Tag Archives: New

The Challenge of Holistic Value Creation With Pharma M&A

Posted on by
Reply

Two mega deals, right at the dawn of 2019 gave a flying start to Merger & Acquisition (M&A) activities, in search of inorganic growth, by some large pharma companies. The two biggest ones are Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (BMS) USD 74 billion buyout of Celgene, and AbbVie’s USD 63 billion purchase of Allergan, as announced on January 03, 2019 and June 25, 2019, respectively. However, overall in the second quarter of 2019, there were, reportedly, only 22 deals – ‘the smallest quarterly deal count for at least a decade.’

As a strategic option for greater value creation to drive growth, M&A is being actively considered over a long period of time. The key focus of such value creation for the company remains primarily on enriching the pipeline of New Chemical or Molecular Entities (NCE/NME) for revenue synergy, besides cost synergy. This is understandable. But, for various reasons, alongside, a key question also comes up for debate – is the core purpose of such value creation to drive companies’ growth, primarily with more number new drugs, sustainable? The query assumes greater relevance in the evolving new paradigm. This is because, a basic shift is taking place in the core organizational purpose of value creation.

Thus, it appears, the nature of value creation through M&A would also matter as much. Can it still remain a drug company’s financial health centric, any longer? Should the M&A initiatives also not take under their wings, the value-offerings expected by patients from a drug company – beyond innovative pills? Would a holistic value creation through M&A would now be the name of the game? If so, how?  The discussion of my today’s article will revolve around these questions. Let me initiate the deliberation by recapitulating the key motivation behind M&A initiatives of the drug industry.

A key motivation behind the M&A initiatives in the drug industry:

While recapitulating one of the key motivations behind pharma M&As, let me refer to some interesting and recent studies, such as, the 2019 paper of McKinsey titled, ‘What’s behind the pharmaceutical sector’s M&A push.’ It also acknowledges, the use of M&A to bolster drug innovation is unlikely to change any time soon.

That many drug companies actively pursue the M&A option as a game changer for inorganic growth, is vindicated by the recent big deals, as quoted above. Since early 2000 and before, the companies that made the biggest deals to create new value synergies with, have been paying heavy deal premium to enrich their new product pipelines. Quite often it includes several new and emerging classes of drugs, as acquisition targets.

This also gets corroborated in the Press Release of the 2019 BMS deal, which says: ‘The transaction will create a leading focused specialty biopharma company well positioned to address the needs of patients with cancer, inflammatory and immunologic disease and cardiovascular disease through high-value innovative medicines and leading scientific capabilities.’

Lesser yield of traditional pharma M&A than the broader market:

This was emphasized in the June 06, 2019 article, published in The Washington Post, titled ‘Big Pharma Has to Bet Big on M&A. Investors Don’t.’ The analysis found, the returns from the big pharma deals ‘don’t look as good compared to the broader market’, although for very patient investors many of these have resulted in longer-term gains. To illustrate this point, the paper pointed out: ‘Of the eight biopharma deals worth more than USD 40 billion that closed in the last 20 years, only one delivered better returns than the S&P 500 five years after it closed.’

Naming Merck & Co..’s USD 47 billion acquisition of Schering-Plough Corp. in 2009, the researcher justified: ‘That deal is arguably something of an accidental winner. Long-term success didn’t come from any of the products that Merck targeted in the merger; instead, an afterthought of an antibody that was initially set to be sold off became Keytruda, a cancer drug that’s projected to generate USD 15 billion in sales in 2021.’

Innovative product launches no longer a holistic value-creation for patients: 

Thus, unlike yesteryears, enriching new and innovative product pipeline through M&A won’t serve the key purpose of value-creation for patients to treat deadly diseases in a holistic way. The primary reason for the same was articulated in the Deloitte Paper titled, ‘Disruptive M&A: Are you ready to define your future?’ The article emphasized: ‘The confluence of technological change, shifting customer preferences, and convergence across sectors is redesigning how products and services are developed, delivered, and consumed.’

Thus, mere acquisitions of innovative product portfolios, intended to provide better treatment choices for patients, may not meet the holistic needs of consumers’ while going through the disease treatment process. In depth understanding of such preferences with all associated nuances, is absolutely essential in today’s complex business scenario. Which is why, it calls for avant-garde type or ‘disruptive M&As’, that can help alter the business growth trajectories, making the disrupted company disrupt the competitive space, being game changers of the industry.

Calls for avant-garde type or disruptive pharma M&As:

Today, it’s crucial for any drug company to create a unique treatment experience for patients. This is emerging as a pivotal factor for the success of a brand.

Even most innovative products will need to be supported by disruptive back-office technology for market success. Thus, acquisition of disruptive technology to effectively augment the brand value delivery process is equally important, in tandem with enrichment of new product pipeline. This is expected to emerge as a critical driver in pharma M&A. Such takeovers, I reckon, may be termed as avant-garde type or disruptive M&As – for holistic value creation for patients.

‘Disruptive M&A’ creates a much broader range of possibilities and targets:

For a holistic value creation through disruptive M&A focus for target selection needs to be significantly different from the standard models of M&As – and not just about the quality of NCE and NME pipeline. The above paper also highlighted: ‘Disruptive M&A opportunities requires evaluating and assessing a much broader range of possibilities and targets than traditional M&A.’

With the right kind of target selection after a thorough analysis of the business model, disruptive M&A may help the acquiring drug companies to go beyond achieving revenue and cost synergies. It can also provide cutting-edge business capabilities, alongside enriching and expanding the talent pool, key business processes, and, of course, the state-of-the-art technology –inorganically.

Initiatives and focus of drug companies of this genre, are expected to be more in the coming years, primarily driven by a new type of value creation to offer a unique disease treatment experience for patients with their respective brands.

A new type of value creation for patients in healthcare space:

It has already started happening in the recent years. For example, Amazon, on January 30, 2018 , announced, it is collaborating with Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, and the bank JP Morgan Chase to create an independent, nonprofit health care company ‘with the goal of increasing user satisfaction and reducing costs.’ They also announced the organizational focus on two of the following areas, which are interesting and unconventional:

  • Technology solutions that will provide U.S. employees and their families simplified, high-quality and transparent healthcare at a reasonable cost.
  • Draw on their combined capabilities and resources to take a fresh approach.

As the New York Time (NYT) reported: ‘The alliance was a sign of just how frustrated American businesses are with the state of the nation’s health care system and the rapidly spiraling cost of medical treatment.’ The report further added: ‘It also caused further turmoil in an industry reeling from attempts by new players to attack a notoriously inefficient, intractable web of doctors, hospitals, insurers and pharmaceutical companies.’

Although, this has happened in the United States, it sends a strong signal to the state of things to come sooner than expected in the health care space, dominated, so far, by pure pharma and biotech players, across the world.  New types of value creation for patients of similar nature, especially by tech greenhorns in the pharma space, can be wished away at one’s own peril.

Consumer-focused digital companies redefining healthcare value creation:

‘2019 EY M&A Firepower’ report also highlights the innovative efforts of consumer-focused, digital companies to carve out a solid niche for themselves in the pharma dominated health care space. With ‘effective deployment of their ‘connected devices, data analytics skills and deep consumer relationships, these new entrants are positioned to have access to important real-world data that could, in part or in full, determine future product utilization and payment,’ as the report emphasized.

Such fast-evolving development also prompt pharma players to act fast. And the most practical way of doing so, with a high possibility of success, is through disruptive M&A. Ongoing entry of consumer-focused, digital companies in health care increase the urgency for life sciences companies to act, now.

Conclusion:

Thus far, pharma and biotech companies have been engaged in a massive wealth creation for themselves by using their biological and chemical know-how for novel drugs and devices. This ballgame has to change now, ‘as the lines between health and technology continue to blur’, according to the EY Firepower report.

Capabilities of big data and analytics will increasingly be more essential for success, regardless of having a rich pipeline of NCEs and NMEs, even with the potential to achieve blockbuster status in the market. Thus, the ballgame has to change.

Against this backdrop, the key challenge of pharma players for a brighter tomorrow would undoubtedly be ‘holistic value creation.’ Its core purpose should be to deliver a unique patient experience, encompassing the entire disease treatment process – going beyond innovative drugs. One of the quickest routes to create this virtuous cycle, I reckon, is through ‘disruptive M&As – moving away from the traditional model for the same.

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.

Adopt A Hybrid Business Model For Better Sales – Not A Large Field Force

Posted on by
Reply

For aggressive business expansion or to attain greater market access, creating a large sales force has been the thumb rule in the pharma industry, since long. To meet the challenge of changing market dynamics, going for a thorough re-engineering of even a rattling sales and marketing machine, is still considered a risky proposition.

Many studies have captured the common reasons of such hesitations. For example, the McKinsey article titled, ‘Cutting sales costs, not revenues,’ finds that field force being a major growth engine for sales, since long, the thought of overhauling it fills senior executives with dread. Thus, to keep sales flowing, companies will make piecemeal ongoing repairs as long as they can – ‘no matter how patched up or spluttering that engine may be.’

Nevertheless, some compelling business reasons have now prompted several pharma players to accept the ground reality – fast-evolving over the last one and half decades. Many of them have realized that in today’s changing market dynamics, a leaner and smarter sales force (or field force or medical rep, or MR) will fetch the desired results than ‘flabby’ and larger ones.

In this article, I shall not discuss the obvious reasons of downsizing, such as to record profit under trying circumstances, or when per rep productivity keeps declining consistently, or during a change in the promoted product-mix, or a decision to reduce focus on volume intensive-low margin generic brands. But, what I shall discuss is, the reasons for an urgent need of creating a hybrid sales and marketing model, during this changing paradigm.  

It begins with accepting a change in the business environment: 

If the objective of sales force size reduction remains limited to cost-cutting for short-term improvement of the bottom-line, it could be grossly counterproductive, possibly with many unforeseen consequences. Field staff will continue to remain one of the key growth drivers in pharma and biotech business, but not the sole mechanism to increase brand prescriptions. Finding a well-integrated alternative model would begin with acceptance of a significant change in pharma business environment.

Undoubtedly, a perceptible change is noticeable today in pharma stakeholders’ mindset. This change is being further fueled by rapid increases in their usage of various digital platforms and networks. For example, many patients are trying to be reasonably informed of even various disease treatment options and the cost of each, much before they visit a doctor’s clinic or a hospital. The nature and quality of their interaction with health care providers, including doctors, are also changing. Patient-experience during a treatment process, and the value offerings that come with a pharma brand, will have increasing relevance to business performance – more than even before. Anything going against the patient-interest will possibly be shared with all, mostly in social media, which has a potential to precipitate serious consequences.

As this trend keeps going north, pharma market dynamics would change, commensurately, making pharma’s key business success factors significantly different with medical reps no longer being the sole prescription generators. A new hybrid – digitally empowered sales and marketing model is, therefore, the need of the hour. In this new ball game, as a growth driver, the role and size of the field staff will be quite different, where the senior management warrants a new vision for pharma business.

The situation warrants a new vision for pharma business:

In this changing situation, to generate more prescriptions from doctors by deploying a large field force, could prove akin to swimming against a strong tide. Whereas for achieving business success at this time, pharma players would require creating a well-oiled augmented value delivery system for enhanced customer experience, primarily for patients during their entire treatment process.

While creating this sleek and effective system, it would be necessary to cut unproductive or less productive flab in the frontline, with great precision. However, this process must be dovetailed with implementation of other communication and customer engagement platforms, mostly digital, to achieve the set objectives.

The new strategy being augmented value delivery to customers, the process would entail, besides innovative and modern tools, a different genre of field staff members, possessing some critical skill-sets. The goal of need-based field force downsizing complemented by new synchronous measures for operational synergy, must not only be clear to senior management, but also be explained to all concerned.

What would ‘augmented value delivery’ to customers lead to?

Another McKinsey article titled, ‘The few, the proud, the super-productive - how a smart field force can better drive sales,’ articulated: ‘Indeed, our perspective on the past five years is that leaders that used field reductions to actually rethink the commercial model – rather than taking a “blunt instrument” approach to cuts – are reaping rewards.’

As the current pharma sales and marketing models are undergoing a metamorphosis, globally – this transition phase throws several tough challenges – from defining new roles and capabilities for field staff to creative use of various interactive communication platforms.  As the McKinsey article underscores: ‘new capabilities need to be added even as we continue to use the tried and true current model, albeit with less success.  It further adds: ‘The inconvenient truth: we will have to sweat the current model and build the capabilities for the future in parallel. Those hoping for a ‘flip the switch’ transition, are likely to be disappointed.” With his, I reckon, will emerge a robust ‘augmented value delivery system’ for the business leading to:

  • Higher profitable sales through satisfied customers
  • Increase in sales per employee ratio
  • Containing/reducing sales and marketing spend as a percentage of total revenue.

Several initiatives to translate this concept into reality is now palpable, globally. A few examples may suffice to drive home this point.

Downsizing field force complemented by new measures for synergy pays:

Here also there are several research studies to bring home this point. One such is the paper titled, ‘Big pharma proves that oncology pays as workforces shrink,’ published in ’Vantage’ of Evaluate on July 23, 2018. The researchers touched upon this area while discussing the workforce productivity for Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). It found that a substantial shrinking of its workforce, alongside some other important measures, has given BMS a big boost in sales, with a dramatic impact on its overall performance. As the study indicated, even investors will find this fact hard to ignore. Let me hasten to add that ‘downsizing workforce’ mainly involved sales and R&D staff in this analysis.

The article further highlighted, during the period of 2007 to 20017, the management teams of some other pharma majors, as well, such as GlaxoSmithKline), AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly, either reduced their workforce significantly or kept flat. According to this study the changes in the workforce of these 4 companies are as follows:

Workforce Bristol-Myers Squibb GlaxoSmithKline AstraZeneca Eli Lilly
2007 42,000 103,483 67,400 40,600
2017 23,700 98,462 61,100 40,655

However, even in the year 10, all the four companies - Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly posted not just sales growth, bit all-round performance improvement, as may be seen by clicking on each.

Having deliberated on the impact of downsizing field force, let me now focus on powerful complementary measures for augmented value delivery to customers.

Today’s reality for pharma business in India can’t be wished away:

The EYstudy titled, ‘Reinventing pharma sales and marketing through digital in India,’ captures the current situation quite well. I am quoting below just a few of those:

  • Today’s tech-savvy physicians are relying far less on reps and more on digital devices for healthcare information. Only 11 percent of healthcare professionals in India prefer in-person visits from a company representative, according to a 2016 study by Health Link Dimensions. Likewise, many patients arming themselves with medical knowledge available online, gradually relying less on only physicians’ decision-making. Thus, the rules of engagement need to be redefined.
  • With a shift in focus toward more complex or specialty medicines, pharma companies continue to add new layers of MRs to increase geographic coverage. The increasing number of MRs and the number of brands under each of them have drastically reduced the time and quality of sales pitches – from being scientific to mere brand name reminders.
  • Physicians’ place at the center of the pharma ecosystem as almost the sole-decision makers, is very likely to become a thing of the past with the emergence of a broad array of customers with a new mindset.
  • New tech-based entrants providing information platforms, analytics, e-consultation services and access to medicine online are challenging pharma’s value creation story.

Enhancing customer experience needs a hybrid business model:

The new market dynamics, demands cutting-edge brand-value augmentation measures, enhancing customer-experience with some tangible benefits. These telltale signs can only be ignored at one’s own peril. Let me also illustrate this point with the findings from another research study.

According to 2015 Oncology Customer Experience Tracker of ZS, “Oncology companies can add USD 50 – USD 75 million in incremental sales for every USD 1 billion in current sales by delivering a better customer experience.”

This vindicates that creating a better customer experience should be the key goal of pharma’s augmented value delivery system – going much beyond the traditional communication of key product features and its clinical benefits. This new concept is fast emerging as the fulcrum – not just for creating a strong brand pull, but also enhancing the public image of the organization. And can be achieved with a right blend of:

  • ‘Must do’ mindset of top management,
  • Expertise in well-targeted – multi-channel content making,
  • Expertise on data-science and analytics to churn out the right information from a large pool of data,
  • Wherewithal for effectively using the right digital platforms, either directly to customers or through a leaner and digitally-skilled sales force having a ‘can do’ attitude, as the situation will demand.

Some companies are testing the water:

Conventional ways to improve Sales Force Effectiveness (SFE), especially with soft skills, besides, of course product knowledge, is not new to the pharma players. What they need to do is change the primary focus of increasing sales through delivering mostly the key intrinsic value of the brand, to increase profitable sales by delivering augmented brand value, leading to enhanced customer satisfaction.

This is a major shift from the traditional paradigm and would surely entail application of digital technology and data science. As I wrote before, many companies have started adopting this approach – mostly with one baby step at a time, right or wrong.

Observation and findings of an India specific study: 

Noting that ‘Indian pharma’s journey to a digital world has just begun,’ the same EYstudy, as quoted above, reported the following findings, among a few others:

  • Lack of a clear digital strategy/value proposition and change management are the two key barriers to embracing digital.
  • Whatever was being done manually earlier is now being done digitally. But we are not adding additional value. On the other hand, companies globally are now cautiously moving toward being digital practitioners.
  • Indian pharma majors will need to grow into integrated health care providers – offering both products and services, forging patient-centric partnerships and demonstrating value to a broad array of customer groups.

The good news is, some of the key observations of the study also include the following:

  • Some are using digital technology to capture untapped and unstructured data, to make their sales and marketing decision making process more agile and robust.
  • Powerful apps with dynamic, meaningful content and the right value proposition are gaining popularity.
  • Several players, while staying within the realms of regulatory boundaries, are enabling patients to actively manage their care. 

Conclusion:

As we look around, many drug companies, especially in India, continue to remain focused on the age-old transactional sales and marketing models, delivering the intrinsic brand values, irrespective of the changing pharma market dynamics, especially disregarding what today’s customers in the knowledge economy look for. Traditional training and incentivizing a large, and often flabby, sales force on product and rupee value territory-sales against the target, are the general ways to achieve these. The focus on achieving the internal sales targets, regardless of the processes being contentious or not.

Modern time warrants a different conversation altogether – creation of a unique customer experience – with augmented value delivery systems. Achieving this goal would entail astute applications of modern technology, complementing the reach and impact of the right-sized field staff efforts, and leading to improvement in ‘sales per employee ratio.’

Thus, I reckon, higher sales or the need for an expanded market access, may not necessarily entail a larger field force, but a new breed of leaner and especially skilled MR to deliver the needs of the changing healthcare landscape.

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.

Will ‘Patent Thicket’ Delay Biosimilar Drug Entry in India?

Posted on by
Reply

Do pharma and biotech investors encourage companies indulging in ‘patent thicket?’ This question recently grabbed media headlines. On April 02, 2019, one such report brought out: AbbVie investors are calling for the Chair-CEO power split, flagging the CEO’s USD 4 million bonus payout, fueled by the company’s Humira ‘patent thicket’ strategy related aggressive price hikes. It prolonged the brand’s market monopoly, blocking entries of its cheaper biosimilar equivalents.

I have discussed some related issues in this blog, previously. As the issue is gaining relevance also in the Indian context, this article will deliberate the ill-effects of ‘patent thicket’ on patient health-interest. The sole beneficiaries for the creation of this self-serving labyrinth are the manufacturers of high-priced patented drugs, as reported above. Before I proceed further, let me recapitulate what exactly is a ‘patent thicket.’

‘Patent Thicket’:

The dictionary definition of patent thicket is: ‘A group of patents in a field of technology which collectively impede a party from commercializing its own patents or products in that field.’In the current context, it means a dense web of overlapping patent rights that restrict a generic or a biosimilar drug maker from commercializing its cheaper equivalents post expiry of the original patent.

This scenario has been well-captured by the above media report, which states: “AbbVie leadership has also been accused of creating a ‘patent thicket’ in its battle to stave off biosimilar competitors to Humira.” Boehringer Ingelheim is among the few still fighting AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ hoping to launch its Humira biosimilar - Cyltezo, even after receiving US-FDA approval on August 29, 2017. ‘Top biosimilar makers, including Novartis’ Sandoz unit and Mylan, have settled their own Humira patent fights with deals that put off launches until 2023,’ the report indicated.

In its favor: AbbVie says, Cyltezo infringes about 70 patents the company currently holds for Humira. Whereas, ‘Boehringer’s lawyers say AbbVie’s copious patents overlapped in an attempt to exclude competitors from the market.’ Notably, in March this year, New York’s UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, reportedly, also accused AbbVie of using overlapping patents to exclude biosimilars.

‘Patent thicket’ – a way of ‘evergreening’ beyond 20 years patent term:

Much concern is being raised about various ploys of especially by the drug MNC and their lobby groups – directly or under a façade, to delay entry of cheaper generic drugs for greater patient access. Mostly the following two ways are followed for patent ‘evergreening’ beyond the term of 20 years:

  • ‘Incremental innovation’ of the existing patented drugs through molecular manipulation, with its clinical performance and safety profile remaining similar to the original one. As the cost benefits of such drugs are not shared with patients, cannibalizing the sales of the older molecular version with the newer one highlighting its newness, the sales revenue can be protected. With this approach, coupled with marketing muscle power with deep-pocket the impact of generic entry of the older version can almost be made redundant. For example: Omeprazole was first marketed in 1989 by AstraZeneca, under the brand name Losec (later changed to Prilosec at the behest of the US-FDA). When Prilosec’s US patent expired in April 2001, AstraZeneca introduced esomeprazole (Nexium) as a patented replacement drug. Both are nearly identical in their clinical efficacy and safety.
  • ‘Patent thicket’ is yet another tool for ‘evergreening’, delaying launch of similar drugs, or resorting to ‘pay for delay’ sort of deals. As another recent report reiterates, AbbVie’s ‘patent thicket’ for Humira, has deterred other potential challengers, such as Amgen, Samsung Bioepis and most recently Mylan, each of which struck settlements with AbbVie to delay their biosimilar challenges in the United States.

Goes against patients’ health interest:

On May 09, 2018, the Biosimilars Council reported, just as generic medicines saved Americans USD 1.67 trillion in the last decade, biosimilars are poised to do the same – ‘if they aren’t thwarted by delaying tactics instituted by some pharmaceutical companies.’ Echoing similar concern, the outgoing US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb also, reportedly said, ‘some drugmakers are using unacceptable tactics such as litigation and rebate schemes to stall the entry of cheaper copies.’

‘Of the nine biosimilars the FDA has approved to date, only three have made it into the hands of patients – an alarmingly small number. Patients can’t access the six others due to barriers thrown in their way by pharmaceutical companies that want to protect their monopolies and keep prices high,’ highlights the Biosimilars Council report. Net sufferer of this self-serving ‘patent thicket’ strategy of pharma and biotech players to extend product patents beyond 20 years, are those patients who need these drugs the most – to save their lives.

Despite law, patent ‘evergreening’ still not uncommon in India:

With section (3d) on the Indian Patents Act 2005 in place, the country is expected to protect itself from patent ‘evergreening’ through ‘incremental innovation.’ This section articulates:“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.”

On this ground, Indian Patent Office (IPO) rejected Novartis’ drug Glivec (imatinib mesylate) patent application, which was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in 2013. Nevertheless, a study report of April 30, 2018 emphasized: ‘Though the law with regard to anti-evergreening, upheld and clarified by Indian courts, remains on the books, its application by the IPO has been far from satisfactory.’

The esteemed author of the report, after analyzing about 2,300 drug patents, granted between 2009 and 2016 concluded that evergreening practices may be rampant in India. The report pointed out, ‘the IPO could be operating with an error rate as high as 72 percent for secondary patents, despite provisions to keep them in check.’

Are these IPO’s mistakes, or due to external pressure?

As the paper, published in the January 2016 edition of the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) said,‘The multi-national pharma companies (MNCs) and the US-India Business Council (USIBC) have suggested in their report for elimination of Section 3 (d) so that drug patents can be granted in India for incremental improvement and modification. As per US 301 report, India is listed among countries with inadequate IP regime.’ Keeping all these aspects into consideration, the article expressed some key concerns pertaining to the impact of Section 3 (d) with special emphasis on its interpretation. Does it mean any possibility of wilting under such extraneous and high impact pressure?

A fresh pressure from drug MNC on the DCGI:

Since long drug MNCs have been attempting to delay the entry of even those generics, which are fully compliant with the Indian Patent Law 2005. One such effort was their demand for ‘patent linkage’ with the marketing approval of new generic drugs. However, it could not pass through legal scrutiny – first by the Delhi High Court in the Bayer Cipla case in 2010, and then by the Supreme Court – on the same case. The Court, reportedly, ‘noted the Indian patent system was distinct from the drug regulatory system with no linkage between them and so Bayer can’t prevent DCGI from granting marketing approval to generic versions of patented drugs.’

According to another recent media report of April 04, 2019, in a fresh endeavor ‘to delay launch of low priced generic medicine, multinational drug makers have asked the government to create a registry providing information about all drug applications pending manufacturing and marketing approval. The proposal, which is still pending with the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), if accepted, could involve the generic players into expensive and time-consuming litigations, delaying early market entry of the cheaper generic or biosimilar equivalents.

To date, the health ministry has opposed the proposal, as it will be “unfair to local drug manufacturers to disclose their product strategy” and also has “the potential to substantially increase health care costs for the public.” The government further argued, “such information about product applications filed for approval are not disclosed anywhere in the world.”

India encourages new drug innovation, but not at any cost:

Despite shrill and disparaging comments of MNC lobbyists and the strong vested interests, that India’s Patent Law 2005, doesn’t encourage innovation, many independent international experts do praise the same for the following reasons:

  • Does encourage new drug innovation
  • Does extend product exclusivity for twenty years
  • Strikes a right balance with patients’ health interest
  • Indian judicial system deals with patient infringements and disputes, just as any other developed countries
  • Even 14 years after the enactment of patent laws, just one compulsory license has been granted, which is much less than other countries, including the United States.

What India doesn’t legally allow is, unfettered profit making through ‘evergreening of drug patents’ – at the cost of millions of patients-lives. Nonetheless, powered by deep pockets, the pharma and biotech players are unlikely to cease from this practice, anytime soon. Only patient-awareness, and stringent counter-legal measures can contain this unfair game of drug monopoly practices – in the name of ‘encouraging innovation’.

Conclusion:

The article titled, ‘Over patented, overpriced: How Excessive Pharmaceutical Patenting is Extending Monopolies and Driving up Drug Prices’ revealed:“Top grossing drugs have on average 125 patent applications, which are filed with a strategic intent to extend the commercial monopolies far beyond the intended twenty years of protection.” It also quoted American President Donald Trump as saying, “Our patent system will reward innovation, but it will not be used as a shield to protect unfair monopolies.”

Coming back to ‘patent thicket’ and the same classic case, another report of March 20, 2019 indicated, a new class action lawsuit filed by New York’s largest grocery union has accused AbbVie of violating antitrust and consumer protection laws, which AbbVie has defended by saying that its patent strategy for Humira has protected the investments that are necessary to “advance healthcare.”

Pharma and biotech companies’ maintaining patent monopolies far beyond twenty years has significant consequences on India’s healthcare system. Only patent lawyers and experts can possibly answer whether or not the Indian Patent Law 2005 can effectively deal with the practice of ‘evergreening’ with patent thicket. Intriguingly, taking a cue from recent developments, it seems many pharma and biotech investors too, deem ‘patent thicket’ rather distracting for longer-term undiluted focus on new product development, and sustainable investors’ return.

That apart, the question also comes, whether just as ‘antitrust and consumer protection laws’ in the US, the Competition Law of India will be able to do contain such unfair practices? Otherwise, with MNC lobbyists’ renewed activities in this area, ‘patent thicket’, especially for expensive biologic drugs, will delay market-entry of their cheaper biosimilar versions in India, as well, just as what is happening in the developed nations.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

Pharma Marketing: Time For A Disruptive Change with A New Breed of Marketers

Posted on by
Reply

In Today’s fast-changing world, as I indicated in several of my previous articles, more and more people first try to understand the causative factors of their ailments, and options available for effective remedial measures. They strive to get such information, either from the cyberspace or by word of mouth from well informed individuals or other sources. This process starts before treatment, and continues, at times, even after remission of the disease.

Even in the developed countries, a scope exists for self-medication for common ailments with OTC drugs, duly approved by respective country’s drug regulators. A point to ponder, most of these were ‘only prescription’ medicines before going off-patent, and after enjoying 20 years of exclusivity with pricing freedom. During their patent life, self-treatment was illegal with any of these molecules, if not dangerous. The same tradition continues today.

The bottom-line is, many patients are now trying to understand their diseases from sources other than the physician. Good or bad, the reality is, such patients generally prefer to visit a doctor as and when they deem it necessary. While visiting a clinic, they already have, not just some idea of the ailment, but also in what way they would prefer to get themselves treated and approximate cost of each. One should not presume, either, that majority of them are unaware of the risks involved with this approach.

Pharma marketers today can’t just wish away this emerging trend of patients and patient groups getting increasingly more informed. Trying to stop this trend will be a Herculean task, similar to swimming against a very strong current. Managing this situation in a win-win way is now a key task of a pharma marketer. In this article, dwelling on this trend, I shall focus on the need for a disruptive change in pharma marketing and the new breed of drug marketers.

Calls for a fundamental shift in pharma ‘marketing focus’:

Achieving this objective warrants a fundamental, if not a disruptive shift, in the ‘marketing focus’ of pharma companies – from traditional ‘product management’ to modern ‘brand management.’

With patented ‘me-too’ drugs, including ‘Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs)’, as well as generics, now dominating the market, some sort of ‘commoditization’ of drugs are taking place in the pharma industry, whether one likes it or not.

No significant differential advantages oruniqueness exist between such products manufactured by different drug companies. Consequently, doctors or patients have enough choices to prescribe or buy, drugs with comparable efficacy, safety, quality standards and matching price range, from different pharma players.

Shift from product marketing to brand marketing:

One may possibly ask aren’t both quite the same? Is there any meaningful difference between these two? Thus, taking a pause, let us try to understand what’s the difference between these two.

Yes, for many there is not much difference between these two, especially in the pharma industry. Hence, many drug companies name this function as ‘product management’, while others call it ‘brand management’. In fact, these two are often used as interchangeable terminologies in the drug industry. Nonetheless, this understanding is far from being correct.

The key focus in ‘pharma product marketing’ is on the drug itself – its intrinsic value offerings to patients in terms of efficacy, safety, quality and often the cost. Thus, ‘product marketing’ approach may work for breakthrough drugs, but not for ‘me-too’ patented drugs or generic ones to achieve the desired goals of the respective companies, consistently.

Whereas, pharma ‘brand marketing’ in its true form, creates much more value than pharma ‘product marketing.’ The former dovetails intrinsic values of the drug with a set of strong feelings and emotions around the brand, purely based on what patients or consumers would want to experience from it. This process makes even a me-too brand stand out, creating a strong personality around it and differentiating itself head and shoulder above competitors. Importantly, the bedrock of conceptualizing these powerful feelings and emotions, must necessarily be robust, relevant and fresh research data. No doubt, the task is a challenging one– and not every marketer’s cup of tea.

Why building personality for pharma brands and services is necessary?

If we look around the healthcare industry, we shall be able to realize the importance of building personality for a medicine, especially generic drugs with a brand name, in the Indian context.

For example, many hospitals offer similar medical treatment facilities, follow similar treatment guidelines and their cost may also not be very different. But why different people prefer different ones among these, and all hospitals don’t get a similar number of patients? Same thing happens during the patients’ selection of doctors from many, having similar qualification, experience and expertise.

This happens mainly due to the attachment of a persona around each that creates a particular feeling and emotion among patients while choosing one of them. The process and reasons of creation of a persona may be different, but it certainly differentiates one from the other for the consumer. The same thing happens with virtually undifferentiated ‘me-too’ patented drugs or generic medicines.

Time to create a ‘strong pull’ for a drug, instead of ‘push’ by any means:

To create a ‘strong pull’ successfully, specifically for ‘me-too’ patented molecule or generic drugs, there is an urgent need for a fundamental change in the organization’s marketing approach – a shift in focus from ‘product marketing’ to ‘brand marketing’.

Otherwise, current pharma marketing practices for creating a ‘strong push’ for drugs that often involve alleged serious malpractices’ will continue. But continuation of this approach is not sustainable any longer, for scores of reasons.

The benefits of pharma ‘brand marketing’ in bullet points:

To summarize the key benefits of ‘brand marketing’ in pharma, the following points come at the top of mind:

  • ‘Brand marketing’ of drugs helps escaping avoidable and unsustainable heavy expenditure to create a ‘strong product push,’ often resorting to contentious marketing practices.
  • Proper ‘brand marketing’ of drugs needs high quality cerebral and multi-talented marketing teams, rather than the power of ‘deep pocket’ to buy prescriptions. This creates a snowballing effect of cutting edge talent development within the organization, along with a culture of leading by examples, for a sustainable future success.
  • ‘Brand marketing’ is a better, if not the best way to make a drug most preferred choice in a crowd of similar branded generics or ‘me-too’ patented drugs.
  • Paying doctors for prescribing a drug does not help developing loyal customers, but creating feelings and emotions for a brand among them, helps foster brand allegiance.
  • Creative ‘brand marketing’ of drugs will appreciably boost the image of the organization, as well, but ‘pharma product’ marketing in its present form, will not.

Pharma ‘brand marketing’ and ‘patient-centricity’ to work in tandem:

My article, ‘Increasing Consumerism: A Prime Mover For Change in Healthcare’, published in this blog on June 11, 2018, deliberated an important point. It was:

If the pharma strategic marketing process is really effective in every way, why is healthcare consumerism increasing across the world, including India?

The focal point of rising consumerism in the pharma industry is unsatisfied, if not anguished or angry patients and patient groups – in other words consumers. There could be various different reasons for the same. But the core point is, contentious marketing practices that pharma players generally follow, is self-serving in nature. These are not patient-centric, and mostly devoid of efforts to create feelings or emotions for the product, among both prescribers and other consumers.

The pharma marketers to keep pace with changing environmental demands:

As I discussed several times in the past, pharma marketers are often found wanting to meet the changing demands of the business environment. This is important, as the general pharma practices of influencing the prescribing decision of the doctors are facing a strong headwind of increasing consumerism, India included. This is slowly but surely gaining momentum. For example, patients in India are realizing:

  • That a vast majority of people pay ‘out of pocket’, almost the total cost of health care, without having even a participatory role in their treatment choice, including drugs.
  • That they no longer should remain unassertive consumers, just as what happens in other industries when a consumer buys a product or service.
  • That they need to involve themselves more and be assertive when a decision about their health is taken by doctors, hospitals, realizing that pharma and medical device companies often ‘unfairly’ influence doctors’ prescribing decisions.

The role and requisite talent required for pharma marketers have changed:

Keeping aside ‘one size fits all’ type of strategy, even if I look at so called ‘targeted marketing’ in pharma, it appears somewhat baffling. It is somewhat like, ‘empty your machine gun magazine at the target with a hope to win over competition.’ Whereas, today’s environment requires making healthcare product marketing, including drugs and services, more personal, and in some cases even individual, like latest cancer therapy. The wherewithal for technological support to move towards this direction is also available. State of the art marketing and product research tools and analytics should be put to use to facilitate this process.

Increasing usage of digital marketing, in an integrated or holistic way, is going to make traditional pharma marketing less and less productive, whether we like it or not. To maintain a sharp competitive edge in this new ball game, on an ongoing basis, pharma marketers will need to keep raising the bar.

Consequently, the role and requisite talent required for pharma marketers have also changed. The new generation of drug marketers will not just be creative, but their creativity will be guided by a huge pool of credible research-based data, avoiding gut-feel. All guesses in this area must pass the acid test of validation by what the research data reveals. Moreover, pharma marketers will need to possess, at least the working knowledge of various digital platforms and possible usages for each of these.

Conclusion:

There is an urgent need to realize that drug marketing is now at the crossroads, pharma players will have a choice, either to follow the same beaten path or gradually make a course correction to keep pace with changing environmental demands. If a company decides to choose the second one, the role of pharma marketers and the talent required for doing the job effectively, will be significantly different from what it is today.Maintaining the status quo in this area, carries an inherent risk for the future success of pharma companies.

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.

 

Relevance Of Outliers In Pharma Sales Forecasting

Posted on by
Reply

Just like any other predictions or forecasting – on a broader sense, pharma sales forecasts are also a tough and tedious task. Availability of many sophisticated state of the art digital software tools and techniques, notwithstanding.

In an article, published in the July-August 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review (HBR), Paul Saffo – a forecaster based in Silicon Valley, California – expressed this point succinctly with a nice example. He said: “Prediction is possible only in a world in which events are preordained and no amount of action in the present can influence future outcomes. That world is the stuff of myth and superstition. The one we inhabit is quite different—little is certain, nothing is preordained, and what we do in the present affects how events unfold, often in significant, unexpected ways.”

At this point, I would respectfully prefer to slightly alter the last sentence of the quote as, “….and what we and (others) do in the present affects how events unfold, often in significant, unexpected ways.”  This is important to me, as we may have control over what ‘we do’, but may not have much control over what ‘others do’ in the present, which may also greatly affect how events unfold, often in significant, unexpected ways.

However, the author distinctly differentiates predictions from forecasts by clarifying that prediction is concerned with future certainty, whereas forecasting looks at how hidden currents in the present, signal possible changes in direction for companies. Thus, unlike a prediction, a forecast must have a logic to it and the forecasters must be able to articulate and defend that logic.

My own hands-on experience in the domestic, as well as the pharma industry of the western world tells me that the actual sales and profit may seldom be a replica of the respective forecasts for the same. However. a reasonably good forecast is the one that is much closer to reality.

That said, it is important to note in the same context, what the above HBR paper has said, in this regard. The author underscores whether a specific forecast actually turns out to be accurate is only part of the picture. Citing a nice simile it says, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Thus, the forecaster’s one of the key tasks is to map uncertainty where our actions in the present influence the future. Uncertainty is an opportunity, he articulates.

In this article, I shall try to explore the possible reasons why, despite the availability of so many sophisticated digital software tools and techniques, the reality in most cases is much different. In a significant number of occasions, the actual sales is much less than the sales forecasts.

The criticality of forecast accuracy:

As we know, sales forecasts today are generally data pooling or consensus forecasts for better buying-in by the implementer, as there exists a critical need, just not to deliver closer to the forecasts, but to exceed the same, especially for the new products.

One will get the flavor of criticality of sales forecast accuracy from the McKinsey research study titled, “The Secret of Successful Drug Launches”, published in March 2014. It found that two-thirds of the sample group of drug-launches failed meeting pre-launch sales forecasts in their very first year on the market. The sample for this study comprised 210 new drugs launched between 2003 and 2009, for which McKinsey gathered necessary consensus-forecasts data for launch from EvaluatePharma. Three important findings of this EvaluatePharma – McKinsey analysis may be summed up, as follows:

1. Actual sales during the first year of launch as % of sales forecast one year before launch:

  • % of launches below forecasts: 66
  • % of launches on or near forecasts: 8
  • % of launches exceeded the forecast: 26

2. Of launches that exceeded the forecasts in the year 1:

  • 65% continued to do so in the year 2
  • 53% of those exceeded forecasts in the year 3

3. Of launches that lagged forecasts in the year 1:

  • 78%continued to do so in the year 2
  • 70% of those lagged forecasts in the year 3

In an eloquent way, this study highlights the benefits of sales forecast accuracy for a sustainable performance excellence, especially with new products.

Wide room for improvement in forecasts:

Although, my focus in this article will be on sales revenue forecasts, there is a wide room for improvement in other related forecasts, as well.

Another interesting article titled, “Outsmart Your Own Biases”, appeared in the May 2015 issue of the Harvard Business Review revealed, when researchers asked hundreds of chief financial officers from a variety of industries to forecast yearly returns for the S&P 500 over a nine-year horizon, their 80% ranges were right only one-third of the time. The authors considered it as a terribly low rate of accuracy for a group of executives with presumably vast knowledge of the economy of the United States.

The study further indicated that projections are even further off the mark when people assess their own plans, partly because their desire to succeed skews their interpretation of the data.

Such a scenario prompts the need of yet greater application of a mix of creative and analytical minds to ferret out the reasons behind general inaccuracy in forecasting, which incidentally does not mean setting out an easy target, and then exceeding it. Right sales forecasting with high accuracy, is expected to make use of every potential future opportunity in the best possible way to achieve continuous excellence in performance.

Analyzing outliers in consensus forecasting:

A recent paper deliberated on this area backed by some relevant case studies to capture the relevance of outliers in consensus-forecasting for the pharma companies.

The 2017 study of EvaluatePharma, titled “The Value of Outliers in Consensus Forecasting” flagged some important points. It also asked, are we questioning the level of agreement or disagreement, while leveraging each estimate for consensus forecasts?

However, in this article, I shall highlight only on the relevance of outliers in pharma sales forecasting, and keep aside the question on the level of agreement or disagreement while leveraging each estimate for consensus forecasts, for another discussion.

As many of us have experienced, there will always be outliers in most of the consensus forecasting process, which are usually removed while arriving at the final numbers. Nonetheless, this article brings on to the table the importance of outliers who, on the contrary, can provide an insightful view, especially in those areas with more upside potential and downside risk.

Just to recapitulate, an outlier is a data point that lies at an abnormal distance from other data points, which in this case is data related to consensus-forecast. This divergence can be either very high or very low. Which is why, outlier removal is a common practice, as it is considered as bad data by many. Nonetheless, before singling out and elimination of outliers, it will be a good idea to analyze and understand the exact reasons behind the same.

The above paper also indicates that combining consensus forecasts with the analysis of outliers will enable the pharma companies:

  • To better balancing risk and upside
  • Improving accuracy of new product selection

Conclusion:

Just as in any business, for pharmaceuticals too, sales forecasting holds a crucial importance, having a far-reaching impact. This is primarily because, many critical decisions are taken based on sales forecasts, such as internal revenue and capital budgeting, financial planning, deployment of sales, marketing and other operational resources, including supply chain, to name a few. All these, individually and collectively, necessitate that sales forecasts, especially for new products, should be of high accuracy.

One of the recent trends in this area, is pooling or consensus forecasts, though, it is not free from some criticism. The recent EvaluatePharma study, as quoted above, clearly demonstrates that this approach helps increase forecast accuracy, especially in situations with a high degree of uncertainty.

The upper and lower bounds of consensus known as outliers, may often identify potential upside or downside events that could significantly affect the outlook of a pharmaceutical company.

With this perspective, it now clearly emerges that in-depth analysis of outliers is of high relevance to improve accuracy of pharma sales forecasts, in a significant 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.

Generic Drug Quality: Cacophony Masks An Important Note, Creates A Pariah

Posted on by
Reply

In the ongoing debate between branded-generics and generic drugs without brand names, the concern about drug quality is occupying the center stage, with the former generally being painted in white, and the later in black – with no shades of gray in-between. Interestingly, many large domestic companies manufacture and sell both these genres of generic medicines, and the marketing approval process of both is no different, in a relative yardstick. The degree of difficulty in testing their quality standards, across the country, is no different, either.

On February 25, 2017, even the USFDA, reportedly, raised concerns, for the first time, on the quality and efficacy of medicines, in general, being sold within India. The news report further highlighted: ‘Over the past two years, many domestic majors, including Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s, Cipla and Zydus Cadila have faced regulatory ire over quality of medicines exported from here and sold in the US and other overseas markets’.

It is undeniable, if prescriptions in generic names are made mandatory, there could be direct job losses within the industry, just as loss of significant business clientele of many professional service providers for branded generic business, directly or indirectly. Its net impact needs to be factored-in too, while taking a final decision on this subject.

Lack of enough credible scientific data establishing superiority of branded-generics over their non-branded equivalents are also striking, so are few instances of doctors filing Pharmacovigilance reports with the DCGI on the inferior quality of non-branded generic drugs. Neither is the most competent body in this area – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), has concurred with any such claims, so far. Without these, the whole debate based on seemingly over the top claims of superiority of branded generics as a class, is based no more than a matter of conjecture.

I discussed most of these points in one of my earlier articles published in this blog on April 24, 2017. Thus, in this article, I shall focus mostly on an important generic-drug-quality related amendment, very recently made in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, which hasn’t received as much attention as it deserves. This finer note in the drug regulatory playbook, in fact, got nearly masked in the high-decibel cacophony of arguments and counterarguments on Prime Minister Modi’s recent hint on making prescriptions in generic drug names mandatory.

The core issue remains the same, both for non-branded and branded generics:

In the marketing approval process of any branded generic or a non-branded generic drug, Bioequivalence (BE) studies hold immense scientific importance. It ascertains whether the generic equivalent possesses similar efficacy and safety profile as the original molecule for interchangeability. Which is why, in most countries, including Europe and the United States, BE testing is mandatory for approval of any generic drug. Even the large buyers of these drugs, such as the World Health Organization, buy only those generics with proven BE.

Nonetheless, like many other nations, in India, as well, the marketing approval standards for all generic drugs, with or without a brand name, are exactly the same. However, this approval process gets alarmingly relaxed, for both these generic types, with the passage of time, which is the core issue.

New drug definition in India:

According to section 122-E of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (D&C Rules) new drugs will include unapproved drugs, modified or new claims, such as, indications, dosage forms (including sustained release dosage form) and route of administration of already approved drugs and combination of two or more drugs. A new drug shall continue to be considered as new for a period of four years from the date of its first approval or its inclusion in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, whichever is earlier.

BE studies necessary only for ‘New Drugs’:

For all such new drugs and their Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC), including those which are not covered by a patent, if introduced for the first time in India, would necessarily require its applicant to submit the marketing approval documents well-supported by phase III clinical trial data, which includes BE studies against the original molecules. BE of a drug product is achieved if its extent and rate of absorption do not show statistically significant differences from those of the reference product when administered at the same molar dose.

After the 4-year period BE tests not necessary:

Interestingly, after the 4-year period, D&C rules allow subsequent manufacturers of similar drugs to generally rely on the data generated by other pharma companies to obtain marketing approvals for their drugs. In other words, after this 4-year period, manufacturers of branded or non-branded generic drugs are not required to establish comparable safety and efficacy of their formulations with the original molecule through BE and other studies. It is worth noting here, unlike India, BE tests are mandatory for approval of all generic drugs at any time, in most countries across the world.

How would a doctor select only those branded-generics with BE studies?

As there isn’t any easy way to know and identify, both by the doctors and also the patients, which branded or non-branded generics were introduced without BE studies, both these categories pose equal risks to patients – not just the cheaper generic drugs sans brand names.

Changes recommended:

This laxity in the regulatory framework in India did create a lot of uneasiness about the quality of branded and non-branded generic medicines approved by the drug regulators and sold in the country. Responding to this issue, Professor Ranjit Roy Chowdhury Committee Report recommended in July 2013 to make BE and bio­availability studies mandatory for all types of generic drugs, even after the 4-year period.

Cacophony masks an important note:

The good news is, on April 3, 2017, by a Gazette Notification, Indian Government enacted amendments to the Drug and Cosmetics Act (1940) requiring mandatory BE studies for marketing approval of all generic drugs even beyond the 4-year period of the ‘new drug’ definition. It says, “The applicant shall submit the result of bioequivalence study referred to in Schedule Y, along with the application for the grant of a license of the oral dosage form of drugs specified under category II and category IV of the biopharmaceutical classification system.”

Biopharmaceutics Classification System:

The Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) is a scientific framework to differentiate the drug formulations based on their aqueous solubility and intestinal permeability, and mainly depends on two factors:

  • How well the drug dissolves in the stomach and intestinal fluids (drug solubility)
  • How readily the drug passes through the intestinal wall into the blood flow (drug permeability)

The BCS was introduced by Gordon L. Amidon in 1995 to classify drugs into the four categories based on these parameters, as follows:

  • Class I: High Solubility – High Permeability
  • Class II: Low Solubility – High Permeability
  • Class III: High Solubility – Low Permeability
  • Class IV: Low Solubility – Low Permeability

CDSCO still needs to find the right answer to a key question:

Interestingly, this so important note in the regulatory playbook of India got masked in the high-voltage cacophony on branded and non-branded-generics. However, CDSCO would still require finding out the right answer to a key question: how would a doctor or a patient possibly know on which branded and non-branded generic drugs BE tests were not carried out, before the above amendment came into force.

Reported data on substandard drugs in India:

Quoting CDSCO data, the September-October 2015 issue of the ‘Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism’ summarized that ‘during the years 2011-2014, the regional laboratories tested samples at 91 percent of the installed capacity, but their overall detection rate of sub-standard drugs were only 3.6 percent’. Many have expressed doubts about these numbers though, nevertheless, these are Government data, and don’t fall in the realm of any conjecture.

In any case, the Union Ministry of Health doesn’t seem to concur that the issue of substandard drugs in India, that includes both the branded and non-branded generics, has assumed a public health menace in India or even alarming.

No qualms on value added branding of generic drugs, but fix the loophole for all:

It is understandable, when generic drugs are branded for tangible value-added product differentiation even within the identical or the same drug molecules. There are no qualms on such branding per se, though it comes at a high cost.

Marketing approval requirements being the same for all branded and non-branded generic drugs with the same pitfalls of no mandatory BE-testing requirement after the 4-year period, branding should add commensurate tangible value. Otherwise, why should most patients pay a significantly extra amount for heavily promoted branded-generics? Is it to help the pharma companies fighting with each other to increase their respective pies of revenue and profit on an essential commodity? Instead, stakeholders should now focus on easy detection of all those branded and non-branded generic drug formulations that avoided mandatory BE studies, prior to April 3, 2017.

In conclusion:

Despite CDSCO’s statistical data on substandard drugs, the general concern regarding the efficacy and safety of medicines manufactured in India is often raised both inside the country, as well as by some well-respected overseas drug regulators. Curiously, when raising the same concern CDSCO banned hundreds of branded FDCs, as these drugs came to the market without carrying out required scientific tests due to some major lacunae in the regulatory system, there was a huge protest in the country raised by almost the same people, as business interests prevailed over patients’ health interest.

Interestingly, displaying a sharp contradiction in today’s cacophony, patients’ health interest has been put in the forefront to protect business interests, especially when the CDSCO has raised no such concern, whatsoever.

The reverberating claims on superior drug quality for branded-generics as a class, over their cheaper non-branded equivalents, with the former generally being painted in white, and the later in black – with no shades of gray in-between, as I said before, is based mostly on conjecture rather than enough hard facts. Thus, the question comes up, who is responsible for ensuring drug efficacy and safety for the patients in India – CDSCO or non-fact based claims being raised mostly by those who have a direct or indirect financial interest in branded-generic business?

Keeping this in perspective, it is indeed intriguing, why such an important regulatory step of April 3, 2017 requiring mandatory BE studies for marketing approval of all generic drugs, even after the 4-year period, is getting masked in the cacophony, mostly favoring the branded-generics as a category. However, it’s no-brainer to understand that this din would continue, projecting all generic drugs sans brand names – a pariah!

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.

Making New Cancer Drugs Cost-effective

Posted on by
Reply

The prices of new cancer drugs are increasingly becoming unsustainable across the world, and more so in India. A sizable number of poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life’s savings for the treatment of this dreaded disease, is pushed towards extreme economic hardship. Their plight in India would continue to remain so, till Universal Health Care (UHC) comes into force, as enunciated in the National Health Policy 2017.

Thus, the delivery of affordable and equitable cancer care poses one of India’s greatest public health challenges. Public expenditure on cancer in India remains below US$ 10 per person, as compared with more than US$ 100 per person in high-income countries. The May 2014 paper, published in ‘The Lancet Oncology’, analyzed this concern in detail.

In this article, after giving a brief backdrop, I shall explore a possible alternative to make cancer treatment with new drugs affordable to many by scaling up this strategic option.

Cancer – the second leading cause of death:

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), cancer is the second leading cause of death globally and accounted for 8.8 million deaths in 2015. This works out to nearly 1 in 6 of all global deaths, with US$ 1.16 trillion being the estimated total annual economic cost of cancer in 2010. Lung, prostate, colorectal, stomach and liver cancer are the most common types of cancer in men, while breast, colorectal, lung, cervix and stomach cancer are the most common among women. To reduce significant disability, suffering and deaths caused by cancer worldwide, effective and affordable programs in early diagnosis, screening, treatment, and palliative care are needed. Treatment options may include surgery, medicines and/or radiotherapy – the report reiterates. In many instances, anti-cancer drugs are the mainstay treatment.

For the country, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) reported over 736, 000 people succumbing to the disease in 2016. This figure is expected to shoot up to 880,000 by 2020. ICMR estimated the total number of new cancer cases at around 1.45 million in 2016, and the same is likely to reach 1.73 million by 2020. The situation in this area, therefore, rather grim across the world, including India.

Cancer treatment cost in India is one of the highest in the world:

Anticancer drugs are generally expensive. As stated in a related article, published in the Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology on March 14, 2017, in the United States, a novel anticancer drug routinely costs more than US$ 100,000 per year of treatment. When adjusted for per capita spending power, these lifesaving medicines become most unaffordable in economically developing nations, such as India and China. Not only are their launch prices high and fast rising, but these also often escalate during the respective patent exclusivity period.

That in terms of the ability to pay for drugs, cancer drugs are most affordable in Australia and least affordable in India and China, was established in one of the largest research study presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Moreover, even in those cases where cancer could be detected early, about half the patients in India are compelled to skip the treatment for high drug cost, highlights another article.

Interestingly, the concerned drug manufacturers seldom, if at all, justify such astronomical drug prices and subsequent price increases well supported by some rational factors, such as, the extent of benefit patients are likely to derive, the novelty of the agents, or detailed spending on research and development, the above paper states.

The increasing trend of price escalation of cancer drugs harms many patients, often directly, through increased out-of-pocket expenses, which reduce levels of patient compliance, or drive thousands of cancer patients skipping the drug treatment, altogether. Consequently, it also harms the society by imposing cumulative price burdens on many patients that are unsustainable.

Despite high cost, annual global spending on anticancer drugs has already exceeded US$100 billion, and is predicted to reach US$150 billion by 2020. In India too, oncology is a leading therapeutic segment, which reached a turnover of Rs. 2,000 Crore (around US$ 320 million) in 2013 and is expected to grow to Rs. 3,831 crore (around US$ 615 million) by the end of 2017, according to a report of Frost and Sullivan.

The reason for high drug price:

The real reason for the high cost of cancer drugs, just as many other life-saving medicines, is quite challenging to fathom. Many attribute its reason to unsustainable R&D models of the global pharma companies, in general.

For example, “the spiraling cost of new drugs mandates a fundamentally different approach to keep lifesaving therapies affordable for cancer patients” – argued an article titled, “How Much Longer Will We Put Up With US$ 100,000 Cancer Drugs?”, published by Elsevier Inc. In the same context, another article titled “Making Cancer Treatment More Affordable”, published in the ‘Rare Disease Report’ on Feb 09, 2017, reiterated that the current R&D model needs to change, as the cost of many such treatments is higher than the cost of an average person’s house in the United States.

Nonetheless, the drug manufacturers answer this difficult question with ease and promptness, citing that the cost of innovation to bring these drugs through a complex research and development (R&D) process to the market, isn’t just very high, but is also increasing at a rapid pace.

Pharma R&D cost:

An analysis by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, published in the Journal of Health Economics in March, 2016 pegged the average cost to develop and gain marketing approval for a new drug at US$ 2.558 billion. It also said that the total cost of innovation of a new drug and bringing it to market, has increased more than double from US$ 1.22 billion in 2003 to US$ 2.6 billion in 2014. Although these numbers are being vehemently challenged in several credible journals and by the international media, many global pharma majors justify the high new drug prices

by highlighting that developing a new molecule takes an enormous amount of time of 12 to 14 years, lots of financial resources and huge efforts.

On the other hand, an article titled, “Does it really cost US$ 2.6 billion to develop a new drug?”, published in The Washington Post on November 18, 2014 observed that: ‘The never-ending debate about what drugs should cost is in part driven by the fact that no one seems to know what it actually costs to develop one.”

But, why is the decline in the R&D productivity trend?

According to a 2014 review article titled, “Recent Advances in Drug Repositioning for the Discovery of New Anticancer Drugs”, published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences, while the total R&D expenditure for drug discovery worldwide increased 10 times since 1975 (US$ 4 billion) to 2009 (US$ 40 billion), the number of NMEs approved has remained largely flat (26 new drugs approved in 1976 and 27 new drugs approved in 2013). The average time required for drug discovery to market launch has also increased over time in the US and in the EU countries from 9.7 years during 1990s, to 13.9 years from 2000 onwards.

Be that as it may, the bottom-line is regardless of tremendous advancement in biological science, technology and analytics, especially in the new millennium, coupled with increasing investments in pharma R&D, the total number of NMEs that has reached the market hasn’t shown commensurate increase.

One of my articles published in this blog titled, “How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?” found an echo of the same in a globally reputed journal. This study, published by the BMJ on May 2016, titled “Propaganda or the cost of innovation? Challenging the high price of new drugs”, expressed deep concern on the rising prices of new medicines. It reiterated that this trend is set to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Need for an alternative R&D strategy:

The hurdles in discovering and developing new drugs call for alternative approaches, particularly for life threatening diseases, such as cancer. I reckon, it’s about time to scale-up a viable alternative strategy to bring down the R&D cost of new drugs, improve the success rate of clinical development, reduce a decade long ‘mind to market’ timeframe for an innovative drug or a treatment, and of course, the mind blogging cost of the entire process, as asserted in the above report from the Tufts Center.

One such alternative strategy could well be: ‘Drug Repurposing’

Drug Repurposing:

As defined by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, ‘drug repurposing’ “generally refers to studying drugs that are already approved to treat one disease or condition to see if they are safe and effective for treating other diseases”.

As many molecules, with well-documented records on their pharmacology and toxicity profile, have been already formulated and undergone large clinical trials on humans, repurposing those drugs building upon the available documents and experiences for fresh clinical trials in different disease conditions, would hasten the regulatory review process for marketing approval, and at a much lesser cost.

I shall quote here just two such examples of ‘drug repurposing’ from well-known molecules, as follows:

  • Sildenafil (Viagra): The blockbuster drug that was launched by Pfizer in 1998 for the treatment of erectile dysfunctions was originally developed for the treatment of coronary artery disease by the same company in 1980s.
  • Thalidomide: Originally designed and developed by a German pharmaceutical company called Grünenthal in Stolberg as a treatment for morning sickness in 1957, but was withdrawn in 1961 from the market because it caused birth defects. The same molecule was reintroduced in 1998 as a ‘repurposed drug’ to effectively treat patients with erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) – a complication of leprosy, and multiple myeloma – a type of cancer.

I had given many more examples of ‘drug repurposing’ in one of my earlier articles published in this blog.

Repurposing drugs for cancer:

The above-mentioned review article of International Journal of Biological Sciences 2014 clearly noted: “Drug repositioning has attracted particular attention from the communities engaged in anticancer drug discovery due to the combination of great demand for new anticancer drugs and the availability of a wide variety of cell and target-based screening assays. With the successful clinical introduction of a number of non-cancer drugs for cancer treatment, ‘drug repurposing’ now became a powerful alternative strategy to discover and develop novel anticancer drug candidates from the existing drug space.”

The following are some recent successful examples of ‘drug repurposing’ for anticancer drug discovery from non-cancer drugs, which are mostly under Phase I to II clinical trials:

Drug Original treatment Clinical status for cancer treatment
Itraconazole Fungal infections Phase I and II
Nelfinavir HIV infections Phase I and II
Digoxin Cardiac diseases Phase I and II
Nitroxoline Urinary Tract Infections Preclinical
Riluzole Amyotropic lateral sclerosis Phase I and II
Disulfram Chronic alcoholism Phase I and II

‘Drug repurposing’ market:

A January 2016 report by BCC Research estimates that the global market for drug repurposing will grow from nearly US$ 24.4 billion in 2015 to nearly US$ 31.3 billion by 2020, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.1 percent for the period of 2015-2020.

Expressing concern just not enough:

There are enough examples available across the world regarding stakeholders’ expression of great concern on this issue, with the buzz of such protests getting progressively shriller.

However, in India, high prices of cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, notwithstanding some sporadic steps taken by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to allay the economic burden of cancer patients to some extent. Encouragingly, the top cancer specialists of the American Society of Clinical Oncology are reportedly working out a framework for rating and selecting cancer drugs not only for their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

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

All this can at best be epitomized as so far so good, and may help increase the public awareness level on this subject. However, the moot point remains: Has anything significantly changed on the ground, on a permanent basis, by mere expression of such concerns?

Conclusion:

This discussion may provoke many to go back to the square number one, making the ongoing raging debate on Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Public Health Interest to gather more steam, but the core concern continues to remain unresolved.

I hasten to add that all such concerns, including strong protests, may no doubt create some temporary pressure on drug manufacturers, but they are experienced enough to navigate through such issues, as they have been doing, so far. However, for making new cancer drugs cost-effective for a vast population of patients, coming out of the current strategic mold of pharma research and development would be necessary. Grant of Compulsory License (CL), or the expectation of the local drug manufacturers for a Voluntary License (VL) of new cancer drugs, can’t be a routine process either, as it appears unrealistic to me, for various reasons.

I have discussed in this article just one alternative R&D strategy in this area, and that is Drug Repurposing (DR). There could be several others. DR is reportedly gaining increasing focus, as it represents a smart way to exploit new molecular targets of a known non-oncological drug for a new therapeutic applications in oncology. Be that as it may, pharma companies and the academia must agree to sail on the same boat together having a common goal to make new cancer drugs cost-effective for majority of cancer patients struggling hard, for life.

I would conclude this article quoting the President and Chief Science Officer of Illinois-based Cures Within Reach who said: “What I like about drug repurposing is that it can solve two issues: improved health-care impact and reduced health-care cost – That’s a big driver for us.”

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

How Cost-Effective Are New Cancer Drugs?

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

Are these new drugs cost-effective?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some overseas Cancer Institutes protested:

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

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

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

This Interesting Video from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

VBP concept is gaining ground: 

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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.