Tag Archives: NME

The Challenge of Holistic Value Creation With Pharma M&A

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consumer-focused digital companies redefining healthcare value creation:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

Draft Pharma Policy 2017 And Branded Generics

Posted on by
Reply

In its first reading, the 18-page draft Pharma Policy, 2017 gives me a sense that the Government has followed the much-desired principle of ‘walk the talk’, especially in some key areas. One such space is what Prime Minister Modi distinctly hinted on April 17, 2017, during the inauguration function of a charitable hospital in Surat. He clearly signaled that prescriptions in generic names be made a must in India, and reiterated without any ambiguity whatsoever that, to facilitate this process, his government may bring in a legal framework under which doctors will have to prescribe generic medicines.

Immediately following its wide coverage by both the national and international media, many eyebrows were raised regarding the feasibility of the intent of the Indian Prime Minister, especially by the pharma industry and its business associates, for the reasons known to many. A somewhat muted echo of the same could be sensed from some business dailies too, a few expressed through editorials, and the rest quoting the views on the likely ‘health disaster’ that may follow, if ‘branded generics’ are not prescribed by the medical profession. Obviously, the main apprehension was centered around the ‘shoddy quality parameters’ of unbranded generic drugs in India. It’s a different matter though, that none can possibly either confirm or pooh-pooh it, backed by irrefutable data with statistical significance.

Be that as it may, making high quality generic drugs accessible to most patients at affordable prices, avoiding any possible nexus between the doctors and pharma companies, which could jeopardize the patients’ economic interest, deserves general appreciation, shrill voices of some vested interests notwithstanding.  Nonetheless, if the related proposals in the new pharma policy come to fruition as such, it would be a watershed decision of the government, leaving a long-lasting impact both on the patients, as well as the industry, though in different ways, altogether.

I raised this issue in my article titled, “Is Department of Pharmaceuticals On The same Page As The Prime Minister?”, published in this blog on May 15, 2017. However, in today’s discussion, I shall focus only on how has the draft pharma policy 2017 proposed to address this issue, taking well into consideration the quality concerns expressed on unbranded generics, deftly.

Before I do that, let me give a brief perspective on ‘brand name drugs’, ‘generic drugs’, ‘branded generics’ and ‘unbranded generic drugs’. This would basically serve as a preamble to arrive at the relevance of ‘branded generic’ prescriptions, along with the genesis of safety concern about the use of un-branded generic drugs.

No definition in Indian drug laws:

Although, Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India 1940 defines a drug under section 3 (b), it does not provide any legal definition of ‘brand name drugs’, ‘generic drugs’, ‘branded generic drugs’ or ‘un-branded generics’.  Hence, a quick landscaping of the same, as follows, I reckon, will be important to understand the pertinence of the ongoing debate on ‘branded generic’ prescriptions in India, from the patients’ health and safety perspectives:

‘Brand name’ drugs:

Globally, ‘brand name drugs’ are known as those, which are covered by a product patent, and are usually innovative New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). Respective innovator pharma companies hold exclusive legal rights to manufacture and market the ‘brand name drugs’, without any competition till the patents expire.

Generic drugs:

Post patent expiry of, any pharma player, located anywhere in the world, is legally permitted, as defined in the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regulations, to manufacture, market and sell the generic equivalents of ‘brand name drugs’. However, it’s a global norm that the concerned generic manufacturer will require proving to the competent drug regulatory authorities where these will be marketed, that the generic versions are stable in all parameters, and bioequivalent to the respective original molecules. According to US-FDA, a ‘generic drug’ will require to be the same as the original ‘brand-name drug’ in dosage, safety, strength, quality, purity, the way it works, the way it is taken and the way it should be used.

‘Branded generic’ drugs:

Branded generics are generic molecules marketed and prescribed by their respective brand names. Around 90 percent of generic formulations are branded generics in India, involving heavy sales and marketing expenditure in various forms, which has become a contentious issue today in India. The reason being, although branded generics cost significantly more than unbranded generics, the former variety of generic drugs are most preferred by the medical profession, as a group, in India. Interestingly, there is no difference whatsoever in the marketing approval process between the ‘branded generics’ and other generic varieties without any brand names.

Unbranded generic drugs:

Unbranded generic drugs are those, which are sold only in the generic names, sans any brand name. I reiterate, once again, that there is no difference in the marketing approval process between the ‘branded generics’ and ‘unbranded generic medicines’.

The core issue:

The whole debate or concern related to both efficacy and safety on the use of unbranded generic drugs in India stems from a single regulatory issue, which is widely construed as scientifically improper, and totally avoidable. If this subject is addressed in a holistic way and implemented satisfactorily in the country, by and large, there should not be any worthwhile concern in prescribing or consuming single ingredient unbranded generic drugs in India, which generally cost much less than their branded generic equivalents.

This core issue is primarily related to establishing bioequivalence (BE) with the original molecules for all generic formulations, regardless of whether these are branded or unbranded generic drugs. Thus, positive results in bioequivalence studies, should be a fundamental requirement for the grant of marketing approval of any generics in India, as is required by the regulators of most countries, across the world.

This has been lucidly articulated also in the publication of the National Institute of Health (NIH), USA, underscoring the critical importance of generic drugs in healthcare is unquestionable. The article says: “it is imperative that the pharmaceutical quality and ‘in vivo’ performance of generic drugs be reliably assessed. Because generic drugs would be interchanged with innovator products in the market place, it must be demonstrated that the safety and efficacy of generics are comparable to the safety and efficacy of the corresponding innovator drugs. Assessment of ‘interchangeability’ between the generic and the innovator product is carried out by a study of ‘in vivo’ equivalence or ‘bioequivalence’ (BE).”

The paper further highlights, “the concept of BE has, therefore, been accepted worldwide by the pharmaceutical industry and national regulatory authorities for over 20 years and is applied to new as well as generic products. As a result, thousands of high-quality generic drugs at reduced costs have become available in every corner of the globe.”

Why is BE not mandatory for marketing approval of all generic drugs in India?

It is intriguing, why is this basic scientific and medical requirement of proving BE is not mandatory for granting marketing approval of all generic drugs at all time, without any exception – covering both branded generics and their unbranded equivalents, in India.

As I have already deliberated on this subject in my article titled “Generic Drug Quality: Cacophony Masks An Important Note, Creates A Pariah ”, published in this blog on May 08, 2017, I shall now proceed further to relate this critical issue with the Draft Pharma Policy 2017.

Brand, branding and branded generics:

Nevertheless, before I focus on the draft pharma policy 2017, let me skim through the definitions of a ‘brand’ and the ‘branding process’, in general, for better understanding of the subject.

American Marketing Association defines a brand as: ‘A name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s goods or services as distinct from other sellers.’ Whereas, ‘The Branding Journal’ articulates: ‘A brand provides consumers with a decision-making-shortcut when feeling indecisive about the same product from different companies.’

Business Dictionary describes the ‘branding process’ as: ‘Creating a unique name and image for a product in the consumers’ mind, mainly through advertising campaigns with a consistent theme. Branding aims to establish a significant and differentiated presence in the market that attracts and retains loyal customers.’

How does it benefit the branded generic consumers?

One thing that comes out clearly from the above definitions that brands, and for that matter the branding process is directed to the consumers. Applying the branding process for generic drugs, the moot question that surfaces is, how does it benefit the pharma consumers, significantly?

Besides, the branding process being so very expensive, adds significant cost to a generic drug, making its price exorbitant to most patients, quite disproportionate to incremental value, if any, that a branded generic offers over its unbranded equivalents. Thus, the relevance of the branding process for a generic drug, continues to remain a contentious issue for many, especially where the out of pocket expenditure for medicines is so high, as in India.

Marketing experts’ view on the branding process for drugs:

An interesting article titled ‘From Managing Pills to Managing Brands’, authored by the Unilever Chaired Professor of Marketing and a research fellow at INSEAD, published in the Harvard Business Review made the following observations on brands and the branding process for drugs:

“…It takes a huge investment to build a successful brand, consumer goods manufacturers try to make their brands last as long as possible. Some consumer products—notably, Coca-Cola, Nescafé, and Persil (a European laundry detergent) -  have stayed at the top for decades. That’s not to say the products don’t evolve, but the changes are presented as improvements and refinements rather than as breakthroughs.”

“In the pharmaceutical business, by contrast, a new product is always given a new name. Drug companies believe that only by introducing a new name can you signal to the market that the product itself is new. Unfortunately, this approach throws out the company’s previous marketing investment entirely; it has to build a new brand with each new product. That may not have mattered when pharmaceutical companies could rely on a large, high-margin market for each drug they wheeled out. But in a crowded market with tightening margins, the new-product, new-brand strategy is becoming less and less feasible.”

The above observations when applied to expensive ‘branded generics’, which are nothing but exact ‘me too’ varieties among tens other similar formulations of the same generic molecule, do not add any additional value to the patients, in a well-functioning drug regulatory environment.

Hence, to reduce the out of pocket drug cost significantly, Prime Minister Modi hinted at bringing an appropriate legal framework to address this critical issue, which gets well-reflected in the draft pharma policy 2017, as I read it.

Six key features of the draft pharma policy related to ‘branded generics’:

Following are the six key features enshrined in the draft pharma policy 2017 to translate into reality what the Prime Minister spoke about on this subject in Surat on April 17, 2017.

1. Bio-availability and Bio-equivalence tests mandatory for all drug manufacturing permissions:

For quality control of generic drugs, Bio-availability and Bio-equivalence tests (BA/BE Tests) will be made mandatory for all drug manufacturing permissions accorded by the State Drug Regulator or by the Central Drug Regulator. This will be made compulsory even for the future renewals of manufacturing licenses for all.

2. WHO GMP/GLP mandatory for all drug units:

The government shall ensure to get the World Health Organization’s Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) adopted by all manufacturing units.

3. No branded generics for single ingredient off-patent molecules:

The government will pursue the policy of sale of single ingredient drugs by their pharmacopeial name/salt name. To keep the identity of the manufacturer, the manufacturer would be allowed to stamp its name on the drug package. For patented drugs and Fixed Dose Combination (FDCs) drugs the brand names may be used.

4. ‘One company – one drug – one brand name – one price’:

The principle of ‘one company – one drug – one brand name – one price’ would be implemented for all drugs.

5. Aid and assistance to prescribe in generic names:

To aid and assist the registered medical practitioners in prescribing medicines in the generic names, e-prescription will be put into operation whereby the prescriptions will be computerized and the medicine name will be picked up from a drop-down menu of salt names.

6. UCPMP to be made mandatory:

The marketing practices of several pharmaceutical companies create an unfair advantage. To provide a level playing field, the regulation for marketing practices which is at present voluntary will be made mandatory. Penalty will be levied for violations and an agency for implementation would also be assigned.

Conclusion:

I have focused in this article only on those specific intents of the government, as captured in the draft pharma policy 2017, to reduce the out of pocket expenses on drugs for the Indian patients, which is currently one of the highest in the world. This area assumes greater importance to many, keeping in mind what Prime Minister Modi hinted at in this regard on April 17, 2017. If implemented exactly as detailed in the policy draft, this specific area would have a watershed impact both on the patients, as well as, the pharma companies, including their related business associates, lasting over a long period time.

Far reaching consequential fall outs are expected to loom large on the way pharma players’ strategic business processes generally revolve round ‘branded generics’ in India. I hope, the Plan B of many predominantly branded generic players is also receiving final touches on the drawing board by now, as this aspect of the draft policy proposal can in no way be construed as a bolt from the blue, catching the industry totally off-guard. That said, would the same changes as proposed in the draft pharma policy 2017, if and when implemented, be a ‘wow’ moment for patients?

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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

 

Playing Hardball, Riding the Horse of ‘Innovation’

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

A brief perspective:

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

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

Choosing the easier path:

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

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

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

‘Innovation’ of ‘me-too’ molecules:

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

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

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

‘Innovation’ of ‘me-gain’ molecules:

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

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

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

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

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

Why do the doctors prescribe such drugs?

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

Section (3d) plugs the loophole:

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

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

Consequent ire of Big Pharma:

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

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

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

Playing hardball:

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

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

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

Would America go to WTO?

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

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

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

What happens, if WTO decides in favor of India?

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Global New Product Launches: Recent Success Trend Unflattering?

Posted on by
Reply

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

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.

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

A casual approach?

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

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

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

Compromise on patients’ safety continues unabated: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

No options but to shape-up:

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

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

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

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

CT related deaths in India:

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

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

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

DCGI hauled-up 9 MNCs on patients’ compensation:

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

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

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

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

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

Prior indictment by Indian Parliamentary Committee:

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

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

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

Action just not enough yet:

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

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

  • Lack of distinction between study-related injuries and non-study related injuries.
  • Use of placebos in placebo-controlled trials.
  • Lack of any arbitration mechanism in case of disagreement on causality/quantum of compensation and also lack of clarity on who constitutes the Expert Committee and its composition.

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

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

The report of the experts committee:

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

  • Setting up of a Central Accreditation Council (CAC) to oversee the accreditation of institutes, clinical investigators and ethics committees for CTs in the country.
  • Only those trials, which will be conducted at centers meeting these requirements, be considered for approval by the DCGI. 
  • For speedy clearance of applications, a broad expertise based Technical Review Committee (TRC) will replace 12 New Drug Advisory Committees (NDACs), which are currently functioning for NCE/NME approvals.
  • The TRC would be assisted, as required, by appropriate subject experts selected from the ‘Roster of Experts’.
  • For any Adverse Effects (AEs) or Serious Adverse Effects (SAEs) during a CT, the sponsor investigator will be responsible for providing medical treatment and care to the patient at its/their cost till the resolution of the AEs/SAEs.
  • This is to be provided irrespective of whether the patient is in the control group, placebo group, standard drug treatment group or the test drug administered group.
  • A Special Expert Committee should be set up independent of the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) to review all drug formulations in the market and identify drugs, which are potentially hazardous and/or of doubtful therapeutic efficacy.
  • A mechanism should be put in place to remove these drugs from the market by the CDSCO at the earliest.

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

The main worry – costs of CTs will go up:

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

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

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

Exploitation of CT regulations:

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

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

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

Industry reactions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

‘Industry-pharma nexus’ in the USA too?

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

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

Expected Government action:

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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.

 

R&D: Is Indian Pharma Moving Up the Value Chain?

Posted on by
Reply

It almost went unnoticed by many, when in the post product patent regime, Ranbaxy launched its first homegrown ‘New Drug’ of India, Synriam, on April 25, 2012, coinciding with the ‘World Malaria Day’. The drug is used in the treatment of plasmodium falciparum malaria affecting adult patients.  However, the company has also announced its plans to extend the benefits of Synriam to children in the malaria endemic zones of Asia and Africa.

The new drug is highly efficacious with a cure rate of over 95 percent offering advantages of “compliance and convenience” too. The full course of treatment is one tablet a day for three days costing less than US$ 2.0 to a patient.

Synriam was developed by Ranbaxy in collaboration with the Department of Science  and Technology of the Government of India. The project received support from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and conforms to the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). The R&D cost for this drug was reported to be around US$ 30 million. After its regulatory approval in India, Synriam is now being registered in many other countries of the world.

Close on the heels of the above launch, in June 2013 another pharmaceutical major of India, Zydus Cadilla announced that the company is ready for launch in India its first New Chemical Entity (NCE) for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia. The NCE called Lipaglyn has been discovered and developed in India and is getting ready for launch in the global markets too.

The key highlights of Lipaglyn are reportedly as follows:

  • The first Glitazar to be approved in the world.
  • The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has already approved the drug for launch in India.
  • Over 80% of all diabetic patients are estimated to be suffering from diabetic dyslipidemia. There are more than 350 million diabetics globally – so the people suffering from diabetic dyslipidemia could be around 300 million.

With 20 discovery research programs under various stages of clinical development, Zydus Cadilla reportedly invests over 7 percent of its turnover in R&D.  At the company’s state-of-the-art research facility, the Zydus Research Centre, over 400 research scientists are currently engaged in NCE research alone.

Prior to this in May 14, 2013, the Government of India’s Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and Indian vaccine company Bharat Biotech jointly announced positive results, having excellent safety and efficacy profile in Phase III clinical trials, of an indigenously developed rotavirus vaccine.

The vaccine name Rotavac is considered to be an important scientific breakthrough against rotavirus infections, the most severe and lethal cause of childhood diarrhea, responsible for approximately 100,000 deaths of small children in India each year.

Bharat Biotech has announced a price of US$ 1.00/dose for Rotavac. When approved by the Drug Controller General of India, Rotavac will be a more affordable alternative to the rotavirus vaccines currently available in the Indian market. 

It is indeed interesting to note, a number of local Indian companies have started investing in pharmaceutical R&D to move up the industry value chain and are making rapid strides in this direction.

Indian Pharma poised to move-up the value-chain:

Over the past decade or so, India has acquired capabilities and honed skills in several important areas of pharma R&D, like for example:

  • Cost effective process development
  • Custom synthesis
  • Physical and chemical characterization of molecules
  • Genomics
  • Bio-pharmaceutics
  • Toxicology studies
  • Execution of phase 2 and phase 3 studies

According to a paper titled, “The R&D Scenario in Indian Pharmaceutical Industry” published by Research and Information System for Developing Countries, over 50 NCEs/NMEs of the Indian Companies are currently at different stages of development, as follows:

Company Compounds Therapy Areas Status
Biocon 7 Oncology, Inflammation, Diabetes Pre-clinical, phase II, III
Wockhardt 2 Anti-infective Phase I, II
Piramal Healthcare 21 Oncology, Inflammation, Diabetes Lead selection, Pre-clinical, Phase I, II
Lupin 6 Migraine, TB, Psoriasis, Diabetes, Rheumatoid Arthritis Pre-clinical, Phase I, II, III
Torrent 1 Diabetic heart failure Phase I
Dr. Reddy’s Lab 6 Metabolic/Cardiovascular disorders, Psoriasis, migraine On going, Phase I, II
Glenmark 8 Metabolic/Cardiovascular /Respiratory/Inflammatory /Skin disorders, Anti-platelet, Adjunct to PCI/Acute Coronary Syndrome, Anti-diarrheal, Neuropathic Pain, Skin Disorders, Multiple Sclerosis, Ongoing, Pre-clinical, Phase I, II, III

R&D collaboration and partnership:

Some of these domestic companies are also entering into licensing agreements with the global players in the R&D space. Some examples are reportedly as follows:

  • Glenmark has inked licensing deals with Sanofi of France and Forest Laboratories of the United States to develop three of its own patented molecules.
  • Domestic drug major Biocon has signed an agreement with Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) for new drug candidates.
  • Piramal Life Sciences too entered into two risk-reward sharing deals in 2007 with Merck and Eli Lilly, to enrich its research pipeline of drugs.
  • Jubilant Group partnered with Janssen Pharma of Belgium and AstraZeneca of the United Kingdom for pharma R&D in India, last year.

All these are just indicative collaborative R&D initiatives in the Indian pharmaceutical industry towards harnessing immense growth potential of this area for a win-win business outcome.

The critical mass:

An international study estimated that out of 10,000 molecules synthesized, only 20 reach the preclinical stage, 10 the clinical trials stage and ultimately only one gets regulatory approval for marketing. If one takes this estimate into consideration, the research pipeline of the Indian companies would require to have at least 20 molecules at the pre-clinical stage to be able to launch one innovative product in the market.

Though pharmaceutical R&D investments in India are increasing, still these are not good enough. The Annual Report for 2011-12 of the Department of Pharmaceuticals indicates that investments made by the domestic pharmaceutical companies in R&D registered an increase from 1.34 per cent of sales in 1995 to 4.5 percent in 2010. Similarly, the R&D expenditure for the MNCs in India has increased from 0.77 percent of their net sales in 1995 to 4.01 percent in 2010.

Thus, it is quite clear, both the domestic companies and the MNCs are not spending enough on R&D in India. As a result, at the individual company level, India is yet to garner the critical mass in this important area.

No major R&D investments in India by large MNCs:

According to a report, major foreign players with noteworthy commercial operations in India have spent either nothing or very small amount towards pharmaceutical R&D in the country. The report also mentions that Swiss multinational Novartis, which spent $ 9 billion on R&D in 2012 globally, does not do any R&D in India.

Analogue R&D strategy could throw greater challenges:

For adopting the analogue research strategy, by and large, the Indian pharma players appear to run the additional challenge of proving enhanced clinical efficacy over the known substance to pass the acid test of the Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India.

Public sector R&D:

In addition to the private sector, research laboratories in the public sector under the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) like, Central Drug Research Institute (CDRI), Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IICT) and National Chemical Laboratory (NCL) have also started contributing to the growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry.

As McKinsey & company estimated, given adequate thrust, the R&D costs in India could be much lower, only 40 to 60 per cent of the costs incurred in the US. However, in reality R&D investments of the largest global pharma R&D spenders in India are still insignificant, although they have been expressing keenness for Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) mostly in the brownfield pharma sector.

Cost-arbitrage:

Based on available information, global pharma R&D spending is estimated to be over US$ 60 billion. Taking the cost arbitrage of India into account, the global R&D spend at Indian prices comes to around US$ 24 billion. To achieve even 5 percent of this total expenditure, India should have invested by now around US$ 1.2 billion on the pharmaceutical R&D alone. Unfortunately that has not been achieved just yet, as discussed above.

Areas of cost-arbitrage:

A survey done by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) in 2011 with the senior executives from the American and European pharmaceutical companies, highlights the following areas of perceived R&D cost arbitrage in India:

Areas % Respondents
Low overall cost 73
Access to patient pool 70
Data management/Informatics 55
Infrastructure set up 52
Talent 48
Capabilities in new TA 15

That said, India should realize that the current cost arbitrage of the country is not sustainable on a longer-term basis. Thus, to ‘make hay while the sun shines’ and harness its competitive edge in this part of the world, the country should take proactive steps to attract both domestic as well as Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) in R&D with appropriate policy measures and fiscal incentives.

Simultaneously, aggressive capacity building initiatives in the R&D space, regulatory reforms based on the longer term need of the country and intensive scientific education and training would play critical role to establish India as an attractive global hub in this part of the world to discover and develop newer medicines for all.

Funding:

Accessing the world markets is the greatest opportunity in the entire process of globalization and the funds available abroad could play an important role to boost R&D in India. Inadequacy of funds in the Indian pharmaceutical R&D space is now one of the greatest concerns for the country.

The various ways of funding R&D could be considered as follows:

  • Self-financing Research: This is based on:
  1. “CSIR Model”: Recover research costs through commercialization/ collaboration with industries to fund research projects.
  2. “Dr Reddy’s Lab / Glenmark Model”: Recover research costs by selling lead compounds without taking through to development.
  • Overseas Funding:  By way of joint R&D ventures with overseas collaborators, seeking grants from overseas health foundations, earnings from contract research as also from clinical development and transfer of aborted leads and collaborative projects on ‘Orphan Drugs’.
  • Venture Capital & Equity Market:  This could be both via ‘Private Venture Capital Funds’ and ‘Special Government Institutions’.  If regulations permit, foreign venture funds may also wish to participate in such initiatives. Venture Capital and Equity Financing could emerge as important sources of finance once track record is demonstrated and ‘early wins’ are recorded.
  • Fiscal & Non-Fiscal Support: Should also be valuable in early stages of R&D, for which a variety of schemes are possible as follows:
  1. Customs Duty Concessions: For Imports of specialized equipment, e.g. high throughput screening equipment, equipment for combinatorial chemistry, special analytical tools, specialized pilot plants, etc.
  2. Income tax concessions (weighted tax deductibility): For both in-house and sponsored research programs.
  3. Soft loans: For financing approved R&D projects from the Government financial institutions / banks.
  4. Tax holidays: Deferrals, loans on earnings from R&D.
  5. Government funding: Government grants though available, tend to be small and typically targeted to government institutions or research bodies. There is very little government support for private sector R&D as on date.

All these schemes need to be simple and hassle free and the eligibility criteria must be stringent to prevent any possible misuse.

Patent infrastructure:

Overall Indian patent infrastructure needs to be strengthened, among others, in the following areas:

  • Enhancement of patent literacy both in legal and scientific communities, who must be taught how to read, write and file a probe.
  • Making available appropriate ‘Search Engines’ to Indian scientists to facilitate worldwide patent searches.
  • Creating world class Indian Patent Offices (IPOs) where the examination skills and resources will need considerable enhancement.
  • ‘Advisory Services’ on patents to Indian scientists to help filing patents in other countries could play an important role.

Creating R&D ecosystem:

  • Knowledge and learning need to be upgraded through the universities and specialist centers of learning within India.
  • Science and Technological achievements should be recognized and rewarded through financial grants and future funding should be linked to scientific achievements.
  • Indian scientists working abroad are now inclined to return to India or network with laboratories in India. This trend should be effectively leveraged.

Universities to play a critical role:

Most of Indian raw scientific talents go abroad to pursue higher studies.  International Schools of Science like Stanford or Rutgers should be encouraged to set up schools in India, just like Kellogg’s and Wharton who have set up Business Schools. It has, however, been reported that the Government of India is actively looking into this matter.

‘Open Innovation’ Model:

As the name suggest, ‘Open Innovation’ or the ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ is an open source code model of discovering a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). In this model all data generated related to the discovery research will be available in the open for collaborative inputs. In ‘Open Innovation’, the key component is the supportive pathway of its information network, which is driven by three key parameters of open development, open access and open source.

Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) of India has adopted OSDD to discover more effective anti-tubercular medicines.

Insignificant R&D investment in Asia-Pacific Region:

Available data indicate that 85 percent of the medicines produced by the global pharmaceutical industry originate from North America, Europe, Japan and some from Latin America and the developed nations hold 97 percent of the total pharmaceutical patents worldwide.

MedTRACK reveals that just 15 percent of all new drug development is taking place in Asia-Pacific region, including China, despite the largest global growth potential of the region.

This situation is not expected to change significantly in the near future for obvious reasons. The head start that the western world and Japan enjoy in this space of the global pharmaceutical industry would continue to benefit those countries for some more time.

Some points to ponder:

  • It is essential to have balanced laws and policies, offering equitable advantage for innovation to all stakeholders, including patients.
  • Trade policy is another important ingredient, any imbalance of which can either reinforce or retard R&D efforts.
  • Empirical evidence across the globe has demonstrated that a well-balanced patent regime would encourage the inflow of technology, stimulate R&D, benefit both the national and the global pharmaceutical sectors and most importantly improve the healthcare system, in the long run.
  • The Government, academia, scientific fraternity and the pharmaceutical Industry need to get engaged in various relevant Public Private Partnership (PPP) arrangements for R&D to ensure wider access to newer and better medicines in the country, providing much needed stimulus to the public health interest of the nation.

Conclusion:

R&D initiatives, though very important for most of the industries, are the lifeblood for the pharmaceutical sector, across the globe, to meet the unmet needs of the patients. Thus, quite rightly, the pharmaceutical Industry is considered to be the ‘lifeline’ for any nation in the battle against diseases of all types.

While the common man expects newer and better medicines at affordable prices, the pharmaceutical industry has to battle with burgeoning R&D costs, high risks and increasingly long period of time to take a drug from the ‘mind to market’, mainly due to stringent regulatory requirements. There is an urgent need to strike a right balance between the two.

In this context, it is indeed a proud moment for India, when with the launch of its home grown new products, Synriam of Ranbaxy and Lipaglyn of Zydus Cadilla or Rotavac Vaccine of Bharat Biotech translate a common man’s dream of affordable new medicines into reality and set examples for others to emulate.

Thus, just within seven years from the beginning of the new product patent regime in India, stories like Synriam, Lipaglyn, Rotavac or the R&D pipeline of over 50 NCEs/NMEs prompt resurfacing the key unavoidable query yet again:

Has Indian pharma started catching-up with the process of new drug discovery, after decades of hibernation, to move up the industry ‘Value Chain’?

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.

Arresting continuous job losses in the global pharma industry call for innovation across the value chain

Posted on by
Reply

In not too distant past, the stocks of the global pharmaceutical companies, by and large, used to be categorized as ‘blue-chips’ for their high return to investors, as compared to many other sectors.

Unfortunately, the situation has changed significantly since then. Most of those large players now appear to be under tremendous pressure for excellence in performance.

The issues of ‘Patent Cliff’, coupled with patent expiries, price and margin pressures from payors’ group in the developed world, have already started haunting the research based pharmaceutical companies and are assuming larger proportions day by day.

The situation continues to be grim:

Collective impact of all the above factors has prompted the major pharma players to resort to huge cost cutting exercises leading to employee layoffs, quite often, in a massive scale.

According to a study done by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc., which was also quoted in the Forbes Magazine, April 13, 2011, 297,650 employees were laid off by the global pharma industry between the years 2000 and 2011.

Year

Number of Job cuts

2000

2,453

2001

4,736

2002

11,488

2003

28,519

2004

15,640

2005

26,300

2006

15,638

2007

31,732

2008

43,014

2009

61,109

2010

53,636

Total

297,650


Source: Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. ©/Forbes Magazine, April 13, 2011

Top of the list layoffs:

Forbes, Pharma and Healthcare, June 10, 2011 reported ‘top of the list layoffs’ in the Global Pharmaceutical Industry from 2004 to 2011. This number reported to be comparable to as many people working at the three largest drug companies combined namely, Pfizer, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline GSK in 2011.

Company No of layoffs
Pfizer 58,071
Merck 44,400
Johnson & Johnson 9,900
Eli Lilly 5,500
Bristol-Myers Squibb 4,600

More recently ‘Mail online’ dated February 3, 2012 reported that ‘Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca announces 7,300 job losses as it pares back staff to save money’. Immediately, thereafter, on February 24, 2012 Reuters reported that ‘German drugs and chemicals group Merck KGaA has announced plans for a cost-cutting program across all its businesses that may include job cuts’.

The old paradigm is no longer relevant:

To get insight into the future challenges of the pharmaceutical industry in general ‘Complete Medical Group’ of U.K had conducted a study with a sizable number of senior participants from the pharmaceutical companies of various sizes and involving many countries. The survey covered participants from various functional expertise like, marketing, product development, commercial, pricing and other important areas. The report highlighted that a paradigm shift has taken place in the global pharmaceutical industry, where continuation with the business strategies of the old paradigm will no longer be a pragmatic option.

Learning from the results of the above study, which brought out several big challenges facing the pharmaceutical industry in the new paradigm, my submissions are as follows:

Collaborative Research to overcome R&D productivity crisis: The cost of each new drug approval has now reached a humongous proportion and is still increasing. This spiraling R&D cost does not seem to be sustainable any longer. Thus there emerges a need to re-evaluate the R&D model of the pharmaceutical companies to make it cost effective with lesser built-in risk factors. Could there be a collaborative model for R&D, where multiple stakeholders will join hands to discover new patented molecules? In this model all involved parties would be in agreement on what will be considered as important innovations and share the ‘risk and reward’ of R&D as the collaborative initiative progresses. The Translational Medicine Research Collaboration (TMRC) partnering with Pfizer and others, ‘Patent Pool’ initiative for tropical diseases of GSK and OSDD for Tuberculosis by CSIR in India are examples of steps taken towards this direction. Surely such collaborative initiatives are not easy and perhaps may also not be acceptable to many large global players as on date, but they are not absolutely uncommon either. The world has already witnessed such collaborative research, especially in the sectors, like Information Technology (IT). Thus, it remains quite possible, as the industry moves on, that the world will have opportunities to take note of initiation of various cost effective collaborative R&D projects to create a win-win situation for all stakeholders in the global healthcare space. Greater access to fast growing markets: The increasing power of payors in the developed world and the interventions of the Government on the ground of ‘affordability of medicines’ in the developing countries are creating an all pervasive pricing/margin pressure for the pharmaceutical players.

These critical emerging developments can be effectively negotiated with significant increase in market access, especially in the emerging economies of the world, with each country specific business strategies. ‘One size fits all’ type of standardized approach, currently adopted by some large global players in the markets like India, may not be able to fetch significant dividend in the years ahead.

Better understanding of the new and differential value offerings that the payors, doctors and patients will increasingly look for, much beyond the physical products/brands, would prove to be the cutting edge for the winners for greater market access in the emerging economies.

Current business processes need significant re-engineering: Top management teams of many global pharma companies have already started evaluating the relevance of sole dependance on the current R&D based pharmaceutical business model. They will now need to include in their strategy wider areas of healthcare value delivery system with a holistic disease management focus.

Only treatment of diseases may no longer be considered enough with an offering of just various types of medications. Added value with effective non-therapeutic/incremental disease management/prevention initiatives and appropriately improving quality of life of the patients, especially in case of chronic ailments, will assume increasing importance in the pharmaceutical business process in the emerging markets. Continuous innovation required not just in R&D, but across the value chain: Continuous innovation across the pharmaceutical value chain, beyond pharmaceutical R&D, is the most critical success factor. The ability to harness new technologies, rather than just recognize their potential, and the flexibility to adapt to the fast changing and demanding regulatory environment together with patients’ newer value requirements, should be a critical part of the business strategy of  the pharmaceutical companies in the new paradigm. Avoidance of silos, integrating decision making processes: More complex, highly fragmented and cut throat competition have created a need for better, more aligned and integrated decision making process across various functional areas of the pharmaceutical business. Creation of silos, duplication of processes and empire building have long been a significant trend, especially, in the larger pharmaceutical companies. Part of a better decision making will include more pragmatic and efficient deployment of investments and other resources  for organizational value creation and jettisoning all those activities, which are duplications, organizational flab producing and will no longer deliver differential value to the stakeholders. Finding newer ways of customer engagement: Growing complexity of the business environment is making meaningful interactions with the customers and decision makers increasingly challenging. There is a greater need for better management of the pharmaceutical communication channels to strike a right balance between ‘pushing’ information to the doctors, patients and other stakeholders and helping them ‘pull’ the relevant information whenever required. Questioning perceived ‘fundamentals’ of the old paradigm:

Despite a paradigm shift in the business environment, fundamental way the pharmaceutical industry appears to have been attempting to address these critical issues over a decade, has not changed much.

In their attempt to unleash the future growth potential, the pharmaceutical players are still moving around the same old dictums like, innovative new product development, scientific sales and marketing, satisfying customer needs, application of information technology (IT) in all areas of strategy making process including supply chain, building blockbuster brands, continuing medical education, greater market penetration skills, to name just a few. Unfortunately, despite all such resource intensive initiatives, over a period of time, nothing seems to have changed fundamentally, excepting, probably, some sort of arrest in the rate of declining process.

Conclusion:

Such incremental focus over a long period of time on the same areas, far from being able to ride the tide of change effectively, does ring an alarm bell to some experts. More so, when all these initiatives continue to remain their prime catalysts for change even today to meet new challenges of a different paradigm altogether.

The moot question therefore remains: what are the companies achieving from all heavy investments being continuously made in these areas since long…and why have they not been able to address the needs of the new ball game for business excellence, effectively, thus far?

When results are not forthcoming despite having taken all such measures, many of them have no options but to resort to heavy cost cutting measures including job losses to protect the profit margin, as much as one possibly can.

If the issues related to declining rate of global pharmaceutical business performance is not addressed sooner moving ‘outside the box’ and with ‘lateral thinking’, one can well imagine what would its implication be, in the endeavor towards arresting continuous job losses through business excellence, in the years ahead.

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.

Should high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, be attributed to high R&D cost?

Posted on by
Reply

Many thought leaders have been arguing since long that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are being over stated and the real cost is much less. An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicates that the total cost from discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 the same figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a pharmaceutical industry association. Maintaining similar trend, if one assumes that the R&D cost will increase by another 64 per cent by 2012, the cost to bring a new drug to the market through its discovery and development stages will be around US $2.16 billion. This will mean a 2.7 times increase from its year 2000 estimate, the article says.

The authors mentioned that the following factors were not considered while working out the 2006 figure of US$ 1.32 billion:

  • The tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D.
  • Tax write-offs amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40% of the R&D cost.
  • The cost of basic research (should not have been included), as these are mostly done in public funded universities or laboratories.

The article comments that ‘half the R&D costs are inflated estimates of profits that companies could have made if they had invested in the stock market instead of R&D and include exaggerated expenses on clinical trials’.

The authors alleged that “Pharmaceutical companies have a strong vested interest in maximizing figures for R&D as high research and development costs have been the industry’s excuse for charging high prices. It has also helped generating political capital worth billions in tax concessions and price protection in the form of increasing patent terms and extending data exclusivity.”

The study concludes by highlighting that “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company is probably about US$ 60 million.”

Declining Pharmaceutical R&D productivity:

That pharmaceutical R&D productivity is fast declining has been vindicated by ‘2011 Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook’ complied by Thomson Reuters, the key highlights of which are as follows:

  • 21 new molecular entities (NMEs) were launched in the global market in 2010, which is a decrease from 26 NMEs of the previous year.
  • 2010 saw the lowest number of NMEs launched by major Pharma players in the last 10 years
  • The number of drugs entering Phase I and Phase II clinical trials fell 47% and 53% respectively during the year.

Does pharmaceutical R&D always create novel drugs?

According to a recent report, US-FDA approved 667 new drugs from 2000 to 2007. Out of which only 75 (11%) were innovative molecules having much superior therapeutic profile than the existing ones. However, more than 80% of 667 approved molecules were not found to be better than those, which are already available in the market.  Thus, the question very often being raised by many is, why so much money is spent on discovery and development of ‘me-too’ drugs and thereafter for their prescription generation through aggressive marketing, when the patients pay for the entire cost of such drugs including the profit after being prescribed by the doctors?

A global CEO challenged the status quo:

By challenging the status quo, Andrew Witty, the global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in his speech  in Mumbai on September 27, 2011 to the members of the Indian pharmaceutical industry commented that the cost of over a billion dollar to bring a new molecule to the market through its discovery and development stages is “unacceptable.” He attributed such high R&D expenses to the ‘cost of failure’ by the industry.

Witty said, “High in-house failure rates are slowing progress on pricing affordability… We need to fail less and deliver more”.

He commented during his deliberation that success in reducing the R&D cost to make innovative drugs more affordable to the patients of all income levels, across the globe, will be the way forward in the years ahead.

Ways to reduce the R&D cost:

Some other experts articulated that sharp focus in the following areas may help containing the R&D expenditure to a great extent and the savings thus made, in turn, can fund a larger number of R&D projects:

  • Early stage identification of unviable new molecules and jettisoning them quickly
  • Newer cost efficient R&D models, like one implemented by GSK
  • Significant reduction in drug development time.

An opposite view:

The book  titled “Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks, and Rewards”, published by the government of USA states that the three most important components of R&D investment are:

  • Money
  • Time
  • Risk

Money is just one component of investment together with a long duration of time to reap the benefits of success intertwined with a very high risk of failure. The investors in the pharmaceutical R&D projects not only take into account of how much investment is required for the project against expected financial returns, but also the timing of inflow and outflow of fund with associated risks.  It is thus quite understandable that longer is the wait for the investors to get their return, greater will be their expectations for the same.

The publication also highlights that the cost of bringing a new drug from the ‘mind to market’ depends on quality and sophistication of science and technology involved in a particular R&D process together with associated investment requirements for the same. In addition, regulatory requirements to get marketing approval of a complex molecule for various serious disease types are also getting more and more stringent, increasing their cost of clinical development simultaneously. All these factors when taken together make the cost of R&D very high and unpredictable.

Thus to summarize, high pharmaceutical R&D costs involve:

  • Sophisticated science and technology dependent high up-front financial investments
  • A long and indefinite period of negative cash flow
  • High tangible and intangible costs for acquiring technology with rapid trend of obsolescence
  • High risk of failure at any stage of product development

Conclusion:

While getting engaged in to this debate, one should possibly keep in mind that effective patent exclusivity period in the pharmaceutical industry is much limited as compared to any other industry across the globe. This is mainly because a long period of 8-10 years goes between drug discovery/grant of patent, drug development and market launch of the new molecule, when it starts recovering the cost and making a profit. Thus the period of effective commercial exclusivity that a new drug enjoys through patent protection usually lasts not more than 10 to 12 year period.

For all these reasons and despite such a huge controversy, I wonder, even if the R&D expenditures are brought down to the year 2000 level of US$ 802 million through various productivity improvement measures, whether it will really be possible to develop a commercial R&D model by any pharmaceutical company to deliver low price innovative drugs ensuring high access to majority of the patients. For that one should possibly look at other R&D models like, ‘Patent Pool’ and ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ systems along with various funding options.

Thus in my view, high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, should by and large be attributed to high R&D cost. However, there is not even an iota of doubt about commercial unsustainability of such ballooning research and development expenditures even in the medium term.

That said, the arithmetic of pricing for a new marketable molecule could change dramatically, if “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company be just about US$ 60 million”, as argued by the authors of a publication quoted above, though the figure, I reckon, is quite unrealistic.

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.