Tag Archives: market

The New Government To Ponder: Is “Market Based Drug Pricing Policy” An ill Conceived One?

Posted on by
Reply

According to a recent media report, Mr. Ananth Kumar, the new minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers has recently made a statement, as follows:

“… As far as branded medicines of multinational pharmaceutical companies are concerned, we will talk to all of them and try to bring down prices of essential drugs for poor by 25-40 per cent… The pharmaceutical industry is very important for the health of the country, he added…our main mission will be to ensure the availability of all necessary medicines at affordable prices, especially for poor across the country.”

This statement assumes great significance for the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry and simultaneously rekindles hope for many patients, as the minister expressed intent that the new government wants to revisit the current drug price control system of India.

However, why did the minister in his above statement single out MNCs for discussion, is not very clear, just yet. Most probably, this is due to much published reports that branded generics from MNCs, which are outside price control, usually cost more than others, for whatever may be the reasons. Anyway, that could be the topic of another discussion in this blog.

The backdrop of DPCO 2013:

After a protracted negotiation and lobbying by the Indian Pharma Industry and others with the then UPA II Government, a well sought after paradigm shift took place in the drug price control regime of India.

In the new “National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012”, the span of price control was changed from bulk-drug based to all drug formulations falling under the ‘National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’. The methodology of price control was also radically modified from the cost-based to market based one. Accordingly the new Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) was notified on May 15, 2013.

The decision to have new drug policy was taken as a last minute sprint, as it were, primarily driven by the immense pressure generated by the Supreme Court on the UPA II Government for pussyfooting this important issue over almost a decade.

Hurried action after prolonged inaction:

The last Drug Policy of India was announced in 2002, which was subsequently challenged by a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Karnataka High Court on the ground of being inflationary in nature. The Honorable Court by its order dated November 12, 2002 issued a stay on the implementation of the Policy.

This judgment was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay vide its order dated March 10, 2003 and ordered as follows:

“We suspend the operation of the order to the extent it directs that the Policy dated February 15, 2002 shall not be implemented. However we direct that the petitioner shall consider and formulate appropriate criteria for ensuring essential and lifesaving drugs not to fall out of the price control and further directed to review drugs, which are essential and lifesaving in nature till 2nd May, 2003”.

As a result, DPCO 1995 continued to remain in operation pending formulation of a new drug policy as directed by the honorable court, since then.

Unfortunately, the then government did not show any urgency to come out with a new drug policy, even thereafter, for about a decade.

Fortunately, in the recent years, coming under intense judicial scrutiny and pressure due to a PIL on the subject before the Supreme Court of India, the then Government was compelled to come out with the New National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012), rather hurriedly, effective December 7, 2012.

That was the ‘grand beginning’ of a new paradigm of ‘market-based’ drug price control regime in India.

Hype and rapid disillusionment:

Many stakeholders, barring some NGOs, felt at that time that DPCO 2013 could be a win-win strategy for both the industry and patients, as it would apparently be less intrusive for the pharma players.

Along side, through ‘Public Relations’ overdrive, hype was created by vested interests to generate a feeling that the drug prices are coming down by 30-40 percent, as a result of the new market-based price control regime.

That could well be true for a handful of drugs, but the fact is that the industry was adversely impacted by around 2.3 percent and the span of price control came down from 20 percent of the just pervious DPCO 1995 to 18 percent in DPCO 2013, not impacting the industry as much as it was hyped before.

Realization of these facts was just enough for the public disillusionment to set in.

Questions started popping-up almost immediately:

Unfortunately, many key questions started popping-up just at the very onset of its implementation process. Besides many others, some basic questions raised on DPCO 2013, a good number of which went into litigations and/or departmental reviews, are as follows:

  • Implementability of new ‘Ceiling Prices (CP)’ for market stocks within 45 days of notification by the respective companies.
  • Criteria of calculation of 1 percent market share for brands.
  • How would already existing different drug delivery systems of the same drug substance be considered to work out a common CP?
  • How reliable is the IMS Data, based on which CP calculation would be done by the NPPA?
  • What will happen to those NLEM 2011 drugs for which IMS does not provide any information?

Erstwhile Finance Ministry wanted to continue with cost plus formula:

When the new draft National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy (NPPP) had gone for comments from various ministries of UPA II Government, the key recommendations of the then Ministry of Finance were reportedly as follows:

  • The proposal to limit the NPPP to control prices of only formulations leaving aside bulk drugs is not supported.
  • Top priced brands in many therapy areas are also the brand leaders. As a result, high prices of such drugs while calculating the ceiling prices would push up prices of many low priced drugs significantly.
  • The current system, which is a cost plus system is adequate to cover all legitimate costs for a manufacturer, particularly when the costing is being done annually and should be continued.
  • The same cost plus system should also apply to other formulations where additional therapeutic elements will be added. Related incremental cost in those cases can be considered to determine the ceiling price of combination formulations.
  • The Maximum Retail Prices (MRP) for all NLEM 2011 drugs may be fixed by the NPPA accordingly and the pharmaceutical companies would be free to price these NLEM products at any level below the MRP.
  • Annual indexation of price with WPI is not supported. The cost analysis should determine the quantum of increase.
  • Data related to prices and market shares should be collected from sources other than IMS even for drugs covered by them. The methodology to be followed by NPPA for evaluating IMS data and for collecting the data for medicines from other sources should be included in the NPPP.
  • A phased movement towards 100 percent generic manufacturing, as recommended by the Ministry of Health (MoH), for all drugs under the NLEM should be considered.

Current imbroglio over ceiling price fixation:

A recent media report highlighted that even almost 15 months after the announcement of DPCO 2013, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) fails to fix prices of 111 scheduled formulations due to scanty available information.

According to this report, though NPPA has revised prices of over 400 formulations out of around 652 as per DPCO 2013, it has now come out with a list of 103 formulations for which prices could not be fixed due to insufficient information. Besides, it could not fix the prices of eight more formulations, as the NLEM 2011 did not provide required information, such as, strength, route of administration and dosage form.

Thus, it appears that required price control of essential drugs as per DPCO 2013 is in a limbo today because of serious implementability issues, over and above its other (de)merits, as discussed above.

The fundamental question:

The fundamental question that is now being raised by many is, whether from patients point of new there was any need to change from ‘Cost Based Price Control (CBPC)’ to the new ‘Market Based Price Control (MBPC)’ system?

As a result, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is still pending before the Supreme Court challenging DPCO 2013.

This judicial scrutiny could put the MBPC concept in jeopardy, placing the pharma price control system back to CBPC mode, unless the new government takes a pre-emptive strategic move well before hand.

The New Minister’s recent statement rekindles hope for action:

There are now more reasons to justify why the new Minister Mr. Ananth Kumar should revisit MBPC mechanism, sooner. As I wrote in one of my earlier blog post that “The New ‘Market Based Pricing Model’ is Fundamentally Flawed”.

Conclusion:

From the statements of the new Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers herein, and also the new Health Minister, as quoted in my last blog post, it appears that the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) would continue to remain with the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, at least for some more time. This is quite contrary to the general expectations that DoP would be a part of the Ministry of Health in the new regime.

That said, besides full implementability of DPCO 2013 for all essential drugs, the Ceiling Price (CP) calculation methodology also appears to be fundamentally flawed, its misuse and abuse by some pharma players, as highlighted in my earlier blog post, have also been a subject of great concern and consumer aghast.

With this rapidly evolving scenario, unless the new minister Ananth Kumar steps in to sort out the conundrum with deft handling, unlike his almost defunct predecessor in UPA II, or till the Supreme Court intervenes responding to the PIL on DPCO 2013 related issues, the growing dissatisfaction of the affected section of stakeholders and the constraints of the NPPA would continue to linger, poor patients being the ultimate sufferers.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

Is The New ‘Market Based Pricing’ Model Fundamentally Flawed?

Posted on by
Reply

After a long wait of close to two decades, when the Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013) followed the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) last year, it appeared that the new pharma price control regime is more acceptable to the industry than the previous, resulting in better over all implementation and compliance.

However, just within a year, the reality seems to be quite different. Not only the Ceiling Price (CP) calculation process of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) based on DPCO 2013 appears to be fundamentally flawed, its misuse and abuse by some pharma players have also been the subject of great concern and consumer aghast.

The eternal ‘Cat and Mouse’ game continues:

Probably there would be many instances of pharmaceutical companies dodging the DPCO 2013. However, FDA, Maharashtra, has unearthed the following two instances, so far:

1. Favorable consumer expectations with well-hyped DPCO 2013 received a body blow for the first time, when the general public came to know through media reports, that too after almost a year, that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare having launched its new ‘Crocin Advance’ 500 mg with a higher price of Rs 30 for a strip of 15 tablets, has planned to gradually withdraw its conventional price controlled Crocin 500 mg brand costing around Rs 14 for a strip of 15 tablets to the patients . GSK Consumer Healthcare claims that Crocin Advance is a new drug and therefore should be outside price control.

According to IMS Health data, ‘Crocin Advance’ is currently the fifth largest brand among top Paracetamol branded generics, clocking a sales turnover of Rs 10.3 Crore during the last 12 months ending in February 2014.

2. The second instance of evading DPCO 2013 has also been reported by the media. In this case some other pharmaceutical companies have reportedly started selling the anti-lipid drug Atorvastatin in dosage forms of 20 mg and 40 mg, which are outside price control, instead of its price controlled 10 mg dosage form. Quoting the Maharashtra FDA, the report states: “Atorvastatin may face a similar kind of action from the state FDA as other overpriced brands of drugs as this drug has been overpriced five to 10 times more than the DPCO price. This kind of overcharging is a subject for investigation. Atorvastatin of 40 mg dosage is generally recommended for senior citizens.”

Tip of an Iceberg?

All these seem to be just the tip of an iceberg related to evasion of DPCO 2013 by some pharma black ships, raising costs of essential medicines for the patients. Ironically, what is happening now is an exact replica of the same old strategy that many pharma players got involved into to avoid price control under earlier DPCO 1995. Continuation of the same act of deceit with DPCO 2013 confirms that the ‘cat and mouse game’ to avoid price control is eternal in India, in the absence of any strong and exemplary deterrent.

Better late than never:

When Maharashtra FDA brought it to the notice of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), the later asked GSK to immediately reduce the market price of ‘Crocin Advance’, as there is no proven additional therapeutic efficacy for the product. The price regulator also sought confirmation of the action taken by the company in this regard. Additionally, GSK Consumer Healthcare now faces consequential punitive measures from the NPPA for price overcharging. This action on the part of NPPA, in all probability, would get lost in the quagmire of litigation, as usually happens in India.

Be that as it may, I expect NPPA taking similar action for Atorvastatin too and increasing its vigil for such scant respect on patient-centric laws and policies of the country.

A brief recapitulation:

Just to recapitulate, DPCO 2013 has been fundamentally different from its ‘predecessor’ DPCO 1995, mainly on the following two counts:

1. Methodology of Price Control:

This has changed from earlier ‘Cost Based Pricing (CBP)’ to ‘Market Based Pricing (MBP)’ based on simple average of all products having 1 percent or more market share.

2. Span of Price Control:

In DPCO 1995, all formulations of 74 bulk drugs, selected based on specified criteria, were under cost based price control, covering over 1700 formulations. Whereas, in DPCO 2013 all essential drugs as mentioned in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) come under price control applying the above new methodology of MBP. DPCO 2013 brings around 652 formulations of 348 drugs under 27 therapeutic segments of the NLEM 2011, under price control.

Significant benefits of DPCO 2013 to the industry:

DPCO 2013 offers following three key advantages to the industry, both in the short and longer term:

  • MBP methodology in DPCO 2013 is considered by the industry as more transparent and less ‘intrusive’ than CBP methodology.
  • Span of price control with DPCO 2013 came down to 18 percent of the total pharmaceutical market covering around 610 formulations, as against 20 percent in DPCO 1995 covering over 1700 formulations.
  • Opportunity for automatic annual price increase for controlled formulations based on WPI, which was not there in DPCO 1995, is now available to the industry. Thus, in keeping with the relevant provision of DPCO 2013, NPPA has recently allowed the drug companies to increase the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the price controlled medicines, contributing 18 percent of the total market, by 6.32 percent effective April 1, 2014, while prices of balance 82 percent of drugs, that are outside price control, can go up by 10 percent every year.

Check on essential drugs going out of market:

Interestingly, DPCO 2013 has tried to prevent any possibility of an essential drug going out of the market without the knowledge of NPPA by incorporating the following provision in the order:

“Any manufacturer of scheduled formulation, intending to discontinue any scheduled formulation from the market shall issue a public notice and also intimate the Government in Form-IV of schedule-II of this order in this regard at least six month prior to the intended date of discontinuation and the Government may, in public interest, direct the manufacturer of the scheduled formulation to continue with required level of production or import for a period not exceeding one year, from the intended date of such discontinuation within a period of sixty days of receipt of such intimation.”

However, it is still not clear, whether or not GSK Consumer Healthcare had followed this stipulated provision for price controlled conventional Crocin formulations. At least, I do not remember having come across any such public notice, as yet.

Key concerns expressed with DPCO 2013:

The MBP methodology seems to be unique to India as CBP is more common in countries that follow drug price control. Hence the following concerns were expressed with DPCO 2013.

  • Reduction in drug prices with market-based pricing methodology is significantly less than the cost based ones. Hence, consumers will be much less benefitted with the new system.
  • Earlier cost based pricing system was not more transparent only because a large section from the industry reportedly did not co-operate with the NPPA in providing cost details, as required by them.
  • Serious apprehensions have been expressed about the quality of outsourced market data lacking adequate confidence level across the board, which now forms the basis of CP calculations.
  • Additionally, outsourced data would provide details only of around 480 out of 652 NLEM formulations. How will the data for remaining products be obtained and with what level of accuracy?

It is, therefore, believed now by many that DPCO 2013 is more of an outcome of a successful lobbying efforts of the pharmaceutical industry in India, rather than a robust pricing policy supported by a flawless methodology for CP calculations.

DPCO 2013 faces challenge in the Supreme Court:

As a result of the above apprehensions, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing challenging DPCO 2013.

Ground Zero of the quality of outsourced market data:

While assessing from the ‘Ground Zero’, keeping aside instances of hoodwinking DPCO 2013 with tweaked formulations, the core issue of the quality of outsourced market data forming the bedrock of CP calculation by the NPPA, undoubtedly becomes more fundamental, creating huge discomfort for many pharma players .

Unlike DPCO 1995, where NPPA used to calculate the CP based on its own audits, data provided by the concerned companies and from many other reliable market sources, the calculations to arrive at the CP for DPCO 2013 products are based predominantly on data outsourced from IMS Health, if not solely.

IMS data does not always capture correct brand prices:

As stated above, many leading pharmaceutical companies are now reportedly pointing out repeatedly that the CP fixation by the NPPA is not accurate, as the IMS Health data does not represent the real prices in many cases.

This is not a new issue either. I have been hearing similar complaints since ages in different forum, wearing different hats and also from various other reliable industry sources. Moreover, NPPA and the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) have indicated several times in the past that IMS data do not capture the requisite details as needed for over 100 products featured in NLEM 2011.

According to Pharmabiz of April 2, 2014, some of the companies expressing the above apprehensions are Sun Pharma, Unichem Labs, Panacea Biotec, Win-Medicare, Albert David, Baxter (India), Indi Pharma and Gland Pharma.

Responding to such widespread complaints, the DoP has directed NPPA to revalidate the IMS data, now being used for CP calculations, for all notified medicines. Accordingly, NPPA has sought the relevant details from respective companies. However, till such data validation takes place, pharma players must comply with all CPs, as notified by the NPPA from time to time.

Difficulty in data validation:

In my view, it would not be easy for the NPPA to revalidate the IMS data due to the following reasons:

  • Those companies, whose prices are showing higher than the current ones in the IMS Health data, may not report to NPPA, as that could ultimately affect them adversely.
  • Pharma companies’ response, in general, to requests from NPPA for furnishing cost and price related information has traditionally been much less than encouraging.

The logjam to continue:

With this evolving scenario, I reckon, till the Supreme Court intervenes responding to the PIL on DPCO 2013 related issues, the dissatisfaction of the industry and the constraints of the NPPA would continue, patients being the primary sufferers.

Conclusion:

Despite the reported concern expressed in the 2014 National Trade Estimate (NTE) Report on Foreign Trade Barriers over the Indian drug price control mechanisms as a deterrent to foreign investments, government price control for essential medicines in India is here to stay for a long haul, to uphold the patients’ health interest.

That said, the final verdict of the Supreme Court related to the PIL on the NPPP 2012, based on which DPCO 2013 has been worked out, is yet to come. Any unfavorable decision of the Honorable Court on the subject may push both the NPPP 2012 and DPCO 2013 back to square one, yet again.

In this backdrop, considering the key fundamental flaw in the CP calculation process of DPCO 2013 with associated loud hiccups as evidenced by the GSK Consumer Healthcare episode and others, would a well-considered verdict of the Supreme Court on the subject be more desirable for greater access to more affordable essential drugs by the patients in India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

 

Indian Pharmaceutical Market in February 2014 – A Snap Shot

Posted on by
Reply

According to the Retail Audit dated March 2014 of well reputed AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd, in the month of February 2014, the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) registered a turnover of 5902 Crore (around US$ 980 million) growing at 4.5 percent against Rs. 6,227 Crore (around US$1 billion) in January 2014 with a growth of 8.5 percent.

The growth break-up for the month is as follows:

  • -0.2 percent from existing products
  • 3.2 percent from new launches
  • 1.5 percent from price increases

However, the volume growth of 2.6 percent during Dec’13 to Feb’14 quarter has been better than the same for the corresponding period of the previous year, which was 0.2 percent.

February 2014: Impact of DPCO 2013:

  • The products covered under DPCO 2013 de-grew by (-13.6) percent, whereas rest of the products grew by 7.4 percent resulting an overall growth of 4.5 percent for the month
  • The DPCO 2013 portfolio for GSK de-grew by (-30.7) percent and the same for Ranbaxy registered a negative growth of (-25.2) percent, whereas Sun Pharma had the least impact with its DPCO 2013 portfolio de-growing at -6.8 percent.

Top performers in growth within ‘Top 10 Companies’: 

  • Sun Pharma at 18.1 percent
  • Lupin at 9.3 percent
  • Alkem at 6.7 percent

 Monthly growth of Indian Companies against MNCs:

  • Indian companies at 6.9 percent
  • MNCs at (- 1.7) percent

Top growing MNCs for the month:

  • MSD at 17.3 percent
  • AstraZeneca at 15.3 percent
  • Merck Serono at 5.1 percent

Top 5 growing therapy areas for the month:

  • Anti-diabetic at 13.3 percent
  • Dermatological at 12.5 percent
  • Respiratory at 6.2 percent
  • Cardiological at 5.9 percent
  • Gastrointestinal at 5.1 percent

It is worth noting that Anti-infective market de-grew by 0.9 percent during the month.

Top growing brands:

  • Lantus (Sanofi) at 25 percent
  • Monocef (Aristo) at 23 percent (despite de-growth of the therapy area)
  • Glycomet-GP (USV) at 23 percent
  • Skinlite (Zydus Cadila) at 19 percent
  • Aciloc (Cadila Pharmaceuticals) at 15 percent

New Launches:

Total 107 Brands (generic formulations) were launched in February 2014, which justifies why new launches contributed 3.2 percent of the total growth of 4.5 percent for the month.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Kind Courtesy: AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd.

 

A Snap Shot of Indian Pharmaceutical Market in January 2014

Posted on by
Reply

According to the retail audit dated February 2014 of well reputed AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd, in January 2014 the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) registered a turnover of Rs. 6,227 Crore (around US$1 billion) with a growth of 8.5 percent. The growth break-up is as follows:

-       3.5 percent from existing products or volume (Volume growth was 1.6 percent in January 2013)

-       3.4 percent from new launches

-       1.6 percent from price increases

Number of new products (brands) launched in the month:

- 83

Top performers in growth within ‘Top 10 Companies’: 

-       Emcure at 20.9 percent

-       Sun Pharma at 20.1 percent

-       Lupin at 15.4 percent

 Monthly growth of Indian Companies against MNCs:

-       Indian companies at 11.4 percent

-       MNCs at 1.0 percent

Top growing MNCs for the month:

-       Allergan at 35.7 percent

-       MSD at 17.0 percent

-       Merck Serono at 15.0 percent

Top 5 growing therapy areas for the month:

-       Opthalmologicals/Otologicals at 18.0 percent

-       Anti-diabetic at 17.5 percent

-       Dermatologicals at 16.0 percent

-       Gastrointestinal at 10.0 percent

-       Respiratory at 9.8 percent

Top growing brands (branded generics): 

-       Skinlite at 40 percent

-       Telma at 32 percent

-       Glycomet-GP at 31 percent

-       Phensedyl at 25 percent

-       Dexorange at 14 percent

Conclusion:

It appears that the revival of IPM post Drug Price Control Order 2013 has commenced.

Vaccines Development: Is it Just a Business Based on Fear?

Posted on by
Reply

‘Vaccination – A Business based on fear’, is the title of a book written by Dr. Gerhard Buchwald M.D, a German medical doctor and a vaccination critic. This book talks about:

“The damage and the deaths caused by vaccination are written off as ‘pure coincidence’, as something which would have occurred anyway, even without vaccination. Often damage is trivialized by claiming that vaccine damage occurs only very, very rarely, or the damage is covered up by naming as the cause, the most unlikely syndromes which can only be found in special literature.”

However, his critics and pro-vaccination experts do opine that this book “is a pathetic presentation of vaccination, from a self-proclaimed anti-vaccination lobbyist. It is full of half-truths, blatant lies and misrepresented statistics”.

Vaccination – one of the most important development in medicines: 

Quite in contrary to what Dr. Gerhard Buchwald wrote, vaccination was voted as one of the four most important developments in medicine of the past 150 years, alongside sanitation, antibiotics and anesthesia by readers of the ‘British Medical Journal’ in 2007. No wonder, Vaccines are one of the most successful and cost-effective public health interventions, which help preventing over 3 million deaths every year throughout the world topping the list in terms of lives saved.

Vaccines that are being developed and marketed today, though provide high level of protection against increasing number of diseases with reduction of associated morbidity and mortality, there is still a crying need for greater encouragement, more resource deployment and sharper focus towards newer vaccines development for many more dreaded and difficult diseases.

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

Rejuvenating trend:

However, from the business perspective, the vaccine market, though initially considered to be a low-profit initiative, now has started being under rejuvenated focus keeping pace with improved understanding of the human immune system. The future scope of vaccines is immense, as the management of several potentially preventable diseases remains still unaddressed.

Consequently, the focus of the global vaccine industry is getting expanded from prophylactic vaccination for communicable disease (e.g. DTP vaccine) to therapeutic vaccines (e.g. Anti-cancer vaccines) and then possibly non-communicable disease vaccines (e.g. vaccines for coronary artery disease).

Shifting focus on vaccines types:

As per the ‘National Institute of Health (NIH)’ of USA, following are some types of vaccines that researchers usually work on:

  • Live, attenuated vaccines
  • Inactivated vaccines
  • Subunit vaccines
  • Toxoid vaccines
  • Conjugate vaccines
  • DNA vaccines
  • Recombinant vector vaccines

Among all these segments, sub-unit vaccine is the largest revenue generator, though synthetic vaccines, recombinant vector vaccines, and DNA vaccines are emerging as the fastest-growing segments.

The first vaccine of the world:

In 1796, Edward Anthony Jenner not only discovered the process of vaccination, alongside developed the first vaccine of the world for mankind – smallpox vaccine. To develop this vaccine Jenner acted upon the observation that milkmaids who caught the cowpox virus did not catch smallpox.

As per published data prior to his discovery the mortality rate for smallpox was as high as up to 35%. Thus, Jenner is very often referred to as the “Father of Immunology”, whose pioneering work has “saved more lives than the work of any other person.”

Later on in 1901 Emil Von Behring received the first Nobel Prize (ever) for discovering Diphtheria serum therapy.

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% cost of capital, the capitalized total R&D expenditure amounts to $ 474.88 million CAD.”

Issues and challenges:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A great initiative called GAVI: 

Around 23 million children of the developing countries are still denied of important and life-saving vaccines, which otherwise come rather easily to the children of the developed nations of the world.

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.

In August 2013, GAVI has reportedly launched a campaign in Kenya to fight the world’s leading killer of children under five with a new Pneumococcal Vaccine for prevention from pneumonia, meningitis and sepsis, which kill more than half a million people a year.

GAVI hopes to avert 700,000 deaths by 2015 through the immunization of 90 million children with pneumococcal vaccines.

Global pharma majors Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) are producing the vaccines as a part of a deal part-funded by Britain, Italy, Canada, Russia, Norway and the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation.

Current trend in newer vaccine development:

Malaria Vaccine:

According to the National Institute of Health (NIH) of the United States, the results of an early-stage clinical trial published in August 8, 2013 in the ‘Journal Science’ for an investigational malaria vaccine has been found to be safe to generate an immune system response and to offer protection against malaria infection in healthy adults.

The scientists at Sanaria Inc., of Rockville, Md. Research Center developed this vaccine known as PfSPZ. The researchers reportedly found that injecting patients with live-but-weakened malaria causing parasites appeared to create a protective effect.

Earlier, Reuters on December 20, 2011 reported that the British scientists have developed an experimental malaria vaccine, which has the potential to neutralize all strains of the most deadly species of malaria parasite.

In October 2011, the data published for a large clinical trial conducted in Africa by GlaxoSmithKline on their experimental malaria vaccine revealed that the risk of children getting malaria had halved with this vaccine. Reuters also reported that other teams of researchers around the world are now working on different approaches to develop a malaria vaccine.

Tuberculosis vaccines:

The Lancet reported in March 2013, as BCG vaccination provides incomplete protection against tuberculosis in infants, a new vaccine, modified Vaccinia Ankara virus expressing antigen 85A (MVA85A), has been designed to enhance the protective efficacy of BCG. MVA85A was found well-tolerated and induced modest cell-mediated immune responses. However, the reasons for the absence of MVA85A efficacy against tuberculosis or M tuberculosis infection in infants would need exploration.

Universal Cancer vaccines:

In a breakthrough development, the Israeli company Vaxil BioTherapeutics has reportedly formulated a therapeutic cancer vaccine, now in clinical trials at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem.

If everything falls in place, the vaccine could be available about six years down the road, to administer on a regular basis not only to help treating cancer but also to keep the disease from recurring.

Though the vaccine is being tested against a type of blood cancer called multiple myeloma, if it works as the initial results indicate, its platform technology VaxHit could be applied to 90 percent of all known cancers, including prostate and breast cancer, solid and non-solid tumors.

HIV Vaccine:

A recent effort to find a vaccine for HIV is reportedly beginning in 2013 at laboratories in a London hospital and two centers in Africa. The work will be split equally between London, the Rwandan capital Kigali and Nairobi in Kenya.

It has been reported that scientists are recruiting 64 healthy adult volunteers for the trial, which is expected to take up to two years.

Vaccines requirements of the developing world: 

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

India needs a vibrant vaccine business sector:

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

More often than not, these stakeholders find it difficult to deploy sufficient fund to take their vaccines projects successfully through various stages of clinical development in order to obtain marketing approval from the drug regulator, while registering a decent return on investments. This critical issue needs to be appropriately and urgently addressed by the Government to make the disease prevention initiatives in the country sustainable.

Changing market dynamics: 

Even in a couple of decades back, ‘Vaccines Market’ in India did not use to be considered as a focus area by many pharmaceutical companies. Commoditization of this market with low profit margin and unpredictable interest of the government/the doctors towards immunization were the main reasons. Large global players like Glaxo exited the vaccine market at that time by withdrawing products like, Tetanus Toxoid, Triple Antigen and other vaccines from the market.

Currently, the above scenario is fast changing. The vaccine market, as stated above, is getting rejuvenated not only with the National Immunization Program (NIP) of the country, but also with the emergence of newer domestic vaccines players and introduction of novel vaccines by the global players, which we shall discuss below.

In addition, the ‘Indian Academy of Pediatrics (IAP) Committee on Immunization’ now recommends the ‘best individual practices schedule’ for the children in consultation with their respective parents. Such schedule may not conform to NIP and include newer vaccines, broadening the scope of use of vaccines in general.

Global Market:

According to GBI Research Report, overall global vaccines market was valued at US$ 28 billion in 2010 and is expected to reach US$ 56.7 billion by 2017 with a CAGR of 11.5%. The key growth driver of this segment will be introduction of newer vaccines, which are currently either in the regulatory filing stage or in the late stages of clinical development.

The important international players in the vaccines market are GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Pfizer, Novartis AG, Merck and SP-MSD. Together they represent around 88% of the total vaccine segment globally, the report highlights.

Indian Market:

McKinsey in its report titled, “India Pharma 2020: Propelling access and acceptance, realizing true potential“ stated that at 2% 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.

India is one of largest markets for all types of vaccines in the world. The new generation and combination vaccines, like DPT with Hepatitis B, Hepatitis A and Injectable polio vaccine, are driving the growth. The demand for veterinary vaccines is also showing ascending trend. Pediatric vaccines contribute to around 60% of the total vaccines market in India.

Domestic Indian players like, Serum Institute, Shantha Biotecnics, Bharat Biotech and Panacea Biotech are poised to take greater strides in this direction. Bharat Biotech is incidentally the largest Hepatitis B vaccine producer in the world. Likewise, Serum Institute is reportedly one of the largest suppliers of vaccines to over 130 countries and claim that ’1 out of every 2 children immunized worldwide gets at least one vaccine produced by Serum Institute.’

The first new vaccine developed in India:

Indian scientists from Bharat Biotech Ltd in Hyderabad have reportedly developed a new oral vaccine against the Rotavirus induced diarrhea, where both vomiting and loose motion can severely dehydrate children very quickly. This is the first new vaccine developed in India, establishing itself as the first developing country to achieve this unique distinction.

Two recent vaccine JV and Partnership agreements in India:

British drug major GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has reportedly agreed to form a 50-50 venture with the domestic Indian vaccine manufacturer Biological E Limited in January 2013 to develop a product that would combine GSK’s injectable polio shot with a vaccine produced by Biological E to protect against five diseases including diphtheria and tetanus.

In addition, MSD pharma of the United States and Indian drug major Lupin have announced a partnership agreement to market, promote and distribute, MSD’s 23-valent Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccines under a different brand name in India for prevention of Pneumococcal disease, pneumonia being its most common form affecting adults.

A possible threat: 

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

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

Action areas to drive growth:

McKinsey in its above report ‘India Pharma 2020’ indicated that the action in the following 4 areas by the vaccine players would drive the vaccine market growth in India:

  • Companies need to go for local production of vaccines or leverage supply partnerships. MSD and GlaxoSmithKline’s local partnership in India and for the HiB vaccine with Bio-manguinhos in Brazil may be cited as examples.
  • Companies will need to conduct studies on the economic impact of vaccination and establish vaccine safety and performance standards.
  • Extension of vaccine coverage beyond pediatricians and inclusion of general practitioners, consulting physicians and gynecologists will be essential.
  • Companies will need to enhance supply chain reliability and reduce costs.

Conclusion: 

On January 7, 2012, while requesting the ‘Overseas Indian Medical Professionals’ to partner with the institutions in India, the Health Minister, in his address, announced that the Ministry of Health has already introduced the second dose of measles vaccine and Hepatitis-B vaccination across the country. Moreover, from December 2011 a ‘Pentavalent Vaccine’ has been introduced, initially in 2 States, covering 1.5 million children of India.

All these augur quite well for the country. However, keeping 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, keeping the future generation in mind.

If vaccine related pragmatic policy measures, with equal focus on their effective implementation, are initiated in the country, without delay, the domestic vaccine market, in turn, will receive much awaited further growth momentum. Such initiatives together with newer foreign players and modern imported vaccines coming in, would help the country addressing effectively a prime healthcare concern of the country in a holistic way.

It is about time to aggressively garner adequate resources to develop more modern vaccines in the country, promote and implement vaccine awareness campaigns in the nation’s endeavor for disease prevention before they strike hard and at times fatally.

That said, taking available real world facts into account, doesn’t Dr. Gerhard Buchwald’s and today’s anti-vaccination lobbyists’ postulation, ‘Vaccination – A Business based on fear’, appear to be emanating from a self created world of doom and gloom, defying public health interest for effective disease prevention?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

Pharma FDI: Damning Report of Parliamentary Panel, PM Vetoes…and Avoids Ruffling Feathers?

Posted on by
Reply

An interesting situation emerged last week. The Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Commerce proposed a blanket ban on all FDI in brownfield pharma sector. Just two days after that, the Prime Minister of India vetoed the joint opposition of the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) and the Ministry of Health to clear the way for all pending pharma FDIs under the current policy.

On August 13, 2013, Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce laid on the Table of both the Houses of the Indian Parliament its 154 pages Report on ‘FDI in Pharmaceutical Sector.’

The damning report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee flags several serious concerns over FDI in brownfield pharma sector, which include, among others, the following:

1. Out of 67 FDI investments till September 2011, only one has been in green field, while all the remaining FDI has come in the brown field projects. Moreover, FDI in brown field investments have of late been predominantly used to acquire the domestic pharma companies.

2. Shift of ownership of Indian generic companies to the MNCs also results in significant change of the business model, including the marketing strategy of the acquired entity, which are quite in sync with the same of the acquirer company. In this situation, the acquired entity will not be allowed to use flexibilities such as patent challenges or compulsory license to introduce new affordable generic medicines.

The withdrawal of all patent challenges by Ranbaxy on Pfizer’s blockbuster medicine Lipitor filed in more than eight countries immediately after its acquisition by Daiichi-Sankyo is a case in point.

3. Serial acquisitions of the Indian generic companies by the MNCs will have significant impact on competition, price level and availability. The price difference between Indian ‘generics’ and MNCs’ ‘branded generic’ drugs could  sometimes be as high as 80 to 85 times. A few more larger scale brownfield takeovers may even destroy all the benefits of India’s generics revolution.

4. FDI inflow into Research & Development of the Pharma Industry has been totally unsatisfactory. 

5. FDI flow into brown field projects has not added any significant fresh capacity in manufacturing, distribution network or asset creation. Over last 15 years, MNCs have contributed only 5 per cent of the gross fixed assets creation, that is Rs 3,022 crore against Rs 54,010 crore by the domestic companies. Further, through brownfield acquisitions significant strides have not been made by the MNCs, as yet, for new job creation and technology transfer in the country.

6. Once a foreign company takes over an Indian company, it gets the marketing network of the major Indian companies and, through that network, it changes the product mix and pushes the products, which are more profitable and expensive. There is no legal provision in India to stop any MNC from changing the product mix.

7. Though the drug prices may not have increased significantly after such acquisitions yet, there is still a lurking threat that once India’s highly cost efficient domestic capacity is crushed under the weight of the dominant force of MNCs, the supply of low priced medicines to the people will get circumvented.

8. The ‘decimation’ of the strength of local pharma companies runs contrary to achieving the drug security of the country under any situation, since there would be few or no Indian companies left having necessary wherewithal to manufacture affordable generics once a drug goes off patent or comply with a Compulsory License (CL).

9. Current FIPB approval mechanism for brownfield pharma acquisitions is inadequate and would not be able to measure up to the challenges as mentioned above.

The Committee is also of the opinion that foreign investments per se are not bad. The purpose of liberalizing FDI in pharma was not intended to be just about takeovers or acquisitions of domestic pharma units, but to promote more investments into the pharma industry for greater focus on R&D and high tech manufacturing, ensuring improved availability of affordable essential drugs and greater access to newer medicines, in tandem with creating more competition. 

Based on all these, The Committee felt that FDI in brown field pharma sector has encroached upon the generics base of India and adversely affected Indian pharma industry. Therefore, the considered opinion of the Parliamentary Committee is that the Government must impose a blanket ban on all FDI in brownfield pharma projects.

PM clears pending pharma FDI proposals:

Unmoved by the above report of the Parliamentary Committee, just two days later, on August 16, 2013, the Prime Minister of India, in a meeting of an inter-ministerial group chaired by him, reportedly ruled that the existing FDI policy will apply for approval of all pharmaceutical FDI proposals pending before the Foreign Investments Promotion Board (FIPB). Media reported this decision as, “PM vetoes to clear the way for pharma FDI.”

This veto of the PM includes US $1.6-billion buyout of the injectable facility of Agila Specialties, by US pharma major Mylan, which has already been cleared by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

This decision was deferred earlier, as the DIPP supported by the Ministry of Health had expressed concerns stating, if MNCs are allowed to acquire existing Indian units, especially those engaged in specialized affordable life-saving drugs, it could possibly lead to lower production of those essential drugs, vaccines and injectibles with consequent price increases. They also expressed the need to protect oncology facilities, manufacturing essential cancer drugs, with assured supply at an affordable price, to protect patients’ interest of the country.

Interestingly, according to Reserve Bank of India, over 96 per cent of FDI in the pharma sector in the last fiscal year came into brownfield projects. FDI in the brownfield projects was US$ 2.02 billion against just US$ 87 million in the green field ventures.

Fresh curb mooted in the PM’s meeting:

In the same August 16, 2013 inter-ministerial group meeting chaired by the Prime Minister, it was also reportedly decided that DIPP  will soon float a discussion paper regarding curbs that could be imposed on foreign takeovers or stake purchases in existing Indian drug companies, after consultations with the ministries concerned.

Arguments allaying apprehensions:

The arguments allaying fears underlying some of the key apprehensions, as raised by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, are as follows:

1. FDI in pharma brownfield will reduce competition creating an oligopolistic market:

Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) has over 23,000 players and around 60,000 brands. Even after, all the recent acquisitions, the top ranked pharmaceutical company of India – Abbott enjoys a market share of just 6.6%. The Top 10 groups of companies (each belonging to the same promoter groups and not the individual companies) contribute just over 40% of the IPM (Source: AIOCD/AWACS – Apr. 2013). Thus, IPM is highly fragmented. No company or group of companies enjoys any clear market domination.

In a scenario like this, the apprehension of oligopolistic market being created through brownfield acquisitions by the MNCs, which could compromise with country’s drug security, needs more informed deliberation.

2. Will limit the power of government to grant Compulsory Licensing (CL):

With more than 20,000 registered pharmaceutical producers in India, there is expected to be enough skilled manufacturers available to make needed medicines during any emergency e.g. during H1N1 influenza pandemic, several local companies stepped forward to supply the required medicine for the patients.

Thus, some argue, the idea of creating a legal barrier by fixing a cap on the FDIs to prevent domestic pharma players from selling their respective companies at a price, which they would consider lucrative otherwise, just from the CL point of view may sound unreasonable, if not protectionist in a globalized economy.

3.  Lesser competition will push up drug prices:

Equity holding of a company is believed by some to have no bearing on pricing or access, especially when medicine prices are controlled by the NPPA guidelines and ‘competitive pressure’.

In an environment like this, any threat to ‘public health interest’ due to irresponsible pricing, is unlikely, especially when the medicine prices in India are cheapest in the world, cheaper than even Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (comment: whatever it means).

India still draws lowest FDI within the BRIC countries: 

A study of the United Nations has indicated that large global companies still consider India as their third most favored destination for FDI, after China and the United States.

However, with the attraction of FDI of just US$ 32 billion in 2011, against US$ 124 billion of China, US$ 67 billion of Brazil and US$ 53 billion of Russia during the same period, India still draws the lowest FDI among the BRIC countries.

Commerce Minister concerned on value addition with pharma FDI:

Even after paying heed to all the above arguments, the Commerce Minister of India has been expressing his concerns since quite some time, as follows:

“Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the pharma sector has neither proved to be an additionality in terms of creation of production facilities nor has it strengthened the R&D in the country. These facts make a compelling case for revisiting the FDI policy on brownfield pharma.”

As a consequence of which, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has reportedly been opposing FDI in pharma brownfield projects on the grounds that it is likely to make generic life-saving drugs expensive, given the surge in acquisitions of domestic pharma firms by the MNCs.

Critical Indian pharma assets going to MNCs:

Further, the DIPP and the Ministry of Health reportedly fear that besides large generic companies like Ranbaxy and Piramal, highly specialized state-of-the-art facilities for oncology drugs and injectibles in India are becoming the targets of MNCs and cite some examples as follows:

  • Through the big-ticket Mylan-Agila deal, the country would lose yet another critical cancer drug and vaccine plant.
  • In 2009 Shantha Biotechnics, which was bought over by Sanofi, was the only facility to manufacture the Hepatitis B vaccine in India, which used to supply this vaccine at a fraction of the price as compared to MNCs.
  • Mylan, just before announcing the Agila deal, bought over Hyderabad based SMS Pharma’s manufacturing plants, including some of its advanced oncology units in late 2012.
  • In 2008, German pharma company Fresenius Kabi acquired 73 percent stake in India’s largest anti-cancer drug maker Dabur Pharma.
  • Other major injectable firms acquired by MNCs include taking over of India’s Orchid Chemicals & Pharma by Hospira of the United States.
  • With the US market facing acute shortage of many injectibles, especially cancer therapies in the past few years, companies manufacturing these drugs in India have become lucrative targets for MNCs.

An alternative FDI policy is being mooted:

DIPP reportedly is also working on an alternate policy suggesting:

“It should be made mandatory to invest average profits of last three years in the R&D for the next five years. Further, the foreign entity should continue investing average profit of the last three years in the listed essential drugs for the next five years and report the development to the government.”

Another report indicated, a special group set up by the Department of Economic Affairs suggested the government to consider allowing up to 49 per cent FDI for pharma brownfield investments under the automatic route.However, investments of more than 49 per cent would be referred to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB).

It now appears, a final decision on the subject would be taken by the Prime Minister after a larger inter-mimisterial consultation, as was decided by him on August 14, 2013.

The cut-off date to ascertain price increases after M&A:

Usually, the cut off point to ascertain any price increases post M&A is taken as the date of acquisition. This process could show false positive results, as no MNC will take the risk of increasing drug prices significantly or changing the product-mix, immediately after acquisition.

Significant price increases could well be initiated even a year before conclusion of M&As and progressed in consultation by both the entities, in tandem with the progress of the deal. Thus, it will be virtually impossible to make out any significant price changes or alteration in the product-mix immediately after M&As.

Some positive fallouts of the current policy:

It is argued that M&As, both in ‘Greenfield’ and ‘Brownfield’ areas, and joint ventures contribute not only to the creation of high-value jobs for Indians but also access to high-tech equipment and capital goods. It cannot be refuted that technology transfer by the MNCs not only stimulates growth in manufacturing and R&D spaces of the domestic industry, but also positively impacts patients’ health with increased access to breakthrough medicines and vaccines. However, examples of technology transfer by the MNCs in India are indeed few and far between.

This school of thought cautions, any restriction to FDI in the pharmaceutical industry could make overseas investments even in the R&D sector of India less inviting.

As listed in the United Nation’s World Investment Report, the pharmaceutical industry offers greater prospects for future FDI relative to other industries.  Thus, restrictive policies on pharmaceutical FDI, some believe, could promote disinvestments and encourage foreign investors to look elsewhere.

Finally, they highlight, while the Government of India is contemplating modification of pharma FDI policy, other countries have stepped forward to attract FDI in pharmaceuticals. Between October 2010 and January 2011, more than 27 countries and economies have adopted policy measures to attract foreign investment.

Need to attract FDI in pharma:

At a time when the Global Companies are sitting on a huge cash pile and waiting for the Euro Zone crisis to melt away before investing overseas, any hasty step by India related to FDI in its pharmaceutical sector may not augur well for the nation.

While India is publicly debating policies to restructure FDI in the ‘Brownfield’ pharma sector, other countries have stepped forward to attract FDI in their respective countries.  Between October 2010 and January 2011, as mentioned earlier, more than 27 countries and economies have adopted policy measures to attract foreign investment.

Thus the moot question is, what type of FDI in the pharma brownfield sector would be good for the country in the longer term and how would the government incentivize such FDIs without jeopardizing the drug security of India in its endeavor to squarely deal with any conceivable  eventualities in future?

Conclusion:

In principle, FDI in the pharma sector, like in any other identified sectors, would indeed benefit India immensely. There is no question about it…but with appropriate checks and balances well in place to protect the national interest, unapologetically.

At the same time, the apprehensions expressed by the Government, other stakeholders and now the honorable members of the Parliament, across the political party lines, in their above report, should not just be wished away by anyone.

This issue calls for an urgent need of a time bound, comprehensive, independent and quantitative assessment of all tangible and intangible gains and losses, along with opportunities and threats to the nation arising out of all the past FDIs in the brownfield pharma sector.

After a well informed debate by experts on these findings, a decision needs to be taken by the law and policy makers, whether or not any change is warranted in the structure of the current pharma FDI policy, especially in the brownfield sector. Loose knots, if any, in its implementation process to achieve the desired national outcome, should be tightened appropriately.

I reckon, it is impractical to expect, come what may, the law and policy makers will keep remaining mere spectators, when Indian Pharma Crown Jewels would be tempted with sacks full of dollars for change in ownerships, jeopardizing presumably long term drug security of the country, created painstakingly over  decades, besides leveraging immense and fast growing drug export potential across the world.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) can only assess any  possible adverse impact of Mergers & Acquisitions on competition, not all the apprehensions, as expressed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee and so is FIPB.

That said, in absence of a comprehensive impact analysis on pharma FDIs just yet, would the proposal of PSC to ban foreign investments in pharma brownfield sector and the PM’s subsequent one time veto to clear all pending FDI proposals under the current policy, be construed as irreconcilable internal differences…Or a clever attempt to create a win-win situation without ruffling MNC feathers?

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.

FDC Saga: Defiant Manufacturers, Sloppy Regulators and Humongous Inaction

Posted on by
Reply

“TO SIN BY SILENCE WHEN THEY SHOULD PROTEST MAKES COWARDS OF MEN”       – Abraham Lincoln

The ghost of untested, irrational and even of bizarre kind of Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs, which continue to be launched, promoted, prescribed and sold freely across the length and breadth of India, has started haunting the Ministry of Health of India, yet again, in 2013. 

Though the issue originated decades ago, in 1988 appropriate ‘Rule’ of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India was amended suitably to have a firm regulatory grip over this situation. Despite this much awaited amendment, the situation almost went astray with incessant market entry of a large number untested FDC medicines of dubious medical rationale.

A free for all situation, as it were, in the FDC arena, continued to be facilitated by blatant laxity on the part of, especially, the state drug regulators by allowing unfettered market entry of such drugs, ignoring the CDSCO directive.

On the other hand, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), despite its statutory powers,  continued to suffer from humongous inaction untill the issue resurfaced again in 2007 and then of course, now in 2013.

The WHO Model:

The 2005 ʹProcedure to update and disseminate the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, Criteria for Selection’ includes the following statement regarding Fixed Dose Combination products (FDCs):

ʺMost essential medicines should be formulated as single compounds. Fixed‐dose combination products are selected only when the combination has a proven advantage over single compounds administered separately in therapeutic effect, safety, and adherence or in delaying the development of drug resistance in malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/ AIDS.ʺ

Thus, FDCs:

  • Need to demonstrate clinical efficacy and safety beyond the individual drugs when given alone.
  • Need to ‘demonstrate bioequivalence of the single combined dose unit with the components administered in the same doses separately but concomitantly’.

‘Adherence’ aspect of WHO Model for FDCs is also important. Problems with ‘adherence’ could lead to inadequate and inconsistent dosing, which in turn could lead to development of drug resistance.

With robust and unquestionable medical rationale, FDCs are expected to provide superior efficacy and improved compliance without causing any untoward risk to patients.

A major disadvantage:

However, one of the major disadvantages with the FDCs is lack of flexibility in adjusting dose of individual ingredients, even if it is required for some patients. Internationally, most popular example is the FDCs of antiretroviral drugs for HIV infected patients like, Combivir, Trzivir, Kaletra etc.

Interestingly, in India there are FDCs for almost all disease areas from allergic disorders to Wolf-Parkinson-White syndrome (exaggerated), as it were.

Market attractiveness for FDCs in India: 

The domestic market for FDCs is very large and growing much faster, in sharp contrast to the western world. The following table will vindicate this point:

% Share

Drug

2008

2009

2010

2011

Plain

55

55

55

54
Combinations

45

45

45

46

Domestic Market: USD 13 Billion; MAT Apr 2013

Source:IMS

Thus, because of growing market demand, pharmaceutical companies in India tend to market FDCs of all different permutations and combination, at times even crossing the line of any ‘sound medical rationale’. For this reason, we find in the website of ‘Central Drugs Standard Control Organization’ (CDSCO), the banned list of so many FDCs.

A messy regulatory situation:

Introduction of new FDCs does not only warrant a ‘sound medical rationale’ but also ‘strict conformance to all prescribed regulatory requirements’ for patients’ interest. 

To check unfettered market introduction of potentially harmful FDCs, the Ministry of Health issued a Notification in September 1988, including FDCs in Rule 122 E of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules (D&CR) 1945.

In effect, it removed the powers of the State FDAs to give manufacturing or marketing approval of FDCs. After the notification was issued, all manufacturers/marketers of all new FDCs are required to apply only to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) under Rule 122E of the D&CR 1945 as a new drug, along with the stipulated fees by way of a Treasury Challan.

Since this entire process entails appropriate regulatory data generation, besides  time and expenses involved, the above ‘Rule’ was continuously and deliberately broken and manufacturing and marketing approvals for various types of FDCs falling under ‘new drug’ category were regularly sought and granted by the State Drug Controllers.

Many believe that the State FDAs were equally responsible for knowingly flouting the Law, as were the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Patients’ safety – the foremost concern:

Despite serious concerns expressed by a Parliamentary Standing Committee, this complicity resulted in the market being flooded with ‘irrational combinations’ which posed a real threat to patients’ interest and safety. The State FDAs were reminded of the notification by the earlier DCGI.

294 FDCs were banned by the DCGI in 2007. Thereafter, the important issue of patients’ interest and safety got converted into a legal quagmire, as many FDC manufacturers chose to go to the court of law to protect their business interest and also managed to obtain a ‘Stay’ order from the Madras High Court. The matter is still subjudice.

Be that as it may, those 294 FDCs banned by the Ministry of Health of India on health and safety grounds continue to be promoted, prescribed and sold to patients across India without any hindrance, whatsoever.  

Untangling the messy knot:

As the issue got entangled into prolonged litigations, the CDSCO took initiative of resolving this contentious issue again in 2009 with the help of an expert committee, involving the manufacturers.

This subcommittee cleared 48 FDCs under ‘similar FDCs already approved’, after discussing the merits and demerits, including pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, side effects, dosage, medical rationale etc. of each ingredient and the combinations. The decision of the Sub Committee was then submitted to the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB).

After formal approval of DTAB, these combinations are construed to be new drugs and any company wishing to market/manufacture the formulation would require submitting its Application in Form 44 to the DCGI to get approval in Form 45.

This decision was expected to send a clear signal to all concerned that resorting to any form of shortcuts to bypass strict adherence to prescribed regulatory requirements, could seriously jeopardize patients’ interest and safety. The same process was subsequently followed for the balance 142 FDCs, as well.

Thereafter, a special committee was again appointed by the CDSCO in 2013 to look into this matter in a holistic way. However, such sporadic knee-jerk reactions have failed to deliver any tangible results in this area – not just yet.

The saga continues:

Even after the above critical decision of the DTAB the saga still continues.

In March 2013, by a written reply, the Minister for Health and Family Welfare reportedly informed the Lok Sabha (the lower House of the Parliament) that in twenty three cases of new FDC, licenses have been granted by the State Licensing Authorities (SLAs) without the mandatory approval of the DCGI and action will be taken in all these cases.

However, no one seems to know, as yet, what action the Government has taken against those errant officials.

Current scenario:

Recently, the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) by a notification to State Drug Controllers has reportedly ordered all manufacturers of new FDC products, licensed locally before October 2012 without CDSCO permission, to submit safety and efficacy data prior to 30 August 2013.

This decision of DGHS has created a furore within the concerned FDC manufacturers, yet again, the possible outcome of which is yet to be ascertained.

The State Drug Controllers had issued manufacturing licenses for these FDCs prior to October 2012. At that time concerned manufacturers were given 18 months time period to prove efficacy and safety of these medicines to the DCGI. Regrettably, as per the above report, the DCGI has confirmed that he has received hardly any response from the FDC manufacturers till date on this regulatory requirement.

CDSCO has also stated that manufacturers, who will fail to submit the required data by the deadline run the risk of having their products banned from the market.

Before this, the State Drug Controllers were informed about this requirement on January 15, 2013.

At this point it is worth mentioning, the DCGI in October 2012 had reportedly also barred the State Drug Controllers from granting manufacturing licenses to pharmaceutical companies under brand names of the drugs, directing them to strictly issue licenses under generic name of the molecule. Additionally, he also asked the state licensing authorities not to grant licenses to combination drugs, which are technically ‘new drugs’ and fall within the domain of DCGI only.

Conclusion:

This logjam with FDCs certainly cannot continue in perpetuity, neither should such regulatory sloppiness be acceptable to any right thinking stakeholder.

All blatant violations of Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India must be stopped forthwith and the violators be brought to justice without delay. Patients’ health interest, as required by the drug regulators, is non-negotiable.

The order of DGHS asking all manufacturers of new FDCs, licensed locally before October 2012 without CDSCO permission, to submit safety and efficacy data prior to 30 August 2013, should not follow recently reported Pioglitazone type of volte face, once again, under similar outside pressure.

It is high time now for the Government to bring the unending saga of  irrational and harmful FDCs, orchestrated by defiant manufacturers, encouraged by sloppy regulators and catalyzed by humongous systemic inaction, to its logical conclusion, for patients’ sake. 

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.

 

 

In the Wonderland of Pharma Generics: Some Steps In, Some Steps Over the Line

Posted on by
Reply

To scale-up access to healthcare, especially for the marginalized population of any country, greater access to affordable generic drugs will always remain fundamental, besides improving healthcare infrastructure and its delivery mechanism.

Thus, there should be a robust mechanism across the world to facilitate quick entry of cheaper generic equivalents immediately after patent expiry of the original molecule. Any attempt to step over the line, blocking entry of generics surreptitiously by vested interests must be brought to justice sooner. Such measures assume increasing importance, as without availability of newer generics, unmet medical needs of the most vulnerable section of the society cannot be met effectively by any country.

Newer generics will play a critical role even in the Indian context. Besides many other diseases, India is already known as the diabetic capital of the world with an estimated population of 70 million diabetics by 2020.

Greater access to treatment for such chronic ailments and many other dreaded diseases with increasing trend of prevalence, like cancer, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer and autoimmune disorders, besides common tropical diseases, would also depend on the availability of cheaper and newer generic medicines.

Global innovators stepping into generics business in emerging markets:

Sniffing the growth opportunities in the generics business in an environment of patent cliff, even many hard-nosed innovator companies have been entering into this business either through local acquisitions or through various collaborative arrangements. Examples of some of these companies are as follows:

  • Novartis entered in generic business with its Sandoz arm
  • Pfizer with collaborative arrangements in India with Aurobindo Pharmaceuticals (India) in March 2009 and with Strides Arcolab in January 2010
  • Daiichi Sankyo acquired Ranbaxy of India
  • GlaxoSmithKline acquired 16 percent stake of Aspen Pharmacare of South Africa,  Laboratorios Phoenix
in in Argentina and signed a development and commercialization license with Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL)
  • Sanofi acquired Shantha Biotechnics and Universal Medicare of India, Zentiva in Czech Republic, Laboratorios Kendrick in Mexico, Medley in Brazil and Helvepharm in Switzerland
  • Abbott Laboratories acquired the pharmaceutical formulations business of Piramal Healthcare and collaborated with Zydus Cadila

A pro-generic initiative in the west: 

Ireland’s parliament has recently passed a bill on pro-generic initiatives. Under this new law pharmacists will be permitted to substitute branded medicines, which have been designated by the Irish Medicines Board (IMB) as interchangeable.

Currently in Ireland, if a specific brand of medicine is prescribed for a patient, the pharmacist must supply only that brand.

Some steps over the line blocking entry of generics:

Interestingly, to continue marketing high priced innovative drugs even after patent expiry, attempts are still being made to block entry of cheaper generics through equally innovative means by stepping over the line.

On April 15, 2013 ‘The New York Times’ reported several such cases of the recent past in the United States. The report gives details of the players involved in each of these cases.

Prompted by these unfortunate incidents, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of the US investigated into the matter involving the American drug companies and charged many of them with ‘anticompetitive behavior’. These practices are no longer new and are being followed by some companies over a long period of time.

One of the latest and elegant, yet a very simple strategy reportedly works as follows:

  • Generic drug makers need samples of patented drugs to generate required regulatory data to obtain marketing approval for launch after the molecules go off patent.
  •  Some innovator companies (named in the report) refuse to sell their patented drugs to generic manufacturers for development of generic equivalents.
  • Traditionally, the generic drug makers purchase their requirements from the concerned wholesalers.
  •  However, because of safety concerns, drugs are now mostly sold with restrictions on who can buy them.
  • This compels the generic manufacturers to ask the innovator companies for samples of the patented products.
  • Unfortunately, mostly they get a negative answer.
  •  In defense, innovator companies explain that they are ensuring any possible improper use of their innovative drugs and also say that no law binds any company to do business with another.

It is alleged that the companies, which most aggressively pursue such measures are those with drugs nearing end of their patent life.

The report indicates that the federal regulators in USA do consider this strategy of creative interpretation of drug safety laws, is illegal.

The news item also indicates that most of these drugs are for serious illnesses like various types of cancers, multiple sclerosis and other rare diseases costing US$ 79,000 to US$ 229,000 a year to patients.

More instances:

Another recent report  highlights that European Union’s anti-trust regulator will fine two European pharmaceutical Company and seven other drug makers for blocking generic drugs against “pay-for-delay” deals. Ranbaxy’s name also features in this report.

The report also states that brand name companies, especially in the western world, have been defending “pay-for-delay” deals to extend patents and avoid costly litigation.

It reports that in a typical case, a generic rival may challenge the patent of a brand-name competitor, which then pays the rival a sum of money to drop its challenge. Interestingly, defenders of the practice call it a legitimate means to resolve patent litigation.

A recent debate:

Another interesting development has come up with the pain killer drug OxyContin of Purdue Pharma, which went off patent in April 2013.

Just before patent expiry, Purdue Pharma reportedly reformulated and pulled out its previous version of OxyContin, without abuse-deterrent measures, from the market giving reasons related to safety and efficacy of the drug.

In the notice to the Federal Register, US-FDA reportedly said, “Compared to original OxyContin, reformulated OxyContin has an increased ability to resist crushing, breaking, and dissolution using a variety of tools and solvents.” The regulator, consequently, barred the generic companies from making copies of the older versions of OxyContin without tamper-resistant qualities.

This development, will not allow drug manufacturers like Teva and Impax to make and launch generic equivalents of older versions of OxyContin.

This report also says that similar request has been filed with US-FDA by Endo Health Solutions Inc. for safety of its old painkiller drug Opana, which could force the generic version of the drug manufactured by Impax’s going out of the market in favor of high priced medicine.

On this development the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry in America has reportedly commented, “Blocking generic drugs could mean leaving behind the millions of patients who stand to benefit from access to lower-cost versions of OxyContin”. Some experts have also expressed apprehension that such a precedent would likely to encourage many others to work for similar safety related changes to extend patent life of a product.

Having said that, it appears to be a complex regulatory issue where the possibility of drug abuse has to be carefully weighed against the benefits of low cost generic entry for greater access to patients.

‘Disparaging’ generic drugs:

Reuters , quoting the French Competition Authority, recently reported from Paris that a global pharmaceutical major has “created a doubt over the quality and the safety of generics, without any proven basis.”

As a result, the report says, the French Competition Authority has fined the drug maker 40.6 million euros (US$52.7 million) for “disparaging” generic competition.

The news report further indicates that this decision followed a complaint of Teva Sante filed in 2010 against communication practices of the branded molecule discouraging the use of its generic versions by the doctors.

The innovator company may appeal against this decision.

European Commission found similar practices:

It is interesting to note that in 2009, the European Commission also reportedly found similar practices, including ‘pay-for-delay deals’ which not only adversely impacted competition, but also delayed entry of cheaper generic drugs into the EU markets.

That said, entry of generic drugs is still not speedy in all therapy areas. In this context, a study titled, “Drug patent expirations and the speed of generic entry,” concluded that the generic industry mostly target chronic drug markets with high turnover products and entry of a generic drug is also greatly influenced by the existing branded substitutes in the marketplace.

Importance of the Indian generic drugs:

According to BCC Research, the global generic drug market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 15 percent over five years registering a turnover of US$ 169 billion in 2014.

In this market, India is now the world’s biggest provider of low priced high quality generic medicines to the developing world. The experts opine in various context, the world must ensure that this vibrant hub of generic drugs does not get adversely impacted at any cost for any vested interest.

According to Pharmexcil pharma exports from India stood at an impressive US$ 14.6 billion during 2012-13 compared to US$ 13.2 billion in 2011-12. Indian Ministry of Commerce had unfolded a ‘Strategy Plan’ to take it to US$ 25 Bn by 2013-14, which currently appears to be a very ambitious objective.

Taken together, India and China now reportedly manufacture over 80 percent of the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) of all drugs used in the United States.

As reported by BMJ from 2003 to 2008, in various programs supported by donor organizations like the Global Fund, generic drugs from India contributed over 80 percent of the medicines used to treat AIDS, including 91 percent of pediatric antiretroviral products and 89 percent of the adult nucleoside and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor markets.

In addition, India is considered to be an extremely valuable source of high quality affordable generic drugs for the treatment of cancer, cardiovascular conditions, infections and other non-infectious chronic diseases and conditions.

Allegations against Indian generic drugs:

In a situation is like these, some aberrations within the Indian generic space like, what has happened currently with Ranbaxy are, at times, made universal and blown out of proportion, probably on behalf the interested players to paint the domestic pharmaceutical industry, in general, black. There is no doubt, however, all such cases of fraud on patients, wherever these take place must be brought to justice.

The issue arises when such instances are grossly generalized. For example, an American Enterprise Institute report titled, “Cheap Indian generic drugs: Not such good value after all?” quoting US-FDA, highlights that “Pharmaceutical companies in developing countries are increasingly falsifying data about the quality of their medicines.”

It further alleges, Indian producers in particular strive to reduce costs by substituting cheaper ingredients or skimping on good manufacturing practices, and often patients and well-informed pharmacists alike will overlook the flaws.

The article laments, “Indian companies and regulators simply deny there is any difference in product quality between their products and those made in the West.”

Indian perspective to the allegation:

In response to such allegations a very recent FICCI –Heal 2012 publication titled “Universal Healthcare: Dream or Reality?” articulated as follows:

“Selected reporting of malpractices in healthcare has painted a poor picture of the sector. However, the instances of misconduct/corruption are miniscule compared to public perception.”

Some important campaigns in favor of generics:

However, a publication from ‘Global Pharmacy Canada’ says,

“Generic medications are just as safe and effective as their brand-name equivalents. All the drugs supplied by the pharmacies we deal with are government approved. The manufacturers they buy from follow strict World Health Organization (WHO) standards for Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). One or several of the following agencies have approved these manufacturing facilities:

  • Food and Drug Administration (FDA), USA
  • Medicines Control Agency (MCA), UK
  • Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Australia
  • Medicines Control Council (MCC), South Africa
  • National Institute of Pharmacy (NIP), Hungary
  • Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention (PIC), Germany
  • State Institute for the Control of Drugs, Slovak Republic
  • Food and Drug Administration (FDA), India”

Similarly USFDA comments on generic drugs as follows:

“Generic drugs are important options that allow greater access to health care for all Americans. They are copies of brand-name drugs and are the same as those brand name drugs in dosage form, safety, strength, and route of administration, quality, performance characteristics and intended use.”

“Health care professionals and consumers can be assured that FDA approved generic drug products have met the same rigid standards as the innovator drug. All generic drugs approved by FDA have the same high quality, strength, purity and stability as brand-name drugs. And, the generic manufacturing, packaging, and testing sites must pass the same quality standards as those of brand name drugs.”

The growth drivers:

According to a recent study, following are the key growth drivers of the global generic pharmaceutical industry:

  • Governments’ and payers’ need to contain rapidly increasing healthcare expenditures
  • A growing middle-class in emerging markets
  • Longer life expectancy
  • A large number of patent expiries for innovator drugs, many of them are mega blockbusters

All these have contributed to the growth of global generic industry from less than US$ 50 billion in 2004 to over $80 billion by 2011 improving global patient-access to medicines significantly.

The report also says, if a more general definition of off-patent medicines is used to define generics, estimates have placed the size of the industry at closer to $150 billion. In the United States alone, generic sales have more than tripled since 2000 and now exceed $51 billion in 2011.

Encourage speedy entry of generics:

Even the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in a report titled “Generic Drug Entry Prior to Patent Expiration: An FTC Study,” stated as follows:

“Expenditures on pharmaceutical products continue to grow and often outpace expenditures for other consumer products. Pharmaceutical expenditures concern not only consumers, but government payers, private health plans, and employers as well. Generic drugs offer opportunities for significant cost savings over brand-name drug products.”

In its report FTC recommended that generic drugs should not experience delays when entering the market. The Commission also highlighted that both pharmaceutical innovation and cheaper generic drugs bring enormous benefits to patients.

Conclusion:

It is widely recognized that generic medicines play a key role to improve access to medicines to a very large section of population of the world.

Currently, important policy measures taken by the countries like, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Holland, Denmark and Germany for increasing use of generic drug have started helping them to achieve this objective. At the same time, such policies are helping them to garner significant savings in their respective healthcare cost.

Out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare being around 80 percent in India, un-interrupted availability of high quality affordable generic medicines will help the patients significantly. This should, no doubt, need to be ably supported by the Government by rolling-out much awaited ‘The Universal Healthcare’ proposal of the High Level Expert Group (HLEG) appointed by the Planning Commission of India, sooner.

To improve demand of generic drugs, the prescribers too need to be influenced by the regulators, as has happened in many countries of the world.

Finally, the requirement to maintain high quality standards for generic medicines should be non-negotiable and continuously be kept under careful vigil of the drug regulators.

The complex dynamics of the global generic drugs market are indeed intriguing. It is indeed a ‘Wonderland’, as it were.

Be that as it may, in this wonderland of pharma generics, as some continue to step in and some others continue to step over the line, it is also important to understand how this industry caters to the healthcare needs of billions of poor and needy.

Respective Governments across the world should facilitate speedy entry of more number of newer generic drugs in the market. Simultaneously, the drug regulators will require bringing to justice to all those forces, which will attempt blocking or delaying entry of generics, causing great harm to a vast majority of patients across the world.

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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