Tag Archives: pharmaceutical

Reverberations Around The Proposed New IPR Policy Of India

Posted on by
Reply

“If the Obama administration succeeds in forcing India to strengthen its patent laws, the change would harm not only India and other developing countries; it would also enshrine a grossly corrupt and inefficient patent system in the US, in which companies increase their profits by driving out the competition – both at home and abroad. After all, generic drugs from India often provide the lowest-cost option in the US market once patent terms have expired.”

The above sharp, piercing and precise comment did not come from any health activist from India or elsewhere. It came from a team of highly credible academic experts working in the United States.

On February 10, 2015, Nobel Laureate in Economics – Joseph E. Stiglitz, who is also University Professor at Columbia University, former Chairman of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers and Chief Economist of the World Bank, made this comment in an article published in ‘The World Opinion Page’ of ‘Project Syndicate’.

The article is co-authored by Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC and Arjun Jayadev, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.

The authors arrived at the above conclusion based on some sound arguments. I am highlighting below some of those important ones (may not be in the same order):

  • A patent that raises the price of a drug a hundred-fold has the same effect on the market as a 10,000 percent tariff.
  • India’s Patents and Act and policies allow drugs to be sold at a small fraction of the monopoly prices commanded by patent holders. For example, the Hepatitis-C drug Sovaldi is sold for US$84,000 per treatment in the US; Indian manufacturers are able to sell the generic version profitably for less than US$1,000 per treatment.
  • The threat of competition from Indian generics is partly responsible for major pharmaceutical companies’ decision to make some of their drugs available to the world’s poor at low prices. If the US compels India to tighten its patent rules substantially, so that they resemble US rules more closely, this outcome could be jeopardized.
  • Multilateral approach, using the World Trade Organization (WTO), has proved less effective than the major multinational pharmaceutical companies hoped, so now they are attempting to achieve this goal through bilateral and regional agreements.
  • In the view of America’s pharmaceutical industry, TRIPS did not go far enough. The Indian government’s desire to enhance its trade relations with the US thus provides the industry an ideal opportunity to pick up where TRIPS left off, by compelling India to make patents easier to obtain and to reduce the availability of low-cost generics.
  • In September 2014, during his visit to the US, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to establish a working group to reevaluate the country’s patent policy. The US participants in that group will be led by the Office of the US Trade Representative, which serves the pharmaceutical companies’ interests, rather than, say, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, or the National Institutes of Health.

Any comparable voice in favor of changes in Indian Patents Act?

I don’t seem to have heard or read as strong arguments from as credible sources as Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz, Dean Baker and Arjun Jayadev – the authors of the above article, in favor of the changes that American pharma companies want in the Indian Patents Act.

India at the center stage in IPR debate:

In the IPR debate, India is continuously being seen at the center stage for various reasons. The key one being the size, scale and economic efficiency that the home grown Indian pharma players have attained to cater to the needs of a large number of global population, including those residing in the United States and Europe, with a wide range of high quality generic drugs at affordable prices.

Fast evolving scenario:

It is now absolutely clear that being rattled by several refusals of India’s granting product patent to very similar molecules with minor tweaking under section (3d) of the country’s Patents Act, together with the nation’s uprightness in issuing Compulsory License (CL) for an enormously expensive cancer drug reducing its price by over 95 percent, United States now intends to directly intervene into India’s IPR policy environment.

As Nobel Laureate Stiglitz wrote, keen desire of the new dispensation of the Indian government to enhance its trade relations with the US has provided a golden opportunity to American pharma companies and their paid lobbyists to jump into the fray. They have started exerting enormous pressure on their own Government to compel India, at bilateral discussions, dilute its well-balanced Patents Act, ignoring India’s sovereign right to play by the flexibilities as provided by the WTO to protect public health interest in the country.

Both the domestic and international civil society organizations, including public health activists have expressed their serious concerns on this aggressive intent of US and India’s seemingly vulnerable position in this regard.

“The US is pushing India to play by its rules on Intellectual Property, which we know will lead to medicines being priced out of reach for millions of people,” commented the Executive Director of MSF’s Access Campaign, according to media reports.

Non-pharma American Organizations reacted differently:

14 American organizations in a letter to their President Barack Obama dated January 20, 2015, just prior to his visit to India, asked him “to support India’s central role in providing high-quality, low-cost generic medicines -which are essential for health care around the world. Recent U.S. policy stances have sought to topple parts of India’s intellectual property regime that protect public health in order to advance the interests of multinational pharmaceutical corporations in longer, stronger, and broader exclusive patent and related monopoly rights. India’s laws fully comply with the WTO TRIPS Agreement. Millions around the world depend on affordable generic medicines that would disappear if India acceded to these proposals, including many beneficiaries of US-funded programs. Instead of using your trip to promote the narrow interests of one segment of the pharmaceutical industry, we ask you to support the interests of people who need affordable medicines, whether they live in the U.S., in India, in Africa or elsewhere. Our world is safer and healthier because of India’s pro-health stance and we ask you to say so publicly while you are there.”

The letter re-emphasized at the end:

“From Detroit to New Delhi, health is increasingly interconnected. Our world is safer when it is healthier, and it is healthier because India’s laws appropriately balance health and IP.” 

An interesting development:

It is interesting to note that after Winter Session of the Indian Parliament, the Modi Government announced a number of important policy changes at the end of December 2014.

Interestingly, one more critical policy – National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy has been left open for public comments and the final IPR Policy is yet to be announced despite enormous American pressure on India in this regard.

Without any specifics, the first draft of the National IPR policy just states that India will “review and update IP laws, where necessary, and remove anomalies and inconsistencies, if any.”  It does emphasize though, the need of “more innovation” in the country, unequivocally and quite justifiably.

I wrote on the draft National IPR Policy in my blog post of January 19, 2015, titled “New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”.

Conclusion:

It is generally believed that the National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy is undoubtedly a positive step to clarify the Government’s stand in maintaining a balanced IP regime in the country that would encourage innovation to add speed to the progress of the nation.

In just 10 years Indian IPR regime has, by and large, attracted enormous global attention mostly for balancing IP and public health interest, admirably. Experts like Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz sincerely hope that India will not change this course under pressure of any kind or form.

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

In my subsequent articles in this blog, I shall deliberate on these two contentious issues, keeping the evolving scenario in perspective.

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.

What President Obama And Prime Minister Modi Discussed On IPR And Healthcare In India

Posted on by
Reply

During the recent visit of the US President Barack Obama to India from January 25-27, 2015, both the domestic and international media was abuzz with the speculation, whether or not India would concede some ground to America on the prevailing, generally considered, well balanced patent regime in India.

Many expected that the American delegation would succeed in getting some specific assurances from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to follow the line of the US style Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in India, which would help the American pharma companies to maximize their financial returns in the country.

The assurances from India were expected mainly in areas involving grant of patents even to those pharma products, that do not quality for the same under section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005, dilution of provisions for Compulsory License (CL) and creation of a new provision for Data Exclusivity in the country, besides a few others.

As everyone noticed, just before the US President’s visit, interested groups both in India and also from abroad intensified lobbying and released op-eds to create pressure on the Indian negotiators, in general, and the Prime Minister Modi in particular.

Terming the Indian Patents Act weak, the lobby groups turned the Indian IPR regime on its head. Playing the role of India’s benefactor, they re-packaged their shrill collective voice into pontificating words while giving interviews to the Indian media by saying: “A strong IPR regime could allow the country (India) to make a major contribution to tackling health challenges, both domestically and around the world.”

Additional US interest in Indian IP regime from TPP perspective:

Exemplary demonstration of India’s resistance to intense external pressure, time and again, for dilution of the IP regime in the country, seems to have become a model to follow for the emerging economies of the world, in general. This trend now gets reflected even among some of the members of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is a proposed regional regulatory and investment treaty.

According to reports, TPP members, such as, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam are negotiating hard to get incorporated somewhat similar to Indian IP rules in the TPP agreement. Besides America, other members of the TPP are Australia, Japan and New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Mexico and Peru.

TPP negotiations are generally expected to follow the overall framework of American laws. However, according to media reports, based on the leaked draft of the TPP, the data exclusivity period for biologic medicines has already been negotiated down to 7 years, from 12 years under the US Affordable Care Act.

However, on January 27, 2015, US Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee reportedly said that he would oppose Senate approval of the TPP, if it does not provide 12 years of patent protection for biologics.

The same day, at a hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, US Trade Representative Mike Froman reportedly reiterated, “The US is insisting on 12 years of IP protections, even though the Obama administration’s budget calls for 7-year exclusivity on biologic meds.”

It is also worth noting that Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz in an op-ed titled, “Don’t Trade Away Our Health”, published in The New York Times of January 30, 2015 commented as follows:

“TPP could block cheaper generic drugs from the market. Big Pharma’s profits would rise, at the expense of the health of patients and the budgets of consumers and governments.”

Clicking on this short video clip you will be able watch another similar viewpoint on TPP, its general perspective and what it encompasses.

Thus, the closely guarded ‘turf war’ on TPP is now heating up, making negotiations increasingly tougher to arrive at a consensus on the IP rules that would be applicable to pharmaceutical products in this trade initiative. Consequently, the evolving scenario has prompted the interested groups to keenly follow, with hopes, the outcome of Presidents Obama’s recent visit to India, especially in the pharma IP areas. This is because, many emerging economies of the world are now appreciative of the prevailing well-balanced patent regime in India.

After the 12-nation TPP agreement comes into force, probably following the lines of the US IP laws, it is quite possible that India may sometime in future would prefer to be a part of this agreement for greater trade facilitation, as the country comes closer to America…Who knows?

However, in that case the bottomline is, India would have to amend relevant provisions of its Patents Act in conformance with the requirements of mainly the US pharmaceutical companies and the IP laws prevailing in America, as this will be necessary to become a new member of this treaty.

Discussion in the summit meeting:

According to the Joint Statement on the summit meeting released by the White House, President Obama and Prime Minister Modi discussed the following subjects related to IPR and Healthcare in India, as detailed below:

  • Reaffirmed the importance of providing transparent and predictable policy environments for fostering innovation.  Both countries reiterated their interest in sharing information and best practices on IPR issues, and reaffirmed their commitment to stakeholders’ consultations on policy matters concerning intellectual property protection.
  • Reaffirmed their commitment to the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) and announced specific actions at home and abroad to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, including a CDC-Ministry of Health Ebola and GHSA preparedness training, expansion of the India Epidemic Intelligence Service, and development of a roadmap to achieve the objectives of the GHSA within three years.
  • Committed to multi-sectoral actions countering the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and cooperation in training of health workers in preparedness for infectious disease threats. The Leaders agreed to focus science and technology partnerships on countering antibiotic resistant bacteria and promoting the availability, efficacy and quality of therapeutics.
  • Welcomed further progress in promoting bilateral cooperation on cancer research, prevention, control, and management and agreed to continue to strengthen the engagement between the CDC and India’s National Centre for Disease Control.
  • Welcomed the upcoming completion of an Environmental Health, Occupational Health and Injury Prevention and Control MoU between the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Indian Council for Medical Research to further collaborative efforts to improve the health and welfare of both countries’ citizens.
  • Agreed to expand the India-U.S. Health Initiative into a Healthcare Dialogue with relevant stakeholders to further strengthen bilateral collaboration in health sectors including through capacity building initiatives and by exploring new areas, including affordable healthcare, cost saving mechanisms, distribution barriers, patent quality, health services information technology, and complementary and traditional medicine.
  • Pledged to encourage dialogue between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its Indian counterparts on traditional medicine.
  • Pledged to strengthen collaboration, dialogue, and cooperation between the regulatory authorities of the two countries to ensure safety, efficacy, and quality of pharmaceuticals, including generic medicines.
  • Agreed to accelerate joint leadership of the global Call to Action to end preventable deaths among mothers and children through a third meeting of the 24 participating countries in India in June 2015.  As host, India will showcase the power of new partnerships, innovations and systems to more effectively deliver life-saving interventions.
  • Also lauded the highly successful collaboration on a locally produced vaccine against rotavirus, which will save the lives of an estimated 80,000 children each year in India alone, and pledged to strengthen the cooperation in health research and capacity building through a new phase of the India-U.S. Vaccine Action Program.

As stated earlier, during this summit meeting, US lobbyists were reportedly nurturing a hope that Prime Minister Modi would eventually agree, at least in principle, to jettison section 3(d) on the patentability criteria enshrined in the Indian Patents Act 2005 and significantly water down the country’s Compulsory License (CL) provisions. This expectation increased, when the US President made the investment promise of U$4 billion in India.

That said, from the above points of discussion in the joint statement, it appears that no breakthrough on the part of the US was achieved especially in the IPR space, during the summit.

However, in other areas of bilateral healthcare co-operation, such as, science and technology partnerships in countering antibiotic resistant bacteria; cancer research and traditional medicines; the reaffirmations made by the two leaders are encouraging.

US pressure on IP to continue:

Going by India’s reaffirmation during the summit meeting of its commitment to consultations with America on policy matters related to IPR protection and US Trade Representative Mike Froman’s reported affirmation of the following to the US lawmakers during a Congressional hearing held on January 27, 2015, it is construed by the IP activists that the kettle has possibly started boiling:

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

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

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

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

Media reports also indicate that US pressure on IPR would continue, as they highlight:

“Threatened by free trade of high-quality and affordable medicines, US-based pharmaceutical companies and politicians friendly with the industry are using prominently placed op-eds, large advertisements on Washington, D.C. buses, and letters to President Obama to spread false information -claiming India’s rules are not legal or discourage innovation. The companies have been threatening to withhold investment if India does not adopt weaker patent laws that would extend pharmaceutical monopolies and stymie the country’s generic industry.”

I discussed some of these issues in my blog post of January 19, 2015, titled “New National IPR Policy of India – A Pharma Perspective”.

Conclusion:

Irrespective of whatever the US-India Joint Statement says on IPR, some experts do apprehend that Indian Government may now wilt under continuous intense pressure from the American Government. This is mainly because, India’s Commerce and Industry’s Minister has reportedly sought America’s inputs in the finalization process of the new National IPR policy of the country.

On this score, let me hasten to add that it may not be prudent to read too much into it, as seeking stakeholders’ comments on such matter is a practice that India has been following since long on various issues and policies.

However, at the same time, other groups of experts nurture a quite different viewpoint. They are confident that the nationalist Modi Government, under no circumstances would concede its long nurtured strategic ground on IPR to the US power play.

Emerging countries across the globe are keenly watching this intense game of  ‘Power Chess’, as they plan to emulate India in many of the pharmaceutical IP areas to uphold the public health interest, providing affordable healthcare to all.

These are still early days. Thus, in my view, on January 25, 2015, what President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi discussed on the IPR regime in India may not be as important as what they would eventually decide to agree, disagree or agree to disagree in this area, moving on from here.

Only time would prove…not just who is right, that is pretty obvious to many, but who wilts at the end of the day…and more importantly, why?

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.

With Highest Billionaire Wealth Concentration, India Tops Malnutrition Chart in South Asia: “What Future Do You Want?”

Posted on by
Reply

Two recent global research reports, though on different spheres, place India at the top of the respective blocks. However, the take away messages that the studies offer are indeed poles apart in qualitative terms and worth pondering over collectively.

On January 20, 2014, just before the World Economic Forum (WEF) at Davos in Switzerland, Oxfam International released a report warning that by 2016, the world’s wealthiest 1 percent will control almost half of the global assets. Since 2009, the world’s billionaires have seen their share of the asset pie grow from 44 percent to 48 percent.

Before that, a World Bank Report of October 2014 titled, “Addressing Inequality in South Asia”, highlighted that India has the highest billionaire wealth concentration in South Asia.

Billionaire wealth to gross domestic product ratio in India was 12 percent in 2012. This was was higher than other economies with similar development level, namely, Vietnam with its ratio at less than two percent, and China with less than five percent.

This report also clarifies that inequality in South Asia appears to be moderate when looking at standard indicators such as the Gini index, which are based on consumption expenditures per capita. But other pieces of evidence reveal enormous gaps, from extravagant wealth at one end to lack of access to the most basic services at the other.

Stark realities: 

Wealth creation by no means is bad and in fact, is essential for economic growth of any nation, if read in isolation. This is mainly because, as the Oxfam report says, some economic inequality is essential to drive growth and progress, rewarding those with talent, hard earned skills, and the ambition to innovate and take entrepreneurial risks.

Unfortunately, at the same time, as the same World Bank report highlights, the stunted growth of children under fiver years of age, due to malnutrition, has been 60 percent of the total number of children born in the poorest households of India, as compared to 50 per cent in Bangladesh and Nepal.

Moreover, According to UNICEF, every year 1 million children again below the age of five years die due to malnutrition related causes in India. This number is worrisome as it is far higher than the emergency threshold, according to W.H.O classification of the severity of malnutrition.

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

Some poor moved above the poverty line, though grossly inadequate:

According to the same report, from 2004-05 to 2009-10 when India’s GDP registered the highest ever average growth, about 40 percent of poor households moved above the poverty line and around 11 percent of poor population even moved into the middle class. Unfortunately, during the same period around 14 percent of the non-poor population also slipped below the poverty line.

Thus, what needs to be addressed soonest is the issue of vast difference in income between the richest and the poorest leading to an equally huge difference in the access to basic human developmental needs such as, education, healthcare and nutrition.

Adverse impact on expected ‘demographic dividend’ of India:

As legendary Bill Gates said in a recent media interview, “India has got far more kids that are malnourished and whose brains are not developed, way more than any other country. That’s really the crisis.”

If this trend of inequality continues, the ‘demographic dividend’ of India that the country has factored in so intimately in its future GDP growth narrative, could well be no more than a myth.

As US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once famously said, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both.”

The Oxfam report also emphasizes, the extreme levels of wealth concentration occurring today threaten to exclude hundreds of millions of people from realizing the benefits of their talents and hard work.

Social inequality and healthcare challenges:

Health of an individual is as much an integral contituent of the socio-economic factors as it is influenced by a person’s life style and genomic configurations. Important research studies indicate that socio-economic disparities, including the educational status, lead to huge disparity in the space of healthcare.

As stated in another report, ‘About 38 million people in India (which is more than Canada’s population) fall below the poverty line every year due to healthcare expenses, of which 70 percent is on purchase of drugs’.

Thus, reduction of social inequalities ultimately helps to effectively resolve many important healthcare issues. Otherwise, mostly the minority population with adequate access to knowledge, social and monetary power will continue to have necessary resources available to address their healthcare needs, appropriately.

Regular flow of newer and path breaking medicines to cure and effectively treat many diseases has not been able to eliminate either trivial or dreaded diseases alike. Otherwise, despite having effective curative therapy for malaria, typhoid, cholera, diarrhea/dysentery and venereal diseases, why will people still suffer from such illnesses? Similarly, despite having adequate preventive therapy, like vaccines for diphtheria, tuberculosis, hepatitis and measles, our children still suffer from such diseases. All these continue to happen mainly because of socio-economic inequalities related considerations, including poor level of awareness.

A paper titled, “Healthcare and equity in India”, published in The Lancet (February, 2011) identifies key challenges to equity in service delivery, healthcare financing and financial risk protection in India.

These include: 

- Imbalanced resource allocation

- Limited physical access to quality health services and inadequate human resources for health

- High out-of-pocket health expenditures

- High health spending inflation

- Behavioral factors that affect the demand for appropriate healthcare

Research studies vindicate the point:

Following are some research studies, which I am using just as examples to vindicate the above argument on inequality adversely impacting healthcare:

• HIV/AIDs initially struck people across the socio-economic divide. However, people from higher socio-economic strata responded more positively to the disease awareness campaign and at the same time more effective and expensive drugs started becoming available to treat the disease, which everybody cannot afford. As a result, HIV/AIDS are now more prevalent within the lower socio-economic strata of the society.

• Not very long ago, people across the socio-economic strata used to consume tobacco in many form. However, when tobacco smoking and chewing were medically established as causative factors for lung and oral cancers, those coming predominantly from higher/middle echelon of the society started giving up smoking and chewing of tobacco, as they accepted the medical rationale with their power of knowledge. Unfortunately the same has not happened with the poor people of lower socio-economic status. As a consequence of which, ‘Bidi’ smoking and ‘Gutka’/tobacco chewing have not come down significantly among the population belonging to such class, with more number of them falling victim of lung and oral cancers.

Thus, in future, to meet the unmet needs when more and more sophisticated and high cost disease treatment options will be available, mostly people with higher socio-economic background will be benefitted more due to their education, knowledge, social and monetary power. This widening socio-economic inequality will consequently widen the disparity in the healthcare scenario of the country.

Phelan and Link in their research study on this subject had articulated as under:

“Breakthroughs in medical science can do a lot to improve public health, but history has shown that, more often than not, information about and access to important new interventions are enjoyed primarily by people at the upper end of the socioeconomic ladder. As a result, the wealthy and powerful get healthier, and the gap widens between them and people who are poor and less powerful.”

Recent deliberations at Davos:

In the last two decades, socio-economic inequality in India has been fuelled by rapid, but unequal economic growth of the nation. Though the overall standard of living has been rising, there still remain a large number of populations living in pockets of intense deprivation and abject poverty.

One of the Davos sessions of this year deliberated on “What Future Do You Want?” The session, among others, reportedly felt the important need to ensure people’s well being and put in place effective measures such as a social safety net and universal healthcare.

At the same WEF annual meet at Davos, United Nation’s Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also reiterated, “All policies must be people centric. We should make a world where nobody is left behind.”

Conclusion:

Assuming the above approach as a sincere realization of the current policy makers and more importantly the powerful influencers of those policies, the key question that comes up is: In which direction would India now chart its course to address this critical issue?

One may possibly hazard a guess on the shape of the future policies to come in India from the BJP party President Amit Shah’s recent address to crème de la crème of Mumbai businessmen in a function organized by a business news channel. In this event Mr. Shah reportedly said to them that the BJP does not agree with their definition of “reforms” and will strive to build a welfare state.

Will this approach of the new political dispensation get reflected in the forthcoming union budget as well, to effectively translate the new National Health Policy of India into reality, at least this time?

I deliberated on the National Health Policy of India in my Blog Post of January 12, 2015, titled “India’s National Health Policy 2015 Needs Wings To Fly”

That said, if it really so happens, a strong signal would go to all stakeholders that India is now well poised to chart on an uncharted frontier to significantly reduce the impact of inequality, particularly in the space of healthcare.

In that process, despite the highest billionaire wealth concentration, India would set a pragmatic course to place itself at the top of the healthcare chart, not just in South Asia, but probably also within the BRIC countries, to expect the least.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

A quick glance at the Draft IPR Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here below are examples of some of those events:

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

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

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

  • On April 30, 2014, the United States in its report on annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement, named ‘Special 301 report’, classified India as a ‘Priority Watch List Country’. Placement of a trading partner on the ‘Priority Watch List’ or ‘Watch List’ indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on IP.
  • It further stated that USTR would conduct an Out of Cycle Review (OCR) of India focusing in particular on assessing progress made in establishing and building effective, meaningful, and constructive engagement with the Government of India on IPR issues of concern. An OCR is a tool that USTR uses on adverse IPR issues and for heightened engagement with a trading partner to address and remedy in those areas.
  • “India misuses its own IP system to boost its domestic industries,” commented the US Senator Orrin Hatch while introducing the 2014 report of the Global Intellectual Property Centre (GIPC) of US Chamber of Commerce on ‘International Intellectual Property (IP) Index’. In this report, India featured at the bottom of a list of 25 countries, scoring only 6.95 out of 30. The main reasons for the low score in the report were cited as follows:

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

-       Non-availability of regulatory data protection

-       Non-availability of patent term restoration

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

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

  • In the midst of all these, international media reported:

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

  • Washington based powerful pharmaceutical industry lobby group – PhRMA, which seemingly dominates all MNC pharma trade associations globally, has reportedly urged the US government to continue to keep its pressure on India in this matter. According to industry sources, PhRMA has a strong indirect presence and influence in India too. Interestingly, as reported in the media a senior representative of this lobby group would be India when President Obama visits the country later this month.
  • In view of all these concerns, during Prime Minister Narendra Modis’s visit to the United States in September 2014, a high-level Indo-US working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries.
  • Almost immediately after the Prime Minister’s return to India, in October 2014, the Government formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’ to draft ‘National IPR Policy’ and suggest ways and legal means to handle undue pressure exerted by other countries in IPR related areas. The notification mandated the ‘Think Tank’ to examine the current issues raised by the industry associations, including those that have appeared in the media and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce and Industry as appropriate.
  • However, the domestic pharma industry of India, many international and national experts together with the local stakeholders continue to strongly argue against any fundamental changes in the prevailing patent regime of India.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft IPR Policy: Does dwell on these issues.

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

Conclusion: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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.

 

Pharma Outlook 2015: A Glimpse Of Some Drivers and Barriers

Posted on by
Reply

Looking ahead, the brand new year 2015 appears quite interesting to me both from the global and also from the local pharmaceutical industry perspective. In this article I shall try to give a glimpse of some of the important drivers and barriers for success of the industry as the year unfolds, based on recent and ongoing developments.

Let me start with the global outlook of 2015, where in the midst of all gloom and doom of the past years, I notice formation of a distinct and new silver lining, mainly due to the following two reasons:

1. Record number of new drugs approval in 2014 spanning across10 therapy areas:

As indicated in its website, USFDA has approved 41 novel medicines in 2014, which is 14 more than the previous year and is the second highest after 1996 that witnessed 53 approvals. Many of these new drugs are with blockbuster potential.

According to another report, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has also recommended 82 new medicines in 2014, which though includes generic drugs in its list. However, this number too shows an increase from 79 in 2013 and 57 in 2012.

According to January 02, 2014 report from Forbes, very interestingly, infectious diseases dominated with 12 approvals (27 percent), cancer with 8 approvals (18 percent), followed by rare diseases with 5 (11 percent). Just two of these new approvals are for Hepatitis treatment and the rest are for bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic infections.

AstraZeneca received the highest number of 4 approvals followed by Eli Lilly with 3.

2. Patent expired blockbuster drugs in 2015 would have low generic impact:

Though drugs worth sales turnover of US$ 44 billion would go off patent in 2015, patent expiries will have minimal impact on the top line as 2015 sales will grow close to four times that of patent losses. Following are the top 10 drugs among those:

No. Brand Company Disease Sales2013 (US$ Bn) Patent Expiry
1. Lantus Sanofi Diabetes 7.9 Feb 2015
2. Abilify Otsuka/Bristol-Myers Squibb Schizophrenia/ Other neurological conditions 7.8 April 2015
3. Copaxone Teva Multiple sclerosis 4.33 Sept 2015
4. Neulasta Amgen Infection reduction in cancer patients on chemotherapy 4.4 Oct 2015
5. Tracleer Actelion Pulmonary arterial hypertension 1.57 Nov 2015
6. Namenda Actavis Alzheimer’s disease 1.5 April 2015
7. Avodart/Jalyn GSK Benign prostatic hypertrophy 1.34 Nov 2015
8. Zyvox Pfizer Gram-positive bacterial infections 1.35 May 2015
9. AndroGel Abbvie Low testosterone  1.03 Early 2015
10. Synagis AstraZeneca Monoclonal antibody to prevent respiratory syncytial virus infection in infants  1.1 Oct 2015

(Compiled from FiercePharma data)

As a significant number of these drugs are biologics, such as Lantus, Abilify, Neulasta and Synagis, the generic impact on those large brands, post patent expiry, would be minimal, at least, for several more years.

However, Lantus sales could soon be impacted, as its biosimilar versions from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly have already received approval in Europe, and may be launched in the United States, as well.

Biosimilar versions of other drugs that will go off patent in 2015, do not seem to be anywhere near launch soon to make immediate dent in the sales of the original biologics. I had deliberated on various possible reasons for delay in biosimilar entry, especially in the US, in my earlier blog post of August 25, 2014, titled “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”

Taking all these into consideration, EvaluatePharma has estimated that out of patent expiry related sales turnover of US$44 billion, just around US $16 billion would get impacted in 2015 by their generic equivalents.

Global market outlook 2015:

According to IMS Health, spending on medicines will reach nearly $1,100 billion in 2015 with a growth rate of 3-6 percent over the last five-year period.

According to EvaluatePharma, the overall outlook of the global pharma industry in 2015 and beyond is expected to be as follows:

  • A dozen products launched in 2015 are forecast to achieve blockbuster sales by 2020
  • Drugs treating high cholesterol and heart failure will dominate the field with a combined 2020 sales forecast of US$8 billion
  • Sovaldi and its combination product Harvoni will take the number one worldwide seller spot with forecasted sales of $15.3 billion in 2015
  • Patent expiries will have minimal impact on the top line as 2015 sales will grow close to four times that of patent losses
  • Financing climate appears friendly and deals will continue at a steady pace but M&A activity unlikely to match the frenzy of 2014

Moreover, Oncology therapy area brings a huge promise with novel immuno-oncology drugs. As Reuters have reported, Merck & Co’s Keytruda and Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Opdivo, which work by blocking a protein called Programmed Death receptor (PD-1), are the first in a coming wave of immuno-therapies that analysts believe could generate annual sales of more than US$30 billion a year.

Indian pharma industry outlook 2015:

Indian pharmaceutical industry, dominated by branded generic drugs, is estimated to register a turnover of around US$ 33.8 billion with an average growth of 10.3 percent in 2014 – 2018 period, according to Deloitte. Increasing number of diagnosis and treatment of chronic ailments, fuelled by ascending trend in the per capita income, would be the key factors to drive this double-digit growth rate.

In 2013-14, pharma exports of the country with a turnover of US$ 14.84 billion grew at a meager 1.2 percent, which is the slowest growth in nearly the last 15 years. Pharmexcil attributed its reason to USFDA related regulatory issues and increasing global competition. India still stands exposed in this area, unless meaningful corrective measures are taken forthwith. It is worth noting, although India exports drugs to over 200 countries in the world, the United States (US) alone accounts for about 25 percent of India’s pharma exports.

Key issues and challenges in ‘The Exports Front’:

Generic drugs currently contribute over 80 percent of prescriptions written in the US. Around 40 percent of prescriptions and Over The Counter (OTC) drugs that are sold there, come from India and account for around 10 per cent of finished dosages in the US.

Almost all of these are cheaper generic versions of patent expired drugs, which are mainly produced in around 200 USFDA approved drug-manufacturing facilities located in India. Hence, India’s commercial stake in this space is indeed mind-boggling.

Indian drug exports were taking place satisfactorily without any major regulatory hitches since quite some time. Unfortunately, over the last few years, mostly the Federal Drug Administration of the US (USFDA) and the United Kingdom (UK)’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have started raising serious doubts on the quality of medicines manufactured in India, creating an uncertainty on drug exports in those countries.

To overcome this critical issue and keep marching ahead with distinction in the drug exports front, Indian pharma would require to successfully dealing with the following two areas:

A. Data integrity:

Since quite a while, USFDA has been raising serious concerns on ‘Data Integrity’ in their previously approved production facilities of a large number of Indian pharma players. The details of each of these concerns are available in the USFDA website.

This worrying development is now posing a huge threat to future growth potential of Indian drug exports, as in this area the Indian government had set an objective, in its strategy document, to register a turnover of US$ 25 billion in 2014-15. In all probability, it would fall far short of this target at the end of this fiscal, predominantly for related reasons. However, the good news is, considering the criticality of the situation, the Indian government is now working with the USFDA to resolve this problem.

I discussed a part of this area in my Blog Post of September 29, 2014 titled “Make in India…Sell Any Where in The World”: An Indian Pharma Perspective

B. Credibility of Clinical Trial Data from India:

Credibility of ‘Clinical Trial Data’ generated by the domestic players in India, has also become a cause of great concern, as the regulators in France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg suspended marketing approval for 25 drugs over the genuineness of clinical trial data from India’s GVK Biosciences.

Key issues and challenges in ‘The Domestic Front’:

Though 2015 would also witness the following important issues and challenges, meeting with this challenge of change should not be difficult with a proper mindset and right strategies:

A. The Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013):

Change in the mechanism of drug price control from earlier ‘cost based’ to newer ‘market based’ one and the specified provisions to neutralize inflationary impact of the input costs on the bottom line, based on the WPI, have already been considered as welcoming changes for the industry. As a result, despite implementation of the DPCO 2013, the pharma shares continued to do well in 2014 despite doomsayers’ predicaments, not just in the past, but even today.

I believe, the DPCO 2013 would not cause any significant negative impact further in 2015 on the performance of pharma companies, as the price controlled drugs would in all probability continue to be around 20 percent of the total pharma market. Moreover, now annual price increases are linked to the WPI for the controlled products and the companies can increase prices of remaining 80 percent of decontrolled products, upto 10 percent every year, irrespective of inflationary trend.

That said, due to huge inter-brand price differences, in July 2014 the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) had brought under price control 50 more cardiovascular and anti-diabetic drugs in addition to 348 drugs that featured under price control in the DPCO 2013.

If the pharma players do not take note of such abnormal inter-brand price variation of the same drugs without meaningful reasons, there could possibly be further move by the NPPA in this direction.

Additionally, any mechanism for patented products’ pricing, if announced in 2015, would have far-reaching impact, especially on the MNCs marketing such drugs.

B. Unethical practices in Clinical trial:

In the Clinical Trial arena of India, responding to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court of the country and separately the Parliamentary Standing Committee had indicted the drug regulator and charted out some action areas. The Parliamentary Committee in its report had even mentioned about a nexus existing between the drug regulator and the industry in this area.

Driven by the directives of the Apex Court of the country, the union ministry of health of the government of India has already strengthened some areas of past laxity in drug regulatory control, such as mandatory registration of clinical trials, constitution of committees to oversee the trial approval, its execution and above all ethical treatment of patients, including compensation.

Although, these are all requisite measures to create an appropriate longer-term eco-system for clinical trials in India, it has reportedly ruffled many feathers, such as CROs in the country who work mainly for pharma MNCs and some global pharma players too. This is mainly because of inordinate delays in drug approvals during the regulatory rectification process, besides cost of clinical trials going up. An orderly drug regulatory environment must prevail, instead of allegedly ‘free for all’ clinical trial environment in the country, costing many innocent lives and livelihoods.  Responding to this changing clinical trial environment, some MNCs have already articulated that they are reconsidering their drug trial strategy in India and some Indian players, possibly with vested interests and echoing similar sentiments, are also saying that they would shift their clinical trial projects out of India, which would adversely impact the country’s clinical trial industry.

Be that as it may, it appears now that under the directive of the Supreme Court of the country, the decisions taken by the government in clinical trial area are irreversible, for the long-term interest of the country.

C. Intellectual Property (IP) issues:

Reacting to some well-justified measures taken by India in the IP area to make healthcare affordable to all, the US and its some key allies, continuously pressured by their powerful pharma lobby groups, continue to push India hard to broaden the IP protections. ‘Big Pharma’ lobbyists are reportedly trying to compel India to amend its IP laws that would suit their business interest at the cost of patients.

Fortunately, many stakeholders, including media, have started raising their voices against such strong-arm tactics, further fueling the credibility erosion of ‘Big Pharma’ and creating important pressure groups for the government.

Simultaneously, concerned pharma MNCs are also seeking legal recourse over issues mainly related to the section (3d) and Compulsory Licensing of the Indian Patents Act. However, most of the judicial verdicts vindicate the quality of decisions taken by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in these areas.

Though very unlikely, any amendment or tweaking of the existing patent laws of India in 2015 would provide an unfair advantage to MNCs with negative impact on public health interest.

D. Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices:

Compared to the actions that are now being taken by the law enforcers overseas against pharmaceutical marketing malpractices, India has been showing a rather lackadaisical attitude in these areas, until recently. It astonishes many that unlike even China; no pharmaceutical company has been investigated thoroughly and hauled up by the government for alleged bribery and other serious allegations of corrupt practices.

However, frequent reporting by the Indian media had triggered a debate in the country on the subject. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on this subject is now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing in the near future. It is worth noting that in 2010, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ also had expressed its deep concern by stating that the “evil practice” of inducement of doctors by the pharma companies is continuing unabated as the revised guidelines of the Medical Council of India (MCI) have no jurisdiction over the pharma industry.

The Government, until recently, has shown no active interest in this area either, though the new Union Health Minister, J.P. Nadda decried the unethical nexus between the doctors and pharma companies, amounting violations of medical ethics in the country. He reportedly has stated that in majority of the cases, the pharma companies are luring the doctors by giving gifts and other benefits for prescribing the brand of medicines of their choice to the patients.

As the saying goes, ‘better late than never’, on December 12, 2014, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India announced details of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, which would be effective across the country from January 1, 2015 for all pharma players to implement, across India.

However, I reckon, the document in its current form is rather weak in its effective implementation potential. Meaningful and transparent deterrent measures to uphold public health interest are also lacking. The entire process also deserves a well-structured monitoring mechanism and digital implementation tools that can be operated with military precision. I discussed this issue in my Blog Post of December 29, 2014, titled “India’s Pharma Marketing Code (UCPMP): Is It Crafted Well Enough To Deliver The Deliverables?”

On UCPMP a survey done by E&Y has highlighted the following points, besides other areas:

  • More than 50 percent of the respondents are of the opinion that the UCPMP may lead to manipulation in recording of actual sampling activity.
  • Over 50 percent of the respondents indicated that the effectiveness of the code would be very low in the absence of legislative support provided to the UCPMP committee.
  • 90 percent of the respondents felt that pharma companies in India should focus on building a robust internal controls system to ensure compliance with the UCPMP.

In my view as well, the self-regulatory measures prescribed in the UCPMP of the DoP are unlikely to make any significant impact in 2015, unless pharma companies start focusing on building robust internal controls system to ensure compliance with the UCPMP.

Conclusion:

I would now put on the balance of probabilities, the new ‘Silver Linings’ of the Global pharmaceutical industry as discussed above, the issues and challenges of 2015 for the Indian pharma and also other important factors that I have not been able to discuss in this article. The overall emerging picture depicts that the pharma industry, both global and local, would fare much better than what it did in the recent past, provided the industry, as a whole, does not continue to ignore the storm signals outright.

Thus, based on the available data, the year 2015, as appears to me, would provide an enormous opportunity with promises of an interesting time ahead that the pharmaceutical industry should try to leverage on…and then cherish it for a long while…most probably as a turning point of the same ball game with different success requirements.

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 Pharma Marketing Code (UCPMP): Is It Crafted Well Enough To Deliver The Deliverables?

Posted on by
Reply

On December 12, 2014, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India announced details of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, which would be effective across the country from January 1, 2015.

Just to recapitulate, the DoP came out with a draft UCPMP on March 19, 2012, inviting stakeholders’ comments. Immediately thereafter, the officials at the highest level of the department held several discussions on that draft with the constituents of the pharmaceutical industry, Ministry of Health, Medical Council of India (MCI), besides other stakeholders. Unfortunately, no decision on the subject was taken for nearly three years since then, probably due to intense lobbying by interested constituents.

It is heartening to witness now that the new government, within six months of coming into the office, has ensured that the long awaited UCPMP sees the light of the day. The Dos and Don’ts of the Code for the pharma industry appear to be a replica of the same that the Medical Council of India (MCI) had announced for the doctors, several years ago.

Though UCPMP is not a panacea for all malpractices in the pharma industry, with this announcement, the government at least has sent a clear signal to errant pharma players to shape up, soon. The Government’s action on the subject is also laudable from the good governance perspective, as the codes are quite appropriate to uphold public health interest.

Having acknowledged that unambiguously, I would deliberate in this article why, in my opinion, not much thought has gone to ensure effective implementation of the UCPMP, where subjectivity and vagueness prevail. Moreover, the absence of strong deterrent measures in the document may seriously impede its impact. I shall also briefly touch upon whether self-regulation in pharma marketing practices has worked or not on the ground, globally.

Before I do that, a quick recapitulation of the relevant background, I reckon, would be meaningful.

What necessitated regulation in pharma marketing?

Pro-active role of the pharmaceutical industry in the fight against diseases of all kinds and severity is absolutely critical for any nation.

As happens in most other industries, the ultimate economic performance of a pharma player too predominantly depends on how productive are its sales and marketing activities. In a situation like this, the current ‘free for all model’ of pharma sales and marketing, where end results dominate the means adopted, usually places the profit earning objectives much ahead of public health interest. As result, higher priced medicines are prescribed more, even where their lower price equivalents of similar quality standards are available, besides over or unnecessary prescribing of drugs.

Dubious models are springing up at regular intervals, aiming at achieving all-important objective of generation of more and more prescriptions, which differentiate men from the boys in the pharma marketing warfare.

It is widely alleged that public perceptions are also craftily created on the quality of medicines. All branded generic drugs, including those manufactured by little known companies, are made to perceive better than their cheaper non-branded equivalents, even if coming from better-known and reputed manufacturers. Such industry created perceptions, cleverly channelized through some doctors with vested interests, enhance the drug treatment costs for the patients, significantly.

Other modes of gratifications under different guises also put significant number of doctors in a dilemma between cost effective prescription requirements of the patients and commercial expectations of the pharma players.

To meet with this challenge, the World Health Organization (WHO) in its publication, ‘Pharmaceutical Legislation and Regulation’, clearly articulated that realistic and effective laws and regulations are needed for the pharmaceutical sector, where informal controls are insufficient. This is mainly because of the following two factors:

  • Medicines concern the whole population
  • The consumer has no way to choose the drug and its price

The new government acts:

Irrespective of whatever had happened in the past, no government with a reasonable agenda of ‘Good Governance’ can afford to ignore the conflict of interests of such kind and magnitude between the doctors and patients.

Hence, comes the importance of uniform codes of pharma marketing practices that can be carefully monitored, thoroughly implementable and measured with transparent yardsticks.

As the World Medical Association states, the key ethical basis for any such code is the understanding that the values of clinical care, of the welfare of society and of science should prevail over commercial imperatives and monetary concerns.

In one of my earlier blog posts of July 07, 2014 titled,“Kickbacks And Bribes Oil Every Part of India’s healthcare Machinery” – A National Shame, I deliberated on similar issues.

Vagueness in measuring delivery of the deliverables:

Let me now get back to the UCPMP. As mentioned in the draft proposal of 2012, after six months from the date of its coming into effect, the government would review the quality of implementation of the UCPMP by the pharma players and their trade associations. If the same is found unsatisfactory, the DoP may consider a statutory code, thereafter.

Interestingly, nothing has been mentioned in the UCPMP document about the process that would be followed by the government to assess the quality of implementation of the Code after six months prompting the DoP to take a very crucial decision, either way.

Vagueness in monitoring UCPMP:

The UCPMP of the DoP states, the Managing Director/CEO of the company is ultimately responsible for ensuring the adherence to the code and the executive head of the company should submit a self-declaration within two months from the date of issue of UCPMP. Thereafter, within two months of the end of every financial year, the declaration needs to be submitted to the respective industry associations for uploading those on the Associations’ websites. These declarations must also be uploaded on the website of the respective companies.

As we know, there are several thousands of pharma marketing players in India. Many of these players, especially those in the micro and small-scale sectors, including their trade associations, do not maintain websites either. Thus, it would be interesting to know how does the DoP monitor such declarations bi-monthly in the six months’ time, to start with.

Lack of strong deterrents and cumbersome process:

There are no strong deterrent measures in the UCPMP to minimize flouting of the code, nor would the complaint filing process encourage any victim with relevant details, such as patients, to lodge a complaint after paying non-refundable Rs.1, 000. It is beyond an iota of doubt that patients are the ultimate victims of most of sales and marketing malpractices by the pharma players.

Moreover, this non-refundable money would ultimately go to whom and how would it be used are still unclear.

Self-regulation in pharma marketing has hardly worked anywhere:

Many international pharmaceutical trade associations, which are primarily the lobbying bodies, are the strong votaries of self-regulations by the industry. They have also created many documents in this regard, which are also displayed in their respective websites.

However, despite all these show pieces, the ground reality is that, the well-hyped self-regulation by the industry to stop the menace of pharma marketing malpractices is not working, anywhere.

As I indicated earlier, the following are a few recent examples of just the last two years to help fathom the enormity of the problem and also to vindicate the point made above:

  • In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder.
  • Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges.
  • In November 2013, Teva Pharmaceutical reportedly said that an internal investigation turned up suspect practices in countries ranging from Latin America to Russia.
  • In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.
  • In August 2012, Pfizer Inc. was reportedly fined US$ 60.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing of overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.
  • In April 2012, a judge in Arkansas, US, reportedly fined Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary more than US$1.2 billion after a jury found that the companies had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

A survey on UCPMP:

A survey report of Ernst and Young titled, “Pharmaceutical marketing: ethical and responsible conduct”, carried out in September 2011 on the UCMP and MCI guidelines, highlighted some of the following points:

  • More than 50 percent of the respondents are of the opinion that the UCPMP may lead to manipulation in recording of actual sampling activity.
  • Over 50 percent of the respondents indicated that the effectiveness of the code would be very low in the absence of legislative support provided to the UCPMP committee.
  • 90 percent of the respondents felt that pharma companies in India should focus on building a robust internal controls system to ensure compliance with the UCPMP.
  • 72 percent of the respondents felt that the MCI was not stringently enforcing its medical ethics guidelines.
  • Just 36 percent of the respondents felt that the MCI’s guidelines would have an impact on the overall sales of pharma companies.

Disclosure norms necessary:

It is interesting to note that many countries have started acting in this area enforcing various regulatory disclosure norms. Some examples are as follows:

USA:

The justice department of the U.S has reportedly wrung huge settlements from many large companies over allegedly unholy nexus between the doctors and the pharmaceutical players.

To address this issue, on February 1, 2013 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the United States released the final rules of implementation of the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)’, which is commonly known as the “Physician Payment Sunshine Act” or just the “Sunshine Act”.

This Act has been a part of President Obama’s healthcare reform requiring transparency in direct or indirect financial transactions between the American pharmaceutical industry and the doctors and was passed in 2010 by the US Congress as part of the PPACA.

The Sunshine Act requires public disclosure of all financial transactions and transfers of value between manufacturers of pharmaceutical / biologic products or medical devices and physicians, hospitals and covered recipients. The Act also requires disclosure on research fees and doctors’ investment interests.

These disclosure reports are available on a public database effective September 30th, 2014.

France:

In December 2011, France adopted legislation, which is quite similar to the ‘Sunshine Act’. This Act requires the health product companies like, pharmaceutical, medical device and medical supply manufacturers, among others to mandatorily disclose any contract entered with entities like, health care professionals, hospitals, patient associations, medical students, nonprofit associations, companies with media services or companies providing advice regarding health products.

Netherlands:

On January 1, 2012, Netherlands enforced the ‘Code of Conduct on Transparency of Financial Relations’. This requires the pharmaceutical companies to disclose specified payments made to health care professionals or institutions in excess of € 500 in total through a centralized “transparency register” within three months after the end of every calendar year.

UK:

Pharmaceutical companies in the UK are planning voluntary disclosures of such payments. One can expect enforcement of such laws in the entire European Union, soon.

Australia and Slovakia:

Similar requirements also exist in Australia and Slovakia.

Japan:

In Japan, the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (JPMA) reportedly requires their member companies to disclose certain payments to health care professionals and medical institutions on their websites, starting from 2013.

So, why not enforce such disclosure norms in India too?

Conclusion:

December 12, 2014 announcement of the UCPMP in its self-regulatory mode sends a message of good intent of the government to curb pharma marketing malpractices in India, which are threats to the society.

However, I reckon, the document is rather weak in its effective implementation potential. Meaningful and transparent deterrent measures to uphold public health interest are also lacking. The entire process also deserves a well-structured monitoring mechanism and digital implementation tools that can be operated with military precision.

It also raises a key question – Is this UCPMP good enough, especially after witnessing that self-regulation in pharma marketing practices is not working in most countries of the world?

In that sense, would the UCPMP, in its current avatar, with weak enforcement potential, shorn of enough deterrent against violations and commensurate sanctions, be able to deliver the requisite deliverables?

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.

Would ‘Regenerative Medicine’ Shape The Future Of Global Healthcare?

Posted on by
Reply

Just the last week, on December 19, 2014, international media broke the news of regulatory approval of the first stem cell treatment by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The Agency reportedly has recommended an Orphan Drug – Holoclar of the Italian pharmaceutical company Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A for the treatment of moderate-to-severe Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency (LSCD) caused due to physical or chemical burns to the eyes in adults. LSCD can lead to blindness, where Holocar works in around 80 percent of cases.

The EMA decision to approve Holoclar will now be sent to the European Commission for market authorization.

As reported, this new generation treatment takes a small sample of the patients’ healthy cornea, removes the stem cells and grows them until there are sufficient numbers to put back into the eye. The cells themselves then repair the damage.

Experts consider this development as very significant step forward, as stem-cell therapies are now being tried mostly in the laboratory environment and clinical trials.

Treatment with Stem Cells – A new paradigm:

A stem cell is defined as an undifferentiated cell of a multicellular organism that is capable of giving rise to indefinitely more cells of the same type, and from which certain other kinds of cell arise by differentiation.

Stem cells are, therefore, immature cells that can be induced to transform into tissue or organ-specific cells and are classified as per their source, such as Embryonic Stem Cells (ES) from early human embryos, fetal stem cells from aborted fetus; adult stem cells from tissues, skin and bone marrow; cord blood cells from umbilical cord and even fatty tissues.

In human developmental biology, extensive scientific research over many years has led to the discovery of human stem cells.

Regenerative Medicine:

This terminology is generally used for new medical advances in which an understanding of the human genome allows the use of the body’s own mechanism to heal it. This may include new pharmaceuticals and the ability to create new cells that could be implanted into patients to replace diseased or missing tissues.

The science of ‘Regenerative Medicine’ is increasingly being considered as an emerging medical space aimed at the treatment of those diseases that are usually classified as degenerative, incurable and irreversible. As it appears today, this science would unfold a new paradigm, where patients can expect cure for many serious ailments, such as, spinal injuries, heart disease, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s disease and even diabetes, besides many others.

Some promising developments:

Besides the recently EMA approved new treatment, as mentioned above, examples of just a few more promising developments in research with the stem cells, are as follows:

- Possible cure for Type 1 diabetes:

According to an international report of October 9, 2014, for the first time, after 23 years of research, Harvard University has been able to manufacture millions of beta cells required for transplantation. It could mean a cure for diabetes and the end of daily insulin injections for patients living with Type 1 diabetes. Around 10 per cent of all diabetes is Type 1, but it is the most common type of childhood diabetes.

The report indicated, the stem cell-derived beta cells are presently undergoing trials in animal models, including non-human primates, where they are still producing insulin after several months.

Another report of April 2014 indicates that for the first time, scientists have successfully replaced the damaged DNA of a type 1 diabetes sufferer with the healthy genetic material of an infant donor. When these cells are injected back into the diabetic patient, it is expected that they will begin to produce insulin on their own.

- Transplant of embryonic human stem cells on patients with macular degeneration partially restored vision:

Another study published in ‘The Lancet’ in October 2014 stated that scientists in the United States have announced that single transplant of stem cells has helped restore the sight of patients suffering from incurable forms of blindness due to Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD). Currently no effective treatments exist for this eye disorder, which can cause complete blindness due to the loss of light-receiving photoreceptor cells in the retina.

To recreate a type of cell in the retina that supports those photoreceptors, the new treatment uses stem cells derived from embryos that are only a few days old and have the ability to develop into any kind of tissue in the body. However, the transplants have proved controversial because they use stem cells derived from spare human embryos left over from IVF treatment.

- A cure for heart failure could be just a few years away:

Yet another international report of May 01, 2014 states, by injecting human stem cells into the organs of macaque monkeys, scientists have been able to regenerate their damaged hearts by up to 40 per cent in just a few weeks. Thus, it appears now that a cure for heart failure could be just a few years away and would mean that even people who are “bed-bound” with heart failure could be “up and about” again within a few weeks.

As on date, the heart muscle cannot be repaired, making people with severe heart failure necessarily wait for heart transplant. Of course, if the patients are willing and can afford so.

Debate around stem cell research:

Like many other research areas involving biological science, a raging debate has also commenced globally on several sociopolitical, cultural and ethical issues involving the use of stem cells as therapy.

Many clinical research related issues too are now surfacing on the use of human embryos, manipulations and modifications in stem cells research.

Apprehension of misuse, especially through cloning, had prompted many governments, India included, to ban reproductive cloning, keeping therapeutic cloning open for research.

However, arriving at a broader consensus in this area does not seem to be an insurmountable problem, in any case, as things stand today.

Research on stem cells and regenerative medicine in India:

Though it may sound almost unbelievable, India is now considered to be in the forefront of stem cells research and its use in a limited manner.

Indian Government under Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) and the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) has already set up a number of stem cell research institutions across the country. These institutions have already commenced valuable research in this area. DBT had granted more than Rs 300 Crore over the previous five years to be used in basic and applied research in stem cell technology.

According to one August 2014 report from ‘Business Insider’, several stem cells research initiatives are ongoing both in public and the private sectors in India.

A few examples, as reported, are as follows:

Public initiatives:

  • The National Centre for Cell Research (NCCR), Pune, has worked on stem cell trans differentiation into pancreatic islets.
  • Research at All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) and Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), is ongoing on retinal degeneration and stroke.
  • National Institute of Immunohematology (NIIH) has been able to differentiate umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells into cardiomyocytes or cardiac muscles.
  • The National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS) in Bangalore, part of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, also works closely with the government on stem cells research.
  • The Government of India had set up The Centre for Stem Cell Research (CSCR) in 2008 in collaboration with Christian Medical College, Vellore, with the intention of using stem cell science for understanding human diseases and development of stem cell-based therapies. Interestingly, it also runs a training program for scientists and students of stem cell research. CSCR will also carry out clinical trials with stem cells produced under current good manufacturing practice (GMP) conditions.

Private initiatives:

  • Reliance Life Sciences obtained permission to use on large-scale stem cells sourced from the patient’s body for therapy.
  • The LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, has developed corneal limbal stem cells.
  • Sankara Nethralaya Stem Cell Research Center, Chennai, is working on retinal and corneal stem cell application and immunoregulatory properties of stem cells.
  • Hospitals such as Dr KM Cherian’s research facility in Medville have used stem cells from bone marrow to help regenerate the heart.

Besides, Indian rules and law permit the usage of one’s own banked stem cells. Several storage facilities such as Life Cell, Reliance Life Sciences, Cryobanks International and Stemade for dental stem cell storage have also come up.

Stem cells research guidelines in India:

In India, ICMR-DBT Guidelines for Stem Cell Research are in place. These guidelines have been laid down to ensure that research with human stem cells is conducted in a responsible and ethically sensitive manner and complies with all regulatory requirements pertaining to biomedical research in general and stem cell research in particular.

Since it is a rapidly evolving field of science, the recommendations may change with time.

All types of research and clinical trials in stem cells would require to be registered with and obtain prior permission and approval of the National Apex Committee (NAC) and the Institutional Committee (IC-SCRT) for Stem Cell Research.

It is notably important that the guidelines categorically states that only stem cell research, basic and translational, is permitted but not therapy.

NAC- IC-SCRT permits therapy usage in patients only through approved and fully monitored clinical trials. Stem cells cannot be used as therapy without appropriate regulatory approvals in India.

Conclusion:

Currently, most treatments for non-infectious chronic ailments only delay the disease progression and associated complications. There is virtually no cure for most of these diseases, which include, spinal injuries, heart diseases, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s disease or even hypertension, asthma or diabetes.

Regenerative Medicine would not just bring down the cost of healthcare and the disease burden significantly, but would also help increasing the economic productivity of a nation considerably.

Currently, medical research of the highest order in this area is mostly being conducted by various academia of global repute along with the industry. This emerging trend sends a clear signal that ‘Regenerative Medicine’ is now strongly poised to give an altogether new shape to the future of global healthcare, adding unique dimensions.

Consequential paradigm shift in the field of healthcare, I reckon, would herald the dawn of a brand new era, setting in place a whole new commercial ball game, the like of which the world has never witnessed, ever before.

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.

 

It Took 90 Years To Accept The Dreaded Disease Discovered In A Mental Asylum

Posted on by
Reply

In 1908 Dr. Alois Alzheimer discovered a memory erasing, attitude destroying and human dignity stealing deadly disease coined after his name, researching on a patient in a mental asylum.

The disease, in the absence of still any effective treatment, converts a lively human being gradually into a vegetative state, ruthlessly, though the life keeps ticking erratically before it finally extinguishes.

Despite advancement of medical science at a break neck speed, is it not quite surprising that it took 90 years, from 1908 to 1998, to formally accept the root cause of Alzheimer’s disease in the medical science?

Still the greatest mystery of this disease is why it strikes mostly at an advancing age. Other risk factors include ailments such as, diabetes, depression, cardiac conditions and sedentary life style.

I deliberated on this issue in one of my earlier blog posts titled, “Alzheimer’s Disease: Robs Memory: Steals Dignity: Escapes Treatment” of August 11, 2014, though on a different perspective.

A flash back on the disease:

A September 2014 article of Dr. Rod Tanchanco, published in the ‘History News Network’, elucidates how Dr. Alzheimer discovered this deadly disease in a Mental Asylum.

As Dr. Rod Tanchanco narrated, the germination of this discovery started with an orderly and industrious homemaker Auguste, a 50 year old housewife, who started making uncharacteristic mistakes in preparing home meals – a task in which she had been quite proficient for long.

With the progress of time, Auguste gradually started wandering aimlessly around the apartment, leaving many unfinished work in the house. Her attitude and behavioral pattern also started changing noticeably. Concerned with these changes, her husband Carl had no other choice but to take her to the local mental asylum.

The physician’s in the asylum described her as suffering from a weak memory, persecution mania, sleeplessness, and restlessness that rendered her unable to perform physical or mental work. However, the psychiatrist sensed that there was something special about Auguste and Dr. Alois Alzheimer decided that he should see Auguste for himself. The limited treatments included the use of sedatives and warm baths.

After thorough examination, what struck Dr. Alzheimer was Auguste’s relatively young age (51) as he had seen many cases of mental deterioration in much older patients that prompted him to theorize that age-related thickening of the brain’s blood vessels led to brain atrophy.

After about five years of progressive mental and physical decline, Auguste died in 1906. The official cause of death was stated as blood poisoning due to bedsores. However, Dr. Alzheimer suspected that behind her mental illness was a strange disease and perhaps examining her brain would offer some clues.

Discovery of the disease:

When Dr. Alzheimer examined Auguste’s brain sections under the microscope, his inkling was proved to be a reality. He described changes in the neurofibrils – the protein filaments found in brain cells. He also saw peculiar deposits that he referred to as “millet seed-sized lesions.” These pathologic findings, which are now known as neurofibrillary tangles and amyloid deposits, characterize the brains of patients suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease.

Skeptical initial response:

As Dr. Rod Tanchanco highlights, Dr. Alzheimer’s discovery was not immediately well received, as correlating mental or neurologic disorders with histopathologic findings was not firmly established nor accepted by his peer groups at that time.

Acceptance after long 90 years:

Ninety years later, in 1998, researchers re-examined Auguste’s original brain sections and confirmed the presence of neurofibrillary tangles and amyloid plaques. There is still no cure of this life-threatening disease, and the burden on the afflicted continue to remain mind-boggling.

According to Dr. Tanchanco, one of the most prominent psychiatrists in the early 1900s called Emil Kraepelin, first mentioned the term ‘Alzheimer’s Disease’ in the 1910 edition of his textbook on psychiatry. The disease was still poorly understood, but one of the most famous medical eponyms was born with it.

Where are we today?

All current treatments for Alzheimer’s cannot stop the underlying decline and death of brain cells. Thus, as more cells die, Alzheimer’s continues to progress.

Experts are cautiously hopeful about developing Alzheimer’s treatments that can stop or significantly delay the progression of Alzheimer’s. A growing understanding of how the disease disrupts the brain has led to potential Alzheimer’s treatments that short-circuit fundamental disease processes.

A laudable initiative has come to the fore recently in this arena. Having experienced something like the ‘law of diminishing return’ in pursuit of high resource intensive R&D projects aimed at critical disease areas such as Alzheimer’s, 10 big global pharma majors reportedly decided in February 2014 to team up with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States in a ‘game changing’ initiative to identify disease-related molecules and biological processes that could lead to future medicines.

This Public Private Partnership (PPP) for a five-year period has been named as “Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)”. According to the report, this US federal government-backed initiative would hasten the discovery of new drugs in cost effective manner focusing first on Alzheimer’s disease, Type 2 diabetes, and two autoimmune disorders: rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. The group considered these four disease areas among the largest public-health threats, although the span of the project would gradually expand to other diseases depending on the initial outcome of this project.

New drug development concepts:

A. Two new treatment approach strategies:

The protein beta-amyloid (plaques) has long been considered a sign of Alzheimer’s disease. Some of the new Alzheimer’s treatments in development target microscopic clumps of plaques.

According to Mayo Clinic, beside other studies, following are the two newer strategies aimed at beta-amyloid (plaques):

  • Immunization strategies:

Most current immunization studies focus on administering antibodies against beta-amyloid from outside sources instead of enhancing a person’s immune system.

One large research effort is exploring the value of intravenous (IV) infusions of a product derived from donated blood. This product contains naturally occurring anti-amyloid antibodies from the donors.

Some other studies are investigating laboratory-engineered (monoclonal) antibodies.

  • Production blockers:

This may reduce the amount of beta-amyloid formed in the brain. Research has shown that beta-amyloid is produced from a “parent protein” in two steps performed by two different enzymes. Several experimental drugs aim to block the activity of the two enzymes.

B. The concept of heart-head connection:

Another interesting area, among many, that the Mayo Clinic highlights is the concept of heart-head connection.

Growing evidence suggests that brain health is closely linked to heart and blood vessel health. Our arteries nourish our brain. The risk of developing Alzheimer’s appears to increase as a result of many conditions that damage the heart or arteries. These include high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and high cholesterol.

In addition, a strong genetic Alzheimer’s risk factor is one form of a gene for a protein that carries cholesterol in the blood (apolipoprotein E). Strategies under this concept include:

- Available drugs for heart disease risk factors: Researchers are investigating whether drugs now used to treat high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol may also help people with Alzheimer’s or reduce the risk of developing the disease.

- Drugs aimed at new targets: Additional projects are looking more closely at how the connection between heart disease and Alzheimer’s works at the molecular level to find new drug targets.

- Lifestyle choices: Researchers have explored whether lifestyle choices with known heart benefits, such as exercising on most days and eating a heart-healthy diet, may help prevent Alzheimer’s disease or delay its onset.

A large new database of Alzheimer’s disease patients:

Meanwhile, the Coalition Against Major Diseases (CAMD), which is a formal consortium of pharmaceutical companies, research foundations and patient advocacy/voluntary health associations, with advisors from federal agencies, has released a new database of more than 4,000 Alzheimer’s disease patients who have participated in 11 industry-sponsored clinical trials.

According to the Critical Path Institute, which oversees the coalition, this is the first database of combined clinical trials to be openly shared by pharmaceutical companies and made available to qualified researchers around the world. It is also the first effort of its kind to create a voluntary industry data standard that will help accelerate new treatment research on brain disease, as patients with other related brain diseases are expected to be added.

A large number of researchers believe that sharing these data from more than 4,000 study participants will speed development of more-effective therapies.

CAMD is funded by a cooperative agreement with the USFDA and a matching grant from the Science Foundation Arizona.

Conclusion:

It took 90 years to accept the cause of this memory erasing, attitude destroying and human dignity stealing deadly disease that was first discovered in a mental asylum by Dr. Alois Alzheimer.

Thereafter, discovering a safe an effective medicine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease has rather been very slow, if not frustrating, especially for the afflicted patients and their families. Some global pharma majors have even announced jettisoning research initiatives in this area.

Even with the application of modern day’s cutting edge science and technology, it is still difficult to fathom, how many years would still remain in waiting for a breakthrough treatment option for Alzheimer’s disease.

In a scenario like this, even today, the very thought of becoming a victim of this life-threatening disease sends shivers down the spine of many.

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.