Tag Archives: Players

India-like New Broader Compulsory Licensing Provisions in China Could Make the Global Pharma Players Edgy

Posted on by
Reply

Quite close on the heel of grant of Compulsory License (CL) to Bayer AG’s expensive Kidney and Liver cancer drug Sorafenib to the domestic Indian manufacturer Natco by the Indian Patent Office, as provided in the Indian Patent Law, China amended its own Patent Law allowing Chinese pharmaceutical manufacturers to make cheaper generic equivalent of patented medicines in the country not only during ‘state emergencies’, but also in ‘unusual circumstances’ or ‘in the interests of the public’.

As reported earlier, Natco Pharma promised to sell its generic version of Sorafenib in India for US$ 176 for a month’s treatment as compared to Bayer’s US$ 5,600, for the same time period.

Let me now very briefly touch upon some WTO related and other facts on CL, in general.

Compulsory Licensing (CL) – A perspective:

World Trade Organization (WTO) defines CL as follows:

“Compulsory licensing is when a government allows someone else to produce the patented product or process without the consent of the patent owner. It is one of the flexibilities on patent protection included in the WTO’s agreement on intellectual property — the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement”.

These flexibilities for CL are not new and exist in the TRIPS Agreement since its inception in January 1995.

However, November 2001 Doha Ministerial Declaration on ‘TRIPS and Public Health’ included two new provisions of CL, one for the Least-Developed Countries (LDC) and the other for countries that do not have production capacity.

The key purpose of CL: 

CL is generally considered as an excellent provision in the Patent Law of a country to protect public health interest by the respective governments and also the intelligentsia of the civil society. The key purpose of CL is to:

  • Rectify any type of market failure
  • Discourage abuse of a patent in any form by the patent holder

Can CL be granted only in an Emergency situation?

This is a common misunderstanding and the WTO clarifies the situation as follows:

“The TRIPS Agreement does not specifically list the reasons that might be used to justify compulsory licensing. However, the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health confirms that countries are free to determine the grounds for granting compulsory licenses”.

Keeping all these in view, now let me go back to the China CL story.

China was preparing for it since 2008-09: 

Aljazeera in its June 9, 2012 edition reported that China was toying with this idea since 2008-2009.

In fact, during this time, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) of China had invited experts from other countries to train their officials on how to create robust legal grounds for the grant of CL in the country.

Chinese Patent Law amendment for CL has already been made effective:

The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has reported that a revised version of ‘Measures for the Compulsory Licensing for Patent Implementation’ has already been made operational in China effective May 1, 2012.

Interestingly, for “reasons of public health”, such medicines can also be exported under ‘Compulsory License’ to other countries, including those members of the World Trade Organization, where life-saving treatments are unaffordable.

In tandem, China, reportedly, is in the process of further strengthening its legal framework for local manufacturing of generic equivalents of patented drugs in the country.

Some other countries have already issued CL:

In the emerging markets, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have already granted CLs in their respective countries. It is worth noting that USA and the member countries of the European Union (EU) have also issued CL in more than one occasion.

China also encourages domestic innovation being world’s top patent filer in 2011:

All these happened, when ‘Thomson Reuters’ research report highlighted that ‘China became the world’s top patent filer in 2011, surpassing the United States and Japan as it steps up local  innovation to improve its intellectual property rights track record.’

Thus China’s intention in maintaining a right balance between encouraging domestic innovation and protecting public health interest is indeed very clear.

A key Chinese concern:

Reuters also reported that the Chinese government is now concerned with the increasing trend of HIV- AIDS in the country and wants to have ‘Viread (Tenofovir)’ of Gilead Sciences, which according to Reuters, is recommended by WHO as part of a first-line cocktail treatment for this disease condition.

Quoting ‘Medecins Sans Frontieres’, Reuters reported that as a result of recent expansion of CL provisions in the Chinese Patent Law, the country compels Gilead Sciences to extend significant concessions on the supply of Viread, which includes a generous donation package for the drug, provided the Chinese government continues to buy the same quantity of the medicine from them.

Many would interpret this development as a clever use of CL by the Chinese government to compel Gilead to extend a better deal for Viread for the country.

Will China use the CL provisions for hard price negotiation for patented drugs?

Like Brazil whether China will also use CL as a potent tool to drive down patented drug prices through hard negotiation or actually make the innovator companies to extend voluntary licenses to Chinese manufactures to produce and sell equivalent generics in the country is something which needs to be very closely watched in due course of time.

Increased patent protection and its impact on drug prices in low-income countries:

On this raging debate, in a July 2011 paper titled, “China and India as Suppliers of Affordable Medicines to Developing Countries”, published by National Bureau of Economic research, USA, the authors articulated as follows:

“As countries reform their patent laws to be in compliance with the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, an important question is how increased patent protection will affect drug prices in low-income countries. Using pharmaceutical trade data from 1996 to 2005, we examine the role of China and India as suppliers of medicines to other middle- and low-income countries and evaluate the competitive effect of medicine imports from these countries on the price of medicines from high- income countries. We find that imports of antibiotics and unspecified medicament from India and China significantly depress the average price of these commodities imported from high-income trading partners, suggesting that India and China are not only important sources of inexpensive medicines but also have an indirect effect by lowering prices through competition. As India is the leading supplier of medicines in Sub-Saharan Africa, this region will likely be affected most adversely”.

Thus, this is also an area worth keeping tab in the years ahead, both in India and China.

A subtle difference: 

The difference between the Indian and Chinese move on CL, I reckon, is that the Indian Patent Office limited the CL of Sorafenib for domestic use only and not for export in any way to any other country.

However, it is interesting to note that Chinese amendment of the CL provisions will now enable the CL holders in China to apply for permissions for export of the same drug in other countries, as well. This could probably point to the direction of future ambitions of China to pave the way for rapid growth of their generic drug industry by invoking CL measures not only for use within the country, but way beyond the shores of China.

Conclusion:

It is worth noting that despite clear provisions of CL in TRIPS and especially even after Doha Declaration, the world had not seen many CL being granted by any country, as yet.

In this context, ‘Business Insider’ in its June 11, 2012 edition stated as follows:

“We haven’t seen a deluge of compulsory licenses over the years, and the drug companies (along with the U.S. government) have done what they can to slow down or halt this process. In China, every time a government official opens his mouth and even talks about compulsory licensing, the lobbyists are sent in, the Op/Ed columns are written, and things quiet down for another couple years.”

However, now with such broad provisions for CL in their respective patent laws to protect public health interest effectively, both India and China can, at least theoretically, allow introductions of low priced generic equivalents of patented medicines in their domestic markets, well before those drugs go off-patent. This development will certainly make the innovator companies edgy…very edgy!

It will be interesting to watch, whether global pharma majors consider such broad CL provisions both in India and now in China as serious business impediments or not.

Most probably, the worry will be more intense for much larger and faster growing Chinese Pharmaceutical market, which is now widely being considered as the emerging ‘Eldorado’ of the world.

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.

Quantum Growth Envisaged in Government Procurement for Pharmaceuticals: A Challenging Ball Game for Pharma Players

Posted on by
Reply

Direct procurement by the Governments of various countries is attracting increasing importance not just at the domestic level, but internationally, as well. The systems adopted for Government Procurement (GP) globally are aimed at making a significant difference in the effectiveness of utilization of the exchequers’ fund and the quality of governance in the respective countries. Absolute transparency in the entire process of GP, extending fair and equal opportunities to all suppliers, is of utmost importance.

According to ‘The Center of International Development at the Harvard University, USA’, Government Procurement of goods and services typically accounts for 10-15% of GDP for the developed countries, and up to 20% of GDP for the developing nations. As a result, the local GP markets have started attracting attention of even the overseas suppliers to make this process an integral part of Free-Trade Agreements (FTAs) between countries.

GP was excluded in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiated in 1947. However, as the years progressed the members of WTO started exploring various ways to include GP in the multilateral trading system.

The proponents of WTO agreements on GP argue that the purchase decision of the governments on GP of goods and services should be non-discriminatory, irrespective of who produces the goods or renders required services, including foreign suppliers, if any.

GPA- The plurilateral Agreement:

In January 1, 1994 along with ‘Uruguay Round’ a landmark agreement was reached on GP, which is known as “The plurilateral Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA)”. This agreement was administered by a Committee of WTO members, who are Parties to the GPA and was signed by 41 of the 153 members of the WTO.

India joins as an observer in GPA – the first step for membership:

On Feb 11, 2010 ‘Reuters’ reported that “India has joined the World Trade Organization’s government procurement agreement as an observer, a first step to membership in the scheme regulating trade in goods bought by governments”. With this India joined other 22 WTO members with the same observer status, when 9 members including China are in the process of negotiation for full membership of the GPA.

On December 15, 2011, WTO reported a historic agreement by the members of GPA to ‘improve the disciplines for GP and expand the market access coverage valued at between 80 to 100 billion dollars a year’.

The opposition to GPA:

That said, those who oppose GPA also put forth strong arguments. They believe that such agreements instead of creating so called a ‘level playing field’ for all, would further complicate the situation where the developing countries, leave aside the least developed ones, would continue to remain at a disadvantage as compared to  the developed industrial nations.

The developing countries and the relief organizations argue that the growing industries of the developing nations will suffer most, if matured global companies are allowed to compete for GP together with the domestic players. Such a situation, they apprehend, could snow ball into huge balance of payment issues for the developing and the least developed nations.

Pharmaceuticals: Second largest item in public healthcare budget:

According to WHO, for the developing countries like India pharmaceuticals are the second largest item of expenditure, after personnel costs, ranging from 8 per cent to 12 per cent of the public health budget. Thus, such fund should be utilized with utmost care within a transparent and highly efficient GP system. It is envisaged, that efficient GP systems will play critical role in improving access to medicines in India.

GP for Pharmaceuticals in India:

The process of procurement of drugs and pharmaceuticals by the Ministry of Health of the Government of India is usually entrusted to an agency known as ‘Hospital Services Consultancy Corporation (HSCC)’. This multidisciplinary consultancy organization was set up to extend quality consultancy services in healthcare and other social sectors of the country.  HSCC undertakes the following:

  • Procurement of drugs and pharmaceuticals
  • Tendering process
  • Placement of orders
  • Follow-up, inspection and dispatch

So far, many World Bank supported programs for procurement of drugs and pharmaceuticals for Malaria, Tuberculosis, and Reproductive Child Health etc. were initiated by the HSCC. The procurement services of HSCC are in line with the procedures adopted by the World Bank.

Health being a State subject in India, pharmaceutical procurement is made by both the Central and State Governments, besides large private health institutions.

Though over 25 per cent of the total public sector drug volume is procured by the Central Government, there is no single Central Government procurement agency. Following are the key agencies currently handling the Central Government procurement for pharmaceuticals through competitive tendering process:

  • Central Government Health Services (CGHS)
  • Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS)
  • Medical Stores Organization (MSO)

Examples of GP in the states:

Many state Governments have already started putting in place the GP process for pharmaceuticals in their respective states. This process is expected to gain momentum as we move ahead. Examples of GP system of some of the State Governments in India are as follows:

Delhi:

In 1996, to promote rational drug use with high quality of medicines, the ‘Delhi Society for Promotion of Rational Use of Drugs (DSPRUD)’ with the technical assistance from WHO introduced a pooled procurement system for all state-run hospitals and 150 Primary Health Centers (PHCs) in Delhi.

This robust procurement system with a competitive bidding process has reportedly resulted in price reduction of high quality medicines by 30-40 per cent. State-run hospitals and the PHCs now supply these prescriptions medicines to over 80 per cent of patients.

WHO, encouraged by the success of the ‘Delhi Model’, has recommended it to the other States of India. Currently the following State Governments are implementing the program in their respective states:

  • Maharashtra
  • Rajasthan
  • Punjab
  • Himachal Pradesh

Tamil Nadu:

In January 1995, Tamil Nadu Government had set up a Government-run Company known as, Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation (TNMSC). The main purpose of TNMSC was to make all essential drugs available in nearly 2000 government medical institutions throughout the State, with a well-structured, uniform and standardized system for procurement, storage and distribution of medicines.

To ensure efficient procurement of high quality drugs at competitive prices, TNMSC follows an open tendering system for purchases only from reputed manufacturers with a pre-specified minimum overall business turnover, having a market standing of not less than three years. Standby suppliers are also selected at the same time to eliminate any drug shortages for delayed or non-supply by the first supplier.

The competitive procurement bid system has reportedly enabled TNMSC to save on drugs to the tune of 36% of the allocation.

Andhra Pradesh (AP):

In AP public health care system delivers services at all levels of primary, secondary and tertiary care.

In 1998, a centralized pooled drug procurement system was implemented in AP with the establishment of the Drug Procurement Wing (DPW) within the ‘Andhra Pradesh Infrastructure State Development Corporation (APISDC)’.

For high quality GP they introduced a two tier system for bidding and procurement, starting with the technical bid and followed by the actual financial bidding process.

In this system, details of drug requirements are collected from public hospitals within the state, collated by the DPW and thereafter consolidated orders are placed to the competitive bid winners for supplying required essential medicines at the medical stores of each district of the state.

Odisha:

Odisha has a centralized system of procurement of drugs featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM).

To ensure quality procurement, a pre-qualification stipulation of quality parameters and competitive price quotations are looked at.

Small Scale Industries (SSIs) are entitled to 5 per cent price preference along with other relaxations like, partial exemption from earnest money deposit and concession in sales tax.

A recent evaluation of the Drugs Distribution System in Odisha by WHO has highlighted that the key NLEM drug availability in all the centers except one in the state ranged from 80 to 100%.

UHC – A potential GP growth booster:

The recommendation no. 3.1.10 of the report titled ‘High Level Expert Group Report on Universal Health Coverage (UHC) for India’, instituted by the Planning Commission, clearly indicates that purchases of all health care services under the UHC system should be undertaken either directly by the Central and state governments through their Departments of Health or by quasi-governmental autonomous agencies established for the purpose.

PMO push for free drugs at Government hospitals:

Quoting the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), ‘The Times of India’ on February 13, 2012 reported that availability of free medicines to all patients visiting any government health facility across the country will soon be a reality, as the Ministry of Health (MoH) is planning to spend around Rs 30,000 Crore under ‘free-medicines-for-all’ scheme with the  strong support of the PMO.

Quantum growth envisaged in the GP system:

UHC along with the above free medicine initiative by the MoH and expanded coverage of the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)/ National Urban Health Mission (NUHM) are expected to make GP for pharmaceuticals a critical procurement initiative of the nation.

This appears more realistic when seen together with the increase in public spend allocation on health by the Planning Commission of India from current 0.9 per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP during the Twelfth Five Year Plan period.

Thus a quantum growth is envisaged in the GP system for pharmaceuticals within the country.

Conclusion:

From all available indicators, it appears that GP for pharmaceuticals in India will assume immense importance to both the global and local pharmaceutical companies.

The Central Government, with ‘The Draft Public Procurement Bill, 2011’, seems to have already started moving in this direction. The enactment of this Bill will facilitate the Government not only to effectively leverage the state bargaining power for the prices of medicines, but also to ensure efficient delivery of high quality products to a very large section of the society.

Quite in tandem various State Governments should also either create afresh or revamp the existing procurement system, as the case may be, to put in place a robust GP mechanism in their respective states.

One clear outcome of the expansion of GP system for sure will be enormous pricing pressure on the pharmaceutical players in India, which will be quite challenging to navigate.

The scenario will get even more complex and heated up, especially for the smaller pharmaceutical players, as and when India becomes a signatory to the GPA of the WTO, opening its door wide ajar for the large global players to participate in the pharmaceutical bidding process of the Government, well facilitated by various FTAs.

In this rapidly evolving environment, are the pharma players, both global and local, ready with appropriate strategies and systems in place to participate in yet another challenging new ball game of low margin and high volume pharmaceutical business in India?

By: Tapan J Ray

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

The domestic API players are fast losing their dominance in the Indian API market

Posted on by
Reply

There are two broad categories of markets for the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) across the world namely, highly regulated and semi regulated markets. Countries like, USA, Europe and Japan will fall under highly regulated category with high entry barriers for the global API players like, robust Intellectual Property (IP) regime and stringent regulatory requirements to meet their product quality standards. Such an environment prompts a premium price for the APIs. On the other hand, the semi regulated markets, which offer low entry barriers with not so stringent IP and regulatory requirements, attract more number of API players engaging in cut throat price competition.

The top three markets for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) are the US, Europe and Asia Pacific. According to ‘Business Wire (July 13, 2011), the API market in the Asia-Pacific is expected to grow from 6.7% between 2005 and 2010 to 9.6% between 2010 and 2016.

Currently a perceptible shift in API manufacturing is being noticed from the western markets to the emerging markets like, India and China. In the Asia Pacific region Japan and China enjoy the highest market share for API with 42.8% and 20.8%, respectively. India accounts for 10.3%, while South Korea holds an 8.1% share of the market. To avoid price erosions now seen in the US, Indian manufacturers have started exporting more APIs to Japan.

In 2010, contribution of generic API from the Asia-Pacific market was at 71.5%, with patented APIs contributing for the rest, where Japan enjoys a larger share than India and China. While this is the current scenario, many experts in this field contemplates that important players from the regulated markets will soon start making significant inroads in India.

Current API Market in India:
In 2007 the API output value in India was around US $4.1 billion registering a 5 year CAGR of around 19% and ranking fourth in the world API output. According to the Tata Strategic Management Group, Indian API export value is expected to increase to US $12.75 billion in 2012.

Currently in India about 400 different types of APIs are manufactured in around 3000 plants, Ranbaxy Laboratories, Lupin, Shasun Pharmaceuticals, Orchid Chemicals, Aurobindo Pharma, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Ipca Laboratories and USV being the top API manufacturers of the country. Indian domestic companies source almost 50 percent of their API requirements from China, because of lower cost in that country.

In terms of global ranking, India is now the third largest API producers of the world just after China and Italy and by end 2011 is expected to be the second largest producer after China. However, in Drug Master File (DMF) filings India is currently ahead of China.

In addition, India scores over China in ‘documentation’ and ‘Environment, Health and Safety (EHS)’ compliance. All these have contributed to India having around 125 US-FDA approved world class manufacturing facilities, which is considered the largest outside the USA.
Indian API manufacturers are facing a cut throat competition from their Chinese counterparts mainly because of lower costs in China. Considerably higher economies of scale and various types of support that the Chinese API manufacturers receive from their Government are the main reasons for such cost differential.
Growing competition from the regulated markets:
We now observe a new trend within the API space in India. Many of the global innovators and generic companies are keen to enter into the API space of India.

It is known that API manufacturers from the regulated markets are already selling their products in India. However, at present, the numbers of Indian registrations for API applied by some of the large global companies, as reported by ‘Thomson Reuters Newport Horizon Premium’, are quite significant, which are as follows:

1. Novartis, Switzerland: 20 2. Pfizer, USA: 16 3. Sanofi-Aventis, France: 26 4. Teva, Israel: 45 5. MSD, USA: 39 6. BASF: 37 7. DSM: 26 8. EON AG: 16 9. Kyowa Hakko: 23

All these companies, who are entering into the API business space in India, I reckon, have worked out a grand design to compete not only with the low cost domestic API manufacturers, but also with the cheaper imports, particularly from China.

China an emerging global force to reckon with in the API market:

An economy of scale leading to cost leadership is fast establishing China in the global API market as a force to reckon with. Dominant presence of China even in the bulk intermediate category with high level of technical expertise, especially in the fermentation technology, strong manufacturing base, supported by increasing standard of regulatory compliance and better IP protection, as perceived by the global pharmaceutical community, are helping the API manufacturers of China to gradually increase their presence even in the highly regulated markets of the world.

In this emerging scenario, when China throws a tough competition to the API producers of India,  developing and manufacturing niche APIs will be the key differentiating factors for the Indian players to maintain their global presence in future, especially with APIs involving non-fermentation technology.

What will then be the competitive edge of these companies in India?
It appears that each of these companies has weighed very carefully the existing strategic opportunities in the API sectors of India, both in terms of technology as well as domestic demand.

Strategic gap in API manufacturing technology:
India, undeniably, is one of the key global hubs in the API space, with competitive edge mainly in ‘non-fermentation technology’ product areas. This leaves a wide and perceptible technological gap in the areas of products requiring ‘fermentation technology‘.

Significant demand from domestic formulations manufacturing:
India is much ahead of China in pharmaceutical formulations manufacturing, especially in the area of exports to the regulated markets like, the USA and EU. Over 25 domestic Indian companies are currently catering to exports demand of the U.S market. However, it is interesting to note that the global manufacturers like Sandoz, Eisai, Watson, Mylan have already set up their formulations manufacturing facilities in India and some more are expected to follow suit over a period of time. Hence, fast growing domestic demand for APIs, especially for exports, will drive the business plan of the global API players for India.

Is the cost arbitrage of India sustainable?
Indian API manufacturers although currently have a cost advantage compared to their counterparts in the regulated market, this advantage is not sustainable over a period of time because of various reasons. The key reason being sharp increase in cost related to more stringent environmental and regulatory compliance, besides spiraling manpower and other overhead costs.

Indian regulatory requirements for the global API players:
To sell their APIs into India, global companies are now required to obtain the following regulatory approvals from the Indian authorities:

1. Foreign manufacturing sites for the concerned products

2. APIs which will be imported in the country

The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has stipulated a fee of U.S$1,500 to register the manufacturing premises and U.S$1,000 to register each individual API. Since January 2003, around 1,200 registration certificates have been issued in India. Large number of Indian registrations is attributed by many to the strategic technology gap in India, as stated above, demand of high-quality API for finished formulations required by the regulated markets like the U.S and EU, and relatively cheaper product registration process.

As we see above Teva has gone for maximum number of Indian registrations, so far and most probably selling the APIs to their contract formulations manufacturers in India. Similarly, Schering-Plough and Sanofi, if not Pfizer are perhaps catering to the API demand of their respective formulations manufacturing plants in the country.

Apprehension of counterfeit APIs from the emerging markets:

Growing apprehensions of counterfeit APIs from the emerging markets like, India and China must also be addressed expeditiously by all concerned.

‘The New York Times’ dated August 15, 2011 reported that APIs from India, China and elsewhere now constitute 80% of the active ingredients in US drugs. The US FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg was quoted saying, “Supply chains for many generic drugs often contain dozens of middlemen and are highly susceptible to being infiltrated by falsified drugs.”

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, some key global players mainly China, as mentioned above, are now exporting APIs at a much larger scale to India and in that process have started curving out a niche for themselves in the Indian API market. Impressive growth of the domestic pharmaceutical formulations manufacturing market fueled by increasing domestic consumption and exports to the regulated markets, coupled with gradual improvement in the regulatory environment of the country and some global collaboration for the pharmaceutical formulations sourcing from India, are expected to drive the growth of API business of the global players in India. However, the moot question still remains: will the Indian API players be able to thrive or even survive the tough competition from the global players, especially China?

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.

Could M&As in Pharma create significant stakeholder value?

Posted on by
Reply

At the very outset, I pay my homage to the departed soul of our industry colleague respected Amar Lulla, former joint managing director of Cipla, who passed away on Friday, April 22, 2011 after a prolonged battle against cancer.

As we know, “Merger and Acquisition (M&A)” is an inorganic growth tool of any business. In this model growth in business operations arise from value creation through mergers or takeovers of other companies, rather than from increase in the company’s own existing business activities.

On April 13, 2011, quoting a study released by Burrill & Co, a noted life sciences investment firm, ‘Fierce Pharma’ reported that “drug makers’ deal making over the past 10 years has utterly and completely failed to build value in the industry. Big Pharma has actually lost almost $1 trillion in value during the past decade.”

Big Pharmas lost value in the past decade through deal making:

Burrill argued: “The drug industry’s 17 most active buyers had a combined market value of $1.57 trillion at the end of 2000. By the end of 2010, that value had shrunk to $1.04 trillion–notwithstanding the $425 billion in acquisitions these companies made during the decade with a total loss of $955 billion.”

The report commented that global pharma majors could not make up non-delivery of innovative products through these acquisitions.

M&As triggered by in-market blockbuster products, were successful in the past:

It was observed that those M&As, which were triggered by in-market blockbuster products were successful in the past. Like for example:

Year M&A Product/Products
2000 Pfizer and Warner Lambert Lipitor
2006 Eli Lilly-ICOS Cialis
2008 Eli Lilly- ImClone Erbitux

However, when a company was acquired for products in development or R&D pipelines, it was observed that acquirer could not derive full benefits of their respective inorganic growth plans, as many of those projects did not fructify or could not be continued in the long run for various different reasons. I am not trying to go into those details in this article.

It is usually believed that healthcare companies with diversified interests along with pharmaceuticals and biotech business, like, diagnostic, devices and generic pharmaceuticals encountered much lesser growth pangs in the past. I reckon, it is for this reason, companies like, Abbott, J&J, Roche and Novartis registered overall better business performance than their pure pharmaceutical business counterparts like, Merck, Pfizer etc.

Only future will tell us whether high takeover prices, such as US$ 68 bn paid by Pfizer for Wyeth or US$ 46 bn of Roche for Genentech or US$ 41 bn of Merck for Schering-Plough, mainly to acquire the drug pipelines of the respective companies, can ultimately be justified or not. At this stage, it is indeed extremely difficult to quantify the transaction value of phase III drugs that Pfizer, Roche and Merck acquired with these mega deals.

However, about a couple of years ago ‘Forbes’ in its article titled, “Will Pfizer’s Merger Hurt Innovation?” published in January 26, 2009 commented as follows:

“Between 1998 and now, Pfizer has launched only one medicine with annual sales surpassing $1 billion, despite ploughing more than $60 billion into research and development. That drug, the pain med Lyrica, was already in development at Warner-Lambert when Pfizer bought it.” 

Other significant global M&A initiatives in 2010 were as follows:

Global Companies Value (US $ billion)
Sepracor by Dainippon Sumitomo 2.6
77% of Alcon (the eye care unit of Nestle) by Novartis 50
Millipore by Merck KGA 6
OSI Pharma by Astellas 4
King Pharma by Pfizer 3.6
BioVex by Amgen 1
Ratiopharm by Teva 5

In addition, work is in progress for some more M&A initiatives, like the hostile bid of US $ 20 billion of Sanofi Aventis for Genzyme in 2011. J&J’s offer of US $2.3 billion for vaccines of Crucell; Valeant’s hostile bid for Cephalon of US $ 5.7 billion, and J&J’s talk with Synthes for an acquisition with US $20 billion.

Emerging markets: the Eldorado:

At the same time, IMS Health reports that emerging markets will register a growth rate of 14% to 17% by 2014, significantly driven by generic pharmaceuticals, when the developed markets will be growing by 3% to 6% during this period. It is forecasted that the global pharmaceutical industry will record a turnover of US$1.1 trillion by this time.

Probably prompted by this overall market scenario, the global pharmaceutical majors are still trying to keep their heads above water through deal making and various collaborative initiatives. India, being one of the fastest growing global pharmaceutical markets, has also started experiencing this consolidation process.

Real consolidation process in India commenced in 2006: The consolidation process in India started gaining momentum from the year 2006 with the acquisition of Matrix Lab by Mylan, although 2009 witnessed the biggest merger in the Pharmaceutical Industry of India, thus far, in value terms, when the third largest drug maker of Japan, Daiichi Sankyo acquired 63.9% stake of Ranbaxy Laboratories of India for US $4.6 billion.
This was widely believed to be a win-win deal for both the companies with Daiichi Sankyo leveraging the cost arbitrage of Ranbaxy effectively, while Ranbaxy benefiting from the innovative products range of Daiichi Sankyo. This deal also established Daiichi Sankyo as one of the leading pharmaceutical generic manufacturers of the world, making the merged company a force to reckon with, in the space of both innovative and generic pharmaceuticals business.
Another mega acquisition soon followed:
In May 2010, the Pharma major in the US Abbott catapulted itself to number one position in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) by acquiring the branded generics business of Piramal Healthcare with whopping US$3.72 billion. Abbott acquired Piramal Healthcare at around 9 times of its sales multiple against around 4 times of the same paid by Daiichi Sankyo.

According to Michael Warmuth, senior vice-president, established products of Abbott the sales turnover of Abbott in India, after this acquisition, will grow from its current around US$ 480 million to US$2.5 billion by the next decade. 

Was the valuation right for the acquired companies?
Abbott had valued formulations business of Piramal Healthcare at about eight times of sales, which is almost twice of what Japan’s Daiichi Sankyo paid for its US$4.6 billion purchase of a controlling stake in India’s Ranbaxy Laboratories in June 2008.

On the valuation, Warmuth of Abbott has reportedly commented “If you want the best companies you will pay a premium; however, we feel it was the right price.”

This is not surprising at all, as we all remember Daiichi Sankyo commented that the valuation was right for Ranbaxy, even when they wrote off US$3.5 billion on its acquisition.
In my opinion, considering the fact that not too many attractive acquisition targets are available within the domestic pharmaceutical industry, the valuation of any well performed Indian Pharmaceutical Company will continue to remain high, at least in the short to medium term… and why not, when the domestic pharmaceutical industry is growing so well, consistently?

M&As in India from 2006 to 2010:

Year

Indian Companies

Multinational Companies

Value ($Mn)

 Type
2006
Matrix Labs Mylan

736

 Acquisition
Dabur Pharma Fresenius Kabi

219

 Acquisition
Ranbaxy Labs Daiichi Sankyo

4,600

 Acquisition
Shantha Biotech Sanofi-aventis

783

 Acquisition
2009
Orchid Chemicals Hospira

400

 Business Buyout
2010
Piramal Healthcare Abbott

3,720

 Business Buyout
Paras Pharma Reckitt Benkiser

726

 Acquisition

Collaborative deals in India from 2009 to 2011:

Year

Multinational Companies

 Indian Companies
2009
GSK Dr. Reddy’s Lab
Pfizer Aurobindo Pharma
2010
AstraZeneca Torrent
Abbott Cadila Healthcare
Pfizer Strides Arcolab
AstraZeneca Aurobindo Pharma
Pfizer Biocon
2011
Bayer Cadila Healthcare
MSD Sun Pharma

The Key driver for acquisition of large Indian companies:
Such strategies highlight the intent of the global players to quickly grab sizeable share of the highly fragmented IPM – the second fastest growing and one of the most important emerging markets of the world.
If there is one most important key driver for such consolidation process in India, I reckon it will undoubtedly be the strategic intent of the global companies to dig their heel deep into the fast growing Indian branded generic market, contributing over 99% of the IPM. The same process is being witnessed in other fast growing emerging pharmaceutical markets, as well, the growth of which is basically driven by the branded generic business.
Important characteristics to target the branded generic companies:
To a global acquirer the following seem to be important requirements while shortlisting its target companies:
• Current sales and profit volume of the domestic branded generic business • Level of market penetration and the rate of growth of this business • Strength, spread and depth of the product portfolio • Quality of the sales and marketing teams • Valuation of the business
Faster speed of consolidation process could slow down the speed of evolution of the ‘generics pharmaceutical industry’ in India: Though quite unlikely, if the moderate valuation of large Indian companies starts attracting more and more global pharmaceutical majors, the speed of evolution of the ‘local generic pharmaceutical industry’ in the country could slow down, despite entry of newer smaller players in the market.

The global companies will then acquire a cutting edge on both sides of the pharmaceutical business, discovering and developing innovative patented medicines while maintaining a dominant presence in the fast growing emerging branded generics market across the world.
An alarm bell in the Indian Market for a different reason:
It has been reported that being alarmed by these developments, some industry insiders feel, “Lack of available funding is the main reason for the recent spurt in the sale of stakes in domestic companies”.
They have reportedly urged the Government to adequately fund the research and development (R&D) initiatives of the local Pharmaceutical Companies to ensure a safeguard against further acquisition of large Indian generic players by the global pharmaceutical majors. It is a fact that the domestic Indian companies do not have adequate capital to fund cost-intensive R&D projects in India even after having a significant cost arbitrage.
Will such consolidation process now gain momentum in India?
In my view, it will take some more time for acquisitions of large domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies by the Global Pharma majors to gain momentum in the country. In the near future, we shall rather witness more strategic collaborations between Indian and Global pharmaceutical companies, especially in the generic space, as indicated above.
The number of high profile M&As of Indian pharma companies will significantly increase, as I mentioned earlier, when the valuation of the domestic companies appears quite attractive to the global pharma majors. This could happen, as the local players face more cut-throat competition both in Indian and international markets, squeezing their profit margin.
It won’t be a cake walk either…not just yet:
Be that as it may, establishing dominance in the highly fragmented and fiercely competitive IPM will not be a ‘cakewalk’ for any company, not even for the global pharmaceutical majors. Many Indian branded generic players are good marketers too. Companies like, Cipla, Sun Pharma, Alkem, Mankind, Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) have proven it time and again, over a period of so many years.
The acquisition of Ranbaxy by Daiichi Sankyo did not change anything in the competition front. Currently the market share of Abbott, post M&A, including Solvay and Piramal Healthcare, comes to just around 6.2% followed by Cipla at 5.5% (Source: AIOCD). This situation in no way signifies domination by Abbott in the IPM, far from creating any oligopolistic pharmaceutical market in India.
Thus the pharmaceutical market in the country will continue to remain fragmented with cut-throat competition from the existing and the newer tough minded, innovative and determined local branded generic players having cost arbitrage, cerebral power and untiring spirit of competitiveness with a burning desire to win.
Simultaneously, some of the domestic pharmaceutical companies are in the process of creating a sizeable Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS) sector to service the global pharmaceutical market.
Conclusion:
In my view, it does not make long term business sense to pay such unusually high prices for the branded generics business of any Indian company. Besides the report of Burrill & Co., we also have with us examples of some of the Indian pharmaceutical acquisitions in the overseas market are not working satisfactorily as the regulatory requirements for the low cost generics drugs were changed in those countries.
Most glaring example is the acquisition of the German generic company Betapharm by DRL for US$ 570 million in 2006. It was reported that like Piramals, a significant part of the valuation of Betapharm was for its trained sales team. However, being caught in a regulatory quagmire, the ultimate outcome of this deal turned sour for DRL.
Could similar situation arise in India, as well? Who knows? What happens then to such expensive acquisitions, if for example, prescriptions by generic names are made mandatory by the Government within the country, despite intensive lobbying efforts?

Be that as it may, in India also, a study like, ‘Burrill Report” could be quite useful to ascertain whether or not the deal making of global and local drug majors in the country over a ten year period commencing from 2006 onwards, has succeeded to create desired stakeholder value.

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.

Biosimilars: Creating new vistas of opportunities for Indian Bio Pharmaceutical players in the global market.

Posted on by
Reply

Biosimilar or follow-on biologic drugs market is fast evolving across the world with varying degree of pace and stages of developments. The global market for Bio-pharmaceuticals was around US$ 120 billion in 2008, as reported by IMS. However, total turnover of Biosimilar drugs in the regulated markets during the same period was just US$ 60 million.

Currently about 25% of New Molecular Entities (NMEs) under development are of biotech origin. Indian pharmaceutical majors like Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Reliance Life Science, Shantha Biotech, Ranbaxy, Biocon, Wockhardt and Glenmark have made good investments in biotech drugs manufacturing facilities keeping an eye on the emerging opportunities with Biosimilar drugs in the developed markets of the world.

International Scenario:

Internationally most known companies in the Biosimilar drugs space are Teva, Stada, Hospira and Sandoz.

The first R&D focused global pharmaceutical company that expressed interest in this space is Merck & Co. In December 2008 Merck announced creation of ‘Merck Bio Venture’ for this purpose with an investment commitment of around US$ 1.5 billion by 2015.

Other large research based global innovator pharmaceutical companies, which so far have expressed interest in the field of Biosimilar drugs are Pfizer, Astra Zeneca and Eli Lilly.

Future market Potential:

IMS Health, July 2009 reports that only in the US from 2009 to 2013 about 8 major biologic products like for example, Enbrel (Amgen/J&J), Lovenox (Sanofi-Aventis), Zoladex (AstraZeneca), Mabthera (Roche), Humalog (Eli Lilly) and Novorapid (Novo Nordisk) are expected to go off patent. The sum total of revenue from these drugs will be over U.S$ 15 billion.

This throws open immense opportunities for the Indian companies working on Biosimilar drug development initiatives.

Regulatory pathway for Biosimilar drugs:

Currently EU is the largest Biosimilar market in the world. Immense healthcare cost containment pressure together with a large number of high value biologics going off patent during next five years, especially in the developed western markets like US and EU, are creating a new vista of opportunities in this field to the potential players.

Regulatory pathway for Biosimilar drugs exists in the European Union (EU) since 2005. In the USA President Barak Obama administration has already expressed its clear intention to have similar pathway established in the country through the US-FDA, which is expected to come by 2010.

Steps taken by the Indian pharmaceutical companies towards this direction:

Biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. Last year Rituxan clocked a turnover of over US$ 2 billion. DRL also has developed filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood-cell by the body, and markets the product as Grafeel in India. Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF. Meanwhile Biocon of Bangalore has commenced clinical trial of Insugen for the regulated markets like EU.

On the other hand Glenmark is planning to come out with its first biotech product by 2010 from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Within Biopharmaceuticals the focus is on Oncology:

Within Biopharmaceuticals many of these domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies are targeting Oncology disease area, which is estimated to be the largest segment with a value turnover of over US$ 55 billion by 2010 growing over 17%. As per recent reports about 8 million deaths take place all over the world per year due to cancer. May be for this reason the research pipeline of NMEs is dominated by oncology with global pharmaceutical majors’ sharp R&D focus and research spend on this particular therapy area. About 50 NMEs for the treatment of cancer are expected to be launched in the global markets by 2015.

Indian market for oncology products:

Current size of the Indian oncology market is around US$ 18.6 million, which is expected to be over US$ 50 million by the end of 2010; the main reason being all these are and will be very expensive products. Biocon has just launched its monoclonal antibody based drug BIOMAb-EGFR for treating solid tumours with an eye to introduce this product in the western markets, as soon as they can get regulatory approval from these countries. Similarly, Ranbaxy with its strategic collaboration with Zenotech Laboratories is planning to market oncology products in various markets of the world like Brazil, Mexico, CIS and Russia.

Conclusion:

As the R&D based global innovator companies are now expanding into the Biosimilar space, many Indian domestic pharmaceutical companies are also poised to leverage their R&D initiatives on Biosimilars drugs development to fully encash the emerging global opportunities in this space. It is quite prudent for the Indian players to focus on the Oncology therapy area, as it is now the fastest growing segment in the global pharmaceutical industry.

By Tapan 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.

Recent appetite of Global Pharmaceutical Majors for Generic Pharmaceutical Business: can it pose a threat to pure generic players?

Posted on by
Reply
Last year Lehman Brothers estimated that by 2012 over 25% of the global pharmaceutical market will face competition from generics. Higher demand of generics is mainly due to the following reasons:1. Increased number of patented drugs is going off-patent.2. Cost containment and pricing pressure, especially from the Government, in the developed markets of the world.

3. Increasing number of patents is being challenged, especially in the U.S courts, on the ground of “obviousness”.

“Obviousness” is becoming a key reason of patent challenges in the U.S:

In first quarter of the last year we read about the U.S trial court making void the key patent of Yasmin, the contraceptive drug of Bayer for ‘obviousness’. This incident had compelled Bayer to revise its profit forecast downwards, for 2008.

‘Obviousness’ is increasingly becoming one of the key reasons for challenging Patents in many countries of the world, including India. Financial Times reported recently that keeping protection to all patents intact, could eventually pose to be a key challenge for the R&D based global pharmaceutical companies. Many analysts feel that the issue of “obviousness” could indeed be a threat to many U.S pharmaceutical patents, especially those, which will be considered by the court just as a ‘tweaked-up’ version of existing drugs.

As reported by ‘Chemical Weekly’, March 2008, total 338 patent challenges were recorded globally in 2008. India ranks only next to USA with a share of 21% pharmaceutical patent challenges.

Global generic pharmaceutical market is growing at a faster pace:

Prescription market in the U.S grew by just 1.3% last year to U.S$291 billion. Key factors believed to be responsible for slower growth in the U.S market are as follows:

1. Higher prescriptions for less expensive generic medicines.

2. Lower sales of higher priced new products.

3. Economic downturn has made more patients to move to generics and large number of consumers to lose their health insurance.

Similarly in the United Kingdom (U.K) generics industry supplies 64% of medicines dispensed by the National Health Scheme (NHS), though they contribute just around 30% of NHS expenditure towards medicines.

Recent reports indicate that the generic global pharmaceutical market is expected to record a turnover of U.S$ 520 billion by 2012. This market size is too lucrative to ignore by any big global pharmaceutical player.

Based on sales turnover of 2007, Teva tops the list of global generic players with a turnover of U.S$ 9.1 billion, followed by Sandoz with U.S$ 5.8 billion and Mylan/Merck with U.S$ 4.6 billion.

From India, Ranbaxy registered a turnover of U.S$ 1.7 billion, Dr.Reddy’s U.S$ 1.4 billion, Cipla U.S$ 1 billion and Sun Pharma/Taro U.S$ 900 million, during that year.

48% of the total 422.6 million prescriptions written in Canada in 2007 were for generic medicines, which registered an annual growth of 14%, reports IMS Canada. Compared to this performance, branded products in Canada recorded a growth of meager 0.2%, during this period. As a consequence, generic Canadian pharmaceutical companies like Novopharm (Teva) and Apotex recorded impressive growth of 46.8% and 18.5%, respectively, in that period.

Despite such outstanding performance of generic pharmaceuticals, overall growth of prescription drugs in Canada was at just 6.3%, the lowest in the last ten year period.

President Obama’s Healthcare Policy will encourage generics and biosimilar drugs:

It is widely believed that the new U.S administration under President Barak Obama will try to encourage speedy introduction of generics into the U.S market.

So far as ‘Biosimilar’ drugs are concerned, in 2009 Obama administration is expected to work out the road map to facilitate the introduction of ‘Biosimilar dugs’ in the U.S market. Due to inherent characteristics that biological are ‘grown and not just manufactured’, biosimilar drugs are not expected to be replica of the original products.

To find out a solution to the heated debate, an answer has to be found out regarding the extent of clinical trials that the ‘biosimilar’ manufacturers will require to undertake to satisfy the U.S FDA that these drugs are as safe as the original ones. It is believed by some that the answer to this question lies in the approach that gives regulatory authority the flexibility in ‘what it demands that asks for more evidence than is now required for generic drugs, but something less than the kind of full-blown trials required for products new to the market.’

Global pharmaceutical majors are developing appetite for generics business:

Keeping a close vigil on these developments, as it were, even Pfizer, the largest pharmaceutical player of the world, has started curving out a niche for itself in the global market of fast growing generics, following the footsteps of other large global players like Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis and Daiichi Sankyo.

Is Pfizer planning to follow the business model of Abbott and Johnson & Johnson (J&J)?

As reported by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Mr. Kindler the CEO of Pfizer very recently commented, “We are breaking the company down into smaller units so we aren’t dependent on any single product… I am a great admirer of J&J and Abbott’s business model.”

It appears what Mr. Kindler perhaps meant by this statement is that smaller business units, like Over the Trade Counter (OTC), Vaccines, Nutrition and Animal Health can be more ‘manoeuvrable and innovative’ for faster business growth. Acquisition of Wyeth could actually help Pfizer to implement this business model.

Coming back to generic business, the recent collaborative arrangement of Pfizer with Aurobindo Pharma in India vindicates Pfizer’s recent appetite on generic global pharmaceutical business. The company is already in this business with some of its off patent products. But now like others, Pfizer seems to be strategizing to reap a rich harvest from fast-growing generic pharmaceutical business through most probably its “Established Products” business division.

Could such business model of Global Pharmaceutical majors pose a threat to pure generic players in the business?

The entry of the global pharmaceutical majors into generic pharmaceutical business, in my view, could pose a serious threat to current generic players in the business, including those who are operating from India in the ‘regulated markets’ of the world, for the the following reasons:

1. Generic pharmaceutical business is usually a high volume, relatively low margin and highly competitive business. To survive in this business of cut-throat competition will require both financial and innovative marketing expertise, as well as financial and marketing muscle, where large global players are expected to easily score over others.

2. Product price of generics of the same or similar molecules being within a price band, prescribers and payors’ preference are expected to be in favour of large global pharmaceuticals, because of corporate brand image.

3. In future, the pharmaceutical marketing model, in my view, is expected to shift from ‘marketing of only medicines’ to ‘marketing of a bundle of medicines and services’. In the changed scenario global pharmaceutical majors are expected to have a distinct strategic advantage.

4. Global Pharmaceutical majors may also use this business model as a ‘preventive strategy’ to restrict market entry of number of players for an off-patent molecule and thereby effectively contain the extent of price erosion, as the brands will go off-patent.

It will, therefore, be quite interesting to watch, what happens in the global generic pharmaceutical business in the next five to ten years. I expect a significant consolidation taking place in this market, both global and local.

By Tapan Ray

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

Biosimilar Drugs -A raging scientific debate with mounting global commercial interest

Posted on by
Reply
On December 11, 2008, Reuters reported that two days after Merck & Co. announced a major push into generic versions of biotechnology medicines, Eli Lilly & Co. signaled similar aspirations. This report raised many eyebrows in the global pharmaceutical industry, in the midst of a raging scientific debate on this issue. Be that as it may, many felt that this announcement ushered in the beginning of a new era. An era of intense future competition with Biosimilar drugs in the world market with immense commercial interest.Globally, the scenario for generic versions of biotechnology medicines, which are called Biosimilars, Biogenerics or follow-on Biologics, started heating up when Merck announced that the company expects to have atleast 5 follow-on biologics in the late stage development by 2012. The announcement of both Merck and Eli Lilly surprised many, as the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the U.S.A is yet to approve the regulatory pathway for generic biologic medicines. In the developed world, European Union (EU) has taken a lead towards this direction by already having a system in place for regulatory approval of Biosimilar drugs in 2003.What then prompts the research based global pharmaceutical companies like Merck and Eli Lilly to step into the arena of Biosimilar medicines? Is it gradual drying up research pipeline together with skyrocketing cost of global R&D initiatives?

The future business potential of Biosimilar medicines:

Currently, over 150 different biologic medicines are available in the Global Pharmaceutical market. However, the low cost Biosimilar drugs are available in just around 11 countries of the world, India being one of them. Supporters of Biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as time passes by. At present, the key global players are Sandoz (Novartis), Teva, BioPartners, BioGenerix (Ratiopharm) and Bioceuticals (Stada). This market is expected to develop slowly because of regulatory hurdles in the major countries of the world.

Very recently, the EU has approved Sandoz’s (Novartis) Filgrastim (Neupogen brand of Amgen), which is prescribed for the treatment of Neutropenia. With Filgrastim, Sandoz will now have 3 Biosimilar products in its portfolio.

Raging debate on Biosimilar Drugs still continues:

The debate is centered on the argument that like small chemical molecules is it possible to replicate large biological molecule of the innovator? It is widely believed that a protein cannot be absolutely replicated. How could possibly then Biosimilar drugs be considered equivalent to the original product by a regulator and marketing approval be granted to them without full scale clinical trials ignoring safety concerns of the patients? In favor of this argument some refer to the problem of red cell aplasia that affected many patients administering Johnson & Johnson’s Exprex (Epoetin) after only a minor change made in its manufacturing procedure.

Hurdles to cross for future Market entry of Biosimilar Drugs:

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

Even otherwise, the barriers to market entry of Biosimilar drugs are much higher than any small molecule generic drug. In the markets within EU, many companies face the challenge of higher development costs for biosimilar drugs because of stringent regulatory requirements and greater lead time for product development. Navigating through such a tough regulatory environment will demand a different type of skill sets from the generic companies not only in areas of clinical trials and pharmacovigilance, but also in areas of manufacturing and marketing. Consequently, the investment needed to take Biosimilar drugs from clinical trials to launch in the developed markets, will indeed be quite significant.

Current Scenario in the U.S:

Recently in the U.S.A, the new, widely reported, biotechnology policy of President Barak Obama has become one of the most closely watched healthcare policy initiatives of the country. It is expected that such a policy will help facilitate regulatory approval process of Biosimilar drugs in the USA by end 2009. This new policy initiative could have a major impact on many biotech companies who will face new generic competition, rather quickly. On the other hand, it will prove to be a boon to the new entrants in this market like, Merck and Eli Lilly, besides the existing ones.

Global Market Potential of Biosimilar Drugs:

The biosimilar drug market in the world is estimated to be around U.S. $ 16 billion by 2011. Currently, off-patent biologic blockbusters including Erythropoietin offer an excellent commercial opportunity in this category of drugs. By 2013, about 10 branded biologics with a total turnover of around U.S. $ 15 billion will go off-patent.

Biosimilar Drugs in India:

Sales of biosimilar drugs in India are estimated to be around U.S. $ 4 billion by 2011.

Biosimilar drugs fall under high growth segment within Indian pharmaceutical Industry. Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies like Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Shantha Biotech, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India, Dr. Reddy’s, Ranbaxy, etc. The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies, I am sure, will be to get regulatory approval of such products in the EU and then in the U.S. when the time comes.

It is worth mentioning here that to give a fillip to the Biotech Industry in India, the National Biotechnology Board was set up by the Government of India under the Ministry of Science and Technology in 1982 and the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) came into existence in 1986. The DBT now spends around US$ 200 million annually to develop biotech resources in the country and have been making reasonably good progress. The DBT is reported to have undertaken an initiative to prepare regulatory guidelines for Biosimilar Drugs, which is expected to conform to international quality and patients’ safety requirements.

The points to ponder with the Biosimilar Drugs in India:

It is, indeed, quite surprising that in India there is still no separate transparent and published guidelines for regulatory approval of Biosimilar drugs, although the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) seems to have a different view in this matter. The Drugs and Cosmetics Acts of India have no separate provisions either, for Biosimilar Drugs. In a situation like this, we find that many Biosimilar Drugs are still getting regulatory approval in India.

Currently India supplies 30% by volume of the global requirements of generic drugs both in regulated and non-regulated markets. In the regulated markets like North America and EU, for small molecule generic products, Indian manufacturers conform to the global safety and efficacy standards by getting these products approved by the most stringent regulators of the world like, U.S. FDA, MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) etc. The very fact that none of the Biosimilar drugs developed in India could get approval in the EU as yet, may well suggest that the stringent regulatory requirements for both efficacy and patients’ safety followed in the EU for Biosimilar drugs, could not be met by the Indian manufacturers, as yet. The question, therefore, comes to my mind whether the Biosimilar drugs manufactured in India conform to international quality and safety standards? If not, who will address the safety concerns of the patients who are or will be administering these medicines?

Such a concern gets vindicated by widely reported serious quality problems, detected by the drug regulatory authorities, at some large and well known Biosimilar drugs manufacturing units in India and also from the condition of some vaccine manufacturing units in our country.

India needs to manufacture the world class Biosimilar drugs conforming to the highest efficacy and patients’ safety standards, just the way Indian pharmaceutical manufacturers have demonstrated with ‘made in India’ generic drugs, the world over. The Indian drug regulatory authority should now take some important initiative with the publication of world class Biosimilar drugs regulatory approval guidelines, may be following the similar process as what we see in the EU.

Currently, experts from India are participating towards preparation of ‘WHO Guidelines’ for Biosimilar Drugs. The progress made towards this direction is yet to be ascertained. Simultaneously, the DBT is reported to have under taken an independent initiative to prepare similar guidelines, the progress of which is also yet to be known.

Before other developed markets open up for Biosimilar drugs, if India can align itself with its own world class regulatory standards for the same, yet another significant export opportunity could be created for the country, competing with the best performers of the world in this category.

Meanwhile, it will only be good to know that like many other initiatives, India has taken one more important initiative to address this important issue, for the sake of humanity. As the existing process of granting regulatory approval for Biosimilar drugs continues in India, the lurking fear towards patients’ safety with such drugs will remain unabated with a large majority of experts in this field.

By Tapan 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.