Tag Archives: pharmaceutical

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. 

 

Leveraging 3D Printing In Pharma, For Cost Containment And Patient-Centricity

Posted on by
Reply

Today, although a number of new and state of the art drugs is regularly being developed, and brought to the market at a reasonably rapid pace, their access to the majority of the global population has still remained a huge challenge. One of the key access barriers continue to remain exorbitant prices of these drugs.   

Keeping commensurate pace with gradual improvement in the pinpointed diagnosis of various diseases with modern diagnostics, processes, devices and techniques, fueled by increasing health awareness within a sizeable section of the population, more patients are now aspiring for access to a better quality of life, and greater productivity at work. This is happening all over the world, though with varying degree and magnitude. 

Consequently, there has been a sharp increase in the demand for healthcare, which has caused a huge bottleneck in the overall healthcare delivery process, for various reasons. The huge gap between the availability of high-tech drugs/healthcare services, and their access to the general population, mostly due to affordability reasons, is going north at a rapid pace. 

Two-pronged cost containment pressure:

This unfettered ascending trend is creating primarily the following two types of cost containment pressure: 

  • Being driven purely by the economical reasons, the Governments and other payers have started taking stringent cost-containment measures, bringing huge pricing pressure, especially on the drugs and medical device manufacturers.
  • In countries, such as, India, where the ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on healthcare in general, and the medicines in particular, is hovering around 70 percent, the patients, several Governments have started announcing drug price control policy to protect the health interest of patients. 

However, currently, only some piecemeal measures are being initiated, including in India, where a holistic approach for all, such as, Universal Health Care (UHC) and several other similar options, are long overdue.

Three different remedial measures:

In my view, consideration of either of these three following approaches, or an innovative blend of these, would enable the Governments to address this pressing issue, remove the existing bottle neck, and thereby bridge the healthcare access gap, holistically:

A. Fast implementation of Universal Health Care (UHC).

B. Closer look at the entire Pharmaceutical Value Chain with a resolve to work out innovative, game-changing solutions to reduce cost of each of its critical components, significantly.

C. Effectively addressing the emerging need of Patient-Centricity.

A. Fast implementation of Universal Health Care (UHC):  

I have already discussed UHC in one of my articles titled, “Universal Health Coverage: The Only Alternative To Drug Price Control in India?”, published in this Blog on November 9, 2015.

B. Cost containment with 3D printing:

A report of IMS Health, published on November 18, 2015, forecasts the increase of  total global spend for pharmaceuticals by US$ 349 billion on a constant-dollar basis, compared with US$182 billion during the past five years. It also indicated, more than half of the world’s population will live in countries where the use of medicine will exceed one dose per person per day by 2020, up from 31 percent in 2005, as the “medicine use gap” between the developed and the emerging markets narrows. 

This steep ascending trend would eventually affect the pharma ‘Value Chain’ in a significant way, throwing open several path-breaking high-technology based options, with impressive favorable impact on the general costs of medicines. 3D-printing technology is expected to play a significant role in this initiative.

Before proceeding further, let me zero-in on a few critical components, as follows, of the pharma ‘Value Chain’, as I see visualize these: 

  • Drug innovation (R&D)
  • Manufacturing
  • Marketing
  • Supply Chain

According to my understanding, at least in 3 of the above 4 ‘Value Chain’ components, there is an immense potential of leveraging 3D printing technology effectively, and in a big way.

In my article of January 11, 2016, published in this Blog, titled “3D Printing: An Emerging Game Changer in Pharma  Business”, I have already discussed the game changing impact of 3D Printing technology on the drug discovery process, drug manufacturing strategy, and supply Chain effectiveness in the pharma business. 

Hence, I prefer not to dwell on those areas, yet again, here. Instead, I shall briefly deliberate on the application of 3D Printing technology to effectively address the emerging need of ‘Patient-Centricity’ with an interesting and a very recent example. 

C. Improving ‘Patient-Centricity’ with 3D printing: 

At this stage, there is a need to understand what exactly is the ‘’Patient-Centricity’. It seems to be a popular buzzword now with the health care related companies, primarily to give an impression that they are really focusing on ‘Patient-Centricity’.

However, there does not seem to exist any universally accepted definition of this terminology, just yet. Nevertheless, one appropriate definition could well be: “A focused and transparent approach to providing maximum possible benefits to a patient from a drug, device, technology, or health care services.” 

I briefly focused on a part of this basic issue in my article titled, “‘Disease Oriented Treatment’ to ‘Patient Oriented Treatment’- An evolving trend’, published in this Blog on January 7, 2013.

As I said before, in this article, to explain ‘Patient-Centric’ approaches with 3D printing, I would quote from a very recent, and a path-breaking work in this area.

On May 25, 2016, ‘The Straits Times’ reported, the researchers at the National University of Singapore have found a way to use 3D printers to create low-cost tablets. With the help of this technology a tablet can be so personalized to respond to individual patient’s needs that the drug can be customized to take on different release profiles, such as, constant release, pulsed release, increasing or decreasing release, and any arbitrary interval as required by the patient. However, the most striking is, different drugs with different release profiles can also be combined in a single pill.

Once administered, the tablet dissolves layer by layer over a period of time, releasing the drug at a controlled rate. The duration can be altered by changing the chemical composition of the liquid.

It is worth noting here that the conventional tablets are only capable of a constant rate of release, requiring the patient to manually control the dosage and release rate, by taking doses according to a prescribed schedule, given by the doctor. In this scenario, if a patient requires different drugs with different dosages and intervals, it can become inconvenient to keep track and potentially dangerous, especially when the patient misses a dose, the report highlighted. 

The commercially available printer used in the project costs just S$2,000.

The Assistant Professor Soh Siow Ling, who leads the project, reportedly, expects that the low cost will allow it to be used in hospitals and neighborhood clinics. He further explained, “Every single person is different, based on many factors such as genetics, age, body mass and so on. Different people also have different activity levels and consumption habits, which affect their needs. It is, (therefore), not desirable to use the same drug to treat different illnesses which have similar apparent symptoms.”

The report indicated that in October, 2015, these findings were published in an issue of Advanced Materials, which is a peer-reviewed materials science journal.

A patent for the tablets was filed last year, and they are currently in talks with multinational corporations, and medical professionals to identify potential applications, the article highlighted. 

Changing role of doctors:

From the above developments, it appears that unleashing the full potential of 3D printing technology in the pharma industry, would also enable the medical profession to move further towards ‘Patient-Centricity’, in its true sense.

This technology would empower them offering to each patient, the right drug or drug combinations, with most suitable drug delivery system, and exactly the way individual patients would prefer, with a very high degree of precision.

Thus, from overall disease treatment perspective, especially with medicines, this approach offers a great potential to be significantly more effective, and convenient to individual patients, as compared to the conventional approaches. 

I reckon, over a period of time, professional competitiveness would drive the doctors further honing their effectiveness in the disease treatment process, and that too with a high degree of precision. In that situation, many doctors may decide to setup on-demand 3D drug-printing facilities even at their clinics.

The gradual embodiment of this brilliant technology by the doctors, is expected to throw open new vistas of opportunity, also to personalize the shapes, colors and flavors of any medicine, according to individual patient’s choice. This, in turn, would improve patient compliance, ensure a predictable relief from the disease, and demonstrate ‘Patient-Centricity’ of a high order by the medical profession, in general. 

Conclusion:

For the first time ever, with Aprecia Pharmaceuticals in the United States getting approval of the US-FDA on August 3, 2015 for the market launch of a 3D printed prescription drug for oral use by the epilepsy patients, dawns a new paradigm in the global pharma business horizon.

Effective application of this ‘disruptive innovation’ could well be a game changer not just in the ‘value chain’ of conventional pharma business models, across the world, but also for taking a giant leap towards ‘Patient-Centricity’. The doctors are also expected to be very much an integral part of this process. 

Besides all the above benefits, 3D printing can also encourage low-volume production, whenever required, and a wide variety of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, to meet any immediate demand, mostly for use in research and developmental work. 

Thus, noting the ongoing significant progress in this area, I reckon, leveraging 3D printing technology in pharma, not just to address the cost containment pressure, effectively, but also to ensure a tangible and visible move towards ‘Patient-Centricity’, in true sense. All-round success in the innovative application of this cutting-edge technology in the global pharma industry, would eventually separate men from boys in pursuit of 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.

Health Care: “India Has Moved From Strength To Strength!”

Posted on by
Reply

The above flabbergasting assertion came recently from the Union Government of India in context of current health care system in the country. 

To be specific, this proclamation of the Ministry of Health was reportedly made at its ‘point by point rebuttal’ letter to the world’s leading medical journal of high repute - ‘The Lancet’, at the end of October 2015, in response to a news report on India’s frugal public expenditure on health. 

The chronicle:

On October 21, 2015 The Times Of India reported that shortly, a detail study in “The Lancet” would take Prime Minister Narendra Modi to task for failing in make public health a national priority area. It is happening despite his categorical promise of rolling out ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC), during the last general election of India, in 2014.

The paper would be penned by some of the world’s foremost health experts and the issue is expected to be published on December 11, 2015.

In an interview with ‘The Times of India’, Richard Horton - the Editor-in- Chief of ‘The Lancet’, said that “health is an issue of national security for India, but Modi isn’t taking it seriously.”

Horton further commented, “I don’t see any new policies, any new ideas, any significant public commitment, and most importantly no financial commitment to the health sector, since he came into power in May, 2014.”

According to Norton, since Modi has come to power, health has completely lost focus of the Government. India is on the edge in this regard. If Prime Minister Modi does not tackle health, India’s economy combined with rising population is not sustainable. “The country’s healthcare system will collapse, if the government fails to invest in combating non-communicable diseases, such as, diabetes and heart problems”, he cautioned.

‘The Lancet’ to present contemporary fact-based analysis:                         

It is expected that the above article on India’s prevailing public health system, would be factual and analyzed based on the latest expert survey in this regard.

As I mentioned in my article of October 5, 2015 in this Blog titled, “Just 16% Of Indian Population Has Access To Free Or Partially-Free Health Care?”, the current Government has slashed union budgets for several ongoing and critical flag-ship schemes for health, such as:

  • Integrated Child Development Services
  • Mid-day meal
  • Aids and STD control
  • National Food Security Mission
  • National Rural Drinking Water Program

After a drastic reduction in union budgetary allocations for these crucial and very basic health schemes, there would possibly be no scope for any surprise in any quarter, if ‘The Lancet’ survey depicts a rather dismal overall public health care scenario in India.

Indian Government trashes ‘The Editor-in-Chief’s comment:

Trashing ‘The Lancet’ Editor-in-Chief’s above comments, Rakesh Kumar, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health in a hard-hitting letter to Horton reportedly said:

“…launching an alphabet soup of program every quarter and not being able to implement them in true letter and spirit is a disservice to the people we serve.” 

According to this news report, the health ministry maintained that “no existing program” of the ministry has been “curtailed, stopped or truncated due to lack of funds”. It also highlighted that funding to states had been rationalized to break from the straight jacket of ‘one size fits all’ geographies and populations.

“India has moved from strength to strength and some of recent initiatives will ensure improved outcomes for the most vulnerable,” the letter re-iterated unequivocally.

“India has moved from strength to strength” – Government retorted: 

The above statement of the Union Ministry of Health that “India has moved from strength to strength” in health care, generally sounds bizarre and also absurd, to say the least. On the contrary, the available facts do not support this sweeping comment, as it were.

When compared with some much smaller neighboring nations of India and even Vietnam, it comes out clearly that they are doing far better on various critical health indicators.

This is vindicated by the ‘World Bank health indicators data’, which show that even Bangladesh, Nepal and Vietnam, with much lesser per capita GDP, are ahead of India in several key health indicators, as shown in the following table: 

Some Key Indicators India Bangladesh Nepal Vietnam
GDP Per capita(PPP) (Constant at 2011 US$) 2014 5445 2981 2261 5370
Life Expectancy At Birth (Female) 2013 68 71 70 80
Survival to Age 65 (% of Cohort) 2013 63 72 69 72
Public Health Expenditure (% of GDP) 2013 1.3 1.3 2.6 2.5
Infant Female Mortality Rate (Per 1000 Live Births) 2015 38 28 27 15
Mortality Rate (Under 5 year of Live Births) 2015 48 38 36 22
Maternal Mortality Ratio (per 1000 Live Births) 2013 190 170 190 49
Rural Population With Improved Access to Sanitation Facilities (%) 2015 29 62 44 70
Vitamin A Supplementation Coverage Rate (% of Children 6-59 months) 2013 53 97 99 98
Immunization DPT (% of Children 12-23 month) 2014 83 95 92 95

(Source: Live Mint, October 28, 2015)

Similarly, another 2011 study published in the ‘The Lancet’ reported that ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on health in India is the highest, again even as compared to its much smaller neighbors, as follows:

Country Out of Pocket Expenditure on Health (%)
Maldives 14
Bhutan 29
Sri Lanka 53
India 78

As I said before, these are just a few examples. In this article, I shall not dwell further on such comparisons, which are already known to many. 

Instead, I would prefer to underscore, as many scholarly research papers have already done, that GDP growth of a nation cannot be driven in a sustainable manner without putting in place a robust public health care system in a country. 

Reasonable public investment is necessary to improve health indicators:

If India wants to improve its key health indicators and surpass the achievements of just not smaller countries, such as, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives, but all other BRICS (Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa) nations, India needs to hike up its public health budget significantly, together with speedy implementation of all identified health projects.

According to the World Bank 2004 report (p56), for developing or middle-income countries with institutions of an acceptable quality, a 10 percent increase in public health expenditures as a proportion of the GDP, would be associated with a 7 percent decrease in the maternal mortality rate, a 0.69 percent decrease in child mortality rate, and a 4.14 percent decrease in low weight for children under five years of age.

Impact of health on economic growth shouldn’t be underestimated:

Between ‘public health’ and ‘other economic growth drivers’, choosing just one as priority focus area, could well be futile, in the long run. This is by no means an ‘either/or’ situation, at all. The Government should take into cognizance that there is a heavy price tag attached on an underestimation of the impact of health on economic growth, which could put its core objective of a sustainable high GDP growth in jeopardy.

I would now illustrate this point with no more than three examples, out of so many available.                                                                                   

According to the ‘World Health Organization (WHO)’, “Good health is linked to economic growth through higher labor productivity, demographic changes and higher educational attainment. In the same way, poor health undermines economic growth.”  

India, though, seems to be chasing a high economic growth with all guns blazing, apparently does not believe in this fundamental dictum; neither does the Government accept that current public health care system is generally pathetic in the country and virtually on the verge of crumbling, if inaction continues.

To underscore the same point that impact of health on the economy should not be underestimated, I now quote from another study hereunder.

A December 2012 paper published in the “Global Management Journal” titled, “The Connection Between Health and Economic Growth: Policy Implications Re-Examined”, concluded as follows: 

“Evidence presented in this paper illuminates the two-way relationship between economic growth and health. Bearing in mind the substantial influence of enhanced health to economic productivity and growth, governments need to look at health expenses as an investment rather than a cost”.

My third example would be another paper published in ‘OECD Observer’ titled, “Health and the economy: A vital relationship”, written by Julio Frenk, Mexican Minister of Health and Chair of the 2004 meeting of OECD Health Ministers. This paper too reiterates that the impact of health on the economy should not be underestimated. Thus, our challenge today is to harmonize health and economic policies to improve health outcomes.

Julio Frenk further emphasized, “The effects of health on development are clear. Countries with weak health and education conditions find it harder to achieve sustained growth. Indeed, economic evidence confirms that a 10% improvement in life expectancy at birth is associated with a rise in economic growth of some 0.3-0.4 percentage points a year.”

Here comes the critical importance of improving ‘Human Development Index (HDI)’ ranking of India to achieve a high and sustainable GDP growth, as the nation moves on.

 Improve ‘Ease of doing business’ and ‘Human development’ indices together: 

According to ‘World Bank’s Doing Business Report 2016’, India has moved up four rungs in the global rankings for ‘ease of doing business’. The country now ranks 130 among 189 countries, against its last year’s ranking of 134. This is a significant achievement, which has been widely publicized by the Government and very rightly so. 

Whereas, according to the latest (2014) ‘Human Development Index (HDI) report, published annually by the ‘United Nations Development Program (UNDP)’, India ranks 135 out of 187 countries across the world. The next HDI report is expected to be launched in November 2015.

HDI is a statistical tool used to measure a country’s overall achievement in its social and economic dimensions. It captures a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development.

Increase in life expectancy is a composite outcome of long-term effectiveness of a robust public health care system in the country.

Interestingly, the present Government does not talk much about HDI. Its primary focus seems to be now on ‘ease of doing business’, though for a sustainable high economic growth of a nation both should be speeded up and right in tandem. 

Conclusion: 

Reducing Union Budget allocation on health substantially and passing the responsibility of the same to the States with no assigned accountability for implementation on the ground, may not work in India. 

Even if the comments of Richard Horton, the Editor-in-Chief of ‘The Lancet’ on this score, are brushed aside with contempt, his factual observations should be noted as valid suggestions. Accordingly, much required action steps need to be factored in by the Government in its 20116-17 Union Budget planning process.

Before concluding, I would very humbly, respectfully and with all humility submit that the Union Government should always be open to outside experts’ comments and suggestions, especially on public health in the country, to initiate a constructive debate. Any voice of discord or dissent, either on Governments’s action or inaction or both, may not necessarily be construed as an act against the national interest.

In this context, I am curious to know, what happened when on October 19, 2015, the Union Cabinet Minister for Women and Child Welfare – Mrs. Maneka Gandhi, who oversees a scheme to feed more than 100 million poor people, reportedly expressed her anguish and concerns in public. She openly said that slashing of her Ministry’s budget by half to US$1.6 billion, has hit her plans to strengthen the fight against ‘Child Malnutrition’ and makes it difficult to pay wages of 2.7 million of health workers.

Leave aside ‘The Lancet’ squabble for a moment. Does the above public anguish of a senior Union Cabinet Minister, in any way, depict that “India has moved from strength to strength” in health care?

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.

‘Repurposing’ Older Drugs: Has The Process Started Rolling?

Posted on by
Reply

On October 22, 2015, BBC News reported, “The world’s largest clinical trial to examine whether aspirin can prevent cancers returning has begun in the United Kingdom (UK).”

About 11,000 people, who have had early bowel, breast, prostate, stomach and esophageal cancer will be involved in this study with one tablet a day dosage for five years. This trial is being funded by ‘The Charity Cancer Research, UK’ and ‘The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).’

The scientists feel, if it works, this ‘repurposing’ of an older and much-known drug would be a “game-changing” one. It would then be able to provide a cheap and effective alternative to prevent recurrence of cancer to a large number of cancer survivals. Interestingly, no global pharma players are involved in this cancer prevention research, as yet. 

Aspirin was developed by Bayer way back in 1897 for pain and inflammation. Thereafter, the scientists found a ‘repurpose’ in its use as an anti-platelet drug for treating and preventing heart attacks and strokes.

Similarly, the anti-inflammatory drug Ibuprofen, which was developed by Boots in the 1960s for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, is now showing promises that it can help protect against Parkinson’s disease.

Again, a number of studies claim that statins, a cholesterol-reducing drug, can help prevent Alzheimer’s Disease, resulting in low levels of beta-amyloid. Further research needs to be done in this area, as this finding has not been universally accepted, just yet.

All such commendable initiatives, throw open a relevant question for debate: ‘Can the existing drugs be re-examined in a systematic manner to discover their other possible radically new usages at a much lesser treatment costs to patients?’

In my view, available data emphatically prompts the answer ‘Yes’ and I shall deliberate on on that in this article.

‘Repurposing’ older drugs:

The Oxford Dictionary meaning of ‘repurpose’ is: ‘Adapt for use in a different purpose.’

Accordingly, the process of discovering new usages of older drugs is often called by many scientists as ‘repurposing’.   

Currently, we come across various articles reporting a number of such new initiatives. This process is safer, much less expensive and takes much lesser time.

These laudable R&D initiatives needs encouragement from all stakeholders, especially from the Government. Given proper focus and attractive financial and other incentives, more and more players are expected to get attracted to a different genre of innovation. It is a whole new ball game of discovering new purposes of old and cheaper drugs with known and well-documented long term safety profile.

Some old drugs with ‘new purpose’: 

The following table gives an example of some well known older drugs, for which fresh R&D initiatives discovered their new purpose of treatment, at a much cheaper cost: 

Drug Old Indication New purpose
Amantadine Influenza Parkinson’s Disease
Amphotericin Antifungal Leishmaniasis
Aspirin Inflammation, pain Antiplatelet
Bromocriptine Parkinson’s disease Diabetes mellitus
Bupropion Depression Smoking cessation
Colchicine Gout Recurrent pericarditis
Methotrexate Cancer Psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis

(Source: Indian Journal of Applied Research, Volume: 4, Issue: 8, August 2014)  

A clarion call to join this movement:

The well-known researcher, Dr. Francis S. Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in a TED talk (video) strongly argued in favor of ‘translational research’ to produce better drugs, faster. To make this process to work successfully Francis Collins hopes to encourage global pharmaceutical companies to open up their stashes of drugs that have already passed safety tests, but that failed to successfully treat their targeted disease. 

He wants to study, how drugs approved for one disease could successfully treat another or more ailments and also gave examples of the following drugs, which I am quoting below, as such:

  • Raloxifene: The FDA approved Raloxifene to reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women in 2007. It was initially developed to treat osteoporosis.
    .
  • Thalidomide: This drug started out as a sedative in the late fifties, and soon doctors were infamously prescribing it to prevent nausea in pregnant women. It later caused thousands of severe birth defects, most notably phocomelia, which results in malformed arms and legs. In 1998, thalidomide found a new use as a treatment for leprosy and in 2006 it was approved for multiple myeloma, a bone marrow cancer.
    .
  • Tamoxifen: This hormone therapy treats metastatic breast cancers, or those that have spread to other parts of the body, in both women and men, and it was originally approved in 1977. Thirty years later, researchers discovered that it also helps people with bipolar disorder by blocking the enzyme PKC, which goes into overdrive during the manic phase of the disorder.
    .
  • Rapamycin: This antibiotic, also called sirolimus, was first discovered in bacteria-laced soil from Easter Island in the seventies, and the FDA approved it in 1999 to prevent organ transplant rejection. Since then, researchers have found it effective in treating not one but two diseases: Autoimmune Lymphoproliferative Syndrome (ALPS), in which the body produces too many immune cells called lymphocytes, and lymphangioleiomyomatosis, a rare lung disease.
    .
  • Lomitapide: Intended to lower cholesterol and triglycerides, the FDA approved this drug to treat a rare genetic disorder that causes severe cholesterol problems called homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia last December.
    .
  • Pentostatin: This drug was created as a chemotherapy for specific types of leukemia. It was tested first in T-cell-related leukemias, which didn’t respond to the drug. But later NIH’s National Cancer Institute discovered that the drug was successful in treating a rare leukemia that is B-cell related, called Hairy Cell Leukemia.
    .
  • Sodium nitrite: This salt was first developed as an antidote to cyanide poisoning and, unrelated to medicine, it’s also used to cure meat. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute is currently recruiting participants for a sodium nitrite clinical trial, in which the drug will be tested as a treatment for the chronic leg ulcers associated with sickle cell and other blood disorders.
  • Zidovudine (AZT): The first antiviral approved for HIV/AIDS in 1987.
  • Farnesyltransferase inhibitor (FTI): This was used to successfully treat children with the rapid-aging disease Progeria in a 2012 clinical trial.

“None of these drugs could have been developed without collaborations between drug developers and researchers with new ideas about applications, based on molecular insights about disease,” Dr. Collins said.

The examples that I have given, so far, on ‘repurposing’ older drugs are not exhaustive, in any way, there are more such examples coming up almost regularly.

The key benefits: 

The key benefits of ‘repurposing’ older drugs may be summarized as follows:

  • Ready availability of the starting compound
  • Previously generated relevant R&D data may be used for submission to drug regulators
  • Makes clinical research more time-efficient and cost-effective
  • Possibility of much quicker market launch

Slowly gaining steam: 

On November 27, 2012, ‘The Guardian’ reported that a number of university-based spin-outs and small biotech companies are being set up in the United States to find new purpose for old drugs. They express interest especially, on those drugs, which were shelved as they did not match the desired efficacy requirements, though showed a good overall safety profile.

Such organizations, take advantage of the declining cost of screening, with some compound libraries, such as, the Johns Hopkins library, which includes 3,500 drugs, available for screening at a small charge, the report highlighted.

Quoting a specialist, the report stated, “Existing drugs have been shown to be safe in patients, so if these drugs could be found to work for other diseases, then this would drastically reduce drug development costs and risks. Of 30,000 drugs in the world, 25,000 are ex-patent – it’s a free-for-all.”

‘Repurposing’ may not attract many pharma players, Government should step in:

Notwithstanding the clarion call of Dr. Francis Collins to global pharma players for their active participation in such projects, I reckon, the positive response may not be too many, because of various reasons.

Although, ‘repurposed’ drugs offer similar or even greater value to patients than any comparable ‘me-too’ New Chemical/Molecular Entity (NCE/NME), there may not possibly be any scope here for ‘Obscene Pricing’, such as ‘Sovaldi’ and many others, as some experts feel. And that’s the reality.

Moreover, new usages of the same old molecule, in all probability, may not get any fresh Intellectual Property (IP) protection in India, either.

Hence, considering the health interest of patients, in general, the Government should assume the role of ‘prime mover’, primarily to set the ball of ‘repurposing of older drugs’ rolling in India. This has already started happening in some of the developed countries of the world, which I shall dwell upon here.

Funding clinical development for ‘repurposing’:

Let me give a couple of examples of funding such admirable initiatives in two different countries.

I have already mentioned above that the clinical development for ‘repurposing’ Aspirin in the prevention of cancer, is being funded by the charity Cancer Research UK and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

In a similar initiative, National Institutes for Health (NIH) of the United States, launched the ‘National Center for Advancing Transnational Sciences (NCATS), in May 2012.

New Therapeutic Uses program of NCATS helps to identify new uses for drugs that have undergone significant research and development by the pharma industry, including safety testing in humans. NIH claims that ‘using drugs that already have cleared several key steps in the development process gives scientists nationwide a strong starting point to contribute their unique expertise and accelerate the pace of therapeutics development.’

By pairing researchers with a selection of specific drugs, NCATS program tests ideas for new therapeutic uses, ultimately identifying promising new treatments for patients. Funding for this purpose is done by NCATS through NIH. For example, In July 2015, NCATS planned a funding of around US$3 million to support four academic research groups to test a selection of drugs for new therapeutic uses, as follows:

  • Type 2 diabetes
  • Glioblastoma (one of the most aggressive brain tumors in adults)
  • Acute myeloid leukemia (an aggressive blood cancer)
  • Chagas disease (a neglected tropical disease that causes heart, digestive and neurological problems)

According to NIH, each award recipient will test a selected drug for its effectiveness against a previously unexplored disease or condition. The industry partners for these projects are AstraZeneca and Sanofi.

Can it be done in India?

Of course yes, provided the Government considers health care as one its priority focus areas with commensurate resource deployment of all kinds for the same.

As things stand today, India still remains beyond any visibility to give a tangible shape to this specific concept of ‘repurposing’ of older drugs. There does not seem to be any other valid reason why similar model of funding can’t be followed locally too, for this purpose.

The nodal agency to spearhead such initiatives, and to create appropriate groundswell to help gain a critical mass, may well be the ‘Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)’ or any other body that the Government decides in consultation with domain experts, together with reasonable financial incentives for commercialization of new usages at an affordable cost.

Conclusion:

As we all know, many people, across the world, are currently going through the pain of seeing their loved ones suffer, and even die, from serious ailments, the treatments of which either do not exist or when exist, the therapy costs may be out of reach of a vast majority of patients. In tandem, the R&D pipeline of the global pharma industry is gradually drying up.

In a situation like this, drug ‘repurposing’ that is directed towards meeting unmet medical needs of patients of all types irrespective of financial status, needs to be increasingly encouraged and pursued as a critical solution to this growing problem.

The good news is that some global pharma majors, though very few in number, have now expressed their intention to salvage their failed molecules and are open to help explore whether such drugs may work in other disease conditions.

India seems to be still miles away from this space, and a bit directionless too. That said, the country is scientifically quite capable of making up the lost ground in this area, provided the Government decides so, garnering requisite wherewithal.

Thus, in my view, the process of ‘repurposing’ older drugs has already started rolling in some major countries of the world, in a well structured manner with requisite funding in place. Tangible outcomes are already noticeable today, with some examples quoted in this article.

As Dr. Francis Collins said, collaborations between drug developers and researchers with new ideas about applications, based on molecular insights about disease are critical in the way forward to achieve this cherished goal in a sustainable manner.

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 Drug Price Control The Key Growth Barrier For Indian Pharma Industry?

Posted on by
Reply

The corollary of the above headline could well be: “Are drug price hikes the key growth driver for the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM)?”

Whenever the first question, as appears in the headline of this article: “Is drug price control a key barrier to growth of the IPM?”, is asked to the pharma players, irrespective of whether they are domestic companies or multinationals (MNCs), the answer in unison would quite expectedly be a full-throated ‘yes’. Various articles published in the media, including some editorials too, also seem to be on the same page, with this specific view. 

Likewise, if the corollary of the above question: “Are drug price hikes the key growth driver for the IPM?”, is put before this same target audience, most of them, if not all, would expectedly reply that ‘in the drug price control regime, this question does not arise at all, as IPM has been primarily a volume driven growth story.’ This answer gives a feel that the the entire or a major part of the IPM is under Government ‘price control’, which in fact is far from reality

Recently, a pharma industry association sponsored ‘Research Study’, conducted by an international market research organization also became quite vocal with similar conclusion on drug price control in India. This study, released on July 2015, categorically highlights ‘price control is neither an effective nor sustainable strategy for improving access to medicines for Indian patients’. The report also underscores: “The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.”

I argued on the fragility of the above report in this Blog on September 7, 2015, in an article titled, “Drug Price Control in India: A Fresh Advocacy With Blunt Edges”.

Nonetheless, in this article, going beyond the above study, I shall try to put across my own perspective on both the questions raised above, primarily based on the last 12 months retail data of well-respected AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd. 

Pharma product categories from ‘Price Control’ perspective:

To put this discussion in right perspective, following AIOCD-AWACS’ monthly pharma retail audit reports, I shall divide the pharma products in India into three broad categories, as follows:

  • Products included under Drug Price Control Order  2013 (DPCO 2013), which are featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) 
  • Products not featuring in NLEM 2011, but included in Price Control under Para 19 of DPCO 2013
  • Products outside the ambit of any drug price control and can be priced by the respective drug manufacturers, whatever they deem appropriate

The span of price controlled medicines would currently be around 18 percent of the IPM. Consequently, the drugs falling under free-pricing category would be the balance 82 percent of the total market. Hence, the maximum chunk of the IPM constitutes of those drugs for which there is virtually no price control existing in India.

According to the following table, since, at least the last one-year period, the common key growth driver for all category of drugs, irrespective of whether these are under ‘price control’ or ‘outside price control, is price increase in varying percentages: 

Value vs Volume Growth (October 2014 to September 2015):

Month DPCO Product      Gr% Non-DPCO Products Gr% Non-NLEM Para 19 Gr% IPM
2015 Value Volume Value Volume Value Volume Value Volume
September 2.8 1.2 10.9 1.1 11.5 9.0 9.9 1.4
August 3.3 (2.7) 14.5 2.4 15.2 13.7 13.0 1.6
July 5.1 (0.6) 14.2 4.1 11.8 9.9 12.9 3.3
June 5.6 (0.1) 16.2 6.2 14.6 11.7 14.8 5.0
May 5.3 (0.3) 12.1 3.4 7.2 4.3 11.0 2.6
April 11.1 5.3 18.4 9.6 11.9 9.6 17.2 8.7
March 17.6 9.5 21.7 13.0 15.6 13.2 20.9 12.2
Feb 13.9 7.6 20.0 10.1 14.4 9.9 18.9 9.6
Jan 6.9 1.8 14.0 3.7 NA NA 12.7 3.3
2014    
December 8.0 0.7 14.8 3.2 NA NA 13.6 2.7
November 3.1 (3.4) 12.6 0.3 NA NA 10.9 (0.4)
October (2.4) (5.7) 6.8 (1.7) NA NA 5.2 (2.6) 

Source: Monthly Retail Audit of AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd 

Does ‘free drug-pricing’ help improving consumption?

I would not reckon so, though the pharma industry association sponsored above study virtually suggests that ‘free pricing’ of drugs would help improve medicine consumption in India, leading to high volume growth.

As stated earlier, the above report of IMS Health highlights, “The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.”

On this finding, very humbly, I would raise a counter question. If only free pricing of drugs could help increasing volume growth through higher consumption, why would then the ‘price-controlled non-NLEM drugs under para 19’, as shown in the above table, have generally recorded higher volume growth than even those drugs, which are outside any ‘price control’? Or in other words, why is the consumption of these types of ‘price controlled’ drugs increasing so significantly, outstripping the same even for drugs with free pricing?

The right answers to these questions lie somewhere else, which I would touch upon now.

Are many NLEM 2011 drugs no longer in supply?

DPCO 2013 came into effect from from May 15, 2013. Much before that, NLEM 2011 was put in place with a promise that all the drugs featuring in that list would come under ‘price control’, as directed earlier by the Supreme Court of India.  Even at that time, it was widely reported by the media that most of the drugs featuring in the NLEM 2011 are either old or may not be in supply when DPCO 2013 would be made effective. The reports also explained its reasons. 

To give an example, a November 6, 2013 media report stated: “While the government is still in the process of fully implementing the new prices fixed for 348 essential medicines, it has realized that most of these are no longer in supply. This is because companies have already started manufacturing many of these drugs with either special delivery mechanism (an improved and fast acting version of the basic formulation) or in combination with other ingredients, circumventing price control.”

Just to give a feel of these changes, the current NLEM 2011 does not cover many Fixed-Dose Combinations (FDC) of drugs. This is important, as close to 60 percent of the total IPM constitutes of FDCs. Currently, FDCs of lots of drugs for tuberculosis, diabetes and hypertension and many other chronic and acute disease conditions, which are not featuring in the NLEM 201, are very frequently being prescribed in the country. Thus, the decision of keeping most of the popular FDCs outside the ambit of NLEM 2011 is rather strange.

Moreover, a 500 mg paracetamol tablet is under price control being in the NLEM 2011, but its 650 mg strength is not. There are many such examples.

These glaring loopholes in the NLEM 2011 pave the way for switching over to non-NLEM formulations of the same molecules, evading DPCO 2013. Many experts articulated, this process began just after the announcement of NLEM 2011 and a lot of ground was covered in this direction before DPCO 2013 was made effective.

Intense sales promotion and marketing of the same molecule/molecules in different Avatars, in a planned manner, have already started making NLEM 2011 much less effective than what was contemplated earlier. 

Some examples:

As I said before, there would be umpteen number of instances of pharmaceutical companies planning to dodge the DPCO 2013 well in advance, commencing immediately after NLEM 2011 was announced. Nevertheless, I would give the following two examples as was reported by media, quoting FDA, Maharashtra:

1. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare having launched its new ‘Crocin Advance’ 500 mg with a higher price of Rs 30 for a strip of 15 tablets, planned to gradually withdraw its conventional price controlled Crocin 500 mg brand costing around Rs 14 for a strip of 15 tablets to patients. GSK Consumer Healthcare claimed that Crocin Advance is a new drug and therefore should be outside price control.

According to IMS Health data, ‘Crocin Advance’ achieved the fifth largest brand status among top Paracetamol branded generics, clocking a sales turnover of Rs 10.3 Crore during the last 12 months from its launch ending in February 2014. The issue was reportedly resolved at a later date with assertive intervention of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).

2. Some pharmaceutical companies reportedly started selling the anti-lipid drug Atorvastatin in dosage forms of 20 mg and 40 mg, which are outside price control, instead of its price controlled 10 mg dosage form.

Why DPCO 2013 drugs showing low volume growth?

From the above examples, if I put two and two together, the reason for DPCO 2013 drugs showing low volume growth becomes much clearer.

Such alleged manipulations are grossly illegal, as specified in the DPCO 2013 itself. Thus, resorting to illegal acts of making similar drugs available to patients at a much higher price by tweaking formulations, should just not attract specified punitive measures, but may also be construed as acting against health interest of Indian patients…findings of the above ‘research report’, notwithstanding, even if it is accepted on its face value.

In my view, because of such alleged manipulations, and many NLEM 2011 drugs being either old or not in supply, we find in the above table that the volume growth of ‘Price Controlled NLEM drugs’ is much less than ‘Price Controlled non-NLEM Para 19’ drugs. Interestingly, even ‘Out of Price Control’ drugs show lesser volume growth than ‘Price Controlled non-NLEM Para 19 drugs’.

Government decides to revise NLEM 2011:

The wave of general concerns expressed on the relevance of NLEM 2011 reached the law makers of the country too. Questions were also asked in the Parliament on this subject.

Driven by the stark reality and the hard facts, the Union Government decided to revise NLEM 2011. 

For this purpose, a ‘Core Committee of Experts’ under the Chairmanship of Dr. V.M Katoch, Secretary, Department of Health Research & Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), was formed in May 2014.

The minutes of the first and second meetings of the ‘Core Committee of Experts’, held on June 24, 2014 and July 2, 2014, respectively, were also made public. 

On May 5, 2015, the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers Ananth Kumar said in a written reply to the ‘Lok Sabha’ that “The revised NLEM would form the basis of number of medicines which would come under price control.” This revision is taking place in the context of contemporary knowledge of use of therapeutic products, the Minister added.

Would pharma sector grow faster sans ‘price control’?

If ‘drug price control’ is abolished in India, would pharma companies grow at a much faster rate in volume with commensurate increase in consumption, than what they have recorded during ‘limited price control’ regime in the country? This, in my view, is a matter of conjecture and could be a subject of wide speculation. I am saying this primarily due to the fact that India has emerged as one of the fastest growing global pharmaceutical market during uninterrupted ‘drug price control regime’ spanning over the last 45 years.

Nevertheless, going by the retail audit data from the above table, it may not be necessarily so. The data shows that volume growth of ‘out of price control’ drugs is not the highest, by any measure. On the contrary, it is much less than ‘price controlled drugs under para 19 of DPCO 2013′, which are mainly prescribed for non-infectious chronic diseases on a large scale.

I am referring to AIOCD-AWACS data for just the last 12 months, because of space constraint, but have gone through the same for the entire DPCO 2015 period, till September’15. The reason for my zeroing in on DPCO 2015 is for the three simple reasons:

- The span of price control in this regime is the least, even lesser than DPCO 1995, which was 20 percent. 

- It is much more liberal in its methodology of ‘Ceiling Price (CP)’ calculation, over any other previous DPCOs

- It has also a provision, for the first time ever, of automatic price increases every year for price controlled drugs, based on WPI.

A safeguard for patients?

Medicines enjoy the legal status of ‘essential commodities’ in India. Thus, many believe that ‘drug price control’ is a ‘pricing safeguard’ for Indian patients, especially for essential medicines and ‘out of expenses’ for drugs being as high as over 60 percent.

In the prevailing health care environment of India, the situation otherwise could even be possibly nightmarish. The key reason for the same has been attributed to ‘market failure’ by the Government, for most of the pharmaceutical products, where competition does not work. I discussed this issue in my article titled, “Does ‘Free-Market Economy’ Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?” of April 27, 2015, in this Blog.

In India, ‘drug price control’ has successfully passed the intense scrutiny of the Supreme Court, along with its endorsement and approval. Any attempt of its retraction by any Government, without facing a tough challenge before the Apex Court, seems near impossible.

Conclusion: 

The fundamental reasons for overall low volume growth, or in other words, price-increase driven value growth of the IPM, I reckon, lie somewhere else, which could be a subject matter of a different debate altogether.

As I said in the past, IPM grew at an impressive speed consistently for decades, despite ‘drug price control’, and grumbling of the industry for the same. This high growth came from volume increase, price increase and new product introductions, the volume growth being the highest.

Most of the top 10 Indian pharma players, came into existence and grew so fast during the ‘drug price control’ regime. The  home-grown promoter of the numero-uno of the IPM league table, is now the second richest person of India. These are all generic pharma companies.

Generally speaking, Indian pharma shares even today attract more investors consistently than any other sector for such a long time. Granted that these companies are drug exporters too, but they all gained their critical mass in partly ‘price controlled’ Indian market. The criticality of the need for consistent growth in the domestic market, by the way, still remains absolutely relevant to all the pharma players in India, even today, despite…whatever.

Growth oriented overall Indian pharma scenario remaining quite the same, ‘drug price control’ with a current span of just around 18 percent of the IPM, can’t possibly be a growth barrier. Otherwise, how does one explain the highest volume growth of ‘price controlled non-NLEM drugs’, which is even more than ‘out of price-control drugs’?

Be that as it may, in my view, implementation of public funded ‘Universal Health Care (UHC)’ by the Indian Government, in any form or calling it by any other name, can possibly replace DPCO. Similar measures have been adopted by all the member countries of the ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’ in this area, though following different paths, but nevertheless to attain the same goal.

Lamentably enough, the incumbent Government too has not ‘walked the talk’ on its number of assurances related to this core issue of health care in India.

Still, the hope lingers!

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.

 

Just 16% Of Indian Population Has Access To Free Or Partially-Free Health Care?

Posted on by
Reply

Is health care currently a low priority area for the Government of India? Probably yes, and thus it is worth trying to fathom it out.

Besides planned frugal spending on overall public health in 2015-16, even as compared to the past trend, two other health related budgetary decisions of the Government are indeed baffling, at the very least.

As many of you, I too know that the incumbent Government in its first full-year budget of 2015-16 has sharply reduced the budgetary allocation on many important health related other projects, such as:

- Union budget allocation for the National Rural Drinking Water Program (NRDWP) that aims at providing safe drinking water to 20,000 villages and hamlets across India, has been drastically reduced this year. Curiously, this decision has been taken at a time, when India loses 200 million person days and Rs 36,600 crore every year due to water-related diseases.

- The Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme, which provides food, preschool education, and primary health care to children under 6 years of age and their mothers, has also been hit by a 54.19 percent budget cut this year. This decision too of cutting public expenditure on food, nutrition and health care for children to more than half, defies any logic, especially when 40 percent of growth stunted children in the world are reportedly from India, exceeding the number of even sub-Saharan Africa.

I hasten to add that the Union budget 2015-16 has indicated, as the states’ share in the net proceeds of the union tax revenues has increased, as per recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission, these central Government programs will now be run with a changed funding pattern between the Union and states. However, according to financial experts in these areas, regardless of devolution, the total money available to run these critical projects is sharply decreasing.

That said, on the other pages of the same Union Budget, public funding in the current fiscal year for bridges and roads has more than doubled. The budgetary allocation for these two areas now stands more than even education.

I deliberated on similar subject of access to health care in my blog of March 16, 2015, titled, “With Frugal Public Resource Allocation Quo Vadis Healthcare in India?”

Health care sector is important for job creation too:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), health care sector is one of the largest job creators, not just in India, but globally. Thus, Indian health care industry being one of the fastest growing industrial turf in the country with a reasonable base, deserves a sharper focus of the Government.

Additionally, the socio-economic benefits that this sector provides in creating a sustainable, healthy and highly productive work force, has been well documented and can’t just be wished away, in any case.

The neglect is intriguing:

Currently, total healthcare spend of India is no more than 4.2 percent of the GDP with public spending being just 1.2 percent of it. Other BRICS nations are way ahead of India, in this area too. To set a direction on country’s public healthcare spend, breaking the jinx of a long period of time, the draft National Health Policy 2015 of the Government aimed at initial increase in health expenditure to 2 percent of the GDP.

As a result of the legacy of neglect over a long period of time, which continues albeit more blatantly even today, only 16 percent of the Indian population declares today that they have access to free or partially-free health care. I shall dwell on this area subsequently in this article.

Keeping these in perspective, it was intriguing, when the union budgetary allocation for health care in 2015-16 was kept at Rs. 297 billion or U$4.81 billion for its main health department, almost the same outlay as in the previous budget.

When compared against public fund allocations, such as, US$ 93 billion for highway projects or US$ 7.53 billion for 100 smart cities in the country, one will get a realistic perspective of this meager health budget allocation, in terms of effectively addressing the health care needs of around 1.25 billion people of India. Over 70 percent of this population live in the hinterland.

Agreed that the Government focus on these ‘infrastructure projects’ are not unimportant by any means. Nevertheless, the above comparison only highlights how much priority the Government assigns to the health care sector of India and for the health of its citizens. This issue assumes even greater significance in combating several challenging health situations, such as, ongoing fight against increasing incidence of life-long chronic ailments and deadly life-threatening diseases like, cancer, fueling already high rate of morbidity and mortality in the high country.

A quick glimpse on a few outcomes of neglect:

The Working Paper No. 1184 dated January 8, 2015, titled “Improving Health Outcomes And Health Care In India” of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), highlights some interesting points, as follows:

  • Chronic diseases are the biggest causes of death and disability accounting for 50 percent of deaths, with cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, respiratory conditions and cancers figuring most prominently.
  • Preventive interventions such as improving access to a clean water supply, reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS through better sexual education, and vaccination campaigns for other diseases will each deliver more significant returns in life years.
  • Vaccination rates for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, for measles and for hepatitis B are all much lower than in OECD and peer countries.
  • Minimal access to free or partially-free health care.

It is an irony that ‘life expectancy’ in India still remains well below the countries at a similar level of development.

Abysmal overall hygienic conditions:

The OECD survey brings to the fore  abysmal hygienic conditions still prevailing in India. It can only be improved through active intervention of the Government with necessary budgetary allocations, sans photo ops for some celebrities and most politicians. Sincere support and participation of the civil society and intelligentsia, in general, are also equally important.

The paper underscores, among others, the following extremely unhygienic conditions still prevailing both in urban and rural India:

  • Most households in rural India do not defecate in a toilet or latrine, which leads to infant and child diseases (such as diarrhea) and can account for much of the variation in average child height. Even today the sight of poor children defecating openly in the streets, that too in a city like Mumbai, is also not very uncommon.
  • The burning of solid fuels in particular (undertaken by more than 80 percent of the population in cooking) is a major risk factor behind ischemic heart disease, lower-respiratory tract infections and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and could also increase cataracts and stroke.
  • Exposure to air pollution is a significant problem.
  • Many of the poor continue to smoke heavily.
  • 11 of the lowest income quintile did not undertake sufficient physical activity, compared with 16 percent in the highest income quintile.

India provides minimal access to free or partially-free health care:

As I mentioned above, India provides minimal access to free or partially-free healthcare to its citizens, as compared to all the BRICS nations, many other countries in South East Asia and even in Africa.

The above OECD paper states that with poor health intertwined with poverty, the greatest gains lie with policies that address the social conditions which enable combating communicable and non-communicable diseases.

Among BRICS countries, India provides least access to ‘Free or Partially-Free Health Care’ Services to its general population. This is despite being the largest democracy in the world, which is now striving hard to emerge as an economic and military superpowers.

The following study shows that only 16 percent of the Indian population declares having access to free or partially-free health care from the government:

BRICS Countries % surveyed said ‘Yes’ to the question: “Does your household have access to free or partially free health care from the State”
India 16
Brazil 24
China 73
Russia 96
South Africa 62

Source: Credit Suisse Research Institute, Emerging Consumer Survey Databook 2014.

As the OECD paper states, in this study approximately 1500 respondents were surveyed in each country, with India and China both having larger sample size of 2500. The male-to-female split between respondents was roughly 50:50 in all cases with rural-to-urban split varying by country.

Poor satisfaction level with existing health care services:

This is very important; as public facilities are the predominant source of qualified health professionals in rural areas where much of the Indian poor reside. In addition, significant population growth is occurring in urban slums, where urban public health care facilities are struggling to provide basic services. In a situation like this, slum dwellers face challenging economic barriers to accessing expensive private health care services (MoHFW, 2012).

The OECD survey indicates that 41 percent of those in rural areas and 45 percent in urban areas were not satisfied with treatment by their doctors or facility.

The reason attributed to this dissatisfaction are as follows:

  • Distance was cited by 21 percent of people in rural areas and 14 percent in urban areas.
  • Public health care centers remain closed more than half the time and lack basic medical supplies, such as stethoscopes and blood pressure scales.
  • Non-availability of required services was cited by 30 percent of people in rural areas and 26 percent in urban areas.

This is quite credible, as according to the Government’s own estimates:

- 10 percent of primary health care centers are without a doctor

- 37 percent are without a laboratory technician

- 25 percent without a pharmacist (MoHFW, 2012)

The above picture is quite consistent with large scale surveys in poor communities of India, by OECD.

Health care business for up market is booming:

Growing inequitable distribution of healthcare products and services is now wide open and blatant, more than ever before. There is no signal yet that the Government would soon consider health care sector as its one of the key focus areas, along with education, just as infrastructure, such as, building roads, highways, e-highways, flyovers, bridges and smart cities.

For up-market patients, the private sector is creating world class facilities in India. We can see today a good number of ‘five-star’ hospitals, with more number of newer ones coming up offering jaw-dropping facilities, quite akin to, may be even surpassing what are being offered for patients’ luxurious comfort in the developed world. Although these facilities cost a fortune, one would usually need to be in a queue to get admitted there for any medical or surgical treatment.

Most of these hospitals are now in high demand for ‘medical tourism’. According to available reports India currently caters to health care needs of over 200,000 foreign patients. ‘Medical tourism’ business reportedly fetched around US$ 2 billion to India in 2012.

On the flip side of it, as we all read in the recent media reports, some of these hospitals in Delhi refused admission even to seriously ill dengue patients, as they can’t afford such facilities. A few of these patients ultimately succumbed to the disease and the parents of one such poor child, who died without any hospital treatment in that process, committed suicide unable to withstand the irreparable and tragic loss.

Giving ‘Infrastructure Status’ to health care sector:

When creating basic infrastructure is the priority area of the present Government for financial resource allocation, why not give ‘infrastructure status’ to the health care sector now? This is not just for the heck of it, but purely based on merit and earlier detail evaluation by a Government Committee of experts.

To address the critical health care needs for the vast Indian population with appropriate infrastructure, quality products, services and manpower, providing ‘infrastructure status’ to the health care sector could facilitate the whole process. Additionally, it can transform the Indian healthcare sector as one of the biggest job-generating industry too.

This has been a key demand of the industry until recently, though not so much being talked about it today. A few years back, the previous Government was reportedly mulling to assign full fledged infrastructure status to the healthcare sector, as it merits inclusion in the category of ‘infrastructure’, satisfying all the nine criteria set by the erstwhile Rangarajan Committee.

I find in my archive, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) also demanded ‘infrastructure status’ for the health care sector in its pre-union budget memorandum for 2010-11. In that proposal CII had estimated that health care industry in India requires an investment of around US$80 billion, whereas in the current fiscal year the public expenditure on health still languishes at U$4.81 billion.

This specific issue seems to have taken a back seat today, for reasons not known to me. However, it is interesting to note that not just the Government apathy, no such demand is being made today by the large multi-industry trade associations of India, as vociferously as we witness, for example, in the case of ‘The Goods and Service Tax (GST) Bill’.

Health care debate is not to the fore today:

Critical health care issues of the country don’t seem to be in the fore front today for comprehensive debates even for the Indian main stream media, to influence the government.

We have been experiencing for quite while that Indian media, including social media, in general, usually goes ballistic 24×7 mostly with selective sensational topics. These may include, among others…glitzy events on Government’s high profile advocacy initiatives to attract more Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) from large overseas companies…Or back home some unfortunate and tragic Dengue fever related deaths due to negligence just in Delhi, though the same and equally grave incidences taking place in the other states of India, are hardly getting any coverage…Or on some high profile alleged murder pot-boilers announcing media verdict conclusively, even before completion of police investigation and charge-sheet being filed in a court of law.

These are probably neither bad, nor unimportant, nor avoidable, nor can come within the ambit of any media criticism. I am also not trying to do that, either.

As the saying goes, variety is the spice of life. We, therefore, generally want to get a feel of it everyday early in the morning, mostly glancing through the newspaper headlines, or in the late evening watching impatient anchor with strong personal opinion trying hard to dominate over all other participants in high-decibel ‘TV debates’, as these are called by the respective channels.

In an era of sensationalized and eye-ball grabbing ‘Breaking News’ of all kinds, flashing everywhere almost every now and then, critical health care issues seem to have become a mundane subject to the newsmakers for any meaningful debate to influence the Government. Serious debates on critical health care issues presumably would not generate all important Television Rating Points (TRPs) to the TV channel owners. Though I have no idea, the TRP of such debates  probably has been estimated to be even lesser as compared to the cacophony aired by the TV channels on the cost to exchequer for the MPs subsidized meals in the Indian Parliament…with intermittent high pitch ‘war cry’ of the dominating anchor… ‘the nation wants to know this’.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, health care environment impacts all of us, quite appreciably. There is not even an iota of doubt on it. However, we can feel it mostly when the reality hits us or our families hard…very hard, as serious and cruel ailments strike suddenly, or as we face avoidable disease related deaths of our near and dear ones, or when illness makes a loving one virtually incapacitated, even after facing financial bankruptcy.

Health care is a serious matter for all of us, just as it is a serious and critical business for every nation and every Government. This criticality factor is independent of whatever level of economic development the country is aspiring for. Thus, the indifference of the Indian Government, if I may say so, despite promising so much on health care earlier this year, is intriguing, and more so, when just 16 percent of the total population has access to free or partially-free health care in our India of the 21st century.

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.

India’s China Dependence On API: A Time To Think ‘Outside The Box’

Posted on by
Reply

The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) has declared the Year 2015 as the Year of ‘Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)’. Following it up on February 25, 2015, the Union Minister of Chemicals & Fertilizers Ananth Kumar assured the Pharmaceutical Industry that appropriate decisions will be taken soon to make India self-sufficient in Bulk Drugs (APIs).

The Minister also confirmed having received the recommendations of high level ‘Katoch Committee’ that was set up by the Government on October 8, 2013 to look into various issues concerning the API. This would be implemented expeditiously after taking the Union Cabinet’s approval, as the Bulk Drugs constitute the backbone of the Pharma Industry and the sector needs to be incentivized to take on the challenges from cheaper imports.

According to a recent report, in June 2015, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizer has floated a draft cabinet note with the recommendations of the ‘Katoch Committee’. Quoting a senior official of the DoP the report mentioned that the cabinet note also proposes formation of a separate bulk drug authority, which will look into the implementation of such schemes.

The DoP Secretary Dr. V.K. Subburaj has lately reiterated that there is an urgent need to bring about self-sufficiency in the field of API.

In this article, I shall restrict my discussion only to those APIs, which are required for manufacturing the essential medicines in India.

Significant dependence on China:

For a large number of essential medicines, India heavily depends on API imports from China.

On December 12, 2014, the Minister of Commerce and Industry informed the Indian Parliament that in case of 12 essential drugs namely: Paracetamol, Metformin, Ranitidine, Amoxicillin, Ciprofloxacin, Cefixime, Acetyl salicylic acid, Ascorbic acid, Ofloxacin, Ibuprofen, Metronidazole and Ampicillin, there is significant dependence on imports. Approximately 80-90 percent of these imports are from China. He mentioned that the decision to import, and the country of origin for such imports, are based on economic considerations.

The Minister also informed the Parliament that a Committee of Secretaries, under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Department of Health Research was set up on October 8, 2013 to study and identify the APIs of critical importance and to work out a package of interventions/concessions required to build domestic production capabilities, and examine the cost implication.

Interestingly, rapid and consistent increase in API import from China has been reported as follows:

Year API import from China (Rs. Crore)
April-September in 2014-15 6,521
2013-14 11,865
2012-13 11,000
2011-12 8,798

Ironically, though India manufactures over 30 percent of global generic drug consumption, more than 80 percent of APIs required to produce these medicines come from China.

In ‘RIS Policy Brief’ February 2015, Dr. Y. K. Hamied, Chairman of CIPLA was also quoted sounding an alarm bell, as follows:

“If China decided one bright day to stop export to India, we would be finished. The pharma industry is zero, both domestic and export, and we are looking at that danger objectively”.

Even, the National Security Adviser of India has reportedly expressed similar concern and urged to create adequate infrastructural facilities to make India self-reliant, at least, on the essential medicines, without further delay.

Another recent industry report:

A July 2014 report of ASSOCHAM, titled “Pharmaceuticals Sector in India: Challenges Faced & Suggested Way Forward” also underscores, since a very significant volume of India’s drug imports are concentrated in China, this lack of self–sufficiency in APIs poses significant risk to the drug security of the country. Any deterioration in relationships with China can potentially cause severe domestic shortages in the supply of essential drugs. 

Additionally, China could easily increase prices of some of these drugs where it enjoys virtual monopoly, noted the ASSOCHAM study.

The report further points out that this risk extends beyond the domestic market to export markets, as Chinese pharmaceutical companies, that have traditionally focused on large-volume intermediates and unregulated markets are beginning to “forward integrate”, with increasing focus on exports to regulated markets.

This emerging trend is supported by the recent improvements in local Chinese cGMP and product quality standards, increase in the number of manufacturing sites approved by the USFDA, and current filings of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) by the local companies of China. Given their overall dominance in intermediates and API manufacturing, Chinese players can pose a serious competitive threat to their Indian counterparts, much beyond the APIs for essential drugs, the above study noted.

‘Katoch Committee’ recommendations:

The recommendations of the ‘Katoch Committee’, as revealed by the the Minister to the law makers of India, appears to me a long list of ‘Things to Do’ without addressing the intricacies involved with the complicated core issue.

On May 8, 2015, the Minister of State of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers informed the Rajya Sabha of the Indian Parliament that in its report on API manufacturing in India, the Katoch Committee has inter-alia recommended:

  • Establishment of Mega Parks for APIs with common facilities such as common Effluent Treatment Plants (ETPs), Testing facilities, Captive Power Plants/assured power supply by state systems, Common Utilities/Services such as storage, testing laboratories, IPR management, designing, etc., maintained by a separate Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV)
  • A scheme for extending financial assistance to states to acquire land and also for setting up common facilities
  • Revival of public sector units for starting the manufacturing of selected and very essential critical drugs (e.g., penicillins, paracetamol etc.)
  • Financial investment from the Government for development of clusters which may be in the form of a professionally managed dedicated equity fund for the promotion of manufacture of APIs
  • Extending fiscal benefits to creation of the entire community cluster infrastructure and individual unit infrastructure
  • Extension of fiscal and financial benefits to promote the bulk drugs sector
  • Promoting stronger industry-academia interaction
  • Synergizing R&D promotion efforts by various government agencies
  • Incentivizing scientists
  • Duty exemptions for capital goods imports

On the face of it, the recommendations appear to be good. However, are these not too simplistic, based on just what is visible on the surface, without going into the complexity of the issue?

I shall now briefly dwell upon some of these areas, from my own perspective of the core issue and the key challenges involved.

Major challenges:

Profitability is undoubtedly a major reason why the indigenous production of important APIs, required to formulate widely used essential medicines, has paved the way for low priced Chinese equivalents. This has been acknowledged by all concerned and has happened more with APIs involving fermentation technology.

Besides other factors, API profitability and commensurate return on capital employed (RoCE) are primarily driven by the product design, process technology in use together with its associated requirements, cost of capital goods and utilities, working capital requirement, quality of sustainable demand generated and achievement of ‘economies of scale’. The last one is so important, as it signifies that proportionate saving in costs is gained by an increased level of production. Simply speaking, the greater the yield and the quantity of a API produced, the lower will be the per-unit fixed cost, as these costs are shared over a larger number of goods.

Additionally, ‘any time cGMP-audit preparedness’ for the big customers, make the running of the operation really unenviable.

Highly competitive generic API market, with larger number of manufacturers, is driven by its customers’ requirement of the lowest possibly cost for any quality product. With this ascending trend, global API manufacturing business has started slowly shifting from the long time much preferred big-name players of the western world, to the upcoming ones in India and China. Unfortunately, now even India has started importing APIs in significant volume from China. APIs of Chinese origin for Indian essential drugs are not just cheaper, but are also available almost on the shelf.

This fiercely competitive scenario has compelled a sizeable number of bulk drug manufacturers to shut shops in India. Many other ‘API only’ Indian manufacturers are now venturing into production and marketing of higher margin formulations, moving up the pharma value chain.

Some API producers have also entered into contract manufacturing of formulations in large quantities. A few others have already entered or are trying to enter into their API based formulation manufacturing agreements with large pharma MNCs for the regulated markets, and by filing DMFs and ANDAs.

To sum up, the challenges before the API sector, in my view, are predominantly as follows:

  • Intense price competition
  • Requirement of attaining ‘economies of scale’ for business sustainability, at times leading to overcapacity
  • Low profitability and RoCE
  • ‘Any time technical audit’ preparedness for high-end customers
  • Capital intensive business
  • High inventory carrying cost both for intermediates and finished goods
  • Long credit demand
  • High working capital requirement
  • Undifferentiated capabilities
  • Product obsolescence with changing disease profile or newer off-patent molecules coming in the same therapy area

Need to think ‘outside the box’:

I do not have access to the complete report of the Katoch Committee, just yet. However, going by what the Government has reported to the Indian Parliament on this subject, it appears that overall recommendations made by the Committee of Secretaries on the subject, are steps in the right direction.

If all the suggestions are implemented, the cost of manufacturing infrastructure and utilities are expected to come down. However, I am not quite sure, whether just these steps would be good enough making India self-reliant on APIs required to manufacture the essential medicines.

Nevertheless, to achieve the desired goal, some critical questions would still need to be answered with high clarity, such as:

  • Despite lowering cost of manufacturing, would it still be enough to neutralize Chinese competition?
  • Stakes being very high for China, if it feels threatened of loosing the booming API generic business from India, won’t the Chinese Government not find out ways and means to retain its ground? If so, are there proactive measures ready to negate the possible counter-move by China?
  • Would this cost reduction help most of the Indian API manufacturers achieving ‘economies of scale’ for reasonable sustainability, with cost competitiveness in the business?
  • Most of the essential drugs are low cost products. Thus, what happens, if Indian API manufacturers in clusters, thus created, decide to produce and sell only higher margin APIs and intermediates, including for the global innovator companies, without getting engaged in APIs for essential medicines?

Since this crucial problem is multi-faceted one, the recommendations should address all possible ‘what if’ scenarios, thinking ‘outside the box’. Mere creation of infrastructural and financial support base, may not help addressing all the key challenges, effectively. After all, it’s an open market competition, and Chinese players are tough nuts to crack, as they have been demonstrating time and again in various fields of activities.

Conclusion:

Having achieved dominance in the Indian generic API market, Chinese bulk drug manufacturers are now concentrating on continuous improvement in process technology to drive down the cost further. According to available reports, they are achieving it too, with great success, focusing on multiple critical areas starting from product and reactor design to much wider use of catalysis.

To effectively compete with Chinese APIs, especially for essential drugs, Indian API manufacturers in the clusters would require to start, at least, from where China is today in this area, and take off from there. This is possible, though quite challenging too.

Moreover, manufacturing overcapacity for generic APIs is already existing in China. If it gets further aggravated with overcapacity created in India for the same molecule, the overall scenario may lead to a desperate sales and marketing situation of survival for the fittest.

No doubt, over-dependence on Chinese APIs for the essential medicines may pose a threat to the drug security of India, as many have already opined, including the National Security Advisor of the country. Nonetheless, the situation could possibly turn even worse, without imposition of artificial tariff barrier, if India decides to rely on a simplistic solution for a multi-factorial complex problem.

‘Katoch Committee’ report is a good initiative for the domestic API business, in general. Nonetheless, to significantly reduce over-dependence on imported Chinese bulk drugs and be self reliant on  high quality and competitively priced APIs for essential medicines, India would need to think ‘outside the box’, undoubtedly.

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.

Biosimilar Drugs: Why Prescriptions Aren’t Still Enough?

Posted on by
Reply

On September 3, 2015, in a Press Release, Novartis announced, “Zarxio(TM) (filgrastim-sndz) is now available in the United States. Zarxio is the first biosimilar approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the first to launch in the US.” Zarxio is being marketed by the generic drug unit of Novartis – Sandoz.

The company highlighted: “With the launch of Zarxio, we look forward to increasing patient, prescriber and payor access to filgrastim in the US by offering a high-quality, more affordable version of this important oncology medicine.” This statement may be interpreted as an acknowledged of a research based global pharma major that high-priced biologics create a notable access barrier to a large number of patients, even in a rich country such as the United States. It also underscores the increasing prescription opportunities for cheaper biosimilar drugs.

Zarxio will initially be available with a 15 percent discount. This needs to be viewed against usual price drop of around 20-30 percent for biosimilar drugs in Europe, as compared to the original molecules. It is expected that price differences between biosimilar drugs and the original ones, would vary widely from as low as 10 percent to a hefty 60 percent, in the global markets.

Prior to Novartis’s Press Release, USFDA announced Zarxio’s approval in a separate ‘FDA News Release on March 6, 2015, indicating that it can be prescribed by a health care professional for:

  • patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
  • patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving induction or consolidation chemotherapy
  • patients with cancer undergoing bone marrow transplantation
  • patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell collection and therapy a
  • patients with severe chronic neutropenia.

Though such types of drugs are available in the important markets such as, Europe, Australia and India, the launch of Zarxio heralds the dawn of a new era of biosimilar drugs in the United States – the numero uno of the global pharma market.

Incidentally, USFDA’s approval of biosimilar drugs is an outcome of a relatively recent healthcare reform in the United States, when President Obama signed into law the ‘Affordable Care Act’ on March 23, 2010.

The key benefit:

In its above ‘Press Release’, Novartis captured well the key benefits of biosimilar drugs , as follows:

“While biologics have had a significant impact on how diseases are treated, their cost and co-pays are difficult for many patients and the healthcare budget in general.  Biosimilars can help to fill an unmet need by providing expanded options, greater affordability and increased patient access to life-saving therapies.”

Major growth drivers:

According to July 2015 report of ‘MarketsandMarkets (M&M)’ the global biosimilars market is expected to grow to US$6.22 Billion by 2020 from US$2.29 Billion in 2015, growing at a CAGR of 22.1 percent from 2015 to 2020.

The major growth drivers of the global biosimilars market are expected to be:

  • Growing pressure to curtail healthcare expenditure
  • Growing demand for biosimilar drugs due to their cost-effectiveness
  • Rising incidences of various life-threatening diseases
  • Increasing number of off-patented biologics
  • Positive outcome in the ongoing clinical trials
  • Rising demand for biosimilars in different therapeutic applications such as rheumatoid arthritis and blood disorders.

European Union (EU) had a head start of 5 to 7 years to put its regulatory pathway for biosimilar drug development and approval process. Thus, at present practically most the entire value sales of biosimilar drugs take place in the EU.

As, cheaper biosimilars would continue to hit the US market, insurance companies are expected to encourage the use of such drugs instead of highly expensive original ones.

According to Express Scripts report released in December 2014, the US healthcare system could clock savings in drug costs around US$250 billion in the first decade of availability of biosimilars drugs and the approval of Zarxio would help patients saving more than US$5 billion in the the world’s largest market for biologics.

By 2020, several blockbuster biological products with global sales of more than US $67 billion would go or are going off-patent, creating great opportunities for biosimilar drugs the world over. Some of these drugs are Avastin (Roche), Humira (AbbVie), Synagis (AstraZeneca), Aranesp (Amgen) and Enbrel (Amgen, Pfizer).

However, the crux of its success, to a great extent, would lie on physicians’ confidence to prescribe large molecule biosimilar drugs, as these are new and not exact replicas of the original biologic molecules, unlike the small molecule generic drugs.

Possible growth barriers:

The success requirements of large molecule biosimilar drugs would not mimic the same for small molecule generics, anywhere in the world.

In my view, there are two types of critical barriers to success with biosimilars, both tangible and intangible in nature.

The same M&M report lists the following factors as possible tangible barriers to fast growth of biosimilar drugs:

  • High manufacturing complexities and costs
  • Stringent regulatory requirements in countries
  • Innovative strategies by biologic drug manufacturers to restrict the entry of new players

I would very briefly touch upon each one of these, hereunder:

I. High manufacturing complexities and costs:

This is primarily because, the therapeutic characteristics of biosimilar drugs are significantly influenced by their manufacturing methods. For example, it is quite possible that based on the manufacturing system that is adopted, the same starter ingredients may give substantially different results.

II. Stringent regulatory requirements:

Among many other stringent regulatory requirements, I would highlight in this article just the following two:

A. The labeling:

It is noteworthy that USFDA has named Zarxio with the placeholder nonproprietary name “filgrastim-sndz” and not as ‘filgrastim’, the nonproprietary name for Amgen’s, Neupogen, for which Zarxio has been approved as a biosimilar.

To quickly recapitulate its background, in July 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO), which oversees the system of International Nonproprietary Names (INN), recommended that biosimilar drugs would receive the same nonproprietary name, but with a four-letter code at the end.

This is primarily because, innovator biologic drug companies and also some doctors’ groups argue that molecular structures of biosimilar drugs are similar, but not exact replicas of the original ones. Hence, there is a need to differentiate them, while assigning INN.

They reiterate that giving biosimilars the same INN as the original biologic molecule may cause confusion among both the doctors and the patients. It could also make the tracking of adverse reactions, as and when these will be reported, more challenging.

Consequently, it has now been accepted by the regulators that biosimilars would receive the same nonproprietary name but with a four-letter code at the end to differentiate such drugs from the original biologics.

B. Interchangeability:

The above labelling issue, in turn, creates a barrier to possible interchangeability or automatic substitution of expensive original biologics with much cheaper equivalent of biosimilar drugs. I reckon, this could pose a critical obstacle in the initial take-off of the later.

According to a July 4, 2015 article, titled “Fate of cost-saving biosimilar drugs may hinge on naming policy”, published in ‘Modern Healthcare’, the USFDA has the following two pathways for licensing of biosimilar drugs:

  • For being designated as “similar” in efficacy and safety to an original biologic.
  • For being approved as being “interchangeable,” which requires a much higher review standard and could take years and millions of dollars to obtain the needed clinical trial data.

According to this article, none of the biosimilar products currently under USFDA review are in the interchangeable pathway.

III.  Innovative strategies to restrict entry of new players:

All the above innovative strategic moves and arguments, where biologic drug manufacturers are allegedly involved, may seriously restrict not just the entry of newer biosimilars, but also their faster prescription throughput.

Safety concern (immunogenicity):

Additionally, a critical safety concern on biosimilar drugs is being raised by the manufacturers of original biologics. This concern involves immunogenicity, which means the way a biosimilar drug provokes an immune response in the body. Original biologic drug manufacturers contend, since biosimilar molecules are not exactly the same as originals and their long term safety, related to immunogenicity, has not been tested, these drugs cannot be construed as having the same safety profile as the innovators’ biologics.

Besides, ‘Free-Trade-Agreements (FTAs)’ are also likely to be cleverly used by the original biologic drug manufacturers through their respective Governments, to the extent possible, for safeguarding the beachhead from the marketing onslaught of biosimilar drugs.

A perception barrier too:

Here comes an important perception-based intangible barrier to desirable prescription growth for biosimilar drugs.

Probably gauging it, post Zarxio launch, none other than the CEO of Novartis – Joe Jimenez, reportedly said: “He’s not expecting too much of a splash before 2020.”

This is understandable, as the doctors’ favorable disposition towards biosimilar drugs would be a crucial factor for prescription growth of these medicines.

A recent doctor community survey from QuantiaMD primarily captures the doctors’ thoughts and feelings on biosimilar drugs. This study was done with 300 specialists and primary care physicians.

Some of the notable findings of the report are as follows:

  • While 78 percent of the doctors polled said they were familiar with the term “biosimilar,” only 38 percent could name a biosimilar that’s under consideration for USFDA approval and would be relevant to their patient population.
  • Only 33 percent could name a biosimilar at all.

Researchers then narrowed down the original 300 physicians polled into a group of 120 “prescribing specialists.” This group of 120 doctors are currently prescribing biologics and most likely to prescribe biosimilar drugs in the years ahead. The study reported:

  • Only 17 percent of that segment said they are “very likely” to prescribe biosimilars.
  • And 70 percent said they either aren’t sure or are “somewhat likely’” to prescribe a biosimilar.
  • Only 12 percent of prescribing specialists are “very confident” that biosimilars are as safe as the original biologic version of the drug.

That said, 12-year ‘Data Exclusivity’ period for biologics in the United States, is one additional barrier to early introduction of cheaper biosimilar drugs, as considered by many.

On this issue GPhA – the generic drug makers’ group in America reportedly issued a statement, criticizing a paper of Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), saying:

“Market exclusivity acts as an absolute shield to their weak patents. Thus, from a practical perspective, extending market exclusivity beyond the Hatch-Waxman period would block the introduction of generic competition for almost 20 years, derailing any potential cost savings by Americans.”

The challenges ahead:

Considering all these together, the challenges ahead for quick acceptance of biosimilar drugs are indeed mind-boggling. The situation necessitates enough innovative and painstaking work by all concerned to gain the doctors’ confidence on biosimilar medicines. It goes without saying that success in generation of enough prescriptions for these drugs is the fundamental requirement to benefit the patients, which, in turn, would lead to significant savings in health care cost, as estimated above.

As more innovator companies start joining the biosimilar bandwagon, the physicians’ perception on these medicines, hopefully, would change sooner.

The status in India:

Although it appears strange, but a fact nonetheless. Biosimilar drugs approved in India till August 2012, followed the requirements of the regulators as provided mostly in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for small molecule drugs, which are incidentally quite a different kettle of fish.

According to GaBI-online, the first locally produced biosimilar drug was approved and marketed in the year 2000. India announced implementation of its ‘Guidelines’ for ‘Similar Biologics’ much later, on September 15, 2012.

Indian ‘Guidelines’ for ‘Similar Biologics’ were jointly developed by the Department of Biotechnology (DoB) and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO). The ‘Guidelines’ outline requirements for pre-clinical evaluation of biological products, claiming ‘similar to already approved biologics’. Thus, Indian regulators will partly rely on data from the already approved products to ensure safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of these drugs.

A wide variety:

A wide variety of biosimilar drugs have been approved and marketed in India, since then.

According to International Journal of Applied Basic Medical Research (2014 Jul-Dec; 4.2: 63–66), biosimilars in India consist primarily of vaccine, monoclonal antibodies, recombinant proteins and diagnostics, insulin, erythropoietin, hepatitis B vaccine, granulocyte colony stimulating factor, streptokinase, interferon alpha-2B and epidermal growth factor receptor.

The above article states that there are about 100 biopharmaceutical companies actively involved in research and development, manufacturing and marketing of biosimilar therapeutic products in India. Only 14 therapeutic drugs (similar biologics) were available in 50 brands in 2005. This number had grown to 20 therapeutic drugs in 250 brands in 2011.

The status of similar biologics approved and marketed in India is elaborated in this Table 1.

Some of the key Indian players of biosimilar drugs are Dr. Reddy’s Laboratory (DRL), Lupin, Zydus Cadila, Serum Institute of India, Biocon, Reliance Life Sciences, Wockhardt, Zenotech Laboratories and Intas.

I wrote on a related subject in this blog dated December 15, 2014 titled, “A Great News! But…Would This ‘Golden Goose’ Lay Golden Eggs?”

Conclusion:

Opportunities for biosimilar drugs are expected to expand significantly all over the world, basically driven by the need for affordable biologics and healthcare cost containment pressure in many countries.

As I had articulated before, unlike small molecule generics, unlocking the true potential of large molecule biosimilar drugs in a sustainable way would demand innovative, clear, razor sharp and highly focused business strategies across the value chain.

For faster growth in prescriptions, biosimilars would call for a hybrid marketing model of small molecule (branded) generics and large molecule original biologics. Ability to craft impactful value proposition and ensuring its effective delivery for each stakeholder, smart and innovative use of interactive and participative digital tools both for doctors’ and patients’ engagement, of course sans complexities, would decide the ultimate commercial fate for each of these types of products.

To effectively reap rich harvest from the new space thus being created, the challenges are also too many. The concerns expressed on biosimilars may also be genuine, but the regulators should take care of those before granting marketing approval to benefit the patients, in a meaningful way.

Overall key drivers and barriers for success with biosimilar drugs would remain almost the same, both for global and local players. However, carving out and thereafter expanding share in this market, sizably, won’t be a piece of cake for any company, understandably.

Quite naturally, the innovator companies for biologics would go all out to retain their turf as much as possible, despite the entry of cheaper biosimilars. This is expected to continue by reinforcing the belief of the physicians and the patients that biosimilars are not quite the same as the original biologic molecules.

Effective proactive measures need to be initiated, soon, by the regulators and all other stakeholders to spread the right message, protecting the patients’ interest. Otherwise, apprehension of the doctors on biosimilars in general, regarding safety, efficacy, substitution and interchangeability may persist for some time to come, negatively impacting faster and desirable prescription growth of these drugs all over the world, including 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.