Tag Archives: Safety

India’s Drug Quality Concerns: Is Light At The End of The Tunnel In Sight Now?

Posted on by
Reply

A brief chronology of some recent events on issues pertaining to patient-health-safety with drugs, as captured below, would possibly generate a mixed feeling for many. This includes a serious concern about, especially generic drug quality safety standards in India, on the one hand, and a ray of hope in the tools available to patients to know more about drugs that they have been prescribed. In this article, I shall dwell on this area. My intent is to bring to the fore the vital point – Is the beginning of the end of a long dark tunnel in sight now?

 A chronology of some recent events:

As reported on July 16, 2023, while talking on the subject, “Pharmaceutical Quality — What are we missing?”, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) made a notable comment. He, reportedly, said that the poor quality of drugs exported from India to foreign countries had tarnished the image of the country in the international market. The DCGI further added, pharmaceutical quality has become a subject of discussion on the global platform and the international community has started doubting whether India is capable of making quality pharmaceuticals for the global population.

He underscored, “We boast of our country as the pharmacy of the world, but it seems that it is too difficult to maintain the top position for long. If the position is lost, it will be painful and difficult to restore the faith of the international community. Further, we will lose the opportunity to serve the whole humanity of the world. The responsibility of the loss will not only fall on the manufacturers, but equally on all the stakeholders.”

Alongside, a news report on August 01, 2023, brings some hope in this regard, which I shall elaborate in course of this deliberation.  

A long saga of events: 

Yes, as it appears from the following backdrop:

Over the last several decades, there have been many instances where international drug regulators, including the U.S. FDA, expressed concerns about the quality standards of Indian manufactured drugs. These concerns have generally been related to specific manufacturing facilities – ranging from top domestic manufacturers to smaller ones, raising an uncomfortable apprehension – does India produce ’World-Class’ medicines, for all? 

About a decade ago, one of the most well-known cases was in 2013 when the U.S. FDA issued an import alert on products from the Ranbaxy Laboratories facility in India due to data integrity and manufacturing quality issues. This led to significant scrutiny of other Indian pharmaceutical companies as well. Issues related to data integrity, product quality, and good manufacturing practices lead to inspections, warning letters, import alerts, or other regulatory measures.

It continued. For example, around that time, even Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, one of India’s largest pharmaceutical companies, received a warning letter from the U.S. FDA in 2015 (Source: U.S. FDA). Similarly, Wockhardt, another top Indian pharmaceutical company, faced regulatory scrutiny in 2013 when the U.S. FDA issued an import alert and seized products manufactured at their facility in India. The FDA raised concerns about violations of good manufacturing practices and data integrity issues at the facility. This led to recalls of several products and affected the company’s reputation. (Source: Reuters).

As the juggernaut kept moving, on  December 08, 2016, I wrote in this blog, “Even Smaller Countries Now Question Indian Drug Quality Standard.” On March 04, 2023, the Mint reported, “Death of children in Gambia linked to consumption of India made cough syrups, as the US CDC report states.”  

As I write, the veracity of impact of such incidences remains as serious, if not more, although instances seem to be much fewer. For instance, as reported by Reuters on August 01, 2023: “India has directed Riemann Labs, a manufacturer linked to cough syrup deaths in Cameroon, to stop manufacturing activities, the country’s health ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.”

Thus, On May 27, 2019, I again wrote about: “Drug Quality Imbroglio And ‘Culture of Bending Rules’ in India” in this blog– and that was not the first time I flagged this menace in the country against patient safety.

Even big Indian pharma continued to be struggling with GMP issues:

Big Indian pharma companies are also involved in issues related to lapses in high drug quality standards even recently. Such as, even in 2021, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, received a warning letter from the U.S. FDA after an inspection of their manufacturing facility in India. The letter cited violations of good manufacturing practices, data integrity issues, and inadequate investigations of product complaints. Source: The Economic Times). Just a year before, in 2020, the U.S. FDA noted several observations related to good manufacturing practices and quality control. (Source: Moneycontrol).

Drug regulators fight the fire as and when it comes up:

Both the state drug regulators and the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) fight the fire at the respective manufacturing locations, as and when these come up. No significant actions on the ground for patient safety against such drugs were visible on the ground.  

For example, as reported on August 03, 2023: “Following recent incidents of several countries reporting deaths allegedly linked to “contaminated” India-manufactured drugs, the government has set a deadline for mandatory implementation of the Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) which were revised in 2018, bringing them on par with World Health Organization (WHO) standards.”

The government ponders making technological interventions for patients:

There are early signs of the government trying to embrace technology for patients’ safety. For example on November 17, 2022, the Union Health Ministry released a gazette notification no 823Eimplementing the Drugs (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 2022, making it mandatory for pharmaceutical companies to affix a QR code on the pack of top 300 formulations from August 1, 2023. A QR code, as reported, will contain the unique product identification code, generic name of the drug, brand name, name and address of the manufacturer, batch number, date of manufacture, expiry date and manufacturing license number.

This was part of the Ministry’s ‘track and trace’ mechanism, and of course, an intent at that time. However, a specific timeline for implantation has now been clearly enunciated.

This time it’s a two-pronged action:

For the first time, I think, a two-pronged action has been announced by the government – an enabling action for patients on the one hand against a strong punitive measure for the errant drug manufacturers on the other:

According to the above gazette notification of the Union Ministry of Health, on August 01, 2023, the central government announced stricter regulations for drug authentication and transparency by imposing mandatory QR codes on drugs. This will be effective from the same day. Patients will now be able to check the QR code on their medicines to ensure their authenticity. 

On August 03, 2023, the government set a deadline for adopting WHO-standard good manufacturing practices for drug manufacturers. Companies with a turnover of over Rs 250 crore will have to implement the revised GMP within six months, while medium and small-scale enterprises with turnover of less than Rs 250 crore will have to implement it within a year. 

Conclusion:

Besides all important patient safety, there are, at least, three other important factors for manufacturing high quality drugs for all and on an ongoing basis, sans lapses, as below:

  • Patients’ trust in the healthcare system relies on the availability of reliable medication. When patients have confidence in the drugs they are prescribed, they are more likely to comply with treatment regimens, leading to better health outcomes. 
  • A strong pharmaceutical sector that focuses on safe and effective drugs can foster economic growth by generating revenue, creating jobs, and attracting investments. It can also stimulate research and development efforts.
  • A reputation for producing quality drugs can boost India’s position as a global leader in pharmaceuticals, attracting international collaborations and partnerships.

Which is why, from the entire perspective, as above, amid India’s drug quality concerns, I reckon, one may still tend to wonder now – Is a light in sight now at the end of the dark and long tunnel? 

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.

 

Data Integrity Issue Haunts Again With Covid Vaccine?

Posted on by
Reply

On March 22, 2021, by a media release, AstraZeneca announced that its ‘US Phase III trial of AZD1222 demonstrated statistically significant vaccine efficacy of 79% in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 and 100% efficacy at preventing severe disease and hospitalization.’

Quite unexpectedly, on March 23, 2021, the above claim on AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine, triggered a rare post-midnight statement by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the United states. It rekindled a lurking fear of many, yet again, on the issue of questionable data integrity within the drug industry, in general.

This News Release articulated: “Late Monday, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) notified NIAID, BARDA, and AstraZeneca that it was concerned by information released by AstraZeneca on initial data from its COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial.”

The concern was on the possible inclusion of outdated information from that trial, ‘which may have provided an incomplete view of the efficacy data.’ It urged AstraZeneca to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as soon as possible.

Later on that very day, AstraZeneca released another statement saying: “The numbers published yesterday were based on a pre-specified interim analysis with a data cutoff of 17 February. We have reviewed the preliminary assessment of the primary analysis and the results were consistent with the interim analysis. We are now completing the validation of the statistical analysis.”

The company further emphasized, “We will immediately engage with the independent data safety monitoring board (DSMB) to share our primary analysis with the most up to date efficacy data.” And also added that AstraZeneca intends to issue the results of the primary analysis within 48 hours.

However, the impact of the NIAID’s announcement on the unfurling of AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine in the U.S, is yet to be ascertained. It’s also still unknown what this news could mean for the vaccine’s alleged efficacy. Be that as it may, it all happened at a time when millions of people, in many countries of the world, including India, have already taken, at least, the first dose of this vaccine.

In this article, I shall deliberate on broader aspects of this critical issue and its relevance in the present case. However, before doing so, let’s try to figure out, why data integrity still remains a major concern of many experts in this area.

Why data integrity is still a major issue:

There are many studies that raised serious concern in this area, over a period of time. For example – ‘Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data’ – was claimed by the research paper that was discussed in ‘The Guardian’ on June 05, 2017.

This study reviewed data from 5,087 clinical trials, published during the past 15 years, in two prestigious medical journals – JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine, and six anesthesia journals. In total, 90 published trials had underlying statistical patterns that were unlikely to appear by chance (or be termed as ‘unforced error’) in a credible dataset, the paper concluded.

Even my own article of September 30, 2019 deliberated on various facets of ‘data integrity’ involving novel therapy, across the world. There, I quoted one of the top medical experts related to the above paper, saying: “It’s very scary that we may be treating patients based on false evidence.” He further added: “It may be the case that certain treatments may need to be withdrawn from use.”

The ghost of a recent example still haunts:

Not so long ago, much reported fallout from Novartis’ alleged data manipulation fiasco with its billion-dollar gene therapy Zolgensma, shook all concerned. So much so, that the Company CEO had to pledge during an investor conference that: ‘the company will be more proactive in reporting data integrity issues to the FDA.’

He also added, Novartis has responded to the FDA’s Form 483 and is making documents available as requested, while reiterating that the data manipulation uncovered at the San Diego site “does not impact the safety, efficacy or quality of Zolgensma.”

The key point to ponder, therefore, especially in AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine case – is the same ghost haunting us, yet again?

Is it happening again? 

One may, possibly, find some cue of the answer to this question while looking at what followed after ‘validation of the statistical analysis’ by AstraZeneca, as it was promised by the company. Interestingly, the following day, after apparently a thorough analysis, the data released by AstraZeneca, re-iterated effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine, which apparently, is broadly similar to the results released earlier.

The Company highlighted therein, ‘US Phase III primary analysis confirms safety and efficacy,’ with the following points:

  • 76% (earlier shown as 79%) vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19
  • 100% efficacy against severe or critical disease and hospitalization
  • 85% efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 in participants aged 65 years and over.

It may continue to remain unclear to many – whether or not there was some suspected issue of data integrity – till the answers, at least, to the following questions are made public:

  • Why did the data and safety monitoring board for the trial write a harsh letter to AstraZeneca on its claim, and copied the leadership of NIAID and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority?
  • As the proof of the pudding is in its eating, why there will even be a slight downward revision in the rate of efficacy of AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine?

Conclusion:

I wrote in this blog, way back on August 03, 2015 that data manipulation issues are dangerously leapfrogging into clinical trial domain, even in India. As a result, many domestic drug players had to pay a heavy price – in terms of drug import bans by USFDA and other regulators. Several questions on the quality of efficacy and safety of Indian generic drugs were also raised in many developed countries. A number of best-selling books were also written on this issue.

Some may recall, just ahead Covid pandemic struck, trial data of a highly complex and very expensive gene therapy was also questioned by the US-FDA, for the same reason. However, on March 31, 2020, on completion of its review of the information, records of the inspection, the evidence collected, and the firm’s corrective actions, US-FDA stated: “Objectionable conditions were found and documented but the objectionable conditions observed during the inspection do not meet the threshold for regulatory action.”

Almost in a similar line, after the NIAID decided to make its data related concern public on AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine, its head, Anthony Fauci, reportedly, characterized this issue as “an unforced error.” This is indeed a cryptic comment. The root cause of this entire saga with details is still awaited.

Interestingly, the term “unforced error’ is widely used in Tennis, and means, ‘a mistake in play that is attributed to one’s own failure rather than to the skill or effort of one’s opponent.’ From this perspective, after AstraZeneca’s statement of clarification on its Covid-19 vaccine data, the concern on its phase three trial data would possibly be put to rest. At least for now, let’s not see the ghost of data integrity for this vaccine, where there doesn’t seem to be any.

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.

 

Covid-19: Will Pharma Deliver What It Can Do The Best, Soon?

Posted on by
Reply

The news of a bright possibility of finding magic bullets to significantly tame, if not totally annihilate Covid-19, is coming almost every passing day. As expected, these are being initiated mostly by drug companies, alongside various academia, located in several countries of the world, including India. It rekindles hope to return to some kind of normalcy in daily life, work and business.

However, the hype created around each of these, either too early or based on some anecdotal reports, apparently driven by the desire for a windfall commercial gain, may be counterproductive. That some remedial measures to tackle the notorious virus will come very soon, could influence a number of decisions of those who are engaged in managing the situation.

The pressing need to restart the economic activity – come what may, even before the first wave of Covid-19 subsides in a developing country like, India, comes along with a strong storm signal. Balancing life with livelihood has never been so difficult ever. In tandem, it poses a great challenge also for the pharma industry to demonstrate what it stands for the society, such as:

  • Bringing scientifically proven, safe and effective drugs and vaccine, in a specified timeframe falling close to the realm of a genuine possibility.
  • Making these drugs and vaccines available, at an affordable price and accessible to all, globally.

In this article, I shall focus on the relevance of these two critical expectations of all, where, incidentally, pharma is expected to do and deliver the very best – particularly against the prevailing and near-chaotic scenario. Let me begin with the first point first.

A great challenge:

Understandably, the above task is not a piece of cake due to many reasons. For example, according to a leading pharma trade association in the United States, ‘On average, it takes at least ten years for a new medicine to complete the journey from initial discovery to the marketplace, with clinical trials alone taking six to seven years on average.’

Thus, logically, a new drug molecule for Covid-19 can’t possibly be expected, by any stretch of imagination, within the next 12 to 18 months. What one can possibly expect for the same is, repurposing older drugs for the same. Quite logically, steps are being taken in this direction. However, even for such drugs, a clinical trial would take ‘six to seven years on average.’ Considering the urgency to combat the Covid-19 pandemic, can a fair clinical trial be completed in the next 12 to 18 months?

Therefore, the challenge in hand for the drug companies, even considering a super fast-track regulatory assessment and approval in 12 to 18 months, appear a pretty tough proposition. The challenge gets more complex, if Covid-19 starts changing.

A new issue is unraveling:  

Recently, a new dimension got added to the mounting challenge of coming out with an effective drug or vaccine to fight Covid-19 pandemic, as evident from the Bloomberg article of May 20, 2020. It carries a headline ‘China’s New Outbreak Shows Signs the Virus Could Be Changing.’

It reported, Chinese doctors are seeing the Coronavirus manifest differently among patients in the new cluster of cases of their northern provinces of Jilin and Heilongjiang, compared to the original outbreak in Wuhan. Apparently, it indicates that the pathogen may be changing in unknown ways, complicating efforts to manage the infection. Although, more details need to be unraveled in this area, this incident could flag a fresh uncertainty over the virus mutation that may hinder current efforts of developing safe and effective drugs and vaccine for Covid-19.

Still no available drugs and vaccine for Covid-19 with proven clinical efficacy:

‘The Lancet’ article of April 02, 2020 – ‘‘Global coalition to accelerate COVID-19 clinical research in resource-limited settings’ has also emphasized the above point. It reiterated, there is still no available vaccine against Covid-19 infections and no drug with proven clinical efficacy, although there are several candidates that might be effective in prevention or treatment.

As of March 24, 2020, there were 332 COVID-19 related clinical trials, 188 of which were open for recruitment and 146 trials are preparing to recruit. These clinical trials were either planned or being carried out, mostly in China, South Korea, Europe and North America. However, not many trials were planned in south and southeast Asia, Africa, and central and South America at that time, the article pointed out. But the hype for the availability of drugs continues to reverberate, generally in the media reports. Nevertheless, the work is still in progress.

Some unproven hype as on date?

Despite so much of publicity on availability of drugs for the treatment and prevention of Covid-10, starting from Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine, which the US President Donald Trump called a “game changer” for Coronavirus – right up to Remdesivir, none has demonstrated scientifically proven clinical efficacy, as yet.

For example, the latest clinical trial results for Covid-19 on 15000 people, published in The Lancet on May 22, 2014 found, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine did not benefit patients with the Coronavirus, either alone or in combination with an antibiotic. Moreover, the drugs caused an increased risk of cardiac arrhythmia. Earlier,  ‘The BMJ’ article of May 14, 2020 also found that the administration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard care alone in mild to moderate Covid-19 infections. This study also noted, adverse events with the recipients of hydroxychloroquine were higher than non-recipients.

On the other hand, in India, as reported on May 23, 2020, the Union Health Ministry has issued an advisory expanding the pool of people to be given the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a prophylactic to prevent them from contracting the infection.

Similarly, even Gilead had stated in its Press Release of April 29, 2020: ‘Remdesivir is not yet licensed or approved anywhere globally and has not yet been demonstrated to be safe or effective for the treatment of COVID-19,’ besides some  initial success reports. Notably, in India, Union Health Ministry has also recommended the use of anti-HIV drug combinations Lopinavir and Ritonavir for high-risk group patients, although there is no proven clinical evidence for its efficacy and safety in Covid-19 patients, if not against the use of this combination therapy.

Commercial activity progresses even before evidence-based regulatory approval:

Although, a single clinically proven drug is yet to come out, commercial activities for some of these drugs – in a near desperate situation – based apparently on hype created, including by the US President, have progressed or progressing. This had happened for hydroxychloroquine and has now started happening for remdesivir.

Almost every passing day one finds yet another repurposed drug being put on clinical trial by a different company, probably for similar reasons. There is nothing wrong on that, but which drugs work and which do not, must be evaluated in a more cohesive manner and sooner.

The good news is, the World Health Organization (WHO), which is concerned with recommendations for ‘administering unproven treatments to patients with COVID-19 or people self-medicating with them,’ has announced the “Solidarity” clinical trial for the new Coronavirus treatments. This is an international clinical trial, aimed at the scientific assessment of 4 treatment options to slow the disease progression or improve survival rate for COVID-19 patients.

Otherwise, a strong desire for people to survive – ‘somehow’, will prevail in this desperate situation, over what these medicines can actually deliver. Even drug companies never experienced in the past or even could even envisage such a pandemic at this humongous global scale.

A similar scenario is witnessed with some major vaccine development initiatives. For example, stock markets soared with the early signs of viral immune response of the much publicized experimental Covid-19 vaccine being developed by Moderna Inc. However, a few days later, after ‘parsing the data to gauge the company’s chances of success’ by the analysts, it was reported: ‘It’s too soon to assume success for Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine.’ Curiously, it continues to happen in the early days with almost all such well publicized initiatives. Nonetheless, the pursuit to find out safe, effective and clinically proven drugs and vaccine continues.

Which is why, bringing scientifically proven safe and effective drugs and vaccine sans the early hype, in a specified time, falling close to the realm of a genuine possibility, becomes a key deliverable of pharma players, in this situation. That said, it brings me to the second point where pharma and biotech companies are widely expected to meet the other expectations of all – making these drugs and vaccines available, affordable and accessible to all, globally.

Making Covid-19 drugs and vaccines available, affordable and accessible to all, globally:

Again, this seems to be an equally tough call for most drug players, as has been happening, generally. But Covid-19 drugs and vaccines are just not for saving life, these are also intimately related directly to the livelihood of a very large global population, especially in the developing nations, like India. Therefore, ‘Coronavirus vaccine should be for everyone, not just those who can afford it,’ as articulated in the article, published in the STAT news on March 05, 2020.

This apprehension arises among many in the United States, as well. Mainly because, as reported in the above article, vaccine coming out of the two vaccine development projects funded by the U.S. government, one by Sanofi and another by Johnson & Johnson, may not be affordable to all Americans.

Further, quite a number of countries in the world lack resources, infrastructure, and health care personnel to detect the virus and prevent it from spreading quickly and easily among populations. In which case, without drugs and vaccines, the number of cases is likely to grow exponentially, putting stress on already burdened health care workers and facilities. Consequently, it will make harder to provide timely care for those who are ill. Thus, vaccines will be an important tool for preventing such a catastrophe.

For those with resources – ‘rich countries and rich people,’ a Covid-19 vaccine will certainly be valuable to save lives. However, for most people in all countries, including India, it may be essential for the livelihood, as well. Without it, they will suffer disproportionately and unnecessarily, the article concluded. Thus, in this hour of multiple crisis of global dimension, the drug players are expected to come forward, making these drugs and vaccines available, affordable and accessible to all, globally – a task where they can deliver the best, compared to others.

Conclusion:

Amid ‘Lockdown.4’ in India, as on May 24, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases have mounted to 131,920 with 3,869 deaths. By the way, on the same day, the most populated country in the world – China, where Covid-19 struck first in December 2019, records 82,974 cases with 4634 deaths, so far.

That apart, Covid-19 is a very special situation for all countries, probably more than what happened during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, for several reasons. Comparing these two pandemics, especially during the lockdown period, has been common. Due to this pandemic, as many as 675,000 people, reportedly died only in America, many of them were previously healthy young adults. Almost similar situation is on the horizon with the Covid-19 pandemic.

Agreed, that the overall healthcare infrastructure and global scientific resources to combat these two pandemics may not be comparable. But even in the context of the 21st century, this is a very critical global situation, for both – saving life and also the livelihood. Thus, for pharma and biotech companies ‘this is not a time to make money’, as the chief executive officer of Serum Institute of India, which is helping produce a vaccine for Covid-19 developed by Oxford, puts it succinctly. Be that as it may, the answer to the two questions that I started with, still remains elusive.

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.

How Relevant Is A Pharma Brand Name To Patients?

Posted on by
Reply

Are brand names necessary for medicines? Well – its’s a contentious issue, at least, as on date. It becomes the subject of a raging debate when the same question is slightly modified to: – Are brand names necessary for prescription drugs?

The current reality is, almost all pharma companies believe, and have been following this practice. This has been happening for decades, regardless of the fact that unlike other branded non-pharma products, each and every drug also carries another specific name – the generic name. Which is why, questions are often raised, why can’t drugs be prescribed only in generic names by the doctors?

Before I proceed further, let me recapitulate the definition of a ‘brand’. One of the most comprehensive definitions of a brand is: Unique design, sign, symbol, words, or a combination of these that identifies a product and differentiates it from its competitors. It helps create a level of credibility, quality, and satisfaction in the consumer’s mind, by standing for certain benefits and value. And, the creative marketing practices followed in this process is termed as ‘branding’. Keeping this at the center, in this article, let me try to arrive at a relevant perspective on this subject.

The arguments in favor:

Votaries of pharma branding believe that a pharma brand helps establish an emotional connect with the consumers on various parameters, including quality, efficacy, safety and reliability. This is expected to establish a preferential advantage of a brand over its competitors. Quoting the ‘father of advertising’ David Ogilvy, some of these proponents relate the outcome of branding to offering ‘intangible sum of a product’s attributes’ to its consumers, and also prospective consumers.

Entrepreneur India puts across such favorable outcome of ‘branding’ very candidly, which is also applicable to branding medicines – both patented and generic ones. It says, “Consistent, strategic branding leads to a strong brand equity, which means the added value brought to your company’s products or services that allows you to charge more for your brand than what identical, unbranded products command.”

The general belief within the pharma industry is that, ‘branding’ facilitates doctors in choosing and prescribing medicines to patients, especially in those situations where the choices are many. Aficionados of pharma product branding argue, that to save time, doctors usually select those top of mind products, which they are familiar with and feel, can serve the purpose well. This belief prompts the necessity to go all out for ‘branding’ by the pharma companies, even when the process is an expensive one.

Where pharma ‘branding’ is necessary:

There are a few old publications of the 1980’s, which claim that studies based on human psychology have found that medicines with brand names can have a better perceived impact on the actual effectiveness of ‘Over the Counter (OTC)’ medications. One of the examples cited was of aspirin.

Be that as it may, the relevance of branding for OTC pharmaceutical products is undeniable, where a medicinal product is generally treated just as any other Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) goods. Establishing an emotional connect of OTC brands with consumers is, therefore, considered an important process to create a preferential perceived advantage over its competitors.

There is no well-laid out legal or procedural pathway, as yet, for pharma OTC brands in India. No ‘Direct to Consumer (DTC) promotion is allowed in the country for Schedule H and Schedule X drugs – the only exceptions being Ayurvedic proprietary medicines and for homeopathy drugs. That said, the question continues to haunt, how relevant is branding for prescription drugs – now?

Relevance of ‘branding’ for prescription drugs:

The juggernaut of ‘branding prescription drugs’, riding mostly the wave of vested interests – of many hues and color, has been made to be perceived as necessary to ensure drug quality and safety for patients. It continues to move on, up until today, even for highly specialized prescription drugs. Nonetheless, some initiatives are visible from some Governments to gradually shift this contentious paradigm.

This move has been catalyzed by a blend of changing times with changing expectations of a large number of patients. They want to be an integral part in their treatment decisions, receive more personalized healthcare from both doctors and pharma companies. Patients, ultimately, want to feel confident that they’re receiving the best treatment – says a fresh study.

A number of other research papers also confirm that, a virtually static bar of patients’ expectations, in the disease treatment process – either for themselves or their near and dear ones, is slowly but surely gaining height, measurably. For better outcomes, patients have started expecting new types of services both from their doctors and the drug manufacturers. This process begins, even before a final decision is taken in the treatment process. As this paradigm shifts, pharma players would be significantly impacted – in several parameters.

Fast expanding digital empowerment options for all, across the world, is expediting this process further, including India. Placing oneself in the midst of it, one may ponder – how relevant is pharma branding today, as is being highlighted by many, since long.

In my view, a part of the answer to the above question arguably lies in a study titled, “Product Launch: The Patient Has Spoken”. The Key findings from the survey that covered 8,000 patients from three generations in the US, the UK, Germany and France, were published by ‘Accenture Life Sciences’ in January 2018. The research reveals how these patients evaluate and select new treatments in eight therapeutic areas (immune system, heart, lungs, brain, cancer, hormone/ metabolism and eye disease) across three generations, spanning across – Baby boomers, Generation X and Millennials.

Brands don’t matter to most patients…outcomes do:

69 percent of patients said, the benefits of the product are more important to them than the brand of the product. The four top factors influencing patients’ while making decisions about their healthcare are listed in the report as:

  • The doctor/ physician relationship: 66 percent
  • The patient’s ability to maintain their current lifestyle: 55 percent
  • Patients’ ease of access to health care they’ll need: 53 percent
  • Patients’ financial situation / ability to pay: 51 percent. When this is read with another finding where, 48 percent of patients believe that their doctors discuss the whole range of product options with them, a more interesting scenario emerges.

Further, lack of knowledge about the treatments available, as expressed by 42 percent of patients obviously indicate, pharma players’ intent to better inform patients by educating the doctors through brand promotion is not working. Interestingly, brand loyalty or popularity appeared relatively unimportant, ranking twelfth out of 14 influencing factors. Just 25 percent of patients characterized themselves as having a strong affinity with brands in a healthcare setting – the above report revealed.

Could there be an alternative approach?

An effective ‘branding’ exercise should lead to creating a ‘brand loyalty’ for any product. For pharma companies, doctors’ brand loyalty should lead to more number of its brand prescriptions. This expectation emanates from the idea that the prescription brand will represent something, such as quality, trust, assured relief, or may well be anything else. That means pharma product ‘branding’ is primarily aimed at the medical profession.

In an alternative approach to the current practice, an article titled, “From Managing Pills to Managing Brands”, published sometime back in the March-April 2000 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR), finds its great relevance, even today. It says, pharma companies can retain the loyalty of customers by building a franchise around specific therapeutic areas based on a focused approach to R&D. In other words, their corporate brand can replace individual drug brands. For example, a doctor looking for a treatment for – say asthma, would look for the latest GlaxoSmithKline medicines. Let me hasten to add, I used this example just to illustrate a point. This may appear as a long shot to some. Nonetheless, it would significantly reduce the cost of marketing, and subsequently the cost of a drug to patients. Incidentally, I also wrote about the relevance of ‘Corporate Branding’ in this Blog on June 15, 2015.

Conclusion:

With this fast-emerging backdrop, the Accenture Study raises an important issue to this effect. It wonders, whether the expenses incurred towards branding medicines, especially, during product launch be significantly reduced and be made more productive?

Illustrating the point, the report says, in 2016, the US pharmaceutical and healthcare industry alone spent US$ 15.2 billion in marketing. To earn a better business return, could a substantial part of this expenditure be reallocated to other programs that matter more to patients, such as access to patient service programs, and creating ‘Real-World Evidence (RWE)’ data that can document improved health outcomes, particularly those that matter to patients?

Well-crafted pharma branding and other associated initiatives, targeted predominantly to the medical profession, may make a doctor emotionally obligated to prescribe any company’s specific brands, for now. However, in the gradually firming-up ‘patient outcomes’-oriented environment, where patients want to participate in the treatment decision making process, will it remain so?

Dispassionately thinking, to most patients, a brand is as good or bad as the perceived value it delivers to them in the form of outcomes. Or, in other words, prescription pharma brands may not even matter to most of them, at all, but the outcomes will be. Hopefully, before it is too late pharma players would realize that, especially the well-informed patients are becoming co-decision makers in choosing the drug that a doctor will prescribe to them. If not, the current targeted process of pharma prescription drug branding, may lose its practical relevance, over a period of time.

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 Improving Drug Quality in India – A Bizarre Intent

Posted on by
Reply

On January 16, 2017, quoting a Government source, a media report revealed, “India’s drug regulator is looking to inspect US pharmaceutical facilities, making critical medicines so that only high-quality products are imported from them.”

This intent follows a similar decision of the apex regulatory body – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), against some Chinese manufacturers on drug quality concern. The latest proposal to this effect was sent to the health ministry the previous week – the above report adds.

In this article, I shall explore the fundamental basis of this specific initiative. If it has any, I shall try to fathom whether it’s yet another case of misplaced priority of the decision makers, if not a bizarre one.

The current perspective:

About a couple of years ago, an article published in the global financial daily – the Financial Times, on September 9, 2015 titled, ‘Indian drugs: not what the doctor ordered’, articulated that the Indian pharma industry ‘now face a serious credibility crisis, as they battle to allay western regulators’ concerns about their manufacturing practices — especially the reliability of data from trials of their medicines.’

The report also pointed out: ‘Overseas regulators have been scrutinizing and banning products from some of India’s biggest and most reputable groups — including Sun Pharmaceuticals, IPCA, and Wockhardt – many of which have ongoing relationships with large multinational drug companies.’

Has anything changed now?

Nothing perceptibly seems to have changed in this area since then, to set our ‘own house in order’. Not even after witnessing a barrage of drug quality related ‘import bans’ by the US-FDA that involves Indian manufacturers of all sizes and scale. Instead, CDSCO turns its focus on setting-right ‘others’ manufacturing houses with its reportedly meagre manpower resources. Curiously, these initiatives include even those countries, which are globally acclaimed for having stringent regulatory frameworks well in place, such as the United States (US) and the European Union (EU).

Where a justifiable reason exists:

On Chinese API import by different countries, the article titled “Imports To Fuel India’s Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients’ Requirements,” published by Bloomberg | Quint on November 15, 2017 brings out a nice comparison. It says: ‘Among the top emerging and developing economies, India is a major importer of bulk drugs from China at 54 percent, followed by Indonesia at 24 percent, Brazil at 12 percent and South Africa at 8 percent.’ It also writes, in comparison, most of the developed markets of the world import in the range of just 2-3 percent from China.’

Going by this fact, Indian drug regulator’s inspection of some of the Chinese API plants is, by all means, understandable – mainly for two reasons. One, India is largely dependent on Chinese bulk drugs for formulations manufacturing and consumption in the country, besides exports. And the second, some incidents of compromised Chinese drug ingredients have already been reported. For example, citing quality issues, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has recently, reportedly banned import of such questionable drug constituents from six major Chinese pharma companies. This is not a solitary instance. Similar incidents involving Chinese drugs were  reported in the past, as well.

An irony:

When international media agencies flash headlines, such as “U.S. and EU regulators urge Indian drug companies to step up standards,” Indian drug regulators decide to inspect overseas manufacturing plants, as well. Such a decision becomes intriguing, especially when it includes those countries, where from imports are meager, besides their stringent drug quality standards being globally acclaimed.

This is an irony, as the recent local media headlines like, “India among countries where 10% of drugs are substandard: WHO” or “… 27 medicines sold by top firms ‘fail’ quality tests in seven states”, unfold the veracity of drug regulatory laxity within the country.

The basis of the recent proposal becomes more incomprehensible, when the DCGI himself reportedly admits, even today that: “Substandard medicines are a major issue in India and we are looking out for ways to tackle the problem. As quality regulator, we are developing proper mechanisms to stop manufacturing and sale of counterfeit drugs so that they don’t reach the patients.”

The reasons cited for overseas plant inspection:

According to media reports, the reasons cited in the CDSCO proposal for Indian Drug Inspectors’ (DI) inspecting other overseas manufacturers, including those in the US and Europe, are broadly as follows:

  • Most of over 28 manufacturing sites registered in India from the US, manufacture critical formulations or critical new therapies, which are not available in other countries, as they fall into high-risk categories.
  • Inspections will not only result in compliance to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules, but also give exposure to Indian drugs inspectors to new technology adopted in the manufacturing and state-of-the-art facilities.
  • The sites will be inspected if they have made substandard drugs, received quality complaints, or faced action by other regulatory authorities.
  • Companies shortlisted for the proposed inspections include those making biologic and anti-cancer medicines.

Let me hasten to add, there is nothing wrong with this intent as such, but the moot point is: what’s the core issue that we are talking about? While addressing this point, let’s first have a quick look at India’s import of pharmaceutical product around the last two decades.

India’s import of pharmaceutical products – 1996 – 2018:

According to ‘Trading Economics’ (last updated in January of 2018), India’s import of pharmaceutical products decreased to USD 254.57 Million in 2016 from USD 795.34 Million in 2015. Average drug imports are shown as USD 645.06 USD Million from 1996 until 2016, reaching an all-time high of USD 1747.65 Million in 2012, and a record low of USD 64.32 Million in 1996.

Nonetheless, the micro- picture of India’s bulk drugs or API import isn’t quite the same. On December 19, 2017 in a written reply to the Lok Sabha, the Minister of State, Chemicals and Fertilizers gave details of India’s bulk drug imports from top five countries, as follows:

Country Import value Rs Crore Import value $ Million (Approx.)
China 12,254.97 1915 (66%)
United States 820.18 128 (4.5%)
Italy 701.85 110 (3.8%)
Germany 485.11 76 (2.6%)
Singapore 422.01 66 (2.3%)
Total 18,372.54 2871

It’s worth noting, although the overall value of API import has declined, including from China, its volume share still remains too high in India. More importantly, Indian drug import from the United States and the European countries, are not only very small, there doesn’t seem to be enough instances of substandard drugs imported from these countries to India, either.

The core issue:

Taking a serious note of the reported incidences of widespread substandard drugs by various reports, including the WHO, the core issue becomes rather obvious. What else could possibly be the core issue other than taking effective remedial regulatory measures to contain the menace of substandard drugs circulating within the country?

An article titled, “Correcting India’s Chronic Shortage of Drug Inspectors to Ensure the Production and Distribution of Safe, High-Quality of Medicines,” published by the International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) on April 27, 2017, made an important observation in this regard.

It reiterated: Good drug regulation requires an effective system for monitoring and inspection of manufacturing and sales units. In India, despite widespread agreement on this principle, ongoing shortages of drug inspectors have been identified as a major hindrance to this effort by the national committees, since 1975. Rapid growth of India’s pharmaceutical industry and its large export market makes the problem more acute.

Thus, the major remedial measure that CDSCO needs to take on priority to effectively address this core issue, is the chronic shortage of competent drug inspectors in the country.

An assessment of the current situation:

On the ground, the above situation continues to prevail almost in every state of the country, with a varying degree, though. However, at this point, I shall quote just three such instances – only to illustrate the gravity of the situation.

Example 1 – Delhi:

The article titled, “Delhi’s pharmacy woes: Only 21 inspectors for city’s 25,000 chemists,” published by ‘India Today’ on November 25, 2017, well-captured the latest scenario in this regard, of India’s national capital – New Delhi.

It wrote, there’s no guarantee that the medicine you are buying from a pharmacy is safe. The drug regulatory body does not have enough manpower to conduct regular inspections of the city’s mushrooming chemist shops and wholesale units.

Against the sanctioned posts of 31 drug inspectors, the department has only 21 DI for keeping an eye on Delhi’s 25,000 medical stores, and blood banks. Quoting Government officials the report reiterated, while the number of DI has declined – or at best remained constant – over the past 40 years, the number of pharmacies has increased from 5,000 to 25,000.

Whereas, going by the Centre’s recommendation, Dr. Mashelkar Committee report and the Task Force Committee’s observation, there should be one drug inspector for every 50 manufacturing units. Considering the magnitude of the problem, the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB), in a recent meeting, reportedly suggested, there should be one official for every 200 sales outlets, and one official for every 50 manufacturing units.

Example 2 – Kerala:

Another report of July 08, 2017, with a similar headline – “Remedial action needed in medicine market”, focused on one more important state – Kerala. It wrote that the Kerala has just 47 drug inspectors to monitor the entire State drug market that has over 20,000 drug stores, excluding those located in the hospitals. “In Kerala – the consumer of about 15 to 20 percent of drugs manufactured in the country, there are no quality checks taking place owing to the manpower shortage” – the article cautioned.

Example 3 – Maharashtra:

Yet another national media report of March 16, 2017 carried a headline ‘FDA faces staff shortage again.’ It discussed the same issue for a major State where the financial capital of India is located – Maharashtra. Giving details, the article pointed out that out of 160 posts of drug inspectors across Maharashtra, only 90 have been filled so far and of the 250 food safety officer posts, just 180 have been filled. More than 50,000 pharmacies, 15,000 wholesalers and over 8,000 manufacturing units, are supposed to be properly governed as per the regulatory rules and godliness, to ensure high quality drug safety standards, by this meager DI staff strength of the State.

Conclusion:

Against the above backdrop, it appears absolutely minimum to expect that CDSCO would make the public know, how does it plan to make the drugs manufactured for domestic consumption of high quality standards, as a safeguard to patients’ health and safety.

This calls for strict quality audits by the DIs of the individual states, at pre-determined periodicity, just as what US-FDA does to ensure exactly the same, for patients in their own country. With dwindling resources of DI, CDSCO seems to be continually failing in achieving this critical goal. There doesn’t seem to be any specific and transparent accountability criteria in place, for the CDSCO to comply with.

In this situation, the plan to audit the overseas manufacturing plants located in the US and EU for drug quality assessment, carving out a slice from the existing DI manpower strength, appears rather foolhardy. Moreover, the safety-risk for those imported medicines is apparently low, not just due to meager quantity of drug import, but also for stringent regulatory environment prevailing in those countries.

In view of all this, the media report on CDSCO’s plan to inspect US and EU pharma facilities, making ‘critical’ drugs to ensure high product-quality, is interesting. If it holds any water, the initiative may be construed by many not merely a case of misplaced priority, but a bizarre one, to say the least.

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.

SCM: Embracing Technology For Patients’ Safety

Posted on by
Reply

Supply Chain Management (SCM) in the pharma industry is generally perceived as a logistic function, just in most other industries, involving the distribution of medicines from manufacturing plants, right up to pharma distributors. Thereafter, it becomes the responsibility of the respective distributors to reach these to the wholesalers, who cater to the needs and demand of retail chemists.

In tandem, pharma SCM is also playing a key role in reducing overall cost of drugs, improving the profit margin, and to some extent their affordability to a larger number of patients. This process involves efficient procurement of right products of the right quality, transporting them in the right condition, delivering them at the right location in right time, with optimal inventory carrying cost.

That said, today’s reality demands the SCM to cover much larger space. This calls for taking in its fold even those critical parameters that go beyond the realm of business performance – protecting the health and safety interests of patients, effectively. In that sense, SCM plays a pivotal role pharma business operation, having a potential to make a profound impact in the lives of many, quietly.

Coming out of the cocoon of narrowly defined distribution or logistic functions, pharma SCM, in many countries, has started rediscovering itself, as a multi-dimensional and multi-factorial business necessity, keeping patients within its core focus area, always.

I wrote on ‘The importance of Supply Chain Integrity’ and ‘Maximizing value of a new product launch with an innovative Supply Chain Management System’ in this blog on November 29, 2010 and August 30, 2010, respectively. Thus, in this article, I shall dwell on the role of pharma SCM in ensuring patients’ health and safety, embracing modern technology.

Current concerns:

Gradual transformation of SCM with high-tech interventions is visible now, but in a sporadic way. Speedy development initiatives in this area need to be more inclusive, everywhere. This is a paramount requirement of the pharma business, that has been prompted by serious breaches in the SCM process, affecting patients’ health, safety and security, besides impacting the brand image.

Manifestations of these get reflected in the instances like, availability of substandard and counterfeit drugs, or large product recalls, or quality issues with APIs and excipients escaping SCM scrutiny.

W.H.O says, it’s now all-pervasive:

The availability of substandard and falsified medical products, although is a menace to the society, seems to be all pervasive. The November 2017, Fact Sheet of the World Health Organization (W.H.O) recognizes this fact. The paper categorically states that no country has remained untouched by this issue – from North America and Europe to sub-Saharan Africa, South East Asia, and Latin America. Thus, this hazard, once considered a problem limited to developing and low-income countries, is no longer so.

The leading factors: ‘poor governance and weak technical capacity’:

The W.H.O study titled “Public health and socioeconomic impact of substandard and falsified medical products” released in November 2017 invited rather embarrassing media headlines, such as “India among countries where 10% of drugs are substandard.” Some of the most common medicines consumed in India, such as Combiflam and D-Cold were also found as sub-standard by Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) – as this news item reports.

Commenting on the possible reasons for this menace, W.H.O underscored that such substandard and falsified medical products are most likely to reach patients in 3 important situations. These are, constrained access to high quality and safe medical products, poor governance, and weak technical capacity.

The most important and viable option to effectively address this drug-safety threats is innovative applications of state of the art technology platforms. Many pharma players, are gradually realizing it through experience. Quite in unison, various Governments, India included, are also contemplating to follow the same path. Some nations are enacting robust laws for strict compliance of the remedial measures, as charted out by the respective drug authorities.

Harnessing technology as an enabler:

I reckon, harnessing modern technology will facilitate putting in place a robust ‘Track and Trace’ in the SCM, through product ‘serialization’, to effectively address this menace. As many would know, pharma serialization broadly means that each medicinal product pack will carry a Unique Identifier (UID), that can be tracked and traced till the same reaches the end-user.

The process may start with the key ‘touch points’ of a drug before it reaches the patients, such as suppliers, formulators, carrying and forwarding agents (C&FA) or distributors, wholesalers and retailers. This can be extended backwards, as well, to make the drug-sourcing process safer, which is also of crucial importance.

Leveraging technology for patient safety:

Realizing the importance of drug-safety needs of patients, many drug regulators, even in the developed markets, are leveraging technology as a key enabler in the SCM value chain to effectively address this issue. There are several recent global examples of achieving this specific objective. One such example comes from the top pharma market in the world – the United States.

Where the ‘Track and Trace System’ came as a law:

To ensure greater drug-safety for patients in the country, the oldest democracy of the world decided to introduce the ‘Track and Trace System’ in the SCM process by enacting a robust law. Accordingly, in December 2016, the US-FDA released the final guidance on the implementation of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA).

Under this law an electronic ‘Track and Trace System’, through product ‘serialization’, will be put in place in the United States. As reported in the ‘Pharmacy Times’, DSCSA comes into force to regulate transactions between dispensers, pharmacies, and also among manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors, third-party logistics providers, and trading partners, from November 24, 2017.

Following DSCSA, on June 30, 2017, the agency issued a draft guidance for the industry, titled Product Identifier Requirements Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act – Compliance Policy. It informed the manufacturers and other supply chain stakeholders that “although manufacturers are to begin including a ‘product identifier’ on prescription drug packages and cases on November 27, 2017, the FDA is delaying enforcement of those requirements until November 2018 to provide manufacturers additional time and avoid supply disruptions.”

The US-FDA explains ‘product identifier’, as follows:

  • A unique identity for individual prescription drug packages and cases, which will allow trading partners to easily trace drug packages as they move through the supply chain.
  • Includes the product’s lot number, expiration date, a national drug code (or NDC), and a serial number. The serial number is different for each package or case. This creates a unique identifier – human and machine readable – to enable product tracing throughout the supply chain and enable all trading partners to better detect illegitimate products within the supply chain.

The US drug regulator clarified that the compliance policy outlined in the draft guidance applies solely to products without a product identifier that are introduced into commerce by a manufacturer between November 27, 2017 and November 26, 2018.

Several other countries also realizing its criticality:

Besides the United States, several other countries are harnessing high technology to make the SCM system more robust to ensure patient safety. Some of these include, EU, South Korea, Brazil and China, South Korea and Argentina. India too has initiated action in this area, but only for exports, as on date. Intriguingly, drug-safety for patients within the country doesn’t seem to be on the ‘must do’ list of the law and policy makers of the country, just yet.

‘Track and Trace’ system in India:

As stated above, the ‘Track and Trace’ system in India for drugs is currently applicable only to pharma exports. By a notification dated January 05, 2016, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) made encoding and printing of unique numbers and bar codes as per GSI Global Standard mandatory. This would cover tertiary, secondary and primary packaging for all pharmaceuticals manufactured in India and exported out of the country to facilitate tracking and tracing.

However, for drugs in the domestic market, although a draft proposal was circulated to the stakeholders in June 2015, but no significant progress has yet been made on its implementation in India.

Conclusion:

Availability of potentially harmful substandard and counterfeit drugs is posing a threat to public health and safety, almost in all countries across the world, with a varying degree, though. The November 2017, Fact Sheet of the World Health Organization (W.H.O) also highlighted this issue with a great concern.

A robust SCM systems, built on modern technological platforms are now receiving encouragement from the Governments in many countries, to contain this menace. Accordingly, lawmakers are formulating tough laws, and the drug regulators are specifying the requirements that need to be built into the pharma SCM mechanism.

Some pharma players, on their own, are further raising this bar, while framing their internal compliance norms for SCM. They realize that besides responding to patients’ health and safety needs, it is necessary for the commercial consideration too, alongside the company’s reputation.

Although, India is included among those countries where 10 percent of drugs are substandard, as the W.H.O reports, no such regulatory mechanism has been made mandatory within the Supply Chain to cover drugs in the domestic market, as yet. Interestingly, the DGFT has made the ‘Track and Trace’ mechanism only for the exporters, probably for patients’ health safety of the importing countries! Neither has the majority of domestic pharma manufacturers voluntarily implemented it, demonstrating ‘Patient-Centricity’.

Making SCM robust, weaving into it the drug-safety needs of patients, is a necessity in India too. When a large number of countries, including BRICS nations, are embracing modern technology to achieve this goal, why isn’t India doing so – intriguing…No…?

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.

 

How Cost-Effective Are New Cancer Drugs?

Posted on by
Reply

The main reason why cancer is so serious a disease, is the ability of the malignant cells to spread in the body, both locally by moving into nearby normal tissue, and regionally to nearby lymph nodes, tissues, or organs, affecting even the distant parts of the body. When this happens, doctors term it as metastatic or stage IV (four) cancer.

Although most patients with metastatic tumors would eventually die of cancer, the treatment with various types of anticancer drugs, could help prolong life, in varying degree. No wonder, many new anticancer drugs now obtain regulatory approval based on their effectiveness on metastatic cancer patients. Consequently, it has now become almost a routine to administer newer anticancer drugs to patients with early stage of disease, after they have undergone surgery or radiotherapy.

But, these lifesaving drugs are expensive – very expensive! For example, a newer anticancer treatment is often priced at US$ 100,000 or more per patient, which, obviously, a large majority of the population can’t just afford.

Are these new drugs cost-effective?

To put in simple words, cost effectiveness of a drug is generally ‘expressed in terms of a ratio where the denominator is a gain in health from a measure (years of life, premature births averted, sight-years gained) and the numerator is the cost associated with the health gain.’

From this perspective, a January 2015 research study titled, “Pricing In The Market For Anticancer Drugs”, published by the National Bureau Of Economic Research of the United States observed that anticancer drugs like bevacizumab (US$ 50,000 per treatment episode) and ipilimumab (US$120,000 per episode) have fueled the perception that the launch prices of anticancer drugs are fast increasing over time.

To evaluate the pricing trend of these drugs, the researchers used an original dataset of 58 anticancer drugs, approved between 1995 and 2013, and found that launch-prices, adjusted for inflation and drugs’ survival benefits, increased by 10 percent, or about US$ 8,500, per year. This study was restricted to drugs administered with the primary intent of extending survival time for cancer patients and drugs for which survival benefits have been estimated in trials or modeling studies. The researchers did not consider drugs administered to treat pain or drugs that are administered to alleviate the side effects of cancer treatments.

The paper concluded, as compared to the older ones, newer anticancer treatments, generally, are less cost-effective. Despite this fact, the prices of these drugs are rising faster than their overall effectiveness.

How much do these drugs cost to prolong a year of life for cancer patients?

Another paper, titled “Cancer Drugs Aren’t As Cost-Effective As They Used To Be”, published in the Forbes magazine on September 30, 2015, expressed serious concern on the declining cost-effectiveness of new anticancer drugs. The author termed this trend as unacceptable, and more disturbing when providing just a year of life to cancer patients costs around US$ 350,000 to even US$ 800,000. High prices should reflect large benefits, and we need to demand value out of medical interventions – he recommended.

Do the claims of efficacy also reflect the real-world effectiveness?

Providing an answer to this question, a very recent article titled, “Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated With New Cancer Medicines”, published in the well reputed medical journal ‘JAMA Oncology’ on December 29, 2016, concluded as follows:

“Although innovation in the oncology drug market has contributed to improvements in therapy, the magnitude and dimension of clinical benefits vary widely, and there may be reasons to doubt that claims of efficacy reflect real-world effectiveness exactly.”

As stated above, this conclusion was drawn by the researchers after a detail study on the overall survival, quality of life, and safety benefits of recently licensed cancer medicines, as there was a dearth of evidence on the impact of newly licensed cancer medicines.

The authors analyzed in detail health technology assessment reports of 62 cancer drugs approved in the United States and Europe between 2003 and 2013, and found that these were associated with increased overall survival by an average of 3.43 months between 2003 and 2013. Following is a summary of the detail findings:

  • 43 percent increased overall survival by 3 months or longer
  • 11 percent by less than 3 months
  • 30 percent was not associated with any increase in overall survival, which means almost one third of these drugs lacked evidence to suggest their increased survival rate when compared to alternative treatments
  • Most new cancer drugs, though improved quality of life, were associated with reduced patient safety

The researchers expect this study to support clinical practice, and promote value-based decision-making in the cancer drug treatment, besides assessing their cost-effectiveness.

Some overseas Cancer Institutes protested:

In 2012, doctors at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center reportedly announced through ‘The New York Times’ that their hospital would not be using Zaltrap, a newly patented colorectal cancer drug at that time, from Sanofi. This action of the Sloan-Kettering doctors compelled Sanofi to cut the price of Zaltrap by half.

Unlike India, where prices of even cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, the top cancer specialists of the American Society of Clinical Oncology are reportedly working out a framework for rating and selecting cancer drugs not only for their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

In a 2015 paper, a group of cancer specialists from Mayo Clinic also articulated, that the oft-repeated arguments of price controls stifle innovation are not good enough to justify unusually high prices of these drugs. Their solution for this problem includes value-based pricing and NICE like body of the United Kingdom.

This Interesting Video from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

Was it a tongue-in-cheek action from India?

On March 9, 2012, India did send a signal to global pharma players on its apparent unhappiness of astronomical pricing of patented new cancer drugs in the country. The then Indian Patent Controller General, on that day, issued the first ever Compulsory License (CL) to a domestic drug manufacturer Natco, allowing it to sell a generic equivalent of a kidney cancer treatment drug from Bayer – Nexavar, at a small fraction of the originator’s price.

However, nothing has changed significantly since then on the ground for cancer drugs in the country. Hence, many construe the above action of the Government no more than mere tokenism.

In this context, it won’t be out of place recapitulating an article, published in a global business magazine on December 5, 2013 that quoted Marijn Dekkers, the then CEO of Bayer AG as follows:

“Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India, but for Western Patients that can afford it.”

Whether, CL is the right approach to resolve allegedly ‘profiteering mindset’ at the cost of human lives, is a different subject of discussion.

VBP concept is gaining ground: 

The concept of ‘Value-Based Pricing (VBP)’, has started gaining ground in the developed markets of the world, prompting the pharmaceutical companies generate requisite ‘health outcome’ data using similar or equivalent products.

Cost of incremental value that a product delivers over the existing ones, is of key significance, and should always be the order of the day. Some independent organizations such as, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK have taken a leading role in this area.

Intriguingly, in India, public health related issues, however pressing these are, still do not seem to arrest much attention of the government to provide significant relief to a large majority of population in the country.

Conclusion:

Warren Buffet – the financial investor of global repute once said, “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” Unfortunately, this dictum is not applicable to the consumers of high priced life-saving drugs, such as, for cancer.

Prices of new drugs for the treatment of life-threatening ailments, such as cancer, are increasingly becoming unsustainable, across the world, and more in India. As articulated by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2014, this is mainly because their prices are disconnected from the actual therapeutic value of products.

Currently, a sizable number of poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life’s saving for treatment of a disease like cancer, have been virtually priced out of the patented new cancer drugs market.

The plight of such patients is worse in India, and would continue to be so, especially when no trace of Universal Health Care/Coverage (UHC) is currently visible anywhere near the healthcare horizon of the country.

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.

Escalating Antibiotic Resistance, And Thwarting Ban Of Irrational FDCs

Posted on by
Reply

September 2016 ‘Fact Sheet’ of the World Health Organization (W.H.O) raised a red flag on fast increasing incidence of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR). It poses a serious threat to global public health, more than ever before. Consequently, effective prevention and treatment of an ever-increasing and complex range of infections caused by bacteria, parasites, viruses and fungi are becoming more and more challenging.

In this situation, various medical procedures, such as, organ transplantation, cancer chemotherapy, diabetes management and major surgery like, caesarean sections or hip replacements, invite much avoidable a very high element of risk.

Further, a July 2014 paper titled ‘Antibiotic resistance needs global solutions’, published in ‘The Lancet’ reports increase of incidences of drug-resistant bacteria at an alarming rate. In fact, antibiotic resistance is one of the most serious threats in the history of medicine, and new antibiotics and alternative strategies should be sought as soon as possible to tackle this complex problem.

Another more recent paper titled ‘Fixed-dose combination antibiotics in India: global perspectives’, published in ‘The Lancet’ on August, 2016 finds that nowhere in the world this problem is as stark as in India. It emphasizes that the crude infectious disease mortality rate in India today is 416.75 per 100,000 persons, which is twice the rate prevailing in the United States. Misuse, or rather abuse, of Antibiotics is a major driver of resistance. In 2010, India was the world’s largest consumer of antibiotics for human health, the paper says.

Thus, this critical issue calls for urgent action across all government sectors and the society, in general, as W.H.O cautions.

The Devil is also in irrational antimicrobial FDCs:

The reasons for the fast spread of antimicrobial resistance are many, and each one is well documented. One such factor is the use of irrational antimicrobial FDCs. Some of these have already been banned by the Union Government of India, though continue to be manufactured, promoted, prescribed, sold and consumed by the innocent patients unknowingly.

In this article, I shall focus on the banned FDCs of such kind, highlighting how the consequential serious threat to public health and safety is repeatedly getting lost in the cacophony of protracted court room arguments against these bans.

Irrational FDCs and antimicrobial resistance:

That ‘irrational’ FDCs of antibiotics very often hasten the spread of antimicrobial resistance, is now a well-documented fact.

The ‘National Policy for Containment of Antimicrobial Resistance in India 2011’ clearly recognizes that: “Antimicrobial resistance in pathogens causing important communicable diseases has become a matter of great public health concern globally including our country. Resistance has emerged even to newer, more potent antimicrobial agents like carbapenems.” The Policy also recommends removal of irrational antibiotic FDCs from the hospital drug list.

‘The Lancet’ article of August, 2016, as mentioned above, also reiterates, while citing examples, that “Studies of several antibiotic combinations, such as meropenem and sulbactam, have reported no additional advantage over their individual constituents, and have been reported to cause toxic reactions and promote resistance. Despite repeated investigations into the shortcomings of some FDCs, such drugs are still being manufactured and promoted on the Indian drug market.”

Why does it matter so much?

Corrective regulatory measures to contain the spread of antibiotic resistance are absolutely necessary in India, for the sake of the patients. According to a paper titled ‘Antibiotic Resistance in India: Drivers and Opportunities for Action’, published in the PLOS Medicine on March 2, 2016: “Out of around 118 antibiotic FDCs available in the Indian market, 80 (68 percent) are not registered with the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO). Moreover, 63 (19 percent) of around 330 banned FDCs are antibiotics.”

The global relevance:

Such regulatory bans of antimicrobials FDCs in India are important from a global perspective too, as ‘The Lancet’ article of August 2016 observes.

The article recapitulates that the ‘New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase’ – an enzyme that causes bacteria to be resistant to antibiotics, was first reported in India in 2008 and is now found worldwide. The growth of worldwide trade and travel has allowed resistant microorganisms to spread rapidly to distant countries and continents. In addition, some of these banned FDCs in India are reported to be exported to African and Asian countries too.

That said, each country will also need to play a significant role to curtail the abuse or misuse of antibiotics, locally. I find a glimpse of that in England, besides a few other countries.

A research paper of Antibiotic Research UK and EXASOL dated November 12, 2015, concluded that overall antibiotic prescriptions are coming down across England. However, the same paper also articulated that in the deprived areas of the country, such as Clacton-on-Sea, antibiotic prescribing rates are almost twice the national average.

Some big MNCs are no different:

In the Government’s ban list of irrational FDCs even some top brands of pharma MNCs feature, including antibiotic FDC of antibiotics. For example, on Mar 14, 2016, Reuters reported that one of the largest pharma MNCs operating in India – Abbott Laboratories, was selling a FDC of two powerful antibiotics Cefixime and Azithromycin, without approval of the DCGI. This could possibly be a legacy factor, arising out of its acquisition of a good number of branded generic drugs, together with their management, from a domestic pharma company. Abbott, otherwise is well regarded by many as a distinguished global institution, practicing high standards of business ethics and values, across the world.

Be that as it may, this powerful antibiotic cocktail that poses huge health risk to patients has reportedly not received marketing approval in the major global pharma markets, such as, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France or Japan.

The Reuters report also elaborates that 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. After the ban, the company has reportedly stopped manufacturing and sales of this antibiotic FDC.

Irrational FDC ban – a significant corrective measure:

Keeping all this in perspective, the regulatory ban on irrational FDCs of antibiotics on March 10, 2016, along with products falling in several different therapy areas, was a significant regulatory measure, among many others, to contain the menace of AMR in India.

Unfortunately, quite a lot of these formulations are still in the market, actively promoted by their manufacturers and widely prescribed by the doctors, till date. This is mainly because, to protect the revenue and profit generated from these brands, concerned pharma companies have obtained an injunction from various high courts against the ban, which was notified by the Government, earlier.

Thwarting FDC ban – a key issue:

Looking back, 294 FDCs were banned by the DCGI in 2007. At that time also, the same important issue of patients’ health, safety and economic interest got caught in an intriguing legal quagmire. As a result, implementation of the Government’s decision to ban of these irrational FDCs got delayed, indefinitely.

Added to this, irrational antimicrobial FDCs featuring in the ban list of March 10, 2016, got trapped in exactly the same legal battle, yet again. Thus, repeated stalling of Government ban on irrational FDCs, including antibiotics, continue to remain a key health and safety issue in India.

The latest development:

In September 2016, the Union Government has reportedly moved the Supreme Court of India in defense of its March 2016 ban on irrational FDCs.

In its petition, the Union Government has reportedly urged that all cases against the orders related to ban of ‘irrational’ FDCs, now being heard in various High Courts across the country, be transferred to the apex court and heard as a single case. The move is expected to cut any ambiguity that could arise from differing verdicts between high courts.

In case of a verdict favoring the ban of all the notified irrational FDCs, scores of patients will be benefited by not just falling victims to possible health menace arising out of such unjustifiable drugs, as the Government argues, but also due to expected containment of rapid spread of deadly antimicrobial resistance in the country.

Conclusion:

With the ban of irrational FDCs, the Union Ministry of Health has taken one of the much-needed steps to restrict antibiotic resistance in India, besides addressing other health and financial menace caused by such drugs.

The support of the Apex court of India to urgently resolve this legal jig-saw-puzzle, would also help control, though not in a holistic way, the scary antibiotic resistance challenge in India. In that process India would possibly be able to contribute its little bit towards the antibiotic resistance challenge, across the world, if we consider the ‘New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase’ case as a glaring example in this area.

It is, therefore, widely expected that for the greater public interest, the honorable Supreme Court may view this important health and safety issue accordingly, while pronouncing its final verdict. If and when it happens, hopefully soon, the prevailing industry practice in the country to make profits with dubious drug cocktails sans any robust medical rationale, basically at the cost of patients, can’t possibly be thwarted any longer, and will be effectively implemented on the ground.

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.