Would ‘Complex Generics’ Attract More ‘Authorized Generics’?

Posted on October 28, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Despite increasing numbers of alleged scams involving generic drugs, both in the United States and also in India, even involving many large generic drug manufacturers, the traditional generic drug market, keeps growing globally. Although, the current growth is in mid-single digit, the market can’t be ignored, either.

That apart, enormous pricing pressure, squeezing bottom line and cutthroat competition, are prompting many companies, including Big Pharma, to craft different strategies to excel in this market. One such involves a shift in business focus from relatively low priced traditional generic drugs to comparatively higher priced complex or specialty generic medicines with a few competitors.

In this emerging situation, a lurking apprehension does surface for many. If the margin is good and the prices of these complex or specialty generics, are much higher than traditional ones, won’t it prompt more ‘Authorized Generics’ coming into the market? Won’t that jeopardize the interest of other generic drug makers? In this article, I shall explore this area, along with its possible consequences. Before doing that, it will be worthwhile to give an overview of the generic market, before recapitulating what are ‘Authorized’ and ‘Complex’ generics.

How lucrative is the generic drugs market now?

According to the latest report by IMARC Group, the global generic drug market size reached US$ 340 Billion in 2018 and is expected to be at US$ 475 Billion by 2024, growing at a CAGR of 5.3 percent during 2019-2024 period.

The key market growth drivers remain, increasing number of product patent expiration, higher prevalence of chronic diseases and different government initiatives to encourage faster generic launch, including the United States. The pace of increase is faster in the emerging markets, like India. However, unlike India, non-branded generic drugs, rather than branded generics, are dominating most the markets.

Although, Central Nervous System (CNS), cardiovascular, dermatology, oncology and respiratory are among the dominant segments in the market, CNS and Cardiovascular segments are the two largest ones in this market. North America holds the largest market share, with more than 88 percent of total prescriptions being written for generic drugs in the U.S., as the report highlights. Despite this scenario, to mitigate huge pricing pressure, cutthroat competition and low margin, many drug players are preparing to move into specialty or complex generics.

The size and growth of complex or specialty generics market:

The April 2019 report by Research and Markets- “Specialty Generics Market: Global Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2019-2024″ states, the global specialty generics market reached a value of US$ 44.8 Billion in 2018. By 2014, its value is expected to reach US$ 88.9 Billion with a much higher CAGR of 11.9 percent, in 2019-2024 period.

Which drugs would belong to this market?

According to the ‘White Paper’ titled, ‘Complex Generics: Maximizing FDA Approval Prospects’ of Parexel, the following are some examples of complex generics; the list continues to grow as more products are being added in this category every day:

Complex Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), examples being Enoxaparin, Low Molecular Weight Heparin, Glatiramoids, Iron Carbohydrate Complexes etc.
Complex Formulations, examples being Liposomes, abuse-deterrent generics, parenteral microspheres.
Complex Route of Delivery, such as topical ointments and locally acting GI drugs.
Complex Drug-Device Combinations, such as DPI, MDI, nasal sprays, and transdermal systems.

These types of complex and high-cost generics, besides some off-patent biologic products and even Biosimilar drugs, are often used to treat complex and life-threatening diseases, such as, cancer, Hepatitis C, and many others. Complex generics are expected to eventually own a significant percentage of the total generic drugs market, as a number of big-ticket specialty drug molecules will go off patent in the ensuing years.

The major advantages of complex generics:

Some of the major advantages of the complex generics market over traditional generics are as follows:

Complex manufacturing requirements with higher capital costs – thus, higher price, better margin, fewer players, lesser competition.
Increasing prevalence of life-threatening diseases, besides, cost containment measures from the government and healthcare providers, are pushing the demand of these drugs.

Indian companies are also entering the fray:

As the share of specialty medicines in global spending in 2017 increased to 32 percent from 19 percent in 2007, Indian drug players also could sniff the opportunity in this space. Just as Sun Pharma, reportedly shifted its focus from once lucrative traditional generics medicines to specialty drugs, amid continued price erosion in its biggest market – the US, many others are also joining the fray. The Indian players who are, reportedly, investing in complex generics include, Aurobindo Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s Labs, Cipla, Lupin, Glenmark and Cadila.

More specifically, with the contribution of specialty medicines to overall pharmaceutical spend in the US, Germany, France, Italy, UK, and Spain – almost doubling over the last 10 years, this trend is likely to gather momentum, as the above report indicated. Accordingly, commensurate strategic actions aimed at this segment by many companies, both global and local, are clearly now visible.

Some strategic initiatives:

In preparation of a major shift in the strategic focus on complex generics, key examples of some of the important initiatives of different companies will include the following:

Big generic players wanted to be bigger in the global market through M&A, such as Teva acquired Allergan’s generic business, Mylan bought Abbott Laboratories’ generics businessAbbott Laboratories’ non-U.S. developed markets specialty and branded generics business. Similarly, Endo International acquired Par Pharmaceuticals. In India the mega deal of Sun Pharma acquiring Ranbaxy in 2015. In the same year, Lupin acquired New Jersey-based generic drugs firm GAVIS to boost its presence in the US.

Novartis sold its 300 ‘troubled’ U.S. generics to India’s Aurobindo for US$ 1B, as the entire generics industry faced unrelenting pricing pressure in the U.S.’ Whereas, Novartis’ wants to focus higher-margin assets like Biosimilars and complex generics.

Pfizer is set to combine its off-patent drug unit Upjohn with Mylan, to create a new business with its own off-patent branded and generic drug lines. The merger will bring together Pfizer medications such as Lipitor and Viagra with Mylan’s EpiPen, used to halt life-threatening allergic reactions.

Owing to margin pressure and other reasons, some of the Indian drug players also decided to enter into higher margin complex generics space, pursuing both organic and inorganic routes. There are several such examples, such as: In January 2017, Zydus Cadila announced acquisition of Sentynl Therapeutics Inc., a US based specialty pharma company specialized in marketing of products in the pain management segment. And in October 2017, Lupin acquired US-based Symbiomix Therapeutics LLC to expand Lupin’s US women’s health specialty business in the highly complementary gynecological infection sector.

Any flip side of complex generics business for the Indian players?

Although, driven by mainly higher profit margins and tough entry barriers, many generic players with the requisite wherewithal, find complex generics business more attractive to focus on, there’s a flip side to it, as well. This is, post patent expiry, innovator companies may be encouraged to introduce more ‘Authorized Generics’, creating a tough competitive environment for other generic players to compete with them. This brings us to the question of what are ‘Authorized Generics?’

Authorized Generics:

According to the USFDA, the term ‘Authorized generic’ is used to describe an approved brand name drug that is marketed without any brand name on its label. It is exactly the same product as the branded one, and may also be marketed by another company with the innovator company’s permission. Generally, an ‘Authorized Generic’ is launched at a lower price than the brand name drug.

Moreover, ‘Authorized Generics’, despite being the generic version of patented molecule, are mostly marketed by the patent holders themselves, both pre and post patent expiry. While a separate NDA is not required for marketing an ‘Authorized Generic’, USFDA requires that the NDA holder notify the FDA, if it markets an ‘Authorized Generic. The NDA holder may market both the ‘Authorized Generic’ and the brand-name product at the same time. Interestingly, the USFDA has approved around 1215 ‘Authorized Generics’ as of September 30, 2019.

Advantages of ‘Authorized Generics’ over ‘Traditional Generics’:

The key advantage of ‘Authorized Generics’ over traditional generic drugs is, while traditional generic drugs can be marketed only after patent expiry of the innovator drug, ‘Authorized Generics’ can be marketed even before patent expiry. In other words, innovator companies or their authorized collaborators can make lower priced ‘Authorized Generic’ versions available on their behalf, under their own new drug application (NDA). ‘Authorized Generics’ may be made available to patients even before patent expiry to out-maneuver the conventional generic drug makers, in advance, on price, quality and doctors’ confidence in the original drug.

According to several reports, over the past years, ‘many innovator drugs companies have been launching Authorized Generics, simultaneously with the first Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) filer’s launch of its generic drug product.’ However, the question remains how do the stakeholders perceive the ‘Authorized Generics’?

Perception of ‘Authorized Generics’:

Studies are available analyzing the impact of ‘Authorized Generics’ on the pharma market and also on the stakeholders. In this article, I shall refer to a comprehensive research study, titled ‘Authorized Generics: Effect on Pharmaceutical Market,’ published in the International Journal of Novel Trends in Pharmaceutical Sciences (IJNPTS), on February 29, 2012, which came out with the some notable findings.

Generally, there isn’t any doubt, either on the fact that ‘Authorized Generics’ provide the identical experience that the patient receives from the brand drug but at a lower price. Nor is there any question over greater confidence of doctors while prescribing these drugs. However, the researchers wrapped up the discussion by stating: It is difficult to conclude that the ‘Authorized Generics’ practice should be continued or banned. Though Indian pharmaceutical companies are dealing with generic drugs – 42 percent of the respondents were in favor of ‘Authorized Generics’ practice, whereas 58 percent opposed it. Thus, the overall perception of ‘Authorized Generics’, appears to be a mixed bag.

Conclusion:

There are free flowing arguments both in favor and against the ‘Authorized Generics.’ The article titled, ‘Drugmakers Master Rolling Out Their Own Generics to Stifle Competition,’ published in the Kaiser Health News (KHN) on August 05, 2019, captures it well.

It quoted the spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, a powerful pharma lobby group saying, an Authorized Generic drug “reduces prices and results in significant cost savings.” Whereas the critics say, “Authorized Generics hurt long-term competition and often perversely increase costs, even in the short term.”

The detractors further expressed, ‘Authorized Generics’ don’t just steal sales from existing generic rivals, they erode incentives to make generic drugs. A professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, who studies pharma was also quoted in this article saying, this practice can “stave off generic competition and make sure that generics can’t get much of a foothold when they do get to market.” Adding further he said: “That’s the game. And drug companies have become masters at this.”

As the Kaiser Health News highlighted, Eli Lilly announced launch of the ‘Authorized Generic’ version of Humalog insulin in March 2019 for US$137 a vial, at half the price of its brand name version costing US$237. This was reasoned by the company as a considerate move to address the need of those patients who can’t afford the price of the brand – Humalog. Curiously, even some analysts believe that ‘Authorized Generics’ may help explain why relatively few true generics are reaching the market despite a surge in approvals, especially in the United States.

Against the above backdrop, the drug policy makers need to ponder, would ‘complex generics’ of different companies face greater challenges from ‘Authorized Generics,’ playing a spoilsport for the rest in this ball game?

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.

Reaping Rich Harvest With Orphan Drugs

Posted on October 21, 2019 by Tapan Ray

A set of perplexing questions on the drug industry has been haunting many, since long. One such area is intimately associated with the core purpose of this business, as enunciated by each company, often publicly. Just to give a feel of it, let me quote what one of the largest global pharma players – Pfizer articulated in this regard, on April 5, 2019: “Health for All is at the core of our company’s purpose. We advance breakthroughs that change patients’ lives by ensuring they have access to quality health care services and Pfizer’s medicines and vaccines.”

Publicly expressed core purpose of any pharma business being generally similar, it may be construed as the same of the industry, at large. Hence, some baffling questions – not ethical, but purely commercial in nature, float at the top of mind, such as:

How the core purpose of business – “Health for All”, gets served when companies bring to the market mostly exorbitantly high-priced drugs, having access only to a minuscule patient population?

How are these companies growing at a faster pace and doing better commercially, by focusing more on orphan drugs approved for the treatment of rare diseases, affecting a very small patient population.

At this point, it will be worthwhile to have a quick recap on ‘orphan drug’ and ‘rare disease’. According to MedicineNet, orphan drugs are those which are developed to specifically treat rare medical condition. This rare medical condition is also referred to as an orphan disease. With that preamble, I shall now focus on this knotty area in search of evidence-based answers to – Is it possible to reap a rich harvest in business with orphan drugs for rare disease? And, if so, how?

Is the focus on high priced orphan a strategic business move?

Regardless of an affirmative or negative answer to the above questions, many people are head scratching with anguish while observing this trend in the drug industry. Mainly because, it is possibly the most important industry for most patients, not only while suffering from an ailment, but also before and after it happens, for various reasons.

The anguish increases manifold, when top manufacturers of popular mass-market drugs, such as, the cholesterol blockbuster Crestor, Abilify for psychiatric conditions, cancer drug Herceptin, and rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira, the best-selling medicine in the world, at a later stage seek and receive orphan drug status for these products reaping a rich harvest. The underlying intent being leveraging ‘additional advantages’ for exorbitant pricing and lesser competition. Hence, it is a strategic business move. I shall discuss this point in greater details, as was raised in a Kaiser Health News (KHN) investigation, in this article.

The same feeling gets resonated in several articles and papers, such as the one titled ‘Big Pharma’s Go-To Defense of Soaring Drug Prices Doesn’t Add Up,’ published in The Atlantic on March 23, 2019. It questioned, ‘How is it that pharmaceutical companies can charge patients $100,000, $200,000, or even $500,000 a year for drugs – many of which are not even curative?’ Nonetheless, the strategy is working well, as we shall find below.

More drugs for rare diseases entering the market at a higher price:

Another article, titled ‘Drug Prices for Rare Diseases Skyrocket While Big Pharma Makes Record Profits,’ published by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) on September 10, 2019 wrote, drugs for rare diseases are now entering the market at higher prices than ever before, ranging from tens-of-thousands to hundreds-of-thousands of dollars per patient. It further wrote, according to a new report by AHIP, ‘out-of-control drug prices mean too many patients are forced to choose between paying for their prescriptions or paying their mortgage. The prices for drugs to treat rare medical conditions are 25 times more expensive than traditional drugs. That is 26-fold increase in two decades.

The rationale behind so high pricing:

To explore the rationale behind the exorbitant pricing of such drugs, let’s examine what the expert organizations, such as the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSSD) said in this regard. Quoting a senior research fellow of CSDD, the article - ‘The High Cost of Rare Disease Drugs,’ published by the Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN) on March 04, 2014 reported, although biopharma players generally set higher prices for orphan drugs, there is no causal link between cost of development and pricing. Instead, rare-disease drug prices reflect typical supply and demand situation: ‘Few treatment alternatives allow companies to charge what they can, knowing that payers will often ultimately foot the bill.’

It further explained: “The rarity of the disease means that few people are affected. Generally, the fewer disease sufferers there are, the higher the price of the drug. Companies that invest the same amount of money or more in orphan drugs as they would non-orphan drugs, want to recoup their investment.”

The situation in India for such drugs:

The January 05, 2019 issue of The Pharma Letter captures it all in its headline – ‘India lifts price caps on innovative and orphan drugs; major fillip for Big Pharma.’ It said, with the new legislation announced on January 4, 2019, the Indian government has decided to remove price restrictions on new and innovative drugs developed by foreign pharmaceutical companies for the first five years. In a rider, the government notification also states, the provisions of the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) 2013 will not apply to drugs for treating orphan diseases (rare diseases).

How will it impact Indian patients?

Consequent to the above government decision, as the report indicated: ‘Orphan drugs to treat rare disease, like Myozyme (alglucosidase alfa) and Fabrazyme (agalsidase beta), both from Genzyme, which are used in the treatment of rare genetic diseases, are among a host of medicines that are to be kept out of price control.’

Quoting officials, the paper pointed out, the most challenging part in the fight against rare diseases is access to affordable treatment. As on date, the prices of these drugs tend to vary, e.g., the cost of treatment with enzyme replacement therapies may reach more than $150,000 per treatment per year. Whereas, in some other areas it may even be as much as $400,000 annually. Moreover, most of these drugs are rarely available in India. As a result, Indian patients suffering from rare diseases have to import these drugs directly. This makes affordability of medicines with an orphan drug regulatory status, a major issue for different stakeholders.

Why patient groups are not generally too vocal about this issue?

An interesting paper of 2008-09 brought to the fore the importance of patient organizations to further patient interest in various areas of health care. With the example of rare diseases and orphan drugs, it aptly expressed: ‘by changing the scale of their organizational efforts, patients’ organizations have managed to integrate themselves into the relays of power through which matters of health are thought about and acted upon. Through their formation into coalitions, patients’ organizations have been able to assume a number of important functions in relation to the government of health.’ The paper further added that the orphan drug problem can be thought of as having changed the scale and organizational form of rare disease patients’ groups.

Regrettably, a recent report of October 09, 2019, raised a big question in this area with a startling headline - ‘Big Pharma’s shelling out big-time to patient organizations. Is there any quid pro quo?’ It said, the Senate Finance Committee of the United States, while looking into the drug pricing decisions, ‘is digging into pharma funding for patient advocacy groups, which have been known to speak in tune that are music to the industry’s ears.’ It added, some Big Pharma constituents together contributed more than $ 680 million to hundreds of patient groups and other nonprofits last year.

It’s worth noting, earlier this year, several patient advocacy groups rallied in objection to a Trump-administration plan that would introduce step therapy requiring patients to try cheaper drugs before moving to more costly ones. ‘A Kaiser Health News analysis found that about half of the groups that objected had received funding from the pharmaceutical industry.’ Be that it may, rallying behind high drug prices by patient groups would help the industry only at the cost of patients’ interest. This is beyond an iota of doubt.

The motivation behind marketing more drugs for rare diseases:

There are several motivating factors to market drugs, which also treat rare disease, attaching startling price tags. The top drivers are generally considered, as follows:

The company gets seven years of market exclusive rights with the drug marketing approval for a rare or orphan disease. Interestingly, many drugs that now have an orphan status aren’t entirely new, either. Even if, the product patent runs out, USFDA won’t approve another version to treat that rare disease for seven years. This exclusivity is compensation for developing a drug, designed for a small number of patients whose total sales weren’t expected to be that profitable, otherwise.

Market exclusivity rights granted by the ‘Orphan Drug Act’ in the United States, can be a vital part of the protective shield that companies create.

Leveraging associated free pricing incentive, the concerned company can attach any price tag of its choice to the orphan drug, sans any competition.

Interestingly, more than 80 orphan drugs won USFDA approval for more than one rare disease, and in some cases, multiple rare diseases. For each additional approval, the drug manufacturer is qualified for a fresh batch of incentives.

The system ‘is being manipulated by many drug makers’:

That this system is being manipulated by many drug makers was also established by the Kaiser Health News (KHN) investigation dated January 17, 2017 titled, ‘Drugmakers Manipulate Orphan Drug Rules To Create Prized Monopolies.’ The analysis brought out that ‘the system intended to help desperate patients, is being manipulated by most drug makers. It reiterated, the key driver is to maximize profits, besides protecting niche markets for even those medicines, which are already being taken by millions. Thus, many orphan drugs, originally developed to treat diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people, come with astronomical price tags.’

Even some familiar brands were later approved as orphan drugs:

The KHN’s investigation also uncovered that many drugs that now have an orphan status aren’t entirely new. Over 70 were drugs first approved by the USFDA for mass market use. These medicines, some with familiar brand names, were later approved as orphans. ‘In each case, their manufacturers received millions of dollars in government incentives plus seven years of exclusive rights to treat that rare disease, or a monopoly’, the investigation revealed.

The same KHN study also cited the example of AbbVie’s Humira – the best-selling drug in the world. ‘Humira was approved by the USFDA in late 2002 to treat millions of people who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis. Three years later, AbbVie asked the FDA to designate it as an orphan to treat juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, which they told the FDA affects between 30,000 and 50,000 Americans. That pediatric use was approved in 2008, and Humira subsequently was approved for four more rare diseases, including Crohn’s and uveitis, an inflammatory disease affecting the eyes. The ophthalmologic approval would extend the market exclusivity for Humira for that disease until 2023, the report highlighted.

The report also indicated, much touted Gleevec of Novartis, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia, has nine orphan approvals. Similarly, Botox, started out as a drug to treat painful muscle spasms of the eye and has three orphan drug approvals. It’s also approved as a drug for mass-market for a variety of ailments, including chronic migraines and wrinkles. Despite humongous pricing, recent reports show that drugs with orphan status are eclipsing many new drugs with outstanding commercial success.

Companies focus on orphan drugs for better financial results:

Many top global companies’ sharp strategic focus on orphan drugs, presumably for the above reasons, is paying a rich dividend. This is evident from a number of recent reports, such as, ‘Orphan Drug Report 2019’ of Evaluate Pharma, released in April. The report says, orphan drugs will make up one-fifth of worldwide prescription sales, amounting to $242bn in spending by 2024 – much of it is going to either big pharma or big biotech players. It also found that the drugs prescribed for the treatment of rare diseases now account for seven of the 10 top-selling drugs of any kind, ranked by annual sales.

Another study of October 2019 by Prime Therapeutics LLC (Prime) shows, with more of ultra-expensive drug treatments coming to market, there is a sharp jump in the number of drug super spenders. While small in number, this group of drug super spenders grew 63 percent, which resulted in $800 million in additional drug costs. In the same period, the number of drug super spenders with drug costs over $750,000 increased 38 percent. This explains, why many companies are focusing on orphan drugs for better financial results.

Conclusion:

As the above quoted report of AHIP articulated, the regulators’ primary intent behind creating lucrative incentives for orphan drugs, was to encourage drug makers to develop treatments for rare diseases by earning a modest profit. ‘Unfortunately, drug makers have responded by building lucrative business models that empower them to achieve a gross profit margin of more than 80 percent – compared to an average gross profit margin of 16 percent for the rest of the pharmaceutical industry,’ the report said.

The AHIP study also finds, from 1998 to 2017, orphan drugs were 25 times more expensive than non-orphan drugs, resulting 26-fold increase in average per-patient annual cost, while the cost of specialty and traditional drugs merely doubled. Today, 88 percent of orphan drugs cost more than $10,000 per year per patient, which will be no different even when Indian patients import the same. The paper also revealed, in 2017, seven out of ten best-selling drugs had orphan indications. And among newly launched drugs, the share of orphan drugs increased more than 4-fold, from 10 percent to 44 percent, over a 20-year period.

Coming back to the core purpose of the pharma and biotech business, as defined by the pharma organizations themselves, one would have expected the situation to be much different. Their stated business purpose – ‘Health for All’, does not seem to recognize: “Every patient deserves to get the medications they need at a cost they can afford,’ as AHIP reiterates. Whereas, “drug makers are gaming well-intentioned legislation to generate outsized profits from drugs intended to treat a small population of patients with rare diseases.” In this scenario, reaping a rich harvest with the orphan drug status seems to have become a new normal.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Dynamics of Cancer Therapy Segment Remain Enigmatic

Posted on October 14, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Currently, cancer is likely to occupy the center stage on any discussion related to the fastest growing therapy segments in the pharma or biotech industries. There are several reasons behind such probability, some of which include:

Cancer is not only the second leading cause of death globally, but also offer outstanding new drug treatment options, though, mostly to those who can afford.

Consequently, these drugs are in high demand for saving lives, but not accessible to a vast majority of those who need them the most.

Alongside, oncology is one of the fastest growing therapy segments in sales in many countries, including the largest and most attractive global pharma market - the United States.

New cancer drugs being complex, involves highly sophisticated cutting-edge technology – creating an entry barrier for many, and are generally high priced, fetching a lucrative profit margin.

These are only a few basic dynamics of the segment. Nevertheless, understanding these dynamics, in a holistic way, is indeed an enigma – caused mostly by directly conflicting arguments on many related issues, within the key stakeholders. Thus, I reckon, this issue will be an interesting area to explore in this article. Later in this discussion, I shall try to substantiate all the points raised, backed by credible data. Let me start with some causative factors, that may make comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of this segment enigmatic.

Some causative factors for triggering the enigma:

Close overlap of several contentious factors is associated with this head-scratcher. These come in a package of reasoning and counter reasoning, a few examples of which may be seen below:

When increasing incidence of cancer related deaths are a global problem, fast growing oncology segment, regularly adding novel drugs in its portfolio, ideally should be a signal for containing this problem. Whereas, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) reports, cancer drugs are beyond reach to millions, for high cost. Nonetheless, the cancer drug sales keep shooting north.

Nearer home, while Indian anti-cancer drug market growth has, reportedly, ‘outstripped that of all other leading countries in recent years and is set to go on doing so,’ another study report underscores, ‘Indians have poor access to essential anti-cancer drugs.’

Although, a 2019 report of W.H.O highlights: Expensive cancer drugs ‘impairing’ access to cure, innovator companies also have their counter argument ready. They claim, higher prices ‘are necessary to fund expensive research projects to generate new drugs.’

When innovator companies keep touting that many new therapies are path-breaking concepts, researchers don’t find these drugs much superior to the existing ones in outcomes, except jaw-dropping prices.

Despite the above argument of research-based drug players to justify unreasonable pricing, several studies have established that the development cost of new cancer drugs is more than recouped in a short period, and some companies are making even more than a 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending.

While several pharma companies claim that they are providing patients with access to a wide variety of cancer medication through Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs), the findings of several published research on the same concluded, ‘the extent to which these programs provide a safety net to patients is poorly understood.’

Let me now briefly substantiate each of the above points raised in this article.

Incidence of cancer and the oncology market:

Now, while substantiating the above points, let me go back to where I started from. According to the W.H.O fact sheet of September 12, 2018, cancer is the second leading cause of death globally and is responsible for an estimated 9.6 million deaths in 2018 – about 1 in 6 deaths was due to cancer. Approximately 70 percent of deaths from cancer occur in low- and middle-income countries. The Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) estimated around 1.4 million new cancer cases in 2016, which is expected to rise to 1.7 million cases by 2020.

According to ‘World Preview 2019, Outlook to 2024’ of Evaluate Pharma, ‘Oncology prevails as the leading therapy segment in 2024, with a 19.4 percent market share and sales reaching USD 237bn.’ The report also highlights: ‘Oncology is the area with the largest proportion of clinical development spending with 40 percent of total pipeline expenditure.’

Similarly, the Indian Oncology market is found to be growing at 20 percent every year and is likely to remain so for the coming 3-5years. In 2012 the cancer market was valued at USD 172m (quoted from Frost & Sullivan). Another report also reiterates, the oncology market in India has outstripped that of all other leading countries in recent years and is set to go on doing so.

Poor access to cancer drugs:

Despite the impressive growth of oncology segment, ‘high prices for cancer medicines are “impairing the capacity of health care systems to provide affordable, population wide access,” emphasizes a recent ‘Technical Report’ of W.H.O. I shall further elaborate on this report in just a bit. However, before that, let me cite an India specific example of the same. The March 2019 study, published in the BMJ Global Health, also highlighted, the mean availability of essential anti-cancer medicines across all hospitals and pharmacies surveyed in India was less than the WHO’s target of 80 percent.

Cancer drug pricing conundrum:

The recent ‘Technical Report of W.H.O – ‘Pricing of cancer medicines and its impacts’ confronts this issue head on. It clearly articulates, the enduring debates on the unaffordability of cancer medicines and the ever-growing list of medicines and combination therapies with annual costs in the hundreds of thousands, suggests that the status quo is not acceptable. The global community must find a way to correct the irrational behaviors that have led to unsustainable prices of cancer medicines. Thus, correction of unaffordable prices is fundamental to the sustainability of access to cancer medicines. Further inertia on this issue and half-hearted commitments from all stakeholders, including governments and the pharmaceutical industry, will only invite distrust and disengagement from the public, the report emphasized.

Another 2019 WHO report says expensive cancer drugs ‘impairing’ access to cure. It pinpointed: “Pharmaceutical companies set prices according to their commercial goals, with a focus on extracting the maximum amount that a buyer is willing to pay for a medicine.” It also reiterated that the standard treatment for breast cancer can drain 10 years of average annual income in India. Unaffordable pricing of cancer medicines set by such intent often prevents their full benefits being realized by scores of cancer patients, the report adds. Yet another paper expressed similar concern about ‘the unsustainability of the high costs of cancer care, and how that affects not only individual patients, but also society at large.

What does the industry say?

The industry holds a different view altogether. According to another recent news, one such company quoted their 2017 Janssen U.S. Transparency Report,” which states: “We have an obligation to ensure that the sale of our medicines provides us with the resources necessary to invest in future research and development.” This is interesting, as it means that even higher pricing may be necessary to fund expensive research projects to generate new drugs for life threatening ailments, such as cancer.

What do research studies reveal?

There are several research studies often disputing the industry quoted claim of R&D spend of over a couple of billion dollar to bring a new molecule to the market. They also keep repeating, this is an arduous and time-intensive process, involving humongous financial risk of failure. One such ‘Original investigation’ titled, ‘Research and Development Spending to Bring a Single Cancer Drug to Market and Revenues After Approval,’ published by JAMA Internal Medicine in its November 2017 issue, presents some interesting facts.

The study brings to the fore: ‘The cost to develop a cancer drug is USD 648.0 million, a figure significantly lower than prior estimates. The revenue since approval is substantial (median, USD 1658.4 million; range, USD 204.1 million to USD 22 275.0 million). This analysis provides a transparent estimate of R&D spending on cancer drugs and has implications for the current debate on drug pricing.’ Thus, the cost of new cancer drug development is more than recovered in a short period, with as much as over 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending, in many cases, as the analysis concluded.

Even top oncologists, such as Dr. Peter Bach, the Director of Memorial Sloan Kettering’s (MSK)Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, along with other physicians at MSK drew attention to the high price of a newly approved cancer drug. According to available reports, ‘two recently approved CAR-T cell drugs – one is USD 373,000 for a single dose, the other USD 475,000 - are benchmarks on the road to ever-higher cancer drug price tags.’

It happens in India too:

Although, on May 19, 2019, NPPA announced almost 90 percent price reduction of nine anti-cancer drugs, curiously even those cancer drugs, which are not patent protected, continued to be sold at a high price. For example, according to the September 2018 Working Paper Series, of the Indian Institute of management Calcutta (IIM C), the maximum price for Pemetrexed, a ‘not patented’ cancer product was Rs 73,660, though, it is also available at Rs 4,500. Similarly, the price of Bortezomib was between Rs 60,360 and Rs 12,500 and Paclitaxel between Rs 19, 825.57 and Rs 7,380.95. It is intriguing to note that no pricing policy for patented drugs, as promised in the current Drug Policy document, hasn’t been implemented, as yet.

Does Pharma’s ‘Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs) work?

Different pharma companies claim their addressing access to cancer care in developing countries. A report also mentions: ‘16 of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies are engaged in 129 diverse access initiatives in low- and middle-income countries.’ Whereas, a research study, questioning the transparency of these initiatives, concluded, ‘our results suggest that numerous drug company sponsored PAPs exist to provide patients with access to a wide variety of medications but that many details about these programs remain unclear. As a result, the extent to which these programs provide a safety net to patients is poorly understood.’

During the famous Glivec patent case, which went against Novartis at the Supreme Court of India, the company’s PAP for Glivec in the country, also came under focus. Many articles, with mutually conflicting views of the company and independent experts were published regarding this program. One such write-up emphasized with eulogy, “Novartis provides Glivec free of charge to 16,000 patients in India, roughly 95 percent of those who need it via the Novartis – Glivec International Patient Assistance Program. The remaining 5 percent is either reimbursed, insured, or participate in a very generous co-payment program. Thus, not granting a patent for Glivec really hasn’t prevented patients from getting this life-saving medication.”

However, many were, reportedly, not convinced by Novartis’ claims and counter-argued: “Our calculation says there are estimated 20,000 new patients every year suffering from cancer, this means after ten years there will be two lakh (200,000) patients, hence the program is not enough.” The views of many independent global experts on the same are not very different. For example, even Professor Carlos M. Correa had articulated: “The reported donation of Glivec by Novartis to ‘eligible patients’ under the ‘Glivec International Patient Assistance Program’ (GIPAP) may be a palliative but does not ensure a sustainable supply of the product to those in need.” Be that as it may, new studies now question whether novel anti-cancer drugs are worth their extra cost.

Are novel cancer drugs worth the extra cost?

According to a September 26, 2019 report, the results of two studies investigating the links between clinical benefit and pricing in Europe and the USA, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress, September 2019, reveal an interesting finding. It found, many new anti-cancer medicines add little value for patients compared to standard treatment and are rarely worth the extra cost. Interestingly, in the midst of this imbroglio, the world continues taking a vow globally to mitigate the cancer patient related issues on February the fourth, every year.

A vow is taken globally on every 4^th February, but…:

On every February 04 – The World Cancer Day - an initiative of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC), the world takes a noble vow. Everybody agrees on its broad goal that: ‘Life-saving cancer diagnosis and treatment should be equal for all – no matter who you are, your level of education, level of income or where you live in the world. By closing the equity gap, we can save millions of lives.’

UICC also noted, as many cancers are now preventable or can be cured, more and more people are surviving the disease. However, for the vast majority people, the chances of surviving cancer are not getting better. Socioeconomic status of individuals leaves a significant impact on whether one’s cancer is diagnosed, treated and cared for, in an appropriate and cost-effective manner. A customer-focused understanding of the dynamics of the cancer therapy segment, although may help effective ground action, but the status quo continues for various critical reasons. Even on the World Cancer Day 2019, the oncology pricing debate continued.

Conclusion:

The business dynamics for the cancer therapy segment, continues to remain enigmatic regardless of public emotion and sentiments attached to these drugs. Patients access and affordability to the most effective drug at the right time can save or take lives. Surprisingly, despite healthy growth of anti-cancer drugs, especially the newer and pricey ones, the number of deaths due to cancer is also fast increasing, and is the second largest cause of death today.

The pricing conundrum of cancer drugs remains the subject of a raging debate, globally. Nevertheless, the drug industry keeps justifying the mind-boggling prices, with the same sets of contentious reasons, even when various investigative research studies negate those claims. Moreover, when general public expects the drug industry to innovate both in the new drug discovery and also on making the drug prices affordable to a large section of the population, the industry doesn’t exhibit any interest to talk about the latter. Instead, they talk about PAP initiatives for improving access to such drugs. Notwithstanding independent research studies concluding that PAPs lack transparency, and is not an alternative for all those who want to fight the disease, in the most effective way.

The arguments and counterarguments continue. More effective cancer drugs keep coming with lesser number of cancer patients having access to those medicines, as patents prevail over the patients. The reverberation of the power of Big Pharma to stay in the chosen course – come what may, can also be felt from the reported statement of politically the most powerful person in the world – the President of the United States. In view of this, both the business and market dynamics of the cancer therapy segment is likely to remain enigmatic – at least, in the foreseeable future?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Pharma: ‘Digitalization’ Not A Panacea – A Basic Step For Giant Leaps

Posted on October 7, 2019 by Tapan Ray

The hype of ‘Digitalization’ in the pharma industry, virtually as a panacea, is palpable all around. It gives many a feel, directly or indirectly, that this one-time, resource-intensive, disruptive transformation would reap a rich harvest for a long time. In some way, good or bad, the sense of urgency underlying the hype, could possibly be akin to Y2K, that one witnessed before the turn of the new millennium.

Notwithstanding the current ballyhoo, the process of digitization in several Indian pharma companies began since quite some time and is now gathering wind in its wings. Several studies vindicating this point, were reported by the Indian media, as well. One such report of October 31, 2016 highlighted – even around 2013, a number of Indian drug players commenced adopting digitization. They mostly began with the use of modern technology for scientific detailing to doctors, often using algorithms for better insights into issues, like patient compliance. A similar trend was seen also in China, the report added.

Be that as it may, this article will explore whether or not ‘Digitalization’ is a panacea for all pharma business hurdles. Or, it is the backbone to build and maintain a patient-centric organization, with need-based subsequent giant technological leaps, for game changing sustainable outcomes. For better clarity of all, I shall dwell on this concept with AI as the next disruptive step, as it would play an increasingly critical role to be in sync with the customers of the fast-growing digital world.

Digitization is the bedrock to move forward with newer technologies:

That digitization is the backbone of AI adoption was brought out in the May 2019 paper by McKinsey Global Institute - titled, ‘Twenty-five years of digitization: Ten insights into how to play it right.’ It articulated, leveraging, and transitioning from, digital to new frontier technologies is an imperative, as several new frontier technologies are opening up, such as AI. It also spotlighted that early digitization is the foundation of AI deployment.

Elaborating the point further, the article wrote: ‘70 percent of companies that generate 50 percent of their sales through digitization are already investing in one AI domain. The evidence suggests that incumbents that have adopted AI early and are savvy about deploying these technologies have experienced strong profit growth. In effect AI is a new, higher- performance type of digital technology that may boost the ability of firms to accelerate their digital performance.’

No doubt, several hundred AI use cases would provide evidence of widespread benefits to operations and profitability for AI adoption. However, from the drug industry perspective, the possible dilemmas that will be important to understand, what factors are prompting faster adoption of AI in pharma. Besides, how to make out – what type of use of AI is likely to be most effective for an organization.

Regardless of the dilemma, the AI buzz is gaining momentum:

The fervor around AI is now peaking up, more than ever before. Regardless of the general dilemma – ‘what type of use of AI is likely to be most effective for an organization.,’ several companies are working on AI application in various areas. In sales and marketing domain, these include, improving customer interactions, maximizing product launches, understanding patient insights. This was also corroborated in an article, published by ZS on July 24, 2019.

Why is the AI buzz increasing in pharma?

The above paper identifies 3 broad elements for rapid increase of AI buzz in the pharma industry, which I am paraphrasing as follows:

Data requirement for any meaningful business decision-making process has exploded, facilitated by increasing use of internet- based digital platforms.
With the increasing digitization of virtually anything in everyday life, paper-based processes are fast disappearing.
Realization of game changing impact of new AI algorithms with high degree of precision, on business.

As AI-based interventions are making a radical impact on everyday life, most pharma and biotech players are progressively getting convinced that it will eventually transform many critical areas of the business, despite a slow start.

AI can deliver much more than ever before, across pharma domains:

AI has a great potential to meet critical requirements of almost all domains of the drug industry. For example: AI may be used to help a medical representative get top insights for his particular day’s or a week’s or a month’s call with doctors by sifting through all his daily reports for that period. Some companies are already moving into this direction. For example, Novartis, reportedly, has equipped sales representatives ‘with an AI service that suggests doctors to visit and subjects to talk up during their meetings.’

Similar AI-based cognitive insights may be obtained from the patient-collected data in the apps or other digital tools. Deep understanding of the process of thinking of important doctors and patients, would facilitate developing customized content for engagement with them, and thereby help achieve well-defined goals with precision.

There are instances of significant success with the use of AI in R&D, clinical trials, many areas of sales and marketing, including supply chains. Nevertheless, the general concern of sharing confidential patient information, often limits access to requisite data for use in AI solutions. Appropriate regulations are expected to address this apprehension, soon.

Big Pharma players are already in it:

The paper – ‘Artificial Intelligence in Life Sciences: The Formula for Pharma Success Across the Drug Lifecycle,’ published on December 05, 2018 by L.E.K Consulting, discussed this point in detail. It says, ‘each of the major pharma players is investing in the technology at some level.’

For example, pharma and biotech majors, such as Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Johnson & Johnson, are either collaborating or acquired AI technologies to acquire a cutting-edge in business.

The paper also reiterates, developments in AI applications are occurring across the spectrum of pharma business, from target discovery to post-approval activities to automate processes, generate insights from large-scale data and support stakeholder engagement. Let me illustrate this point with an example below.

Example of use of AI for better patient compliance, improving sales and profit:

As highlighted in my article, published in this blog on May 20, 2019, effective use of AI for better patient compliance, can help improve concerned company’s both top and bottom lines. I mentioned there: ‘According to November 16, 2016 report, published by Capgemini and HealthPrize Technologies, globally, annual pharmaceutical revenue losses had increased from USD 564 billion in 2012 to USD 637 billion due to non-adherence to medications for chronic conditions. This works out to 59 percent of the USD 1.1 trillion in total global pharmaceutical revenue in 2015.’

Several reports vindicate that drug companies are making phenomenal progress in this area. Let me cite an example of achieving huge success to improve treatment adherence of patients during clinical trials. The September 26, 2016 Press Release of AiCure, an AI company that visually confirms medication ingestion on smartphones, announced that use of AiCure AI platform demonstrated 90 percent medication adherence in patients with schizophrenia, participating in Phase 2 of the AbbVie study.

Opportunity to make more effective drugs faster and at reduced cost:

Besides, drug discovery, clinical trials, patient monitoring, compliance monitoring – AI applications have been developed for marketing optimization, as well. As AI technology spreads its wings with a snowballing effect, taking a quantum leap in organizational effectiveness, productivity and outcomes will be a reality for many. Moreover, AI now offers a never before opportunity of making novel, more effective and safer drugs, faster and at much reduced cost.

Thus, I reckon, AI-based technology would be a basic requirement of the drug industry for effective operation with desirable business outcomes, in less than a decade. Its slow start as compared to many other industries, notwithstanding. Further, the pharma industry’s endeavor for a swift digital transformation – the backbone of AI adoption, as captured in recent surveys, also vindicates this belief. Other business realities are also generating a strong tailwind for this process.

Pharma’s swift digital transformation to create a solid base for AI:

The ‘White Paper’, titled ‘Use of Artificial Intelligence and Advanced Analytics in pharmaceuticals’ by FICCI captured this scenario quite well. It pointed out, two seismic shifts in the pharma business, namely, – reducing prices and demonstrating greater value from their therapies, along with a swing from treatment to prevention, diagnostics and cure – are prompting the industry for a holistic transformation of business.

Which is why, pharma players are exhibiting greater intent for ‘Digitalization’ of business, paving the way for quick adoption of different modern technologies, such as AI and advanced analytics. This fundamental shift will not only improve efficiencies and reduce costs, but also significantly help adapting to more patient centric business models. Yet, post digital transformation the key question that still remains to be addressed – how does an organization identify and focus on the right areas or ‘good problems’ for AI intervention, fetching game changing outcomes, on an ongoing basis.

Conclusion:

There could be many approaches to address this situation. However, according to ZS, building the capability and the muscle first for AI, and then looking for the problems, may not be a great idea. This could make a company, even post ‘Digitalization’, flounder with the right applications of AI technology. Thus, while venturing into AI intervention for watershed outcomes, the top priority of an organization will be to resolve this dilemma for precise identification of the right problems.

These areas may even include crucial bottlenecks in the business process, AI interventions for which, would lead to not just incremental benefits, but cutting-edge value creation, for a giant leap in an all-round performance. The name of the game is to start selectively with the right problems, evaluate the upshots of AI use, before scaling up and adding new areas. Ongoing value creation of such nature can’t be achieved just by one-time digital transformation, sans imbibing other disruptive technologies, proactively.

This, in my view, has to happen and is practically unavoidable, primarily driven by two key factors, as below:

The first one was the focal point of the ‘2018 Digital Savvy HCP Survey Report of Indegene.’ It found, the highest jump of digital adoption by healthcare practitioners (HCPs) was seen in 2018, compared to its similar surveys done from 2015 to 2017, signaling physicians’ fast-growing digital preference, as we move on.

The second one comes from an important ‘consumer behavioral perspective.’ and is specially in India. According to a report by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) – with 451 million monthly active internet users at the end of financial year 2019, India is now second only to China in terms of internet users. More, importantly, the digital savvy customers are also using other disruptive technologies, mostly smartphone based.

Thus, disruptive digital transformation in pharma domains, including sales and marketing, is a necessary basic step. It will help companies being all-time ready to imbibe other leading-edge technologies, such as AI, for giant leaps to higher growth trajectories.

By: Tapan J. Ray

A New Facet of ‘Data Integrity’ With Novel Therapy… And Much Beyond

Posted on September 30, 2019 by Tapan Ray

The peril of breach of data integrity involving a top Indian pharma player, jolted many, probably for the first time, on September 17, 2008. On that day, the USFDA, reportedly, issued two ‘Warning Letters’ and an ‘Import Alert’. These were related to deficiencies in the drug manufacturing process and deviations from U.S. current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) at Ranbaxy’s Dewas and Paonta Sahib plants in India.

Since then, instead of demonstrable corrective measures, similar incidents had started ballooning – inviting more serious US-FDA actions, such as Import ban, consent decree, loss of market value, Loss of customer trust, among many others. The research article – ‘Overview of Data Integrity issues in the Pharmaceutical industry,’ published by the International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Review and Research, in its May-June 2018 issue, also reflects the same trend.

Much reported instances of breach of ‘Data Integrity’ were specific to generic drugs and mostly manufactured by Indian companies, besides China. While this may be true at that time, it is now spreading much beyond generic drug manufacturing in India and China – making its way into the global clinical trial arena. I also wrote earlier that ‘Data Manipulation: Leapfrogging Dangerously Into Clinical Trial Domain.’ With greater focus, this article will discuss not just how ‘Data Integrity’ issue is cropping up into clinical trials of even modern, complex, highly innovative and exorbitantly priced lifesaving treatments. Going beyond that, I shall also point towards increasing attempts to exaggerate the success of many cancer drug trials due to strong bias. Nevertheless, let me start by rehashing the relevance of ‘Data Integrity’ on patients’ health interest.

Data Integrity ensures safe, effective and high-quality drugs for patients:

According to US-FDA: ‘Data integrity is an important component of industry’s responsibility to ensure the safety, efficacy, and quality of drugs, and of FDA’s ability to protect the public health.’ Thus, data integrity-related cGMP violations may lead to regulatory actions, including warning letters, import alerts, and consent decrees, as the drug agency notified. In other words, maintain all types of ‘Data Integrity’ is a key requirement in the pharma industry to demonstrate that the final products conform to the required quality parameters.

These requirements are known to all generic drug exporters catering to the regulated markets, including the local manufacturers in the United States. Curiously, it continues to happen despite their full knowledge of the grave consequences of violations. The June 12, 2019 paper – ‘An Analysis Of 2018 FDA Warning Letters Citing Data Integrity Failures,’ published in Pharmaceutical Online, brings out some interesting facts, related to drug manufacturing area.

From the analysis of 194 ‘Data Integrity’ associated ‘Warning Letters (WL).’ from 2008 to 2018, the top 5 countries in this regard came out as follows:

Rank	1	2	3	4	5
Country	China	India	United States	Europe	Japan
No. of WL	58	54	36	14	7
% to Total	29.8	27.8	18.6	7.2	3.6

Interestingly, over 76 percent of US-FDA Warning Letters (WL) are on manufacturing ‘Data Integrity’ and were issued to pharma companies located in China, India and the United States. Moreover, when it comes to all types WL related to various types of regulatory malpractices, India again featured as one of the top violators. Be that as it may, I shall now focus on the spread of this decay in other important drug safety related areas, such as clinical trials.

Ironically, breach of ‘Data Integrity’ in another crucial area, like clinical trials for new drugs, doesn’t seem to attract public attention as much, which I shall reason out below – also explaining why it’s so.

Breach of ‘Data Integrity’ in clinical trial – more crippling for the company:

‘Data Integrity’ concern pertaining to clinical trials was recently expressed in an article, published by the Food and Drug Law Institute, in the April-May 2019 issue of its Update Magazine. The paper reiterated: ‘Good Clinical Practice (GCP) data integrity issues can at times be more crippling to a company than Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) data integrity issues.’ Elaborating the point further, the authors highlighted, where such issues are severe, the drug regulatory agency may completely reject the data submitted in new drug applications, supplemental drug applications, and abbreviated new drug applications.

This outcome is quite akin to import bans for generic drugs into the United States, as it would cause a huge setback for the company, affecting clinical development programs for the new drug. Moreover, as the article says, such action would be ‘costing the sponsor substantial time, money, and reputational credibility, not to mention delaying patient access to new drugs.’

‘Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data’:

This is claimed by the research paper that was discussed in ‘The Guardian’ on June 05, 2017 carrying the headline - ‘Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data, claims study.’

In this study, John Carlisle, a consultant anesthetist at Torbay Hospital, reviewed data from 5,087 clinical trials published during the past 15 years in two prestigious medical journals, JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine, and six anesthesia journals. In total, 90 published trials had underlying statistical patterns that were unlikely to appear by chance in a credible dataset, the review concluded.

As one of the top medical experts quoted in this paper, said: “It’s very scary that we may be treating patients based on false evidence.” He further added: “It may be the case that certain treatments may need to be withdrawn from use.”

Another October 01, 2013 report, citing a specific example of the same, wrote: ‘Japan’s ministry of health has concluded that studies based on clinical trials for Novartis’s blood pressure drug Diovan contain manipulated data.’ It also added: ‘Diovan was approved for use in Japan in 2000, but recently two universities who hosted and analyzed trials for Novartis – the Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine and Jikei University School of Medicine – reported finding evidence of data fabrication.’

Thus, from available reports, it appears, just as the saga of ‘Data Integrity’ related drug manufacturing keeps continuing, the same related to clinical trials doesn’t seem to fall much behind. But, the valid question that may follow – why then reported instances of breach of clinical trial data integrity isn’t as many?

Breach of ‘Data Integrity’ found by USFDA is rarely reported:

The answer to the above question may be found in The BMJ study, published on February 10, 2015. It brought to the fore – ‘Research misconduct found by FDA inspections of clinical trials is rarely reported in journal studies.’ This review was based on identified 57 published clinical trials for which an FDA inspection of one of the trial sites had found significant evidence of research misconduct, including falsification or the submission of false information, problems with adverse event reporting.

The researcher also noted that serious misconducts related to clinical trials, are rarely mentioned in subsequently published journal articles in the same area. More disturbing to note, this critical gap in the transparency of clinical trial reporting is now sneaking into even highly specialized treatment, such as ‘Gene Therapy’, and that too involving a Big Pharma name.

US-FDA has now raised this question even for a ‘Gene Therapy’:

A media report of September 09, 2019 highlights, that Novartis is facing an uproar over data manipulation involving USD 2.1 million gene therapy Zolgensma, which treats spinal muscular atrophy, a leading genetic cause of death in infants. According to this report, Novartis gave “detailed explanations” on Aug. 23 to the FDA about the company’s investigation into the data manipulation and addressed regulators’ questions over why the company waited until late June to make disclosures. However, quoting the FDA, the report indicates, ‘Novartis could face possible civil or criminal penalties.’

Prior to this, another report of August 13, 2019, stated that ‘documents referenced in a Form 483 by the FDA, which inspected the lab a month after it learned of the falsified records, also suggest the data-fudging began at least in early 2018 and could have been uncovered by managers at AveXis during several steps in the clinical outcome assessment.’ The gene unit of Novartis is called AveXis, which had announced the US-FDA approval of Zolgensma on May 24, 2019.

Such instances involving clinical trials with new, complex and highly innovative therapies, further reinforces already existing ‘Data Integrity’ related health safety concern. The cost of these new treatments being so high, it’s perplexing to fathom the necessity of cutting corners in clinical trials, if at all. More so, when these are avoidable to establish efficacy, safety and high-quality standard of the therapy to drug regulators for marketing approval.

Beyond ‘Data Integrity’ – in clinical trials:

Just as ‘Data Integrity’ issue in generic drug manufacturing has intruded in the clinical trial arena for novel treatments, yet another concern, also related to data, goes much beyond what is happening today in this area. This fast-emerging practice is related to ‘cherry-picking data’ for biased clinical trial reporting, adversely impacting public health safety, as brought by several research studies.

Very recently, this was vindicated by another paper published in The BMJ on September 18, 2019. It raised a serious concern of bias in clinical trial data submitted to regulatory agencies for marketing approval of even lifesaving drugs. The findings of the above paper concluded:

Between 2014 and 2016, almost half of the most pivotal studied forming the basis of European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval were judged to be at high risk of bias, based on their design, conduct or analysis. Accepting that some of these might be unavoidable because of complexity of cancer trials, it noted that regulatory documents and the scientific literature had gaps in their reporting. Journal publications also did not acknowledge the key limitations of the available evidence identified in regulatory documents. This concern too keeps growing.

Conclusion:

As discussed above, six broad and important points to note for any ‘breach of integrity’ or ‘cherry-picking’ of data in the pharma industry:

Takes place mostly in two known areas – manufacturing and clinical trials.
Involves both cheaper generic drug manufacturing, as well as, clinical trials of most innovative and highly expensive treatments – conducted even by Big Pharma constituents.
‘Cherry-picking data’ for biased clinical trial reporting while obtaining marketing approval, involves even cancer drugs.
Any such avoidable malpractices with ‘data’, could seriously impact patients’ health interest, raising a public concern.
Instances of such malpractices usually become public, only when the perpetrators are caught by vigilant drug regulatory agencies, such as the US-FDA, or when external experts can trace their footprints through sophisticated analytical tools.
Multiple instances of wrongdoing of this nature, often by the same company, despite requisite regulations being in place, and also after facing penal actions, make it mostly a self-discipline issue of repeat offenders.

It’s a different discussion all together, whether or not ‘data’ is a new oil – air or water. But maintaining the sanctity of data, while generating, interpreting, presenting or even leveraging these, including for commercial considerations, must not be compromised, at any cost.

Today, breach of ‘Data Integrity’ and ‘Cherry-Picking of Data’ for biased reporting, are creeping into new drug clinical trial domain – from its usual habitat of generic drug manufacturing, posing a greater threat to patient safety. At the same time, none can say, either, that it’s happening with all drugs, at all the time and by all drug manufacturers. But, if and when it happens, it could lead to a catastrophic consequence both for patients and their family.

Be that as it may, country’s top drug regulators should strive harder for an ongoing and meaningful engagement with the pharma industry on this avoidable development. It could well be a carrot and stick approach, where repeat violations by any company would pose a risk of legal survival of the business.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma’s Perception Management

Posted on September 23, 2019 by Tapan Ray

An intriguing input-output relationship in the pharma industry has remained baffling, since the last several years, where increasing financial inputs are resulting in diminishing productivity output. More disturbing is, this input-output relationship has now reached a new low, with their individual swings moving in the diametrically opposite directions – as numerous reports of 2019 point out. The deteriorating situation of this magnitude would make many to feel sad, especially those who were or are intimately associated with this industry, for quite a while.

Strikingly, the trend encompasses even the largest – and one of the most influential pharma markets of the world – the United States. Which is why, the subject assumes greater importance. As one can witness today, regardless of the outcome, most American drug companies and their increasingly resourceful trade associations, reportedly, keep unleashing political, non-political and financial capital to influence pharma related policies in different countries. In tandem, they also try to create a favorable public perception in areas of vested interest, in many important markets, including India. These efforts cost money, and tons of it.

This process is not new, though, and was there in the past, as well. It also yielded results at that time, unlike what is happening today. This was mostly because of less public awareness on health-related issues, and a better general perception of the industry. Curiously, despite a sharp diminishing return, the same process is being followed, even today, with a lot more inputs and internal hype. Ironically, the snowballing effect of pharma’s ‘perception challenge’ is now all pervasive. It is visible even in the most market driven and business-friendly countries, like America. They have a requisite talent pool, financial resources and other wherewithal to manage perception – the best possible way. Then why it’s not happening?

To make it happen, I reckon, the core purpose of pharma business should be to delight the patients – more of them – the better. With a similar vision, the drug industry could achieve what it wanted to in the past, also making a good profit, unlike what has been openly expressed in the recent years. This article would, therefore, explore the reasons behind it’s not happening now, through the prism of perception management. However, before examining that, let me give examples of the quantum of financial inputs that the pharma industry constituents are using today to achieve its lobbying goals, vis-a-vis, its declining public perception, as we see in 2019.

Pharma lobbying expenses are shooting north:

According to the Bloomberg report of January 23, 2019, the main trade group of the pharma industry in America – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), spent a record high amount of USD 27.5 on lobbying in a single year – 2018. This was quoted from the public disclosure reports. Although this was the highest for PhRMA to date, ‘the pharmaceutical industry has upped its spending over the last few years, as it faces immense pressure over high drug prices from the public, Congress and the Trump administration,’ – the news highlighted.

Another article, published in The Guardian also indicated: ‘Pharmaceutical companies spend far more than any other industry to influence politicians.’ It further added, hundreds of millions of dollars flow to shape laws and policies that keep drug company profits growing. One more article highlights, the wide reach of pharma industry money can be traced among people and groups who are in a position to influence drug policy – think tank that has received funding from a major pharmaceutical lobby, and doctors who accepted payments from drug companies.

Moreover, Kaiser Health News (KHN) analysis also found that such money reaches even patient groups for supporting the industry whenever required. The analysis detected ‘about half of the groups representing patients have received funding from the pharmaceutical industry.’

Globally, the general interest of the public on the affordability of quality drug treatment package that pharma companies offer, is fast increasing. Recognizing this fact, the entire approach of pharma lobbying appears blatantly self-serving.

Whereas pharma’s lobbying output is diving south:

The governments in many countries can now make it out, even when this is done covertly – keeping the so called ‘patient groups’ and ‘doctors’, as mentioned above, in the forefront. As many can clearly decipher the core purpose behind such stealth approaches of pharma players, the productivity or output of pharma lobbying is going south in a bottomless pit, as it were. Still, to reduce stakeholder pressure on drug pricing, its apparently getting more intensive, across the world and particularly in America.

The Bloomberg report of January 23, 2019, captures how this situation, on the contrary, is bringing public, government and opposition leaders together on the reduction of drug prices. The news underscores: ‘One of the few issues that unites President Donald Trump and the Democrats newly in charge of the U.S. House of Representatives is reducing the price of prescription medicine. Both sides will be looking for accomplishments to tout at a time when the pharmaceutical industry has become a target of public ire.’

Regardless of these developments, the age-old pharma lobbying approach remains unchanged. There doesn’t seem to be much visible interest, either, for a radical and innovative ‘perception management’ approach to salvage the situation.

Pharma’s ultimate goal has to change to delighting customers – the best possible way, where the quantum of profit earned will be a measure of customer satisfaction. This is what the management guru Peter Drucker said, long ago. Since, this is not happening, both patients’ and public perception on the industry, is getting from bad to worse, which has been captured in the 2019 Gallup poll.

2019 Gallup Poll: Big pharma sinks to the bottom of U.S. industry rankings:

The September 03, 2019 issue of Gallup carried the headline - Big pharma sinks to the bottom of U.S. industry rankings while announcing ‘American’s Views of U.S. Business, Industry Sectors, 2019.’ Being more specific, it said, ‘The pharmaceutical industry is now the most poorly regarded industry in Americans’ eyes, ranking last on a list of 25 industries that Gallup tests annually.’

Elaborating it further, the author stressed, Americans’ net ratings for the pharmaceutical industry have never been lower since Gallup first polled on industries in 2001. Over the past 19 years, few industries have been rated lower than the pharmaceutical industry’s current – 31 net rating. These include the federal government and the oil and gas, real estate, and automobile industries.

The age-old process of pharma lobbying is not working anymore:

‘Lobbying’ is the term that is more frequently used in the United States and the Western countries. In India, similar campaigns are called ‘Advocacy’, by pharma trade associations. These activities are carried out by concerned individuals or companies, industry associations, paid employees – hired for this purpose, or by any other interested groups. But, everybody’s common goal is primarily aimed at influencing government policies, or mold top influencers’ opinion in favor of business – overtly or covertly.

That traditional mindset of pharma lobbying is no longer working, came to the fore some time back. The October 28, 2016 articles, published in the CNBC, cautioned with a headline – ‘A warning for Big Pharma: Lobbying won’t work anymore.’

The article candidly suggested to big pharma players: ‘If you try to use the same old lobbying and crony networks to get your way, it won’t work. Not anymore. And here’s a special warning call just for Big Pharma: You need to change your public relations and marketing strategies now, or die. The good news is, unlike so many other industries, the drug companies have a very effective way out of this mess.’ Making no bones about it the author said, ‘no industry seems more clueless right now than Big Pharma.’

Acknowledging that: ‘Several reports say the Big Pharma lobbying group known as PhRMA is looking to spend as much as $300 million and pull out lots of other stops in order to defend higher prescription drug costs.’ The paper emphasized: ‘this is a battle the drug giants can’t win.’ This is because: ‘Public and political sentiment against expensive medicines and companies that charge those prices is at a fever pitch.’ This, I reckon, is changing the old paradigm of pharma lobbying.

Managing public perception – the new ballgame to influence policies:

Thus, the bottom line to note, today’s public policies are increasingly driven by public sentiments, their needs, aspirations and demand. Thus, the old, and the virtually counterproductive system of lobbying with lawmakers and some key opinion leaders, often including a few media friends, has to change. Even the covert ways of achieving it, under the guise of some trendy events or seminars, hyped by the best communication and PR professionals, are also not yielding commensurate results.

The first task will, therefore, be to come out of this decade old self-created imbroglio, as the pharma’s topmost head honchos will hopefully realize that the name of today’s game is ‘managing public perception’ of the pharma industry. This would simultaneously necessitate replacing the self-serving goals with the ones that would delight the customers – genuinely – sans façade of any kind.

Pharma’s reputation to be on par with the tobacco industry?

According to ZS: ‘Recent polls and surveys demonstrate that the pharmaceutical industry’s reputation continues to be plagued by negative perceptions.’ It further adds: ‘Many consumers still consider pharma’s reputation to be on par with the tobacco industry, positioning one product category that treats cancer just above a product category that causes it.’ It appeared in the Aug 01, 2017 issue of ZS, titled ‘Reputation Is Paramount, So What’s Holding Pharma Companies Back?’

Is reputation mostly driven by perception?

The reputation or image of a person, an organization or any industry is generally a matter of perception of individuals, formed based on multiple reasons. As Edward de Bono - Physician, author, and originator of the term lateral thinking had put it – ‘Perception is real even when it is not reality.’ Accepting this dictum, even more profound is what he said further - ‘You can analyze the past, but you need to design the future.’

It’s critical to understand the process of ‘perception,’ as out of so much available information, only some are selectively received, organized and interpreted to develop individual perception. More important is the fact that perceptions often become strong inputs to take individual decisions, actions or to express views.

‘Designing the future’ from the pharma industry perspective:

To design an inclusive model of the pharma industry future, the first requirement will be establishing a ‘true connect’ between the industry and the public, based on the latter’s expectations, aspirations, needs and demands, from the industry. This new process being far from self-serving in nature, needs to be steered by ‘perception management’ experts, based on credible data pool – and not by the gut feelings of the hard-core lobbyists or self-styled advocacy experts.

The reformed industry objective – ‘delight the customers while making money’, will form the core of this new ‘perception management’ model. This would entail fleshing out – step by step, the blueprint of its action plan, while pharma should be seen by all to walk the talk.

Creating a positive perception for pharma:

As described in the book ‘Getting Ahead,’ creating a positive perception would prompt taking four basic steps, each of which will help enhance the current view that others have and improve any negative opinion that exists.

Taking a cue from what the author suggests, the first step is to discern how pharma industry is generally perceived by others. Each and every industry practice affecting its stakeholders, particularly patients, is being observed, analyzed and directly affects how others perceive the industry. The author further adds, ‘inaccurate perceptions show you how easy it is for others to incorrectly perceive you.’

The second step is also equally important, as it involves knowing, without any bias, how the industry is ‘actually’ perceived and why – mainly based on consumer feedback, collected and analyzed on a scientific platform.

The third step may involve an intensive internal brainstorming of scale, to zero-in to how the pharma industry would ‘want’ it to be perceived and capture the same in an easy to understand format for all, after pilot testing it.

And the fourth step is most challenging that will help determine how to replace the current perception with the most desirable one.

Conclusion:

As rising drug prices increasingly becoming a major political and public talking point, pharmaceutical groups in America are, reportedly, splurging heavily to influence public opinion and policy. With a spending of roughly USD 280 million, it featured at the top spot among lobbying spenders in 2018 – - with no other industry coming close. However, when one looks at the outcome of such spending either in the American political sphere or within the government, one can find what even President Trump is saying - ‘One of my greatest priorities is to reduce the price of prescription drugs.’ Similarly, when it comes to the public – the Gallup Poll 2019 points out:‘The pharmaceutical industry is now the most poorly regarded industry in Americans’ eyes, ranking last on a list of 25 industries that Gallup tests annually.’

The old industry practices - “from generating the highest drug costs in the world to spending massive amounts on lobbying politicians to the industry’s role in the U.S. Opioid crisis,” are no longer yielding results, due to a radical change in public perception of the drug industry. Even the most powerful current political personality and one of the most business-friendly politician – President Trump, can’t risk ignoring it.

If at all, the drug industry and its trade associations are trying to mold a favorable public opinion with such heavy spending, those efforts are also not working at all. Pharma’s public image crash comes, as the general population strongly dislike, disapprove or remain indifferent on various drug-related issues or methods and processes that the industry follows to earn huge money – even at the cost of patients’ health interests. As a result, a strong negative perception of pharma is created that often indirectly impacts many policy decisions.

So far, pharma hasn’t succeeded in achieving one of its key lobbying goals by managing public perception, effectively. To make it happen, its predominating self-serving interest, that is progressively alienating the public, must be jettisoned, forthwith. The time is ripe to create a new, strong and sustainable public perception for the industry, even in India, by managing customer perception, while making them feel genuinely delighted with company’s products and service offerings. With these contemporary inputs, conducive government policies facilitating a strong business performance, will surely be the most cherished output.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Opioid Crisis: A Looming Threat To India?

Posted on September 16, 2019 by Tapan Ray

A serious, but a typical health crisis that has shaken America, is now, apparently, in search of its prey in India – a soft target to ignite a raging fire of misuse or abuse of prescription drugs of addictive in nature. That India could probably be the next victim of this menace, is now being widely discussed and reported in the international media, though not so much in India, itself.

The January 2019 communique of the National Institute of Drug Abuse spotlights: ‘Every day more than 130 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids.’ Whereas, in 2017, more than 47,000 Americans, among 1.7 million suffering people, died as a result of an Opioid overdose. Snowballing effect of Opioids addiction commenced over a couple of decades ago and includes – both prescription pain relievers and synthetic Opioids, such as fentanyl, among others.

The health menace of this humongous dimension is not only jeopardizing public health, but also impacting the social and economic welfare, work productivity, besides drug addiction related criminal behavior of an increasing number of addicts.

In this article, exploring the factors – that not just ignited, but fueled this fire, I shall try to explain why India could be a fertile ground for another opioid epidemic. The key intent is to thwart this menace without further delay, learning from the ‘Opioid crisis’ in the United States. Moving towards that direction, I begin with a brief description of the genesis of this crisis, primarily to ensure that all my readers are on the same page to feel the gravity of the situation.

The genesis of Opioid crisis:

The terms – ‘Opioid epidemic’ or ‘Opioid crisis’are generally referred to rapid increase in consumption of prescription and nonprescription Opioid drugs in America that began in the late 1990s. It is noteworthy, until the mid-1980s and early 1990s, physicians seldom prescribed opiates because of the fear of addicting patients. This was established in several studies, such as, the July-August 2016 Article, titled ‘Drug Company Compensated Physicians Role in Causing America’s Deadly Opioid Epidemic: When Will We Learn?’

In the ninety’s, as the above paper indicates, some “medical experts and thought leaders led by the neurologist and pain specialist Russell Portenoy, MD, proclaimed that the risks of addiction to Opioids were minimal and that not treating pain was cruel and even amounted to medical negligence.” Incidentally, Russell Portenoy was at that time known as the “King of Pain” and was the Chairman of Pain Medicine and Palliative Care at Beth Israel Hospital in New York.

The paper also articulated, “Portenoy and his acolytes wrote articles and gave lectures to physicians about the safety of narcotics. They repeatedly cited a study by Porter and Jick in ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ that stated that only one percent of patients treated with narcotics became addicted.” It is a different matter, as the authors indicated, the above trial was ‘not a controlled study at all. It consisted of a short 101-word one paragraph letter to the editor.’

Understandably, the rapid spread of Opioid use in America commenced on the following years. As The author highlighted: “To this day in most American hospitals, nurses on their daily rounds, ask patients to rate their pain on a scale of one to ten and then may administer a narcotic accordingly.”

HHS corroborates the fact:

In line with the finding of the above paper, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) traces the origin of the U.S. Opioid Epidemic in the late 1990s. When, asHHS also reiterated, ‘pharmaceutical companies reassured the medical community that patients would not become addicted to opioid pain relievers.’ Presumably, the general image of the pharma industry not being as questionable as today, ‘health care providers began to prescribe them at greater rates,’ – HHS further noted.

Thereafter, all hell broke loose, as it were.With increased prescriptions of Opioid medications, the widespread misuse of both prescription and non-prescription Opioids started taking its toll. Obviously, it happened as the prescribers were not as cautious and restrictive and concerned about prescribing Opioids because of their addictive nature, as they were before 1990s. It seems unlikely that astute medical practitioners won’t be able to fathom the devastating health impact of such highly addictive medications on the users.

America had to declare the Opioid crisis as public health emergency:

In 2017 HHS declared Opioid crisis as a public health emergency, announcing a strategy to combat this epidemic. Separately, in October 2017, President Trump also declared the same as the ‘worst drug crisis in U.S. history’.One can sense this Presidential level urgency from the recent report of The Washington Post. It emphasized - ‘America’s largest drug companies saturated the country with 76 billion oxycodone and hydrocodone pain pills from 2006 through 2012, as the nation’s deadliest drug epidemic spun out of control.’

The above information comes from a database maintained by the Drug Enforcement Administration that tracks the path of every single pain pill sold in the United States – from manufacturers and distributors to pharmacies in every town and city. The data would provide an unprecedented look at the surge of legal pain pills that fueled the Opioid epidemic, resulting in nearly 100,000 deaths from 2006 through 2012, as the article highlighted.

In view of this, and also looking at the chronology of the genesis of this crisis, it is worth exploring the role of pharma companies in triggering this health hazard in America.

The role of pharma companies in the crisis:

That there is, apparently, a role of some big pharma players in the Opioid crisis was widely reported by the international media. One such article titled, ‘Big Pharma Is Starting to Pay for the Opioid Crisis. Make Those Payments Count,’ was publishesby The New York Times, on August 28, 2019.

It said: ‘As innumerable court documents and investigations have shown, Opioid makers, including Purdue and Johnson & Johnson, routinely and knowingly misled the public about their products. They played down the risks of addiction, insisting that their drugs were safe and, if anything, underutilized. And they combated growing concerns with aggressive lobbying and public relations campaigns.’

The September 01, 2019 article titled – ‘America’s Opioid catastrophe has lessons for us all, about greed and racial division’, published in The Guardian went a step forward. Explaining the reason for the situation to attain a ‘crisis’ stage, it said, ‘big pharma saw huge profits in medicalizing the social stress of the white working class.’ Thus, the question that comes up, is there any strong and credible evidence to associate Opioid crisis with pharma marketing?

Association of Opioid crisis with pharma marketing:

Several reports point towards a possible pharma-doctor nexus for the Opioid crisis. One such evidence is provided by the same July-August 2016 Article, as quoted above. The paper said:‘Recently and belatedly, Portenoy has backtracked and admitted he was wrong about the addictive properties of Opioids.’ He was quoted in the article saying: “I gave innumerable lectures in the late 1980s and ‘90s about addiction that weren’t true.”

Another original investigation report in this regard, titled ‘‘Association of Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing of Opioid Products With Mortality From Opioid-Related Overdoses’, was published in JAMAon January 18, 2019. The paper concluded:‘In this study, across US counties, marketing of Opioid products to physicians was associated with increased Opioid prescribing and, subsequently, with elevated mortality from overdoses. Amid a national Opioid overdose crisis, reexamining the influence of the pharmaceutical industry may be warranted.’

The article also indicated: ‘Recent data suggest that when physicians receive Opioid marketing, they subsequently prescribe more Opioids.’ The researchers pointed out:‘Amid a worsening Opioid crisis, our results suggest that industry marketing to physicians may run counter to current efforts to curb excessive Opioid prescribing.’

Again, the same September 01, 2019 article, published in The Guardian, also stresses– ‘The relationship between big pharma and US doctors can only be described as corrupt.’ Quoting the official figures, it highlighted: ‘The total paid to doctors and hospitals by drug companies was more than $9bn. Unsurprisingly, the greater the payments, the more willing doctors were to prescribe Opioids.’

The India’s tryst with Opioid drugs:

As many would know, India has remained for a long time one of the largest Opioid medicine producers in the world. However, most of the country’s population had a restricted access to Opioid pain relief drugs.

This was because, the International Narcotics Control Board, established in 1968, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985 ‘codified the bureaucratic thicket for any doctor who wanted to prescribe opioid painkillers. Physicians feared fines, jail sentences and losing their medical license if they skirted regulations.’

The amendment came in 2014:

According to reports, the need for pain relief being “an important obligation of the government,” the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, was amended in 2014, creating a class of medicines called the “essential narcotic drugs.” The list of which includes, morphine, fentanyl, methadone, oxycodone, codeine and hydrocodone. Alongside, the conditions for bail in drug offenses will be relaxed and the mandatory death penalty for those previously convicted of certain offenses will be revoked.This is expected to create a better balance between narcotic drug control and the availability of Opioid drugs, for beneficial use of patients.

The flip side – a looming threat?

So far so good. Nevertheless, another article – ‘How big pharma is targeting India’s booming Opioid market,’ appeared in The Guardian on August 27, 2019, shows the flip side of this development. It says, as India loosens its stringent narcotics laws, ‘American pharmaceutical companies – architects of the Opioid crisis in the United States and avid hunters of new markets – stand at the ready to fuel that demand.’

Many are truly concerned about it, especially in a country like India, where any medicine can be procured over the counter, hoodwinking robust drug laws. Thus, as the above article adds, ‘a looming deluge of addictive painkillers terrifies some Indian medical professionals, who are keenly aware that despite government regulations most drugs are available for petty cash at local chemist shops.’

Providers of pain management are increasing, so also self-medication:

Today, ‘pain management’ as a specialty treatment, can be seen in many hospitals of the country. In tandem – apparently, ‘at the insistence of the professional societies that accredit hospitals in India, nurses and doctors are now encouraged to assess pain as a “fifth vital sign“, along with pulse, temperature, breathing and blood pressure.’ Besides, as The Guardian article of August 27, 2019 also noted, ‘General practitioners have started prescribing these drugs.’

Yet another important point to note, according to studies, one of the most common reasons for self-medication is for pain – 18.34 percent, where self-medication is done with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in 49.4 percent of cases. Keeping pace with this trend, most generic pharma companies are having pain management product in their brand portfolio, unlike a couple of decades ago.

Early signs of drug companies’ special marketing activities:

There are many examples. But I shall quote The Guardian article again to drive home this point. The paper talks about hints of ‘American pharma’s fingerprints’ in a glass cabinet in the waiting room of a famous clinic in Delhi. Some of these include ‘awards from Johnson & Johnson honoring the doctor for symposia on pain management; a plaque for “his valuable contribution as a speaker” about tapentadol, an Opioid marketed by Johnson & Johnson in 2009. The dispensing counter does a brisk business in Ultracet, branded tramadol tablets made by a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary.’

Alongside, another interesting point is peeps in – the drugs, which are now commonly prescribed for chronic pain were first approved for use by cancer patients. ‘One of the first formulations of fentanyl, for example, was a lollipop because chemotherapy left cancer patients too nauseated to eat. In India, pain physicians now prescribe fentanyl patches to patients with chronic muscular pain.’

Every year, more of such drugs are coming to market. Many chemists, hospitals and medical shops are also acquiring requisite licenses for keeping these drugs. Curiously, Opioids are available in not just oral, but injectable, patches and syrups – the article noted.

Conclusion:

There are many striking similarities between the developments that preceded the American Opioid crisis and the emerging scenario of the same in India. One such is, its onset in America was in the late 1990s, with the regulatory relaxation in introducing Opioid drugs. However, the first announcement of the full-blown crisis on the same, took a couple of decades to come.

In India, the regulatory relaxation for some Opioid drugs came in 2014, and now its 2019. Thus, it’s possibly too early to even track, in which direction it is moving. However, given the prevailing overall healthcare scenario in India, the concern remains palpable. The decision makers, hopefully, would consider putting in place effective checks and balances, taking a leaf from the American Opioid epidemic. The measures should include, among others, effective implementation of legal and regulatory provisions; making health care delivery systems robust and transparent; protecting vulnerable patients from rampant and irresponsible self-medication, besides promptly addressing general concerns with pharma marketing practices.

The whole process should be aimed at benefitting the deserving patients, suffering from excruciating pain, while minimizing Opioid drug misuse or abuse. There should not be any repetition of human sufferings on this score, like what people are now witnessing in America. Effective action from all concerned – right from now, will decide whether or not Opioid crisis is a looming threat that India can successfully neutralize.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Spirit Behind Drug Patent Grant: Secondary Patents: Impact on Drug Access

Posted on September 9, 2019 by Tapan Ray

For more effective treatment against existing diseases, besides combating new or a more complicated form of existing ailments with precision, drug innovation is absolutely necessary and on an ongoing basis. This makes innovative drugs so important for the population, globally.

Besides academia, the pharma industry has remained in the forefront of the search for new drugs, for so long. What makes this process so crucial is, cheaper generic drugs flow from the innovative drugs, post market exclusivity period, which together form the bedrock of the pharma industry’s business model. Consequently, a robust patent protection for the new molecular entities, not only enable the drug innovators to make a reasonably good profit, but also encourage them to keep this virtuous circle moving, faster.

Although, the drug patents are granted for 20 years, after obtaining marketing approval from the respective drug regulators, a time period - ranging between 7 and 12 years, is available to the company to realize its maximum commercial benefits. Thereafter, the patent expires, paving the way of market entry of cheaper generic equivalents to make the drug accessible to a larger population. This is the playbook, which deserves to be accepted and respected by all, both in the letter and spirit.

Currently, the narrative has started changing, apparently, repudiating the spirit behind the grant of new drug patents, especially with the entry of a number of expensive, large molecule biopharmaceutical drugs. After obtaining a fixed-term market exclusivity, more intricate legal measures are being taken to extend the fixed-term market monopoly for an unknown period, delaying market entry of cheaper biosimilar equivalents, post patent expiry, as long as possible.

In this milieu, India appears to be the only country in the world, where the country’s ‘Patents Act’ provides enough safeguard to blunt those legal tools, effectively, to protect patients’ health interest. Quite expectedly, this new narrative of the drug innovators is yielding the best return in the Eldorado of the pharma world – the Unites States. It is also no secret that US vehemently opposes several provisions of the Indian Patents Act 2005, under pressure from the most powerful pharma lobby group, as many believe.

Using the spirit behind drug patent protection as the backdrop, I shall dwell in this article, how this so precious spirit is gradually losing its basic purpose, especially for blockbuster biopharma drugs. Is the key intent behind sacrificing the spirit behind drug patent grant to keep their brands money spinners and big – even after expiry of original patent – as long as possible – at the cost of patients’ health interest?

Despite the original patent expiry, biggest biologic drugs remain big:

The fact that original patent expiries have done little to halt sales of some of the industry’s biggest products – mostly biologic drugs, was clearly elucidated in an Evaluate Pharma article – “Biopharma’s biggest sellers – the oldies that just keep giving,” published on August 14, 2019. This gets vindicated, as we look at the ‘top ten pharma brands with biggest lifetime sales – from launch to 2018’, in the following Table I:

	Product	Company	Launch year	USD Billion
1.	Lipitor	Pfizer	1997	164.43
2	Humira	AbbVie	2003	136.55
3.	Rituxan	Genentech/Biogen	1997	111.50
4.	Enbrel	Amgen	1998	108.16
5.	Epogen	Amgen	1988	107.90
6.	Advair	GSK	1998	104.20
7.	Remicade	Janssen	1998	98.00
8.	Zantac	GSK	1981	97.42
9.	Plavix	Sanofi/BMS	1998	90.63
10.	Herceptin	Genentech/Roche	1998	87.97

(Adapted from Evaluate Pharma data of August 14, 2019)

The point to take note of:

The point worth noting here, with the exception of Advair, Zantac, Lipitor and Plavix, all others – among the top ten brands, are biologic drugs. Moreover, what is most striking in the Table I, despite the expiry of the original patents, a large number of biologic brands were able to expand their sales, pretty impressively, for well over two decades. As we shall see later, this situation is expected to continue, at least, till 2024. As the Evaluate Pharma article states, for various reasons, these multibillion dollar brands have been able to avoid the expected post patent expiry ‘onslaught from biosimilars in the key US market’, which is incidentally the most valuable pharma market in the world.

One of the key reasons that helps delaying cheaper biosimilar drug entry expanding patient access, is a crafty strategic measure adopted by these companies through the creation of a Patent Thicket with secondary patents. As I discussed in this Blog on April 22, 2019, this is a crafty way of ‘evergreening’ patent term beyond 20 years, legally. Whether such measures conform to the spirit of granting 20 years product patent, becomes a moral question, or an issue of probity for the concerned companies, at the most. Be that as it may, a concern over this situation has been raised in many countries, including the United States.

Barrier of secondary patents:

Biosimilar drug developers continue facing multiple non-financial challenges, such as, scientific, regulatory, pricing. I have already discussed some of these barriers in this blog on July 31, 2017. Instead, I shall focus in this article, with greater detail, on the intricate and a well-woven net of secondary patents. However,before delving into this area, it will be worthwhile to have a quick recap on the basic differences between original patents and secondary patents.

According to WIPO, “Patents on active ingredients are referred to as primary patents. In later phases of the drug development, patents are filed on other aspects of active ingredients such as different dosage forms, formulations, production methods etc. These types of patents are referred to as secondary patents.”

Another excellent paper, authored by two distinguished researchers from Columbia University and LSE, makes some important points on this subject. It says, secondary patents have become increasingly important to the pharma industry, especially in the U.S. and Europe over the past three decades. The basic purpose of ‘taking out multiple patents on different aspects of a drug in order to cordon off competitors is now standard practice in the pharmaceutical industry.’ As the authors further said, this is primarily because: ‘Secondary patents can protect market shares by extending periods of exclusivity beyond the dates in which patent protection would otherwise lapse.’

Interestingly. devising patent strategies to extend periods of market exclusivity is generally considered in the industry, as a key component of ‘product life cycle management,’ – not by the marketing whiz kids, but by astute patent attorneys. Nevertheless, as the paper articulates, critics of this practice often use the more pejorative – evergreening, to describe it.

Examples of impact of secondary patents:

Many research papers suggest, besides scientific complexity in biosimilar drug development being a key reason for their delayed market entry, secondary patents are even tougher barriers for the same. This was brought to light a few years ago in a ‘Review Article’ – ‘The Economics of Biosimilars’, published in the September/October 2013 issue of American Health & Drug Benefits.

Some of the key points made on this issue include,AbbVie plan to defend Humira (adalimumab) with more than 200 secondary patents, Merck’s giving up its biosimilar project on Enbrel when Amgen got its expanded patent life. There are many other such instances.

Its effect would last longer:

Experts believe, the effect of creating a strong secondary patent shield around blockbuster biologic would last much longer. As the above Evaluate Pharma article underscores: ‘This ability to fend off biosimilar competition is one of the reasons Humira is set to snatch Lipitor’s crown next year as the industry’s most successful drug.’

The Table II below that lists ‘top 10 pharma brands from their respective launch date, including estimated forecast till 2024’, vindicates its long-lasting impact:

	Product	Company	Launch year	USD Billion
1.	Humira	AbbVie	2003	240.05
2	Lipitor	Pfizer	1997	180.19
3.	Enbrel	Amgen	1998	139.83
4.	Rituxan	Genentech/Biogen	1997	136.07
5.	Revlimid	Celgene	2008	123.64
6.	Remicade	Janssen	1998	117.20
7.	Epogen	Amgen	1988	115.87
8.	Herceptin	Genentech/Roche	1998	114.89
9.	Avastin	Genentech/Roche	2004	114.27
10.	Advair	GSK	1998	113.61

(Adapted from Evaluate Pharma data of August 14, 2019)

Although, Zantac and Plavix no longer feature in this table, one drug that leapfrogged much of the competition to become one of the industry’s biggest future bestsellers is Revlimid. The projected sales of the drug over the next six years will actually outstrip its sales to date. However, much of this is dependent on whether generic competition will arrive ahead of Revlimid’s 2022 patent expiry, the paper indicated.

Concern expressed even in the US for the delay in biosimilar market entry:

Many big spending countries on health care, such as the United States expected that timely biosimilar drug entry will help contain health expenditure significantly. However, the article published in the Fierce Pharma on August 29, 2019, raises an alarm, but with a hope for the future. It says: “It’s no secret biosimilars haven’t made a big dent in U.S. drug spending. Some experts have even said it’s time to give up on copycat biologic.”

This hope gets resonated with what, ‘the former US-FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb argues’. He feels, ‘It’s too soon for that’, while ‘calling on Congress to bolster the budding market.’ However, in my personal view, this will remain a difficult proposition to implement, as biologic drug players will continue using their relatively new, but powerful weapon of filing a number of complex ‘secondary patents.’ These will help extend the market exclusivity period of their respective brands, much beyond the original patent grant period, unless a counter legal measures are taken by the lawmakers of various countries, including the United States. But, India is an exception in this regard.

Indian patent law doesn’t encourage ‘secondary patents’:

The good news is, Indian Patent Act 2005, doesn’t encourage ‘secondary patent.’ This is because, section 3 (d) of the Indian Patent Act 2005 limits grant of ‘secondary pharmaceutical patents.’ An interesting study reported on February 08, 2018, discussed about 1,700 rejections for pharma patents at the IPO spanning over the last decade. But, there is a huge scope for improvement in this area.

Which is why, the not so good news is under-utilization of the same section 3.d by the Indian Patent Office (IPO), as are being voiced in many reports. One such paper of April 25, 2018 highlighted,72 per cent of pharma patent grants are secondary patents. These were granted for marginal improvements over previously known drugs for which primary patents exist. That said, despite such reported lapses, blocking of some crucial secondary patent grant has benefited a large number of patient population of India.

Blocking secondary patent grant has helped India immensely:

While US recognizes secondary patents, blocking secondary patent grant, especially for biologic drugs has helped Indian patients immensely, with expanded access to those medicines. This was also captured in the above study. Besides the classic case of Novartis losing its secondary patent challenge for Glivec in the Supreme Court of India in 2013, several other examples of secondary patent rejection are also available. This includes, among others, Glivec of Novartis and the world’s top selling drug for several years – Humira of AbbVie.Against a month’s therapy cost of ₹1,6o, ooo for Glivec in the US, its Indian biosimilar version costs for the same period ₹11,100. Similarly, while the treatment cost with Humira in the US is ₹85,000, the same with its biosimilar version in India is ₹ 13,500, as the above study finds.

Conclusion:

The core purpose of drug innovation, as widely touted by the R&D-based drug companies, is meeting the unmet needs of patients in the battles against diseases. Thus, drug innovation of this genre must not just be encouraged, but also be adequately protected and rewarded by granting product monopoly for a 20-year period from the date of the original patent grant. Curiously, piggybacking on this basic spirit behind the drug patent grant, pharma lobby groups are now vocal on their demand for giving similar treatment to secondary patents on various molecules. The tone of demand gets shriller when it comes to section 3. d of the Indian Patents Act, which doesn’t allow such ‘evergreening’ through secondary patents.

Thus, the key question that surfaces, while the original patent grant for innovative drugs help meeting unmet needs of some patients, whose unmet needs would a secondary patent grant meet, except making the concerned company richer? Further, for highly expensive biologic drugs, delayed market entry of cheaper biosimilars in that process, would deny their expanded access – failing to meet the unmet needs of scores of others.

Hopefully, India won’t give in to pressure of multinational pharma lobby groups, channeled through various powerful overseas government entities. At the same time, I hope, the government in power at the Eldorado of the pharma industry, will consider giving a fair chance of market entry to cheaper biosimilars, including those from India, to also grow their business globally, but in a win-win way.

The key objective of all stakeholders involved in this process, should be to uphold the basic spirit behind drug patent grant. It may even call for challenging the core intent behind secondary patent applications, the world over, that deny quicker market entry for cheaper biosimilars, sans heavy litigation expenses. This will help expand access to cheaper biologic medicines to all those who can’t afford those, otherwise.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Ray

Would ‘Complex Generics’ Attract More ‘Authorized Generics’?

Reaping Rich Harvest With Orphan Drugs

Dynamics of Cancer Therapy Segment Remain Enigmatic

Pharma: ‘Digitalization’ Not A Panacea – A Basic Step For Giant Leaps

A New Facet of ‘Data Integrity’ With Novel Therapy… And Much Beyond

Pharma’s Perception Management

Opioid Crisis: A Looming Threat To India?

Spirit Behind Drug Patent Grant: Secondary Patents: Impact on Drug Access