Tag Archives: Safety

Counterfeit Drugs In India: A Malady Much Deeper

Posted on by
Reply

Many debates and discussions continue being lined up in India almost regularly, generally by the pharma trade associations, besides a few others, on the issue of counterfeit drugs. A good number of these events are sponsored by the global and local anti-counterfeit product manufacturers and the related service providers, presumably to get a captive pharma audience. By and large, these gatherings are well publicized, and very rightly so, to focus for a while on this growing menace in the country.

One of the key objectives of such proceedings, I reckon, besides recommending the immediate action steps for the government in saddle, is to encourage the manufacturers of high quality drugs to protect their brands from the onslaught of counterfeiters through anti-counterfeit measures. Several of these involve a state of the art non-cloning technology. The core message that gets filtered-through, in most of these occasions is, if the suggested steps are followed by the drug companies with the related products and services, these won’t just help protect the patients’ health interest, but also provide a boost to the top and bottom lines in the pharma business, significantly.

There are no qualms about this initiative, not at all. Nonetheless, can this be considered a holistic approach to tackle the menace of counterfeit drugs, especially by the pharma players in India, and considering various other different ways the menace keep striking the patients, so surreptitiously?

Thus, in this article, my point of focus will be on a critical question, which is not asked with the same vigor always in many of the above events: Hasn’t the malady of counterfeit drugs in India spread much wider, and taken its root considerably deeper?

Counterfeit drugs and what it includes?

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), there is currently no universally agreed definition among its member states in what is widely known as ‘Counterfeit medicines’. Nevertheless, W.H.O does indicate that the term ‘counterfeit’ is widely used to include falsified, unlicensed, falsely packaged, stolen and substandard medical products. Jurisdictions across the world define counterfeit medicines in many different ways.

It’s worth noting here, according to W.H.O, substandard medical products also belong to this category. In 2009, W.H.O defined ‘substandard’ drugs as “genuine medicines produced by the manufacturers authorized by the NMRA (national medicines regulatory authority) which do not meet quality specifications set for them by national standards”.

Hence, notwithstanding whatever will be accepted as the general consensus of the W.H.O members on the definition of counterfeit drugs, from the patients’ perspective, any drug failing to meet with the claimed efficacy, safety and quality standards, should come under the same ‘category definition’, including substandard drugs.

Controversy over the term ‘Counterfeit’:

Many W.H.O member countries believe that the term counterfeit is closely associated and legally defined within the Intellectual Property (IP) legislation, and concentrates on trademark protection. Consequently, usage of this terminology has been perceived to have reduced the focus from what is first and foremost a public health issue. Thus, it has become quite important for W.H.O to separate the different categories of what is widely used as ‘counterfeit drug’, for the purpose of analysis and identifying strategies, to effectively address the issue of the public health menace that such activities give rise to.

Types of counterfeit drugs:

A Review Article titled “Anti-counterfeit Packaging in Pharma Industry” dated February 17, 2011, published in the “International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences”, divided the types of counterfeit mechanisms into five categories, in which drugs are manufactured or distributed without proper regulatory clearance, and do not meet the determined standards of safety, quality, and efficacy:

  • No active ingredient (43 percent)
  • Low levels of active ingredient (21 percent)
  • Poor quality drugs (24 percent)
  • Wrong ingredients (2 percent)
  • Wrong packaging or source (7 percent)

This particular article will dwell mainly on a very important segment in this category – the substandard or poor quality drugs.

The magnitude of the problem:

On May 17, 2016, a Research Article titled, “Public Awareness and Identification of Counterfeit Drugs in Tanzania: A View on Antimalarial Drugs”, published in ‘Advances in Public Health’ – a peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes original research articles, highlighted something that should cause a great concern not just for the Indian drug regulators, but also the Indian pharma manufacturers, in general.

The research paper, besides other points, underscored the following:

“Currently, it is estimated that 10–15 percent of the global drugs supplied are counterfeit. The prevalence is higher in developing countries in Africa and in parts of Asia and Latin America where up to 30–60 percent of drugs on the market are counterfeit. India is a major supplier of poor quality drugs whereby 35–75 percent of fake/counterfeit drugs globally originate from India.”

Another report of ‘Pharmexcil’ dated October 04, 2010 also states: “According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 75 percent of fake drugs supplied world over have origins in India, followed by 7 percent from Egypt and 6 percent from China. India is also a leading source of high quality generic and patent drugs in the legitimate commerce worldwide. Since drugs made in India are sold around the world, the country’s substandard drug trade represents a grave public health threat that extends far beyond the subcontinent.”

Substandard drugs: a potential crisis in public health:

An article with the above title, published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology on November 29, 2013 cautioned on the potential crisis in public health with substandard drugs, as follows:

“Poor-quality medicines present a serious public health problem, particularly in emerging economies and developing countries, and may have a significant impact on the national clinical and economic burden. Attention has largely focused on the increasing availability of deliberately falsified drugs, but substandard medicines are also reaching patients because of poor manufacturing and quality-control practices in the production of genuine drugs (either branded or generic). Substandard medicines are widespread and represent a threat to health because they can inadvertently lead to health care failures, such as antibiotic resistance and the spread of disease within a community, as well as death or additional illness in individuals.”

Hence, the potential of health crisis with various substandard drugs is quite similar to other types of counterfeit drugs.

Substandard drugs and small pharma players:

As I said before, the malady of counterfeit, fake and substandard drugs are spreading much wider and deeper in India. What’s happening around today in this area prompts us to believe, it may no longer be proper to keep all the large pharma manufacturers away from the ambit of discussion on substandard or counterfeit drugs. This apprehension is raising its head, as it is generally believed that only small, unknown, or fly-by-night type of drug manufacturers, are responsible for substandard, fake or counterfeit drugs. Whereas, the reality seems to be different. There are now ample reasons to believe that even some large drug manufacturers, both local and global, who have been caught by the regulator for the same wrongdoing, are also equally responsible for causing similar adverse health impact on patients.

Substandard drugs and large pharma players:

That the issue of substandard drugs is quite widespread in India, involving both global and local pharma players – small and large, is also quite evident from the following report, published in the May 14, 2016 edition of the well-reputed national daily – Hindustan Times:

“A day after French major Sanofi announced a recall of some batches of its popular painkiller Combiflam, India’s drug regulator said over 102 medicines have been highlighted for quality concerns and withdrawal in the last five months. The list includes several popular painkillers.”

The report also indicated that these are generic medicines, both with and without brand names, such as, CIP-ZOX of Cipla, Orcerin of MacLeod Pharma, Zerodol-SP of Ipca Laboratories, Pantoprazole of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Norfloxacin of Karnataka Antibiotics & Pharmaceutical Ltd. According to the public notices of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), these batches were manufactured in June 2015 and July 2015, and carried expiry dates of May 2018 and June 2018.

The CDSCO also reportedly said that in notices posted on its website in February and April, 2015, it found some batches of Combiflam to be “not of standard quality” as they failed disintegration tests. The point to note is, according to the US-FDA, disintegration test is used to assess the time it takes for tablets and capsules to break down inside the body and are used as a quality-assurance measure.

“All drugs listed under the drug alert list should be recalled with immediate effect. We have found some serious problems with the making of the drug because of which we have highlighted quality concerns. Hence, recall is necessary for all companies,” GN Singh, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), reportedly told the above newspaper.

Should the ‘intent behind’ be considered as the key differentiating factor?

This takes me to another question: What’s the ‘intent behind’ manufacturing substandard drugs? It is not difficult to make out that the only ‘intent behind’ manufacturing substandard drugs by illegal, some small or fly-by-night type of drug operators would be to make quick money, by cutting corners, and criminally falsifying the entire process.

Until recently, I used to strongly believe that those large manufacturers who are getting caught for releasing substandard drugs to the market, have made sheer mistakes, and these are no more than minor aberrations. However, recent findings by the US-FDA, after rigorous manufacturing quality audit of several production facilities of large and small generic drug producers of India, make me wonder whether this thin differentiating line of ‘intent behind’ manufacturing substandard drugs, though still exists, has started getting blurred. The foreign regulators have imposed import ban on drugs produced in those facilities on the ground of willingly compromising drug quality, and grossly falsifying data.

I am not going into those much discussed details here, once again, as the drugs involved in the above cases are meant for exports and the import bans, by the foreign regulators were aimed at protecting the health and safety of citizens of those countries. In this article my focus is on India, and health interest of the local Indian population.

Thus fathoming a different ‘intent behind’ manufacturing substandard drugs, especially by the large and well-known manufacturers, is the real challenge. What sort of anti-counterfeit events will be able to possibly address this perturbing issue, that is now getting revealed much faster than even before?

Who in India ensures that all drugs are safe?

Possibly none, not even the drug regulators and the enforcers of the drug laws, as a number of national and international media reports reveal. General public doesn’t get any assurance from any authorities that the medicines sold by the drug retail outlets, pan India, are all standard quality and genuine.

At the same time, it is equally challenging for anyone to ascertain, with absolute certainty, that it’s a counterfeit, substandard or a fake drug, in whatever name we call it, is responsible for avoidable suffering or even death of an individual. In such a sad eventuality, one has no other choice but to accept that the causative factor was either a wrong diagnosis of the disease, or delayed onset of treatment.

Is CDSCO still in a denial mode?

It’s an irony that the government sources often highlight that the incidence of substandard, spurious or fake drugs in India has declined from around 9 percent in the 1990s, to around 5 percent in 2014-15, quoting the CDSCO sample survey findings.

Nevertheless, while looking at the same CDSCO survey results of the last four years – from 2011-12 to 2014-15, the incidence of spurious and substandard drugs in India appears to be static, if not marginally increased, as follows:

Year Tested Samples Substandard Samples Spurious or Adulterated samples % Failed
2011-12 48,082,00 2,186.00 133.00 4.82
2012-13 58,537.00 2,362.00 70.00 4.15
2013-14 72,712.00 3,028.00 118.00 4.32
2014-15 74,199.00 3,702.00 83.00 5.10

Source: Central Drugs Control Organization (CDSCO)

In my view, these CDSCO results should be taken perhaps with dollops of salt, not merely the sample size for these surveys is too small, but also the complexity involved in the collection of the right kind of samples that will always pass the acid test of independent experts’ scrutiny.  Right representational sample size – state-wise, is so important, primarily considering that India is the world’s third-largest pharmaceutical market by volume, consumes 383 billion medicines per annum, according to a 2015 Government report, and is quite a heterogeneous pharma market.

A September 06, 2016 media report well captured the palpable hubris of the Government on this worrying subject. It quoted the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) – Dr. G N Singh as saying: “This is an encouraging trend when it comes to comparing Indian made generics with that produced in regulated markets. This will help us dispel the myth that India is a source of substandard drugs as compared to any other regulated market.”

Interestingly, other studies and reports do indicate that this menace could well be, at least, thrice as large.

Be that as it may, according to an October 22, 2016 media report, CDSCO is expected to release the findings of the latest survey on ‘spurious drugs’ in India by end October 2016.

Two recent good intents of CDSCO:

Apparently, as a response to the widespread public criticism on this issue, despite being in a denial mode earlier, CDSCO has recently expressed two good intents to address this issue, as follows:

  • As reported on October 18, 2016, it has sent a recommendation to the Union Ministry of Health to amend the Drugs & Cosmetics Act to facilitate implementation of bar coding and Unique Identification Number (UIN) on every pack of domestic pharma products.
  • To ensure consistency and uniformity in the inspection process, on May 26, 2016, by a Public Notice, it issued a new draft checklist of ‘Risk Based Inspection of the Pharma Manufacturing Facilities’ for verification of GMP compliance as per the provisions stated under Schedule M of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, and sought suggestions from the stakeholders. This checklist would be used by drug regulatory enforcement agencies as a science based tool. It also envisaged that the pharma industry would find this checklist useful for self-assessment.

Let’s now wait and watch, to get to know the timeline of translating these good intents into reality on the ground, and the impact that these decisions will make to reverse the current worrying trend of counterfeit and substandard drugs in India.

Conclusion:

The malady of counterfeit or substandard drugs is not just India centric. Various credible sources have estimated that around a million people fall victim to such so called ‘medicines’, each year. However, unlike many other countries, India still doesn’t have any structured and effective regulatory or other mechanisms, not even any spine-chilling deterrent, in place to address this public health menace of humongous implications.

That said, besides serious health hazards, the adverse financial impact of substandard drugs on patients is also significant. Such drugs, even when non-fatal, are much less effective, if not ineffective or trigger other adverse reactions. Thus, a longer course of treatment, or switching over to a different medication altogether, may often be necessary, multiplying the cost of treatment.

In that sense, substandard, spurious, fake or counterfeit drugs, in whatever name one describes these, increase the disease burden manifold, besides being life-threatening. This issue assumes greater significance in India, where 58.2 percent of the total health expenditure is incurred out-of-pocket by a vast majority of the population. Medicines alone, which are mostly purchased from private retail outlets, across India, account for between 70 and 77 per cent of the individual out of pocket health spending, according to a W.H.O report.

High decibel campaigns on various anti-counterfeit technology solutions for fast selling, or expensive brands of large pharma companies, whether sponsored by placing the commercial interest at the top of mind, or even otherwise, are welcome, so are the two recent good intents of the Union Government, in this area.

However, the desirable proactive focus on curbing the menace of substandard medicines in India, which cause similar health risks as any other type of counterfeit drugs, does not seem to be as sharp, not just yet, barring the pharma export sector. Nor does this issue attract similar zest for a meaningful discourse related to patients’ health and safety within the country, as associated with various other anti-counterfeiting technology solution oriented events. The anomaly remains intriguing, especially when the malady spreads, with its root reaching deeper.

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. 

An Emerging Yo-Yo Syndrome With Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

Competition from Biosimilar drugs poses a threat of a combined revenue loss of estimated US$ 110 billion of those pharma players who are still enjoying market monopoly with patented biologic brands. This is expected to surely happen, in the long run, if the signals picked up from the evolving scenario continue to stay on course.

Simply speaking, generic versions of original biologic drugs are termed as Biosimilars. These are large protein molecules, created from living organisms following complex processes. Thus, it is significantly more expensive to develop and market biosimilar drugs, as compared to any small molecule generic chemical ones. 

Hurdle creation and the core intent: 

Despite these complexities, for quite some time, global original biologic drug players had initiated intense campaign to create tough hurdles in the process of regulatory and marketing approval for biosimilar drugs, predominantly raising safety concerns. A simultaneous campaign was also launched among doctors and the payers in the developed countries, stoking the same fear, to forestall the overall acceptance of biosimilar drugs.

When drug regulators of different countries are solely responsible to ensure patient safety of any drug, why are the global pharma companies, and their trade associations are continually shouting from the roof top expressing concerns in this regards? It is often seen that such campaigns become more intense, when it comes primarily to block or delay the entry of biosimilar, many generic drugs and some IP related issues in a country. Umpteen number of such examples are available from India, Europe, United States and many other countries. Many would agree that in such cases, the core intent is as important as the issue.

I discussed on those hurdle creating campaigns in my article in this Blog, on August 25, 2014, titled, “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”. Hence won’t dwell on that again here.

The campaign yielded results:

This campaign of global bio-pharma majors to restrict the entry of lower priced biosimilar drugs into the market, immediately after patent expiry, has been successful to a great extent, so far. Let me now give below a recent example, from credible sources, to vindicate this point.

Although, the world’s number 1 drug in sales – Humira (Adalimumab), with a turnover of US$ 15 Billion in 2015 (IMS Health), is going off patent in December 2016, no biosimilar version of Adalimumab is ready, just yet, to compete with this profit churning blockbuster biologic brand, in the United States. More interestingly, according to another report dated July 14, 2016 of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), even on the verge of its product patent expiration this year, U.S. sales of Humira rose 32 percent to US$ 2.2 billion in the first quarter this year, with over 16 percent jump in its prescription volume.

It is worth noting, Humira was first approved in 2002, and has long been one of the most profitable drugs, globally, contributing around 60 percent of Abbvie’s total revenue even in the last year.

The industry may well argue, in a situation like this, how can a pharma company possibly decide to remain within the ambit of just patent protection, even if it leads to sacrificing other stakeholders’ interest? That’s a ‘business ethics’ issue, and is beyond the scope of this article.

The beginning of a yo-yo syndrome:

At the very outset, let me mention that the term ‘yo-yo syndrome’ has been coined to refer to something that moves up and down quickly, or something that changes repeatedly between one level and another.

Keeping this into perspective, some of the big bio-pharma companies, such as, Amgen, which have been, reportedly, trying hard to block the on-time entry of biosimilar drugs, through litigations and lobbying, could stand as good examples in this area.

For instance, Amgen, on the one hand, seem to be vigorously shielding its over US$10 billion of annual biologic sales from the biosimilar competition through powerful lobbying. Whereas, on the other, it commenced developing its own biosimilar drugs, to reap a rich harvest from the available opportunities.

According to an Associated Press report on July 12, 2016, a panel of Food and Drug Administration advisers of the United States has voted unanimously in favor of Amgen’s version of AbbVie’s Humira. While not binding, the recommendation could help the USFDA approval of the knockoff drug.

According to reports, the companies now working on Humira biosimilars, include Novartis, Mylan and Baxter.

India did it, but a tough road ahead:

On December 9, 2014, international media flashed across the world a great news item from the Indian pharma industry: “The first biosimilar of the world’s top-selling medicine Humira (adalimumab) of AbbVie has been launched in India by Zydus Cadila.” That said, let me hasten to add that Humira does not have a valid product patent protection in India.

Yet another good news is, according to a Press Release of Biocon dated July 15, 2016, its India made Insulin – Glargine was launched in Japan on the same day by its partner FUJIFILM Pharma Co., Ltd. (FFP).

These are excellent developments, and music to many ears. However, on the flip side, intense legal battle on various regulatory grounds against the Indian biosimilar drug players, by the makers of original biologic to protect their own turf of market monopoly, has also commenced with associated acrimony.

Earlier, the Swiss drug major – Roche had objected to Biocon’s referring to Herceptin at an international scientific conference, related to clinical trial results of its own ‘biosimilar’ version Herclon (trastuzumab).

On April 2016, responding to Roche’s complaint, the Delhi High Court ordered changes to the packaging labels of the brands sold by Biocon, and other bio-pharma companies in India, such as, Reliance Life Sciences and Mylan. The court also raised questions about the DCGI’s approval processes for biosimilars, and restrained the companies from using Roche’s data related to the manufacturing process, safety, efficacy and tests.  

More recently, this issue between Roche and Biocon, over breast cancer drug trastuzumab has reportedly taken another acrimonious turn with both the companies approaching the Delhi High Court on charges of contempt of court.

Roche reportedly also alleged contempt over Biocon using the name ‘Herceptin’ in the approval process of its trastuzumab drug in the United States. According to reports, Biocon is currently conducting Phase III clinical trials for marketing approval of its trastuzumab in the U.S.

Thus, to carve out a niche in the biosimilar space of the world, Indian pharma has made some good progress. Alongside, taking note of many contemporary factors and development in this area, a lurking apprehension too did creep in. It raises an awkward and uncomfortable question – do the Indian companies have pockets deep enough to overcome the expensive legal and regulatory challenges thrown by the global biologic drug makers to protect their market monopoly status for expensive drugs, much longer than what they deserve?

Let me keep my fingers crossed.

Critical global speed-bumps for biosimilar entry:

Besides, many other hurdles, as I highlighted in my article of August 25, 2014, the intricate patent shield beyond original patent expiry, is a major speed bump for biosimilar drugs’ smooth global market entry. 

Maintaining the same example of Humira, a well crafted patent-shield strategy was implemented to extend market monopoly of this brand, at least for another decade. Although, the main patent of Humira expires in December 2016, it is reportedly well shielded, at least, with 70 other patents till 2027, as many reports indicate.

This is possible because, according to a January 19 2016 report by Bloomberg, the U.S. patent office in the same month rejected Amgen’s effort to knock out two patents on AbbVie’s anti-inflammatory bestseller Humira. Amgen hoped to get its Humira competitor to market by 2017. This is a bad news for other biosimilar drug makers too.

Nevertheless, the good news is, in May 2016, the Patent Trial And Appeal Board (PTAB) announced that it would embark on a review of Coherus’ challenge of Humira’s ’135 methods patent. Experts believe, even if it the PTAB upturns Humira’s IP shield, AbbVie could appeal, which could take another year or so.

Recent status:

So far, after the biosimilar guidelines were put in place for the first time in the United States, a Novartis version of Amgen’s Neupogen, got USFDA approval in March 2015, only after so many delays and protracted litigations. Novartis is also trying to to do the same for Amgen’s Enbrel. Pfizer too won the U.S drug regulator’s approval in April 2016 for a version of Johnson & Johnson’s Remicade, but the product is still not available for sale.

Currently, some constituents of Big Pharma, such as, Amgen, Novartis and Pfizer have started warming up for manufacturing copycat versions of blockbuster original biologic drugs of other companies.

High quality biosimilars:

These new biosimilars are of top quality. Even USFDA could not find any meaningful differences in the key parameters, such as, efficacy, safety, potency and purity, between the original biologic drugs and their biosimilar versions.

According to a July 12, 2016 Bloomberg report, in several cases USFDA finds the clinical results of biosimilar drugs are robust enough to support ‘extrapolation’. This could support approval of these biosimilar drugs for all indications that the original biologic brands treat, without requirement of separate clinical trials for each, facilitating the approval process and accelerating their market entry.

With these developments, the high voltage lobbying campaigns of the original biologic makers, and their trade associations, both to the drug regulators and doctors, are expected to lose steam, if not ultimately die down altogether. 

However, the protracted and fierce legal battles of the originators, creating various intricate patent shields, to enjoy a brand monopoly for a much longer period, are expected to continue, if not turn fiercer.

The question of price advantage with biosimilars:

Currently the cost advantage provided by the biosimilar drugs over the original biologics, does not come anywhere near to what we see for small molecule generic drugs, post patent expiry. 

For example, Zarexio of Novartis has been priced 15 percent less than the original Neupogen of Amgen. It is generally believed that in the united states this difference would continue to be around 15 to 30 percent, in the near future. Whereas in Europe, the difference is higher, as the governments regulate their prices.

In India too, the difference in the pricing trend is currently, more or less, similar. 

Nonetheless, the above report of Bloomberg had quoted the global CEO of Novartis Joe Jimenez saying that biosimilar drugs would eventually cost 75 percent less than the original biologics. 

Let’s hope so.

Conclusion:

The powerful constituents of Big Pharma who decided to delay, if not stall the entry of biosimilar drugs for vested interest, have now started adopting a dual strategy. They did not have any other choice either, after President Obama’s fulfillment of his election promise with the ‘Affordable Care Act’, which, among others, facilitated charting the regulatory pathway for entry of biosimilar drugs in the United States, for the first time ever. 

Thus, on the one the one hand, these companies continued crafting robust patent-shields to extend market monopolies, even beyond the original patent expiries, through protracted and complicated litigations. While, on the other, started moving with great speed to develop biosimilar versions of the original blockbuster biologic drugs of other players, as they go off patent. This is mainly to cash-in the golden opportunities, which otherwise would go to different players.

India has made an entry into this space, but would still require a lot to do, including winning the expensive legal battles, in order to be recognized as a global force to reckon with, in the biosimilar segment.

To facilitate rapid growth, and universal acceptance of biosimilar drugs, for patients’ interest across the world, it will be interesting to follow the spread of the ‘yo-yo syndrome’ of the original biologic drug makers, as we move on.

By: Tapan J. Ray  

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

A. Overall drug safety standards in the country

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Overall drug quality and safety  standards in India:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The core issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same attitude continues:

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

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

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

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

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

Some possible remedial measures:

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

Why does India need CDA?

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

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

B.  Self serving interest dominates the prescribing decision: 

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

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

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

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

The latest report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on MCI:

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

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

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

The report castigated the health ministry:

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

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

How will it pan out now?

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

C. Reported Government assurance on ‘Compulsory License’: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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.

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process

Posted on by
Reply

Fathoming the details of just a short span of time, not going beyond the last 10 years, I find from the published data that many new drugs, such as, Alatrofloxacin, Aprotinin, Drotrecogin alfa, Lumiracoxib, Propoxyphene, Rofecoxib, Rosiglitazone, Sibutramine, Tegaserod, Tetrazepam, were withdrawn from a number of important global markets. Quite a few of those were withdrawn also from the world market.

The key reason for almost all these withdrawals was serious safety concerns for the patients while using these medicines. Interestingly, some of these new molecules were withdrawn even after attaining the blockbuster status, such as Rofecoxib.

Tens of thousands of patients have died only because of this reason, according to reports.

It is widely believed by the experts in this area, if full public disclosure of the entire data of drug clinical trials was made, most of these new drugs would not have seen the light of the day and without putting many patients’ health safety in jeopardy.

All this is a part of a curious conundrum in the new drug approval process, across the world, for various reasons. In this article, I would try to dwell on this issue.

Voices against this ‘unethical practice’ getting louder:                                             

On December 22, 2015, ‘CBC News’ published an interesting article, titled “Researcher issues ‘call to action’ to force release of hidden drug safety data: Bringing drug industry data into the light of public scrutiny.”

The article echoed the same belief of other global experts and, in fact, went a step forward. It categorically reiterated, if full disclosure of the entire data of drug clinical trials is made public, medical practice might have been quite different.

To drive home this point, the article cited the example of the arthritis drug rofecoxib (Vioxx), which has been linked to tens of thousands of deaths related to heart attacks.

It highlighted, although this risk was very much known to the regulatory authority of the United States, the relevant data was not released to the public for an impartial scrutiny.

Quoting different sources, the paper observed, almost half of the drug trials remain secret and the studies that are published, overwhelmingly report results that make the drug in question look good.

Independent experts’ views differed from the innovator companies:

In some cases, when researchers were able to see what is hiding in the filing cabinets of the drug innovator companies, a different picture altogether emerged on the overall profile of those drugs.

One group looked at 12 antidepressants, comparing the published studies with the internal US FDA assessments. They found that 94 per cent of the published studies were positive, as compared to 51 per cent, when they included all of the studies assessed by the drug regulator.

Based on a detailed study, the authors concluded, without considering all the data, drug effectiveness can often be exaggerated, leading doctors and patients to assume that the medications work better than what they actually do. The ongoing practice of the drug players may help them to significantly diminish the risks, related to the benefits offered by these medicines.

A few months ago, another group analyzed the data from an unpublished drug company study about the effect of Paxil on teen depression and found that the drug did not work and was not safe for the patients. This result completely contradicted the original, unpublished study on this drug.

A crusader emerged in Canada:

Interestingly, the same article, as above, states that Mathew Herder , the health law associate professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada is now taking up the fight. He is now “calling on other doctors, researchers and journalists to bombard Ottawa with their own demands for drug industry data, using the new legislative lever called the ‘Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act,’, which was passed late last year in Canada. 

He has also created a template to help doctors, researchers and journalists access drug safety data at Health Canada. Herder reportedly could even include biomedical researchers, doctors who prescribe medicine, investigative journalists pursuing questions about drug safety, and other activists and patient groups.

This example is worth imbibing elsewhere.

The ‘Rule Books’ are in place, though with loopholes:

To curb such alleged patient unfriendly practices of the innovative drug manufacturers, while obtaining the marketing approval of new drugs, various rules and procedure were put in place, by various authorities.

I shall deliberate below a few of these rules, and enough loopholes therein, enabling the interested parties to hoodwink the external experts, at the cost of patients.

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform:

Much before Herder, following a ministerial summit on Health Research in 2004, a World Health Assembly Resolution passed in 2005 called for unambiguous identification of all interventional clinical trials. This resolution led to the establishment of the ‘World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform’. It collates information on trials that have been notified in a network of clinical trial registries.

According to W.H.O, “The registration of all interventional trials is a scientific, ethical and moral responsibility”.

In the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki, it reiterates, “Every research study involving human subjects must be registered in a publicly accessible database before recruitment of the first subject.”

It unambiguously states, “Researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research …. Negative and inconclusive as well as positive results must be published or otherwise made publicly available”.

Understandably, W.H.O statement underscores, “There is an ethical imperative to report the results of all clinical trials, including those of unreported trials conducted in the past.”

It is worth mentioning here that on January 1, 2015, by a new policy on publication of clinical data, ‘European Medicines Agency (EMA)’ also decided to proactively publish all clinical reports submitted as part of marketing-authorization applications for human medicines, by the by pharmaceutical companies.

Big Pharma's serious apprehensions on greater Public transparency:  

Before finalization of the above policy, EMA sought comments on its draft from various state holders. On September 5, 2013, in its remarks on the draft, ‘The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, EFPIA’ expressed its apprehension about the public health safety oriented proactive move by the EMA as follows:

“We are worried by a move towards greater transparency of clinical trials data that appears to be putting transparency – at whatever cost – ahead of public health interests. Our detailed response to the EMA draft policy speaks to this concern. While EFPIA values other voices and opinion in the conversation surrounding clinical trials data, we believe there are better alternatives than what the EMA is presenting.” 

This is of course understandable. That said, it also gives satisfaction to note that EMA did not wilt under any pressure on this score, whatever the anecdotal might of the external force be. 

Gross non-compliance, endangering patients’ health safety:

Although, the standards and requirements of “Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Results” have been well specified now, and even in most of the Big Pharma websites one can find disclosure norms of clinical trial data, their overall compliance on the ground, is still grossly inadequate, endangering patients’ health safety.

An article published in the BMJ Open on November 12, 2015 titled, “Clinical trial registration, reporting, publication and FDAAA compliance: a cross-sectional analysis and ranking of new drugs approved by the FDA in 2012”, well captured the magnitude of this issue. 

Nevertheless, the study analyzed just a subset of drugs approved in a single year, 2012. The researchers only examined whether clinical trials were registered and reported, not what that data suggested about how the drugs worked.

The paper reported the results as follows:

“In 2012, the US FDA approved 39 novel new medicines, known as NMEs, and 35 novel drugs. Combining these lists, the FDA approved a total of 48 new drug entities, 15 of which were sponsored by 10 large pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies with market capitalizations valued over US$19 billion. A total of 342 trials were conducted to gain regulatory approval of the 15 drugs, 24 of which were excluded from our analysis, leaving 318 trials involving 99 599 participants relevant to our study, a median of 17 trials per drug.”

Based on the findings, the authors concluded asunder:

“Trial disclosures for new drugs remain below legal and ethical standards, with wide variation in practices among drugs and their sponsors. Best practices are emerging. 2 of our 10 reviewed companies disclosed all trials and complied with legal disclosure requirements for their 2012 approved drugs. Ranking new drugs on transparency criteria may improve compliance with legal and ethical standards and the quality of medical knowledge.”

Simultaneously, The Washington Post in an article of November 12, 2015, titled, “How pharma keeps a trove of drug trials out of public view”, summarized this report by highlighting to the general public that one third of the clinical trial results that US FDA reviewed to approve drugs made by large pharmaceutical companies in 2012, were never publicly reported. 

Unethical practices skewing medical science:

On July 25, 2015, ‘The Economist’ published an article titled, “Spilling the beans’. It highlighted again that the failure to publish the results of all clinical trials is skewing medical science. 

This article also brought to the public attention that half of the clinical trial results are never published over several decades. It broadened the discourse with the observation that this specific unwanted practice, distorts perceptions of the efficacy of not just drugs, but devices and even surgical procedures too, in a well planned and a systematic manner. What is most important to note is, it has seriously compromised with patients’ health interest, across the world. 

It keeps on happening, as there are no firm obligations on the part of drug companies for making public disclosure of all such data, both for and against, though all these data are required to be filed with the regulatory authorities. Hence, the overall assessment of the drugs, weighing all pros and cons, is just not possible for any outside expert agency.

For granting necessary marketing approval, the designated authorities, at least theoretically, ensure that the drugs are reasonably safe, and have, at least, ‘some beneficial effects’. However, the prescribing doctors would continue to remain ignorant of the untold facts, the article states. 

According to ‘The Economist’, although in the United States the relevant laws were modified, way back in 2007, to address this issue, it still remains as a theory, the actual practices in this regard are mostly not so.

Despite vindication no tangible outcome yet:

As I said earlier, this fact got vindicated through extensive research by the ‘BMJ Online’ article and many other contemporary medical publications. 

For example, the evidence released earlier on  April 10,  2014 by the Cochrane Collaboration of London, UK, also shows that a large part of negative data generated from the clinical trials of various drugs were not disclosed to the public. 

Again, like Vioxx, though the US FDA was aware of all such data, for a well known drug Tamiflu, unfortunately the prescribing doctors were not. As a result, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which doesn’t have the same access to unpublished data as the regulators, recommended this medicine not being able to evaluate it holistically. 

However, as the findings from the unpublished clinical trials eventually surfaced, CDC expressed serious apprehension on the overall efficacy of Tamiflu, quite contrary to the assessment of the concerned big pharma player.

Hence, despite quite a large number of vindications by the experts, no tangible outcome has been noticed on this pressing issue, just yet.                                                                

Conclusion:

Based on all this discussion, the moot question that springs up: Why do the doctors still prescribe such drugs, even after being aware of the full facts?

In this regard, an article titled, “Big Pharma Plays Hide-The-Ball with Data”, published in the Newsweek on November 13, 2014 raised a very valid question. 

It commented, even if Tamiflu does nothing, and there is just a slight chance of life-threatening side effects, why was it approved by the US FDA, in the first place?

Even more intriguing is: Why do the doctors continue prescribing these, especially after the Cochrane Collaboration took the Tamiflu’s maker, Roche, to task about many of its claims, in April 2014.

Incidentally, the Cochrane Collaboration is widely regarded as one of the most rigorous reviewers of health science data. It takes results of multiple trials, looks for faults and draws conclusions. It doesn’t accept funding from businesses with a stake in its findings.

The answer to this question may perhaps be too obvious to merit any elaborate discussion here. 

Be that as it may, this curious conundrum of ‘New Drug Approval’ with ‘Partial Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Data’ needs to effectively addressed, without further delay. If not, patients’ health interest would continue to get seriously compromised with the continuation of prevailing laxity in its implementation process by the drug regulators.

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.

Nutraceuticals: A Major Regulatory Step That Was Long Overdue

Posted on by
Reply

Currently in India the nutraceutical products segment, with surrogate or off-label therapeutic claims, is growing at a reasonable pace.

Many such products are now being directly promoted to the medical profession, just like any other modern medicines, with therapeutic claims not being supported by robust clinical data that can pass through scientific or regulatory scrutiny.

For such use of nutraceutical products, I raised the following two questions in my article on this Blog titled, “Nutraceuticals with Therapeutic Claims: A Vulnerable Growing Bubble Protected by Faith and Hope of Patients” on August 27, 2012: 

  • What happens when the nutraceutical products fail to live up to the tall claims made by the respective manufacturers on their efficacy and safety profile?
  • Are these substances safe in those conditions, even when not enough scientific data has been generated on their long term toxicity profile?

Importance of robust clinical data for any product with therapeutic claims:

For similar claim of therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of a disease condition, any drug would require establishing its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics with pre-clinical and clinical studies, as stipulated by the drug regulators. Some experts believe that these studies are very important for nutraceutical products as well, especially when therapeutic claims are made on them, directly or indirectly. This also because, these substances are involved in a series of reactions within the body. 

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

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

The current status:

Currently in India, nutraceuticals, herbals and functional foods are covered under the definition of ‘food’ as per Section 22 of Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006. These food products have been categorized as Non-Standardized/special food products. Neither was there any properly framed guidelines related to manufacturing, storage, packaging & labeling, distribution, sales, claims and imports, nor any legal fear of counterfeiting.

A recent reiteration of the need of regulatory guidelines for nutraceuticals:

In a study on ‘Indian Nutraceuticals, Herbals, and Functional Foods Industry: Emerging on Global Map,’ jointly conducted by The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) and RNCOS and released by ASSOCHAM on August 17, 2015 the above key apprehensions on the lack of any kind of regulatory guidelines for the approval and monitoring of products falling under this segment, were reiterated.

The market:

According to the above study, the global nutraceuticals market is expected to cross US$ 262.9 billion by 2020 from the current level of US$ 182.6 billion growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 8 percent.

United States (US) has the largest market for the nutraceuticals, followed by Asia-Pacific and European Union. Functional food is the fastest growing segment in the US nutraceuticals market. Germany, France, UK and Italy are the major markets in the European Union for nutraceuticals. Japan (14 percent) is the major consumer of nutraceuticals in Asia-Pacific, followed by China (10 percent).

The Indian nutraceuticals market is at a nascent stage now, but fast emerging. India accounts for around 1.5 percent of the global market. However, the above study forecasts that due to rising awareness of health and fitness and changing lifestyle, India’s Nutraceuticals market is likely to cross US$ 6.1 billion by 2020 from the current level of US$ 2.8 billion, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 17 percent. 

Phytochemicals in nutraceuticals:

Phytochemicals have been broadly defined as chemical compounds occurring naturally in plants. A large number of phytochemicals, either alone and/or in combination, are currently being used as nutraceuticals with significant impact on the health care system, claiming a number of medical health benefits, including prevention, treatment and even cure of many types of diseases.

The most recent regulatory intervention:

Responding to the growing demand for regulatory intervention in this important matter, on November 30, 2015, by a gazette notification, the Government of India included phytopharmaceutical drugs under a separate definition in the Drugs & Cosmetics (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 2015, effective that date.

This regulatory action also followed the rapidly growing use of these drugs in India, which includes purified and standardized fraction with defined minimum four bio-active or phytochemical compounds. 

On the ground, this significant regulatory measure would necessarily require the pharma players to submit the specified data on the phytopharmaceutical drug, along with the application to conduct clinical trial or import or manufacture in the country.

The salient features of the notification:

I am summarizing below, only the salient features of the detail notification for obtaining regulatory approval of these drugs in India:

A. Data to be submitted by the applicant:

A brief description or summary of the phytopharmaceutical drug giving the botanical name of the plant: 

- Formulation and route of administration, dosages

- Therapeutic class for which it is indicated

- The claims to be made for the phytopharmaceutical product.

- Published literature including information on plant or product or phytopharmaceutical drug, as a traditional medicine or as an ethno medicine and provide reference to books and other documents, regarding composition, process prescribed, dose or method of usage, proportion of the active ingredients in such traditional preparations per dose or per day’s consumption and uses.

- Information on any contraindications, side effects mentioned in traditional medicine or ethno medicine literature or reports on current usage of the formulation.

- Published scientific reports in respect of safety and pharmacological studies relevant for the phytopharmaceutical drug intended to be marketed.

- Information on any contraindications, side effects mentioned or reported in any of the studies, information on side effects and adverse reactions reported during current usage of the phytopharmaceutical in the last three years, wherever applicable.

- Present usage of the phytopharmaceutical drug ,  –  to establish history of usages, provide details of the product, manufacturer, quantum sold, extent of exposure on human population and number of years for which the product is being sold. 

B. Human or clinical pharmacology information

C. Identification, authentication and source of plant used for extraction and fractionation

D. Process for extraction and subsequent fractionation and purification

E. Formulation of phytopharmaceutical drug applied for

F. Manufacturing process of formulation

G. Stability data

H. Safety and pharmacological information

I. Human studies

J. Confirmatory clinical trials

K. Regulatory status in other countries

L. Marketing information, including text of package inserts, labels and cartons

M. Post marketing surveillance (PMS)

N. Any other relevant information that will help in scientific evaluation of the application

Conclusion:

Prior to the above gazette notification, companies marketing nutraceutical products in general and phytochemical products, in particular, used to operate under a very relaxed regulatory framework.

Such products are currently promoted with inadequate disclosure of science based information, particularly with the surrogate therapeutic claims, which are based merely on anecdotal evidence and forms a part of intensive off-label sales and marketing efforts on the part of respective marketing players. It continues to happen, despite the fact that off-label therapeutic claims for any product are illegal in India, just like in many other countries.

Appropriate measures now being taken by the Government on phytochemical drugs, are expected to further plug the regulatory loopholes for off-label therapeutic claims without any robust scientific evidence. This particular regulation would also, hopefully, help curbing marketing malpractices to boost sales turnover of such products.

Considering all this, it appears that this is a major regulatory step taken by the Indian Government that was, in fact, very long overdue. Implemented properly, this would ensure predictable health outcomes and improved safety standards for most of the nutraceutical products, solely keeping patients’ health interest in mind.

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.

Marketing Off-label Use of Drugs: A Path Much Abused?

Posted on by
Reply

As many would know, prescribing any medicine for disease conditions that are not approved by the drug approving authorities while granting its marketing approval, is generally termed as ‘off-label’ use of drugs.

It is also a usual practice in most of the regulated markets of the world that once the drug regulators give marketing approval of a medicine, which is indication-specific, physicians are free to prescribe these as they deem necessary. However, the drug manufacturers can seek prescription support from the doctors only for the indications as approved by the appropriate government authorities.

Even the USFDA had articulated, “the best way to address any concerns that the information about those (off-label) uses is not reaching medical practitioners is to get those uses in the labeling. We believe that the risks of allowing drug companies to distribute journal articles and other information about off label uses far outweigh any benefits.”        

Since long, most of the drug regulators across the world, including the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) have prohibited the sales promotion for unapproved uses of drugs to doctors. Nevertheless, the practice continues ignoring its serious consequences.

Monitoring of ‘off-label’ use is challenging: 

Monitoring of off-label use of medicines is quite challenging too by the drug regulators, especially in India, where post marketing surveillance is generally just on paper.

In this regard, a recent research study that I shall refer to below in this article, has quite appropriately suggested, “Future electronic health records should be designed to enable post market surveillance of treatment indications and treatment outcomes to monitor the safety of on and off-label uses of drugs.”

As India intends to move towards the ‘Digital’ space, this suggestion would be quite implementable by the DCGI, as the ‘Smart Cities’ start coming up.

Some examples of extensive off-label usages: 

According to the study done by a team of experts in medical information – Iodine, using the top drugs by number of monthly prescriptions, the following is a list of 4 medications with surprising off-label uses:

Drug Approved Indication Off-label Indication
Abilify (Aripiprazole) Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (adjunctive), Autism-related Irritability, Agitation associated with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Mania, other Insomnia
Lyrica (Pregabalin) Management of: neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, post herpetic neuralgia, fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury; adult patients with partial onset seizures (adjunctive) Anxiety
Namenda (Memantine) Moderate to severe dementia of the Alzheimer’s type ADHD, OCD
Synthroid (Levothyroxine) Low thyroid hormone levels, some types of goiters, management some types of thyroid cancers Depression

Off-label use and increasing risks of drug safety: 

In its November 02, 2015 online issue, JAMA Internal Medicine published an article titled, “Association of Off-Label Drug Use and Adverse Drug Events (ADE) in an Adult Population.” The objective of this study was to monitor and evaluate off-label use of prescription drugs and its effect on ADEs in an adult population.

This particular study assumes importance, as off-label use of prescription drugs without strong scientific evidence has been identified as an important contributor to preventable Adverse Drug Events (ADEs), especially in children. However, despite concerns in this regard, no systematic investigation on the effects of off-label drug use in adult populations is being performed, regularly.

The detail analysis of this study reveals that not only is the benefit of off-label prescription is uncertain, but the risks of ADEs could make the ‘risk-benefit ratio’ quite unfavorable. So much so that in a large number of cases, no drug treatment will be a much better option.

According to the authors, the risk for ADEs grew as the number of prescription drugs the patient used increased. For example, patients using eight or more drugs had more than a 5-fold increased risk for ADEs compared with patients who used one to two drugs.

The study involving 46,021 adult patients, receiving 151,305 prescriptions between January 2005 and December 2009 was done in Canada. Of those prescriptions, more than 10 percent were prescribed for off-label use. Interestingly, out of that group, more than 80 percent prescriptions were for off-label uses without any robust scientific evidence supporting the use.

Based on the findings the researchers concluded that off-label use of prescription drugs is associated with ADEs.

The article suggested:

  • Caution should be exercised in prescribing drugs for off-label uses that lack strong scientific evidence.
  • Future electronic health records should be designed to enable post market surveillance of treatment indications and treatment outcomes to monitor the safety of on and off-label uses of drugs.

Pharma industry strongly opposes off-label use, when it suits them:

Interestingly, pharma industry vehemently opposes off-label use of drugs, when it suits them.

To give just a couple of examples, recently a new law that permits prescribing of drugs for off-label uses in France has reportedly been strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry in Europe.

Pharma trade associations argue, “the above move of France is directly in opposition to European Union’s laws that prohibit member states from supporting off-label use for economic purposes, and is a trend that undermines the current regulatory framework and could put patients’ health at risk.”

Besides France, they have also submitted a complaint against Italy to the European Commission over the country’s new off-label rules.

Common methods followed for off-label marketing:

The other side of the story is that, reportedly many pharma companies continue promoting off-label uses of drugs aggressively, for significant commercial gains.

According to ‘The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) – a federal agency within the United States Department of Health and Human Services, some of the off-label drug promotion methods of the pharmaceutical companies are as follows:

• Paying incentives to sales representatives based on sales for off-label use

• Paying kickbacks to physicians to prescribe drugs for off-label use

• Disseminating misleading posters promoting off-label use

• Paying physicians:

- To pretend to be the authors of articles about off-label uses when the articles were actually written by manufacturers’ agents

- To serve as members of “advisory boards” promoting off-label use

- To travel to resort locations to listen to promotions about off-label use

- To give promotional lectures in favor of off-label use to fellow practitioners

• Publicizing studies showing efficacy of off-label uses, while suppressing studies showing no efficacy.

Even the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) of the Government of India does not allow such sales and marketing practices. But these all continue to happen, unabatedly.

A path much abused?

Although most of the drug companies publicly advocate self regulation to avoid unethical marketing practices, the situation on the ground is much different, across the world. 

The following are just a few examples of serious business consequences faced by some of the well-known global pharma and biotech majors, besides many others, from the United States Department of Justice, for alleged off-label promotion of drugs: 

  • On November 4, 2013, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) was asked to pay more than US$ 2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promoting for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider.  
  • On July 30, 2013, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., a pharmaceutical company acquired by Pfizer, Inc. in 2009, agreed to pay US$490.9 million to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the unlawful marketing of the prescription drug Rapamune for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA. 
  • On December 19, 2012, Amgen Inc. pleaded guilty and paid US$762 million to resolve criminal liability and false claims allegations.
  • On July 2, 2012 GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) pleaded guilty and paid US$3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices. This resolution is the largest health care fraud settlement in the US history and the largest payment ever by a drug company, so far. 
  • On May 7, 2012, Abbott Laboratories Inc. pleaded guilty and agreed to pay US$1.5 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of the prescription drug Depakote for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA.  This resolution is the second largest payment by a drug company and includes a criminal fine and forfeiture totaling US$700 million and civil settlements with the federal government and the states totaling US$800 million.  Abbott also was reportedly subjected to court-supervised probation and reporting obligations for Abbott’s CEO and Board of Directors.
  • On October 21, 2011, Pfizer Inc. agreed to pay US$14.5 million to resolve false claims allegations related to its marketing of the drug Detrol. 
  • On June 10, 2011, Novo Nordisk was asked to pay US$25 million to resolve allegations of off-label promotion of Novoseven.
  • On September 30, 2010, Novartis agreed to pay US$422.5 million to settle criminal and civil investigations into the marketing of the anti-seizure medicine Trileptal and five other drugs. The government accused Novartis of mislabeling, paying illegal kickbacks to health care professionals through speaker programs, advisory boards, entertainment, travel and meals. 

Hence, it appears that the path followed by many pharma players to inform the doctors about the judicious off-label use of drugs only in circumstances where approved treatments have failed, is being much abused. 

A conflict of interest? 

Many doctors believe that there is also a distinct upside for off-label use of drugs, as flexibility of a physician to prescribe drugs off-label offers important advantages too, especially in circumstances where approved treatments have failed. This is indeed true and indisputable.

However, the reality is, many pharma industry, in general, actively encourage off-label use of drugs for commercial benefits through expanded use of their respective brands.

Aggressive drug promotion for various off-label uses, reportedly being so widespread and indiscriminate, many physicians can’t even remember the approved indications of drugs. Hence, they do not necessarily go for off-label use only when approved treatments have failed.  In this context, on November 23, 2015, ‘The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)’ in an article titled, “Risk of Off-Label Uses for Prescription Drugs” reported as follows:

“A 2009 study published in the journal Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety found that 1,199 physicians in a national survey were able to identify the FDA-approved indication of 22 drugs only about 55% of the time. The physicians surveyed included primary-care doctors and psychiatrists.” 

On the other hand, the patients generally expect that the prescribed drugs will be safe. They want to administer evidence based approved medicines. Some of them have even started expressing that these evidences must also be disclosed to them.

Hence, there seems to exist a clear conflict of interest in this matter between the patients, drug manufacturers and perhaps the doctors, as well.

Conclusion:

The magnitude of general off-label use of drugs is reportedly increasing and is likely to increase further, exposing patients to increased risks of ADEs.  Although the business consequences of getting engaged in this unwanted process indiscriminately could at times be quite adverse, in the balance of probability between slim chances of getting caught, and expected creamy return, many pharma players continue to feel that this risk is worth taking.

Therefore, the moot question that needs a pragmatic answer is, for patients’ safety, when the global and local pharma majors talk about prescriptions of only impeccable evidence based medicine, do they walk the talk?

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.

 

Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns

Posted on by
Reply

With the patent expiry of exorbitantly priced biologic medicines, introduction of biosimilar drugs are expected to improve their access to millions of patients across the world, saving billions of dollars in healthcare costs in the subsequent years. According to an article published in Forbes, it is estimated that the potential savings in the United States alone from just 11 biosimilar drugs over a period ranging from 2014 to 2024 could easily be U$250 billion.

However, the flip side of this much awaited development would make commensurate dent on the sales performance of original brand name biologics, now being marketed by the global pharma majors armed with patent monopoly rights.

Innovating hurdles to negate the impact:

Facing this stark reality, global innovators of biotech drugs allegedly want to fast germinate a strong apprehension in the minds of all concerned on the safety and replaceability of biosimilar drugs. Consequently, this would severely restrict the usage of this new class of products, sacrificing patients’ health interest.

To translate this grand plan into reality, garnering additional support from ten medical societies and a physicians’ group, the global players, which mostly hold various patents on biologics, reportedly urged the USFDA to require biosimilars to have distinct names from the original biologics, on the pretext that different names would make it easier for prescribers to distinguish between medicines that “may differ slightly” and also track adverse events and side effect reports that appear in patient records.

However, other stakeholders have negated this move, which is predominantly to make sure that no substitution of high priced original biologics takes place with the cheaper versions of equivalent biosimilars to save on drug costs.

Intense lobbying to push the envelope:

Interestingly, this intense lobbying initiative of big pharma to assign a distinct or different name for biosimilar drugs, if accepted by the USFDA, would provide a clear and cutting-edge commercial advantage to the concerned pharma and biotech majors, even much after their respective biologic drugs go off patent.

Thus, the above allegedly concerted move does not surprise many.

Mounting protests against industry move:

Biosimilar drug makers, on the other hand, have suggested to the USFDA to make biosimilars fall under the same International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) system, like all generic prescription drugs.  They believe that new names would create confusion and the physicians and pharmacists may face difficulties in ascertaining whether biosimilar drugs serve the same purpose with similar dosing and regimens.

The protest seems to have a snowballing effect. In July 2014, by a letter to the Commissioner Hamburg of USFDA, different groups representing pharmacy, labor unions, health insurance plans and others, have reportedly urged her not to go for different INNs for the original biologic and a biosimilar drug, for the same reason as cited above. The letter reinforces that the industry move, if accepted by the USFDA could increase the possibility of medication errors, besides adversely affecting the substitution required to bring down overall health care costs for high priced specialized biologics, thereby slowing down the uptake of biosimilars significantly.

Global pharma investors also raising voices in support of biosimilars:

Another similar and major development followed soon. A letter titled, “Investor Statement on Board Oversight of Biosimilar Issues”, written by a group of 19 institutional investors that manages about US$430 billion in assets, to the boards of several big pharma and biotech companies, flagged that some pharma majors have been scandalizing the safety concerns of biosimilar drugs. This is happening despite the fact that this class of drugs already has a well-established track record in Europe.

They emphasize that recent actions taken by some big pharma companies could raise concerns on the overall acceptance of biosimilar drugs, which would forestall any projected savings on that subject. They also reportedly expressed serious concern that shareholder interests could be adversely affected, if the pharma and biotech players pursue those policies that undermine corporate transparency and medical innovation.

The letter underscores, “Companies seeking to downplay the patient safety record of European biosimilars have also challenged the capacity of the FDA to promulgate rules and determine when biosimilars may be substituted for biologics.”

Among other points, the letter reiterates:

  • Though the important role of biologics in treating cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, anemia, multiple sclerosis and many other conditions is well recognized, the costs of these medicines are on an unsustainable trajectory, with some biologics costing as much 22 times more than other drugs. This critical issue seriously impedes patients’ access to biologics, as well as, acceptance by providers and insurance companies.
  • Biosimilars hold the promise of lowering costs of treating conditions for which biologics are indicated. At the same time, the recent adoption of a regulatory pathway to approval of biosimilars in the US market and the continued growth of biosimilars in the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia and South Korea, pose a formidable business challenge for the companies that market patented biologic medicines.
  • Financial experts project that biosimilars too have the potential for significant market penetration and attractive returns on investments.
  • Assigning different INN would communicate to providers that the biosimilar is less effective, prompting them not to prescribe this class of medicines and making it difficult for the pharmacists to dispense too. Besides, different names could lead to prescribing errors.
  • In short, the boards of directors of the pharma and biotech majors were urged by these investors to use the following principles to guide their decision-making related to biosimilars:

-       Policy and educational information provided on biosimilars should be balanced, accurate and informed by the patient safety experience of biosimilars in the European Union and other biosimilar drug markets.

-       Lobbying expenditures for federal and state activities related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed and the boards should ensure that political activities are aligned with the interests of investors and other stakeholders.

-       Key information about any partnership or business deal related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed to investors, including information about the value, terms and duration of the deal.

The WHO proposal:

In this context it is worth recapitulating, the World Health Organization (WHO) that oversees the global INN system has held a number of meetings to resolve this issue. The WHO proposal suggests that the current system for choosing INNs to remain unchanged, but that a four-letter code would be attached at the end of every drug name. However, individual regulatory agencies in each country could choose whether to adopt such coding or not.

Let us wait to see what really pans out of this flexible WHO proposal on the subject.

Biosimilars go through stringent regulatory review:

It is important to note that the drug regulators carefully review biosimilars before giving marketing approval for any market, as these drugs must prove to be highly similar without any clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic molecules. The interchangeability between biosimilars and the original biologics must also be unquestionably demonstrated to be qualified for being substitutable at the pharmacy level without the need for intervention by a physician.

Thus, there does not seem to be any basis for different INN, other than to severely restrict competition from biosimilars.

12-year data exclusivity period for biologics – another hurdle created earlier:

Another barrier to early introduction of cheaper biosimilar drugs in the United States is the 12-year data exclusivity period for biologics.

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

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

The market potential of biosimilars:

A new report by Allied Market Research estimates that the global biosimilars market would reach US$35 billion by 2020 from the estimated US$1.3 billion in 2013. During the next four years, over 10 blockbuster biologic drugs clocking aggregated annual sales turnover of US $60 billion would go off patent in the United States and in Europe. Humira – a US$10 billion drug of Abbvie that loses patent protection in 2016 is at the top of list.

In tandem, facilitation of regulatory pathways of marketing approval for this class of drugs in many developed markets is expected to drive its growth momentum through greater market penetration and access.

Asia Pacific region is likely to emerge as the leader in the biosimilar drugs market, primarily due to heightened interest and activity of the local players. Collaboration between Mylan and Biocon to commercialize biosimilar version of trastuzumab of Roche in India and the approval of first biosimilar version of monoclonal antibody drug by Hospira in Europe are the encouraging indications.

High growth oncology and autoimmune disease areas are expected to attract more biosimilars developers, as many such biologics would go off patent during 2014 to 2019 period.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and erythropoietin would possibly be key to the growth drivers. Similarly, follitropins, interferons, and insulin biosimilars would emerge as high potential product segments over a period of time.

As we know, among the developed markets, Europe was the first to draft guidelines for approval of biosimilars in 2006. Consequently, the first biosimilars version of Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was introduced in the European Union under the regulatory guidance of European Medical Agency (EMA) in 2008. At present, there are three biosimilar versions of G-CSF available in the European market. Insulin biosimilars also show a good potential for the future.

India:

India is now well poised to encash on this opportunity, which I had deliberated in one of my earlier blog post titled, “Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain”.

Current global usage of biosimilars:

Though regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs are now in place in the United States, no biosimilar has yet been approved there. However, the US drug regulator has for the first time accepted an application for the approval of a biosimilar version of Neupogen (Filgrastim) of Amgen, which treats patients with low white blood cell counts. Sandoz has already been selling the biosimilar version of this drug in more than 40 countries outside the US.

According to the research organization ‘Pharmaceutical Product Development’, as on March 2013, at least 11 countries and the European Union (EU) approve, regulate and allow clinical trials of biosimilars. As of February 2012, the EU has approved at least 14 biosimilar medicines. The following table shows these countries by region:

Region

Countries
North America Canada
Europe E.U. (including U.K.)
Asia and Pacific China, India, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan
Central and South America Argentina, Brazil, Mexico
Eastern Europe Russia, Turkey

Source: Pharmaceutical Product Development

Conclusion:

With the opening up of the United States for biosimilar drugs, the entire product class is expected to be catapulted to a high growth trajectory, provided of course no more allegedly concerted attempts are made to create regulatory hurdles on its path, as we move on. This is mainly because around 46 percent of the world biologic market as on 2010 was in the United States.

However, intense lobbying and power play against biosimilar or interchangeable biologics, allegedly sponsored by the big pharma, are acting as a barrier to this much awaited development solely to benefit the patients. Such activities also undermine attractiveness of investing in safer and more affordable interchangeable biologics.

It is indeed intriguing that all these are happening, despite the fact that the regulatory approval standards for biosimilars are very stringent, as each of these drugs:

  • Must be highly similar to the reference product
  • Cannot have clinically meaningful differences from the original ones
  • Must perform the same in any given patient
  • Would have the same risk associated with switching as the reference product

Thus, scandalizing biosimilar drugs by raising self-serving ‘safety concerns’ in an orchestrated manner, just to extend product life cycles of original biologics even beyond patent expiries, is indeed a very unfortunate development. In this process, the vested interests are creating a great commercial uncertainty for this new class of medicines in the global scenario.

Be that as it may, all these seemingly well synchronized moves against biosimilars, solely to protect business interest, pooh-poohing patients’ health interests, have once again caste a dark shadow on not so enviable image of the big pharma…without even an iota of doubt.

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.

 

NDDS as New Drug: Good for Patients, Great for Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

The Ministry of Health of India has reportedly decided to amend Rule 122 (E) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to categorize the New Drug Delivery Systems (NDDS), including ‘Controlled Release (CR)’ or ‘Modified Release (MR)’ formulations, whether a copy of studied and approved drugs or a new one, as ‘New Drugs’.

After the amendment, all vaccines and recombinant DNA (r-DNA) derived drugs would also fall under this nomenclature. Accordingly, to obtain ‘Marketing Approval’, such formulations would be subjected to requisite studies, including ‘Clinical Trials (CT), as specified for ‘New Drugs’ under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India.

It has however been clarified though, that these applications will not be treated as Investigational New Drugs (IND) and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) shall prepare appropriate regulatory guidelines for all NDDS formulations.

The main reason for the amendment is possibly much late realization of CDSCO that such formulations are vastly different from each other with respect to both efficacy and toxicity.

Besides, it has been widely alleged that some pharma companies in India, mainly to hoodwink the Drug Price Control Orders (DPCO) in the past, used to switch over from ‘Immediate Release (IR)’ formulations to products with CR/MR technology of the same molecule. However, that loophole has since been plugged in DPCO 2013, creating almost a furore in the industry.

A long overdue decision for patients’ health safety:

As stated earlier, this is indeed a long overdue decision of the Indian drug regulatory policy makers, solely considering patients’ health interest.

The primary reason being, any NDDS formulation with CR/MR technology is designed to release the drug substance in a controlled manner with high precision to achieve desired efficacy and safety, quite unlike its IR equivalent, if available in the market. It is important to note that inappropriate release of the drug in any CR/MR formulation would result in lesser efficacy or increased toxicity, jeopardizing patients’ health.

Process followed by US-FDA for CR/MR formulations:

In the United States, for marketing approval of such products, FDA usually requires submission of New Drug Applications (NDAs) providing details based on the evidence of adequate drug exposure expressed by blood levels or dose, and the response framework validated by clinical or surrogate endpoint(s).

US-FDA has three types of NDAs for MR drug products:

  • IR to CR/MR switch
  • MR/CR to MR/CR switch with unequal dosing intervals
  • MR/CR to MR/CR switch with equal dosing intervals

For switching from an IR to a CR/MR product, which is more common in India, the key requirement is to establish that the new CR/MR product has similar exposure course of the drug as compared to the previously approved IR product, backed by well-documented efficacy and safety profile. If not, one efficacy and/or safety trial would be necessary, in addition to three clinical pharmacology studies.

Good for patients:

The good news for patients is that, being categorized as ‘New Drugs’, all NDDS formulations, without any exceptions whatsoever, would henceforth obtain marketing approval only from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), after having passed through intense data scrutiny, instead of State Drug Authorities where getting a manufacturing license of such formulations is alleged to be a ‘child’s play’. Thus, with the proposed amendment, efficacy and safety concerns of CR/MR formulations are expected to be addressed adequately.

Great for Pharma:

Currently, while fixing the ‘Ceiling Prices (CP)’ under DPCO 2013, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) treats CR/MR formulations at par with IR varieties of the same molecules having the same dosage strength.

Thus, categorization of all NDDS formulations as ‘New Drugs’, irrespective of the fact whether these are copies of studied and approved drugs or new ones, would be lapped up by the manufacturers from product pricing point of view. All these formulations, after the proposed amendment, would go outside the purview of drug price control under Para 32 (iii) of DPCO 2013, which categorically states that the provisions of this order shall not apply to:

“A manufacturer producing a ‘new drug’ involving a new delivery system developed through indigenous Research and Development for a period of five years from the date of its market approval in India.”

A similar past issue still haunts:

Similar callousness was exhibited in the past, while granting marketing approval for a large number of highly questionable Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs by the same drug regulators. Unfortunately, that saga is still not over, not just yet. 

All these irrational FDC formulations, even after being identified so by the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB), have been caught in the quagmire of protracted litigations. Consequently, such dubious products are still being promoted by the respective pharma players intensively, prescribed by the doctors uninhibitedly, sold by the chemists freely and consumed by patients ignorantly. With ‘pharmacovigilance’ being almost non-functional in India, the harmful impact of these drugs on patients’ health cannot just be fathomed.

Conclusion: 

With the above examples, it is quite clear that technological precision of high order is absolutely imperative to manufacture any effective CR/MR formulation. In addition, stark regulatory laxity in the marketing approval process for these drugs is a matter of great concern.

In such a scenario, one could well imagine how patients’ health interests are being compromised by not formalizing and adhering to appropriate regulatory pathways for marketing approval of such drugs in the country, since decades.

That said, as the saying goes “Better Late, Than Never”. The ‘New Drug’ nomenclature of all CR/MR formulations or for that matter entire NDDS as a category, including vaccines and recombinant DNA (r-DNA) derived drugs, would now hopefully be implemented in India, though rather too late, a much welcoming decision nevertheless.

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.