India, China Revoke Four Pharma Patents in A Fortnight: A Double Whammy for MNCs?

Posted on August 12, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Revocation of four pharma patents by India and China within a fortnight has raised many eyebrows, yet again, across the globe. In this short period, India has revoked three patents and China one.

While this quick development is probably a double whammy for the Multinational Corporations (MNCs) operating in both the countries, a future trend could possibly emerge by analyzing and connecting the evolving dots.

On August 8, 2013, a judicial body, the Intellectual Property Apellate Board (IPAB) of India reportedly revoked two patents of Allergan Inc on Combigan and Ganfort, both are Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs of known molecules, used in the treatment of specified eye conditions. Local pharmaceutical player Ajantha Pharma had challenged these patents granted earlier to Allergan Inc. by the Indian Patent Office (IPO), alleging that the patents were obtained on false representation, the compositions were obvious ones, mere admixture of two pharmaceutical substances and not inventions.

IPAB in its order, while revoking the patent, has also said:

“The revocation of the patent was sought on various grounds that the patent was obtained on a false suggestion or representation, that it is not an invention, that it is obvious and does not sufficiently disclose and that the Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970 was violated.”

The “respondents (Allergan Inc) have incorrectly deciphered enhancement in therapeutic efficacy as reduction in interocular pressure comparable to serial application.”

“The respondent has not shown that it had complied with the Section 8 of Patents Act, 1970.”

Though Allergan claimed to have achieved enhanced efficacy with reduced side effects for these FDCs, the IPAB did not find the claims justifiable. Interestingly, Ajantha’s product reportedly is much less expensive too. As compared to Allergan’s Ganfort drops (3 ml) costing about Rs 580, Ajanta’s equivalent formulation costs just Rs 131.

The other pharma patent revocation of the fortnight:

On July 27, 2013, IPAB revoked yet another patent granted earlier to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)’s Lapatinib ditosylate salt of its breast cancer drug Tykerb, while upholding the patent on the original API, Lapatinib. IPAB in its order has stated that the ditosylate salt version of Lapatinib is not patentable as per patentability criteria of the Indian Patents Act.

Experts believe, with these decisions, the Indian legal system has clearly demonstrated that despite intense anger, pressure and protests mainly from the United States and Europe, to dilute public health interest related safeguards enshrined in the current Indian patent regime, the rule of law still prevails in the country for IP disputes.

Tykerb decision of IPAB follows the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India clarifying patentability criteria for incremental innovations.

An interesting precedent set:

In case of Tykerb of GSK, unlike other occasions, for the first time one MNC has challenged the patent of another MNC in India, instead of domestic companies doing so. The German drug manufacturer, Fresenius Kabi, instead of criticizing Indian IP law like other MNCs, had challenged the British drug maker GSK’s patent on the patentability criteria as provided in the Indian Patent Law and obtained a favorable decision from the IPAB against one of their two patent challenges on Tykerb.

A different case, yet worth mentioning:

Earlier, in late 2012, Delhi High Court while recognizing the validity of Roche’s patent for Tarceva (erlotinib), ordered that Cipla’s generic equivalent of erlotinib has different molecular structures. Hence, Cipla has not infringed Roche’s patent.

The generic version of Cipla’s erlotinib is reportedly available at a price of Rs 1,600 against Roche’s price of Rs 4,800 for Tarceva. Though this is not a patent revocation, but an interesting case nevertheless.

Other patent revocations:

Besides the only Compulsory License (CL) issued, so far, by the IPO for Bayer’s Nexavar to Natco (Cost of a pack of 120 tablets of Natco generic is Rs.8,800 against Nexavar’s Rs. 280,000), such patent challenges are now taking place in India quite close on the heels of one another as follows:

Sutent (Pfizer):

In this case, the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib), granted earlier by the IPO in 2007, was revoked by the IPAB in October 2012, after a post grant challenge by Cipla and Natco Pharma on the ground that the claimed ‘invention’ does not involve inventive steps.

However, on November 26, 2012 in a new twist to this case, the Supreme Court of India reportedly restored the patent for Sutent. Interestingly, at the same time the court removed the restraining order, which prevented Cipla from launching a copycat generic equivalent of Sunitinib.

The cost of 45 day’s treatment with Cipla generic is Rs. 50,000 against Rs. 196,000 of Sutent. (Source ET, April 7, 2013)

Pegasys (Roche):

Again, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche. It is worth mentioning, Pegasys enjoys patent protection across the world.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by IPO in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the Indian pharma major – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a ‘novel’ product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’ as required by the Patents Act of India.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, the judicial body IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys, costing Rs. 360,000 for a six month course of treatment for a patient.

Iressa (AstraZeneca):

On November 26, 2012, IPAB reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Iressa (Gefitinib) on the ground that the molecule lacked invention.

The report also states that AstraZeneca suffered its first setback on Gefitinib in June 2006, when the Indian generic company Natco Pharma opposed the initial patent application filed by the global major in a pre-grant opposition. Later on, another local company, GM Pharma, joined Natco in November 2006.

After accepting the pre-grant opposition by the two Indian companies, IPO in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Iressa Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Anti-asthma FDC aerosol suspension (Merck & Co):

Similar to Allergan case, on December 11, 2012 Indian Patent Office (IPO) reportedly revoked a patent granted to an anti-asthma FDC drug of Merck & Co on the ground of lack of invention, after the domestic pharma major Cipla Ltd challenged an earlier granted patent of this FDC drug.

This aerosol suspension combines three molecules: mometasone furoate, formoterol and heptaflouropropane.

A similar asthma treatment, Dulera, reportedly lost its Indian patent held by Novartis AG in 2010.

Patentability for ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

Patentability criteria for any ‘incremental innovation’ has been defined in the Section 3(d) of the Indian statute as follows:

“The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.”

“Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

Indian Patents Act prevails:

As is well known, way back in 2006, IPO refused to grant patent to the cancer drug Glivec of Novartis on the ground that the molecule is a mere modification of an existing substance known as Imatinib.

In that case, on April 1, 2013 the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of Section 3(d), where the rules of the game for patentability of incremental pharmaceutical innovations, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005, were cast in stone.

Court did not disallow all incremental innovations:

Point 191 in page number 95 of the Glivec judgment very clearly states as follows:

“191. We have held that the subject product, the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, does not qualify the test of Section 3(d) of the Act but that is not to say that Section 3(d) bars patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances. It will be a grave mistake to read this judgment to mean that section 3(d) was amended with the intent to undo the fundamental change brought in the patent regime by deletion of section 5 from the Parent Act. That is not said in this judgment.”

Thus, it should not be highlighted unfairly by concerned constituents that all ‘incremental innovations’ are not patentable in India. The above judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and the arguments of Novartis.

Only 3% of patents are challenged:

Quoting a study, a recent media report highlighted that only 3% of the patent applications filed in India since 2006 were challenged. The study concluded, “This demonstrates that given the various resource constraints faced by the Indian patent office, one can never really be sure of the patent quality unless the patent is challenged.”

Rejection by IPO under Section 3d is minimum – is that a key issue?

Another study done by Columbia University reportedly found that out of 214 patents filed in India last year, only 3 patents were rejected by IPO exclusively for failing to prove better efficacy, as required under Section 3d. Turning this finding on its head, would it be reasonable to ponder:

Could this be a key issue for so many patents failing to pass the acid test of judicial scrutiny when challenged?

Government has no role to play in IP disputes:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue, patent challenge is a legal process all over the world, where the Government has hardly any role to play in resolving these disputes. The law should be allowed to take its own course for all disputes related to the Patents Act of the country, including Section 3(d).

They also opine that India must be allowed to follow the law of justice without casting aspersions on the knowledge and biases of the Indian judiciary by the vested interests.

That said, there is certainly an urgent need to add speed to this legal process by setting up ‘Fast-track Courts’ for resolving all Intellectual Property (IP) related disputes in a time bound manner.

Pharma patents granted in India:

As reported in the media, pharma MNCs have been granted over 1,000 patents since 2005. Moreover out of 4,036 patents granted in the past six years, 1,130 have been awarded to MNCs, like:

AstraZeneca 180 patents
Roche with 166 patents
Sanofi with 159 patents
Novartis with 147 patents

It is therefore understandable, as pharma MNCs have secured more number of pharma patents they are facing larger number of litigations at this point of time.

China and Brazil revoke patents:

Last week, just about a year after China introduced the country’s amended patent law, its State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has reportedly revoked the patent on HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B drug – Viread (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) of Gilead Science Inc. Aurisco, the largest manufacturer of active pharmaceutical ingredients in China, challenged this patent. The ground of patent revocation was that the drug lacked novelty and was not entitled to protection.

In 2008 Brazil also declared the patent of tenofovir invalid. It is worth mentioning that tenofovir of Gilead is the third-best-selling drug of the company, clocking sales of US$ 849 million in 2012.

South Africa mulls new law to stop ‘Evergreening’:

Recently, the Department of Trade and Industry of South Africa has reportedly submitted to the South African Cabinet a draft Intellectual Property Policy with far-reaching changes to the country’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for medicines in order to increase access to cheaper drugs by making it harder for companies to obtain and extend patents.

The draft includes a proposal to introduce a patent examination office to stop pharmaceutical companies from “evergreening” where companies take out new patents based on minor changes or new uses.

Currently, South Africa uses a depository system, in which patent applications are granted without extensive scrutiny. Experts believe, “this system allows companies to file multiple patents on the same medicine and extend the life of their monopoly, keeping prices artificially high.”

Innovators Angry:

In this context, the following report recently captured the anger of the innovator companies and stated that the US drug giants are once again pushing for stronger patent protection in India:

“A coalition of U.S. lawmakers and business groups outlined concerns about Indian policies as a threat to American exports, jobs and innovation in a letter to President Barack Obama on June 18. Among the business groups were the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Biotechnology Industry Association. On June 14, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Finance Committee urged that Kerry raise trade concerns on his visit.”

Quoting US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center another report highlighted, “Recent policy and judicial decisions that invalidate intellectual property rights, which have been increasing in India, cast a daunting shadow over its otherwise promising business climate. From the revocation of patents to the staggering rates of piracy, India stands alone as an international outlier in IP policies. This trend is bad for investment, innovation and international trade.”

Does it benefit patients?

In the paper titled ‘TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond’, published in ‘Chicago Journal for International Law, Vol. 3(1), Spring 2002’, the author argues, though the reasons for the lack of access to essential medicines are manifold, there are many instances where high prices of drugs deny access to needed treatments for many patients. Prohibitive drug prices, in those cases, were the outcome of monopoly due to strong intellectual property protection.

The author adds, “The attempts of Governments in developing countries to bring down the prices of patented medicines have come under heavy pressure from industrialized countries and the multinational pharmaceutical industry”.

While the ‘Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)’ of the World Trade Organization (WTO) sets out minimum standards for the patent protection for pharmaceuticals, it also offers adequate safeguards against negative impact of patent protection or its abuse in terms of extraordinary and unjustifiable drug pricing. The levels of these safeguards vary from country to country based on the socioeconomic and political requirements of a nation, as in India.

Following table is an example of price differential between patented and generic equivalents of those molecules used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS:

1			2			3
3TC (Lamivudine)			Zerit (Stavudine)			Viramune (Nevirapine)
Price / Year / Patient in US$			Price / Year / Patient in US$			Price / Year /Patient in US$
GSK	Cipla	Hetero	BMS	Cipla	Hetero	B.I.*	Cipla	Hetero
3271	190	98	3589	70	47	3508	340	202

(Source: Third World Network, *B.I: Boehringer Ingelheim)

Patentability for ‘genuine innovations’:

A report on ‘Patentability of the incremental innovation’ indicates that the policy makers keeping the following points in mind formulated the Indian Patents Act 2005:

The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industry, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.

A stringent patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs to a large number of populations in India causing immense hardships to them.

Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will be able to demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

Conclusion:

A study by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Since, most of the above patents have not been challenged, as yet, the quality of these patents cannot be ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt, as we discuss today.

If the apprehension, as expressed above in the IPA study has any merit, right answers to the following questions, I reckon, would help charting out the future direction for the IP ecosystem of India:

Is there a theoretical possibility of revocation of all these 86 already granted product patents, if and when challenged in a court of law?
Is the current Patents Act of India pragmatic?
Does it reasonably benefit both the innovators and the Indian patients, signifying a paradigm shift in the global IPR scenario?
Will it inspire other countries also to emulate similar IP system in the years ahead?
Will it then invite more intense ire of the global pharma innovator companies creating increasing pressure on the Indian Government to amend the current Patents Act?
Being under continuous public scrutiny, would it be feasible for any Indian Government, now or in future, in the near or medium term, to amend the Indian Patents Act due to any amount of outside pressure?
And finally, is the Act then irreversible, at least, for quite some time from now?

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.

More Glivec Like Deals in China and Mounting Global Challenges: Innovators poised Joining Biosimilar Bandwagon

Posted on April 15, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Pressure from the emerging markets on pricing of patented products is mounting fast. This time the country involved is China.

Recently, the Health Minister of China who stepped down last month after a seven-year stint in the top health job reportedly commented that western drugmakers will require to give hefty subsidies and forgo significant amount of profit on expensive cancer drugs, if they want access to huge market of China. He further voiced as follows:

“If the cost (of patented drugs) is too high, maybe only a few percent of patients can benefit. If we can arrange an appropriate, acceptable, affordable price, then you can have a huge market.”

‘Glivec deal’ in China:

In the same report, it was indicated that in China Novartis ultimately agreed to donate three doses of its leukemia drug Glivec for every one sold to the government.

It is expected that many more such deals will take place in China.

The situation to get more challenging in the emerging markets:

Many experts believe that due to high cost of patented drugs, especially biologics, negotiating hefty discounts with the Governments may be the best alternative for the innovator companies to avoid any possibilities of Compulsory Licensing (CL), like what happened to Bayer’s cancer drug Nexavar in India.

An opportunity in biosimilar drugs:

Biologic drugs came to the international market slightly more than three decades ago, in 1980s. Growing at a scorching pace, the value turnover of these products exceeded US$ 138 billion in 2010 (IMS Health).

Launch of biologics like, Recombinant Insulin, Human Growth Hormone (HGH), Alteplase, Erythropoietin (EPOs), Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factors (G-CSFs) and Monoclonal Antibodies (MAbs) kept fueling the market growth further.

Patent expiry of a number of biologic drugs over a period of next five years, especially in areas like, various types of cancer, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, besides many others, will help opening a huge window of opportunity for the global biosimilar players, including from India, to reap a rich harvest.

Global innovators joining the bandwagon:

After a dream-run with high priced patented drugs for a reasonably long time, now stung by the current reality in various developed and emerging markets and factoring-in the width/depth/robustness of their own research pipeline, many global players have started taking a hard look at the emerging opportunities offered by biosimilar drugs.

Moreover, high price of original biologic drugs, cost containment pressure by various Governments, encouragement of generic prescriptions, large number of such drugs going off patent and growing demand of their low cost alternatives across the world, are making biosimilar market more and more lucrative from the global business perspective to all interested players, including from India.

According to Bloomberg Industries (2013), during the next six years biologic drugs with a total annual sales turnover of US$ 47 billion in 2012, will go off patent.

Sniffing opportunities for business growth, as stated above, many hard-nosed large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, currently fighting a challenging battle also in the ground of a tougher ‘patent cliff’, have started venturing into the biosimilar market, that too in a mega scale.

Some of them have already initiated developing biosimilar versions of blockbuster biologics, as reported below:

Originator	Product	Indication	Biosimilar development by:
Roche/Genentech	Rituxan	Rheumatoid arthritis	Boehringer Ingelheim
Roche/Genentech	Herceptin, Rituxan	Breast Cancer, Rheumatoid arthritis	Pfizer
Roche/Genentech	Rituxan	Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma	Novartis
Johnson & Johnson	Remicade	Rheumatoid arthritis	Hospira

Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek

Thus, I reckon, continuous quest for development of cost-effective alternatives to high-priced biologic medicines would keep on propelling the growth of biosimilar drugs, across the world.

Glivec maker Novartis fought a court battle to launch the first ‘Biosimilar drug’ in America:

In mid-2006, US FDA approved its first ‘biosimilar drug’-Omnitrope of Sandoz, the generic arm of the Glivec maker Novartis, following a Court directive. Omnitrope is a copycat version of Pfizer’s human growth hormone Genotropin. Interestingly, Novartis had also taken the US FDA to court for keeping its regulatory approval pending for a while in the absence of a well-defined regulatory pathway for ‘biosimilar drugs’ in the USA at that time.

More interestingly, having received the US-FDA approval, the CEO of Sandoz (Novartis) had then commented as follows:

“The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like, Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”.

Biosimilar market started shaping-up:

Internationally most known companies in the biosimilar drugs space are Teva, Stada, Hospira and Sandoz. Other large research based global innovator pharmaceutical companies, which so far have expressed interest in the field of biosimilar drugs, are Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Merck and Eli Lilly.

Following are examples of some biosimilar drug related initiatives of the global players as the market started developing:

Merck announced its entry into the biosimilar drugs business on February 12, 2009 with its acquisition of Insmed’s portfolio for US$ 130 million. The company also paid US$ 720 million to Hanwha for rights to its copy of Enbrel of Amgen.

Samsung of South Korea has set up a biosimilars joint venture with Quintiles to create a contract manufacturer for biotech drugs.

Celltrion and LG Life Sciences have expressed global ambitions in biosimilar drugs.

Some leading global innovator biotech companies also like, Biogen Idec and Amgen have reportedly been mulling entry into biosimilar market.

According to Reuter (June 22, 2011), Merck, Sandoz, Teva and Pfizer are expected to emerge stronger in the global biosimilar market, in the years ahead.

Why is still so low penetration of lower cost biosimilar drugs?

Although at present over 150 different biologic medicines are available globally, just around 11 countries have access to low cost biosimilar drugs, India being one of them. Supporters of biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as time passes by.

It has been widely reported that the cost of treatment with patented biologic drugs can vary from US$ 100,000 to US$ 300,000 a year. A 2010 review on biosimilar drugs published by the Duke University highlights that biosimilar equivalent of the respective biologics would not only reduce the cost of treatment, but would also improve access to such drugs significantly for the patients across the globe. (Source: Chow, S. and Liu, J. 2010, Statistical assessment of biosimilar products, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 20.1:10-30)

Now with the entry of global pharma majors, the biosimilar market is expected to get further heated up and develop at a much faster pace with artificial barriers created by vested interests, if any, being removed.

Recent removal of regulatory hurdles for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US will indeed be the key growth driver.

Other growth drivers:

According to a study (2011) conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., besides recent establishment of the above regulatory guidelines for biosimilars in the US, the key growth drivers for global biosimilar market, will be as follows:

▪ Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs

▪ Cost containment measures of various governments

▪ Aging population

▪ Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries

The business potential in India:

The size of biotech industry in India is estimated to be around US$ 4 billion by 2015 with a scorching pace of growth driven by both local and global demands (E&Y Report 2011).

The biosimilar drugs market in India is expected to reach US$ 2 billion in 2014 (source: Evalueserve, April 2010).

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies like, Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), besides others.

DRL is the largest biosimilar player in India with an impressive product portfolio. Reditux of DRL is the world’s first Biosimilar monoclonal antibody, which is a copy version of Mabthera/ Rituxan of Roche and costs almost 50 percent less than the original brands.

Some of the Biosimilar products of the Indian Companies are as follows:

Indian Company	Biosimilar Product
Dr Reddy’s Lab	Grafeel, Reditux, Cresp
Intas	Neukine, Neupeg, Intalfa, Epofit
Shantha Biotech/Merieux Alliance	Shanferon,Shankinase,Shanpoietin
Reliance Life Sciences	ReliPoietin, ReliGrast, ReliFeron, MIRel
Wockhardt	Wepox, Wosulin
Biocon	Eripro, Biomab, Nufil, Myokinase, Insugen

(Source: Stellarix Consultancy Services)

The cost of development of Biosimilars in India is around US$ 10-20 million, which is expected to go up, as “Biosimilar Guidelines” are now in place for marketing approval of such products in India.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies will be to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU, either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Indian players making rapid strides:

As stated above, biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. It also has developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India.

Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF.

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

Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla reportedly has invested around US$ 60 million in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab in China and is planning to launch a biosimilar drug in the field of oncology by 2013.

Another large pharmaceutical company of India, Lupin signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly will use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs in the field of oncology, the first one of which, will reportedly be launched in India by 2013.

The global Market:

In 2011 the turnover of Biologic drugs increased to over US$ 175 billion in the total market of US$ 847 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 10 best selling global brands in 2012 with Humira of AbbVie emerging as the highest-selling biologics during the year. Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies.

According to IMS Health report, by 2015, sales of biosimilars are expected to reach between US$ 1.9 – 2.6 billion. The report also states that this market has the potential to be the single fastest-growing biologics sector in the next five years.

Cost of biosimilar development in the developed markets:

The process of developing a biosimilar drug is complex and requires significantly more investment, technical capabilities and clinical trial expertise than any small molecule generic drug. As per industry sources, average product developmental cost ranges between US$ 100 and 250 million in the developed markets, which is several times higher than the same associated with development of small molecule generics, ranging around US$ 1to 4 million.

All these factors create a significant market entry barrier for many smaller players with similar intent but less than adequate wherewithal.

Even higher market entry barrier with ‘second generation’ biosimilar drugs:

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

Negotiating the entry barriers:

As stated above, the barriers to market entry for biosimilar drugs are, in general, are much higher than any small molecule generic drugs. In various markets within EU, many companies face the challenge of higher development costs for biosimilar drugs due to stringent regulatory requirements and greater lead-time for product development.

Navigating through such tough regulatory environment will demand different type of skill sets, especially for the generic companies not only in areas of clinical trials and pharmacovigilance, but also in manufacturing and marketing. Consequently, the investment needed to take biosimilar drugs from clinical trials to launch in the developed markets will indeed be quite significant.

The future potential:

According to an IMS Health study, the emerging markets will drive biosimilar market growth with significantly more number of patients. The report estimates that over a period of time US will emerge as the number one global biosimilars market.

By 2020, emerging markets and the US are expected to register a turnover of US$11 billion and US$ 25 billion representing a share of 4 percent to 10 percent of the total global biologics market, respectively.

The report estimates that overall penetration of biosimilars within the off-patent biological market will reach up to 50 percent by 2020, assuming a price discount in the range of 20 to 30 percent.

Is 12 years exclusivity in the US a significant entry barrier?

In the US, the innovator companies get 12 years exclusivity for their original biologic drugs from the date of respective marketing approvals by the USFDA.

The BPCI Act clearly specifies that applications for ‘biosimilar drugs’ to the USFDA will not be made effective by the regulator before 12 years from the date of approval of the innovators’ products. In addition, if the original product is for pediatric indications, the 12-years exclusivity may get an extension for another six months.

The key point to note here is, if the USFDA starts its review process for the ‘biosimilar drugs’ only after the ’12 year period’, the innovator companies will effectively get, at least, one additional year of exclusivity over and above the ’12 year period’, keeping applicants for ‘biosimilar drugs’ waiting for that longer.

Conclusion:

As stated above, with around 40 percent cost arbitrage and without compromising on the required stringent international regulatory standards, the domestic ‘biosimilar’ players should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for such drugs, just as small molecule generic medicines.

With experience in conforming to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards, having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside USA, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in the country. Now with significant improvement in conformance to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) and honed skill sets in the field of biologics, Indian biosimilar players are clearly poised to catapult themselves to even a higher growth trajectory, either on their own or with appropriate collaborative arrangements with the international partners.

Thus, the initiatives of joining the biosimilar bandwagon by the hard-nosed research based global players, I reckon, will ultimately get translated into a win-win advantage for India in the rapidly evolving pharmaceutical space of the world.

Besides, like what they had to do in China, working with the Government to put in place a robust and win-win mechanism of ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ in India could augur well for the global players of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. This mechanism may also help putting forth even a stronger argument against any Government initiative to grant CL on the pricing ground for expensive patented drugs in India.

With all these developments, patients will be the ultimate winners having much greater access to both innovative medicines and biosimilar drugs than what they have today, fetching a huge relief to all right thinking population in the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Ghost Keeps Haunting: NCD Dogs Cancer in ‘Compulsory License’ Debate of India

Posted on March 11, 2013 by Tapan Ray

In November 2012, as a part of the ‘Campaign for Affordable Trastuzumab’ for the treatment of breast cancer, a citizens’ collective, reportedly sent an ‘Open Letter’ signed by around 200 cancer survivors, women’s groups, human rights and health rights campaigns and treatment activists from across the world to the Indian Prime Minister, urging him to ensure that the breast-cancer drug Trastuzumab is made affordable for treating cancer patients in the country.

Trastuzumab was named because of the following reasons:

Breast-cancer affects around 28-35 per cent of all cancers among women in major cities of India.

No other drug against HER+2 cancer can reduce patients’ mortality as Trastuzumab and reduce the spread of malignancy to other parts of the body.

Majority of women with HER+2 breast cancer do not have access to a complete course of the drug, which reportedly costs anywhere between Rs 6 to 8 lakhs (US$ 11,000 to US$ 14,500).

Reaping reach harvest:

According to a media report, three homegrown Indian companies are currently developing biosimilar drugs to this protein molecule to reap a reach harvest arising out of the emerging opportunities.

However, this is expected to be an arduous, expensive and challenging endeavor, as the concerned companies will require pursuing a complicated biotechnological route to create follow-on biologics for Trastuzumab.

The ‘Trigger Factor’:

It is widely believed that the above ‘Open Letter’ to the Prime Minister had prompted the Ministry of Health to form an ‘Experts Committee’ to evaluate the situation and make recommendations accordingly.

Thereafter, within a short period of time, in January, 2013, in a move that is intended to benefit thousands of cancer patients, Ministry of Health forwarded the report of the above ‘Experts Committee’ to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) for its consideration to issue Compulsory Licenses (CL) for three commonly used anti-cancer drugs namely, Trastuzumab (used for breast cancer), Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy) and Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia). Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), among other experts, also reportedly had participated as a member of this ‘Experts Committee’,

For a month’s treatment drugs like Ixabepilone and Dasatinib reportedly cost on an average of US$ 3,000 – 4,500 or Rs 1.64 – 2.45 lakh for each patient in India.

A ‘Technology Transfer’ discouraged:

Such a rapid development in the CL landscape of India is indeed intriguing, especially after a voluntary announcement by Roche in 2012 that it will produce Trastuzumab and Rituximab in India through transfer of technology to an Indian contract manufacturer.

Consequently for a month’s treatment, the price of Trastuzumab will come down from around US$ 2,000 to US$ 1, 366, i.e. by 31 percent and Rituximab from around US$ 1,456 to US$ 682 i.e. by 53 percent. This was reportedly announced by none other than the Minister of State of Chemicals and Fertilizers of India Mr. Srikant Jena.

Despite this voluntary decision of technology transfer and price reduction of two life saving drugs in India by Roche, reported Government consideration for grant of CL for Trastuzumab, without getting engaged in any form of a win-win dialogue with the Company, could ultimately prove to be counter productive and may discourage further technology transfer of expensive patented drugs to India.

Increasing incidence of cancer in India:

Cancer is just not a dreaded disease, but also making a devastating impact, financial and otherwise, on the lives and families of thousands of sufferers in India.

According to ‘The Lancet’, published on 28 March 2012, in India 556 400 people died of cancer only in 2010.

The paper also comments that only half of the estimated 9.8 million total deaths per year is captured by the CRS in India, fewer than 4 percent are medically certified, while more than 75 percent of deaths occur at home.

The Lancet study clearly highlights that most cancer patients in India die without medical attention and drugs. Cancer is, therefore, increasingly becoming a public sensitive disease area with high socioeconomic impact in the country. High treatment cost of this near terminal disease is beyond reach of majority of population in the country.

In a written reply to a question in the ‘Upper House’ of the Indian Parliament, the Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare on March 4, 2012 said that according to “Three Year Report on Population Based Cancer Registries 2006 – 08″ of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the estimated numbers of cancer patients for 2015 and 2020 are 1.16 million and 1.27 million respectively. There is a gradual rise in the prevalence of cancer in India, though the government has initiated several measures in this area.

High incidence of breast cancer:

As per a recent report, an estimated 1, 00,000 – 1, 25,000 new patients suffer from breast cancer every year in India and this number is expected to double by 2025.

Government is mulling CL for NCD:

Currently the DIPP appears to be planning to extend the provision of Compulsory License (CL) beyond cancer drugs to other Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) in the country, like diabetes.

Domestic Pharma Association supports the move:

A major domestic pharmaceutical industry association, as per media reports, supports this move by clearly articulating, “Over the years, more deaths are taking place on account of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) than communicable ones. It is, therefore, natural that this provision (CL) will be used for NCDs as well.”

UN declaration on NCD provides flexibilities in TRIPS Agreement:

Experts believe that this new move on CL for drugs related to NCDs is a consequence of India’s signing the United Nation (UN) declaration on the prevention of NCDs in the country by, among others, using flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement to increase availability of affordable drugs for such diseases.

The Government has already launched a “National Program for Prevention & Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardio Vascular Diseases and Stroke (NPCDCS)” as a pilot project covering 150 million people in 100 inaccessible and most backward districts during the financial year 2011-2012 at a cost of US$ 275 million.

Socio-economic impact of NCDs in India:

Indian Journal of Community Medicine (IJCM) in an article titled, “Social and Economic Implications of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in India” has highlighted, among others as follows:

NCDs account for 62 percent of the total disease burden in India with a significant ascending trend both in terms of overall mortality and morbidity.

This burden is likely to increase in the years to come.

Due to chronic nature of the disease and technological advancements in care, costs of treatment are high leading to access barriers, or ‘catastrophic expenditures’ for those who undergo treatment.

There are evidences of greater financial implications for the poorer households suffering from NCDs.

Most estimates suggest that the NCDs in India account for a significant economic burden ranging from 5 to 10 percent of GDP.

An urgent multi-sectoral Government action is strongly warranted both on grounds of economic arguments and social justice.

Action needs focus on addressing the social determinants of NCDs for prevention and strengthening of health systems to meet the challenge.

A framework for monitoring, reporting, and accountability is essential to ensure that the returns on investments in NCDs meet the targets and expectations set in the national plans.

Innovator companies contemplating legal recourse:

Reacting to all these developments, the global pharmaceutical companies have, once again, expressed strong commitment to protect and continue to defend their Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) within the legal framework of India.

They have also reiterated their belief that a robust IPR regime will encourage innovation in the country making available more and more innovative drugs for the patients in India.

An interesting WHO report on a ‘robust IPR regime’:

In this regard a World Health Organization (WHO) research report titled “Patents, Price Controls and Access to New Drugs: How Policy Affects Global Market Entry” makes some interesting observations on a ‘robust IPR regime’.

The report highlights the following four important points:

1. Increasing the strength of a patent system to include long-term protection on pharmaceutical products appears to spur market entry mostly in the high-income countries.

For the low- and middle-income countries that are currently being encouraged to move to stronger protection through trade policies, the evidence that extending protection enhances access to new pharmaceuticals is mixed.

2. There is some evidence that high level of protection might encourage more frequent entry of innovative products in the short term. However, in the longer term the same domestic capacity could well be an alternative source of entry of such drugs.

3. Intellectual Property (IP) holders frequently assert that the poor quality of enforcement in developing countries undermines the value of their patent rights. However, it is quite evident now that patent laws in these countries are at least broadly meaningful commensurate to their respective domestic requirements.

4. The standard argument on price regulation that it will dissuade market entry for innovative drugs appears to have more relevance among the high-income countries and not so for the poorer countries.

The authors further indicate:

“There we find that while price regulation makes it less likely that new drugs will be available quickly, it does not appear to prevent new products from being launched eventually.”

Conclusion:

Following all these recent developments and weighing pros and cons, one could well imagine that pressure on the Government from various stakeholders for CL on drugs for Cancer and NCDs will keep mounting, unless an alternative measure like, ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ is put in place by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, sooner than later, in 2013.

The recent judgment of the ‘Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)’ on CL to Natco may further add fuel to this raging debate.

It is now quite clear from the Finance Minister’s speech on the ‘Union Budget Proposal’ for 2013-14 that eagerly awaited ‘Universal Health Coverage’ or ‘Free Distribution of Essential Medicines to all’ schemes will not be implemented, at least for now.

Thus in all probability, the ghost of CL will keep haunting the innovators in India unabated, unless an effective, scalable and sustainable model for improving access to patented drugs for majority of population in the country is put in place. This will call for demonstrative, innovative and constructive Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) initiatives, sooner. In this effort all concerned should at first be aligned with the cause, in principle, and try to be a constructive partner to get it translated into reality together, rather than just playing the role of vociferous critics in perpetuity .

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharmaceutical Brand Building in a Changing Scenario: Thinking Outside the Box

Posted on February 18, 2013 by Tapan Ray

In this article, I shall explore unconventional ways of “Building sustainable Pharmaceutical Brands” thinking outside the box, after quickly taking you through the “Challenges of Change” in the evolving dynamics of the Indian branded generic market.

A paradigm shift has taken place:

To get insight into the future challenges of the pharmaceutical industry in general ‘Complete Medical Group’ of U.K conducted a study with a sizable number of senior participants from the pharmaceutical companies of various sizes and involving many countries. The survey covered participants from various functional areas like, marketing, product development, commercial, pricing and other important areas.

The findings in the paper indicate that a paradigm shift has taken place in the global pharmaceutical industry, where continuation with the business strategies of the old paradigm will no longer be a pragmatic approach.

The situation is not much different in India too, due to rapidly evolving change in the dynamics of pharmaceutical business environment.

Besides the above finding, my own experience also vindicates that just as today is not a mega yesterday, tomorrow will never be a mega today.

The lessons learnt:

Taking a cue from the above study, which brought out several big challenges facing the global pharmaceutical industry in general and turning it into Indian perspective particularly in the post product patent regime beginning in 2005, my submissions are as follows:

- The increasing interventions of the Government is creating an all pervasive pricing pressure both for branded generics and patented drugs in various ways. The critical issue of predictability in the business environment along with the factors related to gaining greater market access are the ‘top of mind’ concerns of the pharmaceutical players in India.

- Better understanding of the new and differential value offerings that the doctors and patients will increasingly look for beyond the physical pharmaceutical products; will indeed be the cutting edge for the winners in this new ball game.

- Top management of the pharmaceutical companies should start evaluating the long term sustainability of the current pharmaceutical business model, especially for the branded generics. They will now need to include in their strategy wider areas of healthcare value delivery system with a holistic disease management focus.

- Offering just a better choice of medication for the treatment of a disease may no longer be considered enough without further value addition. Added value with disease prevention initiatives and help managing the ‘quality of life’ of patients, especially in case of chronic ailments, will assume increasing importance in the pharmaceutical business process.

- Greater and more frequent incremental innovation across the pharmaceutical value chain will be critical success factors.

- The ability to harness new technologies, rather than just recognize their potential and flexibility to adapt to increasingly demanding regulatory environment together with newer value requirements of the patients, should be an important part of the business strategy of any pharmaceutical company in the changing paradigm.

- More complex, highly fragmented market with cut throat competition along with various questionable sales and marketing practices, especially in the area of branded generics, demand for better, more aligned and integrated decision making process across various functional areas of the pharmaceutical business.

- Avoiding silos and empire building have long been a significant issue, especially for big pharmaceutical companies. Better and high quality strategy will include more pragmatic and efficient sales and marketing investment decisions, a robust ethics and compliance mechanism and jettisoning all those activities, which will no longer deliver intrinsic or extrinsic differential value to the stakeholders.

- Growing regulatory control in the business environment, including change in the MCI regulations for the doctors, strict implementation of long overdue ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ drafted by the Department of Pharmaceuticals for the industry and recent developments in the Clinical Trial process, will prompt a drastic change in the existing business practices.

- There will be a greater need for more innovative management of the pharmaceutical communication channels, including social media, striking a right balance between ‘pushing’ information to the doctors and patients and helping them ‘pull’ the relevant information, whenever required, through various well structured processes.

Need to think outside the box:

Unfortunately, even in the changing paradigm, the fundamental way by which the pharmaceutical industry has been attempting to address all these challenges has not changed much.

Though one should hope for the best, it will not be a bad idea to have a contingency plan ready, just in case prescriptions in generic names are made mandatory in India, even if selectively. Otherwise effective marketing of branded generics may be in jeopardy.

To explore the future growth potential the pharmaceutical companies are still focusing on the areas like, new product development, conventional sales and marketing, leveraging IT in all areas of decision making process including supply chain and greater market penetration skills, to name just a few.

Though these areas are not totally irrelevant today, adhering only to such tools and responses steadfastly, do ring an alarm bell to me. In a changing paradigm, only these tools are just not good enough for business excellence and to squarely address the new “Challenge of Change”.

The moot question will therefore be why have we not been able to address the needs of the new world order, as effectively as in the past, with these traditional tools?

More importantly, if we do not try to address today’s business issues thinking ‘outside the box’ or with ‘lateral thinking’, the implications could be rather serious in the times to come?

A different concept of “Building Mega Brands”:

Building brands, as we know, involve creating equity around an entity that delivers value to the customer, over and above the key functional properties of any product. Traditionally, the pharmaceutical companies have been largely focusing on building mega brands following widely varying strategies.

In the Indian scenario, rapidly evolving pharmaceutical business environment could make such strategies unsustainable or vulnerable, more for the branded generics, as mentioned above.

To meet those disruptive but emerging changes in the business environment, there is a need to take the conventional brand building exercises, especially for the likes of branded generics, beyond the confinement of just a single product.

A thought:

That said, I would now like to make a provocating submission.

Instead of investing huge sums in building a single product brand, can we build a larger brand with a well thought out cluster of products?

Cost efficient yet a powerful and different type of brand building process could well be thought around, say, the ‘Corporate franchise’ with a cluster of products in different price bands for different customer segments belonging to a specific therapy category or disease area or falling in some other area, yet bonded with a strong commonality criteria?

Thus, instead of consistently watching large branded generics grow, mature and die following even an extended product life cycle, pharmaceutical companies could well explore another opportunity to build a more sustainable and a much longer term emotional equity into their brands.

Who knows, tomorrow’s list of India’s top mega brands may not be dominated by the likes of Augmentin, Corex, Monocef, Voveran or Human Mixtard, but perhaps by quite different types of mega brands like, GSK Anti-infectives, Cipla Respiratory Care, USV Diabetic Care, Abbott Cardiac Care or Galderma Derma Care, just to cite a few examples.

‘Serum Institute Vaccines’ perhaps could well be considered as one such mega brand, incubated and grown in the pharmaceutical green field of India, over a long period of time and now known the world over.

Conclusion:

It is quite clear now that the pharmaceutical business models are undergoing an acid test and serious re-evaluation in the changing paradigm. There is a view that further changes are inevitable due to variety of factors that are squeezing both sales and profit margins, posing severe challenges to future growth at a brisk pace.

Some strategic measures to address this ‘Challenge of change’ are now being deliberated upon. However, how profound will these changes be or how effectively the pharmaceutical players counter these changes for a long term sustainability of business excellence, will indeed be quite interesting to watch.

By: Tapan J. Ray

An El Dorado…But Not Without Responsible Pricing:The Cancer Segment in India

Posted on February 4, 2013 by Tapan Ray

The affordability issue for cancer treatment has been the subject of a raging debate since quite some time, as the incidence of cancer is fast increasing across the world. Just for example a very recent report highlighted that cancer has now become the greatest health risk in the UK, with an average British boy born in 2010 running a 44 percent chance of being diagnosed with any form of cancer during his lifetime. The risk for a baby girl is slightly lower at 40 percent.

In India too, the problem of affordable cancer treatment has now become the center piece of a fiercer public opinion in the healthcare space, more than even HIV, prompting the Government to intervene in this dreadful disease area and address the problem in a holistic way both in the short and also on a longer term basis. This demand is supported by rapidly growing number of cancer patients in the country.

Out of the total number of new cancer patients globally, India now reportedly ranks third as follows:

Rank	Country	% Of total
1.	China	22
2.	USA	11
3.	India	7.5

As a consequence, cancer now reportedly accounts for one of the main causes of deaths in India, which is nearly 19 percent higher than deaths caused by heart diseases.

Number of new cancer patients staggering in India:

Over 60,000 new cases are reportedly diagnosed every year in India and 80 percent of them are at an advanced stage, which involve mostly the middle-aged and elderly population of the country, where affordability is even a greater issue.

Cervical and breast cancers are reportedly the most common, contributing over 26 per cent to the total cancer cases in India, followed by lung, mouth, pharynx, ovarian, pancreatic and esophagus cancers.

Whereas cervical cancer is reportedly most common in females with a mortality rate of nearly 15 per 10,000 females, lung cancer has the highest mortality rate of 28 per 10,000 males.

Incidentally, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer even globally. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 90% of all lung cancers. The primary cause of lung cancer in up to 90% of patients is tobacco and represents one-fifth of all cancer-related deaths in India.

However, to address the havoc caused by this dreaded disease effectively, India will also need to bridge the huge gap of shortfall in disease diagnostic infrastructure in the country.

The humongous access gap for cancer patients needs to be effectively addressed by the Government sooner with Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) for diagnosis and treatment, in tandem with other proactive initiatives like, disease awareness campaigns targeted to ensure greater screening and disease prevention, wherever possible.

‘The Lancet’ finding:

Following are some of the important findings on cancer disease profile in India, as reported in May 12, 2012, edition of ‘The Lancet’:

- 6 percent of the study deaths were due to cancer

- 71 percent cancer deaths occurred in people aged 30—69 years

- Age-standardized cancer mortality rates per 100,000 were similar in rural and urban areas but varied greatly between the states, and were two times higher in the least educated than in the most educated adults.

This report further calls for immediate Government intervention in this area.

Growing patients number making ‘Oncology Market’ increasingly attractive:

As stated above, incidence of various types of cancer is rapidly increasing across the world, making oncology segment an ‘El Dorado’ for many pharmaceutical players prompting commensurate investments for product development in this area, be these are new molecules or biosimilars.

Thus, the global turnover of anti-cancer drugs, which was around US$ 50 billion in 2009, is expected to grow to US$ 75 billion in 2013 registering a jaw dropping growth rate in today’s turbulent global pharmaceutical market environment.

World Health Organization (WHO) has predicted over 20 million new cases of cancer in 2025 against 12 million in 2008.

Globally, the segment growth will mainly be driven by early detection, longer duration of treatment and the global ascending trend in the incidence and prevalence of cancer propelled by new treatments and improved access to cancer therapies in many countries.

Indian business landscape:

Oncology segment has now emerged as a leading therapeutic area in the Indian pharmaceuticals market too, being fourth largest in volume and tenth largest in value term, mainly driven by lower priced generic equivalents in volume term.

Despite only a smaller number of patients can afford any comprehensive cancer treatment protocol in India, the demand for cancer drugs in the country, where many drug companies follow various types of unconventional logistics systems to reach these drugs to patients, is increasing at a rapid pace.

Global players namely, Roche, BMS, Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK and Merck reportedly dominate the market with innovative drugs. Whereas, domestic companies like, Natco Pharma, Cipla, Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s Lab (DRL), Biocon and others are now coming up with low price generic equivalents of many cancer drugs.

The fact that currently over 30 pharmaceutical companies market cancer drug in the country, demonstrates growing attractiveness of the Oncology segment in India.

Access to newer cancer drugs:

It has been widely reported that newer cancer therapies have significant advantages over available generic cancer drugs both in terms of survival rate and toxicity.

Unfortunately such types of drugs cost very high, severely limiting access to their therapeutic benefits for majority of patients. For a month’s treatment such drugs reportedly cost on an average US$ 3,000 – 4,500 or Rs 1.64 – 2.45 lakh to each patient in India.

More R&D investments in Oncology segment:

Another study recently published by ‘Citeline’ in its ‘Pharma R&D Annual Review 2012’ points out, more than half of the top 25 disease areas targeted for R&D falls under cancer therapy. Breast cancer comes out as the single most targeted disease followed by Type 2 diabetes.

This will ensure steady growth of the Oncology segment over a long period of time and simultaneously the issue of access to these medicines to a large number of patients, if the product pricing does not fall in line with socioeconomic considerations of India.

Cancer drug sales dominated in 2012:

It is interesting to note that around one-third of the ‘Top 10 Brands in 2012′ were for the treatment of cancer as follows:

Top 10 global brands in 2012

Rank	Brand	Therapy Area	Company	Sales: (US$ bn)
1.	Humira	Rheumatoid Arthritis and others	Abbott /Eisai (now AbbVie/Eisai)	9.48
2.	Enbrel	Anti-inflammatory	Amgen/Pfizer/Takeda	8.37
3.	Advair/Seretide	Asthma, COPD	GlaxoSmithKline	8.0
4.	Remicade	Auto-immune	Johnson & Johnson/Merck/ Mitsubishi Tanabe	7.67
5.	Rituxan	Anti-cancer	Roche	6.94
6.	Crestor	Anti-lipid	AstraZeneca/ Shionogi	6.65
7.	Lantus	Anti-diabetic	Sanofi	6.12
8.	Herceptin	Anti-cancer	Roche	6.08
9.	Avastin	Anti-cancer	Roche	5.98
10.	Lipitor	Anti-lipid	Pfizer/Astellas Pharma/Jeil Pharmaceutical	5.55

(Source: Fierce Pharma)

Responsible Pricing a key issue with cancer drugs:

In the battle against the much dreaded disease cancer, the newer innovative drugs being quite expensive, even in the developed markets the healthcare providers are feeling the heat of cost pressure of such medications, which in turn could adversely impact the treatment decisions for the patients.

Thus, to help the oncologists to appropriately discuss the treatment cost of anti-cancer drugs with the patients, the ‘American Society of Clinical Oncology’ recently has formed a task force who will also try to resolve this critical issue.

In many other developed markets of the world, for expensive cancer medications, the patients are required to bear the high cost of co-payment. This may run equivalent to thousands of U.S dollars, which many patients reportedly find difficult to arrange.

It has been reported that even the ‘National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), UK’ considers some anti-cancer drugs not cost-effective enough for inclusion in the NHS formulary, sparking another set of raging debate.

‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ in one of its recent articles with detail analysis, also expressed its concern over sharp increase in the price of anti-cancer medications, specifically.

An interesting approach:

Experts are now deliberating upon the possibility of creating a ‘comparative effectiveness center’ for anti-cancer drugs. This center will be entrusted with the responsibility to find out the most cost effective and best suited anti-cancer drugs that will be suitable for a particular patient, eliminating possibility of any wasteful expenses with the new drugs just for newness and some additional features. If several drugs are found to be working equally well on the same patient, most cost effective medication will be recommended to the particular individual.

India should also explore this possibility without further delay.

Indian Government trying to find an answer in CL/NLEM/NPPP 2012:

Going by the recent developments in Compulsory License (CL) area for high priced new and innovative cancer drugs, it appears that in the times to come exorbitant prices for cancer drugs may prove to be loaded with risks of grant of CL in India due to immense public pressure.

It appears from the grapevine that Government may also explore the possibility to include some of the newer cancer drugs under National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) bringing them under price control in conformance with the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012), if not through the provision of pricing of patented drugs.

Thus responsible pricing of cancer drugs assumes huge importance for avoidance of the above unpleasant situation in India.

Cancer drug pricing related developments in India:

As stated above, cancer being the second largest killer in India and the patented cancer drugs being generally expensive, a large Indian pharmaceutical player has been reportedly insisting on the government to allow widespread use of “compulsory licenses” for cancer drugs. About 11 years ago various news reports highlighted that this company broke ‘monopoly ‘ of the multinationals by offering to supply life-saving triple therapy AIDS drug cocktails for under US$1 a day, which is about one-thirtieth the price of the global companies.

In May 2012, this same Indian company named Cipla, significantly reduced the cost of three medicines to fight brain, kidney and lung cancers in India, making these drugs around four times cheaper than the originators, as per the above news report. The company reportedly wants to reduce the prices of more cancer drugs in future.

Prompted by the above steps taken by Dr. Yusuf Hamied, the Chairman of Cipla, many global players have reportedly branded him as an Intellectual Property (IP) thief, while Dr. Hamied reportedly accused them of being “Global Serial Killers” whose high prices are costing many precious lives across the globe.

In the same interview Dr. Hamied said poverty-racked India “can’t afford to divide people into those who can afford life-saving drugs and those who can’t”.

Promising future potential for low cost newer generic cancer drugs:  

While R&D initiatives are going on full throttle for newer and innovative drugs for cancer, interestingly over a quarter of the following 15 brands, which will go off-patent in 2013 are for cancer, throwing open the door for cheaper newer generics entry and increasing access to these medicine for a larger population of cancer patients.

Patent expiry in 2013

Rank	Brand	Generic name	Therapy Area	Company	Patent Expiry	Sales US$ billion (2012)
1.	Cymbalta	Duloxetine	Antidepressant, musculoskeletal pain	Eli Lilly/Shionogi	Dec 11	4.9
2.	Avonex	Interferon beta1a	Multiple Sclerosis (MS)	Biogen Idec	Dec 31	2.9
3.	Humalog	Insulin lispro	Anti-diabetic	Eli Lilly	May 7	2,52
4.	OxyContin	Oxycodone	Pain	Perdue	August 31,	2.35
5.	Rebif	Interferon beta-1a	Multiple Sclerosis (MS)	Merck KgaA	Dec 31	2.3
6.	Aciphex	Rabeprazole	Acid-peptic disorder	J&J, Eisai	May 8	1.93
7.	Xeloda	Capecitabin	Cancer	Roche	Dec 14	1.63
8.	Procrit	Epoetin Alfa	Anemia	J&J	Aug 29	1.41
9.	Neupogen	Filgrastim	Cancer	Amgen, Kirin, Roche, Royalty Pharma	Dec 12	1.29
10.	Zometa	Zoledronic Acid	Cancer	Novartis	March 2	1.26
11.	Lidoderm	Lidocaine patch 5%	Pain-relieving patch	Endo Health Solutions/ EpiCept	Sep 15	0.918
12.	Temodar	Temozolomide	Cancer	Merck, Bayer	Aug 31	0.882
13.	Asacol	Mesalamine	Ulcerative Colitis	Warner Chilcott, UCB, Zeria Pharma	Jul 30	0.891
14.	Niaspan	Niacin	Anti-lipid	Abbott, Teva	Sep 20	0.835
15	Reclast	Zoledronic acid injection	Osteoporosis	Novartis	March 02	0.612

(Source: Fierce Pharma)

A thought:

Initiatives for faster resolution of a pressing issue like providing affordable treatment for cancer should not be put in the back burner of a longer term planning process. The issue is very real, humanitarian, here and now, for all of us. The Government is expected to display some sense of urgency through its expeditious intervention in all the four of the following treatment processes for cancer to make them affordable, if not free for the general population:

Medical intervention and consultation
Diagnostic tests and detection
Surgical procedure and hospitalization
Medicines and chemotherapy

As ‘The Lancet” study mentions, cancer in India is all-pervasive. It has no rich or poor, urban or rural or even any gender bias. It needs to be addressed in a holistic way for the benefit of all.

Conclusion:

High incidence of cancer in India with even higher mortality rate, coupled with very high treatment cost has positioned this disease area in the eye of a stormy debate for quite some time. The naked fact that a large number of Indian population cannot afford the high treatment cost for cancer as ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure, has made the issue even more sensitive and socially relevant in India.

Pricing issue for cancer drugs is not just India centric. Even in the developed countries, heated debate on expensive new drugs, especially, in the oncology segment is brewing up for a while. This could possibly assume a much larger proportion in not too distant future.

It is about time for also the private players to come forward and extend support to the Government in a joint endeavor to tame the destructibility and catastrophic effect of this dreaded disease on human lives, families and the society in general. Setting access improving tangible examples through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, rather than mere pontification of any kind, is the need of the hour.

If it does not happen, soon enough, willy-nilly the concerned players in this area may get caught in a much fiercer debate, possibly with a force multiplier effect, inviting more desperate measures by the Government.

Responsible pricing, for the patients’ sake, of each element of the cancer treatment process will ultimately assume a critical importance, not just for survival and progress of any business, but also to fetch pots of gold, as business return, from the ‘El Dorado’ of ‘Oncology Segment’ of India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Government Ups the Ante for More Compulsory Licenses in India

Posted on January 21, 2013 by Tapan Ray

On January 12, 2013, one of the leading dailies of India first reported that in a move that is intended to benefit thousands of cancer patients, Indian Government has started the process of issuing Compulsory Licenses (CL) for three commonly used anti-cancer drugs:

- Trastuzumab (or Herceptin, used for breast cancer),

- Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy)

- Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia).

For a month’s treatment drugs like, Trastuzumab, Ixabepilone and Dasatinib reportedly cost on an average of US$ 3,000 – 4,500 or Rs 1.64 – 2.45 lakh for each patient in India.

CL through a different route:

This time the government can reportedly notify its intent to grant CL under Section 92 of the Indian Patents Act 2005, only if any of the following three conditions are met:

- National emergency

- Cases of extreme urgency

- Public non-commercial use

After such Government notification in the gazette, any company interested in manufacturing any or all of these three products can directly apply for a CL to the Indian Patent Office (IPO).

This route is also expected to save usual litigation costs for the interested pharmaceutical players.

In such case, this will be the first time in India, when instead of pharmaceutical players applying for CL the Government on its own will trigger the CL process.

A situation like this will undoubtedly signal immense unpredictability in the IPR environment of the country.

Incongruent with the New Drug Policy 2012:

Interestingly, section 4(xv) of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) under ‘Patented Drugs’ states as follows:

“There is a separate Committee constituted by the Government order dated 1st February, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented drugs would be taken based on the recommendations of the Committee.”

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

Thus, it is rather intriguing for many to fathom, why is the Government contemplating to grant CL on the above three anti-cancer drugs in January 2013, despite the decision of the Union Cabinet on the same in the new Drug Policy as recent as December, 2012.

Medicines come at the third stage of a medical treatment process:

For all patients, including the cancer victims, medicines will come at the earliest in the third stage of any treatment process, the first two or in some cases first three stages being:

A doctor’s intervention
Correct diagnosis through diagnostic processes
Surgical interventions (in some cases)

In India, there is no regulation to address the ‘cost issues’ of the first two or three stages of treatment, though there is a dire need to facilitate the entire process and not just one. Coming straight to cancer medicines considering these as the only ‘magic wands’ to improve access to treatment, may well be considered as ‘jumping the gun’ by the Government, if not an imprudent decision.

Skewed healthcare distribution in India:

Healthcare distribution in India is rather skewed and cancer treatment is no exception mainly because of the following reasons:

Medical personnel are concentrated in urban areas.
74 percent of doctors work in urban settlements, which is just around 1/4^th of the population.
61 percent of the medical colleges are in the 6 states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Pudicherry.
Whereas, just 11 percent of these are located in Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal and the north-eastern states
369,351 government beds are in urban areas and a mere 143,069 beds in the rural areas.
Rural “doctors to population” ratio is lower by 6 times as compared to urban areas.

(Source: KPMG Report 2011)

Huge healthcare Infrastructural Deficiencies:

In India, not just compared to the developed nations, even as compared BRIC countries, there is a huge infrastructural deficiencies as follows:

Indicators	Year	India	US	UK	Brazil	China
Hospital Bed Density(Per 10000 population)	2011	12	31	39	24	30
Doctor Density(Per 10000 population)	2011	6	27	21	17	14

(Source: WHO, World Health Statistics 2012)

0.6 doctors per 1000 population as against the global average of 1.23 suggests an evident manpower gap in the very first stage of a treatment process.
Number of beds available per 1000 people in India is only 1.2, which is less than half of the global average of 2.6.

Coming to Medical Colleges, the scenario is equally dismal, as follows:

Year	Number of Medical Colleges	Total Admissions
2011-2012	314	29,263
	No of dental Colleges	Total Admissions
2011-2012	289	2783

(Source: Medical Council of India & Dental Council of India)

Thus, India needs to open around 600 medical colleges (100 seats per college) and 1500 nursing colleges (60 seats per college) in order to meet the global average of doctors and nurses.

(Source: KPMG Report 2011)

Shortages in other healthcare professionals:

It has been reported that a deficit of 64 lakh (6.4 million) allied healthcare professionals India with highest gaps in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, is a stumbling block in providing basic and quality healthcare to Indian population, as follows:

Healthcare Professionals	Shortage
Anesthetists and technicians	850,000
Dental staff	2.04 Million
Ophthalmologists and optometrists	127, 000
Rehabilitation specialists	1.8 Million
Medical laboratory technicians	61,000
Radiographers	19,000
Audiology and speech language specialists	7,500
Medical staff	230,000

(Source: Times Of India, December 20, 2012)

Is the Government ‘missing the woods for the trees’?

In a scenario like this, it is rather impractical to envisage that routine grant of compulsory licenses by the Indian Patent Office will be able to resolve the critical issue of improving access to patented medicines on a long term basis.

Not many CL granted between 1995-2012:

Despite having the provisions of CL in the Patents Act of many countries, not many CLs have been granted across the world from 1995 to date for the obvious reasons.

The details are as follows:

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

Source: DNA, March 9, 2012

An interesting paper:

However, I hasten to add that despite all these, the provision of CL in the Indian Patents Act 2005 has immense relevance, if invoked in the right kind of circumstances.

In the paper titled ‘TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond’, published in ‘Chicago Journal for International Law, Vol. 3(1), Spring 2002’, the author argues, though the reasons for the lack of access to essential medicines are manifold, there are many instances where high prices of drugs deny access to needed treatments for many patients. Prohibitive drug prices, in those cases, were the outcome of monopoly due to strong intellectual property protection.

Right pricing of patented drugs is critical:

While there is no single or only right way to arrive at the price of an IPR protected medicine, how much the pharmaceutical manufacturers will charge for such drugs still remains an important, yet complex and difficult issue to resolve, both locally and globally. Even in the developed nations, where an appropriate healthcare infrastructure is already in place, this issue comes up too often mainly during price negotiation for reimbursed drugs.

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Price Controls in OECD Countries”, published by the US Department of Commerce after examining the drug price regulatory systems of 11 OECD countries concluded that all of them enforce some form of price controls to limit spending on pharmaceuticals. The report also indicated that the reimbursement prices in these countries are often treated as de facto market price.

In India, the Government is already mulling to put in place a similar mechanism for patented medicines, as captured in the NPPP 2012.

Further, some OECD governments regularly cut prices of even those drugs, which are already in the market. The values of health outcomes and pharmacoeconomics analysis are gaining increasing importance for drug price negotiations/control by the healthcare regulators even in various developed markets of the world to ensure responsible pricing of IPR protected medicines.

An evolving global trend:

To address such pricing issues, global pharmaceutical majors, like GSK and Merck (MSD) have already started following the differential pricing model, based primarily on the size of GDP and income status of the people of the respective countries. This strategy includes India, as well.

Reference pricing model is yet another such example, where the pricing framework of a pharmaceutical product will be established against the price of a reference drug in reference countries.

An innovative approach to address patented products’ pricing:

To effectively address the challenge of pricing of patented medicines in India, Swiss drug major Roche, has reportedly entered into a ‘never-before’ technology transfer and manufacturing contract for biologics with a local Indian company – Emcure Pharma, for its two widely acclaimed Monoclonal Antibodies’ anti-cancer drugs – Herceptin and MabThera.

The report says that in the past, Emcure had signed licensing deals with US-based bio-pharmaceutical drug maker Gilead Life Sciences for Tenafovir and with Johnson and Johnson for Darunavir. Both are anti-HIV drugs.

In this regard, media reports further indicated that Roche would offer to Indian patients significantly cheaper, local branded versions of these two anti-cancer drugs by early this year. The same news item also quoted the Roche spokesperson from Basel, Switzerland commenting as follows:

“The scope is to enable access for a large majority of patients who currently pay out of pocket as well as to partner with the government to enable increased access to our products for people in need”.

Such ‘out of box’ strategies and initiatives by the global innovator companies could help keeping prices of patented products affordable to the Indian patients, improving their access significantly and making the likes of the current Government initiative on CL irrelevant.

Conclusion:

It is generally accepted that the provisions for CL in the Indian Patents Act 2005 has utmost relevance in terms of public health interest for all concerned.

However, keeping in view of recent policy announcement in the NPPP 2012, as approved by the Union Cabinet, on price negotiation for patented products, the reported Government move of invoking these provisions for three anti-cancer drugs is rather intriguing.

Moreover, even for the cancer patients, there seems to be a greater urgency to attend to basic healthcare infrastructural and delivery issues, besides providing Universal Health Coverage (UHC) as recommended by the High Level Experts Group (HLEG) constituted for this purpose by the Government.

Far encompassing critical decisions like grant of CL, I reckon, should be taken only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

Thus, recent news reports on the possibility of further grant of three more CLs could make the pharmaceutical business environment for the innovator companies in India more uncertain.

Demonstrable predictability for an innovation friendly environment is critical for the economic growth of India, which the Government should not lose sight of. Just upping the ante for more CL of anti-cancer drugs will not necessarily help improving access to cancer treatments in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Roche

India, China Revoke Four Pharma Patents in A Fortnight: A Double Whammy for MNCs?

More Glivec Like Deals in China and Mounting Global Challenges: Innovators poised Joining Biosimilar Bandwagon

The Ghost Keeps Haunting: NCD Dogs Cancer in ‘Compulsory License’ Debate of India

Pharmaceutical Brand Building in a Changing Scenario: Thinking Outside the Box

An El Dorado…But Not Without Responsible Pricing:The Cancer Segment in India

Government Ups the Ante for More Compulsory Licenses in India