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.

Awaiting The Two To Tango: Pharma Innovation And Public Health Interest

Posted on January 2, 2017 by Tapan Ray

“The rewards for the breakthrough drug discovery must be substantial, but if prices are the only mechanism through which returns on research flow, affordability will be compromised,” articulated an article titled, ‘Pharmaceutical Policy Reform – Balancing Affordability with Incentives for Innovation’, published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on February 25, 2016.

The article arrived at this conclusion, on the backdrop of the high prices of prescription drugs becoming an issue of paramount concern, not just in the United States, but across the world. This concern is so acute that it found its way into policy proposals from both the prime candidates, in the American Presidential election held on November 8, 2016.

Through last several decades, healthcare sector in general and particularly the pharmaceutical industry, witnessed many innovations that cure and effectively manage ailments to improve the general quality of life. It enormously impacted the lives of many in the developed countries, and a few others which offer high quality Universal Health Care in a comprehensive format, for all.

A trickle-down impact:

Nevertheless, even no more than its just a trickle-down impact, helped increase overall life expectancy of the population in many developing and poor countries, mostly driven by the expanding number of cheaper generic drugs, fueled by more treatment and disease management options.

The paper titled, ‘World Population Prospects – The 2015 Revision’ of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division of the United Nations’ reported that the life expectancy at birth rose by 3 years between 2000-2005 and 2010-2015, that is from 67 to 70 years. All major areas shared in the life expectancy gains over this period, but the greatest increases were in Africa, where life expectancy rose by 6 years in the 2000s, after rising by only 2 years in the previous decade.

Similarly, the global life expectancy at birth is projected to rise from 70 years in 2010-2015 to 77 years in 2045- 2050 and to 83 years in 2095-2100. Africa is projected to gain about 19 years of life expectancy by the end of the century, reaching 70 years in 2045-2050 and 78 years in 2095-2100. Such increases are contingent on further reductions in the spread of HIV, and combating successfully other infectious as well as non-communicable diseases.

The availability of cheaper generics gave some respite:

Out of a total population of 7.3 billion, as the above report says, the World Bank estimated that in 2013, 767 million people still lived on less than US$ 1.90 a day. Unfortunately, despite the greater availability of a large variety of cheaper generic drugs, the basic health care remains elusive to hundreds of millions of people in the world.

What causes more concern is the fact that 6 percent of people in low and middle-income countries are tipped into or pushed further into extreme poverty because of health spending, as the June 12, 2015 report of the World Health Organization (W.H.O) and the World Bank highlights. W.H.O has estimated that over a billion population of the world still suffer from neglected tropical diseases.

How many people benefitted from pricey patented drugs?

Nevertheless, despite so much innovation in the pharma industry, access to these new drugs remains elusive to a large section of even some the most developed nations, such as the United States, as they can’t afford these high-priced drugs. The overall situation, in this regard, is going from bad to worse. For example, the March 16, 2015 study published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings reveals that the average annual cost of cancer drugs increased from roughly US$ 10,000 prior to 2000 to an astounding over US$ 100,000 by 2012.

Further, an August 31, 2015 article published in the ‘Health Affairs’ also gave examples of Biogen Idec’s multiple sclerosis drug, Tecfidera, which costs US$ 54,900 per patient per year; hepatitis C cures from Gilead Sciences, with a sticker price of $84,000 per patient; and Orkambi, a cystic fibrosis drug from Vertex Pharmaceuticals approved this month, priced at a whopping US$ 259,000 per year. A Kaiser Health Tracking Poll last July 2015 found that 73 percent of Americans find the cost of drugs to be unreasonable, and most blamed drug manufacturers for setting prices too high, the article stated.

The health care scenario in India is no better:

A study conducted by the ‘National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO)’ from January to June 2014, which was the 71st round of the ‘National Sample Survey’, and published in the ‘Health in India’ report, narrates a very gloomy picture for India, especially for a clear majority of those who incur ‘out of pocket’ expenses on medicines. The report states, out of all health expenditure, 72 percent in rural and 68 percent in urban areas was for buying medicines for non-hospitalized treatment.

Thus, many patients cannot afford health services, even when these are needed the most. As many as 68 percent of patients in urban India and 57 percent in rural areas attributed “financial constraints” as the main reason to take treatment without any medical advice, the report adds.

In this situation, the challenges that the Governments and the civil society are facing in many developing, and to some extent even in some developed countries, though for different reasons, are multi-factorial. It has been well established that the humongous global health care challenges are mostly of economic origin.

Pharma innovation benefitted the developed countries more:

A study titled, ‘Pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease in developing and developed countries’ of Columbia University and National Bureau of Economic Research, to ascertain the relationship across diseases between pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease both in the developed and developing countries, reported that pharmaceutical innovation is positively related to the burden of disease in the developed countries but not so in the developing countries.

Making the two to tango:

These facts prompt the need to make the pharma innovation and public health interest to tango. Several suggestions have been made and initiatives taken in this direction. Some of which are as follows:

Responding to this need, in 2006 W.H.O created the ‘Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG)’. The primary focus of IGWG is on promoting sustainable, needs-driven pharmaceutical R&D for the diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries. One positive effect of this global debate is that some global pharmaceutical companies have initiated their R&D activities for neglected tropical diseases, such as, Malaria and Tuberculosis. Many charitable organizations like, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Clinton Foundation, are allocating significant funds for this purpose.

A paper titled, “Optional reward for new drugs for developing countries” published by the Department of Economics, University of Calgary, Institute of Health Economics, proposed an optional reward fund for pharmaceutical innovation aimed at the developing world to the pharmaceutical companies, which would develop new drugs while ensuring their adequate access to the poor. The paper suggests that innovations with very high market value will use the existing patent system, as usual. However, the medicines with high therapeutic value but low market potential would be encouraged to opt for the optional reward system. It was proposed that the optional reward fund should be created by the governments of the developed countries and charitable institutions to ensure a novel way for access to innovative medicines by the poor.

‘Open Innovation’ or the ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ is another model of discovering a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). Imbibing ‘Open Innovation’ for commercial results in pharmaceuticals, just has what has happened to android smartphones, would encourage drug discovery initiatives, especially for the dreaded disease like cancer, to make these drugs affordable for a very large section of people across the globe. In this model, all data generated related to the discovery research will be available in the open for collaborative inputs. In ‘Open Innovation’, the key component is the supportive pathway of its information network, which is driven by three key parameters of open development, open access and open source. This concept was successfully used in the ‘Human Genome Project’ where many scientists, and microbiologists participated from across the world to sequence and understand the human genes. Currently, pharmaceutical R&D is a well-protected in-house initiative of innovator global companies to maximize commercial benefits. For this reason, only a limited number of scientists working for the respective innovator companies will have access to these projects. In India, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is the champion of the OSDD movement, locally. CSIR believes that for a developing country like India, OSDD will help the common man to meet his or her unmet medical needs in the areas of mainly neglected tropical diseases.

Conclusion:

Thus, the ongoing heated debate on Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Public Health Interest is gathering steam all over the globe.

Argumentative Indians are also participating in this raging debate. I reckon rightly so, as India is not only the largest democracy of the world contributing 16.7 percent of the global population, it is also afflicted with 21 percent of the global burden of disease. Considering this, the reason for similar heated debate in our country is indeed no-brainer to anyone.

Many would possibly not disagree, both encouraging innovation and safeguarding the public health interest are equally important to any society, be it in the developed nations or developing countries. Nevertheless, some constituents of ‘Big Pharma’ and their trade association still highlight that ensuring access to high price innovative drugs is the responsibility of the respective Governments. Any other regulatory mechanism to bring down such prices will be construed as a barrier to encouraging, protecting and rewarding innovation.

Be that as it may, most other stakeholders, across the world, especially the patients, are awaiting these two goals to tango. From that point, I reckon, giving a quick shape to commercially well-tested initiatives, such as, ‘Open Innovation’ model could well be an important step to ensure access to innovative new medicines for a larger number of patients of the world, meeting their unmet medical needs with greater care.

By: Tapan J Ray

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Posted on July 11, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The upcoming trend of jaw dropping high prices for new patented drugs sends a ‘storm signal’ to many stakeholders, especially for its adverse impact on patient access. Even more intriguing, such high and insane prices are being fixed rather arbitrarily, without any valid reason whatsoever.

It has now been well established, very clearly, that this trend has no linkages with the necessity of keeping the wheel of cost-intensive new drug development initiatives moving, uninterruptedly.

Many believe that this dangerous inclination of the global pharma players picked up, in a major way, with the launch of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), costing around US$ 1,000 per pill in the United States. This new drug has no relationship with Gilead’s own R&D initiatives, just as many other high priced patented drugs belonging to this genre.

Additionally, the current brand pricing strategy of even those pharma companies who are developing new drugs in-house, is equally intriguing, as those drug prices too have no direct or indirect relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. As I discussed that issue in my Blog on August 18, 2014 in an article titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments”, I am not arguing on those points here again.

Nevertheless, these unholy practices did not go unnoticed. Anguish against irresponsible pricing, adversely impacting patient access, started gaining momentum, all over. A raging debate has also kick-started on this issue within a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including various Governments and other payers.

They all are questioning, should the Governments, health insurance companies and other payers support such windfall profits of the so called ‘research based’ pharma companies’?

In this article, I shall deliberate on this issue, just when the voices of disgust against this unholy trend have started multiplying.

A palpable disgust expressed in a recent article:

Against this arbitrary drug pricing trend, a good number of doctors have started raising their voices, with a discernible disgust.

“We’re all paying a high price for drug company profiteering”, thundered Dr. Daniel J. Stone, an internal medicine and geriatric medicine specialist, in an Op-Ed published in ‘The Los Angeles Times’ on July 6, 2016.

Dr. Stone further reiterated, “The drug companies are ripping us off, pill by pill, shot by shot. Instead of working to earn reasonable returns by relieving our suffering and saving lives, they now focus on profits above all. Their main targets are insurance companies. But when insurance companies take a hit, they bump up premiums to employers or the government. So we all pay - in taxes, reduced take-home pay, copayments and deductibles.”

Windfall profits:

The article focuses on this new trend in the global pharma industry, adversely affecting access to, especially, the new drugs to a vast majority of the patients. The author unambiguously highlighted that this dangerous pricing strategy got a major thrust from Gilead Sciences Inc. with its acquisition of sofosbuvir’s (Sovaldi) developer – ‘Pharmasset’ in 2011, for US$ 11 billion.

According to Dr. Stone, ‘Pharmasset’s chief executive made an estimated US$ 255 million on the deal, and its 82 employees each averaged around US$ 3.3 million, before Sovaldi came to the market. Thereafter, it’s a history. Gilead took a double markup on the drug, charging enough not just to more than cover the high cost of acquisition of ‘Pharmasset’, but also for making windfall profits.

The reason behind irresponsible pricing:

The question, therefore, arises, how do the global pharma players dare to go for such irresponsible pricing in many countries of the world?

It is possible for them because the payers, especially the health insurance companies, usually find it difficult to out rightly ignore any unique and new life saving patented medicine for various reasons. As a result, the concerned companies, allegedly effectively use these payers, and also a large section of doctors who can prescribe these brands, facilitating them to make huge profits at the cost of patients.

The justification:

To justify such pricing, these pharma companies and their trade associations are apparently using fear as the key. Through various types of communications, they keep trying to convey that any attempt to restrict their so called ‘reasonable’ prices of these medicines would seriously jeopardize the innovative drug development process, jeopardizing the long term needs of the patients.

More recently, serious attempts were made to also establish Sovaldi’s so called ‘reasonable’ pricing, and its cost effectiveness, in an interesting way.

The company highlighted that Sovaldi is cost effective, not just in comparison to paying for other health care services that the drug might prevent, it also helps avoid cost intensive liver transplant, in many cases. With those costs not being incurred with Sovaldi, the patients, on the contrary, make some savings on the possible alternative treatment cost to fight this deadly disease.

Is it not an atrocious argument?

However, according to Dr. Stone, “This argument is a lot like a plumber billing a customer US$ 20,000 to fix a leaky pipe under the sink. Considering the costs of a possible flood, it might seem defensible. In the real world, any plumber charging based on ‘what you saved’ by preventing a potential catastrophe would lose business to competitors.”

A warning sign:

The above article also highlights, Sovaldi like drug price tag is an unmistakable warning sign, and the emerging trend of patented drug pricing system is a danger to the health of any nation. According to the author:

Reforming the financing of drug development will require more creativity.

The government should consider subsidizing research and development to reduce the industry’s risk, in return for oversight on pricing that would allow reasonable returns on investment.

Not possible without many doctors’ active support:

Though it is encouraging to see that some doctors, such as, Daniel J. Stone are raising their voices and arguing against this practice, a large number of other doctors are being actively influenced by the pharma companies to prescribe such products.

This is vindicated by the latest release from the Open Payments database of the Government of the United States. It shows that the drug and device makers of the country incurred a mind boggling expenditure of US$ 2.6 billion towards payment to doctors related to speakers’ fees, meals, royalties and other payments, in 2015. Under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of America, this is the second full year of the disclosure.

The total payment made by the drug and device makers to doctors and medical institutions for the year was shown as US$ 7.52 billion.

The point to ponder:

That said, the question that surfaces, if Gilead had to sell its drugs to individuals incurring ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, how many Sovaldi like drugs would it sell with equivalent to around US$ 80,000 treatments cost?

It won’t be too difficult to ferret out its answer, if we look at the countries, like India, with very high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on health care, in general, and medicines in particular.

A possible solution:

According to an article published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on February 8, 2007, Voluntary Licensing (VL)’ practices in the pharmaceutical sector could possibly be a solution to improving access to affordable medicines.

The Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents 2005, which is generally applicable to ‘me too’ type of new products, could place India at an advantage. In the absence of a grant of evergreen type of product patents, many global companies would ultimately prefer to offer VL to Indian generic manufacturers, under specific terms and conditions, mainly to salvage the situation.

However, such a VL is unlikely to have any potential value, if the IPO refuses to grant patents to those products falling under the above section. In that case, generic competition would possibly further bring down the prices.

Has it started working in India?

Just to recapitulate, starting with a flash back to the year 2006, one can see that Gilead followed the VL strategy for India, probably for the first time, for its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

At that time Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead. The company had signed a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

Interestingly, by that time Cipla had started selling one of the two versions of tenofovir, not licensed by Gilead. Cipla’s generic version was named Tenvir, available at a price of US$ 700 per person per year in India, against Gilead’s tenofovir (Viread) price of US$ 5,718 per patient per year in the developed Markets. Gilead’s target price for tenofovir in India was US$ 200 per month, as stated above.

Following this strategy, again in 2014, Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing know how and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

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

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

Once again, in July 2016, it was reported that a drug called Epclusa – the latest breakthrough treatment for Hepatitis C virus could soon be available in India following Gilead Sciences’ getting its marketing approval from the US FDA.

Press Trust of India (PTI) reported, as part of its effort to offer affordable treatment, Gilead Sciences, together with its 11 partners in India, are pioneering a VL model that transfers technology and Intellectual Property for the latest treatments and cures for viral Hepatitis and HIV.

Some other pharma majors of the world also seem to be attempting to overcome the safeguards provided in the Indian Patents Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest. Their strategy may not include VL, but also not so transparent ‘Patient Access Programs’, and the so called ‘flexible pricing’. All these mostly happen when the concerned companies sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act.

That said, I have not witnessed the global pharmaceutical companies’ issuing a flurry of VLs in India, as yet.

Another possible solution for India:

Another possible solution for India, although was scripted in Para 4. XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and notified on December 07, 2012, unfortunately has not taken shape even after four years.

On ‘Pricing of Patented Drugs’, NPPA 2012 categorically states as follows:

“There is a separate committee constituted by the Government Order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented Drugs would be based on the recommendation of this committee.”

To utter disappointment of many, a strong will to make it happen, even by the new Government is still eluding, by far.

Conclusion:

Without having adequate access to new life-saving drugs, the struggle for life in the fierce battle against dangerous ailments, has indeed assumed an alarming dimension. This is being fuelled by the absence of Universal Health Coverage, and ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on medicines in India being one of the highest in the world.

It would continue to remain so, up until the global pharma majors consider entering into a VL agreement with the Indian pharma majors, just as Gilead. Otherwise, the Government in power should demonstrate its strong will to act, putting in place a transparent model of ‘patented drugs pricing’, without succumbing to any power play or pressures of any kind from vested interests.

Sans these strong initiatives, the dangerous trend of patented drug pricing will continue to deny access of many new medicines to a vast majority of the population to save precious lives.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process

Posted on January 18, 2016 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

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

Voices against this ‘unethical practice’ getting louder:

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

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

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

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

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

Independent experts’ views differed from the innovator companies:

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

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

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

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

A crusader emerged in Canada:

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

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

This example is worth imbibing elsewhere.

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

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

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

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Pharma's serious apprehensions on greater Public transparency:

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

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

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

Gross non-compliance, endangering patients’ health safety:

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

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

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

The paper reported the results as follows:

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

Based on the findings, the authors concluded asunder:

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

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

Unethical practices skewing medical science:

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

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

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

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

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

Despite vindication no tangible outcome yet:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective

Posted on January 19, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Whether under pressure or not, is hardly of any relevance now. What is relevant today is the fact that the new Indian Government, almost in a record time of just around two months, has been able to release a high quality first draft of an important national policy for public discourse.

In October 2014, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) constituted a six-member ‘Think Tank’ chaired by Justice (Retd.) Prabha Sridevan to draft the ‘National IPR Policy’ of India and taking quick strides, on December 19, 2014, released its first draft of 29 pages seeking stakeholders’ comments and suggestions on or before January 30, 2015. A meeting with the stakeholders has now been scheduled on February 5, 2015 to take it forward.

A quick glance at the Draft IPR Policy:

The proposed ‘Mission Statement’ as stated in the draft “National IPR Policy” is:

“To establish a dynamic, vibrant and balanced intellectual property system in India, to foster innovation and creativity in a knowledge economy and to accelerate economic growth, employment and entrepreneurship.”

Specifying its vision, mission and objectives, the draft policy suggests adopting a catchy national slogan to increase IP awareness: ‘Creative India; Innovative India’ and integrating IP with “Smart cities”, “Digital India” and “Make in India” campaigns of the new Government.

The ‘Think Tank’ dwells on the following seven areas:

IP Awareness and Promotion
Creation of IP
Legal and Legislative Framework
IP Administration and Management
Commercialization of IP
Enforcement and Adjudication
Human Capital Development

In the policy document, the ‘Think Tank’ has discussed all the above seven areas in detail. However, putting all these in a nutshell, I shall highlight only three of those important areas.

1. To encourage IP, the ‘Think Tank’ proposes to provide statutory incentives, like tax benefits linked to IP creation, for the entire value chain from IP creation to commercialization.

2. For speedy redressal of patent related disputes, specialized patent benches in the high courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras have been mooted. The draft also proposes creation of regional benches of the IPAB in all five regions where IPOs are already located and at least one designated IP court at the district level.

3. The draft concludes by highlighting that a high level body would monitor the progress of implementation of the National IP Policy, linked with performance indicators, targeted results and deliverables. Annual evaluation of overall working of the National IP Policy and quantification of the results achieved during the period have also been suggested, along with a major review of the policy after 3 years.

Although the National IPR policy cuts across the entire industrial spectrum and domains, in this article I shall deliberate on it solely from the pharmaceutical industry perspective.

Stakeholders’ keen interest in the National IPR Policy – Key reasons:

Despite full support of the domestic pharmaceutical industry, the angst of the pharma MNCs on the well-balanced product patent regime in India has been simmering since its very inception, way back in 2005.

A chronicle of recent events, besides the seven objectives of the IPR policy as enumerated above, created fresh general inquisitiveness on how would this new policy impact the current pharmaceutical patent regime of India, both in favor and also against.

Here below are examples of some of those events:

At a Congressional hearing of the United States in July 2013, a Congressman reportedly expressed his anger and called for taking actions against India by saying:

“Like all of you, my blood boils, when I hear that India is revoking and denying patents and granting compulsory licenses for cancer treatments or adopting local content requirements.”

This short video clipping captures the tone and mood of one such hearing of the US lawmakers.

On April 30, 2014, the United States in its report on annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement, named ‘Special 301 report’, classified India as a ‘Priority Watch List Country’. Placement of a trading partner on the ‘Priority Watch List’ or ‘Watch List’ indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on IP.

It further stated that USTR would conduct an Out of Cycle Review (OCR) of India focusing in particular on assessing progress made in establishing and building effective, meaningful, and constructive engagement with the Government of India on IPR issues of concern. An OCR is a tool that USTR uses on adverse IPR issues and for heightened engagement with a trading partner to address and remedy in those areas.

“India misuses its own IP system to boost its domestic industries,” commented the US Senator Orrin Hatch while introducing the 2014 report of the Global Intellectual Property Centre (GIPC) of US Chamber of Commerce on ‘International Intellectual Property (IP) Index’. In this report, India featured at the bottom of a list of 25 countries, scoring only 6.95 out of 30. The main reasons for the low score in the report were cited as follows:

- India’s patentability requirements are (allegedly) in violations of ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)’ Agreement.

- Non-availability of regulatory data protection

- Non-availability of patent term restoration

- The use of Compulsory Licensing (CL) for commercial, non-emergency situations.

Based on this report, US Chamber of Commerce urged USTR to classify India as a “Priority Foreign Country”, a terminology reserved for the worst IP offenders, which could lead to trade sanctions.

In the midst of all these, international media reported:

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi got an earful from both constituents and the US drug industry about India’s approach to drug patents during his first visit to the US last month. Three weeks later, there is evidence the government will take a considered approach to the contested issue.”

Washington based powerful pharmaceutical industry lobby group – PhRMA, which seemingly dominates all MNC pharma trade associations globally, has reportedly urged the US government to continue to keep its pressure on India in this matter. According to industry sources, PhRMA has a strong indirect presence and influence in India too. Interestingly, as reported in the media a senior representative of this lobby group would be India when President Obama visits the country later this month.

In view of all these concerns, during Prime Minister Narendra Modis’s visit to the United States in September 2014, a high-level Indo-US working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries.

Almost immediately after the Prime Minister’s return to India, in October 2014, the Government formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’ to draft ‘National IPR Policy’ and suggest ways and legal means to handle undue pressure exerted by other countries in IPR related areas. The notification mandated the ‘Think Tank’ to examine the current issues raised by the industry associations, including those that have appeared in the media and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce and Industry as appropriate.

However, the domestic pharma industry of India, many international and national experts together with the local stakeholders continue to strongly argue against any fundamental changes in the prevailing patent regime of India.

A perspective of National IPR Policy in view of Pharma MNCs’ concerns:

I shall now focus on four key areas of concern/allegations against India on IPR and in those specific areas what has the draft National IPR Policy enumerated.

- Concern 1: “India’s patentability requirements are in violations of ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)’ Agreement.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “India recognizes that effective protection of IP rights is essential for making optimal use of the innovative and creative capabilities of its people. India has a long history of IP laws, which have evolved taking into consideration national needs and international commitments. The existing laws were either enacted or revised after the TRIPS Agreement and are fully compliant with it. These laws along with various judicial pronouncements provide a stable and effective legal framework for protection and promotion of IP.”

A recent vindication: Just last week (January 15, 2015), Indian Patent Office’s (IPO’s) rejection of a key patent claim on Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) of Gilead Sciences Inc. further reinforces that India’s patent regime is robust and on course.

Gilead’s patent application was opposed by Hyderabad based Natco Pharma. According to the ruling of the IPO, a new “molecule with minor changes, in addition to the novelty, must show significantly enhanced therapeutic efficacy” when compared with a prior compound. This is essential to be in conformity with the Indian Patents Act 2005. Gilead’s patent application failed to comply with this legal requirement.

Although Sovaldi ((sofosbuvir) carries an international price tag of US$84,000 for just one treatment course, Gilead, probably evaluating the robustness of Sovaldi patent against Indian Patents Act, had already planned to sell this drug in India at a rice of US$ 900 for the same 12 weeks of therapy.

It is envisaged that this new development at the IPO would prompt entry of a good number of generic equivalents of Sovaldi. As a result, the price of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) formulations would further come down, despite prior licensing agreements of Gilead in India, fetching huge relief to a large number of patients suffering from Hepatitis C Virus, in the country.

However, reacting to this development Gilead has said, “The main patent applications covering sofosbuvir are still pending before the Indian Patent Office…This rejection relates to the patent application covering the metabolites of sofosbuvir. We (Gilead) are pleased that the Patent Office found in favor of the novelty and inventiveness of our claims, but believe their Section 3(d) decision to be improper. Gilead strongly defends its intellectual property. The company will be appealing the decision as well as exploring additional procedural options.”

For more on this subject, please read my blog post of September 22, 2014 titled, “Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India”

- Concern 2: “Future negotiations in international forums and with other countries.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “In future negotiations in international forums and with other countries, India shall continue to give precedence to its national development priorities whilst adhering to its international commitments and avoiding TRIPS plus provisions.”

- Concern 3: “Data Exclusivity or Regulatory Data Protection.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity.”

- Concern 4: “Non-availability of patent term restoration, patent linkage, use of compulsory licensing (CL) for commercial, non-emergency situations”.

Draft IPR Policy: Does dwell on these issues.

I discussed a similar subject in my blog post of October 20, 2014 titled, “Unilateral American Action on Agreed Bilateral Issues: Would India Remain Unfazed?”

Conclusion:

Overall, the first draft of the outcome-based model of the National IPR Policy appears to me as fair and balanced, especially considering its approach to the evolving IPR regime within the pharmaceutical industry of India.

The draft policy though touches upon the ‘Utility Model’, intriguingly does not deliberate on ‘Open Source Innovation’ or ‘Open Innovation’.

Be that as it may, the suggested pathway for IPR in India seems to be clear, unambiguous, and transparent. The draft policy understandably has not taken any extreme stance on any aspect of the IP. Nor does it succumb to high voltage power play of the United States and its allies in the IPR space, which, if considered, could go against the public health interest.

It is heartening to note, a high level body would monitor the progress of implementation of the National IPR Policy, which will be linked with performance indicators, targeted results and deliverables. Annual evaluation of the overall working of the policy and the results achieved will also be undertaken. A major review of the policy will be done after 3 years.

That said, pharma MNCs in general, don’t seem to quite agree with this draft policy probably based purely on commercial considerations, shorn of public health interest. It is quite evident, when a senior lobbyist of a powerful American pharma lobby group reportedly commented to Indian media on the draft National IPR Policy as follows:

“Real progress will only be achieved when India demonstrates through policy change that it does indeed value the importance of intellectual property, especially for the innovative treatments and cures of today and tomorrow”.

It appears, India continues to hold its stated ground on IPR with clearly enunciated policy statements. On the other hand MNCs don’t stop playing hardball either. Though these are still early days, the question that floats on the top of mind: Who would blink first?…India? Do you reckon so?

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.

Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments

Posted on August 18, 2014 by Tapan Ray

The costs of most of the new life saving drugs, used in the treatment of dreaded diseases such as cancer, have now started going north at a brisk pace, more than ever before.

From the global pharma industry perspective, the standard answer to this disturbing phenomenon has remained unchanged over a period of time. It continues to argue; with the same old emphasis and much challenged details that the high drug price is due to rapidly escalating R&D expenses.

However, experts have reasons to believe that irrespective of R&D costs, the companies stretch the new drug prices to the farthest edge to maximize profits. Generation of highest possible revenue for the product is the goal. Passing on the benefits of the new drug to a large number of patients does not matter, at all.

How credible is the industry argument?

In this context, let me take the example of Hepatitis C drug – Sovaldi of Gilead. Many now know that for each patient Sovaldi costs US$ 30,000 a month and US$ 84,000 for a treatment course.

According to an article published in Forbes, one health executive estimated that the annual price tag for Sovaldi could reach US$ 300 Billion because so many people have Hepatitis C infection worldwide. This mindboggling amount is more than all spending on all drugs in the United States, currently. A more realistic number might be between US$7 Billion and $12 Billion a year. Even that amount is roughly five times the amount Gilead spends each year on research.

Like Sovaldi, in many other instances too, industry argument of recovering high R&D investment through product pricing would fall flat on its face.

Need to put all the cards on the table:

The distinguished author underscores in his article the expected responsibilities of the experts in this area to ask the global pharma industry to connect the dots for all us between:

The societal goals they aim to achieve
The costs they incur on R&D
The profits they should reasonably be earning.

Public investments in R&D:

Another article titled, “Putting Price On Life”, argues that R&D projects are mainly initiated in the public sphere through tax-funded research. Unfortunately, patients do not derive any benefit of these public investments in terms of reduction in prices for the related drugs. On the contrary, they effectively pay for these new products twice – once through tax-funded research and then paying full purchase price of the same drug.

Additionally, industry corners the praise for the work done by others in tax-funded research, while at the same time making R&D less risky, as public funded research groups carry out most of the initial risk prone and breakthrough innovation.

The article also highlights that global pharma companies receive other tax credits over billions of dollars for their expenditure on R&D. However, the R&D figures that are produced are not adjusted to take into account the tax credits, thereby inflating costs and the prices of drugs.

All these tax credits significantly lower the private costs of doing the R&D in the United States, increasing the private returns. Interestingly, there does not seem to be any public information regarding who gets the tax credit and what the credit is used for, while the government does not retain any rights in the R&D.

Does pharma R&D always create novel drugs?

According to a report, US-FDA approved 667 new drugs from 2000 to 2007. Out of these only 75 (11 percent) were innovative molecules having much superior therapeutic profile than the available drugs. However, more than 80 percent of 667 approved molecules were not found to be better than those, which are already available in the market.

Thus, the question that very often being raised by many is, why so much money is spent on discovery and development of ‘me-too’ drugs, and thereafter on aggressive marketing for their prescription generation? This is important, as the patients pay for the entire cost of such drugs including the profit, after being prescribed by the doctors?

Should Pharma R&D move away from its traditional models?

The critical point to ponder today, should the pharmaceutical R&D now move from its traditional comfort zone of expensive one company initiative to a much less charted frontier of sharing drug discovery involving many players? If this approach gains acceptance sooner, it could lead to significant increase in R&D productivity at a much lesser cost, benefiting the patients at large.

Finding the right pathway in this direction is more important today than ever before, as the R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, keeps going south and that too at a faster pace.

Current IPR mechanism failing to deliver:

Current mechanism of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), especially in the pharmaceutical space, undoubtedly facilitates spiraling high drug prices with no respite to patients and payers, as access to these drugs gets severely restricted to the privileged few, denying ‘right to life’ to many.

Moreover, the current global ‘Pharma Patent System’ does not differentiate between qualities of innovations. The system extends equal incentives for pricing the drugs as high as possible, even if those offer little advantages to patients. Fortunately, this loophole has been plugged in the Indian Patents Act 2005, to a large extent.

That said, there is no well-structured incentive available to develop clinically superior drugs with public funding, even in India, so that prices could be significantly lower with equally lesser risks to the companies too.

Conclusion:

Current pricing system of patented medicines is even more intriguing, as these have no direct or indirect co-relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. On the contrary, drug prices allegedly go up due to other avoidable high expenditures, such as, physicians’ gratification oriented marketing, which includes even reported bribing, high profile political lobbying and private jet setting key executives lifestyle with exorbitant compensation packages, besides others.

To effectively address this issue, besides public R&D funding, there has been a number of suggestions for creation of a win-win pathway like, creation of “Health Impact Fund’. There are other inclusive, sustainable and cost effective R&D models too, such as ‘Open Innovation’ and ‘Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)’, to choose from.

A recent HBR Article titled “A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain” also highlighted, “Open innovation projects (where organizations facing tricky problems invite outsiders to take a crack at solving them) always present cognitive challenges, of course. But they also force new, boundary-spanning human interactions and fresh perspective taking. They require people to reach out to other people, and thus foster social interaction.” This articulation further reinforces the relevance of a new, contemporary and inclusive drug innovation model for greater patient access with reasonable affordability.

Be that as it may, ‘Patented Drug Pricing’ does not seem to have any relevance to a company’s investments towards R&D. On the contrary, the companies charge the maximum price that they could possibly handle to maximize profits on these life saving medicines.

In an environment of indifference like this, it is the responsibility of other stakeholders, especially the government, to ensure, by invoking all available measures, that life saving medications for dreaded diseases such as cancer, can get to those who need them the most, come what may.

Is the ever-alert new Government listening?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Is Drug Innovation As Critical As Access To Medicines For All? [Augmented By A Video]

Posted on May 12, 2014 by Tapan Ray

To make important medicines available to all in a sustainable way, the renowned philosopher Thomas Pogge in this very interesting video clipping titled “Medicines For The 99 Percent” suggested the following three simple, yet critical, steps to effectively run the healthcare system of any nation with a cost-effective and patient-centric approach:

Access to important medicines for all
A robust drug innovation model to meet the unmet needs of patients
Transparent and efficient systems to make medicines affordable to all, eliminating wastage of all kinds

To translate this process into reality Pogge proposed an out-of-box model, not just to incentivize companies for drug innovation, but also to produce those drugs in a cost-effective way . In his submission, Pogge recommended a US$ 6 billion ‘Health Impact Fund’ to revolutionize the way medicines are developed and sold. He strongly argued that the value of an innovative drug should always be ascertained by its differential “Health Impact” on patients over the equivalent available generics in the respective disease areas.

As you will see in the video, the model is interesting and deserves wholehearted support from all stakeholders, despite possible resistance from some powerful quarters prompted by vested interests.

Drug innovation and access to medicines:

As the good old saying goes, “Health is Wealth”. When a person falls sick, regaining health is all-important. Medicines play a very critical role there, for all. In the ongoing battle against various types of diseases, addressing unmet needs of the patients is also equally important. For this reason, drug innovation plays just as critical a role.

However, it is now a well-known fact that medicines, as such, are not very expensive to manufacture on a relative yardstick. Abundant availability of cheaper generic medicines, post-patent expiry, with as much as 90 percent price erosion over the concerned patented drug price, would vindicate this point.

Current R&D model:

Astronomical mark-ups on the cost of goods for the innovative-patented drugs coming out of the current R&D model, restrict access to these medicines mostly to rich people of both poor and rich countries of the world, depriving majority of the have-nots. Although in an ideal situation, all these medications should be accessible to those who need them the most.

Is the model sustainable?

Innovator companies attribute ‘astronomical’ high prices of patented drugs to hefty R&D expenditure, which probably includes high cost of failures too. Unfortunately, despite ongoing raging debates, R&D expense details are still held very close to the chest by the innovator companies, with almost total lack of transparency. Many experts, therefore, believe that this opaque, skewed and unsustainable drug R&D model of the global pharma majors needs a radical makeover now, as you would yourself see by clicking on the ‘video clipping’, as mentioned above

To ensure full access to important drugs for all, there are other R&D or innovation models too. Unfortunately, none of those appears to be financially as lucrative to the innovator companies as the one that they are currently following, thus creating a challenging logjam in the inclusive process of drug innovation.

Are Pharmaceutical R&D expenses overstated?

Some experts in this area argue that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are overstated, as the real costs are much less.

An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicated that the total cost from the discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in the year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 this figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a large pharmaceutical industry association of the United States, though with dubious credibility as considered by many.

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

▪ Tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D

▪ Tax write-offs that amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40 percent of the R&D cost

▪ Cost of basic research should not have been included as those are mostly undertaken by public funded universities or laboratories

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

“High R&D costs have been the industry’s excuses for charging high prices”:

In line with this deliberation, in the same article the authors reinforce the above point, as follows:

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

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

Should Pharmaceutical R&D move away from the traditional model?

Echoing philosopher Thomas Pogge’s submission, another critical point to ponder today is:

Should the pharmaceutical R&D now move away from its traditional comfort zone of expensive one company initiative to a much less charted frontier of sharing drug discovery involving many players?

If this overall collaborative approach gains broad acceptance and then momentum sooner, with active participation of all concerned, it could lead to substantial increase in R&D productivity at a much lesser expenditure, eliminating wastage by reducing the cost of failures significantly, thus benefiting the patients community at large.

Choosing the right pathway in this direction is more important today than ever before, as the R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, keeps going south and that too at a faster pace.

Making drug innovation sustainable:

Besides Thomas Pogge’s model with ‘Health Impact Fund’ as stated above, there are other interesting drug R&D models too. In this article, I shall focus on two examples:

Example I:

A July 2010 study of Frost & Sullivan reports: “Open source innovation increasingly being used to promote innovation in the drug discovery process and boost bottom-line”.

The concept underscores the urgent need for the global pharmaceutical companies to respond to the challenges of high cost and low productivity in their respective R&D initiatives, in general.

The ‘Open Innovation’ model assumes even greater importance today, as we have noted above, to avoid huge costs of R&D failures, which are eventually passed on to the patients again through the drug pricing mechanism.

‘Open Innovation’ model, as they proposed, will be most appropriate to even promote highly innovative approaches in the drug discovery process bringing many brilliant scientific minds together from across the world.

The key objective of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals is, therefore, to encourage drug discovery initiatives at a much lesser cost, especially for non-infectious chronic diseases or the dreaded ailments like Cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis, including many neglected diseases of the developing countries, making innovative drugs affordable even to the marginalized section of the society.

Android smart phones with huge commercial success are excellent examples of ‘Open Source Innovation’. So, why not replicate the same successful model of inclusive innovation in the pharmaceutical industry too?

Example II - “Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)” initiative:

This laudable initiative has come to the fore recently in he arena of collaborative R&D, where 10 big global pharma majors reportedly decided in February 2014 to team up with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States in a ‘game changing’ initiative to identify disease-related molecules and biological processes that could lead to future medicines.

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

“A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain”:

As if to reinforce the concept, a recent HBR Article titled “A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain” also highlighted, “Open innovation projects (where organizations facing tricky problems invite outsiders to take a crack at solving them) always present cognitive challenges, of course. But they also force new, boundary-spanning human interactions and fresh perspective taking. They require people to reach out to other people, and thus foster social interaction.” This articulation further reinforces the relevance of a new, contemporary and inclusive drug innovation model for greater patient access.

Conclusion:

Taking these points into perspective, I reckon, there is a dire need to make the process of offering innovative drugs at affordable prices to all patients absolutely robust and sustainable as we move on.

Philosopher Thomas Pogge, in his above video clipping, has also enunciated very clearly that all concerned must ensure that medications get to those who need them the most. He has also shown a win-win pathway in form of creation of a “Health Impact Fund’ to effectively address this issue. There are other inclusive, sustainable and cost effective R&D models too, such as Open Innovation and Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP), to choose from.

That said, a paradigm shift in the drug innovation model can materialize only when there will be a desire to step into the uncharted frontier, coming out of the comfort zone of much familiar independent money spinning silos of drug innovation. Dove tailing business excellence with the health interest of all patients, dispassionately, would then be the name of the game.

Bringing this transformation sooner is extremely important, as drug innovation would continue to remain as critical as access to important medicines for all, in perpetuity.

However, to maintain proper checks and balances between drug innovation and access to medicines for all, the value of an innovative drug should always be ascertained by its differential ‘Health Impact’ on patients over equivalent available generics in that disease area and NOT by how much money, including the cost of R&D failures, goes behind bringing such drugs to the market, solely driven by commercial considerations.

By: Tapan J. Ray

A Potential Game Changer For Pharma R&D

Posted on February 10, 2014 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

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

A new PPP initiative in pharma research:

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

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

Not the first of its kind:

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

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

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

Challenges in going solo:

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

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

Long desired OSDD model:

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

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

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

Commendable initiative in the uncharted frontier:

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

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

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

Participating companies:

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

Some key non-participants:

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

AMP project and cost:

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism:

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

Another new collaborative approach:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Open

Unleashing Pharma’s New Potential In Changing Market Dynamics

Awaiting The Two To Tango: Pharma Innovation And Public Health Interest

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process

New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective

A Potential Game Changer For Pharma R&D