Tag Archives: Patent

Big Pharma Fails Avoiding Drug Price ‘Control’? Even In The US? Why?

Posted on by
Reply

It ultimately happened – even in the United States, as the US President signed a bill on August 16, 2022 that aims to reduce healthcare costs, alongside fighting climate change, besides raising taxes on the rich. This new law was enacted, despite powerful lobbying and the vehement opposition of big pharma associations and that too in their home turf.

According to the Fierce Pharma report of the same day, since the current US President moved into the White House in 2020, the drug industry left no stone unturned battling to preserve pricing status-quo. It further added, the ‘pharmaceutical industry, including, PhRMA, its allies, and the nation’s largest pharmaceutical firms’ have spent more than $205 million in multi-media ads opposing ‘Medicare price negotiations’ and lobbying against efforts to lower drug prices for consumers.’

No wonder, when the bill was just introduced to the US lawmakers, big pharma’s disappointment on the bill was palpable. This gets well-captured in what the AbbVie CEO pointed out at that time. He said, ‘the legislation would force manufacturers to accept the government’s proposed price or face a harsh tax on their revenues from a given product.’ He also said: “So, it’s not a negotiation,” as stated in the bill. He further opined in his conference call: “We should just call it what it is. It’s price controls,’ which is what the lawmakers are ‘basically putting in place, if the language stays the same,’ the AbbVie chief added.

Capturing this new development in the United States, at least, in the recent past - Fierce Pharma in its August 08, 2022, issue commented: “The seemingly unstoppable pharma lobbying force has lost its charm. With the passage of a new bill, the U.S. Senate is opening the door to major drug pricing reform, leaving the drug industry licking its wounds.”

In the Eldorado of the global drug industry, this is indeed an unprecedented initiative to significantly reduce costs of many important drugs and reduce patients’ out of pocket expenses. Consequently, it has created so much of hullabaloo, across the world, for various reasons. In this article, I shall track this emerging scenario along with the message that it sends across the globe, and its possible impact on new drug innovation to meet unmet needs of patients. In India, one such area could be revisiting the price negotiation proposal for patented drugs, a government initiative that failed to take off earlier.

Would lowering prices stifle new drug innovation?

The apprehension, I reckon, that big pharma will continue to play with - price control will stifle new product innovation – adversely impacting patient interest. Notably, to many industry experts, this argument doesn’t just lack robustness, seems more a conjecture rather than the outcome of any peer- reviewed research study findings. On ewthe contrary, several highly credible and independent studies prove otherwise. Thus, let me put hereunder:

  • One – what big pharma directly and through their powerful industry associations or some financially sponsored studies are saying
  • And – what the top experts concluded from their independent analysis in this regard, as published in the globally acclaimed journals.

I leave it to my readers to evaluate the credibility of each to form their views.

Drug industry arguments supported by recent studies:

The findings of a study conducted recently, with the financial support of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), Amgen, Pfizer, Alexion, AbbVie, Genentech, and Bristol Myers Squibb, were released by PhRMA on November 23, 2021. The study was conducted by Vital Transformation. The key findings of this study highlighted: ‘Every 10% drop in the price of medicines in price-controlled EU markets was associated with a:

  • 14% decrease in total VC funding (10% early stage and 17% late stage)
  • 7% decrease in biotech patents
  • 9% decrease in biotech start-up funding relative to the US
  • An 8% increase in the delay of access to medicines.

It concluded: ‘Drug pricing controls implemented in the US would likely have an even greater impact on Biopharma KPIs given its global leadership in investment and innovation.’

Independent expert studies, published in highly reputed journals:

Around the same time as the above report, an independent study published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on October 01, 2021, found exactly the opposite. It categorically stated: ‘The U.S. can lower drug prices without sacrificing innovation.’

The paper summed up: ‘With Congress considering legislation to allow Medicare to use its bargaining power to negotiate lower drug prices, large pharmaceutical companies are once again waging a campaign that contends that doing so would seriously harm the development of breakthrough drugs. This is not true. Smaller companies now account for the lion’s share of such breakthroughs. The key to supporting drug innovation is to increase NIH funding of the efforts that give rise to these new companies, cut the costs, and accelerate the speed of clinical trials, and reform patent law.’

Drug pricing in the Indian context:

Prices of, especially, new drugs and the overall cost of healthcare are two major concerns – more in the developing countries like India. Responding to this need drug price control for pre-defined essential medicines are already in place in the country. More recent studies further vindicate the relevance of such regulation from the perspective of affordability of drugs for the poorer section of the society, and where out of pocket expenses are very high.

Let me quote one such paper, published on June 04, 2022, which received no outside financial support from this study, where the researchers concluded: ‘With induced demand and an inadequate competitive environment, the pharmaceutical industry fails to reduce prices. Supply-chain trade margins are very high. Hence, government intervention through price control of essential and life-saving drugs is a necessity in India.’

In this context, another question that is being raised – are there other alternatives to expand access to high-priced life-saving drugs at an affordable cost to all those who need those most? The most common alternative that floats, encourage more competition for those drugs as soon as they go off patent. Let me examine what’s big pharma players are doing in that area.

Does Big Pharma encourage increasing competition to reduce drug prices?

Another way to reduce the price of an expensive product is encouraging competition to enable market forces bring down the price. An interesting article on breaking the rule of drug pricing by pharma companies was published in the Forbes magazine on June 29, 2022. I also wrote on June 10, 2013: ‘To scale-up access to health care, especially for the marginalized population of any country, greater access to affordable generic drugs will always remain fundamental, besides improving healthcare infrastructure and its delivery mechanism.’

Thus, there should be a robust mechanism, across the world, to facilitate quick entry of cheaper generic equivalents immediately after patent expiry of the original molecule. Increasing attempts of blocking entry of generics surreptitiously by vested interests, leaves no other alternative, but price control. This is imperative, ‘as without the availability of newer generics, unmet medical needs of the most vulnerable section of the society cannot be met effectively by any country, as I wrote there.

Attempts to game the system to minimize competition continue unabated:

Even after my article, this red flag is being raised for quite some time. It will be evident from another Harvard Business Review article titled, ‘How Pharma Companies Game the System to Keep Drugs Expensive,’ published in the on April 06, 2017. Acknowledging: ‘Drug development is risky and expensive, thanks to the long testing and approval process,’ the author concluded from their study – ‘But, increasingly, makers of branded drugs are using a variety of tactics to extend their exclusive rights,’ enabling them to maintain high drug prices for much longer time.

More recently, the above Forbes article of June 10, 2022 also highlighted, ‘even the most generous patent protections come to an end and companies must face the potential for generic competition. That’s when major drug manufacturers shift tactics from influencing policy to crushing the competition.’ There are several legal and semi-legal approaches that big pharma players adapt to game the system and maintain pricing monopoly. Let’s recap it with just three of these examples:

- ‘Patent Thicket: Delaying entry of lower price off-patent molecule through a Patent Thicket. This involves creation of ‘a dense web of overlapping intellectual property rights that a generic pharma company must hack its way through in order to actually commercialize new technology of a drug molecule,’ even after the original patent expires. For example, AbbVie’s Humira, the world’s best-selling drug for a long time. I also discussed this issue in my blog over three years ago – on April 22, 2019.

- ‘Pay-for-delay deals’:  I discussed this issue in this blog on June 19, 2013. Moreover, the above Forbes article of June 29, 2022, also underscored this tactic. It explained that this is a deal in which drug companies agree not to compete for a set amount of time to maintain high prices of their brand-name drugs. The article, published in Bloomberg Law on February 20, 2020, captures it nicely.

- Authorized generics: As many would know, law permits six months of exclusivity to the first generic version of an off-patent new molecule coming into the market. Interestingly, just before patent expiry of an innovative drug, several drug makers roll out their own generics to stifle competition. Although, they keep different names for the generic versions, but pricing remains almost similar. Such a practice obliviously delays the entry of cheaper generics, at least by six months.

In this scenario, the new drug prices continue racing north. Something was to be surely done – for patients’ sake, as many believe, at least, where it all started – the US.

New drug prices are highest in 2022:

As reported by Reuters on August 16, 2022:

  • Eight of 13 drugs launched in 2022 priced over $200,000 per year
  • Median annual price for new U.S. drugs this year is $257,000
  • Some drugmakers disclose less information on pricing

Despite this, as reported on August 15, 2022: ‘The main U.S. drug lobby has said it will push back against the legislation, which includes policies that drug makers have opposed for decades.’

Conclusion:

The significance of the above development in the US healthcare scenario, was aptly summed-up by the US House Speaker, as she said: “If you are sitting at your kitchen table and wonder how you’re going to pay the bills – your health care bills, your prescription drug bills – this bill is for you.” For the first time in the US – the champion of champions of free-drug pricing market, will negotiate the drug price with their manufacturers to become patient -centric.

The reverberations of this difficult decision, especially on new drug prices, are expected to prompt the need for price negotiation or price control, primarily for expanding access to new drugs for a larger number of patients. This deserves to be a focus area for the Government, including India. Moreover, the August 18, 2022, media report also suggests that the top court of India may now encourage the Government to investigate, report and take remedial action on drug industry malpractices.

Finally, it’s worth noting that over a decade ago, international media widely reported -  ‘India considering price controls for patented drugs.’ Its objective was to address the aggressive new drug pricing trend in the country. Accordingly, the price negotiation proposal for patented drugs was notified by the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) in 2007. The constituted Committee submitted a report, as well, on February 21, 2013. But it did not take off as on date. Many apprehend, this is due to intensive and ongoing lobbying by big pharma, just as what happened in the US. Nevertheless, the question that surfaces – will the above new drug law in the largest pharma market in the world encourage the DoP to revisit price negotiation for patented drugs - to make modern drugs affordable to a larger patient population in India – now?

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.

To Allay Customers’ New Apprehensions Pharma Needs A New Conversation

Posted on by
Reply

Since the beginning of 2020, witnessing the rapid spread of Covid pandemic with very high global fatality rate – virtually the entire global populations – directly or indirectly, have been looking up to the health care industry for help. This, of course, includes the drug industry – with high expectations of people on deliverables, blended with palpable apprehensions on what’s happening around.

Amid the wave after wave attack of Covid-19, many have realized that there will neither be any quick-fix or immediate solution to tame the virus. As India goes through the Covid 2.0 catastrophe, while waiting for Covid 3.0, a similar situation prevails in the country – with a sense of lurking fear for future uncertainties, slowly but steadily creeping in.

Thus, an unprecedented public expectation for speedy disentanglement of Covid-19 disruptions, confer a huge responsibility to all health care providers and entities, such as, the drug industry, which will be my key focus in this article. Just as any extraordinary situation calls for extraordinary initiatives, this national tragedy also demands from pharma professionals to start a new and proactive conversation, driven by ‘out of-box’ thinking.

I shall explore in this article, in which areas pharma needs to roll out a new conversation to meet with new expectations of its stakeholders, formed during the Covid Pandemic. This engagement needs to go beyond drugs and vaccines, spanning across key contemporary developments that are bothering pharma customers. The aim should be to help customers visualize a brighter horizon based on scientific reasons, in not-too-distant future, such as:

  • How several pharma companies are taking novel initiatives, as a part of their corporate objectives to save lives and livelihoods, faster.
  • How pharma players are thinking ‘out of the box’ to allay Covid related public apprehensions and neutralizing gross misinformation on Covid cure – based on scientific reasons, often selectively deploying their staff members.

In this regard, let me start with a recent advice of a top pharma veteran of global repute, especially on political and public expectations of ‘the endpoint’ for successful prevention and effective treatment of Covid-19 infections.

When focus is on ‘the end point – the price point’, it needs pharma’s attention:

Former CEO of Novartis Joe Jimenez – Ex-Novartis CEO and CEO & Cofounder of Aditum Bio, advised the same in an interview with Reuters Events, published on April 06, 2021. Although this was against the backdrop of the United States, the same is applicable to India, as well.

There, Jimenez said: “And I think the political focus in the United States is too often on the end point, the price point, which definitely needs attention, but not enough on the whole pipeline. And that absolutely needs attention and can bring down the price point at the end of the day.”

“It’s the pharmaceutical industry’s responsibility to show how their drug can lower total costs through the system, whether it’s reducing hospitalization or whether it is reducing other health care costs and comorbidities that lead to ever increasing budgets. If the industry focuses on that, I think I think that’s going to result in better launch success in the next few years,” he added.

However, there is another endpoint – of equal importance, especially in the Covid-19 prevention and the treatment process.

The other end point is equally important, as there may be an extended need for Covid vaccines: 

Wider access to Covid drugs and vaccines is another political and general public’s ‘end point’ of expectations, besides price. As I wrote in my previous article, on October 02, 2021, India and South Africa had proposed at the WTO about an IP waiver for Covid-19 drugs and vaccines to resolve the issues of access and affordability for these products.

Thereafter, on May 05, 2021, the United States also issued a statement supporting the IP waiver for Covid-19 vaccines at the WTO, in its ‘service of ending this pandemic.’ As reported on May 13, 2021, even China now backs the drugs and vaccine IP waiver at the WTO.

Patent waiver for Covid drugs and vaccines make sense for the coming years, especially, in view of the reports that ‘Pfizer, Regeneron CEOs see extended need for COVID-19 vaccines, treatments as pandemic enters the next phase.’ Adding that the data stressed a “need” for re-vaccinations, the Pfizer CEO said, while protection remains high for those six months, it does “go down by time.” Thus, the need for Covid vaccine may continue to remain as important as of date, to prevent the pandemic over, at least, a couple of years, if not beyond.

That apart, some interesting developments followed soon – coincidentally or otherwise.

Meanwhile, some pharma companies responded with laudable initiatives: 

Presumably, for wider availability and affordability of Covid drugs and vaccines, several pharma players alone or in association with governments, took some laudable initiatives. A few examples are, as follows:

  • On May 10, 2021, BioNTech, which has partnered with Pfizer to produce its COVID-19 vaccine, said it plans to set up a new manufacturing site in Singapore, with a capacity to produce several hundred million doses of mRNA-based vaccine.
  • As reported on the same day, as above, Eli Lilly promised to supply India with thousands of tablets of baricitinib for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. It also pledged to sign a royalty-free, non-exclusive voluntary licensing agreements with Cipla, Lupin and Sun Pharma—to expand baricitinib’s availability in the country. Notably, in this month itself, the DCGI has authorized baricitinib plus remdesivir combo for emergency use of ‘hospitalized patients requiring supplemental oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).’ Baricitinib has also faced a shortage of during the Covid 2.0 surge.
  • As per reports of May 12, 2021: ‘The US is looking at joint production of Johnson and Johnson’s Covid vaccine in India and ways to help manufacturers like Serum Institute of India (SII) to boost production,’

Pharma’s new role to allay public apprehensions in many Covid related areas:

In this complex scenario, various public apprehensions on Covid vaccines and drugs, need to be explained with scientific evidence – in a common man’s language. These include frequent changes in the dosage interval between two doses of some vaccines, whereas for other vaccines there isn’t any change in this area. Or why in India even within a group of fully vaccinated individuals, wearing masks or maintaining social distancing norms are necessary, when these requirements have been relaxed for fully vaccinated people in the United States. Or, when reports like: ‘Covid Cases Double In World’s Most-Vaccinated Nation, Raising Concerns,’ add fuel to the fire of public apprehensions in this regard.

Drug companies, especially those who are engaged in the global battle against Covid-19 – in their research lab, product development process, including clinical trials, can play an additional stellar role in this area, too. With ‘out of the box ideas’ for Covid related public engagement, they can scientifically respond to all public apprehensions with scientific reasons, in a simple language, on what is happening around most people, nowadays. Selective deployment of their own staff members can also make the initiative more meaningful.

This conversation may also include, science-based response to some bizarre claims of ‘Covid cure’ – from religious leaders having significant followers, and even by Union Ministers, without hurting their feelings or sentiments. These ‘advices’ were widely circulated by the mainstream global and local media, including the Wall Street Journal.

For example, one such report said: The president of a century-old religious organization declared that “consuming cow urine and cow dung will stop the effect of infectious coronavirus.” The swami added that a “person who chants ‘om namah shivay’ and applies cow dung” on his body “will be saved.” However, it was also reported that ‘Indian doctors warn against cow dung as Covid cure.’ Similar advice in different forms, even by elected politicians, keeps misguiding many unsuspected members of the public.

Conclusion:

A series of Covid related contemporary needs and apprehensions, besides the traditional ones are surfacing. These are to be mitigated, on an ongoing basis. Pharma players – individually and collectively, instead of being always reactive, may wish to volunteer to proactively address these issues to help people move in the right direction.

As Covid appears to be a medium to long-haul battle – unlike most other pandemics, pharma companies need to think ‘out of the box’ to create innovative – new – and proactive conversation models in this space. In turn, the initiatives will help them win long-term trust and loyalty of customers – that will always remain as invaluable assets, fueling sustainable growth in business.

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.

 

Impact of Covid Vaccines’ Possible IP Waiver In India

Posted on by
Reply

Just when Covid 2.0 rages in India with almost 4,000 people died in just 24 hours, scientists warn that Covid 3.0, and further waves are now ‘inevitable, reported Reuters on May 06, 2021. With hospitals running short of beds and oxygen during the onslaught of Covid 2.0, the World Health Organization (WHO) highlighted, ‘India accounted for nearly half the coronavirus cases reported worldwide last week, and a quarter of the deaths.’

The report revealed some more heartrending details: ‘Many people have died in ambulances and car parks waiting for a bed or oxygen, while morgues and crematoriums struggle to deal with a seemingly unstoppable flow of bodies.’

No visible overall improvements with ‘here and now decisions’ or maybe the lack of it, of the National Covid Management Team, is perceptible, just yet. It’s also a matter of further concern that unlike what happened during Covid 1.0, the second wave of the virus, reportedly, ‘started hitting even young adults hard – leaving countless children to fend for themselves.’

Ironically, alongside a rapid surge in infections, India witnesses a sharp decline in Covid vaccination numbers though more people are eligible. The key reasons being supply chain related problems, despite India being one of the largest vaccine producers, globally. In my last article  published in this blog, I broached on finding a possible exit to this covid 2.0 maze in India. However, this article will explore some unprecedented developments of the last week in this area. To give a perspective, let me start by exploring whether the people responsible for Covid Governance in India, grossly misjudged the situation, claiming the ‘endgame’ of Covid-19, too soon.

‘India announced its triumph over Covid-19 early’:

A third Covid-19 wave is inevitable, but the timing could not be predicted, said India’s principal scientific advisor on May 05, 2021. Intriguingly, less than two months back, the national Government announced its triumph over Covid-19. On March 08, 2021, as Covid vaccination process for senior citizens and people above 45 years with comorbidities had just commenced, the Union Health Minister claimed, ‘India is in the endgame of the novel coronavirus pandemic.’ Just about a couple of months later, it sounded akin to a note of hubris for many, which prevailed, by and large, across the nation.

Acknowledging the same, on May 04, 2021, even Uday Kotak, MD&CEO Kotak Mahindra Bank and President CII commented, ‘India announced triumph over Covid-19 early’. He further urged: “We have to do whatever it takes to save lives first, even as we battle for livelihoods. And if our healthcare capacity is currently going through its challenges, we must be ready to curtail non-essential economic activities.” The latest editorial from ‘The Lancet’ also highlighted the same.

India’s Covid 2.0 – “A self-inflicted national catastrophe” – The Lancet 

Yes. The editorial of the latest – May 08, 2021 issue of The Lancet, also reiterated so. It emphasized, ignoring warnings about the risks of super spreader events, the government allowed congregations of millions of people from across India in religious festivals, along with huge political rallies with utter disregard to Covid appropriate behavior. ‘The message that COVID-19 was essentially over also slowed the start of India’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign, which has vaccinated less than 2% of the population.’ India’s national vaccination plan soon fell apart with the government abruptly expanded vaccination to all 18 years, draining supplies, ‘and creating mass confusion and a market for vaccine doses in which states and hospital systems competed.’

The IHME estimates a staggering 1 million deaths from COVID-19 in India by Aug 01, 2021. ‘If that outcome were to happen, Modi’s Government would be responsible for presiding over a self-inflicted national catastrophe. India squandered its early successes in controlling COVID-19. Until April, the government’s COVID-19 task force had not met in months,’ The Lancet editorial revealed.

Besides, India also misjudged the complexities involved in procurement, distribution and for speedy inoculation of affordable Covid vaccines, at least, to its entire adult population. But, before delving into that area, let me highlight an interesting mismatch.

India’s vaccine shortage when Pfizer logs a record vaccine turnover during pandemic:

Two contrasting scenario surfaces – as the world is reeling under unprecedented disruptions caused by successive waves of Covid-19. Witnessing India’s unparalleled healthcare tragedy in Covid 2.0, the W.H.O director general said: “The situation in India is beyond heartbreaking.” Outlining the reason for the same a separate report commented: A ‘complete collapse’ of preventive health: How India’s 2nd COVID wave exploded.

Concomitantly, one reads news items, which bring out, ‘Pfizer eyes $26B in COVID-19 vaccine sales for the year, with $3.5B already in the bag.’ Notably, most vaccine companies received huge public funding much before Covid vaccines were rolled out. For example, ‘The New York Times’ article of July 22, 2020 came with a headline: ‘Pfizer Gets $1.95 Billion to Produce Coronavirus Vaccine by Year’s End.’

The Scientific American also reported on November 18, 2020, ‘For Billion-Dollar COVID Vaccines, Basic Government-Funded Science Laid the Groundwork.’ It added: ‘Much of the pioneering work on mRNA vaccines was done with government money, though drugmakers could walk away with big profits.’ That’s exactly, I reckon, is the reality today.

Similarly, Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine generated $1.73 billion in revenue during the first quarter, as compared to $3.5 billion of Pfizer’s Covid vaccine in the same quarter. Moderna now predicts its vaccine will generate $19.2 billion by year’s end. Interestingly, through its COVID-19 vaccine partnership with the U.S. government, Moderna also received nearly $1 billion in research aid. The Company is now joining a list of other vaccine players to take a supply order from the federal government.

By the same token, Serum Institute of India (SII) – the contract manufacturer of Covishield, developed and owned by Oxford University and AstraZeneca has also received initial advance funding from the governments, prior to its manufacturing.

Was India’s ‘Vaccine Maitri’ a pragmatic step?

Today, India is one such country facing the brunt of Covid vaccine shortage alongside arriving at an affordable price per dose of the same – a part of which is due to ‘unrealistic’ planning, as many experts believe.

For example, on January 20, the Indian government launched Vaccine Maitri – an ambitious program to export the two Indian-made shots – Covishield and Covaxin – to the world. On that exact date, India counted 14,112 fresh cases of Covid-19. Going by a report of May 01, 2021: ‘According to the government’s own submission before the Parliament, more shots were sent out of the country than administered to Indians as of mid-March.’ Many, therefore, wonder, whether this was a pragmatic decision that helped save lives of Indians during Covid pandemic.

An unprecedented development on vaccine IP waiver:

This is regarding IP waivers for Covid vaccines. In my last article, I wrote about it, stating, on October 02, 2021, India and South Africa had proposed at the WTO about an IP waiver for Covid-19 drugs and vaccines to resolve the issues of access and affordability for these products. It was also widely reported: ‘Richer members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) blocked a push by over 80 developing countries to waive patent rights in an effort to boost production of COVID-19 vaccines for poor nations.’

However, on May 05, 2021, a statement of the U.S. Trade Representative said, ‘as the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic call for extraordinary measures, in its service of ending this pandemic the US also supports the IP waiver for Covid-19 vaccines, although the US administration supports IP protections generally. As expected, Big Pharma lobby groups, including PhRMA, reportedly, have strongly criticized the move.

Let me hasten to add, there is, at least, one exception in this area. Months ago, on October 8, 2020, Moderna said, ‘it won’t enforce its vaccine patents against other companies during the pandemic.’ Without specifying any names, the Company revealed, ‘other Covid-19 vaccines in development might already be using Moderna-patented technology.

The WTO process is expected to begin now, but how long will it take?

As the Reuters report dated May 06, 2021 indicated – with the U.S. backing a proposed waiver of Covid-19 vaccine IP rights, the next stop is for the World Trade Organization to hammer out a deal – a process that could take months. “At a minimum, it’s going to be a month or two,” said a former Trump White House trade official who previously worked at the U.S. trade mission to the WTO in Geneva. The waiver, if happens, could also be significantly narrower in scope and shorter in duration than the one initially proposed by India and South Africa.

The relevance of IP waiver:

Currently, only drug companies which own patents or their authorized manufacturers like SII can produce Covid vaccines. A global decision on patent waiver may encourage the patentees to share the formula and manufacturing technology, instead of reverse engineering, as is done for off-patent small molecules and some biotech drugs.  All companies with requisite resources may legally manufacture Covid vaccines, in that situation, leading to cheaper, and significantly more quantity of generic versions of Covid vaccines. This may help overcoming vaccine shortages, making the vaccines affordable, as well.

Some counter arguments and response:

As I wrote in my last article, the following three critical questions may arise in that scenario:

  • Will IP waiver help solve the immediate issues of vaccine shortages?
  • Can Covid vaccines be reverse engineered by domestic pharma industry without inventors sharing ‘Know-How’?
  • If yes, how long can it take?

The answer to the first question is – it may not help resolve the immediate crisis. But, for a medium to long term solution, there will be an emphatic yes, as Covid-19 fight is expected to be a long-haul one, as experts caution about subsequent waves of rapidly mutating new Coronavirus.

Moreover, Pfizer – BioNTech vaccine took less than a year from ‘mind to market,’ with support from all concerned. This is evident from Pfizer’s Press Release for the launch of Covid vaccine in the United States last year, on December 11, 2020. Thus, an efficient reverse engineering may also take that much time to respond to medium and long-term issues with Covid vaccines, especially in India.

Subsequent Covid-19 waves could be triggered by unpredictable compliance to Covid appropriate behavior of people. W.H.O has also warned: “When personal protective measures are being relaxed, when there are mass gatherings, when there are more contagious variants and the vaccination coverage is still low this can create a perfect storm in any country,”

Conclusion:

‘The pandemic is not a competition between companies and will not end without more-equal distribution of coronavirus vaccines,’ wrote Nature on March 30, 2021. It suggested: ‘It’s time to consider a patent reprieve for COVID vaccines.’

The world needs around 11 billion doses of Coronavirus vaccines to immunize 70% of the global population – assuming two doses per person. Interestingly, around 6 billion doses are meant for high- and upper-middle-income countries, against advance orders. Poorer nations, accounting for 80% of the global population, so far, have access to less than one-third of the available vaccines. ‘Unless manufacturing and supply can be distributed more evenly, researchers forecast that it will be at least another two years before a significant proportion of people in the lowest-income countries are vaccinated’, the paper concluded.

In this situation, I reckon, a temporary IP waiver would help in accelerating the end of the pandemic. It may not help immediately, but certainly in the foreseeable future, as discussed above. It may also call for an efficient and well thought out ‘Hub and Spoke’ distribution model. Simultaneously, of course, similar systems for raw and ancillary materials for vaccine production need to put in place to avoid intermittent shortages. 

As reported on May 08, 2021, India registered a record 4,187 Covid death with 4.01 Lakh new cases, in 24 hours. Capturing the depth of the Indian crisis, ‘India Today’ is coming out with a cover page article in its May 17 issue, with the headline – ‘Covid 2.0 – The Failed State.’ Another article terms India as the ‘Flailing state in Covid storm.’

As I reasoned above, if this unprecedented step of IP waiver for Covid vaccines is finally taken by the WTO, it will significantly help India – along with the world – may not be immediately, but certainly in the foreseeable future. Only adverse impact that the decision could possibly make, is curbing Big Pharma’s unprecedented profit on Covid vaccines, and that too, during a deadly global pandemic.

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.

 

Covid Prompts Pharma To Move Away From Competition Driven Business Model

Posted on by
Reply

As deliberated in my just previous article in this blog, Covid has been a watershed in several areas of pharma business. One such key area is its competition driven strategic business model. It aims to deliver significant value for a longer time than the competition, protected by a patent thicket driven TINA factor – and only for those who can afford such patented drugs. It didn’t matter, if a vast majority of patients are denied access to these medicines, with a dangerous pricing trend acting as an insurmountable barrier. Flying solo has been the motto of most players in this ball game, to delight the stock markets.

Interestingly, Covid pandemic seems to be changing this model. Pharma industry, by and large, is now trying to demonstrate its core value for the society – moving away from displaying competition driven one-upmanship. In this article, I shall deliberate on this area.

Covid poses both – a humongous challenge and a great opportunity:

As the article, published in the MIT Sloan Management Review on April 16, 2020 highlights: ‘The COVID-19 pandemic may well prove to be the biggest challenge for humankind since World War II.’ The same holds good for the pharma industry, as well. The drug companies are now expected by all, to play a pivotal role in the fight against the pandemic ‘that is bringing health care systems to their knees and sending shock waves through economies across the globe.’

This is generally because, pharma industry possesses wherewithal to develop effective drugs and vaccines to combat this health crisis – if not alone, but certainly collectively. It also offers a great opportunity for pharma to ‘walk the talk,’ by demonstrating upfront that meeting all patients’ unmet needs lie at the core of the pharma business. As I quoted a global CEO in one of my articles articulating, this crisis also comes as ‘a Shot at Redemption in Pharma Industry.’

Thus, if the industry reacts quickly and responsibly, it may have the chance to also redeem a reputation that’s been tarnished for years. Some of these instances are, illegal marketing practices, corruption scandals, and obscene pricing of vital drugs, the MIT Sloan article underscored. Flying solo in this situation may not be just enough, if not foolhardy.

Flying solo in this situation may not be enough:

Taking this initiative won’t be a piece of cake, either, if pharma companies prefer to do it alone during this unprecedented health crisis.  The drug players will need to be willing and able to successfully collaborate with other players in the race to develop treatments and vaccines. Otherwise, their legitimacy will be fundamentally questioned, especially when the entire world is running against time.

The rationale of two top drug companies entering into collaborative arrangements is obvious – the realization that pooling of all resources together is the best way of delivering effective Covid related solutions to the society at the shortest possible time. The good news is, pharma has already taken the first step in this direction, even when some of them are competitors, in several areas – moving away from their competition driven business models, as of now.

Once strange bedfellows – now partners:

The article published in the Bloomberg Law on June 05, 2020 very aptly observed: ‘The race to address the pandemic has brought together strange bedfellows as big-name companies’ partner with their rivals.’ The Scientist also wrote on July 13, 2020: ‘The urgent need for tests and therapeutics has brought companies together and pushed researchers to work at breakneck speeds.’

One can find this happening on the  ground now, as some major pharma and biotech companies, including Eli Lilly, Novartis, Gilead, and AstraZeneca, formed a group called COVID R&D to share resources and expertise to try to accelerate the development of effective therapies and vaccines for COVID-19. Besides, Roche Holding AG and Gilead Sciences Inc. have teamed up on trials for a drug combination to treat Covid-19.

There are several instances of such collaboration also in the Covid vaccine area. For example, GlaxoSmithKline plc struck a deal with Sanofi to produce 1 billion doses of a coronavirus vaccine booster. Besides, Pfizer from the US and BioNTech from Germany are joining hands to co-develop and distribute a potential Coronavirus vaccine, aimed at preventing COVID-19 infection.

It’s a reality today that Covid-19 has brought not just the strange bedfellows within pharma and biotech companies together. Academia and governments have also moved on to the same collaborative platforms, to save people from a deadly and super contagious infection, in the shortest possible time. We have witnessed this

in India, as well. For example, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and Aurobindo Pharma Limited have also announced a collaboration to develop vaccines to protect against SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19.

The rationale and some possible issues: 

Each of these players is bringing some expertise and intellectual property to the table. “As they work together, they’re going to create more, so you have the ‘yours,’ the ‘mine,’ and the ‘ours’ of collaboration,” as the Bloomberg Law points out. That said, any collaboration of such nature and scale will have its own share of legal issues, such as, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, revenue sharing models, and more.

The collaborators, in pursuit of saving mankind from Covid-19, are expected to find enough alternatives to resolve these glitches for a win-win outcome – not just for now, but much beyond – with the dawn of a new collaborative model. The rapid general acceptance of this collaborative model by more and more drug companies to meet unmet medical needs in many other areas – much faster, in all probability, will delight the health care consumers and also be appropriately rewarded.

Leveraging the collaborative business model beyond pandemic:

E that as it may, it still remains an open question to many, whether such collaborative model will be leveraged for an accelerated rate of drug, vaccine and diagnostics development beyond the pandemic.

The good news is, as The Scientist article reported, some pharma players are seriously pondering how to continue working in this new way – with the same sense of urgency and purpose, for other disease areas too. They believe, the lessons being learned with the collaborative models, may help expedite development of therapeutics in other serious conditions, such as, Alzheimer’s, intractable cancers and autoimmune diseases.

If and when it happens as a predominant business model, suffering patients and the society, in general, would lap it up and the innovators would be suitably rewarded. However, the paper also says, there are still some drug companies who prefer to continue working in a more insular fashion, as was happening in the old normal. But, experts also feel, that should not cause any worry, as long as majority prefers to continue following the collaborative models, in the new normal, as well.

Pharma would make a good profit from collaborative business models too:

For those who say that drug companies won’t make good profit from Covid drugs and vaccines, Pfizer CEO has an answer. Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s CEO, reportedly, has no patience for the argument that pharmaceutical companies should not be making a profit on the drugs and vaccines they introduce to fight Covid-19. This article highlights, at $19.50 per dose, the 1.3 billion doses of Pfizer BioNTech Covid vaccine that the Pfizer plans to make by the end of next year, could translate to nearly $13 billion in sales, after the company splits its revenue with its partner BioNTech. It is roughly the same as Pfizer’s all-time best-selling drug Lipitor sold in its best year.

Adding to it, another article on the same issue, published by Fierce Pharma on August 13, 2020, further reinforced the above expectation. It wrote, the longtime Evercore ISI pharma analyst haspredicted the total market for COVID-19 vaccines would be worth $100 billion in sales and $40 billion in post-tax profits. It assumed frontrunner Moderna would supply about 40 percent of the market, Novavax would take 20 percent and the other vaccine developers would split the rest. “One could look at the field under this base scenario and conclude it is reasonably valued in total,” the analyst concluded.

Nonetheless, there could still be several points that remained unanswered in this analysis. But the bottom line is, the collaborative model is not just profitable, it starts generating profit earlier and faster – virtually eliminating the cost of possible delays when a company flies solo.

Conclusion:

With a seemingly flattening curve, the Covid pandemic still continues, alarmingly. As of October 25, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 7,864,811 of Coronavirus cases with 118,567 deaths.

With this backdrop, COVID-19 has provided the pharma industry a new opportunity to demonstrate its true value to the society – not the self-serving ones. It’s now clear that no one can rule out, there won’t be a similar unprecedented health catastrophe in the future too. It may come in various different forms, or may even be from a rapid and complex mutation of the same lethal virus.

Moreover, such crisis may not come and go in just a few months – may even linger for a long time. In any case, these may again be equally disruptive – or even more disruptive to lives, livelihoods and the economic growth engine. In such a scenario, putting the brightest scientific brains of the world together will be critical, and adding top speed to the process being the essence to come out of the crisis with least possible damages.

Covid pandemic has also demonstrated that the competition-based model of the drug could be a serious retarding force in that endeavor. What will matter, is a well-structured collaborative model that can create a win-win situation – both for patients and the business. I reckon, it’s about time to move into this model to find most effective drugs and treatment solutions for many other unmet needs related to a host of intractable diseases, much sooner.

There could, of course, be some business issues with this model. But those can be resolved amicably for an all-weather greater success in business, along with protecting the society – for all. From this overall perspective, it appears, Covid pandemic now sends a strong signal to pharma companies to move away from predominantly competition driven business models, expanding more into collaborative ones.

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.

 

Setting A Cost Of Time That Patients May Gain From A New Therapy

Posted on by
Reply

Since quite some, an intense ongoing debate about setting a cost of time, often by a few months, that patients could possibly gain from a new therapy for complex diseases. The answer still remains elusive.  Meanwhile, newer therapies for treating cancer, such as, Kymriah, priced at US$ 475,000, alongside several rare diseases, hit the market with jaw-dropping prices. The latest being - Zolgensma of Novartis, carrying a price tag of US$ 2.12 million – the most expensive treatment ever. This trend assumes greater significance as Bio – claimed as the world’s largest trade association representing biotechnology companies, and related organizations, across the United States and in more than 30 other nations, also makes some interesting points in this area.

This article will dwell on the relevance of this important issue, both in today’s and also in the future perspective. It will try to explore, why pharma and biotech companies are not keen to use a ‘transparent multi-factorial life-value calculator’, especially for prolonging life or curing an incurable disease, with a high-priced novel therapy.

Emotional ads to justify the trend, against tough practical questions: 

A part of a sleek looking advertisement from Bio, depicting the power of new therapies to prolong life, carries a headline – ‘Time. The Currency of Life,” followed by three emotive lines and two equally emotive questions: “Another decade with a spouse. A few more years with your best friend. A rich, fuller life rather than one cut short. How do we place value on these?” It then asks: “What is more precious? What is more priceless?”

Turning this emotive question on its head to a rational one, an article published in the Stat News on February 25, 2016 questioned: “How much is an extra month of life worth?” It asked the drug makers to calculate the same. The same article also quoted a Yale University economist and practicing radiologist asking: “It’s all well and good to just say life is priceless, but the reality is we are paying for it.”

Emotive ads try to justify funding towards innovation for such drugs:

The same advertisement, as above, while trying to indirectly justify such exorbitant drug costs, used yet another emotive note in its playbook. It emphasized: “By continuing to fund the innovation pipeline that has served us so well, we will be able to reduce the costs associated with modern-day health care.”

Such claims are being scientifically challenged – head on, by many important studies. To illustrate this point, I shall quote the following two, both were published in the JAMA Network. The first one in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery and the next one in JAMA Oncology.

The first article is the ‘John Conley Lecture’, carrying a title, ‘Unintended Consequences of Expensive Cancer Therapeutics—The Pursuit of Marginal Indications and a Me-Too Mentality That Stifles Innovation and Creativity,’ appeared on December 2014. On innovative drugs of such genre, the paper concluded: “The use of expensive therapies with marginal benefits for their approved indications and for unproven indications is contributing to the rising cost of cancer care. We believe that expensive therapies are stifling progress, by:

  • Encouraging enormous expenditures of time, money, and resources on marginal therapeutic indications and
  • Promoting a me-too mentality that is stifling innovation and creativity.

The second article is an ‘original investigation, titled ‘Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated with New Cancer Medicines.’ It also underscored: ‘Although innovation in the oncology drug market has contributed to improvements in therapy, the magnitude and dimension of clinical benefits vary widely, and there may be reasons to doubt that claims of efficacy reflect real-world effectiveness exactly.’

Here again, the emotional appeal is being made by creating a ‘perfect World’ scenario. Whereas, scientific analysis of the innovative and high-priced drugs, reveals the reality for other stakeholders to take note of. Different pharma trade associations, although being a part of the same orchestrated effort, try differently to take the eyes off the humongous prices of new life-saving drugs. But many continue to believe that new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control.

90 percent Biopharma companies do not earn a profit – A bizarre claim?

As is well-known, besides justifying high drug prices by highlighting ‘high R&D cost,’ drug manufacturers often say, as the Bio ad campaign makes an eyebrow raising claim – “Of the approximately 1,200 Biopharma companies in the United States, more than 90 percent do not earn a profit.”

Citing the example of the US market where drug prices are very high, it justifies, the general focus on list prices of the drugs is misplaced. This is because, the ‘manufacturers provide billions of dollars in rebates and discounts on their innovative therapies annually, to federal, state and private payors, in addition to offering direct assistance through patient assistance programs.’ It further added, these discounts vary but can result into a significant total of as much as 50 percent or greater depending on the program.

Experts have challenged even this claim that the list prices do matter, even in the US, for many, including uninsured population and those with co-payment arrangement, which are not based on the discounted prices. Leaving aside America, what happens in those countries, such as India, where out-of-pocket expenses on health care are considered the highest in the world?

With new cancer drug prices going beyond control, the price of postponing death is growing:

That the new cancer drug prices have long gone beyond control, isn’t a new realization. A research paper, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on May 06, 2013, also noted emphatically: ‘Allowing the producer-dominated market to set drug prices has spiraled the cost of cancer drugs out of control.’  So did another 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective.

According to various studies, such as the one published in the JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, as quoted above, also found after studying over 70 of such new drugs that the median improvement in survival was around 2.1months. Some other reports indicated this number to be around 3.5 months on an average.

Interestingly, the 2015 study, published in the Journal of Economic Perspective found that ‘the price of postponing death is growing. In 2013, one extra year of life for cancer patients costs US$ 207,000, on average, nearly quadruple what it did in 1995.

Is it quality of life over the quantity of life, or vice versa?

The above findings may lead one to the critical question – what type of treatment choice would create the most desirable net impact on individual cancer patients? This evaluation should include all the three parameters – the extent of prolongation of the ‘Length of Life (LoL)’, the ‘Quality of Life (QoL)’ the patients experience during this period – and the additional drug cost that needs to be incurred.

It should ideally be up to patients whether they will choose quality over quantity of life or vice versa. To facilitate this process, an informed briefing by the doctor on the most likely scenario, vis-à-vis other available treatment alternatives, is expected to help individual cancer patient exercise the best affordable individual option.

This point was scientifically addressed in a research article - ‘Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review,’ published in the Journal of Psycho-Oncology on May 15, 2019. The study noted, ‘Patients with cancer face difficult decisions regarding treatment and also the possibility of trading the Quality of Life (QoL) for Length of Life (LoL).’ Little information is available on patients’ preferences in this regard, including ‘the personal costs they are prepared to exchange to extend their life.’

Another related question that also remains equally elusive, is the relationship between the cost of a medication and the amount of quality-time that it offers to patients. Quantifiable assessment of such nature could bring more transparency in drug pricing, especially for those that help treat life-threatening ailments, such as cancer.

Similar questions are raised on pricey therapy for rare diseases:

The cost of drugs for rare diseases is threatening the health care system – articulated an article, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on April 07, 2017. The paper stated, in December 2016, US-FDA announced the market approval of nusinersen (sold as “Spinraza”), an effective Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) treatment licensed to Biogen by Ionis Pharmaceuticals. SMA is considered the most common genetic cause of infant mortality.

As the author penned, “Patients and providers greeted the approval with near ecstasy, but the celebration was bittersweet. Five days after the FDA approved, the drug, Biogen announced each dose would cost US$ 125,000. Given that patients need six doses in the first year and three per year after that, it means the drug costs US$ 750,000 per patient in the first year and US$ 375,000 annually thereafter.”

A desperate father’s reaction for the price – and the economics behind it:

The HBR article captured the reaction of the father of an infant on this price, who is desperate to save the baby – in the following words – “Then there’s Will’s heartbreaking reaction, which I’m sure echoes the sentiments of many touched by SMA. – “The Biogen announcement of the cost of nusinersen floored me in every way possible,” he says. “Words cannot describe the sickening feeling I get when I think about it.” If this could be a father’s reaction in America, one can well imagine what happens in a similar situation to people in the developing world.

At that time, Zolgensma of Novartis, wearing a price tag of US$ 2.12 million for treatment of the same disease, was also shaping up for market launch. On this drug, the author of this HBR article who also happened to be a professor, vice chair of research, and chief of the Division of Neuromuscular Medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine, wrote: “A very promising gene therapy for SMA is on the horizon, which would require only one dose and potentially render nusinersen obsolete. Did such mercenary economics influence Biogen’s pricing decision? We may never know; drug companies are not required to justify their prices.” On the contrary, as many believe, the concerned global CEOs, reportedly, get a hefty financial reward, for the same.

Conclusion:

It is not difficult to understand either, that some drugs, especially for rare diseases, will be used for treating a smaller number of patients. Hence, the optimal economies of scale in manufacturing can’t be attained. At the same time, the cost of R&D of the therapy needs to be recouped along with a reasonable profit, for investment towards future drugs. This is in addition to market exclusivity the drug will enjoy through patent thicket.

Nevertheless, despite the existence of several methods of a human life value calculation, such as in the insurance industry the use of a transparent and drug industry specific, multi-factorial live-value calculator is still not in vogue. As the drug industry often highlights, the ‘value of human life is priceless’ – regardless of the costs of drugs. In this situation, many industry experts, academics and patient groups advocate that the ongoing uncontrolled pricing mechanism for such medicines should be brought under a leash. This could come in the form of a tough price negotiation’ before the drug marketing approval, as was promised by the Government, or putting in place a stringent price regulatory system.

Be that as it may, the bottom line is to understand and find an answer to: ‘Why Does Medicine Cost So Much?’ This issue was analyzed by the Time Magazine in its April 09, 2019 edition. Quoting Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, it emphasized: It all starts with the manufacturers. There are essentially no regulations governing how new drugs are priced – drug companies select a price what they “believe the market will bear.” Blockbuster first-in-class treatments, therefore, command a stratospheric price, like what happened with Gilead’s hepatitis medication – Sovaldi, way back in 2013. It was priced at US$ 1,000 a pill, or US $84,000 for the full course of treatment. From this perspective, although, setting a cost of time that patients may gain from a new therapy has a moral and ethical relevance – but actually, it doesn’t seem to be business-friendly in the drug industry.

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.

Spirit Behind Drug Patent Grant: Secondary Patents: Impact on Drug Access

Posted on by
Reply

For more effective treatment against existing diseases, besides combating new or a more complicated form of existing ailments with precision, drug innovation is absolutely necessary and on an ongoing basis. This makes innovative drugs so important for the population, globally.

Besides academia, the pharma industry has remained in the forefront of the search for new drugs, for so long. What makes this process so crucial is, cheaper generic drugs flow from the innovative drugs, post market exclusivity period, which together form the bedrock of the pharma industry’s business model. Consequently, a robust patent protection for the new molecular entities, not only enable the drug innovators to make a reasonably good profit, but also encourage them to keep this virtuous circle moving, faster.

Although, the drug patents are granted for 20 years, after obtaining marketing approval from the respective drug regulators, a time period - ranging between 7 and 12 years, is available to the company to realize its maximum commercial benefits. Thereafter, the patent expires, paving the way of market entry of cheaper generic equivalents to make the drug accessible to a larger population. This is the playbook, which deserves to be accepted and respected by all, both in the letter and spirit.

Currently, the narrative has started changing, apparently, repudiating the spirit behind the grant of new drug patents, especially with the entry of a number of expensive, large molecule biopharmaceutical drugs. After obtaining a fixed-term market exclusivity, more intricate legal measures are being taken to extend the fixed-term market monopoly for an unknown period, delaying market entry of cheaper biosimilar equivalents, post patent expiry, as long as possible.

In this milieu, India appears to be the only country in the world, where the country’s ‘Patents Act’ provides enough safeguard to blunt those legal tools, effectively, to protect patients’ health interest. Quite expectedly, this new narrative of the drug innovators is yielding the best return in the Eldorado of the pharma world – the Unites States. It is also no secret that US vehemently opposes several provisions of the Indian Patents Act 2005, under pressure from the most powerful pharma lobby group, as many believe.

Using the spirit behind drug patent protection as the backdrop, I shall dwell in this article, how this so precious spirit is gradually losing its basic purpose, especially for blockbuster biopharma drugs. Is the key intent behind sacrificing the spirit behind drug patent grant to keep their brands money spinners and big – even after expiry of original patent – as long as possible – at the cost of patients’ health interest?

Despite the original patent expiry, biggest biologic drugs remain big:

The fact that original patent expiries have done little to halt sales of some of the industry’s biggest products – mostly biologic drugs, was clearly elucidated in an  Evaluate Pharma article – “Biopharma’s biggest sellers – the oldies that just keep giving,” published on August 14, 2019. This gets vindicated, as we look at the ‘top ten pharma brands with biggest lifetime sales – from launch to 2018’, in the following Table I:

Product Company Launch year USD Billion
1. Lipitor Pfizer 1997 164.43
2 Humira AbbVie 2003 136.55
3. Rituxan Genentech/Biogen 1997 111.50
4. Enbrel Amgen 1998 108.16
5. Epogen Amgen 1988 107.90
6. Advair GSK 1998 104.20
7. Remicade Janssen 1998   98.00
8. Zantac GSK 1981   97.42
9. Plavix Sanofi/BMS 1998   90.63
10. Herceptin Genentech/Roche 1998   87.97

(Adapted from Evaluate Pharma data of August 14, 2019)

The point to take note of:

The point worth noting here, with the exception of Advair, Zantac, Lipitor and Plavix, all others – among the top ten brands, are biologic drugs. Moreover, what is most striking in the Table I, despite the expiry of the original patents, a large number of biologic brands were able to expand their sales, pretty impressively, for well over two decades. As we shall see later, this situation is expected to continue, at least, till 2024.  As the Evaluate Pharma article states, for various reasons, these multibillion dollar brands have been able to avoid the expected post patent expiry ‘onslaught from biosimilars in the key US market’, which is incidentally the most valuable pharma market in the world.

One of the key reasons that helps delaying cheaper biosimilar drug entry expanding patient access, is a crafty strategic measure adopted by these companies through the creation of a Patent Thicket with secondary patents. As I discussed in this Blog on April 22, 2019, this is a crafty way of ‘evergreening’ patent term beyond 20 years, legally. Whether such measures conform to the spirit of granting 20 years product patent, becomes a moral question, or an issue of probity for the concerned companies, at the most. Be that as it may, a concern over this situation has been raised in many countries, including the United States.

Barrier of secondary patents: 

Biosimilar drug developers continue facing multiple non-financial challenges, such as, scientific, regulatory, pricing. I have already discussed some of these barriers in this blog on July 31, 2017. Instead, I shall focus in this article, with greater detail, on the intricate and a well-woven net of secondary patents. However,before delving into this area, it will be worthwhile to have a quick recap on the basic differences between original patents and secondary patents.

According to WIPO, “Patents on active ingredients are referred to as primary patents. In later phases of the drug development, patents are filed on other aspects of active ingredients such as different dosage forms, formulations, production methods etc. These types of patents are referred to as secondary patents.”

Another excellent paper, authored by two distinguished researchers from Columbia University and LSE, makes some important points on this subject. It says, secondary patents have become increasingly important to the pharma industry, especially in the U.S. and Europe over the past three decades. The basic purpose of ‘taking out multiple patents on different aspects of a drug in order to cordon off competitors is now standard practice in the pharmaceutical industry.’ As the authors further said, this is primarily because: ‘Secondary patents can protect market shares by extending periods of exclusivity beyond the dates in which patent protection would otherwise lapse.’

Interestingly. devising patent strategies to extend periods of market exclusivity is generally considered in the industry, as a key component of ‘product life cycle management,’ – not by the marketing whiz kids, but by astute patent attorneys. Nevertheless, as the paper articulates, critics of this practice often use the more pejorative – evergreening, to describe it.

Examples of impact of secondary patents:

Many research papers suggest, besides scientific complexity in biosimilar drug development being a key reason for their delayed market entry, secondary patents are even tougher barriers for the same. This was brought to light a few years ago in a ‘Review Article’ – ‘The Economics of Biosimilars’, published in the September/October 2013 issue of American Health & Drug Benefits.

Some of the key points made on this issue include,AbbVie plan to defend Humira (adalimumab) with more than 200 secondary patents, Merck’s giving up its biosimilar project on Enbrel when Amgen got its expanded patent life. There are many other such instances.

Its effect would last longer: 

Experts believe, the effect of creating a strong secondary patent shield around blockbuster biologic would last much longer. As the above Evaluate Pharma article underscores: ‘This ability to fend off biosimilar competition is one of the reasons Humira is set to snatch Lipitor’s crown next year as the industry’s most successful drug.’

The Table II below that lists ‘top 10 pharma brands from their respective launch date, including estimated forecast till 2024’, vindicates its long-lasting impact:

Product Company Launch year USD Billion
1. Humira AbbVie 2003 240.05
2 Lipitor Pfizer 1997 180.19
3. Enbrel Amgen 1998 139.83
4. Rituxan Genentech/Biogen 1997 136.07
5. Revlimid Celgene 2008 123.64
6. Remicade Janssen 1998 117.20
7. Epogen Amgen 1988 115.87
8. Herceptin Genentech/Roche 1998 114.89
9. Avastin Genentech/Roche 2004 114.27
10. Advair GSK 1998 113.61

(Adapted from Evaluate Pharma data of August 14, 2019)

Although, Zantac and Plavix no longer feature in this table, one drug that leapfrogged much of the competition to become one of the industry’s biggest future bestsellers is Revlimid. The projected sales of the drug over the next six years will actually outstrip its sales to date. However, much of this is dependent on whether generic competition will arrive ahead of Revlimid’s 2022 patent expiry, the paper indicated.

Concern expressed even in the US for the delay in biosimilar market entry:

Many big spending countries on health care, such as the United States expected that timely biosimilar drug entry will help contain health expenditure significantly. However, the article published in the Fierce Pharma on August 29, 2019, raises an alarm, but with a hope for the future. It says: “It’s no secret biosimilars haven’t made a big dent in U.S. drug spending. Some experts have even said it’s time to give up on copycat biologic.”

This hope gets resonated with what, ‘the former US-FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb argues’. He feels, ‘It’s too soon for that’, while ‘calling on Congress to bolster the budding market.’ However, in my personal view, this will remain a difficult proposition to implement, as biologic drug players will continue using their relatively new, but powerful weapon of filing a number of complex ‘secondary patents.’ These will help extend the market exclusivity period of their respective brands, much beyond the original patent grant period, unless a counter legal measures are taken by the lawmakers of various countries, including the United States. But, India is an exception in this regard.

Indian patent law doesn’t encourage ‘secondary patents’:

The good news is, Indian Patent Act 2005, doesn’t encourage ‘secondary patent.’ This is because, section 3 (d) of the Indian Patent Act 2005 limits grant of ‘secondary pharmaceutical patents.’ An interesting study reported on February 08, 2018, discussed about 1,700 rejections for pharma patents at the IPO spanning over the last decade. But, there is a huge scope for improvement in this area.

Which is why, the not so good news is under-utilization of the same section 3.d by the Indian Patent Office (IPO), as are being voiced in many reports. One such paper of April 25, 2018 highlighted,72 per cent of pharma patent grants are secondary patents. These were granted for marginal improvements over previously known drugs for which primary patents exist. That said, despite such reported lapses, blocking of some crucial secondary patent grant has benefited a large number of patient population of India.

Blocking secondary patent grant has helped India immensely:

While US recognizes secondary patents, blocking secondary patent grant, especially for biologic drugs has helped Indian patients immensely, with expanded access to those medicines. This was also captured in the above study. Besides the classic case of Novartis losing its secondary patent challenge for Glivec in the Supreme Court of India in 2013, several other examples of secondary patent rejection are also available. This includes, among others, Glivec of Novartis and the world’s top selling drug for several years – Humira of AbbVie.Against a month’s therapy cost of ₹1,6o, ooo for Glivec in the US, its Indian biosimilar version costs for the same period ₹11,100. Similarly, while the treatment cost with Humira in the US is ₹85,000, the same with its biosimilar version in India is ₹ 13,500, as the above study finds.

Conclusion:

The core purpose of drug innovation, as widely touted by the R&D-based drug companies, is meeting the unmet needs of patients in the battles against diseases. Thus, drug innovation of this genre must not just be encouraged, but also be adequately protected and rewarded by granting product monopoly for a 20-year period from the date of the original patent grant. Curiously, piggybacking on this basic spirit behind the drug patent grant, pharma lobby groups are now vocal on their demand for giving similar treatment to secondary patents on various molecules. The tone of demand gets shriller when it comes to section 3. d of the Indian Patents Act, which doesn’t allow such ‘evergreening’ through secondary patents.

Thus, the key question that surfaces, while the original patent grant for innovative drugs help meeting unmet needs of some patients, whose unmet needs would a secondary patent grant meet, except making the concerned company richer? Further, for highly expensive biologic drugs, delayed market entry of cheaper biosimilars in that process, would deny their expanded access – failing to meet the unmet needs of scores of others.

Hopefully, India won’t give in to pressure of multinational pharma lobby groups, channeled through various powerful overseas government entities. At the same time, I hope, the government in power at the Eldorado of the pharma industry, will consider giving a fair chance of market entry to cheaper biosimilars, including those from India, to also grow their business globally, but in a win-win way.

The key objective of all stakeholders involved in this process, should be to uphold the basic spirit behind drug patent grant. It may even call for challenging the core intent behind secondary patent applications, the world over, that deny quicker market entry for cheaper biosimilars, sans heavy litigation expenses. This will help expand access to cheaper biologic medicines to all those who can’t afford those, otherwise.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

 

 

 

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

‘Patent Thicket’:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goes against patients’ health interest:

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

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

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

With section (3d) on the Indian Patents Act 2005 in place, the country is expected to protect itself from patent ‘evergreening’ through ‘incremental innovation.’ This section articulates:“For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

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

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

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

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

A fresh pressure from drug MNC on the DCGI:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray   

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

Is India A Success Story With Biosimilar Drugs?

Posted on by
Reply

How Indian generic companies are expanding, if not shifting their business focus on biosimilar and complex generic drugs, may be a current trend of general discourse – but the initiative is not a current one. This journey commenced decades ago with an eye on the future. In those days, Indian players were already dominating the global markets of small molecule generic drugs. Interestingly, it started much before the big global players decided to enter into this segment – especially post patent expiry of large molecule blockbuster drugs.

This strategy not just exhibits a sound business rationale, but also benefits patients with affordable access to biosimilar versions of high cost biologic drugs. In this article, I shall dwell on this subject, basically to understand whether India is a success story with large molecule biosimilar drugs, both in terms of drug development, and also in its commercial performance.

India’s journey began with the dawn of the new millennium:

About two decades back from now, some Indian pharma companies decided to step into an uncharted frontier of large molecule biosimilar drugs. According to the ‘Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI)’, in 2000 – the first biosimilar drug, duly approved by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), was launched in the country.  This was hepatitis B vaccine from Wockhardt – Biovac-B.

I hasten to add, in those years, there were no specific regulatory pathways for approval of large molecule biosimilar drugs in India. Thus, the same marketing approval guidelines as applicable to small molecule generic drugs, used to be followed by the DCGI for this purpose. Specific guidelines for biosimilar drugs were implemented on September 15, 2012, which was subsequently updated in August 2016. To date, around 70 large molecule biosimilar drugs, including biopharmaceuticals, have been introduced in India, as the GaBI list indicates.

It is equally important to note that well before any other countries, domestic pharma companies launched in India, AbbVie’s blockbuster Humira (adalimumab) and Roche’s breast cancer treatment Herceptin (trastuzumab). In this context, it is worth mentioning that US-FDA approved the first biosimilar product, Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), in March 2015.

Will India be a key driver for global biosimilar market growth?

According to the Grand View Research Report of July 2018, increasing focus on biosimilar product development in countries, such as India, China and South Korea, is a major growth driver of the global biosimilar market. As this report indicates, the global biosimilars market size was valued at USD 4.36 billion in 2016, which is expected to record a CAGR of 34.2 percent during 2018-25 period.

Europe has held the largest revenue market share due to a well-defined regulatory framework for biosimilars was in place there for quite some time, and was followed by Asia Pacific (AP), in 2016. Growing demand for less expensive therapeutic products and high prevalence of chronic diseases in the AP region are expected to contribute to the regional market growth – the report highlighted.

Further, the Report on ‘Country-wise biosimilar pipelines number in development worldwide 2017’ of Statista also indicated that as of October 2017, India has a pipeline of 257 biosimilar drugs, against 269 of China, 187 of the United States, 109 of South Korea, 97 of Russia and 57 of Switzerland. However, post 2009 – after biosimilar regulatory pathway was established in the United States, the country has gained significant momentum in this segment, presenting new opportunities and also some challenges to biosimilar players across the world.

Is Indian biosimilar market growth enough now?

An important point to ponder at this stage: Is Indian biosimilar market growth good enough as of now, as compared to its expected potential? Against the backdrop of India’s global success with generic drugs – right from the initial stages, the current biosimilar market growth is certainly not what it ought to be. Let me illustrate this point by drawing an example from theAssociated Chambers of Commerce of India’s October 2016 White Paper.

According to the Paper, biosimilars were worth USD 2.2 billion out of the USD 32 billion of the Indian pharmaceutical market, in 2016, and is expected to reach USD 40 billion by 2030. This represents a CAGR of 30 percent. A range of biologic patent expiry in the next few years could add further fuel to this growth.

A similar scenario prevails in the global market, as well. According to Energias Market Research report of August 2018, ‘the global biosimilar market is expected to grow significantly from USD 3,748 million in 2017 to USD 34,865 million in 2024, at a CAGR of 32.6 percent from 2018 to 2024.’

Many other reports also forecast that the future of biosimilar drugs would be dramatically different. For example, the ‘World Preview 2017, Outlook to 2022 Report’ of Evaluate Pharma estimated that the entry of biosimilars would erode the total sales of biologics by as much as 54 percent through 2022, in the global markets. It further elaborated that biologic sales may stand to lose up to USD 194 billion as several top blockbuster biologic drugs will go off-patent during this period.

Although, current growth rate of the biosimilar market isn’t at par with expectations, there is a reasonable possibility of its zooming north, both in India and the overseas markets, in the near future. However, I would put a few riders for this to happen, some of which are as follows:

Some uncertainties still exist:

I shall not discuss here the basic barriers that restrict entry of too many players in this segment, unlike small molecule generics. Some of which are – requisite scientific and regulatory expertise, alongside wherewithal to create a world class manufacturing facility a complex nature. Keeping those aside, there are some different types of uncertainties, which need to be successfully navigated to succeed with biosimilars. To get an idea of such unpredictability, let me cite a couple of examples, as hereunder:

1. Unforeseen patent challenges, manufacturing and regulatory issues:

  • Wherewithal to effectively navigate through any unexpected labyrinth of intricate patent challenges, which are very expensive and time-consuming. It may crop up even during the final stages of development, till drug marketing, especially in potentially high profit developed markets, like for biosimilars of Humira (AbbVie) in the United States or for Roche’s Herceptin and Avastin in India.
  • It is expensive, time consuming and risk-intensive to correct even a minor modification or unforeseen variation in the highly controlled manufacturing environment to maintain quality across the system, to ensure high product safety. For example, what happened to Biocon and Mylan with Herceptin Biosimilar. As the production volume goes up, the financial risk becomes greater.
  • There are reports that innovator companies may make access to supplies of reference products difficult, which are so vital for ‘comparability testing and clinical trials.’  This could delay the entire process of development of biosimilar drugs, inviting a cost and time-overrun.
  • Current regulatory requirements in various countries may not be exactly the same, involving significant additional expenditure for overseas market access.

2. User-perception of biosimilar drugs:

Studies on perception of biosimilar vis-à-vis originator’s biologic drugs have brought out that many prescribing physicians still believe that there can be differences between originator’s biologic medicine and their biosimilar equivalents. With drug safety being the major concern of patients, who trust their physician’s decision to start on or switch to a biosimilar, this dilemma gets often translated into doctors’ preferring the originator’s product to its biosimilar version. One such study was published in the September 2017 issue of Bio Drugs. Thus, the evolution of the uptake of biosimilars could also depend mainly on similar perception of physicians.

What happens if this perception continues?

Whereas, the W.H.O and drug regulators in different countries are quite clear about comparable safety and efficacy between the originator’s product and its biosimilar variety, some innovator companies’ position on biosimilar drug definition, could help creating a perception that both are not being quite the same, both in efficacy and safety.

To illustrate this point, let me reproduce below how a top ranked global pharma company - Amgen, defines biosimilar drugs, starting with a perspective of biologic medicines:

“Biologic medicines have led to significant advances in the treatment of patients with serious illnesses.These medicines are large, complex molecules that are difficult to manufacture because they are made in living cells grown in a laboratory. It is impossible for a different manufacturer to make an exact replica of a biologic medicine due to several factors, including the inherent complexity of biologics and the proprietary details of the manufacturing process for the original biologic medicine, often referred to as the reference product.It is because of this that copies of biological products are referred to as “biosimilars”; they are highly SIMILAR but not identical to the biologic upon which they are based.”

Could dissemination of the above concept through a mammoth sales and marketing machine to the target audience, lead to creating a better perception that the originators’ biologic drugs are better than their biosimilar genre?

Other realities:

Despite the availability of a wide array of biosimilar drugs, the prescription pattern of these molecules is still very modest, even in India. One of its reasons, as many believe, these are still not affordable to many, due to high out-of-pocket drug expenses in India.

Thus, where other biosimilars of the same category already exist, competitive domestic pricing would play a critical role for faster market penetration, as happens with small molecule generic drugs.

Another strategic approach to address cost aspect of the issue, is to explore possibilities of sharing the high cost and risks associated with biosimilar drug development, through collaborative arrangements with global drug companies. One good Indian example in this area is Biocon’s collaboration with Mylan.

Conclusion:

The question on whether Indian biosimilar market growth is good enough, assumes greater importance, specifically against the backdrop of domestic players’ engagement in this segment, since around last two decades. Apart from the important perception issue with biosimilars , these medicines are still not affordable to many in India, owing to high ‘out of pocket’ drug expenditure. Just focusing on the price difference between original biologic drugs and their biosimilars, it is unlikely to get this issue resolved. There should be enough competition even within biosimilars to drive down the price, as happened earlier with small molecule generics.

That said, with around 100 private biopharmaceutical companies associated with development, manufacturing and marketing of biosimilar drugs in India, the segment certainly offers a good opportunity for future growth. Over 70 such drugs, most of which are biosimilar versions of blockbuster biologic, are already in the market. Today, Indian companies are stepping out of the shores of India, expecting to make their presence felt in the global biosimilar markets, as they did with generic drugs.

The future projections of biosimilar drugs, both in the domestic and global markets are indeed very bullish. But to reap a rich harvest from expected future opportunities, Indian players would still require some more grounds to cover. Overall, in terms of biosimilar drug development since 2000, India indeed stands out as a success story, but a spectacular commercial success with biosimilars is yet to eventuate.

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.