Regulatory Failures Are Still Risking Patient Lives

Posted on October 6, 2024 by Tapan Ray

India’s pharmaceutical industry faces renewed scrutiny as the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) flagged numerous substandard drugs in September 2024. At the same time, an October 02, 2024, Business Standard report highlights an ongoing crackdown on such drugs by regulators. This article explores these contrasting developments, beginning with the September findings.

On September 22, 2024, multiple reports revealed that the DCGI, through the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), identified 195 instances of substandard drugs, devices, and vaccines over three months. Popular brands like Shelcal 500, NICIP MR, and Pantocid were among the flagged drugs, affecting treatments for common ailments like hypertension and acid reflux. Major companies like Alkem, Sun Pharma, and Hetero Labs were implicated. The DCGI ordered the withdrawal of these drugs and called for stricter vigilance, highlighting ongoing issues despite regulatory frameworks being in place, which is known to all drug manufacturers, but still happening all over the county.

Industry Response:

After the DCGI’s September 2024 report on substandard drugs, responses from pharmaceutical companies were mixed. Many large firms cooperated, taking corrective steps to comply with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and tightening quality control. Some acknowledged the need for stricter oversight and preventive measures.

As happens mostly, there has been notable pushback from a portion of the industry, particularly smaller and mid-sized manufacturers. These companies argue that the stringent audits and frequent shutdowns due to non-compliance are creating significant financial and operational pressures.

Interestingly, some large manufacturers claimed that the faulty products were counterfeit or spurious. This makes the scenario even more complex. Although, both endanger patient lives.

Decades of regulatory failures persist, but at what cost?

Back in June 2015, I highlighted that “Fake Drugs Kill More People Each Year Than Terrorism Over the Last 40 Years.” Shockingly, little has improved since then.

The problem is deeply rooted in nations with weak enforcement - India being a prime example. Alarmingly, the Ministry of Health has long downplayed this threat, as it appears now.

For example, even prior to that, in 2009, their “Report on Countrywide Survey for Spurious Drugs” grossly underestimated the issue, claiming only 0.046% of spurious and 0.1% substandard branded drugs. This underreporting reflects a dangerous “Ostrich Syndrome” among regulators, who continue ignoring this life-threatening crisis, leaving millions at risk.

The question I raised in this blog on October 12, 2015 2015 still haunts me today: “Does India produce ‘world-class’ medicines for all?” Effective checks and accountability are crucial to address this crisis.

To tackle counterfeit drugs, India needs a comprehensive strategy, such as:

Strengthen Regulation: Stricter inspections, penalties, and GMP adherence.
Leverage Technology: Implement digital tracking systems.
Improve Coordination: Better agency collaboration and audits.
Foster Industry Self-Regulation: Internal audits and regulatory partnerships.
Raise Public Awareness: Educate consumers, protect whistleblowers.
Adopt Global Standards: Align with international benchmarks.

Only with strong accountability can India safeguard drug safety.

While there have been reports of some progress, concerns remain:

A Business Standard report from October 02, 2024, highlights a regulatory crackdown on substandard drugs. However, this raises critical questions about the true effectiveness of these efforts. Upon closer inspection, the report reveals limitations that warrant deeper scrutiny. These include gaps in data coverage, inconsistent inspections, and doubts about the sustainability of the actions taken, which cast doubt on how far-reaching and impactful this so-called crackdown really is.

Some of the notable flaws that I find in the report include:

Lack of Comprehensive Data: The report focuses on inspected units, which represents only a small fraction of India’s vast pharmaceutical manufacturing sector, especially considering that 80% of India’s pharma units are micro, small, and medium enterprises that often escape the regulatory radar.
Limited sample size could misrepresent the true scale of substandard drug production.
Inconsistent Inspection Coverage: While the CDSCO has ramped up its audits, the inspection coverage appears uneven. Many smaller manufacturers, particularly those operating in less regulated states, may not face the same scrutiny as larger companies. This could skew the perception of improvement.
Global Discrepancies: Despite claims of reduced international complaints, the report doesn’t fully address concerns like the recent ban on Indian-made antibiotics by Nepal, signaling that quality issues persist in exports.. This suggests a gap between domestic inspections and international quality standards.
Sustainability Questioned: The report emphasizes short-term regulatory actions, but long-term sustainability is unclear. Temporary shutdowns and corrective actions might not be enough to ensure lasting quality improvements, especially in an industry facing systemic issues like weak documentation and quality control in smaller firms

In summary, while the report provides some optimistic updates, its credibility is limited by incomplete data, uneven enforcement, and questions about long-term impact.

Is entity-centric accountability grossly missing in this area?

Absolutely. The accountability of both regulators and pharmaceutical companies regarding substandard and counterfeit drugs in India has been alarmingly deficient for years. Despite recurring reports of poor drug quality, weak enforcement, and ineffective oversight persist.

Regulatory bodies have failed to consistently hold companies accountable, allowing dangerous drugs to flood the market and endanger public health. This systemic neglect, coupled with inconsistent audits and lax penalties, has led to a crisis that remains unresolved even today. Thus, the following two areas, I reckon, need to attract greater focus:

Regulatory Gaps: The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) has faced criticism for being reactive rather than proactive, with irregular inspections and delays in addressing violations. The weak enforcement of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and insufficient penalties for violators have allowed substandard drugs to continue circulating.

Pharma Companies’ Compliance: Many pharmaceutical companies have either ignored or downplayed the issue, sometimes blaming counterfeiters rather than addressing quality control lapses. While larger companies might cooperate after being caught, the lack of strict and consistent regulatory pressure has allowed many manufacturers to evade full accountability.

This lax accountability, both in the regulatory framework and among drug companies, has created an environment where the production and distribution of substandard and fake drugs continue to pose serious risks to public health in India. The need for stricter enforcement and transparent accountability is crucial for restoring trust in the system.

Conclusion:

Despite years of scrutiny, regulatory lapses in India’s drug industry continue to jeopardize patient safety. Weak oversight and inconsistent enforcement allow substandard and counterfeit drugs to flood the market, with deadly consequences.

Regulatory bodies have failed to take firm action, and pharmaceutical companies are often not held accountable. As a result, millions remain at risk, and trust in the healthcare system is eroding. The cost of these failures is measured in lives, and without immediate reforms, the crisis will only deepen.

This underscores the point that the time for complacency has passed – India’s healthcare system and public trust demand swift, decisive action against counterfeit and low-quality drugs, with clear accountability and stringent punitive measures for violators.

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.

Why MNC Pharma Still Moans Over Indian IP Ecosystem?

Posted on May 14, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Improving patient access to expensive drugs, paving the way for entry of their cheaper generic equivalents, post patent expiry, and avoiding evergreening, is assuming priority a priority focus area in many countries. The United States is no exception, in this area. The Keynote Address of Scott Gottlieb, Commissioner of Food and Drug at the 2018 Food and Drug Law Institute Annual Conference inWashington, DC by, on May 3, 2018, confirms this. Where, in sharp contrast with what the MNC Pharma players and their trade associations propagated, the US-FDA commissioner himself admitted by saying, “Let’s face it. Right now, we don’t have a truly free market when it comes to drug pricing, and in too many cases, that’s driving prices to unaffordable levels for some patients.”

Does US talk differently outside the country?

At least, it appears so to many. For example, in April 2018, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its 2018 Special 301 Report. In this exercise, the USPTO names the country’s trading partners for not adequately protecting and enforcing Intellectual Property (IP) rights or otherwise deny market access to U.S. innovators that rely on the protection of their IP rights.’ Accordingly, U.S. trading partners are asked to address IP-related challenges, with a special focus on the countries identified on the Watch List (WL) and Priority Watch List (PWL).

In 2018, just as the past years, India continues to feature, along with 11 other countries, on the PWL, for the so called longstanding challenges in its IP framework and lack of sufficient measurable improvements that have negatively affected U.S. right holders over the past year.

From Patient access to affordable drugs to Market access for Expensive Drugs:

Curiously, the USTR Report highlights its concerns not just related to IP, but also on market access barriers for patented drugs and medical devices, irrespective of a country’s socioeconomic compulsion. Nevertheless, comparing it to what the US-FDA Commissioner articulated above, one gets an impression, while the US priority is improving patient access to affordable drugs for Americans, it changes to supporting MNC pharma to improve market access for expensive patented drugs, outside its shores.

Insisting others to improve global IP Index while the same for the US slides:

In the context of the 2018 report, the U.S. Trade Representative, reportedly said, “the ideas and creativity of American entrepreneurs’ fuel economic growth and employ millions of hardworking Americans.” However, on a closer look at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s annual Global IP Index for 2018, a contrasting fact surfaces, quite clearly. It shows, America, which once was at the very top of the overall IP Index score, is no longer so – in 2018, the world rank of the US in offering patent protection to innovators, dropped to 12^thposition from its 10^thglobal ranking in 2017. Does it mean, what the US is asking its trading partners to follow, it is unable to hold its own ground against similar parameters, any longer.

Should IP laws ignore country’s socioeconomic reality?

MNC Pharma often articulated, it doesn’t generally fall within its areas of concern, and is the Government responsibility. However, an affirmative answer, echoes from many independent sources on this issue. No wonder, some astute and credible voices, such as an article titled “U.S. IP Policy Spins Out of Control in the 2018 Special 301 Report”, published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on May 01, 2018, termed 2018 Special 301 Report – ‘A Tired, Repetitive Report.’ It reiterates in no ambiguous term: ‘The report maintains the line that there is only one adequate and effective level of IP protection and enforcement that every country should adhere to, regardless of its social and economic circumstances or its international legal obligations.

The ever-expanding MNC Pharma list of concerns on Indian IP laws:

The areas of MNC Pharma concern, related to Indian IP laws, continues to grow even in 2018. The letter dated February 8, 2018 of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, Washington, DC to the USTR, makes these areas rather clear. I shall quote below some major pharma related ones, from this ever-expanding list:

Additional Patentability Criteria – section 3 (d): The law makes it difficult for them to secure patent protection for certain types of pharma inventions.

TADF (Technology Acquisition and Development Fund)is empowered to request Compulsory Licensing (CL) from the Government:Section 4.4 of India’s National Manufacturing Policy discusses the use of CL to help domestic companies access the latest patented green technology.This helps in situations when a patent holder is unwilling to license, either at all or “at reasonable rates,” or when an invention is not being “worked” within India.

India’s National Competition Policyrequires IP owners to grant access to “essential facilities” on “agreed and nondiscriminatory terms” without reservation. They are not comfortable with it.

Regulatory Data Protection: The Indian Regulatory Authority relies on test data submitted by originators to another country when granting marketing approval to follow-on pharma products. It discourages them to develop new medicines that could meet unmet medical needs.

Requirement of local working of patents: The Controller of Patents is empowered to require patent holders and any licensees to provide details on how the invention is being worked in India. Statements of the Working, (Form 27),must be provided annually.Failure to provide the requested information is punishable by fine or imprisonment. It makes pharma patent holders facing the risk of CL, if they fail to “work” their inventions in India within three years of the respective patent grant.

Disclosure of Foreign Filings: Section 8 of India’s Patent Act requires disclosure and regular updates on foreign applications that are substantially “the same or substantially the same invention.” They feel it is irrelevant today.

Pharma MNCs’ self-serving tirade is insensitive to Indian patient interest:

Continuing its tirade against some developed and developing countries, such as India, the US drug manufacturers lobby group – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has urged the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) to take immediate action to address serious market access and intellectual property (IP) barriers in 19 overseas markets, including India, reports reported The Pharma Letter on February 28, 2018. It will be interesting to watch and note the level active and passive participation of India based stakeholders of this powerful US lobby group, as well.

Government of India holds its ground… but the saga continues:

India Government’s stand in this regard, including 2018 Special 301 Report, has been well articulated in its report released on January 24, 2018, titled “Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India – An Overview”, released by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Ministry of Commerce and Industry (DIPP). The paper also includes asummary of some of the main recommendations, as captured in the September 2016 Report of the High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, constituted by the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon of the United Nations in November 2015. Some of these observations are as follows:

WTO members must make full use of the TRIPS flexibilities as confirmed by the Doha Declaration to promote access to health technologies when necessary.

WTO members should make full use of the policy space available in Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement by adopting and applying rigorous definitions of invention and patentability that are in the interests of public health of the country and its inhabitants. This includes amending laws to curtail the evergreening of patents and awarding patents only when genuine innovation has occurred.

Governments should adopt and implement legislation that facilitates the issuance of Compulsory Licenses (CL). The use of CL should be based on the provisions found in the Doha Declaration and the grounds for the issuance left to the discretion of the governments.

WTO members should revise the paragraph 6 decision in order to find a solution that enables a swift and expedient export of pharmaceutical products produced under compulsory license.

Governments and the private sector must refrain from explicit or implicit threats, tactics or strategies that undermine the right of WTO Members to use TRIPS flexibilities.

Governments engaged in bilateral and regional trade and investment treaties should ensure that these agreements do not include provisions that interfere with their obligations to fulfill the rights to health.

The DIPP report includes two important quotes, among several others, as follows:

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize for Economics (2001) – an American Citizen:

- “If patent rights are too strong and maintained for too long, they prevent access to knowledge, the most important input in the innovation process. In the US, there is growing recognition that the balance has been too far tilted towards patent protection in general (not just in medicine).”

- “Greater IP protection for medicines would, we fear, limit access to life-saving drugs and seriously undermine the very capable indigenous generics industry that has been critical for people’s well-being in not only India but other developing countries as well”.

Bernie Sanders, an American Citizen and Senior U.S. Senator:

- “Access to health care is a human right, and that includes access to safe and affordable prescription drugs. It is time to enact prescription drug policies that work for everyone, not just the CEOs of the pharmaceutical industry.”

- “Healthcare must be recognized as a right, not a privilege. Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income.”

Conclusion:

Why is then this orchestrated moaning and accompanying pressure for making Indian IP laws more stringent, which apparently continues under the façade of ‘innovation at risk’, which isn’t so – in any case. But, cleverly marketed high priced ‘me too’ drugs with molecular tweaking do impact patient access. So is the practice of delaying off-patent generic drugs entry, surreptitiously. Instead, why not encourage Voluntary Licensing (VL) of patented drugs against a mutually agreed fee, for achieving greater market access to the developing countries, like India?

Whatever intense advocacy is done by the vested interests to change Indian patent laws in favor of MNC pharma, the intense efforts so far, I reckon, have been akin to running on a treadmill – without moving an inch from where they were, since and even prior to 2005. The moaning of MNC Pharma on the Indian IP ecosystem, as I see it, will continue, as no Indian Government will wish to take any risk in this area. It appears irreversible and is likely to remain so, for a long time to come. The time demands from all concerned to be part of the solution, and not continue to be a part of the problem, especially by trying to tamper with the IP ecosystem of the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still Continues A Policy Paralysis

Posted on December 12, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Many poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life savings for treatment of life-threatening ailments, such as, cancer, have been virtually priced out of the access to patented new drugs, across the world. As articulated by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2014, prices of these medicines are increasingly getting disconnected from the actual therapeutic value of these products.

The plight of such patients is worse in India, and would continue to be so, as there is not even a remote possibility of Universal Health Care/Coverage (UHC) visible anywhere near the healthcare horizon of the country.

There is no recent worthwhile Government action either, to give shape to its an important decision on this issue, in a meaningful way. That critical decision was also scripted in Para 4.XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012), and was notified on December 07, 2012. On ‘Patented Drugs Pricing’, it categorically states as follows:

“There is a separate committee constituted by the Government Order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented Drugs would be based on the recommendation of this committee.”

Just a couple of months after, on February 21, 2013, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) in a communication to the stakeholders announced that the committee to examine the issues of ‘Price Negotiations for Patented Drugs’ has since submitted its report to the Department. Simultaneously the stakeholders were requested to provide comments on the same urgently, latest by March 31, 2013.

Following this long overdue report, lack of any worthwhile action, both by the previous and the current Governments, possibly coming under a strong pressure of the self-serving interests of the constituents of ‘Big Pharma’ and their trade associations, is indeed glaring. I shall dwell on that in this article.

A brief recapitulation:

As stated earlier, almost a decade ago, an expert committee was constituted by the Government to suggest a system that could be used for price negotiation of patented medicines and medical devices ‘before their marketing approval in India’.

This committee reportedly had 20 meetings in two rounds, where the viewpoints of the pharmaceutical industry, including large multi-industry trade bodies like – FICCI, various NGOs and other stakeholders were taken into consideration. Simultaneously, it had commissioned a study of the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law and Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur to ascertain various mechanisms of price control of patented drugs in many countries, across the world, for independent research based inputs for this report.

Salient features of the report:

The salient features of this expert committee report were as follows:

Scope of recommendations:

The Committee in its final report recommends price negotiations for Patented Drugs only towards:

The Government procurement/reimbursement
Health Insurance Coverage by Insurance Companies

Issues to remain unresolved despite price negotiation:

In the report, the Committee expressed the following view:

Even after calibrating the prices based on Gross National Income with Purchasing Power Parity of the countries, where there are robust public health policies with the governments having strong bargaining power in price negotiation, the prices of patented medicines will remain unaffordable to a very large section of the population of India. Such countries were identified in the report as UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand.

Thus, the government should extend Health Insurance Scheme, covering all prescription medicines, to all those citizens of the country who are not benefitting under any other insurance/reimbursement plan.

Three categories of Patented Drugs identified:

The committee identified three categories of patented drugs, as follows:

A totally new class of drug with no therapeutic equivalence
A drug that has therapeutic equivalence, but also has a therapeutic edge over the existing ones
A drug that has similar therapeutic effectiveness compared to the existing one

It recommended that these three categories of Patented Drugs would require to be treated differently while fixing the price.

The Apex body for ‘Patented Drugs Price Negotiation’:

The Report recommends a committee named as ‘Pricing Committee for Patented Drugs (PCPD)’ headed by the Chairman of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to negotiate all prices of patented medicines.

As CGHS, Railways, Defense Services and other Public/Private institutions cover around 23 percent of total healthcare expenditure, the members of the committee could be invited from the Railways, DGHS, DCGI, Ministry of Finance and Representatives of top 5 health insurance companies in terms of the number of beneficiaries.

Recommended pricing methodology:

For ‘Price Negotiation of Patented Drugs’, the report recommends following methodologies for each of the three categories, as mentioned earlier:

1. For Medicines having no therapeutic equivalence in India:

The innovator company will submit to the PCPD the details of Government procurement prices in the UK, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand for the respective Patented Drugs.

In the event of the concerned company not launching the said Patented Drug in any of those reference countries, the company will require to furnish the same details only for those countries where the product has been launched.

The PCPD will then take into consideration the ratio of the per capita income of a particular country to the per capita income of India.

The prices of the Patented Drug would be worked out in India by dividing the price of the medicine in a particular country by this ratio and the lowest of these prices would be taken for negotiation for further price reduction.

The same methodology would be applicable to medical devices also and all the patented medicines introduced in India after 2005.

2. For medicines having a therapeutic equivalent in India:

If a therapeutically equivalent medicine exists for the Patented Drug, with better or similar efficacy, PCPD may consider the treatment cost for the disease using the new drug and fix the Patented Drug price accordingly.

PCPD may adopt the methodology of reference pricing as stated above to ensure that the cost of treatment of the Patented Drug does not increase as compared to the cost of treatment with existing equivalent medicine.

3. For medicines introduced first time in India itself:

PCPD will fix the price of such drugs, which are new in the class and no therapeutic equivalence is available, by taking various factors into consideration like cost involved, risk factors and any other factors of relevance.

PCPD may discuss various input costs with the manufacturer asking for documenting evidence.

This process may be complex. However, the report indicates, since the number of medicines discovered and developed in India will not be many, the number of such cases would also be limited.

Negotiated prices will be subject to revision:

The report clearly indicates that ‘the prices of Patented drugs so fixed will be subjected to revision either periodically or if felt necessary by the manufacturer or the regulator as the case may be.’

Support from the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Industry:

Pharma MNCs reportedly said that ‘Price Negotiations for Patented Products’ should be made only for Government purchases and not be linked with ‘Regulatory Approval’. They also expressed their serious concern on the methodology of ‘Patented Products Pricing’. Nevertheless, from the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, such as, Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), Indian Drug Manufacturer Association (IDMA), Pharmexcil, Federation of Pharma Entrepreneurs (FOPE) and Confederation of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (CIPI), there emerged strong voices of support for this Government initiative

DIPP expressed apprehensions:

Interestingly, though the DoP had proposed in the report that once the Patented Drug Policy is implemented the issuance of CL may be done away with, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has reportedly commented with grave caution, as below:

“If it is decided that Price Negotiations on Patented Drugs should be carried out, then the following issues must be ensured:

Negotiations should be carried out with caution, as the case for Compulsory License on the ground of unaffordable pricing of drugs [Section 84(b) of the Patent Act] will get diluted.

Re-Negotiations of the prices at periodic intervals should be an integral part of the negotiation process.”

The status today:

The bottom-line is, a decision on the pricing policy for patented drugs is still pending with the Government, since a decade.

Post February 2013 report, without assigning any specific reasons, the whole process, intriguingly, came back to the square one. On February 2014, the DoP reportedly again decided to constitute another inter-ministerial committee to consider the subject, and recommend the pathway for its implementation in India. Nothing tangible has happened, since the first experts’ committee submitted its report, six years after it was formed, to address this critical patient-centric issue of the country. Effective governance remains a key issue in the health care space of India, even today.

The chronicle continues. On August 23, 2016, ‘The Indian Express’ reported that: “Gross negligence, lackadaisical attitude, vested interests, are some of the terms used in a report by the Parliamentary Committee on ‘Government Assurances’ on August 11, 2016, for the DoP on the latter’s inability to regulate the prices of patented medicines even after almost a decade of deliberation on this issue. While the NDA government has been in power since 2014, the second committee is yet to submit its report, it said.

However, in the end, the Parliamentary Committee reportedly said: “The Committee would like the ministry to take the proactive steps to expedite the proper follow action to finalize the requisite mechanism of patented drugs at the earliest and in the best interest of the country so that these medicines are made available to the common people at most affordable rates.” Let’s continue to wait and watch!

Conclusion:

I reckon, a robust mechanism of ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ would also benefit the global pharmaceutical companies to put forth even a stronger argument against any Government initiative to grant CL on the pricing ground for expensive innovative drugs in India. At the same time, the patients will have much greater access to patented drugs than what it is today, due to Government setting the purchase of these drugs at a negotiated price.

It’s about time for all those who are responsible for framing drug and health elated policies to introspect whether ‘policy paralysis’ is continuing, even today, in this area under intense pressure of vested interests. If not, the counter question that needs to be satisfactorily answered: While several secretaries have changed in the DoP since 2013, why is the policy on patented drug pricing, mooted by the Government a decade ago, not moved forward even an inch, to safeguard the patients’ health interest?

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Recent Ban On Irrational FDCs: History Repeats Itself

Posted on March 21, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The recent regulatory ban on a large number of irrational Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs is not a new incident in India. A similar mega ban was announced even before, about nine years ago. Intriguingly, the saga continues, for various reasons, without any tangible outcome for the patients on the ground.

On March 11, 2016, the latest ban, again on a large number of irrational FDCs, was notified. It caused a flutter and an immediate sharp adrenaline rush to the impacted drug companies and was soon followed by an interim stay order, again by an honorable High Court of the country.

Thus, when I connect the past dots with the latest one, on mega ban of irrational FDCs in India, a similar sequence of events gets unfolded, following each of such ban notifications of the Government.

Looking back, 294 FDCs were banned by the DCGI in 2007. At that time too, the important issue of patients’ health, safety and economical interest, got converted into a legal quagmire. Many adversely affected FDC drug players chose to go to the court of law to protect their business interest, and also successfully managed to obtain a ‘Stay’ order from the Madras High Court.

Consequently, those 294 irrational FDCs, banned by the Union Ministry of Health on health and safety grounds, continued to be promoted, prescribed and sold to patients across India, without any hindrance, whatsoever.

The matter continues to remain sub judice, as we deliberate the issue here. Thus, whether the recent gazette notification on the ban of irrational FDCs would immediately be implemented, unlike the past ban, or the history would repeat itself, is indeed a big question mark, at this juncture.

Would this ban have similar outcome?

As discussed, close to a decade after the serious legal fall-out of the ban of 294 irrational FDCs in 2007, another mega ban of 344 irrational FDCs has been announced by the Government, through a Gazette Notification dated March 11, 2016. Some well known brands, such as, Corex, Phensedyl, Crocin Cold and Flu, D-Cold Total, Nasivion and Vicks Action 500 Extra, among others, reportedly come under this ban now. Here is the complete list of 344 banned FDCs.

According to the Government, the reason for banning these drugs is that ‘they involve risk to humans and safer alternatives were available.’

Nevertheless, manufacturers of some of these mega brands have again obtained an interim injunction on the ban for their respective products, from the Delhi High Court.

Sometime during the day, i.e. on March 21, 2016, the honorable Delhi High Court is expected to take up this patient-centric issue. It apparently smacks a blatant self-serving interest of the concerned irrational FDC manufacturers, that defeats the core purpose and value of pharma products for their users.

Like most other issues, the Court directive on this issue, as well, would ultimately prevail, without any shade of doubt.

Is it a ‘bolt from the blue’ for the pharma industry?

Many industry watchers feel that this recent ban has not come as a ‘bolt from the blue’ for the pharma players, at all, as is being claimed by a section of the pharma industry. Even the Union Ministry of Health has, reportedly, clarified the following points on the recent notification:

“We have tried to bring objectivity to the issue by roping in the best of scientists to study the effects of these FDCs.”

“Show cause notices were also issued to more than 344 companies and they were given time to make further representations after the expert committee gave their recommendations. Some of them did not even care to respond. Everybody was given ample opportunity. After that, the move was initiated. It was done after much examination.”

“It is necessary and expedient in the public interest to regulate by way of prohibition of manufacture for sale, sale and distribution for human use, of the said drugs in the country.”

It is worth noting, at least, one of these well known pharma brands was, reportedly, banned in one of our neighboring countries – Sri Lanka, in 2012, for wide-spread drug misuse, long after its marketing approval in the country.

Some key events leading to the recent ban:

Besides the above articulation by the Union Ministry of Health, it is worth noting, especially, the following key developments to ascertain, whether this ban came suddenly to the irrational FDC manufacturers, and without any prior warning or appropriate communication:

The issue of manufacturing licenses being granted by some states for FDCs without prior approval of Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), was first discussed by the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) in the year 2000, though without any major tangible outcome till 2007.

In 2007, Government banned 294 FDCs, and the consequent court proceedings had ‘Stayed’ this ban.

Expressing huge concern on pharma malpractices related to irrational FDCs, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 59^th report (2012) also had flagged this issue. The lawmakers observed in the report that manufacturing licenses for large numbers FDCs were being issued by the State Drug Authorities, without prior approval of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), in violation of rules. The committee also noted that multiple FDCs, which are available in India had been rejected by the drug regulators in Europe, North America, and Australia, while for many others never had marketing approval applications submitted outside India (Section 7 of [6]).

Subsequently, in June 2013, CDSCO announced the “Policy Guidelines for Approval of Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) In India.”

According to CDSCO, just 1193 FDCs were approved by the DCGI, since 1961 till November, 2014. Thus, all drug manufacturers should clearly know, which FDC has been approved by the DCGI, and when, leaving no scope for any ambiguity in this area. Thus, there should be no problem in total conformance to the above ‘FDC Policy Guidelines’ by these drug producers.

In the same year – 2013, a public notice was also, reportedly, issued, calling all those drug players manufacturing FDCs to apply with the requisite fee, in the prescribed form to the DCGI office, providing the required details.

In 2014, a six-member committee, chaired by Prof. (Dr.) Chandrakant Kokate, Vice Chancellor, KLE University, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belgaum, Karnataka, was formed to expedite the review process of the applications.

The Kokate Committee has, reportedly, reviewed about 6,600 FDCs, so far, and classified them under four categories – irrational, require further deliberations, rational and require additional data generation.

According to a report, 963 FDCs were found under the irrational category, providing reasons in detail for each.

In 2016, the Government finalized its action, based on the Report of Kokate Committee and also the response received (or still not received despite requests) from the concerned FDC manufacturers.

The March 11, 2016 Gazette Notification banned 344 ‘irrational’ FDCs, ruffling many feathers, but understandably to protect patients’ health interest.

On March 14, 2016, in response to an appeal against this ban through a writ petition, first by Pfizer, the Delhi High Court reportedly granted the company a stay, pending the next court hearing on March 21, 2016. Subsequently, several such stay orders by the honorable Delhi High Court have been issued with the same date of hearing.

Adverse health and economic impact on patients:

Besides serious health risks, the patients also suffer from a huge adverse economical impact, in rupee value terms, by consuming much avoidable irrational FDC formulations, which are generally more expensive than single ingredient drugs, if taken separately at times of necessity or convenience.

The ban of 344 FDCs is estimated to cover over 2,500 brands, in different therapy categories, including chronic diseases, where medicines are taken for a long period of time. Thus, a large number of patients were consuming these irrational formulations for a long period of time without any inkling of their necessity and more importantly serious adverse health impact that these irrational FDCs could cause.

To quantify how much have the patients collectively spent on these banned medicines, in the rupee value terms, I shall quote from the estimates of one of the well reputed and much quoted pharma retail audit and market research organization of India – AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd.

According to its report of March 13, 2016, Indian Pharmaceutical Industry would lose Rs. 3,838 Crore (MAT), which is 3.1 percent of the turnover of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), when calculated based on the retail sales of these FDCs in the last 12-month period.

Paraphrasing the same finding, one can logically conclude that Indian patients withstood an adverse economic impact of Rs. 3,838 Crore in a 12-month period, by spending on these unnecessary and irrational FDCs of dubious value, besides health risks.

To my surprise, some of the MNC pharma players contribute a major chunk to this avoidable expenditure of the patients, besides associating and avoidable health risks.

Quoting similar credible data, it is also possible to give company-wise break-up in this area, which, in my view, may not be meaningful here.

Two Critical issues to address:

Although, a lot of water has since flown down the bridges, a large number of irrational FDCs are still in the market, exposing patients to possible health hazards and economical hardship.

In this blog, I discussed this core issue in two of my articles, one on July 15, 2013 titled, “FDC Saga: Defiant Manufacturers, Sloppy Regulators and Humongous Inaction”, and the other on May 18, 2015 titled, “Booming Sales Of Unapproved Drugs: Do We Need ‘Safe In India’ Campaign For Medicines?”.

I reckon, the following two would still remain the critical issues, which need to be addressed, expeditiously, once and for all, for patients’ sake:

Stringent compliance with the latest CDSCO requirements by all the manufacturers of FDCs in India must be ensured. Any non-conformance should attract strong punitive measures, through a transparent process.

Whether such drugs are being widely misused, creating a grave risk for health and other safety hazards, must be ascertained periodically, based on credible data.

An important example:

Just the other day, Reuters reported that one of the largest pharma companies operating in India, was selling a FDC of the antibiotics cefixime and azithromycin, without approval of the DCGI.

Interestingly, this particular FDC has reportedly not received marketing approval in the major global pharma markets, such as, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France or Japan.

After the ban of this irrational FDC, the company was compelled to stop manufacturing and sales of this powerful antibiotic cocktail that poses huge health risk to patients.

This Reuters report also states, the drug ‘had been promoted and administered as a treatment for a broad array of illnesses, including colds, fevers, urinary tract infections, drug-resistant typhoid and sexually transmitted diseases.’ It also found chemists who were selling the drug to prevent post-operative infection and for respiratory problems.

Many doctors and health experts have been saying that the spread and misuse of antibiotic combinations may be contributing to antibiotic resistance in India.

FDC approval must be hard evidence-based:

Since all pharmaceutical products, whether available as a single ingredient, or FDC formulations, are globally considered as ‘Evidence-Based Medicines’. Such evidences are established through robust, stringent and well regulated clinical trials for obtaining marketing approval from the drug regulators, unlike most ‘traditional medicines’.

Following this well-established global norm, and as recommended by even the World Health Organization (WHO), all irrational FDCs must be identified through a transparent and medical science-based process, and banned forthwith by the Government.

Establishing safety and efficacy for all FDCs through clinical trials, just like any other single ingredient drug, introduced for the first time in India, whenever it happens or had happened in the past, inadvertently or otherwise, should be a ‘must happen’ regulatory requirement, for all time to come.

Profit making interest through introduction of a plethora of irrational FDCs, should never be allowed to overshadow patients’ health and economical interest.

The bogey of even ‘25 to 30-year-old FDCs’ now being banned:

Some section of the industry is also raising this point, vociferously, protesting against the bans of their respective old and top-selling FDC brands, which have now been considered by the Government as irrational, and questioning: ‘why now?’

This point is irrelevant, as not taking action ever, against a wrong doing allowed over a long period time, does not make an irrational FDC formulation a rational one, for all time to come.

Moreover, this recent action of the drug regulator can not be considered as unique either. With the advancement of medical science, in the past years too, the DCGI issued banned notifications, covering many old FDCs, considering those ‘irrational combinations’ at a given point of time, such as, analgin + pitofenone, vitamins B1 + B6 + B12, cyproheptadine + lysine, just to name a few.

Conclusion:

As is known to many, pharmacovigilance is still at a very nascent stage in India. Consequently, ‘Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR)’ or ‘Adverse Drug Events’ reporting are still abysmally poor in the country. No information on ‘Adverse Drug Events’, as claimed by the manufacturers of these irrational FDCs, should, therefore, in no way mean that these drugs are safe and efficacious and beyond any reasonable doubt.

Although the laxity of the drug regulator in this area can’t also be condoned, in any way, the enormity of the risks posed by irrational FDCs to the innocent patients, is indeed mind boggling.

If the manufacturing and sale of all irrational FDCs are not legally stopped, even after a long and rigorous scientific and medical scrutiny by the experts, the patients in the country would, unfairly, continue to remain exposed to huge health and economic risks, without any fault of theirs. This is exactly what happened in 2007 also, when, after the stay order of the ban notification for 294 irrational FDCs by the honorable Madras High Court, all those FDCs continued to be promoted, prescribed and sold to patients across India, unhindered… but at whose cost?

Yet again, the gazette notification of the Government on the recent ban on 344 FDCs, has gone for judicial scrutiny, at least, for some money spinning key brands of the large pharma players.

This time, however, there is one significant difference, the Government seems to be far more assertive and committed to ensure that only safe medicines are available in the market, despite reported intense advocacy by the industry. This commitment on the part of the Government is also evident from the media report that the (DGCI) has again sent a new list of additional 1,200 FDCs for a probe to the panel, which recommended the ban of 344 irrational FDCs in the last week, and that too, after the court stay order on the latest ban.

Further, a senior a senior official in the Health Ministry has, reportedly, reiterated that the Government will stand firm on its decision, and will support the ban with robust data, in the Delhi High Court.

Would history repeat itself, this time now? We, at least, would get a sense of it, as the proceeding of the honorable Delhi High Court commences today, on this issue.

Either way, it will possibly send a clear signal, whether the triumph of commercial profit motive with irrational FDCs would continue, unabated, over patients’ health, safety and economic interests, at least in the foreseeable future.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

For Drug Safety Concern: “Whistleblower’s Intention Should Be Nationalistic”

Posted on March 14, 2016 by Tapan Ray

In the recent weeks, three significant developments related to the Pharmaceutical Industry in India, have triggered rejuvenated concerns in the following critical areas:

A. Overall drug safety standards in the country

B. Self serving interest, rather than patients’ interest, dominate the prescribing decisions

C. Government assurance to American Trade Organization on ‘Compulsory License (CL)’ in India.

These important issues fall under three key regulatory areas of India, as follows:

The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO)
The Medical Council of India (MCI)
The Indian Patent Office

It is worth mentioning here that the Department Related Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 59^th Report, placed before both the houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012, on the functioning of the Central Drug Standards Control Organization (CDSCO), 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, for 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.

Most importantly, all these concerns, if not properly clarified and appropriately addressed by the Government, soon enough, have the potential to create an adverse snowballing impact on the uniform access to affordable quality medicines, for all sections of the society in India.

Under this backdrop, I shall discuss in this article briefly, my perspective on each of these critical areas, as they are today, and not just the drug safety concerns.

The headline of this article is expected capture not only the prevailing mood of some key regulators, but also their inertia to address critical healthcare concerns and above all how the core public health related issues are getting lost, and the trivial ones are gradually occupying the center stage.

A. Overall drug quality and safety  standards in India:

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) suit, filed against the Drugs Consultative Committee and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), was listed on the Supreme Court website for hearing on March 11, 2016.

The PIL has been filed by one Dinesh Thakur, requesting the Supreme Court to lay down guidelines by which manufacturers could be made liable for violating drug standards and also give a direction to the government to set up a ‘Drug Approvals Review Committee’ for examining criminality in the manner in which faulty drug approvals were granted.

Many may recall that the same Dinesh Thakur worked for Ranbaxy from 2003 for two years, and is now the Chief Executive of MedAssure Global Compliance based in Florida, US. Thakur’s Company now advises pharma manufacturers on drug safety and quality standards.

As reported by Reuters, Thakur had earlier exposed how the erstwhile largest drug maker of India, Ranbaxy Laboratories, failed to conduct proper safety and quality tests on drugs and lied to regulators about its procedures. Consequently, USFDA fined Ranbaxy US$500 million for violating federal drug safety laws, and making false statements to the US regulator.

This news report further states: “Indian Parliamentary Committee, thereafter, reportedly demanded an investigation and the drugs regulator committed to one in 2013. Thakur received a statement from the health ministry last year, seen by Reuters, showing no inquiry had begun.”

On the last Friday, however, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain this PIL of Dinesh Thakur, saying it does not have time to adjudicate academic issues, such as, need for guidelines to regulate quality of medicines.

The core issue:

The core issue here is not at all the above PIL, not at the very least. The issue is the much reported concern being expressed, over a period of time, regarding the drug safety standards in India. The reasons include breach of of data integrity, and gross violation of the ‘Good Manufacturing Practices’ standards. Such instances are being detected, almost regularly, by the foreign drug regulators, in several manufacturing facilities run by many large and small Indian drug producers.

It is well vindicated by the fact that around 45 Indian drug manufacturing plants have been banned by the USFDA alone, from shipping generic drugs to the United States, as these were considered unsafe for consumption of patients in the US. Some other foreign regulators too had taken similar action, citing similar reasons. The USFDA website specifies the details of gross violations made in each of these cases.

Ironically, all such facilities can manufacture and sell their drugs in India, as they conform to the quality requirements of the Indian drug regulator. Consequently, the Indian patients consume even those medicines, which are considered unsafe by the USFDA for American patients, innocently, as and when prescribed by the doctors.

Arising out of these incidents, when asked about the drug safety standards in India, and the public health-safety, instead of giving credible and action oriented answers for public reassurance, some of the apparently brazen replies of the DCGI are quite stunning for many stakeholders, both within and outside the shores of India.

I would now quote below just a few of those replies, just as examples.

“…Whistleblower’s Intentions Should Be Nationalistic” - DCGI:

According to Reuters, it has received the following response from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), on the above PIL related to the drug safety standards in India:

“We welcome whistleblowers, we have got great respect, but their intentions should be genuine, should be nationalistic… I don’t have any comment on this guy.”

Thus, many industry watchers feel that in a situation like this, the honorable Supreme Court of India would possibly require to intervene, just as what it did on alleged ‘Clinical Trial’ malpractices in the country or for drug price control, solely for public health interest.

The same attitude continues:

Such brazen response of the Central Drug Regulator, and that too on a serious subject, is indeed bizarre. It becomes increasingly intriguing, as the same attitude continues without any perceptible meaningful intervention from the Ministry of Health.

For example, on February 22, 2014, in the midst of a more intense scenario on a similar issue, instead of taking transparent and stringent measures, the DCGI was quoted by the media commenting:

“We don’t recognize and are not bound by what the US is doing and is inspecting. The FDA may regulate its country, but it can’t regulate India on how India has to behave or how to deliver.”

On February 26, 2014, presumably reacting to the above remarks of the DCGI, the American Enterprise Institute reportedly commented, “Indian drug regulator is seen as corrupt and colliding with pharma companies…”

Such apparently irresponsible and loose comments keep continuing, despite the 2012 report of the Parliamentary Committee of India alleging collusion between some pharmaceutical companies and officials of the CDSCO, which oversees the licensing, marketing and trials of new drugs. The report also commented that the agency is both chronically under-staffed and under-qualified.

Some possible remedial measures:

As the saying goes, “better late than never”, considering all these continuing developments, it is about time to reconsider some of the key recommendations of Dr. R. A. Mashelkar Committee on a similar subject and make amendments in the relevant Act accordingly, soon, to facilitate creation of a robust with high accountability ‘Central Drugs Authority (CDA)’. It would introduce a centralized licensing system for drug manufacturing, along with stringent drug safety standards; besides, sale, export and distribution of drugs. Perhaps, the draft bill on CDA is now lying in the heap of archival documents with the change in Government.

Why does India need CDA?

I believe, the formation of a robust CDA with high accountability, besides meeting with drug safety concerns, would provide the following significant benefits, both to the Industry and also to the Government:

Achieving uniform interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act & Rules
Standardizing procedures and systems for drug control across the country
Enabling coordinated nationwide action against spurious and substandard drugs
Upholding uniform quality standards with respect to exports to foreign countries from anywhere in India
Implementing uniform enforcement action in case of banned and irrational drugs
Creating a Pan-Indian approach to drug control and administration
Evolving a single-window system for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research undertaken anywhere in the country.

B. Self serving interest dominates the prescribing decision:

That the self serving interest, rather than patient interest, dominate the prescribing decision, was vindicated by a key announcement of the Medical Council of India (MCI) last month.

In February 2016, apparently succumbing to continuous and powerful external pressure, the MCI announced an amendment in a clause of its Code of Ethics Regulations 2002, exempting doctors’ associations from the ambit of its ethics code, as applicable to doctors now across the country. Prior to the amendment, this section used to read as: “code of conduct for doctors and professional association of doctors in their relationship with pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry”.

In other words, it means that the professional associations of doctors will no longer come under the ambit of ethics regulations, legitimizing their indulgence in the identified unethical and corrupt practices, by receiving gifts in cash or kind from the pharma or healthcare industry.

A large section of the key stakeholders believes that this amendment would help creating an additional large space for the pharmaceutical marketing malpractices to thrive, unabated, at the cost of patients.

The latest report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on MCI:

In its 92nd Report, the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare titled, “The Functioning of Medical Council of India”, presented to the Rajya Sabha and laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 8th March, 2016, the Committee observed on this amendment as “an action that is ethically impermissible for an individual doctor cannot become permissible, if a group of doctors carry out the same action in the name of an association.”

The report also noted the failure of MCI to instill respect for a professional code of ethics in the medical professionals and take disciplinary action against doctors found violating the code of Ethics, etc.

The Committee called for a complete restructuring of the MCI, since it believes that the Council has failed as a regulator of medical education and the profession. Casting serious aspersions on the functioning of the MCI, the house panel of the Parliament recommended that the Act under which the MCI was set up be scrapped and a new legislation be drafted “at the earliest”.

The report castigated the health ministry:

The lawmakers castigated the Health Ministry in this report saying, “The committee also finds it intriguing that instead of intervening to thwart attempts of MCI at subverting the system, the ministry meekly surrendered to MCI.”

While summing up, the report states, “the Committee exhorts the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to implement the recommendations made by it in this report immediately and bring a new Comprehensive Bill in Parliament for this purpose at the earliest.”

How will it pan out now?

I reckon, it will now be immensely interesting now for all concerned to follow, how does the Government deal with this report to curb, among others, the strong interference of mighty and powerful vested interests to continue with the rampant pharma marketing malpractices, at the cost of patients in India.

C. Reported Government assurance on ‘Compulsory License’:

On March 3, 2016, a media report quoted a submission by the US Chamber of Commerce to the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) as follows:

“While the Government of India has privately reassured (American) industry that it would not use compulsory licenses for commercial purposes, a public commitment to forgo using (this) would enhance legal certainty for innovative industries.”

This is an interesting development, primarily because there are a number of legal provisions for granting Compulsory Licenses (CL) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, including, when a drug is not widely available, extremely expensive and some other situation. In some these provisions, law should follow its own course and there is no legally permissible scope for Government’s administrative interference. Grant of CL for Nexavar of Bayar is one such example, and incidentally, that’s the sole CL that India has granted, so far, from the date of amendment of the country’s Patents Act in 2005.

Thus, a blanket assurance of not invoking any of the provisions of the CL, as provided in the Indian Patents Act 2005, if true, would possibly require to pass through intense legal scrutiny, as that would adversely impact the access to key medicines in a necessary situation, for the public health interest.

So far, India has amply demonstrated to all, time and again, that the country does not grant a CL at the drop of a hat. That situation should continue to encourage and protect innovation.

Nevertheless, “a written public commitment to forgo using the CL provisions for enhancing legal certainty for innovative industries,” as demanded by the US Chamber of Commerce, appears to be unreasonable, goes against the spirit of India’s Patents Act, and perhaps is not legally tenable either, unless the IP Act is amended accordingly in the Parliament.

Conclusion:

All these three areas, as discussed above, are critical from the healthcare perspective of the country.

Ironically, while deliberating on the subject, the capability, credibility and competence of some of the key regulators of the country, are being repeatedly questioned. These doubts emanate not just from Tom, Dick and Harry, but from an illustrious spectrum of constitutional institutions of India, spanning across the lawmaking Parliament, through its various committee reports, to the ultimate legal justice provider – the Supreme Court of India, through is various orders and key observations.

Regrettably, in this specific space, which is primarily related to healthcare, nothing seems to be changing on the ground, since long. The same tradition continues, without any visible sense of urgency, even from the Government.

On the contrary, we now read a new genre of comments, even from a key regulator, on the stakeholder concerns. For example, reacting to concern on drug safety standards, instead of articulating tangible actions to usher in a perceptible change, the chief action taker reportedly specified a totally judgmental and an outlandish requirement: “…Whistleblower’s intentions should be Nationalistic.”

Together with these incidents, the key public healthcare concerns of India too, are now apparently getting drowned in the high decibel ‘Nationalistic’ versus ‘Anti-nationalistic’ cacophony. But, the hope still lingers… for a change…for our nation’s sound health!

By: Tapan J. Ray

Healthcare In India (2016-17): Whither Goest Thou?

Posted on February 29, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The Union Budget 2016-17 will be proposed today by the Finance Minister before the Indian Parliament. As many critical questions are currently being raised about the real health of the Indian economy, across the globe, the Union Finance Minister shoulders an onerous task to address all those apprehensions, beyond any further doubt.

Yesterday, in his monthly radio program ‘Mann Ki Baat’, Prime Minister Modi himself said, “Budget 2016 is my exam, 125 crore people will test me.” A large section of people also would probably view Union Budget 2016-17 in a similar way.

That said, we all know, that the system or the process of annual Union Budget presentation before the Parliament need not be considered as the primary platform to announce various policies of the Government to propel economic growth of the nation. Nevertheless, it certainly underscores the key focus areas, where the Government would prefer deploying country’s financial and other resources, through appropriate budgetary allocations, to effectively meet the key short and long term national goals.

Simultaneously, of course, the Finance Minister would also explain the measures that he proposes for raising the required wherewithal for the same.

The Economic Survey report 2015-16:

The Economic Survey report of the Government for 2015-16, tabled before the Parliament on February 26, 2016, reiterates a grim healthcare situation in India, for a vast majority of its citizens.

The report also underscores, that the average cost of treatment in private hospitals, excluding child birth, is currently about four times than that of public healthcare facilities. This alarming situation, fueled by the meager public health infrastructure in the country, severely limits healthcare access to many in the country. Its primary reason being, a large number of Indians are unable to incur so high out of pocket health expenditure.

A situation like this, brings to the fore the challenges that India faces in providing affordable and accessible healthcare to all those who need it most, the Survey document commented.

Thus, with limited resources and competing demands in the health sector, it is essential for the government to prioritize its expenditure in the sector, the report recommends.

Healthcare deserves a priority focus:

Healthcare, I believe, is one such domain that has been attracting a priority focus in all the developed and a large number of developing nations, since long. In this critical area, however, various national Governments in India have been just expressing its laudable intents, over a period of time. Unfortunately, no political dispensation, so far, has implemented anything hugely impactful to make its citizens feel a huge difference in this critical area, especially, by translating the promised intents into reality and keeping the nose to the grindstone.

Besides many other robust reasons, commercially too, the Indian healthcare industry is one of the largest growing sectors contributing around 10 percent of the GDP, employing around 4 million people.

The D-Day:

Today is the D-Day for the Financial Year 2016-17. We shall get to know soon, in which direction would public healthcare go, as we step into another brand new financial year, and in the third Union Budget of the Government in power.

On December 7, 2015, I wrote an article in this Blog on this issue, titled, “Healthcare: My Expectations From Union Budget (2016-17)”.

My expectations on healthcare budget allocations:

In the above article, I articulated my overall expectations on the allocations for healthcare in 2016-17 Union Budget proposals, as follows:

Increase total public health expenditure from the current 1.2 percent to at least 2.0 percent of the GDP and then raise it 2.5 percent over a period of next three years.

The main source of financing for public health should remain general taxation by levying ‘Health Cess’, quite in line with with ‘Swachh Bharat Cess’ at the rate of 0.5 percent on all taxable services, besides adding a similar tax on non-essential and luxury items.

Primary focus areas:

If something similar to the above budgetary provision is made for public health in India, the details would require to be worked out, if not done already, in the following five primary focus areas, as I envisage:

A. Infrastructure and capacity building:

- Focused and well-identified investments in building high quality public health infrastructure and well-skilled human resources for rural India on priority.

- Villages, based on population, would be identified by the respective State Governments.

B. Increasing access to quality public healthcare:

- Free universal access to primary care services to start with, across the country,

- Free drugs, free diagnostics and free emergency care services in all public hospitals of the country and for all.

- Free emergency response and patient-transport systems across the country, for all.

C. Strengthening the supply chain:

- Quality drug and diagnostics procurement system by the Central Medical Services Society (CMSS) of the Government needs to be modernized, strengthened and made more efficient with real time data, for easy availability of all required drugs and diagnostics in all public hospitals at the right time and in the right quantity.

- Today, a large number of life saving drugs and diagnostics is highly temperature sensitive. Thus, adequate cold chain facilities are to be created right from transportation to storage in public hospitals for all such products, maintaining their required efficacy and safety standards for patients.

D. Increasing awareness for disease prevention:

- Intensive multi-pronged, multi-channel and door to door campaigns by the para-medics to increase awareness for identified disease prevention.

E. Performance incentive:

- To achieve the desired level of success and increase the motivation level in a sustainable way, budgetary provisions to be made for a system of well-structured individual and team performance incentive scheme, when the key implementers exceed expectations by achieving the set goals well before schedule.

- Commensurate punitive measures for failure also to be put in place, simultaneously.

I shall not broach upon the area of Research and Development (R&D) for drugs and diagnostics here, as that could probably be considered in a holistic way under overall innovation, science and technology budget allocation required for the country, as a whole.

Conclusion:

February 29, 2016 is the moment of truth, of yet another year-long expectation in the key focus areas of the Government for resource mobilization and its meaningful deployment.

It is worth noting, however, that the much awaited “National Health Policy” has not been put in place before the Union Budget 2016-17, which could have given an indication to all, about the road map that the Government intends to follow in the healthcare domain of India.

Thus, it is possibly too late now to identify the specific health projects based on majority of citizen’s immediate health needs, from a well-articulated Health Policy for the country. Consequently, charting an action plan for joint implementation by the Central and the State Governments in unison, and making budgetary provisions accordingly for this year, to start with, may not just be feasible.

In the above situation, despite the recommendations of ‘The Economic Survey report 2015-16’, we may, at best see in today’s Union Budget, some ad hoc measures in this space. In any case discussing all these at this hour would just be a matter of speculation. Nevertheless, like many persons, I too keep my fingers crossed.

In any case, we all shall get to know today, the Finance Minister’s comprehensive budgetary proposals for this year, including healthcare. Till then, at least for 2016-17, the same question will keep haunting: Healthcare In India: Whither Goest Thou?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Against Pharma Marketing Malpractices: A Gutsy Step

Posted on February 22, 2016 by Tapan Ray

January 7, 2016 edition of ‘The Financial Times (FT)’ reported that responding to escalating pressure on the drug industry, related to its ‘Conflict of Interest’ with the doctors and other related professionals, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has decided taking a very unorthodox step.

According to this news report, GSK has decided not to promote its brands by making payments to doctors in any form. The company also strongly expressed its belief that to refurbish the dented image of the industry, in general, its competitors, as well, would start following the same steps, sooner than later.

Whatever it may be, GSK has apparently decided to avoid the above ‘conflict of interest’ and not to ride on the trendy wave for drug promotion, any longer.

Although, many restrictions have already been put in place by different countries, to curb these practices to the extent required, many pharma companies always find effective ways to circumvent those restrictions, as many report highlights.

In this scenario, GSK has taken a bold and calculated decision to swim against the tide. Respecting public outcry and sensitiveness on the subject, it has decided against engaging paid physician speakers, as an integral of the brand marketing strategy, any longer. More importantly, this decision of the company is absolutely voluntary, transparent, and its faithful implementation level can also be monitored externally.

The consequences of this ‘Conflict of Interest’:

Available reports indicate that the consequences of alleged marketing malpractices of any kind, attract some serious financial consequences for the pharma players, provided of course, if one gets caught, especially in the United States or Europe.

A February 24, 2014 article highlights that in the last few years alone, pharmaceutical companies have agreed to pay over US$13 billion to resolve only U.S. Department of Justice allegations of ‘fraudulent marketing practices’.

Dwelling on the subject, a November 6, 2014, BBC News commented, “Imagine an industry that generates higher profit margins than any other and is no stranger to multi-billion dollar fines for malpractice.”

It is worth noting, all those pharma players paying hefty fines due to alleged marketing misadventures of humongous proportion, also prominently display their well-crafted code of ethics of pharma marketing practices in their respective websites, vowing for strict voluntary adherence. Nevertheless, the (mal)practice goes on, unabated.

Did a recent deterrent work in America?

Despite recent enactment of “Physician Payments Sunshine Act”, such practices of pharma companies continue unabated even in the World’s largest pharma market – the United States.

As is known by many, the ‘Physician Payments Sunshine Act’ is a healthcare law enacted in the United States in 2010 to increase transparency of financial relationships between health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This Act requires manufacturers of drugs, medical devices and biologicals that participate in US federal health care programs to submit annual data on payment and other transfers of value that they make to physicians and teaching hospitals. The data submission period is followed by 45 days for physicians to review their ‘Open Payments’ data and dispute errors before the public release.

On July 1, 2015, ‘ProPublica’ – an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest, published an article titled, “Dollars for Docs: How Industry Dollars Reach Your Doctors.” Quoting the public database, it reported that in 2014, 1,630 pharma companies in the United States disclosed a hefty total payment of US$ 3.53 billion to 681,432 doctors. The maximum total payment received by a single doctor during this period was US$ $43.9 million.

Published names of ‘Top 20 Companies’:

According to ‘ProPublica’, the money that the following 20 companies spend on interactions with doctors in the United States, excluding research and royalties, is as follows:

Pfizer: $30M,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals: $20.5M
Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals: $19.1M
Forest Laboratories: $17.2M
Allergan: $15.5M
Otsuka America Pharmaceutical: $15M
Sanofi and Genzyme: $14.6M
AbbVie: $13.5M
Genentech: $12.9M
Intuitive Surgical: $12.8M
Novo Nordisk: $12.4M
Depuy Synthes Sales: $12M
Bristol Myers Squibb: $11.9M
Eli Lilly: $11.7M
Teva: $11.6M
Novartis: $11.5M
Boehringer Ingelheim: $10.8M
Stryker: $10.3M
Merck Sharp & Dohme: $10.3M
Takeda: $9.68M

GlaxoSmithKline not featuring in the list:

Interestingly, I could not locate GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) featuring in this specific list of the top 20 companies in the United States. Some industry watchers comment that this could well be an outcome of other unorthodox measures taken by GSK earlier to revamp its reputation, dented by the widely reported Chinese bribery scandal and also a huge settlement of US$3 billion with the Government of the United States, for alleged marketing malpractices. Whatever it is, GSK has now initiated some tangible policy decisions in this regard, unlike most of its counterparts.

Alleged pharma malpractices are rampant in India too:

Frequent reports of Indian media have already triggered a raging debate in the country on the same subject. It has also been reported that a related case is now pending before the Supreme Court against a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for the hearing.

On May 08, 2012, the ‘Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare’ presented its 58th Report to both the Lower and the Upper houses of the Indian Parliament. The committee, with a strong indictment against the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), observed that the DoP should take decisive action, without any further delay, in making the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ mandatory, so that effective checks could be ensured on ‘huge promotional costs and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices’.

Unfortunately, nothing substantive has happened on the ground regarding this issue as on date, excepting announcement of voluntary implementation of the DoP’s ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, effective January 1, 2015 for six months for its assessment. Thereafter, the date extension process on the voluntary implementation of the UCPMP has become a routine exercise for the DoP, on the pretext of continuing discussion on the subject with the pharma trade associations and other stakeholders.

Nevertheless, incidences of alleged marketing malpractices are still unfolding today and getting dragged into the futile public debate. In a situation like this, I reckon, the Government is expected to play a more proactive role by all, instead of maintaining the status quo, any longer.

‘Voluntary practice’ concept alone, has not worked, anywhere:

Strong internal and external business performance pressures, while navigating through turbulent business environment with strong headwinds, could temporarily unnerve even the seasoned managers with nerves made of steel, as it were. It has been happening all the time, now more frequently, despite having stringent ‘voluntary pharma marketing practices’ codes in place, for many different reasons.

This has been vindicated by a recent research published by ‘PLOS Medicine’ on January 26, 2016.

The study states that European Union law prohibits companies from marketing drugs off-label. However, in the United Kingdom (UK), as in some other European countries, but unlike the United States, pharma industry self-regulatory bodies are tasked with supervising compliance with marketing rules. The objectives of this study were to characterize off-label promotion rulings in the UK compared to the whistleblower-initiated cases in the US and also) shedding light on the UK self-regulatory mechanism for detecting, deterring, and sanctioning off-label promotion.

The paper provided credible evidence of the limited capacity of the UK’s self-regulatory arrangements to expose marketing violations. It recommended that the UK authorities should consider introducing increased incentives and protections for whistleblowers combined with US-style governmental investigations and meaningful sanctions.

Thus, all-weather ‘voluntary practice of ethical pharma marketing code model’ alone, is either failing or has failed, almost everywhere in the world. GSK’s is a novel, but solo attempt and may not necessarily be imbibed by others.

Appropriate regulations and robust laws, instilling not just the ‘fear of God’ to the violators, but also promising justice to all, would always be a strong deterrent in those trying situations, especially in countries like, India, unless of course, any person or a legal entity is a hardcore manipulator with its key focus just on profiteering.

Restoring tarnished image:

GSK has taken the above bold step to restore its tarnished image, after receiving body blows related to several scandals, as it were. Commendably, it did not continue doing the same, unlike many others. Instead, the leadership of the Company demonstrated sensitivity to public outrage.

GSK won’t be a solitary example of pharma marketing malpractices. There are other large drug companies too, who even after meeting with similar public disgrace, keep charting the same old path to maximize brand sales by paying for the doctors, either directly or in several other forms, as many reports have alleged.

To offset all such marketing related expenses, and thereafter earn a huge profit, many of them keep the new drug prices exorbitantly high, adversely impacting the access of those drugs to many of those, who need them the most. This is besides taking hefty annual increases on existing brand pricing, even when inflation is very low to moderate.

Access to drugs for all needy patients is ‘Government responsibility’:

To justify access barrier to high priced drugs for a large number of patients globally, most pharma players and their trade associations have a ready answer in their advocacy toolkit. It says, ensuring access to drugs for all needy patients is the responsibility of the Government, not of the drug companies.

As a result, the trust deficit between the pharma industry and the general public is increasing, further denting its image. At present, when many national Governments are initiating action or are contemplating to do so, to contain such insensitive practices, the industry probably would require to pause for a while, take a step back and ponder – what next?

Restoring the tarnished image of the drug industry is a challenging ball game, far beyond the capabilities of even the richest pharma associations of the world, and their over-paid lobbyists. Crafty creation of any facade to hoodwink all, is no longer working to achieve their self serving purposes. Today, the public, in general, seems to understand much more about their reasonably affordable healthcare needs and wants, than what these trade associations’ possibly think about them.

Otherwise, why would Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton – one of the strongest contenders for American Presidency this time, would tweet on January 28, 2016 addressing her voters and admirers with the following vow:

“We will go after pharmaceutical companies that gouge patients with pricing. They are wrong, and we will stop them.”

My experience tells me that astute pharma CEOs, by and large, still command much higher credibility than their trade associations. Thus, the top leadership of the respective organizations would require taking the ‘image revamping exercise’ in their own hands, directly. It is essential to publicly demonstrate that most of them are aligned and in sync with the emerging new paradigm of changing aspirations, needs and wants of the patients and other key stakeholders. Future business excellence would demand inclusive growth. GSK is just an example of a CEO’s bold response to address this challenge of change – ‘a small step but a giant leap’ in this direction.

Conclusion:

In my view, all these contentious practices are basically being prompted by the strong intent of most of the pharma CEOs to ‘play safe’, in order to deliver expected shareholder value.

Any unorthodox approach to rebuild the tarnished image is usually risky, generally frowned upon and discouraged by the industry. Other vested interests often join them too. All these retarding forces express grave apprehensions on any fresh look by a company to mend fences with its key stakeholder – the patients and the public, in general.

The recent GSK example is no exception. Apprehensions have already been expressed, whether this untested fresh thinking, against a widely perceived corrupt practice of paying physician speakers for indirect brand promotion would really be able to boost its image, without cutting into revenue. Some would take a step further and question, would a rejuvenated image ultimately fetch expected growth in sales revenue and profit?

Only time will tell us the consequences of this uncommon and unorthodox decision taken by a courageous leader in the pharma industry.

In India, even the Government seems to have gone into a deep slumber on this issue. Despite reported discussions with the stakeholders several times, Government’s UCPMP still remains voluntary, with the DoP holding the same old ground, where it started from on January 1, 2015. It is difficult to fathom, whether intense industry lobbying is influencing a long overdue decision in favor of the patients’ overall interest.

However, there is good news also. According to a February 6, 2016 media report, ‘The Medical Council of India (MCI), for the first time ever, is set to notify specific punishments for errant doctors based on the value of favors or freebies received from drug players, under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) (Amendment) Regulations, 2015.

That apart, to revamp its dented image, the decision of GSK against paid physician speakers as an integral part of brand promotion, is not just a gutsy step with a sharp focus on restoring business ethics and values, but more laudably a voluntary one. Would others follow it too, including in India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Biosimilar Drugs: Why Prescriptions Aren’t Still Enough?

Posted on September 14, 2015 by Tapan Ray

On September 3, 2015, in a Press Release, Novartis announced, “Zarxio(TM) (filgrastim-sndz) is now available in the United States. Zarxio is the first biosimilar approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the first to launch in the US.” Zarxio is being marketed by the generic drug unit of Novartis – Sandoz.

The company highlighted: “With the launch of Zarxio, we look forward to increasing patient, prescriber and payor access to filgrastim in the US by offering a high-quality, more affordable version of this important oncology medicine.” This statement may be interpreted as an acknowledged of a research based global pharma major that high-priced biologics create a notable access barrier to a large number of patients, even in a rich country such as the United States. It also underscores the increasing prescription opportunities for cheaper biosimilar drugs.

Zarxio will initially be available with a 15 percent discount. This needs to be viewed against usual price drop of around 20-30 percent for biosimilar drugs in Europe, as compared to the original molecules. It is expected that price differences between biosimilar drugs and the original ones, would vary widely from as low as 10 percent to a hefty 60 percent, in the global markets.

Prior to Novartis’s Press Release, USFDA announced Zarxio’s approval in a separate ‘FDA News Release on March 6, 2015, indicating that it can be prescribed by a health care professional for:

patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving induction or consolidation chemotherapy
patients with cancer undergoing bone marrow transplantation
patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell collection and therapy a
patients with severe chronic neutropenia.

Though such types of drugs are available in the important markets such as, Europe, Australia and India, the launch of Zarxio heralds the dawn of a new era of biosimilar drugs in the United States – the numero uno of the global pharma market.

Incidentally, USFDA’s approval of biosimilar drugs is an outcome of a relatively recent healthcare reform in the United States, when President Obama signed into law the ‘Affordable Care Act’ on March 23, 2010.

The key benefit:

In its above ‘Press Release’, Novartis captured well the key benefits of biosimilar drugs , as follows:

“While biologics have had a significant impact on how diseases are treated, their cost and co-pays are difficult for many patients and the healthcare budget in general. Biosimilars can help to fill an unmet need by providing expanded options, greater affordability and increased patient access to life-saving therapies.”

Major growth drivers:

According to July 2015 report of ‘MarketsandMarkets (M&M)’ the global biosimilars market is expected to grow to US$6.22 Billion by 2020 from US$2.29 Billion in 2015, growing at a CAGR of 22.1 percent from 2015 to 2020.

The major growth drivers of the global biosimilars market are expected to be:

Growing pressure to curtail healthcare expenditure
Growing demand for biosimilar drugs due to their cost-effectiveness
Rising incidences of various life-threatening diseases
Increasing number of off-patented biologics
Positive outcome in the ongoing clinical trials
Rising demand for biosimilars in different therapeutic applications such as rheumatoid arthritis and blood disorders.

European Union (EU) had a head start of 5 to 7 years to put its regulatory pathway for biosimilar drug development and approval process. Thus, at present practically most the entire value sales of biosimilar drugs take place in the EU.

As, cheaper biosimilars would continue to hit the US market, insurance companies are expected to encourage the use of such drugs instead of highly expensive original ones.

According to Express Scripts report released in December 2014, the US healthcare system could clock savings in drug costs around US$250 billion in the first decade of availability of biosimilars drugs and the approval of Zarxio would help patients saving more than US$5 billion in the the world’s largest market for biologics.

By 2020, several blockbuster biological products with global sales of more than US $67 billion would go or are going off-patent, creating great opportunities for biosimilar drugs the world over. Some of these drugs are Avastin (Roche), Humira (AbbVie), Synagis (AstraZeneca), Aranesp (Amgen) and Enbrel (Amgen, Pfizer).

However, the crux of its success, to a great extent, would lie on physicians’ confidence to prescribe large molecule biosimilar drugs, as these are new and not exact replicas of the original biologic molecules, unlike the small molecule generic drugs.

Possible growth barriers:

The success requirements of large molecule biosimilar drugs would not mimic the same for small molecule generics, anywhere in the world.

In my view, there are two types of critical barriers to success with biosimilars, both tangible and intangible in nature.

The same M&M report lists the following factors as possible tangible barriers to fast growth of biosimilar drugs:

High manufacturing complexities and costs
Stringent regulatory requirements in countries
Innovative strategies by biologic drug manufacturers to restrict the entry of new players

I would very briefly touch upon each one of these, hereunder:

I. High manufacturing complexities and costs:

This is primarily because, the therapeutic characteristics of biosimilar drugs are significantly influenced by their manufacturing methods. For example, it is quite possible that based on the manufacturing system that is adopted, the same starter ingredients may give substantially different results.

II. Stringent regulatory requirements:

Among many other stringent regulatory requirements, I would highlight in this article just the following two:

A. The labeling:

It is noteworthy that USFDA has named Zarxio with the placeholder nonproprietary name “filgrastim-sndz” and not as ‘filgrastim’, the nonproprietary name for Amgen’s, Neupogen, for which Zarxio has been approved as a biosimilar.

To quickly recapitulate its background, in July 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO), which oversees the system of International Nonproprietary Names (INN), recommended that biosimilar drugs would receive the same nonproprietary name, but with a four-letter code at the end.

This is primarily because, innovator biologic drug companies and also some doctors’ groups argue that molecular structures of biosimilar drugs are similar, but not exact replicas of the original ones. Hence, there is a need to differentiate them, while assigning INN.

They reiterate that giving biosimilars the same INN as the original biologic molecule may cause confusion among both the doctors and the patients. It could also make the tracking of adverse reactions, as and when these will be reported, more challenging.

Consequently, it has now been accepted by the regulators that biosimilars would receive the same nonproprietary name but with a four-letter code at the end to differentiate such drugs from the original biologics.

B. Interchangeability:

The above labelling issue, in turn, creates a barrier to possible interchangeability or automatic substitution of expensive original biologics with much cheaper equivalent of biosimilar drugs. I reckon, this could pose a critical obstacle in the initial take-off of the later.

According to a July 4, 2015 article, titled “Fate of cost-saving biosimilar drugs may hinge on naming policy”, published in ‘Modern Healthcare’, the USFDA has the following two pathways for licensing of biosimilar drugs:

For being designated as “similar” in efficacy and safety to an original biologic.

For being approved as being “interchangeable,” which requires a much higher review standard and could take years and millions of dollars to obtain the needed clinical trial data.

According to this article, none of the biosimilar products currently under USFDA review are in the interchangeable pathway.

III. Innovative strategies to restrict entry of new players:

All the above innovative strategic moves and arguments, where biologic drug manufacturers are allegedly involved, may seriously restrict not just the entry of newer biosimilars, but also their faster prescription throughput.

Safety concern (immunogenicity):

Additionally, a critical safety concern on biosimilar drugs is being raised by the manufacturers of original biologics. This concern involves immunogenicity, which means the way a biosimilar drug provokes an immune response in the body. Original biologic drug manufacturers contend, since biosimilar molecules are not exactly the same as originals and their long term safety, related to immunogenicity, has not been tested, these drugs cannot be construed as having the same safety profile as the innovators’ biologics.

Besides, ‘Free-Trade-Agreements (FTAs)’ are also likely to be cleverly used by the original biologic drug manufacturers through their respective Governments, to the extent possible, for safeguarding the beachhead from the marketing onslaught of biosimilar drugs.

A perception barrier too:

Here comes an important perception-based intangible barrier to desirable prescription growth for biosimilar drugs.

Probably gauging it, post Zarxio launch, none other than the CEO of Novartis – Joe Jimenez, reportedly said: “He’s not expecting too much of a splash before 2020.”

This is understandable, as the doctors’ favorable disposition towards biosimilar drugs would be a crucial factor for prescription growth of these medicines.

A recent doctor community survey from QuantiaMD primarily captures the doctors’ thoughts and feelings on biosimilar drugs. This study was done with 300 specialists and primary care physicians.

Some of the notable findings of the report are as follows:

While 78 percent of the doctors polled said they were familiar with the term “biosimilar,” only 38 percent could name a biosimilar that’s under consideration for USFDA approval and would be relevant to their patient population.

Only 33 percent could name a biosimilar at all.

Researchers then narrowed down the original 300 physicians polled into a group of 120 “prescribing specialists.” This group of 120 doctors are currently prescribing biologics and most likely to prescribe biosimilar drugs in the years ahead. The study reported:

Only 17 percent of that segment said they are “very likely” to prescribe biosimilars.

And 70 percent said they either aren’t sure or are “somewhat likely’” to prescribe a biosimilar.

Only 12 percent of prescribing specialists are “very confident” that biosimilars are as safe as the original biologic version of the drug.

That said, 12-year ‘Data Exclusivity’ period for biologics in the United States, is one additional barrier to early introduction of cheaper biosimilar drugs, as considered by many.

On this issue GPhA – the generic drug makers’ group in America reportedly issued a statement, criticizing a paper of Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), saying:

“Market exclusivity acts as an absolute shield to their weak patents. Thus, from a practical perspective, extending market exclusivity beyond the Hatch-Waxman period would block the introduction of generic competition for almost 20 years, derailing any potential cost savings by Americans.”

The challenges ahead:

Considering all these together, the challenges ahead for quick acceptance of biosimilar drugs are indeed mind-boggling. The situation necessitates enough innovative and painstaking work by all concerned to gain the doctors’ confidence on biosimilar medicines. It goes without saying that success in generation of enough prescriptions for these drugs is the fundamental requirement to benefit the patients, which, in turn, would lead to significant savings in health care cost, as estimated above.

As more innovator companies start joining the biosimilar bandwagon, the physicians’ perception on these medicines, hopefully, would change sooner.

The status in India:

Although it appears strange, but a fact nonetheless. Biosimilar drugs approved in India till August 2012, followed the requirements of the regulators as provided mostly in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for small molecule drugs, which are incidentally quite a different kettle of fish.

According to GaBI-online, the first locally produced biosimilar drug was approved and marketed in the year 2000. India announced implementation of its ‘Guidelines’ for ‘Similar Biologics’ much later, on September 15, 2012.

Indian ‘Guidelines’ for ‘Similar Biologics’ were jointly developed by the Department of Biotechnology (DoB) and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO). The ‘Guidelines’ outline requirements for pre-clinical evaluation of biological products, claiming ‘similar to already approved biologics’. Thus, Indian regulators will partly rely on data from the already approved products to ensure safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of these drugs.

A wide variety:

A wide variety of biosimilar drugs have been approved and marketed in India, since then.

According to International Journal of Applied Basic Medical Research (2014 Jul-Dec; 4.2: 63–66), biosimilars in India consist primarily of vaccine, monoclonal antibodies, recombinant proteins and diagnostics, insulin, erythropoietin, hepatitis B vaccine, granulocyte colony stimulating factor, streptokinase, interferon alpha-2B and epidermal growth factor receptor.

The above article states that there are about 100 biopharmaceutical companies actively involved in research and development, manufacturing and marketing of biosimilar therapeutic products in India. Only 14 therapeutic drugs (similar biologics) were available in 50 brands in 2005. This number had grown to 20 therapeutic drugs in 250 brands in 2011.

The status of similar biologics approved and marketed in India is elaborated in this Table 1.

Some of the key Indian players of biosimilar drugs are Dr. Reddy’s Laboratory (DRL), Lupin, Zydus Cadila, Serum Institute of India, Biocon, Reliance Life Sciences, Wockhardt, Zenotech Laboratories and Intas.

I wrote on a related subject in this blog dated December 15, 2014 titled, “A Great News! But…Would This ‘Golden Goose’ Lay Golden Eggs?”

Conclusion:

Opportunities for biosimilar drugs are expected to expand significantly all over the world, basically driven by the need for affordable biologics and healthcare cost containment pressure in many countries.

As I had articulated before, unlike small molecule generics, unlocking the true potential of large molecule biosimilar drugs in a sustainable way would demand innovative, clear, razor sharp and highly focused business strategies across the value chain.

For faster growth in prescriptions, biosimilars would call for a hybrid marketing model of small molecule (branded) generics and large molecule original biologics. Ability to craft impactful value proposition and ensuring its effective delivery for each stakeholder, smart and innovative use of interactive and participative digital tools both for doctors’ and patients’ engagement, of course sans complexities, would decide the ultimate commercial fate for each of these types of products.

To effectively reap rich harvest from the new space thus being created, the challenges are also too many. The concerns expressed on biosimilars may also be genuine, but the regulators should take care of those before granting marketing approval to benefit the patients, in a meaningful way.

Overall key drivers and barriers for success with biosimilar drugs would remain almost the same, both for global and local players. However, carving out and thereafter expanding share in this market, sizably, won’t be a piece of cake for any company, understandably.

Quite naturally, the innovator companies for biologics would go all out to retain their turf as much as possible, despite the entry of cheaper biosimilars. This is expected to continue by reinforcing the belief of the physicians and the patients that biosimilars are not quite the same as the original biologic molecules.

Effective proactive measures need to be initiated, soon, by the regulators and all other stakeholders to spread the right message, protecting the patients’ interest. Otherwise, apprehension of the doctors on biosimilars in general, regarding safety, efficacy, substitution and interchangeability may persist for some time to come, negatively impacting faster and desirable prescription growth of these drugs all over the world, including India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Report

Regulatory Failures Are Still Risking Patient Lives

Why MNC Pharma Still Moans Over Indian IP Ecosystem?

Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still Continues A Policy Paralysis

The Recent Ban On Irrational FDCs: History Repeats Itself

For Drug Safety Concern: “Whistleblower’s Intention Should Be Nationalistic”

Healthcare In India (2016-17): Whither Goest Thou?

Against Pharma Marketing Malpractices: A Gutsy Step

Biosimilar Drugs: Why Prescriptions Aren’t Still Enough?