Does Drug Pricing Freedom Benefit Patients in A Free-Market Economy?

Posted on October 13, 2014 by Tapan Ray

A 2010 USFDA update titled ‘Generic Competition and Drug Prices’ highlighted that generic competition is intimately associated with lower drug prices, and the entry of the second generic competitor is associated with the largest price reduction.

The agency found that on an average, the first generic competitor prices its product only slightly lower than the brand-name manufacturer. However, the appearance of a second generic manufacturer reduces the average generic price to nearly half the brand name price. As additional generic manufacturers market the product, the prices continue to fall, but more slowly. For products that attract a large number of generic manufacturers, the average generic price falls to 20 percent of the branded price or even lower.

USFDA came to this conclusion based on an analysis of IMS retail sales data for single-ingredient brand name and generic drug products sold in the United States from 1999 through 2004.

Thus, the scope of any significant price increase, especially under cutthroat competition in the generic space of the US, used to be considered almost impractical until recently.

The ‘Myth’ busted:

Just over four years down the line, a ‘Press Release’ of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shattered this myth, when on October 2, 2014, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Senator Bernard Sanders, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, sent letters to 14 drug manufacturers, which reportedly include India’s Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Zydus Cadila, requesting for detail information about the escalating prices for generic drugs that they have started charging.

The letters:

The complete letters written to each of the 14 drug manufactures are linked below:

Actavis plc

Apotex Corp.

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories

Endo International plc

Global Pharmaceuticals

Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Lannett Company, Inc.

Marathon Pharmaceuticals, LLC

Mylan Inc.

PAR Pharmaceuticals Companies Inc.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp.

Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.

Summary findings of apparently ‘obscene’ price hike:

The following statements of Rep. Cummings and Senator Sanders capture the core sentiment of the probe:

“When you see how much the prices of these drugs have increased just over the past year, it’s staggering, and we want to know why,” Cummings said.

“Generic drugs were meant to help make medications affordable for the millions of Americans who rely on prescriptions to manage their health needs. We’ve got to get to the bottom of these enormous price increases,” Sanders added.

In the above letters, Cummings and Sanders quoted data from the Healthcare Supply Chain Association on recent purchases of 10 generic drugs by group purchasing organizations over the past two years. For example:

Albuterol Sulfate used to treat asthma and other lung conditions, increased 4,014 percent for a 100’s bottle of 2 mg tablets.

Doxycycline Hyclate, an antibiotic used to treat a variety of infections, increased 8,281 percent for a 500’s bottle of 100 mg tablets.

Glycopyrrolate, used to prevent irregular heartbeats during surgery, increased 2,728 percent for a box of 10 of 0.2 mg/mL, 20 mL vials.

Click here for a table of price increases for the ten drugs examined.

The information sought by lawmakers:

The Lawmakers requested the companies to provide detail relevant information from 2012 to the present, including:

Total gross revenues from sales of the drugs,
Prices paid for the drugs,
Factors that contributed to decisions to increase prices,
The identity of company officials responsible for setting drug prices.

The trigger factor:

This probe by the US lawmakers was triggered by the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) 2013 survey of drug prices. Subsequently in 2014, the NCPA had requested the US Senate to investigate into staggering increases of 390 – 8200 percent in the procurement prices of ten generic drugs, in just one year.

Immediate financial impact:

Reacting to this news, in the early afternoon on October 8, 2014, the scrip of Sun Pharma reportedly declined by 3.91 percent to Rs 804.10 and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories slipped by 3.29 percent to Rs 2,996.90 while Cadila Healthcare was down by 1.84 percent to Rs 1,313.85 on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE).

It is too early to speculate on the ultimate outcome of this probe. However, it may not be prudent to rule out the possibility of a far-reaching consequence, besides levying of commensurate penalties to the respective drug manufacturers.

India too acted upon, but withdrew hastily:

For products falling outside Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO), which account for around 82 percent of the total Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) and are eligible for free pricing, India has a similar, yet slightly different problem.

The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) had addressed this issue recently, but was compelled to withdraw its internal guidelines on the subject rather hastily, coincidentally just prior to Prime Minister Modi’s visit to America. Pharma industry and its lobbyists had projected this move of NPPA as a regressive step in the free pricing space.

The above measure of the NPPA was related to arbitrary and wide price variation within the same non-schedule drug molecules, manufactured by different pharma companies. This was important, as unlike many other non-drug products, patients buy medicines based on what the doctors’ prescribe for them. Moreover, patients undergoing medical treatment or their relatives usually have no inkling about the availability of lesser price equivalents of the same molecule/molecules as recommended by their doctors.

For example, Glimeperide, an anti-diabetic drug, sold by the market leader at ₹133 for a pack of 10 tablets, despite other equivalent brands being available at or below ₹40 or the MRP for a pack of 10 tablets (40 mg) of Telmisartan, used to treat hypertension varies from a low of ₹25 to as high as ₹385.

More volume sales of many of these high price drugs, despite availability of their low price equivalents, manufactured by equally well reputed companies, are primarily driven by various differentiated activities of the pharma companies to influence the doctors in favor of their respective products, as believed by many. Such type of free market encouraging free drug pricing, devoid of any possibility for the patients to exercise informed choices on the medicine price, defeats its core purpose.

Thus, absurd price variation within the same formulation of the same product molecules, even after accounting for all imaginable reasons for the price differences, was construed by the NPPA as ‘market failure’, as consumers cannot use their choice in product selection. In a market situation like this, intervention of the government is warranted for the sake of public health interest.

I hope, the Supreme Court of India would take note of this situation, in its next hearing.

A critical Question:

Based on ‘The New York Times’ report, I twitted (#@tapan_ray) on October 8, 2014 as follows:

“It happens in the US too? Government Demands Reasons For Rising Generic Drugs Costs, Otherwise Industry To Face New Regulation. http://nyti.ms/1vMi4No”

Subsequently, on October 9, 2014, Indian media flashed headlines like:

“Sun, Dr Reddy’s, Zydus Cadila named in US Congress price probe” or
“Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Dr. Reddy’s face US action on price hikes up to 8,000 percent”

In this scenario, where prices of some generic drugs sky rocket by 390 to 8,200 percent just in a year, the following basic question comes up for all stakeholders to ponder:

Does free pricing of drugs, even in free markets, work at all to protect patients’ health interest?

Conclusion:

In my view, quite unlike most other products, pricing freedom for medicines does not work in a free market due to a number of factors, even where intense competition exists from equivalent products placed in different price bands. This is mainly because, despite availability of lower price equivalents of the same or similar drugs, patients cannot exercise their pricing choice even within the same molecule, in any way, and is totally bound by what is prescribed by the doctors. This happens in India too and in all those countries where product substitution is illegal.

Moreover, it is an open secret that the pharma players heavily influence most of the heavy prescribers in their choice of drugs following various means. As a result, in many cases highest priced products become the category leader too, despite availability of lower price equivalents from equally reputed companies. This scenario makes many people believe that in a stable market situation drug prices skyrocket primarily due to dubious business practices giving rise to gross market manipulation

I reckon, just on drug pricing issue, many pharma players, both global and local, are inviting much avoidable business risks, not just in the developing markets such as India, but also in the largest free market economy of the world – the United States… or wherever opportunities for free drug pricing exist, irrespective of what it means to the patients. This mindset needs an urgent introspection, as the past would possibly not be replicated in the future.

Expectations from the civil society are now high that governments, both in the developing and also in the developed world, would keep a careful vigil to ensure that the process of earning a decent profit by the pharma players does not transgress into a limitless fetish for profiteering under any facade, pushing majority of patients succumb to life threatening ailments without having access to appropriate medicines. This defeats even the very purpose of drug innovation, as its access gets highly restricted mostly to the creamy layer of the society.

Many would consider this situation as grossly devoid of equity, unfair, unjust and in no away be allowed to continue. It is not an issue of taking moral high grounds either or scoring brownie points in a debate, but more importantly a critical ingredient to uphold ethics and values in pharma business, while re-creating its well-deserved public image, as it takes rapid strides towards inclusive growth.

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.

Has Prime Minister Modi Conceded Ground To America On Patents Over Patients?

Posted on October 6, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Unprecedented high profile engagement of the Indian Prime Minister with various interested groups during his recent visit to the United States under equally unprecedented media glare, has invited overwhelmingly more kudos than brickbats, from across the world.

However, in the context of upholding patients’ health interest in India, a lurking fear did creep in, immediately after his visit to the United States. This was related to whether or not demonstrably tough minded Prime Minister Modi has yielded to enormous pressure created by all powerful American drug lobby against the current Intellectual Property (IP) regime in India.

The backdrop:

This apprehension started bothering many as the Prime Minister appeared to have moved away from a much-reiterated stand of India that any IP related issue would be discussed only in a multi-lateral forum.

That India’s Patents Act is TRIP’s compliant, has been categorically endorsed by a vast majority of international and national experts, including, a key intellectual belonging to Prime Minister Modi’s ‘Think -Tank’ – Arvind Panagariya, Professor of Economics at Columbia University, USA.

Subsequent to my blog post of February 5, 2014, an article dated March 4, 2014 titled “India Must Call The US’ Bluff On Patents” penned by Panagariya stated as follows:

“Critics of the Indian patent law chastise it for flouting its international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. When confronted with these critics, my (Arvind Panagariya) response has been to advise them:

To urge the US to challenge India in the WTO dispute settlement body and test whether they are indeed right.

Nine years have elapsed since the Indian law came into force; and, while bitterly complaining about its flaws, the USTR has not dared challenge it in the WTO. Nor would it do so now. Why?

There is, at best, a minuscule chance that the USTR will win the case.

Against this, it must weigh the near certainty of losing the case and the cost associated with such a loss.

Once the Indian law officially passes muster with the WTO, the USTR and pharmaceutical lobbies will no longer be able to maintain the fiction that India violates its WTO obligations.

Even more importantly, it will open the floodgates to the adoption of the flexibility provisions of the Indian law by other countries.

Activists may begin to demand similar flexibilities even within the US laws.

On possible actions against India under the ‘Special 301’ provision of the US trade law, Professor Arvind Panagariya argues:

“Ironically, this provision itself was ruled inconsistent with the WTO rules in 1999 and the US is forbidden from taking any action under it in violation of its WTO obligations. This would mean that it couldn’t link the elimination of tariff preferences on imports from India to TRIPS violation by the latter. The withdrawal of preferences would, therefore, constitute an unprovoked unilateral action, placing India on firm footing for its retaliatory action.”

Examples of some global and local views:

On this score, a large number of business experts from all over the world have expressed their views, recently. Some examples are as follows:

The former Chairman of Microsoft India reportedly advised the new ‘Modi Regime’ as follows:

“While the new government must work hard to make India more business friendly, it must not cave in to pressure on other vital matters. For instance, on intellectual property protection, there is enormous pressure from global pharmaceutical companies for India to provide stronger patent protection and end compulsory licensing. These are difficult constraints for a country where 800 million people earn less than US$ 2 per day.”

Maruti Suzuki, India’s largest car manufacturer, aircraft maker Boeing, global pharma major Abbott and technology leader Honeywell have reportedly just not supported India’s IP regime, but have strongly voiced that IPR regime of India is “very strong” and at par with international standards.

The Chairman of the Indian pharma major – Wockhardt also echoes the above sentiment by articulating, “I think Indian government should stay firm on the Patents Act, which we have agreed.”

Other domestic pharma trade bodies and stakeholder groups in India expect similar action from the ‘Modi Government’.

Who are against Indian IP regime?

By and large, American pharma sector and their well-paid lobbyists representing drug multinationals are the strongest critics of Indian Patents Act 2005. They allege that Indian IP law discriminate against US companies and violates global norms, severely affecting their investments in India.

Recent stand of India on unilateral US measures:

Just to recapitulate, on April 30, 2014, the United States in its report on annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement, named ‘Special 301 report’, classified India as a ‘priority watch list country’.

On this report, India responded by saying that the ‘Special 301’ process is nothing but unilateral measures taken by the US under their Trade Act 1974, to create pressure on countries to increase IPR protection beyond the TRIPS agreement.

The Government of India has always maintained that its IPR regime is fully compliant with all international laws.

The Indo-US working group on IP:

The Indo-US high-level working group on IP would be constituted as part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF). The US-India TPF is the principal trade dialogue body between the countries. It has five focus groups: Agriculture, Investment, Innovation and Creativity, Services, and Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers.

The recent joint statement issued after talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Barack Obama states:

“Agreeing on the need to foster innovation in a manner that promotes economic growth and job creation, the leaders committed to establish an annual high-level Intellectual Property (IP) Working Group with appropriate decision-making and technical-level meetings as part of the TPF.”

This part of the Indo-US joint statement on IPR created almost a furore not just in India, but in other parts of the world too, interpreting that Prime Minister Modi has conceded ground to America on patents over patients.

IP experts’ expressed concerns even in the US:

Commenting on this specific move by the Obama Administration to push India on issues related to IP, even the independent American healthcare experts expressed grave concern.

Professor Brook K. Baker from the Northeastern University School of Law has reportedly said:

“This working group will give the US a dedicated forum to continue to pressure India to adopt TRIPS-plus IP measures, including repeal of Section 3(d) of the India Patents Act, adoption of data exclusivity/monopolies, patent term extensions, and restrictions on the use of compulsory licenses”.

Professor Baker further said:

“The US, in particular, will work to eliminate local working requirements that India is seeking to use to promote its own technological development…. The fact that this working group will have ‘decision-making’ powers is particularly problematic as it places the US fox in the Indian chicken coop.”

“FDI and innovation are also always rhetorically tied to strong IPRs despite inclusive evidence that typically shows that most low and middle-income countries do not benefit economically from IP maximization, since they are net importers of IP goods. It is also because the path to technological development is ordinarily through copying and incremental innovation – development tools that are severely undermined by IP monopoly rights and their related restrictive licensing agreements,” Baker elaborated.

Jamie Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International, an NGO working on knowledge governance also reportedly said:

“It is very clearly going to be used to pressure India to expand liberal grants of drug patents in India, and to block or restrain the use of compulsory licenses on drug patents.”

Has India conceded to American bullying?

On this backdrop, during Indian Prime Minister’s interaction with the President of the United States and his aids, it was reportedly decided to set up a high-level working group on IP, as a part of the TPF, to sort out contentious issues which have been hampering investments. This was interpreted by many experts that India has conceded to American bullying, as it apparently deviated from its earlier firm stand that the country would discuss IP issues only in multilateral forum such as the World Trade Organization (WTO).

No change in India’s position on patents:

Taking note of this humongous misunderstanding, on October 4, 2014, the Union Ministry of Commerce in an official clarification reiterated that during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to America:

There has been no change in India’s stated position on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

India has reaffirmed that the IPR legal regime in India is fully TRIPS-compliant.

A bilateral Innovation and Creativity Focus Group already exists in the Trade Policy Forum (TPF) since 2010. Any IP related issues have to be discussed by the United States only in the TPF. This group consults each other no less than twice a year on improving intellectual property rights protection and enforcement, enhancing awareness of intellectual property rights, fostering innovation and creativity, and increasing collaboration between American and Indian innovators.

The Indo-US joint statement issued now merely reiterates whatever has existed in the earlier Trade Policy Forum. IPR issues are critical for both the countries and India has been repeatedly raising the issue of copyright piracy and misappropriation of traditional knowledge with the US.

The US agreeing to discuss IPR issues through the bilateral mechanism of the Trade Policy forum is in fact a re-affirmation of India’s stand that issues need bilateral discussion and not unilateral action. The statement on the IPR issue will only strengthen the bilateral institutional mechanism.

Conclusion:

Most part of the above statement is indeed quite consistent to what happened even immediately before the Modi regime.

In September 2013, the Commerce Secretary and India’s Chief trade Negotiator, Rajeev Kher, while terming the decision by the US Trade Representative for not labeling India with its worst offender tag in IP as a ‘very sensible decision’, strongly defended India’s right to overrule patents in special cases to provide access to affordable innovative medicines to its 1.2 billion people.

Moreover, many recent judicial verdicts have vindicated that a strong and balanced patent regime of the country not just secures the bonafide rights of the patentee, but at the same time ensures genuine needs of the public and in case of pharma of the ailing patients.

The Indian Supreme Court judgment on Glivec of Novartis in the recent past, have re-established, beyond an iota of doubt, that to secure and enforce patents rights of genuine inventions, other than evergreening, India provides a very transparent IP framework.

Taking all these into consideration, it seems unlikely to me that Prime Minister Modi, who is a self-confessed nationalist and holds India’s interest first, would in any way compromise with the country’s TRIPS compliant patent regime, sacrificing millions of Indian patients’ health interest at the altar of American business needs.

The above official clarification by the Union Ministry of Commerce is expected to tame the fire of this raging debate to a great extent. However, the grave concern expressed in the following lines by the independent healthcare experts, such as Professor Baker, on the high-level IP working group, cannot just be wished away:

“The fact that this working group will have ‘decision-making’ powers is particularly problematic as it places the US fox in the Indian chicken coop.”

That said, from your government Mr. Prime Minister “Yeh Dil Maange Much More”.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Hepatitis C: A Silent, Deadly Disease: Treatment Beyond Reach of Most Indians

Posted on August 4, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Every year, July 28 is remembered as the ‘World Hepatitis Day’. In India, this year too, the day had gone by virtually uneventful, for various reasons. This happened despite increasing trend of the disease in the country.

Though, there are five main hepatitis virus types, namely A, B, C, D and E, of which B and C are the most fatal, in this article, I shall focus mainly on hepatitis C.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), globally around 150 million people are infected with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV), which is considered as one of the key factors for liver cirrhosis, fibrosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. At least, 350,000 HCV infected people die annually from these ailments.

A July 2014 study conducted by Metropolis Healthcare reportedly found that 17.97 percent of 78,102 samples studied in major cities of India such as, Mumbai, Delhi and Chennai, were infected with HCV and the patients belonged to the age group of 20 to 30 years. Out of 10,534 the tested sample in the age group of 0 to 10 years, 3,254 samples (30.89 percent) tested positive with HCV.

Institutes of Medicine (IOM) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the United States consider hepatitis C infections a “silent epidemic,” as many patients infected with HCV are symptom free, without even leaving any hint to them that they are infected. The infected persons may feel healthy, even when serious liver damage is taking place, sometimes through decades.

All these patients are also potential carriers of HCV, risking rapid spread of the virus, as identification of the infected individuals for remedial measures continue to remain mostly eluding in India.

According to experts, around 80 percent of the HCV patients ultimately develop chronic hepatitis with serious liver damage, causing significant debility. With further progression of the disease, around 20 percent of these patients could develop fatal liver cirrhosis and 5 percent may fall victim of liver cancer.

A situation like this, is indeed a cause of yet another major worry in the healthcare space of India. Deadly hepatitis C crisis would likely to worsen much, if it does not receive healthcare focus of all stakeholders, sooner.

Traditional treatment regime:

There is no vaccine developed for HCV, as yet. HCV usually spreads through sharing of needles, syringes or other equipment to inject drugs, infected blood transfusion and tattooing, among others.

The standard treatment for HCV is interferon-based injections, which could make patients feel ill and give rise to flulike symptoms. Moreover, the treatment with interferon lasts from six months to a year and cures only 40 to 50 of HCV infected patients.

Now, chronic HCV treatment also includes a combination of three drugs – ribavirin (RBV), pegylated interferon (PEG) and a protease inhibitor, such as, simeprevir or boceprevir or telaprevir. These three drug combinations inhibit viral replication for enhancing immune response of the body to hopefully eradicate the virus.

At times, patients with very advanced liver disease may not be able to tolerate this traditional treatment with interferon-based injections, as those could make them feel worse.

The latest development in treatment:

There has been a significant advance in the treatment of HCV patients today with a new drug in the form of tablet that has doubled the viral cure rates from 40 to 50 percent to 90 to 100 percent.

Moreover, the new drug not just enables the physicians switching from injectibles to oral tablet, but at the same time reduces the duration of treatment to just 12 weeks, instead of 6 months to one year, offering a huge advantage to patients suffering from HCV.

This new generation of treatment now includes only Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) of Gilead, which is the first drug approved to treat certain types of hepatitis C infection, without any compelling need to co-administer with interferon.

Some other global pharma majors, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck & Co, Johnson & Johnson and AbbVie are also developing oral treatment regimens for HCV. All these have shown equally dramatic results in clinical trials, reducing the requirement for debilitating interferon injections.

Allegation of profiteering:

Looking at the high cure rate of more than 90 per cent for much-distressed HCV infected patients, none would possibly dispute that Sovaldi of Gilead signifies a giant leap in the treatment of HCV. But Gilead, according to a ‘Financial Times (FT)’ report, faces strong criticism of alleged ‘profiteering’ for its pricing strategy of this drug.

Sovaldi has been priced by Gilead at Rs 60,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet with a three-month course costing Rs1.8 Crore (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a tablet. This treatment cost is being considered very high for many Americans and Europeans too.

“At the US price, Gilead will recoup its Sovaldi development investment . . . in a single year and then stand to make extraordinary profits off the backs of US consumers, who will subsidize the drug for other patients around the globe”, the FT report states.

This line of argument has been gaining ground on Capitol Hill, as well. This month, two senior members of the US Senate Finance Committee wrote to John Martin, Gilead Chief Executive, asking him to justify Sovaldi’s price, the report mentioned.

Half yearly sales of US$ 5.8 billion came from just 9,000 patients:

Be that as it may, the bottom line is, in the midst of huge global concerns over alleged ‘profiteering’ with this exorbitantly priced HCV drug, Gilead has reportedly registered US$ 5.8 billion in sales for Sovaldi in the first half of 2014.

The company has reportedly noted on its earnings call that it believes 9,000 people have been cured of HCV so far with Sovaldi. This means that the 6-month turnover of Sovaldi of US$ 5.8 billion has come just from 9000 patients. If we take the total number of HCV infected patients at 150 million globally, this new drug has benefited just a minuscule fraction of less than one percent of the total number of patients, despite clocking mind-boggling turnover and profit.

Stakeholders’ pressure building up:

Coming under intense pressure from all possible corners, Gilead has reportedly announced that it has set a minimum threshold price of US$ 300 a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost per patient would be about US$ 900 for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000. The company would offer that price to at least 80 countries.

For this special price, Gilead reportedly has targeted mostly the world’s poorest nations, but also included some middle income ones such as Egypt, which has by far the highest prevalence of HCV in the world. In Egypt, about 10 million people remain chronically infected and 100,000 new infections occur each year, according to Egyptian government figures. However, independent surveys put this number between 200,000 and 300,000. Gilead has already signed an agreement with the Egyptian government in early July 2014 and the drug would be available there in September 2014. This would make Egypt the first to have access to Sovaldi outside the US and the EU.

What about India?

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

This is indeed a welcoming news for the country and needs to be encouraged for expeditious implementation with support and co-operation from all concerned.

Regulatory requirement:

However, despite all good intent, Gilead says, “ Some countries, such as India and China, are not satisfied with the tests conducted in the US and elsewhere for Sovaldi. They want additional clinical trials to be conducted on their own patients as a precondition for authorization, which will add extra costs and delays.”

Patent status:

It is worth noting here that the Indian patent office has not even recognized Sovaldi’s patent for the domestic market.

Local measures to address chronic hepatitis:

On May 22, 2014, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution to improve prevention, diagnosis and treatment of viral hepatitis, in general. However, as things stand today in India, the surveillance systems for viral hepatitis are grossly inadequate and preventive measures are not universally implemented.

The Union Government of India has now expressed its intent to set up ten regional laboratories through the National Communicable Disease Centre (NCDC) for surveillance of viral hepatitis in the country. The key objective of these laboratories would be to ascertain the burden of viral hepatitis in India by 2017 and to provide lab support for investigating outbreaks.

Government sources indicate, the initial focus would be more on the preventive aspects rather than treatment of viral hepatitis given the limited health resources available. Setting up universal guidelines for immunization along with mass awareness and education have been considered as critical to fight this dreaded disease in the country. Simultaneously introduction of nucleic acid testing (NAT) and standardization of blood bank practices would be undertaken for preventing blood transfusions related viral hepatitis, in general.

Treatment for HCV is not widely available in the country. All types of HCV treatments, especially the newer and innovative ones, must be made available to all infected patients, as these drugs have high cure rates, short duration of treatment and minimal side effects.

Conclusion:

Viral hepatitis in general and hepatitis C in particular are becoming great national health concerns, as these contribute to significant morbidity and mortality, further adding to the national economic burden. India should just not strengthen its prevention strategies; it needs to focus on all the factors that influence speedy diagnosis and treatment of HCV.

As the WHO says, “New drugs have the potential to transform hepatitis C treatment, with safe and simple treatments resulting in cure rates of over 90 per cent”. The raging debate on Sovaldi needs to explore the newer avenues and measures for appropriately pricing the innovative medicines in the days ahead.

Concerned pharma players, the government and other stakeholders must work together and in unison to ensure that all those infected with HCV are diagnosed quickly and have access to life-saving treatments.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Cheaper Drugs: Happy Patients: Angry Industry

Posted on July 21, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Recent price reductions of a number of cardiovascular and diabetes drugs falling outside the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011), have attracted fury of the pharma industry . By a notification dated July 10, 2014, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has invoked Para 19 of the DPCO 2013 for these price changes, the implications of which would indeed be far reaching.

NPPA has now decided to examine inter-brand price variation for single ingredient formulations in eight therapeutic groups, which, besides cardiovascular and diabetic drugs, would include, anti-cancer, HIV/AIDS, anti-TB, anti-malaria, anti-asthmatic and immunological (sera/vaccines). In these therapy areas, the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the brand(s) exceeding 25 per cent of the simple average price of all in the same molecular category having 1 percent or above market share, would be capped at the 25 per cent level.

Pharma industry, in general, feels that this ‘unwelcoming decision’ of the NPPA, which allegedly goes beyond the scope and spirit of DPCO 2013, would invite great uncertainty in its business environment.

On the other hand, many consider this price reduction as a ‘Good Omen’ for millions of patients suffering from related life-long ailments. They argue, the purpose of this ‘Bitter Pill” of the NPPA, is to send a clear message to the pharma industry to shape-up with responsible drug pricing.

The new Minister’s recent statement:

It may not be a bad idea to take into consideration the above notification of the NPPA in the light of what the new minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Ananth Kumar said on May 28, 2014. According to media report, the Minister expressed his intent as follows:

“… As far as branded medicines of multinational pharmaceutical companies are concerned, we will talk to all of them and try to bring down prices of essential drugs for poor by 25-40 per cent… The pharmaceutical industry is very important for the health of the country, he added…our main mission will be to ensure the availability of all necessary medicines at affordable prices, especially for poor across the country.”

It is, therefore, quite possible that the NPPA’s decision on price reduction of cardiovascular and diabetes drugs has the Minister’s concurrence.

Industry’s key concern:

This recent decision of the NPPA has reportedly angered the industry, as the Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013) clearly articulates two basic criteria for drug price control in India, as follows:

1. Span of price control:

This was re-defined (from DPCO 1995) on the ‘essentiality criteria’ of the drugs, which in turn is based on the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)

2. Methodology of price control:

This was re-defined (from DPCO 1995) with a clear departure from ‘Cost-Based Price Control’ to the ‘Market-Based Price Control’.

The industry alleges violation of these criteria for the recently announced price reduction of a number of diabetic and cardiovascular drugs, as those do not fall under NLEM 2011.

Price variation is of no-use to patients for prescription drugs:

As the prices of non-scheduled formulations are not fixed by the NPPA, which can virtually be launched at any price to the market, there has been a huge variation of prices between the branded generics within the same chemical entity/entities. Following is a quick example:

Molecule	Disease	MRP of Lowest Price Brand	MRP of Highest Price Brand
Telmisartan 10’s	Hypertension	Rs. 25	Rs. 385
Glimeperide 10’s	Diabetes	Rs. 40	Rs. 133 (Brand Leader)

From this chart, one may be able to fathom some basis in the NPPA’s argument that similar price variations in many branded-generics are of no-consequence for prescription drugs, as doctors decide the medicines that a patient would take. If doctors were influenced to prescribe high priced medicines, the patients would require paying more for those drugs, further increasing their Out of Pocket (OoP) expenses. It is also not uncommon that highest price brands are category-leaders too, as indicated in the table above.

Key lacunae in DPCO 2013:

As highlighted in my earlier blog post titled “Is The New ’Market Based Pricing Model’ Fundamentally Flawed?”, even besides that specific drawback in the methodology of price control in DPCO 2013, NLEM 2011 does not also cover a wide range of essential drugs.

NLEM 2011 does not cover many combinations of TB drugs, a large number of important drugs for diabetes and hypertension, which I shall deliberate in just a bit.

Many other critical life saving medicines, such as, anti-cancer drugs, expensive antibiotics and products needed for organ transplantation have been left out of price control. In fact, the prices of a number of these drugs have reportedly gone up after the notification of DPCO 2013.

The government has now reportedly admitted in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court that the market value and share of medicines covered by new DPCO 2013, as ‘Essential Drugs’, is a meager 18 per cent of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM).

As a result, DPCO 2013 based on NLEM 2011 undermines the entire objective of making essential drugs affordable to all.

All these lacunae in the current DPCO 2013 calls for a major revision of NLEM 2011. The Union Health Ministry has reportedly initiated steps to revise the list considering the existing market conditions and usage of drugs by the patients.

Invocation of a ‘Safeguard Provision’ in DPCO 2013:

Probably anticipating this scenario, a key safeguard provision was included in Para 19 of DPCO 2013, which reads as follows:

“Fixation of ceiling price of a drug under certain circumstances:

Notwithstanding anything contained in this order, the Government may, in case of extra-ordinary circumstances, if it considers necessary so to do in public interest, fix the ceiling price or retail price of any Drug for such period, as it may deem fit and where the ceiling price or retail price of the drug is already fixed and notified, the Government may allow an increase or decrease in the ceiling price or the retail price, as the case may be, irrespective of annual wholesale price index for that year.”

It now appears, NPPA could realize the key limitations of DPCO 2013, which was put in place rather hastily, in course of its implementation for over one year. Consequently, the patients’ long standing plight with high drug costs for many common life style diseases that are not featuring in NLEM 2011, prompted the the drug regulator in its above notification to bring 108 non-scheduled formulation packs of diabetic, cardiac and other drugs under Para 19 of DPCO 2013, catalyzing an outcry within the pharmaceutical industry in India. Out of these 108 formulation packs, 50 come under anti-diabetic and cardiovascular medicines.

Many important drugs are outside NLEM 2011:

Following is an example of the important cardiovascular and anti-diabetic drugs, which are not featuring in the NLEM 2011 and have now been brought under Para 19 of DPCO 2013:

Sitagliptin, Voglibose, Acarbose, Metformin hcl, Ambrisentan, Amlodipine, Atenolol, Atorvastatin, Bisoprolol, Bosentan, Gliclazide, Glimepiride, Miglitol, Repaglinide, Pioglitazone, Carvedilol, Clopidogrel, Coumarin, Diltiazem, Dobutamine, Enalapril, Rosuvastatin, Simvastatin, Telmisartan, Terazosin, Torasemide, Trimetazidine and Valsartan, Enoxaparin, Eplerenone, Esatenolol, Fenofibrate, Heparin, Indapamide, Irbesartan, Isosorbide, Ivabradine, Labetalol, Levocarnitine, Lisinopril, Metolazone, Metoprolol, Nebivolol, Nicorandil, Nitroglycerin, Olmesartan, Prasugrel, Prazosin, Propranolol, Ramipril.

More reasons for industry outcry:

As reported in the media, the industry outcry reportedly highlights, besides what I have cited above, the following:

The price control order under Para 19 has been notified without any prior consultation with the industry.

The manner and method in which this unilateral decision has been taken is untenable.

The NPPA’s reasoning, about exploitative pricing by the industry as the reason for such a move, is incorrect given that every product category (in consideration) has approximately 30-70 brand options across price ranges for physicians and patients to choose from. The premise that products are not accessible due to affordability is misplaced. (The above table explains this point).

Disease environment was same when the government had cleared the policy and no “extraordinary circumstance” has emerged since then for the regulator to invoke Para 19 in public interest.

NPPA has exceeded its brief and gone into policy-making.

NPPA’s rationale for invoking Para 19 of DPCO 2013:

On the other hand, following reasons were cited by the NPPA for taking this decision:

The aim of DPCO 2013 is to ensure that essential drugs are available to all at affordable prices. The Supreme Court of India vide its Order dated November 12, 2002 in SLP no. 3668/2003 have directed the Government to ensure that essential and life saving drugs do not fall outside the ambit of price control, which has the force of law.

The Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers has delegated the powers in respect of specified paragraphs of the DPCO 2013, including paragraph 19, to be exercised by the NPPA on behalf of the Central Government in public interest.

There exist huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics, which is indicative of a severe market failure as different brands of the same drug formulation identical to each other vary disproportionately in terms of price.

The different brands of the same drug formulation may sometimes differ in terms of binders, fillers, dyes, preservatives, coating agents, and dissolution agents, but these differences are not significant in terms of therapeutic value.

The main reason for market failure is that the demand for medicines is largely prescription driven and the patient has very little choice in this regard.

Market failure alone may not constitute sufficient grounds for Government intervention, but when such failure is considered in the context of the essential role that pharmaceuticals play in the area of public health, such intervention becomes necessary. This assumes greater significance, especially when exploitative pricing makes medicines unaffordable and beyond the reach of most, putting huge financial burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure on healthcare.

There is very high incidence of diabetes in the country, which affects around 61 million persons and the figure is expected to cross 100 million by 2030 as per the projection of the International Diabetes Federation; and it is estimated that every year nearly 1 million people in the country die due to diabetes and hypertension.

The drug regulator categorically mentions that In accordance with the guidelines issued by the NPPA, after approval of the ‘Competent Authority’, these price fixations of non-scheduled formulations under Para 19 of DPCO 2013 have been made.

Constituents of the same Ministry with conflicting view points:

Though both NPPA and the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) come under Mr. Ananth Kumar, the new Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers, both these constituents seem to have conflicting views on this important issue.

The pharma industry reportedly has sought the DoP’s intervention in this matter. The DoP, in turn, is learnt to have requested for the opinion of the Ministry of Law on using ‘Para 19′ provision in favor of public interest by the NPPA, invoking the power assigned to the drug regulator.

Another route for the industry is to legally challenge the said notification of the NPPA. However, one should keep in mind that a PIL is still pending before the Supreme Court questioning the validity DPCO 2013.

The arguments for and against:

Taking all the above points into consideration, the following two important areas of debate have now emerged on this NPPA notification, both in favor and also against:

A. Nothing has materially changed since DPCO 2013 was put in place:

Industry sources highlight that he following two points, that triggered NPPA’s invoking Para 19, have been there for a long time, including the period when the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) was formulated:

- Huge price differences among various branded generics of the same molecule

- Cardiovascular ailments and diabetes have assumed endemic proportion

The other group counters that, if mistakes were made while formulating the NPPP 2012 because of intense pressure from vested interests in the erstwhile regime, why corrective actions can’t be taken now?

B. NPPA has exceeded its brief:

Industry sources question, how could NPPA possibly issue such notification of price reduction for non-scheduled formulations, as it is not a policy maker?

Others counter with equal zest: Of course NPPA is not a policy maker, it is a drug price regulator… And as a price regulator, it has implemented Para 19 of DPCO 2013 in the right earnest with the requisite powers conferred on it.

The impact:

According to published data, after the latest price revisions of diabetic and cardiovascular drugs, around 21 per cent of the anti-diabetic drug market faces the ceiling price, while the total market of cardiovascular medicines under price control is now estimated at around 58 per cent, with an overall adverse impact of reportedly Rs 550 Crore on the Indian Pharmaceutical Market. Overall price reduction for these two categories would range between 5 and 35 per cent, the average being around 12 per cent.

MNCs seem to have been hit harder:

An additional bad news for the MNCs is that the scope of Para 19 has now gone beyond the generic space and included even patented product.

For the first time a patented product Sitagliptin has been brought under the purview of Drug price Control order. This decision could give an unprecedented handle to the NPPA to regulate prices of even patented drugs through invocation of Para 19 of DPCO 2013 in future. Moreover, many high-priced branded generics of MNCs are brand leaders too. Thus, in a relative yardstick, invocation of Para 19 would hit the MNCs harder, creating an uncertainty in their business environment.

Conclusion:

Drug prices are cheapest in India in dollar terms, claims the pharma industry. Does this claim hold much water? May be not, because it should be realistically seen in terms of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) and Per Capita Income in India. In that sense many would argue that drug prices in India, on the contrary, are not cheaper at all.

Moreover, it is important to take into cognizance the huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics due to a flawed system, as patients have no role to play in choosing a drug (within the same molecule) that they would need to buy. It is the doctor who is the sole prescription decision maker, where price, per se, may not play a very significant role.

In a situation like this, despite the anger of the industry, many would ponder whether or not NPPA’s engagement and reasoning, on behalf of the Government, to bring some sense in the madness of drug pricing in India be just wished away?

Cheaper medicines in general and generic drugs in particular, would always make the patients and the payor happy, leaving the industry mostly angry.

Keenly observing the recent series of events and taking note of a number of highly credible viewpoints, besides a couple of seemingly spoon-fed, ill-informed and run-of-the mill type editorials, this is about time for the stakeholders to judge without any bias what is right for the country, its people and of course the business to work out a win-win solution, dousing the likes of ‘Fire in The Blood‘, once and for all.

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Herceptin Biosimilars’ Seriously Questioned

Posted on February 7, 2014 by Tapan Ray

The news struck as an anticlimax, close on the heels of high decibel product launch of ‘Herceptin Biosimilars’ in India, being hyped as the first in the world, bringing much needed relief to many diagnosed breast cancer patients for their economical pricing.

At the same time, this legal challenge has now come as an acid test for the regulator to prove that ‘Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion’ for any new drug approval and especially if it is a complex biosimilar used for the treatment of patients suffering from dreaded diseases, such as, breast cancer.

It’s not patent this time:

Interestingly, this is not a patent infringement case, as Roche has reportedly given-up its patent on Trastuzumab (Herceptin) in India last year.

Alleged violations:

The above media report highlights, in Delhi High Court Roche has sued Biocon of India and its US based generic partner – Mylan along with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) related to launch of ‘Herceptin Biosimilar’ versions in India.

The allegation against Biocon and Mylan is that their recently launched drugs are being misrepresented as ‘biosimilar Trastuzumab’ or ‘biosimilar version of Herceptin’ without following the due process in accordance with the ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics‘, necessary for getting approvals of such drugs in India.

‘Caesar’s wife’ under suspicion too:

The DCGI has also been sued by Roche for giving permission for launch of this product allegedly not in conformance with the above biosimilar guidelines, which were put in place effective August 15, 2012.

Roche reportedly argued that the above guidelines on similar biologics laid down a detailed and structured process for comparison of biosimilar with the original product and all the applications for manufacturing and marketing authorization of biosimilars are necessarily required to follow that prescribed pathway before obtaining marketing approval from the DCGI. Roche has also stated that there is no public record available, in the clinical trial registry India (CTRI) or elsewhere to show that these two players actually conducted phase-I or II clinical trials for the drug.

According to report Roche claims that DCGI has approved the “protocol and design study for testing” of Biocon related to the proposed drug just before the above regulatory guidelines were made effective, predominantly for patients’ health and safety reasons.

Interim restrain of the Delhi High Court:

In response to Roche’s appeal, the Delhi High Court has reportedly restrained Mylan and Biocon from “relying upon” or “referring to Herceptin” or any data relating to it for selling or promoting their respective brands Canmab (Biocon) and Hertaz (Mylan) till the next hearing.

The relevance of ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’:

The ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’ clearly articulated:

“Since there are several biosimilar drugs under development in India, it is of critical importance to publish a clear regulatory pathway outlining the requirements to ensure comparable safety, efficacy and quality of a similar biologic to an authorized reference biologic.”

Thus for patients’ health and safety interest the above regulatory pathway must be followed, the way these have been prescribed without any scope of cutting corners. This is even more important when so important pharmacovigilance system is almost non-functional in India.

Attempts to dilute the above guidelines from some quarters:

It was earlier reported that strong representations were made to the drug regulator in writing by powerful domestic players in this area urging to dilute the above ‘Guidelines’, otherwise it will be difficult for them to compete with the pharma MNCs.

This argument is ridiculous by any standard and smacks of putting commercial considerations above patients’ health interest.

The key issue:

As I see it, four quick questions that float at the top of my mind are as follows:

If the ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’ have not been followed either by the applicants or by the DCGI, how would one establish beyond an iota of doubt that these drugs are biosimilar to Trastuzumab, if not ‘Biosimilar to Herceptin’?

If these drugs are not proven biosimilar to Trastuzumab, as specified in the ‘Guidelines on Similar Biologics’, how can one use Trastuzumab data for their marketing approvals and the DCGI granting the same?

If these drugs were not biosimilars to Trastuzumab, would these be as effective, reliable and safe as Herceptin in the treatment of breast cancer?

Further, how are references related to Herceptin being used to promote these drugs both pre and post market launch?

Conclusion:

I guess, predominantly commercial considerations prompted Roche to sue Biocon, Mylan and also the DCGI on ‘Trastuzumab biosimilars’, launched recently in India.

Be that as it may, for the interest of so many diagnosed breast cancer patients in the country, there is crying need for the facts to come out in the open, once and for all. Are these drugs truly Trastuzumab biosimilars with comparable safety, efficacy, quality and reliability of Herceptin?

If the answer comes as yes, there would be a huge sigh of relief from all corners inviting millions of kudos to Biocon and Mylan.

However, if by any chance, the allegations are proved right, I do not have an iota of doubt that the honorable Delhi High Court would ferret out the truth, unmask the perpetrators and give them exemplary punishments for playing with patients’ lives.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Herceptin Biosimilar Expands Drug Access to Breast Cancer Patients in India

Posted on January 24, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Come February 2014, much to the relief of more than 145,000 patients diagnosed with breast cancer in India, Herceptin of Roche, a critical drug for the treatment of the dreaded disease, will face competition, for the first time, from a less expensive biosimilar equivalent. The product named Canmab developed together with Mylan by Biocon has been priced 25 percent less than Herceptin.

Patient access issue for newer cancer therapy:

Herceptin has been a very critical drug, though equally expensive, for breast cancer patients globally.

Mainly because of its unusual high price, the product created an access barrier to majority of patients in India. Arising out of complexity of the problem faced by the cancer patients, hugely compounded by the affordability issue, on January 12, 2013, it was first reported that in a move that is intended to benefit thousands of cancer patients, Indian Government has started the process of issuing Compulsory Licenses (CL) for three commonly used anti-cancer drugs:

- Trastuzumab (or Herceptin, used for breast cancer),

- Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy)

- Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia).

For a month’s treatment drugs like, Trastuzumab, Ixabepilone and Dasatinib reportedly cost on an average of US$ 3,000 – 4,500 or Rs 1.64 – 2.45 lakh for each patient in India.

Pricing issue needs a systemic resolution:

While there is no single or only right way to arrive at the price of a patent protected medicine, how much the pharmaceutical manufacturers will charge for such drugs still remains an important, yet complex and difficult issue to resolve, both locally and globally. Even in the developed nations, where an appropriate healthcare infrastructure is already in place, this issue comes up too often mainly during price negotiation for reimbursed drugs.

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Price Controls in OECD Countries”, published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, after examining the drug price regulatory systems of 11 OECD countries, concluded that all of them enforce some form of price control to limit spending on pharmaceuticals. The report also indicated that the reimbursement prices in these countries are often treated as de facto market price.

Though there is no such system currently prevailing in India, the Government is mulling to put in place a similar mechanism for patented medicines, as captured in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy (NPPP) 2012.

Further, some OECD governments regularly cut prices of even those drugs, which are already in the market. The value of health outcomes and pharmacoeconomics analysis is gaining increasing importance for drug price negotiations/control by the healthcare regulators even in various developed markets of the world to ensure responsible pricing of IPR protected medicines. For various reasons, no such process is followed either for such product pricing in India, as on date.

Roche changed Herceptin strategy for India:

To effectively address the challenge of pricing of patented medicines in India, Roche reportedly entered into a ‘never-before’ technology transfer and manufacturing contract for biologics with a local Indian company – Emcure Pharma for its two widely acclaimed ‘Monoclonal Antibodies’ anti-cancer drugs – Herceptin and MabThera.

Consequently, Roche introduced its ‘made in India’ brand Herclon (Herceptin) with a much-reduced maximum retail price of about Rs. 75,000 for a 440 mg vial and started co-marketing the product with Emcure Pharma in India.

Although Herceptin patent remains valid in the United States (US) until 2018, Roche decided to discontinue its patent rights for Herceptin in India in 2013.

The pharma major reportedly lost this patent earlier in Europe. This vindicates the views of many experts that Herceptin patent was weak, as it would probably not be able to clear the litmus test of a stringent scrutiny under the Patent Acts of India. The report, therefore, argues that core reason for withdrawal of Herceptin patent in India by Roche cannot be attributed, even remotely, to the ‘weak IP ecosystem’ in India.

Biocon Pricing:

According to reports Biocon’s Canmab, the biosimilar version of Herceptin, will be available in 440 mg vial with a maximum retail price of Rs. 57,500 and also in 150 mg vial at Rs. 19,500.

Lower price would lead to greater patient access – Roche argued earlier:

It was reported, when Roche switched over to Herclon with around 30 percent discounted price from very high price Herceptin, access to the drug improved. In fact, that was the logic cited by Roche for the launch of Herclon in India at that time.

Just to recapitulate, media reports indicated at that time that Roche intends to offer to Indian patients significantly cheaper, local branded version of Herceptin sooner. The same news item also quoted Roche spokesperson from Basel, Switzerland commenting as follows:

“The scope is to enable access for a large majority of patients who currently pay out of pocket as well as to partner with the government to enable increased access to our products for people in need”.

Conclusion:

It is beyond doubt that even with significantly lower price, Canmab would not be able to guarantee 100 percent access to the drug for all breast cancer patients in the country.

However, applying the same logic of Roche, as mentioned above, with further 25 percent price discount for Canmab by Biocon, the access to this drug should expand significantly for over 145,000 diagnosed breast cancer patients in India even, for an argument’s sake, all other factors, including inadequate number diagnostic facilities etc. remain the same. Isn’t that better?

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

NDDS as New Drug: Good for Patients, Great for Pharma

Posted on January 13, 2014 by Tapan Ray

The Ministry of Health of India has reportedly decided to amend Rule 122 (E) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to categorize the New Drug Delivery Systems (NDDS), including ‘Controlled Release (CR)’ or ‘Modified Release (MR)’ formulations, whether a copy of studied and approved drugs or a new one, as ‘New Drugs’.

After the amendment, all vaccines and recombinant DNA (r-DNA) derived drugs would also fall under this nomenclature. Accordingly, to obtain ‘Marketing Approval’, such formulations would be subjected to requisite studies, including ‘Clinical Trials (CT), as specified for ‘New Drugs’ under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India.

It has however been clarified though, that these applications will not be treated as Investigational New Drugs (IND) and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) shall prepare appropriate regulatory guidelines for all NDDS formulations.

The main reason for the amendment is possibly much late realization of CDSCO that such formulations are vastly different from each other with respect to both efficacy and toxicity.

Besides, it has been widely alleged that some pharma companies in India, mainly to hoodwink the Drug Price Control Orders (DPCO) in the past, used to switch over from ‘Immediate Release (IR)’ formulations to products with CR/MR technology of the same molecule. However, that loophole has since been plugged in DPCO 2013, creating almost a furore in the industry.

A long overdue decision for patients’ health safety:

As stated earlier, this is indeed a long overdue decision of the Indian drug regulatory policy makers, solely considering patients’ health interest.

The primary reason being, any NDDS formulation with CR/MR technology is designed to release the drug substance in a controlled manner with high precision to achieve desired efficacy and safety, quite unlike its IR equivalent, if available in the market. It is important to note that inappropriate release of the drug in any CR/MR formulation would result in lesser efficacy or increased toxicity, jeopardizing patients’ health.

Process followed by US-FDA for CR/MR formulations:

In the United States, for marketing approval of such products, FDA usually requires submission of New Drug Applications (NDAs) providing details based on the evidence of adequate drug exposure expressed by blood levels or dose, and the response framework validated by clinical or surrogate endpoint(s).

US-FDA has three types of NDAs for MR drug products:

IR to CR/MR switch
MR/CR to MR/CR switch with unequal dosing intervals
MR/CR to MR/CR switch with equal dosing intervals

For switching from an IR to a CR/MR product, which is more common in India, the key requirement is to establish that the new CR/MR product has similar exposure course of the drug as compared to the previously approved IR product, backed by well-documented efficacy and safety profile. If not, one efficacy and/or safety trial would be necessary, in addition to three clinical pharmacology studies.

Good for patients:

The good news for patients is that, being categorized as ‘New Drugs’, all NDDS formulations, without any exceptions whatsoever, would henceforth obtain marketing approval only from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), after having passed through intense data scrutiny, instead of State Drug Authorities where getting a manufacturing license of such formulations is alleged to be a ‘child’s play’. Thus, with the proposed amendment, efficacy and safety concerns of CR/MR formulations are expected to be addressed adequately.

Great for Pharma:

Currently, while fixing the ‘Ceiling Prices (CP)’ under DPCO 2013, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) treats CR/MR formulations at par with IR varieties of the same molecules having the same dosage strength.

Thus, categorization of all NDDS formulations as ‘New Drugs’, irrespective of the fact whether these are copies of studied and approved drugs or new ones, would be lapped up by the manufacturers from product pricing point of view. All these formulations, after the proposed amendment, would go outside the purview of drug price control under Para 32 (iii) of DPCO 2013, which categorically states that the provisions of this order shall not apply to:

“A manufacturer producing a ‘new drug’ involving a new delivery system developed through indigenous Research and Development for a period of five years from the date of its market approval in India.”

A similar past issue still haunts:

Similar callousness was exhibited in the past, while granting marketing approval for a large number of highly questionable Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs by the same drug regulators. Unfortunately, that saga is still not over, not just yet.

All these irrational FDC formulations, even after being identified so by the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB), have been caught in the quagmire of protracted litigations. Consequently, such dubious products are still being promoted by the respective pharma players intensively, prescribed by the doctors uninhibitedly, sold by the chemists freely and consumed by patients ignorantly. With ‘pharmacovigilance’ being almost non-functional in India, the harmful impact of these drugs on patients’ health cannot just be fathomed.

Conclusion:

With the above examples, it is quite clear that technological precision of high order is absolutely imperative to manufacture any effective CR/MR formulation. In addition, stark regulatory laxity in the marketing approval process for these drugs is a matter of great concern.

In such a scenario, one could well imagine how patients’ health interests are being compromised by not formalizing and adhering to appropriate regulatory pathways for marketing approval of such drugs in the country, since decades.

That said, as the saying goes “Better Late, Than Never”. The ‘New Drug’ nomenclature of all CR/MR formulations or for that matter entire NDDS as a category, including vaccines and recombinant DNA (r-DNA) derived drugs, would now hopefully be implemented in India, though rather too late, a much welcoming decision nevertheless.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Humongous Pharma Corruption: China Ups The Ante…and India?

Posted on September 23, 2013 by Tapan Ray

In the ‘pharma bribery’ related scandal in China, many postulated that the Chinese Government has cracked down selectively on Multinational Corporations (MNCs) to extend unfair business advantages for its local players.

Media reports of September 2013 indicate that in all probability the intent of the Chinese Government is not to spare homegrown corruption in this area. The country appears to be taking tough measures against both global and local perpetrators of such criminal acts, which have spread their vicious tentacles deep into the booming Chinese pharmaceutical industry.

The report names the following domestic companies:

Sino Biopharmaceutical Ltd has set up a team to investigate allegations broadcast on the state television that its majority-owned subsidiary had paid for illegal overseas trips for doctors to Thailand and Taiwan.

Privately held Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals investigating allegations of spending around US$ 130.75 million to bribe doctors to promote their pharmaceutical products over five years.

More MNCs under investigation:

At the same time, international media are reporting names of more and more big global pharma players allegedly involved in this humongous scam, as follows:

In July 2013, the British drug maker GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) was allegedly involved in around US$ 490 million deceptive travel and meeting expenses as well as trade in sexual favors. Chinese authorities detained four senior executives of GSK in China to further investigate into this matter.

In the same month Chinese police reportedly visited the Shanghai office of another British pharmaceutical major AstraZeneca for investigation related to this scam.

In August 2013, Sanofi of France reportedly said that it would cooperate with a review of its business in China after a whistle-blower’s allegations that the company paid about US$ 276,000 in bribes to 503 doctors in the country.

Again in August 2013, a former employee of the Swiss pharmaceutical major Novartis has reportedly claimed that her manager urged her to offer ‘kickback’ to doctors to increase use of the cancer drug Sandostatin LAR. She had about US$ 105,000 budget for payments to doctors who prescribed at least 5 doses, aiming for 50 doses in all. She filed the compensation claim of US $817,000 after resigning from the company.

In the same month, another whistleblower has reportedly made bribery allegations involving Eli Lilly of the United States and US$ 4.9 million in purported kickbacks to Chinese doctors.

In September 2013, media reports indicated that the Chinese authorities are investigating the German pharma major – Bayer over a “potential case of unfair competition”.

Another very recent report of September 17, 2013 states, Alcon Eye Care division of Novartis is investigating allegation of fabricated clinical trials to bribe doctors. The report says Alcon outsourced the trials to a third-party research company, which in turn compensated doctors with “research payments”. It is claimed by the whistleblower that Alcon used funds earmarked for “patient experience surveys” on lens implants to bribe doctors at more than 200 hospitals. One doctor received about US$ 7,300, for studying 150 patients. Alcon allegedly spent more than US$ 230,000, on such studies last year.

This list of pharmaceutical companies involved in alleged serious malpractices to boost their sales and profits in China is probably not exhaustive.

However, only time will unravel whether this juggernaut of scams will keep moving unabated despite all high voltage actions, bulldozing patients’ interest.

Crack down on food companies too:

Crack down of the Chinese Government on alleged malpractices has reportedly extended to milk products’ companies too.

Again in August 2013, Mead Johnson Nutrition and Danone were among six dairy companies ordered to pay a combined 669 million Yuan by the Chinese Government for price fixing of their products.

Global industry lobby has a different view point:

In an interview with the BBC, an expert from APCO Worldwide, considered as the giant of the lobbying industry said:

“China’s behavior was very worrisome for foreign companies. They don’t know what’s hitting them right now. The government is resorting to its traditional “toolbox” of coercive methods, including shaming and ordering people to confess that they’ve done wrong so that your penalties can be minimized. They’re just treating foreign companies the way they’ve treated their own for many years, and this is the way the Party does things.”

He continued, “What may be going on is they’re telling foreign companies and they’re telling private companies here: Behave yourself; remember we’re the Party, we’re in charge.”

This is seemingly an interesting way of pooh-poohing serious allegations of bribery and other malpractices by the pharmaceutical companies in China without even waiting for the results of the pending enquiry.

However, such comments coming from an industry lobbying organization or any Public Relations (PR) Agency is not uncommon. That’s their business.

Possible reasons for crack down:

Experts opine that China has a high drug price problem. This is vindicated by the fact that while most developed nations of the world spend not more than 10-12 percent of their healthcare budget on medicines, in China it exceeds 40 percent. This huge disparity is believed to have prompted Beijing’s crackdown on the industry, especially the MNCs that dominate the Chinese pharmaceutical industry with newer drugs. The powerful National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) of China has already said that it is examining pricing by 60 local and international pharmaceutical companies.

Some other reports point out, low basic salary of the doctors at the 13,500 public hospitals in China, who are the key purchasers of drugs, is the root cause of corruption in the Chinese healthcare industry.

According to McKinsey with estimated healthcare spending of China nearly tripling to US$1 trillion by 2020 from $357 billion in 2011, the country is increasingly attracting pharma and medical equipment companies from all over the world in a very large number.

The fall out:

A recent media report indicates that Chines crackdown on the widespread pharma bribery scandal in the country is quite adversely affecting the sales of both global and local players, as many doctors in the Chinese hospitals are now refusing to see medical representatives for fear of being caught up in this large scam.

Drug expenditure is even more for healthcare in India:

Several studies indicate that Out Of Pocket Expenditure towards Healthcare in India is one of the highest in the world and ranges from 71 to 80%.

According to a 2012 study of IMS Consulting Group, drugs are the biggest expenditure in the total Out Of Pocket (OOP) spend on healthcare as follows:

Items	Outpatient/ outside Hospital (%)	Inpatient/ Hospitalization (%)
Medicines	63	43
Consultation/Surgery	-	23
Diagnostics	17	16
Minor surgeries	01	-
Private Consultation	14	-
Room Charge	-	14
Others	05	04

Despite these facts, India has remained virtually inactive in this critical area so far, unlike China, except some sporadic price control measures like, Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) for essential drugs (NLEM 2011), which covers around 18% of the total pharmaceutical market in India.

Universal Healthcare (UHC): A possible answer?

Another interesting study titled, ‘The Cost of Universal Health Care in India: A Model Based Estimate’ concludes as follows:

The estimated cost of UHC delivery through the existing mix of public and private health institutions would be INR 1713 (USD 38) per person per annum in India. This cost would be 24% higher, if branded drugs are used. Extrapolation of these costs to entire country indicates that Indian government needs to spend 3.8% of the GDP for universalizing health care services, although in total (public+private) India spent around 4.2% of its GDP on healthcare (2010) at 11% CAGR from 2001 to 2010 period.

Moreover, important issues such as delivery strategy for ensuring quality, reducing inequities in access, and managing the growth of health care demand need be explored.

Thus, it appears, even UHC will be 24% more expensive after a public spend of staggering 3.8% of the GDP towards healthcare, if branded drugs are used, which attract huge avoidable marketing expenditures, as we have seen in the Chinese pharma industry scandal.

High marketing costs making drugs dearer?

A recent article, captioned “But Don’t Drug Companies Spend More on Marketing?” vindicates the point, though the drug companies spend substantial money on R&D, they spend even more on their marketing related activities, legally or otherwise.

Analyzing six global pharma and biotech majors, the author highlights that SG&A (Sales, General & Administrative) and R&D expenses vary quite a lot from company to company. However, in this particular analysis the range was as follows:

SG&A:	23% to 34%
R&D:	12.5% to 24%

SG&A expenses typically include advertising, promotion, marketing and executive salaries. The author says that most companies do not show the break up of the ‘S’ part separately.

In the pharmaceutical sector all over the world, the marketing practices have still remained a very contentious issue despite many attempts of self-regulation by the industry. Incessant media reports on alleged unethical business practices have not slowed down significantly, across the world, even after so many years of self-regulation. This is indeed a critical point to ponder.

Scope and relevance of ‘Corporate Ethical Business Conducts and Values’:

The scope of ‘ethical business conducts and value standards’ of a company should not just be limited to marketing. These should usually encompass the following areas, among many others:

The employees, suppliers, customers and other stakeholders
Caring for the society and environment
Fiduciary responsibilities
Business and marketing practices
R&D activities, including clinical trials
Corporate Governance
Corporate espionage

That said, codes of ethical conduct, corporate values and their compliance should not only get limited to the top management, but must get percolated downwards, looking beyond the legal and regulatory boundaries.

Statistics of compliance to codes of business ethics and corporate values are important to know, but perceptible qualitative changes in ethics and value standards of an organization should always be the most important goal to drive any business corporation and the pharmaceutical sector is no exception.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA): A deterrent?

To prevent bribery and corrupt practices, especially in a foreign land, in 1997, along with 33 other countries belonging to the ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’, the United States Congress enacted a law against the bribery of foreign officials, which is known as ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’.

This Act marked the early beginnings of ethical compliance program in the United States and disallows the US companies from paying, offering to pay or authorizing to pay money or anything of value either directly or through third parties or middlemen.

FCPA currently has some impact on the way American companies are required to run their business, especially in the foreign land.

However, looking at the ongoing Chinese story of pharma scams and many other reports of huge sums paid by the global pharmaceutical companies after being found guilty under such Acts in the Europe and USA, it appears, levy of mere fines is not good enough deterrent to stop such (mal)practices in today’s perspective.

China acts against pharma bribery, why not India?

Like what happened in China, many reports, including from Parliamentary Standing Committee, on alleged pharma malpractices of very significant proportions, which in turn are making drugs dearer to patients, have been coming up in India regularly, since quite sometime.

Keeping these into consideration, abject inertia of the government in taking tough measures in this area is indeed baffling and an important area of concern.

Conclusion:

The need to formulate ‘Codes of Business Ethics & Values’ and more importantly their effective compliance, in letter and spirit, are of increasing relevance in the globalized business environment.

Unfortunately, as an irony, increasingly many companies across the world are reportedly being forced to pay heavy costs and consequences of ‘unethical behavior and business practices’ by the respective governments.

Intense quarterly pressure for expected business performance by stock markets and shareholders, could apparently be the trigger-points for short changing such codes and values.

There is, of course, no global consensus, as yet, on what is ethically and morally acceptable ‘Business Ethics and Values’ uniformly across the world. However, even if these are implemented in country-specific ways, the most challenging obstacle to overcome by the corporates would still remain ‘walking the talk’ and ‘owning responsibility’.

That said, to uphold patients’ interests, China is already giving the perpetrators of the ongoing humongous pharma scam a ‘run for life’, as it were, despite what the industry lobbyists have been laboriously working on for the world to believe. Today, common patients’ in India being in a much worse situation for similar sets of reasons, should the domestic regulators not now wake up from the ‘deep slumber’, up all antennas, effectively act by setting examples and bring the violators to justice?

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Patients

Does Drug Pricing Freedom Benefit Patients in A Free-Market Economy?

Has Prime Minister Modi Conceded Ground To America On Patents Over Patients?

Hepatitis C: A Silent, Deadly Disease: Treatment Beyond Reach of Most Indians

Cheaper Drugs: Happy Patients: Angry Industry

‘Herceptin Biosimilars’ Seriously Questioned

Herceptin Biosimilar Expands Drug Access to Breast Cancer Patients in India

NDDS as New Drug: Good for Patients, Great for Pharma

Humongous Pharma Corruption: China Ups The Ante…and India?