Key Drivers And Long-Term Impact of Pharma M&A in India

Posted on May 21, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Corporate M&A is increasingly considered an integral part of the organization’s growth strategy for value creation, by a large number of pharma companies, across the world. In tandem, it throws open many other doors of opportunities, such as reduction of business risks and massive corporate restructuring.

In the post globalization era, mostly the large to medium sized Indian players are imbibing this strategy to gain a competitive edge, in the highly crowded generic drug market, not just in India, but also in various other parts of the world. At the same time, it is equally true that there are many other pharma biggies who have moved into the top 10 of the domestic league table in India, following mainly the organic growth path, and are still staying that way.

For example, the league table ranking (MAT October 2017) of the Indian domestic pharma market, published by AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd, reflects a similar scenario. It shows, not many local Indian drug players seem to be too aggressive in Merger and Acquisition (M&A) within the country. In fact, among companies featuring in the TOP 10, only around half seems to have not gone for any major domestic M&A. The remaining half pursued a predominantly organic route, for a quantum growth in the Indian market.

In this article, I shall try to fathom, both the critical drivers and the long-term impact of pharma M&A initiatives – both inbound and outbound, with their either origin or destination being in India.

Are the key drivers different?

India is overwhelmingly a branded generic market. So are its key players. Thus, most pharma M&As in India are related to generic drugs.

Thus, unlike research-based global pharma players, where one of the most critical drivers for M&A, is related to new drug innovation to maintain sustained growth of the organization, the drivers for the same in India is somewhat different. Neither are these exactly the same for exports and the domestic market, with occasional overlaps in a few cases, though.

Export markets:

To expand and grow the pharma business in the export markets is obviously the main overall objectives. To attain this, the acquiring companies generally take into consideration some common critical factors, among others. Each of which is carefully assessed while going through the valuation process and arriving at the final deal price for the company to be acquired. A few examples of which are as follows:

The span and quality of market access and the future scope for value addition
Opportunities for value creation with available generic products, active ANDAs and DMFs
A competitive portfolio, especially covering specialty products, novel drug delivery systems and even off-patent biologic drugs
Market competitors’ profile
Product sourcing alternatives and other available assets

Domestic market:

Similarly, in the domestic market too, there could be several critical drivers. The following, may be cited just as an illustration. There could well be some overlaps here, as well, with those of export markets:

Moving up the pharma value chain, e.g., from bulk drug producer to formulation producer with marketing, intending to climb further up
A new range and type of the generic product portfolio
Expansion of therapeutic and geographic reach
Expansion of consumers and customers base
Greater reach, depth, efficiency and productivity of the distribution channel
Acquiring critical manufacturing and other related tangible and intangible assets

A glimpse at the 2016-17 M&A trend in India:

An E&Y paper titled, “Transactions 2017” says, India continues to enjoy a prominent position in the global generic pharma space, due to many preferred advantages available within the country, such as a large number of USFDA approved sites coupled with low Capex and operating costs. As a result, the pharmaceuticals sector witnessed 51 pharma deals in the year 2016, with an aggregate disclosed deal value of USD4.6 billion.

However, according to Grant Thornton Advisory Pvt. Ltd, there have been around 27 M&A deals in pharma and healthcare sector by Q3 2017, valued at USD719 million. This appears to be way below 54 deals, valued at USD4.7 billion in calendar year 2016.

Cross-border activity dominated the sector:

Highlighting that cross-border activity dominated the sector, the E&Y paper said, “outbound and domestic transactions drove most of the deal activity, with 21 deals each. In terms of the disclosed deal value, outbound and inbound activity stood at USD2.1 billion each. Domestic deal-making was concentrated in smaller value bands with an aggregate deal value of USD342 million, of which USD272 million (4 deals) worth of deals were restructuring deals.”

Inbound and a domestic M&A occupied the center stage:

It is interesting to note that despite initial hiccups, inbound overseas interest in sterile injectable continued, along with a range of different generic formulations. The notable among which, as captured in the above paper, are as follows:

China-based Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical (Group) Company Limited announced the acquisition of an 86 percent stake in Gland Pharma Limited for up to USD1.26 billion.

US-based Baxter International Inc. entered into an agreement to acquire Claris Injectable Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Claris Lifesciences Limited, for USD625 million.

In November 2017, India’s Torrent Pharmaceuticals acquired more than 120 brands from Unichem Laboratories in India and Nepal, and its manufacturing plant at Sikkim for USD558 million.

Outbound M&A:

Facing continuous pricing and other pressures in the largest pharma market in the world – United States, Indian pharma players sharpened their focus on Europe and other under-penetrated markets, with a wider range of product portfolio. Following are a few examples of recent outbound M&As for the year, done predominantly to serve the above purpose, besides a couple of others with smaller deal values:

Intas Pharma, through its wholly owned subsidiary inked an agreement to acquire Actavis UK Limited and Actavis Ireland Limited from Teva Pharmaceutical for an enterprise value of USD767 million.

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories entered into an agreement with Teva Pharmaceutical and an affiliate of Allergan plc to acquire a portfolio of eight ANDAs in the US for USD350 million.

Sun Pharma stepped into the Japanese prescription drug market by acquiring 14 brands from Novartis for USD293 million.

Lupin also strengthened its position in Japan by acquiring 21 products from Shionogi & Company Limited for USD150 million. In 2017, Lupin also acquired US-based Symbiomix Therapeutics – a privately held company focused on bringing innovative therapies to market for gynecologic infections. The acquisition value stands at USD 150 million.

Two other relatively large outbound acquisitions in 2017 were Piramal Enterprises’ acquisition of anti-spasticity and pain management drug portfolio of Mallinckrodt for USD171 million and Aurobindo Pharma’s Generis Farmaceutica USD142.5 million.

Long term business impact of M&A on the merged entity:

So far so good. Nevertheless, a key point to ponder, what is the long-term impact of M&A on the merged entities in India. It may impact several critical areas, such as financial ratios, reputation on drug quality standards or even its impact on employee morale. Sun Pharma’s acquisition of Ranbaxy in 2015 may be an example in this regard. Not too many credible studies are available for Indian pharma companies in this regard, it could be an interesting area for further research, though.

A research paper titled “Post-Merger Performance of Acquiring Firms: A Case Study on Indian Pharmaceutical Industry”, published by the International Journal of Research in Management & Business Studies (IJRMBS), in its July-September 2015 issue, captured an interesting point. It found, that M&As have a significant impact on the merged company performance as compared to the pre-merger period, but the impact is evident more in the immediate year after the merger.

The paper concluded, although the profitability had improved in the merged company as indicated in the financial ratios, like PBIT, Cash Profit margin and Net profit margin, but the improvement in the performance is observed only up to 1 year of the merger. As far as operating performance is concerned the short term positive impact can be observed, but again it lasts up to 1 year only. The overall study results, therefore, indicate the positive impact of merger on the operating and financial performance only in the short run (+1 year).

Is it a mixed bag?

Nevertheless, there are also other studies in this regard, which concluded the favorable impact of M&As on corporate performance. However, those studies adopted certain other parameters of measuring the financial and operational improvements in the merged companies. Some more research findings in this area – ferreted out from literature review and are available in the same issue of IJRMBS), revealing a mixed bag. Let me quote some these findings, starting from the earlier years, as follows:

Kruze, Park and Suzuki (2003): With a sample of 56 mergers of manufacturing companies from the period 1969 to 1997 concluded that the long term operating performance of control firms was positive but insignificant and high correlation existed between pre and post-merger performance.

Beena (2004): Analyzed the pre and post-merger performance of firms belonging to pharma manufacturing industries with samples of 115 acquiring firms between the period 1995 and 2000. For the purpose of analysis four sets of financial ratios were considered and it was tested using t –test. The study showed no improvement in the performance, as compared to the pre-merger period for the sample companies.

Vanitha. S and Selvam. M (2007): With a sample of 58, to study the impact of merger on the performance in the Indian manufacturing sector from 2000 to 2002, the study concluded, overall financial performance is insignificant for 13 variables.

Pramod Mantravadi and Vidyadhar Reddy (2008): Investigated a sample of 118 cases of mergers in their study. They found, more impact of merger was noticed on the profitability of banking and finance industry, pharmaceutical, textile and electric equipment sector, whereas the significant decline was seen in chemical and Agri-Products sector.

More Indian studies are expected in this interesting area to understand the possible long-term impact of pharma M&A in India.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, inbound and outbound consolidation and expansion of the Indian pharma industry through M&A will continue. However, this likely to happen at a varying pace, depending upon both the opportunities and constraints for business growth. This will include both in the export and the domestic markets.

Increasingly complex business environment, intense drug pricing pressure in the US, dwindling much differentiated product pipeline, impending patent expiry of blockbuster drugs, will drive the inbound M&A. Whereas, the domestic players would like to spread their wings in search of greater market access, across the world. This process is likely to include a different type of product-mix, including specialty and biologic products, creating some barrier to market entry for many other generic players.

Going forward, the critical drivers for pharma M&A in India, both inbound and outbound, are unlikely to undergo any radical change. Interestingly, available research studies regarding its long-term impact on the companies involved in this process are not yet conclusive. However, many researchers on the subject still believe, especially the financial impact of M&As on the merged entities in India last no more than short to medium term.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

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.

‘Rigged’ Payment System Limits Biosimilar Access

Posted on April 2, 2018 by Tapan Ray

As often discussed, market entry of biosimilars, in general, brings a new hope not just for many patients, but also to biosimilar drug manufacturers – planning to get marketing approvals of these drugs in the United States, the El Dorado of global pharma industry.

Stakeholder expectations keep increasing manifold as biosimilars offer cheaper treatment options with biologic drugs in many life-threatening and rare diseases. However, biosimilars still remain an unfulfilled promise.

The January 2018 paper by Trinity Partners on “The State of US Biosimilars Market Access” in the largest drug market of the world makes an important observation in this regard. It says, the promise of biosimilars offering cost-saving competition in the lucrative US biologic market, remains largely unfulfilled.

As on date, adoption of biosimilars has been hindered by lack of market access due to complex contracting dynamics, besides regulatory and legal uncertainty, and a general lack of clinical comfort with biosimilars.

Consequently, current state of biosimilar acceptance and access appear too insignificant. More so, as compared to traditional small molecule generic markets where their use is fueled by automatic substitution and payer formularies, over higher priced branded reference drugs.

It would not have been difficult, especially for the innovative biologic drug makers to brush this important study aside, had the US-FDA Commissioner – Scott Gottlieb would not have voiced what he did in March this year.

With this perspective, I shall discuss in this article, how access to biosimilar drugs are getting limited. In doing so, I shall begin with what the US-FDA Commissioner has recently highlighted in this area.

Yet another barrier:

As reported by Bloomberg on March 07, 2018, the US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb unambiguously expressed that biologic drug manufacturers enter into exclusive arrangements with Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and insurers, who agree to cover only the old brands in return for rebates or discounts. This “rigged” payment scheme might quite literally scare the biosimilar competition out of the market altogether, he articulated, categorically.

US-FDA Commissioner delivered this speech at the National Health Policy Conference for America’s Health Insurance Plans. During this deliberation, Gottlieb criticized some unwanted and avoidable practices that stifle biosimilar development.

He observed, of the 9 approved biosimilars in the US, only 3 could be launched market. In many instances, patent litigation is the reason for such delay in launch, post FDA approval. Connecting the dots, the Commissioner observed, even after being in the market, biosimilars continue facing more uncertainty due to a ‘rigged payment scheme.’

Started with a great promise:

It is worth noting, till 2010 no regulatory pathway for marketing approval of biosimilars was in place in the world’s largest pharma market – the United States. Hence, despite biosimilar drugs being a treatment option in many countries over the last two decades, the first biosimilar was launched in the US, following this pathway, only in 2015. It was Zarxio ((Filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis – indicated for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Since then, US-FDA has approved nine biosimilars. Ironically biosimilar market size still remains small and much below the general expectations. Most biosimilar manufacturers are navigating through multiple tough hurdles for market launch of this relatively new genre of complex drugs.

Navigating through tough hurdles:

There are tough hurdles to navigate through, while launching biosimilars, especially in the US. Some of which are as follows:

Protracted litigations: The development and launch of most biosimilars get stuck in the multiple patent web-lock, created around original biologic molecules, leading to long drawn expensive litigations.

Pricing: Following small molecule generic drugs, most payers and consumers expect biosimilar pricing too will be no different. However, in practice, most biosimilars are priced just around 15 percent to 20 percent less than original biologics.

Interchangeability: Lack of interchangeability among presently approved biosimilars in the US limits payers’ and consumer choice for a shift from the reference biologic drugs to suitable biosimilars. This virtually restricts the use of biosimilars mostly to such drug-naïve patients.

Confidence: For various reasons, the confidence and familiarity of both physicians and the consumers on biosimilars remain suboptimal. Whether relatively cheaper biosimilars can be used in the same indications as the reference biologic to the new patients – as an alternative choice, is still not clear to many of them. This situation calls for increasing awareness programs involving all stakeholders.

Manufacturing: The manufacturing process of large molecule biosimilars is quite costly as compared to small molecule generic drugs. Hence, these are unlikely to follow a similar pricing pattern, attracting as high a discount as around 80 percent, compared to original branded drugs.

Some of these barriers I have discussed in my article, titled ‘Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers’, published in this blog on July 31, 2017.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, drug manufacturers continue to see tremendous opportunity in biosimilars. The interest is heating up, as about six of the top 10 biologic drugs are expected to go off-patent in the US by 2019.

Despite all this, it is generally believed, the prevailing situation will change even in the US. The regulator is expected to facilitate smoother market entry of biosimilars, facing much less obstacles on the way. As many strongly believe, these are possibly an outcome of intense industry lobbying, with the high-level policy makers. Many of these hurdles can be removed by the regulators, themselves, including drug interchangeability.

The US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has already said in a meeting on March 07, 2018, the FDA will start educating doctors and patients to minimize clinical and other concerns related to biosimilars. Therefore, going forward, greater competition in the biosimilar space is expected to increase the long-awaited price differential, as compared to reference biologic.

With greater support from the regulators, biosimilars still show a unique promise of greater acceptance and access to patients – occasionally ‘Rigged’ maneuvers by the vested interests notwithstanding.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Posted on July 31, 2017 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two major barriers and their impact:

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

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

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

The first or the initial barrier:

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

An interesting case in India:

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

The second barrier:

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

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

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

The reasoning of innovative biologic drug makers:

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

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

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

Some key players in biosimilar drug development:

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

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

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

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

The market:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

Could Vaccine Prevent Heart Attacks?

Posted on July 10, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Could Vaccine Prevent Even Heart Attacks? The question may sound weird to many, but it really appears so, possibly reducing further need of several expensive medications for lifelong use. A good number of academic institutions, besides some biotechnology companies, are taking rapid strides in the newer areas of vaccine development to protect people from various non-infectious serious ailments, including some fatal disorders, such as heart attacks.

In this article, I shall deliberate on this area.

Picking up the thread:

One of the critically important preventive therapy to save millions of precious lives is – vaccination. Way back in 1796, Edward Anthony Jenner not only discovered the process of vaccination, but also developed the world’s first smallpox vaccine to save mankind from this highly infectious and life-threatening disease. As per published data, prior to this discovery, the mortality rate for smallpox was as high as up to 35 percent.

Very appropriately, Jenner is often referred to as the “Father of Immunology”, whose pioneering work has saved more lives than the work of any other person, in that era. Later, in 1901 Emil Von Behring received the first Nobel Prize (ever) for discovering Diphtheria serum therapy for yet another highly infectious disease, affecting mostly infants and children.

Nevertheless, the pioneering work of Edward Anthony Jenner laid the primary substructure of immunology, which continued to be developed as a robust prophylactic measure against various types of, initially infectious and communicable diseases.

Expanded scope for vaccines:

Gradually, the global focus of vaccine development started expanding from prophylactic vaccination for communicable disease such as smallpox, diphtheria, malaria and pneumonia; to non-infectious disorders, like cancer, diabetes and atherosclerosis that often leads to heart attacks and strokes; including several therapeutic vaccines, especially for cancer. The list continues.

In other words, from inducing long-life immunity against exogenous or foreign antigens in infectious diseases caused by microorganisms, to inducing similar immune reaction against the body’s own molecules, which are responsible for precipitating seriously debilitating or life-threatening pathological changes. These include conditions, such as cardiovascular or metabolic disorders and many other chronic ailments, including various types of the deadly disease – cancer.

Would vaccines prevent even heart attacks?

Let me now get back to where I started from: Would vaccines prevent even heart attacks?

Medical experts often say, until a sudden heart attack occurs, patients with atherosclerosis may show no symptoms for decades. This epitomizes the seriousness of this disorder in human population.

Since long, atherosclerosis used to be considered as ‘a lipid-driven disease caused by the continuous accumulation of cholesterol in the arterial intima.’ However, that concept is changing now based on enough scientific evidences. These clearly indicate that ‘atherosclerosis is predominately a chronic low-grade inflammatory disease of the vessel wall with an interplay of humoral, cellular, and locally produced pro-inflammatory factors.’

Atherosclerosis is a chronic low-grade inflammatory disease:

In the above context, a recent research study has arrested the attention of many medical scientists, including several top cardiologists, across the world. This article, published on June 19, 2017, in the peer-reviewed European Heart Journal reported the development of a vaccine that induces an effective immune response in mice to significantly reduce plasma lipids, systemic and vascular inflammation, and atherosclerosis lesions in the aorta.

Leverages the immune system of the body:

In simple words, this cholesterol-lowering vaccine demonstrates how the immune system of the body can be leveraged to lower blood lipids, signaling a strong potential to make drugs, such as statins, possibly irrelevant.

This is the first intervention study based on a well-established, translational mouse model for hyperlipidemia and atherosclerosis. The research found, as compared with the control group, the vaccine reduced total and LDL cholesterol levels in the mice, as well as reduced signs of fatty build-up in the arteries.

Potentially an effective and economical approach:

The authors believe, the vaccine may represent an effective and economical approach, with higher patient compliance, in the treatment and prevention of similar cardiovascular pathologies. Taking the study to its next stage, they have already enrolled human volunteers to conduct the phase one study, for a detailed scientific assessment on how this vaccine will work for the patients suffering from similar disorders.

Another interesting development:

To give just a flavor of the progress of vaccine development in several areas of serious and life-threatening non-communicable diseases, I am quoting below the following interesting study:

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

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

How expensive are the R&D costs for vaccines?

In this context, an important related question may well be raised: How expensive are the R&D costs for vaccines? According to a paper published by the US National Library of Medicine and National Institute of Health (NIH):

“A vaccine candidate entering pre-clinical development in 2011 would be expected to achieve licensure in 2022; all costs are reported in 2022 Canadian dollars (CAD). After applying a 9 percent cost of capital, the capitalized total R&D expenditure amounts to $ 474.88 million CAD.”

Some key issues and challenges:

Scientific breakthroughs in genetics and biotechnological research, supported by state of art tools related to information technology, a wide range of vaccine development initiatives, targeting both in infectious and non-infectious diseases, are making rapid progress. However, as I had said before, there are some key issues and challenges that need to be addressed, simultaneously. A few examples of which are as follows:

Actual cost of vaccines goes much beyond their R&D expenses. This is mainly because of dedicated and highly specialized manufacturing facilities required for their mass-scale production, and then for the distribution of the same, mostly using cold-chains.

Around 60 percent of the production costs of vaccines are fixed in nature (National Health Policy Forum. 25. January 2006:14). Thus, such products will need to have a decent market size to be profitable.

Unlike many other medications for chronic ailments, which need to be taken for a long duration, vaccines are administered for a limited number of times, restricting their business potential.

Full neutralization of this cost before keeping a modest margin, could make such high-end vaccines relatively expensive for patients, without adequate financial incentives from the Government.

In conclusion:

The discovery of the interesting vaccine to prevent both fatal and non-fatal heart attacks followed an interesting path, and took a long time of around one and a half decade to go for the phase I human trial. Putting together the facts from the available scientific literatures, the long and arduous path of this journey may be, I reckon, summed up, as follows:

An article published by the Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI) on June 9, 2014 first reported that it’s plausible to prevent heart attacks with vaccination. Nonetheless, it all started even much before that, when in 2003, a group of researchers in France studying families with very high cholesterol levels and very early heart attacks, discovered a specific cholesterol regulator. Mutations in the related gene seemed to be responsible for very high cholesterol levels, and early heart attacks. Further research on the subject continued thereafter, based on this novel finding.

Thereafter, in 2014, HSCI scientists collaborating with researchers at the University of Pennsylvania developed a “genome editing” approach for permanently reducing cholesterol levels in mice with a single injection, potentially reducing heart attack risk by up to 90 percent, reported this Harvard article. ‘Circulation Research’ – a journal of the American Heart Association, published the study online on June 10, 2014.

Currently, in mid 2017, from the article published in the peer-reviewed ‘European Heart Journal’ we get to know that development of a vaccine that can prevent heart attacks is going for phase I clinical trial, following several well-tested and scientific evidence based promises.

The outcome of the final phases of this study will now be keenly followed by the experts. Others will optimistically wait for the D-day – virtually the dawn of a new paradigm of preventing heart attacks through vaccination, well before it can result into any fatal or crippling consequences.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Is The Global Generic Drug Market Slowing Down?

Posted on June 5, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Driven by a strong environmental headwind, both within and outside the country, several pharma companies in India have recently started raising a red flag on their future earning guidance for the stock market, though citing quite different reasons altogether. Quoting the following two recent examples, I shall illustrate this point:

“For decades, the generic drug business has followed a simple model for growth: wait for a chemical medicine to go off patent, then copy it. But 2018 promises to be one of the industry’s last big bumper crops, with $27.8 billion worth of therapies losing protection. The following year’s haul drops by almost two thirds, and the year after it shrinks even further” – reported the May 27, 2017 article in Bloomberg titled, ‘Pharma Heir Seeks a New Holy Grail as Generic Drugs Run Dry,” quoting the promoter of Glenmark.

Another May 27, 2017 article by Reuters also quoted similar business sentiment, though for a much different reason, of the world’s fifth-largest generic drug maker – Sun Pharma, following similar concerns of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd and Lupin Ltd. Here, the promoter of Sun Pharma said, “We may even have a single digit decline in consolidated revenue for full-year 2018 versus full-year 2017.”

These red flags, though signal different reasons, prompt some fundamental questions: Is the global generic drug market, especially the US, slowing down? If so, what then is the real reason of the anticipated business slow-down of large Indian pharma players? Is it due to lesser number of patented products going off-patent in the future years, or is it due to pricing pressure in various countries, including the US, or a combination of several other factors alongside? In this article, I shall deliberate on this emerging concern.

Global generic drug market – the past trend:

Several favorable environmental factors have been fueling the growth of generic drug prescriptions across the world, and the trend continues going north. Currently, the growth of generic drug prescriptions is outpacing the same for the patented ones. According to the April 2017 research study titled “Generic Drugs Market: Global Industry Trends, Manufacturing Process, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2017-2022”, published by IMARC, the global generic drug market was valued at around US$ 228.8 Billion in 2016, growing at a CAGR of around 9 percent during 2010-2016.

This trend has been well captured in numbers, from various different angles, in the September 2016 report of Evaluate Pharma, as follows:

Global trend of prescription generic drug sales (2008-2015)

Year	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
Global Rx Drug Sales (2008-15) (US$ Billion)	650	663	687	729	717	724	749	742
Growth per Year (%)		+2.0	+3.5	+6.1	(1.6)	+0.9	+3.5	(1.0)
Rx Generics Drug Sales (US $Billion)	53	53	59	65	66	69	74	73
Generics as % of Total Rx Drugs	8.2	8.0	8.6	9.0	9.2	9.5	9.9	9.9
% Market at risk to patent expiry or available for new generic drugs entry	3.0	4.0	4.0	5.0	7.0	4.0	5.0	6.0

(Table 1: Adapted from the report ‘World Preview 2016, Outlook to 2022’ of EvaluatePharma, September 2016)

The Table 1 shows, while the overall global sales growth of prescription drugs faltered during 2012-15 period, mainly due to after effects of patent expiry of several blockbuster drugs, the general trend of generic drug sales continued to ascend. As we shall see below, the projected trend in the succeeding years is not much different, either.

Global generic drug market – present, and projected future trend:

The global generic drug market is currently growing at a faster pace than the patented drugs, and this overall trend is likely to remain so in future too, as we shall find below.

Globally, North America, and particularly the US, is the largest market for generic drugs. According to the QuintilesIMS 2016 report, generic drugs saved patients and the US health care system US$227 billion in 2015. Although around 89 percent of the total prescriptions in the US are for generic drugs, these constitute just 27 percent of total spending for medicines. In other words, the share of patented drugs, though, just around 11 percent of total prescriptions, contribute 73 percent of the total prescription drug costs.

Backed by the support of Governments for similar reasons, Europe is, and will continue to register impressive growth in this area. Similarly, in Latin America, Brazil is the largest market for generic drugs, contributing 23 percent and 25 percent of the country’s pharma sector by value and by volume, respectively, in 2015.

Major growth drivers to remain the same:

The following major factors would continue to drive the growth of the global generic drug market:

Patent expiration of innovative drugs
Increasing aging population
Healthcare cost containment pressure, including out of pocket drug expenditure
Government initiatives for the use of low cost generic drugs to treat chronic diseases
Despite high price competition more leading companies are taking interest in generic drugs especially in emerging markets

India – a major global player for generic drugs:

India and China dominated the generic drug market in the Asia pacific region. India is the largest exporter of the generic drug formulations. A large number of drug manufacturing plants belonging to several Indian players have obtained regulatory approval from the overseas regulators, such as, US-FDA, MHRA-UK, TGA-Australia and MCC-South Africa. Consequently, around 50 percent of the total annual turnover of many large domestic Indian drug manufacturers comes from exports. The top global players in the generic drug market include Teva Pharmaceuticals, Novartis AG, Mylan, Abbott, Actavis Pharma and India’s own Sun Pharma.

No significant change in the future market trend is envisaged:

When I compare the same factors that fueled the growth of global prescription generic drug market in the past years (2008-2015) with the following year (2016), and the research-based projections from 2017-2022, no significant change in the market trend is visible.

Global trend of prescription generic drug sales (2015 – 2022)

Year	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Global Rx Drug Sales (2015-22) (US$ Billion)	742	778	822	873	931	996	1060	1121
Growth per Year (%)	(-1.0)	+4.8	+5.7	+6.2	+6.6	+7.0	+6.5	+5.7
Rx Generics Drug Sales (US $Billion)	73	80	86	92	97	103	109	115
Generics as % of Total Rx Drugs	9.9	10.3	10.5	10.5	10.4	10.4	10.3	10.3
% Market at risk to patent expiry or available for new generic drugs entry	6.0	6.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	2.0	2.0	5.0

(Table 2: Adapted from the report ‘World Preview 2016, Outlook to 2022’ of EvaluatePharma, September 2016)

The Table 2 shows, the overall global sales growth trend of prescription drugs appears a shade better in 2008-15 period, even with the after effects of patent expiry (Table 1), as compared to 2016-22. The scope for entry of new generic drugs goes below 4 percent of the total prescription drug market only in two years – 2020 and 2021. Thus, any serious concern only on this count for a long-term growth impediment of the global generic drug market, post 2018, doesn’t seem to be based on a solid ground, and is a contentious one. Moreover, the sales trend of prescription generic drugs as a percentage of the total value of all prescription drugs, hovers around 10 percent in this statistical projection, which is again a shade better than around 9 percent of the past comparable years.

What triggered the major pricing pressure?

With its over 40 percent of the total pharmaceutical produce, predominantly generic drug formulations, being exported around the world, India has become one of the fastest growing global manufacturing hubs for medicinal products. According to Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council of India (Pharmexcil), United States (US) is the largest market for the India’s pharma exports, followed by the United Kingdom (UK), South Africa, Russia, Nigeria, Brazil and Germany.

Since long, the largest pharma market in the world – the US, has been the Eldorado of pharma business across the globe, mostly driven by the unfettered freedom of continuously charging a hefty price premium in the country. Thus far, it has been an incredible dream run, all the way, even for many large, medium and small generic drug exporters from India.

However, ongoing activities of many large drug companies, dominated by allegedly blatant self-serving interests, have now given rise to a strong general demand on the Governments in different countries, including the US, to initiate robust remedial measures, soon. The telltale signs of which indicate that this no holds barred pricing freedom may not be available to pharma, even in the US, any longer.

Self-inflicted injury?

The situation where several major Indian generic companies are in today, appears akin to an avoidable self-inflicted injury, basically falling in the following two important areas. Nonetheless, even after the healing process gets over, the scar mark would remain for some more time, till the business becomes as usual. Hopefully, it will happen sooner than expected, provided truly ‘out of box’ corrective measures are taken, and followed up with a military precision.

Huge price hikes:

According to the Reuters report of September 11, 2016, US Department of Justice sent summons to the US arm of Sun Pharma – Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Inc. and its two senior executives seeking information on generic drug prices. In 2010, Sun Pharma acquired a controlling stake in Taro Pharmaceutical Industries.

On September 14, 2016, quoting a September 8, 2016 research done by the brokerage firm IIFL, ‘The Economic Times’ also reported that several large Indian generic drug manufacturers, such as, Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s, Lupin, Aurobindo and Glenmark have hiked the prices of some of their drugs between 150 percent and 800 percent in the US. These apparently avoidable incidents fuel more apprehensions in the prevailing scenario. As I wrote in this Blog on September 12, 2016, the subject of price increases even for generic drugs reverberated during the last Presidential campaign in the US, as well.

Serious compromise with product quality standards:

Apprehensions on dubious quality standards of many drugs manufactured in India have now assumed a gigantic dimension with import bans of many India made generic drugs by foreign drug regulators, such as US-FDA, EMA and MHRA. Today, even smaller countries are questioning the Indian drug quality to protect their patients’ health interest. This critical issue has started gaining momentum since 2013, after Ranbaxy pleaded guilty and paid a hefty fine of US$ 500 million for falsifying clinical data and distributing allegedly ‘adulterated medicines’ in the United States.

Thereafter, it’s a history. The names of who’s who of Indian drug manufacturers started appearing in the US-FDA and other overseas drug regulators’ import ban list, not just for failing to conform to their quality standards, but also for willful non-compliance with major cGMP requirements, besides widely reported incidents of data fudging and falsification of other drug quality related documents.

Global murmurs on generic drug quality among doctors:

There are reported murmurs both among the US and the Indian doctors on the generic drug quality standards, but for different drug types and categories.

According to the Reuters article published on March 18, 2014, titled “Unease grows among US doctors over Indian drug quality”, many US doctors expressed serious concerns about the quality of generic drugs supplied by Indian manufacturers. This followed the ‘import bans’ by the USFDA and a flurry of huge Indian drug recalls there. Such concerns are so serious, as India supplies about 40 percent of generic and over-the-counter drugs used in the United States, making it the second-biggest generic drug supplier after Canada.

While the doctors in the US raise overall quality concerns on the products manufactured by the large Indian branded generic companies, Indian doctors are quite at ease with the branded generics. They generally raise quality concerns only on generic drugs without any brand names.

Thus, a lurking fear keeps lingering, as many feel that Indian drug manufacturing quality related issues may not necessarily be confined only to exports in the developed world, such as, the United States, European Union or Canada. There is no reason to vouch for either, that such gross violations are not taking place with the medicines consumed by patients in India, or in the poorer nations of Africa and other similar markets.

In conclusion:

Sun Pharma has publicly expressed its concern that pricing pressure in the US may adversely impact its business in 2018. There doesn’t seem to be any major surprise on this statement, as many believe it was likely to happen, though for a different reason, since when the global media reported in September 2015: “FDA revokes approval for Sun Pharma’s seizure drug over compliance issues.”

As investors are raising concerns, the following comment by the Co-Chairman and Chief Executive of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, reported by ‘Financial Express’ on August 24, 2015, well captures the vulnerability of Indian generic drug business in this area: “The U.S. market is so big that there is no equivalent alternative. We just have to get stronger in the U.S., resolve our issues, build a pipeline and be more innovative to drive growth.”

Inadequate remedial measures could unleash this pressure to reach a dangerous threshold, impacting sustainable performance of the concerned companies. On the other hand, adequate remedial action, both strategic and operational, could lead to significant cost escalation, with no space available for its neutralization through price increases, gradually squeezing the margin. It will be a tight rope walk for many in the coming years.

As research reports indicate, the global generic drug market is not and will not be slowing down in the long term, not even in India. There may be some temporary ups and downs in the market due to pricing pressure, and the number of novel products going off-patent in some years. Nevertheless, the traditional business models being followed by some large companies may retard their respective business growth, considerably.

The pricing pressure is a real one. However, from the Indian perspective, I reckon, it’s primarily a self-inflicted injury, just as the other major one – the drug import bans on the ground of serious compromise with product quality standards. Many Indian generic drug players don’t believe so, and probably would never will, publicly.

By: Tapan J. Ray

In a Quandary of Drug Quality, Price Control, Innovation and Patient Interest in India

Posted on March 6, 2017 by Tapan Ray

The patients in India have every reason to apprehend, whether the prescription drugs that they consume are efficacious, safe and conform to the government approved prices, alongside another important question: Do they affordable access to the fruits of innovation?

The regulator responsible for drug quality in India is responsible for ensuring the first two, and the drug price regulator of the country ensures the remaining two.

Apparently, both these esteemed government bodies, are sure that they are doing the best jobs in their respective areas. Moreover, in these days of social media blitzkrieg, it won’t be uncommon to witness some of them, creating hype on some issues that many feel is better avoided, and at times even contradictory in nature.

Amid this seemingly chaotic continuity of the same or a bit deteriorating scenario, patients are often caught in an unenviable footing.

In this article, I shall discuss on these concerns afresh, quoting a few recent examples. My objective is to encourage all concerned to move away from incessant hype creation by accepting the reality, as the patients feel. This is necessary, because anyone, including the regulators can fall victim of such unfettered developments, at any point of time.

Thus, it may be appropriate for all to jettison any residual arrogance or a faint shade of narcissism, before putting the nose to the grindstone to resolve these pressing issues decisively, for patients’ sake.

Are we consuming effective and safe medicines?

I raised this question first in an article titled, “Are We Taking Safe and Effective Medicines?” published in this blog on November 13, 2013. That deliberation was primarily based on US-FDA ‘import bans’ from various drug manufacturing facilities in India, involving even the top Indian pharma players. Based on their own quality and safety audits, the US regulator had concluded that drugs produced in those factories are not safe for consumption by the patients in America.

This apprehension has now almost reached its crescendo, when on February 24, 2017, probably for the first time ever, US-FDA publicly voiced its apprehension about the efficacy of medicines being sold and consumed by patients in India. The observation came from the India director of the US-FDA in an annual conference of a large pharma trade association of some of the top domestic pharma companies. While commenting, “I do not think any one of us wants to take such drugs which lack efficacy”, the official reportedly revealed, he occasionally gets samples sent from the US embassy health unit in Delhi, and complaints are usually about the medicines not giving the desired results.

It is noteworthy, as earlier, rubbishing claims levelled by media expressing growing concern among overseas regulators over the quality of Indian made drugs, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) had reportedly strongly reiterated that there have been no lapse or compromise on quality parameters of the drugs manufactured throughout the country, as the efficacy of the drugs and safety of the patients have always remained the top priority of DCGI.

Yet another news article of August 22, 2016 reported that after a year-long survey involving Government, civil society and pharmacy professionals, and testing nearly 50,000 drug samples across the country during this period, the Ministry of health of India found that medicines produced in India are safe and effective. This study was kicked off in the wake of rising concerns that several medicines made in the country posed risks to patients, the report highlighted.

Should ‘Self-certification’ by industry prevail?

Intriguingly, when questions on drug quality manufactured in India, are regularly being raised by other equally responsible drug authorities, we find ‘self-certification’, in this regard, coming from all those who are expected to resolve this issue beyond an iota of doubt, always prevails.

Apparently, not just the drug regulator and the Union Ministry of Health are in a sustained denial mode, many large pharma companies also seem to be in the same mode. On March 01, 2017, the media reported, “Close on the heels of US FDA India office raising concerns over the quality of medicines marketed in India, pharma leaders came together to defend the quality of their products. There is no question of compromising quality of Indian products meant for domestic market and export, they pointed out.” This rebuttal was expected. Nevertheless, the apprehension lingers: Should such self-certification by pharma players prevail?

That said, one may try to justify this quandary by saying that effectively regulating over 20,000 domestic pharmaceutical companies, including third party and loan license manufacturers, poses a serious challenge to the DCGI and the State Drug Controllers. However, the moot point is, who has been encouraging such over-proliferation of drug manufacturing facilities over a long period of time, in any case? In that sense, whose prime responsibility is it to ensure that drugs consumed by patients in India are efficacious and safe?

The answer to these vexing questions continues to remain unanswered.

Did patients benefit from drug price control orders?

Let me first draw a brief sketch on the global perspective of price increases in generic drugs. It appears that in all those countries where there is no drug price control in place, the entire pharma industry is being adversely impacted by huge generic drug price inflation. This finding has been well captured in a study by Elsevier. It shows, between November 2013 and November 2014, out of its research sample of 4421 generic drug groups, there were price increases in 222 drug groups by 100 percent or more. In 17 drug groups price increases were taken even over 1000 percent, which include even tetracycline. With this trend sharply moving north, many patients, across the world, are struggling hard to find ways to survive in this situation. With this backdrop, I now get back to its India perspective.

I have read some media editorials questioning, just as the pharma industry, whether it is the right approach to make essential medicines affordable through drug price control in India? Nevertheless, there isn’t an iota of doubt in my mind that yes, it is, in the prevailing health care scenario of the country sans universal health care, with out of pocket expenses on medicines being the highest in the world and when market competition doesn’t bring down the price of medicines, for obvious reasons. My questions, on the contrary, will be, is drug price control being enforced in India the way it should? Are the patients getting commensurate benefits out of it? If not, why?

However, on the face of it, the answer to the question above “Did patients benefit from drug price control orders”, may appear to be an affirmative one. This is mainly because, on July 28, 2017, no less than the Union minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers, in a written reply to the Rajya Sabha reportedly conveyed that the Indian consumers have saved nearly Rs 5,000 crore due to the Government fixing the prices of essential medicines under the Drugs Price Control Order (DPCO) 2013.

The ground reality of drug price control:

Let me try to explore a bit in this area with some recent examples.

According to the data from India’s drug pricing watchdog – the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), compliance to various Drug Price Control Orders (DPCO) is far from satisfactory. Outstanding dues for non-compliance to notified ceiling prices, including penalty, from scores of pharma companies, have now reportedly piled up over the past two decades exceeding Rs. 4,551 crore (around USD 700 million). Thus, the same question haunts: Has drug price control benefitted the patients in India, as was intended to?

The situation is no different, even with DPCO 2013. On February 23, 2017, NPPA notified the ‘Suspected cases of Noncompliance of Ceiling Price by Pharmaceutical Companies,’ of 634 drugs, along with a ‘Public Notice’ for the same. This listed included the products marketed by some leading pharma companies in India, such as, Cipla, Abbott India, Alkem Labs, AstraZeneca, Dr Reddys Lab and Cadila, among many others.

Yet another fresh allegation related to drug pricing has just come to light. Interestingly, it relates to an anti-diabetic drug that falls outside DPCO 2013. On March 01, 2017, a news articled reported, “India’s drug regulator will look into allegations that four leading pharmaceutical companies are colluding to set the price of anti-diabetic drug Vildagliptin, a move that may rattle the almost Rs. 10,000 Crore (around USD 1540 million) market in the country.” Vildagliptin is a proprietary drug of Novartis, which has licensed it to three other companies. All of them sell Vildagliptin in India under their own brand names. Abbott sells it as Zomelis, USV as Jalra and Emcure as Vysov. The combined sales of these brands stood at Rs. 822 Crore (around USD 125 million) last year, the report states.

Be that as it may, the bottom line, as many believe, continues to remain unchanged, as it has always been – the patients don’t derive intended benefits due to lackluster and apparently ineffective enforcement of the drug price control in India.

Another crucial player:

Besides the two important and powerful Government authorities – DCGI and NPPA, there is another very critical player in this game – the Indian drug industry. Without whole-hearted cooperation and result-oriented action by all the three players, in tandem, nothing can possibly change this agonizing status quo, in this area.

The industry too is in a denial mode:

Quite like the other two critical constituents, who always deny any serious allegation on their actions, not being good enough to fetch the intended benefits for the patients, the drug industry too doesn’t seem to be any different. It always appears to be in a pre-programmed denial mode against all such allegations, irrespective of whether these are on drug quality, price, or on frequent misuse of the term innovation. They always try to justify their action, playing the victim card, as it were, and expecting other stakeholders to believe that they are doing right, always.

Let me now explore each of these areas separately, basically from the pharma industry perspective:

Drug quality: Pharma players, just as the Indian drug regulator, do not seem to accept that many drugs in India do not provide desirable benefits to patients, as alleged even by the US-FDA after studying some test results, following complaints from their local establishments. Many of us, at an individual level, may also have experienced just the same, and nurture the same doubt on the efficacy and safety profile of some branded generics that we consume, but have no wherewithal to prove the same. Doctors just change the brands, when any patient comes with such complaints, as Pharmacovigilance has not taken-off in the country with full steam, just yet. Thus, both the government regulators and the industry are in sync with each other, on this issue.

Drug price control: In this specific area, unlike the issue of drug quality, the respective stands of the government and the industry are poles apart. The former believes that it is working well, and the latter says, it isn’t.

The industry, as I see it, wants to project an impression that drug price control is the root cause of all evils, including compromises on drug quality, and some drugs going out of the market. The industry further highlights that drug price control offers a crippling blow to innovation, as they can’t garner enough financial resources through increased drug prices. It is another matter that they can’t possibly claim, drug price control offers a telling blow on their profit, as despite price control pharma is one of the highest profit making industry in India and globally too.

What innovation means to patients:

Interestingly, both the domestic and multinational pharma players often use the term of innovation, mostly construed as a façade, as it were, in their different advocacy initiatives, and during media outreach, as well. For global players, it primarily means innovation of new products, which offers monopolistic marketing and pricing advantage. Whereas, for generic players, it is generally process innovation, and different generic or biosimilar product development.

This is fine, but why should patients pay high drug prices, only because pharma players want to spend more on innovation, either for a new drug or a new process? I reckon, almost none will be willing to pay just for the heck of it.

Commensurate incremental price for incremental value:

Many patients, on the other hand, will be willing to pay more for any commensurate incremental value that a drug or a process will offer for a speedy recovery from illness, or to live a better quality of life, or for a lesser net treatment cost. Thus, the price of any brand is considered by stakeholders as a function of the value that it promises to offer. Consequently, brand marketing is deemed a value delivery system. For medicines, this value must be easily perceptible, quantifiable and scientific research based. Accordingly, the outcome of any such innovation should convince the regulators, doctors, hospitals and ultimately the patients – what value delivery – path breaking or incremental, for which patients need to pay commensurate incremental prices.

Various ways of ensuring it:

There are several different ways of addressing it, even for branded generics in India. For example, when branded generics of the same drug or similar FDCs of different drugs, are marketed by different companies with a huge price difference, the pharma players should necessarily submit before appropriate authorities, prior to marketing approval, all data regarding incremental and quantifiable value offerings, especially for those branded generics falling at the top of the price band. This is necessary, as an increasing number of brands in the market of the same generic molecules or the same FDCs, may not necessarily lead to greater competition with any significant impact on price. I shall argue on this point below.

What happens, generally:

For any drug falling outside price control in India, branded generic drug makers, usually set prices based on whatever each of them considers the market will accept. This consideration is highly elastic in nature, varying from a very low to a very high price, for any specific molecule and its FDCs. As I said before, it has been well-established by now that competition doesn’t play any significant role to bring down the branded generic drug prices, unlike many other consumables in different industries.

Why market competition doesn’t work for medicines?

This is primarily because, the purchasing decision for medicines does not depend on individual patients, unlike many other consumables. This decision is taken by the doctors while writing prescriptions for them. It is widely alleged, all over the world, that many important doctors are heavily influenced by the drug companies, often through dubious and highly cost intensive means, to prescribe their respective brands or branded generics in the process of treatment of a wide variety of medical conditions. In this rat race of generation of more and more prescriptions, pharma companies require to have a deep pocket to achieve their financial goals. Thus, many brands attract high prices to generate more profit and keep moving this vicious circle. Value based brand differentiation for many leading branded generics or even me-too patented products, aren’t mostly robust enough to stand any scientific or peer scrutiny. Consequently, the prescription demand of a most branded generics or me-too patented products do not have any linear relationship with the nature of market completion, and therefore, on their prices. In this perspective, setting a price for a pharma brand doesn’t depend on quantifiable value offerings for patients, as someone said before, “It is not a science. It is a feel.”

In conclusion:

The overall concern spans across several important public health and safety related issues, which also involve general quality standards of medicines, the effectiveness of drug price control, the core intent of so frequent use of the term ‘innovation’ in various pharma advocacy initiatives, including media outreach.

In this scenario, is the pharma industry, together with the drug quality and pricing watchdogs, failing to fathom the grave residual impact of continuity of this situation? In my view, this specific assumption appears too simplistic, naïve, and unrealistic. Or else, could it be that they are actually in a quandary, not being able to decide what would be the most effective actionable blueprint to resolve these issues?

I reckon, this is high time now for all concerned to accept the reality, seriously introspect on these critical issues, opt for a dip-stick expert analysis to assess the real status, and then work out a time-bound action plan with assigned accountability on the ground.

Together they may wish to address the following queries, among several others:

Why are they still running on a treadmill, as it were, over the last four decades, to come nearer these issues for better understanding, without moving an inch on the ground, despite public outcry?
Are they really in a quandary?
Are these concerns not an outcome of basically governance related failures?
Why hypes are being created all around on significant savings over out of pocket expenses on medicines because of ‘good enforcement’ of DPCOs, when it doesn’t seem so?
What prompts all the key players to be in a consistent denial mode on dubious drug quality standards in India, when foreign drug regulators are pointing it out in public?
Isn’t the term ‘innovation’ being rampantly misused, more as a major tool for advocacy to gain free pricing advantage?
Shouldn’t ‘Que Sera, Sera’ days change now?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Immunization Still Remains A Low-Budget Neglected Area In India

Posted on December 19, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Although India is a leading producer and exporter of vaccines, the country has the greatest number of deaths among children under 5, and the majority are from vaccine-preventable diseases. Less than 44 percent of India’s young children receive the full schedule of immunizations, commented a research study of Michigan University of the United States.

This is noteworthy, as vaccines are one of the most successful and cost-effective public health interventions. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines vaccines as:

“A vaccine is any preparation intended to produce immunity to a disease by stimulating the production of antibodies. Vaccines include, for example, suspensions of killed or attenuated microorganisms, or products or derivatives of microorganisms. The most common method of administering vaccines is by injection, but some are given by mouth or nasal spray.”

Vaccines help prevent over two to three million children each year. However, another 1.5 million children still die from diseases that could be prevented by routine vaccines, as estimated by the WHO.

“The developing world should no longer experience 450,000 preventable deaths each year from rotavirus, nor 145,000 from measles. By the same token, there should no longer be 2000 preventable deaths each year from influenza in Australia. It is time to use our global health efforts to address the most pressing risks, both at home and abroad,” expects another article published in the Volume 45, No.1, January-February 2016 edition of the journal of ‘Australian Family Physician (afp)’

Nevertheless, the bottom line is, an estimated 19.4 million infants worldwide is still missing out on basic vaccines, which otherwise come rather easily to the children of the developed nations of the world, as per the ‘Fact Sheet’ of the World Health Organization (W.H.O) of September 2016.

A commendable global initiative:

To resolve this inequity, in January 2000, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) was formed. This initiative was mainly aimed at generating sufficient fund to ensure availability of vaccines for children living in the 70 poorest countries of the world.

The GAVI Alliance has been instrumental in improving access to six common infant vaccines, including those for hepatitis B and yellow fever. GAVI is also working to introduce pneumococcal, rotavirus, human papilloma virus, meningococcal, rubella and typhoid vaccines in not too distant future.

Current ground situation in India:

In this area, the prevailing situation in India is much worse.

The Global consulting major – McKinsey in its report titled, “India Pharma 2020: Propelling access and acceptance, realizing true potential” stated that at 2 percent penetration, the vaccines market of India is significantly under-penetrated with an estimated turnover of around US$ 250 million, where the private segment accounts for two-thirds of the total. McKinsey expects the market to grow to US$ 1.7 billion by 2020.

Some of the important reasons for poor penetration of the vaccine market in India can be found in a March 02, 2016 research article published in the ‘Michigan News’ of the University of Michigan. The paper articulated some important facts, as follows:

Out of 26 million children born in India every year, two-thirds of them do not receive their vaccinations on time, prolonging their susceptibility to diseases and contributing to untimely deaths.

Only 18 percent of children are vaccinated with the recommended three doses of DPT vaccine.

Only 12 percent of children are vaccinated with the measles vaccine by the required age of 9 months, although 75 percent are vaccinated by age 5. This delay in vaccination can contribute to frequent outbreaks of measles in India.

India is adding vast numbers of new children who need vaccination, while the older ones remain under or unvaccinated because of immunization delays, is like “walking too slowly on a moving treadmill – you continually fall further back.”

India hopes to add rotavirus to its Universal Immunization Program, a free government-approved vaccination program that was looked at in this study.

The government has the infrastructure to deliver vaccines, but the motivations for delivering all vaccination doses decreases over time.

India hopes to add rotavirus to its Universal Immunization Program, a free government-approved vaccination program that was looked at in this study.

Needs both policy and budgetary support:

As stated above, the overall immunization scenario in India, as on date, is rather grim. Besides, in view of the humongous disease burden of India, immunization program with various types of vaccines should receive active encouragement from the government as disease prevention initiatives, at least, keeping the future generation in mind. In the next Union Budget of India, this issue should attract fresh policy measures, spearheaded by the Central Government, with requisite fund allocation both by the Central and State Governments.

Low immunization budget and other key barriers:

‘Health Affairs’ – a leading peer-reviewed journal on health policy thought and research, highlighted that India spends woefully little on routine immunization. Quoting data published by the Union Ministry of Health the report stated, only 2.1 percent of the national government’s health budget is allocated to routine immunization – a small amount given the country’s large population and the number of births. Although vaccines used in India are primarily provided free and through the government channels, over 30 percent of the population still purchase vaccines from the private market as a part of their out of pocket expenses.

Besides, there is a long list of other challenges to India’s immunization program. These include a shortage of trained personnel to manage the program at both the national and state levels; the need to undertake innovations in vaccines, disease surveillance, vaccine procurement, and effective vaccine management; the absence of good data on disease burden to inform vaccination priorities; the lack of baseline surveillance data for monitoring the effects of vaccination; and the absence of a system of routine reporting and surveillance, the report stated.

Everyone in the country is expected to fulfill the individual responsibility to get their own children properly vaccinated by properly following, and completing the vaccination schedule. Better all-round and ongoing communication of the long-term benefits of vaccination for many serious disease prevention against negligible side effects, could create greater awareness for compliance.

Indian vaccine market and the key local players:

A report titled ‘Vaccines Market in India 2013’, published by Netherlands Office of Science & Technology, New Delhi, estimated that vaccines contributed largest share in the total Biopharma sales with estimated sales of US$ 602 million in FY 2011-12 over US$ 417.5 million of the previous year. Over half of the top 10 firms in the industry are active in the private sector vaccines market has recorded a growth of about 25 percent.

India is not just a leading producer and exporter of vaccines, it develops and markets complex vaccines, such as, pentavalent rotavirus vaccine. There are around 13 major vaccine manufacturers in India. Companies like, Serum Institute, Shantha Biotecnics, Bharat Biotech and Panacea Biotech are taking commendable strides in this direction. Bharat Biotech is incidentally the largest Hepatitis B vaccine producer in the world.

Around 43 percent of the global Universal Immunization Program vaccine supply (more than 70 percent in the case of single vaccine) reportedly comes from India. Indian vaccine major Serum Institute is reportedly one of the largest suppliers of vaccines to over a 130 countries of the world and claim that ’1 out of every 2 children immunized worldwide gets at least one vaccine produced by Serum Institute.’

Expand Government immunization product spectrum:

It is high time for the Union Ministry of Health to expand the product spectrum for vaccines, as an integral part of its disease prevention program. It is recommended that the routine immunization program of India should now include other important vaccines, such as, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, and rotavirus, as recommended by the National Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) on Immunization.

Conclusion:

Against this backdrop, a holistic immunization program can no longer remain a low-budget and virtually neglected area in India.

Effective resolution of this important issue by the Government would require both the Union and the State Governments to increase their respective budget significantly. It would help launching a well-integrated multi-pronged approach to include most of the remaining one third of the population in the state-run immunization program.

In tandem a strategic pathway needs to be crafted to expand the immunization product spectrum, increase awareness to encourage more household to take part in the holistic immunization initiatives for disease prevention, and counter the anti-vaccine advocates effectively. There is also an urgent need to make more investments in disease surveillance. An integrated approach towards all these initiatives would significantly help reduce the overall burden of disease in the country.

By: Tapan J Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: market

Key Drivers And Long-Term Impact of Pharma M&A in India

Why MNC Pharma Still Moans Over Indian IP Ecosystem?

‘Rigged’ Payment System Limits Biosimilar Access

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Could Vaccine Prevent Heart Attacks?

Is The Global Generic Drug Market Slowing Down?

In a Quandary of Drug Quality, Price Control, Innovation and Patient Interest in India

Immunization Still Remains A Low-Budget Neglected Area In India