Dry New Antibiotic Pipeline: Increasing Incidence Of Deadly Antibiotic Resistance

Posted on January 23, 2017 by Tapan Ray

On January 13, 2017, ‘The Telegraph’ quoting the ‘Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’ reported that a woman in Nevada was killed by a superbug that proved resistant to every antibiotic available in the United States (US). She was in her 70s, and had recently returned to the US after an extended visit to India. The CDC found her blood containing ‘New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase (NDM)’ – an enzyme that was first detected in India, makes bacteria resistant to many antibiotics. Nevertheless, this is just not a solitary example. It’s fast giving rise to a snowballing effect.

The magnitude of this problem has now assumed a global dimension. A May 2016 review of ‘Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)’ estimates: ‘By 2050, 10 million lives a year and a cumulative 100 trillion USD of economic output is at risk due to the rise of drug – resistant infections, if we do not find proactive solutions now to slow down the rise of drug resistance. Even today, 700,000 people die of resistant infections every year.

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), AMR is the ability of a microorganism (like bacteria, viruses, and some parasites) to stop an antimicrobial (such as antibiotics, antivirals and antimalarials) from working against it. Consequently, standard treatments become ineffective, infections persist and may spread to others.

As antibiotics are a special category of antimicrobial drugs that underpin modern medicine as we know it: if they lose their effectiveness, key medical procedures (such as gut surgery, caesarean sections, joint replacements, and treatments that depress the immune system, such as chemotherapy for cancer) could become too dangerous to perform. Most of the direct and much of the indirect impact of AMR will fall on low and middle-income countries – the above review reiterates.

The first global report on AMR:

Not so long ago, In 2014, the first global report on AMR, published by the W.H.O reiterated that this scary scenario is no longer a prediction for the future. It is happening right now, and is not a country specific issue, but a global concern that is jeopardizing global health security.

“Hundreds of thousands of antibiotic-resistant infections and tens of thousands of related deaths go uncounted each year. But even if they were closely tracked, the lack of new drugs to meet the rising tide of resistance means the toll will only mount,” Reported Reuters in another article titled “Stronger superbugs and no new drugs to fight them”, on December 15, 2016.

Thus, there isn’t even an iota of doubt now that in the battle against bacterial infections, drug-resistant superbugs are fast emerging as one of the deadliest issues in the health care space, across the world, including India.

Interestingly, no one knows who will fall victim of this scary scenario and when. Neither can one eliminate this risk completely, even in the developed world. Only painstaking medical research, sans sole focus on creamy bottom-line, and with the application of cutting edge technology, can help overcome this fast-growing health menace to mankind.

“It’s all about the bottom line”:

Quoting a biochemistry professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, the above article reported, in 1980, 36 large American and European pharmaceutical companies were involved in research into new antibiotics. This number currently reduces to just four: Novartis AG, Merck & Co, GlaxoSmithKline Plc and Sanofi SA.

The May 2016 Data Table of ‘The Pew Charitable Trust’ indicates, as of March 2016, an estimated 37 new antibiotics with the potential to treat serious bacterial infections are in clinical development for the U.S. market. It is worth noting, the success rate of clinical drug development is low. Historical data show that, generally, only 1 in 5 infectious disease products that enter human testing (phase 1 clinical trial) will be approved for patients.

Moreover, most of these new antibiotics are based on existing drugs. Although, this approach is cheaper and easier to develop a new antibiotic, as compared to new classes of drugs, bacteria may rather quickly succeed in developing resistance to them.

It keeps happening, primarily because the return on investment for antibiotics, which are typically prescribed for a short period of 7 to 14 days, is much lower than the new drugs used for virtually a life treatment of chronic conditions, such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or diabetes.

Consequently, most of the constituents of Big Pharma have virtually fled the antibiotic business, as the new drug development ball game today “is all about the bottom line”, the article quoted.

Antibiotic resistance in India:

As W.H.O articulates in its above report, AMR poses a greater challenge in the developing nations, such as India, where the burden of infectious disease is high and health care spending is too low. The problem assumes a more critical dimension in India, that records among the highest bacterial disease burden in the world, with antibiotics playing a critical role in limiting morbidity and mortality.

The 2015 multi-country survey of the W.H.O unveiled a widespread public misunderstanding about antibiotic usage and resistance in India. Some of the major highlights are as follows:

Three quarters (75 percent) of respondents think, incorrectly, that colds and flu can be treated with antibiotics, and only 58 percent know that they should stop taking antibiotics only when they finish the course as directed.

More than three quarters (76 percent) of respondents report having taken antibiotics within the past 6 months; 90 percent say they were prescribed or provided by a doctor or nurse.

While 75 percent agree that antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest problems in the world, 72 percent of respondents believe experts will solve the problem before it becomes too serious.

Nowhere AMR is as stark as in India:

Another article published in the ‘PLOS Medicine’ on March 2, 2016, is quite in tune with the above W.H.O report. It also reiterates that antibiotic resistance is a global public health threat, but nowhere is it as stark as in India. The crude infectious disease mortality rate in India today is 416.75 per 100,000 persons and is twice the rate prevailing in the United States when antibiotics were introduced (roughly 200 per 100,000 persons).

It also captures the following burning issues in this area:

Antibiotic use is a major driver of resistance. In 2010, India was the world’s largest consumer for human health.

Access to antibiotics is rising, which portends well for the large proportion of India’s population that thus far had poor access to these life-saving drugs.

The convergence of factors such as poor public health infrastructure, rising incomes, a high burden of disease, and cheap, unregulated sales of antibiotics have created ideal conditions for a rapid rise in resistant infections in India.

Over-the-counter, nonprescription sales of carbapenems in India are among the highest in the world, and contribute to growing carbapenem resistance among gram-negative organisms.

Improving regulations of drug production and sales, better managing physician compensation, and encouraging behavior change among doctors and patients, are of immediate priority.

More serious than local perception:

The new report released by the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy (CDDEP) in September 2015, has flagged an alarming trend of bacterial resistance to last-resort antibiotics that can lead to life-threatening infections across the world.

While the developed countries still use far more antibiotics per capita, high AMR rates in the developing nations, such as India, Kenya and Vietnam send a strong warning signal to the world.

For example, in India, 57 per cent of the infections caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae, a deadly superbug found in hospitals, were found to be resistant to one type of last-resort drug in 2014 – an increase from 29 per cent in 2008. It is worth noting that these drugs, known as carbapenems, are still effective against Klebsiellainfections in 90 per cent of cases in the U.S, and over 95 per cent in Europe.

A new class of antibiotics discovered with iChip technology:

The good news is, as reported in the June 18, 2015 issue of the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, scientists could produce a new class of antibiotic, named Teixobactin, from a hitherto undescribed soil microorganism (provisionally named Eleftheria terrae). It was isolated with a new tool – the iChip, that allowed the environmental bacterium to grow and for the antibiotic it produced to be isolated and subsequently identified.

Working together with collaborators at the University of Central Florida and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, a research team of Hong Kong University (HKU) has successfully synthesized this ‘game-changing’ antibiotic that can kill a wide range of bacteria seemingly without developing resistance.

Teixobactin has activity against Gram-positive (but not Gram-negative) organisms and mycobacteria and a novel mode of action inhibiting peptidoglycan biosynthesis. Teixobactin, a still-experimental drug that may herald a new era of antibiotic discovery. However, there are no guarantees that it will be able to reach the market post regulatory acid tests, though the use of the iChip will hopefully result in the discovery of further potential new antibiotics.

Country specific frugal innovation is also necessary:

Alongside, various academic initiatives in search of new, path breaking antibiotics, frugal innovation in various countries to address the local issues in this area, could also play a very significant role to contain this menace.

In this context, I shall quote from the example of a small country, such as Singapore, which is contributing significantly to medical research and development in this area.

An article published in a new daily of Singapore – ‘Today’, on December 29, 2016, highlighted that drug-resistant superbugs have become one of the most pressing problems in the healthcare space of even one of the cleanest cities of the world.

Driven by the need to find a more suitable alternative, researchers at the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (IBN) of Singapore, have developed a new material that can kill E coli bacteria within seconds. E coli is a type of bacteria found in the intestines of humans and animals, and some strains can cause severe diarrhea, abdominal pain and fever.

The article, reported that the novel synthetic material, known as imidazolium oligomers, can kill 99.7 percent of the bacteria within 30 seconds, more rapidly than any existing antimicrobial product on the market, such as hand wash or surface sprays. Existing products take minutes to hours to kill the bacteria. It was also tested and found to be effective against other common strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi, such as Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans. It has been licensed by a multinational firm for commercial development in October.

If Singapore can take its own initiatives in this crucial health care space, why can’t India?

Conclusion:

Strict enforcement of the existing regulations of the medical sector, particularly in the prescription of medicines, is of crucial importance. Lack of knowledge among medical practitioners, as well as public on rational use of antibiotics, aggravates the issue.

Notwithstanding fast drying-up of global research pipeline for new antibiotics due to several reasons, India needs to address this fast escalating life-threatening problem through various other practical means. One such could be, putting in place a comprehensive National Action Plan for AMR, quite in line with the Global one, which the W.H.O has already recommended.

This critical issue gets further compounded, as a very significant part of an out-of-pocket expenditure on health care is on medicines, and longer treatment with ineffective drugs and/or second line expensive antibiotics, are pushing the treatment costs higher. On the other side, higher priced drug regimens are less likely to be adhered to, which again contributes to the AMR.

“This situation needs to be interrupted and reversed, not only for safeguarding people’s health, but also for providing protection against health care costs and people going into poverty,” advises the premier World Health body.

Finally, it is important for all to bear in mind, no one knows who will fall victim of this scary scenario and when. So, a decisive action from all concerned can’t wait any longer.

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.

Multi-channel Engagement: A New Normal In Pharma Marketing

Posted on December 26, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The 2015 Report of AffinityMonitor reconfirms that access to important doctors for pharma Medical Representatives (MRs) continues to decline. Now, fewer than half of all doctors are truly accessible to the MRs, down from nearly 80 percent in 2008. In other words, though MRs continue to be the best way to engage the average physician, this “best way” is steadily getting worse.

However, for physician engagement, all digital channels put together to rank the second highest. These include both digital “push”, such as, email or alerts sent to a physician’s smart phone – followed by telemarketing, direct mail; and digital “pull”, such as content that doctors can access on their own from the Internet, and peer interactions, like webinars.

With the new digital channels emerging, pharma companies will have a wider range of promotional and engagement channels to reach out to not just the doctors, but also other important stakeholders. Additionally, various non-personal marketing channels could also help pharma companies overcome the declining trend of restricted access to physicians for MR.

No single channel works for all physicians:

Although, no single channel works for all physicians, as each doctor has a unique preference for how he or she wants to receive information across various channels, most doctors will engage with pharma players in some way. The findings of this report are based on data compiled from more than 100 pharma brands, including engagements with 632,000 physicians across a wide range of specialty areas, and more than 123 million individual physician interactions.

The report suggests that by understanding those channels on a physician level, and targeting their marketing and promotion accordingly, pharma companies can hone the effectiveness of each physician engagement, and thereby improve sales and marketing productivity considerably, for excellence in business.

Similar trend in India with varying degree of difficulty:

Similar trend, though with varying degree of difficulty, can be noticed in India, as well. Over the past several years, many top pharma companies have been already experiencing the steadily declining quality of access of pharma MRs to many important doctors.

This is primarily due to the number of patients coming to these busy practitioners is fast increasing, and as the doctors are trying to see all these patients within the same limited time that was available to them, as in the earlier days. In tandem, their other obligations of various kinds, personal or otherwise, are also overcrowding the same highly squeezed time space.

Thus, an increasing number of MRs, which has more than doubled in the past decade, is now fiercely competing to get a share of lesser and lesser available time of the busy medical practitioners. Added to this, a gross mismatch between the inflow of doctors with similar prescription potential and ever increasing inflow of patients, is making the situation worse.

Reevaluating traditional marketing and sales communication models:

In this complex scenario, the key challenge before the pharma players is how to make sales communication with the busy medical practitioners more productive?

Consequently, many pharma companies, across the globe, have started reevaluating their traditional sales communication models, which are becoming increasingly expensive with diminishing returns from the MR calls.

As I discussed in some other article, a few drug companies have commenced using various interesting multi-channel digital platforms, though mostly fall under the traditional pharma sales communication process.

I shall now briefly glance over the trend of responses of the Indian pharma companies over a couple decades, to meet these challenges of change.

MR based Experimentations:

With a strong intent to squarely overcome this challenge, many Indian pharma players initially tried to experiment with several different MR based approaches, in various permutations and combinations. It was initially directed to make the prescription generation process more productive, by equipping the MR with a wide range of soft skills.

Some pharma players also tried to push up the overall sales productivity through additional rural market coverage to Tier IV cities and below. Quite a few of them succeeded in their endeavor to create profitable business models around the needs of hinterland and rural geographies.

These pharma players, though quickly realized that extra-urban geographies require different tactical approaches, broadly remained stuck to the traditional marketing and sales communication models. These approaches include, differentiated product portfolio, distribution-mix, pricing/packaging and promotional tools, considering most the doctors are not as busy as their counterparts in the metro cities and large towns.

Strategic marketing based experimentations:

Several changes were also made in the strategic marketing areas of pharma business, though most of these, if not all, were imbibed from the global marketing practices of that time. These were well captured in an IMS report of 2012. Some of these strategic marketing shifts were as follows:

Strategic Business Unit Structure (SBU): To bring more accountability, manage evolving business needs and use the equity of organization for reaching to the middle of the accessible pyramid.

Therapy Focus Promotion: Generally seen where a portfolio is specialized, therapy focused, and scripts are driven through chosen few doctors; generally, in chronic segment.

Channel Management: Mostly adopted in OTC /OTX business; mature products with wider portfolio width.

Hospital Task Force: Exclusively to manage the hospital business.

Specialty Driven Sales Model: Applicable in scenarios where portfolio is built around 2 or 3 specialties.

Special Task Force: Generally adopted for niche products in urban areas, such as fertility clinics or for new launches where the focus is on select top rung physicians only.

Outsourced Sales Force: Generally used for expansion in extra-urban geographies or with companies for whom medico marketing is secondary (such as OTC or Consumer Healthcare companies).

Pharma MNCs did more:

In addition, to increase sales revenue further, many pharma MNCs engaged themselves in co-promotion of their patented products with large local or global pharma companies operating in India, besides out-licensing. A few of them pushed further ahead by adopting newer innovative promotional models like, Patient Activation Teams, Therapy Specialists, or creating patient awareness through mass media.

Realizing quickly that patients are increasingly becoming important stakeholders in the business, some of the pharma MNCs started engaging them by extending disease management services, along with a clever mix of well-differentiated tangible and intangible product related value offerings, such as, Counseling, Starter kits, Diagnostic tests, Medical insurance, Emergency help, Physiotherapy sessions, and Call centers for chronic disease management, to name a few. Concerned doctors used to be reported about the status of the patients, who were not required to pay anything extra for availing these services from the MNC pharma companies.

Nevertheless, despite all these, declining productivity of the traditional pharma sales communication models continued, predominantly from the extremely busy and very high value medical practitioners/experts/specialists, as mentioned above.

The critical point that remained unaddressed:

At that time, pharma sales communication kept focusing on customer/market types and characteristics. Most companies missed the emerging order of unique customer preferences towards the medium of sales communication, and differentiated message requirements for each doctor. Not many pharma players could probably realize that MR’s quality of access to doctors for productive sales communication would emerge as one of the most critical issues, and become increasingly complex.

Leveraging technology for an effective response:

Amid all these experimentations with pharma sales and marketing models, a few companies did ponder over leveraging technology to chart a novel pathway for effectively addressing this emerging challenge. They tried to ascertain:

Whether the traditional sales approach would continue to be as relevant as opposed to digitally customized sales applications?
Whether MRs would continue to remain as relevant in all areas of pharma prescription generation process, in the years ahead?

First major venture in e-marketing:

Towards this direction, in 2013, Pfizer reportedly started using digital drug representatives to market medicines, leaving the decision in doctors’ hands as to whether they would want to see them.

Prior to that, in 2011, a paper published in the WSJ titled, “Drug Makers Replace Reps With Digital Tools” stated that pharmaceutical companies in the United States are downsizing their sales force with increasing usage of iPad applications and other digital tools for interacting with doctors.

Lot many other fascinating experimentations with pharma e-marketing have now commenced in several places of the world, many with considerable initial success. However, most of these efforts seem to be swinging from one end of ‘face-to-face’ sales communication with doctors, to the other end of ‘cyber space driven’ need-based product value sharing with customers through digital tool kits.

Blending the right communication-mix is critical:

Coming back to the AffinityMonitor 2015 Research Report, today pharmaceutical and biotech companies have at their disposal more than a dozen of promotional channels to include in their strategy, spanning across, from traditional methods to digital ones.

Some physicians still want to interact with MRs, others restrict MR detailing, as they prefer to get the required information from various credible websites, directly, and from their peers. One doctor may prefer to regularly use a mobile application for product information, while another similar physician may rarely wish to surf the Web for information to achieve the same purpose. Some others may simply not engage with any sales communication no matter what the channels are. Although overall accessibility to MRs is getting more restricted, some doctors are still more accessible than others, the report finds.

Segmenting doctors by their accessibility to personal promotion, such as, MRs and by non-personal promotion like other channels, including digital, allows pharma companies to identify potential gaps in their marketing approach.

For example, of the 54 percent of doctors who are less accessible to MRs, 15 percent show good accessibility to other channels. In other words, those doctors haven’t closed the door for good, just yet. Pharma companies can still reach them, provided they use the right approach, the report suggests. Drug companies would, therefore, require gathering specific information doctor-wise, and customizing both the medium and the message for effective brand value delivery, accordingly.

Sales and marketing avalanche too isn’t working:

This study revealed that a pharma company’s top 100 doctors receive as high as 423 contacts a year, and the top 10 doctors receive more than 600 each year. Given such volume, it’s easy to imagine how doctors can start to get buried under an avalanche of sales and marketing. It’s also easy to see how even the right message, in the right channel, to the right doctor, could get lost in all the noise, and may even create a bad customer experience for many physicians, the report concludes.

Conclusion:

The decline in pharma MR’s quality of access to physicians for brand communication is now well documented. Moreover, ‘one size fits all’ type of message, delivered even by the best of MRs, is unlikely to be productive in the changing macro environment.

Therefore, the right knowledge of whether a doctor would prefer to engage through traditional marketing and sales communication methods by meeting with an MR, or would just prefer to get his/her required information through any digital medium, is critical for success in the new ball game. This in turn will help generate the desired level of prescription support for any pharma brand.

Still, a majority the doctors’ choices in India would, possibly, involve MRs, while a good number of other important doctors’ choices may probably be independent of them. Nevertheless, from this emerging trend, it’s clear now that multi-channel engagement would be a new normal in pharma sales and marketing, sooner than later.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Stakeholder-Mix Has Changed, But Pharma Marketing Has Not

Posted on June 13, 2016 by Tapan Ray

“We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for profit. Profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they never fail to appear.”

In 1952, George Wilhelm Herman Emanuel Merck, the then President of Merck & Co of the United States said this. He was then aptly quoted on the front cover of the ‘Time Magazine’, epitomizing his clear vision for the company: “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”.

The globally acclaimed Management Guru – Peter F. Drucker had also clearly articulated in his management classics that, “Profit is not the purpose of business and the concept of profit maximization is not only meaningless, but dangerous.” He further said, “There is only one valid purpose of a business, and that is to create a customer”

As this is an ongoing process, in the pharma perspective, it may be construed as ensuring access to new drugs for an increasing number of patients.

It really worked:

In those days, driven by such visionary leadership, the pharma used to be one of the most respected industries and Merck topped the list of the most admired corporations in America. It is clear that pharma leadership at that time wanted to make ‘inclusive growth’, both in the letter and spirit, as an integral part of the organizational progress, moving with time.

Thus, it worked. The sales and marketing growth of the global drug industry at that time was not lackluster, either, in any way. The R&D pipeline of the drug companies used to be also rich, with regular flow of breakthrough new products too.

Straying away from ‘inclusive’ to ‘self-serving’ strategies:

Much water has flown down the bridges, since then, so is the change in the public and other stakeholders’ perception about the pharma industry, in general.

Sharply in contrast with George W. Merck’s (Merck & Co) vision in 1952 that “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”, in December 2013 the global CEO of Bayer reportedly proclaimed in public that: “Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

It appears that the focus of the pharma industry on ‘inclusive growth’ seems to have strayed away to ‘self-serving growth’, with the passage of time. As a result, a large majority of the new stakeholders started harboring a strong negative feeling about the same industry that continues its active engagement with the very same business of developing new drugs that save many precious lives.

Granted that the business environment has changed since then, with increasing complexities. Nonetheless, there does not seem to be any justifiable reason for straying away from ‘inclusive growth’ strategies.

As are regularly being reported, both in the global and local media, mindless arrogance on fixing exorbitant high new drug prices severely limiting their access, unabated malpractices in drug marketing and escaping with hefty fines, releasing only favorable clinical trial data, just to mention a few, are giving the industry image a strong tail spin.

Stakeholders changed, but pharma marketing did not:

Keeping the same strategic direction and pace, overall pharma brand marketing strategy also continued to be increasingly ‘self-serving’, and tradition bound. Success, and more success in building relationship with the doctors, whatever may be the means, is still considered as the magic wand for business excellence, with any pharma brand. Thus, since over decades, building and strengthening the relationship with doctors, continue to remain the primary fulcrum for conceptualizing pharma marketing strategies.

It does not seem to have not dawned yet for the pharma marketers, that over a period of time, the market is undergoing a metamorphosis, with several key changes, and some of these would be quite disruptive in the traditional pharma marketing ball game. Consequently, the above key the fulcrum of pharma marketing is also gradually shifting, slowly but surely.

In this article, I shall deliberate only on this area.

A new marketing paradigm:

The key customer in the pharma business is no longer just the doctors. That was the bygone paradigm. The pharma stakeholders’ mix is no longer the same as what it used to be.

The evolving new paradigm constitutes multitude of important stakeholders, requiring a comprehensive multi-stakeholder approach in modern day’s pharma marketing game plan.

Patients, governments, policy influencers, health insurance providers, hospital administrators, social media, and many others, have now started playing and increasing role in determining the consumption pattern of pharma brands, and their acceptability. More importantly, these not so influential stakeholders of the past, are gradually becoming instrumental in building overall pharma business environment too. This necessitates customized engagement strategy for each of these stakeholders, with high precision and relevance.

Changing mindset is critical:

An effective response to this challenge of change, calls for a radical change in the marketing mindset of the top pharma marketers. The most basic of which, is a strong will to move away from the age old ‘one size fits all’ and ‘self-serving’ initiatives with some tweaking here or there, to a radically different ‘inclusive marketing’ approach. In this game, both the types and the individual customer concerned, would occupy the center stage for any meaningful interactions on the brands and associated diseases, besides many other areas of relevance.

Multi-stakeholder – Multi-channel approach:

For a multi-stakeholder customized engagement, innovative use of multiple channels would play a crucial role, more than ever before.

Availability of state of the art digital tools, would facilitate crafting of comprehensive marketing strategies, accordingly. For example, for the doctors, some companies are moving towards e-detailing.

As I discussed in my article in this Blog titled, “e-detailing: The Future of Pharmaceutical Sales?” on September 13 2013, this modern way of interaction with the doctors is fast evolving. E-detailing is highly customized, very interactive, more effective, quite flexible, and at the same time cost-efficient too. Live analytics that e-detailing would provide instantly, could be of immense use while strategizing the game plans of pharmaceutical marketing.

A feel of the changing wind direction:

A relatively new book titled, “Good Pharma: How Marketing Creates Value in Pharma”, published in March 2014, and written by Marcel Corstjens, and Edouard Demeire, well captures some of the key changes in the pharma industry with a number interesting examples.

The above book seems to somewhat respond to Ben Goldacre’s bestselling book ‘‘Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients’, which I discussed in this blog on October 15, 2012. It made some important observations in many areas of pharma business. I am quoting below just a few of those incoming changes to give a feel on the urgent need of recasting the marketing models of the pharma industry:

On emerging markets’ like India:

“Emerging markets should not be seen as low-hanging fruits. Their prevalence of diseases may not be the same, the stakeholders may be very different. In addition, the healthcare infrastructure is often not very sophisticated, and these markets can be rather volatile and difficult to predict. It’s not a sure bet; you have to invest. … Companies need to commit seriously to building a heavily localized approach that is substantiated by a global reputation.” This is perhaps not happening in India, to a large extent, as I reckon.

On personalized Health Care (PHC):

The new drugs brought to market by the pharma companies are not just expensive, but often work only for small segments of the patient population. In India this situation mostly leads to very high out of pocket expenditure, which often is wasted for the drug not working on the patient. Thus, the regulators and payers in the developing countries are setting the threshold for higher reimbursement. The authors observed that PHC is now being put forward as the industry’s best bet for satisfying stricter effectiveness criteria, not only by developing new drugs, but also by investing in the magical trio of the future: “drug-biomarker-diagnostic. In that case, pharma marketing would need to undergo a significant change, starting from now.

On ‘Category captains’:

The book also says, “The most financially successful companies in the past 20 years has been Novo-Nordisk. They have specialized in diabetes, they’re extremely good at that. Roche specializes in oncology. The larger the company, the more ‘captive’ areas they can have. The success of Novo-Nordisk, a relatively small company, proves firms of all sizes have a chance to compete, as long as they stick closely to their strengths. When this happens in a much larger scale, pharma marketing would also be quite different and more focused.

Many pharma companies are still avoiding to change, successfully. For example, as announced on May 31, 2016, Intercept Pharma of the United States announced its new liver disease drug with a hefty price tag of US$ 70,000 a year. According to the report, the company said, prices are justified by a drug’s level of innovation and cost savings for the healthcare system. This justification has now become very typical in the pharmaceutical world, which has been facing barrage of criticisms, including from Capitol Hill, about too-high drug prices.

However, as we move on, the writing on the wall seems to be very clear on the sustainability of health care business, the world over.

Conclusion:

Finally, the question arises, would the traditional approach still be good enough to achieve the desired sales and marketing objectives, any longer?

No, probably not, I reckon. With changed mindsets, ‘getting under the skin’ of each stakeholder, separately, would assume key importance. It would play a key role, while devising each component of any cutting-edge pharma sales and marketing strategy, tactic, and task.

The shift from the old paradigm, signals towards a total recast of pharma marketing to make it more ‘inclusive’, and not just ‘self-serving’. Newly crafted commensurate grand marketing plans and their effective implementation should satisfy the needs and wants of all stakeholders, simultaneously. Singular focus on building, or further strengthen the relationship with prescribing doctors, won’t be adequate enough, anymore.

Thus, the name of the new pharma ballgame would again be ‘inclusive marketing for inclusive growth’.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process

Posted on January 18, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Fathoming the details of just a short span of time, not going beyond the last 10 years, I find from the published data that many new drugs, such as, Alatrofloxacin, Aprotinin, Drotrecogin alfa, Lumiracoxib, Propoxyphene, Rofecoxib, Rosiglitazone, Sibutramine, Tegaserod, Tetrazepam, were withdrawn from a number of important global markets. Quite a few of those were withdrawn also from the world market.

The key reason for almost all these withdrawals was serious safety concerns for the patients while using these medicines. Interestingly, some of these new molecules were withdrawn even after attaining the blockbuster status, such as Rofecoxib.

Tens of thousands of patients have died only because of this reason, according to reports.

It is widely believed by the experts in this area, if full public disclosure of the entire data of drug clinical trials was made, most of these new drugs would not have seen the light of the day and without putting many patients’ health safety in jeopardy.

All this is a part of a curious conundrum in the new drug approval process, across the world, for various reasons. In this article, I would try to dwell on this issue.

Voices against this ‘unethical practice’ getting louder:

On December 22, 2015, ‘CBC News’ published an interesting article, titled “Researcher issues ‘call to action’ to force release of hidden drug safety data: Bringing drug industry data into the light of public scrutiny.”

The article echoed the same belief of other global experts and, in fact, went a step forward. It categorically reiterated, if full disclosure of the entire data of drug clinical trials is made public, medical practice might have been quite different.

To drive home this point, the article cited the example of the arthritis drug rofecoxib (Vioxx), which has been linked to tens of thousands of deaths related to heart attacks.

It highlighted, although this risk was very much known to the regulatory authority of the United States, the relevant data was not released to the public for an impartial scrutiny.

Quoting different sources, the paper observed, almost half of the drug trials remain secret and the studies that are published, overwhelmingly report results that make the drug in question look good.

Independent experts’ views differed from the innovator companies:

In some cases, when researchers were able to see what is hiding in the filing cabinets of the drug innovator companies, a different picture altogether emerged on the overall profile of those drugs.

One group looked at 12 antidepressants, comparing the published studies with the internal US FDA assessments. They found that 94 per cent of the published studies were positive, as compared to 51 per cent, when they included all of the studies assessed by the drug regulator.

Based on a detailed study, the authors concluded, without considering all the data, drug effectiveness can often be exaggerated, leading doctors and patients to assume that the medications work better than what they actually do. The ongoing practice of the drug players may help them to significantly diminish the risks, related to the benefits offered by these medicines.

A few months ago, another group analyzed the data from an unpublished drug company study about the effect of Paxil on teen depression and found that the drug did not work and was not safe for the patients. This result completely contradicted the original, unpublished study on this drug.

A crusader emerged in Canada:

Interestingly, the same article, as above, states that Mathew Herder , the health law associate professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada is now taking up the fight. He is now “calling on other doctors, researchers and journalists to bombard Ottawa with their own demands for drug industry data, using the new legislative lever called the ‘Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act,’, which was passed late last year in Canada.

He has also created a template to help doctors, researchers and journalists access drug safety data at Health Canada. Herder reportedly could even include biomedical researchers, doctors who prescribe medicine, investigative journalists pursuing questions about drug safety, and other activists and patient groups.

This example is worth imbibing elsewhere.

The ‘Rule Books’ are in place, though with loopholes:

To curb such alleged patient unfriendly practices of the innovative drug manufacturers, while obtaining the marketing approval of new drugs, various rules and procedure were put in place, by various authorities.

I shall deliberate below a few of these rules, and enough loopholes therein, enabling the interested parties to hoodwink the external experts, at the cost of patients.

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform:

Much before Herder, following a ministerial summit on Health Research in 2004, a World Health Assembly Resolution passed in 2005 called for unambiguous identification of all interventional clinical trials. This resolution led to the establishment of the ‘World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform’. It collates information on trials that have been notified in a network of clinical trial registries.

According to W.H.O, “The registration of all interventional trials is a scientific, ethical and moral responsibility”.

In the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki, it reiterates, “Every research study involving human subjects must be registered in a publicly accessible database before recruitment of the first subject.”

It unambiguously states, “Researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research …. Negative and inconclusive as well as positive results must be published or otherwise made publicly available”.

Understandably, W.H.O statement underscores, “There is an ethical imperative to report the results of all clinical trials, including those of unreported trials conducted in the past.”

It is worth mentioning here that on January 1, 2015, by a new policy on publication of clinical data, ‘European Medicines Agency (EMA)’ also decided to proactively publish all clinical reports submitted as part of marketing-authorization applications for human medicines, by the by pharmaceutical companies.

Big Pharma's serious apprehensions on greater Public transparency:

Before finalization of the above policy, EMA sought comments on its draft from various state holders. On September 5, 2013, in its remarks on the draft, ‘The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, EFPIA’ expressed its apprehension about the public health safety oriented proactive move by the EMA as follows:

“We are worried by a move towards greater transparency of clinical trials data that appears to be putting transparency – at whatever cost – ahead of public health interests. Our detailed response to the EMA draft policy speaks to this concern. While EFPIA values other voices and opinion in the conversation surrounding clinical trials data, we believe there are better alternatives than what the EMA is presenting.”

This is of course understandable. That said, it also gives satisfaction to note that EMA did not wilt under any pressure on this score, whatever the anecdotal might of the external force be.

Gross non-compliance, endangering patients’ health safety:

Although, the standards and requirements of “Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Results” have been well specified now, and even in most of the Big Pharma websites one can find disclosure norms of clinical trial data, their overall compliance on the ground, is still grossly inadequate, endangering patients’ health safety.

An article published in the BMJ Open on November 12, 2015 titled, “Clinical trial registration, reporting, publication and FDAAA compliance: a cross-sectional analysis and ranking of new drugs approved by the FDA in 2012”, well captured the magnitude of this issue.

Nevertheless, the study analyzed just a subset of drugs approved in a single year, 2012. The researchers only examined whether clinical trials were registered and reported, not what that data suggested about how the drugs worked.

The paper reported the results as follows:

“In 2012, the US FDA approved 39 novel new medicines, known as NMEs, and 35 novel drugs. Combining these lists, the FDA approved a total of 48 new drug entities, 15 of which were sponsored by 10 large pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies with market capitalizations valued over US$19 billion. A total of 342 trials were conducted to gain regulatory approval of the 15 drugs, 24 of which were excluded from our analysis, leaving 318 trials involving 99 599 participants relevant to our study, a median of 17 trials per drug.”

Based on the findings, the authors concluded asunder:

“Trial disclosures for new drugs remain below legal and ethical standards, with wide variation in practices among drugs and their sponsors. Best practices are emerging. 2 of our 10 reviewed companies disclosed all trials and complied with legal disclosure requirements for their 2012 approved drugs. Ranking new drugs on transparency criteria may improve compliance with legal and ethical standards and the quality of medical knowledge.”

Simultaneously, The Washington Post in an article of November 12, 2015, titled, “How pharma keeps a trove of drug trials out of public view”, summarized this report by highlighting to the general public that one third of the clinical trial results that US FDA reviewed to approve drugs made by large pharmaceutical companies in 2012, were never publicly reported.

Unethical practices skewing medical science:

On July 25, 2015, ‘The Economist’ published an article titled, “Spilling the beans’. It highlighted again that the failure to publish the results of all clinical trials is skewing medical science.

This article also brought to the public attention that half of the clinical trial results are never published over several decades. It broadened the discourse with the observation that this specific unwanted practice, distorts perceptions of the efficacy of not just drugs, but devices and even surgical procedures too, in a well planned and a systematic manner. What is most important to note is, it has seriously compromised with patients’ health interest, across the world.

It keeps on happening, as there are no firm obligations on the part of drug companies for making public disclosure of all such data, both for and against, though all these data are required to be filed with the regulatory authorities. Hence, the overall assessment of the drugs, weighing all pros and cons, is just not possible for any outside expert agency.

For granting necessary marketing approval, the designated authorities, at least theoretically, ensure that the drugs are reasonably safe, and have, at least, ‘some beneficial effects’. However, the prescribing doctors would continue to remain ignorant of the untold facts, the article states.

According to ‘The Economist’, although in the United States the relevant laws were modified, way back in 2007, to address this issue, it still remains as a theory, the actual practices in this regard are mostly not so.

Despite vindication no tangible outcome yet:

As I said earlier, this fact got vindicated through extensive research by the ‘BMJ Online’ article and many other contemporary medical publications.

For example, the evidence released earlier on April 10, 2014 by the Cochrane Collaboration of London, UK, also shows that a large part of negative data generated from the clinical trials of various drugs were not disclosed to the public.

Again, like Vioxx, though the US FDA was aware of all such data, for a well known drug Tamiflu, unfortunately the prescribing doctors were not. As a result, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which doesn’t have the same access to unpublished data as the regulators, recommended this medicine not being able to evaluate it holistically.

However, as the findings from the unpublished clinical trials eventually surfaced, CDC expressed serious apprehension on the overall efficacy of Tamiflu, quite contrary to the assessment of the concerned big pharma player.

Hence, despite quite a large number of vindications by the experts, no tangible outcome has been noticed on this pressing issue, just yet.

Conclusion:

Based on all this discussion, the moot question that springs up: Why do the doctors still prescribe such drugs, even after being aware of the full facts?

In this regard, an article titled, “Big Pharma Plays Hide-The-Ball with Data”, published in the Newsweek on November 13, 2014 raised a very valid question.

It commented, even if Tamiflu does nothing, and there is just a slight chance of life-threatening side effects, why was it approved by the US FDA, in the first place?

Even more intriguing is: Why do the doctors continue prescribing these, especially after the Cochrane Collaboration took the Tamiflu’s maker, Roche, to task about many of its claims, in April 2014.

Incidentally, the Cochrane Collaboration is widely regarded as one of the most rigorous reviewers of health science data. It takes results of multiple trials, looks for faults and draws conclusions. It doesn’t accept funding from businesses with a stake in its findings.

The answer to this question may perhaps be too obvious to merit any elaborate discussion here.

Be that as it may, this curious conundrum of ‘New Drug Approval’ with ‘Partial Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Data’ needs to effectively addressed, without further delay. If not, patients’ health interest would continue to get seriously compromised with the continuation of prevailing laxity in its implementation process by the drug regulators.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Nutraceuticals: An Emerging Opportunity in The Gray Area Between Pharma And Nutrition

Posted on November 17, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Close association between nutrition and health has assumed a historical relevance. Growing pieces of evidence, even today, suggests that nutritional intervention with natural substances could play an important role, especially in the preventive healthcare. The World Health Organization (WHO) too has highlighted that mortality rate due to nutrition related factors in the developing countries, like India, is nearly 40 percent.

The ‘Gray Area’:

In the space between pharmaceutical and nutrition, there is an emerging ‘gray area with 50 shades’ having significant business relevance.

In a related publication, A.T. Kearney – a leading global management consulting firm has elaborated it as under:

“At one end of this natural nutrition spectrum, are functional foods and beverages as well as dietary supplements, aimed primarily at maintaining health. At the other, more medical end of the spectrum, are products aimed at people with special nutritional needs. In the middle, is an emerging gray area of products that have a physiological effect to reduce known risk factors, such as high cholesterol, or appear to slow or prevent the progression of common diseases such as diabetes, dementia or age related muscle loss.”

Evolution of the terminology ‘Nutraceuticals’:

Dr. Stephen DeFelice of the ‘Foundation for Innovation in Medicine’ coined the term ‘Nutraceutical’ from “Nutrition” and “Pharmaceutical” in 1989. The term nutraceutical though is now being commonly used in marketing such products has no regulatory definition, other than dietary or nutritional supplements.

It is interesting to note that the dietary supplement industry defines nutraceuticals as, “any nontoxic food component that has scientifically proven health benefits, including disease treatment and prevention.”

Probably because of this reason, it is often claimed by the manufacturers of nutraceutical products that these are not just dietary supplements, but also help in the prevention and/or treatment of many disease conditions.

In India, nutraceuticals are mostly promoted to the doctors just as any other ethical pharma products. These are also prescribed by the medical profession, not just as nutritional supplements but also for the treatment of disease conditions, ranging from obesity to arthritis, osteoporosis, cardiological conditions, diabetes, anti-lipid, gastroenterological conditions, dementia, age-related muscle loss, pain management and even fertility. All these are generally based on off-label therapeutic claims of the respective manufacturers.

Currently, this particular category of nutraceutical products, despite being out of price control and operating within much relaxed regulatory environment, is showing just a moderate growth trend in India.

The market:

According to a report of Frost & Sullivan, the global nutraceutical market has clocked maximum growth in the last decade.

Nutraceuticals as an industry emerged in the early 1990s. However, from 2002 to 2010 has been the key growth phase for the industry. From 1999 to 2002, the nutraceutical industry grew at an Annual Average Growth Rate (AAGR) of 7.3 percent, while from 2002 to 2010, the AAGR doubled to 14.7 percent, in line with the Indian Pharma Market (IPM).

The penetration of nutraceuticals in India was around 15 percent in 2013. In the same year, the turnover of the global nutraceuticals market was around US $168 billion in which India had a demand share of around 2 percent, i.e. around US $2 billion.

Growing at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 17.1 percent, the Indian market is expected to reach US$ 4 billion by 2018. China, Southeast Asia, and India are the fast-growing markets, with each experiencing growth in double digits.

In the last couple of years functional beverages have emerged as a fastest growing category for the Indian market, with many companies expanding their portfolio in the segment. This category is expected to grow at a CAGR of 21.7 percent by 2018.

However, in terms of ingredients, especially plant extracts and phytochemical, Indian manufacturers have entrenched their place as suppliers, both locally as well as globally.

Some other key findings of this report are as under:

India is currently a nascent market for nutraceuticals, without a robust business model in place. Both MNCs as well as domestic companies in the pharmaceutical and food and beverage space have tested the market with a variety of launches, with some degree of success.

The existence of alternative medicines in India, and the Indian consumer’s belief in them, could provide a platform for the nutraceutical industry to cash on.

The Indian consumers’ awareness about conventional nutraceutical ingredients such as omega-3 fatty acids or lutein is very limited. The nutraceutical manufacturers would require spreading awareness about their products to the Indian masses, much more effectively.

As compared with the developed countries such as the USA, Europe, and Japan, the percentage of population consuming nutraceuticals in India is much low. The middle to high income groups are the dominant consumers of functional foods and beverages along with dietary supplements, while the lower income groups consume mainly prescription-based dietary supplements.

Health awareness and an increase in the penetration of organized retail stores are expected to play a major role in driving the nutraceuticals’ consumption in India.

Current regulations in India:

The Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) of India, 2006 predominantly regulate manufacturing, storage, distribution, sale and import of nutraceuticals in India. Unlike pharma products, no other regulations are still in place, though the government reportedly is in the process of inviting suggestions from the stakeholders on the subject.

Experts feel that FSSAI needs to play a more important role in defining standards to streamline the operations for nutraceuticals business in India, which should include, besides others, the following:

Quality of raw materials
Safe manufacture of product with cGMP standards
Health claims
Labeling
Distribution & storage

In the absence of comprehensive regulations many companies are unable to decide on necessary investments that will be required for this business in the longer term.

Currently, nutraceuticals are much less expensive to develop, manufacture, market and distribute, offering a rainbow of business opportunities in the healthcare space.

A brand ‘New Ministry’ in place:

In all likelihood, renewed measures would now be taken to bring nutraceuticals under the mainstream healthcare.

It appears more feasible today than ever before, as the Prime Minister Modi, with an eye on reviving indigenous and traditional medicine has recently created a brand new ministry with a Minister of State (Independent Charge) at the helm to look after Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH).

Need to generate robust clinical data:

In this context, a relatively new development is worth noting. It has been reported that all new traditional medicines will need to undergo clinical trials before their regulatory marketing approval in India. However, it has also been amply clarified that “such products will include only the new patented drugs and not the classical formulations that find mention in India’s ancient texts, some of which are 5,000 years old.”

I reckon, for all nutraceutical formulations with specific therapeutic efficacy and safety claims, there is a need to generate supportive robust clinical data for the patients’ long term health interest.

Therapeutic efficacy of a drug in the treatment of a disease condition is established with pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamics, other pre-clinical and clinical studies. Some experts believe that these studies are very important for nutraceutical products too, particularly when therapeutic claims are made on them, as these substances undergo a series of reactions within the body.

Similarly, to rule out any long-term toxicity problem with such products, generation of credible clinical data is again critical. At present, these are not usually followed for nutraceutical products in India, even when therapeutic claims are made.

The experts, therefore, quite often say, “A lack of reported toxicity problems with any nutraceutical should not be interpreted as evidence of safety.”

Regulatory requirements for nutraceuticals in the USA:

In America, the Congress had passed the ‘Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act’ in 1994. This act allows ‘functional claims’ to dietary supplements, like “Vitamin A promotes good vision” or “St. Johns Wort maintains emotional well-being”, as long as the product label contains a specific disclaimer that the FDA has not evaluated the said claim and that the product concerned is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.

The above Act bestows some important responsibility on to the doctors, who are required to provide specific and accurate scientific information for nutraceutical products to their patients. This process assumes critical importance, as the patients would expect the doctors to describe to them about the usefulness of nutraceutical products as alternatives to approved drugs. In such cases, if any doctor recommends a dietary supplement instead of pharmaceutical products, the doctor concerned must be aware of the risk that the patient’s health may suffer, for which the affected patient could sue the doctor for malpractice.

Indian Health Ministry should take note of these points for ethical promotion of nutraceuticals in India.

Sanofi considered nutraceuticals as a business opportunity in India:

So far in India, Sanofi is the only Pharma MNC that has entered into nutraceuticals business in a big way. Sniffing the market opportunity in this segment, the French major acquired the nutraceuticals business of Universal Medicare Private Ltd of worth Rs.110 Crore, in August 2011. The nutraceuticals product portfolio of Universal Medicare included more than 40 brands from cod liver oil capsules, vitamins/mineral supplements and antioxidants to liver tonics.

Ambivalence of Pharma MNCs:

According to A.T. Kearney report, unlike food industry, the global pharma industry has approached nutraceuticals with a ‘great deal of ambivalence’.

Pfizer and Novartis have sold their nutrition businesses.While the same Pfizer that sold Wyeth Nutrition to Nestle, invested an undisclosed sum to acquire Danish vitamins company Ferrosan and the dietary supplements manufacturer of the United States, Alacer, reinforcing what was already a billion-dollar business enterprise.

On the other hand GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Novartis have recently announced a joint venture for consumer products business, which could probably be a stepping-stone to get into nutraceuticals. Who knows?

Food companies leading nutraceuticals business:

The A.T. Kearney report also states that at present the food companies, and not the pharma players, are in the lead, accounting for about 90 percent of nutraceuticals sales with expertise in branding, consumer market expertise and access to mass distribution channels.

A few consumer companies have also inked partnership with pharma companies. For example, Coca-Cola and Sanofi have partnered to sell health drinks in French pharmacies.

Conclusion:

Nutraceuticals business, as many believe, is an emerging opportunity in the ‘Gray Area’ between pharmaceuticals and nutritional product classes. So far, the food companies have been charting this frontier that remained uncharted by a large majority of the pharma players. This is mainly because the success requirements for nutraceutical products, including dietary supplements, are quite different.

That said, a transparent and well-charted regulatory pathway for nutraceuticals, especially for formulations with therapeutic claims, would have a significant impact on its future growth potential in India.

Many nutraceutical products in the country with specific therapeutic claims do not seem to have supporting robust clinical data, leave aside being peer reviewed and published in the reputed international journals on the claims for safety or efficacy.

The entry of one of the global majors, Sanofi, having a clear focus on Evidence Based Medicines (EBM), ushers in a new hope and promise to get the loose knots tightened in this important area, while driving the business growth of the category.

Just as EBM, scientific ‘Evidence Based Nutraceuticals (EBN)’ with therapeutic claims, should be the centerpiece of consumer confidence and interest in this emerging niche of healthcare business in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

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

Posted on June 4, 2014 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

The backdrop of DPCO 2013:

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

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

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

Hurried action after prolonged inaction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hype and rapid disillusionment:

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

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

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

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

Questions started popping-up almost immediately:

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

Implementability of new ‘Ceiling Prices (CP)’ for market stocks within 45 days of notification by the respective companies.

Criteria of calculation of 1 percent market share for brands.

How would already existing different drug delivery systems of the same drug substance be considered to work out a common CP?

How reliable is the IMS Data, based on which CP calculation would be done by the NPPA?

What will happen to those NLEM 2011 drugs for which IMS does not provide any information?

Erstwhile Finance Ministry wanted to continue with cost plus formula:

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

The proposal to limit the NPPP to control prices of only formulations leaving aside bulk drugs is not supported.

Top priced brands in many therapy areas are also the brand leaders. As a result, high prices of such drugs while calculating the ceiling prices would push up prices of many low priced drugs significantly.

The current system, which is a cost plus system is adequate to cover all legitimate costs for a manufacturer, particularly when the costing is being done annually and should be continued.

The same cost plus system should also apply to other formulations where additional therapeutic elements will be added. Related incremental cost in those cases can be considered to determine the ceiling price of combination formulations.

The Maximum Retail Prices (MRP) for all NLEM 2011 drugs may be fixed by the NPPA accordingly and the pharmaceutical companies would be free to price these NLEM products at any level below the MRP.

Annual indexation of price with WPI is not supported. The cost analysis should determine the quantum of increase.

Data related to prices and market shares should be collected from sources other than IMS even for drugs covered by them. The methodology to be followed by NPPA for evaluating IMS data and for collecting the data for medicines from other sources should be included in the NPPP.

A phased movement towards 100 percent generic manufacturing, as recommended by the Ministry of Health (MoH), for all drugs under the NLEM should be considered.

Current imbroglio over ceiling price fixation:

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

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

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

The fundamental question:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Global New Product Launches: Recent Success Trend Unflattering?

Posted on March 24, 2014 by Tapan Ray

New products are the lifeblood for any company, including the pharmaceutical players. Business performance and sustainable growth of the pharmaceutical industry, as a whole depend on quality of R&D output in terms of ‘New Molecules’, followed by successful development and launch of those new products by the global pharmaceutical innovators.

Post-patent expiry, robust development and ‘just in time’ launch of cheaper generic versions of those innovative products, in a mega scale, usually drive the growth of the generic pharmaceutical industry, globally.

It is worth noting that for the last several years, ‘Patent Cliff’ coupled with progressively drying up R&D pipelines and mostly unflattering new product launches, are taking heavy tolls on the business performance of the global pharmaceutical majors.

The changing dynamics need to be considered:

Echoing this development, a March 2014 report of McKinsey & Company states: “About two-thirds of drug launches don’t meet sales expectations. Improving that record requires pharmaceutical companies to recognize the world has changed and adjust their marketing accordingly.”

To analyze the situation now in perspective, let us start tracking the launches from 2006 and 2007.

10 Big Pharma Sales in 2012 from NMEs approved since 2007 – A comparison

According to a June 2013 report of the ‘FirstWord Pharma’, in 2012 the combined sales of 10 top Big Pharma constituents, as named in the tables below, from the New Molecular Entities (NMEs) approved by the US-FDA since 2007, were US$ 14.8 billion i.e. 4.9 percent of the total revenue of these 10 companies in that year from the patented drugs.

Individual performance of these 10 companies are as follows:

No.	Company	Sales US$ Million	Sales from NMEs US$ Million	As % of 2012 Sales
1.	Novartis	32153	3445	10.7
2.	J&J	25351	2593	10.3
3.	BMS	17621	1495	8.5
4.	GSK	28518	1282	4.5
5.	Merck	35945	1515	4.2
6.	Sanofi	30879	1265	4.1
7.	Roche	37578	1238	3.3
8.	Eli Lilly	20566	457	2.2
9.	Pfizer	47496	1040	2.2
10	AstraZeneca	27925	449	1.6

(Source: FirstWord, June 2013)

The success rate: With 2007 as the base year for NMEs

This table shows that Novartis and Johnson & Johnson were the two most successful companies with the launch of such NMEs in 2012, as they generated 10.7 percent and 10.3 percent, respectively, of their total patented drugs sales from these NMEs, as against an average of 4.9 percent, as mentioned above, during that year.

If we now try to analyze the new product launch success rates of the 10 Big Pharma constituents, based on the contribution of these new products (launched since 2007) to their respective total sales in 2012, the following picture emerges:

Good: More than 10 percent - 2 Companies (20 percent)
Average: Between 5 and 10 percent - 1 Company (10 percent)
Poor: Less than 5 percent - 7 Companies (70 percent)

The success rate: With 2006 as the base year for NMEs

It is interesting to note from this report that by extending the ‘review period’ to NMEs approved by the US-FDA between 2006 and 2012 (i.e. one additional year), revenues generated by these new drugs in 2012 double to US$ 29 billion – or approximately 10 percent (instead of earlier 4.9 percent) of the total combined branded drug sales of the same 10 Big Pharma constituents in the same year, as follows:

No.	Company	Sales US$ Million	Sales from NMEs US$ Million	As % of 2012 Sales
1.	Merck	35945	7518	20.9
2.	Novartis	32153	5843	18.2
3.	J&J	25351	3939	15.5
4.	BMS	17621	2514	14.3
5.	Roche	37578	2818	7.5
6.	Pfizer	47496	2946	6.2
7.	GSK	28518	1282	4.5
8.	Sanofi	30879	1265	4.1
9.	Eli Lilly	20566	457	2.2
10	AstraZeneca	27925	449	1.6

(Source: FirstWord, June 2013)

No significant overall qualitative change:

Here also, though some numbers related to the new product launch success rates of the same 10 Big Pharma constituents, based on the contribution of the NMEs launched since 2006 to their respective total sales in 2012 do change, poor to average performance with the new products still remains quite high, as follows:

Good: More than 10 percent - 4 Companies (40 percent)
Average: Between 5 and 10 percent - 2 Company (20 percent)
Poor: Less than 5 percent - 4 Companies (40 percent)

However, at a company level, the broad success trend with new products does not change very significantly. Just two new products approved by the US-FDA in 2006 were off to flying starts. These were:

Januvia of Merck: Generated sales of US$ 5.7 billion in 2012
Lucentis of Novartis and Roche: Generated combined sales of US$ 4 billion in 2012

Is it practically ‘The End’ of blockbuster drugs era?

While considering the larger picture on the subject, does it mean that Januvia and Lucentis would mark the end of the golden era of global blockbuster drugs…at least for now?

This picture may get clearer with the following table, prompting possibly an affirmative answer:

Best selling NMEs launched since 2006:

No.	Product	Company	Approval Year	2012 Sales in US$ Million
1.	Januvia	Merck	2006	5745
2.	Lucentis	Novartis	2006	2398
3.	Lucentis	Roche	2006	1580
4.	Isentress	Merck	2007	1515
5.	Invega	J&J	2006	1346
6.	Sutent	Pfizer	2006	1236
7.	Gilenya	Novartis	2010	1195
8.	Stelara	J&J	2009	1025
9.	Sprycel	BMS	2006	1019
10	Tasigna	Novartis	2007	998

(Source: FirstWord, June 2013)

Successfully launched most recent product is also on a shaky ground:

The new game-changing hepatitis C drug of Gilead Sciences – Sovaldi, has generated a turnover of around US$ 140 million in less than a month’s time from its market launch. Analysts expect an annual turnover of around US$7 billion from this brand.

However, sustaining the current sales momentum for Sovaldi in the years ahead could indeed be challenging for Gilead, as Bristol-Myers Squibb is preparing to obtain FDA approval for its own hepatitis C treatment daclatasvir, which has already been cleared in Europe. In addition, AbbVie is also progressing fast with its novel three-drug fixed dose combination in the same therapy area.

Moreover, Sovaldi’s unusually high price has reportedly created a furore in the western market. It costs US$ 1,000 a pill, raising huge concern among insurers and state funded healthcare providers in the United States. The report states that three Democratic members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have already demanded that Gilead Sciences must justify the price of Sovaldi.

Categorization of new drugs:

Analyzing the current situation the above McKinsey report categorizes the types of new products that are now being launched, as follows:

Roughly one in four launches involves drugs that are strongly differentiated from competing products.

More than half of upcoming launches are of moderately differentiated products in well-established disease areas, and the priority is to find a way to stand out from the crowd. This requires innovative approaches to unveil insights into stakeholder needs and behaviors that competitors do not have.

For roughly 15 percent of launches, the priority will be to establish unmet needs effectively to ensure access to a well-differentiated treatment for a targeted population. McKinsey call these launches “category creators.” Gardasil, launched in the un-established human papilloma virus market, is an example.

8 percent of launches face the substantial challenge of launching an undifferentiated product in an un-established disease area.

Broad strategic steps prescribed:

To address this challenge effectively the above report underscores the need for a systematic approach for the pharma players as follows:

Establish unmet needs in a disease area,
Develop deep customer insight as a basis for a truly differentiated positioning
Land the products safely in the market
Maximize launch uptake
Use early experiences in the market to fine-tune ongoing launch activities

Conclusion:

Considering the prevailing scenario of ‘Patent Cliff’, coupled with progressively drying up R&D pipelines and mostly unflattering success with the new product launches, how would a company work out its new product launch strategy, is becoming increasingly a critical question to answer on priority.

To appropriately tune a new product in its long-term sales and profit growth trajectory, it is imperative to ensure that the product exhibits its winning trends as soon as it is fired from its launch pad.

This is absolutely essential, as it appears from the above study, around one in three launches has been good in meeting the planned expectations. This makes about two-thirds of new product launches falling well short of target. It is noteworthy that 78 percent of those new products that fell short in their first year target, lagged in their second-year forecasts too. Further, 70 percent of those laggards did not measure up to the organizational expectations even during their third year in the market.

Thus, any inadvertent mistakes in this area could make the grand finale of intense product development and strategizing efforts over a number of years together with expenses of millions of dollars, unflattering, if not catastrophic, both in terms of top and bottom line score-card of the organization, as is happening more frequently during the last several years.

This trend needs to be reversed with the application of innovative minds and charting the uncharted frontiers, sooner the better, for a healthier global pharmaceutical industry, as we move on.

By: Tapan J. Ray

“Meeting Unmet Needs of Patients”: A New Direction

Posted on January 27, 2014 by Tapan Ray

The much-hyped phrase of the global pharma majors – ‘meeting unmet needs of patients’, is very often used to create an aura around newer patented drugs of all kinds, from original to banal, including evergreen varieties such as:

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

I do not have any terrible issue with this usage, as many stakeholders, including various governments, have already started differentiating between the ‘Chalk’ and the ‘Cheese’ kinds of patented products and contemplating future course of action, accordingly. The recent development in South Africa is one such example.

That said, there is now a greater need to ponder over the much bigger picture in the same context and direction, which would improve predictability of treatment outcomes by manifold. Simultaneously, such R&D initiatives would help reducing the overall cost, especially for dreaded diseases like cancer, mainly through highly targeted drugs and consequently avoiding the risk and associated wastage, as often happens with the prevailing ‘trial and error’ therapy approach, thereby benefitting the patients immensely. This is mainly because no drug is 100 percent effective with inconsequential side-effects for all patients of any disease type.

Genetics and Genomics Science made it possible:

With already acquired knowledge in genetics, genomics and genome sequencing capability, it is now possible to precisely predict a person’s susceptibility to various disease types and proactively working out measures to help either avoiding ailments, such as, non-infectious life threatening and chronic diseases altogether, if not, making their treatment more predictable and less expensive, as stated above.

If organized efforts are made to extend the application and benefits of this science to a larger section of population, those R&D initiatives can really be construed, unquestionably, as ‘meeting unmet needs of the patients’, just as ‘first in kind’ category of innovative drugs are recognized by the scientific community and the civil society as a whole.

A treatment revolution in the offing:

Expectations are rapidly building up that evolving genetics and genomics science based technological know-how would ultimately revolutionize the practice of medicine ushering-in the pathway of personalized medicine for a large number of patients.

Definition:

A report from the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development defines personalized medicine as “Tailoring of medical treatment and delivery of health care to individual characteristics of each patient, including their genetic, molecular, imaging and other personal determinants. Using this approach has the potential to speed accurate diagnosis, decrease side effects, and increase the likelihood that a medicine will work for an individual patient.”

The aim:

The aim of personalized medicine is, therefore, to make a perfect fit between the drug and the patient. It is worth noting that genotyping is currently not a part of clinically accepted routine. However, it is expected to acquire this status in the western world, shortly.

To give a very quick example, genetic differences within individuals determine how their bodies react to drugs such as Warfarin – a blood thinner taken to prevent clotting. It is of utmost importance to get the dosing right, as more of the drug will cause bleeding and less of it will not have any therapeutic effect.

In the field of cancer, genetic tests are now being done by some oncologists to determine which patients will be benefited most; say with Herceptin, in the treatment of breast cancer.

Thus, with personalized medicine the health of a patient will be managed based on personal characteristics of the individual, including height, weight, diet, age, sex etc. instead of defined “standards of care”, based on averaging response across a patient group. Pharmacogenomics tests like, sequencing of human genome will determine a patient’s likely response to drugs.

Disease prevention:

In addition, such medicines would help identifying individuals prone to serious ailments such as, metabolic, cardiac, endocrine, auto-immune, psychosomatic, including cancer of various types; enabling physicians to take appropriate preventive measures much before disease manifestations and in that process would help containing the overall treatment cost.

Cost of genome sequencing:

Sir John Bell, Professor of Medicine at Oxford University, reportedly said in early December 2012 that personalized medicine for all could soon be a clear possibility, as everybody will be able to have their entire DNA make-up mapped for as little as £100 (Rs.10, 000 approx.).

This estimate seems to be realistic, as the price of genome sequencing has fallen by 100,000-fold in 10 years. This cost is expected to further decline, as genome of any person essentially remains unchanged over time. Thus, this information might become a part of an individual’s medical record allowing the doctors to use it as necessary.

Summary of key advantages:

To summarize, the expected benefits from personalized medicine, besides very early diagnosis as stated above, are the following:

1. More Accurate Dosing: Instead of dose being decided based on age and body weight of the patients, the physicians may decide and adjust the dose of the medicines based on the genetic profiling of the patients.

2. More Targeted Drugs: It will be possible for the pharmaceutical companies to develop and market drugs for patients with specific genetic profiles. In that process, a drug needs to be tested only on those who are likely to derive benefits from it. This in turn will be able to effectively tailor clinical trials, expediting the process of market launch of these drugs.

3. Improved Healthcare: personalized medicine would enable the physicians to prescribe ‘the right dose of the right medicine the first time for everyone’ without any trial or error approach, resulting in much better overall healthcare.

Current use:

Though these are still the early days, initial usage of personalized medicine is now being reported in many areas, such as:

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

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

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

In addition, this approach would also help clinicians to determine which particular therapy is most likely to succeed on which patient.

Present outlook:

A September 2013 article published in Forbes Magazine titled, “Personalized Medicine May Be Good For Patients But Bad For Drug Companies’ Bottom Line” says, although personalized medicine offers tremendous potential for patients, because of the dual burdens of expensive clinical trials and diminished revenue potential, the concept may become unsustainable in the long term, the attitude of regulators will be critical to drug companies’ willingness to embrace personalized medicine, and to its wider application.

In my view, for greater interest of patients to ‘meet their unmet needs’ global pharma, majors, academics, respective governments and the drug regulators should find a way out in this new direction, sooner.

Indian initiatives:

Some companies, both well known and lesser known, are making collaborative progress, keeping low profile, in the genome sequencing area in India, which will ultimately make expensive treatments, such as cancer, more predictable and simultaneously affordable to many.

The concerns:

While the progress in the field of personalized medicine is quite heartening, some experts have reportedly been sounding a note of caution. They strongly feel that DNA code sequencing brings to light a “very real privacy concerns” of individuals.

The key argument being, if genome sequencing is extended to entire population, individuals and their relatives could then be identified and tracked by matching their DNA with the genome stored in the respective health records. This move, as contemplated by the opponents, could “wipe out privacy” with a significant impact on the society.

A paper published in ‘Scientific American’ dated January 2014, titled “What Fetal Genome Screening Could Mean for Babies and Parents” deliberated that today doctors are closer than ever before to routinely glimpsing the full genetic blueprints of a fetus just months after sperm meets egg. That genomic reconstruction would reveal future disease risk and genetic traits even as early as the first trimester of pregnancy – raising another ethical issue that could hugely impact parents’ decision threshold for deciding to terminate a pregnancy or influencing how they rear their child.

Thus, all these ethical and social issues in the development and usage of personalized medicine must be appropriately addressed under a well deliberated ethical, social, legal and regulatory framework of each country.

Conclusion:

Though in Europe and to some extent in the United States, treatments based on personalized medicine have already been initiated, we are still in a nascent stage for this novel concept to get translated into reality for the benefit of a much wider population across the world.

Lot of grounds may still need to be covered, especially in the realm of medical research and also to work out the regulatory pathways for personalized medicine in healthcare by the pioneers of this great concept and more importantly by effectively addressing the ethical concerns raised on this subject.

If collaborative initiatives are taken jointly by academia, R&D based global pharma majors and medical diagnostic players towards this new direction with a clearer focus and supported by the law makers, a huge unmet needs of patients will truly be met, giving yet again a fresh impetus to the much hyped phrase “Meeting Unmet Needs of Patients”, though in a refreshingly new direction.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: New

Dry New Antibiotic Pipeline: Increasing Incidence Of Deadly Antibiotic Resistance

Multi-channel Engagement: A New Normal In Pharma Marketing

The Stakeholder-Mix Has Changed, But Pharma Marketing Has Not

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process

Nutraceuticals: An Emerging Opportunity in The Gray Area Between Pharma And Nutrition

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

Global New Product Launches: Recent Success Trend Unflattering?

“Meeting Unmet Needs of Patients”: A New Direction