3D Printing: An Emerging Game Changer in Pharma Business

Posted on January 11, 2016 by Tapan Ray

On August 3, 2015, Aprecia Pharmaceuticals in the United States took a game changing step towards a new paradigm of the global pharma business. The Company announced that for the first time ever, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) approved a ‘Three-Dimensional (3D)’ – printed prescription drug for the oral use of epilepsy patients. Although, 3DP has already been used to manufacture medical devices and prosthetics, in the pharma world, this disruptive innovation was never practiced on the ground, till that magic moment came.

The drug is Spritam® (levetiracetam) used as a prescription adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial onset seizures, myoclonic seizures and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in adults and children with epilepsy.

According to this announcement, Spritam® utilizes Aprecia’s proprietary ZipDose® Technology platform, that uses 3D Printing (3DP) to produce a porous formulation that rapidly disintegrates with a sip of liquid.

The 3DP technology:

3DP technology is broadly defined as a process for making a physical object from a three-dimensional digital model, typically by laying down many successive thin layers of a material.

The originator of this game changing development is the renowned academic institution – ‘The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)’in the United States.

Later on, the MIT licensed out the patented 3DP technology for its use in many different other fields. Among pharma companies Aprecia Pharmaceuticals obtained the exclusive rights to 3D-printing technology for pharmaceutical purposes in 2007.

A high potential game changer:

In pharma, 3DP could possibly emerge as a game changing and disruptive innovation, sooner than later. It could radically change the traditional and well-established strategic and operational models of pharma business, especially the drug discovery process, manufacturing strategy and even the disease treatment process, paving a faster pathway for the much awaited ‘Personalized Medicines’, in a large scale.

Lee Cronin, a Professor of Chemistry, Nanoscience and Chemical Complexity at the Glasgow University, says that the 3DP technology could potentially be used to print medicines of many types – cheaply and wherever it is needed. As Professor Cronin says: “What Apple did for music, I’d like to do for the discovery and distribution of prescription drugs.”

3D Printers would also throw open an opportunity of getting any drug tailor made for the individual patient’s needs, such as, exact dosage requirements, size, shape, color and flavor of the pill and also in the most appropriate delivery systems, just as what Aprecia Pharmaceuticals did with Spritam® by using this technology.

In this article, I shall highlight the game changing impact of 3DP only in the following three areas of pharma business:

The drug discovery process
Drug manufacturing strategy
Supply Chain effectiveness

A. Impact on drug discovery process:

A December 29, 2015 article titled, “Click chemistry, 3D-printing, and omics: the future of drug development”, published in ‘Oncotarget, Advance Publications 2015’ deliberates on the potential of 3DP in the drug discovery process.

The paper states, Genomics has unambiguously revealed that different types of cancers are just not highly complex, they also differ from patient to patient. Thus, conventional treatment approaches for such diseases fit poorly with genomic reality. It is also very likely that similar type of complexity will eventually be identified in many other life-threatening ailments.

Currently, a large number of patients are taking medications that may not help them, on the contrary could harm some of them. The top ten best-selling drugs in the United States are only effective in between 4 percent and 25 percent of the individuals for whom they are prescribed, the paper observes.

However, developing new drugs and tailoring such therapy to each patient’s complicated problem has still remained a major challenge.

One possible solution to this challenge could be to match patients to existing compounds with the help of an equally complicated modelling technique. Nonetheless, optimization of a complex therapy will eventually require designing compounds for patients using computer modeling and just-in-time production. 3DP shows a very high potential to effectively address this complex issue.

This is primarily because, 3DP is potentially transformative by virtue of its ability to rapidly generate almost limitless numbers of objects that previously required manufacturing facilities.

It is also now becoming clearer that with 3DP, scientists will be able to print even the biologic materials, such as, tissues, and eventually organs. Thus, in the near future, it is plausible that high-throughput computing may be deployed to design customized drugs, which will reshape medicine, the article highlights.

In his short ‘Ted Talk Video Clip’ (please click on this link), Professor Lee Cronin explains his working on a 3D printer that, instead of objects, is able to print molecules for a new drug. It could throw open an exciting potential of a long-term application of 3DP for printing, our own customized new medicine by using chemical inks.

In a nutshell, Professor Lee Cronin elucidates in his ‘Ted Talk’, how could the immense potential of 3D printers be leveraged to catalyze the chemical reactions in order to print real drugs, as and when required, according to the requirements of individual patients.

B. Impact on drug manufacturing strategy:

Not just in drug discovery, 3DP would equally be a game changer in pharma manufacturing, the way it is operated today, including the state of the art production facilities.

This could very much happen in tandem with the 3DP drug discovery research, moving towards personalized medicine, and simultaneously making the same 3DP an integral part of the new drug production line.

Moreover, besides the opportunity of getting any drug tailor made for individual patient needs, such as, exact dosage requirements, size, shape, color and flavor of the tablet and also the delivery system, 3DP technology can be most productively used to manufacture high priced low volume and patient-specific orphan drugs for the treatment of critical illnesses.

Even for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), the power and potential of 3DP technology can be well leveraged. On March 12, 2015 the ‘Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)’ of the United States announced that HHMI scientists have designed a revolutionary “3D printer” for small molecules that could open the power of customized chemistry to many.

It further stated, small molecules hold tremendous potential in medicine and technology, but they are difficult to synthesize without proper expertise. The automated “3D printer” designed for small molecules is a way to get around this bottleneck. The new technology has the potential to unlock access to customized molecules in a way that will drive science forward, on many levels. Moreover, the potential for cost-savings with 3DP is huge, improving the drug profitability significantly.

C. Impact on 'supply chain' effectiveness:

Currently, the traditional pharma ‘Supply Chain models’ are primarily based on the following:

Efficiency largely with high volume operation
Need to drive the cost as low as possible
Relatively higher-number of workers
The inventory cost
The real estate cost, owned directly or indirectly, for the entire ‘Supply Chain’ cycle

3DP technology would enable manufacturers shifting the ‘just in time production and distribution’ processes very close to consumers. Such well spread out and ‘just in time’ drug manufacturing activities catering to varying requirements, from very small to very high, would help reduce the cost of logistics, substantially.

This disruptive innovation will enable even the hospitals to print the required drugs at their own locations with, authorized 3DP file downloads, eliminating the need to keep huge inventory and also protecting patients from counterfeit medicines in the ‘Supply Chain’.

Thus, the bottom-line is, the drug companies will be able to print drugs with 3DP technology on real time demand at a large number of selected locations. This will significantly bring down the finished product inventory, starting from companies’ warehouses and distributors to retail and hospital shelves, to almost zero, making pharma supply chain significantly lean and highly effective.

Additionally, it will enable the pharma companies to manufacture drugs also in all developing countries, resulting in improved access to medicine, at a much lesser cost.

Conclusion:

I believe, this technology has already reached a critical juncture, where it is no longer a matter of conjecture that 3DP would ‘soon’ become a game changer, especially for the drug discovery process, manufacturing strategy and supply chain effectiveness of the pharma business, across the world, including India. Getting a prime mover advantage is vital.

However, the question still remains: how soon will this ‘soon’ be?

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.

Marketing Off-label Use of Drugs: A Path Much Abused?

Posted on November 30, 2015 by Tapan Ray

As many would know, prescribing any medicine for disease conditions that are not approved by the drug approving authorities while granting its marketing approval, is generally termed as ‘off-label’ use of drugs.

It is also a usual practice in most of the regulated markets of the world that once the drug regulators give marketing approval of a medicine, which is indication-specific, physicians are free to prescribe these as they deem necessary. However, the drug manufacturers can seek prescription support from the doctors only for the indications as approved by the appropriate government authorities.

Even the USFDA had articulated, “the best way to address any concerns that the information about those (off-label) uses is not reaching medical practitioners is to get those uses in the labeling. We believe that the risks of allowing drug companies to distribute journal articles and other information about off label uses far outweigh any benefits.”

Since long, most of the drug regulators across the world, including the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) have prohibited the sales promotion for unapproved uses of drugs to doctors. Nevertheless, the practice continues ignoring its serious consequences.

Monitoring of ‘off-label’ use is challenging:

Monitoring of off-label use of medicines is quite challenging too by the drug regulators, especially in India, where post marketing surveillance is generally just on paper.

In this regard, a recent research study that I shall refer to below in this article, has quite appropriately suggested, “Future electronic health records should be designed to enable post market surveillance of treatment indications and treatment outcomes to monitor the safety of on and off-label uses of drugs.”

As India intends to move towards the ‘Digital’ space, this suggestion would be quite implementable by the DCGI, as the ‘Smart Cities’ start coming up.

Some examples of extensive off-label usages:

According to the study done by a team of experts in medical information – Iodine, using the top drugs by number of monthly prescriptions, the following is a list of 4 medications with surprising off-label uses:

Drug	Approved Indication	Off-label Indication
Abilify (Aripiprazole)	Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (adjunctive), Autism-related Irritability, Agitation associated with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Mania, other	Insomnia
Lyrica (Pregabalin)	Management of: neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, post herpetic neuralgia, fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury; adult patients with partial onset seizures (adjunctive)	Anxiety
Namenda (Memantine)	Moderate to severe dementia of the Alzheimer’s type	ADHD, OCD
Synthroid (Levothyroxine)	Low thyroid hormone levels, some types of goiters, management some types of thyroid cancers	Depression

Off-label use and increasing risks of drug safety:

In its November 02, 2015 online issue, JAMA Internal Medicine published an article titled, “Association of Off-Label Drug Use and Adverse Drug Events (ADE) in an Adult Population.” The objective of this study was to monitor and evaluate off-label use of prescription drugs and its effect on ADEs in an adult population.

This particular study assumes importance, as off-label use of prescription drugs without strong scientific evidence has been identified as an important contributor to preventable Adverse Drug Events (ADEs), especially in children. However, despite concerns in this regard, no systematic investigation on the effects of off-label drug use in adult populations is being performed, regularly.

The detail analysis of this study reveals that not only is the benefit of off-label prescription is uncertain, but the risks of ADEs could make the ‘risk-benefit ratio’ quite unfavorable. So much so that in a large number of cases, no drug treatment will be a much better option.

According to the authors, the risk for ADEs grew as the number of prescription drugs the patient used increased. For example, patients using eight or more drugs had more than a 5-fold increased risk for ADEs compared with patients who used one to two drugs.

The study involving 46,021 adult patients, receiving 151,305 prescriptions between January 2005 and December 2009 was done in Canada. Of those prescriptions, more than 10 percent were prescribed for off-label use. Interestingly, out of that group, more than 80 percent prescriptions were for off-label uses without any robust scientific evidence supporting the use.

Based on the findings the researchers concluded that off-label use of prescription drugs is associated with ADEs.

The article suggested:

Caution should be exercised in prescribing drugs for off-label uses that lack strong scientific evidence.

Future electronic health records should be designed to enable post market surveillance of treatment indications and treatment outcomes to monitor the safety of on and off-label uses of drugs.

Pharma industry strongly opposes off-label use, when it suits them:

Interestingly, pharma industry vehemently opposes off-label use of drugs, when it suits them.

To give just a couple of examples, recently a new law that permits prescribing of drugs for off-label uses in France has reportedly been strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry in Europe.

Pharma trade associations argue, “the above move of France is directly in opposition to European Union’s laws that prohibit member states from supporting off-label use for economic purposes, and is a trend that undermines the current regulatory framework and could put patients’ health at risk.”

Besides France, they have also submitted a complaint against Italy to the European Commission over the country’s new off-label rules.

Common methods followed for off-label marketing:

The other side of the story is that, reportedly many pharma companies continue promoting off-label uses of drugs aggressively, for significant commercial gains.

According to ‘The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) – a federal agency within the United States Department of Health and Human Services, some of the off-label drug promotion methods of the pharmaceutical companies are as follows:

• Paying incentives to sales representatives based on sales for off-label use

• Paying kickbacks to physicians to prescribe drugs for off-label use

• Disseminating misleading posters promoting off-label use

• Paying physicians:

- To pretend to be the authors of articles about off-label uses when the articles were actually written by manufacturers’ agents

- To serve as members of “advisory boards” promoting off-label use

- To travel to resort locations to listen to promotions about off-label use

- To give promotional lectures in favor of off-label use to fellow practitioners

• Publicizing studies showing efficacy of off-label uses, while suppressing studies showing no efficacy.

Even the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) of the Government of India does not allow such sales and marketing practices. But these all continue to happen, unabatedly.

A path much abused?

Although most of the drug companies publicly advocate self regulation to avoid unethical marketing practices, the situation on the ground is much different, across the world.

The following are just a few examples of serious business consequences faced by some of the well-known global pharma and biotech majors, besides many others, from the United States Department of Justice, for alleged off-label promotion of drugs:

On November 4, 2013, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) was asked to pay more than US$ 2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promoting for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider.

On July 30, 2013, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., a pharmaceutical company acquired by Pfizer, Inc. in 2009, agreed to pay US$490.9 million to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the unlawful marketing of the prescription drug Rapamune for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA.

On December 19, 2012, Amgen Inc. pleaded guilty and paid US$762 million to resolve criminal liability and false claims allegations.

On July 2, 2012 GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) pleaded guilty and paid US$3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices. This resolution is the largest health care fraud settlement in the US history and the largest payment ever by a drug company, so far.

On May 7, 2012, Abbott Laboratories Inc. pleaded guilty and agreed to pay US$1.5 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of the prescription drug Depakote for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA. This resolution is the second largest payment by a drug company and includes a criminal fine and forfeiture totaling US$700 million and civil settlements with the federal government and the states totaling US$800 million. Abbott also was reportedly subjected to court-supervised probation and reporting obligations for Abbott’s CEO and Board of Directors.

On October 21, 2011, Pfizer Inc. agreed to pay US$14.5 million to resolve false claims allegations related to its marketing of the drug Detrol.

On June 10, 2011, Novo Nordisk was asked to pay US$25 million to resolve allegations of off-label promotion of Novoseven.

On September 30, 2010, Novartis agreed to pay US$422.5 million to settle criminal and civil investigations into the marketing of the anti-seizure medicine Trileptal and five other drugs. The government accused Novartis of mislabeling, paying illegal kickbacks to health care professionals through speaker programs, advisory boards, entertainment, travel and meals.

Hence, it appears that the path followed by many pharma players to inform the doctors about the judicious off-label use of drugs only in circumstances where approved treatments have failed, is being much abused.

A conflict of interest?

Many doctors believe that there is also a distinct upside for off-label use of drugs, as flexibility of a physician to prescribe drugs off-label offers important advantages too, especially in circumstances where approved treatments have failed. This is indeed true and indisputable.

However, the reality is, many pharma industry, in general, actively encourage off-label use of drugs for commercial benefits through expanded use of their respective brands.

Aggressive drug promotion for various off-label uses, reportedly being so widespread and indiscriminate, many physicians can’t even remember the approved indications of drugs. Hence, they do not necessarily go for off-label use only when approved treatments have failed. In this context, on November 23, 2015, ‘The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)’ in an article titled, “Risk of Off-Label Uses for Prescription Drugs” reported as follows:

“A 2009 study published in the journal Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety found that 1,199 physicians in a national survey were able to identify the FDA-approved indication of 22 drugs only about 55% of the time. The physicians surveyed included primary-care doctors and psychiatrists.”

On the other hand, the patients generally expect that the prescribed drugs will be safe. They want to administer evidence based approved medicines. Some of them have even started expressing that these evidences must also be disclosed to them.

Hence, there seems to exist a clear conflict of interest in this matter between the patients, drug manufacturers and perhaps the doctors, as well.

Conclusion:

The magnitude of general off-label use of drugs is reportedly increasing and is likely to increase further, exposing patients to increased risks of ADEs. Although the business consequences of getting engaged in this unwanted process indiscriminately could at times be quite adverse, in the balance of probability between slim chances of getting caught, and expected creamy return, many pharma players continue to feel that this risk is worth taking.

Therefore, the moot question that needs a pragmatic answer is, for patients’ safety, when the global and local pharma majors talk about prescriptions of only impeccable evidence based medicine, do they walk the talk?

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Power Of Color And Design In Pharma Branding

Posted on November 16, 2015 by Tapan Ray

On November 06, 2015, the District Court of Delaware of the United States (US) passed a temporary restraining order barring Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) from selling in the US its generic version of AstraZeneca’s blockbuster anti-ulcerant drug Nexium, with immediate effect.

This temporary order came in response to the petition moved by the drug innovator – AstraZeneca, objecting to the use of purple color in DRL’s generic equivalent of Nexium, launched in September 2015.

According to an estimate, this generic formulation could fetch a post tax profit of around US$25 to US$35 million to DRL in 2016. Nevertheless, the Delaware court order is pending a further hearing. The court has also asked both the companies to suggest the next course of action.

When color becomes an integral part of brand value creation:

AstraZeneca’s effective branding of ‘purple color pills’ Nexium and Prilosec has helped the company to obtain this temporary restraining court order, which states:

“As a result of such promotional efforts, there is undisputed evidence that the media and the public associate the color purple with AstraZeneca and its Prilosec and Nexium products.”

The Court observed, though DRL product is not identical to AstraZeneca’s Nexium, still could confuse patients due to its association with the purple color.

In this context, it is worth noting, though a couple of other generic Nexium capsules are available in the US, none is purple in color. Teva’s capsules are green and blue and Mylan’s are white in color.

Can a right be established on branding ‘color’?

It appears so. In its Complaint to the Court against DRL, AstraZeneca (AZ) argued in favor of its successful branding of Nexium with ‘Purple Color, as follows:

AZ brand has offered relief to sufferers of severe heartburn and other disorders caused by stomach acid reflux through its “Purple Pills” Prilosec® and Nexium®, known as “The Purple Pill®.”

AZ has devoted significant resources over the years to advertise and promote its Prilosec® and Nexium® purple pills using the ‘look for’ purple advertising.
The preference for purple was purely for branding purposes—purple contributes nothing to the safety or efficacy of AZ’s products.

AZ has continuously sold Nexium® from 2001 to present in purple colored capsules with either two or three gold-colored bands displayed on the purple capsules.

Thus, AZ’s Purple Pills have been famous for many years through extensive advertising both to doctors and patients and extensive publicity, among other reasons.

If DRL is not enjoined from using the color purple, DRL’s purple generic pills are likely to cause confusion among consumers and others and are likely to dilute the distinctiveness of AZ’s federally registered purple color trademarks.

DRL’s attempt to free-ride off the fame of AZ’s famous Purple Pills poses imminent irreparable harm to both AZ and the public if not enjoined.

I would like to remind the readers at this point that Pfizer also did branding of Viagra keeping the color of the pill as one of the key ingredients, as it is also well-known as the ‘Blue Pill’, across the world.

Does color of the pill matter to patients?

In this regard, on July 15, 2014, an interesting study titled, “Burden of Changes in Pill Appearance for Patients Receiving Generic Cardiovascular Medications After Myocardial Infarction”, published in the journal of ‘Annals of Internal Medicine’, wanted to find out whether non persistent use of generic drugs among patients with cardiovascular disease after Myocardial Infarction (MI) is associated with the inconsistent appearance of their medications.

The study concluded, “Variation in the appearance of generic pills is associated with the nonpersistent use of these essential drugs after MI among patients with cardiovascular disease.”

Or in other words, the researchers found, 30 percent or more patients are likely to stop taking their medication because the unexpected change, can be confusing.

Impact of a branding strategy with color and design as integral parts:

Even after a product goes off-patent, ‘Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)’ could still protect aspects of a pill design, which are not associated with product functioning.

The above study finds that in true sense, the shape and color of the tablets or capsules are very much intimately associated with the functional aspect of the product, as these characteristics established through effective branding exercise of the original product, help promoting patient compliance to various drugs, which is so important in combating serious ailments.

Effective branding with extrinsic factors:

The above important research finding clearly establishes that even the extrinsic product features like, color and design, when used in an effective branding strategy, could have critical medical relevance for the patients.

Such clever pharma branding strategies are not just restricted to:

AstraZeneca’s “little purple pill” – Nexium
Or Pfizer’s “blue-diamond-shaped tablet” – Viagra.

There are many other examples of making extrinsic product features as effective branding tools. A few of these are as follows:

GlaxoSmithKline’s craftily designed a “tilt-tab” for its Parkinson’s disease brand Requip. This design makes it easier for the patients to pick up the tablets. Requip “tilt-tab” has been modeled with unconventional 5 sides and a pointed fulcrum that prevents it from lying flat.

Diovan blister packs of Novartis with calendar markings for pills, improved patient compliance significantly, as a research study established.

Special caps are now reportedly available that fit on most prescription drug bottles, containing a wireless chip that communicates with a light plug. The cap pulses orange light, when the patient forgets to take a pill.

An article published in the ‘Outsourcing-Pharma.com’ on March 11, 2014 states, Philadelphia based Colorcon, that works with many pharma manufacturers, both innovator and generic players, to shape and coat their tablets, has a library of 40,000 different colors and shapes of samples to choose from.

The color and design war in pharma branding has just begun:

The importance of color and design as a pharma brand identity has started being realized today. The latest DRL case involving the color of AstraZeneca’s Nexium, close on the heels of similar other cases related to the blue color of Pfizer’s Viagra, has thrown open a critical question.

This query wants a specific answer, whether IP protection on Trademark would get extended to distinctive colors, which through branding initiatives have become strongly associated with a specific brand. Possibly the unprecedented lawsuit on the subject by AstraZeneca against DRL would ultimately settle the legal aspect of the issue, decisively.

Nevertheless, the importance of color and design as two key ingredients of successful pharma branding would remain unchallenged from ‘creative marketing’ stand point.

Conclusion:

There are market research studies that suggest that around 80 percent of visual information for any brand is related to color and design. Pharmaceuticals are no exceptions. Thus, these important extrinsic product features can be strategically leveraged with the intrinsic product benefits in a branding exercise, to create a cutting edge value synergy.

In today’s environment of innovative branding strategy, the state of art tablet color and design technologies may be appropriately utilized by the pharma players to successfully build and also to get limited brand protection, as happened in the case of Nexium of AstraZeneca.

The research findings, as mentioned above, that such type of branding has important medical relevance too, may be construed as an additional silver lining to this exciting process.

In my view, the aforesaid strategy would make enormous sense for branded generic drugs too, though with tailor-made approaches, which could well be a different discussion altogether.

Keeping all this in perspective, I reckon, innovative use of the power of color and design in pharma ‘branding’ exercise, including a comprehensive communication strategy with appropriate platforms, could provide an important leading edge for significant commercial success of a brand.

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.

Universal Health Coverage: The Only Alternative To Drug Price Control in India?

Posted on November 9, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Aggressive drug pricing is becoming a burning issue in the healthcare space, across the world. The raging debate continues in India too, fueled by many factors.

In this context, it was quite interesting to note, on July 15, 2015, the Supreme Court of India asked the Government to analyze and explain why the controlled price of essential medicines has been fixed at a high level, depriving the poor from getting life-saving drugs at reasonable rates.

Consequently, the Government was compelled to have a relook at the allegedly ‘flawed’ National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and the subsequent Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013) forming an inter-ministerial committee to work out a more robust alternative.

Even thereafter, on November 03, 2015, the editorial column of a business daily concluded by advocating, “excessive price control may lead to a shortage of crucial medicines and a gray market.” The editorial has not elaborated though, what it means by “excessive price control,” despite the fact, the current span of drug price control is just around 20 percent of the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Market.

The most intriguing part in this editorial is, to make affordable health care in general and drugs in particular available to all, though it broached on some ideas in a patchy way, did not suggest any comprehensive pan-India solution, as a viable alternative. It just wrote against DPCO, which too seems to be off the cuff, as many believe.

Such blatant advocacy against DPCO, without being overarching solution centric, could jeopardize patients’ health interests in India. This is primarily because, ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on drugs is one of the highest in India, even as compared to its neighboring countries, with very low per capita income.

I discussed in this Blog similar subject on July 13, 2015 in my article titled, “India: Tops The GDP Growth, Remains At The Bottom On Health Care”.

Would abolition of DPCO be foolhardy?

Further, the above editorial comment on the above business daily that “excessive price control may lead to a shortage of crucial medicines and a gray market,” appears hypothetical and not fact based, as many experts in this field have articulated quite in contrary.

Many believe, the bogey that advocates ‘price control causes drug shortages’ is industry sponsored. Whether it is right or wrong, may be a contentious issue. Nevertheless, there is no robust evidence that price control causes drug shortages.

At the same time, this is also true that some price controlled drugs under DPCO 1995 were discontinued by the respective manufacturers. The key reason for the same is product obsolescence, as those drugs were old and newer alternatives were in the market. Those are really product value and prescription demand related issues. To the best of my knowledge, not a single modern drug, has ever faced permanent shortages due to the price control in India. Moreover, there are robust provisions under DPCO 2013 to deal with such artificial drug shortages, as and when happen.

Moreover, after the announcement of Ceiling Prices of DPCO 2013 products, when wholesaler’s margins were initially revised downwards by a number of manufacturers, some wholesalers agitated and refused to buy those drugs causing some shortages. This dispute was mutually resolved since then, jointly by the drug manufacturers and pharma wholesalers. There have been no reported shortages of DPCO 2013 drugs, thereafter.

Be that as it may, I reckon, advocacy by any responsible entity to abolish DPCO in India without suggesting an effective alternative, such as, putting in place a public funded Universal Health Care (UHC) mechanism, would be foolhardy. We have a large number of functioning examples of UHC, across the world, including the OECD and BRICS countries, which makes a policy mechanism like DPCO almost irrelevant.

What happens when ‘no holds barred’ drug pricing is allowed?

Recent incidences of ‘no holds barred’ drug pricing in the largest free-market economy of the world – the United States, have started attracting ire of even the more affluent and mostly health insured American citizens too.

As reported by the Boston Globe on October 16, 2015, this is happening in both patented and generic medicines. A few examples, out of many, of some recent jaw dropping aggressive drug pricing are as follows:

Average price of a new cancer drug costs around US$ 100,000 a year
A new hepatitis C drug costs US$84,000 for a course of 12-week treatment
A generic tetracycline price was increased by 70 fold just within a year
5000 percent-plus increase on Turing Pharmaceuticals’ generic Daraprim (pyrimethamine) ant-parasitic tablets

Moreover, on November 6, 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that three US pharma majors – Eli-Lilly, Merck and Valeant have received inquiries about drug pricing from the Justice Department of the US Government.

Giving an example, the report stated that for the nine months ended September 30, sales of the asthma drug Dulera inhalers (containing a combination of formoterol and mometasone) of Merck, rose 17 percent from the year-earlier period to US$383 million.

Is the dictum ‘competition controls prices of generic drugs’ just a myth?

Besides many other examples, the last two of the above four points on 70 fold and 5000 percent price increase for two old generic drugs – tetracycline and pyrimethamine, respectively, in the world’s largest free-market economy, suggests that ‘competition fails to control even generic drug prices’ for various other reasons. The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of India has already termed this phenomenon as ‘market failure’ for medicines.

Adding to it, Elsevier Clinical Solutions reported recently in a White Paper titled, “The Impact of Rising Generic Drug Prices on the U.S. Drug Supply Chain”, as follows:

“Over the past two years, the pharmacy industry has seen unprecedented increases in the prices of generic drugs, causing unexpected cost increases for payers and consumers, and spurring an investigation by the United States Congress.”

A recent survey:

More recently, in October 2015, ‘Kaiser Health Tracking Poll’ of the ‘Kaiser Family Foundation’ of the United States reported that the affordability of prescription drugs continues to be at the top of the public’s priority list for the President and Congress in America. In this study, 77 percent of Americans identified the increasing prices of prescription drugs as their number one health concern.

The top two priorities by majorities across political parties, were reported as follows:

Making sure that high-cost drugs are affordable to those who need them
Government action to lower prescription drug prices

Following this report, on November 03, 2015, the ‘Committee on Oversight & Government Reform’ of the U.S. House of Representatives, by a ‘Press Release’, announced that “Top House Democrats Launch Affordable Drug Pricing Task Force.” The members of the newly formed Task Force will suggest meaningful action to combat the skyrocketing costs of pharmaceuticals in the United States, as captured in the survey of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

Does India want to jump into this quagmire?

If DPCO is abolished India because of intense, both direct and indirect advocacy, would India have no alternative but to jump into this quagmire of allowing free-drug pricing to pharma players?

70 fold and 5000 percent obscene price increase in a year for branded generics may not be possible in India, but for non-schedule drugs, there is no cap on the fixation of the launch price either. Any drug manufacturer can first fix a high launch price and then can go for 10 percent price increase every year, putting public health interest in jeopardy. That’s why inter-brand price difference for the same drug molecule in India varies so much and has attracted the attention of even the NPPA.

The unfinished agenda:

There is no denying of the fact that even DPCO is not a comprehensive mechanism to offer affordable health care to all. It is meant primarily for the essential drugs in the prevailing environment, when the out of pocket drug expenditure hovers around 70 percent, being one of the highest in the world.

To offer a viable mechanism for affordable health care to all, India expressed its interest towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in 2010, when the erstwhile Planning Commission of India convened a High Level Expert Group (HLEG) to work out a road map for UHC under the chairmanship of Dr. K. Srinath Reddy, the physician of international repute. UHC has still remained an unfinished agenda in the health care space of India.

At that time the HLEG made some important recommendations in its report for effective implementation, the key ones being the following:

Increasing public financing from the current 1.2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to at least 2.5 percent.

Outlined an essential health care package for provision through tax funding, supplemented by employer-provided insurance

Free provision of essential drugs and diagnostics.

Emphasized prioritized funding for primary health care, with efficient links to secondary and tertiary care.

Services were to be delivered jointly by strengthened public facilities and contracted private providers.

Reforms were suggested for improving the health care workforce, strengthening of regulatory systems for quality assurance, and improving governance and accountability.

Change in Government puts UHC back to square one?

Meanwhile, the change of national Government in May 2014, gave a new perspective to the debate over UHC. The incumbent Government that had already promised and announced a “National Health Assurance,” released a draft National Health Policy (NHP) in January 2015 for public discourse.

The NHP outlines a broad framework for reform of the health care system in India. The new policy, besides others, clearly recommends the following:

Enactment of citizens ‘Right to Health’ through parliamentary legislation
Allows states to decide the services that would fall under ‘Right to Health’
Both public- and private-sector providers would be engaged to deliver the service package, which would be paid for by government-funded health insurance schemes
The states will have greater freedom in designing and delivering health programs

As the union government has already agreed to increase the states’ share of central tax revenues from 32 percent to 42 percent and transferred the responsibility for funding and implementing welfare schemes to the states, it should also identify and assign to them specific responsibilities for effective health care systems against measurable parameters.

Although the final version of the NHP has not yet been made public and adopted just yet, it will need firm political and budgetary commitment for resource allocation both by the Union and the State governments.

Current impediment to UHC:

Implementation of UHC calls for increasing public health expenditure significantly, from the current 1.2 percent to around 2.5 percent, may be over a period of five years. However, immediate increases in public financing for UHC may get impeded by the Government priority on fiscal deficit reduction, which is likely to continue in the immediate future too

Possible alternative:

As Dr. Srinath Reddy suggested in a paper titled, “India’s Aspirations for Universal Health Coverage”, published in New England Journal of Medicine, July 2, 2015:

“Health can, however, be positioned prominently in other new, well-funded government schemes such as:

The “Clean India” Mission, focused on sanitation and reducing air pollution,
The Smart Cities Project, which deploys information technology for urban development and service delivery.

Nevertheless, it may take years for the right mix of political will, financial resources, and health system capacity to deliver on the full promise of Universal Health Care.”

Assuming continuity of this situation in the near term, UHC for India is not visible anywhere near the horizon, not just yet.

Conclusion:

Non availability of affordable health care for all, including drugs, keeps bothering a vast majority of population in the country. Ironically, people feel its absence, mostly when the concerned individual or his/her dependents or any near and dear ones falls sick afflicted by serious ailments such as cancer or any other serious chronic disease.

This serious handicap for the nation has remained a key retarding factor in its attaining much desired sustainable rapid economic growth objectives, primarily for the following reasons:

Per capita income is very low compared to the size and other resources of the country
Public expenditure for health has still remained one of the lowest in the world
Fragile public health care infrastructure and delivery systems
No ‘Universal Health Coverage’ in place
Just 16% of the Indian population has access to free or partially-free health care
Comprehensive private health care is expensive and beyond reach of a vast majority
One of the highest ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on health, including drugs
Market failure for most drugs, where competition does not work
In terms of ‘Purchasing Power Parity’ together with ‘Per Capita Income’ drug prices are not low in India, as have been made out to be.

In a situation like this, when in the absence of UHC, total average ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on health is around 65 percent, and around 70 percent of which is on drugs, there does not seem to be any scope to abandon DPCO in India, just yet, for public health interest.

Any possible decision of the Government to abandon DPCO is also unlikely to pass the acid test of intense scrutiny of the Supreme Court either, to uphold public health interest. This makes me believe that a well functioning ‘Universal Health Coverage’ is the only alternative to ‘Drug Price Control’ in India, if at all.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Does India Produce ‘World Class’ Medicines, For All?

Posted on October 12, 2015 by Tapan Ray

India has already achieved a staggering number In terms of quantity or volume of generic medicines that it produces not just for India, but for many developed, developing and poorer countries, across the world. For this reason, India is popularly known as ‘The Pharmacy of The World’. No one questions this number at all, rather looks at India with a sense of admiration in this regard.

Nevertheless, for driving this volume growth trend further north, in a consistent and sustainable way, Indian pharma sector must ensure that its huge volume growth engine remains firmly placed on a solid bedrock of ‘world class’ drug quality, always. Any compromise in this crucial area, could strike a critical blow to this ‘tower of national pride’.

Ongoing several embarrassing incidents related to the drug manufacturing quality standards in India, are increasingly fueling the apprehension, whether or not India produces ‘World Class’ medicines for all patients across the world, independent of any other criteria, financial or otherwise. The debate has now taken an interesting turn, especially after near confirmation of this apprehension by the top drug regulator of India.

In this article, I shall discuss this important issue that hugely impacts all of us, giving my own perspective to it. Let me begin with one of the most recent incidents on the subject, involving the numero-uno of Indian pharmaceutical industry.

An overseas new product launch got prematurely aborted?

On September 25, 2015, by a Press Release, Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company Ltd. (SPARC) announced a major set back for the company. The set back may not be so much in terms of the company’s estimated revenue loss, but more on public perception across the world, about the manufacturing quality standards followed even by the top most pharma company of India.

SPARC made a public announcement through media that on March 2015 it had received a final approval from the Food and Drug Administration of the United States (USFDA) for the anti-epileptic drug – Elepsia XR (Levetiracetam extended-release tablets 1000 mg and 1500 mg). However, in the Complete Response letter (CRL) to the company’s New Drug Application (NDA) for the product, the USFDA has revoked its earlier approval, citing that the compliance status of the manufacturing facility was not acceptable on the date of approval. Elepsia XR is to be manufactured at Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (SPIL)’s Halol facility in Gujarat, the announcement said.

Sun Pharma had reportedly indicated in June 2015 that the Company had been working “very aggressively” to find partners for the product. It had “some advanced discussions” and aimed to launch the drug by the second half of fiscal 2016.

The international media lapped it up and reported this development with eye-catching headlines, one such was:

“India’s Sun Pharma research arm sees FDA nod for Elepsia XR yanked by FDA on manufacturing.”

Not a one-off isolated incident:

This matter can no way be treated as a one-off and an isolated incident, as it fits in well with a series of similar events, spanning over the last few years.

Looking at these disturbing adverse reports from the foreign drug regulators on the drug manufacturing quality standards in India, together with recent comments of the Indian drug regulator on the subject, serious health safety concerns on overall drug quality in the country, are being expressed now. The concern includes the local patients in India, as well.

Can the core issue be wished away?

Up until today, USFDA has altogether warned 39 manufacturing sites of 27 Indian pharma companies for breach of data integrity and not following specified manufacturing quality standards. The agency has also expressed that it treats these as potentially dangerous medicines for the consumption of patients in the US.

In 2015 alone, USFDA has reportedly detected such serious ‘short comings’ with 6 Indian drug makers, till September. A report from Financial Times (FT) states that the above numbers do not include the testing facilities facing sanctions from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in the GVK Biosciences related cases or from the World Health Organizations (WHO).

What is most worrying, none can possibly still fathom, if these alleged ‘reprehensible’ manufacturing practices are restricted to just a few players or are all pervasive across the Indian drug industry.

When the foreign regulators, such as USFDA and Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) of the United Kingdom (UK) continue raising the red flags on the manufacturing standards of the top pharma players of India, including the numero uno, a chilling sensation flows through the spine, as it were. The moot question that comes up: Are all the drugs manufactured in India safe for the local patients, offering desirable efficacy?

Keeping these in perspective, would it be prudent to wish away the drug quality related critical issues, raising a conspiracy theory against the US or EU or suspend discussions on any Foreign Trade Agreement (FTA)? I don’t reckon so, and would touch upon this point in course of my discussion below.

The murmur among the US doctors:

According to an article from Reuters of March 18, 2014, titled “Unease grows among US doctors over Indian drug quality”, some US doctors are also expressing concerns about the quality of generic drugs supplied by Indian manufacturers, following a flurry of recalls and ‘import bans’ by the USFDA.

This concern has been prompted by the fact that India supplies about 40 percent of generic and over-the-counter drugs used in the United States, making it the second-biggest supplier after Canada.

Not much complaint from the Indian doctors:

This is intriguing. Despite so much of furore of the regulatory agencies in the US and EU on the Indian drug quality standards, not much concern on the same has been expressed by the medical practitioners in India, just yet.

It appears, by and large, Indian doctors believe that branded generics are generally of good quality, and the quality of generics without a brand name is not as reliable, always.

This logic is beyond my comprehension. How come just fixing a brand name on a generic formulation makes it more acceptable in terms of quality, when both branded generics and generics without a brand name, have obtained the same regulatory approval from the same drug regulators in India and following the same regulatory process?

As you will see below, the situation has changed further now, especially after the admission of the DCGI about non-compliance of global manufacturing quality standards by majority of the formulation manufacturers in India, as reported by the media. The only silver lining to it is that whatever is being currently manufactured in India, presumably meets the regulators approval in conformance to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of the country, without any credible data to the contrary.

Does India produce drugs of ‘World Class’ quality for all?

The key question that is being raised today: Does India produce ‘world class’ drugs and for all? This is mainly because, manufacturers of ‘world class’ drug quality always aim at competing for quality on the best global standards to remain competitive in the international markets, in all parameters. This should hold good even for the domestic Indian market, for all drugs, consumed by all the local patients, irrespective of their financial status.

A lurking fear keeps lingering, primarily apprehending that Indian drug manufacturing quality related issues are not confined only to the importers in the developed world, such as, the United States, European Union or Canada. There is no reason to vouch for either, that such gross violations are not taking place with the medicines consumed by the patients in India or in the poorer nations of Africa and other similar markets.

A recent international study on Indian drug quality:

The following study further aggravates the angst.

The September 2014 ‘Working Paper 20469’ of ‘The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)’ Cambridge, USA, titled “Poor Quality Drugs and Global Trade: A Pilot Study’, epitomizes the following:

Experts claim that some Indian drug manufacturers cut corners and make substandard drugs for markets with non-existent, under-developed or emerging regulatory oversight, notably Africa.

The study assessed the quality of 1470 antibiotic and tuberculosis drug samples that claim to be made in India and were sold in Africa, India, and five mid-income non-African countries and found:

– 10.9 percent of these products fail a basic assessment of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API)

- The majority of the failures are substandard (7 percent) as they contain some correct API but the amount of API is under-dosed.

– The distribution of these substandard products is not random, they are more likely to be found as unregistered products in Africa than in India or non-African countries.

Claiming that the findings are robust, the NBER study points towards one likely explanation that Indian pharmaceutical firms and/or their export intermediaries do indeed differentiate drug quality according to the destination of consumption.

Incomprehensible?

The above facts are alarming, especially when these flow from a survey report of a credible international institution. This is incomprehensible too, as all these are medicines, and are meant to be for relief or cure of ailments that the patients are suffering from, irrespective of whether they are from the developed, developing or poorer countries.

If it is still happening today, why are those manufacturers allowed by the Indian drug regulators to discriminate between the patients of the developed countries and the developing world, including India, to meet the same health care needs? This is absolutely cruel by any standard, undoubtedly.

‘As you sow, so shall you reap’:

Just as the above well-known proverb says that the actions or deeds repay in kind, reasonably frequent ‘import bans’ by the foreign drug regulators on drug quality norms, has probably prompted booming generic drug exports of Indian pharma now slowing down to US$15.3 billion in 2014-15, from US $14.84 billion in 2013-14.

Along side, these avoidable incidents have significantly dented India’s image as the ‘pharmacy of the world’, manufacturing affordable and high quality generic formulations for the patients across the world.

Indian drug regulator too now thinking afresh?

Yet another relevant question comes up. What happens, if during treatment of serious ailments such drugs fail to act for inferior quality? How would one possibly know in India, whether a death has occurred due to unresponsive poor quality of drugs or on account of severity of the ailments? How helpless are the patients in such a situation?

This sad feeling gets even stronger, when well after a prolonged defense of the high quality of drugs manufactured in India, no less than the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), airs his second thought on the same issue. This is vindicated by recent media reports on this subject.

On September 30, 2015, a media report stated that being virtually flustered by the USFDA and the drug regulators in the European Union, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) would place a proposal before the Ministry of Health, within the next six months, for an amendment to the existing pharmaceutical manufacturing laws under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, in order to ‘bring them on par with international standards’.

The DCGI now believes that this remedial measure would raise drug manufacturing standards in India in line with the global cGMP standards, recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Currently, out of around 8,000 drug manufacturers in India, only 10 to15 percent are following the WHO guidelines, the report stated quoting the DCGI.

The new revelation further strengthens the apprehension about quality of drugs that Indian patients are consuming in the country with a strong hope for relief from the diseases that they suffer from.

The DCGI apparently admitted it, when he was quoted saying in the above report, “India has become a pharmacy of the world. So, we cannot live in isolation and will have to meet their expectations. Our system is in the process of improving.”

DCGI statement follows an important Government decision:

It is worth noting that the above comment of the DCGI comes close on the heels of an important Government decision in this regard.

On August 12, 2015, The Press Trust of India (PTI) reported that to facilitate domestic manufacture of quality medical products, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) on that day approved a proposal of strengthening and upgrading the drug regulatory system both at the Central and state level. The committee approved a budget of of INR17.5 billion (US$270 million) on this account.

The up gradation and strengthening of the system will also include setting up of new laboratories and training academy for regulatory and drug testing officials, the report added.

Yet Another significant development:

On October 5, 2015, in yet another significant development in this direction, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) of the United Kingdom (UK), by a ‘Press Release’, announced signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of India.

This agreement will increase collaboration between India and UK in the area of medicines and medical devices with the aim of further improving public safety in both the countries. It is worth noting, around 25 percent of generic drugs consumed in the UK are made in India. Hence, the concern of MHRA over the safety of those medicines is understandable.

I wrote in this Blog on USFDA ‘Import Bans’ in my article of November 11, 2013, titled ‘USFDA ‘Import Bans’: The Malady Calls For Strong Bitter Pills.’

Conclusion:

A valid question that is being asked by many in India today, why the issues like, alleged cGMP non-compliance, data fudging and falsification of other documents, especially with USFDA, have multiplied suddenly over the last few years. Why not as many of such issues were raised by the USFDA before around 3 to 4 years?

This is primarily because, of late the inspectors from the USFDA have significantly increased their efforts to ensure the drug manufacturing facilities from where both generic Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and formulations are exported to the US, strictly follow the drug manufacturing standards, as stipulated by the USFDA. The fact that India supplies about 40 percent of generic and over-the-counter drugs currently used in the United States, has prompted this requirement to safeguard health safety of the American patients.

Such stringent USFDA audits commenced in 2012, when US Congress passed the FDA Safety and Innovation Act. This legislation, among others, requires the USFDA auditing all foreign facilities that make drugs for export to the US, as frequently as it does for the domestic drug manufacturing plants. Thereafter, we have seen a spurt in the USFDA inspections of the pharma manufacturing facilities in India, where from drugs are exported to the US. Hence, there does not seem to be any other credible ‘conspiracy theory’ on this issue.

As reported in ‘The New York Times’ of February 14, 2014, the same DCGI almost brushing aside the gravity of the situation arising out of repeated ‘import bans’, commented at that time, “If I have to follow US standards in inspecting facilities supplying to the Indian market, we will have to shut almost all of those.”

The top drug regulator seems to have changed his mind since then, and presumably is thinking differently now, as the Indian media very recently quoted the DCGI saying “India has become a pharmacy of the world. So, we cannot live in isolation and will have to meet their expectations. Our system is in the process of improving.”

This is a good omen, especially for the patients in India. If and when it gets translated into reality, with Kudos to the DCGI, we all would feel very proud saying, “The Pharmacy of the World now produces the World-Class drugs, for all” …God willing!

By: Tapan J. Ray

Evolving Scenario of Non-Personal Promotion in Pharma Marketing

Posted on September 28, 2015 by Tapan Ray

In the Indian pharmaceutical industry, ‘Non-Personal Promotion (NPP)’ is gradually expected to assume much greater strategic importance than what it is today, if at all, in the overall strategic marketing ball game.

This process would get hastened as and when the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) decides to ‘walk the talk’ with mandatory implementation requirement of its ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, with necessary teeth built into it for proper enforcement. Thereafter, pharma sales and marketing process would possibly not remain quite the same.

In that scenario, dolling out ‘Freebies’ of various kinds and values to the customers, that has been happening over a long period of time, would attract penal consequences as would be defined by the Government.

This, in turn, is expected to create virtually a level playing field for all the pharma players in the brand marketing warfare, irrespective of how deep their pockets are. Consequently, without any lucrative incentives to offer to the important doctors, Medical Representatives (MRs) in general, in my view, would find access to busy important doctors becoming increasingly tougher, and much less productive.

Not just an imagination:

This is not totally an imaginary situation, as it has already started happening elsewhere.

Stringent legal and regulatory measures are now being put in place, both for the pharmaceutical companies and also for the doctors, in various developed markets of the world to minimize alleged marketing malpractices.

In tandem, following noteworthy developments are taking place more frequently than ever before:

A large number of high value penalties are being regularly levied by the judiciary and/or regulatory authorities of various countries to many big name global pharma players for alleged marketing malpractices.

Some measurable changes are taking place in the area of ‘access to busy medical practitioners’ by the MRs, more in those countries.

A recent study:

According to a recent study of 2015 by ZS Associates, published in ‘AccessMonitor™ 2015’, MRs’ access to important prescribers are declining steadily over the last 6 to 7 years. This study was based on analysis of ‘Call Reports’ of 70 percent of all US pharma companies’ MRs. The report reviewed in great detail how often over 400,000 physicians and other prescribers meet with MRs who visit their offices.

The decrease in MR access to prescribers from 2008 to 2015 was captured as follows:

Year	MR Access to Prescribers (%)
2015	47
2014	51
2013	55
2008	80

Source: ‘AccessMonitor™ 2015

This trend is indeed striking. It won’t be much difficult either to ascribe a plausible reason to it, when viewed in perspectives of increasingly tough pharma sales and marketing environment in the US.

Over a period of time, stringent laws and regulations, both for the prescribers and also for the pharma players, are being strictly enforced. The ‘cause and effect’ of the overall development can possibly be drawn, when one finds in the above report that throughout the US, more than half of all doctors are voluntarily “access restricted” in varying degree, as on date.

Most impacted specialty area:

Coming to restricted access to doctors in medical specialty areas, oncology was highlighted in the ZS Associates report among the most restrictive specialties. This is evident from its analysis that today around 73 percent of the cancer specialists restrict MR access, where around 75 percent of them were “MR-friendly” as recently as 2010.

With this increasing south bound trend of “access restricted” doctors over the past decade, at least in the US, and with a strong likelihood of its continuity in the future too, the pressure on getting cost-effective per MR productivity keeps mounting commensurately. Hence, the search for newer and effective NPP platforms of modern times is also becoming more relevant to generate desirable prescription output from the important busy medical practitioners.

Any viable alternative?

Although virtually unthinkable today, it would be interesting to watch, whether viable alternatives to pharma MRs emerge in the near future to overcome this critical barrier. As necessity is the mother of all inventions, pharma companies are expected to find out soon, how best to respond in this challenging situation for business excellence.

More interestingly, India being a low-cost thriving ground for technological solutions of critical problems of many types, I would be curious to watch how do the pharma players synergize with ‘Information Technology (IT)’ sector to pre-empt similar fall-out in India, as and when it happens.

Non-Personal Promotion:

In these circumstances, the question arises, when productive personal access to busy doctors through MRs becomes a real issue, what are other effective strategic measures pharma marketers can choose from, for fruitful engagement with those doctors?

Relevant Non-Personal Promotion (NPP), yet personalized, has the potential to create a favorable brand experience and image in the overall brand-building process, leading to increased prescription generation. Application of various high to low tech-based NPP tools is more feasible today than ever before, especially when the use of smart phones, tablet PCs and iPads are becoming so common within the busy medical practitioners.

Major benefits:

There are, at least, the following four key benefits that NPP in pharma marketing could offer:

Companies can proactively get engaged with even those doctors who would not prefer visits by MRs or those visits are failing to yield the desired results, as before.

Personalized, flexible, persuasive, interactive and cost efficient brand or disease related communication can be made available to even extremely busy doctors, at any time of their choice. This is quite unlike personal ‘one on one’ meetings with MRs, that are now taking place usually during or around the busy working hours.

Helps create a positive impression in the doctors’ minds that their busy schedules with patients are valued and not disturbed, respecting their wish and desire for the same.

Built-in provisions to encourage the doctors requesting for more specific information online, would enhance the possibility of ongoing customer interactions for productive long term engagement.

Based on all these, it appears to me, creative use of modern technology based NPP tools show a great potential to create a ‘leap-frog’ effect in augmenting the pharma brand-equity in all situation, especially during restricted access to all those heavy prescribers, who matter the most.

From message ‘Push’ to information ‘Pull’:

One of the fundamental differences between Personal-Promotion (PP) of pharma brands through MRs and Non-Personal Promotion (NNP) of the same, is a major shift from ‘Push’ messaging to the modern day trend of information ‘Pull’.

In the era of Internet and different types of ‘Web Search’, people want to ‘Pull’ only the information that they want, and at a time of their personal choice, if not in a jiffy. In this context, broader utilization of especially digital medium based NPP with navigational tools, would be of great relevance.

Any specific request coming from the target doctors in response to personalized e-mails or other direct communications may be delivered through the MRs. This would help creating an important and additional opportunity to strengthen the relationship between the prescribers and the pharma companies.

A good NPP strategy, therefore, needs to be crafted by creating a platform for ongoing engagement with the prescribers, primarily through information ‘Pull’, rather than making it just another part of any specific promotional campaign through message ‘Push’.

The segments to initially concentrate upon:

Till mandatory UCPMP comes into force with stringent compliance requirements, and in tandem MCI guidelines for the doctors acquire necessary teeth, Indian pharma industry, at least, can start warming up with NPP.

A sharper focus on NPP, as I see it, is required in the following pharma marketing situation, at least as a key supporting strategy:

Extremely busy doctors, who do not want to meet the MRs

Important doctors, who are not too attentive during brand communication

Potential heavy prescribers, who do not prefer interaction with MRs during meetings, with poor engagement level

For promotion of important ‘mature brands’ or ‘cash cows’ to free MRs’ time to focus on newer products

NPP and “Cash Cows”

NPP could be very relevant for ‘Mature Brands’ or the ‘Cash Cows’, especially for those pharma players having a large number of such brands and at the same time are also introducing new products. This situation is not very uncommon in the Indian pharma industry, either.

With such ‘mature brands’, the MRs have already done a superb job, who are now required to concentrate on making ‘Stars’ with other new products.

It would, therefore, be more meaningful to opt for a lower cost engagement with NPP for these brands, at least for the busy doctors, across multiple channels. Consequently, this strategy would further boost the margins of mature brands, sans deployment of a large number of more expensive MRs.

Platforms to explore:

The emerging situation offers a never before opportunity to use many interesting channels and interactive platforms for flexible and effective tech-based customer engagements. These can be used both for the doctors and also for the patients’ engagement initiatives. Exploration of platforms, such as, custom made health apps, social media, WhatsApp, e-mails and messengers using smartphones and mobile handsets, has already been initiated by some pharma players, though in bits and pieces.

Trapped in an ‘Archaic Strategy Cocoon’?

I wrote an article on the above subject in this blog dated June 17, 2013 titled, “Pharma Marketing in India: 10 Chain Events to Catalyze a Paradigm Shift”

In that article, I mentioned that over a long period of time, Indian pharmaceutical industry seems to have trapped itself in a difficult to explain ‘Archaic Strategy Cocoon’. No holds bar sales promotion activities, with very little of cerebral strategic marketing, continue to dominate the ball game of hitting the month-end numbers, even today.

It is about time to come out of this cocoon and prepare for the future, proactively, boldly, creatively and squarely. This will require a strategic long term vision to be implemented in an orderly, time-bound and phased manner to effectively convert all these challenges into high growth business opportunities.

Conclusion:

Like many others, I too believe that ‘face to face’ meetings still remain the most effective method for MRs’ brand detailing to doctors. It may remain so, at least, for some more time.

Nonetheless, in the gradually changing sales and marketing environment, pharma players, I reckon, should no longer rely on the personal visits alone. Instead, they should start exploring multi-channel, mostly tech-based, interactive and personalized NPP as effective augmentation, if not alternatives, for customer engagement to achieve the business goals.

In an environment thus created, it appears, the same or even a lesser number of MRs would be able to effectively orchestrate a large number of communication channels, facilitated by simple yet high technology online platforms.

All NPP channels and platforms would need to be designed and used as preferred by the busy medical practitioners and at any time of their choice, which could even be outside the usual working hours for a MR. In a transparent and mostly online sales and marketing monitoring process, physical supervision and guidance of, at least, the front line managers may also become irrelevant, as we move on.

In India, most pharmaceutical players are attuned to similar genre of promotional strategy-mix, predominantly through MRs, for all types of doctors and specialties, though the message may vary from one specialty to the other. A large number of companies also don’t seem to have organized research-based credible data. These are mainly on, what types of engagement platforms – personal or non-personal – and at what time, each busy prescriber would prefer for product information access and sharing.

Pharma sales marketing environment is slowly but steadily undergoing a metamorphosis, all over the world. This change is very unlikely to spare India, ultimately. The evolving paradigm of mostly high-tech driven and extremely user-friendly NPP in pharma marketing, has the potential to reap rich harvest. The early adopters, making adequate provisions for scaling up, are likely to gain a cutting edge competitive advantage to excel in business performance.

Scalable and creative use of NPP has a ‘Zing Factor’ too. Nonetheless, pharma marketing strategies have been too much tradition bound, by choice. By and large, most of what are being followed today reflect high attachment to past practices, with some tweaking here or there…tech-based or otherwise.

Well before it becomes a compelling strategic option, as the looming pharma marketing environment unfolds with the UCPMP becoming mandatory for all, would the Indian pharma companies come out of the ‘Archaic Cocoon’ to proactively embrace NPP with required zest and zeal?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Drug Price Control in India: A Fresh Advocacy With Blunt Edges

Posted on September 7, 2015 by Tapan Ray

It is no-brainer that the advocacy initiatives to influence the new Government doing away with the ‘Drug Price Control’ in India has re-started by flooring the gas pedal. A fresh invigorating effort, apparently a pretty expensive one, has been initiated in July 2015 with an interesting study conducted on the subject by an international market research organization, sponsored by a multi-national pharma trade association in India.

Having gone through the report, it appears to me, as if the whole purpose of the study was to rationalize an ‘advance’ conclusion in mind, weaving plethora of data around it for justification.

The report presents an abundance of selective data, apparently to rubbish the very concept of ‘Drug Price Control’ in India. In that process, it reinforced the existence of a deep seated malady in the overall sales and marketing strategic framework of most of the pharma players, rather than failure of ‘Drug Price Control’ in India, meant for the essential drugs.

In this article, I shall dwell on this issue adding my own perspective. Although my views are different, I totally respect the findings and suggestions made in this report.

Drug price control in India:

From 1970, Drug Price Control Orders (DPCO) are being issued in India under the Essential Commodities Act, without any break, so far. The key intent of the DPCO is to provide quality essential medicines at a reasonably affordable price to the consumer. The DPCO has been amended four times since then, the latest one being DPCO 2013.

Unlike the previous ones, the span of price control of DPCO 2013 is restricted to essential medicines, as featured in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011). The methodology of price control has also now changed to ‘marked-based’ pricing from earlier ‘cost-based’ pricing.

However, for the first time in July 2013, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) extended ‘Drug Price Control’ beyond the Schedule Drugs, when by a notification it announced price fixation of ‘anti-diabetic and cardiovascular drugs in respect of 108 non-scheduled formulation packs under Paragraph 19 of DPCO, 2013’,

Paragraph 19 of DPCO, 2013, authorizes the NPPA in extraordinary circumstances, if it considers it necessary to do so in public interest, to fix the ceiling price or retail price of any drug for such period as it deems fit.

Although the pharma industry initially had supported the switch from ‘cost based’ price control to ‘market based’ price control and only for NLEM 2011 drugs, it took a tougher stand after the above notification. Some trade association reverted to the same good old genre, yet again, trying to establish that ‘Drug Price Control’ does not help at all. The brand new market research report under discussion in this article, appears to be a step in that direction.

‘Market failure in pharma’ where competition does not work:

In its price notification dated July 10, 2014, as mentioned above, the NPPA justified its action by underscoring ‘market failure’ for those anti-diabetic and cardiovascular drugs, where competition does not work. NPPA considered ‘market failure’ as one of the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and explained the situation as follows:

There exist huge inter-brand price differences in branded-generics, which is indicative of a severe market failure, as different brands of the same drug formulation, which are identical to each other in terms of active ingredient(s), strength, dosage, route of administration, quality, product characteristics, and intended use, vary disproportionately in terms of price

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

In India the market failure for pharmaceuticals can be attributed to several factors, but the main reason is that the demand for medicines is largely prescription driven and the patient has very little choice in this regard.

Market failure alone may not constitute sufficient grounds for government intervention, but when such failure is considered in the context of the essential role of pharmaceuticals play in the area of public health, which is a social right, such intervention becomes necessary, especially when exploitative pricing makes medicines unaffordable and beyond the reach of most and also puts huge financial burden in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure on healthcare.

I discussed this subject in my bog post of April 27, 2015 titled, “Does ‘Free-Market Economy’ Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?”

Are medicines cheapest in India, really?

It is quite often quoted that medicines are cheapest in India. In my view, it would be too simplistic, if we compare the prevailing Indian drug prices in Rupee, against prices of similar drugs in other countries, just by simple conversion of the foreign currencies, such as, US$ and Euro converted into Rupee. To make the comparison realistic and credible, Indian drug prices should be compared against the same in other countries only after applying the following two critical parameters:

Purchasing Power Parity and Per Capita Income
Quantum of per capita ‘Out of Pocket Expenditure’ on drugs

The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) with the help of academia and other experts had earlier deliberated on this issue in one of its reports on patented drugs pricing. The report established that post application of the above two parameters, medicines in India are virtually as expensive as in the developed world, causing great inconvenience to majority of patients in the country.

Hence, common patients expectedly look for some kind of critical intervention by the Government, at least, on the prices of essential drugs in India.

A new study on drug price control:

Recently, I came across a ‘brand new’ research report that tries to justify the fresh stance allegedly taken by the pharma industry on the abolition of ‘Drug Price Control’ in India.

This new study of IMS Health released on July 2015, sponsored by a pharma MNC trade association in India, titled “Assessing the Impact of Price Control Measures on Access to Medicines in India”, categorically highlights ‘price control is neither an effective nor sustainable strategy for improving access to medicines for Indian patients’.

The key findings:

The following are the key findings of the report:

High income patient populations, rather than the low-income targets are the primary beneficiaries of the DPCO 2013.

The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.

The DPCO 2013 has resulted in an increase in market concentration and a decrease in competitive intensity.

Price control has increased margin pressures for small and mid-sized companies, limiting both employment and investment opportunities in the sector.

Price controls negatively impact internal capability-building and expertise-building initiatives, discourage local talent and undermine the government’s ’Make in India’ initiative.

The suggestions made:

In my view, the report almost repeats the same old suggestions being made by the pharma industry over decades. However, while making recommendations, this new report selectively quotes, without clearly naming them, from the draft National Health Policy 2015 and ‘Jan Aushadhi’ initiative of the DoP. It also attempts to ride on the shoulder of Prime Minister Modi’s ‘Make in India’ campaign. The key recommendations of the study are, as follows:

Strengthen healthcare financing and extend universal health coverage across population segments with focus on providing cover for medicines

Invest in healthcare infrastructure and capability building

Promote joint and bulk procurement mechanisms, e.g. Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation

Levy a cess on the tobacco and liquor industries to fund the healthcare sector and subsidize essential medicines from taxes

Introduce mechanisms to ensure availability of generics at lower prices, to improve affordability for patients i.e. set up dedicated generic medicine stores.

An official of IMS Health was also quoted by the media that sounds to me almost like pontification:

“Price control has limited impact on improving patient access and, furthermore is not aligned with the requirements of a vibrant economy like India” and the “Government’s priority should be on strengthening India’s healthcare infrastructure and extending universal insurance coverage.”

The blunt edges in the report raise more questions than answers:

I wonder, whether another apparently expensive research, such as this, was at all necessary to reinvent the same old advocacy narratives on ‘Drug Price Control’ in India.

As I note, the report highlights, “The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.” If this is true, one should try to fathom:

What does it really mean and what are its implications?
Can it happen, if it has happened, just because of ‘Drug Price Control’?

I am raising these two questions mainly because, price controlled drugs are prescription medicines. Thus, post DPCO 2013, when it happens to ‘prescription only medicines’, other critical questions that come at the top of mind are as follows:

Are the doctors now prescribing less of price controlled drugs? If so, why?

Price controlled drugs being essential drugs, are the doctors prescribing less of essential drugs? If so, why?

Do the doctors prefer prescribing expensive ‘non-schedule’ drugs to patients against their interest? if so, why?

Further, deliberately causing decline in consumption of these drugs, for margin or whatever may be the reasons, without intimating the NPPA as stipulated in the DPCO 2013, is a serious offense, attracting stringent penal action under the Essential Commodities Act.

Therefore, if the above finding of this study is correct and assuming that NPPA is not aware of such shortages or declining consumption of essential drugs in India, yet another critical question that needs to be answered:

By deliberately bringing down the consumption of essential medicines, are the concerned pharma players not taking the law in their own hands?

If yes, the Government would need to act forthwith. If not, the above finding of the report is just not correct.

The DoP, NPPA and other stakeholders would, therefore, need to ferret out, which one of the above two is correct.

Thus, I reckon, to wish away ‘Drug Price Control’ in India, the fresh advocacy initiative of the pharma trade association, keeping in the forefront a new study with blunt edges, raises more questions than answers. I have given just an example here, as above.

More marketing push on ‘free-pricing’ drugs is common:

It is not uncommon that the sales of ‘free-pricing’ drugs are usually more, as their margin is unlimited. Pharma players take increasing interest in those drugs and push them harder, almost totally controlling the ‘push-pull’ effect of drug marketing.

Globally, drug companies take increasing interest in such medicines. India is no exception. Here too ‘out of price control’ non-schedule drugs usually show higher growth, as the doctors are influenced to prescribe more of such drugs, though at the cost of consumer.

This practice may not be acceptable to many, but is a stark reality. This process is expected to continue, at least, till Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) is made mandatory with strict enforcement and strong punitive provisions for any violations.

Is the growth of price controlled drugs declining?

If the growth of price controlled medicines drastically comes down post DPCO 2013, that should get reflected on the declining overall sales and growth of those drugs. Similar pattern should also be visible in the growth of those types products marketed by most of the major pharma companies in India.

Let me now present the scenario of that space. The following analysis is based on the monthly retail audit data of AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS.

When I look at the growth of DPCO 2013 products based on NLEM 2011 and other price controlled drugs under ‘Para 19’ from January to July 2015 period in the following table, the scenario does not look as worrying just yet, as the above report has made it out to be.

Product group-wise market growth (in Value):

Month (2015)	DPCO products (%)	DPCO Para 19 Products (%)	Non-DPCO Products (%)	Total Market Growth (%)
July	5.1	11.8	14.2	12.9
June	5.6	14.6	16.2	14.8
May	5.3	7.2	12.1	11.0
April	11.1	11.9	18.4	17.2
March	1.6	15.6	21.7	20.9
February	13.9	14.4	20.0	18.9
January	6.9	NA	14.0	12.7

(Source: AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS )

Again, in the following table, when I look at the growth of DPCO 2013 products of some the very major pharma players in India, the conclusion still remains the same as above:

DPCO Products Growth (%) by major companies (Jan-July 2015):

Company	July	June	May	April	March	Feb	Jan
Ranbaxy	20.5	31.9	29.5	17.3	27.6	20.7	53.7
Pfizer	13.0	17.4	5.7	16.7	25.6	21.1	18.6
Abbott	7.2	11.7	18.5	13.5	15.5	18.3	21.2
GSK	-2.1	- 1.8	-1.2	12.2	12.2	NA	NA

(Source: AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS )

The blunt edges fail to cut ice:

Quite expectedly, even a month after its release in July 2015, the blunt edges in the report seem to have cut no ice, especially at a very important place that matters most to the industry in this area. This observation gets vindicated by a credible media report.

On August 24, 2015 in an interview to a national business daily, V K Subburaj, the Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals commented, “Price control on drugs a shot in the arm for health care” and “the Government cannot do away with it.”

He argued, “A large section of the population is poor. Suddenly, your system is disturbed if you have to spend more on drugs. Drugs are an important component of health care expenditure.”

Accepting the fact that in India, big and small companies investing in research would need more money, Mr. Subburaj said, “In India, we can’t afford to remove controls as the burden of disease is high.”

Conclusion:

With all due respect to all concerned, the above report appears to me palpably commercial, sans any worthy academic value or intellectual input that could trigger thinking for a change in the Government policy. The report apparently lacks in the required cutting edge to achieve the intended goal. The blunt edges are glaring, suggesting on the contrary, that the real action actually lies with the industry. Let me hasten to add, if any one has a different view on the subject, I would respect that with all humility.

The drug price control in India has been continuing since 1970, without any gap. The retail audit data clearly indicates that the growth of the Indian pharma industry did not get stunted or stifled during the period for this particular reason, as postulated in the above report of IMS Health. On the contrary, despite price control of drugs with all its ‘ill-effects’, as highlighted in the study, the growth of the Indian pharma industry in the last 4 decades has been nothing less than spectacular. This would consequently mean, increasing consumption of drugs, leading to improving access to medicines in India, including its hinterland, though may still not be good enough. I discussed this subject in my blog post of December 13, 2013, titled “Access to Medicine: Losing Track in Cacophony”.

Coincidentally, at the commencement of drug price control regime in India, almost all, if not all, the players in the ‘Top 10’ pharma league table of the country, were multi-national drug companies. Today the situation has just reversed. Out of ‘Top 10’, about 7 are home grown drug companies. Many of these companies were born post 1970. Without M&As by the pharma MNCs, this number could have been even higher today.

When it comes to profitability, it is worth mentioning, the soft-spoken and well-respected owner of the so called ‘low margin’ generic pharma company – Sun Pharma, is the second-richest person of the country. He created his initial wealth from India, despite ostensible ‘growth stunting’ price control – as elaborated in the above report.

By the way, what is the span of drug price control in India really – just around 18 percent of the total domestic pharma market now? More than 80 percent of the local drug market continue to remain in the ‘free-pricing’ and ‘high-profit’ zone. In that case, is the essence of the report not chanting… ‘yeh dil maange more’?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Cancer Cure: Inching Towards The ‘Holy Grail’?

Posted on August 31, 2015 by Tapan Ray

In a Press Conference on August 20, 2015, the 39th President of the United States, now 90-year-old Jimmy Carter, revealed (video) that during a liver surgery earlier this month the doctors diagnosed that he has cancer. The type of cancer that he is suffering from is called melanoma, which has already spread to his liver and brain. Medical jargon would term it as deadly metastatic cancer.

Though the surgeons have removed the liver tumor, and well-targeted radiation treatment for four other small tumors in his brain has already been initiated, the original site of the melanoma, the lethal skin cancer, has reportedly not been found, as yet.

Mr. Carter’s medical treatment has started with an infusion of a new class of drug that uses the human immune system to fight cancer cells. The drug has been reported to work not only in advanced metastatic cancer, but also in the old age of patients. The former American President appears optimistic about the treatment outcomes with this new therapy, ‘placing his fate in the hands of God’, though initially he thought that he had just weeks to live.

I shall deliberate in this article, in an easy to understand language, though briefly, the promises offered by two latest options for cancer cure. One of these two, has just become available to patients and the other one, after an initial jaw-dropping success, is undergoing further tests in a renowned research laboratory of the United States.

Two novel pathways for cancer treatment:

Until recently, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy used to be the three common options for cancer treatment. One breakthrough option has just been launched and more in the offing.

In search of a cure for cancer, pathbreaking outcomes of medical research, especially in the following two areas, are significant:

A. Immunotherapy: It is a revolutionary approach to cancer treatment. The first of this novel class of drugs has just come to the market, with which Mr.Jimmy Carter is now reportedly being treated.

B. Re-programming cancer cells back to normal: Success has just been achieved in laboratory studies with this technique. It holds a strong promise to cure cancer, universally.

A. Immunotherapy:

On June 1, 2015, in an article titled, ‘Cure for terminal cancer’ found in game-changing drugs, “The Telegraph” – well-regarded international news daily, reported on anti-cancer immunotherapy drugs, as follows:

“Terminally ill cancer patients have been ‘effectively cured’ by a game-changing new class of drugs. In one trial, more than half of patients who had just months to live saw deadly tumors shrink or completely disappear.”

“In recent days, the results of trials of a number of treatments which harness the body’s immune system have been announced at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s annual conference in Chicago. They show promise in the fight against skin cancer and lung disease.”

As we know, most of the cancers are deadly. All these grow and spread, as they manage to hide from the immune system, disguising the life-threatening danger. Thus, medical research scientists pondered that the human immune system could play a critical role in the fight against cancer and even cure, by harnessing its ability to fight the deadly disease, effectively and decisively.

To achieve this goal, this class of new cancer drugs work by allowing the body to recognize and attack cancer as any other harmful invader to the body. It effectively blocks a cellular pathway that hinders the ability of the human immune system to attack cancer cells.

At present, to treat different types of cancer, more number of immunotherapy drugs are undergoing clinical investigations.

Brilliant treatment outcomes, but not universal:

It has been reported, about one third of patients taking immunotherapy for the treatment of cancer experienced positive results. Those who responded to this therapy, showed immediate effect with their tumors shrinking or vanishing in a matter of weeks. As a result, the patients who had no more than weeks or months to live, just as former US President Jimmy Carter, have gone into remission for years and continuing with their normal lives.

It has also been reported, otherwise such patients could expect to live just nine months, if given standard treatment of cancer. Researchers said, they were hopeful that half of the patients responded to immunotherapy would end up “living disease-free”.

These drugs are expensive, costing roughly US$150,000 per year, which is a part of a different debate altogether.

Not a ‘magic bullet’:

Besides its high cost and outstanding quality of results, it is worth noting that immunotherapy is not a ‘magic bullet’ for all types of patients and in all cancer. It, therefore, throws a challenge for the oncologists to understand, why immunotherapy benefits only to some cancer patients, and who are those patients?

Moreover, there is a possibility of immunotherapy sending immune system of some patients to overdrive, precipitating auto-immune disorder that may attack also the healthy cells.

Thus, immunotherapy is not the ‘Holy Grail’ for the treatment of cancer, neither it is nowhere near a perfect drug for the treatment of all types of cancers in all patients.

Two key findings:

In this regard, two key findings of the researchers on immunotherapy are as follows:

Roughly around 15 to 20 percent of patients could experience shrinkage or remission of cancer

Half of the patients who responded found it lasting for at least six months

Thus, immunotherapy can at best be a cure for only some terminally ill cancer patients, mostly for some time, but not for all.

“In the hands of God”:

All these factors on immunotherapy probably would help us to understand, why an erudite person like Mr. Jimmy Carter said, though optimistic about the new treatment, he is placing his fate ‘in the hands of God’.

B. Re-programming cancer cells back to normal:

The question, therefore, comes up now, if immunotherapy is not the ‘Holy Grail’ for cancer treatment that the research scientists have been intensively searching for, is there anything else coming up for cancer cure?

It appears so. A totally different approach to re-program the cancer cells back to normal has very recently been reported by Mayo Clinic’s Florida Campus in the United States. With this, cancer researchers’ dream of making the tumor cells morphing back to normal cells, they once were, would probably come true.

The research findings, published in Nature Cell Biology on August 24, 2015, represents ‘an unexpected new biology that provides the code, the software for turning off cancer,’ said the senior investigator of this study.

In the normal process, cells in the human body divide constantly to replace themselves and stop dividing when they have replicated sufficiently. However, unlike the normal cells, cancer cells do not stop dividing, they go out of control, leading to huge cell reproduction and tumor growth.

For the ultimate cure of cancer, scientists at Mayo Clinic have now reportedly succeeded in reversing the process responsible for the normal cells from replicating too quickly.

Possible cure now within sight?

This could ultimately lead to a newer class of breakthrough treatment that would be able to reverse cancerous growth in the human body, possibly curing cancer, without the need of surgery, chemotherapy, radiation or even immunotherapy.

Scientists at the Mayo Clinic have said that their initial experiments in some aggressive types of cancer are quite encouraging. They have successfully done this in very aggressive human cell lines from breast and bladder cancer.

Towards the ‘Holy Grail’:

In pursuit of finding a cancer cure, research scientists have been making commendable progress, over a period of time.

In the last few years, spectacular breakthroughs in treatment of cancer have been possible from the increasing genetic and biological understanding of the researchers, especially in ascertaining exact defects in the DNA code of human genes that cause cancer.

Ability to sequencing human genome has offered a key tool to the researchers to compare the DNA codes of cancerous and normal cells and identify the differences.

From within the 20,000 human genes, around 500 cancer genes have been reportedly discovered and are being catalogued. Clear understanding of what happens precisely when the cells divide uncontrollably and cancer spreads in different parts of the patients’ body, is taking place with commendable progress of various research initiatives in this area.

Based on the current knowledge on human genome, a number of new drugs have been and are being developed to target the cancer-causing genes with great accuracy. Such types of drugs are called ‘personalized medicines’, as these act on specific gene abnormality of patients related to certain types of cancer. Sophisticated laboratory tests facilitate treatment with ‘personalized medicines’. These are more effective with lesser side-effects, as compared to generally used anti-cancer drugs, prescribed to all cancer patients.

However, the question keeps lingering, ‘Is the Holy Grail for cancer cure has now come within sight?’

Conclusion:

Medical scientists continue to take rapid strides towards better and more effective treatment for cancer, if not cure, with fewer side-effects.

Claims for long remissions with immunotherapy, are being reported for some patients with even metastatic cancer and also in old age, just like former President of America – Mr. Jimmy Carter.

The success achieved by the scientists of ‘Mayo Clinic’ in re-programming rogue cancer cells back to normal, is stunning.

Being successful in this effort, the researchers have compared cancer with a complex software program of life. When it goes out of control, ‘instead of the code for normal cells, a code for making abnormal cells is executed’. This new study signals a strong possibility of bringing the cancer cells back to normal.

Medical experts keep their fingers crossed. Although, some of them do apprehend that there may never be a single ‘Magic Bullet’ to cure all types of cancer in all patients. This is mainly because cancer involves a large number of different disease areas, such as, breast, lung, bowel, prostate, blood and so on.

But hope refuses to fade out, as science continues to keep unravelling spectacular breakthroughs in this direction, at a fairly brisk pace. All these researches may be cancer types or patient types specifics, but the progress is taking place in the right direction.

Even in the ‘Mayo Clinic study’, scientists have been, so far, successful in re-programming the breast and bladder cancer cells back to normal, though they believe that this success sends a strong signal of an “early and somewhat universal event in cancer.”

Immunotherapy is undoubtedly a path breaking step that ensures cure in some types of cancer and in some categories of patients. However, if re-programming the cancer cells back to normal, eventually becomes an ‘universal event’ in the treatment of this generally frightening disease, no doubt, the medical science is now slowly but surely inching towards the ‘Holy Grail’ for cancer cure…at long last.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Pharmaceuticals

3D Printing: An Emerging Game Changer in Pharma Business

Marketing Off-label Use of Drugs: A Path Much Abused?

The Power Of Color And Design In Pharma Branding

Universal Health Coverage: The Only Alternative To Drug Price Control in India?

Does India Produce ‘World Class’ Medicines, For All?

Evolving Scenario of Non-Personal Promotion in Pharma Marketing

Drug Price Control in India: A Fresh Advocacy With Blunt Edges

Cancer Cure: Inching Towards The ‘Holy Grail’?