Tag Archives: placebo

Big Pharma Demands Transparency, Keeping their ‘Black-Boxes’ Tight and Safe?

Posted on by
Reply

Pharmaceutical Industry across the globe wants absolute transparency in all government laws, policies, guidelines, transactions and overall governance. They also expect the trade environment should be predictable, non-manipulative and business-friendly. These expectations are indeed well justified and deserve whole-hearted support from all concerned.

However, when similar expectations of transparency are voiced by stakeholders in the Big Pharma business operations, that will have direct or indirect impact on public health interests, one would mostly encounter a well guarded, mammoth and impregnable ‘Black Box’, wearing a ‘Top Secret’ label, with all relevant information kept inside.

Such areas of stakeholders’ interests on Big Pharma could well be related to details, like for example:

  • Actual break-up of R&D expense details,
  • Transparency in all clinical trials data for experts review,
  • Patented products’ pricing rationale,
  • Enormous total costs of lobbying and related expenses at the global level,
  • Marketing spend on doctors and other decision makers, directly or indirectly, just to name a few.

Mounting curiosity:

Continuation of such opaque practices for a long time, in turn, sparks the curiosity of the intelligentsia to know more in details, especially, about the areas as stated above.

Various research studies are now coming up, with huge revelations and strong findings in these areas. All of these together indicate, it is about time for the global pharma to also demonstrate transparency in their respective business practices and corporate governances, without further delay.

If it does not happen, probably respective governments in various countries will start acting on these areas of opaque self-serving pharma business practices, with the enactment and more importantly, stricter enforcement of requisite laws and policies. President Obama Administration in the United States has already initiated some important actions in these areas with proposals and laws, like for example,  the “Physicians Payment Sunshine Act’ .

The ‘Power Game’:

An interesting article of May 3, 2013 highlighted that the global pharmaceutical industry exerts incredible influence over the prescription medicines across the globe. This power, as many will know, flows from robust political contacts and influences over various important government agencies administrating the entire healthcare system, executed immaculately by expensive lobbying and PR campaigns by their globally integrated trade bodies.

Similar powerful influences also get extended to doctors and the people who matter to further their interests. These well crafted plans are reportedly executed through sponsored or paid opinion-modifying articles, ‘advertorials’, DTC advertisements (wherever legally permitted) and well-organized, seemingly third party, speeches to push the envelopes further.

Most probably, keeping such ongoing practices in mind and coming under intense media pressure, the Medical Council of India (MCI) on December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ for the doctors in India. Unfortunately, its implementation on the ground is rather tardy.

The above article also stated, “In fact, in the United States the industry contributes heavily to the annual budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is charged with regulating drugs and devices made by those same companies.”

Avoidable Expenditures:

The paper indicates that in the United States alone the industry associations:

  • Have 1,100-plus paid lobbyists on Capitol Hill,
  • Allocated US$ 188 million annual lobbying budget
  • Doles out around US$ 14 million to political candidates every year

The report also comments, ‘Drug companies spend substantially more on marketing than they do on research and development.’

Influencing opinion against patients’ interest?

The article in the ‘drugwatch’ also states:

“Doctors are persuaded by the pharma companies to attach their names (ghost writing), against financial considerations, to favorable article on a particular drug ensuring that it is published in a well reputable medical journal.”

The author continues that ‘Ghost writings’ are being used to promote numerous drugs to influence concerned stakeholders.

In 1998, a study of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine found that ‘out of 75 published articles, nearly half were written by authors with financial conflicts. And, worse than this, only two of the articles disclosed interests.’

Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, was quoted saying, “All journals are bought – or at least cleverly used – by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Striking facts:

Following are some striking facts as reported in the article, as mentioned above:

“Advertising instead of research: For every US$ 1 spent on “basic research,” Big Pharma spends US$ 19 on promotions and advertising.

Distribution of free drug samples: The United States has 1 pharmaceutical sales representative for every 5 office-based physicians.

Sponsorship of symposiums and medical conventions: Drug and medical device makers spend lavishly on doctors, including covering meals, travel, seminars and conventions that may look more like vacations.”

Pressure on publications:

The paper highlights that large global pharma majors may even pull its advertisements out, if the concerned medical journal will question the accuracy of an ad. Such types of threats have very serious effects on these journals in running their businesses without getting lucrative advertisement dollars from the drug manufacturers.

Making drugs looking good:

The same article highlights:

“Quite often the academics and scientists are hired hands who supply human subjects and collect data according to the instructions from their corporate employers. Sponsors keep the data, analyze, write the papers and decide whether and when and where to submit them for publication. Drug companies have discovered ways to stage-manage trials to produce predetermined outcomes that will put their products in the best light.”

With this strategy even a bad drug can allegedly be made looking good by doing many things, like for example:

  • Comparing them to a placebo
  • Comparing them to a competitor’s medication in the wrong strength
  • Pairing them with a drug that is known to work well
  • Shortening a trial before any bad results surface
  • Testing in groups too small to provide valid evidence

Pay-for-delay deals:

A recent report titled, “Top twenty pay-for-delay drugs: How Industry pay-off delay generics” highlights that ‘Pay-for-delay deals’ have forced patients in the United States to pay an average of 10 times more than necessary for at least 20 blockbuster drugs.

Key findings of the analysis on the impact of pay-for-delay deals are as follows:

  • This practice has held back generic medicines used by patients with a wide range of serious or chronic conditions, ranging from cancer and heart disease, to depression and bacterial infection.
  • These payoffs have delayed generic drugs for five years, on average, and as long as nine years.
  • These brand-name drugs cost 10 times more than their generic equivalents, on average, and as much as 33 times more.
  • These patented drug companies have made an estimated US$ 98 billion in total sales of these drugs while the generic versions were delayed.

Citing example, the paper says, a pay-for-delay deal kept a generic version of the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen off the US market for nine years, while Pfizer made $7.4 billion in sales of its cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor (atorvastatin) in 2012 alone.

The point to ponder yet again is, why such practices are being surreptitiously carried out for years sacrificing patients’ interest and without the regulators’ strong interventions, in general?

French Government has initiated a probe:

The French Competition Authority is reportedly expected to publish a report on the findings of its inquiry, initiated in February 2013, into the costs and pricing of medicines in France. The report will also look at whether industry practices are interfering with the market entry of generic drugs, including distribution arrangements between drug manufacturers, wholesalers and pharmacists.

An appreciable initiative in America, but why not in India?

There is still a simmering hope. As indicated above, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act reportedly requires that from September 2013, pharmaceutical companies will need to collect data and openly report information on payments, investment interests, ownership and items of value given to doctors and hospitals. Very unfortunately, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has not taken any such steps, as yet, despite the situation turning grave in the country.

The power of pharma lobby in the US:

According to a recent NYT report, in the United States, government health programs are forbidden from rejecting new drugs on cost grounds.

When the issue of drug prices came up as part of President Obama’s ‘Affordable Care Act’ debate, it was summarily rejected in Congress. Simultaneously, a move toward comparative-effectiveness studies, putting rival drugs or treatments through trials to determine which work better, was also decried.

The report highlights, the mere suggestion of the US government throwing its weight around on drug prices stirs up talk of ‘socialism’. The pharma lobby doesn’t have to look far for support in fighting that idea. In the US, the so-called ‘free market’ is trusted to regulate drug prices, despite the reality that the healthcare market is far from transparent, ‘with byzantine pricing mechanisms and costs that vary wildly region-by-region, pharmacy by pharmacy and even patient-by-patient’.

The usual supply/demand/pricing relationships do not apply to drug prices at the consumer level in the US too, just as it has been proved in India. 

A large part of creation of this environment is attributed to pharmaceutical and other health-products firms, who reportedly spent a total of US$ 250 million on lobbying last year. 

Big Pharma keeps failing credibility tests:

This happened very recently, when The Guardian in July 2013 reported, the pharmaceutical industry has “mobilized” an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drug trials. This is related to the news that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) could force drug companies to publish all Clinical Trial (CT) results in a public database.

The above report says, while some pharma players agreed to share data, important global pharma industry associations have resisted this plan of the EMA. The report continues, a leaked letter from two large pharma trade associations, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) of the United States and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), have drawn out a strategy to combat calls by drug regulators to force companies to publish all CT results.

The strategy reportedly shows how patient groups, many of which receive some or all of their funding from drugs companies, have been drawn into this battle by these Big Pharma lobby groups.

The e-mail reportedly seen by ‘The Guardian’ was from Richard Bergström, Director General of EFPIA, addressed to directors and legal counsel at Roche, Merck, Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis and many smaller companies.

The e-mail leaked by an employee of a pharma company describes a four-pronged campaign that starts with “mobilizing patient groups to express concern about the risk to public health by non-scientific re-use of data”.

Translated, as ‘The Guardian’ reported, “that means patient groups go into bat for the industry by raising fears that if full results from drug trials are published, the information might be misinterpreted and cause a health scare.”

This appears to be another classic case of vested interests working against patients’ interests.

Global lobbying started taking the center stage in India too:

With the above back-drop and lobbying scandals reportedly being surfaced in many other countries, it is about time that India puts its acts together with India-specific stricter disclosure policies, including R&D, Clinical Trials (CTs), Patented Products Pricing, Marketing Practices and Trade Lobbying.

Interestingly, to influence Government policies India’s top lobbying spenders in 2012 (US$ million) were reported as follows:

1 US Chamber of Commerce

136.3
2 National Association of Realtors

41.5
3 Blue Cross / Blue Shield

22.5
4 General Electric

21.1
5 American Hospital Association

19.2
6 National Cable & Telecom. Association

18.9
7 Pharmaceutical Research & Mfrs. of America (PhRMA)

18.5
8 Google

18.2
9 Northrop Grumman

17.5
10 AT&T

17.4
11 American Medical Association

16.5
12 Boeing

15.6

Source: The Center for Responsive Politics (Economic Times, June 4, 2013)

According to the latest lobbying disclosure reports filed with the US Senate and the House of Representatives, at least two dozen American companies and industry associations are reportedly lobbying hard with the US lawmakers on issues in India, which include:

  • Intellectual Property (IP)
  • Patent
  • Market access

Another recent report comments as follows:

“The US Chamber of Commerce has become a portal for dubious reports that claim India’s intellectual property regime is worse than China’s. Such “research” by paid lobbyists and disseminated through the halls of US Congress…”

Hefty fines for illegal practices, yet Black Box remains tight and safe: 

In December 2010, Healthcare advocacy group Public Citizen published a report that, for the first time, documented all major financial settlements and court judgments between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the federal and state governments of the United States since 1991.

It says, almost US$ 20 billion was paid out by the pharmaceutical industry to settle allegations of numerous violations, including illegal, off-label marketing and the deliberate overcharging of taxpayer-funded health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Three-fourths of the settlements and accompanying financial penalties had occurred in just the five-year period prior to 2010. There has been no indication that this upward trend is subsiding.

10 Largest Settlements and Judgments on Big Pharma mis governance:
(Period: Nov. 2, 1010 – July 18, 2012)

Company Amount    US$ Million Year Reasons
1. GlaxoSmithKline 3, 000 2012 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks, concealing study data, overcharging government health programs
2. Abbott  1,500 2012 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
3. Johnson & Johnson 1,200 2012 Unlawful promotion
4.  Merck 950 2011 Unlawful promotion
5. Ranbaxy 500 2012 Poor manufacturing practices, falsifying data on FDA applications.
6. Johnson & Johnson 327 2011 Unlawful promotion
7. Boehringer Ingelheim 280 2011 Overcharging government health programs
8. Mylan’s Dey Pharma unit 280 2010 Overcharging government health programs
9. Elan 203 2010 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
10. Johnson & Johnson 158 2012 Unlawful promotion

Conclusion:

All such expenditures, including expensive lobbying and court settlement charges for illegal business practices, as mentioned above, I reckon, are wasteful and avoidable. These are mostly outcomes of self serving measures, shorn of public health interest, 

If all these costs are eliminated and actual R&D expenses are reflected, in a transparent manner, there could be significant reduction in the costs of newer innovative drugs, extending their access to billions of patients, across the world.

Thus to help evaluating the innovative drugs with greater transparency, there is an urgent need for the Big Pharma to set examples by voluntarily disclosing the secrets hidden within the ‘Black Boxes’, as deliberated above. These disclosures should be made to the independent experts and the respective Governments under appropriate statutes.

Expectations of transparency in Governance should not, therefore, be restricted just to Government laws, policies and decisions, the industry should reciprocate it too, in equal measures.

To be patient-centric, transparency in governance needs to be a two-way traffic, where pharma industry should volunteer to be an integral part, sooner than later. Otherwise it may be too late for them to avoid harsh interventions of the respective regulators, as the intense pressure from intelligentsia, civil society and media, keep mounting.

That said, the question lingers:

When the ‘Big Pharma is rightly demanding transparency in all areas of public discourse, why are they so reluctant in making their intriguing ‘Black Boxes’ transparent, that too only in areas of public health interest, for fair experts review?

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.

Drug, Patent and Hype: Quo Vadis Pharma Innovation?

Posted on by
Reply

A recent research report reveals, though the pharmaceutical companies in the United States since mid 2000 have spent over US$ 50 billion every year to discover new drugs, they have very rarely been able to invent something, which can be called significant improvement over already existing ones.

As per available reports, from the year 2000  to 2010, the US-FDA, on an average, approved just 24 new drugs per year. This number is a sharp decline from the same of 1990, when on an average 31 new drugs were approved per year.

These studies throw open some important questions to ponder:

  • What is then the real issue with pharma innovation? 
  • Is it declining quality or quantity (number)?
  • What impacts the patients more?

Quantity vs quality of innovation:

A recent paper explored whether declining numbers of New Molecular Entities (NMEs), approved in the United States (US) each year, is the best measure of pharmaceutical “innovation.”

Thus, studying in detail the NME approvals in the US during 1987 to 2011, the authors proposed the following three distinct subcategories of NMEs:

  • First-in-class
  • Advance-in-class
  • Addition-to-class

This classification was aimed at providing more nuanced and informative insights into underlying trends.

The paper established that trends in NME approvals were largely driven by ‘Addition-to-class’, or “Me too,” drug approvals. However, the good news is that ‘First-in-class’ approvals remained fairly steady over the study period.

Thus I reckon, there should be much greater focus with higher resource deployments for  more of ‘First-in-class’ drugs research and development.

To achieve this objective with requisite wherewithal, there will be a need to drastically cut down massive R&D expenditures on “Me-too” types of so called ‘innovative’ drugs. Such drugs, carrying exorbitant price tags,  creating a financial burden to the payers, could perhaps help increasing the number of innovations, but certainly not the quality of innovations to meet important unmet needs of patients in a cost effective manner.

Some facts: 

In 2010, the healthcare journal Prescire rated 97 new drugs or new indications. Only 4 of these provided any therapeutic advantage over the available existing drugs. Interestingly, 19 others (1 in 5) were approved despite having more harms than benefits.

According to another analysis, “About 1 in 6 new products had more harms than benefits, while more than half of all new products provided no advantages over existing options.”

Further, a different article published in Nature Reviews indicated, “doctors were more likely to rate drugs more than a decade old as transformative.”

Decline in the quality of innovation:

In this context, Dr Mark Olfson of Columbia University and statistician Steven Marcus of the University of Pennsylvania have reportedly established as follows:

“By the 1980s new drugs were less than four times better; by the 1990s, twice as good, and by the 2000s just 36 percent better than a placebo. Since older drugs were much superior to placebo and newer ones only slightly so, that means older drugs were generally more effective than newer ones.”

While even in earlier years, newer patented drugs on an average used to be 4.5 times more effective, as compared to placebo.

The winds of change?

As a result, under the new ‘Affordable Care Act’ of President Obama, “comparative effectiveness research” by an independent research institute could well conclude that older drugs or even cheaper generic equivalents are better than the high priced patented ones, which create fortunes for the innovator pharmaceutical companies at the cost of patients and payers.    

The above initiate in ‘Obamacare’, if and when fructifies, will indeed hit the ‘Me-too’ type of drug innovators, especially in the United States, very hard. Nevertheless, is a music to the ear for the private health insurance companies and the patients at large.

A ray of hope?

‘Comparative drug effectiveness analysis’, as stated above, could eventually lead to replacement of newer high priced ‘me-too’ patented drugs by older relatively low priced generic equivalents, at least, for reimbursements.

This will, no doubt, lead to huge profit erosion of the big pharmaceutical players. Hence, extensive lobbying by industry groups in top gear, against this ‘patient-centric’ proposal, is currently on, .

As the new federal healthcare law will find its roots in America, despite strong opposition  from the powerful and influential pharma lobby groups, a ray of hope is now  faintly seen in otherwise blatantly exploitative and rather cruel drug pricing environment.

Where hype is the key driver:

Despite enormous hype, being created and spearheaded by the Big pharma, on the ‘essentiality’ of most stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime in a country with patent laws blatantly in favor of commercial considerations, to enjoy a monopolistic marketing climate with pricing freedom, breakthrough pharma innovations are now indeed rather difficult to come by, as we shall deliberate below.

Reasons for decline:

Many experts believe that the following reasons, among many others, have attributed to the decline in the quality of pharmaceutical R&D output:

  • Most important drug discoveries for mankind have already been made or in other words, the low hanging fruits of pharma R&D have already been plucked. Now not so easy and rather difficult drug targets are remaining.
  • In the last decade, most of pharma R&D efforts were reportedly concentrated mainly in four major disease areas: central nervous system, cancer, cardiovascular and infectious diseases.
  • There is a need now to focus more on poorly understood and more complex therapeutic areas such as, autoimmune diseases or complex diseases related  immune system of the body, to meet greater unmet needs of patients.
  • Clinical trial volunteers are now more difficult to recruit and treat.
  • More stringent regulatory requirements for clinical trials with studies using much larger number of patients, making the clinical drug development process very expensive.

Could it be worse for Big Pharma?

The evolving situation, though very early in the day now, has the potential to turn much worse for the big pharma and good for the patients, if some key changes take place.

Many industry analysts, across the world, feel that ‘liberal’ patent laws are responsible for acceptance of minor advances over the existing products as patentable with 20 years of market exclusivity.

Thereafter, another ‘liberal’ minded drug regulatory framework allows the pharma players to market such ‘not-so-innovative patented medicines’ aggressively, enabling them to amass astronomical profits in no time at the cost of patients’ interests and payors’ financial burden , as happened in the United States and many other countries recently.

To avoid such trivial innovations the law and policy makers in the industrialized countries may well ponder as follows:

1. Align the country’s ‘Patents Act’ with similar to what Indian law makers had formulated in 2005 to avoid minor and ‘evergreening’ types of patents under section 3(d) of the Act.

2. The clinical research data must establish that the new drugs offer significantly more tangible benefits to the patients than the existing ones.

Denial of patentability for ‘me-too’ innovations and their subsequent regulatory approvals would significantly reduce the drug treatment cost with virtually no adverse impacts on patients, across the world.

If such measures are taken by the developed countries of the world and also the emerging markets, the Big Pharma would be compelled to change their respective business models, making ailing patients of varying financial status, color and creed central to their respective strategic ideation processes.

Otherwise, it is highly unlikely that anything will change for the patients from what we are all experiencing today, at least in the near to medium term.

A possible pathway:

Highly conflicting interests of Big pharma and the patients, should get resolved sooner than later and that again for the interest of both. 

Thus, to find a meaningful and generally acceptable solution to this issue, there is a dire need for a much wider global debate. The deliberations, at the same time, should include possibilities of finding ways to avoid huge wasteful expenditures on pharmaceutical R&D for developing new products that offer no significant benefits to the patients over the existing ones. On the contrary, such products burden them with exorbitant incremental drug treatment costs, 

The motions of the debate could well be in the following lines:

1.  ‘Should United States amend its patent laws by categorically stating that a mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” that does not have properties resulting in significant improvement in clinical efficacy, will not be patentable?

2. Shouldn’t the clinical research data must always establish that the new drugs offer significantly more tangible benefits to the patients than already available cheaper equivalents?

The positive outcome of this global debate, if fructifies, will indeed be considered as a paradigm shift in the new world order for all, hopefully.

Unfathomable reluctance: 

Despite all these developments, a recent report indicated that the heads of seventeen industry associations of the United States wrote a letter to President Obama complaining, among others, India’s patents regime. This includes the most powerful, yet equally controversial, pharmaceutical lobby group of America.

The letter alleged that the recent policy decisions in India undermine internationally recognized Intellectual Property (IP) standards, which are “jeopardizing domestic jobs” in America and are unacceptable to them.

Though the details of issues were not highlighted in the letter, One concern it specifically expressed that the defeat of Novartis on the Glivec case that challenged Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India has raised the bar on what can be considered a true innovation for the grant of patent in India.

Though this judgment of the apex court of India was widely acclaimed even globally, American Trade Association Lobby Groups seem to project exactly the opposite, reportedly, driven solely by profit motives of their members and shorn of patients’ interests

Interestingly, an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine, July 17, 2013 also states as follows:

“A patent law that treats incremental innovation and significant innovation in the same way, encourages companies to prioritize less important research over more important research.”

A diametrically opposite viewpoint:

Another school of thought leaders opine, ‘me too’ innovations will continue to remain alive and well. This will happen, even if such new products are starved of oxygen by ‘the tightening purse strings of the eventual customers’. These innovations are sustained by the stronger imperative to avoid clinical failures and to play relatively safe in the space of expensive R&D investments.

They feel that pharma players will continue to focus on to leaner drug discovery and development models to have healthier late-stage product pipelines of such types.  In tandem, by cutting costs even more aggressively, as we witness today, they will find space to keep the level of risk optimal for delivering real innovation, when the time comes.

This type of business model, the experts feel is based on the belief that it is far better to acquire a product with very little innovation ensuring that it can hardly fail to be approved by the regulator. Thereafter, the concerned players may figure out ways of how payors will actually pay for it, rather than focusing primarily on acquiring a genuinely innovative ‘First-in-class’ product and then discover it has ‘feet of clay’.

For example, AstraZeneca reportedly invested a little over US$1 billion in two such products in one month: another LABA combination from Pearl Therapeutics and a prescription ‘Fish Oil’ capsule from Omthera Pharmaceuticals.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, a large number of experts do opine, especially in the light of the above letter of the American Trade Associations that the verdict of the Honorable Supreme Court of India on the Glivec case, though does not serve the business interests of pharma MNCs, definitely signals the triumph of justice over ruthless patient exploitations. It also vindicates that this particular rule of law, as enacted by the Indian Parliament, is indeed for the best interest of the patients of India at large.

This verdict could well be construed as a huge lesson to learn and implement by other like minded countries, across the world.

Having a glimpse at the pharmaceutical innovations, which are often laced by crafty hypes created by expensive PR Agencies of the pharma lobby groups, the global thought leaders do tend to believe, rather strongly, that Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India would encourage more ‘First-in-class’ innovations, in the long run, benefiting all.

Such a provision, if implemented by many countries, could also help saving significant wasteful expenditures towards ‘Me-too’ type pharma R&D, favorably impacting billions of lives, across the world.

That said, the question keeps haunting – ‘Sans Hype, Quo Vadis Pharma Innovation?

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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

 

 

 

New ‘Patient Compensation’ Norms on Clinical Trials in India: Overdue Action, Sharp Reaction and Ethical Issues

Posted on by
Reply

Responding to the damning stricture made by the Supreme Court on January 3, 2013, the Ministry of Health, as expected, by a gazette notification of January 30, 2013 has made the norms of compensation to patients participating in Clinical Trials (CT) more stringent.

‘Patient Compensation’ will now include injury or death, even if those are not related to the drugs being tested in the CT.

It is worth mentioning that these guidelines have been reportedly worked out after due consideration of around 300 comments received from the stakeholders on the draft proposal circulated by the Ministry of Health in July 2011, couple of rounds of discussion with the members of the civil society, expert groups and against reported ‘stiff opposition from the drug companies’.

Just a day after, on February 1, 2013, the Ministry of Health also notified final regulations on the conditions under which CT sites will be authorized by the local licensing and the inspection authorities of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO).

Key features of the new Government ‘Action’ on patient compensation:

Following are the key features in the new norms for patient compensation:

1. The sponsors of CTs will now be liable for injuries or deaths, which will take place during the course of a clinical trial and will be required to pay compensation to the patients or their families.

2. The investigator of the CT must inform the concerned pharmaceutical company, the Clinical Research Organization (CRO) and the Ethics Committee regarding injury or death during CT within 24 hours.

3. It will be mandatory for all CT Ethics Committees to be pre-registered with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), unlike the old system where this was not required and trial sponsors reportedly could staff the committee.

4. The pharmaceutical companies and the CROs will get 10 days time to submit a detailed report on related serious adverse event to the Ethics Committee, which in turn will get another 10 to 11 days to convey its evaluation on compensation to be paid to the independent expert committee. The Expert Panel will then advise the DCGI of an appropriate financial compensation within 30 days from the date of receiving the above report.

5. It will no longer require inclusion of specific amount of compensation for injury or death in the informed consent form and does not refer to insurance coverage for potential liability.

6. It requires the sponsors of CTs to provide the trial subject with free “medical management” for as long as it will require.

Will make CT more expensive in India:

Clinical Trials (CT), as we know, are of critical importance for obtaining marketing approval of any new drug and at the same time forms a major cost component in the new drug development process, across the world.

Any savings in this area, both in terms of time and money, will add significantly to the profit margin of the product. In that context the above notification will now make CT more expensive in India.

Sharp ‘reaction’ of CT related industry:

Understandably, reacting to this notification, some Clinical Research Organizations have expressed concerns in areas like:

  1. Lack of distinction between study-related injuries and non-study related injuries
  2. The use of placebos in placebo-controlled trials,
  3. Lack of any arbitration mechanism in case of disagreement on causality/quantum of compensation and the lack of clarity on who constitutes the Expert Committee and its composition.

Some other Experts related CT industry do highlight a few more troubling issues in the notification, as follows:

1. Compensation to be paid for ‘failure of an investigational product to provide intended therapeutic effect.’ This, they expressed, is intriguing as the very nature of a CT is to ascertain whether the investigational drug is efficacious or not.

2. If compensation is not paid as required, a sponsor or CRO may be banned from conducting any further trials in the country. This, they feel, provision could make India a challenging place to conduct CT.

3. There should also be clarity on the formula to determine compensation, the process for determining a compensation amount, and how an appeal process would work.

The bottom-line is, due to this new policy on ‘Patient Compensation’ CT expenses may go up considerably in India.

Other expert views:

On the other hand, some other experts opined to the International Weekly Journal on Science – ‘nature’ as follows:

“These reforms should go further to restore public confidence and the Indian government should establish special courts to deal quickly with allegations of medical misconduct, such as not fully disclosing to participants the risks involved in a clinical trial”.

Global concern on ethical issues with ‘Placebo Controlled’ studies:

In this context, though issues related to ‘Placebo Controlled’ trials have been raised by the CT related industry in India, very interestingly a paper of Research Administration of the University of California on the ethical issues with ‘Placebo Controlled’ studies’ clearly articulates that the use of a placebo in clinical research has remained a contentious issue in the medical community since long.

Some strongly argue that use of placebos is often unethical because alternative study designs would produce similar results with less risk to individual research participants. Others argue that the use of placebos is essential to protect society from the harm that could result from the widespread use of ineffective medical treatment.

However, as per the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) guidebook, “Placebos may be used in clinical trials where there is no known or available (i.e. US-FDA-approved) alternative therapy that can be tolerated by subjects.”

This issue also needs to be deliberated and effectively addressed by the Indian drug regulator in the debate of patient compensation for ‘placebo controlled trials’.

A perspective on CT in India:

Interestingly, in this critical area India is fast evolving as a major hub. This is vindicated by a study conducted by Ernst & Young and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (FICCI), which states that India now participates in over 7 per cent of all global phase III and 3.2 per cent of all global phase II trials. The key points of attraction of the global players, so far as India is concerned, were reported as follows:

1. Cost of Clinical Trial (CL) is significantly less in India than most other countries of the world

2. Huge patient pool with different disease pattern and demographic profile

3. Easy to enroll volunteers, as it is easy to persuade poor and less educated people as ‘willing’ participants.

Such opportunities, experts believe, should have ideally made the clinical research industry to demonstrate greater responsibility to ensure that patients’ safety needs are adequately taken care of. Unfortunately, despite such expectations, some important areas like ‘patient compensation’ have still remained blatantly neglected.

It has now come to light with the help of ‘Right To Information (RTI)’ query that more than 2,000 people in India died as a result of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) caused during drug trials from 2008-2011 and only 22 of such cases, which is just around 1 percent, received any compensation. That too was with a meager average sum of around US$ 4,800 per family.

It has been widely reported that pharmaceutical companies often blame deaths that occur during trials on a person’s pre-existing medical condition and not related to CT.

DCGI had hauled-up 9 companies for blatant negligence:

According to another report quoting the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), 25 people died in clinical trials conducted by nine pharmaceutical companies, in 2010. Unfortunately, families of just five of these victims received” compensation for trial related death, which ranged from Rs 1.5 lakh (US$ 3000) to Rs 3 lakh (US$ 6000).

This report also highlighted that arising out of this critical negligence, for the first time ever, the then DCGI was compelled to summon these nine pharmaceutical companies on June 6, 2011 to question them on this issue and with a clear directive to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to clinical trial by June 20, 2011, or else all other CTs of these nine companies, which were ongoing at that time or yet to start, will not be allowed.

The report also indicates that after this ultimatum all the nine companies as mentioned therein had paid the compensation to the families of the patients who had died related to the CT.

Long exploitation of the fragile CT regulations in India:

For all these reasons, the subject of CT in India has created a huge ruckus, mainly for wide spread alleged malpractices, abuse and misuse of fragile CT regulations of the country by some players in this field. The issue is not just of GCP or other CT related standards but more of ethical mind-set and reported rampant exploitation of uninformed patients, especially in case of trial related injuries or even death.

The Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an article titled, “Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns” reported as follows:

“Drug companies are drawn to India for several reasons, including a technically competent workforce, patient availability, low costs and a friendly drug-control system. While good news for India’s economy, the booming clinical trial industry is raising concerns because of a lack of regulation of private trials and the uneven application of requirements for informed consent and proper ethics review.”

“Pharmaceutical industry seeks to run studies in countries with lower costs”:

There seems to be nothing basically wrong in this approach per se. However, a recent report does highlight as follows:

“Clinical trials conducted by global drug makers and their proxies have generated increased scrutiny in recent years as the pharmaceutical industry seeks to run studies in countries with lower costs and populations where patients are not exposed to as many medications that can confound results. India has been a prime example”.

A lesson to learn by the Indian Drug Regulator:

It is worth noting that US-FDA in a communication meant for the consumers has stated as follows:

“The Food and Drug Administration’s job is to make sure medical treatments are safe and effective for people to use. FDA staff members meet with researchers, and perform inspections of clinical trial study sites to protect the rights of participants and to verify the quality and integrity of the data.”

The above approach seems to be drastically missing with the drug regulator in India as on date.

Conclusion:

Over a long period of time, a blatant negligence on reasonable care and financial compensation was allowed to continue by the Drug Regulator and the sponsors alike on the CTs conducted in India. A perceptible intent of justice to the patients, with the enforcement of stricter compensation laws and regulations for CT though belated, could dramatically change the CT scenario in India for the better in the years ahead.

In the fine balance of national priority for this area, patients’ safety and interest, I reckon, should always weigh more than the possibility of increase in the costs of CT in India. Thus,  the new norms of Patient Compensation indeed bring with it a breath of fresh air for the concerned stakeholders.

That said, the lose knots in some areas of the new norms, as discussed above, must be properly addressed and adequately tightened for greater clarity of the CT process, for all concerned.

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.