Tag Archives: Patient

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Posted on by
Reply

Novel biologic medicines have unlocked a new frontier offering more effective treatment for a host of chronic and life-threatening diseases, such as varieties of cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes, to name just a few. However, these drugs being hugely expensive, many patients do not have any access, or adequate access, to them. According to the Biosimilar Council of GPhA, only 50 percent of severe Rheumatoid Arthritis patients receive biologic medicines, even in the United States, Europe and Japan, leave aside India.

Realizing the gravity of this situation, a need to develop high quality, reasonably affordable and similar to original biologic brands, was felt about ten years ago. These were intended to be launched immediately after patent expiry of the original biologic. Such medicines are termed as biosimilar drugs. It is worth noting, even biosimilar drug development involves complex manufacturing processes and handling, while dealing with derivatives of highly sensitive living organisms.

The regulatory approval process of these drugs is also very stringent, which demands robust clinical data, demonstrating high similarity, both in effectiveness and safety profile, to original biologic brands, known as the reference product. The clinical data requirements for all new biosimilars include data on patients switching from the originator’s brand, and also between other biosimilars. Clinical evidences such as these, are expected to provide enough confidence to physicians for use of these products.

An article published in the PharmaTimes magazine in January 2016, reiterated that over the last couple of years, a wealth of supporting data has been published in medical journals and presented at global congresses, including real-world data of patients who have been switched to the new drug from the originator. This has led to a positive change in physician and patient attitudes towards biosimilars.

The good news is, besides many other regulated markets, as of May 2017, five biosimilar drugs have been approved even by the US-FDA, and several others are in the pipeline of its approval process.

That said, in this article I shall mainly focus on the two key barriers for improving patient access to biosimilar drugs, as I see it.

Two major barriers and their impact:

As I see it, there appear to be the following two key barriers for more affordable biosimilar drugs coming into the market, improving patients’ access to these important biologic medicines:

  • The first barrier involves fierce legal resistance from the original biologic manufacturers of the world, on various grounds, resisting entry of biosimilar varieties of their respective brands. This compels the biosimilar drug manufacturers incurring heavy expenditure on litigation, adding avoidable cost. A glimpse of this saga, we are ‘privy’ to witness even in India, while following Roche versus Biocon and Mylan case related to ‘Trastuzumab’. This barrier is one of the most basic types, that delays biosimilar drug entry depriving many new patients to have access to lower priced effective biologic for the treatment of serious diseases.
  • The other major barrier that exists today, involves ‘interchangeability’ of original biologic with biosimilar drugs. It simple means that in addition to being highly similar, a biosimilar drug manufacturer would require producing indisputable clinical evidence that it gives the same result for any given patient just as the original biologic. We shall discuss the reason behind this regulatory requirement later in this article. However, this is an expensive process, and the absence of it creates a barrier, making the physicians hesitant to switch all those existing patients who are on expensive original biologic drugs with less expensive available biosimilar alternatives.

The first or the initial barrier:

The first or the initial barrier predominantly involves patent related legal disputes, that can only be settled in a court of law and after incurring heavy expenditure towards litigation. Provided, of course, the dispute is not mutually resolved, or the law makers do not amend the law.

An interesting case in India:

Interestingly, in India, a similar dispute has knocked the doors of both the high court and the Competition Commission of India (CCI). From a common man’s perspective, it appears to me that the laws under which these two institutions will approach this specific issue are seemingly conflicting in nature. This is because, while the patent law encourages no market competition or a monopoly situation for a patented product, competition law encourages more market competition among all related products. Nonetheless, in this specific case CCI is reportedly investigating on the alleged ‘abuse of the regulatory process’, as it has opined ‘abuse of regulatory process can constitute an abuse of dominance under the (CCI) Act.’                                                                                            

The second barrier:

I am not going to discuss in this article the relevance of this barrier, in detail. Nevertheless, this one is also apparently equally tough to comply with. The very fact that none out of five biosimilar drugs approved in the United States, so far, has been considered ‘interchangeable’ by the US-FDA, vindicates the point.

That this specific regulatory demand is tough to comply with, is quite understandable from the requirements of the US-FDA in this regard, which goes as follows:

“To support a demonstration of interchangeability, the data and information submitted to FDA must show that a proposed interchangeable product is biosimilar to the reference product and that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient. Also, for products that will be administered more than once, the data and information must show that switching a patient back and forth between the reference product and the proposed interchangeable product presents no greater risk to the patient in terms of safety or diminished efficacy when compared to treating them with the reference product continuously.”

The reasoning of innovative biologic drug makers:

On this subject, the stand taken by different innovative drug makers is the same. To illustrate the point, let me quote just one of them. It basically sates, while biosimilar drugs are highly similar to the original medicine, the patient’s immune system may react differently due to slight differences between the two medicines when they are alternated or switched multiple times. This phenomenon, known as immunogenicity, is not a common occurrence, though. But there have been rare instances when very small differences between biologic medicines have caused immune system reactions that changed the way a medicine was metabolized, or reduced its effectiveness.

It further reiterates, the US-FDA requirements to establish ‘interchangeability’ between a biosimilar drug and the original one, or between biosimilars may seem like nuances, but are important because ‘interchangeability’ allows pharmacists to substitute biosimilars without consulting the doctor or patient first.

It may, therefore, indicate to many that innovative biologic drug manufacturers won’t want substitution of their expensive biologic with more affordable biosimilar drugs, on the ground of patient safety issues related to immunogenicity, though its instances are rather uncommon.

Some key players in biosimilar drug development:

Having deliberated on the core subject of this article, let me now very briefly name the major players in biosimilar drug development, both in the developed world, and also in India.

The first biosimilar drug was approved by the US-FDA in 2006, and the product was Omnitrope (somatropin) of Novartis (Sandoz). It was the same in the European Union (EU), as well. Subsequently, many other companies reportedly expressed interest in this field, across the globe, including Pfizer, Merck, Johnson and Johnson, Amgen, AbbVie, Hospira, AstraZeneca and Teva, among many others.

Similarly, in India, the major players in this field include, Biocon, Sun Pharma, Shantha Biotech, Dr. Reddy’s Lab, Zydus Cadila, Panacea Biotech and Reliance Life Sciences.

As featured on the Amgen website, given the complexity and cost of development and manufacturing, biosimilars are expected to be more affordable therapeutic options, but are not expected to generate the same level of cost savings as generics. This is because, a biosimilar will cost US$100 to US$200 million and take eight to ten years to develop. Whereas, a small molecule generic will cost US$1 to US$5 million and take three to five years to develop.

The market:

According to the 2017 report titled “Biosimilar Market: Global Industry Analysis, Trends, Market Size & Forecasts to 2023” of Research and Markets, the market size of the global biosimilar market was valued over US$ 2.5 billion during 2014, and it surpassed US$ 3.30 billion during 2016. The global biosimilar market is projected to surpass US$ 10.50 billion by 2023, growing with a CAGR between 25.0 percent and 26.0 percent from 2017 to 2023.

According to this report, gradually increasing awareness, doctors’ confidence and the lower drug cost are expected to boost the demand and drive the growth of the global biosimilar market during the forecast period. Segments related to diabetes medicine and oncology are expected to attain faster growth during the forecast period. Patent expiry of several blockbuster drugs is a major basic factor for growth of the global biosimilar market, as it may encourage the smaller manufacturers to consider producing such biologic drugs in those segments.

Conclusion:

Biosimilar drugs are expected to benefit especially many of those patients who can’t afford high cost biologic medicines offering better treatment outcomes than conventional drugs, in the longer term. These drugs are now being used to effectively manage and treat many chronic and life-threatening illnesses, such cardiac conditions, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, HIV/AIDS and cancer.

However, improving patient access to high quality biosimilar drugs, at an affordable price, with increasing competition, could be a challenge, as two key barriers are envisaged to attain this goal. Overcoming these meaningfully, I reckon, will involve choosing thoughtfully a middle path, creating a win-win situation, both for the patients, as well as the industry.

Adequate competition in the biologic drug market is essential – not only among high-priced original biologic brands and biosimilars, but also between biosimilar drugs. This is so important to increase patient access to biologic drugs, in general, across the world, including India.

The current situation demands a sense of urgency in searching for a middle path, which may be created either through a legal framework, or any other effective means as would deem fair and appropriate, without compromising with patient safety, at least, from where it is today.

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.

Patient Services Aren’t Optional Any More For Pharma Business Excellence

Posted on by
Reply

In the modern world of abundance of information through various sources and platforms, patients are increasingly looking for greater engagement in their healthcare decision-making process with the doctors, slowly but steadily, and in that process seeking better services from different service providers in this area, including the pharmaceutical companies.

This trend has now been well-captured, globally. Various research studies have conclusively established that greater patient’s engagement in health care contributes to improved health outcomes. The obvious question that surfaces in this context is what is this patient engagement?

Patient engagement:

It broadly means a process that realizes the importance of providing adequate knowledge, skills and related services to people effectively, making them understand various disease management and alternative treatment measures, and thereby facilitating them to be an integral part of their health care related interventions, for better health outcomes.

When patients, physicians, other related constituents, including the pharma companies share both the process and goal of disease management or treatment processes, a win-win situation evolves to everybody’s full satisfaction. This has immense commercial relevance too.

Deserves to be a part of the grand design:

In that sense, pharmaceutical companies, especially those operating in India, would need to roll up sleeves and pull up socks to play a greater role in delivering a better experience for patients through effective engagement and offering relevant high quality services. This exercise now deserves to be an integral part of a grand design and planning of any sales and marketing strategy. A recent survey by Accenture Consulting also concluded that patient services from pharma companies are most important to patients.

Key patient service providers:

Besides several others, especially the following two important constituents can play defining roles as patient service providers by directly engaging with patients, to achieve this objective:

  • Patient advocacy groups or organizations (PAO): These entities provide a special attention to patient care and protection of their rights, and engage them accordingly. Patient advocates of these groups are a liaison between patients and various healthcare providers to improve or maintain a high quality of health care for the former. Some global drug players also recognize that these groups possess a highly influential voice in the healthcare system.
  • Pharmaceutical, biotech or device companies: Some of these companies, mostly in the developed world have established strategic patient advocacy functions within their corporate structure to foster relationships with patients, their caregivers, and the disease-specific nonprofit advocacy groups usually support them. These interactions should ideally ensure that the voice of patients is understood across every function within the company, from R&D to commercialization, as articulated in a recent Whitepaper of BioNJ on this subject.

There is a need to strengthen this approach within the Indian pharma industry, as well, for the benefit of local patients, of course, by scrupulously avoiding any possible serious controversy, which I shall discuss below.

A recent study:

A 2016 report by Accenture concludes that patient services are no longer optional for pharma companies, as they are gradually becoming a cutting edge competitive driver. In a situation like this, the question isn’t whether they should really gear up to offer such services, the immediate need, instead, is to put their ears on the ground to carefully decide which ones would be most appropriate for the individual players, and how best to offer them.

For this study, Accenture surveyed more than 200 patient services executives, covering seven therapeutic areas: heart, lungs, brain, immune systems, bones, hormone/metabolism and cancer. The respondents agreed that much work and greater resources need to be invested in this area to gain a competitive edge in business.

This is further evident from the trend that around 84 percent of pharma companies in the United States plans to invest more in patient-centric services, such as adherence, remote monitoring and medication delivery – over the next 18 months, as the report highlights.

For marketing patient services alone to facilitate direct communications to patients, the digital platforms are most preferred with social media and web page usages being 51 percent and 49 percent, respectively.

A serious concern:

Providing various health related services useful to patients, by the PAOs or by pharma, biotech or device companies separately, without any form of financial relationship or influence of any kind to one another, would probably earn a great appreciation from all stakeholders.

Nevertheless, serious concerns are often expressed on the core intent of various pharma company’s generous funding to various patient advocacy organizations, including the eminent ones involved with patients suffering from cancer, HIV, Alzheimer’s, and other diseases. Several of them don’t even report such contributions, besides providing justifiable explanations on the objectives and actual use of such financial contributions.

If one wants to draw a simile, this is what exactly allegedly happening today, because of such type relationship, between pharma, biotech or device companies on the one hand, and doctors, many other health care providers, including retail chemists, on the other. In the Indian context, as well, it holds good. A paper from ‘CUTS International’, aptly drives home this point. Another September 17, 2016 article published in ‘The New York Times’, reiterates the same.

What’s wrong in funding PAOs?

Some may argue, what’s wrong with pharma industry’s funding the PAOs. On the face of it, there may not appear to be anything wrong either. However, scholarly articles still express serious concern on such practices, mainly for conflicts of interest. For example, a September 2013 article titled, “Patient Advocacy Organizations: Institutional Conflicts of Interest, Trust, and Trustworthiness”, published in The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics unambiguously states as follows:

“Numerous studies have found that even established and respected researchers and physicians are influenced by drug company money and gifts, which can bias study conclusions and encourage increased prescribing of potentially harmful medications. There is no reason to believe that PAOs are any less susceptible to such influence. In fact, there is little oversight of relations between PAOs and their for-profit donors, which in itself increases the potential for undue influence. Similar concerns regarding the lack of oversight have been raised regarding the physician professional groups that develop clinical care guidelines.”

Why is it a potential conflict of interest?

Many construe such financial relationships as potential conflicts of interest, because pharma players appear to be more interested in earning maximum possible profit through high drug pricing, while PAOs advocate for highly efficacious, safer and more affordable medicines for all, besides some other interests and rights of patients. Moreover, some large constituents of patient advocacy groups aren’t even seen lending their voices to the concerted protests of other stakeholders, including the political leaders – irrespective of their affiliations, against the sharp increase in prices of many life-saving drugs, covering both patented and generic medicines.

Several studies on this concern: 

A March 02, 2017 report titled, “Conflicts of Interest for Patient-Advocacy Organizations”,

published in ‘The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)’, probably vindicates this point. This is mainly because, if pharma funding gets reciprocated through their remaining quiet, passive or even indirectly supporting any possible bias in the physicians prescribing decisions for high cost drugs – having other cheaper alternatives, that may not be in the best health and economic interest of many patients.

After examining and analyzing 104 large patient-advocacy organizations with an annual revenue of minimum USD 7.5 million, the researchers of the above study found that 83 percent of PAOs receive significant financial support from drug, device and biotechnology companies; and more interestingly, industry executives often serve on these groups’ governing boards.

Another article on this report commented though, that this study may have some limitations as the most organizations examined in this study did not provide exact figures for their reported donations, besides only 10 percent of patient-advocacy organizations revealed how they used the industry donations.

This NEJM study is not just one of its kind, another January 2017 report published in JAMA Internal Medicine, also concluded that there is a need to improve this conflict of interest issue of the patient advocacy groups or PAOs on their conflict of interest policies to help maintain public trust.

In conclusion:

Keeping aside altogether the contentious issue of funding PACs by the pharma, biotech or device companies, I would submit that it’s about time that the pharma industry in India realizes that patients have started perceiving themselves as consumers of health care. This perception is increasing by a manifold with improving access to not just the Internet, but consequent word of mouth sharing of such information with even those who do not have digital or health literacy.

The quest of many patients to ride the crest of this wave by gaining relevant information, especially through numerous digital platforms, besides word of mouth, is increasing. A lot more would eventually seek a wide range of relevant information on various disease treatment options and their effective management processes. Facilitated by this knowledge, many patients would opt only for those ones offering the best value within their respective economic means. Some enlightened individuals have already started expressing their preference to take part in the treatment and prescribing decision making process with the doctors. This visibly ascending trend is unstoppable now, as patients increasingly perceive themselves as consumers of health care.

Consequently, the pharma, biotech or device players in India would require to deeply understand the patients’ needs on the ground, not what they think those are, and treat patients as the key partner for business excellence – at least, as much as what they consider for other stakeholders, such as doctors and hospitals, if not even much more than that. Some companies are trying to make it happen through doctors, which don’t seem to be working as much as these should, according to another Accenture study.

Currently, several global pharma, biotech or device players claim that they follow ‘patient-centered’ approaches, and try to drive home this point through advocacy campaigns. However, many stakeholders don’t buy it any more. This is because such an approach must always lead to a win-win outcome. It, therefore, requires passing the acid test of conformance to the very definition of a ‘patient-centered’ approach, which requires establishing a partnership to ensure that all related decisions would respect patients’ wants, needs and preferences and solicit patients’ input on the education and support they need to make decisions.’

Thus, respective players in this arena need to shift gears fast, as the ball game is fast changing with its traditional version unlikely to yield the desired business results any longer. The name of the new version of this game is ‘direct engagement with patients’ to impart high quality of meaningful services in the therapy areas that the respective companies are in, by charting clear, innovative and well integrated strategies, and not just through single minded focus on sales and marketing. It’s important for all of us to realize that providing patient services aren’t optional any more for pharma business excellence.

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.

In a Quandary of Drug Quality, Price Control, Innovation and Patient Interest in India

Posted on by
Reply

The patients in India have every reason to apprehend, whether the prescription drugs that they consume are efficacious, safe and conform to the government approved prices, alongside another important question: Do they affordable access to the fruits of innovation?

The regulator responsible for drug quality in India is responsible for ensuring the first two, and the drug price regulator of the country ensures the remaining two.

Apparently, both these esteemed government bodies, are sure that they are doing the best jobs in their respective areas. Moreover, in these days of social media blitzkrieg, it won’t be uncommon to witness some of them, creating hype on some issues that many feel is better avoided, and at times even contradictory in nature.

Amid this seemingly chaotic continuity of the same or a bit deteriorating scenario, patients are often caught in an unenviable footing.

In this article, I shall discuss on these concerns afresh, quoting a few recent examples. My objective is to encourage all concerned to move away from incessant hype creation by accepting the reality, as the patients feel. This is necessary, because anyone, including the regulators can fall victim of such unfettered developments, at any point of time.

Thus, it may be appropriate for all to jettison any residual arrogance or a faint shade of narcissism, before putting the nose to the grindstone to resolve these pressing issues decisively, for patients’ sake.

Are we consuming effective and safe medicines?

I raised this question first in an article titled, “Are We Taking Safe and Effective Medicines?” published in this blog on November 13, 2013. That deliberation was primarily based on US-FDA ‘import bans’ from various drug manufacturing facilities in India, involving even the top Indian pharma players. Based on their own quality and safety audits, the US regulator had concluded that drugs produced in those factories are not safe for consumption by the patients in America.

This apprehension has now almost reached its crescendo, when on February 24, 2017, probably for the first time ever, US-FDA publicly voiced its apprehension about the efficacy of medicines being sold and consumed by patients in India.  The observation came from the India director of the US-FDA in an annual conference of a large pharma trade association of some of the top domestic pharma companies. While commenting, “I do not think any one of us wants to take such drugs which lack efficacy”, the official reportedly revealed, he occasionally gets samples sent from the US embassy health unit in Delhi, and complaints are usually about the medicines not giving the desired results.

It is noteworthy, as earlier, rubbishing claims levelled by media expressing growing concern among overseas regulators over the quality of Indian made drugs, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) had reportedly strongly reiterated that there have been no lapse or compromise on quality parameters of the drugs manufactured throughout the country, as the efficacy of the drugs and safety of the patients have always remained the top priority of DCGI.

Yet another news article of August 22, 2016 reported that after a year-long survey involving Government, civil society and pharmacy professionals, and testing nearly 50,000 drug samples across the country during this period, the Ministry of health of India found that medicines produced in India are safe and effective. This study was kicked off in the wake of rising concerns that several medicines made in the country posed risks to patients, the report highlighted.

Should ‘Self-certification’ by industry prevail?

Intriguingly, when questions on drug quality manufactured in India, are regularly being raised by other equally responsible drug authorities, we find ‘self-certification’, in this regard, coming from all those who are expected to resolve this issue beyond an iota of doubt, always prevails.

Apparently, not just the drug regulator and the Union Ministry of Health are in a sustained denial mode, many large pharma companies also seem to be in the same mode. On March 01, 2017, the media reported, “Close on the heels of US FDA India office raising concerns over the quality of medicines marketed in India, pharma leaders came together to defend the quality of their products. There is no question of compromising quality of Indian products meant for domestic market and export, they pointed out.” This rebuttal was expected. Nevertheless, the apprehension lingers: Should such self-certification by pharma players prevail?

That said, one may try to justify this quandary by saying that effectively regulating over 20,000 domestic pharmaceutical companies, including third party and loan license manufacturers, poses a serious challenge to the DCGI and the State Drug Controllers. However, the moot point is, who has been encouraging such over-proliferation of drug manufacturing facilities over a long period of time, in any case? In that sense, whose prime responsibility is it to ensure that drugs consumed by patients in India are efficacious and safe?

The answer to these vexing questions continues to remain unanswered.

Did patients benefit from drug price control orders?

Let me first draw a brief sketch on the global perspective of price increases in generic drugs. It appears that in all those countries where there is no drug price control in place, the entire pharma industry is being adversely impacted by huge generic drug price inflation. This finding has been well captured in a study by Elsevier. It shows, between November 2013 and November 2014, out of its research sample of 4421 generic drug groups, there were price increases in 222 drug groups by 100 percent or more. In 17 drug groups price increases were taken even over 1000 percent, which include even tetracycline. With this trend sharply moving north, many patients, across the world, are struggling hard to find ways to survive in this situation. With this backdrop, I now get back to its India perspective.

I have read some media editorials questioning, just as the pharma industry, whether it is the right approach to make essential medicines affordable through drug price control in India? Nevertheless, there isn’t an iota of doubt in my mind that yes, it is, in the prevailing health care scenario of the country sans universal health care, with out of pocket expenses on medicines being the highest in the world and when market competition doesn’t bring down the price of medicines, for obvious reasons. My questions, on the contrary, will be, is drug price control being enforced in India the way it should? Are the patients getting commensurate benefits out of it? If not, why?

However, on the face of it, the answer to the question above “Did patients benefit from drug price control orders”, may appear to be an affirmative one. This is mainly because, on July 28, 2017, no less than the Union minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers, in a written reply to the Rajya Sabha reportedly conveyed that the Indian consumers have saved nearly Rs 5,000 crore due to the Government fixing the prices of essential medicines under the Drugs Price Control Order (DPCO) 2013.

The ground reality of drug price control:

Let me try to explore a bit in this area with some recent examples.

According to the data from India’s drug pricing watchdog – the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), compliance to various Drug Price Control Orders (DPCO) is far from satisfactory. Outstanding dues for non-compliance to notified ceiling prices, including penalty, from scores of pharma companies, have now reportedly piled up over the past two decades exceeding Rs. 4,551 crore (around USD 700 million). Thus, the same question haunts: Has drug price control benefitted the patients in India, as was intended to?

The situation is no different, even with DPCO 2013. On February 23, 2017, NPPA notified the ‘Suspected cases of Noncompliance of Ceiling Price by Pharmaceutical Companies,’ of 634 drugs, along with a ‘Public Notice’ for the same. This listed included the products marketed by some leading pharma companies in India, such as, Cipla, Abbott India, Alkem Labs, AstraZeneca, Dr Reddys Lab and Cadila, among many others.

Yet another fresh allegation related to drug pricing has just come to light. Interestingly, it relates to an anti-diabetic drug that falls outside DPCO 2013. On March 01, 2017, a news articled reported, “India’s drug regulator will look into allegations that four leading pharmaceutical companies are colluding to set the price of anti-diabetic drug Vildagliptin, a move that may rattle the almost Rs. 10,000 Crore (around USD 1540 million) market in the country.” Vildagliptin is a proprietary drug of Novartis, which has licensed it to three other companies. All of them sell Vildagliptin in India under their own brand names. Abbott sells it as Zomelis, USV as Jalra and Emcure as Vysov. The combined sales of these brands stood at Rs. 822 Crore (around USD 125 million) last year, the report states.

Be that as it may, the bottom line, as many believe, continues to remain unchanged, as it has always been – the patients don’t derive intended benefits due to lackluster and apparently ineffective enforcement of the drug price control in India.

Another crucial player:

Besides the two important and powerful Government authorities – DCGI and NPPA, there is another very critical player in this game – the Indian drug industry. Without whole-hearted cooperation and result-oriented action by all the three players, in tandem, nothing can possibly change this agonizing status quo, in this area.

The industry too is in a denial mode:

Quite like the other two critical constituents, who always deny any serious allegation on their actions, not being good enough to fetch the intended benefits for the patients, the drug industry too doesn’t seem to be any different. It always appears to be in a pre-programmed denial mode against all such allegations, irrespective of whether these are on drug quality, price, or on frequent misuse of the term innovation. They always try to justify their action, playing the victim card, as it were, and expecting other stakeholders to believe that they are doing right, always.

Let me now explore each of these areas separately, basically from the pharma industry perspective:

Drug quality: Pharma players, just as the Indian drug regulator, do not seem to accept that many drugs in India do not provide desirable benefits to patients, as alleged even by the US-FDA after studying some test results, following complaints from their local establishments. Many of us, at an individual level, may also have experienced just the same, and nurture the same doubt on the efficacy and safety profile of some branded generics that we consume, but have no wherewithal to prove the same. Doctors just change the brands, when any patient comes with such complaints, as Pharmacovigilance has not taken-off in the country with full steam, just yet. Thus, both the government regulators and the industry are in sync with each other, on this issue.

Drug price control: In this specific area, unlike the issue of drug quality, the respective stands of the government and the industry are poles apart. The former believes that it is working well, and the latter says, it isn’t.

The industry, as I see it, wants to project an impression that drug price control is the root cause of all evils, including compromises on drug quality, and some drugs going out of the market. The industry further highlights that drug price control offers a crippling blow to innovation, as they can’t garner enough financial resources through increased drug prices. It is another matter that they can’t possibly claim, drug price control offers a telling blow on their profit, as despite price control pharma is one of the highest profit making industry in India and globally too.

What innovation means to patients:

Interestingly, both the domestic and multinational pharma players often use the term of innovation, mostly construed as a façade, as it were, in their different advocacy initiatives, and during media outreach, as well. For global players, it primarily means innovation of new products, which offers monopolistic marketing and pricing advantage. Whereas, for generic players, it is generally process innovation, and different generic or biosimilar product development.

This is fine, but why should patients pay high drug prices, only because pharma players want to spend more on innovation, either for a new drug or a new process? I reckon, almost none will be willing to pay just for the heck of it.

Commensurate incremental price for incremental value:

Many patients, on the other hand, will be willing to pay more for any commensurate incremental value that a drug or a process will offer for a speedy recovery from illness, or to live a better quality of life, or for a lesser net treatment cost. Thus, the price of any brand is considered by stakeholders as a function of the value that it promises to offer. Consequently, brand marketing is deemed a value delivery system. For medicines, this value must be easily perceptible, quantifiable and scientific research based. Accordingly, the outcome of any such innovation should convince the regulators, doctors, hospitals and ultimately the patients – what value delivery – path breaking or incremental, for which patients need to pay commensurate incremental prices.

Various ways of ensuring it:

There are several different ways of addressing it, even for branded generics in India. For example, when branded generics of the same drug or similar FDCs of different drugs, are marketed by different companies with a huge price difference, the pharma players should necessarily submit before appropriate authorities, prior to marketing approval, all data regarding incremental and quantifiable value offerings, especially for those branded generics falling at the top of the price band. This is necessary, as an increasing number of brands in the market of the same generic molecules or the same FDCs, may not necessarily lead to greater competition with any significant impact on price. I shall argue on this point below.

What happens, generally:

For any drug falling outside price control in India, branded generic drug makers, usually set prices based on whatever each of them considers the market will accept. This consideration is highly elastic in nature, varying from a very low to a very high price, for any specific molecule and its FDCs. As I said before, it has been well-established by now that competition doesn’t play any significant role to bring down the branded generic drug prices, unlike many other consumables in different industries.

Why market competition doesn’t work for medicines?

This is primarily because, the purchasing decision for medicines does not depend on individual patients, unlike many other consumables. This decision is taken by the doctors while writing prescriptions for them. It is widely alleged, all over the world, that many important doctors are heavily influenced by the drug companies, often through dubious and highly cost intensive means, to prescribe their respective brands or branded generics in the process of treatment of a wide variety of medical conditions. In this rat race of generation of more and more prescriptions, pharma companies require to have a deep pocket to achieve their financial goals. Thus, many brands attract high prices to generate more profit and keep moving this vicious circle. Value based brand differentiation for many leading branded generics or even me-too patented products, aren’t mostly robust enough to stand any scientific or peer scrutiny. Consequently, the prescription demand of a most branded generics or me-too patented products do not have any linear relationship with the nature of market completion, and therefore, on their prices. In this perspective, setting a price for a pharma brand doesn’t depend on quantifiable value offerings for patients, as someone said before, “It is not a science. It is a feel.”

In conclusion:

The overall concern spans across several important public health and safety related issues, which also involve general quality standards of medicines, the effectiveness of drug price control, the core intent of so frequent use of the term ‘innovation’ in various pharma advocacy initiatives, including media outreach.

In this scenario, is the pharma industry, together with the drug quality and pricing watchdogs, failing to fathom the grave residual impact of continuity of this situation? In my view, this specific assumption appears too simplistic, naïve, and unrealistic. Or else, could it be that they are actually in a quandary, not being able to decide what would be the most effective actionable blueprint to resolve these issues?

I reckon, this is high time now for all concerned to accept the reality, seriously introspect on these critical issues, opt for a dip-stick expert analysis to assess the real status, and then work out a time-bound action plan with assigned accountability on the ground.

Together they may wish to address the following queries, among several others:

  • Why are they still running on a treadmill, as it were, over the last four decades, to come nearer these issues for better understanding, without moving an inch on the ground, despite public outcry?
  • Are they really in a quandary?
  • Are these concerns not an outcome of basically governance related failures?
  • Why hypes are being created all around on significant savings over out of pocket expenses on medicines because of ‘good enforcement’ of DPCOs, when it doesn’t seem so?
  • What prompts all the key players to be in a consistent denial mode on dubious drug quality standards in India, when foreign drug regulators are pointing it out in public?
  • Isn’t the term ‘innovation’ being rampantly misused, more as a major tool for advocacy to gain free pricing advantage?
  • Shouldn’t ‘Que Sera, Sera’ days change now?

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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

Is Criticizing Pharma Now Just A Fad?

Posted on by
Reply

Is criticizing pharma now just a fad of its stakeholders? Fathoming the right answer to this seemingly simple question may not be too easy, either, for some. The task could even be more onerous, especially when the global ‘researched based’ pharma and biotech companies, well chorused by their trade associations, are exerting serious efforts to garner the much required trust of all stakeholders on their ‘patient centric’ focus in the process of transacting business.

This often repeated pledge, as it were, on ‘patient centric’ approach is indeed praiseworthy. There’s no two opinions about it, either. The new found interest of several ‘research-based’ pharma and biologic players to develop less expensive biosimilar drugs, to possibly improve patient access to otherwise expensive biologic medicines, post patent expiry, could well be a reiteration of the same and well publicized vow, of course if not proven otherwise.

A recent example:

In the context of ‘patient-centric’ approach with biosimilar product development by the world’s largest innovative biologic drug makers, let me quote the following recent example.

On September 23, 2016, by a Press Release, the Food and Drug Administration of the United States (US-FDA) announced regulatory approval of Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) as a biosimilar to Humira (adalimumab) for multiple inflammatory diseases. This is the fourth FDA-approved biosimilar, after the new biosimilar pathway became effective in the US. Amjevita has been developed by Amgen Inc. – one of the global pioneers in the development of innovative biologic drugs.

According to US-FDA, a biosimilar is a biological product that is approved based on a showing that it is highly similar to an already-approved biological product and has no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity and potency (i.e., safety and effectiveness) from the reference product, in addition to meeting other criteria specified by law.

Although, Amjevita is biosimilar to Humira,  it has not been approved as an interchangeable product with Humira. This issue is considered as a major regulatory roadblock in the US for substitution of original biologic brands with their biosimilar equivalents, which can, therefore, be prescribed mostly to the new patients. It’s worth noting here that Humira – the blockbuster arthritis drug of AbbVie Inc. clocked a sale of US$ 14 billion in 2015, and probably will continue to do so in the foreseeable future, even long after patent expiry. I shall touch upon that point below, briefly.

It is estimated that the savings of putting just new patients on much less expensive biosimilar drugs, sans substitution of the expensive original brand, will be billions of dollars. Nonetheless, this will help reduce the cost of treatment with biologic medications, improving their access to many others.

A key barrier:

Interestingly, the barriers to following the biosimilar path are being mostly created none other than the innovative drug companies themselves, even post patent expiry, presumably to extend market exclusivity and monopoly pricing.

Arising out of one such key barrier, in the form of patent litigation, Amgen’s Amjevita, in all probability, may not be available to deserving patients for years. This could involve a protracted process of skillfully navigating through the labyrinth of legalities.

On August 05, 2016, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that AbbVie Inc. has filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against rival Amgen Inc., seeking to block sales of a lower-priced biosimilar of AbbVie’s top-selling, now generally considered as an off-patent drug – Humira.

When the narrative gets paradoxical:

While all the ‘research-based’ drug companies claim to be ‘patient-centric’ in their business approaches, be it with the development of biosimilars or in other areas, somewhere this narrative gets paradoxical.

On September 02, 2016, Reuters reported that global ‘research-based’ companies are now ‘waging courtroom patent battles against each other over biosimilars, as the line blurs between companies known for their innovative medicines, and those that produce cheaper biotech knockoffs.’

Some of the recent high-profile examples were reported as follows:

  • Sanofi sued Merck in the US federal court over its biosimilar version of Lantus insulin with around US$7 billion in annual sales.
  • Eli Lilly reached a royalties deal with Sanofi to end a similar Lantus-related lawsuit, but their pact means the biosimilar launch was likely delayed.
  • Pfizer and Korea’s Celltrion in August beat back a court challenge from Johnson & Johnson over US$10 billion autoimmune drug Remicade, though J&J’s Janssen unit promised to appeal.
  • In a closely watched case, Novartis wants the US Supreme Court to dump a six-month marketing delay for biosimilars, in what would be the first time the high court took up a biosimilar case.
  • Samsung Bioepis, along with partner and minority shareholder Biogen Inc, filed a lawsuit against AbbVie in Britain in March to stop the US company from blocking the launch of yet another Humira biosimilar.

It is equally noteworthy, while Amgen is keen to launch its own biosimilars, the company’s aggressive legal strategy delayed Novartis’s efforts to introduce the first US biosimilar, Zarxio, before the copy of Amgen’s US $1 billion drug Neupogen finally went on sale last year.

Further, Amgen has also filed a legal suit against a biosimilar version of its Enbrel (etanercept) developed by Novartis (Sandoz), which has already received regulatory approval from the US-FDA on August 30, 2016 for multiple inflammatory diseases.

Taking these into consideration, isn’t, therefore, about time to ponder afresh, whether the innovative drug makers’ general mindset of maintaining drug exclusivity with a very high price, on techno-legal grounds, even after enjoying price monopoly over a long period of the specified time, be termed as ‘patient-centric’?

Indian scenario:

Indian players have already started developing biosimilar drugs in the country. This market offers a lucrative future opportunity considering that original biologic brands with a global turnover of around US$ 70 billion will expire by 2020.

The first biosimilar was approved and marketed in India for a hepatitis B vaccine in 2000 (GaBI Online). By now, around 30 such products have reportedly received the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI)’s approval for marketing in India. Even after the new biosimilar guidelines were framed and implemented locally, since 2012, there has not been any worthwhile legal suits filed by the global innovative biologic manufacturers, against the Indian companies or such products developed and approved in India, till 2014.

Since then, this scenario has changed with Roche suing Biocon and its partner Mylan on their biosimilar versions of Roche’s Herceptin (Trastuzumab) for breast cancer, and also making the DCGI a party to this suit. This litigation is broadly on the following grounds:

  • Non-adherence to the Indian biosimilar guidelines
  • Misrepresentation of drugs as biosimilar and passing off 

Be that as it may, its key impact is on affordable biosimilar drugs that can save more lives of breast cancer patients in India. If it is so, do such litigations demonstrate a patient-centric perspective for so important a drug, which is not even protected by a product patent in India, any longer?

Are biosimilars the only examples?

Lest I am not seen as highlighting only the instances of blocking market entry of biosimilar drugs, as sole examples of ‘patient-centric focus’, or lack of it, of many global innovative drug manufacturers, I would now expand it, just a bit. This is only to fathom the bottom-line – whether it is a ‘patients-centric’ focus, or solely a ‘profit-centric’ outlook.

‘Patients-centric’ or ‘Profit-centric’?

To get a sense on this vexing issue, it would be worthwhile for us to find out by ourselves the most appropriate reason behind each of the following. Of course it’s just an illustration. This reason could be either a ‘patient centric’ focus, or simply a ‘profit centric’ outlook. …And then let’s try to make out which way the overall balance tilts, on the ground:

  • Discovering new drugs, delivery systems, and finding new indications
  • Lack of transparency and widely reported bias towards mainly positive results in clinical trial data, both for publication and regulatory approval of various new drugs, and associated global furor.
  • Exorbitant high prices of many new patented medicines and some generic drugs too
  • Widely reported marketing/other malpractices, and associated fines paid by the respective players
  • Causing entry delay for cheaper small molecule generics and large molecule biosimilar drugs post patent expiry restricting gtreaterr patient access

What’s your relative score now?

Conclusion:

Let me sign off here by raising the following relevant questions in this area, for all of us to think and address, as we deem appropriate:

Is the narrative of ‘patient centric’ approach of the ‘research-based’ global drug companies’ now getting clearer with the widely reported credible examples, as above?

Is there still a paradox between their two different strategic business approaches – one entry into off-patent drug development, such as biosimilars, and the other in blocking or delaying entry of such drugs, whenever possible, even after enjoying a specified period of product pricing monopoly?

Does it then mean, what a large section of pharma industry constituents is now publicly demonstrating, at least in the above areas, more than negates their protracted sound bites on ‘patient centric’ focus?

Despite these facts, would pharma related criticism in this space be termed as just a fad of the stakeholders?

If not, what should be the way forward from here to ensure that remedial measures are taken in so important an area of ‘patient-centric’ outlook, soon enough?

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. 

Patient Services: No Longer An Optional Competitive Driver

Posted on by
Reply

The emerging global trend of patients’ demand for greater engagement in their treatment decision making process, could well be a game changer in the prescription demand generation process for pharma brands, even in India, and in not too distant future. This would assume a critical importance not just from the patients’ perspective, but also for the pharma companies and other health care players, for commercial success.

The fast penetration of Internet services is increasingly becoming a great enabler for the patients to get to know, learn and obtain more and more information about their fitness, overall health, various illnesses, disease symptoms, available diagnostic tests, including progress in various clinical trials, besides the drugs and their prices – and all these just with several clicks.

Thus, equipped with relevant information from various dependable and user-friendly sources from the cyberspace, patients have started asking probing questions about the risks and benefits of various types of treatment decisions and diagnostics tests, when recommended by the doctors. At times, especially in the Western world, such interactions even lead to changes, additions or deletions in the choice of therapy, including drugs, devices and diagnostics tests.

Even in a developing country, such as India, many of such types of patients would no longer want to play just a passive role in their disease treatment or health and fitness improvement processes. Although, they would continue to want the doctors to take a final decision on their treatment, but only after having meaningful interactions with them.

A 2016 Report: 

An April 2016 report of Accenture titled, “The Patient is IN: Pharma’s Growing Opportunity in Patient Services,” finds that the patients in the top global pharma markets want and expect consistent services coming from the pharma companies.

These patients are increasingly seeking more services from the pharma players before they are treated for a disease, regardless of the types of illnesses they have. However, it’s more important to note that patients’ responses during this survey have clearly indicated that while they highly value the services they use, a vast majority of them do not know about the services, which, as the pharma companies claim, are already available for them.

The Accenture study covered 203 executives at pharmaceutical companies, 100 in the United States and 103 in Europe (8 countries) from October to November 2015, covering seven therapeutic areas: heart, lung, brain, cancer, immune system, bones, and hormones/metabolism. Annual revenues of the surveyed companies ranged from nearly US$ 1 billion to more than US$ 25 billion.

Some important findings:

Following are some key findings of this report:

1. Patient services are delivering value with a significant increase in focus, and investment expected over the next two years, with 85 percent of companies are raising their investment in patient-centric capabilities over the next 18 months. However, the companies have only become slightly more patient-centric over the past two years. 9 of the following top 10 services are attracting above average business impact, which is an increase over hopping 73 percent that currently offer such patient services:

  • Disease education
  • Patient segmentation and insight
  • Patient experience management
  • Medication delivery/support
  • Patient risk assessment
  • Wellness information and health management
  • Nurse/ physician/patient access portal
  • Medication/ treatment reconciliation
  • Patient outreach, reminders, and scheduling
  • Adherence program management

2. Digital platforms play a dominant role in making patients aware of the services offered. Thus, companies are going big with investments in digital engagement technologies and supporting analytics, with 95 percent of companies planning to invest in patient engagement technologies over the next 18 months.

3. Much of this investment (but not all) is aligned to what patients value. 50 percent of the following top 10 fastest growing services are perceived by the patients delivering significant value:

  • Benefit coverage and access support
  • Health coach/counselor
  • Adherence program management
  • Co-payment assistance programs
  • Remote monitoring
  • Affordability and reimbursement support
  • Nursing support services
  • Reward/ incentive programs
  • Medication delivery/support
  • Patient outreach, reminders, and scheduling

Out of these, ‘medication delivery and support’, ‘remote patient monitoring’ and ‘adherence program management’ were highly valued by 85, 79 and 77 percentages of patients, respectively.

To give an example, pharma companies in the United States use digital as the primary channel for direct communications for patients. They use social media (51 percent) and web pages (49 percent) to market patient services. The use of TV is around 53 percent.

The challenge:

Let me re-emphasize here, as on date, just 19 percent of the surveyed patients are familiar with already available services meant for them. This had happened, despite respective pharma companies’ basic reliance and dependence on health care professionals for dissemination of their respective well-targeted services.

Thus, lack of awareness among patients about the services provided, throws a major challenge to pharma players to accurately ascertain, finding out effective ways, and then continuously measure and evaluate the impact of those services on outcomes, to further hone the process. Such a mechanism needs to be put in place before channeling further major investments in this important space.

Key takeaways:

Following are the key takeaways from this study:

  • Patient services will become a competitive driver and are no longer optional for pharmaceutical companies.
  • Investment should be led by what patients value, but measuring business value is critical to sustainability.
  • Clear organizational and operating strategy must be in place to ensure companies are structured for success.
  • Effective communication to patients the economic value of services, is central to healthcare professional interactions.

Patient-services strategy:

Accenture’s North American Managing Director of patient-services epitomized the findings of the report during its release on April 2016 by saying, “In this changing competitive environment, the question will no longer be if life sciences companies should offer these services, but rather which ones, and how they should be implemented.”

Thus, development of a robust patient-services strategy by the pharma players, that syncs well with the patients’ needs on the ground, will be absolutely necessary for the pharma players, as we step into the future. More importantly, there should be an effective alignment of the strategy with different health care professionals, through effective communication of various types and kinds, to ensure that the brand value offerings, well supported by carefully tailored patients’ services, generate a synergistic outcome for the target group.

Conclusion:

Patient services are increasingly assuming importance of a cutting-edge competitive driver of success in the pharma business. Accordingly, various types of such services have already started attracting greater investments, especially in the Western part of the globe, and are soon expected to become a key competitive driver of success in the healthcare market of India too.

However, while crafting an effective patient-services strategy, one-size-fit-all type of approach won’t work. This is primarily because, not just the service requirements would vary within patients or patient groups, the method of the preferred service delivery mechanism would also vary. For example, some patients may prefer to engage with their doctors for this purpose, some others’ preference could well be Internet based interactive digital platforms, or through a smart app available in a smartphone.

Thus, to succeed in this area for business excellence, pharma marketers must find out the most effective ways to offer these services to each types or groups of patients.

Moreover, the patient services strategy should be an ongoing exercise, as the target groups’ needs of the types of services, and preferred delivery platforms for the same would also keep changing over time.

In India too, quite slowly though, but steadily, the process of arriving at treatment decisions for the patients is undergoing a metamorphosis. Taking a fast mover advantage in the country, in a big way and now, would help reaping a rich harvest, in the near future.

Are Indian pharma players too taking note of this shifting paradigm for sustainable business excellence?

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. 

 

Clinical Trials: Critical Need To Improve Patient Participation With Informed Consent

Posted on by
Reply

On April 13, 2016, an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) titled, “Clinical Trials Need More Subjects” underscored an important point that the rate at which the clinical researchers are able to recruit and retain patients for ‘Clinical Trials (CT)’, has now hit an all-time low. This is vindicated by studies that indicate less than 10 percent of Americans now participate in clinical trials, and only 3 to 5 percent of patients sign up for trials of new cancer therapies, in the largest CT market of the world.

As a result, about 40 percent of CTs do not recruit enough patients to meet their goals, the article highlights. Consequently, a large number of pharma industry sponsored CTs are now, reportedly, moving away from the United States. India should, therefore, take note of this development and pull up the socks.

If similar situation gets replicated in other countries too, and persists, it would be very unlikely that critical and credible medical and scientific knowledge that can significantly improve the treatment outcomes in many serious disease conditions could be meaningfully gathered and put to practice. Its other serious fallouts too, are also not terribly difficult to imagine.

A key medical research tool: 

In pursuit of the advancement of medical knowledge and patient care, CT of drugs is universally considered to be a key medical research tool, as it is the best way to learn what works best in treating various types of diseases. It goes without saying that drugs for all new types of treatments would need to be discovered first through a long and painstaking process of discovery research. These are then purified, and tested in preclinical studies, before a final decision is taken for commencement of CT on human against preset parameters, as deemed necessary.

While going through this stringent process some drugs are found to be safe and effective on human subjects and some others are not, on the contrary may be harmful.

There lies the crucial importance of CT for all scientific evidence based medicines. According to the Department of Health & Human Services of the United States, Clinical research is done only if doctors don’t know:

  • whether a new approach works well with people and is safe and
  • which treatments or strategies work best for certain illnesses or groups of people 

CT, though a small part in the important and lengthy process of developing newer treatments, significantly helps the health care decision makers to decide on the treatments that work best for any patient.

Broad types: 

Pharmaceutical companies usually sponsor CT for new drugs and treatments, which are carried out by the designated research teams, consisting of doctors and other related professionals in different specialized areas.

There are 4 phases in any CT, which are broadly as follows:     

  • Phase I: Here, for a new treatment, an investigational drug is tested for the first time in small numbers, usually between 20 and 100, on healthy volunteers, to identify the proper dosage ranges for drug administration, while critically monitoring its method of absorption, adverse effects and toxicity profile.
  • Phases II: This phase, just as Phase I studies, also tests the drug on, usually between 100 and 300 patients, suffering from the targeted disease conditions. Safety is the main goal of this phase of CT and is programmed towards adjusting treatment doses, monitoring the common side effects, and whether patient’s disease condition improve as a result of the drug. These studies are usually randomized and double-blinded, where neither the patient nor the researchers would know whether a patient is receiving the investigational drug, or a placebo, or a standard treatment.
  • Phase III: In this phase, the investigational new drug goes through rigorous testing of safety, efficacy, and proper dosage levels in a large group of subjects, which may even exceed several thousand, with a specific illness or disease. The key objective is to enable the doctors to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the treatment for various groups of patients, such as, men versus women, elderly versus young, besides many others. 
  • Phase IV: Such studies are done after the drug receives the marketing approval from the drug regulator. The basic objective of these trials is usually to monitor whether the treatment offers desired benefits or gives rise to long-term side effects, which were not seen in the phase II and III trials. This phase may involve even several hundreds and thousands of patients.

It is worth noting that CT is essential to obtain marketing approval for any new treatment, as required by the drug regulators in the different countries, and takes around 6 to 8 years.

The role of patients:

Patients play a critical role in the entire scientific value chain of any drug evaluation process, especially on human. It is absolutely necessary, particularly in the regulated markets of the world, that all medicines are fully vetted through highly regulated, stringently monitored and well-scrutinized CTs, to ensure safety and effectiveness of each new drug and treatment for the patients.

No CT can take place sans the willingness and informed consent for participation of thousands of patients for any such studies held across the world. Without adequate patient participation in a CT, the drug performance data may also not be credible and thus acceptable to the drug regulator. This would, consequently, make it impossible to bring any new drug for prevention or treatment of various, often life threatening, disease conditions. 

Major reasons for not enough patient participation:

There are many reasons for not enough patients volunteering to participate in the CT, even in India. Some of the major reasons have been identified as follows:

  • Patients often are not aware that such trials also offer a treatment option. In many cases, their doctors too may not be explaining it effectively to them, as a part of their professional discourse. Several studies conclude that trust in a physician is a main reason patients decide to participate in CT.
  • Some patients, after reading media reports, interacting with some NGOs and also from word of mouth, mistrust the CT process and suffer from fear of being a guinea pig.
  • At times, complicated protocols, and eligibility requirements may also be discouraging.
  • Many patients, especially in India, are not very clear about the exact insurance (financial) cover the study provides for them, along with other payments for the care that they would receive during the trial, or for any drug-related long term untoward incident even after completion of the CT.

All these need to be effectively addressed. 

India attractiveness for CT:

The number of CT conducted in India had increased with a rapid pace till 2012, driven by cost arbitrage, treatment-naïve patient population, qualified English speaking medical research professionals that the country offers. According to available reports, in 2009, outside the United States, India was the second most preferred country to conduct CT. Incidentally, at that time, the CT guidelines in India were too loose, quite discretionary, patient-unfriendly and with many gaping holes. This scenario has changed dramatically since 2013, with consequent adverse impact on the number of CT in India.

A 2009 study conducted by Ernst & Young and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (FICCI), states that India participates in over 7 percent of all global phase III and 3.2 percent of all global phase II trials. The major reasons of India attraction of the global players to conduct CT in the country, were highlighted as follows:

  • Cost of Clinical Trial (CL) is significantly less in India than most other countries of the world
  • Huge treatment-naïve patient pool with different disease pattern and demographic profile
  • Easy to enroll volunteers, as it is not very difficult to persuade poor and less educated people as ‘willing’ participants. This may not be so easy now with the recent amendment of CT guidelines. 

However, there is an urgent need for a world class capacity building in this area to reap a rich harvest.

Improving CT regulations in India:

Not so long ago, it came to light with the help of ‘Right To Information (RTI)’ query that more than 2,000 people in India died as a result of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) caused during drug trials from 2008-2011 and only 22 of such cases, which is just around 1 percent, received any compensation. That too was a meager average sum of around US$ 4,800 per family.

It has been widely reported that pharmaceutical companies often blame deaths, that occur during trials, on a person’s pre-existing medical condition, and not related to CT.

This gloomy situation is now gradually improving. According to an August 2015 research article titled “Impact of new regulations on clinical trials in India”, published in International Journal of Clinical Trials, 2015 Aug; 2 (3): 56-58, there was a need of strict vigilance and regulations for conducting CT in India, which was much easier than in North America or Europe. In India, the trial participants were exploited because of illiteracy, poverty and lack of awareness of their basic rights in this area. The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) has now taken a noteworthy step by launching online Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI) ensuring accountability, transparency and information sharing on clinical trials in the public domain.

Followed by a tough intervention of the Supreme Court in 2013, Indian Government brought in amendments to the CT guidelines of Schedule Y, in December 2014 which came into force effective June 2015. These long-overdue amendments are expected to strengthen the CT process in India and effectively protect the rights, desired safety and general well-being of the participating subjects, while generating authentic clinical data for new drugs or treatment.

Informed consent:

Obtaining informed consent of the participating patients, is absolutely necessary for the researchers. This has recently been made stringent in India effective June 07, 2013. From that date, to make the sCT process transparent and ensure requisite confidentiality, an audio-visual recording of the ‘informed consent’ process has been made mandatory in the country.

A valid consent would mean that the participants have well understood the risks and benefits of the treatment during the CT period and after, along with the general procedures that he or she would need to undergo during the given time-frame.

However, the question that is still being debated, primarily because of the continuing challenge in defining in each case, beyond any scope of doubt, what should be universally considered as an adequate level of information given to the patients to obtain consent of participation in the CT. 

Financial compensation process:

Currently, the calculation of financial compensation, wherever applicable, is based on a well-defined formula. This system has been made mandatory for the sponsor in India for any trial related injuries or death. Such compensation has to be paid, even when the trial related injury is discerned after the completion of the CT. The concerned participants would receive this compensation over and above the free medical management of injury, which in any case has to be provided by the sponsor.

Hence patient safety and compensation related issues pertaining to CT in India have, to a great extent, been addressed, though there is still more scope for improvement on an ongoing basis.

Another major issue still to be addressed:

It is generally expected that when CT of a new drug is conducted by the global pharma players in India with the participation of Indian patients, the same drug when launched in other countries would also be made available in India for the benefit of Indian patients. 

Unfortunately, the situation is not so, as indicated by a paper titled, “A critical appraisal of clinical trials conducted and subsequent drug approvals in India and South Africa”, published in the BMJ Open on August 31, 2015.

The objective of this study was to assess the relation between the number of clinical trials conducted and respective new drug approvals in India and South Africa.

The study found that out of CTs with the participation of test centers in India and/or South Africa, 39.6 percent (India) and 60.1 percent (South Africa) CTs led to market authorization in the EU/USA, without a New Drug Application (NDA) approval in India or South Africa. 

The paper concluded, despite an increase in CT activities, there is a clear gap between the number of trials conducted and market availability of these new drugs in India and South Africa. Hence, the drug regulatory authorities, investigators, institutional review boards and patient groups should direct their efforts to ensuring availability of new drugs in the market that have been tested and researched on their population, the article suggested. 

I hope, the CDSCO would take remedial measures to address this situation, soon.

Indian pharma players should get their act together:

In view of the international media reports on alleged ‘CT data fudging’ by some of the larger Indian players in the pharma and relator sectors, there is an urgent need of the Indian pharma players to get their acts together, without any further delay.

On April 15, 2016, Reuters reported, “India’s Alkem Laboratories has been accused by Germany’s health regulator of fudging data on clinical trials of an antibiotic and brain disorder drug, becoming the third Indian firm to be scrutinized since 2014 for suspected manipulation of trial data.” However, a day later Alkem said that it was submitting suitable clarifications to the European Medical Agency (EMA).

Be that as it may, if the allegation for such gross violations of basic ethical standards is true, it would bring shame not just to the companies concerned, but also to India as a trusted source for pharma products and services. Such alleged foul play has the potential to ultimately shatter the stakeholders’ confidence, including patients, on CTs done by the Indian players, both for the local and global markets. 

Conclusion:

At the long last, after a grueling experience and tough intervention of the Supreme Court of India, CTs conducted in India are now reasonably well regulated and generally seem to comply with ethical requirements and standards. The question of human ‘guinea pigs’ and its associated concerns have also been adequately addressed by the CDSCO now.

Gradually improving the CT regulatory environment in India, barring some avoidable aberrations, offers some significant direct and indirect benefits to all concerned. Indian pharma is, therefore, expected to handle this sensitive opportunity with great care and following the highest ethical standards. 

This, in turn, would help bring to the market robust evidence-based new drugs and treatment for many types of diseases, and at the same time could facilitate their early access to many patients, at a time of dire need.

Through increasing access to CT, the participating patients would be able to avail several important benefits, such as, new and still unavailable treatment options, especially for those serious ailments, where other existing drugs either are not working effectively with satisfactory results, not affordable to many, or not working at all. In that sense, CT could offer to a sizeable number patients several other treatment options to choose from, especially, for many life-threatening diseases. This important benefit needs to be explained to the patients from credible sources, and thus merits serious consideration by the practicing medical professionals.

However, it is also a fact, particularly, in India that some people are lured to, or voluntarily enroll themselves for CT with an objective to make some extra money. Let me hasten to add that there are many other patients for whom the compensation for participation in the CT is no more than just an extra bonus.

Hence, improved patient participation with informed consent, to avail an important medical option in the disease treatment process, encouraged by the doctors without having any vested interest, has a great potential to create a win-win situation, for all concerned.

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.

2015: Pharma Industry Achieved Some, Could Achieve Some More

Posted on by
Reply

Wish You And All Your Near And Dear Ones Peace, Happiness, Good Health And Prosperity in The Brand New Year 2016 

The year 2015 witnessed several noteworthy developments in the pharma industry, just as many other years before. That said, in my view, a few of these happenings were much more impactful, and probably took place for the first time ever, in the year just gone by.

Obviously, one such major development is the overall serious adverse impact on the image of the pharma industry, in general. 

During 2015, the image of the pharma industry got further tarnished by reports of high-profile alleged drug price manipulations. This avoidable saga culminated with the arrest of a pharma Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in the United States, amid a federal investigation, in December 2015.

However, I am not going to dwell on this issue in this article. Instead, I shall select some key strategic pharma business areas, which contribute to the largest chunk of the total overall cost, incurred by the global pharma industry, every year. These areas, as I see, are:

  • Drug discovery research
  • Sales and Marketing
  • Supply Chain
  • Development of new drug delivery systems
  • Patients care and engagements

I have put all these points in the above order, just for the convenience of my discussion in this article. 

With a few examples, I shall give my perspective on these areas of the global pharma industry, dividing them broadly into the following two sub-categories: 

  • Areas where the industry could have done a lot better
  • Areas where the industry made significant progress
The Pharma industry strategy continues to remain broadly traditional:

Pharma sector is globally considered as an industry, which appears to be more comfortable in maintaining and harnessing its traditional approaches, in almost all its field of activities. Although, some tweaking has certainly been taking place, which are primarily to automate or digitalize the same process, aimed at adding more speed together with virtually real time monitoring of operations.

Let me hasten to add here that, some major and newer types of modern tech based collaborative initiatives with large companies outside the pure pharma space, have also been reported, during the year.

I shall deliberate on both these areas, one after another, hereunder. 

A. Areas where the industry could have done a lot better:

Drug discovery research:

With the increasing impact of patent cliff and low productivity in drug discovery research, coming alongside big ticket generic threats, many pharma players seem to be still tweaking with its traditional blockbuster drug discovery model, in 2015.

Slightly changing from this traditional strategic focus, many of them have now started focusing more on ‘Orphan Drug’ research, though with indication of a life threatening disease with low prevalence, intending to go whole hog for very high pricing of these drugs.

By gradually adding more indications, these innovator companies plan to make the ‘Orphan drug’ molecule a money churning blockbuster drug. As a result, the number of venture capitalists, who invest in the early stages of such drug development, has increased significantly in 2015.

According to reports, over 40 percent of all approved orphan drugs are meant for high risk cancer sub-categories with low prevalence rate. Although these drugs are for lifetime treatment, the medicines are frightfully expensive, costing between US$200,000 and US$300,000 per year, for each patient. 

Intriguingly, still a very few drug companies are externalizing drug discovery research or even considering on a large scale, the use of the ‘Open Source’ drug discovery model, which is currently widely used in the Information Technology (IT) industry, as one of the main platforms to get new products.

Sales and Marketing:

Similarly, in the pharma sales and marketing space, there has been no game changing developments, during the last year.

Although, some initiatives that can at best be termed as tweaking on the traditional pharma methods, were visible, especially in the fields of digital marketing and e-detailing. The good old and much tried traditional tools, such as, Medical Representatives’ (MR) product detailing to individual doctors or a large number of ‘medical seminars’/ ‘continuing medical education’ events, of varying scale and dimensions, arranged for the medical practitioners, still ranked at the very top of this domain. 

Here, again, no signs of a paradigm shift were visible to me during the year, nor do I reckon, any game changer is likely to surface, any time soon.

Supply chain:

The immense importance of ‘Supply Chain’ in the overall pharma business does not appear to have been properly understood by the drug companies up until 2015. This has been well vindicated by various credible studies. I would refer below just two of those: 

The Chief Supply Chain Officer Report of September 2014, highlighted that just 39 percent of pharmaceutical respondents see the ‘Supply Chain’ as an equally important part of business success as R&D or sales and marketing. Whereas, 68 percent of consumer packaged goods’ respondents believe that leveraging the true potential of this domain, is one of the key requirements for business excellence.

This is noteworthy, as even ‘The McKinsey report’ of September 2013 stated that supply chains now account for around 25 percent of pharmaceutical costs. The annual spending on it is so staggering of around US$230 billion that even minor efficiency gains in this area could free up billions of dollars for investments elsewhere.

Instead of following its traditional approaches, if the pharma sector adopts even straightforward advances, well established in other industries, the total costs could fall by US$130 billion, ‘The McKinsey report’ estimates. 

Ideally, pharma ‘Supply Chain’ should be considered not just a means of getting the products at the right place, at the right time and in the right quantities, but also as a means of delivering additional value to the customers. This can be achieved with radical strategic intervention in this space with the application of the state of art technology, which was still broadly lacking in 2015. 

B. Areas where the industry made significant progress: 

In this section, by citing examples on two other important strategic business areas of the pharma industry, where significant progress has been reported during 2015, I would try to drive home my point. These two areas are new drug delivery systems and patient care/engagement.

New drug delivery systems:

On the development of new drug delivery systems, some interesting collaborative arrangements have been reported in 2015. As illustrative examples, I would cite just the following two: 

A. “Smart Inhaler”

I have picked up this important area of a new drug delivery system, out of many, as it fascinates me immensely. Here again, I would illustrate my point with just two examples – out of several others, as hereunder:

1. On December 2, 2015, the British drug major GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) reportedly entered into a technology deal with Wisconsin-based Propeller Health. Under this collaboration, Propeller will create a custom sensor for GSK’s Ellipta inhaler. The Propeller platform combines sensors, software, and care team services to improve patient outcomes by providing more insightful and efficient care. GSK is the second largest pharmaceutical company to partner with Propeller Health, which in December 2013 announced a deal with Boehringer Ingelheim to develop a custom sensor for BI’s Respimat device.

2. In September, 2015, Teva Pharmaceuticals reportedly acquired Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Gecko Health Innovations, a smart inhaler company.

Gecko’s main product is a platform for chronic respiratory disease management that also combines a sensor device that connects to most inhalers, a data analytics platform, an accessible user interface, and behavioral triggers to help asthma and COPD patients manage their condition, more effectively.

B. Sanofi and Medtronic strategic alliance in diabetes to improve patient experience and outcomes

Although not many large scale commercial ‘drug discovery’ initiatives based on the ‘Open Source’ model is still not known to me, in the ‘new drug delivery system’ area, a major global strategic alliance, between Sanofi and Medtronic in the diabetes therapy area, has been reported based on this model. This alliance is aimed at improving patient experience and outcomes for persons with diabetes, around the world. 

As I mentioned, the alliance structured as an ‘Open Innovation’ model, will initially focus on the following key priorities:

  • Development of drug-device combinations
  • Delivery of care management services to improve adherence and simplify insulin treatment
  • Help people with diabetes better manage their condition

Patient engagement and care:

Quite encouragingly, in the ‘patient engagement and care’ area too, some of the global pharma majors have taken notable tech-based strides during 2015. Some of these laudable ventures are as follows:

A. Novo Nordisk and IBM partner to build diabetes care solutions on the Watson Health Cloud

According to a Dec. 10, 2015 ‘Press Release’, Novo Nordisk and IBM Watson Health agreed to work together to create diabetes solutions, built on the Watson Health Cloud.

Under this agreement, by harnessing the potential of the Watson Health Cloud, Novo Nordisk aims to further advance its offerings to people living with diabetes and also their health care professionals.

B. Sanofi collaborates with Google to Improve diabetes health outcomes

Less than a couple of months before the Novo Nordisk – IBM partnership agreement, by a Press Release of August 31 2015, Sanofi and Google announced their collaboration to improve care and outcomes for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

According to the release, this collaboration will explore how to improve diabetes care by developing new tools that bring together many of the previously siloed pieces of diabetes management and enable new kinds of interventions. This includes health indicators such as blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c levels, patient-reported information, medication regimens and sensor devices. 

Is the word “Innovation” also being used as a façade?

This important, though contentious issue, is being raised by many today, globally.

In my view, global pharma even in 2015, continued making the mistake of repeatedly highlighting, with high decibel sound bytes that the stakeholders do not understand the value, importance and necessity of innovation, which in any case is far from the truth. Nevertheless, It kept using, rather more misusing, this important word too often to cover up any action of theirs that faced government, general public or media scrutiny.

Additionally, many pharma players seemingly continued to remain contented with a very narrow definition of the word ‘innovation’, limiting its application mostly in the traditional space of drug discovery. While at the same time, many other smarter and more astute innovators, especially in the IT world, besides Google, IBM and Apple, started stepping into the vast healthcare arena, which otherwise could possibly have become pharma’s expanded market.

A am quoting below the names of just five of these amazing innovators, from the published data, just to give you a feel of this interesting area of ‘innovation’ in the health care arena:

  • Medivation: For finding the value of treatments that others ignored
  • Beijing Genomics Institute: For making DNA sequencing a mass-market
  • Medisafe: For using wireless and cloud technology to improve drug adherence
  • Ginger.IO: For harnessing behavioral data to save lives
  • Setpoint Medical: For creating a built-in pain-relief platform 
Epilogue:

Overall, the year 2015 was a mixed bag for pharma. Many pharma players, I reckon, displayed their self serving intent in a more glaring manner. Several captains of this industry generally talked all right things, which are music to many ears, but mostly acted quite differently, going against the public health interest, as reported by the global media.

Many pharma companies continued trying to woo the media cleverly during the year. Some of them, reportedly, even sponsored trips of a few Indian journalists to their respective overseas headquarters. As I understand, many newspaper readers too, had noticed the small print disclosures in this regard, at the bottom of their stories on those companies, written on the return.  I have no intention to be judgmental on such trips. Nevertheless, the global media, including the Indian media, by and large, reported all such deeds, with as much detail as possible, without slightest hesitation.

Encouragingly, a few global pharma majors, such as, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca challenged this contusing status quo in 2015. They seem to dare to chart into the much uncharted frontier to squarely face the challenge of the changing demands of the changing world order. Probably not so much by trying to change others, but mostly by changing themselves. 

It appears, at least, the likes of the above global players have started accepting the new expectations of the aspiring customers and their fast transforming mindsets, including, the tougher governments enacting contemporary laws and regulations in many countries. In tandem, the exorbitantly high cost and usually low profile advocacy initiatives of drug companies seem to becoming lesser and lesser productive, as evident by the increasing number of avoidable issues that the pharma industry is now facing. Added to all this, a modern and major force-multiplier, in the form of social media, has now started unleashing its unfathomable power of shaping laws, regulations and even public opinion.

I wish this wind of change gaining more speed in 2016, and in that process, ushers in the long awaited dawn of a new paradigm. A paradigm of justice and equity in health care for all, across the world, and especially to my own country – India.

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.

Wide Gap Between Health Care Needs, And Delivery: Is The Bridge Still Too Far?

Posted on by
Reply

“Health inequities which abound in India must be corrected through investments in a robust primary health care system,” said Professor K Srinath Reddy, chairman, Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), not too long ago.

The equity gap between health care needs and delivery for the general population of India continues to widen.

As the next Union Budget of India is coming nearer, the question in this regard that comes at the top of mind is:

Would adequate resources be allocated by the Union Finance Minister to bridge this gap effectively now or the elusive bridge continue to remain too Far?

The growing challenges: 

Up until now, despite making some progress in improving access to health care, India continues to face the growing challenges of:

  • Gross inequalities in this area by socioeconomic status, geography and gender. 
  • High out-of-pocket health expenditure pushes its ever increasing financial burden overwhelming on the private households, that accounts for over three-quarters of health spending in India.
  • Exorbitant out-of-pocket health spending is also responsible for mercilessly driving into poverty more than half of Indian households, or around 39 million Indians, each year.

The paper titled, “Health care and equity in India”, published by ‘The Lancet’ on February 05, 2011, well deliberated on this issue. 

The paper identifies 3 key challenges to equity in health care:

  • In service delivery
  • In financing
  • In financial risk protection

In the article titled, “My Expectations From The Union Budget (2016-17)”, written in this Blog on December 07, 2015, I also suggested that adequate resource deployment be made by the Government now in power, in all these three areas, while presenting the forthcoming Union Budget on February 28, 2016.

The root cause of inequity in healthcare:

I reckon, there are, at least, the following three key reasons that can be attributed to this failure, on the part of various Governments in power, till today:

  • Inability, primarily on the part of the central government, to effectively integrate healthcare with socioeconomic, social hygiene, education, nutrition and sanitation related issues of the nation. 
  • Health being a state subject, not much of coordinated and robust planning has so far been taken place in this area, between the Central and the State Governments, to effectively address the pressing health care related growing inequity across the country, in general.
  • Budgetary allocation and other fiscal measures towards health care, both by the central and most of the state governments, are grossly inadequate. 

As I said before, in another article published by this blog titled, “With Highest Billionaire Wealth Concentration, India Tops Malnutrition Chart in South Asia” on January 26, 2015, it is a well accepted fact that reduction of social inequalities ultimately helps to effectively resolve many important health care issues.

Otherwise, only a much smaller population of the country having adequate access to knowledge, social and monetary power, will continue to have the necessary resources to address their health care needs, appropriately.

UNICEF highlights stark inequalities in India:

According to UNICEF, every year, 1 million children below the age of five years die, due to malnutrition related causes in India. This number is worrisome as it is far higher than the emergency threshold, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of the severity of malnutrition.

Highlighting stark inequality in India, the report says, “The net worth of a household that is among the top 10 per cent can support its consumption for more than 23 years, while the net worth of a household in the bottom 10 percent can support its consumption for less than three months.”

Are so called “patient centric approaches” real?

Patients are also bearing a different kind of brunt altogether, from several other corners, on their health related issues.

Today, most of the important stakeholders of the health care industry, in general, seem to be using various facades of ‘patient centric approaches’, just for petty commercial gains, or for gaining some key strategic commercial advantages.

Such entities could well be pharmaceutical industry, doctors, hospitals, diagnostic centers, politicians or any other stakeholders.

It is unfortunate that most of them, at various different times, either pontificate about following ‘patient centric approaches’ or use the patients cleverly just to achieve their respective commercial or political goals, solely driven by vested interests. While on the ground, growing inequity in health care keeps marching north.

A recent paper of NITI Ayog:

In a discussion paper of July 18, 2015 titled, “Health System in India: Bridging the Gap Between Current Performance and Potential”, The National Institution for Transforming India Aayog (NITI Aayog), the policy think tank of the new Indian Government, has also accepted the following 3 critical realities, currently prevailing in the health care environment of India: 

  • India’s progress in health outcomes has been slower in comparison to other countries with comparable incomes and at similar stages of development. 
  • Impressive gains in per capita income should match with an increase in life expectancy or health status. 
  • Out of pocket expenditure in India is high (70 percent of total health expenditure). This is catastrophic for the poor and pushes an estimated 37 million into poverty every year. 

The NITI Ayog paper also emphasized, although health is a subject allotted to the State List, under the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, the Central Government is jointly responsible for items in the Concurrent List. 

Conclusion:

Currently, India is the global numero uno in the GDP growth rate. Thus, there cannot probably be any better time for the nation to leapfrog in the health care space, with a quantum increase in public financial commitments, to radically revamp the fragile public health system in the country. 

I repeat, incremental progress in the public health care system is just not enough for the country, extensive application of cutting edge Information Technology (IT) effectively, dovetailing with the creation of modern brick and mortar public health care infrastructure, top class human resource namely, doctors, nurses and related skill development process, on an ongoing basis.                                                                             

The Government should also ensure that the domestic health care industry comes forward to shoulder higher responsibility to enable the country in offering greater equity in health care, in tandem with the Union Ministry of Health and the State Governments.

This path, in my view, would help building a more equitable health system with a strong foundation of public health for more than 1.2 billion Indians. In that process the fast widening gap in equity, between health care needs and availability, could be bridged much sooner, and in a sustainable way.

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.