The Concept of Orphan Drugs for Orphan Diseases is Orphan in India

Posted on September 10, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Though the percentage of patients suffering from ‘Rare Diseases’ in India is reportedly higher than the world average, unfortunately even today such cases get little help from our government.

According to experts, diseases manifesting patients representing maximum 6 to 8 percent of the world population are defined as ‘Rare Diseases’ and most of such diseases being ‘Orphaned’ by the global pharmaceutical industry, mainly because of commercial considerations, are termed as ‘Orphan Diseases’. Consequently when any drug is developed specifically to treat an ‘Orphan or a Rare Disease’ condition is called an ‘Orphan Drug’.

According to SanOrphan SA, Geneva, Switzerland, around 65 percent of rare diseases are serious and disabling. More interestingly, about 250 new rare diseases are discovered each year, corresponding to five new rare diseases per week.

However, without appropriate ecosystem being in place, developing a new drug (Orphan Drug) specifically to treat a very small number of patient populations suffering from any particular type of rare disease through highly cost intensive R&D initiatives, generating a low return on investments, has been extremely challenging for any pharmaceutical company.

The challenge and the need:

Public awareness drives for ‘Orphan Diseases’ first originated in the USA with the formation of a rare disease support group representing around 200,000 patients suffering from such ailments.

However, very limited market especially for those ‘Orphan Drugs’ , which are meant for the treatment of a single rare disease, has been discouraging the large pharmaceutical players to make major R&D investments for such molecules, as mentioned above.

In response to the public awareness campaigns and at the same time understanding the commercial imperatives of the pharmaceutical companies in developing “Orphan Drugs’, a path breaking legislation was formulated by the U.S government way back in 1983, known as ‘Orphan Drugs Act (ODA)’. The key purpose of ODA was to incentivize R&D initiatives for such drugs to treat around 25 million Americans suffering from ‘Orphan Diseases’.

Though similar legal and policy interventions are of utmost importance to allay the sufferings of millions of patients fighting rare diseases in India, precious little has been initiated in this direction by the government, thus far.

Orphan Drugs in the USA:

U.S Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) provides orphan status to drugs and biologics which are defined as:

Those intended for the safe and effective treatment, diagnosis or prevention of rare diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the U.S.
Or, those affect more than 200,000 persons but are not expected to recover the costs of developing and marketing a treatment drug.

India perspective:

For the first time in India, to increase awareness for the rare diseases, Rare Diseases Day was observed in New Delhi on February 28, 2010. Subsequently 2nd and the 3^rd ‘Rare Disease Days’ were observed in Chennai and Mumbai in 2011 and 2012, respectively.

About 6000 to 8000 rare diseases, mostly genetic in nature have been identified in India. It was initially estimated that over 31 million Indians are suffering from rare diseases in the country, many of these diseases still do not have any cure.

However, The Hindu in April 2012 reported, “Taking the lower limit of global prevalence estimate, populous nations like India and China should have more than 70 million rare disease cases each.”

Inaction in India:

The report further highlights that enough awareness has still not been created in India to address this challenge, despite publication of several rare disease case reports in the peer reviewed journals and existence of a number of support groups, though with inadequate resources.

Use of ‘Social Media’ to increase awareness:

Even in the developed markets, leave aside India, it is still hard to get required health related information for individuals suffering from rare diseases. In many countries, finding no better alternatives, such patients decide to be virtual experts on the diseases they are suffering from, making full use of social media, like Facebook.

Interaction through social media often makes it easier for such patients not only to find each other, but also to share expertise and experience eventually to get proper medical care with affordable drugs.

‘Orphan Drugs Act’ must come with adequate incentives:

ODA, when enacted in India, should not be a half-hearted approach or be a zero-sum game for all. It should come with adequate financial and other incentives to create a sound business sense in this new ball game for the pharmaceutical players in India.

Just for example, the incentives of the ODA in the U.S include:

Funding towards investigation for “Orphan Disease’ treatment
Tax credit for Clinical Research
Waiver of fees for New Drug Application (NDA)
Offering more lucrative incentive than product patent (product patent requires the drug to be novel), as the orphan designation of the product by the US FDA and product approval by them are the only requirements for 7 year market exclusivity of an ‘Orphan Drug’ for the specified indication
Market exclusivity of ‘Orphan Drugs’ become effective from the date of regulatory approval, unlike product patent, product development time remains outside this period
The drugs, which are not eligible for product patent, may be eligible for market exclusivity as an ‘Orphan Drug’ by the US-FDA

Proof of the pudding is in the eating:

Thanks to this Act, currently around 230 ‘Orphan Drugs’ are available in the U.S for the treatment of around 11 million patients suffering from rare diseases. With the help of ‘Human Genome Project’ more orphan diseases are expected to be identified and newer drugs will be required to treat these rare ailments of human population.

‘Orphan Drugs Act’ encourages ‘Orphan Drugs’ development:

It is now a reasonably well accepted fact that ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ encourages ‘Orphan Drugs’ development.

In an article titled, “What the Orphan Drug Act has done lately for children with rare diseases: a 10-year analysis”, published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), U.S, National Library of Medicine, the authors articulated that in the U.S. 1138 orphan drugs were designated and 148 received marketing approval, of which 38 (26%) were for pediatric diseases, from 2000 to 2009. The percentage of approvals for pediatric products increased from 17.5 (10 of 57) in the first half of the decade, as compared to 30.8 (28 of 91) in the second half.

Based on the data the paper concluded that incentives provided in the ‘Orphan Drugs Act (ODA)’ of the United States of America, have led to increased availability of specific drugs for the treatment of ‘Rare Diseases’ in the country.

Others followed… but when will India…?

As stated above, 1983 signaled the importance of ‘Orphan Drugs’ with the ‘Orphan Drugs Act (ODA) in the U.S. A decade after, in 1993, Japan took similar initiative followed by Australia in 1999. Currently, Singapore, South Korea, Canada and New Zealand are also having their country specific ODAs.

Following similar footsteps, India should also encourage its domestic pharmaceutical industry to get engaged in research to discover drugs for rare diseases by putting an ‘Orphan Drugs Act’ in place, extending financial support, tax exemptions and regulatory concessions like smaller and shorter clinical trials, without further delay.

Every day millions of Indians will continue to suffer from ‘Orphan Diseases’ without affordable treatment, in the absence of an appropriate policy framework in the country for ‘Orphan Drugs’.

Another vindication of the argument:

It is worth repeating that an ODA with proper incentives has been the key motivating factor for the development of many drugs and treatment for a large number of rare diseases, since 1983.

Looking at the increasing number of approvals, it appears that CAGR of ‘Orphan Drugs’ will now be far greater than other drugs. Even in 2011 as many as 11 ‘Orphan Drugs’ have been approved by the US-FDA, as stated below:

Company	Brand Name	Generic Name	Type of Approval	Indication	Month in 2011
Bristol-Myers Squibb	YERVOY	Ipilimumab	New biologic licence application	Metastatic Melanoma	March
IPR Pharmaceuticals	CAPRELSA	Vandetanib	New molecular entity	Advance medullary thyroid cancer	April
Bristol-Myers Squibb	NULOJIX	Belatacept	New biologic licence application	Prevent organ transplant rejection	June
Seattle generics	ADCETRIS	Brentuximab vedotin	New biologic licence application	Hodgkin lymphoma and systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma	August
Roche	ZELBORAF	Vemurafenib	New molecular entity	Metastatic melanoma	August
Shire	FIRAZYR	Icatibant acetate	New molecular entity	Hereditary angioedema	August
Pfizer	XALKORI	Crizotinib	New molecular entity	Late stage lung cancer	August
ApoPharma	FERRIPROX	Deferiprone	New molecular entity	Thalassemia	October
Lundbeck	ONFI	Clobazam	New molecular entity	Seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome	October
Incite	JAKAFI	Ruxolitinib	New molecular entity	Myelofibrosis	November
EUSA Pharma	ERWINAZE	Asparaginase Erwinia chrysanthemi	New biologic licence application	Acute lymphoblastic leukemia	November

(Source: Ernst & Young, FDA and company website. 2012)

The above facts, once again, vindicate the argument that the ODA of the kind of the U.S, broadly speaking, is worth emulating by India with appropriate modifications as relevant to the country.

The global Market:

A new report from Thomson Reuters indicate that the global market for ‘Orphan Drugs’ was over US$50 billion in 2011.

It has also been reported that ‘Orphan Drugs’ contribute 6 percent of US$ 880 billion global pharmaceutical market with a CAGR of 25.8 percent as compared to 20.1 percent for ‘Non-Orphan Drugs’ during 2001 to 2010 period.

High price of ‘Orphan Drugs’ is an issue:

The most challenging part in the fight against ‘Orphan Diseases’ is access to an affordable treatment, especially to affordable ‘Orphan Drugs’.

For obvious reasons, the prices of ‘Orphan Drugs’ are usually very high, some even costs as high as US$ 400,000 annually and thus beyond affordability of many who are outside the purview of any drug price reimbursement scheme.

Most of such drugs are rarely available in India and there is no reasonably affordable ‘rupee’ price for these drugs. Indian patients suffering from rare diseases will currently have no other alternative but to import these drugs directly in US$ term, unless Indian policy makers wake-up some day and take appropriate measures in this important area.

Additional commercial opportunities could be available with appropriate ODA:

Thomson Reuters reported additional commercial opportunities with an appropriate ODA, which are as follows:

15 percent of the ‘Orphan Drugs’ analyzed by them had subsequent launches for other rare illnesses.
6 out of the top 10 ‘Orphan Drugs’ had more than one rare disease indication with an average peak sales of US$ 34.3 billion in overall sales potential against around US$ 8.1 billion of the same for drugs with single indication.
Time taken for Clinical Trials (CT) focused on orphan drugs is significantly shorter with a quicker review time than trials involving non-orphan drugs.

Conclusion:

It is interesting to note that some of the ‘Orphan Diseases’ are now being diagnosed also in India. As the nation takes rapid strides in the medical science, more of such ‘Orphan Diseases’ are likely to be diagnosed in our country. Thus the moot question is how does India address this pressing issue with pro-active measures, now?

One of the ways to properly address this issue in India could well be to follow the model of our very own the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for an ‘Open Source Drug Discovery’ (OSDD) program with global partnerships, wherever necessary.

Thus in my view, with an appropriate ODA in place, leveraging the knowledge of OSDD acquired by CSIR and framing a robust win-win Public Private Partnership (PPP) model to discover and commercialize the ‘Orphan Drugs’, India could well demonstrate that the concept of Orphan Drugs for Orphan Diseases is really not Orphan in India.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Replication of ‘Old Paradigm’ of the developed pharmaceutical markets is unlikely to yield results in the evolving new paradigm of India

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Tapan Ray

“Health leaps out of science and draws nourishment from the society around it”

- Gunnar Myrdal (Swedish Nobel Laureate Economist)

The success concoction of the global pharmaceutical industry for India, by and large, still remains to be sustained attempts in various forms of replication of the ‘Old Paradigm’ of the developed world, even when a ‘Public Health Interest’ oriented new paradigm has started evolving in the country, faster than ever before.

Very interestingly, efforts to arrest this paradigm change still continue, even when healthcare related government policies are getting more and more ‘Public Health Interest’ oriented under increasingly assertive public opinion, together with healthcare cost containment initiatives of various governments also in the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.

Commercial and public relations strategies for replication or recreation of more or less similar business excellence environment of the developed pharmaceutical markets of the world now in India, though some may say is possible and would work, but in my view is highly improbable, at least in the foreseeable future. To be equally successful in India, creation of India centric robust and differentiated business models, broadly aligning with the new evolving paradigm of the country, could probably make more commercial sense for all concerned.

“See things as they are, not way you want them to be”:

“Maintain and sharpen your intellectual honesty so that you’re always realistic. See things as they are, not way you want them to be”, wrote the Management Guru – Mr. Ram Charan in his book titled, ‘Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done’ co-authored by Larry Bossidy. In the same book the authors deliberated on ‘The 10 Greatest CEOs Ever’.

One of these 10 greatest CEOs ever, George Merck of the global pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co articulated his vision for the Company way back in 1952 as follows:

“Medicine is for people, not for the profits.”

George Merck believed, the purpose of a corporation is to do something useful, and to do it well, which also ensures decent profits.

I have personally witnessed the Merck (MSD) employees to start their business presentations quoting the above famous vision, even today. George Merck’s vision, I reckon, is more relevant today than any time in the past.

In the same context, another very senior official of a global pharmaceutical major was quoted in the Harvard Business Review in its April 28, 2010 edition saying:

“As western pharmaceutical companies consider how to be successful in emerging markets, they must address two key questions:

How will we bring high-quality health care to patients wherever in the world they may live?
How do we effectively manage the transformation of the traditional pharmaceutical business model to one that meets the diverse range of needs of the emerging markets?”

He further said, “Our approach to providing patients with access to our medicines is evolving. We have extended a flexible-pricing strategy for middle-income countries to improve the affordability of our medicines and increase access for patients with lower income levels, while remaining profitable.”

Though some companies have been able to carefully pick up this important signal and strategize accordingly, many others still prefer to follow ‘their own ways’.

Increasing healthcare consumption of India attracting global players:

Along with the economic progress of India, healthcare consumption of the population of the country is also increasing at a reasonably faster pace. According to McKinsey India Report, 2007, the share of average household healthcare consumption has increased from 4 per cent in 1995 to 7 per cent in 2005 and is expected to increase to 13 per cent in 2025 with a CAGR of 9 per cent, as follows:

Share of Average Household Consumption (AHC) (%)


	Household Consumption	1995	2005 E	2015 F	2025 F	CAGR %
1.	Healthcare	4	7	9	13	9
2.	Education & Recreation	3	5	6	9	9
3.	Communication	1	2	3	6	12
4.	Transportation	11	17	19	20	7
5.	Personal Products and Services	4	8	9	11	8
6.	Household Products	2	3	3	3	5
7.	Housing & Utilities	14	12	12	10	5
8.	Apparel	5	6	5	5	5
9.	Food, Beverages & Tobacco	56	42	34	25	3

(Source; McKinsey India Report 2007)

From this study, it appears that among all common household consumption, the CAGR of ‘healthcare’ at 9 percent will be the second highest along with ‘education’ and ‘communication’ topping the growth chart at 12 percent.

As per this McKinsey study, in 2025, in terms of AHC for ‘healthcare’ (13 percent) is expected to rank third after ‘Food & Beverages’ (25 percent) and ‘transportation’ (20 percent).

Thus, AHC for ‘healthcare’ shows a significant growth potential in India, over a period of time. Hence, this important area needs to attract as much attention of the policymakers, as it is attracting the pharmaceutical players from all over the world, to help translate the potential into actual performance with requisite policy, fiscal support and incentives.

Such a scenario in the pharmaceutical space is difficult to ignore by any player with an eye for the future.

Sectoral break-up of the Healthcare Industry:

Even while looking at the sectoral break-up of the healthcare industry, the significant share of the pharmaceutical industry should be quite enticing to many global companies.

According to IDFC Securities 2010, the sectoral break-up of the US$ 40 billion healthcare industry is as follows:

Industry	%
Hospitals	50
Pharma	25
Diagnostics	10
Insurance & Medical Equipment	15

(Source: IDFC Securities Hospital Sector, November 2010)

A promising market:

Pharmaceutical market of India holds an immense future promise already being globally recognized as one of the fastest growing healthcare markets of the world. All components in the healthcare space of the country including hospital and allied services are registering sustainable decent growth, riding mainly on private investments and now fueled by various government projects, such as:

National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)
National Urban Health Mission (NUHM)
Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY)
Universal Health Coverage (UHC)
Free Medicine from the Government hospitals
Centralized procurement by both the Central and the State Governments

Supported by newer, both public and private initiatives, like:

Increase in public spending on healthcare from 1.0 per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP in the 12th Five Year Plan period
Increasing participation of the private players in smaller towns and hinterland of the country
Wider coverage of health insurance
Micro-financing
Greater spread of telemedicine
More number of mobile diagnosis and surgical centers

Need to strike a right balance:

The pharmaceutical companies need to strike a right balance between ‘Public Health Interest’ and their expectations for a high margin ‘free market-like’ business policies in India.

Pharmaceuticals come under the ‘Essential Commodities Act’ in India, where government administered pricing for all drugs featuring in the ‘National List of Essential Medicines 2011’ is expected and cannot be wished away, at least, for now.

Despite all these concerns, India still remains a promising market for the pharmaceutical players, both global and local. McKinsey & Company in its report titled, “India Pharma 2020: Propelling access and acceptance realizing true potential” estimated that the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) will grow to US$ 55 billion by 2020 and the market has the potential to record a turnover of US$ 70 billion with a CAGR of 17 per cent during the same period.

Domestic Pharmaceutical Industry has come a long way:

Domestic pharmaceutical companies have positioned themselves as formidable forces to reckon with, not just locally but in the global generics market too.

Currently India:

Ranks 3rd in the world in terms of pharmaceutical sales volume.
Caters to around a quarter of the global requirements for generic drugs.
Meets around 70 per cent of the domestic demand for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API).
Has the largest number of US FDA approved plant outside USA
Files highest number of ANDAs and DMFs
One of most preferred global destinations for contract research and manufacturing services (CRAMS)

Patients are still being exploited:

Unfortunate and deplorable incidences of exploitation of patients, mainly by the private players, are critical impediments to foster growth in quality healthcare consumption within the country.

In this context, ‘The Lancet’, January 11, 2011 highlighted as follows:

“Reported problems (which patients face while getting treated at a private doctor’s clinic) include unnecessary tests and procedures, rewards for referrals, lack of quality standards and irrational use of injection and drugs. Since no national regulations exist for provider standards and treatment protocols for healthcare, over diagnosis, over treatment and maltreatment are common.”

Prevailing situation like this calls for urgent national regulations for provider-standards and treatment-protocols, at least for the common diseases in India and more importantly their stricter implementation across the country by both the global and local players.

Pharmaceutical key business processes in India are almost a ‘free-for-all’ type:

Despite many challenges and damning reports of the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committees, overall key business processes in India are something like ‘free-for-all’ types, mainly because of the following reasons:

No pan-India voluntary or mandatory code exists for ethical Sales and Marketing practices
Many regulatory controls and standards are reportedly below par
Regulatory control on clinical trials done in India is reportedly sub-standard. In many cases even adequate compensation towards trial related deaths is reportedly not paid to the victims families by the companies, mostly fixing responsibilities to the ‘Ethics Committees’.

Key factors to take note of in the changing paradigm:

While looking at the big picture, the global pharmaceutical players, I reckon, should take note of the following factors while formulating their India- specific game plan to be successful in the country without moaning much:

At least in the short to medium term, it will be unrealistic to expect that India will be a high margin / high volume market for the pharmaceutical sector in general, unlike many other markets, across the world.
India will continue to remain within the ‘modest-margin’ range with marketing excellence driven volume turnover.
The government focus on ‘reasonably affordable drug prices’ may get extended to patented products, medical devices / equipment and other related areas, as well.
Although innovation will continue to be encouraged in the country, the amended Patents Act of India is ‘Public Health Interest’ oriented and different from many other countries. This situation though very challenging for many innovator companies, is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, even under pressure of various “Free Trade Agreements (FTA)”.

Government no longer accepts that medicine prices are cheapest in India:

Pharmaceutical companies in India will be constrained to live with the continuing focus of the government and also of the civil society on ‘reasonably affordable medicines’ irrespective of the fact whether they are generic or patented.

The Department of Pharmaceuticals has reportedly started comparing the Indian drug prices with international equivalents in terms of the ‘purchasing power parity’ and ‘per capita income’ and not just their prevailing prices in various developed markets converted to rupees.With such comparisons the government has already started voicing that prices of medicines in India are not the cheapest but on the contrary one of the costliest in the world.

The above argument though interesting, worth taking note of, by all concerned to successfully chart-out their respective game plans for India.

A recent media report highlighted that an inter-ministerial group constituted for regulating prices of patented medicines in India has recommended using a per capita income-linked reference pricing mechanism for such products.

The above news item also mentions that Tarceva, a Roche lung cancer drug, costs Rs 1.21 lakh in Australia and France while it costs Rs 35,450 in India. But when adjusted for per capita income, which is significantly more in these countries compared with India, the price falls to Rs 10,309 and Rs 11,643, respectively, for both countries as indicated below:

Country	India	France	Australia
Per capita gross national income (PCGNI) (US$)	3260	33940	38510
Ratio of PCGNI of other countries to India	1	10.4	11.8
Eriotnib (Tarceva) 100 mg price in India (Rs.)	35450	121085	121650
Eriotinib (Tarceva) 100 mg Price in terms of weighted PCGNI (Rs)	35450	11643	10309
Sunatinib (Stutent) capsule 50 mg (Rs)	46925	363216	310384
Sunatinib (Stutent) 50 mg price in terms of weighted PCGNI (Rs)	46925	34925	26303

(Source: The Economic Times, August 16, 2012)

Government encouraging R&D Focus on the diseases of the poor:

Many in India, including ‘Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)’ feel that the pharmaceutical R&D activities should also focus on the diseases of the poor, which constitute the majority of the global population.

However, global pharmaceutical companies argue that greater focus on the development of new drugs for the diseases of the poor should not be considered as the best way to address and eradicate such diseases in the developing countries. On the contrary, strengthening basic healthcare infrastructure along with education and the means of transportation from one place to the other could improve general health of the population of the developing world quite dramatically.

The counterpoint to the above argument articulates that health infrastructure projects are certainly very essential elements of achieving longer-term health objectives of these countries, but in the near term, millions of unnecessary deaths in the developing countries can be effectively prevented by offering more innovative drugs at affordable prices to this section of the society.

Recognition of India’s healthcare priorities is important:

Despite chaos in many areas, as mentioned above, a paradigm change in the way pharmaceutical business to be conducted in India, is slowly but surely taking place, where replication of any western business model could be counterproductive. The strategy has to be India specific, accepting the priorities of the countries, even with all its ‘warts and moles’

Participative strategies should yield better results:

To achieve excellence in the pharmaceutical market of India, there is a dire need for all stakeholders to join hands with the Government, without further delay, to contribute with their global knowledge, experience and expertise to help resolving the critical issues of the healthcare sector of the nation, like:

Creation and modernization of healthcare infrastructure leveraging IT
Universal Health Coverage
Win-Win regulatory policies
Creation of employable skilled manpower
Innovation friendly ecosystem
Reasonably affordable healthcare services and medicines for the common man through a robust government procurement and delivery system

Right attitude of all stakeholders to find a win-win solution for all such issues, instead of adhering to the age-old blame game in perpetuity, as it were, without conceding each others’ ground even by an inch, is of utmost importance at this hour.

It is high time for the Government of India, I reckon, to reap a rich harvest from the emerging lucrative opportunities, coming both from within and the outside world in the healthcare space of the country. Effective utilization of this opportunity, in turn, will help India to align itself with the key global healthcare need of providing reasonably affordable healthcare to all.

Conclusion:

Thus in my view, just replication of the ‘Old Paradigm’ of the developed pharmaceutical markets is unlikely to yield results in the new evolving paradigm of India.

In this rapidly changing scenario, the name of the game for all players of the industry, both global and local, I believe, is recognition of the changing market dynamics of India, active engagement in the paradigm changing process of one of the most important emerging pharmaceutical markets of the world and finally adaptation to the countries changing aspirations and priorities to create a win-win situation for all.

By: Tapan J Ray

Nutraceuticals with Therapeutic Claims: A Vulnerable Growing Bubble Protected by Faith and Hope of Patients

Posted on August 27, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Today a growing number of particularly the aging population wants to live a healthy life without consuming much of chemical drugs, which in turn is becoming a key growth driver for nutraceutical products across the world. Further, increasing interest towards preventive healthcare and self-medication with ‘Over The Counter (OTC)’ products are the additional factors boosting the growth of the nutraceutical products market in India.

It has been reported that by 2020, the number of senior citizens (60 plus age group) is expected to exceed 1.0 billion, with around 70% of them living in the developing world. This further highlights the growth potential of the nutraceutical industry in countries like India with rising per capita income.

Evolution of the terminology ‘Nutraceuticals’:

Dr. Stephen DeFelice of the ‘Foundation for Innovation in Medicine’ coined the term ‘Nutraceutical’ from “Nutrition” and “Pharmaceutical” in 1989. The term nutraceutical is now being commonly used in marketing for such products but has no regulatory definition, other than dietary or nutritional supplements.

It is interesting to note that the dietary supplement industry defines nutraceuticals as, “any nontoxic food component that has scientifically proven health benefits, including disease treatment and prevention.”

Perhaps because of this reason, it is very often claimed by the manufacturers of nutraceutical products that these are not just dietary supplements, but also help prevention and/or treatment of many disease conditions.

In India, nutraceuticals are being promoted to and even prescribed by the medical profession, not just as nutritional supplements but also with off-label claims for the treatment of disease conditions, like arthritis, osteoporosis, cardiology, diabetes, pain management etc.

Are nutraceuticals then ‘Nutritional Supplements’ or ‘Medicines’?

When for any nutraceutical, claims are made either for cure of a specific disease condition or for prevention of a particular ailment, the product assumes the status of a drug substance, which needs to be approved by the drug regulator with undisputed and demonstrable evidence of efficacy and safety on patients.

Thus, the questions that may be very appropriately raised, whether or not such product claims are backed by robust clinical data for efficacy and safety on long term use and whether or not such data have also been published in the peer review journals? The answer will probably be an unambiguous ‘No’.

Unfortunately, clinical trial data proving efficacy and safety are not required for nutraceutical products to get their marketing approval in India, as long as the manufacturers do not put any medicinal or therapeutic claims both on the product label and also in their promotional literature.

However, in practice, making off-label therapeutic claims for nutraceutical products in general, though illegal, are more a routine than exceptions in India.

Relaxed regulatory process for marketing approval of Nutraceutical Products:

As stated above, nutraceutical products do not go through the rigors of stringent regulatory process as followed for the marketing approval of any drug with similar claims. Due to this reason, nutraceutical products currently fall within a grey zone, which has not yet gone through intensive scientific scrutiny for their safety and efficacy on patients, in general.

Ethical issues:

As a result of such relaxed regulatory framework, the nutraceutical products industry also prompts to flag many ethical issues, which include concerns over inadequate disclosure of science based information particularly on the surrogate therapeutic claims based merely on anecdotal evidence, as a part of intensive off-label sales and marketing efforts on their part.

Off-label therapeutic claims for any product are even otherwise illegal in India, like in many other countries.

Appropriate measures by the Government need to be put in place sooner, not only to plug the regulatory loopholes for off-label therapeutic claims, but also to ensure that marketing malpractices are not followed by their manufacturers to boost the sales turnover. This is necessary keeping especially the health outcomes and safety of the patients in mind.

How effective and safe are the nutraceuticals?

As stated above, currently many nutraceuticals are being directly promoted just like any other modern medicines, in the garb of nutritional supplements, to the medical profession, but with illegal claims and intent without being supported by data that can pass through scientific or regulatory scrutiny.

Thus the questions that one can raise logically are as follows:

What happens when the nutraceutical products fail to live up to the tall claims made by the respective manufacturers on their efficacy and safety profile?
Are these substances safe, just because not enough data has been generated on their toxicity profile?

The New Zealand Medical Journal (Vol. 118 No 1219 ISSN 1175 8716) in an article titled, “Lead poisoning due to ingestion of Indian herbal remedies” reported about dangerous and life threatening lead poisoning as follows:

“We believe that our cases of lead poisoning was predominantly due to ingestion of lead contaminated Indian herbal medicines, and it is the first such case to be reported in New Zealand.”

Similarly, Times Health in its March 15, 2010 reported that dangerous “lead poisoning in Indian children in the Boston area were linked to consumption of Indian spices.”

Taking lessons from all these, incidence like ‘Tylenol tragedy’ must not be allowed to be repeated in India, the risk of which primarily lies within inadequate quality and safety standards arising out of overall gross deficiency in the product security measures for many of such substances.

Importance of robust clinical data for therapeutic claims:

Therapeutic efficacy of a drug in the treatment of a disease condition is established with pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamics, other pre-clinical and clinical studies. Some experts believe that these studies are very important for nutraceutical products, as well, especially when therapeutic claims are made on them, directly or indirectly, as these substances are also involved in a series of reactions within the body.

Similarly, to establish any long term toxicity problem with such products, generation of credible clinical data including those with animal reaction to the products, both short and long term, using test doses several times higher than the recommended ones, is critical. These are not usually followed for nutraceutical products in India, even when therapeutic claims are being made.

The experts, therefore, quite often say, “A lack of reported toxicity problems with any nutraceutical should not be interpreted as evidence of safety.”

Should Nutraceuticals also follow ‘Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM)’ standards?

The term and concept of EBM originated at McMaster University of Canada in early 1990 and has been defined as “the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values” (Sackett, 2000).

EBM is thus a multifaceted process of systematically reviewing, appraising and using clinical research findings to aid the delivery of optimum clinical care to patients. EBM also seeks to assess the strength of evidence of the risks and benefits of any particular treatment claim.

Thus many global pharmaceutical companies believe that EBM offers the most objective way to determine and maintain consistently high quality and safety standards of healthcare products in the healthcare practice.

EBM concept, I reckon, is important in the context of nutraceuticals too, because over a period of time more and more users of nutraceuticals will tend to look for authentic scientific evidence within a clinical set up for such products. It is about time that EBM standards are followed for nutraceutical products, as well, by the regulators.

Global pharma companies focus on EBM:

So far, the large global pharmaceutical players have been focusing mainly, if not only on EBM. Companies like, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), were reported to have discontinued marketing those products, which do not fall under ‘Evidence Based Medicines (EBM)’, even in India.

Nutraceuticals market:

The global nutraceuticals market is currently estimated to be around US$ 117 billion and expected to reach US$ 177 billion by 2013 with a CAGR of 7%, driven mainly by ‘functional foods’ segment with a CAGR of 11%. The top countries in this category are Japan, USA and Europe with the former two together enjoying around 58% market share of the total nutraceuticals consumption of the world.

In 2009 Indian nutraceuticals market was around US$ 1.0 billion growing at 5% (IMS), around 55% of which being functional foods. As per IMS about 2800 brands were competing in the nutritional market in 2009.

The prices of most nutraceuticals products with off-label therapeutic claims, being outside government price regulations in India, are usually quite high.

Although India’s current market share of the global nutraceuticals market is around 1%, a report from PwC predicts that India will join the league of top 10 by 2020, primarily driven by the ‘functional foods’.

The status of nutraceuticals in the USA:

In the USA, Congress passed the ‘Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act’ in 1994. This act allows ‘functional claims’ to Dietary supplements without drug approval, like “Vitamin A promotes good vision” or “St. Johns Wort maintains emotional well-being”, as long as the product label contains a specific disclaimer that the said claim has not been evaluated by the FDA and that the product concerned is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.

The above Act bestows some important responsibility on the doctors in particular, who are required to provide specific and accurate scientific information for nutraceutical products to their patients. This process assumes critical importance as the patients would expect the doctors to describe to them about the usefulness of nutraceutical products as alternatives to approved drugs. In such cases, if any doctor recommends a dietary supplement instead of pharmaceutical products, the doctor concerned must be aware of the risk that the patient’s health may suffer, for which the affected patient could sue the doctor for malpractice.

It is difficult to understand why is the Indian regulator not following, at least, the above practices in the country.

Only ‘Patented Traditional Medicines’ will soon require mandatory clinical trials:

Here comes possibly the beginning of a refreshing change in the drug regulatory mindset for nutraceuticals in the country.

It has recently been reported that all new traditional medicines will need to undergo clinical trials before their regulatory marketing approval in India.

However, it has also been clarified that “such products will include only the new patented drugs and not the classical formulations that find mention in India’s ancient texts, some of which are 5,000 years old.”

However, it defies scientific logic, when one argues that anecdotal evidence of last 5,000 years should be accepted as robust data for proven efficacy and safety of nutraceutical products on patients, especially during their longer term use, for the reasons as mentioned above.

Thus, this initiative of the government though commendable, will by no means ensure safety and efficacy of existing nutraceutical products making therapeutic claims – off-label or otherwise in their sales and marketing promotion to the medical profession.

An immediate action:

Nutraceutical products, wearing a tag of providing desirable therapeutic benefits with less or no side effects as compared to conventional medicines, is showing just a moderate growth in India, despite being within a favorable pricing and a relaxed regulatory environment.

As deliberated above, it may take some time for the drug regulator to grant marketing approval of nutraceutical products with therapeutic claims based only on robust clinical data for efficacy and safety. Till such time this happens, the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) without fail should make a statement, something like the following, mandatory on the packaging of all nutraceutical products, just as what has been done by the US-FDA:

“All claims made for this product have not been evaluated by the DCGI and the product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”

Conclusion:

I reckon, the nutraceutical products segment with surrogate or off-label therapeutic claims, is just a growing bubble, as it were, which continues to be well protected by faith and hope of the patients, in the absence of stringent drug regulatory measures for substantiation of specific medicinal claims with predictable efficacy and safety profile.

This bubble could easily burst… decisively, if generation of clinical data on safety and efficacy ever becomes mandatory regulatory requirements for getting marketing approval of nutraceutical products in India claiming therapeutic benefits, off-label or otherwise. In which case, to meet those stringent drug regulatory requirements, commensurate increase in price for such products could indeed make commercial survival of this industry extremely challenging.

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.

Should India allow use of Compulsory License as a common tool to improve access to medicines?

Posted on August 20, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Compulsory License (CL) is generally considered a very important provision in the Patent Act of a country to protect public health interest not only by the governments, but also by a large number of experts across the globe and the intelligentsia within the civil society.

The key objectives:

The key objectives of the CL provisions in the statute are to:

Rectify any type of market failure

Discourage abuse of a patent in any form by the patent holder

WHO hails CL provisions:

‘The World Health Organization (WHO)’ says that ‘the provision for Compulsory Licenses (CL) is a critical element in a health-sensitive patent law’. It emphasized that CL constitutes an effective mechanism to:

- Promote competition

- Increase affordability of drugs, while ensuring that the patent owner obtains compensation

for the use of the invention

- Lack or insufficiency of working of patent

- Remedy of anti-competitive practices

- National emergency

- Government use for non-commercial purpose

- Other public interest grounds

WHO also recommends the use of CL for any “abuse of patent rights”. This is primarily to ensure that drug prices remain consistent with local purchasing power.

Even ‘UNAIDS’ have recommended the use of CL, as provided under the TRIPS Agreement, where countries have the right to issue such licenses.

Views of R&D based pharma companies:

It is well known that the provisions for the grant of CL other than national emergencies have been generally opposed by the research-based pharmaceutical industry on the grounds that they discourage investments on R&D.

Despite such opposition, most developed countries have CL provisions in their law, which the respective governments can use to promote competition and access to medicines.

Provisions for CL in TRIPS Agreement:

While TRIPS agreement does not limit the grounds or reasons for granting CL, countries can only use those grounds which are allowed by their own national legislation. The development of appropriate national legislation is therefore crucial.

TRIPs further states that the conditions under which a compulsory license is granted should be regulated in accordance with the TRIPs Agreement (Article 31), under a number of conditions aimed at protecting the legitimate interests of the right holder.

Examples of CL provisions in some important countries:

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

U.S: Patent law does not provide for CL, which is allowed under the antitrust law. US has been granting CL to remedy anti-competitive practices and for governmental use, including national security.

Canada: The country introduced CL for drugs, way back in 1923. Canada has granted number of CLs and a robust generic pharmaceutical industry exists in that country.

France: French law authorizes CL when medicines are “only available to the public in insufficient quantity or quality or at abnormally high prices”.

Israel: In Israel a CL can be granted, “if it is necessary to assure the public of a reasonable quantity of a product capable of being used as a medicament, to manufacture a medicament or a patented process for manufacturing a medicament.”

Brazil: The country will grant CL in cases of “national emergency or public interest, declared by the Federal Executive Authorities. A temporary nonexclusive compulsory license can be granted if necessary. Brazil defines Public Health interest to include “public health protection, satisfying nutritional requirements, protection of the environment and other areas of fundamental importance to the technological or social and economic development of the country.”

Very few CLs granted between 1995-2012:

Despite having the provisions for the grant of CL in many countries, not many CLs have been granted across the world from 1995 to date. The details are as follows:

Country	Medicine	CL granted in
Israel	Hepatitis B Vaccine	October 1995
Italy	Imipenem (antibiotic)	June 2005
Italy	Sumatripan Succinate (migraine)	February 2006
Canada	Oseltamivir (influenza)	July 2006
Brazil	Efavirenz (HIV/AIDS)	May 2007
Thailand	Erlotinib, Docetaxel (cancer)	January 2008
India	Sorafenib Tosylate (cancer)	March 2012

Source: DNA, March 9, 2012

India joins the league in 2012:

Indian Patent Office granted a Compulsory License (CL) for Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar of Bayer Corporation) to Hyderabad based Natco Pharma Limited under the provisions of Section 84 of the Indian Patents Act. Nexavar is used for treatment for liver and kidney cancer.

The Compulsory License, first of its kind granted in India, enables Natco to sell the drug at a price not exceeding Rs. 8880 (US$ 178 approx.) for a pack of 120 tablets (one month’s therapy) against Rs. 284,428 (US$ 5,690 approx.) being the cost of Nexavar sold by Bayer before the CL was granted to Natco. The license is valid till the expiry of the patent on 2021.

The order on CL also makes it obligatory for Natco to supply the drug free of cost to at least 600 needy and deserving patients per year.

The grant of CL generated adverse impact from many developed nations of the world, as was expected by many.

However, welcoming the order Natco reportedly commented, “This opens up a new avenue of availability of life savings drugs at an affordable price to the suffering masses in India.”

Does grant of CL for non-NLEM products make sense in India?

Currently all government healthcare initiatives in India are focused on ‘The National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’, be it drug price control, free distribution of medicines to all through government hospitals/health centers or even much hyped, ‘Universal Health Coverage’ proposal.

In this situation, another school of thought says that by granting CL to Natco for Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar of Bayer), which does not fall under NLEM 2011, hasn’t India diluted its focus on essential drugs? More so, when NLEM 2011 features quite a good number of anti-cancer drugs, as well.

The other side of the argument: Is CL a viable solution to improve access in the developing nations?

International Policy Network (IPN) in an article titled, “Compulsory licensing no solution to health problems in poor countries – say experts from India, Argentina, Canada and South Africa” stated that patents and other forms of Intellectual Property (IP) are an essential component in economic development of any emerging economy, which needs to be well protected by the governments.

The article further opines that any form of interference with IP by the grant of CL or even price controls will undermine investments and cause more harm than good. The paper, therefore, calls for stronger protection of IP across the world.

Yet another paper titled, “The WTO Decision on Compulsory Licensing – Does it enable import of medicines for developing countries with grave public health problems”, states that flexibility of innovator companies to adjust prices according to purchasing power of the people of different countries is constrained by the following two reasons:

A genuine risk that medicines sold at lower prices in the developing countries will be re-exported to high income markets.

Many high income developed countries also regulate the prices of medicines at the national level. There is a high risk that these countries will use prices in the developing markets as external reference pricing.

Thus, the author argues, in both the above situations, patented medicine prices will be undermined in the most important markets, making it difficult for the research-based companies to use prices only of high income countries to fund R&D costs for the discovery of new medicines.

Fostering innovation in India:

The healthcare industry in general and the pharmaceutical sector in particular have been experiencing a plethora of innovations across the world, not only to cure and effectively manage ailments to improve the quality of life, but also to help increasing overall disease-free life expectancy of the population with various types of treatment and disease management options.

Innovation being one of the key growth drivers for the knowledge economy, the creation of an innovation friendly ecosystem in India calls for a radical change in our mind-set.

From process innovation to product innovation, from replicating molecules to creating new molecules- a robust ecosystem for innovation is the wheel of progress of any nation, and India is no exception. It is encouraging to hear that the Government of India is working towards this direction in a more elaborate manner its 12^th 5 year plan.

However, the question that is being raised now: will frequent grant of CL vitiate the attempt of the government to create an innovative culture within the pharmaceutical industry in India.

CL will not arrest increasing ‘OoP’ for healthcare in India:

While India is making reasonable strides in its economic growth, the country is increasingly facing constraints in proving healthcare benefits to a vast majority of its population with ballooning ‘Out of Pocket (OoP)’ expenditure of around 78 per cent of its population.

This is mainly because of the following reasons:

Absence of ‘Universal Health Coverage’
Lack of proper healthcare financing and insurance system for all strata of society
Difficulty in managing the cost of healthcare even when the country is providing generic drugs for a sizable part of the world market

One finds some good initiatives though, for population Below the Poverty Line (BPL) and hears about the success of ‘Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna (RSBY)’ and other health insurance schemes through micro health insurance units, especially in rural areas. It has been reported that currently around 40 such schemes are active in the country.

As the disease pattern is undergoing a shift from acute to chronic non-infectious diseases, OOP on healthcare will increase further.

Currently health insurance schemes only cover expenses towards hospitalization. Ideally, medical insurance schemes in India should also cover domiciliary or in-patient treatment costs and perhaps loss of income too, along with hospitalization costs, if India wants to bring down the OoP for its population or at least till such time the ambitious ‘Universal Health Coverage’ project gets translated into reality.

Greater focus of the Government in these areas, many believe, will help increasing access to essential medicines very significantly in India, rather than frequently granting CL, as is being envisaged by many, especially for drugs, which are outside NLEM 2011.

Access to patented medicines unlikely to be addressed effectively despite frequent grant of CL:

As we know, access to healthcare comprises not just medicines but more importantly healthcare infrastructure like, doctors, paramedics, diagnostics, healthcare centers and hospitals . In India the demand for these services has outstripped supply. There is a huge short fall in ‘Healthcare Manpower’ of the country as demonstrated in the following table:

	Target	Actual	Shortfall %
Doctors	1,09,484	26,329	76
Specialists	58,352	6,935	88
Nurses	1,38,623	65,344	53
Radiographers	14,588	2,221	85
Lab Technicians	80,308	16,208	80

Source: Rural Health Statistics 2011 in 12^th Plan draft chapter

Thus, there is an urgent need to have a holistic approach with the ‘Universal Healthcare’ in developing adequate healthcare infrastructure, efficient delivery system for medical supplies and creation of a talent pool of healthcare professionals and paramedics, to ensure access to healthcare for all the citizens of the country.

Without all these how will the diseases be diagnosed and the patients be treated for ailments, frequent grant of CL not withstanding?

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, the prices of medicines in general and the patented drugs in particular will continue to remain highly sensitive in most parts of the world, if not all, which some astute Global CEOs of the pharmaceutical majors have already contemplated.

One of these Global CEOs very aptly commented, “Pharmaceutical industry, too, on its part, needs to metamorphose to strike a balance in delivering affordable and innovative medicines. It is unacceptable to hear of the US$1billion cost to develop a drug, which includes the cost of failure. We need to fail less often and succeed more often.”

He reiterated, “Pharma companies need to understand that just because you have a patent, people don’t suddenly have money in their pockets, or can afford American prices.”

In the same context another Global CEO said, “Our strategy is really to have affordable medicines because in emerging markets you do not have government reimbursement. So you have to have medicines that people can afford to pay for.…I do not want us to be a colonial company with a colonial approach where we say we decide on the strategy and pricing. If you have to compete locally then the pricing strategy cannot be decided in Paris but will have to be in the marketplace. People here will decide on the pricing strategy and we have to develop a range of products for it.”

Keeping all these developments in view, as I said before, the contentious issue of the price of medicines cannot just be wished away across the world, which is perhaps more relevant now than ever before.

This is irrespective of the fact whether the country provides likes of ‘Universal Health Coverage’ or is driven by OoP expenditure by the majority of its population. Gone are those days, as articulated by the above Global CEOs, when a single global price for a product will be acceptable by all the nations across the world. India seems to be moving to this direction cautiously but steadily.

It appears, responsible pricing and effective working of patents are the only answers to respond to the CL issue in India.

Thus, I reckon, it does make sense for India to have the relevant provisions of CL in its Patent Act, not just to rectify any type of market failure, but also to discourage any possible abuse of a patent in any form by the patent holder in the country, as mentioned above.

However, it is also important for India to examine the potential negative impact of CL to foster innovation in the country and the global ramification of the same, including attraction of more ‘Foreign Direct Investments (FDI)’, which has been universally proved to be so important for the economic progress of any country, like India and China.

That said, while none can deny that all citizens of India should have access to affordable life-saving essential medicines, it appears rather impractical to envisage that routine grant of CL by the Indian Patent Office, as enumerated above by Natco et al, will be able to resolve the critical issue of improving access to essential medicines on a longer term basis in India.The decision for grant of CL, I reckon, should be taken in India only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

As enumerated above, the use of CL as a common tool to improve access to medicines could prove to be counterproductive in the long run for India.

By: Tapan J Ray

The ruckus over Clinical Trials in India compels Government tightening regulations before flooring gas pedal for regional leadership

Posted on August 13, 2012 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

Damning report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee:

Recently the Department Related ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC)’ on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59^th Report of 118 pages in total on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012.

The report begins with the following observations:

Medicines apart from their critical role in alleviating human suffering and saving lives have very sensitive and typical dimensions for a variety of reasons. They are the only commodity for which the consumers have neither a role to play nor are they able to make any informed choices except to buy and consume whatever is prescribed or dispensed to them because of the following reasons:

Drug regulators decide which medicines can be marketed
Pharmaceutical companies either produce or import drugs that they can profitably sell
Doctors decide which drugs and brands to prescribe
Consumers are totally dependent on and at the mercy of external entities to protect their interests.

In this prevailing condition, the committee felt that effective and transparent drug regulation, free from all commercial influences, is absolutely essential to ensure safety, efficacy and quality of drugs keeping just one objective in mind, i.e., welfare of patients.

Some critical findings on the Drug Approval Process:

The PSC in its report made, the following critical findings, besides others:

“A total of 31 new drugs were approved in the period January 2008 to October 2010 without conducting clinical trials on Indian patients.

Thirteen drugs scrutinized by the panel are not allowed to be sold in the United States, Canada, Britain, European Union and Australia.

Sufficient evidence is available on record to conclude that there is collusive nexus between drug manufacturers, some functionaries of CDSCO and some medical experts.

Due to the sensitive nature of clinical trials in which foreign companies are involved in a big way and a wide spectrum of ethical issues and legal angles, different aspects of clinical trials need a thorough and in-depth review.”

Proper Auditing of Clinical Trials are lacking:

It is sad that that adequate focus on the ‘Clinical Trial Registry’ and even ‘Auditing of Clinical Trials’ is currently lacking in India, which are considered so important not only to maintain the credibility of the studies, but also to demonstrate their scientific integrity and ethical values.

Unfortunately, there seems to be many loose knots in the current clinical trial policy, practices and guidelines in the country, which require to be tightened by the Government to make the system efficient and transparent in the national endeavor of establishing India as one of the most favored destinations for global clinical trials.

Health Ministry recently responded:

Facing this stark reality and pressured by the Parliament, the government has recently demonstrated its intention of tightening the loose knots in the following two critical areas:

Permission to conduct Clinical Trial
Compensation of the Clinical Trial victims

A. “Permission to conduct Clinical Trial in India’ – the draft notification:

In response to the prevailing conundrum, ‘The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’ of the Government of India issued a draft notification on 17th July, 2012 seeking stakeholders’ views on the ‘Permission to conduct Clinical Trial’.

The draft notification says that the licensing authority after being satisfied with the adequacy of the data submitted by the applicant in support of proposed clinical trial, shall issue permission to conduct clinical trial, subject to the following conditions:

Clinical trial shall be conducted in compliance to the approved GCP Guidelines.
Approval of the ‘Ethics Committee’ shall be obtained before initiation of the study.
Ethical aspects of the clinical trial as described in the “Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human Participants” published by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), shall be fully complied with.
Clinical trial shall be registered at Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) before enrolling the first patient in the study.
Annual status report on clinical trial viz. ongoing or completed to be communicated to the said Licensing Authority.
Any ‘Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR)’ occurring during clinical trial shall be communicated within fourteen calendar days to the Licensing Authority and to the other investigator(s) participating in the study.
In case of study related injury or death, the applicant will provide complete medical care, as well as, compensation for the injury or death and statement to this effect shall be incorporated in the Informed Consent Document. The details of compensation provided shall also be intimated to the licensing authority.
The premises of sponsor/Clinical Research Organization (CRO) and clinical trial sites shall be open to inspection by the officer of Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), who may be accompanied by an officer of the concerned ‘State Drug Control Authority’ to verify compliance to the requirements of Schedule Y, GCP guidelines and other applicable regulation.
The sponsor/ CRO, investigators shall allow officers of CDSCO who may be accompanied by an officer of the concerned ‘State Drug Control Authority’, to enter with or without prior notice, any premises of sponsor/ CRO, clinical trial site to inspect, search and seize any record, data, document, books, investigational drugs etc. related to clinical trials and provide adequate replies to any queries raised by the inspecting authority in relation to the conduct of clinical trial.

This area of the clinical trial regulations will be finalized after taking into consideration of all the comments received from the stakeholders within the specified period.

B. ‘Compensation of the Clinical Trial victims’:

To address the pressing issues in this area Central Drugs Control Organization (CDSCO) in August 3, 2012, published an interim “GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING QUANTUM OF FINANCIAL COMPENSATION TO BE PAID IN CASE OF CLINICAL TRIAL RELATED INJURY OR DEATH”

The document articulates as follows:

“Presently there is no specific provision under Drugs and Cosmetics Rules for payment of compensation in case of clinical trial related injury or death of the subject. However, the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Guidelines for Clinical Trials of India under para 2.4.7 provides that the research subject who suffers physical injury as a result of their participation in clinical trials are entitled to financial or other assistance to compensate them equitably for any temporary or permanent impairment or disability subject to confirmation from Ethics Committee. In case of death, their dependents are entitled to material compensation. Guidelines further provide that it is the obligation of the sponsor to pay the compensation.”

Such concerns were also raised in the Parliament and other forums regarding payment of compensation in the cases of injury or death, related to clinical trials.

CDSCO’s interim guidelines now prescribe an interesting formula, which will be used to arrive at the financial compensation for all clinical trial related injuries and deaths.

To assess right compensation for clinical trial related injuries or deaths following parameters have been mooted in the document:

Age of the deceased
Income of the deceased
Seriousness and severity of the disease, the subject was suffering at the time of his/her participation into the trial.
Percentage of permanent disability.

Prior to the above new interim guidelines of the CDSCO, there was no standardization for the financial compensation either for clinical trial injuries or for that matter even death. In the past, such compensation was expected to be decided by the ‘Ethics Committee’ on case to case basis.

As stated above, the above formula has been indicated to be an interim measure before the final notification comes into force after taking into consideration all stakeholders’ comments and suggestions on this very important subject.

Drawing a comparison with China:

Driven by the stellar economic growth together with its booming pharmaceutical industry have enabled China to position itself as an emerging hub for global clinical trials. Following are some examples of the key growth drivers in the clinical research space of China:

A large diverse treatment naive patient population
Significant cost arbitrage
Recent improvements in the regulatory standards
Reverse brain drain of Chinese-born scientists educated in the west
Changing disease profile
Incentives to conduct clinical research in the country

However, linguistic and cultural barriers that affect patient reporting, enrollment and other medical practices in China could work as major barriers to the growth of Chinese clinical trial sector.

Clinical Trials: A ‘China – India’ comparison

It has already been reported that India is ahead of China as most favored destination for global clinical trials, although the latter is quite close and breathing on the neck of India and could well even zoom past the former, if appropriate robust regulations and their effective implementation are still not ensured in India.

I. Majority of the Top 10 Pharma Companies conduct higher number of trials in India

Sr. No.	Company	Clinical Trials in India	Clinical Trials in China
1	Astra Zeneca	10	10
2	BMS	17	6
3	Eli Lilly	17	12
4	GSK	22	14
5	J&J	20	13
6	Merck	8	5
7	Novartis	9	6
8	Pfizer	16	5
9	Roche	5	14
10	Sanofi	15	13
	Total	139	98

(Source: clinicaltrials.gov, 26 Oct 2007)

II. India leads China and Russia in Cardiology and Diabetes trials

Therapy	India (%)	China (%)	Russia (%)
Cardiology	5.38	4.93	4.48
Diabetes	3.05	2.09	2.65
Neurology	0.90	0.90	3.62
Oncology	1.59	1.01	2.32

With the highest number of diabetic patients in the World and a very large population of patients with cardiovascular disorders, India has the potential to be the destination of choice for clinical trials in these two therapy areas, as we move on.

(Source: clinicaltrials.gov, 26 Oct 2007)

III. India has a greater % of phase II and III trials while China has more of Phase I and IV

Clinical Trials in India		Clinical Trials in China
Phase I	4%	Phase I	7%
Phase II	16%	Phase II	9%
Phase III	65%	Phase II	51%
Phase IV	15%	Phase IV	33%

(Source: clinicaltrials.gov, 26 Oct 2007)

IV. Of the total Industry sponsored trials only 3.5% are carried out in India and 2.63% in China

Company	Global Trials	India + China
Astra	231	20
BMS	148	23
Eli Lilly	238	29
GSK	347	36
J&J	461	33
Merck	213	13
Novartis	440	15
Pfizer	389	21
Roche	302	19
Sanofi	209	28
Total	2978	237

India	3.50%
China	2.63%
Global	93.87%

India and China’s share in the Industry sponsored Global clinical trial market is miniscule

Source: clinicaltrials.gov

Overall increasing trend of Clinical Trials Initiated in India:

The following table will substantiate the above point:

Year	No. Of Clinical Trials
1999	1
2000	0
2001	6
2002	6
2003	11
2004	26
2005	141
2006	206
2007	220
2008	295
2009	189

(Source: U.S. NIH, Pharmexcil Research)

India has the potential to accelerate its pace of growth significantly:

If robust regulatory measures are put in place, addressing serious concerns on the inadequacy of clinical trial regulations in India, together with uniform requirements for informed patients’ consent and appropriate ethics review, global pharmaceutical majors can be easily attracted to India for several reasons like:

Technically competent and English speaking workforce,
Patient availability and huge pool of naive patients
Low costs and an improving drug-control system.

Thus, quite a number of criteria, as stated above, favor India to establish itself as a global hub for clinical research. Besides, availability of a number of government-funded medical and pharmaceutical institutions with state-of-the-art facilities could be very useful for mufti-centered clinical trials in the country.

Moreover, the cost to conduct a trial in India is lower by almost 50% – 75% than in the United States or in the EU. In addition, a good communication link favors quick recruitment of patients and faster regulatory approvals. Thus, clinical trials in India could be concluded faster, offering a sharp cutting edge for effective competition.

Due to all these reasons, India is gradually attracting more collaborative contract clinical research proposals in the country. Even many global Clinical Research Organizations (CRO) have already started establishing their set up in India. This pace can be accelerated significantly with the regulatory measures, as stated above.

Conclusion:

Clinical trials are the core of research-based pharmaceutical industry. No new drug can come into the market without clinical trials, which involve both potential benefits and risks to the participants. All clinical trials are conducted with the primary aim of bringing to patients new medicines with a favorable benefit–risk ratio.

Global clinical trials being relatively new to India, no wonder there are several misconceptions on the subject. The companies conducting research need to proactively publicize their commitment to protecting the rights, safety and well-being of trial participants.

All concerned must ensure that the proposals for clinical trials are approved by the government regulatory authorities before commencement and the trials must strictly follow the prescribed norms and procedures. For Phase I-IV human trials, the rights and privileges of the participants must be explained and the trials should commence only after their informed consent. The regulatory authorities, at the same time, should also ensure that any attempt of shortcuts or to bend the system by any means is met with severe consequences.

Although the Ministry of Health has already started initiating some action, as stated above, there is an urgent need for the players in this field to reassure the public, in general, about the high ethical standards that the pharmaceutical companies and Clinical Research Organizations require to comply with and continuously practice, while conducting clinical research.

It is therefore, high time for the Government to tighten the loose knots of the Clinical Trial regulations in the country before flooring the gas pedal to help India surging ahead as a major hub in the clinical trials space of the world, significantly distancing itself from China.

By: Tapan J Ray

Does China provide a more robust IPR environment than India?

Posted on November 8, 2010 by Tapan Ray

Soon after the Product Patent Act was reintroduced in India effective January 1, 2005, a raging global debate commenced focusing on the robustness of the Indian Patent system. Quite often, many participants in the debate continue to compare the adequacies of the Chinese patent system with the inadequacies of the same in India.

‘The Pharma Letter’ dated October 26, 2010 published an Article captioned, “Intellectual property concerns and domestic bias hold back R&D in Asia-Pacific.”

Asia-Pacific still lags behind in terms of global R&D investments:

Unlike the common perception in India that China is attracting a significant part of the global investments towards R&D, latest data of MedTRACK revealed that only 15% of all drugs development are taking place in Asia-Pacific despite the largest growth potential of the region in the world. The Pharma Letter also reported, “In December 2009, China unveiled that it would give domestic companies making innovative products an advantage in qualifying for government purchases. This measure is likely to further limit foreign investment in product development in China, and negatively affect growth of foreign brands.”

Such type of domestic bias and protectionist’s measures are yet to be witnessed in India.

Since US is a pioneering country in the field of global R&D and its commercial interest related to such initiatives spans across the globe, let me try to analyze this subject, in this article, quoting only from official US publications.

IPR environment in China – the US perspective:

So far as the current IPR environment in China is concerned, US Embassy based in that country has commented as follows:

“Despite stronger statutory protection, China continues to be a haven for counterfeiters and pirates. According to one copyright industry association, the piracy rate remains one of the highest in the world (over 90 percent) and U.S. companies lose over one billion dollars in legitimate business each year to piracy. On average, 20 percent of all consumer products in the Chinese market are counterfeit. If a product sells, it is likely to be illegally duplicated. U.S. companies are not alone, as pirates and counterfeiters target both foreign and domestic companies”.

In the same context the following remarks of Mr. Shaun Donnelly, Senior Director, International Business policy, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) , USA, made at the Intenational Trade Commission on June 15, 2010 on IPR environment in China, is also quite interesting:

“Unfortunately China remains Ground Zero for international product counterfeiting and Piracy. Despite considerable efforts over many years by US Government agencies and other international partners as well as Chinese Government the Progress has been minimal…. China continued to be the number one source country for pirated goods seized in the US borders accounting for 79% of the total seizures…The top sectors of IPR infringing products seized included footwear, consumer electronics, apparel, computer hardware, pharmaceuticals…”

Patent enforcement in China – the US perspective:

Regarding product patent enforcement is concerned the US Embassy in China comments:

“Though we have observed commitment on the part of many central government officials to tackle the problem, enforcement measures taken to date have not been sufficient to deter massive IPR infringements effectively. There are several factors that undermine enforcement measures, including China’s reliance on administrative instead of criminal measures to combat IPR infringements, corruption and local protectionism, limited resources and training available to enforcement officials, and lack of public education regarding the economic and social impact of counterfeiting and piracy”.

“Notwithstanding the increased number of applications, many patent owners (both foreign and domestic) continue to experience problems with infringement in China. Counterfeiting and other infringing activities are rampant, and critics frequently complain of lax enforcement of intellectual property laws. As a result, any party considering introducing a patented (or patentable) technology into China – especially one that could be easily reverse engineered or duplicated – would be well advised to proceed with extreme caution, seek legal advice from the outset, and plan fastidiously”.

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) in India:

Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) for Pharmaceutical Products is still not in place in India, as the Government of India has already articulated that RDP is a ‘TRIPS Plus’ requirement and is non-binding to the country. The Government further reiterated that if any or more interested parties will feel that it is not so, they can certainly go to the WTO forum for the redressal of their grievances in this matter.

RDP in China – the US perspective:

However, on this subject the US feels that though RDP for a 5 year period is now in place in China, ‘inadequacies in their current regulatory environment allow for unfair commercial use of safety and efficacy data generated by the global innovator companies.”

In such a scenario the sanctity of RDP gets significantly diluted and may prove to be a virtually meaningless exercise.

Conclusion:

R. Fernando and D. Purkayastha of ICMR Center for Management Research in their article titled, “Pfizer’s Intellectual Property Rights Battles in China for Viagra” had commented as follows:

“Though the foreign research-based pharmaceutical companies were not happy with the lax IPR regime, the booming Chinese pharmaceutical market provided enough incentive for these companies to stay put and fight it out with the local firms for a share in this emerging market”.

Under these circumstances, while recommending for a world class robust patent regime in India to foster innovation in the country, if anybody wants to draw examples from China on the subject, it would indeed be foolhardy.

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.

Generics’ Lobby, Innovators’ Lobby and the Pharmaceutical Data Protection in India – A Perspective

Posted on July 19, 2010 by Tapan Ray

To meet the unmet needs of the patients and improve access to healthcare in India mere discovery of a new pharmaceutical entity is not enough. The journey from mind to market is indeed an arduous one.

For the patients’ sake:

From the viewpoint of patients, proper evaluation of the safety, quality and efficacy of medicines are critical. Towards this direction, substantial clinical data needs to be generated through extensive pre-clinical and clinical trials to satisfy the regulatory authorities for marketing approval of a New Molecular Entity (NME).

Reasons why the innovators data will need protection:

Irrespective of what has been indicated in Article 39.3 of TRIPS, Data Protection (DP) is justifiable on the following grounds:

a. Generation of data by the originator to ensure safety and efficacy of the drugs for the patients involves considerable cost, time and efforts.

b. Submission of detail clinical data is a regulatory requirement for the interest of the patients. Without such obligation to the Government, the data would have remained completely under control of the originator. It is, therefore, a reasonable obligation for the Government to respect confidentiality of the data in terms of non-reliance and non-disclosure.

c. Since the data is proprietary during the patent period, any access to such data for commercial use by the second applicant without the concurrence of the originator is unfair on grounds of propriety and business ethics.
d. Any failure by the Government to provide the required protection to the data would lead to “unfair commercial use”.

e. Without DP, the originator of the innovative drugs would be placed at an unfair commercial disadvantage as compared to their generic counterparts. Generic players do not incur similar huge costs for meeting the mandatory requirements of the regulatory authorities for NMEs.

Patent Protection and Data Protection – two different IPRs:

The distinctiveness of the two incentives, namely, Patent Protection and Data Protection or Data Exclusivity is recognized in countries which are leading in research and development in pharmaceuticals.

Data Protection will provide substantial benefits to the stakeholders:

Benefits to Patients:

DP ensures stringent evaluation of overall safety and efficacy of drugs launched in the market. Mere proving of Bioequivalence/ Bioavailability (sometimes on as low as 12 healthy volunteers in India) does not guarantee drug safety as the impurities profile of the duplicator’s drug is likely to be different than that of the originator.

Benefits to Doctors:

Doctors continuously seek scientific information. Clinical evaluation becomes valuable from this perspective. Once provisions for DP are made, comprehensive and quality data can be collected and the detail scientific information be provided to the doctors to update their knowledge for the ultimate benefits of the patients.

Benefits to Researchers:

Clinical researchers in India can win substantial share of this global market with DP as an effective driver in the evolving scenario. There will be increased R&D collaborations. India’s cost arbitrage, speed and skills in clinical trial and research could be leveraged more effectively.

An Expert Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, an eminent scientist, also highlighted the significance of DP, as follows:

“In order to ensure enabling environment, the regulatory division dealing with the applications concerning new drugs and clinical trials would be required to develop suitable mechanisms to ensure confidentiality of the submissions.”

Benefits to Pharmaceutical Industry:

Research is a key driver for the Pharmaceutical Industry. Scientists prefer to work in research laboratories in those countries which provide full-fledged protection to IPR. DP is one of the Intellectual Property Rights. Reversal of brain drain and retention of scientific talents will help the developing economies, like India intensify its R&D efforts. More Indian pharmaceutical companies, while globalizing the business, will engage themselves in partnerships and collaborations with research based global companies.

Indian scientists would need DP to protect their Intellectual Property as many Indian pharmaceutical companies have already started increasing their R&D budgets.

Benefits to Governments:

Once India moves from a stand-alone position to one which aligns itself with the world in terms of IPRs, including DP, India is likely to increase trade not only in ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations), MERCOSUR countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay & Uruguay) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), but even in regulated markets like USA and Europe. There will be increase in scientific education, technology transfer and quality employment.

Could Data Protection affect the legal generics or delay their launch?

Unfortunately, a bogey is raised to create an impression that DP provisions will act as a barrier to the development of generics, adversely affecting the domestic and export business of the local players. Following facts will prove the irrelevance of the arguments propounded by this lobby:

• DP refers only to new products patented in India. It will not affect the generic drugs already in the market.

• USA is an outstanding example, which demonstrates that research based global companies and the generic industry can co-exist, offering dual benefits of innovative drugs and cheaper off-patent generic medicines to the patients.

• More number of patented medicines will ensure faster growth of the generic industry, after the former goes off-patent. In the USA which has a long standing DP regime, the market penetration of generics is amongst the highest in the world and stands at over half of all the prescriptions. After introduction of Hatch Waxman Act in 1984 that provided for a 5 year period of DP in the USA, there were spurt of development of New Drugs together with quicker entry of generics into the market.

• The apprehension that growth of the generic market will slow down with DP, is ill-founded. Indian companies, on the contrary, are aggressively seeking growth opportunities for generics in markets like the USA and Europe where DP is already in place.

• Domestic Indian companies will be dependent upon implementation of a fully compliant TRIPs regime, including DP for their business growth in these markets.

• DP does not prevent generic manufacturers from submitting their own pharmacological, toxicological and clinical data within the period of DP and thus gain marketing approval for their products.

DP controversy is based on a narrow perspective, as it is not an issue of “Generics vs. R&D based companies”. It is a much larger issue. DP and patents are important for all research based companies irrespective of their Indian or foreign origin.

Data Protection is not ‘Evergreening’:

DP is not ‘Evergreening’ either. In most of the cases, the period of patent protection and DP will run concurrently.

During the debate on the subject some people argue that DP and patents offer “double protection”. They do not. Fundamentally, these two forms of Intellectual Property are like different elements of a house which needs both a strong foundation and a roof to protect its inhabitants. DP cannot extend the life of a patent which is a totally separate legal instrument. While patent protects the invention underlying the product, DP protects the clinical Dossier submitted to the regulatory authority from their unfair commercial use. The duration of DP is typically half or less than that of a patent.

Most WTO member countries have Data Protection:

A review of National Laws relating to the protection of Registration Data in the major WTO Member-States reveals that most of the countries have recognized and appreciated the role of DP.
Although there is no uniform standard that is followed by the countries while enacting and implementing the Laws related to DP. The period of DP is typically between 5 to 10 years.

Conclusion:

Dr. Satwant Reddy Committee Report, dated November 30, 2006, submitted to the Government of India, very clearly recommends that DP will benefit India, as it has done in many other countries of the world, including China. Unfortunately, the report does not specify a timeline for its implementation. Thus having accepted the importance and relevance of the DP, the Government should implement the same in the country, without any further delay.

Data Protection should be provided by making an appropriate amendment in Schedule Y of the Drugs Act to bring India in conformity with the practices of other WTO Members of the developing and developed countries.

By Tapan Ray

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

India and China…Practical relevance of ‘Priority Watch List (PWL)’ status in ‘Special 301 Reports’ of America…and the REAL ‘Game Changers’

Posted on May 10, 2010 by Tapan Ray

Many stakeholders around the world believe that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) environment in China is far better than what we have in India. Interestingly “2010 Special 301 Report” of the United States of America dated April 30, 2010, paints a totally different picture.

The priority watch list (PWL)’ countries:

The Office of The United States Trade Representative, in the Press Release of ’2010 Special 301 report’, mentioned the names of PWL countries as follows:
“Trading partners on the Priority Watch List (PWL) do not provide an adequate level of IPR protection or enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual property protection. China, Russia, Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela are on the Priority Watch List. These countries will be the subject of particularly intense engagement through bilateral discussion during the coming year”.

It is, therefore, quite clear that so far as IPR environment is concerned both China and India feature in the PWL of America. This totally breaks the perceived myth, as is being very often made out to be by many, that China is a better implementer of IPR than India.
Reasons for featuring in the ‘Priority Watch List’ (PWL):
“2010 Special 301 Report” makes the following comments for China and India being in the PWL of the USA:

China:
1. China will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010 and will remain subject to Section 306 monitoring. China’s enforcement of IPR and implementation of its TRIPS Agreement obligations remain top priorities for the United States…the overall level of IPR theft in China remains unacceptable.
2. The United States is heartened by many positive steps the Chinese government took in 2009 with respect to these issues, including the largest software piracy prosecution in Chinese history, and an increase in the numbers of civil IP cases in the courts.
3. The United States is also deeply troubled by the development of policies that may unfairly disadvantage U.S. rights holders by promoting “indigenous innovation” including through, among other things, preferential government procurement and other measures that could severely restrict market access for foreign technology and products.
4. China’s IPR enforcement regime remains largely ineffective and non-deterrent.
5. The U.S. copyright industries report severe losses due to piracy in China.
6. Counterfeiting remains pervasive in many retail and wholesale markets.
7. China maintains market access barriers, such as import restrictions and restrictions on wholesale and retail distribution, which can discourage and delay the introduction into China’s market of a number of legitimate foreign products that rely on IPR.
8. China’s market access barriers create additional incentives to infringe products.
9. China adopts policies that unfairly advantage domestic or “indigenous” innovation over foreign innovation and technologies.
10. Draft Regulations for the Administration of the Formulation and Revision of Patent-Involving National Standards, released for public comment in November 2009 by the Standardization Administration of China (SAC), raise concerns regarding their expansive scope, the feasibility of certain patent disclosure requirements, and the possible use of compulsory licensing for essential patents included in national standards.
11. With respect to patents, on October 1, 2009, the Third Amendment to China’s Patent Law, passed in December 2008, went into effect. While many provisions of the Patent Law were clarified and improved, rights holders have raised a number of concerns about the new law and implementing regulations, including the effect of disclosure of origin requirements on patent validity, inventor remuneration, and the scope of and procedures related to compulsory licensing, among other matters. The United States will closely follow the implementation of these measures in 2010.
12. The United States encourages China to provide an effective system to expeditiously address patent issues in connection with applications to market pharmaceutical products.
13. The United States continues to have concerns about the extent to which China provides effective protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical products.
14. Generally, IPR enforcement at the local level is hampered by poor coordination among Chinese government ministries and agencies, local protectionism and corruption, high thresholds for initiating investigations and prosecuting criminal cases, lack of training, and inadequate and non-transparent processes. As in the past, the United States will continue to review the policies and enforcement situation in China at the sub-national levels of government.

India:
1. India will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010.
2. India continues to make gradual progress on efforts to improve its legislative, administrative, and enforcement infrastructure for IPR.
3. India has made incremental improvements on enforcement, and its IP offices continued to pursue promising modernization efforts.
4. Among other steps, the United States is encouraged by the Indian government’s consideration of possible trademark law amendments that would facilitate India’s accession to the Madrid Protocol.
5. The United States encourages the continuation of efforts to reduce patent application backlogs and streamline patent opposition proceedings.
6. Some industries report improved engagement and commitment from enforcement officials on key enforcement challenges such as optical disc and book piracy.
7. However, concerns remain over India’s inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement.
8. Piracy and counterfeiting, including the counterfeiting of medicines, remains widespread and India’s enforcement regime remains ineffective at addressing this problem.
9. The United States continues to urge India to improve its IPR regime by providing stronger protection for patents.
10. One concern in this regard is a provision in India’s Patent Law that prohibits patents on certain chemical forms absent a showing of increased efficacy. While the full import of this provision remains unclear, it appears to limit the patentability of potentially beneficial innovations, such as temperature-stable forms of a drug or new means of drug delivery.
11. The United States also encourages India to provide protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products.
12. The United States encourages India to improve its criminal enforcement regime by providing for expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases as well as deterrent sentences, and to change the perception that IPR offenses are low priority crimes.
13. The United States urges India to strengthen its IPR regime and will continue to work with India on these issues in the coming year.

Responses and reactions in India:
‘Special 301 Reports’ have always been received with skepticism both by the Government of India and the domestic media. Even in the past, PWL status has hardly bothered either India or China to bring in a radical change in the IPR environment of the respective countries, as desired by the USA.

A recent article on the ‘Special 301 Report 2010’ that appeared in ‘Business Standard’, Sunday, May 2, 2010 comments as follows:

“India, in fact, continues to be on the ‘priority watch list’ of the USTR’s ‘Special 301’ report, despite a detailed submission of the intellectual property rights (IPR) compliance measures initiated by it in 2009”.

Many stakeholders in India feel and have also articulated that despite the country taking important steps to improve implementation of IPR within the country, the position of India in ‘Special 301 Reports’ has not changed much since last so many years. India, therefore, envisages no harsh measures by the US Government as a result of being continuously in the PWL of the ‘Special 301 Reports’.

Why then China attracts more Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) than India in the Pharmaceutical space?

In my view, this has got not much to do with the IPR environment in these two countries. The key ‘Game Changers’ for China, I reckon, are as follows:

1. Larger market size due to greater access to medicines:
Access to medicine in China covers 85% of their 1.2 billion population, against 35% of 1.1 billion population of India.

2. Larger market size due to better affordability of medicine:

Around 85% of the population in China is covered through various medicine price reimbursement schemes. Whereas in India around 78% of such expenditure is ‘out of pocket’ expenses. Conversely, not more than 22% of the population is currently covered by drug price reimbursement schemes in India.

3. Strong signals to the Government that ‘innovative companies’ are contributing to the ‘Economic Progress’ of the country:

In such a booming pharmaceutical market scenario, it is essential for the business to keep the government engaged to help create a more ‘innovative pharmaceutical business’ friendly environment, where even a slight improvement in the prevailing IPR conditions will give a significant boost to their business performance.

IMS forecasts that by 2013 China is going to be the third largest pharmaceutical market in the world with an estimated turnover of US $66.7 billion against 13 ranking of India in the same league table, with an estimated turnover of US $15.5 billion.

Similar trend was observed in the immediate past, as well. As reported by IMS MAT September 2009, China registered a turnover of US $24 billion with 27.1% growth against US $7.7 billion with 12.9% growth of India, during the same period. IMS, based on their research data forecasts that during 2008-13 period, China will contribute 36% of the growth of the Asia Pacific Region, against 12% of India.

Under this situation, it appears quite prudent for the ‘innovative pharmaceutical companies’ to send signals to the Chinese Government that they are contributing to the ‘Economic Progress’ of the nation by making significant direct investments, obviously with an expectation to get more business friendly environment in that country.

Recent ‘Healthcare Reform’ in China has further improved its market attractiveness.

Thus the business attractiveness of China as a pharmaceutical market scores much higher than India, fetching more FDIs for them, prevailing IPR environment and PWL status in the ‘Special 301 Reports’ for the country not withstanding.

Conclusion:

Overall IPR environment in India, many experts strongly believe, does not seem to be much different from China, if not a shade better. While interacting with Chinese experts recently in that part of the world, I understand, ‘Data Protection’ is just ‘on paper’ in China, causing a huge issue for the innovator companies in that country. Similar situation prevails so far as the effectiveness of patent enforcement mechanism is concerned, where innovator companies are fighting and required to fight such infringement cases in the provincial level and in so many provinces of the country, posing a huge challenge to the patent holders.

So far as PWL status in ‘Special 301 Reports’ is concerned, it seems to have almost lost its relevance, as both India and China become stronger economies with increasing global dependence on them, consistently registering double digit or near double digit GDP growth.

In china, the pharmaceutical market attractiveness, its size and growth are driven by two key factors as mentioned above, viz, huge domestic market access/ penetration and better affordability of medicines through various effective medicine price re-imbursement schemes, across the country. The recent ‘Healthcare Reform’ of the country has added further momentum to this progress.

So long as India does not take robust policy measures, followed by their effective implementation to address, much ignored, the access and affordability issues of medicines for the common man, the country will continue to be a laggard, compared to China in the race of market leadership within the global pharmaceutical industry.

By Tapan Ray

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

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: RDP

The Concept of Orphan Drugs for Orphan Diseases is Orphan in India

Replication of ‘Old Paradigm’ of the developed pharmaceutical markets is unlikely to yield results in the evolving new paradigm of India

Nutraceuticals with Therapeutic Claims: A Vulnerable Growing Bubble Protected by Faith and Hope of Patients

Should India allow use of Compulsory License as a common tool to improve access to medicines?

The ruckus over Clinical Trials in India compels Government tightening regulations before flooring gas pedal for regional leadership

Does China provide a more robust IPR environment than India?

Generics’ Lobby, Innovators’ Lobby and the Pharmaceutical Data Protection in India – A Perspective