Making New Cancer Drugs Cost-effective

Posted on April 17, 2017 by Tapan Ray

The prices of new cancer drugs are increasingly becoming unsustainable across the world, and more so in India. A sizable number of poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life’s savings for the treatment of this dreaded disease, is pushed towards extreme economic hardship. Their plight in India would continue to remain so, till Universal Health Care (UHC) comes into force, as enunciated in the National Health Policy 2017.

Thus, the delivery of affordable and equitable cancer care poses one of India’s greatest public health challenges. Public expenditure on cancer in India remains below US$ 10 per person, as compared with more than US$ 100 per person in high-income countries. The May 2014 paper, published in ‘The Lancet Oncology’, analyzed this concern in detail.

In this article, after giving a brief backdrop, I shall explore a possible alternative to make cancer treatment with new drugs affordable to many by scaling up this strategic option.

Cancer – the second leading cause of death:

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), cancer is the second leading cause of death globally and accounted for 8.8 million deaths in 2015. This works out to nearly 1 in 6 of all global deaths, with US$ 1.16 trillion being the estimated total annual economic cost of cancer in 2010. Lung, prostate, colorectal, stomach and liver cancer are the most common types of cancer in men, while breast, colorectal, lung, cervix and stomach cancer are the most common among women. To reduce significant disability, suffering and deaths caused by cancer worldwide, effective and affordable programs in early diagnosis, screening, treatment, and palliative care are needed. Treatment options may include surgery, medicines and/or radiotherapy – the report reiterates. In many instances, anti-cancer drugs are the mainstay treatment.

For the country, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) reported over 736, 000 people succumbing to the disease in 2016. This figure is expected to shoot up to 880,000 by 2020. ICMR estimated the total number of new cancer cases at around 1.45 million in 2016, and the same is likely to reach 1.73 million by 2020. The situation in this area, therefore, rather grim across the world, including India.

Cancer treatment cost in India is one of the highest in the world:

Anticancer drugs are generally expensive. As stated in a related article, published in the Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology on March 14, 2017, in the United States, a novel anticancer drug routinely costs more than US$ 100,000 per year of treatment. When adjusted for per capita spending power, these lifesaving medicines become most unaffordable in economically developing nations, such as India and China. Not only are their launch prices high and fast rising, but these also often escalate during the respective patent exclusivity period.

That in terms of the ability to pay for drugs, cancer drugs are most affordable in Australia and least affordable in India and China, was established in one of the largest research study presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Moreover, even in those cases where cancer could be detected early, about half the patients in India are compelled to skip the treatment for high drug cost, highlights another article.

Interestingly, the concerned drug manufacturers seldom, if at all, justify such astronomical drug prices and subsequent price increases well supported by some rational factors, such as, the extent of benefit patients are likely to derive, the novelty of the agents, or detailed spending on research and development, the above paper states.

The increasing trend of price escalation of cancer drugs harms many patients, often directly, through increased out-of-pocket expenses, which reduce levels of patient compliance, or drive thousands of cancer patients skipping the drug treatment, altogether. Consequently, it also harms the society by imposing cumulative price burdens on many patients that are unsustainable.

Despite high cost, annual global spending on anticancer drugs has already exceeded US$100 billion, and is predicted to reach US$150 billion by 2020. In India too, oncology is a leading therapeutic segment, which reached a turnover of Rs. 2,000 Crore (around US$ 320 million) in 2013 and is expected to grow to Rs. 3,831 crore (around US$ 615 million) by the end of 2017, according to a report of Frost and Sullivan.

The reason for high drug price:

The real reason for the high cost of cancer drugs, just as many other life-saving medicines, is quite challenging to fathom. Many attribute its reason to unsustainable R&D models of the global pharma companies, in general.

For example, “the spiraling cost of new drugs mandates a fundamentally different approach to keep lifesaving therapies affordable for cancer patients” – argued an article titled, “How Much Longer Will We Put Up With US$ 100,000 Cancer Drugs?”, published by Elsevier Inc. In the same context, another article titled “Making Cancer Treatment More Affordable”, published in the ‘Rare Disease Report’ on Feb 09, 2017, reiterated that the current R&D model needs to change, as the cost of many such treatments is higher than the cost of an average person’s house in the United States.

Nonetheless, the drug manufacturers answer this difficult question with ease and promptness, citing that the cost of innovation to bring these drugs through a complex research and development (R&D) process to the market, isn’t just very high, but is also increasing at a rapid pace.

Pharma R&D cost:

An analysis by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, published in the Journal of Health Economics in March, 2016 pegged the average cost to develop and gain marketing approval for a new drug at US$ 2.558 billion. It also said that the total cost of innovation of a new drug and bringing it to market, has increased more than double from US$ 1.22 billion in 2003 to US$ 2.6 billion in 2014. Although these numbers are being vehemently challenged in several credible journals and by the international media, many global pharma majors justify the high new drug prices

by highlighting that developing a new molecule takes an enormous amount of time of 12 to 14 years, lots of financial resources and huge efforts.

On the other hand, an article titled, “Does it really cost US$ 2.6 billion to develop a new drug?”, published in The Washington Post on November 18, 2014 observed that: ‘The never-ending debate about what drugs should cost is in part driven by the fact that no one seems to know what it actually costs to develop one.”

But, why is the decline in the R&D productivity trend?

According to a 2014 review article titled, “Recent Advances in Drug Repositioning for the Discovery of New Anticancer Drugs”, published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences, while the total R&D expenditure for drug discovery worldwide increased 10 times since 1975 (US$ 4 billion) to 2009 (US$ 40 billion), the number of NMEs approved has remained largely flat (26 new drugs approved in 1976 and 27 new drugs approved in 2013). The average time required for drug discovery to market launch has also increased over time in the US and in the EU countries from 9.7 years during 1990s, to 13.9 years from 2000 onwards.

Be that as it may, the bottom-line is regardless of tremendous advancement in biological science, technology and analytics, especially in the new millennium, coupled with increasing investments in pharma R&D, the total number of NMEs that has reached the market hasn’t shown commensurate increase.

One of my articles published in this blog titled, “How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?” found an echo of the same in a globally reputed journal. This study, published by the BMJ on May 2016, titled “Propaganda or the cost of innovation? Challenging the high price of new drugs”, expressed deep concern on the rising prices of new medicines. It reiterated that this trend is set to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Need for an alternative R&D strategy:

The hurdles in discovering and developing new drugs call for alternative approaches, particularly for life threatening diseases, such as cancer. I reckon, it’s about time to scale-up a viable alternative strategy to bring down the R&D cost of new drugs, improve the success rate of clinical development, reduce a decade long ‘mind to market’ timeframe for an innovative drug or a treatment, and of course, the mind blogging cost of the entire process, as asserted in the above report from the Tufts Center.

One such alternative strategy could well be: ‘Drug Repurposing’

Drug Repurposing:

As defined by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, ‘drug repurposing’ “generally refers to studying drugs that are already approved to treat one disease or condition to see if they are safe and effective for treating other diseases”.

As many molecules, with well-documented records on their pharmacology and toxicity profile, have been already formulated and undergone large clinical trials on humans, repurposing those drugs building upon the available documents and experiences for fresh clinical trials in different disease conditions, would hasten the regulatory review process for marketing approval, and at a much lesser cost.

I shall quote here just two such examples of ‘drug repurposing’ from well-known molecules, as follows:

Sildenafil (Viagra): The blockbuster drug that was launched by Pfizer in 1998 for the treatment of erectile dysfunctions was originally developed for the treatment of coronary artery disease by the same company in 1980s.

Thalidomide: Originally designed and developed by a German pharmaceutical company called Grünenthal in Stolberg as a treatment for morning sickness in 1957, but was withdrawn in 1961 from the market because it caused birth defects. The same molecule was reintroduced in 1998 as a ‘repurposed drug’ to effectively treat patients with erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) – a complication of leprosy, and multiple myeloma – a type of cancer.

I had given many more examples of ‘drug repurposing’ in one of my earlier articles published in this blog.

Repurposing drugs for cancer:

The above-mentioned review article of International Journal of Biological Sciences 2014 clearly noted: “Drug repositioning has attracted particular attention from the communities engaged in anticancer drug discovery due to the combination of great demand for new anticancer drugs and the availability of a wide variety of cell and target-based screening assays. With the successful clinical introduction of a number of non-cancer drugs for cancer treatment, ‘drug repurposing’ now became a powerful alternative strategy to discover and develop novel anticancer drug candidates from the existing drug space.”

The following are some recent successful examples of ‘drug repurposing’ for anticancer drug discovery from non-cancer drugs, which are mostly under Phase I to II clinical trials:

Drug	Original treatment	Clinical status for cancer treatment
Itraconazole	Fungal infections	Phase I and II
Nelfinavir	HIV infections	Phase I and II
Digoxin	Cardiac diseases	Phase I and II
Nitroxoline	Urinary Tract Infections	Preclinical
Riluzole	Amyotropic lateral sclerosis	Phase I and II
Disulfram	Chronic alcoholism	Phase I and II

‘Drug repurposing’ market:

A January 2016 report by BCC Research estimates that the global market for drug repurposing will grow from nearly US$ 24.4 billion in 2015 to nearly US$ 31.3 billion by 2020, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.1 percent for the period of 2015-2020.

Expressing concern just not enough:

There are enough examples available across the world regarding stakeholders’ expression of great concern on this issue, with the buzz of such protests getting progressively shriller.

However, in India, high prices of cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, notwithstanding some sporadic steps taken by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to allay the economic burden of cancer patients to some extent. Encouragingly, the top cancer specialists of the American Society of Clinical Oncology are reportedly working out a framework for rating and selecting cancer drugs not only for their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

In a 2015 paper, a group of cancer specialists from Mayo Clinic also articulated, that the oft-repeated arguments of price controls stifle innovation are not good enough to justify unusually high prices of cancer drugs. Their solution for this problem includes value-based pricing and NICE like body of the United Kingdom. An interesting video clip from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

All this can at best be epitomized as so far so good, and may help increase the public awareness level on this subject. However, the moot point remains: Has anything significantly changed on the ground, on a permanent basis, by mere expression of such concerns?

Conclusion:

This discussion may provoke many to go back to the square number one, making the ongoing raging debate on Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Public Health Interest to gather more steam, but the core concern continues to remain unresolved.

I hasten to add that all such concerns, including strong protests, may no doubt create some temporary pressure on drug manufacturers, but they are experienced enough to navigate through such issues, as they have been doing, so far. However, for making new cancer drugs cost-effective for a vast population of patients, coming out of the current strategic mold of pharma research and development would be necessary. Grant of Compulsory License (CL), or the expectation of the local drug manufacturers for a Voluntary License (VL) of new cancer drugs, can’t be a routine process either, as it appears unrealistic to me, for various reasons.

I have discussed in this article just one alternative R&D strategy in this area, and that is Drug Repurposing (DR). There could be several others. DR is reportedly gaining increasing focus, as it represents a smart way to exploit new molecular targets of a known non-oncological drug for a new therapeutic applications in oncology. Be that as it may, pharma companies and the academia must agree to sail on the same boat together having a common goal to make new cancer drugs cost-effective for majority of cancer patients struggling hard, for life.

I would conclude this article quoting the President and Chief Science Officer of Illinois-based Cures Within Reach who said: “What I like about drug repurposing is that it can solve two issues: improved health-care impact and reduced health-care cost – That’s a big driver for us.”

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.

Define And Adapt To Reality: Two Pivotal Pharma Leadership Skills For Sustainable Excellence

Posted on April 10, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Max DePree – a much quoted American businessman and author had once said: “The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality.”

While defining the reality within the drug industry today, it makes many industry leaders to ponder, despite so much of the good work done by the industry in various fields of pharma business, across the world, including India, why is the public perception on the overall leadership of this sector still so negative, and continue going south? Pharma leaders know the reasons too, but they seem to be still searching for the right set of answers without breaking the traditional mold of business.

Around end 2007, being concerned with this trend, the then Chairman of Eli Lilly reportedly expressed publicly what many industry observers have been saying privately for some time. He said: “I think the industry is doomed, if we don’t change”.

On the general apathy of breaking the traditional mold after having defined the business reality, an interesting article titled, “Healthcare Leadership Must Shift From A Cottage Industry To Big Business”, published on June 2, 2014 in Forbes, made some interesting observations, which are as relevant to India, just as many other countries of the world.

The article states that the ‘Healthcare Leadership’ has not kept up with the industry’s evolution to big business over the past 25-30 years – nor does it possess the required change management competencies to effectively lead and rapidly turn around an adaptive health care business model. Thus, unlike many other knowledge industries, pharma sector is still struggling hard to convert the tough environmental challenges into bright business opportunities. This leads to an important question: Being mostly inward looking, are these leaders failing to properly define reality around them, and therefore, not adapting to the critical external business environmental needs, soon enough?

Is current pharma leadership too inward looking?

From the available details, it appears that today, many inward-looking pharma leaders tend to ignore many serious voices demanding access to high quality medicines at affordable prices, especially for life threatening ailments, such as, cancer. Instead of engaging with the stakeholders in search of a win-win solution, global pharma leadership apparently tries to push the ball out its court with a barrage of mundane and arrogant arguments highlighting the importance of ‘drug innovation’ and hyping how expensive it is. Notwithstanding that by now, many people are aware of its frequent use, generally by the global pharma players, mostly as a veil, whenever required. Even then, many pharma leaders, instead of accepting the reality, continue to remain insensitive to the concerns not just of most patients, but other stakeholders and their respective governments also. This mindset further reinforces their inward-looking and self-serving image. This brings to the fore the key issue: Is this high time to pass the baton to a new breed of pharma leaders?

In the above backdrop, this article dwells on some intrinsic issues involved with the leadership puzzle of the industry, as it were. Thereafter, it deliberates on the importance of making some easy self-tests available to the young and especially the millennial pharma professionals, to facilitate them to self-discover themselves in this space, and that too at an early stage of their professional career, as they try to understand and define the business and environmental realities facing the industry.

Leadership skills are difficult to find:

Focusing on the pharma industry, I would say, especially in the pharma sector, leadership skill in all its functional areas though is considered as the most important one, but are equally challenging while identifying the right persons.

The 20^th Pharma CEO Survey, March 2017 of PwC, vindicates this point. The survey covered 89 pharma CEOs from 37 countries. Nearly all the Pharma CEOs participating in this survey picked out leadership as the most important for their organization, giving it the top spot, closely followed by problem-solving, creativity and innovation, all bracketed in the second, with collaboration and adaptability occupying the equal third rank, as follows:

Relative importance of skills in pharma industry	Skill sets	Respondents answering somewhat difficult or very difficult to get each one of these
1.	Leadership	79
2.	Creativity & Innovation	75
3.	Emotional intelligence	72
4.	Adaptability	63
5.	Problem-solving	55

Over two-thirds of the CEOs face difficulty in recruiting people with the requisite skills that they consider most important to their organization, such as, leadership, problem-solving, and creative skills, the report highlighted. For further deliberation hereunder, I shall pick up the top one – the leadership skill for the pharma industry, as I see it.

The age-old question – ‘Are leaders born or made?’

A critical question that is often asked even today – ‘Are leaders born or made?’ The question keeps coming as some enthusiasts continue to argue that successful leaders are born with visible or apparently invisible leadership traits.

Are leaders born?

To answer this question, let me quote an example. The Management Study Guide (MSG), well-articulated an approach to the study of leadership known as the ‘Great Man Theory’, giving examples of the great leaders of the past, such as, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Queen Elizabeth I, Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Gandhi. They all seem to differ from ordinary human beings in several aspects, possessing high levels of ambition coupled with clear visions of precisely where they want to go.

Added to these examples are many top business executives, sports personalities, and even contemporary politicians, who often seem to possess an aura that sets them apart from others. These persons are cited as naturally great leaders, born with a set of personal qualities that made them effective leaders. Thus, even today, the belief that truly great leaders are born, is not uncommon. Thus, according to the contemporary theorists, leaders are not like other people. They do not need to be intellectually genius or omniscient prophets to succeed, but they should certainly have the ‘right stuff’, which is not equally present in all people, MSG highlights.

Even today, some continue to believe in the ‘Great Man Theory’, regardless of many well carried out research studies of the behavioral scientists establishing that it is quite possible for individuals becoming leaders through various processes, such as, self-learning, keenly observing or working with some good leaders, following their advices, training, and practicing the experiences thus gained in one’s real life.

Are leaders made?

Just as above, to answer this question, as well, I would cite another important example.

A September 21, 2016 article titled, “What Science Tells Us About Leadership Potential”, published in the ‘Harvard Business Review (HBR)’, while answering the question ‘who becomes a leader’, stated as follows:

“Any observable pattern of human behaviors is the byproduct of genetic and environmental influences, so the answer to this question is ‘both’. Estimates suggest that leadership is 30%-60% heritable, largely because the character traits that shape leadership - personality and intelligence - are heritable. While this suggests strong biological influences on leadership, it does not imply that nurture is trivial. Even more-heritable traits, such as weight (80%) and height (90%), are affected by environmental factors. Although there is no clear recipe for manipulating the environment in order to boost leadership potential, well-crafted coaching interventions boost critical leadership competencies by about 20%–30%.”

What would a young pharma professional do in this situation?

The current breed of top leaders would continue grooming and promoting mostly those who fit their profile, while in the family owned businesses succession usually takes place from within the family. The situation is no different in the pharma industry. However, various studies indicate that millennial professionals with leadership traits will develop themselves.

Keeping this in mind and, at the same time, going by the above HBR article, I would tend to accept the dictum that, “Any observable pattern of human behaviors is the byproduct of genetic and environmental influences”. Thus, for identifying and then honing leadership skills in the pharma business, just as many other industries, I would prefer the process of dovetailing the heritable leadership traits with various environmental influences.

An ambitious pharma professional with high aspiration to make a difference in the organization that the individual represents, would obviously wonder what the way forward for him to achieve the goals. In my view, an honest self-test is the first and basic move in this direction.

The self-test:

Taking a cue from the article titled “Strategic Leadership: The Essential Skills”, published in the January-February 2013 issue of The Harvard Business Review (HBR), I would suggest that the young professionals may wish to ask themselves the following important questions:

Do I have the right networks to help myself see opportunities before competitors do?
Am I comfortable challenging my own and others’ assumptions?
Can I get a diverse group to buy into a common vision?
Do I learn from mistakes?

The answer to each of these ones should be clear and honest, as one doesn’t need to disclose those answers to anyone else. Nonetheless, by following this process, a young professional gets a clear view of where he or she stands in each of these important areas, which cover some of the basic traits of a leader.

The leadership package:

Irrespective of whether an individual has some heritable leadership traits or not, the above self-test would reveal a person’s strengths and weaknesses, help address the deficits and optimize the full portfolio of leadership skills, independently or otherwise.

Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind, as several research studies have already established, though leadership skills are important and difficult to find, a few other salient skills such as, ability to apply in real life a creative and innovative mindset, supported by high emotional intelligence or emotional quotient (EQ) are also critical. This is because, together these offer the all-important leadership package for an all-round successful leader.

Should pharma leadership be eclectic?

I guess so, as there does not seem to be any better alternative either. Thus, I reckon, traditional pharma leadership needs to be eclectic. It has still got a lot to learn from other industries too. Let me give a relevant example here – to speed up development of electric cars by all manufacturers, the Cofounder and Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk of Tesla Motors has reportedly decided to share its patents under ‘Open Source’ sharing of technologies with all others. Elon Musk further reiterated: “If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay Intellectual property (IP) landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal.”

In the important ‘green’ automobile space, this is indeed a radical, gutsy and an exemplary decision to underscore Tesla Motor’s concern about global warming.

Why such type of leadership is so rare in the global pharma world, even today? Besides sanctimonies, as these appear, why the global pharma leaders are not taking similar large scale initiatives for drug innovation, especially in the areas of difficult diseases, such as, Cancer, Alzheimer’s, Multiple Sclerosis and Metabolic disorders, just to name a few? For this purpose, pharma organizations would require mettlesome change agents who can break the traditional mold –new leaders of the millennial generation having a different business outlook altogether, could possibly do so.

Becoming a change agent:

Today, more than ever before, the ultimate goal of pharma leaders requires moving beyond making more money to satisfy the shareholders and stock markets. It also needs to include the requirements of society, in general, more than what mandatory CSR demands. This is palpable today, as many stakeholders vehemently questioning the business game plan of many pharma players. Would this situation change? I don’t know, but it should, which prompts a change in the overall quality of pharma leadership, at all levels. I have had reason to believe that a good number of bright, millennial pharma professionals look for empowerment to discover themselves early. Right at that stage, they also need to chart a road map for self-development, which would facilitate attaining their professional goals, quite in sync with the broad societal expectations, as they move on in life.

New pharma leadership would require greater focus on ethics and engagement:

While pharma industry leaders, in general, have been impressive articulators of all right things that need to happen, ‘Talking the Talk’ and ‘Walking the Walk’ in the frontiers of business ethics, values and shared goals are found wanting in many of them. These articulations are probably used to run expensive global ‘Public Relations (PR)’ campaigns, lobbying and advocacy initiatives in the corridors of power.

What else then could possibly be the reason for such perception gap that this great industry has allowed to increase, over a long period of time? Could it be that many pharma leaders have not been able to adequately adapt themselves to the demands of the changing healthcare environment and the needs of various stakeholders in this sector? Is the leadership, therefore, too archaic and it’s a time for a change?

Thus, unlike the current pharma leadership, the new age leadership needs to be ethically grounded, and engage all stakeholders effectively in a transparent manner with impeccable processes of governance involving all areas of business. Such leaders may not be know-all individuals in the pharma business, but must possess a clear vision of where they want to lead the company to, and don’t slip back, especially in terms of public image and meeting patients’ expectations.

In conclusion:

Pharma business in modern times faces rapidly changing stakeholder expectations, which are generally difficult to predict well in advance. Thus, today’s pharma leaders require to adapt their strategic approach and the tactical game plans accordingly for business excellence in an inclusive manner, and simultaneously try to shape the environment to the extent possible.

There is a growing expectation from the pharma leaders to do business by imbibing a caring outlook towards the society, where it operates. Spending time and money to transplant the past practices in the changed environment, or continuing with the traditional business approaches, I reckon, is a no-win game today.

Thus, there arises a need to help the young pharma professionals, from the early stages in their professional life, for shaping up as the chief change agent in the organization that they would lead. Even after reaching where they wanted to reach, these leaders should keep studying on a continuous basis, various other successful leadership styles, approaches and visions, to splice them into a more productive strategic approach for the business or functional areas that they lead.

This new breed of leaders would also require defining the reality prevailing in the industry on an ongoing basis, to pave the way for a glorious future for their respective organizations. This effort would call for regular and effective engagement with all the stakeholders through various digital and other platforms. The critical question that the new pharma leadership should never forget to continually ask themselves: “How can my organization provide better access to high quality and effective medicines to most patients along with achieving commercial excellence in business?”

Properly defining and quickly adapting to associated environmental realities with a creative mind, requisite emotional intelligence and ethical business practices, would call for coming out of the zone of comfort with promptness. These, I reckon, would be the two pivotal success factors for new pharma leaders for inclusive and sustainable success in business, as the industry moves on.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Dwindling Drug Innovation: Declining Image: Unchanged Business And Advocacy Models

Posted on February 20, 2017 by Tapan Ray

A report of ‘The United States International Trade Commission (USITC)’ released on December 22, 2014 suggested, if tariffs and investment restrictions were fully eliminated, and standards of IP protection were made comparable to the U.S and Western European levels, American exports to India would rise by two-thirds.

A year later, on February 01, 2015 an interesting news article highlighted that the flashpoint of this issue “has clearly been pharmaceutical companies and their lobby group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which have made some of the strongest representations to the US government against India’s IPR regime.” The same report also indicated that many other companies including the aircraft maker Boeing and the generic drug giant Abbott felt that India offered adequate IP protection and that they had not experienced major IP problems in the country.

The above stance of USITC continued echoing right from the beginning of this year. In January 2017, the CEO of US Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) reportedly told our Prime Minister Narendra Modi, ‘if he follows western practices on intellectual property protection, his country would see a “tidal wave” of biotech industry investment.’

On February 08, 2017, when the fifth edition of ‘U.S. Chamber International IP Index’ report was released by the ‘Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC)’, India featured in the 43^rd rank out of 45 countries. With this India remained virtually at the bottom of the IP index for the fourth year on the trot. The GIPC report underscored India’s “anaemic IPR policy”, Section 3.d of the Indian Patents Act, besides several others, as major market access barriers.

On February 14, 2017, another news article reported that America’s pharma sector has asked the US Trade Representative (USTR) to continue to keep India on its Priority Watch List (PWL), which includes countries that are alleged violators of US patent laws, claiming that the environment on the ground remains ‘challenging’ in India. Among the areas of concern for the US pharma companies operating in India, unpredictable IP environment, high tariffs and taxes on medicines, regulatory data protection failure, discriminatory and non-transparent market access policies and unpredictable environment for clinical research were listed among others.

With this backdrop, the key question that haunts many industry watchers, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no complaint with the Indian Patents Act 2005, and finds it TRIPS compliant, why are these reports coming from the United States consistently emphasizing that the current IP regime of the country is a key barrier to market access, especially for research-based pharma companies?

Is the core issue of the global pharma industry in India is predominantly not encouraging innovation well enough, or the dearth of inadequate Intellectual Property (IP) protection – or it is something beyond that, and is more fundamental in nature. In this article, I shall dwell in this area, first in the global perspective, and then zeroing-in to India.

A global perspective:

“The past 60 years have seen huge advances in many of the scientific, technological and managerial factors that should tend to raise the efficiency of commercial drug research and development (R&D). Yet the number of new drugs approved per billion US dollars spent on R&D has halved roughly every 9 years since 1950, falling around 80-fold in inflation-adjusted terms. There have been many proposed solutions to the problem of declining R&D efficiency. However, their apparent lack of impact so far and the contrast between improving inputs and declining output in terms of the number of new drugs make it sensible to ask whether the underlying problems have been correctly diagnosed,” articulated an important article published on March 01, 2012 in the Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

This trend continues, virtually unchanged. R&D efficiency continues to remain a cause of great concern to the research-based global pharmaceutical companies. Accordingly, a 2016 report of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions titled, ‘Measuring the return of pharmaceutical innovation’, among other findings, has captured the following:

Annual projected pharma R&D return declines to 3.7 percent from 10.1 percent in 2010
Peak sales per asset fall 11.4 percent year-on-year since 2010

What then is its basic solution?

When the right solution eludes:

In this scenario, when the right solution is still eluding, to record growth in corporate profit and earning to meet shareholders’ expectations, keeping the existing business model intact, the global research-based pharma companies have the following two limited options, which they are actively pursuing:

Take high price increases for the existing products
Launch the limited new products at a very high price

A report published in The First Word Pharma on October 06, 2015 quoting The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) vindicated exercising the first option. It reported that many drug makers have succeeded in increasing revenue on products despite a flat or declining demand by consistently increasing prices. An analysis revealed that revenue for the top 30 products in the United States zoomed by 61 percent over the past five years, three times the increase in the number of prescriptions sold over that period. While another report by Credit Suisse illustrated that 80 percent of the growth in net profit for the top 20 drug makers was attributable to price hikes.

To substantiate application of the second option, I quote from the CBS News, which on April 05, 2016 reported that an investigation into the cost of prescription drugs revealed huge price hikes over the past five years. Several brand name medications more than doubled in price. Again, on August 24, 2016, it gave a sense of this trend with the following examples, covering the launch price of innovative drug, and price increases of generic drugs:

Gilead fixed their new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi’s cost at US$ 900 – 1,000 per pill
Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ increased the cost of its anti-allergic drug EpiPen from about US$ 57 in 2007 to more than US$ 500 in 2016
Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the price of the anti-malaria drug Daraprim by 5,000 percent last year, charging US$ 750 per pill for a drug that used to cost US$ 13.50 per pill.

PhRMA – the often quoted trade association in America, representing the country’s leading pharma and bio-pharmaceutical research-based companies, reportedly said in a statement: “Focusing solely on the list prices of medicines is misleading because it ignores the significant discounts and rebates negotiated by insurers and pharmacy benefit managers.”

Even if, this argument is accepted as such, the tough impact of regular hefty drug price increases on the consumers is real, unquestionably.

The current business model leaves behind many patients:

The ‘Access to Medicine Index 2016’ report also finds that companies generally do not systematically target populations with the highest needs in their registration, pricing and licensing actions. Although, we continue to make progress toward major public health goals, such as, polio is close to being eradicated, as is guinea worm; more than 45 percent of people living with HIV/AIDS have access to ARVs; important vaccines for malaria and dengue fever are being implemented, still business models for providing healthcare are leaving many people behind. Globally, two billion people cannot access the medicines they need, most of whom live hand to mouth.

Particularly, the big global pharma companies, as the innovators and producers of life-saving medicines, need to act much earlier in the patients’ value chain. Without or inadequate action by these companies, alongside governments, NGOs and others, it will be impossible to bring modern medicine to everyone.

Public outrage over high drug prices:

Many studies indicate that the research-based global pharma and biotech companies, still strive hard to stick to their existing overall business models with a sharp focus on improving both the top and bottom lines of the business, though the R&D projects are becoming lesser and lesser productive. This prompts them resorting to hefty price increases, and introducing new products with high price. Fueled by this self-serving mindset, a simmering public outrage, globally, over high drug prices is fast catching up, further undermining the trust in the industry, as another report says.

No wonder why in the Gallup Poll of August 15, 2016, pharmaceutical industry featured just one above the bottom among the ‘Worst-Rated U.S. Business Sectors’. Moreover, even the Harris Poll released on January 17, 2017 found that 91 percent of U.S. consumers believe pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies put profits over patients.

The industry continues chasing rainbows:

In response to this mounting stakeholders’ criticism, arguably the richest pharma association in the world in its member subscriptions – PhRMA, reportedly launched a new ad campaign costing tens of millions of dollars on January 25, 2017. It aims to highlight innovation and scientific breakthroughs to change the public’s negative perception of the industry. This campaign will span across television, print, digital, and radio, the report elaborates.

Following is an example, as reported, listing three important and interesting comments on this campaign for pharma image revamp from some of those who matter:

Lawmaker Peter Welch, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus’ task force on drug pricing, said, “The issue here is not whether drugs have some benefits … The issue is whether pharma is going to be able to kill us with their pricing power or whether we will get transparency and competition.” He added, “The campaign is all about defending their pricing power and pushing their product.”

Similarly, another lawmaker Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “This is [PhRMA] trying to change the subject and to try and divert people’s attention away from drug pricing. Continuing to ignore drug pricing is probably not going to work.”

Ameet Sarpatwari, a drug pricing policy researcher at Harvard University said, “It’s really a matter of being tone deaf in terms of thinking somehow that this is going to change public perception”

Isn’t a great example of chasing rainbows by the industry association, in the number one pharma and biotech market of the world, instead of amending to the root cause of this burning issue?

The situation in India:

In this backdrop, amid a tough global situation, let me assess the related Indian scenario.

The research-based global pharma companies, apparently want to introduce the whole range of their patented products at a high price and in a monopolistic situation in India too, for much higher growth in revenue and profits. Thus, they are consistently pushing hard, with all guns blazing, for major changes in the Indian Patents Act 2005, which would involve jettisoning many patients’ health interest related safeguard conditions enshrined in the Act, such as Section 3.d that restricts ever-greening of patents, and introducing several other tougher IP measures, such as data exclusivity under the garb of imaginary patient safety issues with generic drugs.

They don’t seem to like price control of essential drugs in India, either. While intensely lobbying for it, the lobbyists vehemently argue in favor of the absurd, which is the affordability of medicines does not help to increase drug access to all those who need these most, even when on the ground, the out of pocket expenses for drugs in the country is as high as around 65 percent and universal health care does exist in the country, much to the dismay of many.

It has now been generally established by many global experts, including our own National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) that market competition does not necessarily bring down drug prices, including for generics, quite unlike many other industries, but various pressure groups, including the media, can catalyze it, and quite effectively. What has happened recently with the cardiac stents price in the country, is just an example.

Is the devil in the traditional pharma business model?

An article titled, “How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time”, published on February 03, 2017 in The Harvard Business Review, emphatically states: “It’s a fact that the current business model of pharma companies is not working efficiently.” It suggests, besides enhancing the current unenviable public image of the industry, expanding access to medicines will help pharma companies enhance shareholder value. The success of a new business model depends on both the willingness and the ability of pharmaceutical companies to fully integrate access to medicine into their business strategies, the article emphasizes.

A July 2015 paper of McKinsey & Company titled, “Pharma’s next challenge”, also reiterates that in the developed economies, market access is chiefly concerned with pricing, and with satisfying local conditions. Whereas, in the emerging markets, to overcome the barriers, pharma players need to shift the focus of their commercial models from marketing and sales to access, and from brand-by-brand access planning to integrated cross-brand planning.

In pursuit of a new model:

Based on the above premises, the search for a new pharma business model, especially for the research-based pharma companies, in my view, may broadly focus on the following areas:

Learn from innovation models of the IT industry: Win-Win collaborative innovation models, including ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’, if scaled up, could reduce the cost of innovation significantly and making the new innovative drugs generally affordable. Thus, larger volume sales may adequately offset a voluntary cut in the product margin, creating a multiplier effect.

Be a part of the solution and not the problem: Because of fiercely pushing the blatant self-serving agenda, inconveniencing many patients, the core mindset of the pharma industry is considered by many as an integral part of the main problem. While pharma industry, quite rightly, seek more market access, they need to act as a facilitator too, to improve general access to medicines, in various imaginative ways, which is, of course, possible. This will make the pharma industry to be a part of the solution to the national problem, over a period of time.

Walk the talk: While pharma industry speaks all right things, in terms of ethical conduct of business, at a time when both national and international media frequently expose their gross wrongdoings. This continues, unabated. Sales and marketing functions are indeed very important, but not at the cost of good corporate governance. I am aware, all compliance rules exist immaculately on paper for many companies, but the senior management officials should demonstrate that they walk the talk, giving exemplary punishment to the wrongdoers, including their peers.

Change the current advocacy model: The current advocacy model of the research-based pharma companies is too self-serving. For example, in India it mostly demands, which is bordering obsession, to change the IP laws of a sovereign country, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) has no problem with these, whatsoever. There is a need for them to demonstrate, sans any shade of arrogance, visible respect to any country’s general sentiment on its Patents Act, as it’s their own decision to operate in those countries. An imaginative win-win change in this area, would significantly help to create a strong bond and mutual respect with other important stakeholders.

Are senior citizens in pharma business a barrier to change?

A recent white paper of ‘Eye for Pharma’, says in its conclusion “many of those now running pharma organizations have come through the ‘golden age’ of pharma and so may be reluctant to change”. Does this issue need to be addressed first by the Independent Directors of the respective Boards of the pharma companies?

In conclusion:

Many questions do spring up while addressing this issue. One common belief is that, pharma industry, in general, is reluctant to change its traditional business model, beyond just tweaking, despite declining overall productivity and in its public image.

In advocacy initiatives, while drawing stakeholders’ attention to the core grievance agenda, though they try hard to project their business focus on patients, especially using the buzzwords, such as, ‘patient centric approach’ or ‘patient engagement’, among many others, has anything visibly changed, just yet?

As the business environment is getting tougher and consumer expectations are fast changing, drug innovation is also steadily dwindling, so is the declining industry image. However, pharma business and advocacy models continue to remain mostly unchanged. It remains intriguing, why are the ‘wise guys’ of pharma business still so deeply obsessed with chasing rainbows, with so much of zeal, hectic activity and money, while majority of patients keeps bearing the brunt?

By: Tapan J. Ray

An Emerging Yo-Yo Syndrome With Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on July 18, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Competition from Biosimilar drugs poses a threat of a combined revenue loss of estimated US$ 110 billion of those pharma players who are still enjoying market monopoly with patented biologic brands. This is expected to surely happen, in the long run, if the signals picked up from the evolving scenario continue to stay on course.

Simply speaking, generic versions of original biologic drugs are termed as Biosimilars. These are large protein molecules, created from living organisms following complex processes. Thus, it is significantly more expensive to develop and market biosimilar drugs, as compared to any small molecule generic chemical ones.

Hurdle creation and the core intent:

Despite these complexities, for quite some time, global original biologic drug players had initiated intense campaign to create tough hurdles in the process of regulatory and marketing approval for biosimilar drugs, predominantly raising safety concerns. A simultaneous campaign was also launched among doctors and the payers in the developed countries, stoking the same fear, to forestall the overall acceptance of biosimilar drugs.

When drug regulators of different countries are solely responsible to ensure patient safety of any drug, why are the global pharma companies, and their trade associations are continually shouting from the roof top expressing concerns in this regards? It is often seen that such campaigns become more intense, when it comes primarily to block or delay the entry of biosimilar, many generic drugs and some IP related issues in a country. Umpteen number of such examples are available from India, Europe, United States and many other countries. Many would agree that in such cases, the core intent is as important as the issue.

I discussed on those hurdle creating campaigns in my article in this Blog, on August 25, 2014, titled, “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”. Hence won’t dwell on that again here.

The campaign yielded results:

This campaign of global bio-pharma majors to restrict the entry of lower priced biosimilar drugs into the market, immediately after patent expiry, has been successful to a great extent, so far. Let me now give below a recent example, from credible sources, to vindicate this point.

Although, the world’s number 1 drug in sales – Humira (Adalimumab), with a turnover of US$ 15 Billion in 2015 (IMS Health), is going off patent in December 2016, no biosimilar version of Adalimumab is ready, just yet, to compete with this profit churning blockbuster biologic brand, in the United States. More interestingly, according to another report dated July 14, 2016 of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), even on the verge of its product patent expiration this year, U.S. sales of Humira rose 32 percent to US$ 2.2 billion in the first quarter this year, with over 16 percent jump in its prescription volume.

It is worth noting, Humira was first approved in 2002, and has long been one of the most profitable drugs, globally, contributing around 60 percent of Abbvie’s total revenue even in the last year.

The industry may well argue, in a situation like this, how can a pharma company possibly decide to remain within the ambit of just patent protection, even if it leads to sacrificing other stakeholders’ interest? That’s a ‘business ethics’ issue, and is beyond the scope of this article.

The beginning of a yo-yo syndrome:

At the very outset, let me mention that the term ‘yo-yo syndrome’ has been coined to refer to something that moves up and down quickly, or something that changes repeatedly between one level and another.

Keeping this into perspective, some of the big bio-pharma companies, such as, Amgen, which have been, reportedly, trying hard to block the on-time entry of biosimilar drugs, through litigations and lobbying, could stand as good examples in this area.

For instance, Amgen, on the one hand, seem to be vigorously shielding its over US$10 billion of annual biologic sales from the biosimilar competition through powerful lobbying. Whereas, on the other, it commenced developing its own biosimilar drugs, to reap a rich harvest from the available opportunities.

According to an Associated Press report on July 12, 2016, a panel of Food and Drug Administration advisers of the United States has voted unanimously in favor of Amgen’s version of AbbVie’s Humira. While not binding, the recommendation could help the USFDA approval of the knockoff drug.

According to reports, the companies now working on Humira biosimilars, include Novartis, Mylan and Baxter.

India did it, but a tough road ahead:

On December 9, 2014, international media flashed across the world a great news item from the Indian pharma industry: “The first biosimilar of the world’s top-selling medicine Humira (adalimumab) of AbbVie has been launched in India by Zydus Cadila.” That said, let me hasten to add that Humira does not have a valid product patent protection in India.

Yet another good news is, according to a Press Release of Biocon dated July 15, 2016, its India made Insulin – Glargine was launched in Japan on the same day by its partner FUJIFILM Pharma Co., Ltd. (FFP).

These are excellent developments, and music to many ears. However, on the flip side, intense legal battle on various regulatory grounds against the Indian biosimilar drug players, by the makers of original biologic to protect their own turf of market monopoly, has also commenced with associated acrimony.

Earlier, the Swiss drug major – Roche had objected to Biocon’s referring to Herceptin at an international scientific conference, related to clinical trial results of its own ‘biosimilar’ version Herclon (trastuzumab).

On April 2016, responding to Roche’s complaint, the Delhi High Court ordered changes to the packaging labels of the brands sold by Biocon, and other bio-pharma companies in India, such as, Reliance Life Sciences and Mylan. The court also raised questions about the DCGI’s approval processes for biosimilars, and restrained the companies from using Roche’s data related to the manufacturing process, safety, efficacy and tests.

More recently, this issue between Roche and Biocon, over breast cancer drug trastuzumab has reportedly taken another acrimonious turn with both the companies approaching the Delhi High Court on charges of contempt of court.

Roche reportedly also alleged contempt over Biocon using the name ‘Herceptin’ in the approval process of its trastuzumab drug in the United States. According to reports, Biocon is currently conducting Phase III clinical trials for marketing approval of its trastuzumab in the U.S.

Thus, to carve out a niche in the biosimilar space of the world, Indian pharma has made some good progress. Alongside, taking note of many contemporary factors and development in this area, a lurking apprehension too did creep in. It raises an awkward and uncomfortable question – do the Indian companies have pockets deep enough to overcome the expensive legal and regulatory challenges thrown by the global biologic drug makers to protect their market monopoly status for expensive drugs, much longer than what they deserve?

Let me keep my fingers crossed.

Critical global speed-bumps for biosimilar entry:

Besides, many other hurdles, as I highlighted in my article of August 25, 2014, the intricate patent shield beyond original patent expiry, is a major speed bump for biosimilar drugs’ smooth global market entry.

Maintaining the same example of Humira, a well crafted patent-shield strategy was implemented to extend market monopoly of this brand, at least for another decade. Although, the main patent of Humira expires in December 2016, it is reportedly well shielded, at least, with 70 other patents till 2027, as many reports indicate.

This is possible because, according to a January 19 2016 report by Bloomberg, the U.S. patent office in the same month rejected Amgen’s effort to knock out two patents on AbbVie’s anti-inflammatory bestseller Humira. Amgen hoped to get its Humira competitor to market by 2017. This is a bad news for other biosimilar drug makers too.

Nevertheless, the good news is, in May 2016, the Patent Trial And Appeal Board (PTAB) announced that it would embark on a review of Coherus’ challenge of Humira’s ’135 methods patent. Experts believe, even if it the PTAB upturns Humira’s IP shield, AbbVie could appeal, which could take another year or so.

Recent status:

So far, after the biosimilar guidelines were put in place for the first time in the United States, a Novartis version of Amgen’s Neupogen, got USFDA approval in March 2015, only after so many delays and protracted litigations. Novartis is also trying to to do the same for Amgen’s Enbrel. Pfizer too won the U.S drug regulator’s approval in April 2016 for a version of Johnson & Johnson’s Remicade, but the product is still not available for sale.

Currently, some constituents of Big Pharma, such as, Amgen, Novartis and Pfizer have started warming up for manufacturing copycat versions of blockbuster original biologic drugs of other companies.

High quality biosimilars:

These new biosimilars are of top quality. Even USFDA could not find any meaningful differences in the key parameters, such as, efficacy, safety, potency and purity, between the original biologic drugs and their biosimilar versions.

According to a July 12, 2016 Bloomberg report, in several cases USFDA finds the clinical results of biosimilar drugs are robust enough to support ‘extrapolation’. This could support approval of these biosimilar drugs for all indications that the original biologic brands treat, without requirement of separate clinical trials for each, facilitating the approval process and accelerating their market entry.

With these developments, the high voltage lobbying campaigns of the original biologic makers, and their trade associations, both to the drug regulators and doctors, are expected to lose steam, if not ultimately die down altogether.

However, the protracted and fierce legal battles of the originators, creating various intricate patent shields, to enjoy a brand monopoly for a much longer period, are expected to continue, if not turn fiercer.

The question of price advantage with biosimilars:

Currently the cost advantage provided by the biosimilar drugs over the original biologics, does not come anywhere near to what we see for small molecule generic drugs, post patent expiry.

For example, Zarexio of Novartis has been priced 15 percent less than the original Neupogen of Amgen. It is generally believed that in the united states this difference would continue to be around 15 to 30 percent, in the near future. Whereas in Europe, the difference is higher, as the governments regulate their prices.

In India too, the difference in the pricing trend is currently, more or less, similar.

Nonetheless, the above report of Bloomberg had quoted the global CEO of Novartis Joe Jimenez saying that biosimilar drugs would eventually cost 75 percent less than the original biologics.

Let’s hope so.

Conclusion:

The powerful constituents of Big Pharma who decided to delay, if not stall the entry of biosimilar drugs for vested interest, have now started adopting a dual strategy. They did not have any other choice either, after President Obama’s fulfillment of his election promise with the ‘Affordable Care Act’, which, among others, facilitated charting the regulatory pathway for entry of biosimilar drugs in the United States, for the first time ever.

Thus, on the one the one hand, these companies continued crafting robust patent-shields to extend market monopolies, even beyond the original patent expiries, through protracted and complicated litigations. While, on the other, started moving with great speed to develop biosimilar versions of the original blockbuster biologic drugs of other players, as they go off patent. This is mainly to cash-in the golden opportunities, which otherwise would go to different players.

India has made an entry into this space, but would still require a lot to do, including winning the expensive legal battles, in order to be recognized as a global force to reckon with, in the biosimilar segment.

To facilitate rapid growth, and universal acceptance of biosimilar drugs, for patients’ interest across the world, it will be interesting to follow the spread of the ‘yo-yo syndrome’ of the original biologic drug makers, as we move on.

By: Tapan J. Ray

For Drug Safety Concern: “Whistleblower’s Intention Should Be Nationalistic”

Posted on March 14, 2016 by Tapan Ray

In the recent weeks, three significant developments related to the Pharmaceutical Industry in India, have triggered rejuvenated concerns in the following critical areas:

A. Overall drug safety standards in the country

B. Self serving interest, rather than patients’ interest, dominate the prescribing decisions

C. Government assurance to American Trade Organization on ‘Compulsory License (CL)’ in India.

These important issues fall under three key regulatory areas of India, as follows:

The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO)
The Medical Council of India (MCI)
The Indian Patent Office

It is worth mentioning here that the Department Related Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 59^th Report, placed before both the houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012, on the functioning of the Central Drug Standards Control Organization (CDSCO), begins with the following observations:

Medicines apart from their critical role in alleviating human suffering and saving lives have very sensitive and typical dimensions for a variety of reasons. They are the only commodity for which the consumers have neither a role to play nor are they able to make any informed choices except to buy and consume whatever is prescribed or dispensed to them, for the following reasons:

Drug regulators decide which medicines can be marketed
Pharmaceutical companies either produce or import drugs that they can profitably sell
Doctors decide which drugs and brands to prescribe
Consumers are totally dependent on and at the mercy of external entities to protect their interests.

Most importantly, all these concerns, if not properly clarified and appropriately addressed by the Government, soon enough, have the potential to create an adverse snowballing impact on the uniform access to affordable quality medicines, for all sections of the society in India.

Under this backdrop, I shall discuss in this article briefly, my perspective on each of these critical areas, as they are today, and not just the drug safety concerns.

The headline of this article is expected capture not only the prevailing mood of some key regulators, but also their inertia to address critical healthcare concerns and above all how the core public health related issues are getting lost, and the trivial ones are gradually occupying the center stage.

A. Overall drug quality and safety  standards in India:

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) suit, filed against the Drugs Consultative Committee and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), was listed on the Supreme Court website for hearing on March 11, 2016.

The PIL has been filed by one Dinesh Thakur, requesting the Supreme Court to lay down guidelines by which manufacturers could be made liable for violating drug standards and also give a direction to the government to set up a ‘Drug Approvals Review Committee’ for examining criminality in the manner in which faulty drug approvals were granted.

Many may recall that the same Dinesh Thakur worked for Ranbaxy from 2003 for two years, and is now the Chief Executive of MedAssure Global Compliance based in Florida, US. Thakur’s Company now advises pharma manufacturers on drug safety and quality standards.

As reported by Reuters, Thakur had earlier exposed how the erstwhile largest drug maker of India, Ranbaxy Laboratories, failed to conduct proper safety and quality tests on drugs and lied to regulators about its procedures. Consequently, USFDA fined Ranbaxy US$500 million for violating federal drug safety laws, and making false statements to the US regulator.

This news report further states: “Indian Parliamentary Committee, thereafter, reportedly demanded an investigation and the drugs regulator committed to one in 2013. Thakur received a statement from the health ministry last year, seen by Reuters, showing no inquiry had begun.”

On the last Friday, however, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain this PIL of Dinesh Thakur, saying it does not have time to adjudicate academic issues, such as, need for guidelines to regulate quality of medicines.

The core issue:

The core issue here is not at all the above PIL, not at the very least. The issue is the much reported concern being expressed, over a period of time, regarding the drug safety standards in India. The reasons include breach of of data integrity, and gross violation of the ‘Good Manufacturing Practices’ standards. Such instances are being detected, almost regularly, by the foreign drug regulators, in several manufacturing facilities run by many large and small Indian drug producers.

It is well vindicated by the fact that around 45 Indian drug manufacturing plants have been banned by the USFDA alone, from shipping generic drugs to the United States, as these were considered unsafe for consumption of patients in the US. Some other foreign regulators too had taken similar action, citing similar reasons. The USFDA website specifies the details of gross violations made in each of these cases.

Ironically, all such facilities can manufacture and sell their drugs in India, as they conform to the quality requirements of the Indian drug regulator. Consequently, the Indian patients consume even those medicines, which are considered unsafe by the USFDA for American patients, innocently, as and when prescribed by the doctors.

Arising out of these incidents, when asked about the drug safety standards in India, and the public health-safety, instead of giving credible and action oriented answers for public reassurance, some of the apparently brazen replies of the DCGI are quite stunning for many stakeholders, both within and outside the shores of India.

I would now quote below just a few of those replies, just as examples.

“…Whistleblower’s Intentions Should Be Nationalistic” - DCGI:

According to Reuters, it has received the following response from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), on the above PIL related to the drug safety standards in India:

“We welcome whistleblowers, we have got great respect, but their intentions should be genuine, should be nationalistic… I don’t have any comment on this guy.”

Thus, many industry watchers feel that in a situation like this, the honorable Supreme Court of India would possibly require to intervene, just as what it did on alleged ‘Clinical Trial’ malpractices in the country or for drug price control, solely for public health interest.

The same attitude continues:

Such brazen response of the Central Drug Regulator, and that too on a serious subject, is indeed bizarre. It becomes increasingly intriguing, as the same attitude continues without any perceptible meaningful intervention from the Ministry of Health.

For example, on February 22, 2014, in the midst of a more intense scenario on a similar issue, instead of taking transparent and stringent measures, the DCGI was quoted by the media commenting:

“We don’t recognize and are not bound by what the US is doing and is inspecting. The FDA may regulate its country, but it can’t regulate India on how India has to behave or how to deliver.”

On February 26, 2014, presumably reacting to the above remarks of the DCGI, the American Enterprise Institute reportedly commented, “Indian drug regulator is seen as corrupt and colliding with pharma companies…”

Such apparently irresponsible and loose comments keep continuing, despite the 2012 report of the Parliamentary Committee of India alleging collusion between some pharmaceutical companies and officials of the CDSCO, which oversees the licensing, marketing and trials of new drugs. The report also commented that the agency is both chronically under-staffed and under-qualified.

Some possible remedial measures:

As the saying goes, “better late than never”, considering all these continuing developments, it is about time to reconsider some of the key recommendations of Dr. R. A. Mashelkar Committee on a similar subject and make amendments in the relevant Act accordingly, soon, to facilitate creation of a robust with high accountability ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’. It would introduce a centralized licensing system for drug manufacturing, along with stringent drug safety standards; besides, sale, export and distribution of drugs. Perhaps, the draft bill on CDA is now lying in the heap of archival documents with the change in Government.

Why does India need CDA?

I believe, the formation of a robust CDA with high accountability, besides meeting with drug safety concerns, would provide the following significant benefits, both to the Industry and also to the Government:

Achieving uniform interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act & Rules
Standardizing procedures and systems for drug control across the country
Enabling coordinated nationwide action against spurious and substandard drugs
Upholding uniform quality standards with respect to exports to foreign countries from anywhere in India
Implementing uniform enforcement action in case of banned and irrational drugs
Creating a Pan-Indian approach to drug control and administration
Evolving a single-window system for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research undertaken anywhere in the country.

B. Self serving interest dominates the prescribing decision:

That the self serving interest, rather than patient interest, dominate the prescribing decision, was vindicated by a key announcement of the Medical Council of India (MCI) last month.

In February 2016, apparently succumbing to continuous and powerful external pressure, the MCI announced an amendment in a clause of its Code of Ethics Regulations 2002, exempting doctors’ associations from the ambit of its ethics code, as applicable to doctors now across the country. Prior to the amendment, this section used to read as: “code of conduct for doctors and professional association of doctors in their relationship with pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry”.

In other words, it means that the professional associations of doctors will no longer come under the ambit of ethics regulations, legitimizing their indulgence in the identified unethical and corrupt practices, by receiving gifts in cash or kind from the pharma or healthcare industry.

A large section of the key stakeholders believes that this amendment would help creating an additional large space for the pharmaceutical marketing malpractices to thrive, unabated, at the cost of patients.

The latest report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on MCI:

In its 92nd Report, the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare titled, “The Functioning of Medical Council of India”, presented to the Rajya Sabha and laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 8th March, 2016, the Committee observed on this amendment as “an action that is ethically impermissible for an individual doctor cannot become permissible, if a group of doctors carry out the same action in the name of an association.”

The report also noted the failure of MCI to instill respect for a professional code of ethics in the medical professionals and take disciplinary action against doctors found violating the code of Ethics, etc.

The Committee called for a complete restructuring of the MCI, since it believes that the Council has failed as a regulator of medical education and the profession. Casting serious aspersions on the functioning of the MCI, the house panel of the Parliament recommended that the Act under which the MCI was set up be scrapped and a new legislation be drafted “at the earliest”.

The report castigated the health ministry:

The lawmakers castigated the Health Ministry in this report saying, “The committee also finds it intriguing that instead of intervening to thwart attempts of MCI at subverting the system, the ministry meekly surrendered to MCI.”

While summing up, the report states, “the Committee exhorts the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to implement the recommendations made by it in this report immediately and bring a new Comprehensive Bill in Parliament for this purpose at the earliest.”

How will it pan out now?

I reckon, it will now be immensely interesting now for all concerned to follow, how does the Government deal with this report to curb, among others, the strong interference of mighty and powerful vested interests to continue with the rampant pharma marketing malpractices, at the cost of patients in India.

C. Reported Government assurance on ‘Compulsory License’:

On March 3, 2016, a media report quoted a submission by the US Chamber of Commerce to the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) as follows:

“While the Government of India has privately reassured (American) industry that it would not use compulsory licenses for commercial purposes, a public commitment to forgo using (this) would enhance legal certainty for innovative industries.”

This is an interesting development, primarily because there are a number of legal provisions for granting Compulsory Licenses (CL) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, including, when a drug is not widely available, extremely expensive and some other situation. In some these provisions, law should follow its own course and there is no legally permissible scope for Government’s administrative interference. Grant of CL for Nexavar of Bayar is one such example, and incidentally, that’s the sole CL that India has granted, so far, from the date of amendment of the country’s Patents Act in 2005.

Thus, a blanket assurance of not invoking any of the provisions of the CL, as provided in the Indian Patents Act 2005, if true, would possibly require to pass through intense legal scrutiny, as that would adversely impact the access to key medicines in a necessary situation, for the public health interest.

So far, India has amply demonstrated to all, time and again, that the country does not grant a CL at the drop of a hat. That situation should continue to encourage and protect innovation.

Nevertheless, “a written public commitment to forgo using the CL provisions for enhancing legal certainty for innovative industries,” as demanded by the US Chamber of Commerce, appears to be unreasonable, goes against the spirit of India’s Patents Act, and perhaps is not legally tenable either, unless the IP Act is amended accordingly in the Parliament.

Conclusion:

All these three areas, as discussed above, are critical from the healthcare perspective of the country.

Ironically, while deliberating on the subject, the capability, credibility and competence of some of the key regulators of the country, are being repeatedly questioned. These doubts emanate not just from Tom, Dick and Harry, but from an illustrious spectrum of constitutional institutions of India, spanning across the lawmaking Parliament, through its various committee reports, to the ultimate legal justice provider – the Supreme Court of India, through is various orders and key observations.

Regrettably, in this specific space, which is primarily related to healthcare, nothing seems to be changing on the ground, since long. The same tradition continues, without any visible sense of urgency, even from the Government.

On the contrary, we now read a new genre of comments, even from a key regulator, on the stakeholder concerns. For example, reacting to concern on drug safety standards, instead of articulating tangible actions to usher in a perceptible change, the chief action taker reportedly specified a totally judgmental and an outlandish requirement: “…Whistleblower’s intentions should be Nationalistic.”

Together with these incidents, the key public healthcare concerns of India too, are now apparently getting drowned in the high decibel ‘Nationalistic’ versus ‘Anti-nationalistic’ cacophony. But, the hope still lingers… for a change…for our nation’s sound health!

By: Tapan J. Ray

Utility Model: Would It Work In India For Pharma?

Posted on June 8, 2015 by Tapan Ray

The revised draft of India’s IPR Policy penned by the Government constituted ‘Think-Tank’ in 2014, suggests enactment of new laws, such as for ‘Utility Models’ and Trade Secrets, to fill some gaps in the country’s IPR ecosystem .

However, media reports of May 21, 2015 indicate, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) is not in favor of changing the country’s ‘Patents Law’ framework to allow grant of utility patents, as suggested by the ‘Think-Tank’.

Though comments from the other Ministries and Departments on the revised draft IPR Policy is still awaited, DIPP reportedly feels, ‘Utility Models’ being less-stringent form of intellectual Property (IP) protection, could ultimately lead to ‘ever-greening’ of patents.

A volte-face?

This development is indeed interesting because on May 13, 2011 the same DIPP uploaded in its website a Discussion Paper on “Utility Models”. Many believed at that time, it as a precursor of a new policy initiative of DIPP on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) to encourage innovation in the country, without diluting the prevailing strict criteria for patentability. The above Discussion Paper highlighted, among others:

“…minor technical inventions which frugally use local resources in a sustainable manner need to be encouraged by providing a legal framework for their protection and commercial exploitation. Such useful, low cost and relatively simple innovations which create new mechanical devices or contribute to the optimal functioning of existing ones may have commercial value only for a limited time period, before they are replaced by other products or rendered redundant by change of technology.”

In that paper DIPP also highlighted that many countries of the world, for example; Australia, China, Japan, Germany, France, Korea and Netherlands still find the ‘Utility Model’ as an extensively used tool to foster innovation within the local industries.

We shall also touch upon this point below.

The Discussion Paper did trigger a healthy national debate on this subject at that time, though Government did not make known to the public the outcome of this public discourse.

The definition:

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) defines ‘Utility Model’ as follows:

“Utility Model is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which allows the right holder to prevent others from commercially using the protected invention, without his authorization, for a limited period of time. In its basic definition, which may vary from one country (where such protection is available) to another, a utility model is similar to a patent. In fact, utility models are sometimes referred to as petty patents or innovation patents.”

Or in other words “A utility model is similar to a patent in that it provides a monopoly right for an invention.”

However, utility models are much cheaper to obtain, the requirements for grant of a ‘Utility Model’ are usually less stringent and the term is shorter – mostly between 7 and 10 years, as against up to 20 years term of protection for a patent.

Major differences between Utility Models and Patents:

According to WIPO, the main differences between ‘Utility Models’ and patents can be summarized as follows:

The requirements for acquiring a ‘Utility Model’ are less stringent than for patents. While the requirement of “novelty” is always to be met, that of “inventive step” or “non-obviousness” may be much lower or absent altogether. In practice, protection for ‘Utility Models’ is often sought for innovations of rather incremental in character, which may not meet the patentability criteria.

The term of protection for ‘Utility Models’ is shorter than for patents and varies from country to country (usually between 7 and 10 years without the possibility of extension or renewal).

In most countries where ‘Utility Model’ protection is available, patent offices do not examine applications as to substance prior to registration. This means that the registration process is often significantly simpler and faster, taking on an average about six months.

‘Utility Models’ are much cheaper to obtain and to maintain.

In some countries, ‘Utility Model’ protection can only be obtained for certain fields of technology and only for products but not for processes.

Countries providing ‘Utility Model’ protection:

Many countries do not grant ‘Utility Models’. However, the major countries granting ‘Utility Models’, as stated above, include: Australia, China, Japan, Germany, France, Spain and Italy.

According to WIPO, currently the countries and regions that provide ‘Utility Models’ are as follows:

Albania, Angola, Argentina, ARIPO, Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belize, Brazil, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Chile, China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Malaysia, Mexico, OAPI, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay and Uzbekistan.

Interestingly, ‘Utility Models are not available in the United Kingdom or the United States.

A recent allegation of ‘Utility Model’ infringement against a global pharma:

Quite recently, in November 2014, Copenhagen headquartered Forward Pharma A/S reportedly filed a lawsuit against Biogen Idec GmbH, Biogen Idec Internaional GmbH and Biogen Idec Ltd. in the Regional Court in Dusseldorf, alleging infringement of its German ‘Utility Model’ DE 20 2005 022 112 due to Biogen Idec’s marketing of Tecfidera® in Germany.

Tecfidera® – a product containing dimethyl fumarate (DMF) as the active ingredient, is used for the treatment of Myasthenia Gravis (MS).

Forward Pharma asserted that its above ‘Utility Model’ precludes anyone from selling in Germany, without the Company’s consent, drugs with DMF as the sole active pharmaceutical ingredient for the treatment of MS at a daily dose of 480 mg.

With this lawsuit Forward Pharma did not seek to stop sales of Tecfidera® to MS patients, but rather sought damages for what the Company believes are Biogen Idec’s unlawful sales of Tecfidera® in Germany.

Although ‘Utility Models’ are registered without substantive examination, the Company reiterated its belief in the validity and enforceability of the said ‘Utility Model.’

Subsequently, on April 14, 2015 Forward Pharma A/S announced that an interference was declared by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on April 13, 2015 between the Company’s patent application 11/576,871 (the “’871 patent application”) and Biogen’s issued patent 8,399,514 (the “’514 patent”).

The PTAB reportedly designated Forward Pharma A/S as the “Senior Party” in the interference based on the Company’s earlier patent application filing date.

Would ‘Utility Model’ be useful in pharma?

Utility Models (UM) are considered particularly suited for SMEs that make “minor” improvements to, and adaptations of, existing products. It is worth noting that UMs are primarily used for mechanical innovations.

However, in India, the ‘Utility Model’ concept in pharma would be directly conflicting with the intent and spirit of the section 3(d) of the Patents Act 2005 of the country, which clearly stipulates that mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known ‘clinical’ efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant, is not patentable.

Therefore, section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005, is considered as one of the most important safeguards against “evergreening” of patents, usually done through alleged “molecular manipulation or tweaking”, that delays entry of affordable generic equivalents, adversely impacting the public health interest.

In that sense, enactment of a new law granting protection to pharma ‘Utility Models’ in India could seriously jeopardize both short and long term health interests of the patients, in general.

This is primarily because, being denied of a 20 year product patent under section 3(d), the same company would then be eligible to apply and may also probably get a monopoly status for that molecule, though for a shorter term with ‘Utility Models’.It would obviously happen at the cost of quicker entry of equivalent affordable generics.

Conclusion:

Considering all these, and having witnessed a serious allegation of a ‘Utility Model’ (which goes through no more than a liberal regulatory scrutiny) infringement, against a major patented pharma product that passed through the acid test of stringent and cost intensive regulatory requirements, it appears that ‘Utility Models’ need to be excluded, especially for pharmaceuticals in India.

This is purely for the sake of patients’ interest, at least on the following two counts:

All new/novel drugs, without any compromise whatsoever, should pass through the stringent acid test of the drug regulatory requirements for requisite efficacy, safety and quality standards.

‘Evergreening’ of patents, under any garb, delaying entry of affordable equivalent cheaper generics, should not be encouraged in the country.

Thus, in my view, Indian Government should continue to remain firm with its bold stance on the relevance of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act. Any possibility of its dilution by a grant of market monopoly, though for a much shorter period, covering incremental innovations that do not conform to the country’s IP laws, must be openly discouraged with robust reasons.

In that sense, the flag raised by the DIPP on the intriguing recommendation of the IPR Policy ‘Think Tank’ for enacting new laws in India for ‘Utility Model’, appears to be pragmatic and far sighted, specifically in the context of pharmaceuticals.

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Patent Linkage’: Can The Core Issue Be Resolved?

Posted on February 23, 2015 by Tapan Ray

On February 10, 2015, a leading business daily of India, quoted the Commerce Secretary of India – Rajeev Kher, saying, “India needs to relook at its Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy with a view to bring in a differentiated regime for sectors that have a greater manufacturing potential.”

In the present Government regime, it appears virtually impossible to make such important comments out of turn by a senior bureaucrat without the blessings of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). I hold this view, despite the fact that the Commerce Secretary reportedly added that his suggestion is “a highly controversial subject and if I discussed this in the government, I think I will be shot down in the very first instance”.

Be that as it may, as I indicated in my just previous article, several recent media reports also speculated, around the same time, that the Government of India is probably considering putting in place ‘Patent Linkages’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act 2005 of the country.

As I had indicated in my blog post of January 19, 2015 titled, “New ”National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”, these speculations originated mainly from the following events:

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

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

Speculations arising out of these two events were almost simultaneously fuelled by the following developments:

A. US Trade Representative Mike Froman’s reported affirmation of the following to the US lawmakers during a Congressional hearing held on January 27, 2015:

- “We have been concerned about the deterioration of the innovation environment in India, and we have engaged with the new government since they came into office in May of last year about our concerns.”

- “We held the first Trade Policy Forum in four years in November. I just returned from India yesterday as a matter of fact … and in all of these areas, we have laid out a work program with the government of India to address these and other outstanding issues.”

- “We are in the process of providing comments on that draft policy proposal on IPR, and we are committed to continuing to engage with them to underscore areas of work that needs to be done in copyright, in trade secrets as well as in the area of patents.”

- “We’ve got a good dialogue going now with the new government on this issue, and we’re committed to working to achieve concrete progress in this area.”

B. Union Minister of Commerce and Industry of India specifically seeking American Government’s inputs in the finalization process of the new National IPR policy of the country.

Keeping these in perspective, let me try to explore whether or not it would be fair for India deciding to put in place ‘Patent Linkages’ and ‘Data Exclusivity’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act of the country.

In this article, I shall deliberate on my personal take on ‘Patent Linkage’ and in the next week’s article on ‘Data Exclusivity’.

Definition:

Patent linkage is broadly defined as the practice of linking market approval for generic medicines to the patent status of the originator reference product.

A brief background in India:

The ‘Patent Linkage’ saga has an interesting background in India. I would now try to capture the essence of it, as stated below.

About 7 years ago, probably prompted by intense lobbying by the Pharma MNCs, the then Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly informed the media, on April 28, 2008, the following:

“We (DCGI) are going to seek the list of the drugs from innovator companies that have received patent in India. Once we have the database of the drugs which have been granted patent, we will not give any marketing approval to their generic versions…The DCGI has issued internal guidelines to this effect and it will also co-ordinate with the health ministry to give a formal shape to the initiative. The government expects to finalize a proper system within the next 2-3 months.”

It was also reported in the same article that Patent attorney Pratibha Singh, who along with Arun Jaitley was representing Cipla in the Tarceva case against Roche said:

“The DCGI does not have the authority to reject marketing application of a generic drug on the grounds that an innovator company has received the patent for the same drug in the country.”

Immediately following the above reported announcement of the DCGI on ‘Patent Linkage’, another media report flashed that the domestic drug companies are strongly objecting to the DCGI’s plans to link marketing approval for a drug with its patent status in the country, citing requirement of additional resources for the same and concern that it could block access to affordable medicines by suppressing competitive forces.

Despite this objection of the domestic Indian pharma companies, a senior official in DCGI office reportedly reaffirmed the DCGI’s intent of establishing the linkage so that no slips happen in the future. The same media report quoted that Government official as saying:

“We will have to amend the rules in the Act. We have to put it before the Drugs Consultative Committee first and this could be around the end of this year.”

Current ‘administrative’ status in India:

Currently in India, there is no provision for ‘Patent Linkage’, either in the Statute or through any administrative measure.

After those potboiler reports, it is quite challenging to fathom, what exactly had happened for the reverse swing thereafter at the DCGI’s office. The bottom line is, the above initiative of the then DCGI for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India ultimately got killed in the corridors of power. Hence, there does not exist any direct or indirect measure for ‘Patent Linkage’ in India, as I write this article.

Current legal status:

In 2008 Bayer Corporation had filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court against Union of India, the DCGI and Cipla seeking an order that the DCGI should consider the patent status of its drug, Sorefenib tosylate, and refuse marketing approval to any generic versions of this drug.

It is worth mentioning, Sorefenib tosylate is used to treat renal cancer and was being reportedly sold in India by Bayer at Rs. 2,85,000 for 120 tablets for a monthly course of treatment.

The appeal in the Delhi High Court was filed against a judgment delivered by Justice Ravindra Bhat on 18 August 2009, rejecting Bayer’s attempt to introduce the patent linkage system in India through a court direction. But, in a landmark judgment on February 9 2010, a division bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Bayer Corporation in this regard. Thereafter, Bayer Corporation moved Supreme Court against this Delhi High Court order.

However, in December 01, 2010, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by Bayer Corporation against the February 2010 decision of the Delhi High Court. The Apex Court of India ordered, since the Drugs Act does not confer power upon the DCGI to make rules regarding the ‘Patent Linkage’, any such attempt would constitute substantive ultra vires of the delegated power.

RTI helps to get the marketing approval status of drugs:

Currently relevant information on marketing approval application status of generic drugs are not available at the CDSCO website. Hence, some innovator companies have resorted to using Right To Information (RTI) Act to ferret out such details from the DCGI office and initiate appropriate legal measures for patent infringement, well before the generic version of the original drug comes to the market.

A middle ground:

In view of the above order of the Supreme Court, the government of India may try to seek a middle ground without amending any provision of the Patents Act, in any way.

Even avoiding the word ‘Patent Linkage’, the Ministry of Health can possibly help the pharma MNCs achieving similar goal, through administrative measures. It can instruct the DCGI to upload the ‘Marketing Approval’ applications status for various generic products in the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) website. If for any patented drugs, applications for marketing approval of generic equivalents are made, the available information would enable the patent holder taking appropriate legal recourse for patent infringement, much before the drug is marketed at a heavily discounted price.

It is quite possible that the interested constituents had put requests for such administrative measures even before the earlier Government. As no tangible action has been taken even thereafter, the erstwhile Government probably felt, if introduced, such a system would adversely impact quick and early availability of the generic drugs in the market place.

Conclusion:

I wrote an article on similar issue in my blog post of August 24, 2009 titled, “Recent Bayer Case Judgment: Patent Linkage: Encouraging Innovation in India.”

Taking all these into consideration, in my view, it is quite possible for the present Indian Government to resolve the core issue related to ‘Patent Linkage’ through administrative measure, without amending any Acts or breaching any case laws of the land.

In the present IPR imbroglio, the above administrative measure could well be a win-win solution for all.

It would help facilitating early judicial intervention by the patent holder in case of prima facie patent infringements, enabling the Government to send a clear reiteration that the patents granted to pharmaceutical products will be appropriately enforced and protected in the country.

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.

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

Posted on January 19, 2015 by Tapan Ray

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

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

A quick glance at the Draft IPR Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here below are examples of some of those events:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Non-availability of regulatory data protection

- Non-availability of patent term restoration

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

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

In the midst of all these, international media reported:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft IPR Policy: Does dwell on these issues.

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Patent

Making New Cancer Drugs Cost-effective

Define And Adapt To Reality: Two Pivotal Pharma Leadership Skills For Sustainable Excellence

Dwindling Drug Innovation: Declining Image: Unchanged Business And Advocacy Models

An Emerging Yo-Yo Syndrome With Biosimilar Drugs

For Drug Safety Concern: “Whistleblower’s Intention Should Be Nationalistic”

Utility Model: Would It Work In India For Pharma?

‘Patent Linkage’: Can The Core Issue Be Resolved?

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