Mindset Change: Now A Bigger Factor in The Rise And Fall of Pharma Corporations

Posted on July 19, 2021 by Tapan Ray

Currently, in the pharma industry across the world, almost everyone is talking, thinking, and trying to implement several significant changes – just to be in sync with the changing customer needs and market expectations. As Covid vaccination process gathers momentum with markets gradually opening up, many envisage even much bigger changes. Such changes encompass, medium to long-term strategic thinking process, re-engineering business operations, customer-centric new value creation and value delivery mechanism in the new normal.

Several pharma players have also started expressing it explicitly, even on their websites. One such example is a Novartis communique of January 21, 2021. It says: COVID-19 was a catalyst for change in healthcare during 2020 – an accelerator for digital health. As the virus spread exponentially, the world was forced to work virtually, wherever possible. Digital solutions were needed fast – not just to support remote working, but to keep the very fabric of business, healthcare, education, and essential services in operation. The need to cope with multi-faceted pandemic–triggered challenges of change, prompted the rise of digital health as the only viable option of the time, as it were. In the following months thereafter, it has set some emerging trends for digital innovation to meet global healthcare needs, which will continue through 2021.

The communique underscored: “For Novartis and many other pharmaceutical companies, the challenge was not just to enable employees to continue working, but to ensure that medicines reached patients as needed, and that healthcare professionals (HCPs) had the information they required to support their patients’ questions and needs. It was also essential to make sure that clinical trials remained on schedule and the development pipeline continued.”

Similar mindset was exhibited by many other pharma companies when the chips were down, and Covid vaccines were under development or just had hit the markets. Its impact, got reflected in The Harris Poll Survey of February 2021, which reported a peak positive rating of 62% for the image of the pharma industry – an incredible turnaround from 32% of just the previous year.

Therefore, the question, arises – with Covid vaccination initiatives gathering steam what will major pharma players, both local and global, possibly do? Will they use the pandemic period experience as a springboard – for more innovation of all kinds to reap a sustainable harvest – with an ongoing customer-centric mindset? Or they will try to get back to the old normal – with self-serving interests – till it stings – very hard. This article will explore that area.

What prompts the above questions?

The above questions are prompted by the fact that since then, pharma industry’s image slipped from a peak positive rating of 62% in February as the vaccine rolled out and then dipping to 60% in May and now at 56%, according to The Harris Poll Surveys. Thus, many wonders – ‘is it time to ask whether the halo around COVID-19 vaccine and treatment innovation is gone?

Further, some recent instances on pharma’s reverting to self-serving interests, could also play some role in this regard. Interestingly, notwithstanding pharma’s image going south after achieving a peak of 62%, the ghost of unreasonable drug pricing appears to haunt again.

As an illustration, amid Covid pandemic, the public perception that pharma companies’ business practices changed – from mostly self-serving interest orientated – to meeting customer value and expectations, did not last long. Several actions akin to pre-Covid period, went against the above perception. These include, Covid vaccine prices and Biogen’s $56,000 (Rs.40 lakhs/year in India) price tag for its recently approved Alzheimer drug – Aduhelm that requires monthly infusions with no clear limit on treatment duration. No wonder, Alzheimer’s Association, reportedly, finds this price simply unacceptable,’ as it further “complicates and jeopardizes sustainable access to this treatment” and could further deepen health equity issues.

I reckon, how pharma companies conduct their strategic business operations from now on will possibly reveal the nature of Covid-triggered changes, if at all, within the industry. Industry watchers generally believe the majority will follow the digital transformation path with a new organizational culture, and an agile mindset to always be in sync with stakeholder values and expectations. However, there are also some, who want to mostly revert to the pre-pandemic business culture, practices, and mindset. It will be interesting to know what some top ‘Think Tank’ of the pharma industry envisage.

What some top pharma ‘Think Tank’ envisage:

Notwithstanding some recent developments as mentioned above, which could be outliers, some top pharma think tanks are quite optimistic about the continuity of Covid triggered positive changes in the industry. For example, in an interview with Pharmaceutical Executive, published on May 19, 2021, a current Amgen Board Member and former CEO of several global pharma majors - Fred Hassan, made some profound statements.

He reiterated, ‘COVID-19 has accelerated the ongoing shift to enterprise-level digital transformation across Fortune 500s.’ Fred further emphasized, “the impact of digital in helping transform the customer experience or to improve efficiencies, is now a bigger factor in the rise and fall of corporations. Astute C-suite executives recognize the opportunity to not only enable, but to also empower their teams to quickly embrace digital as a differentiating tool.”

A journey – not just a destination:

The above interview further underscored – ‘Digital transformation is a journey — not just a destination.’ The speed of transition to digital must be accompanied by sustainability. It should take all stakeholders on board in the journey of change. The key requirement is to ‘actively energizing the entire organization so that people internalize the digital mindset to help empower their customers, their own company and themselves, as individuals.’

More importantly, ‘Dithering around scaling past the initial digital pilots, is rapidly becoming an unacceptable option,’ as Fred Hassan cautioned. Which is why, while the C-suite needs to actively lead during a digital transformation, they must leverage the commitment of their middle management to motivate front line managers to keep following through with passion, courage, and tenacity. This is because: ‘Digital transformation is a journey – not just a destination.’

Indian pharma suddenly had to ride the wave of digital transformation:

The unprecedented pandemic literally compelled most Indian pharma companies of all sizes, to ride the digital wave in business, mostly for survival – to keep the business operations running. However, with the passage of time, Covid related disruptions started accelerating their journey for digital transformation – at a varying pace, though. This was also reported in the KPMG paper – ‘India’s healthcare sector transformation in the post-COVID-19 era,’ published on February 01, 2021.

The paper also articulated that this unprecedented health crisis “have not just laid bare the myriad challenges and gaps in our health system, but also highlighted the importance of investing in ‘well-being’ at both personal and system levels. It has ushered in an era of digital and technological innovations and advancements that is expected to help communities fulfil those requirements at a much faster pace.”

The pandemic has also accelerated the pace of evolution of ‘Smart Healthcare’ in India. This is also not a destination, but a journey with the digital transformation process, where changing or flexible mindset of the leadership, is the catalyst for change.

‘Smart Healthcare’ is also a digital journey:

As more and more health care customers are entering the digital space, triggered mainly by Covid appropriate behavioral norms, Virtual Healthcare initiatives are also increasing manifold, backed by robust supports from the Government. As a result, several integrated ‘Smart Healthcare’ platforms like Telemedicine, are now, reportedly, being, considered as the “Natural evolution of healthcare in the digital world.” Specifically, in the Indian scenario of low doctor to patient ratio, telemedicine has the potential to be one of the frontline health care value delivery systems, in the “new normal.”

Capturing early signals for such changes in the market trends, and leveraging the same to create a win-win situation for both the company and stakeholders, would necessitate a changing or flexible pharma leadership mindset. The reason being the digital transformation of an organization is an ongoing process with increasing rate of obsolescence of digital tools, platforms, and applications. Let me illustrate this point taking ‘Smart Healthcare’ as an example.

‘A bigger factor in the rise and fall of corporations:’

In today’s digital environment any transformation initiative is a continuous journey, and not a one-time exercise. Digital transformation of an organization – if, as and when pursued for business excellence in the new normal, would demand, at least, two big leadership commitments. These constitute – one, to continuously exceed stakeholder expectations in value delivery, and the other – a changing mindset that always puts customer perceived value on a higher pedestal than a company’s self-perceived value, both for product and services.

For example, for telehealth to carve out its niche as a dominant force in health care after the pandemic ends, will depend on how successfully virtual health care is humanized that will allow physicians and patients to build and maintain trusting relationships. These issues were well deliberated in Harvard Business Review article – ‘3 Ways to Humanize the Virtual Health Care Experience,’ published on March 25, 2021.

The paper concluded by emphasizing, the future rate of adoption of telehealth will ‘heavily depend on its ability to support a trusting relationship between patients and physicians. As provider organizations choose telehealth technologies and digital health companies develop new tools, they must keep the core human needs of both patients and physicians front and center.’

Conclusion:

The above examples clearly point out that any digital transformation process, be it of a corporation or of a system, such as telehealth, is a journey and not a destination. To successfully leverage the benefits of moving into a digital frontier would call for a changing or a flexible mindset of the provider or its leader.

This requirement undoubtedly, therefore, is ‘a bigger factor in the rise and fall of corporations,’ or any digital application, platform, or a system. Which is why, as many believe: ‘pharma still needs to be on its front foot and pushing forward,’ in the new normal. Going back to the traditional practices of the old normal is not an option, any longer.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Unleashing Pharma’s New Potential In Changing Market Dynamics

Posted on June 7, 2021 by Tapan Ray

Several pharma majors have started pondering in this space. This is evident from several recent developments, both in India, and also in other places of the world. One such articulation can be heard from the very top of the domestic pharma industry, which could be a pacesetter for many others.

The founder and Managing Director’s Message of India’s top pharma company – Sun pharmaceuticals, was released to the media on June 02, 2021. This speech is a part of the company’s Annual Report 2019-20. It is indeed interesting from overall pharma business operations’ perspective in India amid Covid-19 pandemic. It is also in sync with what many of his global counterparts have also expressed in recent times. To give a sense of Sun Pharma Chief’s reading and understanding of the fast-changing business dynamics, I am quoting below a few critical points of his above message:

There is a gradual realization that the COVID-19 virus is here to stay and that all of us will have to learn to coexist with the virus till an effective treatment or vaccine becomes available.

There will be far-reaching changes in the way in which organizations are likely to operate going forward.

Consumer behavior and consumption patterns are also likely to change due to the global pandemic.

Social distancing and maintaining individual hygiene (like using masks and hand sanitizers) have become imperative.

Work-from-home (WFH) option has been exercised by most organizations for certain functions and there is a likelihood that it will continue for some more time till the viral infection comes under control.

There is a possibility that WFH may become the new-normal for certain categories of corporate work force even after COVID-19 comes under control.

Also, there is a higher focus on automation, digitalization as well as an increased dependence on analytical tools for decision making.

Overall, in the global pharma and biotech arena, one can now witness a varied response to opening-up – some quite bold, others are flexible and cautious – as the scenario unfolds. In this article, I shall dwell on the importance of framing a well-thought-out plan, with clearly stated Plan B, C and D in this area, to prevent any business opportunities to slip by due to delayed action.

Key questions to answer – what to open and when to open:

It goes without saying that remote working or WFH for all pharma employees can’t remain in-force for any indefinite period. It will mostly depend on two critical drivers, mainly to avoid any reckless decision with grave consequences. One – how fast several – reasonably strong preventive measures, such as, vaccinations, can provide a reasonable herd immunity to most people around. And also, how most other similar businesses successfully start carrying out their commercial operations in the same environment.

Pharma players would then need to have a clarity on the business functions where selective personal presence of the qualified staff is necessary, as no extent of technological interventions can compensate it. Then follows the question, when to start opening – without being reckless and following all prescribed Covid related health norms. The answer to these questions should be addressed along with Plan B, C and D ready – just in case something doesn’t work out or because of competitive reasons.

To elaborate this point, let me first give an example of what an Indian tech behemoth is planning to get back some employees in the workplace, based on a sophisticated digital model. Thereafter, we will have a glimpse on how several pharma and biotech players are planning in this space. The basic assumption is – the grand show must go on – with collective scientific learnings on how to coexist with the virus, for an indefinite period, if inevitable.

Integrated digital plan to get back more employees at the workplace by TCS:

Lilly, Amgen, PfizerAs reported on June 02, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) are working on a plan to get back more employees to the workplace. The tech giant is focusing more ‘on increasing talent fungibility as global clients increasingly require associates with niche skills to be deployed on projects at short notices.

Thus, to evaluate how it will get a certain percentage of people back, TCS has drawn up a risk assessment model, Intelligent Urban Exchange (IUX). To effectively address the new requirements for employees’ safety, regulatory compliance, and operational efficiency, the company has devised this system. It will help TCS to get real-time insights that will help restore operations and ensure safety, while becoming nimbler and more resilient in the new normal.

What some global companies are planning now:

One will witness a mixed approach of global pharma players to get back employees at the workplace, soon. This will be evident from a few examples, as below.

A Bloomberg report on April 27, 2021, highlighted: ‘As vaccine drives ramp up and open the possibility of a return to the office, a growing number of companies have pointed to a continued role for remote work — and less of a need for pricey office space.’ It quoted Novartis CEO saying: ‘“We’ve all learned from the pandemic that we can work from home and work from the office, and it will always be a combination going forward.”

Thus, in Novartis, “hybrid-based working environment” – at-home and in-office work, will persist for the long term – extending beyond the pandemic. The Company CEO also reiterated: “We think this is the future.” The flexibility should allow Novartis to “access talent pools we would not have been able to access in the past,” he believes.

Similar approach, but with specific dates for returning to the workplace:

By an open announcement on Linkedin, the Chairman and CEO of Eli Lilly declared the Company’s plan at the current stage of Covid pandemic. He said: “More than a year later, I’m pleased to say that we’re actively planning Lilly’s return to our workplace in downtown Indianapolis, and other facilities around the world.”

He further said, on June 1, 2021, Lilly will begin reopening their Indianapolis offices, inviting 25 percent of our workforce back – with masking and distancing indoors, and a requirement for vaccination. Barring a change in the steady downward case rate in the community, the Company will then open to all Indianapolis-based employees on July 12, 2021.

The company’s new work model will be based on the requirements for each job. Some employees will be on site all the time, others most of the time, and some will have even more flexibility. As ‘individual work’, and some ‘transactional work’, is easier done remotely, employees in those roles can choose that option in consultation with their supervisor. But collaboration, innovation and learning are best done in-person at the Company facilities, the Chairman and CEO said.

He reiterated, Lilly is not taking these steps casually, but based on a data-based approach, and will continue to do so. If external factors change, Lilly will adapt. In other countries, the Company offices will continue to follow local guidelines and open as they are allowed based on local circumstances, the Company clarified.

More remote working being planned by many other global majors:

According to another report of May 07, 2021, many other global pharma and biotech majors are now planning in favor of long-term remote working for several critical business than ever before. For example, on May 07, 2021 Amgen announced that the Company will make working from home a permanent policy for much of its international workforce, including locally.

It said, “Most of our employees who are currently working remotely will continue to do so for a majority of their time, even after the pandemic ends. Our intent is to create a more flexible environment that intentionally combines the benefits of remote and in-person working.” The statement further added. “We are not initiating any changes to our Thousand Oaks campus at the time. Though some staff may come to campus less frequently.”

As reported on April 27, 2021, Pfizer has put its large Philadelphia-area campus up for sale, as it considers the future of work. According to the company, as revealed by Fierce Pharma, “The decision to do so is primarily being driven by the company’s evolving – flexible working model, providing employees with greater flexibility to work remotely while still maintaining the ability to connect and collaborate regularly on-site.”

Conclusion:

It’s over a year of business disruptions within the pharmaceutical industry, at varying intensity and in different phases, though. For example, after more than a year since the pandemic hit India, Covid 2.0 has, reportedly, pushed up Indian pharmaceutical sales to a new high. It recorded an exponential growth of 59% year on year in April 2021, against 16 per cent – year on year in March 2021. This is obviously an outlier and is apparently unsustainable. Thus, for a sustainable good growth with greater certainty, Indian pharma players would require working out a well-researched digital blueprint of the future working framework of business operations with ‘what if’ options.

As has been revealed, remote working, wherever it makes robust business sense, will help getting hard-to-reach talent pools regardless of geography. This opportunity needs to be leveraged. However, it’s also a fact that for various reasons, everyone may not be too comfortable to work from home. Thus, the future work plan may call for a balanced and employee specific approaches.

Which is why, the process will require in-depth analysis of key functions where the personal presence of qualified staff is necessary, mainly because, no extent of technological interventions can compensate the human presence. Then follows the question – when to start opening in a responsible way – following all prescribed Covid related health norms. A representative pilot trial may help in this area.

Some of the key factors to consider will include speed of getting the staff vaccinated. Besides, arrangement for quick identification of breakthrough Covid infections among staff through quick tracing, testing, and provisions for appropriate hospitalization, if necessary, need to be put in place. Thus, I reckon, it’s time for the domestic pharma companies to diligently plan for unleashing the new potential of the respective organizations – amid the pandemic-triggered changes in market dynamics.

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.

Focus On Core Competencies – Regardless of Generic Or Innovative Drug Business

Posted on February 22, 2021 by Tapan Ray

On February 11, 2021, by two different Press Releases, two global pharma majors – GSK and Novartis simultaneously made interesting announcements. Both were related to three generic cephalosporin antibiotics.

GSK revealed, ‘it has reached an agreement with Sandoz – a division of Novartis, to sell its Cephalosporin antibiotics business. Sandoz will pay GSK USD 350 million at closing, plus additional milestone payments up to USD 150 million, subject to the terms of the transaction.’

While articulating the purpose of hiving of its generic cephalosporin brands, the company reasoned: GSK is now dividing itself into two companies – one with core competencies focused on OTC products, and the other – prescription drugs and vaccines. The company emphasized: ‘The transaction aligns with GSK’s strategy to prioritize and simplify its portfolio and invest in the company’s innovative R&D pipeline and new product launches.’ Other brands in GSK’s antibiotics portfolio, are not impacted by this divestment. In other words, this would possibly mean that the generic drug business doesn’t fall within the core competencies of GSK, any longer.

Whereas, Novartis disclosed, the company’s Sandoz division, ‘has signed an agreement to acquire GSK’s cephalosporin antibiotics business, reinforcing its leading global position in antibiotics.’ Its noteworthy that Sandoz’s core competencies lie in the generic drug business.

While explaining the purpose of this acquisition, Novartis explained, cephalosporins being the largest antibiotic segment by global sales, acquiring these 3 leading brands - Zinnat, Zinacef and Fortum,“will further position Sandoz as a global leader in antibiotics – truly essential medicines that are the backbone of modern healthcare systems.”

The above transactions bring to the fore the criticality of focusing on core competencies for business excellence, regardless of innovative drug business and in multiple situations, such as:

Bringing organizational focus back on core competencies when these tend to get diluted.
Increasing the focus on core competencies as opportunities arise.

In this article, I shall revisit this critical management concept in the current perspective.

A brief recap:

The concept of core competencies of a business organization was introduced by two global pioneers in business management – C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel with the article – ‘The Core Competence of the Corporation.’ This was published in the May-June 1990 edition of the Harvard Business Review.

The relevance of focusing on ‘core competencies’:

The quality and quantum of commercial dividend in consistently focusing on ‘core competencies’ in any space, spanning across individual professionals to business organizations, have been profound. This calls for defining these in detail and collectively, at the top rungs of organizational leadership. Then, cultivate, and leverage the core competencies to differentiate an organization from its competition, creating a company’s long-term competitive and sustainable advantage in the marketplace – for business excellence.

What constitutes core competencies to gain strategic strength?

Core competencies – whether for individuals or for businesses, comprise primarily of resources, such as, special skills, capabilities and rewarding experience in those activities as strategic advantages of a business. Garnering financial resources would usually follow, thereafter. Thus, core competencies are always considered as a strategic strength, everywhere. That said, core competencies require continuous monitoring to always be in-sync with changing market dynamics. Otherwise, the strategies are likely to fail.

Broad examples – from pharma perspective:

Broadly speaking, discovering, developing and successfully marketing new drugs, identifying repurposed drugs for new clinical trials, and churning out novel vaccines quickly, may be considered as core competencies for innovative drug makers. They have demonstrated this skill even during Covid-19 pandemic. Similarly, immaculate skills in reverse engineering of existing drug molecules and high efficiency in process research to gain price-competitiveness, may be construed as core competencies of generic drug companies.

Examples of shifting focus on core competencies:

Although, it is desirable that pharma players stick on core competencies for sustainable long-term performance excellence, regardless of being in primarily innovative or generic drug business, we have witnessed this focus shifting on several occasions for both. However, expected success did not generally follow those companies with such tweaking in the strategic business models.

Nevertheless, some drug companies did get tempted to deviate from their core competencies. For example, innovative drug players tried to expand into low-risk generic medicines, which, in the long run, did not deliver expected results for many companies. However, this deviation wasn’t without any compelling reasons.

There were some valid reasons, though:

As is much known, traditionally, global R&D companies prefer to focus only on the business of innovative prescription medicines. Low margin generic business wasn’t their cup of tea. Subsequently, this trend shifted. Especially in those cases, where the pipeline of high potential new drug molecules did not meet the concerned company’s expectations. To stick to the knitting, some companies with deep pockets, explored another model of Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) of innovative patented products and companies with rich new drug pipelines. Interestingly, in this M&A business model, low risk, low cost and high-volume turnover of generic business also started attracting several R&D based companies, alongside.

Which is why, an increasing number of R&D based companies started planning to expand their business in less risky generic drug business. This appeared to be a quick fix to tide over the crisis, as the generic drug business model won’t require going through lengthy R&D processes. Besides, compliance with ever increasing stringent regulatory approval protocols, particularly in the developed markets of the world.

Examples of why focus on core competencies matter, even in new normal:

There are several examples of large companies to illustrate this point – both from the old and the new normal. Just to give a flavor of the relevance of focusing on core competencies of organizations, I shall draw upon three interesting examples. Each of these, highlight different organizational visions and perspectives at different times, particularly the relevance of focus on core-competencies for a corporation. These are as follows:

The first one is Daiichi Sankyo of Japan’s acquisition of India’s generic drug major of that time – Ranbaxy, in June 2008. The parent company claims: “We provide innovative products and services in more than 20 countries around the world. With more than 100 years of scientific expertise, our company draws upon a rich legacy of innovation and a robust pipeline of promising new medicines to help patients.” It is much known today, what happened to this acquisition, thereafter, for various reasons, including faulty pre-acquisition due diligence. However, later on, the domestic pharma leader – Sun Pharma, acquired Ranbaxy. Nonetheless, at least from Daiichi Sankyo’s narrative, its areas of core competencies, appear closer to any R&D-based drug company.

The second example is US-based Abbott Laboratories acquisition of domestic formulations business of Primal Heath care in India in May 2010. Like Daiichi Sankyo, this acquisition was also a part of Abbott’s strategy to enter into ‘generic drug business’ -dominated emerging markets. Abbott, at that time, apparently decided to expand its strategic focus beyond its core competencies in business, primarily of patented products. However, by the end of 2012, the company separated into two leading healthcare companies. Abbott became a diversified medical products company. The other one – a totally separate company was formed, with the name – AbbVie, as a new researched-based global biopharmaceutical organization. AbbVie now operates in India, as well – with erstwhile Abbott’s innovative brands. In this case, by an innovative restructuring of the parent organization, Abbott brought back its sharp focus on core competencies of both the companies with both doing well in India.

The third example is a recent move of reverting to the original focus of core competencies, when moving beyond these did not yield results. In that sense, this example is different from the second one. On November 16, 2020, Pfizer also announced the creation of ‘the new Pfizer’, as it reverted to its original core competencies of “developing breakthrough treatments and delivering innovative, life-changing medicines to patients around the world.” On that day, Pfizer completed transaction to spin off its Upjohn generic drug business and combined it with Mylan to create a new entity – Viatris Inc. Earlier, the company had sold its veterinary business, a baby formula unit and its consumer products division as part of a deal with GSK – for similar reasons. Earlier, the company’s moving beyond its core competencies to pluck low hanging fruits of generic drug business, did not yield dividend, as Pfizer’s profit in the generic drug sector, reportedly, had gone South.

Conclusion:

According to Pharma Intelligence, several large players, such as, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca are now focusing on core competencies, as they start recovering from their unsettling patent cliff and other headwinds. Meanwhile, one may expect to witness more of Spin-offs, Carving-out, Splitting-off or further strengthening of core-competencies of organizations – for a sustainable long-term business excellence in the years ahead.

Spin-off and acquisition of Cephalosporin generic business by GSK and Sandoz Division of Novartis, respectively, is a part of the same ball game. Thus, maintaining or reverting focus on core competencies – regardless of generic or innovative drug business, I reckon, are the new imperatives of commercial success, even in the new normal.

By: Tapan J. Ray

A New Facet of ‘Data Integrity’ With Novel Therapy… And Much Beyond

Posted on September 30, 2019 by Tapan Ray

The peril of breach of data integrity involving a top Indian pharma player, jolted many, probably for the first time, on September 17, 2008. On that day, the USFDA, reportedly, issued two ‘Warning Letters’ and an ‘Import Alert’. These were related to deficiencies in the drug manufacturing process and deviations from U.S. current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) at Ranbaxy’s Dewas and Paonta Sahib plants in India.

Since then, instead of demonstrable corrective measures, similar incidents had started ballooning – inviting more serious US-FDA actions, such as Import ban, consent decree, loss of market value, Loss of customer trust, among many others. The research article – ‘Overview of Data Integrity issues in the Pharmaceutical industry,’ published by the International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Review and Research, in its May-June 2018 issue, also reflects the same trend.

Much reported instances of breach of ‘Data Integrity’ were specific to generic drugs and mostly manufactured by Indian companies, besides China. While this may be true at that time, it is now spreading much beyond generic drug manufacturing in India and China – making its way into the global clinical trial arena. I also wrote earlier that ‘Data Manipulation: Leapfrogging Dangerously Into Clinical Trial Domain.’ With greater focus, this article will discuss not just how ‘Data Integrity’ issue is cropping up into clinical trials of even modern, complex, highly innovative and exorbitantly priced lifesaving treatments. Going beyond that, I shall also point towards increasing attempts to exaggerate the success of many cancer drug trials due to strong bias. Nevertheless, let me start by rehashing the relevance of ‘Data Integrity’ on patients’ health interest.

Data Integrity ensures safe, effective and high-quality drugs for patients:

According to US-FDA: ‘Data integrity is an important component of industry’s responsibility to ensure the safety, efficacy, and quality of drugs, and of FDA’s ability to protect the public health.’ Thus, data integrity-related cGMP violations may lead to regulatory actions, including warning letters, import alerts, and consent decrees, as the drug agency notified. In other words, maintain all types of ‘Data Integrity’ is a key requirement in the pharma industry to demonstrate that the final products conform to the required quality parameters.

These requirements are known to all generic drug exporters catering to the regulated markets, including the local manufacturers in the United States. Curiously, it continues to happen despite their full knowledge of the grave consequences of violations. The June 12, 2019 paper – ‘An Analysis Of 2018 FDA Warning Letters Citing Data Integrity Failures,’ published in Pharmaceutical Online, brings out some interesting facts, related to drug manufacturing area.

From the analysis of 194 ‘Data Integrity’ associated ‘Warning Letters (WL).’ from 2008 to 2018, the top 5 countries in this regard came out as follows:

Rank	1	2	3	4	5
Country	China	India	United States	Europe	Japan
No. of WL	58	54	36	14	7
% to Total	29.8	27.8	18.6	7.2	3.6

Interestingly, over 76 percent of US-FDA Warning Letters (WL) are on manufacturing ‘Data Integrity’ and were issued to pharma companies located in China, India and the United States. Moreover, when it comes to all types WL related to various types of regulatory malpractices, India again featured as one of the top violators. Be that as it may, I shall now focus on the spread of this decay in other important drug safety related areas, such as clinical trials.

Ironically, breach of ‘Data Integrity’ in another crucial area, like clinical trials for new drugs, doesn’t seem to attract public attention as much, which I shall reason out below – also explaining why it’s so.

Breach of ‘Data Integrity’ in clinical trial – more crippling for the company:

‘Data Integrity’ concern pertaining to clinical trials was recently expressed in an article, published by the Food and Drug Law Institute, in the April-May 2019 issue of its Update Magazine. The paper reiterated: ‘Good Clinical Practice (GCP) data integrity issues can at times be more crippling to a company than Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) data integrity issues.’ Elaborating the point further, the authors highlighted, where such issues are severe, the drug regulatory agency may completely reject the data submitted in new drug applications, supplemental drug applications, and abbreviated new drug applications.

This outcome is quite akin to import bans for generic drugs into the United States, as it would cause a huge setback for the company, affecting clinical development programs for the new drug. Moreover, as the article says, such action would be ‘costing the sponsor substantial time, money, and reputational credibility, not to mention delaying patient access to new drugs.’

‘Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data’:

This is claimed by the research paper that was discussed in ‘The Guardian’ on June 05, 2017 carrying the headline - ‘Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data, claims study.’

In this study, John Carlisle, a consultant anesthetist at Torbay Hospital, reviewed data from 5,087 clinical trials published during the past 15 years in two prestigious medical journals, JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine, and six anesthesia journals. In total, 90 published trials had underlying statistical patterns that were unlikely to appear by chance in a credible dataset, the review concluded.

As one of the top medical experts quoted in this paper, said: “It’s very scary that we may be treating patients based on false evidence.” He further added: “It may be the case that certain treatments may need to be withdrawn from use.”

Another October 01, 2013 report, citing a specific example of the same, wrote: ‘Japan’s ministry of health has concluded that studies based on clinical trials for Novartis’s blood pressure drug Diovan contain manipulated data.’ It also added: ‘Diovan was approved for use in Japan in 2000, but recently two universities who hosted and analyzed trials for Novartis – the Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine and Jikei University School of Medicine – reported finding evidence of data fabrication.’

Thus, from available reports, it appears, just as the saga of ‘Data Integrity’ related drug manufacturing keeps continuing, the same related to clinical trials doesn’t seem to fall much behind. But, the valid question that may follow – why then reported instances of breach of clinical trial data integrity isn’t as many?

Breach of ‘Data Integrity’ found by USFDA is rarely reported:

The answer to the above question may be found in The BMJ study, published on February 10, 2015. It brought to the fore – ‘Research misconduct found by FDA inspections of clinical trials is rarely reported in journal studies.’ This review was based on identified 57 published clinical trials for which an FDA inspection of one of the trial sites had found significant evidence of research misconduct, including falsification or the submission of false information, problems with adverse event reporting.

The researcher also noted that serious misconducts related to clinical trials, are rarely mentioned in subsequently published journal articles in the same area. More disturbing to note, this critical gap in the transparency of clinical trial reporting is now sneaking into even highly specialized treatment, such as ‘Gene Therapy’, and that too involving a Big Pharma name.

US-FDA has now raised this question even for a ‘Gene Therapy’:

A media report of September 09, 2019 highlights, that Novartis is facing an uproar over data manipulation involving USD 2.1 million gene therapy Zolgensma, which treats spinal muscular atrophy, a leading genetic cause of death in infants. According to this report, Novartis gave “detailed explanations” on Aug. 23 to the FDA about the company’s investigation into the data manipulation and addressed regulators’ questions over why the company waited until late June to make disclosures. However, quoting the FDA, the report indicates, ‘Novartis could face possible civil or criminal penalties.’

Prior to this, another report of August 13, 2019, stated that ‘documents referenced in a Form 483 by the FDA, which inspected the lab a month after it learned of the falsified records, also suggest the data-fudging began at least in early 2018 and could have been uncovered by managers at AveXis during several steps in the clinical outcome assessment.’ The gene unit of Novartis is called AveXis, which had announced the US-FDA approval of Zolgensma on May 24, 2019.

Such instances involving clinical trials with new, complex and highly innovative therapies, further reinforces already existing ‘Data Integrity’ related health safety concern. The cost of these new treatments being so high, it’s perplexing to fathom the necessity of cutting corners in clinical trials, if at all. More so, when these are avoidable to establish efficacy, safety and high-quality standard of the therapy to drug regulators for marketing approval.

Beyond ‘Data Integrity’ – in clinical trials:

Just as ‘Data Integrity’ issue in generic drug manufacturing has intruded in the clinical trial arena for novel treatments, yet another concern, also related to data, goes much beyond what is happening today in this area. This fast-emerging practice is related to ‘cherry-picking data’ for biased clinical trial reporting, adversely impacting public health safety, as brought by several research studies.

Very recently, this was vindicated by another paper published in The BMJ on September 18, 2019. It raised a serious concern of bias in clinical trial data submitted to regulatory agencies for marketing approval of even lifesaving drugs. The findings of the above paper concluded:

Between 2014 and 2016, almost half of the most pivotal studied forming the basis of European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval were judged to be at high risk of bias, based on their design, conduct or analysis. Accepting that some of these might be unavoidable because of complexity of cancer trials, it noted that regulatory documents and the scientific literature had gaps in their reporting. Journal publications also did not acknowledge the key limitations of the available evidence identified in regulatory documents. This concern too keeps growing.

Conclusion:

As discussed above, six broad and important points to note for any ‘breach of integrity’ or ‘cherry-picking’ of data in the pharma industry:

Takes place mostly in two known areas – manufacturing and clinical trials.
Involves both cheaper generic drug manufacturing, as well as, clinical trials of most innovative and highly expensive treatments – conducted even by Big Pharma constituents.
‘Cherry-picking data’ for biased clinical trial reporting while obtaining marketing approval, involves even cancer drugs.
Any such avoidable malpractices with ‘data’, could seriously impact patients’ health interest, raising a public concern.
Instances of such malpractices usually become public, only when the perpetrators are caught by vigilant drug regulatory agencies, such as the US-FDA, or when external experts can trace their footprints through sophisticated analytical tools.
Multiple instances of wrongdoing of this nature, often by the same company, despite requisite regulations being in place, and also after facing penal actions, make it mostly a self-discipline issue of repeat offenders.

It’s a different discussion all together, whether or not ‘data’ is a new oil – air or water. But maintaining the sanctity of data, while generating, interpreting, presenting or even leveraging these, including for commercial considerations, must not be compromised, at any cost.

Today, breach of ‘Data Integrity’ and ‘Cherry-Picking of Data’ for biased reporting, are creeping into new drug clinical trial domain – from its usual habitat of generic drug manufacturing, posing a greater threat to patient safety. At the same time, none can say, either, that it’s happening with all drugs, at all the time and by all drug manufacturers. But, if and when it happens, it could lead to a catastrophic consequence both for patients and their family.

Be that as it may, country’s top drug regulators should strive harder for an ongoing and meaningful engagement with the pharma industry on this avoidable development. It could well be a carrot and stick approach, where repeat violations by any company would pose a risk of legal survival of the business.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disruptive Impact of AI on Pharma Sales And Marketing

Posted on July 15, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Artificial Intelligence (AI) that refers to the ability of machines to perform cognitive tasks like thinking, perceiving, learning, problem solving and decision making, is poised to disrupt our world. Initially conceived as a technology that could mimic human intelligence, AI has evolved in ways that far exceed its original conception. This was articulated in the June 2018 Discussion Paper, titled ‘National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence’ of NITI Aayog, India.

The paper further highlights: With intelligent machines enabling high-level cognitive processes like thinking, perceiving, learning, problem solving and decision making, coupled with advances in data collection and aggregation, analytics and computer processing power, AI’s capability has dramatically expanded. So is its game-changing utility in a growing number of fields to enhance productivity – dramatically.

I also expressed this need in my article, “Indian Pharma To Stay Ahead of The Technology Curve,” published in this Blog on May 22, 2017. Nevertheless, despite galloping progress of AI, a kind of ‘Ostrich Syndrome’ still prevails in some sections of the industry. This attitude, if continues, may catch many drug companies off-guard, with serious repercussions on business. In this article, I shall focus on the possible impact of AI on pharma business, specifically on pharma sales and marketing, instead of being prescriptive in my deliberation.

A disruptive impact on pharma value-chain:

Currently, only a few drug companies have embraced AI-driven technologies to transform pharma value-chain elements, across functional areas of the organization. However, in the next few years, effective adaptation of AI, in the true sense, will be the key success factors for any player – nurturing a burning desire to succeed, consistently. This was, again, an important conclusion of the 2019 FICCI Report titled, ‘Use of Artificial Intelligence and Advanced Analytics in pharmaceuticals.’

While explaining its rationale, the report emphasizes – catalyzed by an exciting range of new, disruptive technologies a paradigm shift is taking place, challenging the status quo with the traditional pharma business model. AI is in the process of disrupting this status quo, especially in the following two areas:

Increasing stakeholder pressure to reduce costs and demonstrate greater value of drugs,
Evolving swing from treatment to prevention, and patient-centric treatments.

Prompts a critical need to re-imagine the future:

These inevitable shifts prompt a critical need to re-imagine the future, for each drug manufacturer. However, the good news is, some of them, predominantly the global ones, have started making sizeable investments on AI. On a deeper scrutiny, the FICCI paper finds that applications of AI are mostly taking place in the new drug discovery and the supply chain area.

Besides individual company initiatives in the R&D area, important collaborative arrangements on AI with academia, have also been announced, such as, ‘Machine Learning for Pharmaceutical Discovery and Synthesis Consortium (MLPDS). This is a collaboration between the pharma/ biotech industries and the departments of Chemical Engineering, Chemistry, and Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

MLPDS is expected to facilitate the design of useful software for the automation of small molecule discovery and synthesis. As on July 02, 2019, reportedly, ‘33 Pharma Companies Using Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery.’That said,let me hasten to add that some companies are also testing the water, with all seriousness, in pharma sales and marketing functions. So, the AI wave is fast catching up, driving the drug industry to chart uncharted frontiers. In this scenario, would there be any scope of survival for laggards?

Should it happen faster in pharma sales and marketing, as well?

In my view, the answer is an emphatic ‘Yes.’ This is primarily because, the disruptive impact of AI won’t be any less in pharma sales and marketing. It will, therefore, be prudent for these professionals, not just to understand how AI works in their respective functions, but also the ways to effectively use various AI platforms and applications, to transform the traditional processes, fundamentally.

Moreover, when stakeholders, including patients, doctors, hospitals, health insurance companies and even governments, are directly or indirectly using a host of AI-enabled tools and applications for better outcomes, does pharma have any other option?

Areas in which the impact could be transformative:

The recent publication titled, ‘Boosting Pharmaceutical Sales and Marketing with Artificial Intelligence’ of ZS, analyzed this issue quite well. It emphasized, those functions in the drug industry where there exists a significant reliance on human functions, such as expertise and reasoning, the impact of AI can be transformative.

Sales and marketing are two such focus areas, besides other functions. Companies that use AI to orchestrate a cohesive customer experience, will drive stronger differentiation, better customer access and higher sales impact, the report highlighted. Thus, creating specific opportunities and requisite empowerment, are necessary for deserving people, to foster machine learning and human integration in sales and marketing. This, in turn, will help them gain insight into how to unleash the power and value of AI for achieving business excellence.

Some early adopters of AI in sales and marketing:

Recent reports indicate that some global pharma majors have started using AI in sales and marketing. Let me illustrate this point with two examples – Pfizer and Novartis.

In May 2017, Pfizer Australia, reportedly, adopted AI-powered digital analyst tool for sales and marketing decision making.This ‘What-if Simulator’, allows Pfizer to test and optimize a range of scenarios based on internal and external data sets. It helps simulate the impact of sales and marketing strategies, investigate assumptions and hypothesis difficult to test in the real world, and compare the outcome of various what-if scenarios in order to understand what’s contributing to business results. According to Pfizer, ‘the software will also help to understand deterministic and non-deterministic factors presented in its business operations, as well as see how variables within different questions impact one another’.

Another recent media report titled, ‘Novartis puts AI on the job to help reps say the right things to the right doctors,’ appeared in Fierce Pharma on January 09, 2019. It also confirms the keen interest of pharma in this area. Called “virtual assistant,”this application helps salespeople to make sure when they visit a specific doctor that they are talking about exactly what that doctor is absolutely interested in. “When you turn up at the right time with the right things to say, they’re more interested and put more value in it, and our people like the fact that AI is running in the background helping them plan their day,” Novartis official further elaborated.

Accept the dictum – ‘there is always enough room for improvement’:

Following this dictum, is the starting point for pharma marketers to seriously accept AI as a game changer in this industry, regardless of how successful the company is – in doing what they do, following the traditional business models. The core purpose of a drug company is to make sure that patients get what they want, in those disease areas where the company represents.

If a brand strategy is prepared based on research data collected a few months back, there could probably be a flaw in your strategy. This is because any recent offering to patients by a competitor, may have considerably changed what the patients want now. If a strategy is not based on virtually real-time information on what exactly the customers are looking for now, the result could be far from satisfactory.

The elements which are critical in creating ‘great brands,’ were nicely captured in the May 13, 2019 issue of Customer THINK on ‘AI in Digital Marketing.’ It articulated, ‘Great brands will be those that can think creatively, design effectively, and execute flawlessly to deliver seamless experiences woven together by machines and humans. Using this approach, marketers and their marketing machines will stay gainfully employed.’ Thus, creative application of AI by astute pharma marketers will help achieving this goal.

Will AI ultimately replace pharma sales and marketing people?

This is a lurking fear in the minds of many. A related article appeared in the pharmaphorum on July 02, 2019, also wrote about a similar apprehension. The paper is titled, ‘Will AI make pharma marketers obsolete?’ It said: ‘Artificial intelligence, is sometimes seen as either a panacea or a destroyer – the fix for all humanity’s problems, or the apocalyptic scourge that will turn on us.’

I too reckon, AI can never replace people in pharma sales and marketing operations. This is because, there are two distinct elements in both these functions. One, the creative power of a professional that creates, develops, hones, and executes new ideas, strategies. It even decides how effectively AI can be used. The second element is the technological power behind AI. This can carry out a host of different very important, but routine and repetitive tasks – with a great amount of precision and virtually flawless. As the key sales and marketing professionals will need both, the AI can’t completelyreplace people in these two critical operational areas.

Some uses of AI in sales and marketing:

Eularis, in its ‘Blog, Comment & Insight’ of January 15, 2018, deliberated on this area. Just to give a feel of possible use of AI in different very important, but routine and repetitive tasks – with a great amount of precision, I am summarizing some of those points, as follows:

‘Identification and Mapping’ of’ Key Opinion Leader (and up-and-coming Key Opinion Leader), which is constantly changing. Alongside, it can help scan and analyze all relevant journal articles, coming out each week, besides the same for ongoing clinical trials in the chosen field – flagging how changes and new additions can impact the KOL database.

Disease specific patient identification and physician targeting, especially in rare disease areas.

Helps identify individual preferences for content, channels and timing of information, that leads to allowing personalization at scale, and ensuring every customer is receiving what they want, when they want, and in the channel they want.

Facilitates utilizing the power of big data, AI tools and apps to identify which patients will cease adherence and how this can be addressed, thereby minimizing the loss of business for non-adherence.

Helps create custom messaging for sales reps to use for individual physicians based on what that physician needs at that particular moment in time.

Conclusion:

Use of AI-based technology in the pharma industry, basically means automated algorithms with the capability to perform all those tasks that are now being done mostly with heavy dependence on human intelligence. Thus, its possible use spans across almost all functional domains – from drug discovery, clinical development, supply chain and right up to sales and marketing.

Although, it is still challenging to figure out to what extent AI will transform the industry, one gets a strong signal that it is not just another ‘buzz word’ or a new kid on the block. The technology is surely spreading its roots across the health care space, pharma being an integral part of it. Which is why, according to ‘Executive Insight’ (Volume XX, Issue 60) of L.E.K. Consulting, ‘all of the largest 10 pharmaceutical companies are investing in AI, and developments in applications are occurring across the spectrum of pharma business.’

In fine, to fathom the disruptive impact of AI on pharma business, I shall conclude by quoting from March 18, 2019issue of Healthcare Weekly. After a thorough analysis, the paper acknowledged thatAI is already redefining biotech and pharma. It concluded by stating, ‘ten years from now, pharma will simply look at artificial intelligence as a basic, every day, technology. The only question is how long pharma executive will wait till they jump on the wagon and leverage AI to improve their operational efficiency, outcomes and profits.’

By: Tapan J. Ray

While Pharma Leadership Change This Atypical Skill Counts

Posted on July 1, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Effective September 01, 2019, the global pharma major Sanofi will have a new CEO, as the present CEO retires attaining his retirement age of 65 years. This appears to be a mandatory announcement from the company, as is required during the top leadership change in any large and listed organization.

However, there is something novel, as well, in this announcement, especially when specific qualities, skills and experience of the new CEO were highlighted by the company’s Board of Directors. According to Sanofi Press Release, the new CEO – Paul Hudson “has proven his strategic vision, his strong leadership and his ability to achieve the greatest challenges, particularly in terms of innovation and digital transformation.”

Among the stated experience and skills, the one that appeared atypical to me, is the experience of digital transformation, particularly in the position of the CEO of a global pharma major. I In this article, I shall, therefore, explore, why knowledge and experience in this atypical skill is gradually becoming critically important for pharma leadership positions, at all levels.

Why is the need for digital transformation of pharma business?

According to the Internet Trends Report 2019 by Mary Meeker, at 3.8 billion internet users, more than half the world’s population is now online and it is growing. This number would obviously include patients.

As we know, the core purpose of pharma business is to offer a unique patient experience during any disease treatment process. And, the expectations of which from Internet-savvy individuals will be significantly more for various related reasons.

To achieve this objective, drug players would always require to be in sync with customers’ perceptions, expectations and aspirations, among others. Moreover, it’s also not ‘one size fits all’ type of a solution. These will significantly vary for different patient groups, so are the processes of engagement with them – based virtually on real-time information.

Interestingly, the core purpose of digital transformation is also to facilitate this process, with a great amount of precision. The entire process of creating a unique patient experience, involves generation of a massive amount of customized data, customize analysis of which is done through sophisticated analytics, and thereafter, translating and using them as key strategic business inputs, on an ongoing basis. Traditional organizational methods, systems and processes are incapable to deliver the same. Hence arises the crucial need of digital transformation of the organization, across the board.

The transformation is not just about software, hardware and data:

That said, it is also essential to realize that digital transformation is not just about software, high-tech hardware, mobile apps and sophisticated wearables and data. These are, of course, some of the vital tools – used while transforming a company into battle readiness to create and provide a unique customer experience.

Such unique experience for each customer should cover all touchpoints, spanning across – before, during and after treatment with the company’s medication. This, in turn, helps generate an increasing number of prescriptions from doctors, which otherwise would not have been possible, following the conventional means.

Why this atypical skill is in demand today?

Like any other transformation process within an organization, digital transformation should necessarily be driven by the company CEO, having adequate experience in this area. Even the Board of Directors of many pharma players believes that such a CEO can facilitate the process faster and more effectively. Hence, the demand for this atypical skill is increasing, also for a pharma CEO position, besides leaders in various functional areas, as it is being considered as pivotal to achieve the core purpose of a pharma business, in the digital world.

Thus, if a CEO doesn’t properly understand, how the digital world operates with increasing number of visitors in the cyberspace and convinced about its relevance for business excellence, the organization would ultimately lose its competitive edge. One may, therefore, question, did the need for this atypical skill also arise during the selection of the new CEO of Sanofi?

Is this atypical skill for a new CEO more important now?

The answer, I reckon, could be both, ‘probably yes’ and also ‘no’.

‘Probably yes’, mostly because, being an uncommon skill for a pharma CEO, so far, it arrested the attention of many while reading ‘Sanofi Press Release’, for the appointment of their new CEO. Nevertheless, Sanofi is not the first pharma company placing so much of importance on digital transformation, especially for the key leadership positions. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of February 18, 2018, the CEO of Novartis said: “We need to become a focused medicines company that’s powered by data science and digital technologies.”

Why it is so important for a pharma CEO?

The AT Kearney paper titled, “New Medicine for a New World – Time for Pharma to Dive into Digital,” also captured that an increasing number of pharma customers are now getting engaged and have started interacting in the digital space, more than ever before. This trend is fast going north – becoming an ‘in-thing’ of the industry, as it were. But more probably to be seen as trendy or display that they are also in it, by ‘dipping a toe in the digital waters.’ Whereas, ‘it’s time to take the plunge,’ as the paper cautions them.

‘Plunging into the digital water,’ doesn’t mean sending people to some external training program – with the word ‘digital’ prominently featuring as the course objective. It means bringing out ‘digital transformation’ of the entire organization, spearheaded by the CEO. The leadership of each functional area would then implement from the same playbook, with a structured and custom-made plan designed specifically to achieve the vision, mission, goals and values of the company.

We have recent examples of, at least, two top global pharma majors taking a plunge in the digital water to make the digital transformation of the organization a reality. The key purpose of the same, is to create a unique customer experience, being on the same page with them, in more effective ways, for business excellence. To move in this direction, the organization must imbibe the non-negotiable principle – ‘digital first,’ across the organization.

Only the CEO can decide ‘digital first’ as guiding organizational principle:

None other than the CEO of a drug company, can decide that ‘digital first’ will be the guiding principle of the company, across all the functional areas of the business. As the above paper articulates, it ‘should be explicitly incorporated into core business processes.’ It further says: ‘Top management must challenge any parts of the business that have not explicitly considered the opportunities from digital in their plans.’

Functional leaders to be in sync with digital transformation:

All in the pharma organization, across all functions, must work for the end consumer of any pharma business – the patients. Every single employee in the company should strive delighting them with the company’s products and services, at every touchpoints, during their quest for relief from illnesses. As I said before, this is the single most important factor that determines not just the pace of growth of a drug company, but help enhance its reputation, too. It goes without saying, its ultimately the patients who are playing a catalytic role in the digital transformation of an organization.

It is essential for the CEO to make sure that entire corporate, functional and even departmental leadership teams are in tune with the need of digital transformation of the organization. Despite the detail explanation, if some remain unconvinced about the rationale behind the transformation of the core business process, the right leader should assume the responsibility.

This is because, even with one loose knot at the leadership level in this area, the entire objective can seriously get thwarted – down the line. Such changes, as, if and when required, can be achieved in various different ways, not through attrition alone. For example, by encouraging them to work with members of his peer group who can set good examples to emulate.

Brand promotion to physicians will still remain as important:

In tandem, no company should lose sight of the fact that their face-to-face interaction with physicians, will continue to play an important role in brand promotion. Primarily because, doctors and hospitals help patients to get desired solace from ill-health by prescribing recommended medicines, and consequently, will keep prevailing as an integral part of the pharma marketing process, supported directly or indirectly by every employee in the company.

The key challenge in digital transformation:

The key challenge in the digital transformation of a pharma company is broadly possible inflexible or a rigid mindset of some of its leaders. This is generally fueled by the fear of moving out of their respective comfort zones – rather than resources and expertise required to make the technology put to use. A well-running-business with a grand idea for the future, will generally be able to garner necessary resources and other wherewithal, without much problem.

All pharma leaders should always consider themselves as an important solution for the future success of the organization, Otherwise, he or she may be construed as a part of the problem and a hindrance in achieving the corporate goal and should make way for the capable ones, in this area. Hence, selecting leaders with the right spirit to make digital transformation effective, is so critical for the CEO.

To commence this journey, the leaders may either be willing to acquire the experience of a disruptive digital transformation, guided by the domain experts or may be recruited from outside having the necessary experience. Collective and well-coordinated steps towards this transformation can neither be tentative, nor should it commence without having the right leader at the right place with required will and experience.

Digital players entering into health space with game changing ideas:

Pharma players should also note, how the big technology companies, such as, Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon, besides many startups, are trying to create space for themselves in the health care arena. Several of them are also trying to reinvent health care with zest, much beyond what traditional drug companies could even envisage, till recently.

The digital transformation of the organization would help drug players to align the company’s business model with the tech companies in those specific areas to reap a rich harvest. More opportunities will also unfold – either to collaborate with them for targeted projects or moving into the tech space with well-calibrated measures, for business synergy. Without digital transformation of business, either facing such competition or benefitting from the available opportunities, will be challenging for drug companies.

Conclusion:

In the digital world, while patients are emerging as a key driver of change in the health care space, traditional pharma operational systems, including sales and marketing are likely to give a diminishing return on investment. Although, many drug companies can sense this ongoing metamorphosis, several of them are still wondering how to go about it. Moreover, to test the ‘digital water’, some of them have started converting several traditional operational methods, systems and processes in the digital format, as well. Yet, are unable to fathom, why such efforts are not clicking – leading to a quantum increase in the operational efficiency – in pursuit of excellence.

The good news is, global pharma organizations, such as, Sanofi and Novartis, besides several others, have realized that incremental performance improvements with small tweaking here or there, across the organization, aren’t just enough. The corporation needs to move towards a holistic digital transformation, spearheaded by its CEO, having experience in this process. This new breed of pharma CEOs, well-supported by his team of leaders, fostering a burning desire to produce pace setting results, can usher in this ‘disruptive’ transformation. Because, they realize, traditional pharma operational systems, when tempered through the fire of the digital transformation process, can yield game changing outcomes for the organization. The entire process, as it comes to fruition, helps delivering greater customer value, creating a unique customer experience – similar to what customers want – on an ongoing basis.

In fine, strategic intervention of this genre, initiated by the CEO and cascading down the organizational hierarchy, creates a whole new patient-centric outcome, which is much more than what a company can get through re-engineering the operational processes. Hence, especially the young mangers of date, may wish to note note that during virtually every leadership transition, this atypical skill is now likely count much more than ever before – with an ascending trend.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Gene Therapy Price: Commercial Viability And Moral Dilemma

Posted on June 17, 2019 by Tapan Ray

On May 24, 2019, Novartis announced the US-FDA approval of ‘the first and only gene therapy’ – Zolgensma, for a type of Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), a lifesaving treatment for infants of less than 2 years of age. This unique drug halts disease progression with a single, one-time intravenous (IV) infusion.

On value offerings of Zolgensma,the Novartis CEO said: “The approval of Zolgensma is a testament to the transformational impact gene therapies can have in reimagining the treatment of life-threatening genetic diseases like spinal muscular atrophy. We believe Zolgensma could create a lifetime of possibilities for the children and families impacted by this devastating condition.”

Unquestionably, this development in medical science is indeed commendable. But, the jaw-dropping price tag – USD 2.125 millionattached to this product, has brought back gene therapy at the center stage of the incensed debate on access and affordability of such treatment for a vast majority of the population, across the world. Besides, two important issues related to gene therapy need to be effectively resolved – long-term commercial viability and the ‘moral dilemma’ that its market launch would prompt. And both are interconnected and also associated with the pricing rationale of such therapies.

I am terming the second factor as a ‘moral dilemma’ rather than an ‘ethical dilemma’ because, “ethics is a more individual assessment of values as relatively good or bad, while morality is a more intersubjective community assessment of what is good, right or just for all.”In this article, I shall deliberate on these two interrelated issues. But, before delving into it, let me recapitulate in simple terms, what exactly is ‘Gene Therapy.’

What exactly is ‘Gene Therapy?’

According to US-FDA, human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use.

Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:

Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene
Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly
Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease

Gene therapy products are now being studied to treat diseases including cancer, genetic diseases, and also infectious diseases.

Gene therapy price has been going higher than highest, thus far:

‘At USD 2.1 million, newly approved Novartis gene therapy will be world’s most expensive drug,’ says another report of May 24, 2019.It is noteworthy that Zolgensma price has been kept higher than the highest priced drug before this product came. If his trend continues, the future gene therapy cost is likely to exceed even Zolgensma price, the implication of which for patients who will need such treatment to save life or manage the disease, will be huge.

Intriguingly, the high treatment cost for a rare ailment like, SMA - a degenerative disorder that usually kills an infant within two years, is not limited to just gene therapy. According to the April 04, 2019 article titled, ‘Biogen SMA drug price, Novartis estimates for its treatment far too high – U.S. group’ of Reuters, the price of another drug for SMA – Biogen’s Spinraza, which is not a gene therapy, is also very high. Its list price is USD 750,000 for the initial year and USD 375,000 annually. As reported, ‘Spinraza, an important growth driver for Biogen, took in USD 1.7 billion in 2018 sales.’

What should have been the actual prices of these drugs?

Interestingly, to determine the value of these drugs, the nonprofit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) ‘used a measure known as “quality-adjusted life year” (QALY), in which each year of healthy or near-healthy life resulting from the treatment is worth USD 100,000 to USD 150,000.

Using the QALY benchmark, ICER, reportedly, said Spinraza should cost between USD 72,000 and USD 130,000 for the first year of treatment, and cost USD 36,000 to USD 65,000 per year after that, for infants not yet showing symptoms of the disease.

Further, with an alternative benchmark, known as life-year gained (LYG) based on the additional number of years a person lives due to a treatment, Spinraza is, reportedly, worth USD 83,000 to USD 145,000 in year one, and USD 41,000 to USD 72,000 annually thereafter, as ICER determined.

Zolgensma, on the other hand, would, reportedly, be worth USD 310,000 to USD 900,000 for Type 1 SMA patients based on the QALY assessment, and USD 710,000 to USD 1.5 million using the LYG calculation, ICER said.

Notwithstanding, whether one takes the QALY assessment or LYG based price of Zolgensma and Spinraza, the treatment cost of rare diseases, such as SMA for infants, is beyond the affordability of most people – whenever these drugs become the only choice to save lives. Thus, the question comes: Is gene therapy commercially viable or sustainable?

Is gene therapy commercially sustainable?

Undoubtedly, the development of gene therapy signifies yet another milestone in medical science to save lives, which is highly commendable. Nevertheless, the question arises, who will be able to afford this treatment? Thus, is development of gene therapy commercially viable and could be a money churner for a company on a long-term basis? There doesn’t appear to be a clear answer to these questions, just as yet. There are several reasons for this apprehension. But, I am citing below just two examples – related to their humongous treatment cost.

According to the article, published in the Scientific American, in the past five years, two gene therapy drugs have been approved in Europe and one in the United States. The name of this article is ‘Gene Therapy Is Now Available, but Who Will Pay for It?’ Interestingly, only three patients have so far been treated commercially with gene therapy, in Europe.

UniQure’s Glybera, used for a very rare blood disorder, costing around USD 1 million per patient, has been used just once since approval in 2012. However, in 2017, due to commercial reason UniQure decided to withdraw Glybera from the market. Similarly, Strimvelisof Orchard Therapeutics – used for severe Combined Immunodeficiency, costing USD 700,000, ‘has seen two sales since its approval in May 2016, with two more patients due to be treated later this year.’ Interestingly, these apprehensions have not deterred many companies. The ball keeps rolling.

But the ball keeps rolling:

That the ball keeps rolling, and at a faster pace, is evident from what US-FDA envisages in this field. According to US-FDA, by 2025, they are likely to approve 10 to 20 cell and gene therapy products a year. This is based on an assessment of the current pipeline and the clinical success rates of these products.

Importantly, despite apprehension of many, even some of the top pharma players, are fast moving into this space – based on their own assessment of the market. But, to move meaningfully in this direction, there are many several critical success factors, most of which are quite challenging and cost-intensive. A few of these, for example, are – a right collaborative model, ability to develop a scalable manufacturing process and overcoming various technical and regulatory challenges on the way. Interested pharma players, apparently, have realized these needs.

Big Pharma players joining ‘Gene Therapy’ bandwagon:

Big Pharma players, such as, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) have started moving into this space. Let me illustrate the point with just a couple of examples.

On March 20, 2019, Pfizer announced: ‘Pfizer has acquired a 15 percent equity interest in Vivet Therapeutics and secured an exclusive option to acquire all outstanding shares.’ Both the companies will collaborate on the development of Vivet’s proprietary treatment for Wilson disease – a rare and progressive genetic disorder, if remains untreated may cause liver (hepatic) disease, central nervous system dysfunction, and death.

Just before this, on January 31, 2019, Janssen Pharmaceutical of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) announced a worldwide collaboration and license agreement with MeiraGTx Holdings plc – a clinical-stage gene therapy company, to develop, manufacture and commercialize its clinical stage inherited retinal disease portfolio, including leading product candidates for achromatopsia. Even prior to this, on January 05, 2018, J&J had announced that the company has established an exclusive research collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania’s ‘Gene Therapy Program’ for fighting Alzheimer’s disease with gene therapy. There are several such instances of gene therapy collaboration for Big Pharma.

With a slightly different collaborative model for gene therapy, on April 12, 2018, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) signed a strategic agreement to transfer rare disease gene therapy portfolio to Orchard Therapeutics, taking a 19.9 percent stake in the company and a seat on the board. Simultaneously, this agreement strengthens Orchard’s position as a global leader in gene therapy for rare diseases.

What could be the moral dilemma in gene therapy pricing?

The dilemma with gene therapy is that they are frightfully expensive, but at the same time is ‘life-transforming’ for many, across the socioeconomic spectrum. This could be another ‘moral dilemma,’ as such exorbitant, if not seemingly ‘vulgar pricing’, as it were, would raise many questions on the company’s own principles regarding right and wrongin saving lives of patients with its gene therapy.

The reason for this moral dilemma in, especially gene therapy pricing is aptly elucidated in an article titled, ‘How to pay for gene therapies in developing nations,’ published in Evaluate Vantage on March 22, 2019. Admitting that discrepancies in healthcare between rich and poor nations are nothing new, the article also raises a flag, indicating: ‘The potentially curative nature of many gene therapies heightens the moral conundrum that companies will face if and when these projects get to market.

Acknowledging that gene therapies are hot right now, with their developers taking aim at everything from hemophilia to rare eye diseases prevalent in rich nations,the author raises a pertinent question: ‘With rich countries like the US finding it hard to fund gene therapies, it is worth asking whether these projects will ever reach patients in developing countries. And if they do how will companies cope?’

Intriguingly, to create a larger market some are also targeting disorders, largely seen in poorer areas, such as sickle cell disease that could prove valuable also in the developing world. Expectedly, the pressure will mount from many corners to provide gene therapy at an affordable price. Big pharma players are likely to face this strong head wind, adding further fuel to fire of the moral dilemma of gene therapy pricing, especially for the developing world. As on date, no one knows what percentage of people in the developing world will have access to gene therapy. Even Novartis, reportedly, does not seem to have any plan to make its product available in the developing nations.

Conclusion:

Despite what has happened so far, as described above, looking around, we find a steady flow of gene therapy, some even promise remedial treatment outcomes. Big pharma companies, as well, have commenced a long-haul journey in this direction, with big stake investments.

Regarding, not achieving a huge commercial success with gene therapy, so far, one point is common for all, these are for the treatment of very rare diseases. Probably, because of this reason, some companies, having taken a cue from it, are moving away from ultra-rare diseases. Illustratively, GSK is still looking to use gene therapy in a collaborative platform, to develop treatments for more common diseases, including cancer and beta-thalassemia – another inherited blood disorder – as the above Scientific American article reported.

That said, the point to ponder now, if the effort to come out with a remedial gene therapy for these indications fructifies, would it ensure a long-term commercial viability, alongside giving rise to a moral dilemma on the rationale for gene therapy pricing? This seems to be akin to a ‘chicken and egg’ situation. It will be interesting to witness how it pans out, as we move on.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Uniting Pharma With Business Ethics: A Bridge Too Far?

Posted on February 18, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Operating ethically not only is the right thing to do but also is fundamental to success in business. Poor governance and poor ethical business practices can lead to fines, public scrutiny and distrust – overshadowing good performance, destroying reputation, and undermining the morale and engagement of employees. …We must act in ways that build and maintain the trust of patients, healthcare professionals, governments and society. This was articulated in the Novartis Corporate Responsibility Report 2017, highlighting how important it is to unite pharma operations with business ethics for each company. But is it happening in reality?

The same question haunts yet again with the announcement of a new Code of Marketing Practice by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations’ (IFPMA),effective January 2019. The pronouncement prescribes ‘a global ban on gifts and promotional aids for prescription drugs wherever the association’s member companies operate.’

However, the overall scenario gets more complex to comprehend, when on January 03, 2019 Bloomberg Law reported: ‘The change is causing concern among both U.S.-based and multinational companies like Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squib, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer Inc. about how to balance appropriate business behavior with respect for cultural norms in other countries.’ Interestingly, the IFPMA membership virtually covers all MNC drug companies, operating across the world. Thus, any concern on its implementation, especiallyamong some of the bigger names, raises more questions than answers about its effectiveness. What exactly has been the outcome of all such actions being taken, especially by the multinational pharma industry associations, from time to time. Have the patients been benefited – at all?

Keeping this recent development as the backdrop, I shall try to gauge in this article, is the bridge still too far to mitigate the widening gap between overall pharma operations and the standard of business ethics -voluntary code of practices of pharma associations notwithstanding?

Why pharma ‘business-practices’ and ‘business-ethics’ are so important?

Before charting onto the sensitive areas of ‘business practices’ and ‘business ethics’, let me recapitulate the meaning of these two terminologies to fathom why these are so important in pharma to protect patient health interest.

Business practice is defined as a method, procedure, process, or rule employed or followed by a company in pursuit of achieving its objectives. Itmay also refer to these collectively.
Similarly, Business ethics is defined as a form of professional ethics that examines the ethical and moral principles and problems that arise in a business environment. It applies to all aspects of business conduct on behalf of both individuals and the entire company.

Thus, ethical business policies and practices for pharma industry, when worked out both by an industry association or an individual company, aims at addressing potentially controversial issues, such as corporate governance, insider trading, bribery, discrimination, corporate responsibility and fiduciary responsibilities.

Ironically, despite well-hyped announcements of voluntary codes of practices from time to time, no commensurate changes in patients’ health interest are visible in real life. Thus, the very relevance of such edicts is now being seriously questioned by many.

What do reports reflect on ongoing pharma business practices?

To get an idea in this area, let me quote below from three reports, out of which one is specifically on the Indian scenario, which has not changed much even today:

“The interaction between physicians and medical representatives (MRs) through gift offering is a common cause for conflicts of interest for physicians that negatively influence pre- scribing behaviors of physicians throughout the world.” This was articulated in an article titled, “Gift Acceptance and Its Effect on Prescribing Behavior among Iraqi Specialist Physicians”, published by Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) in June 2014.

A couple of years before that, on September 07, 2012, Reuters also published an article with the headline: “In India, gift-giving drives drug makers’ marketing.” Thereafter, many similar articles were published in various newspapers and magazines, possibly to trigger remedial action by the regulators in the country.

Very recently, on January 18, 2019, The New York Times (NYT) came out with a mind boggling headline – “Study Links Drug Maker Gifts for Doctors to More Overdose Deaths.” Elaborating on this JAMA study, the NYT wrote: “Counties where the doctors got more meals, trips and consulting fees from opioid makers had higher overdose deaths involving prescription opioids.”

The point I want to drive home here is that freebies in the form of gifts, travel to exotic places with free meals and stay, fees of various types clubbed under a mysterious nomenclature ‘consulting fees’, purported to influence doctor’s prescribing behavior, are now rampant. These are adversely impacting patients, as they are often compelled to buy high-priced drugs, unnecessary drugs, including antibiotics, sedatives and opioids, to name a few.

Are big pharma companies following the codes – both in letter and spirit?

The doubt that surfaces, are these changes just for displaying to the stakeholders how well and with stringent measures, drug companies are self-regulating themselves, on an ongoing basis? Before jumping to any conclusion, let us try to make out whether, at least the big pharma players are following these codes in both letter and spirit.

To establish the point, instead of providing a long list of large pharma settlements with governments for various malpractices, I shall cite just the following two relatively recent ‘novel’ examples related two top global pharma companies, for you to have your own inferences.

The first one is related to reports that flashed across the world in May 2018 related to Novartis. One such article described, “Congress demands info from Novartis about its USD 1.2m in outflows to Michael Cohen, just as it was negotiating payments for its cancer drug.” The report further elaborated, Novartis’ USD 1.2 million payment was made in the shell company of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer and so-called ‘fixer’.

The second one is the September 13, 2018 report of The New York Times. It revealed: ‘Dr. José Baselga, the chief medical officer of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, resigned on Thursday amid reports that he had failed to disclose millions of dollars in payments from health care companies in dozens of research articles.”

The report also stated: “Dr. Baselga, a prominent figure in the world of cancer research, omitted his financial ties to companies like the Swiss drugmaker Roche and several small biotech startups in prestigious medical publications like The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. He also failed to disclose any company affiliations in articles he published in the journal Cancer Discovery, for which he serves as one of two editors in chief.”

Indian companies aren’t trailing far behind, either:

Many Indian companies are, apparently, sailing on the same boat. Let me illustrate this point by citing an example related to India’s top ranked domestic pharma player.

What it said: Way back on November 13, 2010, Sun Pharmain a communication expressed its concern by saying: ‘Over four decades since Independence, the government nurtured a largely self-sufficient pharma industry. But the entry of MNCs is putting most drugs beyond the reach of millions.’

The communique further added: ‘Even as the domestic industry begins to feel the heat of an unprotected market, public health experts are examining why drug prices in India are higher than in Sri Lanka, which imports most of its drugs. The MNC takeover raises the specter of an MNC-dominated pharma sector selling drugs at un-affordable prices, a throw ‘back to the scenario just after Independence, which the government painstakingly changed over four decades. Are we setting the clock back on the country’s health security?’

The reality thereafter: It’s a different story that today, the same Sun Pharma, despite alleged ‘high price drugs of MNCs’, occupies the top ranking in the Indian pharmaceutical market. Be that as it may, the point to note that the same company is now facing similar charges from other countries, almost a decade after. On March 2017, a media report came with a headline: ‘Sun Pharma, Mylan face price fixing probe in US.’

Incidentally,the company is mired with allegation on governance related issues, as well. A media report dated November 20, 2018 carried a headline: ‘Governance cloud over Sun Pharma, stock at 6-month low.’ This example is quite relevant to this discussion, as well, for its link with ethical business practices, as discussed earlier.

Additionally, class-action lawsuits in the United States for alleged business malpractices, including ‘pay for delay conspiracies’, against Indian pharma companies are also on the rise – Sun Pharma and Dr. Reddy’s top the list in terms of those who face most class-action litigation, reported a leading Indian business daily on September 02, 2017.

Pharma malpractices continue, DOP is still to make UCPMP mandatory:

In this quagmire, where self-regulation doesn’t work, the government usually steps in, as happened in the United States and Europe. Whereas, in India, no decisive government action is yet visible to curb this menace, especially for protection of patients’ health interest. Let me try to illustrate this point with the following chronology of four key events:

On May 08, 2012, the Parliamentary Standing in its 58th Report, strongly indicted the DoP for not taking any tangible action in this regard to contain ‘huge promotional costs and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices’.

Ultimately, effective January 01, 2015, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DOP) put in place the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) for voluntary implementation, despite knowing it has not worked anywhere in that format.

When voluntary UCPMP did not work, on September 20, 2016, the then secretary of the DoP reportedly said, the mandatory “UCPMP is in the last leg of clearance with the government. The draft guidance has incorporated suggestions of the pharma industry and other stakeholders.”

After another year passed by, on April 16, 2018, a news report reconfirmed: ‘4 years on, code to punish pharma firms for bribing doctors still in works.’ Its status remains unchanged till date.

Conclusion:

Even after Prime Minister Modi’s comment on April 2018 regarding the alleged nexus between doctors and pharmaceutical firms and doctors attending conferences abroad to promote these companies, decision paralysis of DOP continues on this important issue.

Pharma companies continue practicing what they deem necessary to further their business interest, alongside, of course, announcing their new and newer voluntary codes of practices. But, patients keep suffering, apparently for the apathy of the DOP to curb such malpractices forthwith.

Coming back to where I started from, when the malice is so deeply rooted, would any global ban ‘brand-reminders’, such as gifts, even if implemented religiously, work? Thus, the doubt lingers, for uniting pharma operations with corporate business ethics is the bridge still too far?

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Novartis

Mindset Change: Now A Bigger Factor in The Rise And Fall of Pharma Corporations

Unleashing Pharma’s New Potential In Changing Market Dynamics

Focus On Core Competencies – Regardless of Generic Or Innovative Drug Business

A New Facet of ‘Data Integrity’ With Novel Therapy… And Much Beyond

Disruptive Impact of AI on Pharma Sales And Marketing

While Pharma Leadership Change This Atypical Skill Counts

Gene Therapy Price: Commercial Viability And Moral Dilemma

Uniting Pharma With Business Ethics: A Bridge Too Far?