Tag Archives: me-too

Time For Predictive Rather Than Reactive Pharma Strategy

Posted on by
Reply

Traditionally, pharmaceutical industry, across the world, is mostly reactive – rather than proactive or predictive in its strategic approach – spanning across all its business domains. A large number of pharma players – both innovators and generic drug makers, formulate their business strategy – generally reacting to competition, changing market dynamics and patient/ doctor /other stakeholder preferences. The same is being witnessed even during Covid-19 pandemic. However, this trend seems to be more prevalent in India – as one looks around.

For example, in R&D – be it a statin drug, proton pump inhibitors and right up to monoclonal antibodies or cancer immunotherapies – after a first-in-class molecule comes, a plethora of ‘me-too’ – but patented molecules soon follow. A comparable trend in the generic drug categories is also all-pervasive, including fixed-dose combinations (FDCs).

Similarly, even in the good old days of sales and marketing, we have seen – after the first product detailing folder was successfully introduced by a leading pharma company in India, how competition lapped the concept up – considering this change as a magic wand for brand demand generation!

In recent days, a similar trend is surfacing for ‘Digitalization’ of pharma business, mostly reacting to the changing practices of key competitors, or involving patients or doctors’ preferences. It gets reflected in other business domains, as well. With this perspective, in this article, I shall deliberate on this area, especially in view of the current situation.

Traditional ‘safe sailing’ is no longer an option:

The Coronavirus pandemic could be a stronger catalytic factor for the drug industry to initiate the much-desired transition from being reactive to predictive in its strategic business approach- faster. Interestingly, way back in June 2007, the PwC Whitepaper titled “Pharma 2020: The vision”, had also articulated: ‘The social, demographic and economic context in which the pharmaceutical industry (Pharma) operates is changing dramatically.’

Some drug players have already opted to transform their organizations in sync with the changes in the operating environment. But, a vast majority of them preferred to stick to the traditional reactive mindset, for a safe sail, as it were. However, this doesn’t seem to be an option, any longer. Be that as it may, there is nothing wrong in being reactive in strategic business practices, although formulating a predictive or proactive growth strategy demands more cerebral prowess and is much different from the reactive ones.

The difference, I reckon, is similar to that of a leader and the followers, with nearly similar impact on overall corporate image and performance, besides a prime-mover advantage of the latter. Nevertheless, there could be a predictive approach even within a reactive approach to competition. To illustrate the point, let me cite an example related to ‘me-too’ – patented-drug development.

Making an overall reactive strategic approach proactive in nature: 

Among several examples of making a reactive strategic approach – proactive in nature with innovative goals, let me quote a very recent one. For decades, drug companies have been selling ‘me too’ but patented drugs, at prices similar to the original and ‘first-in-class’ drugs, which are successful and enjoying a market monopoly.

Moving away from this trend, a startup drug maker, reportedly, wants to disrupt the traditional pharma industry practices by delivering what most patients and healthcare stakeholders want. It has set a novel goal of becoming patient-centric in its offering by making innovative drugs available at affordable prices. The startup wants to achieve this objective ‘by changing long-held industry practices for developing, pricing, and selling slightly different versions of costly brand-name drugs.’

Accordingly, with a proactive or predictive approach within an overall ‘reactive’ trend, it wants to create a unique niche for itself. The entity ‘will focus on developing “me too” drugs, which imitate the biological functions of existing drugs, but use distinct molecular structures so they don’t infringe on existing drug patents.’

Evolving a new demand of value-based health care system:

During disruptive changes and uncertainties in the business environment, such as what is being experienced today, gaining actionable insight on how these changes will call for new strategies to excel, would require a predictive mindset. This is of critical importance, particularly when a new demand for a value-based health care system is fast unfolding. This subject was well deliberated also in the book – ‘Healthcare Disrupted: Next Generation Business Models and Strategies.’

About six years back what the authors of this book predicted, seems to be a reality today. They had said: The concept of “value” rules the day, undoubtedly. The transition from the old ‘fee-for-service’ to ‘fee for value’, is game changing. On the same subject, another article - Focus on Value 1: The “Tsunami of Change”, published in the ‘eye for pharma’ on March 22, 2026, quoted the authors of this book – explaining the scenario lucidly.

They said, today’s health care system is largely reactionary, as the health services react to the persistence of consumers, their phone calls, queuing for services, waiting in the waiting room and calls to healthcare insurers. Whereas, ‘tomorrow’s system would prompt the health care providers to answer a seemingly simple question: how will they become relevant to a customer group?

Even six years down the line, especially in the current global pandemic situation with an evolving demand of a value-based health care system, this concept remains so relevant, possibly more than ever before. That said, an unforeseen and unprecedented situation could also force a pharma player – already moving on a predictive strategic path, to choose a reactive path – mostly for survival and progress of business.

When a company moves into a ‘reactive’ path from a ‘predictive’ one:

Such instances are infrequent. But a major event like Covid -19 may give rise to such a situation. For example, in the Pharma and Biopharma R&D space, it happened and is still happening. As ‘Evaluate Vantage Covid-19 Report’ of April 16, 2020 highlighted, as follows:

‘Anyone thinking that 2020 might travel down a predictable path for the biopharma sector was swiftly disabused of this view in the opening weeks of the year. The Coronavirus pandemic has changed the focus for almost every drug developer, whether they are working on potential treatments or trying to keep their businesses on track – or both.’ Good or bad, this is the reality today.

However, many of these organizations are unlikely to jettison their well-thought out ‘predictive’ pathway and are expected to soon find ways to move back to it. Thus, the question that one may pose, how does a company move into a predictive pathway from a reactive one? And particularly considering, if Covid-19 pandemic has caused some irreversible changes, or even – a long-term change in the business environment.

Getting back to predictive strategic path from a reactive one:

This issue was also covered in the article – ‘Three Proactive Response Strategies to COVID-19 Business Challenges,’ published in the MIT Sloan Management Review, on April 17, 2020. It wrote, as organizations move from a reactive to a proactive approach to dealing with COVID-19, they should ask themselves the following three questions:

  • Can we offer a version of our products and/or services through an online channel? Going online is the closest equivalent to low-hanging fruit in the current environment.
  • Can we use our existing infrastructure to produce products and/or offer services that are in demand?  Many organizations have allocated infrastructure to produce goods and services to support the fight against COVID-19, but some strategic companies would think beyond the crisis to future changes in consumer needs.
  • How can we rapidly increase our capacity to produce and distribute on-demand products and/or services?  Turning to partnerships with other companies can boost capacity in a crunch situation, such as today.

The need for collaboration, in such extraordinary situation, has also been underscored by the European Pharmaceutical Review. It pointed out - how academia, government and the pharmaceutical industry can work together to potentially ‘repurpose drugs’ for the treatment of COVID-19. This is another example of formulating a predictive growth strategy to create a win-win situation, while being in the midst of a reactive one.

Conclusion:

Meanwhile, despite national Lockdowns at a very early stage on March 24, 2020, India has now climbed up to occupy the fourth highest position in terms of the number of Coronavirus infected cases. Continuing the steep ascending trend, as on June 14, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country reached 321,616 with 9,199 deaths.

During the current global pandemic of a humongous scale, drug companies are trying to respond to rapid challenges across their business operations, right from planned R&D programs to effectively maintaining supply chain, including manufacturing activities. If the current COVID-19 pandemic lasts for medium/long term, there could also be significant delays in the execution of various other ongoing projects/programs. This was the analysis of Deloitte in a paper, titled, ‘COVID-19 response for Pharma companies – Respond. Recover. Thrive’

While the full impact of the Coronavirus pandemic is still unknown, adopting a predictive strategy in the prevailing overall reactive environment, is expected to yield a significantly better business performance. As I said earlier, the core difference between adopting a ‘predictive’ and a ‘reactive’ business pathway, under the circumstances, is akin to the difference between a leader and a follower.

Unlocking the value innovation in all areas of pharma business is the name of the game, for excellence. Leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) based contemporary ‘predictive’ tools will help pharma players break the new ground, even in such trying times. Coming from this perspective, a ‘predictive’ strategy rather than a ‘reactive’ one, apparently, is the demand of time – where we all are in – today.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Do Consumers Perceive Pharma Industry Innovative?

Posted on by
Reply

One of the world’s richest and most powerful American pharma associations, having an equally strong indirect global presence, apparently, expects all concerned to give an emphatic affirmative answer to the above question.

Vindication of this thought gets reflected in the self-description of the association claiming, it “represents the country’s leading innovative biopharmaceutical research companies. Our members are devoted to discovering and developing medicines that enable patients to live longer, healthier and more productive lives. New medicines are an integral part of the health care system, providing doctors and patients with safe and effective treatment options, and improving quality of life.”

Nearer home, the reverberations of the same could be felt when Novartis lost the Glivec patent case in the Supreme Court of India. At that time, the Wall Street Journal quoted Eric Althoff – a spokesman of Novartis saying, “If innovation is rewarded, there is a clear business case to move forward. If it isn’t rewarded and protected, there isn’t.”

In sync with this self-belief, all pharma trade associations, located across the world, intensely lobbying for the ‘research-based’ global drug companies, together with their individual members, also expect the stakeholders to believe, as if, innovation is the middle name of the pharma industry. This process continues unabated, though, is expensive, and costing millions of dollars every year.

This core intent of doing so, may well be a statement of fact to some, and a contentious one to many, for various reasons. Be that as it may, as the proof of the pudding lies in eating, it is worth ferreting out how successful these efforts have been with the consumers of pharma products. Do they generally buy this concept, and if not, why?

In this article, I shall try to explore the overall scenario in this area.

A recent study:

A recent study results released on June 12, 2017, based on a survey on this issue, and that too conducted in the homeland of pharma innovation – America, brings to the fore a startling fact. In the absence of any other, better and more credible recent study, I shall draw upon some relevant facts from this report.

Klick Health Health – reportedly one of the world’s largest independent health marketing and commercialization agency headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, conducted this survey. As the agency reports, this is an online omnibus survey, conducted between May 19 and May 21, 2017 among 1,012 randomly selected American adults. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percent. To ensure that the findings are representative of the entire adult population of America, the results have been statistically weighted according to education, age, gender, region, and ethnicity. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding, the report says.

Consumer perception on pharma innovation:

Some of the major findings on consumers’ perception regarding the innovativeness of the pharma industry, are as follows:

  • Consumers do not believe that healthcare-related industries are particularly innovative today.
  • Only 17 percent of consumers polled perceive pharmaceuticals & biotech, health & wellness, and hospital sectors as the most innovative, ranking in the 4th place after consumer electronics (72 percent), telecommunications (87 percent), and media & entertainment (90 percent).
  • Among health-related industries, respondents ranked health & wellness first in terms of the industry that should be the most innovative (17 percent), quickly followed by pharmaceuticals & biotech (14 percent), and hospitals (9 percent) trailing behind the top 5.

Some other interesting findings:

On innovation and technology, general consumer perceptions are as follows:

  • 91 percent of consumers believe that innovation will positively impact health care over the next five years.
  • 90 percent of respondents say that technology will have a positive impact on their health in the future.
  • 70 percent believe that technology will have the biggest impact in helping them personally manage their own health.nology
  • Top five technologies predicted to have the biggest impact on people’s health in next five years:

-       Health and fitness wearables (21 percent)

-       Robotics (15 percent)

-       3D printing (10 percent)

-       Smart home devices (9 percent)

-       Artificial intelligence (9 percent)

  • The survey reflects a shift in the consumer mindset from being passive recipients of healthcare to more active and autonomous individuals who appear eager to try more creative and innovative approaches to managing their health.

Another study reflects a similar perception:

Similar negative perception gets reflected in the January 17, 2017 Harris Poll, which reported only nine percent of American consumers believe that pharma and biotechnology drug makers put patients over profits.

January 17, 2017 Harris Poll, while comparing consumers’ perception among different entities in the health care space, found that only insurers have an overall worse reputation than the pharmaceutical industry.

An important area worth exploring:

When consumers do not perceive the pharma industry as innovative as the sector wishes to be, what could possibly be its reasons? While that could be a part of another discussion, it is worth exploring another important area in this article – Do the majority of global pharma CEOs have desired background to lead innovation?

Do the majority of global pharma CEOs have desired background to lead innovation?

This is yet another interesting question. A research article titled “Many CEOs Aren’t Breakthrough Innovators (and That’s OK)”, published in the Harvard Business Review on September 04, 2015 discussed this issue, well-supported by some interesting research data, while coming to a logical conclusion.

The authors indicated that they looked at the background and performance data of 297 CEOs leading the largest companies in three different industries which are widely regarded as innovative: pharmaceuticals, high-tech, and fashion retail. The data captured a 20-year period, from 1995 to 2014 (and includes both current and former CEOs).

The study highlighted, though innovation is widely regarded as important to long-term business performance, CEOs of big pharmaceutical companies, are more likely to have a background as company lawyers, salespeople, or finance managers than in medicine or pharma R&D.

A direct comparison of the same, with the other two industries in the study, which are also widely regarded as innovative, vindicates the above point, as illustrated in the following table:

CEO Background

Pharma   (%)    (85 CEOs)

High-tech (%)     (137 CEOs)

Fashion Retail (%)      (75 CEOs)
Specialist background to lead innovation

26

61

60
Industry experience in other management function, e.g. Sales, Production

48

33

29
Background in support functions, e.g. Finance, Legal

26

6

11

In this study, the researchers found that, for pharmaceutical industry CEOs, there is a statistically significant relationship between a CEO’s specialist background and the firm’s performance. A specialist background to lead innovation is worth a 4 percent better shareholder return every year for 20 years, compared to other pharma CEOs in their sample.

Innovations are mostly ‘me-too’, so is the consumer perception:

As the above article reiterates, shorter patent lives of prescription drugs mean companies must continually look for not just any new drugs to fill their pipelines, but more often with breakthrough ones, which are significantly better than what’s already on the market.

Further, the article titled “How to Revive Breakthrough Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry”, which is linked to publications on ResearchGate, also indicates, over more than two decades, therapeutics discoveries of pharmaceutical companies more often than not yielded compounds that are only marginally better than existing therapies, rather than breakthrough molecules.

This could well be another contributing factor in the general ‘not so positive’ consumer perception about the global pharma industry, today.

Conclusion:

There may not be a hell of a lot of argument on the fact that the drug industry has a consumer perception problem today. Even the August 2016 Gallup Poll rated pharma as one of the worst industries in the current times.

Is the collective internal effort of continuously trying to associate innovation with the global pharma industry, the right answer for the same? May be, may well be not, though, the global drug industry is incessantly trying to project, as if ‘innovation’ is its middle name, as it were.

Is it working? The obvious answer is available from various recent research studies, as enumerated above. Still, in January 2017, reportedly to rescue the image of its member companies, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, unveiled a campaign,  again basically focusing on innovation, called “Go Boldly.” It reportedly tries to communicate that the pharma industry develops life-saving medicines, and that they help keep medical costs down, because new medicines often reduce hospital stays and chronic illnesses. Is the campaign cost intensive? – Of course, yes. Is it productive? – possibly not. But who cares?

Be that as it may, today’s health care consumers perceive the global pharma industry neither as innovative nor caring, despite all its efforts. Thus, there is an important need for the pharma players to effectively bridge this perception gap in different and more innovative ways.

However, all that one can witness today, is the global pharma industry charting the same beaten path, yet again – with no further innovation in its communication – neither in content nor in its delivery platforms. That said, only time will be able to tell, whether similar efforts, renewed again and again, can reverse the consumer perception on pharma – making it seen as highly innovative and a caring industry for all.

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.

 

Playing Hardball, Riding the Horse of ‘Innovation’

Posted on by
Reply

Media reports are now abuzz with various stories related to intense pressure being created by Big Pharma on the United States Government to declare India as a ‘Priority Foreign Country’ for initiating ‘Trade Sanctions’.

As we know, ‘Priority Foreign Country’ is the worst classification given by the United States to “foreign countries” that deny “adequate and effective” protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) or “fair and equitable market access” to the US.

One of the key factors that infuriated Big Pharma is the ‘patentability’ criterion of the Indian Patents Act 2005 captured in its section 3(d).  This denies grant of patent to those inventions, which are mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” and do not result in increased efficacy, offering no significant treatment advantages over already existing drugs.

A brief perspective:

The sole requirement for any company to enjoy market monopoly with a medicine, for a specific period, with its associated commercial advantages, is obtaining a valid patent for that new drug substance from a competent authority of the concerned country. Marketing approval process and other requirements for the same of the drug regulators do not come in the way of the market monopoly status granted to patented products.

This is mainly because the drug regulators do not require to be convinced that a new drug is an improvement or more effective than the existing ones. As a consequence of which, there has been no compulsion for the Big Pharma to bring to the market only those New Molecular Entities (NMEs) that would significantly improve efficacy of a disease treatment benefitting the patients.

Choosing the easier path:

Developing any NME that is a breakthrough in the treatment of a disease is not just difficult and time consuming, it is very risky too. For this reason, once a new innovative drug gets well established in the market, many companies decide to produce their own versions of the same and obtain patent rights for the new ‘tweaked’ molecules, as is generally believed by many.

This approach of bringing ‘me-too’ types of so called ‘innovative’ drugs into the market is considered much less risky, takes lot lesser time in the R&D process, not as expensive and most importantly, enjoys all the commercial benefits that a break through NME would otherwise derive out of its invention, especially the market monopoly with free pricing.

In his well-known book titled ‘Bad Pharma’, Ben Goldacre stated that, as very often these ‘me-too’ drugs do not offer any significant therapeutic benefits, many people regard them as wasteful, an unnecessary use of product development money, potentially exposing trial participants to unnecessary harm for individual companies commercial gain, rather than any medical advancement.

‘Innovation’ of ‘me-too’ molecules:

Examples of some of the ‘me-too’ molecules are as follows:

  • Cemetidine – Ranitidine – Famotidine – Nizatidine – Roxatidine (to treat Acid-peptic disease)
  • Simvastatin – Pravastatin – Lovastatin – Pitavastatin – Atorvastatin – Fluvastatin – Rosuvastatin (to treat blood lipid disorder)
  • Captopril – Enalepril – Lisinopril – Fosinopril – Benzapril – Perindopril – Ramipiril – Quinalapril – Zofenopril (Anti-hypertensives)

Goldacre further highlighted in his book that despite this fact, pharma market does not behave accordingly. Unlike usual expectations that multiple competing drugs in the same disease area would bring the prices down, a Swedish data showed that the drugs considered by the US-FDA as showing no advantages over the existing ones, enter the market at the same or even at higher prices than the original ones. Consequently, the outcome of such innovations adversely impacts the patients and the payor including the government, as Big Pharma takes full advantage of market monopoly and free pricing for such drugs in the garb of innovation.

‘Innovation’ of ‘me-gain’ molecules:

Unlike the above ‘me-too’ drugs, which are new molecules, though work in a similar way to the original ones, another kind of patented drugs have now come-up in a dime a dozen.

Goldacre defined those drugs as ‘me-again’ drugs. These are the same molecule re-launched in the same market at the same price with a different patented ‘enantiomer’. Each of a pair of such molecules is a mirror image of each other e.g. esomeprazole (Nexium) is the left-handed version of the omeprazole molecule (Prilosec), which is a mixture of both left and right handed forms.

There is no dramatic difference between omeprazole and esomeprazole in any respect. Moreover, it is worth noting that concerned constituents of Big Pharma come out with ‘me-again’ drugs only at the end of the patent lives of the original ones. What then could be the reason?

Some examples of ‘me-again’ drugs are as follows:

Enantiomer/Brand Medical Condition Original Drug/Brand
Levocetirizine (Vozet) Allergies Cetirizine (Zyrtec)
Escitalopram (Lexapro) Depression Citalopram (Celexa)
Esomeprazole (Nexium) Acid reflux Omeprazole (Prilosec)
Desloratadine (Clarinex) Allergies Loratadine (Claritan)
Pregabalin (Lyrica) Seizures Gabapentin (Neurotonin)

Why do the doctors prescribe such drugs?

That is indeed a good question, why do the doctors prescribe such costly, avoidable and so called ‘innovative’ drugs? Well, don’t we know that already?

Section (3d) plugs the loophole:

To discourage market entry of high priced and avoidable ‘me-too’ and ‘me-again’ types of drugs that are also an outcome of so called pharma ‘innovations’, the Indian law makers very wisely introduced the section (3d), while amending the Indian Patents Act in 2005. This section, as indicated above, categorically states that inventions that are mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” and do not result in increased efficacy of that substance are not patentable. This law has also passed the scrutiny of the Supreme Court of India in the Glivec case of Novartis.

With this Act, India has unambiguously reiterated that it does not support the grant of patents for inventions that are minor modifications of the original ones, effectively blocking the usual path of patents grant as followed by Big Pharma across the world to enjoy monopolistic commercial advantages of ‘frivolous’ innovations, as called by many experts in this area.

Consequent ire of Big Pharma:

This above action of Indian law makers has raised the ire of Big Pharma, as it has a huge commercial interest to protect ‘me-too’ and ‘me-again’ types of innovations in India, even if that comes at the cost of patients’ health interest.

Section (3d) of the Indian Patents Act, therefore, became a major hindrance in meeting the commercial goals of its constituents in India, as such molecules constitute a large majority of the total number of NMEs innovated globally.

As intense power-packed advocacy campaigns of the global pharma companies with the Government of India did not yield any meaningful result to get the section 3(d) amended, it unleashed the might of its well funded lobby groups having free access to the corridors of political power to play hardball with India, riding the horse of innovation and pooh-poohing patients’ interests.

Playing hardball:

The question therefore arises, would India tactfully reciprocate playing hardball or give in to the pressure of trade sanctions under ‘Priority Foreign Country’ categorization of the United States?

I reckon India would not give in. To state more emphatically, India just cannot give in now, under any circumstances.

Come May 16, 2014, the new Union Government of India would almost be ready take its position on the saddle. Thereafter, even if it prefers to give in to intense US political pressure just to avoid trade sanctions, in all practicality that would virtually be a non-starter. This is because, the new Government would unlikely to be in a position to garner enough votes in the Parliament to amend the section (3d), ignoring the general sentiment on this important public health related issue and political compulsions of many of its constituents on the subject.

Would America go to WTO?

Would the United States of America ultimately complain against India in the multilateral forum of the World Trade Organization (WTO) for alleged violation of the TRIPS Agreement? That is exactly the question that many people are asking today.

In this context it is worth noting, India has reiterated time and again that Indian Patents Act 2005 is in full compliance of the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration of 2001.

Since, no country has complained to WTO against India on this issue, as yet, despite so much of posturing and the noise generated the world over, it appears improbable that the US would now do so, though Big Pharma would continue playing hardball raising the same old bogey of protection of ‘innovation’ in a much higher pitch, cleverly camouflaging its hardcore vested commercial interests.

What happens, if WTO decides in favor of India?

In the multilateral forum, if the WTO decides in favor of India, there is much to loose for Big Pharma.

In that scenario, the Indian example would encourage a large number of countries to enact similar model of Patents Act fully complying with the TRIPS agreement, as vetted by the WTO.

Some has termed it as a refreshingly fresh “Alternative Model of Patent Law’, going away from the dominant IP model as is being propagated by the US.

As I had indicated in the past, countries like the Philippines, Brazil and South Africa have either emulated or strongly favoring this alternative model that favors protection of Intellectual Property (IP) and at the same time promotes access to new inventions to a large majority of the global population.

Conclusion:

I reckon, Big Pharma’s playing hardball with India, riding the horse of ‘innovation’, could ultimately boomerang.

The Government of India, irrespective of any political color, lineage or creed, is unlikely to be bullied by Big Pharma constituents any time soon.

More importantly, even in a worse case scenario, the Government would be incapable of getting the section (3d) amended by the Indian Parliament garnering majority of the lawmakers’ support and going against strong political and public voices on this issue.

Nevertheless, Big pharma would continue to wish it to happen… and that drags me to the good old saying:

“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”

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.