From Cross-Licensing to ‘Patent Pools’ and… India: Will there be a ground swell?

Posted on May 23, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Since many years, the global pharmaceutical industry has been making effective commercial use of cross-licensing, however, by and large, the industry still does not seem to be quite in favor of ‘Patent Pools’ for various reasons.

The ‘Patent Pool’, as I understand is defined as, “an agreement between different owners, including companies, governments and academic bodies to make available patent rights on non-exclusive basis to manufacturers and distributor of drugs against payment of royalties.”

Thus one of the often repeated key benefits of the ‘Patent Pools’, as considered by its proponents, is that the system enables the use of innovation against payment of royalties, without the risk of patent infringement. Many believe that the concept of ‘Patent Pool’ can play an immensely useful role for productive use of Intellectual Property (IP) in the global pharmaceutical industry.

The difference between cross-licensing and ‘Patent Pools’:

The basic purposes of both Cross-Licensing and patent pools may appear to be similar, however the key difference is that in ‘Patent Pool’ system the patent owners usually agree to license to third parties who may not even contribute any patents to the pool. Moreover, ‘Patent Pools’ involve a large number of parties with its scope being narrow and well standardized.

“Patent Pools”- still a contentious issue:

The concept of ‘Patent Pools’ has become a contentious issue within the global pharmaceutical industry. Some opinion leaders vehemently argue that creation of a ‘patent pool’ will bring down the cost of any innovation significantly and save huge time, ensuring speedier and improved access to such medicines to a vast majority of ailing population across the world. This section of the experts also feels, “in the case of blocking patents as a commercial strategy, it would only be a reasonable method for making the innovation publicly available.”
In the midst of this high decibel debate, on February 13, 2009, ‘The Guardian’ reported the following comment of Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on the same issue:
“GSK will put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a patent pool, so they can be explored by other researchers”.
Andrew Witty in that interview also commented, “I think it’s the first time anybody’s really come out and said we’re prepared to start talking to people about pooling our patents to try to facilitate innovation in areas where, so far, there hasn’t been much progress… I think the shareholders understand this and it’s my job to make sure I can explain it. I think we can. I think it’s absolutely the kind of thing large global companies need to be demonstrating, that they’ve got a more balanced view of the world than short-term returns.”
Quoting Andrew Witty, ‘The Guardian’ reported, “his stance may not win him friends in other drug companies, but he is inviting them to join him in an attempt to make a significant difference to the health of people in poor countries”.
Yet another ‘out of box’ comment:
As if to prove ‘The Guardian’ right on their above comment, during his visit to India on March 2010, though in a slightly different context, Witty made the following comments, while answering a question of “The Economic Times”:
“I am relatively relaxed with the Indian regulatory environment. The government has made it clear about the direction to have an Intellectual Property (IP) mechanism and to be TRIPS compliant. Some people are unrealistic and want everything to change overnight. But we should be absolutely realistic about pricing to keep it affordable for India. If someone has the IP right, it does not mean that it should make it inaccessible for lower income people. Over the next 10-15 years India will become increasingly IP defined market.”
The rationale for ‘Patent Pools’ system:
Many experts in this area feel that the conventional patent system does not really work for the diseases of the poor, all over the world. Though the concept of ‘Patent Pools’ is quite new in the global pharmaceutical industry, this system is being very successfully and widely practiced within the Information Technology (IT) industry. ‘Patent Pool’ system, if effectively used, as stated earlier, can also help the global pharmaceutical companies to improve access of such medicines to many more developing countries of the world.

Key requirements for the ‘Patent Pools’:
Careful identification of various patents, which will be essential for the pool, will be one of the key requirements to initiate a ‘Patent Pool’ system. It makes the need to obtain individual patents, required in the process of a drug discovery, less important.

National Institute of Health (NIH), USA initiated the process:
On September 30, 2010, NIH became the first patent-holder to share its intellectual property with the Medicines Patent Pool, supported by UNITAID, by licensing a patent for ‘Darunavir’ to increase access of HIV and AIDS medicines to the suffering patients in the developing countries of the world.

UNITAID, an innovative global health financing mechanism is funded by a levy on airline tickets. This initiative was co-founded by the U.K, France, Norway, Brazil and Chile at the United Nations General Assembly in 2006 and buys drugs against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
The above move of NIH towards the noble cause was appreciated by many all over the world, urging the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, to take a leaf out of it.

India was kept out of UNITAID “Patent Pool”:

In 2009-10, UNITAID reportedly had opposed the move to include countries like, India, China and Brazil from the proposed patent pool for AIDS drugs. At least seven civil society groups from India like, the Centre for Trade and Development, the National Working Group on Patent Laws, the All India Peoples Science Network openly stated that UNITAID does not intend to share the patent pool implementation plan with these civil society groups of India. They also alleged that this development in UNITAID will have a significant impact on the ability of Indian Pharmaceutical industry to manufacture low-cost versions of patented HIV/AIDS medicines for the developing countries of the world.

At that time, it was also reported that large global pharmaceutical players had indicated to UNITAID that they could contribute to the ‘patent pool’ on a selective basis, however, over 100 middle income countries such as India, Brazil and China should not have rights to manufacture generic versions of these HIV/AIDS medicines. They felt that ‘patent pool’ will be meaningless if poor countries, who do not have the capability to manufacture these medicines, are included in the process.

However, according to UNITAID, “the patent pool in no way a means to replace or override other provisions contained in the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement or the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. The patent pool represents an additional tool to increase access to HIV treatment, and an opportunity for patent holders to voluntarily contribute to the attainment of crucial health-related goals endorsed by the international community.”

GSK kick-started the process:

Andrew Witty of GSK is undoubtedly the first CEO of a global pharmaceutical company to announce a ‘Patent Pool’ system for research on 16 neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, filariasis, leprosy and leishmaniasis. GSK has, in a real sense, kick started the process by putting more than 500 granted pharmaceuticals patents and over 300 pending applications in the ‘Patent Pool’.

J&J followed suit:

Johnson and Johnson (J&J) in January 2011 expressed its willingness to assist ‘Medicines Patent Pool Foundation (MPPF)’ to implement ‘Medicines Patent Pool (MPP)’, which aims to improve access to affordable and appropriate HIV medicines in developing countries. MPPF works through voluntary licensing of patents for public health interest, at the same time extending compensation to the innovator pharmaceutical companies.

‘Medicines Patent Pools’:

On April 7, 2011. ‘Intellectual Property Watch’ reported that the ‘Medicines Patent Pools’, an initiative to improve access to HIV drugs through voluntary licenses of patented drugs, have launched a new database of patent information on HIV medicines in developing countries. The database has been developed with the support of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Regional Patent Offices across the world. Intellectual Property Watch

Key issues with the ‘Patent Pools’ concept:
The report from a WHO conference held in April, 2006 ‘Innovation Strategy Today’ indicates that the start-up cost of a ‘Patent Pools’ for vaccines will be economically viable only if more than 25 participants holding relevant patents join the initiative.
Moreover, various types of litigation related to patents, which are being currently witnessed within the global pharmaceutical industry, could also be an impediment in getting more patents in the pool.

Recommended ‘General Principles’ for “Patent Pools”:
International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), Switzerland, suggested the following guidelines for the ‘Patent Pool’ initiatives:
1. Patent pools should be voluntary associations of entities formed without coercion 2. Objectives of any patent pool should be clearly defined 3. Patent pools should complement rather than replace elements of existing intellectual property regimes 4. Rights and obligations of contributors and licensees of contributed rights should be clear 5. Patent pools should reduce transaction costs, and not increase administrative costs, relative to other options such as direct licensing
Conclusion:
There is certainly an urgent need to communicate more on how innovation and IPR could help rather than hinder public health. At the same time all stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry need to come out with a robust solution to ever increasing problem of improving access to innovative medicines to the ailing population of the world, in the best possible way.
However, these are still very early days, before such a disrupting idea get widely accepted by the global innovators and implemented religiously not just for the ‘public health interest’, across the world, but also to create a sustainable business model to harvest ‘Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid’.

Only future will tell us whether or not the ‘Patent Pools’ initiatives become the footprints on the sands of time as the global pharmaceutical industry keeps navigating through the challenges of change.

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.

Biologic Medicine: Ushers in a different ‘Mega Race’ for inorganic growth

Posted on May 2, 2011 by Tapan Ray

During the last several years the success of biologics compared to conventional small-molecule drugs to meet the unmet needs of patients, is gradually but surely changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A. Over a period of so many years, the small-molecule blockbuster drugs business model made pharmaceuticals a high-margin industry. However, it now appears that the low hanging fruits to make blockbuster drugs have mostly been plucked.

These low hanging fruits involved therapy areas like, anti-ulcerants, anti-lipids, anti-diabetics, cardiovascular, anti-psychotic etc. and their many variants, which were relatively easy R&D targets to manage chronic ailments. Hereafter, the chances of successfully developing drugs for cure of these chronic ailments, with value addition, would indeed be a very tough call.

Deploying expensive resources towards finding a cure for so called ‘chronic diseases’ may also not promise a strong commercial incentive, as the treatment for ulcer, lipid disorders, diabetics, hypertension etc. are currently continues lifelong for a patient and a cure will limit the treatment to a short to medium term period.

Greater promise in biologics:

On the other hand, the bottom-line impact of a successful R&D outcome with safer and effective drugs to treat intractable ailments like,various types of cancer and blood disorders, auto-immune and Central Nervous System (CNS) related diseases, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Myasthenia gravis, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s diseases etc., will be huge. It is believed that well targeted drugs of biologic origin could well be successful treatment for such intractable diseases.

The golden opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologics, especially in high-growth therapeutics, as mentioned above, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust.

Biologic versus conventional drugs:

Biologics	Conventional and NME drugs
Large molecules (>5000 molecular weight)	Small molecules (~500 molecular weight)
Bio-technologically produced or isolated from living sources	Chemically synthesized
Complex structure/mixtures (tertiary structure, glycosylated)	Simple well-defined structure
High target specificity	Less target specificity
Generally parenteral administration (e.g., intravenous)	Oral administration possible (pills)

(Source: MoneyTreeTM Report. PWC, 2009)

According to IMS, Biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$120 billion MAT March 2009. As we see today, gradually more and more global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales in R&D, are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in a fast evolving market of biologics through mainly M&A route. This is also driven by their strategic intent to make good the loss in income from the blockbuster drugs going off patent and at the same time fast dwindling R&D pipeline.

A shift from small molecule based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one:

Frost & Sullivan forecasts a shift from small molecules-based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one for the global pharmaceutical majors, just as biologics like Enbrel ,Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira, as mentioned below, have already proved to be money spinners.

The top 10 global brands in 2009:

Rank	Product	Chemical/Biologic	Global Sales US$ Mn
1	Lipitior	Chemical	12,511
2	Plavix	Chemical	9,492
3.	Seretide/Advair	Chemical	7,791
4.	Enbrel	Biologic	6,295
5.	Diovan	Chemical	6,013
6.	Remicade	Biologic	5,924
7.	Avastin	Biologic	5,744
8.	Rituxan	Biologic	5,620
9.	Humira	Biologic	5,559
10.	Seroquel	Chemical	5,121

(Source: EvaluatePharma)

Faster growth of biologics attracting attention of large pharma players:

Currently, faster growth of biologics as compared to conventional new chemical entities is driven by novel technologies and highly targeted approach, the final outcome of which is being more widely accepted by both physicians and patients. The large global pharmaceutical companies are realizing it pretty fast. The type and quality of their recent acquisitions, vindicate this point.

Mega race for biologics and vaccines:

Driven by the above factor, in 2009 Pfizer acquired Wyeth for US $68 billion, Roche acquired Genentech for US $ 47 billion and Merck acquired Schering-Plough for US $ 41 billion. Only the above three M&A are valued more than US $ 150 billion and that too at a time of global financial meltdown.

Acquisition of Wyeth enabled Pfizer to expand its product-mix with vaccines, animal health and consumer products businesses and at the same time leveraging from Wyeth’s biologics capability.

Similarly, Merck got tempted to acquire Schering-Plough mainly because of latter’s rich R&D pipeline with biologics.

Roche, which was basically a pharmaceutical company, post-acquisition of Genentech, became a major bio-pharmaceutical company with a great promise to deliver in the years ahead.

Other M&As, which would signify a shift toward the growing space for biologics are the acquisition of MedImmune by AstraZeneca and Insmed by Merck and the recent bid of Sanofi-Aventis for Genzyme.

Faster growth of biologics:

As mentioned above, despite patent cliff, biologics continue to contribute better than small molecules to overall growth of the R&D based global pharmaceutical industry. Most of these biologics are sourced either through acquisition or collaborative arrangements.

Currently cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factors, etc. are becoming attractive acquisition targets, mainly by large pure pharmaceutical companies with deep pockets.

Another M&A model:

Besides mega race for mega acquisitions, on the other hand, relatively smaller pharmaceutical players have started acquiring venture-backed biotech companies to enrich their product pipelines with early-stage drugs at a much lesser cost. For example, with the acquisition of Calistoga for US $ 600 million and venture-backed Arresto Biosciences and CGI Pharmaceuticals, Gilead known for its HIV drugs, expanded into blood cancer, solid tumor and inflammatory diseases. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs.

Smaller biotech companies, because of their current size do not get engaged in very large deals, unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and usually successful deals.

Another commercial advantage for biologics – lesser generic competition :

After patent expiry of a New Chemical Entity (NCE), innovators’ brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion, as these small molecules are relatively easy to replicate by many generic manufacturers and the process of getting their regulatory approval is not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biologics, which involve difficult, complex and expensive biological processes for development together with stringent regulatory requirements for getting marketing approval of biosimilar drugs especially in the developed markets of the world like, EU and USA, offer some significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, even after patent expiry.

It is for this reason, brands like the following ones are expected to go strong for some more time to come, without any significant competition from biosimilar drugs:

Brand	Company	Launch date
Rituxan	Roche/Biogen idec	1997
Herceptin	Roche	1998
Remicade	Centocor/J&J	1998
Enbrel	Amgen/Pfizer	1998

Change of appetite:

In my view, the voracious appetite of large pharmaceutical companies for inorganic growth through mega M&As, will ultimately subside for various compelling reasons. Instead, smaller biotech companies, especially with products in Phase I or II of clinical trials without further resource to take them to subsequent stages of development, will be prime targets for acquisition by the pharma majors at an attractive valuation.

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors are experimenting with pure biotech companies in terms of acquisitions and alliances, it will be interesting to see the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ between these companies’ business models, organization and work/employee culture and market outlook to improve their overall global business performance, significantly. Only future will tell us whether or not just restructuring of the R&D set up of companies like, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and perhaps Sanofi-aventis at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged companies.

In this context, Frost & Sullivan had commented: “Widely differing cultures at Roche and Genentech could make retaining top scientists a huge challenge. Roche is Swiss and a stickler for precision and time, while Genentech has a more ‘Californian attitude’ and is laid back and efficient in its work”.

Though the long-term overall financial impact of the ‘mega race for mega deals’, as mentioned above, is less clear to me, acquisition of biotech companies, especially well thought through smaller ones, seems to be a pretty smart move towards inorganic growth by the global innovator companies.

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.

‘Frugal Innovation’ in Healthcare: Ahoy!

Posted on April 18, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Patented new products have been the prime growth driver of the research based pharmaceutical companies, the world over. Probably because of this reason the world has seen over a period of time about four different molecules of H2 Blockers and six different molecules of proton pump inhibitors to treat peptic ulcers, nine varieties of statins to treat lipid disorders, ten variants of calcium channel blockers to treat hypertension, three new compounds of similar drugs to address erectile dysfunction and the list could go on. Most of these molecules attained the blockbuster status, backed by cutting edge innovative marketing strategies.

Whether all these patented molecules met significant unmet needs of the patients could well be a contentious point. However, the key point is that all these drugs did help fueling growth of the global pharmaceutical industry very significantly, including our own Indian Pharmaceutical companies, though through immaculate copying during pre-product patent regime of before January, 2005.

Since last few years, because of various reasons, the number of market launch of such patented products has greatly reduced. To add fuel to the fire, 2011-12 will witness patent expiries of many blockbuster drugs, including the top revenue grosser of the world, depleting the growth potential of many large research-based global pharmaceutical companies.

Blockbuster drug ‘Business Model’ is no longer sustainable:

The blockbuster model of growth engine of the innovator companies effectively relies on a limited number of ‘winning horses’ to achieve the business goal and meeting the Wall Street expectations. In 2007, depleting pipeline of the blockbuster drugs hit a new low in the developed markets of the world. It is estimated that around U.S. $ 140 billion of annual turnover from blockbuster drugs will get almost shaved-off due to patent expiry by the year 2016. IMS reported that in 2010 more than U.S. $ 30 billion was adversely impacted because of patent expiry. Another set of blockbuster drugs with similar value turnover will go off patent in 2011. It will not be out of context to mention, that the year before last around U.S. $ 27 billion worth of patented drugs had reportedly gone off-patent.

Decline in R&D productivity with a thin silver lining though:

The decline in R&D productivity has not been due to lack of investments. It has been reported that between 1993 and 2004, R&D expenditure by the pharmaceutical industry rose from U.S. $ 16 billion to around U.S. $ 40 billion. However, during the same period the number of applications for New Chemical Entities (NCEs) filed annually to the U.S. FDA grew by just 7%.

It was reported that total global expenditure for pharmaceutical R&D reached U.S. $ 70 billion in 2007 and is estimated to be around U.S $ 90 billion by the end of the year just gone by. 75% of this expenditure was incurred by the U.S alone. It is interesting to note that only 22 NMEs received marketing approval by the US FDA during this period against 53 in 1996, when expenditure was almost less than half of what was incurred in 2007 towards R&D.

The silver linings:

There seem to be following two silver linings in the present scenario, as reported by IMS:

Number of Phase I and Phase II drugs in the pipeline is increasing.
R&D applications for clinical trials in the U.S. rose by 11.6% to a record high of 662 last year.

Funding high cost R&D will be a challenge:

Patent expiry of so many blockbusters during this period will obviously fuel the growth of generic pharmaceutical business, especially in the large developed markets of the world. The market exclusivity for 180 days being given to the first applicant with a paragraph 4 certification in the U.S. is, indeed, a very strong incentive, especially for the generic pharmaceutical companies of India.

In a scenario like this, funding of high cost R&D projects is becoming a real challenge.

Cut in R&D Expenditure has already begun:

Following its acquisition of Wyeth in 2008, Pfizer announced plans to reduce their R&D budget from the US $11 billion to between $8 and $8.5 billion by 2012. Similarly, GSK also announced a reduction of £500 million from its costs by 2012 and half of these costs are from their R&D budget.

As reported by Chemistry World in January 2010, “AstraZeneca announced its plans to reduce around 1800 R&D positions as part of a restructuring process that will see 8000 jobs go as it looks to reduce its costs by $1 billion a year by 2014”.

The time for ‘Frugal Innovation’:

In a new and fast evolving scenario when the erstwhile ‘Blockbuster Drugs Business Model’ with commensurate huge R&D spends does no longer seem to be a practical proposition. Unmet needs in the healthcare space should now be met with cost efficient ‘Frugal Innovation’, which has already dawned in the healthcare space of India.

April 15, 2010 issue of ‘The Economist’ in an article titled, “First break all the rules – The charms of frugal innovation” has described some of health related ‘Frugal Innovations’ as follows:

Bangalore Center of General Electric (GE) has come out with a low cost hand-held electrocardiogram (ECG) called ‘Mac 400’, which has reduced the cost of an ECG test to just US $1 per patient.
Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) has come out with lower-tech, yet robust, portable and relatively cheap water filter, which uses rice husks to purify water. This water filter could provide even to a large family an abundant supply of bacteria-free water for an initial investment of about US $24 and a recurring expense of about US $4 for a new filter every few months. Tata Chemicals, which is making the devices, is planning to produce 1m over the next year and hopes for an eventual market of 100m.

11^th Five Year Plan of India and ‘Frugal Innovation’:

The panel set up for the appraisal of the 11^th Five Year Plan of India observed that innovation needs to be “inclusive” and “frugal”.

To accelerate growth of the nation and to meet the unmet needs particularly in healthcare and education, besides others, India needs more ‘frugal innovation’ that produces more ‘frugal cost’ and high quality products and services, quite affordable to the common man of the country.

It also highlighted that a paradigm which bases its assessment of innovativeness on the quantum of expensive inputs deployed, like the numbers of scientists, expenditures on R&D etc. will always tend to produce expensive innovations because the cost of innovation must be recovered in the prices of the products it produces.

The above appraisal report goes on saying:

“This is indeed the dilemma of the ‘innovative’ companies in the pharmaceutical industry. They find it economically difficult to justify development of low cost solutions for ailments that affect poor people.”

‘National Innovation Council’ moots ‘inclusive growth’ through innovation:

To encourage the culture and process of ‘inclusive growth’ through innovation in India, Mr. Sam Pitroda , the Chairman of the ‘National Innovation Council’ had mooted a proposal for creation of a Rs 1,000 Crore corpus in the country, where the Government of India should initially take 10% to 20% share of the corpus and then its equities will be bought by the public.

Conclusion:

The R&D model of companies like GE and TCS, as mentioned above, are taking the affordability of the common man as a starting point and then working backwards to satisfy unmet needs of the people, just as what Tata Motors did for the ‘Nano Car’ in India.

In an environment of continuous diminishing return from the big ticket R&D expenditure of the global pharmaceutical companies, across the world, I sincerely hope and pray that the world witnesses increasing number of cost effective ‘Frugal Innovation’ in healthcare, including medicines, sooner than later…just for the sake of humanity.

By: Tapan J Ray

Tapan Ray in ‘Focus Reports’, March 2011

Posted on April 4, 2011 by Tapan Ray

FR: Our last report on India dates back to 2006, right after the Patent Law was passed. What developments have you seen happening in the industry since then?

TR: There has been a paradigm shift with the Product Patent Regime coming in place in 2005. The era from 1970 to 2005 has been a very successful era of reverse engineering, when Indian manufacturers were copying and marketing innovative products in India at a fraction of their international price. Nevertheless, this also required talent, for which India had brilliant process chemists. However, the country eventually realized that reverse engineering model would not truly serve the longer term advancement of the economy in creating a conducive ecosystem to foster innovation. This realization process started in 1990 and was reinforced after signing the WTO Agreement in 1995. After the ten-year transition period, the patent law came into force in January 2005.

Since around 2005 Indian companies, which had mainly been relying on cost efficient processes, started investing in the drug discovery research. There are now at least 10 Indian companies engaged in basic research, while around 32 New Chemical Entities (NCEs) are at various stages of development.

This significant step that the country has taken so far, could not have been possible without a conscious decision to move away from the paradigm of replication to the new paradigm of innovation. More importantly, this shift has not happened at the cost of fast growing generic pharmaceutical industry in the country. Branded generics continue to grow rapidly in the new paradigm.

Today, branded generics constitute over 99% of the domestic pharmaceutical market. Of course, according to McKinsey (2007), the share of patented medicines is expected to increase to 10% by 2015. Even in that scenario 90% of the market will still constitute with branded generics in value terms.

FR: At the same time, companies are still only spending some 4% of their revenues on R&D, while internationally these numbers amount up to 12%. Many of the people in the industry seem to still see the future of India for the next 10 years to remain in manufacturing. Is innovation really the story of India right now?

TR: As I mentioned earlier, around 32 NCEs are at various stages of development from pre-clinical to Phase III. Thus, what Indian companies have achieved since 2005, is, indeed remarkable. If you now look at the investments made by the Indian pharmaceutical companies in R&D, as a percentage of turnover, you will notice an ascending trend. Though the R&D ecosystem in India cannot be compared with the developed world just yet, India is catching up.

FR: In some previous interviews we have conducted, concerns were raised over the Indian industry, saying that the local companies are selling off to international players. What is your take on this?

TR: In India, we all express a lot of sentiments and are generally emotional in nature. These are not bad qualities by any standard. However, such expressions should ideally be supported by hard facts. Otherwise these expressions cannot be justified.

Consolidation process within the industry is a worldwide phenomenon and is also taking place in India. One of the apprehensions of such consolidation process in India is that drug prices would go up, as a consequence. In my view, all such apprehensions should be judged by what has already happened in our country by now, in this area.

One example we can cite is the Ranbaxy-Daiichi-Sankyo deal, an acquisition which has not at all led to an increase in Ranbaxy’s product prices. Similarly, the acquisition of India-based Shantha Biotech by the French pharmaceutical major, Sanofi-Aventis did not lead to any increase in product prices either. It is difficult to make out how could possibly the drug prices go up when we have an effective national price regulator called National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) in India? Currently, 100% of the pharmaceutical market in the country is regulated by NPPA in one way or the other.

India is currently having a drug policy which came into force way back in 1995. As per this drug policy, any company which increases its product price which are outside price control, by more than 10% in a year, will be called for an explanation by the NPPA. Without a satisfactory explanation, the concerned product – not the product category – will be brought under price control, that too for good. In addition, intensive cut-throat competition has made pharmaceutical product prices in India the cheapest in the world, even lower than in the neighboring countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Moreover, if the potential to increase prices exists, why would any company wait for an acquisition in a highly fragmented pharmaceutical market in India?

Many of the concerns are, therefore, difficult to justify due to lack of factual data. In fact, on the contrary, the presence of multinational pharmaceutical companies in India is good for the country. These companies with their international expertise and resources would help India to build capacity in terms of training and creating a world-class talent pool. Indian companies, therefore, should consider to take more and more initiatives to partner and collaborate with these MNCs to create a win-win situation for India.

Another key advantage is in the area of market penetration. Market penetration through value-added innovative marketing has happened and has been happening all over the world; India should not let go this opportunity.

FR: In that case, how do you feel about some of the proposed protectionist measures such as a 49% cap on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)?

TR: This may, once again, be related to the strong local sentiments. India needs financial reforms and wants to attract more and more FDI. The country wants to liberalize the process of FDI and, to the best of my knowledge, any step to move backward in this area should not be contemplated.

It is also worth mentioning that the acquisitions that have taken place were not of any hostile nature. Both Indian companies and MNCs have their own sets of skills, competencies and best practices. Both cost revenue and value synergy through such consolidation process could be made beneficial for the country.

Without commenting on any specific cases, I believe India has taken significant steps to encourage and protect innovation by putting in place the product patent Act in 2005. However, there are some additional steps that the Government should take to further strengthen the process, such as fast-track courts that can quickly decide on the cases of patent infringements. Another example is that when any company will apply for marketing approval for a product, the regulator will upload the same on its website. This is an easy way for other players to detect patent infringement and start taking counter-measures at an early stage. These are examples of steps that can be taken to create a proper ecosystem without amending the law.

FR: You mentioned the paradigm shift towards innovation earlier, to some extent a similar path as China. How innovative has India become in this respect and is it sufficient in terms of clinical trials and other related aspects of the sector?

TR: With regards to attracting FDI in areas such as R&D and clinical trials, India at present is far behind China. The reason for this, as said earlier, is that the country should try to analyse why the innovator companies are not preferring India to China in these areas. Simultaneously, there is a need to assess the expectations of the innovative companies from India in various areas of IPR. One such factor that is bothering the global innovative companies is the absence of regulatory data protection in India. The Government should seriously ponder over this need and take active steps towards this direction as was proposed by ” Satwant Reddy Committee in 2007.”

FR: In your view, what is the industry going to look like in the coming years?

TR: I do not expect a radical shift in the way the Pharmaceutical Industry will be operating in the next few years. Changes will take place gradually and, perhaps, less radically. The increase of the share of patented medicines to 10% of the market share by 2015 as was forecasted by McKinsey in 2007, in my opinion, is rather ambitious. We will certainly see more and more patented products in the market, but it will be slow and gradual unless corrective measures are taken to tighten the loose knots in the Patent Amendment Act 2005, as stated earlier. As more and more Indian companies will start embracing an innovation-driven business model, the strengths and the international experience of the MNCs in this area should be leveraged to catapult the Indian pharmaceutical industry to a much higher growth trajectory.

The interview is available at the following link:

http://www.pharma.focusreports.net/#state=Interview&id=0

By: Tapan J Ray

Fostering ‘Innovation’ and protecting of ‘Public Health Interest’: A formidable task for the new TF (taskforce)

Posted on March 28, 2011 by Tapan Ray

‘The Lancet’, March 19, 2011 in its article titled “India: access to affordable drugs and the right to health”, where the authors reiterated:

‘The right to health is a fundamental right in India, judicially recognized under article 21 of the Constitution…Access to affordable drugs has been interpreted to be a part of right to health’.

Keeping in view of this ‘fundamental right’ of the citizens, public health related issues will continue to be treated as a subject of ‘Public Interest’ in the country.

At the same time, no one can wish away the fact that unmet medicinal needs of the ailing patients can only be met through discovery of innovative drugs. Hence, an innovation friendly ecosystem must necessarily be created in the country, simultaneously. This throws open the dual challenge to the government in the healthcare space of the nation – charting an appropriate pathway to foster a climate for innovation and at the same time protecting ‘Public Health Interest’ of its citizens.

The recent admirable response of the Ministry of Health:

Considering this dual healthcare related needs of the country, on March 15, 2011, Mr Ghulam Nabi Azad, the Minister of Health and Family Welfare, announced the formation of a 12-member task force that will evolve the following strategies under the chairmanship of V.M. Katoch, Secretary, Department of Health Research and Director-General, ICMR and will submit its report within three months.

Evolving a short, medium and long-term policy and strategy to make India a hub for drug discovery, research and development.
Evolving strategies to further the interests of Indian pharma industry in the light of issues related to intellectual property rights and recommend strategies to capitalise the opportunity of $60 to $80 billion drugs going off-patent over the next five years.
Evolve policy measures to assure national drugs security by promoting indigenous production of bulk drugs, preventing takeover of Indian pharma industry by multi-national corporations, drug pricing, promotion of generic drugs
Recommend measures to assure adequate availability of quality generic drugs at affordable prices.

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry is on a growth spree:

The pharmaceutical industry of India is currently playing a key role in promoting and sustaining development in the healthcare space of India. Due to significant cost arbitrage, educated and skilled manpower and cheap labor force among others, the industry is set to establish itself as a global force to reckon with, especially in the areas of generic formulations business, Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS).

Estimates and Perspectives:

The pharma industry is growing at around 1.5-1.6 times the Gross Domestic Product growth of India
Currently, India ranks third in the world in terms of volume of manufacturing pharmaceutical products
The Indian pharmaceutical industry is expected to grow at a rate of around 15 % till 2015
The retail pharmaceutical market in India is expected to cross US$ 20 billion by 2015
According to a study by FICCI-Ernst & Young India will open a probable US$ 8 billion market for MNCs selling patented drugs in India by 2015
The number of pharmaceutical retailers is estimated to grow from 5.5 lakh to 7.5 lakhs by 2015
At least 2 lakh more pharma graduates would be required by the Indian pharmaceutical industry by 2015
The Indian drug and pharmaceuticals sector attracted foreign direct investment to the tune of US$ 1.43 billion from April 2000 to December 2008 (Ministry of Commerce and Industry), which is expected to increase significantly along with the policy reform measures and increased Government investment (3%-4%) as a percentage of GDP towards healthcare, by 2015
The Minister of Commerce estimates that US$ 6.31 billion will be invested in the domestic pharmaceutical sector
Due to low cost of R&D, the Indian pharmaceutical off-shoring industry is expected to be a US$ 2.5 billion opportunity by 2012

Key growth drivers: Local and Global:

Local:

• Rapidly growing middle class population of the country with increasing disposable income.
• High quality and cost effective domestic generic drug manufacturers are achieving increasing penetration in local, developed and emerging markets.
• Rising per capita income of the population and inefficiency of the public healthcare system will encourage private healthcare systems of various types and scales to flourish.
• High probability of emergence of a robust healthcare financing/insurance model for all strata of society.
• Fast growing in Medical Tourism.
• Evolving combo-business model of global pharmaceutical companies with both patented and generic drugs is boosting local outsourcing and collaboration opportunities.
Global:
Global pharmaceutical industry is going through a rapid process of transformation. The moot question to answer now is how the drug discovery process can meet the unmet needs of the patients and yet remain cost effective.

Cost containment pressure due to various factors is further accelerating this process. CRAMS business, an important outcome of this transformation process, will be the key growth driver for many Indian domestic pharmaceutical players in times to come.

Key Challenges:

Like all other industries, Pharmaceutical Industry in India has its own sets of Challenges and opportunities under which it operates. Some of the challenges the industry faces are:

Unfortunate “Trust Deficit” between the Government and the Industry, especially in pharmaceutical pricing area
Regulatory red tape and lack of initiative towards international harmonization
Inadequate infrastructure and abysmal public delivery system
Lack of adequate number of qualified healthcare professionals
Inadequate innovation friendly ecosystem to encourage R&D
Myopic Drug Policies have failed to deliver. The needs of over 350 million BPL families who cannot afford to buy any healthcare products and services, have not been effectively addressed, as yet
Inability of the government to address the critical issue of ‘80% out of pocket expenditure’ of the common man towards healthcare
Inadequate Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives in most of the critical areas of healthcare

Job Creation:

Pharmaceutical sector in India has created employment for approximately 3 million people from 23,000 plus units. Accelerated growth in job creation, will not only open up more opportunities to pharmaceutical professionals, but will also fuel growth opportunities in allied business segments like Laboratory, Scientific instruments, Medical Devices and Pharma machinery manufacturing sectors.

Despite all these, it is worth noting that the Indian pharmaceutical industry is confronting with a major challenge in getting employable workforce with the required skill sets. This issue will grow by manifold, as we move on, if adequate vocational training institutes are not put in place on time to generate employable workforce for the industry.

Government Initiatives are inadequate:

The government of India has started working out some policy and fiscal initiatives, though grossly inadequate, for the growth of the pharmaceutical business in India. Some of the measures adopted by the Government are follows:

Pharmaceutical units are eligible for weighted tax reduction at 175% for the research and development expenditure obtained.
Two new schemes namely, New Millennium Indian Technology Leadership Initiative and the Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Research Program have been launched by the Government.
The Government is contemplating the creation of SRV or special purpose vehicles with an insurance cover to be used for funding new drug research
The Department of Pharmaceuticals is mulling the creation of drug research facilities which can be used by private companies for research work on rent

Encouraging Pharmaceutical Export:

In the recent years, despite economic slowdown being witnessed in the global economy, pharmaceutical exports in India have registered an appreciable growth. Export has emerged as an important growth driver for the domestic pharmaceutical industry with more than 50 % of their total revenue coming from the overseas markets. For the financial year 2008-09 the export of drugs is estimated to be around US $8.25 billion as per the Pharmaceutical Export Council of India (Pharmexil). A survey undertaken by FICCI reported 16% growth in India’s pharmaceutical export during 2009-2010.

Five ‘Strategic Changes’ envisaged:
Five new key strategic changes, in my view, will be as follows:
1. As the country will move towards an integrated and robust healthcare financing system:
• Doctors will no longer remain the sole decision makers for the drugs that they will prescribe to the patients and also the way they will treat the common diseases. Healthcare providers/ medical insurance companies would play a key role in these areas by providing to the doctors well thought out treatment guidelines. • Tough price negotiation with the healthcare providers/ medical insurance companies will be inevitable for a significant proportion of the products that the pharmaceutical companies will sell related to these areas.

• Health Technology Assessment (HTA) or outcome based pricing will play an important role in pricing a healthcare product.
2. An integrated approach towards disease prevention will emerge as equally important as treatment of diseases.
3. A shift from just product marketing to marketing of a bundle of value added comprehensive disease management processes along with the product will be the order of the day
4. More affordable innovative medicines will be available with increasing access to a larger population, as appropriate healthcare financing model is expected to be in place.

5. Over the counter medicines, especially originated from rich herbal resources of India, will curve out a larger share of market, as appropriate regulations will be put in place.

Conclusion:

With the all these evolving trends in the healthcare sector of India, the ball game of the successful domestic Indian pharmaceutical industry is expected to undergo a rapid metamorphosis, as they will require to compete with the global players on equal footing. Those Indian Pharmaceutical companies, who are already global players in their own rights, are already well versed with the nuances of this new game and are expected to offer a tough competition to the global players, especially, in the branded generic space, initially.

However, for some domestic players, the new environment could throw a major challenge and make them vulnerable to the consolidation process, already set in motion within Indian pharmaceutical industry.

The newly formed taskforce will hopefully be able to address all these issues in an integrated way to guide this life-line industry to a much higher growth trajectory to compete effectively not only in the global generic space, but also with the global innovator companies, sooner than later.

So the name of the game is to ‘Foster Innovation’ and protect ‘Public Health Interest’ simultaneously and not one at the cost of the other.

By: Tapan J Ray

A Disruptive Innovation in Healthcare – Personalized Medicines

Posted on March 21, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts University) in its publication named ‘Impact Report’, November/December 2010 articulated, “Biopharmaceutical companies are committed to researching and developing personalized medicines and within their development pipelines, 12%-50% of compounds are personalized medicines.”

Thus the disruptive innovation process towards ‘Personalized Medicines’ have already begun. Over a period of time ‘Personalized Medicines’ will be targeted to the biological/genomic profile of an individual to significantly improve the quality of healthcare to the patients.

This paradigm shift in the healthcare space would prompt similar changes in various disease diagnostic technologies, which will not only be able to detect a disease well before the appearance of symptoms, but would also indicate which patients will best respond to or be adversely affected by which medications.

‘Personalized Medicines’ will in that process ensure a critical shift from the disease oriented treatment to a patient oriented treatment, which can be initiated much before the clinical manifestations of a disease are detected.

The technological march towards this direction is indeed risky and arduous one. However, the benefits that the humanity will accrue out of this disruptive innovation will far outweigh the risks in all forms.

Personalized Medicines:

Rapid strides in pharmacogenomics bring in a promise of radically different ways of treating diseases, as major pharmaceutical companies of the world make progress in developing much more effective medicines designed to target smaller populations.

The above ‘Impact Report’ defines Personalized Medicines as:

“Tailoring of medical treatment and delivery of health care to the individual characteristics of each patient—including their genetic, molecular, imaging and other personal determinants. Using this approach has the potential to speed accurate diagnosis, decrease side effects, and increase the likelihood that a medicine will work for an individual patient.”

‘Personalized Medicines’ are expected to be an effective alternative to quite unwieldy current ‘blockbuster drugs’ business model.

What is then the aim of ‘Personalized Medicines’?
The aim of ‘personalized medicines’ is, therefore, to make a perfect fit between the drug and the patient. It is worth noting that genotyping is currently not a part of clinically accepted routine. However, it is expected to acquire this status in the western world, very shortly.

Some interesting recent developments:

The Economist, March 12-18, 2011 in its article titled “Toward the 15-minute genome” reported that ‘nanopore sequencing’ of human genome is now gaining momentum. This could make sequencing of entire genomes of cancerous and healthy cells possible to accurately point out what has exactly changed in individual patients, enabling the oncologists to determine patient specific drugs for best possible results in each case, separately.
New cancer marker has been reported to aid earlier detection of the disease, where repetitive stretches of RNA are found in high concentrations in cancer cells.
A new blood test will accurately detect early cancer of all types with an accuracy of greater than 95%, when repeated the accuracy will even be even greater than 99%.
‘Breast On A Chip’ will test nano-medical detection and treatment options for breast cancer
A brain scan will detect the telltale “amyloid plaques,” the protein fragments that accumulate between nerves in Alzheimer’s disease

In what way ‘Personalized Medicines’ will be different?

With ‘Personalized Medicines’ the health of a patient will be managed based on personal characteristics of the individual, including height, weight, diet, age, sex etc. instead of defined “standards of care”, based on averaging response across a patient group. Pharmacogenomics tests like, sequencing of human genome will determine a patient’s likely response to such drugs.
These are expected to offer more targeted and effective treatment with safer drugs, and presumably at a lesser cost. Such medicines will also help identify individuals prone to serious ailments like, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer and help physicians to take appropriate preventive measures, simultaneously. ‘Personalized medicines’ in that process will focus on what makes each patient so unique, instead of going by the generalities of a disease.
To give a quick example, genetic differences within individuals determine how their bodies react to drugs such as Warfarin, a blood thinner taken to prevent clotting. It is of utmost importance to get the dosing right, as more of the drug will cause bleeding and less of it will not have any therapeutic effect.
‘Personalized medicines’, therefore, have the potential to bring in a revolutionary change the way patients are offered treatment by the medical profession. Genomic research will enable physicians to use a patient’s genetic code to arrive at how each patient will respond to different types of treatments.
In the field of cancer, genetic tests are currently being done by many oncologists to determine which patients will be benefitted most, say by Herceptin, in the treatment of breast cancer.
Expected benefits from ‘Personalized Medicines’:

The expected benefits from the ‘Personalized Medicines’, besides very early diagnosis as stated above, are the following:
1. More Accurate dosing: Instead of dose being decided based on age and body weight of the patients, the physicians may decide and adjust the dose of the medicines based on the genetic profiling of the patients.
2. More Targeted Drugs: It will be possible for the pharmaceutical companies to develop and market drugs for patients with specific genetic profiles. In that process, a drug needs to be tested only on those who are likely to derive benefits from it. This in turn will be able to effectively tailor clinical trials, expediting the process of market launch of these drugs.
3. Improved Health care: ‘Personalized Medicines’ will enable the physicians to prescribe ‘the right dose of the right medicine the first time for everyone’. This would give rise to much better overall healthcare.
Role of Pharmaceutical and Biotech companies:
Many research based pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have taken a leading role towards development of ‘personalized medicines’ in line with their key role as healthcare enterprises. India is also taking keen interest in this science.
Some important issues:
However, there are some ethical and social issues in the development of ‘personalized medicines’ primarily in the area of genetic testing and consideration of race in the development of such medicines, which need to be effectively addressed, sooner.
Can it replace the ‘Blockbuster Drugs’ business model?
Realization of deficiencies in the economics of ‘block buster drugs’ R&D business model has made ‘personalized medicines’ a reality today.
Better efficacy and safety profile of ‘personalized medicines’ will prove to be cost-effective in the overall healthcare systems. Smaller and exclusive markets for ‘personalized medicines’ are also expected to be quite profitable for the pharmaceutical companies. However, such smaller segmentation of the market may not leave enough space for the conventional ‘blockbuster model’, which is the prime mover of the global pharmaceutical industry, even today.
Reports indicate that some renowned global pharmaceutical companies like, Roche, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline are making good progress towards this direction through collaborative initiatives.
Approximate cost of ‘Genome Sequencing’:
When human genome was first sequenced, the reported cost was staggering U.S$ 3 billion. However, with the advancement of technology, it came down to U.S$ 1 million, last year. Currently, the cost has further come down to U.S$ 60,000. With the rapid stride made in the field of biotechnology, combined with the economies of scale, cost of such genetic tests is expected to be around U.S$ 1,000 in near future, making it possible for people to obtain the blue print of their genetic code.
Savings on cost of Clinical trials with ‘Personalized Medicines’:
Genome sequencing will help identifying a patient population, which will be far more likely to respond positively to the new treatment. In that process, if it reduces costs of clinical trial by even 5%, expected net savings for the industry towards clinical trial have been reported to be around U.S$ 5 billion.
With ‘personalized medicines’ the innovator companies will be able to significantly reduce both time, costs and the risks involved in obtaining regulatory approvals and penetrating new markets with simultaneous development of necessary diagnostic tests. Such tests will be able to identify patients group who will not only be most likely to be benefitted from such medicines, but also will be least likely to suffer from adverse drug reactions.
Therefore, considerable cost advantages coupled with much lesser risks of failure and significant reduction in the lead time for clinical trials are expected to make ‘personalized medicines’ much more cost effective, compared to conventional ‘blockbuster drugs’.
Innovative and cost effective way to market ‘Personalized Medicines’:
With ‘personalized medicines’ the ball game of marketing pharmaceuticals is expected to undergo a paradigm shift. Roche’s model of combining necessary diagnostic tests with new drugs will play a very important role in the new paradigm.
Roche is ensuring that with accompanying required diagnostic tests, the new oncology products developed at Genentech can be precisely matched to patients.
Can ‘Personalized Medicines’ be used in ‘Primary Care’ also?
To use ‘personalized medicines’ in a ‘primary care’ situation, currently there is no successful model. However, it has been reported that in states like, Wisconsin in the U.S, initiative to integrate genomic medicines with ‘primary care’ has already been undertaken. Scaling-up operations of such pilot projects will give a big boost to revolutionize the use of ‘personalized medicines’ for precision and targeted treatment of the ailing population.

Conclusion:

In my view, there does not seem to be any possibility of looking back now. The robust business model of ‘personalized medicines’, will now be the way forward, as much to the industry as to the patients. It is a win-win game.

Explore the Emerging Markets with the ‘Wings of Courage’.

Posted on March 7, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Overall growth rate of the global pharmaceutical industry is currently hovering around 5%. Similar situation has been prevailing since last several years. There is no indication of acceleration of growth rate from any of the top 3 regions of the world namely the USA, EU and Japan, at least in the near future.

According to IMS, the global pharmaceutical market is expected to grow around 5%-7% in 2011 to US$ 880 billion, as compared to around 4%-5% of 2010.

The reasons of the slowdown, I have discussed several times in the past through this column and do not intend to dwell on that, at least, in this Article.

The Emerging Markets of the World:

Unlike developed markets, emerging pharmaceuticals market of the world, like, India, China, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Turkey and Korea, are showing a robust growth rate, quite commensurate to the ascending GDP growth trend of these countries.

According to IMS, the projected CAGR trend of the developed and Emerging Markets for the period of 2007–11, are as follows:

Mature Markets	CAGR 2007-11	Emerging Markets	CAGR 2007-11
USA	4-7%	China	13-16%
Canada	6-9%	Korea	8-11%
Japan	2-5%	Brazil	9-12%
Germany	3-6%	Russia	17-20%
France	2-5%	Mexico	6-9%
Italy	3-6%	India	11-14%
UK	4-7%	Turkey	9-12%
Spain	5-8%

(Source IMS)

Branded Generics/Generics are now key growth drivers in the Emerging Markets:

It is worth noting, unlike the developed markets of the world, where high priced branded patented drugs drive the value growth of the industry, in the emerging markets, where investment towards R&D is relatively less, branded generic and the generic products are the key growth drivers.

Such an evolving situation has prompted large global majors like Pfizer, GSK, Sanofi-aventis, Daiichi Sankyo and Abbott Laboratories, to name a few, either to acquire large generic or Biosimilar drug companies or ink various interesting and win-win collaborative deals, in these markets, to maintain their respective business growth with the branded generic and generic products in the fast growing emerging markets of the world.

Will Emerging Markets be lucrative enough only with Generic and Branded Generic products, in the long run?

Some experts do feel that, in the long run, the emerging pharmaceutical markets, like India, may not prove to be as lucrative to the global pharmaceutical majors.

The key reason being, around 80% ‘out of pocket’ expenditure for medicines in India, could be the key impediment to expanded access to higher priced innovative medicines, in general. Such a situation could seriously limit the success of branded patented drugs in India following their global strategy, compared to the developed markets of the world. The issue of affordability of such medicines will continue to be a key factor for their improved access in India, if the ground reality remains unchanged. Top line business growth only with Generics and Branded Generics in the emerging markets may not be sustainable enough, in the long run, for the innovator companies to adequately fund their R&D initiatives to meet the unmet needs of the patients.

The other school of thought:

The other school of thought, however, argues that ‘out-of pocket” characteristic of India is indeed more sustainable in terms of cost containment pressure, than those markets where the government or health insurance companies cover a large part of the medical expenses for the population.

Every year around 1% of population comes above the poverty line in India together with a growing ‘middle income’ segment with increasing purchasing power. This cycle, in turn, will keep fueling the growth of healthcare space, contributing significantly to the progress of the pharmaceutical industry of the country.

‘One size fits all’ global strategy unlikely to succeed in the ‘Emerging Markets’:

In my view ‘One size fits all’ type of strategy, especially in the area of pricing, is unlikely to succeed in the emerging markets of the world. Pharmaceutical Companies will need to have different types of ‘tailor made’ strategic approaches for markets like Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Mexico, Korea and Turkey.

Pricing Strategy will be a key determinant to success:

For better access to medicines, ‘differential pricing strategy’ has been the stated policy of large global companies like, GSK and MSD. If this trend continues, a win-win situation could be created, when unmet needs of a large number of patient groups could be met with innovative medicines, paving the way for the innovator companies to register a healthy, both top and bottom line, business growth in these markets to effectively fund their R&D projects, besides others.

The most successful brand launch in India, so far:

The credit for the most successful new patented product launch (launched in 2008) in the recent times, I reckon, should go to Januvia (Sitagliptin), an oral anti-diabetic molecule from the global major MSD. The reported global sales of Januvia in 2008 was US $1.4 billion and the sales reported in India was around Rs. 77 Crore (around US $17 million) in just over two years with around 2.4% market share in the large and fragmented Oral Ant-Diabetic segment (IMS, MAT March 2010). This could happen, in my view, not only due to a brilliant business strategy executed with military precision but also because of a differential pricing strategy adopted by the company for this particular product in India.

In recent times, it has not been difficult to record a turnover of around US $ 20 – 25 million by a large pharmaceutical brand either in India or China.

Conclusion:

If this does not happen, due to one reason or the other, it would arguably be quite challenging for the global innovators to be able to keep engaged in the high-cost and high-risk R&D initiatives, by driving their business growth mainly with generic and branded generic medicines in the fast growing emerging markets of the world.

Thus the name of the game for the global innovator companies will be to Explore the Emerging Markets with the ‘Wings of Courage’.

By: Tapan J Ray

The issue of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ in India: An “Ostrich Syndrome’

Posted on February 14, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Ellen‘t Hoen, former Policy Advocacy Director of MSF’s Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines wrote in April 2009 as follows:

“People often seem to confuse counterfeit, substandard and generic medicines – using the terms interchangeably. But they are very separate issues and clearly defining their differences is critical to any discussion”.

In November 7, 2009, Financial Express reported with a headline, “Generic drug companies see a bitter pill in counterfeit“, because some believe that it has an in-built intellectual property right connotation.
The WHO debate:

‘Intellectual property Watch’ in May 20, 2010 reported as follows:

“Brazil and India claimed that WHO’s work against counterfeit and substandard medicines is being influenced by brand-name drug producers with an interest in undermining legitimate generic competition. The Brazilian ambassador told Intellectual Property Watch there is a “hidden agenda” against generics from countries like Brazil.

“India and Brazil filed requests for consultations with the European Union and the Netherlands over the seizure of generics medicines in transit through Europe. This is the first step towards a dispute settlement case, and if issues cannot be resolved via consultations then formation of a dispute settlement panel could be requested in the coming months”.

In response to such allegations the International Federation on Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) released a document titled, “ten principles on counterfeit medicines” and categorically stated that “patents have nothing to do with counterfeiting and counterfeiting has nothing to do with patents.”

In this seemingly volatile scenario, the key point to understand is the definition of a ‘Counterfeit Drug’.

The dictionary definition:
The word ‘Counterfeit’ may be defined as follows:
1. To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud
2. To carry on a deception or dissemble
4. To make fraudulent copies of something valuable
5. A fraudulent imitation.
What does the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act say?
Presumably in the spirit of the above definition, the Drugs and cosmetics Act (D&CA) of India has specified that manufacturing or selling of the following types of drugs are punishable offence:
Section 17: Misbranded drugs
Section 17-A: Adulterated drugs
Section 17-B: Spurious drugs
The question therefore arises, as misbranding could involve trademark and design, why does it fall under D&CA?
This was done in the past by the law makers, as they believed that any attempt to deliberately and fraudulently pass off any drug as something, which it really is not, could create a serious public health issue, leading to even loss of lives.
Be that as it may, the pharmaceutical industry all over the world sincerely believes that counterfeit drugs involve heinous crime against humanity.

Another argument:

Some voices in India have also expressed that ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ are a Health issue. Why are we then mixing up non-health IPR issues like trademarks and designs along with it?

Should the definition of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ cover all types of medicines, which are not genuine?

Definition of counterfeit drugs should, therefore, cover the entire gamut of medicines, which are not genuine. Such medicines could be a fraudulent version of patented, generic or even traditional medicines and have nothing to do with patents or patent infringements.
At the same time it sounds very reasonable that a medicine that is authorized for marketing by the regulatory authority of one country but not by another country should not be regarded as counterfeit on this particular ground in any country, unless it has been made available fraudulently. It will be absolutely improper for anyone to term generic drugs as counterfeits, in the same way.

The magnitude of the problem:

International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Task Force (IMPACT) reported in 2006 as follows:

“Indian pharmaceutical companies have suggested that in India’s major cities, one in five strips of medicines sold is a fake. They claim a loss in revenue of between 4% and 5% annually. The industry also estimates that spurious drugs have grown from 10% to 20% of the total market.”

CDSCO surveys on ‘Spurious’ and ‘Sub-standard’ drugs in India:

Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of the Government of India has released the following details on ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ in India from 2006 to 2010.

Year	Drugs samples tested	% of sub-standard drugs	% of spurious drugs	Prosecution for crime	Persons arrested
2006 – 07	34738	5.8	0.22	115	12
2007 – 08	39117	6.2	0.19	120	122
2008 – 09	45145	5.7	0.34	220	133
2009 -10	39248	4.95	0.29	138	147
TOTAL	158248	5.66	0.26	593	414

It is indeed very surprising to note from the above CDSCO report that from 2006 to 2010 the number of both arrests and prosecutions for this heinous crime in India is abysmally low.

To assess the magnitude of the menace of counterfeit drugs, Financial Express dated November 12, 2009 reported that much hyped “world’s largest study on counterfeit drugs” conducted by the Ministry of Health of the Government of India with the help of the Drug Controller General of India’s office, has come to the following two key conclusions:
1. Only 0.046% of the drugs in the Indian market were spurious
2. Only 0.1% of drugs are of sub-standard quality in India

Is there really nothing to worry about?

From these reports, it appears that India, at this stage, has nothing to worry about this public health hazard!

It is indeed equally baffling to understand, why did the government keep ‘misbranded drugs’, as specified in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, outside the purview of this study.
In my opinion, the above recent survey has raised more questions than what it had attempted to answer. Such questions are expected to be raised not only by the pharmaceutical industry of India, its stakeholders and the civil society at large, but by the international community, also.
The problem of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ is more prevalent in countries where regulatory enforcement is weak:
The menace of counterfeit medicines is not restricted to the developing countries like, India. It is seen in the developed countries, as well, but at a much smaller scale. Thus it is generally believed that the issue of counterfeit drugs is more common in those countries, where the regulatory enforcement mechanism is weak.
A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits.
The role of ‘The World health Organization (WHO)’:
To effectively eliminate this global menace, the leadership role of the WHO is extremely important. Across the world, patients need protection from the growing menace of ‘Counterfeit Medicines’. As a premier organization to address the needs of the global public health issues and especially for the developing world, the WHO needs to play a key and much more proactive role in this matter.

Conclusion:
All stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry must be made aware, on a continuous basis, of the health hazards posed by counterfeit medicines in India. Authorities and organizations like the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and its regulatory and enforcement agencies, healthcare professionals, patients, all pharmaceutical manufacturers, drug distributors, wholesalers and retailers should collaborate to play a very active and meaningful role in curbing the counterfeit drugs from reaching the innocent patients.

Instead of all these, as we witness today, the country keeps on demonstrating an ‘Ostrich Syndrome’, shouting from the roof top, as it were, that no health hazards due to prevalence of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ exist in India.

By: Tapan J Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Patent

From Cross-Licensing to ‘Patent Pools’ and… India: Will there be a ground swell?

Biologic Medicine: Ushers in a different ‘Mega Race’ for inorganic growth

Greater promise in biologics:

‘Frugal Innovation’ in Healthcare: Ahoy!

Tapan Ray in ‘Focus Reports’, March 2011

Fostering ‘Innovation’ and protecting of ‘Public Health Interest’: A formidable task for the new TF (taskforce)

A Disruptive Innovation in Healthcare – Personalized Medicines

Explore the Emerging Markets with the ‘Wings of Courage’.

According to IMS, the global pharmaceutical market is expected to grow around 5%-7% in 2011 to US$ 880 billion, as compared to around 4%-5% of 2010.

The reasons of the slowdown, I have discussed several times in the past through this column and do not intend to dwell on that, at least, in this Article.

The Emerging Markets of the World:

Unlike developed markets, emerging pharmaceuticals market of the world, like, India, China, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Turkey and Korea, are showing a robust growth rate, quite commensurate to the ascending GDP growth trend of these countries.