A Patient-Centric State Initiative To Revolutionize Disease Treatment

Posted on February 9, 2015 by Tapan Ray

In his State of the Union address, just before the recent visit to India in January 2015, President Barack Obama articulated the need to develop “Precision Medicine” in his country – a bold, giant and perhaps unprecedented State initiative to remarkably improve effectiveness of disease treatment.

To set the ball rolling, in his budget proposal for the year 2016, President Obama earmarked an amount of US$ 215 million for this purpose. This includes an allocation of US$130 million for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to create a national research database of about a million American volunteers by studying their genetics together with other relevant factors, such as the environments they live in and the microbes that live in their bodies.

‘Precision Medicine’ initiative is similar to path breaking 13-year and US$3 billion Human Genome Project, that has formed the bedrock of modern genomics, President Obama said. He also expressed hope that the private healthcare sector too, including universities and foundations, will get involved to “lay the foundation” for this new initiative of the Government for the interest of patients.

Why is this approach so relevant in today’s healthcare?

In an article published in the ‘British Medical Journal (BMJ) in October 2012, Richard Smith - an editor of BMJ until 2004 and a Director of the United Health Group’s chronic disease initiative wrote:

“Doctors know that many of the patients they treat with drugs will not benefit. Many patients know that too.”

Dr. Smith also emphasized, for centuries medicine classified diseases by what could be seen, felt, and smelt. Thereafter, medical scientists in this area started defining diseases anatomically, physiologically, and biochemically. Even today, this is by and large the paradigm where most medicines fall.

Smith underscored, because of imprecise diagnosis the treatment also becomes haphazard. There is big variation in how individuals respond to drugs and yet that variation is not usually recorded. The regulators approve drugs based on their average performance even today.

The White House release also reiterates, most medical treatments have been designed for the “average patient.” This “one-size-fits-all-approach,” treatments can be very successful for some patients but not for others.

This calls for broadening the scope of disease treatment – from the conventional and error-prone ‘Disease Oriented’ approach, to relatively more unconventional and better targeted with greater value – ‘Patient-Centric’ ones, wherever needed.

Two current trends:

To address this key deficiency in the effective treatment of several dreaded diseases for many patients, following two are the current trends, as stated by William Pao, M.D., Ph.D., who led Roche’s Oncology Discovery & Translational Area research unit since May 2014:

We now know that on a molecular level every cancer is different – not only between different tumors, but even between different areas within a single tumor! This means that we need to match the right drug to the patient who we know will respond best to the drug, at the right time during the course of treatment.

Patients will have their tumors profiled not only for genetic drivers, but also for predictive immunotherapy markers at different time points in their course of treatment.

Personalized and Precision Medicine:

The above trends in the endeavor of making treatments more patient specific – thus more effective, have thrown open scientific discourse and intense research on ‘Personalized’ and ‘Precision’ medicines.

As Pfizer has described in its website:

Personalized Medicine is a unique approach to medical practice in which the individual aspects of a patient are directly considered to guide treatment planning, including his or her genetic make-up, key biomarkers, prior treatment history, environmental factors and behavioral preferences. This approach can be used to optimize pharmaceutical treatments and overall care.

Whereas, Precision Medicine is an approach to discovering and developing medicines and vaccines that deliver superior outcomes for patients, by integrating clinical and molecular information to understand the biological basis of disease. Precision medicine is the biopharmaceutical research and development paradigm that will help enable more patient-centered clinical practice, including treatment decision-making based on genetic information – an emerging standard now often described as “personalized medicine”.

As President Obama said while announcing the proposal on January 30, 2015, ‘Precision Medicine’ promises delivery of the right treatment at the right time, every time, to the right person.

He also said that the new effort will “bring us closer to curing diseases like cancer and diabetes…and give all of us access to the personalized information we need to keep ourselves and our families healthier.”

‘Precision Medicines’ Dominate Oncology segment:

In the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2014 Congress, pharma majors reported their latest advances on precision medicines in the cancer care. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and Merck & Co. were among the companies presented updates of their most promising cancer drugs closer to this area.

According to a large pharma lobby group in the United States – The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA):

“Recent advances in diseases such as cancer and cystic fibrosis are delivering on the promise of targeted treatments, and between 12 and 50 percent of all compounds currently being researched by the industry are potential personalized medicines. These advances hold great promise in improving patient outcomes and controlling costs by targeting the right medicines to the right patients.”

‘DCAT Connect’ Report of September 2014 also indicates significant increase in ‘Precision Medicines’ in the pipelines of the leading global pharma companies, which is a key change over the past decade.

In 2013, targeted therapies increased their share of the global oncology market, accounting for 46 percent of total sales, up from 11 percent a decade ago. According to IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, the global oncology drug market reached US$ 91 billion in 2013 with CAGR of 5.4 percent from 2008 to 2013.

Taking note of this trend, it appears that in the near future ‘Precision Medicines’ would possibly be the most promising class in the treatment of cancer, particularly in breast cancer, lung cancer and certain types of leukemia. This is mainly because medical scientists are already quite acquainted with the molecular signatures of different types of cancer related tumors.

Medical scientists and researchers are also working on ‘Precision Medicines’ to more effectively address many other diseases, such as, diabetes, cardiovascular and ailments related to several types of infections.

Increasing potential:

Realization of the potential of ‘Precision Medicines’ to improve care and speed the development of new treatments has just only begun to be tapped.

In recent times, scientists and researchers have accelerated efforts to understand more about biomarkers for this purpose. A study conducted by the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (vfa) indicates that more than 20 percent of clinical trials carried out since 2005 focused not just on agents, but also on biomarkers. Before 1990, only one in twenty clinical trials addressed biomarkers.

According to another report, last year, 20 percent of all new drug approvals in the United States were for “Precision Medicine” treatments. This vindicates, yet again, the immense potential to turn genetic discoveries into innovative disease treatments for patients.

A bold state sponsored research initiative:

State funded, ‘Precision Medicine’ initiative is a bold new step of the American Government to revolutionize improvement in healthcare and treating disease. It is expected to pioneer a new model of patient-powered research that promises to accelerate biomedical discoveries and provide clinicians with new tools, knowledge, and therapies to select which treatments will work best for which patients.

As the White House release reiterates, most medical treatments have been designed for the “average patient.” As a result of this, “one-size-fits-all-approach” treatments can be very successful for some patients but not for others. This is changing with the emergence of ‘Precision Medicine’, an innovative approach to disease prevention and treatment that takes into account individual differences in people’s genes, environments, and lifestyles.

In this process, ‘Precision Medicine’ gives clinicians tools to better understand the complex mechanisms underlying a patient’s health, disease, or condition, and to better predict which treatments will be most effective.

Opposite view:

In an op-ed titled, ‘Moonshot’ Medicine Will Let Us Down, published recently in The New York Times, the author argued with his differing viewpoints.

I am quoting below three of those arguments:

“For most common diseases, hundreds of genetic risk variants with small effects have been identified, and it is hard to develop a clear picture of who is really at risk for what. This was actually one of the major and unexpected findings of the Human Genome Project. In the 1990s and early 2000s, it was thought that a few genetic variants would be found to account for a lot of disease risk. But for widespread diseases like diabetes, heart disease and most cancers, no clear genetic story has emerged for a vast majority of cases.”

“Another unexpected finding of the Human Genome Project was the problem of ‘missing heritability.’ While the statistics suggest that there is a genetic explanation for common conditions and diseases running in families or populations, it turns out that the information on genetic variants doesn’t explain that increased risk.”

“The idea behind the “war on cancer” was that a deep understanding of the basic biology of cancer would let us develop targeted therapies and cure the disease. Unfortunately, although we know far more today than we did 40-plus years ago, the statistics on cancer deaths have remained incredibly stubborn.”

I am sure, you will analyze the above points with the facts that you have at your disposal on this subject to arrive at a logical conclusion.

Current Applications:

Though these are still early days, initial benefits of ‘Precision Medicines’ have been reported in many areas, such as:

Genetic analysis of patients dealing with blood clots: Since 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been recommending genotyping for all patients being assessed for therapy involving Warfarin.

Colorectal cancer: For colon cancer patients, the biomarker that predicts how a tumor will respond to certain drugs is a protein encoded by the KRAS gene, which can now be determined through a simple test.

Breast cancer: Women with breast tumors can now be effectively screened to determine which receptors their tumor cells contain.

Cystic fibrosis: In America, patients with a rare form of cystic fibrosis now can choose a drug designed specifically to target the genetic defect causing their illness. Specialized medical centers, such as “individualized medicine centers” at the Mayo Clinic, are also available to the patients for effective treatment.

Ethical issues:

While following this pursuit of excellence of the genetic scientists in the realm of disease treatment, some experts have reportedly raised flags of caution. They strongly feel that DNA code sequencing brings to light a “very real privacy concerns” of individuals.

GeneWatch UK is an organization that investigates how genetic science and technologies will impact on our food, health, agriculture, environment and society. They have been strongly arguing, if genome sequencing is extended to entire population, individuals and their relatives could then be identified and tracked by matching their DNA with the genome stored in the respective health records. This move, as contemplated by them, could “wipe out privacy” with an impact on the society.

Thus, the ethical and social issues in the development of ‘Precision Medicine’ primarily in the area of genetic testing need to be effectively addressed, sooner.

Conclusion:

The quest for moving away from conventional and error-prone ‘Disease Oriented Treatment’ paving the way for unconventional and value added individual patient-specific ones, may soon come to fruition.

Advances in ‘Precision Medicine’ have already led to powerful new discoveries and several new treatments that are tailored to specific characteristics of individuals, such as a person’s genetic makeup, or the genetic profile of an individual’s tumor. This is leading to a transformation in the way the world can treat diseases such as cancer.

Patients with breast, lung, and colorectal cancers, melanomas and leukemia, for instance, should be provided with facilities in specialist hospitals to undergo molecular testing as a part of patient care, enabling physicians to select treatments that improve chances of survival and reduce exposure to adverse effects.

Although, the potential for precision medicine to improve care and speed the development of new treatments has only just begun to be tapped, some skeptics do say that tailoring medical treatments to individual characteristics of each patient is both overly optimistic and cost-prohibitive.

Be that as it may, in the balance of probability the benefits of prudent use of ‘Precision Medicine’ far outweigh the concerns expressed. This evolving new paradigm would help saving not just significant expenses, but also precious time that is usually spent on ‘trial-and-error treatments’, by enabling clinicians to determine quickly which therapies are most likely to succeed.

Though lot many grounds would still need to be covered in this area, the State sponsored ‘Precision Medicine’ initiative of America to revolutionize disease treatment, in my view, is indeed a laudable one, every way.

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.

Paying For The Best Health Outcomes At The Lowest Possible Cost

Posted on December 8, 2014 by Tapan Ray

“Bayer CEO Dr. Marijn Dekkers is happy to have fair Outcomes-Based Pricing”, reported ‘PharmaTimes’ on December 3, 2014.

Dr. Dekkers was quoted saying, “It is okay to be tested on that in the process of price-setting, that is fine, we should only be paid for the value we bring”. However, at the same time he also reminded, “When we have a new drug that is significantly better than the previous drug but the previous drug just went generic, we are compared to the 20% price, not the 100% price”.

I reckon, the above statement of the Bayer CEO sounds quite amazing, if not bizarre, especially considering the legality in the prevailing global pharma patent regime. Thus, any discontentment in this area, howsoever intense these are, would unlikely to be able to attract any unbiased favorable ear, across the world.

Another aspect of the aggressive patented drug pricing trend, I deliberated in one of my earlier blog posts titled, “An Aggressive New Drug Pricing Trend: What It Means To India?” of October 27, 2014.

What is it really?

As many would know, another common terminology of Outcome-Based Pricing (OBP) is Value-Based-Pricing (VBP). This approach for pricing is basically intended to offering the best value for the money spent in healthcare. It is ‘the costs and consequences of one treatment compared with the costs and consequences of alternative treatments’. For pharmaceutical players, VBP/OBP would mean not charging more than the actual real value of the product offerings.

As we shall find below, this concept is gaining ground now in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcomes’ data using similar or equivalent products. Cost of incremental value that a product will deliver is of key significance. Some independent organizations such as, the ‘National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)’in the United Kingdom (UK) has taken a leading role in this area.

An evolving scenario:

It would be worthwhile to note that over a period of time, while pricing new pharma products, manufacturers have been traditionally considering the costs of all inputs of various kinds incurred to bring these drugs into the market and thereafter adding hefty mark-ups on those medicines in a non-transparent manner to arrive at the market price.

This absolutely opaque process of patented drugs pricing is increasingly making the stakeholders, such as patients’ groups, payors, including the governments and insurers much concerned about the differential value offerings of these high priced new drugs over the existing ones for commensurate improvement in the actual health outcomes for the patients.

The relevance:

In the past decade, there has been a clear trend in the price negotiation of new and complex pharma based on health outcomes models as the pharma players are coming under increasing pressure from the payors/patients to improve the treatment cost-effectiveness.

In an article published in the Harvard Business Review of October 2013, Michael Porter and Thomas Lee had cautioned, “ In healthcare, the days of business as usual are over…it is time for a fundamentally new strategy. At its core is maximizing value for patients: that is, achieving the best outcomes at the lowest cost.”

They elucidated the relevance of value based pricing, supporting very strongly the idea of paying for “value” in healthcare.

Thus, if this trend were not checked, the healthcare spending would keep going up, as it is happening today globally, impacting access of these drugs to patients significantly due to spiraling cost pressure.

A recent vindication:

‘Gallup’ in an articles titled, “Cost Still a Barrier Between Americans and Medical Care” published in December 5, 2014, has reported that in U.S., 33% of Americans have put off medical treatment because of cost. Interestingly, more of them put off treatment for serious conditions than non-serious and more with private insurance had put off treatment in 2014 than 2013.

Thus, to address this issue, as we shall see below, various governments either have or in the process of developing regulatory policies to rationalize new drug prices based on the Outcome/Value-Based Pricing (OBP/VBP) Models of different kinds.

In this backdrop, Bayer CEO’s acceptance of OBP/VBP is indeed a welcoming development. This process is undoubtedly one of the most reasonable ways to arrive at a patented drug price.

For a large majority of stakeholders, treatment outcomes and differential value offerings of new medicines are the most critical factors to monitor the value pathway of patients’ medical care, irrespective of types of illnesses.

The move has already commenced:

Deloitte Center for Health Solutions in a study on Value-Based Pricing for

Pharmaceuticals, has highlighted that unlike the United States, many countries, where the government plays a decisive role in pricing and price negotiations of pharmaceuticals, have focused on reducing costs through value-based pricing agreements.

The article gives examples of Denmark, where Bayer entered into a “no cure, no pay” initiative on Levitra (vardenafil) for erectile dysfunction in 2005. Patients not satisfied with the treatment were eligible for a refund. Similarly, in 2007, after the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom (UK) initially concluded that Velcade (bortezomib) was too expensive as compared to its estimated benefits to the population, Johnson & Johnson offered to forgo charges for patients who did not have an adequate medication response.

Further, according to the Burrill Report of October 2013, as part of an effort to regain market share for its statin Zocor, which had been losing ground to then Warner Lambert’s Lipitor, Merck had reportedly offered an out of box proposition to consumers and insurers in 1998. Merck’s “Get to Goal” guarantee offered refunds to any takers who failed to reach target cholesterol levels set by their doctors within six months of using Zocor and adjusting their diet.

Could serve the purpose of global pharma too:

The above Burrill Report also states, “The performance-based pricing also serves a simpler purpose for drug makers. It allows them to provide discounts that may be necessary to establish acceptable value in one market without affecting the price for a drug in other markets around the world as a number of payers peg the price they will pay for a drug to what price a specific country may negotiate with the drug maker.”

Following this trend it appears that like Dr. Dekkers, other head honchos of global pharma majors would ultimately be left with no option but to willy-nilly toe this line in most of the countries across the world for their patented products.

This would be necessitated due to increasing product-pricing pressure based on quantification of differential benefits of the new medicines over already existing ones, as would be reflected in the analysis of intensive cost-effectiveness data.

Defining a measure of cost-effectiveness:

One of the several other methods to measure the cost-effectiveness of a new drug, as reported in a case study published by ‘2020 Public Services Trust at the RSA’, is as under:

“The efficiency of new products can be captured through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). These are usually based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), which are a measure of how many extra months or years of reasonable quality life a patient might gain as a result of treatment, based on average life expectancy. Life expectancy is usually extrapolated from the results of clinical trials whilst the quality adjustment is based on patients’ experiential response to the level of pain, mobility and general mood which are usually expressed as a weighted utility value of between 0 and 1. The final calculation of the ratio is based on the difference in the cost to QALY ratio between the new drug and the standard available treatment. However, to make sense of the ICERs it has been necessary to establish thresholds beyond which drugs are no longer deemed cost-effective.”

As the above case study highlights, “NICE had established a notional upper limit of £20-30,000 per QALY above which a drug will generally not be recommended, although in exceptional circumstances this can be increased as was the case for beta-interferon, where it was raised to £36,000.”

The Indian perspective:

In developing countries such as India, expenditure towards medicines is considered as an investment made by patients to improve their health and productivity at work. Maximizing benefits from such spending will require avoidance of those medicines, which will not be effective together with the use of lowest cost option with comparable value and ‘health outcomes’.

For this reason, as stated above, many countries have started engaging the regulatory authorities to come out with head to head clinical comparison of similar or equivalent drugs keeping ultimate ‘health outcomes’ of patients in mind.

A day may come in India too, when the regulatory authorities will concentrate on ‘outcomes/value-based’ pricing models, both for patented and high price branded generics, where low priced equivalents are available.

However, at this stage it appears, this would take some more time. Till then for ‘health outcomes’ based medical prescriptions, working out ‘Standard Treatment Guidelines (STG)’, especially for those diseases, which are most prevalent in India, should assume high importance.

Standard Treatment Guidelines (STG):

STG is usually defined as systematically developed statements designed to assist practitioners and patients in making decisions about appropriate cost-effective treatment in specific disease areas.

For each disease area, the treatment should include “the name, dosage form, strength, average dose (pediatric and adult), number of doses per day, and number of days of treatment.” STG also includes specific referral criteria from a lower to a higher level of the diagnostic and treatment requirements.

In India, the medical experts have already developed STGs for some disease areas. However, formulation of STGs covering all major disease areas and, more importantly, their effective implementation would ensure cost-effective healthcare benefits to a vast majority of population.

The Ministry of health of the respective states of India should encourage the medical professionals/institutions to lay more emphasis on ‘health-outcomes/value based’ prescription of medicines, ensuring more cost effective treatment for their patients.

Conclusion:

The medical practitioners in their part should ideally volunteer to avoid prescribing expensive drugs offering no significant improvement in ‘health outcomes’, against the cheaper equivalents. The Government should initially encourage it through ‘self-regulation’ and if it does not work, stringent regulatory measures must be strictly enforced, within a reasonable time frame.

Be that as it may, it clearly emerges today that in the healthcare arena, effective implementation of ‘Outcomes/Value-Based-Pricing-Models’ would ensure paying for the best health outcomes at the lowest possible cost, especially for those who deserve it the most, not just in India, but across the world too.

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.

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

Posted on October 27, 2014 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

The magnitude of impact – an example:

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

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

Three critical parts of the evolving pricing strategy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new trend:

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

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

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

Is this pricing model sustainable?

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

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

The desirable pathway:

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

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

DoP is in inactive mode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three critical factors to consider:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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.

Does India Believe in Two Different Drug Quality standards?

Posted on May 28, 2014 by Tapan Ray

“Maintain and sharpen your intellectual honesty so that you’re always realistic. See things as they are, not way you want them to be.”

The above profound statement is what the Management Guru Ram Charan made in his book titled, ‘Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done’ co-authored by Larry Bossidy.

Placing the content of this book against current series of events plaguing the Indian pharmaceutical industry, a pertinent question floats at the top of mind. Are these books meant to hone the corporate leadership practices at all level or for preserving in the bookshelves, just as another collector’s item?

This is probably a good question to deliberate upon. Otherwise, why do we keep on encountering barrage of newspaper reports on rampant fraudulent practices within the pharmaceutical industry, especially related to quality of drugs and pricing?

Today’s flavor of ongoing practices:

Just to give a flavor of ongoing practices, following are what appeared in today’s newspaper headlines, besides umpteen numbers of instances reported in the past:

“USFDA says team threatened during Wockhardt inspection”
Or “FDA caution on Wockhardt US unit”
Or even “GSK Consumer fined for overcharging” Crocin Advance tablets

All these similar and unabating instances of “short changing” the systems by the business leadership, vindicate the point that much sought after management Pandits’ precious wisdom to corporate honchos seems to be falling in deaf ears, as a sizable section of the Indian pharmaceutical industry apparently sacrificing the “Intellectual Honesty” in the alter of greed and quick profit making.

“Medicine is for people, not for the profits” – George Merck:

To exemplify “Intellectual Honesty” in the above book, Ram Charan and Larry Bossidy deliberated on ‘The 10 Greatest CEOs Ever’. One of these 10 greatest CEO is George Merck of the global pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co, who articulated his vision for his Company way back in 1952 as follows:

“Medicine is for people, not for the profits.”

George Merck believed that the purpose of a corporation is to do something useful, and to do it well, which also ensures decent profits.

Some say, those were the good old days of ethics and values. Things do not seem to be quite the same in today’s India, for various reasons. ‘Walking the Talk’ clutching the ethics and values close to one’s heart, is glaringly missing in a large section of pharma leadership of date.

Currently, all indications confirm that the market would keep growing at a decent pace, despite all odds, as we move on. To achieve sustainable success in the rapidly changing business environment, especially in the healthcare space, globally accepted quality standards of products and services, delivered in a credible and equitable way with built in scalability, would matter the most

Does India believe in two different drug manufacturing quality standards?

Not withstanding the possible opportunities galore, as stated above, the spate of ‘Warning Letters’ from the US-FDA have brought to the fore existence of two different quality standards for drug manufacturing in India:

High quality plants dedicated to serving the largest market of the world – the United States and following the US-FDA regulations.

Other plants, with much less regulations, to cater to the needs of the Indian population and other developing non-regulated markets.

In a situation like this, especially when many Indian manufacturers are repeatedly failing to meet the American quality standards, the following questions come up:

Is the US-FDA manufacturing requirement too troublesome, if not oppressive?

If not, do the Indian and other patients too deserve to have drugs conforming to the same quality standards?

Answers to these questions are absolutely vital to convince ourselves, why should Indian patients have access to drugs of lower quality standards than Americans, with consequential increase in their health risks?

Different strokes for different folks:

To immediately alleviate the business risk of Indian exporters through resumption of business with those banned drugs in the United States, the only immediate solution is to ensure strict conformance to US-FDA regulations by enhancing organizational ethics and value systems to the desired level of acceptance of the US regulator, as most of these were identified as fraudulent practices and alleged ‘threats’, as reported above.

However, for getting answer to the question of dual drug manufacturing quality standards in India, Indian Ministry of Health has already made the public understanding on the subject even more complicated.

This is due to conflicting acts of two responsible officials in the Ministry of Health of India on the same issue, as follows:

On February 10, 2014, Dr. Keshav Desiraju, the then Secretary of Health signed a “Statement of Intent” with Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, Commissioner of US-FDA to encourage collaboration between American and Indian regulators to effectively address this issue.

The very next day, on February 11, 2014, the Drug Controller General of India, while addressing the media expressed his great apprehension against over regulation of the US regulator.

It is, therefore, amazing to note the above different strokes for different folks by the same ministry and on the same very sensitive subject, creating a snowballing effect of confusion within the stakeholders.

Conclusion:

To reap rich harvest out of the emerging gold-plated opportunity, as stated above, not just coming from India, but across the world, Indian pharma does need a strong leadership with unflinching belief in business practices weaved in corporate ethics and values.

Even to come out of the episodes of repeated ‘Warning Letters’ from US-FDA, casting aspersions on the quality of Indian drug manufacturing standards, which are mainly related to alleged fraudulent business practices, strong corporate leadership with high ethics and value standards at all level is of absolute necessity.

Equally important is to follow the visionary statement of the pharma iconoclast George Merck, made way back in 1952 that “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”.

Moving towards this direction, would the newly formed Ministry of Health clarify expeditiously, without any ambiguity and with intellectual honesty that Indian patients are taking as safe and effective medicines as their counterparts, living in any other corner of the developed world, including the United States?

By: Tapan J. Ray

A Potential Game Changer For Pharma R&D

Posted on February 10, 2014 by Tapan Ray

The ghost of ‘Patent Cliff’ has been haunting the ‘Big Pharma’ since quite some time. This situation has been further aggravated by cost containment pressures of various Governments both in the developed and the emerging markets together with contentious issues on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

The ‘dream run’ that the innovator companies enjoyed in launching patented products so frequently and making many those blockbuster drugs of billions of dollars, is no longer a reality.

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

Many would, therefore, tend to believe that the paradigm is changing significantly. The new paradigm in the brand new millennium throws some obnoxious challenges, including some related to IPR, triggering a process of churning in the global pharma industry. Some astute CEOs of ‘Big Pharma’, having a deep introspection, are bracing for restructuring, not just in the business processes, but also in the process of organizational behavior, mindset, ethics and values. Unfortunately, there are many who seem to believe that this giant wheel of change can be put on the reverse gear again with might.

A new PPP initiative in pharma research:

This trying situation calls for collaborative initiatives to achieve both knowledge and cost synergies for a quantum leap in harnessing R&D output.

One such big laudable initiative has come to the fore recently in this arena. Having experienced something like the ‘law of diminishing return’ in pursuit of high resource intensive R&D projects aimed at critical disease areas such as Alzheimer’s, 10 big global pharma majors reportedly decided in February 2014 to team up with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States in a ‘game changing’ initiative to identify disease-related molecules and biological processes that could lead to future medicines.

This Public Private Partnership (PPP) for a five-year period has been named as “Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)”. According to the report, this US federal government-backed initiative would hasten the discovery of new drugs in cost effective manner focusing first on Alzheimer’s disease, Type 2 diabetes, and two autoimmune disorders: rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. The group considered these four disease areas among the largest public-health threats, although the span of the project would gradually expand to other diseases depending on the initial outcome of this project.

Not the first of its kind:

AMP is not the first PPP initiative of its kind. The Biomarkers Consortium was also another initiative, not quite the same though, of a major public-private biomedical research partnership managed by the Foundation for the NIH with broad participation from a variety of stakeholders, including government, industry, academia, patient advocacy groups and other not-for-profit private sector organizations.

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

Nearer home, ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ project of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is a now a global platform to address the neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, leishmaniasis by the best research brains of the world working together for a common cause.

Challenges in going solo:

In this context, it is worth mentioning that the CEO of Sanofi, Chris Viehbacher reportedly said in an interview on April 15, 2013 that his company “Won’t push hard to find an Alzheimer’s treatment because the science isn’t advanced enough to justify the costs to develop a drug. Therefore, Sanofi definitely won’t commit major resources seeking to discover an Alzheimer’s therapy.” He further stated, “I think we have to do a lot more basic science work to understand what’s going on. We really, at best, partially understand the cause of the disease. It’s hard to come up with meaningful targets.”

The above report also mentioned that the first Alzheimer’s drugs, should they prove successful, would lead to a market worth US$ 20 billion as estimated in 2012.

Long desired OSDD model:

The new AMP R&D model in the United States seems to have derived its impetus from the “open-source” wave that has swept the software industry. Keeping that spirit unchanged, in this particular ‘open source’ model too, the participants would share all scientific findings with the public and anyone would be able to use these results freely for their own research initiatives.

The collaborators of this PPP project are expected to gain a better understanding of how each disease type works, and thereafter could make use of that collaborative knowledge to discover appropriate new molecules for the target disease areas.

AMP is also expected to arrive at methods to measure a disease progression and its response to treatment much more precisely. This will enable the pharma participants getting more targets right and early, thereby reducing the high cost of failures. Just to cite an example, there have been reportedly 101 failures since 1998 in late-stage clinical trials by Pfizer, J&J and Elan Corp.

Commendable initiative in the uncharted frontier:

The ‘open source’ AMP initiative of ‘Big Pharma’ in the uncharted frontier is indeed very unusual, as the innovative drug companies are believed to be not just quite secretive about the science that they are engaged in, but also near obsessive in pursuing and clinging-on to the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) through patents for each innovative steps related to potential new drugs.

It is worth noting that like any OSDD model, this PPP agreement also denies the participating players from using any discovery for their own drug research up until the project makes all data public on that discovery.

However, as soon as the project results will be made public, fierce competition is expected all around to develop money-spinning winning drugs.

Participating companies:

Ten pharma companies participating in AMP are reportedly, AbbVie, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Merck & Co., Pfizer, Sanofi and Takeda. It is good to find within the participants some staunch business rivals. According to a report, a number of foundations, including the American Diabetes Association and the Alzheimer’s Association have also agreed to get involved in the project.

Some key non-participants:

For various different reasons some key pharma majors, such as, Amgen, Roche and AstraZeneca have decided not to participate in AMP.

AMP project and cost:

AMP reportedly has reportedly articulated its intent to: “Map molecular paths that each disease follows and to identify key points that could be targets for treatment. In Type 2 diabetes, for instance, researchers hope to catalog the genetic changes that raise or lower a person’s risk for developing the disease. It also will seek novel methods to measure each disease’s course while assessing if a potential drug is working. Being able to measure a disease’s progress in that way, could speed drug development by raising a company’s confidence that an experimental drug is working, or let it more quickly end a project if a drug isn’t working.”

The participating companies and the NIH have jointly agreed that the AMP would put together a research system on cost sharing basis by pooling the brightest minds who are experts on each disease, along with the best drug discovery laboratories, relevant data and samples from clinical trials to decipher the diseases in ways, which none of these pharma players has been able to achieve just yet on its own.

To achieve all these, the total cost has been estimated at roughly just US$ 230 million, as compared to US$135 billion that the global drug industry claims to spend in a year on R&D.

This should also be seen in context of a study of December 2012 carried out by the Office of Health Economics (OHE), UK with a grant from AstraZeneca, which estimated that the cost of developing new medicine has risen by ten times from US$100 million in the 1970s to as high as US$ 1.9 billion in 2011.

As a head honcho of a global pharma biggie had put it earlier, a large part of these R&D expenses are the costs of failure, as stated above.

Criticism:

As usual, criticism followed even for this path-breaking project. Critics have already started questioning the rationale of the choice of the above four disease areas, with an exception perhaps for Alzheimer’s and wondered whether the participating players are making use of the federal fund to push hard the envelope of their respective commercial intents.

Another new collaborative approach:

In another recently announced collaborative initiative, though not of the same kind, where Merck & Co has reportedly entered three separate collaboration agreements to evaluate an immunotherapy cancer treatment that is part of a promising new class of experimental drugs that unleash the body’s immune system to target cancer cells.

Conclusion:

There could still be some hiccups in the process of effective implementation of the AMP project. Hope, all these, if any, will be amicably sorted out by the participants of stature for the benefits of all.

Be that as it may, ‘open source’ model of drug discovery, as believed by many, would be most appropriate in the current scenario to improve not only profit, but also to promote more innovative approaches in the drug discovery process.

On May 12, 2011, in an International Seminar held in New Delhi, the former President of India Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam highlighted the need for the scientists, researchers and academics to get effectively engaged in ‘open source’ philosophy by pooling talent, patents, knowledge and resources for specific R&D initiatives from across the world for newer and innovative drugs.

According to available reports, one of the key advantages of the ‘open source’ model would be substantial reduction in the high cost of failures of R&D projects, which coupled with significant saving in time would immensely reduce ‘mind-to-market’ span of innovative drugs in various disease areas, making these medicines affordable to many more patients.

Thus, PPP initiatives in pharmaceutical R&D, such as AMP, are expected to have immense potential to create a win-win situation for all stakeholders, harvesting substantial benefits both for the pharmaceutical innovators and the patients, across the world.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Supreme Court Suspends New Drug Trials in India…Time to Shape Up?

Posted on October 14, 2013 by Tapan Ray

On September 30, 2013, with a damning stricture to the Drug Regulator, the Supreme Court, in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Swasthya Adhikar Manch, stayed approvals for 162 applications for local Clinical Trials (CTs) of new drugs approved by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) earlier.

The apex court of the country granted the DCGI two weeks time to furnish evidence to the court that adequate patients’ safety and other related mechanisms have been put in place for CTs of all New Chemical Entities (NCEs) and New Molecular Entities (NMEs) in the country.

According to reports, during July and August 2013, the DCGI received 1,122 CT applications, out of which, 331 related to approval of global CTs. The New Drug Advisory Committee (NDAC) approved 285 drugs in AIDS, oncology, cardiology, neurology, psychiatry, metabolism and endocrinology therapy areas. Finally, 162 drugs received the green signal from the DCGI. Now all these trials have come to a halt.

At the same time, the court also directed the Ministry of Health to come out with a plan within 10 weeks to strengthen the regulatory framework for CTs in India based on various suggestions received from the state governments, other stakeholders and experts groups.

A casual approach?

Just to recapitulate, prior to this, on January 3, 2013, against the PIL, the bench of Honorable Justices R.M Lodha and A.R Dave of the Supreme Court reportedly observed that uncontrolled Clinical Trials (CT) are creating ‘havoc’ to human lives causing even deaths to many subjects in India.

In an interim order, the bench directed the Government that CTs could be conducted only under the supervision of the Health Secretary of India. Holding the Government responsible, the bench further observed, “You (Government) have to protect health of citizens of the country. It is your obligation. Deaths must be arrested and illegal trials must be stayed.”

Thereafter, though the Health Secretary of India approved the above 162 CTs, presumably following the above Supreme Court directive, it is an irony that when asked by the Apex Court, the government could not immediately explain precisely what systems and mechanisms have been put in place for proper conduct of these 162 CTs. It sought 2 weeks’ time to justify the action taken by the drug regulator in this regards.

Compromise on patients’ safety continues unabated:

During another hearing early in October 2013 on a petition filed by the NGO ‘Swasthya Adhikar Manch regarding violations of norms during CTs, the Supreme Court reportedly sought details from the Union Government on the irregularities during the drug trial using Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccines by the Seattle (USA) based organization PATH in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat states of India.

This intervening application by the NGO was based on the 72nd Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Health and Family Welfare report dated August 30, 2013, where it was recommended that action should be taken against PATH, state governments of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and other government officials including Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) for alleged violations on the subject.

The report highlights, HPV vaccines were given to 14,091 girls in Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh and 10,686 girls in Vadodra, Gujarat. These girls were between age group of 10 and 14, of which seven girls died due to such illegal vaccine trials.

Eventually, these trials were stopped, but only after the matter received media attention.

As per reports, the vaccines were provided by two pharma MNCs – Merck and GlaxoSmithKline through PATH. It also stated as follows:

“Vaccines were given to children irrespective of age in the case of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine. While permission was given to use GSK’s Cervarix vaccine in children of 10 to 14 years, CTs had been conducted on subjects in the age group of 18 to 35 years. Thus the safety and well being of subjects were completely jeopardized.”

No options but to shape-up:

It is worth mentioning, the above PIL had alleged that large scale drug trials being conducted across the country, mainly by the pharma MNC, are using Indian patients as ‘guinea pigs’, as it were. The NGO also told the Supreme Court that several pharmaceutical companies continue to conduct CTs quite indiscriminately, in various states of India, endangering lives of poorly/un-informed trial subjects.

In an affidavit to the Court, the Government admitted that between 2005 and 2012, 2,644 people died during CTs of 475 NCEs/NMEs with serious adverse events related deaths taking 80 lives.

Thus, coming under immense pressure from the civil society and now the scrutiny of the Supreme Court for so many CT related deaths and consequential patients’ compensation issues, the Government does not seem to have any other options left now but to bring US$ 500 million CT segment of the country, which is expected to cross a turnover of US$ 1 Billion by 2016, under stringent regulations.

Experts believe that the growth of the CT segment in India is driven mainly by the MNCs for easy availability of a large treatment naive patient population with varying disease pattern and demographic profile at a very low cost, as compared to many other countries across the world.

CT related deaths in India:

As per the Ministry of Health following are the details of deaths related to CTs registered in India from 2008 to August 2012:

Year	Total no of deaths	CT related deaths	Compensation paid to patients:
2012 (up to August)	272	12	NA
2011	438	16	16
2010	668	22	22
2009	737	NA	NA
2008	288	NA	NA

It is estimated that over the last four years, on an average, 10 persons have died every week in India related to CT.

DCGI hauled-up 9 MNCs on patients’ compensation:

It is worth noting, absolutely unacceptable level of compensation, by any standard, are being paid by the concerned companies, including large MNCs, for the lives lost during CTs.

According to another report quoting the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), 25 people died in clinical trials conducted by 9 pharma MNCs, in 2010. Unfortunately, families of just five of these victims received” compensation for trial related deaths, which ranged from an abysmal Rs 1.5 lakh (US$ 2,500) to Rs 3 lakh (US$ 5,000) to the families of the diseased.

This report also highlighted that arising out of this critical negligence, for the first time ever, the then DCGI was compelled to summon the concerned nine pharma MNCs on June 6, 2011 to question them on this issue and give a clear directive to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to CTs by June 20, 2011, or else all CTs of these nine MNCs, which were ongoing at that time or yet to start, will not be allowed.

The 9 pharma MNCs summoned by the DCGI to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to CTs were reported as Wyeth, Quintiles, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Sanofi, PPD and Pfizer.

The report also indicated that after this ultimatum, all the 9 MNCs had paid compensation to the concerned families of the patients, who died related to the CTs.

Prior indictment by Indian Parliamentary Committee:

On May 8, 2012, the department related ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC)’ on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59th Report on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament.

The report made the following scathing remarks on CDSCO under its point 2.2:

“The Committee is of the firm opinion that most of the ills besetting the system of drugs regulation in India are mainly due to the skewed priorities and perceptions of CDSCO. For decades together it has been according primacy to the propagation and facilitation of the drugs industry, due to which, unfortunately, the interest of the biggest stakeholder i.e. the consumer has never been ensured.”

Action just not enough yet:

Acting on the damning stricture by the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Health by a gazette notification of January 30, 2013 made the norms of compensation to patients participating in CTs more stringent. ‘Patient Compensation’ was proposed to include injury or death, even if those are not related to the drugs being tested in the CTs.

Understandably, reacting to this notification, some pharma companies, industry lobby groups and also Clinical Research Organizations (CROs) expressed concerns in areas like:

Lack of distinction between study-related injuries and non-study related injuries.

Use of placebos in placebo-controlled trials.

Lack of any arbitration mechanism in case of disagreement on causality/quantum of compensation and also lack of clarity on who constitutes the Expert Committee and its composition.

In addition, the DCGI requested the stakeholders’ to share their inputs to the independent experts advisory committee chaired by Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury along with six other distinguished members namely, Dr V. P. Kamboj, Dr BT Kaul, Dr Vasantha Muthuswamy, Dr Mira Shiva  and Dr Uma Tekur, to help formulating policy, guidelines and SOPs for approval of NCEs/NMEs and procedures for CTs, including the conduct of ethics committees, the accreditation of trials sites, inspections of trials sites, the ongoing monitoring of trials and banning of drugs. The Government on February 6, 2013 constituted this Committee.

This decision of the regulator, though under pressure, was praiseworthy. Unfortunately nothing substantially changed on the ground for CTs in India even thereafter, as no substantive action has yet been taken on the above expert committee recommendations.

The report of the experts committee:

Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury experts committee in its 99-page report has reportedly recommended some radical changes in the CT space of India. Among others, the report includes the following:

Setting up of a Central Accreditation Council (CAC) to oversee the accreditation of institutes, clinical investigators and ethics committees for CTs in the country.

Only those trials, which will be conducted at centers meeting these requirements, be considered for approval by the DCGI.

For speedy clearance of applications, a broad expertise based Technical Review Committee (TRC) will replace 12 New Drug Advisory Committees (NDACs), which are currently functioning for NCE/NME approvals.

The TRC would be assisted, as required, by appropriate subject experts selected from the ‘Roster of Experts’.

For any Adverse Effects (AEs) or Serious Adverse Effects (SAEs) during a CT, the sponsor investigator will be responsible for providing medical treatment and care to the patient at its/their cost till the resolution of the AEs/SAEs.

This is to be provided irrespective of whether the patient is in the control group, placebo group, standard drug treatment group or the test drug administered group.

A Special Expert Committee should be set up independent of the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) to review all drug formulations in the market and identify drugs, which are potentially hazardous and/or of doubtful therapeutic efficacy.

A mechanism should be put in place to remove these drugs from the market by the CDSCO at the earliest.

Though some of the above provisions were vigorously objected by the industry during stakeholders’ consultations, the committee in its final report has upheld those recommendations.

The main worry – costs of CTs will go up:

CTs, as we know, are of critical importance for obtaining marketing approval of any new drug and at the same time forms a major cost component in the new drug development process, across the world.

Any savings in this area, both in terms of time and money, will add significantly to the profit margin of the product. In that context, the above suggestions, if implemented to create a safety net for the patients participating in CTs, will make these trials more expensive for the concerned companies with increased liability.

Hence, we hear a hue and cry, especially from the pharma MNCs. This is mainly because, India was, thus far, a low cost CT destination for them with virtually no liability for the drug trial patients. This is because, the poor and ill-informed subjects are left in the lurch by many companies exploiting the gaping holes existing in the fragile CT system of the country. After the intervention of the Supreme Court in this regard, some foreign players have reportedly suspended their CTs in India for reasons best known to them.

Exploitation of CT regulations:

The system of CT in India has created a huge ruckus, as it has long been tainted with widespread malpractices, abuses and misuses by many players, both global and local. The issue is not just of GCP or other CT related standards but more of an ethical mind-set and well-reported rampant exploitation of uninformed patients, especially in case of trial-related injuries or even death.

The Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an article titled, “Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns” reported as follows:

“Drug companies are drawn to India for several reasons, including a technically competent workforce, patient availability, low costs and a friendly drug-control system. While good news for India’s economy, the booming clinical trial industry is raising concerns because of a lack of regulation of private trials and the uneven application of requirements for informed consent and proper ethics review.”

Industry reactions:

Very interestingly, there have been a divergent sets of reactions from the industry on this issue.

An influential section in the CT space of the country has reacted, with gross indiscretion, to the most recent SC order banning CTs for NCEs/NMEs till a robust mechanism in India is put in place.

Commenting on the verdict, an industry leader has reportedly said:

“A black day for Indian science and a sad reflection on our judiciary”.

Such comments probably vindicate much talked about crony capitalistic mindset of this class. They do not hesitate a bit to display their scant respect even to the highest judiciary of the country, leave alone their glaring indifference to the important public health interest related issue. All such actions possibly emanate from the intense greed to protect and further the vested interests, not withstanding the gross injustice being meted out to the drug trial subjects as a consequence.

On the other hand, supporting the Supreme Court’s view, The Indian Society for Clinical Research (ISCR) reportedly has said:

“As a professional organization representing clinical research professionals across the stakeholder spectrum, ISCR is fully supportive of the need for a more robust and regulated environment for the conduct of clinical trials in India which ensures the practice of the highest standards of ethics and quality and where patient rights and safety are protected”.  

ISCR further said, “As in every profession and industry, there will always be players who operate at both ends of the spectrum. While we do not condone any irregularities, we must acknowledge, there are several hundreds of clinical trials taking place in the country in compliance with international and local guidelines. There have been over 40 US FDA clinical trial audits done in India with no critical findings reported. There have also been several European regulatory audits of Indian clinical trial sites, again with no critical findings.”

That said, Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee, had commented on a ‘nexus between the industry and the drug regulator’ for continuation of such sorry state of affairs, since long.

‘Industry-pharma nexus’ in the USA too?

Recently, similar tricky relationship between the regulator and the pharma companies was unearthed again with the later paying hefty fees to attend meetings of a panel that advises the US FDA.

The article highlighted, an investigative report in the ‘Washington Post’ found that pharma companies paid as much as US$ 25,000 to attend sessions convened by a scientific panel on painkillers, and has led to claims that the industry was being given an opportunity to influence federal policy in this area.

Expected Government action:

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the matter on October 24, 2013.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health reportedly held meetings with concerned officials to chalk out the strategy before the Court, when this case would come up for hearing after two weeks.

The report says, the Government is planning to place before the court a comprehensive plan with details of the existing mechanism and ongoing efforts like, bringing the the new Drugs and Cosmetic (Amendment) Bill 2013 and incorporation of Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury expert committee recommendations, to plug the loopholes in the new drug trial mechanism of the country.

Conclusion:

While the importance of CTs to ensure better and more effective treatment for millions of patients in India is immense, it should not be allowed at the cost of patients’ safety, under any garb. If the regulator overlooks this critical factor and some pharmaceutical players keep exploiting the system, judiciary has no option but to effectively intervene in response to PILs, as happened in this particular case too.

Thus, I reckon, appropriate safety of human subjects participating in CTs and a fairplay in compensation, whenever justified, should be non-negotiable for the indian drug regulator. Despite reactions with indiscretion from a section of the industry, the Supreme Court is absolutely right to direct the DCGI to stop CTs for all NCEs/NMEs until the apex judiciary is satisfied that a robust system is in place for such trials in India. This will ensure, the scientific objectives of the CTs are properly achieved without any compromise on patients’ safety.

Breaking the nexus decisively between a section of the powerful pharmaceutical lobby group and the drug regulator, as highlighted even in the above Parliamentary Committee report, the Ministry of Health should, without any further delay, put in place a robust and transparent CT mechanism in India, come what may.

This well thought-out new system, besides ensuring patients’ safety and fairplay for all, will have the potential to help reaping a rich economic harvest through creation of a meaningful and vibrant CT industry in India, simultaneously benefitting millions of patients, as we move on.

That said, the moot question still remains: Will the drug regulator be able to satisfy the Supreme Court, as the two weeks expire, that appropriate mechanisms are in place to resume smooth conduct of CTs for the new drugs in India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Posted on August 26, 2013 by Tapan Ray

‘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

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

Posted on August 12, 2013 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other pharma patent revocation of the fortnight:

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

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

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

An interesting precedent set:

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

A different case, yet worth mentioning:

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

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

Other patent revocations:

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

Sutent (Pfizer):

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

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

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

Pegasys (Roche):

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

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

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

Iressa (AstraZeneca):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patentability for ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

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

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

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

Indian Patents Act prevails:

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

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

Court did not disallow all incremental innovations:

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

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

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

Only 3% of patents are challenged:

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

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

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

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

Government has no role to play in IP disputes:

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

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

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

Pharma patents granted in India:

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

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

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

China and Brazil revoke patents:

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

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

South Africa mulls new law to stop ‘Evergreening’:

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

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

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

Innovators Angry:

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

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

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

Does it benefit patients?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patentability for ‘genuine innovations’:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Merck

A Patient-Centric State Initiative To Revolutionize Disease Treatment

Paying For The Best Health Outcomes At The Lowest Possible Cost

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

Does India Believe in Two Different Drug Quality standards?

A Potential Game Changer For Pharma R&D

Supreme Court Suspends New Drug Trials in India…Time to Shape Up?

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

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