Beyond ‘The Magic Moment’ of New Drug Marketing Approval

Posted on June 24, 2013 by Tapan Ray

“Uncontrolled clinical trials are causing havoc to human life. There are so many legal and ethical issues involved with clinical trials and the government has not done anything so far.”

This is exactly what the Supreme Court of India observed while responding to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the subject in January 2013.

While Indian regulators with the active intervention of the Supreme Court are trying to grapple with, besides others, the basic ‘human rights’ aspect of the Clinical Trial (CT), many countries in different parts of the world are moving much ahead at a brisker pace. They have started thinking and putting in place more patient centric newer drug approval systems and also, in tandem, hastening the process of bringing new drugs to the market.

Current general scenario in CT:

Currently, after pre-clinical studies and before applying for regulatory approval, a new drug has to be tested on volunteers in randomized studies to prove its efficacy and safety on patients. Relatively short duration of new drug trials can hardly establish long-term safety and efficacy, which are now arrived at through extrapolation of data collected during CT period.

It is worth noting, the overall situation changes dramatically after launch of these products, as their usage expands from a relatively smaller number of CT volunteers to millions of real-world patients.

In a situation like this, unrealistic expectation of patients’ safety in perpetuity based primarily on extrapolation of very limited CT data is being increasingly questioned today.

That is why, on going post-marketing surveillance, which is also known as a Phase IV CT, is considered as a much more effective process to gauge relative superiority of the drug against the existing ones in terms of both efficacy and safety on a longer term.

That said, today one reads and hears umpteen number of accusations for almost lack of any meaningful response on the part of the pharmaceutical companies, in general, towards revelations of post-marketing surveillance data. This could, in turn, expose the patients to various types of risks, including wasteful healthcare expenditure.

The ‘Magic Moment’ in the present regulatory process:

A recent paper highlights a single “Magic Moment” between pre and post-licensing processes in the current drug-approval model in many countries. In this system, the use of a drug is tightly controlled in a narrowly defined pre-licensing population. Thus, CTs are also conducted on such pre-defined and relatively homogeneous volunteers, who are generally free from complicating conditions.

However, after ‘The Magic Moment’ of marketing approval, a large number of heterogeneous patient population, with many of them on multiple therapy, also use these new products in uncontrolled settings. Situations as these had led to post-marketing major drug withdrawals like, Vioxx and Avandia due to patients’ safety.

These grave concerns have led to a strategic shift in the drug regulatory approval scenario throwing open new ideas in the drug approval process.

Adaptive Licensing:

To find the right answer to this vexing issue the drug regulators in many countries are reportedly seriously contemplating to imbibe a process that will continuously help analyzing information through ongoing post-marketing surveillance data. Continuous medical data analysis like this will enable the regulators to modify their earlier decisions on marketing approval and also medical reimbursements related to pricing reasons.

This new process is called ‘Adaptive Licensing (AL)’, which is expected to benefit the overall healthcare system, by not allowing medical reimbursement of treatments with those drugs, which will provide negligible benefit over existing low cost therapies.

Difference between current mechanism and AL:

According to a ‘Health Canada’ paper titled, “The Path to Adaptive Drug Regulation”, the difference between the two is as follows:

Current system:

As explained above, post-licensing i.e. after ‘The Magic Moment’ of regulatory approval, treatment population grows rapidly and treatment experiences do not contribute to evidence generation.

Adaptive Licensing:

After initial license, treated patients grow more slowly due to regulatory restrictions. Patient experience is captured to contribute to real-world information. The marketing license is also modified accordingly from time to time.

Most desirable for many drugs:

Experts in this field opine that AL will help bringing in alignment of all required processes so important for a new drug seen from patients’ perspective like, R&D, regulatory approval and market access with the active involvement of all stakeholders like, the pharmaceutical companies, the drug regulator, payors/insurance companies and also the researchers.

In the AL system, a transparent drug development process will provide enough data on risk-benefit profile of the concerned drug to satisfy the drug regulator for its quick marketing authorization on pre-determined types of patients.

Such approval will follow real-life monitoring of efficacy and safety for modification of the drug license accordingly, wherever and whenever required.

Thus, AL is expected to strike a right balance balance between timely access to new drugs for the patients and the need to evaluate real time evolving information on safety and efficacy leading to a well-informed patient centric decisions by the drug regulators.

A continuous regulatory evaluation and decision-making process:

AL intends to evaluate a drug through its entire life span. It has been reported that during this long period, clinical and other data will “Continue to be generated on the product through various modalities, including active surveillance and additional studies after initial and full licensing. The artificial dichotomy of pre vs. post licensing stages (‘The Magic Moment’) will be replaced by graded, more tightly managed, but more timely and potentially more cost-effective market entry and market stability.”

Not necessary for all drugs in the near term:

It is worth noting that AL system may not perhaps be required for all pharmaceutical or biologic products and will not totally replace the current system of drug licensing process, at least in the near term.

AL process may immediately be followed only for those products with a favorable risk-benefit drug profile as demonstrated in the initial data and there is a robust reason for early market entry of this drug to meet unmet needs, simultaneously with ongoing studies.

The ‘Magic Moment’ freezes in India…in perpetuity:

As per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, after obtaining drug marketing approval from the regulators, concerned pharmaceutical companies are required to follow the pharmacovigilance system in the country to own the responsibility and liability of the drugs as enunciated in the Schedule Y of the Act. Unfortunately, this is hardly being followed in India, ignoring patients’ safety blatantly.

With the plea that most products launched in India are already being marketed in many developed markets of the world, the concerned companies prefer to depend on clinical experiences in those markets. This attitude totally bypasses the regulatory requirement to follow a robust pharmacovigilance system in India. Indian drug regulators also do not seem to be much concerned about this important patients’ safety related requirements, very surprisingly not even for biosimilar drugs.

However, the current ground realities are quite different. As we witness today, there does not seem to be much difference in time between international and India launch of innovative products. Thus, the argument of gaining medium to long-term experience on safety and efficacy from international data related to these drugs, does not seem to hold any water at all.

On the contrary, some drugs withdrawn from the international markets on safety grounds are still available in India, despite ire and severe indictment even from the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee.

In a situation like this, AL process of Marketing approval for selected newer and innovative drugs may be considered by the Indian Drug Regulators, just not to be more patient centric, but also to help evaluating pricing decisions of innovative drugs failing to demonstrate significantly better treatment outcomes as compared to the existing ones.

A recent example of AL:

One of the latest drugs, which reportedly will undergo such regulatory scrutiny of USFDA is Tacfidera (dimethyl fumarate) used for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, approved in April 2013 and costing US$ 54,900 per patient per year. Interestingly, Tacfidera, before the drug can find itself on a formulary, will need to demonstrate its effectiveness in the real world.

The report indicates, “the first six months after a drug launch are always about educating payers about its benefits, and while most large payers are likely to make a decision to reimburse the drug in the next twelve months, data collection will continue and changes in policies might be made at a later date.”

Thus, in the years ahead, whether a new drug will become a blockbuster or not will very largely be decided by the ongoing real world data. If the promise of a drug diminishes at any point of time through clinical data, it will certainly going to have consequential financial and other adverse impacts.

Another interesting recent development:

Under new pharmacovigilance legislation in Europe, the European Medicines Agency has reportedly announced the list of over 100 drugs that soon will bear the “black triangle” logo. This initiative is directed to encourage both the doctors and patients to report side effects to enable close monitoring of drug safety.

Criteria to include drugs under additional monitoring are:

Medicines authorized after January 1, 2011 that contain a new active substance.

Biologics for which there is limited post-marketing experience.

Medicines with a conditional approval or approved under exceptional circumstances.

Medicines for which the marketing-authorization holder is required to carry out a post-authorization safety study (PASS).

Other medicines can also be placed under additional monitoring, based on a recommendation from the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC).

Conclusion:

Global regulatory experts do believe that in the concept of AL, there are still some loose knots to be tightened expeditiously to make it a fully implementable common drug marketing authorization process. Appropriate pilot projects need to be undertaken in this area to establish beyond any doubt that AL will be decisively more preferable to the current regulatory process.

As and when AL will become the preferred drug-licensing pathway across the world, it is expected to offer greater real benefits of new drug development to the patients for their optimal use at an affordable price.

That said, some other experts do opine as follows:

“No matter how fast the authorization process operates, the merits of innovation will not be felt until they reach patients. And the barrier between authorization and patient access remains, in most of Europe, the issue of reimbursement.”

While all these are fast developing in the global CT scenario, in the jangle of Clinical Trials‘ in India, ‘Adaptive Licensing’ has still remained a critical missing ingredient even to encourage a wider debate.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Is Fraud or Negligence in Drug Quality Standards Not a Fraud on Patients?

Posted on June 3, 2013 by Tapan Ray

As we know, a substance is called a drug when it has scientifically proven and well documented efficacy and safety profile to reduce both mortality and morbidity of patients. Any fraud or negligence in the drug quality standards, for whatever may be the reasons or wherever these take place, is a fraud on patients and should warrant zero tolerance.

A perception survey on drug quality:

According to a poll released in 2010 by the ‘Pew Charitable Trusts’s Prescription Project’ of the United States:

More than three out of four voters are confident that prescription drugs made in the USA are free from contamination

While less than one in 10 feel confident about medications made in India or China.

54 percent of Americans distrusted Indian drugs and 70 percent distrusted Chinese drugs.

“When you buy a shirt, it will say right on the label where it was made, but when you get a pharmaceutical, you don’t know.”

Despite all these, the survey points out that in 2007, 68 percent of the ingredients of all drugs sold worldwide came from India or China, as compared to 49 percent in 2004.

Experts comment that USFDA does not have either people or resources required to monitor manufacturing in the geographically widespread locations, as these are today.

Recent spate of charges against Indian pharmaceutical companies – a vindication?

Recent spate of charges against some top ranked Indian companies, will further dent the image of India not just in the United States or Europe, but also as a pharmacy of high quality yet low cost generic drugs for the developing countries of the world.

In May 2013, well known India-based pharma major Ranbaxy reported to have pleaded guilty to criminal charges of manufacturing and distributing some adulterated medicines, produced at its Paonta Sahib and Dewas, facilities and agreed to US$ 500-millon settlement. Can this be considered as a vindication of the above perception on the quality of ‘made in India’ drugs?

The view of WHO:

Interestingly the World Health Organisation (WHO) even after the above USFDA indictment has commented that at present it has no evidence that Ranbaxy manufactured medicines that are currently prequalified by WHO are of unacceptable quality.

Indian drug regulator initiates action:

It is good to know that the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) and the Ministry of Health will reportedly decide the way forward in this matter on completion of a fact-finding study initiated by the Central Drugs Standards Control Organization (CDSCO) on the subject.

Other incidents in India:

Following are examples of other reported serious regulatory violations involving the domestic pharmaceutical companies:

No.	Year	Company	Issue	Status
	2009	Lupin	USFDA warning for Mandideep plant	Resolved in 2010
	2010	Claris Life Sciences	USFDA ban products for manufacturing norms violations	Ban revoked in 2012
	2011	Zydus Cadila	USFDA warns Co. over Moraiya, Gujarat Facility	Ban revoked in 2012
	2011	Dr Reddy’s	USFDA bans sale of drugs from Mexico facility	Ban revoked in 2012
	2013	Jubilant Life Sciences	Gets USFDA warning for Canada facility	Company taking corrective steps
	2013	Wockhardt	Banned from exporting products from its Aurangabad factory to the US due to quality concerns	In discussion

Source: The Economic Times (May 22, 2013), Financial Express (May 25, 2013)

Though some other countries also have faced bans from exporting products, it cannot be taken, I reckon, as any consolation by anyone.

A Mumbai Hospital demonstrated the mood of zero tolerance:

The above expression of good intent should not just remain as a ‘lip service’. Indian drug regulator is expected to take a leaf out of all these allegations and initiate appropriate audit as required. Otherwise, exhibiting zero tolerance, like Jaslok Hospital of Mumbai, many other institutions will ask their doctors not to prescribe products of these companies to protect patients’ interest. More hospitals reportedly are mulling similar action against Ranbaxy.

IMA expresses apprehension:

Even ‘The Indian Medical Association (IMA)’ has reportedly asked the DCGI to investigate quality of medicines manufactured by Ranbaxy.

It happens in the ‘heartland’ too just as in the ‘hinterland’:

Contrary to the above poll released in 2010 by the ‘Pew Charitable Trusts’s Prescription Project’, pointing accusing fingers, in this respect, exclusively to India and China, may not be just fair. Incidents of such regulatory violations are not just restricted to Indian pharmaceutical companies either. Unfortunately, these happen with the global majors too.

None of these should be condoned in any way by anyone and attract as much global publicity, public wrath and zero tolerance, as all these would possibly deserve.

Following are some examples:

No	Company	Issues with USFDA	Consent decree signed (year)	Issue status	Penalty amount
	Schering-Plough	GMP violations affecting four manufacturing sites and 125 products	Yes (2002)	Closed (2007)	$500 Mn.
	GlaxoSmithKline	Manufacturing deficiencies found at Puerto Rico facility	Yes (2005)	Pending	$650 Mn. Bond
	Wyeth	GMP violations at plant in Pennsylvania and New York which were producing FluShield	Yes (2000)	Pending	$297 Mn. Plus 18.5% of sales of FluShield
	Abbott Labs	Non-conformance with quality system regulations for in vitro diagnostic products at an Illinois facility	Yes (1999)	Pending	$212 Mn.
	Boehringer Ingelheim	To bring its Ohio facility into compliance with regulatory requirements	Yes (2013)	Pending	Not specified

Source: Financial Express (May 25, 2013)

Further, in December 1998 the US FDA reportedly had stopped shipments of Abbott Laboratories’ clot-busting drug Abbokinase till the company had resolved undisclosed manufacturing problems at its plant. Abbott subsequently resolved this to the satisfaction of the drug regulator.

Even end May 2011, the USFDA reportedly raised concerns about contamination of drugs of the American pharmaceutical major – Hospira, at its Indian manufacturing facility.This issue was highlighted as the latest in a string of manufacturing and quality problems dogging the company since 2010.

American lawmakers demand thorough review of USFDA oversight procedures:

Pressure has reportedly started mounting in the United States for a thorough review into the effectiveness of oversight procedures for all bulk drugs and formulations manufactured in foreign facilities.

Simultaneously, there is also a specific demand for an in-depth review of all actions of the US regulator for so many years, which allowed Ranbaxy’s ‘massive fraud to remain unchecked’.

Beyond regulatory oversight, need robust internal system driven model as a fire-wall:

To address such issues only drug regulators interventions may not be just enough, maintaining total integrity of ‘Supply Chain’ of an organization proactively in a well structured, fool-proof and a system-driven way, will continue to play the most critical role. This will help creating ‘fire-wall’, which will be difficult to breach.

The scope of Supply Chain:

The scope of ‘Supply Chain’, which is comprised of the entire network of entities from vendors who supply raw and packaging materials, manufacturers who convert these materials into medicines, together with warehouses, distributors, retailers and healthcare centers who will reach these medicines ultimately to patients exactly the way these will deserve.

Thus, just not in the manufacturing process, any breach of security at any place of the supply chain can cause serious problems to patients.

Accordingly, pharmaceutical companies need to adequately invest along with appropriate staff training programs to ensure that the Supply Chain Integrity is maintained, always.

Supply Chain Security (SCS) is critical:

SCS, therefore, deserves to be of prime importance for the pharmaceutical companies across the globe. Recent high profile SCS related cases, as mentioned above, have exposed the vulnerability in addressing this global menace effectively.

All pharmaceutical players should realize that not just ‘show-off’, an effective integrated approach is of paramount importance to eliminate this crime syndicate, which is taking lives of millions of patients the world over.

Mixing-up counterfeit drugs with this menace may not be prudent:

Shouting for counterfeit drugs involving mainly intellectual property related issues, may be important, but will in no way help resolving self-created menaces arising out of breach of supply chain integrity endangering million of lives, in another way.

Though an expensive process, can’t be compromised:

It is worth repeating, securing pharmaceutical supply chain on a continuous basis is of critical importance for all the pharmaceutical players across the globe. However, the process will no doubt be expensive for any company.

Like other industries, in the pharmaceutical sector, as well, cost effective procurement is critical, which entices many pharmaceutical players, especially, in the generic industry not to go for such expensive process just to maintain the SCS.

A serious SCS related tragedy:

I would like to reinforce my argument on the importance of SCS with the following example of the ‘Heparin tragedy’ where the supply chain integrity was seriously violated with ‘ingeneuity’.

In the beginning of 2008, there were media reports on serious adverse drug events, some even fatal, with Heparin, a highly sulfated glycosaminoglycan of Baxter International. Heparin is widely used as an injectable anticoagulant. Baxter voluntarily recalled almost all their Heparin products in the U.S. Around 80 people died from contaminated Heparin products in the U.S. The US FDA reported that such contaminated Heparin was detected from at least 12 other countries.

A joint investigation conducted by Baxter and the US FDA ascertained that the Heparin used in batches associated with the serious adverse drug events was contaminated with Over Sulfated Chondroitin Sulfate (OSCS). It was reported that Heparin Scientific Protein Laboratories, Changzhou, China supplied Heparin to Baxter.

The cost of OSCS is just a fraction of the ingredient used in Heparin. Being driven by the criminal profiteering motive the manufacturers in Changzhou, China had reportedly used OSCS for highly sulfated glycosaminoglycan, as the former could not be detected by the pharmacopeia test in use, until 2008. This is because OSCS mimics Heparin in the pharmacopeia test. Post this criminal event, at present, all over the world more specific pharmacopeia test methods have been adopted for Heparin.

Stakeholders need to be extremely vigilant:

Considering all these, pharmaceutical players and the drug regulators from across the world should put proper ‘fool proof’ systems in place to eliminate the growing menace of criminal adulteration of APIs, drug intermediates, excipients entering in the supply chain together with preventing any breach in their logistics support systems.

Apprehension against generic drugs as a class:

Taking advantage of the situation, one can possibly say, as some vested interests have already started propagating that generic equivalents of the branded drugs are really not quite the same in quality.

However, the point that cannot be ignored is the comment of a senior USFDA, who was quoted in the same article saying, “I have heard it enough times from enough people to believe that there are a few products that aren’t meeting quality standards.“

Generic drug manufacturers should make serious note of such comments and act accordingly to allay prevailing lurking fear on the use of generic medicines, in general, though small in number.

Conclusion:

Following the recent series of incidents including that of Ranbaxy, the image of India as a low cost generic drugs manufacturer of high quality could get adversely impacted. Although there are enough instances that such things happen in the developed world, as well, including the United States.

Moreover, in the backdrop of high decibel quality concerns raised by USFDA, the level of apprehension regarding effectiveness of generic drugs made in India may increase significantly, unless some tangible, well thought out and highly publicized remedial measures are taken forthwith.

The decision of Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai advising their doctors for not using Ranbaxy products to patients on the same ground, will further strengthen the public apprehension.

Whatever may be the reason, as long as any company is in the business of manufacturing medicines, there should be demonstrable zero tolerance on any compromise, fraud or negligence in the drug quality standards. Any fraud and negligence in drug quality, I reckon, is virtually a fraud against humanity.

That said, changing mindset towards a strong corporate governance by walking the talk, all pharmaceutical companies must guarantee safe and high quality medicines to the society, come what may.

This, I believe, could be achieved by putting in place a robust SCS system and ensuring that this is not compromised in any way… anywhere…ever… for patients’ sake…both globally and locally.

By: Tapan J. Ray

New Drug Price Control Order of India: Is it Directionally Right Improving Access to Medicines?

Posted on May 27, 2013 by Tapan Ray

The last Drug Policy of India was announced in 2002, which was subsequently challenged by a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Karnataka High Court on the ground of being inflationary in nature. The Honorable Court by its order dated November 12, 2002 issued a stay on the implementation of the Policy.

This judgment was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay vide its order dated March 10, 2003 and ordered as follows:

“We suspend the operation of the order to the extent it directs that the Policy dated February 15, 2002 shall not be implemented. However we direct that the petitioner shall consider and formulate appropriate criteria for ensuring essential and lifesaving drugs not to fall out of the price control and further directed to review drugs, which are essential and lifesaving in nature till 2nd May, 2003”.

As a result DPCO 1995 continued to remain in operation, pending formulation of a new drug policy as directed by the honorable court.

In the recent years, following a series of protracted judicial and executive activities, the New National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) came into effect on December 7, 2012. In the new policy the span of price control was changed to all drugs falling under the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and the price control methodology was modified from the cost-based to market based one. Accordingly the new Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) was notified on May 15, 2013.

However, the matter is still subjudice, as the new policy would require to pass the judicial scrutiny.

In this article, I shall try to explore whether the new DPCO 2013 is directionally right in improving access to medicines for a vast majority of population in the country .

An overview:

As stated above, the new DPCO 2013 has just been notified after an agonizing wait of about 18 years, bringing all 652 formulations under 27 therapeutic segments of the National List of Essential Medicines under price control.

As prescribed in the Drug Policy 2012, in the new DPCO the cost based pricing mechanism has been replaced with a market-based one, where simple average price of all brands with a market share above 1% in their respective segments will be considered.

Only decrease in price and no immediate increase:

Companies selling medicines above the new Ceiling Prices (CP), as will be notified by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) soon, would have to slash prices to conform to the new CP level. However, those selling these scheduled drugs below the ceiling price will not be allowed to raise prices, resulting in significant price reduction of most essential drugs with price increases in none. Prices of all these formulations will be frozen for a year. Although a silver lining is that manufacturers will be permitted an annual increase in the CPs in line with the Wholesale Price Index (WPI).

The span:

The span of DPCO 2013 will cover approximately 18% of US$ 13.6 billion domestic pharmaceutical market. However, the total coverage will increase to around 30%, for a year, after coupling it with existing price controlled medicines, as these will continue with the current prices for a year.

No change in retail margin:

DPCO 2013 continues with the provision of DPCO 1995, fixing margin for the Retailers at 16% of Ceiling Price, excluding Taxes.

Benefit to consumers:

Indian consumers will undoubtedly be the biggest beneficiaries of the new DPCO, as ceiling prices will now be based on roughly 91% of the pharmaceutical market by value, resulting upto 20% price reduction in 60% of the NLEM medicines. The prices of some drugs will fall by even upto 70%.

Overall impact:

In the short-term, Indian pharma market may shrink by around 2.3 per cent on implementation of the new policy, according to an analysis by market research firm AIOCD AWACS. The impact could be more pronounced for multinationals, given their premium pricing strategy for key brands. For the patients, anti-infective, cardio-vascular, gastro-intestinal, dermatology and painkillers would witness relatively steeper drop in prices.

However, despite initial adverse impact, higher volume growth over the next few years may help the pharmaceutical companies to recover and pick-up the growth momentum.

More transparent and less discretionary:

Moreover, the industry reportedly feels that the shift in the methodology of price control from virtually opaque and highly discretionary cost based system to relatively more transparent market based one, is directionally right and more prudent. They point out, even WHO in its feedback to the Department of Pharmaceuticals welcomed the intent to move away from cost-based pricing as it has been abandoned elsewhere.

The drafting of DPCO 2013 also appears to have reduced the discretionary criteria for the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to bare minimum.

Check on any essential drug going out of market:

DPCO 2013 has tried to prevent any possibility of an essential drug going out of the market without the knowledge of NPPA by incorporating the following provision in the order:

“Any manufacturer of scheduled formulation, intending to discontinue any scheduled formulation from the market shall issue a public notice and also intimate the Government in Form-IV of schedule-II of this order in this regard at least six month prior to the intended date of discontinuation and the Government may, in public interest, direct the manufacturer of the scheduled formulation to continue with required level of production or import for a period not exceeding one year, from the intended date of such discontinuation within a period of sixty days of receipt of such intimation.”

Patented Products:

DPCO 2013 does not include pricing of patented products, as the Department of pharmaceuticals (DoP) has already circulated the report of an internal committee, specially constituted to address this issue, for stakeholders’ comments.

Encourages innovation:

The new DPCO encourages innovation and pharmaceutical R&D offering significant pricing freedom. It states all locally developed new drugs, new drug delivery systems and new manufacturing processes will remain exempted from any price control for a five-year period.

Implementation:

Interestingly, the changes in prices will be effective after 45 days (15 days in the earlier DPCO 1995) from the date of respective CP notifications. This increased number of days is expected to allow the trade to liquidate stocks with existing prices.

However, the industry feels that its hundred percent implementation at the retail level, even within extended 45 days, for previously sold residual stocks lying in remote locations, could pose a practical problem.

The Government reportedly answers to this apprehension by saying, the provisions and wordings for implementation of new CPs in DPCO 2013 are exactly the same as DPCO 1995. Only change is that the time limit for implementation has been extended from 15 days to 45 days in favor of the industry. Hence, those who implemented DPCO 1995, on the contrary, should find effecting DPCO 2013 changes in the CPs much easier.

Opposite views:

Reduction in drug prices with market-based pricing methodology is significantly less than the cost based ones. Hence, consumers will be much less benefitted with the new system.

A large section in the industry reportedly does not co-operate with the NPPA in providing details, as required by them, to make the cost based system more transparent.

Serious apprehensions have been expressed about the quality of outsourced market data, which will form the basis of CP calculations.

Key challenges:

I reckon, there will be some key challenges in the implementation of DPCO 2013. These are as follows:

Accuracy of the outsourced market data based on which Ceiling Prices will be calculated by the NPPA.

In case of any gross mistakes, the disputes may get dragged into protracted litigation.

Outsourced data will provide details only of around 480 out of 652 NLEM formulations. How will the data for remaining products be obtained and with what level of accuracy?

The final verdict of the Supreme Court related to the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the NPPP 2012, based on which DPCO 2013 has been worked out, is yet to come. Any unfavorable decision of the Honorable Court on the subject may push the NPPP 2012 and DPCO 2013 back to square one.

Conclusion:

Thus, DPCO 2013 should achieve the objectives of the Government in ensuring essential medicines are available to those who need them most by managing prices in the retail market and balancing industry growth on a longer term perspective. Interestingly, it also encourages indigenous innovation and R&D.

Thus, DPCO 2013, at long last, seems to be a well balanced one.

That said, making drug prices affordable to majority of population in the country is one of most important variables to improve access to medicines. This is an universally accepted fact today, though not an end by itself.

It is worth noting, price control of medicines since the last four decades have certainly been able to make the drug prices in India one of the lowest in the world coupled with intense cut-throat market competition. Unfortunately, this solitary measure is not good enough to improve desirable access to modern medicines for the common man due to various other critical reasons, which we hardly discuss and deliberate upon with as much passion and gusto as price control.

Therefore, industry questions, why despite so many DPCOs and rigorous price control over the last four decades, 47% of hospitalization in rural area and 31% of the same in urban areas are still financed by private loans and selling of assets by individuals?

Others reply with equal zest by saying, the situation could have been even worse without price control of medicines.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Two Paintings on the Same Canvas: ‘Truth About Drug Companies’ and ‘Protecting Access to Medicines’

Posted on May 13, 2013 by Tapan Ray

As the saying goes, “Great people think alike”, many thought leaders of very high credibility across the globe, seem to think almost in similar lines when it comes to improving access to medicines for a large section of the global population.

In this article, I shall briefly focus on two such instances, both revolving around the same centerpiece – one from India and the other from the land of ‘pharmaceutical innovation’ – America.

An interesting article written recently by the well-regarded Indian expert of global stature Dr. K. Srinath Reddy, President, Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), reiterates emphatically, “India must protect access to medicine”.

In a more focused context related to EU-FTA, the author wrote about possible adverse impact of more stringent product patent and regulatory data protection related issues on access to generic medicines in India and other developing countries. Thus, he argued that EU-FTA should be well negotiated by India and cautioned as follows:

“It must be remembered that India needs to protect its vital interests in any trade agreement, just as other nations strive to. Our interest lies in protecting the lives and safeguarding the health of Indians, without permitting unreasonable restrictions on our ability to produce, use and even export, generic versions of drugs the patents of which have lapsed (or where compulsory licensing has been invoked to protect public health).

India needs to tread carefully while negotiating the FTA with the EU, so that the health of the Indian people is not compromised through provisions that shackle our generic drug industry.”

The debate has assumed a global dimension:

Such raging debates on a critical public health issue, like access to medicines, are also taking place in many other countries, as I write, including America, irrespective of the fact whether these are generic or patented drugs.

Marcia Angell, M.D, a faculty of Harvard Medical School and a former Editor in Chief of the world’s leading medical journal ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ wrote an interesting book.

In this book titled “The Truth About the Drug Companies: ‪How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It”, she makes many interesting comments on the American pharmaceutical industry on access to medicines and the kind of pharmaceutical innovations that they are involved in.

The world noticed it:

This book arrested global attention and was extensively reviewed. Since, the author wrote more specifically about the American pharmaceutical industry, following are some excerpts quoted from her book reviews in the USA:

New York Times: “A scorching indictment of drug companies and their research and business practices…tough, persuasive and troubling.”

Boston Globe: “A sober, clear-eyed attack on the excesses of Drug Company power…a lucid, persuasive, and highly important book.”

Washington Post: “Always authoritative…[this book] delivers the message—that drug-company money and power is corrupting American medicine—in a convincing, no-nonsense manner.”

Some key issues raised in the book:

Like the above article of Dr. Reddy, here also the author raises some interesting issues related to the American drug companies. I am penning below some of those issues exactly as expressed by the author (verbatim):

“The magic words, repeated over and over like an incantation, are research, innovation, and American. Research. Innovation. American. It makes a great story.”

“R&D is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits.”

“The great majority of ‘new’ drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market. These are called ‘me-too’ drugs.”

“If I’m a manufacturer and I can change one molecule and get another twenty years of patent rights, and convince physicians to prescribe and consumers to demand the next form of Prilosec, or weekly Prozac instead of daily Prozac, just as my patent expires, then why would I be spending money on a lot less certain endeavor, which is looking for brand-new drugs?”

“Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Most of its marketing efforts are focused on influencing doctors, since they must write the prescriptions.)”

“Now universities, where most NIH-sponsored work is carried out, can patent and license their discoveries, and charge royalties. Similar legislation permitted the NIH itself to enter into deals with drug companies that would directly transfer NIH discoveries to industry.”

“Many medical schools and teaching hospitals set up “technology transfer” offices to help in this activity and capitalize on faculty discoveries. As the entrepreneurial spirit grew during the 1990s, medical school faculty entered into other lucrative financial arrangements with drug companies, as did their parent institutions.”

“One of the results has been a growing pro-industry bias in medical research—exactly where such bias doesn’t belong.”

“In the 1990s, Congress enacted other laws that further increased the patent life of brand-name drugs. Drug companies now employ small armies of lawyers to milk these laws for all they’re worth—and they’re worth a lot. The result is that the effective patent life of brand-name drugs increased from about eight years in 1980 to about fourteen years in 2000.”

“The biggest single item in the budget is neither R&D nor even profits but something usually called ‘marketing and administration – a name that varies slightly from company to company.”

“The industry is fighting these efforts—mainly with its legions of lobbyists and lawyers. It fought the state of Maine all the way to the US Supreme Court, which in 2003 upheld Maine’s right to bargain with drug companies for lower prices, while leaving open the details. But that war has just begun, and it promises to go on for years and get very ugly.”

“The fact that Americans pay much more for prescription drugs than Europeans and Canadians is now widely known.”

“There are very few drugs in the pipeline ready to take the place of blockbusters going off patent. In fact, that is the biggest problem facing the industry today, and its darkest secret. All the public relations about innovation is meant to obscure precisely this fact.”

“Of the 78 drugs approved by the FDA in 2002, only 17 contained new active ingredients, and only seven of these were classified by the FDA as improvements over older drugs.”

“While there is no doubt that genetic discoveries will lead to treatments, the fact remains that it will probably be years before the basic research pays off with new drugs. In the meantime, the once-solid foundations of the big pharma colossus are shaking.”

“Clearly, the pharmaceutical industry is due for fundamental reform. Reform will have to extend beyond the industry to the agencies and institutions it has co-opted, including the FDA and the medical profession and its teaching centers.”

“The me-too market would collapse virtually overnight if the FDA made approval of new drugs contingent on their being better in some important way than older drugs already on the market.”

“A second important reform would be to require drug companies to open their books. Drug companies reveal very little about the most crucial aspects of their business.”

“But the one thing legislators need more than campaign contributions is votes. That is why citizens should know what is really going on. Contrary to the industry’s public relations, they don’t get what they pay for. The fact is that this industry is taking us for a ride, and there will be no real reform without an aroused and determined public to make it happen.”

An opposite view:

On this an article in Forbes Magazine commented as follows:

“The problem with Angell’s arguments is that they are rife with inaccuracies and fallacies. Furthermore, she makes no accounting for changes in the industry that have occurred over the last decade.”

“It is time for those in the medical profession to spur a more truthful and factual discussion about the pharmaceutical industry and its role in the discovery and development of new medicines. The pharmaceutical industry is a key player in the evolution of healthcare and this needs to be recognized if the industry is to operate effectively.”

Conclusion:

One of the key counter arguments that very often comes up in this area, including in India is, the protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is the responsibility of the Government concerned at any cost, even if such protective measures severely restrict access to these drugs to a large population of the society across the globe, due to ‘affordability’ considerations.

It is also claimed that, to come out with innovative medicines, large pharmaceutical companies invest a huge amount of money and time towards R&D related activities.

Thus, the global innovator companies, by and large, with a few exceptions though, believe that stricter enforcement of stringent patent laws by the Governments is the only answer to foster innovation within the industry. Such stringent measures, as they argue, will help them keep investing in R&D to meet the ‘unmet needs’ of patients on a continuous basis.

However, as we have seen above, many experts, like Harvard faculty Marcia Angell and Dr. K. Srinath Reddy have strong and quite different view points. It is certain that the debate on access to affordable medicines is not going to die down, at least any time soon.

Despite all these, it is not difficult, I reckon, to identify an emerging but a clear trend indicating, the priority of the Governments to protect public health interest in the longer term, will ultimately prevail in most parts of the world, including India.

Consequently, the world will probably witness more and more new government policies and legal frameworks in this area striking a right balance between improving access to medicines and fostering innovation, as the countries move on.

That said, taking note of the above two paintings, as it were, painted on the same canvas of ‘improving access to medicines for all’, is it not amazing to note a striking similarity in the thought pattern between two highly credible and independent think tanks, belonging to the oldest and largest democracies of the planet earth, to ensure affordable medicines for all?

By: Tapan J. Ray

More Glivec Like Deals in China and Mounting Global Challenges: Innovators poised Joining Biosimilar Bandwagon

Posted on April 15, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Pressure from the emerging markets on pricing of patented products is mounting fast. This time the country involved is China.

Recently, the Health Minister of China who stepped down last month after a seven-year stint in the top health job reportedly commented that western drugmakers will require to give hefty subsidies and forgo significant amount of profit on expensive cancer drugs, if they want access to huge market of China. He further voiced as follows:

“If the cost (of patented drugs) is too high, maybe only a few percent of patients can benefit. If we can arrange an appropriate, acceptable, affordable price, then you can have a huge market.”

‘Glivec deal’ in China:

In the same report, it was indicated that in China Novartis ultimately agreed to donate three doses of its leukemia drug Glivec for every one sold to the government.

It is expected that many more such deals will take place in China.

The situation to get more challenging in the emerging markets:

Many experts believe that due to high cost of patented drugs, especially biologics, negotiating hefty discounts with the Governments may be the best alternative for the innovator companies to avoid any possibilities of Compulsory Licensing (CL), like what happened to Bayer’s cancer drug Nexavar in India.

An opportunity in biosimilar drugs:

Biologic drugs came to the international market slightly more than three decades ago, in 1980s. Growing at a scorching pace, the value turnover of these products exceeded US$ 138 billion in 2010 (IMS Health).

Launch of biologics like, Recombinant Insulin, Human Growth Hormone (HGH), Alteplase, Erythropoietin (EPOs), Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factors (G-CSFs) and Monoclonal Antibodies (MAbs) kept fueling the market growth further.

Patent expiry of a number of biologic drugs over a period of next five years, especially in areas like, various types of cancer, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, besides many others, will help opening a huge window of opportunity for the global biosimilar players, including from India, to reap a rich harvest.

Global innovators joining the bandwagon:

After a dream-run with high priced patented drugs for a reasonably long time, now stung by the current reality in various developed and emerging markets and factoring-in the width/depth/robustness of their own research pipeline, many global players have started taking a hard look at the emerging opportunities offered by biosimilar drugs.

Moreover, high price of original biologic drugs, cost containment pressure by various Governments, encouragement of generic prescriptions, large number of such drugs going off patent and growing demand of their low cost alternatives across the world, are making biosimilar market more and more lucrative from the global business perspective to all interested players, including from India.

According to Bloomberg Industries (2013), during the next six years biologic drugs with a total annual sales turnover of US$ 47 billion in 2012, will go off patent.

Sniffing opportunities for business growth, as stated above, many hard-nosed large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, currently fighting a challenging battle also in the ground of a tougher ‘patent cliff’, have started venturing into the biosimilar market, that too in a mega scale.

Some of them have already initiated developing biosimilar versions of blockbuster biologics, as reported below:

Originator	Product	Indication	Biosimilar development by:
Roche/Genentech	Rituxan	Rheumatoid arthritis	Boehringer Ingelheim
Roche/Genentech	Herceptin, Rituxan	Breast Cancer, Rheumatoid arthritis	Pfizer
Roche/Genentech	Rituxan	Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma	Novartis
Johnson & Johnson	Remicade	Rheumatoid arthritis	Hospira

Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek

Thus, I reckon, continuous quest for development of cost-effective alternatives to high-priced biologic medicines would keep on propelling the growth of biosimilar drugs, across the world.

Glivec maker Novartis fought a court battle to launch the first ‘Biosimilar drug’ in America:

In mid-2006, US FDA approved its first ‘biosimilar drug’-Omnitrope of Sandoz, the generic arm of the Glivec maker Novartis, following a Court directive. Omnitrope is a copycat version of Pfizer’s human growth hormone Genotropin. Interestingly, Novartis had also taken the US FDA to court for keeping its regulatory approval pending for a while in the absence of a well-defined regulatory pathway for ‘biosimilar drugs’ in the USA at that time.

More interestingly, having received the US-FDA approval, the CEO of Sandoz (Novartis) had then commented as follows:

“The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like, Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”.

Biosimilar market started shaping-up:

Internationally most known companies in the biosimilar drugs space are Teva, Stada, Hospira and Sandoz. Other large research based global innovator pharmaceutical companies, which so far have expressed interest in the field of biosimilar drugs, are Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Merck and Eli Lilly.

Following are examples of some biosimilar drug related initiatives of the global players as the market started developing:

Merck announced its entry into the biosimilar drugs business on February 12, 2009 with its acquisition of Insmed’s portfolio for US$ 130 million. The company also paid US$ 720 million to Hanwha for rights to its copy of Enbrel of Amgen.

Samsung of South Korea has set up a biosimilars joint venture with Quintiles to create a contract manufacturer for biotech drugs.

Celltrion and LG Life Sciences have expressed global ambitions in biosimilar drugs.

Some leading global innovator biotech companies also like, Biogen Idec and Amgen have reportedly been mulling entry into biosimilar market.

According to Reuter (June 22, 2011), Merck, Sandoz, Teva and Pfizer are expected to emerge stronger in the global biosimilar market, in the years ahead.

Why is still so low penetration of lower cost biosimilar drugs?

Although at present over 150 different biologic medicines are available globally, just around 11 countries have access to low cost biosimilar drugs, India being one of them. Supporters of biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as time passes by.

It has been widely reported that the cost of treatment with patented biologic drugs can vary from US$ 100,000 to US$ 300,000 a year. A 2010 review on biosimilar drugs published by the Duke University highlights that biosimilar equivalent of the respective biologics would not only reduce the cost of treatment, but would also improve access to such drugs significantly for the patients across the globe. (Source: Chow, S. and Liu, J. 2010, Statistical assessment of biosimilar products, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 20.1:10-30)

Now with the entry of global pharma majors, the biosimilar market is expected to get further heated up and develop at a much faster pace with artificial barriers created by vested interests, if any, being removed.

Recent removal of regulatory hurdles for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US will indeed be the key growth driver.

Other growth drivers:

According to a study (2011) conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., besides recent establishment of the above regulatory guidelines for biosimilars in the US, the key growth drivers for global biosimilar market, will be as follows:

▪ Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs

▪ Cost containment measures of various governments

▪ Aging population

▪ Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries

The business potential in India:

The size of biotech industry in India is estimated to be around US$ 4 billion by 2015 with a scorching pace of growth driven by both local and global demands (E&Y Report 2011).

The biosimilar drugs market in India is expected to reach US$ 2 billion in 2014 (source: Evalueserve, April 2010).

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies like, Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), besides others.

DRL is the largest biosimilar player in India with an impressive product portfolio. Reditux of DRL is the world’s first Biosimilar monoclonal antibody, which is a copy version of Mabthera/ Rituxan of Roche and costs almost 50 percent less than the original brands.

Some of the Biosimilar products of the Indian Companies are as follows:

Indian Company	Biosimilar Product
Dr Reddy’s Lab	Grafeel, Reditux, Cresp
Intas	Neukine, Neupeg, Intalfa, Epofit
Shantha Biotech/Merieux Alliance	Shanferon,Shankinase,Shanpoietin
Reliance Life Sciences	ReliPoietin, ReliGrast, ReliFeron, MIRel
Wockhardt	Wepox, Wosulin
Biocon	Eripro, Biomab, Nufil, Myokinase, Insugen

(Source: Stellarix Consultancy Services)

The cost of development of Biosimilars in India is around US$ 10-20 million, which is expected to go up, as “Biosimilar Guidelines” are now in place for marketing approval of such products in India.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies will be to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU, either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Indian players making rapid strides:

As stated above, biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. It also has developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India.

Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF.

On the other hand Glenmark reportedly is planning to come out with its first biotech product soon from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla reportedly has invested around US$ 60 million in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab in China and is planning to launch a biosimilar drug in the field of oncology by 2013.

Another large pharmaceutical company of India, Lupin signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly will use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs in the field of oncology, the first one of which, will reportedly be launched in India by 2013.

The global Market:

In 2011 the turnover of Biologic drugs increased to over US$ 175 billion in the total market of US$ 847 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 10 best selling global brands in 2012 with Humira of AbbVie emerging as the highest-selling biologics during the year. Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies.

According to IMS Health report, by 2015, sales of biosimilars are expected to reach between US$ 1.9 – 2.6 billion. The report also states that this market has the potential to be the single fastest-growing biologics sector in the next five years.

Cost of biosimilar development in the developed markets:

The process of developing a biosimilar drug is complex and requires significantly more investment, technical capabilities and clinical trial expertise than any small molecule generic drug. As per industry sources, average product developmental cost ranges between US$ 100 and 250 million in the developed markets, which is several times higher than the same associated with development of small molecule generics, ranging around US$ 1to 4 million.

All these factors create a significant market entry barrier for many smaller players with similar intent but less than adequate wherewithal.

Even higher market entry barrier with ‘second generation’ biosimilar drugs:

Emergence of second generation branded biosimilar products such as PEGylated products and PegIntron (peginterferon alpha), Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) and insulin analogs have the potential to reduce the market size for first generation biosimilar drugs creating significant entry barrier.

Negotiating the entry barriers:

As stated above, the barriers to market entry for biosimilar drugs are, in general, are much higher than any small molecule generic drugs. In various markets within EU, many companies face the challenge of higher development costs for biosimilar drugs due to stringent regulatory requirements and greater lead-time for product development.

Navigating through such tough regulatory environment will demand different type of skill sets, especially for the generic companies not only in areas of clinical trials and pharmacovigilance, but also in manufacturing and marketing. Consequently, the investment needed to take biosimilar drugs from clinical trials to launch in the developed markets will indeed be quite significant.

The future potential:

According to an IMS Health study, the emerging markets will drive biosimilar market growth with significantly more number of patients. The report estimates that over a period of time US will emerge as the number one global biosimilars market.

By 2020, emerging markets and the US are expected to register a turnover of US$11 billion and US$ 25 billion representing a share of 4 percent to 10 percent of the total global biologics market, respectively.

The report estimates that overall penetration of biosimilars within the off-patent biological market will reach up to 50 percent by 2020, assuming a price discount in the range of 20 to 30 percent.

Is 12 years exclusivity in the US a significant entry barrier?

In the US, the innovator companies get 12 years exclusivity for their original biologic drugs from the date of respective marketing approvals by the USFDA.

The BPCI Act clearly specifies that applications for ‘biosimilar drugs’ to the USFDA will not be made effective by the regulator before 12 years from the date of approval of the innovators’ products. In addition, if the original product is for pediatric indications, the 12-years exclusivity may get an extension for another six months.

The key point to note here is, if the USFDA starts its review process for the ‘biosimilar drugs’ only after the ’12 year period’, the innovator companies will effectively get, at least, one additional year of exclusivity over and above the ’12 year period’, keeping applicants for ‘biosimilar drugs’ waiting for that longer.

Conclusion:

As stated above, with around 40 percent cost arbitrage and without compromising on the required stringent international regulatory standards, the domestic ‘biosimilar’ players should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for such drugs, just as small molecule generic medicines.

With experience in conforming to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards, having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside USA, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in the country. Now with significant improvement in conformance to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) and honed skill sets in the field of biologics, Indian biosimilar players are clearly poised to catapult themselves to even a higher growth trajectory, either on their own or with appropriate collaborative arrangements with the international partners.

Thus, the initiatives of joining the biosimilar bandwagon by the hard-nosed research based global players, I reckon, will ultimately get translated into a win-win advantage for India in the rapidly evolving pharmaceutical space of the world.

Besides, like what they had to do in China, working with the Government to put in place a robust and win-win mechanism of ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ in India could augur well for the global players of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. This mechanism may also help putting forth even a stronger argument against any Government initiative to grant CL on the pricing ground for expensive patented drugs in India.

With all these developments, patients will be the ultimate winners having much greater access to both innovative medicines and biosimilar drugs than what they have today, fetching a huge relief to all right thinking population in the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Does the Landmark Glivec Judgment Discourage Innovation in India?

Posted on April 8, 2013 by Tapan Ray

No, I do not think so. The 112 pages well articulated judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered on April 1, 2013, does not even remotely discourage innovation in India, including much talked about ‘incremental innovation’. This landmark judgment reconfirms the rules of the game for pharmaceutical innovation, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005.

When one reads the judgment, point 191 in page number 95 very clearly states as follows:

“191. We have held that the subject product, the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, does not qualify the test of Section 3(d) of the Act but that is not to say that Section 3(d) bars patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances. It will be a grave mistake to read this judgment to mean that section 3(d) was amended with the intent to undo the fundamental change brought in the patent regime by deletion of section 5 from the Parent Act. That is not said in this judgment.”

Thus all ‘incremental innovations’, which some people always paint with a general broad brush of ‘evergreening’, should no longer be a taboo in India. The judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and arguments of Novartis.

To me, the judgment does also not signal that no more Glivec like case will come to the Supreme Court in future. It vindicated inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act 2005.

It is interesting to note that honorable Supreme Court itself used the terminology of ‘incremental innovation’ for such cases.

That said, I find it extremely complex to imagine what would have happened, if the judgment had gone the opposite way.

A critical point to ponder:

The judgment will also mean that all those products, having valid product patents abroad, if fail to meet the requirements of Section 3(d), will not be patentable in India, enabling introduction of their generic equivalents much sooner in the country and at the same time causing a nightmarish situation for their innovators.

However, this again, in no way, is an outcome of this judgement or a new development, as stated above. It is just vindication of the intent behind inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act, when it was enacted by the Parliament of India in 2005.

Patentability of ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

Patentability criteria for any ‘incremental innovations’ has been defined in the Section 3(d) of the Indian statute as follows:

“The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

Supreme Court interpretation of the term “Efficacy” in Section 3(d):

The Honorable Supreme Court in page 90 of its above order under point 180 stated that in case of medicines, efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”, which must be judged strictly and narrowly. The interpretation goes as follows:

180. “What is “efficacy”? Efficacy means ‘the ability to produce a desired or intended result’. Hence, the test of efficacy in the context of section 3(d) would be different, depending upon the result the product under consideration is desired or intended to produce. In other words, the test of efficacy would depend upon the function, utility or the purpose of the product under consideration. Therefore, in the case of a medicine that claims to cure a disease, the test of efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”.

The Honorable Court under the same point 180 further elaborated:

“With regard to the genesis of section 3(d), and more particularly the circumstances in which section 3(d) was amended to make it even more constrictive than before, we have no doubt that the “therapeutic efficacy” of a medicine must be judged strictly and narrowly…Further, the explanation requires the derivative to ‘differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy’. What is evident, therefore, is that not all advantageous or beneficial properties are relevant, but only such properties that directly relate to efficacy, which in case of medicine, as seen above, is its therapeutic efficacy.”

Based on this interpretation of Section 3(d), the Honorable Supreme Court of India ordered that Glivec does not fulfill the required criteria of the statute.

The rationale behind Section 3(d):

A report on ‘Patentability of the incremental innovation’ indicates that the policy makers keeping the following points in mind formulated the Indian Patents Act 2005:

The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industry, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.

A stringent patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs to a large number of populations in India.

Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will be able to demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

IPA challenges: 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by IPO fall under Section 3(d):

A study by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Possible implications to IPA challenge:

If the argument, as expressed above in the IPA study, is true by any stretch of imagination, in that case, there exists a theoretical possibility of at least 86 already granted product patents to get revoked. This will invite again another nightmarish situation for innovators.

Examples of revocation of patents in India:

On November 26, 2012, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Gefitinib on the ground that the molecule lacked invention.

The report also states that AstraZeneca suffered its first setback on Gefitinib in June 2006, when the Indian generic company Natco Pharma opposed the initial patent application filed by the global major in a pre-grant opposition. Later on, another local company, GM Pharma, joined Natco in November 2006.

After accepting the pre-grant opposition by the two Indian companies, the Indian Patent office (IPO) in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Prior to this, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the large Indian pharma player – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a “novel” product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’, as required by Section 3(d) of Patents Act of India 2005.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys.

Similarly the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib) granted by IPO in 2007, was revoked by the IPAB in October, 2012 after a post grant challenge by Cipla and Natco Pharma on the ground that the claimed ‘invention’ does not involve inventive steps.

Patent challenges under section 3(d) may come up even more frequently in future:

Some observers in this field have expressed, although ‘public health interest’ is the primary objective for having Section 3(d) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, many generic companies, both local and global, have already started exploiting this provision as a part of their ‘business strategy’ to improve business performance in India, especially when an injunction is usually not being granted by the honorable Courts for such cases on public health interest ground.

Thus, as stated above, there is likely to be many more cases like, Glivec coming before the Supreme Court in the years ahead.

Another related development of the last week:

It has been reported that American pharma major MSD has last week filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against Indian pharma major – Glenmark for alleged patent violation of its leading anti-diabetic drugs Januvia and Janumet. In this case also no interim injunction has reportedly been granted to MSD by the Honorable Delhi High Court.

Glenmark has stated through a media report, “It is a responsible company and has launched the products after due diligence and research.” The company has also announced that their version of the molecule named Zita and Zita Met will be available to patients at a 20 percent discount to MSD’s price.

Hence, once again, the Indian court to decide, the balance of justice would now point to which direction.

Government has no role to play – patent challenge is a legal process across the world:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue, ‘Patent Challenge’ is a legal process all over the world, the Government has hardly got any role to play in settling such disputes. The law should be allowed to take its own course for all disputes related to the Patents Act of the country, including Section 3(d).

They also opine that India must be allowed to follow the law of justice without casting aspersions on the knowledge and biases of the Indian judiciary for vested interests.

That said, there is certainly an urgent need to add speed to this legal process by setting up ‘Fast-track Courts’ for resolving all Intellectual Property (IP) related disputes in a time bound manner.

Arguments against Section 3(d):

Opposition to the Section 3(d) counter-argues by saying, this is a critical period for India to help fostering an appropriate ecosystem for innovation in the country. This group emphasizes, “Providing the right incentives for incremental pharmaceutical innovation can move India forward on this path and encourage the development of drug products that meet the needs of Indian patients. Reforming Section 3(d) to encourage and protect incremental pharmaceutical innovation would create such incentives and help India become a true powerhouse of innovation.”

Another group says that the main reason in favor of Section 3(d) being the provision will prevent grant of frivolous patents, the ultimate fallout of which will result in limited access to these drugs due to high price, is rather irrelevant today. This, they point out, is mainly because the Government is now actively mulling a structured mechanism of price negotiation for all patented drugs to improve their access to patients in India.

Importance of ‘Incremental Innovation’ in India:

Incremental innovations are indeed very important for the country and have been benefiting the patients immensely over decades, across the world.

A report titled, “The Value Of Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation” highlighted as follows:

As per the National Knowledge Commission, while 37.3% of Indian companies introduced breakthrough innovations in recent years, no fewer than 76.4% introduced incremental innovations.

60 percent of the drugs on the World health Organization’s essential Drug list reflect incremental improvements over older drugs.

The report indicates some of the benefits of ‘Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation’ for India as follows:

Improved quality of drug products, including products that are better suited to India’s climate.
Development of treatments for diseases that are prevalent in India for which new drug discovery is currently limited or otherwise inadequate.
Increasing likelihood that for every therapeutic class, there is a treatment to which an Indian patient will respond.
Development of the R&D capacity and expertise  of Indian pharmaceutical companies.
Reduction of healthcare and other social costs in India through improved drug quality and selection.
Increased access to medicine as a result of price competition.

The study concluded by saying that Section 3(d) potentially precludes the patenting of hundreds of incremental pharmaceutical innovations that Indian companies are attempting to patent and commercialize outside India.

There are umpteen numbers of examples that can ably demonstrate, ‘incremental innovation’ of the pharmaceutical innovators help significantly improving the efficacy and safety of existing drugs. All such innovations should in no way be considered “frivolous” as they have very substantial and positive impact in improving conditions of the ailing patients.

Be that as it may, the Supreme Court judgment has categorically mentioned that all ‘Incremental innovations’ should conform to the requirement of the Section 3(d) of the statute.

“West should learn from India’s high patent standards”

An article appeared just yesterday written by a well-regarded Indian economist recommended, “West should learn from India’s high patent standards”. It observed that over-liberal patent system of the West is now broken and it should learn from India’s much tougher patent system.

Patent monopolies needs to be given only for genuine innovations, as defined in the Indian Patents Act 2005, where the public benefits clearly exceed the monopoly cost.

The author concluded by saying, “This means setting a high bar for innovation. High standards are desirable for patents, as for everything else.”

View of the Glivec inventor:

In another interview titled, “If you erode patents, where will innovations come from?” Dr Brian Druker, whose work resulted in the development of Glivec, re-emphasizing the need for R&D by the pharmaceutical industry, commented, “I’m going to stay away from the legal judgment … but as a physician, I do recognize that the advances will come from new products, not modifications.”

Are discordant voices out of step with time?

The interpretation of the Section 3(d) of the statute by the Honorable Supreme Court of India is the last word for all, despite a few voices of discord from within and mostly outside India. These voices, many would reckon, could well be out of step with time, especially in relatively fast growing, modern, independent, thinking and assertive young India.

Conclusion:

In my view, nothing materially has changed on the ground before and after the Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case so far as the Indian Patents Act is concerned and also in its interpretation.

While encouraging all types of innovations, including incremental ones and protecting them with an effective IPR regime are very important for any country. No nation can afford to just wish away various socioeconomic expectations, demands and requirements not just of the poor, but also of the growing middle class intelligentsia, as gradually getting unfolded in many parts of the globe.

Available indicators do point out that the civil society would continue to expect in return, just, fair, responsible and reasonably affordable prices for the innovative medicines, based on the overall socioeconomic status of the local population.

This critical balancing factor is essential not only for the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, but also to alleviate sufferings of the ailing population of the country, effectively.

For arguments sake, in an ideal scenario, if the Central and State Governments in India decide to buy such drugs to supply to all patients free of cost, just like any ‘welfare state’, will even the Government be able to afford these prices and fund such schemes in India?

It is, therefore, now widely expected that innovator pharmaceutical companies, which play a pivotal role in keeping population of any nation healthy and disease free to the extent possible, should also proactively find out ways to help resolving this critical issue in India, working closely with the Government of 1.2 billion Indians, including other concerned stakeholders.

In that context, the landmark Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case has vindicated the need of striking a right balance between encouraging and protecting innovation, including incremental ones and the public health interest of India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Small Steps, yet Giant Leaps: In Pursuit of Affordable Medicines for All

Posted on April 1, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Since last few years, some small yet very significant steps are being taken, mostly by the respective Governments, in and outside India, to provide affordable healthcare in general and affordable medicines in particular, for all.

It is well recognized that drug prices play as critical a role as a robust healthcare infrastructure and quality of its delivery system to provide affordable healthcare to the general population of any country. Thus, it is not a ‘chicken and egg’ situation. All these issues must be addressed simultaneously and with equally great care.

A WHO report:

A World Health Organization (WHO) titled, “Improving access to medicines through equitable financing and affordable prices” highlights as follows:

“In many countries medicines account for over half of total health expenditures and are often unavailable and unaffordable to consumers who need them. Up to 90% of the population in developing countries still buys medicines through out-of-pocket payments, and are often exposed to the risk of catastrophic expenditure.”

Definition of ‘Access to Medicines’:

How then one will define ‘access to medicines’?

United Nations Development Group, in a paper titled ‘Indicators for Monitoring the Millennium Development Goals (United Nations, New York, 2003) defined ‘Access to Medicines’ as follows:

‘Having medicines continuously available and affordable at public or private health facilities or medicine outlets that are within one hour’s walk from the homes of the population.’

Healthcare ‘affordability’ is critical:

Despite healthcare infrastructure in India being inadequate with a slow pace of development, affordability of healthcare, including medicines, still remains critical.

This is mainly because, even if a quality healthcare infrastructure together with an efficient delivery system is put in place without ensuring their affordability, patients’ access to quality healthcare products and services will not improve, especially in India, where private healthcare dominates.

Diversionary measures should not cause distraction:

Although, maximum possible resources must be garnered to address the critical issue of expanding quality healthcare infrastructure and delivery system sooner, the focus of the government, as stated above, must not get diverted from making healthcare products and services affordable to patients, at any cost.

This should continue despite diversionary measures from some quarter to deflect the focus of all concerned from affordability of healthcare to lack of adequate healthcare infrastructure and its delivery mechanisms in India.

This, in no way, is an ‘either/or’ situation. India needs to resolve both the issues in a holistic way, sooner.

Small Steps:

In an earnest endeavor to provide affordable medicines to all, the following small and simple, yet significant steps have been taken in and outside India:

Strong encouragement for generic drugs prescriptions
Regulatory directive for prescriptions in generic names
In case that does not work – Government initiative on Patient Empowerment

In this article, I shall try to capture all these three small steps.

1. Strong encouragement for generic drugs prescriptions:

A. Generic drugs improve access and reduce healthcare cost:

A Special Report From the ‘US-FDA Consumer Magazine’ and the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Fourth Edition / January 2006 states that generic drugs offer significant savings to the consumers.

Quoting a 2002 study by the Schneider Institute for Health Policy at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., it reiterated that if Medicare increased the rate of generic usage to that of similar high-performing private sector health plans, its 40 million beneficiaries could see potential savings of US$14 billion.

Another US-FDA report titled, ‘Greater Access to Generic Drugs’ also reinforced the argument that rising costs of prescription drugs remain a major challenge for consumers, especially older Americans. To address this issue effectively generics can play a critical role by providing less expensive medications.

B. ‘Obamacare’ followed this direction resulting decline in spend on high priced Patented Drugs:

Recently The New York Times quoting IMS Health reported that nationwide turnover of patented drugs in the U.S actually dropped in 2012. This decline though was just by 1 percent to US$ 325 billion, is indeed very significant and happened due to increasing prescription trend for low cost generics across America since past several years.

It is interesting to note this trend in America where the cost of medicines account for just about 15 percent (against over 70 percent in India) of the nation’s health care expenditures.

IMS Health reported that in 2012, 84 percent of all prescriptions were dispensed as generics and estimated use of generics may reach even as high as 86 to 87 percent in the U.S.

However, many experts believe that this trend is a result of many blockbusters like Lipitor going off patent during this period and no major breakthrough medicines coming with perceptible added value in these large therapy areas.

That said, lesser number of small molecule blockbuster drugs is set to lose patent protection over the next several years and the complexity in manufacturing and getting marketing approvals of large molecule biosimilar drugs in the U.S could arrest this trend.

Biosimilar drugs though are available in European Union, are expected to be available in the America not before at least two more years.

Despite a sharp increase in prescriptions for generic drugs, some of the patented medicines came with ‘jaw-dropping’ price tags: four drugs approved in 2012 carry a yearly cost of more than US$ 200,000 per patient, though the cost of development of some of these drugs do not exceed US$ 250 million, as reported by Forbes.

2. Regulatory directive for prescriptions in generic names:

A. Different situation in India:

Although increasing trend of generic prescriptions is bringing down the overall cost of healthcare in general and for medicines in particular elsewhere in the world, the situation is quite different in India.

In India over 99 percent of over US$ 13 billion domestic pharmaceutical market constitutes predominantly of branded generics and some generic medicines without brand names.

B. Allegation of branded generic prescriptions linked with marketing malpractices:

As Reuters reported, quoting public health experts and some Indian doctors, that due to an unholy nexus between some pharmaceutical companies and a large section of the medical profession, drugs are not only dangerously overprescribed, but mostly expensive branded generics are prescribed to patients, instead of cheaper equivalents. The reports said that this situation can be ‘devastating for patients — physically and financially — in a country where health care is mostly private, out of pocket, unsubsidized and 400 million people live on less than US$ 1.25 a day’.

It is now a matter of raging debate that many branded generic prescriptions are closely linked with marketing malpractices.

Not just the media and for that matter even a Parliamentary Standing Committee in one of its reports highlighted, bribing doctors by many pharma players in various forms and garbs to prescribe their respective brand of generic drugs has now reached an alarming proportion in India, jeopardizing patients’ interest seriously, more than ever before and observed that speedy remedial measures are of utmost importance.

C. MCI initiative on prescription in generic names:

To address this major issue the Medical Council of India (MCI) in its circular dated January 21, 2013 addressed to the Dean/Principals of all the Medical Colleges,  Director of all the hospitals and the  Presidents of all the State Medical Councils directed as follows:

“The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 inter-alia prescribes as under regarding use of generic names of drugs vide clause 1.5.

1.5 – Use of Generic names of drugs: Every physician should, as far as possible, prescribe drugs with generic names and he/she shall ensure that there is a rational prescription and use of drugs.”

All the Registered Medical Practitioners under the IMC Act are directed to comply with the aforesaid provisions of the Regulations without fail.

You are requested to give wide publicity of the above regulation to ensure that all the doctors practicing medicine under your jurisdiction comply with the regulation.”

MCI also urged the Medical profession to implement the above provision for prescriptions in generic names both in its letter and spirit.

As the situation has not changed much just yet, it is up to the MCI now to enforce this regulation exactly the way as it has intended to. Otherwise the value of this circular will not even be worth the paper on which it was printed by this august regulatory body.

D. Parliamentary Standing Committee recommends it:

As mentioned above, prior to this circular, Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) for Health and Family Welfare in its recommendation to the ‘Rajya Sabha’ of the Indian Parliament on August 4, 2010, also recommended prescription of medicines by their generic names.

E. Why is the bogey of ‘product quality’ so active only for generic prescriptions and not for branded generics?

It is indeed difficult to fathom why is the product quality issue, which could make drugs unsafe for the patients, being raised so much for generic medicines without a brand name and not for branded generics?

The following questions should well be raised for greater clarity on the quality issue with generic medicines without a brand name, for all concerned:

Are all generic medicines of dubious quality and branded generics are of good quality?

If quality parameters can be doubted for both branded generics and generics without a brand name, in many cases, why then raise this issue only in context of prescribing generic medicines ?

If quality issues are not much with the larger companies and are restricted to only smaller companies, why then some branded generic drugs of smaller companies are being prescribed so much by the doctors?

Currently many large companies market the same drugs both as generics without a brand name and also as branded generics, why then the branded generic versions are prescribed more than their generic equivalents, though manufactured by the same large companies having the same quality profile?

Why are the generic medicines of good quality available at ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets (though small in number) cost a fraction of their branded generic equivalents and not being prescribed by most of the doctors?

Why do the doctors not show much interest in prescribing generic medicines as of date and defend the branded generics on the same ‘quality’ platform?

Why not those who argue that phonetically similar or wrong reading of generic names at the chemist outlets may cause health safety hazard to the patients, also realize that many already existing phonetically similar brand names in totally different therapy areas may cause similar hazards too?

How does a doctor while prescribing a branded generic or generic medicine pre-judge which ones are of good quality and which others are not?

These questions, though may be uncomfortable to many, nevertheless merit clear, unambiguous, straight and specific answers.

3. In case MCI directive does not work – Government initiative on ‘Patient Empowerment’:

A. Laudable Government initiative:

Recognizing this issue in tandem, on December 7, 2012 the Department of Pharmaceuticals together with the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority announced as follows:

“There are number of drugs available in the market with same medicament composition with wide variation in their prices. The prescription of doctors also varies from low price to high priced drugs for the same ailment. Government of India intends to launch an SMS based patient awareness scheme, which would enable the patients to know the cheaper alternatives medicines available”.

The timeline for implementation of this initiative was announced as six month from the date of awarding the contract.

It was reported that in this mobile phone based program, consumers by sending a text message of any branded generic drug prescribed by the doctors would get an SMS reply with a list of brands of the same molecule along with their prices to exercise their choice of purchase.

As usually happens with most government decisions, the gestation period of this laudable ‘patient empowerment’ initiative perhaps will get over not before end 2013.

B. One interesting private initiative:

One interesting private websites that I have recently come across offering information on branded generic drugs is www.mydawaai.com (I have quoted this website just to cite an example and not to recommend or promote it in any form or manner). There may be other such websites, as well, in the cyberspace.

However, in this website, if anyone types the brand name of the drug that one is looking for, the following details will be available:

The generic version of branded medicine.
The company manufacturing the brand.
Its estimated cost in India
Alternative brand names with same generic salt.
The cost effectiveness for different brand for the same salt.

Such information, if available easily from the Government or any highly credible source, will indeed help patients having access to affordable low cost medicines to lessen their out of pocket financial burden, at least for medicines.

Conclusion:

In India, even if branded generic prescriptions continue despite MCI directive, to empower patients making an informed choice to buy low priced formulations of the same prescribed molecule, the above ‘Patient Empowerment’ initiative will play a very critical role.

Thus, I reckon, to improve access to affordable medicines in India, like many other countries elsewhere in the world, the above small steps that are being taken by the MCI, the Department of Pharmaceuticals, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority and other private players are indeed laudable and must be encouraged.

Kudos will pour in, from India and abroad, if such small and simple steps get ultimately translated into a giant leap in the healthcare space of the country…for patients’ sake.

By: Tapan J Ray

The R&D Factor: “One of the Great Myths of the Industry”

Posted on March 25, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Yes, that is what the global CEO of one of the Pharmaceutical giants of the world commented in a very recent interview with Reuters. Adding further to this comment he said, “US $1 billion price tag for R&D was an average figure that includes money spent on drugs that ultimately fail… If you stop failing so often, you massively reduce the cost of drug development … It’s entirely achievable.”

Therefore, he concluded his interview by saying that the pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge much less for new drugs by passing on efficiencies in R&D to the customers.

A vindication:

The above comment does not seem to be a one off remark. A recent study on R&D productivity of 12 top pharmaceutical companies of the world by Deloitte and Thomson Reuters highlighted that the average cost of developing a new medicine is now US$ 1.1 billion with the most successful company in the group studied incurred an average cost of just US$ 315 million, while at the other extreme, another company spent US$ 2.8 billion.

How much of it then covers the cost of failures and who pays for such inefficiencies?

Some experts have gone even further:

Some experts in this area have gone even further arguing that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are over stated and the real costs are much less.

An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicates that the total cost from the discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in the year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 this figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a large overseas pharmaceutical industry association.

The authors of the above article also mentioned that the following factors were not considered while working out the 2006 figure of US$ 1.32 billion:

▪ The tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D.

▪ Tax write-offs amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40% of the R&D cost.

▪ The cost of basic research should not have been included, as these are mostly undertaken by public funded universities or laboratories.

The article commented that ‘half the R&D costs are inflated estimates of profits that companies could have made if they had invested in the stock market instead of R&D and include exaggerated expenses on clinical trials’.

“High R&D costs have been the industry’s excuses for charging high prices”:

In the same article the authors strongly commented as follows:

“Pharmaceutical companies have a strong vested interest in maximizing figures for R&D as high research and development costs have been the industry’s excuse for charging high prices. It has also helped generating political capital worth billions in tax concessions and price protection in the form of increasing patent terms and extending data exclusivity.”

The study concludes by highlighting that “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company is probably about US$ 60 million.”

Another perspective to the “R&D Factor”:

A book titled “Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks, and Rewards”, published by the government of USA gives another perspective to the “R&D Factor”. It articulates that the three most important components of R&D investments are:

Money
Time
Risk

Money is just one component of investment, along with a long duration of time, to reap benefits of success, which is intertwined with a very high risk of failure. The investors in the pharmaceutical R&D projects not only take into account how much investment is required for the project against expected financial returns, but also the timing of inflow and outflow of fund with associated risks. It is thus quite understandable that longer is the wait for the investors to get their real return, greater will be their expectations for the same.

This publication also highlights that the cost of bringing a new drug from ‘mind to market’ depends on the quality and sophistication of science and technology involved in a particular R&D process together with associated investment requirements for the same.

In addition, regulatory demand to get marketing approval of a complex molecule for various serious disease types is also getting more and more stringent, significantly increasing their cost of clinical development in tandem. All these factors when taken together, the authors argue, make the cost of R&D not only very high, but unpredictable too.

Thus to summarize from the above study, high pharmaceutical R&D costs involve:

Sophisticated science and technology dependent high up-front financial investments
A long and indefinite period of negative cash flow
High tangible and intangible costs for acquiring technology with rapid trend of obsolescence
High risk of failure at any stage of product development

Even reengineered R&D model may not be sustainable:

Many research scientists have already highlighted that sharp focus in some critical areas may help containing the R&D expenditure to a considerable extent and also would help avoiding the cost of failures significantly. The savings thus made, in turn, can fund a larger number of R&D projects.

The areas identified are as follows:

Early stage identification of unviable new molecules and jettisoning them quickly.
Newer cost efficient R&D models.
Significant reduction in drug development time.

Unfortunately, sustainability of the above model too still remains in the realm of a wishful thinking and raises a serious question mark to many for various other reasons.

Should Pharmaceutical R&D move away from its traditional models?

Thus the critical point to ponder today, should the Pharmaceutical R&D now move from its traditional comfort zone of expensive one company initiative to a much less charted frontier of sharing drug discovery involving many players? If this overall approach gains acceptance sooner by all concerned, it could lead to increase in R&D productivity significantly at a much lesser cost, benefiting the patients community at large.

Finding right pathway in this direction is more important today than ever before, as the R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, keeps going south and that too at a faster pace, prompting major cuts in the absolute R&D expenditure by many, as compared to the previous year.

A global R&D spend comparison (2011 and 12):

R&D expenditures in absolute terms of the following global companies in 2011 and 2012, without drawing any relationship to their respective R&D productivity, were reportedly as follows:

Company	2012 US$ Bn.	2011 US$ Bn.	% Change	% of Sale
Roche	10.10	8.81	13.7	21.0
Novartis	9.33	9.58	(3.0)	16.4
Merck	8.16	8.46	(4.0)	17.0
Pfizer	7.90	9.10	(13.0)	13.3
J&J	7.66	7.54	1.5	11.6
Sanofi	6.40	6.24	2.5	14.1
GSK	5.95	6.01	(1.0)	15.0
Eli Lilly	5.30	5.00	5.0	23.4
AstraZeneca	5.24	5.52	(5.0)	18.8
Abbott Labs	4.32	4.12	4.7	10.8
Total	70.36	70.38

Source: Fierce Biotech, March 18, 2013

This particular table points out that five out of the reported ten companies had to spend less towards R&D in 2012 as compared to 2011 and four out of the remaining five players were able to increase their R&D spend just marginally.

Thus the same question comes at the top of mind yet again: is the current pharmaceutical R&D model sustainable and working with optimal productivity and cost efficiency for the benefits of patients?

Towards greater sustainability of the R&D model:

A July 2010 study of Frost & Sullivan reports, “Open source innovation increasingly being used to promote innovation in the drug discovery process and boost bottom-line”.

It underscores the urgent need for the global pharmaceutical companies to respond to the challenges of high cost and low productivity in their respective R&D initiatives, in general.

The ‘Open Innovation’ model assumes even greater importance today, as we have noted above, to avoid huge costs of R&D failures, which are eventually passed on to the patients through the drug pricing mechanism.

‘Open Innovation’ model, as they proposed, will be most appropriate to even promote highly innovative approaches in the drug discovery process bringing many brilliant scientific minds together from across the world.

The key objective of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharmaceuticals is, therefore, to encourage drug discovery initiatives at a much lesser cost, especially for non-infectious chronic diseases or the dreaded ailments like Cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis, including many neglected diseases of the developing countries, making innovative drugs affordable even to the marginalized section of the society.

“Open Innovation” is very successful in IT industry:

The concept of ‘Open Innovation’ is being quite successfully used in the Information Technology (IT) industry since nearly three decades across the world, including India. Web Technology, Linux Operating System (OS) and even the modern day ‘Android’ are excellent examples of commercially successful ‘Open innovation’ model in IT,

In the sphere of Biotechnology ‘Human Genome Sequencing’ is another remarkable outcome of such type of R&D model. Therefore, why not a similar model be actively pursued in a much larger scale to discover newer and innovative drugs at a much lesser cost for greater access to patients?

Issues involved:

In the evolving process of ‘Open Innovation’ in pharma there are some issues to be addressed and at the same time some loose knots to be tightened to make the process increasingly more user friendly and robust. Many experts feel that the key issues for the ‘Open Innovation’ model are as follows:

▪ Who will fund the project and how much?

▪ Who will lead the project?

▪ Who will coordinate the project and find talents?

▪ Who will take it through clinical development and regulatory approval process?

That said, all these issues do not seem to be insurmountable problems at all to add greater speed and efficiency to the process, as the saying goes, ‘where there is a will, there is a way’.

Conclusion:

Having deliberated on this issue as above, I reckon, there is a dire need to make the process of offering innovative drugs at affordable prices to the patients sustainable over a long period of time, for the sake of all.

This can happen only when there will be a desire to step into the uncharted frontier, coming out of much beaten and a high cost tract of R&D, especially after having picked-up the low hanging fruits. Dove tailing the passion for business excellence with the patients’ interest, dispassionately, will then be the name of the game.

As the Reuters article quoting the CEO of a global pharma major points out, in addition to improvements in research, increasing global demand for medicines and the explosion in the volume of products sold in emerging markets should also contribute to lower unit costs of the innovative drugs ensuring their greater access to patients.

This process, in turn, will help fostering a win-win situation for all stakeholders, exploding “one of the great myths of the industry” – The ‘R&D Factor’.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Pharmaceuticals

Beyond ‘The Magic Moment’ of New Drug Marketing Approval

Is Fraud or Negligence in Drug Quality Standards Not a Fraud on Patients?

New Drug Price Control Order of India: Is it Directionally Right Improving Access to Medicines?

Two Paintings on the Same Canvas: ‘Truth About Drug Companies’ and ‘Protecting Access to Medicines’

More Glivec Like Deals in China and Mounting Global Challenges: Innovators poised Joining Biosimilar Bandwagon

Does the Landmark Glivec Judgment Discourage Innovation in India?

Small Steps, yet Giant Leaps: In Pursuit of Affordable Medicines for All

The R&D Factor: “One of the Great Myths of the Industry”