drugs and lied to regulators about its procedures. Consequently, USFDA fined Ranbaxy US$500 million for violating federal drug safety laws, and making false statements to the US regulator.

This news report further states: “Indian Parliamentary Committee, thereafter, reportedly demanded an investigation and the drugs regulator committed to one in 2013. Thakur received a statement from the health ministry last year, seen by Reuters, showing no inquiry had begun.”

On the last Friday, however, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain this PIL of Dinesh Thakur, saying it does not have time to adjudicate academic issues, such as, need for guidelines to regulate quality of medicines.

The core issue:

The core issue here is not at all the above PIL, not at the very least. The issue is the much reported concern being expressed, over a period of time, regarding the drug safety standards in India. The reasons include breach of of data integrity, and gross violation of the ‘Good Manufacturing Practices’ standards. Such instances are being detected, almost regularly, by the foreign drug regulators, in several manufacturing facilities run by many large and small Indian drug producers.

It is well vindicated by the fact that around 45 Indian drug manufacturing plants have been banned by the USFDA alone, from shipping generic drugs to the United States, as these were considered unsafe for consumption of patients in the US. Some other foreign regulators too had taken similar action, citing similar reasons. The USFDA website specifies the details of gross violations made in each of these cases.

Ironically, all such facilities can manufacture and sell their drugs in India, as they conform to the quality requirements of the Indian drug regulator. Consequently, the Indian patients consume even those medicines, which are considered unsafe by the USFDA for American patients, innocently, as and when prescribed by the doctors.

Arising out of these incidents, when asked about the drug safety standards in India, and the public health-safety, instead of giving credible and action oriented answers for public reassurance, some of the apparently brazen replies of the DCGI are quite stunning for many stakeholders, both within and outside the shores of India.

I would now quote below just a few of those replies, just as examples.

“…Whistleblower’s Intentions Should Be Nationalistic” - DCGI:

According to Reuters, it has received the following response from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), on the above PIL related to the drug safety standards in India:

“We welcome whistleblowers, we have got great respect, but their intentions should be genuine, should be nationalistic… I don’t have any comment on this guy.”

Thus, many industry watchers feel that in a situation like this, the honorable Supreme Court of India would possibly require to intervene, just as what it did on alleged ‘Clinical Trial’ malpractices in the country or for drug price control, solely for public health interest.

The same attitude continues:

Such brazen response of the Central Drug Regulator, and that too on a serious subject, is indeed bizarre. It becomes increasingly intriguing, as the same attitude continues without any perceptible meaningful intervention from the Ministry of Health.

For example, on February 22, 2014, in the midst of a more intense scenario on a similar issue, instead of taking transparent and stringent measures, the DCGI was quoted by the media commenting:

“We don’t recognize and are not bound by what the US is doing and is inspecting. The FDA may regulate its country, but it can’t regulate India on how India has to behave or how to deliver.”

On February 26, 2014, presumably reacting to the above remarks of the DCGI, the American Enterprise Institute reportedly commented, “Indian drug regulator is seen as corrupt and colliding with pharma companies…”

Such apparently irresponsible and loose comments keep continuing, despite the 2012 report of the Parliamentary Committee of India alleging collusion between some pharmaceutical companies and officials of the CDSCO, which oversees the licensing, marketing and trials of new drugs. The report also commented that the agency is both chronically under-staffed and under-qualified.

Some possible remedial measures:

As the saying goes, “better late than never”, considering all these continuing developments, it is about time to reconsider some of the key recommendations of Dr. R. A. Mashelkar Committee on a similar subject and make amendments in the relevant Act accordingly, soon, to facilitate creation of a robust with high accountability ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’. It would introduce a centralized licensing system for drug manufacturing, along with stringent drug safety standards; besides, sale, export and distribution of drugs. Perhaps, the draft bill on CDA is now lying in the heap of archival documents with the change in Government.

Why does India need CDA?

I believe, the formation of a robust CDA with high accountability, besides meeting with drug safety concerns, would provide the following significant benefits, both to the Industry and also to the Government:

Achieving uniform interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act & Rules
Standardizing procedures and systems for drug control across the country
Enabling coordinated nationwide action against spurious and substandard drugs
Upholding uniform quality standards with respect to exports to foreign countries from anywhere in India
Implementing uniform enforcement action in case of banned and irrational drugs
Creating a Pan-Indian approach to drug control and administration
Evolving a single-window system for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research undertaken anywhere in the country.

B. Self serving interest dominates the prescribing decision:

That the self serving interest, rather than patient interest, dominate the prescribing decision, was vindicated by a key announcement of the Medical Council of India (MCI) last month.

In February 2016, apparently succumbing to continuous and powerful external pressure, the MCI announced an amendment in a clause of its Code of Ethics Regulations 2002, exempting doctors’ associations from the ambit of its ethics code, as applicable to doctors now across the country. Prior to the amendment, this section used to read as: “code of conduct for doctors and professional association of doctors in their relationship with pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry”.

In other words, it means that the professional associations of doctors will no longer come under the ambit of ethics regulations, legitimizing their indulgence in the identified unethical and corrupt practices, by receiving gifts in cash or kind from the pharma or healthcare industry.

A large section of the key stakeholders believes that this amendment would help creating an additional large space for the pharmaceutical marketing malpractices to thrive, unabated, at the cost of patients.

The latest report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on MCI:

In its 92nd Report, the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare titled, “The Functioning of Medical Council of India”, presented to the Rajya Sabha and laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 8th March, 2016, the Committee observed on this amendment as “an action that is ethically impermissible for an individual doctor cannot become permissible, if a group of doctors carry out the same action in the name of an association.”

The report also noted the failure of MCI to instill respect for a professional code of ethics in the medical professionals and take disciplinary action against doctors found violating the code of Ethics, etc.

The Committee called for a complete restructuring of the MCI, since it believes that the Council has failed as a regulator of medical education and the profession. Casting serious aspersions on the functioning of the MCI, the house panel of the Parliament recommended that the Act under which the MCI was set up be scrapped and a new legislation be drafted “at the earliest”.

The report castigated the health ministry:

The lawmakers castigated the Health Ministry in this report saying, “The committee also finds it intriguing that instead of intervening to thwart attempts of MCI at subverting the system, the ministry meekly surrendered to MCI.”

While summing up, the report states, “the Committee exhorts the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to implement the recommendations made by it in this report immediately and bring a new Comprehensive Bill in Parliament for this purpose at the earliest.”

How will it pan out now?

I reckon, it will now be immensely interesting now for all concerned to follow, how does the Government deal with this report to curb, among others, the strong interference of mighty and powerful vested interests to continue with the rampant pharma marketing malpractices, at the cost of patients in India.

C. Reported Government assurance on ‘Compulsory License’:

On March 3, 2016, a media report quoted a submission by the US Chamber of Commerce to the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) as follows:

“While the Government of India has privately reassured (American) industry that it would not use compulsory licenses for commercial purposes, a public commitment to forgo using (this) would enhance legal certainty for innovative industries.”

This is an interesting development, primarily because there are a number of legal provisions for granting Compulsory Licenses (CL) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, including, when a drug is not widely available, extremely expensive and some other situation. In some these provisions, law should follow its own course and there is no legally permissible scope for Government’s administrative interference. Grant of CL for Nexavar of Bayar is one such example, and incidentally, that’s the sole CL that India has granted, so far, from the date of amendment of the country’s Patents Act in 2005.

Thus, a blanket assurance of not invoking any of the provisions of the CL, as provided in the Indian Patents Act 2005, if true, would possibly require to pass through intense legal scrutiny, as that would adversely impact the access to key medicines in a necessary situation, for the public health interest.

So far, India has amply demonstrated to all, time and again, that the country does not grant a CL at the drop of a hat. That situation should continue to encourage and protect innovation.

Nevertheless, “a written public commitment to forgo using the CL provisions for enhancing legal certainty for innovative industries,” as demanded by the US Chamber of Commerce, appears to be unreasonable, goes against the spirit of India’s Patents Act, and perhaps is not legally tenable either, unless the IP Act is amended accordingly in the Parliament.

Conclusion:

All these three areas, as discussed above, are critical from the healthcare perspective of the country.

Ironically, while deliberating on the subject, the capability, credibility and competence of some of the key regulators of the country, are being repeatedly questioned. These doubts emanate not just from Tom, Dick and Harry, but from an illustrious spectrum of constitutional institutions of India, spanning across the lawmaking Parliament, through its various committee reports, to the ultimate legal justice provider – the Supreme Court of India, through is various orders and key observations.

Regrettably, in this specific space, which is primarily related to healthcare, nothing seems to be changing on the ground, since long. The same tradition continues, without any visible sense of urgency, even from the Government.

On the contrary, we now read a new genre of comments, even from a key regulator, on the stakeholder concerns. For example, reacting to concern on drug safety standards, instead of articulating tangible actions to usher in a perceptible change, the chief action taker reportedly specified a totally judgmental and an outlandish requirement: “…Whistleblower’s intentions should be Nationalistic.”

Together with these incidents, the key public healthcare concerns of India too, are now apparently getting drowned in the high decibel ‘Nationalistic’ versus ‘Anti-nationalistic’ cacophony. But, the hope still lingers… for a change…for our nation’s sound health!

By: Tapan J. Ray

An Aggressive New Drug Pricing Trend: What It Means To India?

Posted on October 27, 2014 by Tapan Ray

A new class and an aggressive drug-pricing trend is now evolving in the global pharmaceutical industry, exerting huge financial pressure on the patients and payers, including governments, especially, in the developed nations of the world.

Another aspect of this issue I deliberated in one of my earlier blog posts of August 18, 2014 titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments.”

Let me start my deliberation today by citing an example. According to 2013 Drug Trend Report of the pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts, the United States will spend 1,800 percent more on Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) medications by 2016 than it did last year. This is largely attributed to new Hepatitis C cure with Sovaldi of Gilead, priced at Rs 61,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet with a three-month course costing around Rs. Million 5.10 (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a pill.

In a Press Release, Express Scripts stated, “Never before has a drug been priced this high to treat a patient population this large, and the resulting costs will be unsustainable for our country…The burden will fall upon individual patients, state and federal governments, and payers who will have to balance access and affordability in a way they never have had to before.”

The magnitude of impact – an example:

According to another report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid of the US, the cost to treat all Americans, who have hepatitis C, with Sovaldi would cost US$227 billion, whereas it currently costs America US$260 billion a year for all drugs bought in the country. According to Express Scripts, no major therapy class has experienced such a hefty increase in spending over the last 21 years.

This gives us a feel of the net impact of the evolving new aggressive drug pricing strategy on the lives of the patients and payers of one of the richest nations of the world.

Three critical parts of the evolving pricing strategy:

In an era, when new drug pricing has come under great scrutiny of the stakeholders globally, this strategy seems to have three critical components as follows:

1. Strategy for the developed countries: Set the launch price as high as possible and generate maximum profit faster from wealthy minority who can afford to pay for the drug.

It helps establishing the base price of the product globally, despite all hue and cries, maintaining a very healthy top and bottom line business performance, amidst ‘Wall Street cheering’.

Implementing this strategy meticulously and with precision, Gilead has reportedly registered US$ 5.8 billion in sales for Sovaldi in the first half of 2014. That too, in the midst of huge global concerns on alleged ‘profiteering’ with an exorbitantly priced HCV drug.

At that time, the company noted on its earnings call that it believes 9,000 people have been cured of HCV so far with Sovaldi, which means that the 6-month turnover of Sovaldi of US$ 5.8 billion was generated just from the treatment of 9000 patients. If we take the total number of HCV infected patients at 150 million globally, this new drug benefited less than one percent of the total number of HCV patients, despite clocking a mind-boggling turnover and profit.

2. Strategy for the developing countries: Create a favorable optic for the stakeholders by lowering the drug price significantly, in percentage term from its base price, earning still a decent profit. However, in reality the discounted price would continue to remain high for a very large number of patients.

Gilead is now in the process of implementing this strategy for 80 developing countries. For these markets, it has already announced a minimum threshold price of US$ 300 a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost per patient would be about US$ 900 for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000.

If we convert the discounted treatment cost, it comes down to around Rs. 55,000 from the base price of around Rs. Million 5.10. This discounted price, which is significantly less than the base price of the drug, creates an extremely favorable optic. No one discusses how many Hepatitis C patients would be able to afford even Rs. 55,000, say for example in a country like India? Thus, setting a high base price in the developed market for a new drug could make many in the developing world perceive that the treatment cost of Rs. 55,000 is very reasonable for majority of not so privileged patients.

Under the second strategy, Gilead has targeted mostly the world’s poorest nations, but also included some middle income ones such as Egypt, which has by far the highest prevalence of HCV in the world.

A ‘Financial Times’ report, also states, “At the US price, Gilead will recoup its Sovaldi development investment . . . in a single year and then stand to make extraordinary profits off the backs of US consumers, who will subsidize the drug for other patients around the globe.”

If other global pharma companies also follow this differential strategy, one for the developed markets and the other for the developing markets, it could be a masterstroke for the Big Pharma. This would help address the criticism that its constituents are facing today for ‘obscene’ pricing of important new life saving drugs, as they target mostly the creamy layer of the society for business performance.

However, many in the United States are also articulating that they understand, the countries getting steep discounts from Gilead have high levels of poverty, but clearly points out that the disease affects lower-income patients in America, as well. To substantiate the point, they reiterate, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) about 150 million people worldwide have HCV, out of which around 2.7 million HCV diagnosed people live in the US. They highlight that currently even less than 25 percent of Americans with chronic HCV have had or are receiving treatment. In Europe, just 3.5 percent of patients of are being treated.

Thus, keeping in view of the increasing number of voices in the developed countries against abnormally high prices of the new drugs, the moot questions that come up are as follows:

Is Strategy 1 sustainable for the developed markets?
If not, would Strategy 2 for the developing market could ever be broader based?

3. Strategy for Voluntary License (VL) in those countries, where grant of product patent is doubtful.

Thanks to the Indian patent regime, global companies would possibly consider following this route for all those products that may not be able to pass the ‘Acid Test’ of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005. Gilead has followed this route for Sovaldi and before that for tenofovir (Viread).

In this context, it is worth noting that the Indian patent office has not recognized Sovaldi’s patent for the domestic market, just yet. Thus, following this strategy Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing knowhow and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

It was also reported that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Indian companies would require paying 7 per cent of their revenues as royalty to Gilead, which, in turn would ensure full technology transfer to them to produce both the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and finished formulations. The generic version of Sovaldi is likely to be available in India in the second or third quarter of 2015, at the earliest.

However, the final decision of the Indian Patent Office on the patent grant for Sovaldi holds the key to future success of similar high-voltage, seemingly benign, VL based game plan of the global pharma majors.

The new trend:

In April 2014, Merck and Co. announced that its two HCV drug candidates had a 98 percent cure rate in a mid-stage trial. In addition, AbbVie is also expected to launch a high-end hepatitis C drug within the next year. The prices for these drugs are yet to be announced.

However, a new report of October 2014 states that USFDA has approved this month a new drug named Harmony, a ledipasvir/sofosbuvir combo formulation, again from Gilead for curative treatment of chronic HCV genotype 1 infection in adults. Harmony, which is called the son of Sovaldi, would cost a hopping US$ 94,500 for a 12-week regimen, as against US$ 84,000 for Sovaldi.

Hence, I reckon, similar aggressive pricing strategy for new drugs would gain momentum in the coming years and at the same time.

Is this pricing model sustainable?

Though Gilead pricing model for patented drugs works out better than what is prevailing today in India, the question that comes up yet again, whether the new model is sustainable for various reasons as mentioned above or would it be followed by majority of the global drug innovators?

In a situation like this, what then could be a sustainable solution in India?

The desirable pathway:

A transparent government mechanism for patented drugs pricing, as followed by many countries in the world, would be quite meaningful in India. The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India could play a constructive role in this area, as already provided in the Drug Policy 2012 of the country.

This measure assumes greater urgency, as the astronomical prices of patented drugs, especially for life-threatening illnesses, such as cancer, have become a subject of great concern in India too, just as it has become a critical issue across the world.

DoP is in inactive mode:

It is not difficult to fathom that CL for all patented life-saving drugs would not be a sustainable measure for all time to come. Thus, the need for a robust mechanism of price negotiation for patented drugs was highlighted in the Drug Policy 2012.

The DoP first took up the issue for consideration in 2007 by forming a committee. After about six years from that date, the committee produced a contentious report, which had hardly any takers.

Today, despite the new government’s initiative to inject requisite energy within the bureaucracy, administrative lethargy and lack of sense of urgency still lingers with the DoP, impeding progress in this important subject any further.

Intense lobbying on this issue by vested interests from across the world has further pushed the envelope in the back burner. Recent report indicates, the envelope has since been retrieved for a fresh look with fresh eyes, as a new minister is now on the saddle of the department.

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was also formed by the DoP under the chairmanship of one of its Joint Secretaries, to suggest a mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country. The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).

Unfortunately, nothing tangible has been made known to the stakeholders on this matter, just yet. I sincerely hope that the new government expedites the process now.

Three critical factors to consider:

While arriving at the patented products price in India, three critical factors should be made note of, as follows:

The discussion should start with the prices adjusted on the Purchasing Power Parity factor for India.
Any price must have a direct relationship with the per capita income of the population of the country.
Details of other public healthcare measures that the government would undertake, by increasing its healthcare spends as a percentage of GDP, should also be clearly articulated.

Conclusion:

The evolving and aggressive new product-pricing trend has three following clearly identifiable facets:

One, the base price of the drugs would be established at a very high level to help increase both the turnover and profit of the companies significantly and quickly. This measure would consequently make the drug bills of the developed world even more expensive, which could limit healthcare access wherever co-payment exists or the expenditures are Out of Pocket (OoP) in nature.

Two, against intense global criticism for aggressive drug pricing strategy, to create a favorable optic, the concerned companies would launch these products at a deep discount on the base price in the developing world. However, the net price would still remain high in absolute terms, considering per capita income in those countries.

Three, for many of these new products, Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents 2005 would place India at an advantage. Thus, in absence of evergreening type of product patents, to salvage the situation, many of these companies would prefer to offer Voluntary License (VL) to Indian generic manufacturers under specific terms and conditions. However, such VL may not have any potential value, if IPO refuses to grant patents to those products, which would fall under the above section. In that case, generic competition would further bring down the prices.

No doubt, the above pricing model for patented drugs works out better than what is prevailing today in India. However, the question that comes up, whether the new model is sustainable or would be followed by majority of the global drug innovators in the same way? Considering all these, it does not seem to be the most desirable situation. Moreover, the current patent regime is a deterrent mostly to evergreening of patents.

Thus, the Indian government should play a more specific and proactive role in this game by first putting in place and then effectively implementing a country specific mechanism to tame the spiraling patented drug prices in India, for the interest of patients.

The world has taken serious note of this fast evolving aggressive new drug-pricing trend, as different countries are in the process of addressing the issue in various country-specific ways. Unfortunately, the DoP still remains in a deep slumber, having failed once to half-heartedly put a clumsy mechanism in place to address the issue.

As India is now under a new political regime, let us sincerely hope, the new minister in charge succeeds to make it happen, sooner, reducing vulnerability of a vast majority of patients during many life threatening ailments and…of course, in tandem, ensuring justifiable profit margin for the innovator drug companies…the evolving aggressive new drug pricing trend notwithstanding.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India

Posted on September 22, 2014 by Tapan Ray

I had mentioned in my blog post of August 4, 2014, titled “Hepatitis C: A Silent, Deadly Disease: Treatment beyond reach of Most Indians” that in line with Gilead’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company would offer to license production of sofosbuvir (brand name Sovaldi) to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing knowhow, allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.

Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) is a once-a-day patented drug of Gilead for cure of chronic hepatitis C infection in most patients. Sovaldi has been priced at Rs 60,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet in the developed markets with a three-month course costing Rs1.8 Crore (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a tablet. This treatment cost is being considered very high even for many Americans and Europeans.

Gilead has also announced that it has set a minimum threshold price for Sovaldi of US$ 300 (Rs.18,000) a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost of Sovaldi per patient would be about US$ 900 (Rs.54,000) for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000 (Rs1.8 Crore). The company would offer this price to at least 80 countries.

Breaking-news in India:

On September 15, 2014, International media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also reported that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Another reason of Gilead’s selecting the Indian generic manufacturers could possibly be, that of much of the global supply of generic finished formulations is manufactured in India, especially for the developing countries of the world.

Patent status, broad strategy and the possibility:

It is worth noting here that the Indian Patent Office (IPO) has not recognized Sovaldi’s (sofosbuvir) patent for the domestic market, just yet. This patent application has been opposed on the ground that it is an “old science, known compound.”

It is interesting that the Indian Pharmaceutical Association (IPA) and others, such as, Delhi Network of Positive People and Natco have reportedly opposed Sovaldi’s (sofosbuvir) patent application. If the patent for this drug does not come through, low priced generic versions of Sovaldi, without any licensing agreement with Gilead, would possibly capture the Indian market.

Conversely, due to unaffordable price of Sovaldi for most of the Hepatitis C patients, even if a patent is granted for this drug in India, the sword of Compulsory License (CL) on the ground of ‘reasonably affordable price’ looms large on this product.

To negate the possibility of any CL, in the best-case scenario of a patent grant, Gilead seems to have decided to enter into licensing agreement with seven other Indian generic manufacturers to create a sense of adequate competition in the market, as many believe.

However, if the IPO considers sofosbuvir not patentable in India, it would indeed be a double whammy for Gilead. Without any patent protection, all these in licensing agreements may also fall flat on the face, paving the way of greater access of much lesser priced generic sofosbuvir to patients, as indicated above.

The action replay:

If we flash back to the year 2006, we shall see that Gilead had followed exactly the same strategy for another of its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

1. Voluntary license:

At that time also Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead.

Gilead did sign a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

The arrangement was somewhat like this. Gilead would charge a royalty of 5 percent on the access price of US$ 200 a year for the drug. Any company that signs a manufacturing agreement with Gilead to manufacture API of tenofovir would be able to sell them only to those generic manufacturers that have voluntary license agreements with Gilead.

2. Patent challenge:

Like sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), Gilead had filed a patent application for tenofovir (Viread) in India at that time. However, the ‘Indian Network for People Living with HIV/AIDs’ challenged this patent application on similar grounds.

3. Patent grant refused:

In September 2009, IPO refused the grant of patent for tenofovir to Gilead, citing specific reasons for its non-conformance to the Indian Patents Act 2005. As a result, the voluntary license agreements that Gilead had already signed with the Indian generic manufacturers were in jeopardy.

Current status:

In 2014, while planning the launch strategy of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) for India, Gilead seems to have mimicked the ‘Action Replay’ of 2006 involving tenofovir, at least, in the first two stages, as detailed above. Only the patent status of sofosbuvir from the IPO is now awaited. If IPO refuses patent grant for sofosbuvir, Gilead’s fate in India with sofosbuvir could exactly be the same as tenofovir, almost frame by frame.

Gilead and the two top players in India:

Very briefly, I would deliberate below the strategic stance taken by two top generic players in india, from 2006 to 2014, in entering into voluntary licensing agreements with Gilead for two of its big products, as I understand.

Ranbaxy:

In my view, the stand of Ranbaxy in Gilead’s India strategy of voluntary licensing in the last eight years has remained unchanged. It involves both sofosbuvir and tenofovir.Thus, there has been a clear consistency in approach on the part of Ranbaxy on this issue.

Cipla:

Conversely, an apparent shift in Cipla’s strategic position during this period has become a bone of contention to many. For tenofovir, Cipla did not sign any voluntary license agreement with Gilead. On the contrary, it came out with its own version of this product, that too much before IPO refused to grant patent for this drug.

However, unlike 2006, Cipla decided to sign a voluntary license agreement with Gilead for sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) in 2014, though no patent has yet been granted for this product in India.

Has Cipla changed its position on drug patent?

I find in various reports that this contentious issue keeps coming up every now and then today. Some die-hards have expressed disappointments. Others articulated that the new dispensation in Cipla management, has decided to take a different stance in such matter altogether.

In my view, no tectonic shift has taken place in Cipla’s position on the drug patent issue, just yet.

The owner of Cipla, the legendary Dr.Yusuf Hamied has always been saying: ‘I Am Not Against Patents … I Am Against Monopolies’

He has also reportedly been quoted saying: “About 70 per cent of the patented drugs sold worldwide are not invented by the owning companies”.

He had urged the government, instead of having to fight for CL for expensive lifesaving medicines by the generic drug makers, where voluntary licenses are not forthcoming, the government needs to pass a law giving the generic players “automatic license of rights” for such drugs, making these medicines affordable and thereby improving access to patients. In return, the local generic manufacturers would pay 4 percent royalty on net sales to patent holders. He was also very candid in articulating, if Big Pharma would come into the developing markets, like India, with reasonable prices, Cipla would not come out against it.

According to Dr. Hamied, “When you are in healthcare, you are saving lives. You have to have a humanitarian approach. You have to take into account what it costs to make and what people can pay.”

Considering all these, I reckon, the core value of Cipla and its stand on patents have not changed much, if at all, for the following reasons:

The voluntary license agreement of Cipla with Gilead for sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) along with six other generic manufacturers of India, unlike tenofovir, still vindicates its strong opposition to drug monopoly, respecting product patents.

Cipla along with manufacturing of sofosbuvir, maintains its right to market the product at a price that it considers affordable for the patients in India.

Conclusion:

Indian Patents Act 2005 has the requisite teeth to tame the most aggressive and ruthless players in drug pricing even for the most feared diseases of the world, such as, HIV/AIDS, cancer, Hepatitis C and others.

Many global drug companies, resourceful international pharma lobby groups and governments in the developed world are opposing this commendable Act, tooth and nail, generating enormous international political pressure and even chasing it in the highest court of law in India, but in vain. Glivec case is just one example.

Some pharma majors of the world seem to be attempting to overcome this Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest in India. Their strategy includes not just voluntary licenses, but also not so transparent, though well hyped, ‘Patient Access Programs’ and the so called ‘flexible pricing’, mostly when the concerned companies are able to sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act 2005.

It has happened once with even Gilead in 2006. The drug was tenofovir. Following the same old strategy of voluntary licenses and relatively lower pricing, especially when its drug patent is pending with IPO post patent challenges, Gilead intends to launch Sovaldi in India now.

Carrying the baggage of its past in India, Gilead seems to have been caught between a rock and the hard place with sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) launch in the country. On the one hand, the risk of uncertain outcome of its patent application and on the other, the risk of CL for exorbitant high price of the drug, if the patent is granted by the IPO. Probably considering all these, the company decided to repeat its 2006 tenofovir strategy of voluntary licenses, yet again in 2014, for Sovaldi in India.

As of today, Sovaldi strategy of Gilead in India appears to be progressing in the same direction as tenofovir, the way I see it. However, the final decision of IPO on the grant of its patent holds the key to future success of similar high-voltage, seemingly benign, marketing warfare of pharma majors 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.

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

Posted on September 16, 2013 by Tapan Ray

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

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

Mylan develops new products in India:

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

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

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

All these developments apparently augur well for India.

Weak patent?…Recapitulating Herceptin saga in india:

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

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

A tough market, yet difficult to ignore:

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

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

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

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

Other countries too tightening up the patent laws:

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

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

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

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

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

Winds of Change in South Africa:

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

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

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

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

Patents revoked in India:

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

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

China and Brazil revoked patents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mounting global protests:

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

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

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

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

Emerging markets – the Eldorado:

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

No.	Country	USD Bn.	% Share	Val. Gr.
	Global Pharma Market	961	100	5
	USA	329	38	-1
	Japan	112	13	0
	China	82	10	24
	Germany	42	5	-6
	France	37	4	-8
	Brazil	29	3	6
	Italy	27	3	-8
13.	India	14	1	11

Source: IMS Knowledge Link Global Sales 2012

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

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

Scope for more patent challenges in India:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stricter implementation of Section (3d) of the Patents Act in India will ensure that NCEs/NMEs not conforming to this act will not be granted patents. In that case, those products will be open to generic copying by all, in India. Thus, in the absence of a market monopoly situation and fuelled by intense price competition, the patients will have access to those newer drugs.

More patent challenges of already granted patents could lead to revocation of more number of patents paving the way for entry of their generic equivalents.

If any MNC decides not to launch a new product in India having obtained its patent from the IPO, after three years, as per the statute, the same product becomes a candidate for CL in the country.

If any patented new product is launched without ‘reasonably affordable price’, again as per statute, the possibility of applications for CL coming to the IPO from the local players will loom large.

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

India, China Revoke Four Pharma Patents in A Fortnight: A Double Whammy for MNCs?

Posted on August 12, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Revocation of four pharma patents by India and China within a fortnight has raised many eyebrows, yet again, across the globe. In this short period, India has revoked three patents and China one.

While this quick development is probably a double whammy for the Multinational Corporations (MNCs) operating in both the countries, a future trend could possibly emerge by analyzing and connecting the evolving dots.

On August 8, 2013, a judicial body, the Intellectual Property Apellate Board (IPAB) of India reportedly revoked two patents of Allergan Inc on Combigan and Ganfort, both are Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs of known molecules, used in the treatment of specified eye conditions. Local pharmaceutical player Ajantha Pharma had challenged these patents granted earlier to Allergan Inc. by the Indian Patent Office (IPO), alleging that the patents were obtained on false representation, the compositions were obvious ones, mere admixture of two pharmaceutical substances and not inventions.

IPAB in its order, while revoking the patent, has also said:

“The revocation of the patent was sought on various grounds that the patent was obtained on a false suggestion or representation, that it is not an invention, that it is obvious and does not sufficiently disclose and that the Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970 was violated.”

The “respondents (Allergan Inc) have incorrectly deciphered enhancement in therapeutic efficacy as reduction in interocular pressure comparable to serial application.”

“The respondent has not shown that it had complied with the Section 8 of Patents Act, 1970.”

Though Allergan claimed to have achieved enhanced efficacy with reduced side effects for these FDCs, the IPAB did not find the claims justifiable. Interestingly, Ajantha’s product reportedly is much less expensive too. As compared to Allergan’s Ganfort drops (3 ml) costing about Rs 580, Ajanta’s equivalent formulation costs just Rs 131.

The other pharma patent revocation of the fortnight:

On July 27, 2013, IPAB revoked yet another patent granted earlier to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)’s Lapatinib ditosylate salt of its breast cancer drug Tykerb, while upholding the patent on the original API, Lapatinib. IPAB in its order has stated that the ditosylate salt version of Lapatinib is not patentable as per patentability criteria of the Indian Patents Act.

Experts believe, with these decisions, the Indian legal system has clearly demonstrated that despite intense anger, pressure and protests mainly from the United States and Europe, to dilute public health interest related safeguards enshrined in the current Indian patent regime, the rule of law still prevails in the country for IP disputes.

Tykerb decision of IPAB follows the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India clarifying patentability criteria for incremental innovations.

An interesting precedent set:

In case of Tykerb of GSK, unlike other occasions, for the first time one MNC has challenged the patent of another MNC in India, instead of domestic companies doing so. The German drug manufacturer, Fresenius Kabi, instead of criticizing Indian IP law like other MNCs, had challenged the British drug maker GSK’s patent on the patentability criteria as provided in the Indian Patent Law and obtained a favorable decision from the IPAB against one of their two patent challenges on Tykerb.

A different case, yet worth mentioning:

Earlier, in late 2012, Delhi High Court while recognizing the validity of Roche’s patent for Tarceva (erlotinib), ordered that Cipla’s generic equivalent of erlotinib has different molecular structures. Hence, Cipla has not infringed Roche’s patent.

The generic version of Cipla’s erlotinib is reportedly available at a price of Rs 1,600 against Roche’s price of Rs 4,800 for Tarceva. Though this is not a patent revocation, but an interesting case nevertheless.

Other patent revocations:

Besides the only Compulsory License (CL) issued, so far, by the IPO for Bayer’s Nexavar to Natco (Cost of a pack of 120 tablets of Natco generic is Rs.8,800 against Nexavar’s Rs. 280,000), such patent challenges are now taking place in India quite close on the heels of one another as follows:

Sutent (Pfizer):

In this case, the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib), granted earlier by the IPO in 2007, was revoked by the IPAB in October 2012, after a post grant challenge by Cipla and Natco Pharma on the ground that the claimed ‘invention’ does not involve inventive steps.

However, on November 26, 2012 in a new twist to this case, the Supreme Court of India reportedly restored the patent for Sutent. Interestingly, at the same time the court removed the restraining order, which prevented Cipla from launching a copycat generic equivalent of Sunitinib.

The cost of 45 day’s treatment with Cipla generic is Rs. 50,000 against Rs. 196,000 of Sutent. (Source ET, April 7, 2013)

Pegasys (Roche):

Again, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche. It is worth mentioning, Pegasys enjoys patent protection across the world.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by IPO in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the Indian pharma major – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a ‘novel’ product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’ as required by the Patents Act of India.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, the judicial body IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys, costing Rs. 360,000 for a six month course of treatment for a patient.

Iressa (AstraZeneca):

On November 26, 2012, IPAB reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Iressa (Gefitinib) on the ground that the molecule lacked invention.

The report also states that AstraZeneca suffered its first setback on Gefitinib in June 2006, when the Indian generic company Natco Pharma opposed the initial patent application filed by the global major in a pre-grant opposition. Later on, another local company, GM Pharma, joined Natco in November 2006.

After accepting the pre-grant opposition by the two Indian companies, IPO in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Iressa Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Anti-asthma FDC aerosol suspension (Merck & Co):

Similar to Allergan case, on December 11, 2012 Indian Patent Office (IPO) reportedly revoked a patent granted to an anti-asthma FDC drug of Merck & Co on the ground of lack of invention, after the domestic pharma major Cipla Ltd challenged an earlier granted patent of this FDC drug.

This aerosol suspension combines three molecules: mometasone furoate, formoterol and heptaflouropropane.

A similar asthma treatment, Dulera, reportedly lost its Indian patent held by Novartis AG in 2010.

Patentability for ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

Patentability criteria for any ‘incremental innovation’ has been defined in the Section 3(d) of the Indian statute as follows:

“The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.”

“Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

Indian Patents Act prevails:

As is well known, way back in 2006, IPO refused to grant patent to the cancer drug Glivec of Novartis on the ground that the molecule is a mere modification of an existing substance known as Imatinib.

In that case, on April 1, 2013 the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of Section 3(d), where the rules of the game for patentability of incremental pharmaceutical innovations, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005, were cast in stone.

Court did not disallow all incremental innovations:

Point 191 in page number 95 of the Glivec judgment very clearly states as follows:

“191. We have held that the subject product, the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, does not qualify the test of Section 3(d) of the Act but that is not to say that Section 3(d) bars patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances. It will be a grave mistake to read this judgment to mean that section 3(d) was amended with the intent to undo the fundamental change brought in the patent regime by deletion of section 5 from the Parent Act. That is not said in this judgment.”

Thus, it should not be highlighted unfairly by concerned constituents that all ‘incremental innovations’ are not patentable in India. The above judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and the arguments of Novartis.

Only 3% of patents are challenged:

Quoting a study, a recent media report highlighted that only 3% of the patent applications filed in India since 2006 were challenged. The study concluded, “This demonstrates that given the various resource constraints faced by the Indian patent office, one can never really be sure of the patent quality unless the patent is challenged.”

Rejection by IPO under Section 3d is minimum – is that a key issue?

Another study done by Columbia University reportedly found that out of 214 patents filed in India last year, only 3 patents were rejected by IPO exclusively for failing to prove better efficacy, as required under Section 3d. Turning this finding on its head, would it be reasonable to ponder:

Could this be a key issue for so many patents failing to pass the acid test of judicial scrutiny when challenged?

Government has no role to play in IP disputes:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue, patent challenge is a legal process all over the world, where the Government has hardly any role to play in resolving these disputes. The law should be allowed to take its own course for all disputes related to the Patents Act of the country, including Section 3(d).

They also opine that India must be allowed to follow the law of justice without casting aspersions on the knowledge and biases of the Indian judiciary by the vested interests.

That said, there is certainly an urgent need to add speed to this legal process by setting up ‘Fast-track Courts’ for resolving all Intellectual Property (IP) related disputes in a time bound manner.

Pharma patents granted in India:

As reported in the media, pharma MNCs have been granted over 1,000 patents since 2005. Moreover out of 4,036 patents granted in the past six years, 1,130 have been awarded to MNCs, like:

AstraZeneca 180 patents
Roche with 166 patents
Sanofi with 159 patents
Novartis with 147 patents

It is therefore understandable, as pharma MNCs have secured more number of pharma patents they are facing larger number of litigations at this point of time.

China and Brazil revoke patents:

Last week, just about a year after China introduced the country’s amended patent law, its State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has reportedly revoked the patent on HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B drug – Viread (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) of Gilead Science Inc. Aurisco, the largest manufacturer of active pharmaceutical ingredients in China, challenged this patent. The ground of patent revocation was that the drug lacked novelty and was not entitled to protection.

South Africa mulls new law to stop ‘Evergreening’:

Recently, the Department of Trade and Industry of South Africa has reportedly submitted to the South African Cabinet a draft Intellectual Property Policy with far-reaching changes to the country’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for medicines in order to increase access to cheaper drugs by making it harder for companies to obtain and extend patents.

The draft includes a proposal to introduce a patent examination office to stop pharmaceutical companies from “evergreening” where companies take out new patents based on minor changes or new uses.

Currently, South Africa uses a depository system, in which patent applications are granted without extensive scrutiny. Experts believe, “this system allows companies to file multiple patents on the same medicine and extend the life of their monopoly, keeping prices artificially high.”

Innovators Angry:

In this context, the following report recently captured the anger of the innovator companies and stated that the US drug giants are once again pushing for stronger patent protection in India:

“A coalition of U.S. lawmakers and business groups outlined concerns about Indian policies as a threat to American exports, jobs and innovation in a letter to President Barack Obama on June 18. Among the business groups were the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Biotechnology Industry Association. On June 14, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Finance Committee urged that Kerry raise trade concerns on his visit.”

Quoting US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center another report highlighted, “Recent policy and judicial decisions that invalidate intellectual property rights, which have been increasing in India, cast a daunting shadow over its otherwise promising business climate. From the revocation of patents to the staggering rates of piracy, India stands alone as an international outlier in IP policies. This trend is bad for investment, innovation and international trade.”

Does it benefit patients?

In the paper titled ‘TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond’, published in ‘Chicago Journal for International Law, Vol. 3(1), Spring 2002’, the author argues, though the reasons for the lack of access to essential medicines are manifold, there are many instances where high prices of drugs deny access to needed treatments for many patients. Prohibitive drug prices, in those cases, were the outcome of monopoly due to strong intellectual property protection.

The author adds, “The attempts of Governments in developing countries to bring down the prices of patented medicines have come under heavy pressure from industrialized countries and the multinational pharmaceutical industry”.

While the ‘Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)’ of the World Trade Organization (WTO) sets out minimum standards for the patent protection for pharmaceuticals, it also offers adequate safeguards against negative impact of patent protection or its abuse in terms of extraordinary and unjustifiable drug pricing. The levels of these safeguards vary from country to country based on the socioeconomic and political requirements of a nation, as in India.

Following table is an example of price differential between patented and generic equivalents of those molecules used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS:

1			2			3
3TC (Lamivudine)			Zerit (Stavudine)			Viramune (Nevirapine)
Price / Year / Patient in US$			Price / Year / Patient in US$			Price / Year /Patient in US$
GSK	Cipla	Hetero	BMS	Cipla	Hetero	B.I.*	Cipla	Hetero
3271	190	98	3589	70	47	3508	340	202

(Source: Third World Network, *B.I: Boehringer Ingelheim)

Patentability for ‘genuine innovations’:

A report on ‘Patentability of the incremental innovation’ indicates that the policy makers keeping the following points in mind formulated the Indian Patents Act 2005:

The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industry, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.

A stringent patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs to a large number of populations in India causing immense hardships to them.

Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will be able to demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

Conclusion:

A study by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Since, most of the above patents have not been challenged, as yet, the quality of these patents cannot be ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt, as we discuss today.

If the apprehension, as expressed above in the IPA study has any merit, right answers to the following questions, I reckon, would help charting out the future direction for the IP ecosystem of India:

Is there a theoretical possibility of revocation of all these 86 already granted product patents, if and when challenged in a court of law?
Is the current Patents Act of India pragmatic?
Does it reasonably benefit both the innovators and the Indian patients, signifying a paradigm shift in the global IPR scenario?
Will it inspire other countries also to emulate similar IP system in the years ahead?
Will it then invite more intense ire of the global pharma innovator companies creating increasing pressure on the Indian Government to amend the current Patents Act?
Being under continuous public scrutiny, would it be feasible for any Indian Government, now or in future, in the near or medium term, to amend the Indian Patents Act due to any amount of outside pressure?
And finally, is the Act then irreversible, at least, for quite some time from now?

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: License

Why MNC Pharma Still Moans Over Indian IP Ecosystem?

How Cost-Effective Are New Cancer Drugs?

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

For Drug Safety Concern: “Whistleblower’s Intention Should Be Nationalistic”

An Aggressive New Drug Pricing Trend: What It Means To India?

Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India

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

India, China Revoke Four Pharma Patents in A Fortnight: A Double Whammy for MNCs?