Tag Archives: skepticism

Covid-19 Drugs: Accessibility, Affordability And Availability

Posted on by
Reply

Covid-19 continues refusing to unravel the key to neutralize its destructive power – for bringing human life and the socioeconomic fabric of a country back to the old normal again. Just as India, all other countries are, apparently, awaiting a ‘magic bullet’ to come, breaking the shackles of this labyrinth, so to speak.

General expectation is, all concerned will understand that coming out of the new Coronavirus maze, sooner, at any cost – is the only way to bring back life, livelihoods, social fabric and the national economy on to the rail, again. Consequently, every entity in the world would require making moderate sacrifices in this unprecedented endeavor.

Right at this time, accessibility, affordability and availability of emergency use Covid-19 drugs, for various reasons, are going beyond the reach of a large number of the population who need those the most. This is happening not just beyond the shores of India, but in the country, as well, perhaps much more than expected. Interestingly, the issue pertains more to Covid-10 repurposed older drugs, and not so much for vaccines – just yet, as I shall deliberate below.

In this article, I shall focus on this issue, hoping for a reversal of the current trend through active involvement of the both the drug company leadership, and also the national decision makers to safeguard public health interest. Interestingly, the drug pricing issue, mostly with repurposed older drugs, is both global and local. Thus, let me first dwell on the subject of drug price increases during this global public health emergency.

Drug price increases during a global public health emergency: 

According to the July 08, 2020 report of IHS Markit, prices of critical drugs are increasing at a time when they are needed the most, as the governments and individual patients potentially struggle to pay for them.

The findings brought to the fore, prices for the 10 most critical drugs to treat COVID-19 have risen a highly unusual 4 percent globally, during the crisis. The cost for over half of these essential COVID-19 medicines rose across 80 countries between February and June 2020. Let me illustrate this point with one example each of Covid-19 emergency treatment options, starting with the global outcry for the same.

Global skepticism on remdesivir pricing:

As the world anxiously awaits a Covid-19 vaccine to hit the market, an experimental repurposed older drug – remdesivir of Gilead Sciences Inc. was introduced as an emergency treatment option for this infection. Pending detail clinical trial results, currently the drug has received only emergency regulatory approvals with an expectation that it may shorten the recovery period in some severely ill Covid-19 patients.

Gilead Sciences, on June 29, 2020, announced its price of $2,340 for a typical treatment course for people covered by government health programs in the United States and other developed countries.However, it will cost $3,120 for patients with private insurance. This price was swiftly and widely criticized, because the drug has received at least $70 million in public funding toward its development - the report highlighted.

Elaborating what would be affordable pricing for this drug in the developed world, another reportquoted the watchdog group – Public Citizen. This group maintains $1 per day is fair. It points to a cost-recovery model developed by the University of Liverpool, which calculated that the cost of manufacturing remdesivir at scale would be 93 cents per dose, leaving the remainder as, in its view, “a reasonable profit to Gilead,” as the report underscored.

Interestingly, analysts expect Gilead to make $525 million on remdesivir sales this year and $2.1 billion next year. This isn’t the first time Gilead is facing public criticism on life saving drug pricing. Just to recap, in 2013, the company also received ‘brickbats’ for its $84,000 price tag for groundbreaking hepatitis C treatment Sovaldi—followed up by its combo pill Harvoni, priced at $94,500. But those were first in class new and innovative drugs. Nevertheless, the remdesivir pricing issue is viewed differently, because it is not just a repurposed older drug, but indicated to combat a global public health crisis.

Let me now give an Indian example on a similar issue, but with a different anti-Covid-19 drug.

Criticism in India with Covid- 19 drug pricing: 

The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) had on June19, 2020 approved anti-viral drug favipiravir, manufactured in India by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. This approval was for “restricted emergency use” of the drug in mild to moderate cases of COVID-19 in the country, in view of the urgent medical need during the pandemic. Favipiravir is made under the brand name Avigan by Japan’s Fujifilm Holdings Corp and was approved for use as an anti-flu drug there in 2014.

According to media reports, Glenmark launched the drug on June 20, 2020 with the brand name FabiFlu at a price of Rs 103 per tablet. On this pricing issue, a member of the Indian Parliament, reportedly, made a representation to the DCGI stating, as a patient has to take 122 tablets of the drug in 14 days, the total cost of the treatment will come to around Rs 12,500. The M.P argued, “price quoted for this drug is definitely not affordable to the common people,” and ‘is definitely not in the interest of the poor, lower middle class and middle-class people of India.’ Additionally, the submission mentioned that ‘Glenmark has also claimed that this drug is effective in co-morbid conditions like hypertension, diabetes, whereas in reality, as per protocol summary, this trial was not designed to assess the FabiFlu in comorbid condition,’ as the letter read.

However, on July 13, 2020, Glenmark reportedly said that it had reduced Favipiravir price from Rs103 to Rs75 per tablet. The Company said, “The price reduction has been made possible through benefits gained from higher yields and better scale, as both the API (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient) and formulations are made at Glenmark’s facilities in India, the benefits of which are being passed on to patients in the country.”

Thereafter, as reported on July 19, 2020, after receiving a complaint from a member of Parliament, the DCGI sought a clarification from Glenmark over its alleged “false claims” about the use of FabiFlu on Covid-19 patients with comorbidities, including the “pricing” of the drug.

In response Glenmark stated, “Compared to other therapies approved for emergency use in Covid-19, FabiFlu is much more economical and an effective treatment option.” The comparing argued, the estimated total cost for the full course of Favipiravir is Rs 9,150. Whereas, the same for Remdesivir, Tocilizumab and Itolizumab will come to Rs 24,000-30,000, Rs 44,000 and Rs 32,000, respectively.

Importantly, seriously ill Covid-19 patients will often be given many of these drugs, such as, tocilizumab, remdesivir and favipiravir, either one after the other, or simultaneously, making the overall price of treatment hefty for many. From this perspective, the bottom line is, Covid-19 drug treatment in India – where the out of pocket drug expenses is one of the highest in the world, won’t be affordable to many. Besides, there are other critical issues related to Covid-19 drug access and availability to Indian patients. The question that surfaces in this situation, are Covid-19 drug prices are high where there is no or less competition. If, so this is an avoidable situation.

Could this be due to less or no competition?

Continuing with the example of Favipiravir against the above backdrop, Cipla also, reportedly, received the DCGI approval for the launch of experimental Covid-19 drug Favipiravir in India on July 24, 2020. The brand will be marketed under the brand name Ciplenza in the first week of August and is priced much less than Glenmark’s Favipiravir – at Rs 68 per tablet. Could this be due to market competition?

Possibly so, because another report of July 25, 2020 indicated, nearly 10 other Favipiravir formulations will be launched shortly, despite inconclusive scientific clinical evidence as on date. Favipiravir price is expected to fall further due to competition. In that case, what could be the takeaway message, when this price trend is viewed against the response of Glenmark to the DCGI letter, justifying FabiFlu pricing?

Other issues of Covid-19 drug availability and access to Indian patients:

Other critical issues related to Covid-19 drug availability and access to Indian patients include, prices of Covid-19 drugs shooting up in short supply. There have been reports of difficulty in accessing remdesivir in India, too, although, Gilead Sciences has licensed this drug out to a few Indian generic pharmaceutical companies such as Hetero Healthcare, which has announced that it would manufacture and sell it at Rs 5,400 per vial. According to the latest protocol of the health ministry, the dosage of remdesivir should be 200 mg IV on day 1 followed by 100 mg IV daily for 4 days (5 days in total). From this one can easily work out the treatment cost with remdesivir for each patient.

Moreover, a BBC investigation has found that two life-saving drugs used to treat Covid-19 patients in India – remdesivir and tocilizumab – are in short supply and being sold for excessive rates on a thriving black market. Yet another recent investigation has unraveled a growing black-market for plasma therapy, ‘born out of the desperation of families willing to do anything to save their loved ones infected with Covid-19.’

I am citing these examples to give a sense of the plight of common Covid-19 patients from the drug availability, affordability and accessibility perspective – to save lives. However, the good news is, in this otherwise gloomy scenario, as perceived by many, a more empathetic scenario has been reported from many Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers.

More empathetic scenario with Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers: 

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), over 160 groups are working on COVID-19 vaccines, and 24 candidates have already reached human testing, Some are, reportedly gearing up for phase 3. It is widely expected, vaccines might be ready later this year or early next year. Vaccine developers are racing ahead at record speed, supported by Governments and facilitated by the drug regulators, to translate billion dreams coming true amid a public health catastrophe.

For the world population to acquire immunity against the Covid-19 onslaught, the key question remains: ‘At what price’, when vaccines are available? According to reports, the encouraging news is, some major vaccine makers, such as:

  • AstraZeneca (with Oxford University) plans to price at “no profit” during the pandemic “to support broad and equitable access around the world.” The company has entered several agreements with governments and other groups to provide about 2 billion doses around the world, at no profit.
  • Similarly, J&J has also “committed to bringing a safe and effective vaccine to the public on a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.”
  • Pfizer CEO has also said the company “will make a very, very marginal profit at this stage.” He pointed out that the company hasn’t taken any governmental funding, unlike other players. The company and its partner BioNTech have entered a deal with the U.K. government for 30 million doses. Moreover, Pfizer and BioNTech will get $1.95 billion from the US government to produce and deliver 100 million doses of their Covid-19 vaccine candidate.
  • Moderna CEO said, there’s “no world, I think, where we would contemplate to price this higher than other respiratory virus vaccines.”
  • Sanofi, which has separate COVID-19 vaccine partnerships with GlaxoSmithKline and Translate Bio, has “been committed to working with governments, partners and payers to ensure that when new vaccines are approved, we will make them available and affordable,”
  • Merck CEO also said the company has committed to “broad, equitable, affordable access.”
  • Nearer home, Serum Institute of India, has pledged to make 1 billion doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca jointly formed COVID-19 vaccine at under Rs1000 per shot. The production could start as early as first quarter next year. Company CEO said this is not the time to make money from a vaccine against the novel Coronavirus, which has caused a global pandemic.

These pledges do give a comfort to many. Because, unlike Covid-19 repurposed older drug manufacturers, Covid-19 vaccine makers seem to be more empathetic to make these accessible and available to the world population at an affordable price.

Conclusion:

Well past a million mark, as on July 26, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country reached 1,339,176 with 31,425 deaths. With the number of daily cases being more than Brazil, India is poised to bridge its gap with the South American country. The steep unenviable climb continues.

The July 21, 2020 article – ‘Drug Pricing Back in the Spotlight,’ published in the PharmaExec.com, quoted the ICER Executive Vice-President saying,’ the drug pricing conversation is different in a pandemic.’ The system needs to ensure public access to drugs and vaccines in this global health crisis. If it does not happen, I reckon, appropriate authorities must step in with specific remedial measures.

Otherwise, the kudos showered on the drug industry for promptly offering a number of repurposed older drugs for emergency use against Covid-19 may not last long, if these treatments are not affordable and accessible to a vast majority. From this perspective, the questions being raised on accessibility, affordability and availability of many Covid-19 drugs, need to be addressed and resolved – soon.

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.

Biosimilar Drugs: First Indian Foot Print In An Uncharted Frontier

Posted on by
Reply

A homegrown Indian biologic manufacturer is now about to leave behind its first foot-print, with a ‘made in India’ biosimilar drug, in one of the largest pharma market of the world. This was indeed an uncharted frontier, and a dream to realize for any Indian bio-pharma player.                                                      

On March 28, 2016, by a Press Release, Bengaluru based Biocon Ltd., one of the premier biopharmaceutical companies in India, announced that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) of Japan has approved its biosimilar Insulin Glargine in a prefilled disposable pen. The product is a biosimilar version of Sanofi’s blockbuster insulin brand – ‘Lantus’.

The Company claims that Glargine is a high quality, yet an affordable priced product, as it will reportedly cost around 25 percent less than the original biologic brand – Lantus. This ‘made in India’ biosimilar product is expected to be launched in Japan in the Q1 of 2017. Incidentally, Japan is the second largest Glargine market in the world with a value of US$ 144 Million. Biocon will co-market this product with its partner Fujifilm.

Would it be a free run? 

Although it is a very significant and well-deserved achievement of Biocon, but its entry with this biosimilar drug in Japan’s Lantus market, nevertheless, does not seem to be free from tough competition. This is because, in 2015, both Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim also obtained Japanese regulatory approval for their respective biosimilar versions of Lantus. In the same year, both these companies also gained regulatory approval from the US-FDA, and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) for their respective products.

Moreover, Sanofi’s longer acting version of Lantus – Lantus XR, or Toujeo, to treat both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, has already been approved in Japan, which needs to be injected less, expectedly making it more convenient to patients.

Key barriers to a biosimilar drug's success: 

Such barriers, as I shall briefly outline below, help sustaining monopoly of the original biologic even after patent expiry, discourage investments in innovation in search of biosimilars, and adversely impacts access to effective and much less expensive follow-on-biologics to save patients’ precious lives. 

These barriers can be broadly divided in two categories: 

A. Regulatory barriers:

1. Varying non-proprietary names:

A large number of biosimilar drug manufacturers, including insurers and large pharmacy chains believe, just as various global studies have also indicated that varying non-proprietary names for biosimilars, quite different from the original biologic, as required by the drug regulators in the world’s most regulated pharma markets, such as, the United States, Europe, Japan, and Australia, restrict competition in the market for the original biologic brands. 

However, the innovator companies for biologic drugs hold quite different views. For example, Roche (Genentech), a developer of original biologic, reportedly explained that “distinguishable non-proprietary names are in the best interest of patient safety, because they facilitate Pharmacovigilance, and mitigate inadvertent product substitution.”

Even, many other global companies that develop both original biologic and also biosimilar products such as, Amgen, Pfizer and others, also reportedly support the use of ‘distinguishable nonproprietary names’.

That said, the Biosimilars Council of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association argues that consistent non-proprietary naming will ensure robust market formation that ultimately supports patient access, affordability, Pharmacovigilance systems currently in place and allow for unambiguous prescribing, 

2. Substitution or interchangeable with original biologics:

Besides different ‘non-proprietary names’, but arising primarily out of this issue, automatic substitution or interchangeability is not permitted for biosimilar drugs by the drug regulators in the major pharma markets of the world, such as, the United States, Europe and Japan.

The key argument in favor of interchangeability barrier for biosimilar drugs is the fact that the biological drugs, being large protein molecules, can never be exactly replicated. Hence, automatic substitution of original biologic with biosimilar drugs does not arise. This is mainly due to the safety concern that interchangeability between the biosimilars and the original biologic may increase immunogenicity, giving rise to adverse drug reactions. Hence, it would be risky to allow interchangeability of biosimilar drugs, without generating relevant clinical trial data.

On the other hand, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) and the Biosimilars Council, vehemently argue that a biosimilar drug has a lot many other unique identifying characteristics “including a brand name, company name, a lot number and a National Drug Code (NDC) number that would readily distinguish it from other products that share the same nonproprietary name.”

Further, the interchangeable status for biosimilar drugs would also help its manufacturers to tide over the initial apprehensions on safety and quality of biosimilar drugs, as compared to the original ones.

3. 12-year Data Exclusivity period for biologics in the United states:

Currently, the new law for biologic products in the United States provides 12 years of data exclusivity for a new biologic. This is five years more than what is granted to small molecule drugs. 

Many experts believe that this system would further delay the entry of cost-effective biosimilar drugs, restrict the biosimilar drug manufacturers from relying on the test data submitted to drug regulator by the manufacturers of the original biologic drugs while seeking marketing approval.

A rapidly evolving scenario in the United States:

The regulatory space for approval of biosimilar drugs is still evolving in the Unites States. This is vindicated by the fact that in March 2016, giving a somewhat positive signal to the biosimilar drug manufacturers, the US-FDA released another set of a 15-page draft guidelines on how biosimilar products should be labeled for the US market. Interestingly, it has come just around a year of the first biosimilar drug approval in the United States – Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis.

The US-FDA announcement says that all ‘comments and suggestions regarding this draft document should be submitted within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register of the notice announcing the availability of the draft guidance.’ Besides labeling issues, this draft guidance document, though indicates that the ‘interchangeability’ criteria will be addressed in the future, does not still throw enough light on how exactly to determine ‘interchangeability’ for biosimilar drugs.

That said, these key regulatory barriers are likely to continue, at least in the foreseeable future, for many reasons. The biosimilar drug manufacturers, therefore, would necessarily have to work within the set regulations, as applicable to different markets of the world.

I deliberated a related point in my article of August 25, 2014, titled “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns” 

B. Prescribers’ skepticism:  

Initial skepticism of the medical profession for biosimilar drugs are, reportedly, due to the high voltage advocacy of the original biologic manufacturers on the ‘documented variability between original biologic and biosimilars. Which is why, any substitution of an original biologic with a related biosimilar drug could lead to increase in avoidable adverse reactions.

‘The medical platform and community QuantiaMD’, released a study just around September 2015, when by a Press Release, Novartis announced the launch of the first biosimilar approved by the US-FDA – Zarxio(TM) (filgrastim-sndz). However, in 2006, Novartis after suing the US-FDA, got the approval for its human growth hormone – Omnitrope, which is a biosimilar of the original biologic of Genentech and Pfizer. At that time a clear regulatory guideline for biosimilar drugs in the United States, was not in place.

The QuantiaMD report at that time said, “Only 12% of prescribing specialists are ‘very confident’ that biosimilars are as safe as the original biologic version of the drug. In addition, a mere 17% said they were ‘very likely’ to prescribe a biosimilar, while 70% admitted they were not sure if they would.” 

Since then, this scenario for biosimilar drugs is changing though gradually, but encouragingly. I shall dwell on that below.

The major growth drivers:

The major growth drivers for biosimilars, especially, in the world’s top pharmaceutical markets are expected to be:

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

This in turn would probably usher in an unprecedented opportunity for the manufacturers of high quality biosimilar drugs, including in India.

Unfolding a huge emerging opportunity with biosimilars: 

This unprecedented opportunity is expected to come mainly from the world’s three largest pharma market, namely the United States, Europe and Japan, due to very high prices of original biologic drugs, and simultaneously to contain rapidly escalating healthcare expenditure by the respective Governments. 

Unlike in the past, when the doctors were apprehensive, and a bit skeptic too, on the use of new biosimilars, some new studies of 2016 indicate a rapid change in that trend. After the launch of the first biosimilar drug in the US, coupled with rapidly increasing incidences of various complex, life-threatening diseases, better knowledge of biosimilar drugs and their cost-effectiveness, doctors are now expressing much lesser concern, and exhibiting greater confidence in the use of biosimilars in their clinical practice.

Yet another, March 2016 study indicates, now only 19.5 percent of respondents feel little or no confidence in the use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies compared to 61percent of respondents to a previous version of the survey undertaken in 2013 by the same market research group. The survey also shows that 44.4 percent of respondents consider that the original biologic and its biosimilar versions are interchangeable, as compared with only 6 percent in the 2013 survey.

As a result of this emerging trend, some global analysts of high credibility estimate that innovative biologic brands will lose around US$110 billion in sales to their biosimilar versions by 2025.

Another March, 2016 report of IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics states that lower-cost biosimilar versions of complex biologic, could save the US and Europe’s five top markets as much as US$112 billion by 2020,

These encouraging developments in the global biosimilar arena are expected to encourage the capable Indian biosimilar drug players to invest in this high-tech format of drug development, and reap a rich harvest as the high priced blockbuster biologic brands go off-patent.

Conclusion:

Putting all these developments together, and considering the rapidly emerging scenario in this space, it now appears that challenges ahead for rapid acceptance of biosimilar drugs though are still many, but not insurmountable, at all.

The situation necessitates application of fresh and innovative marketing strategies to gain doctors’ confidence on biosimilar medicines, in total conformance with the regulatory requirements for the same, as they are, in the most important regulated markets of the world.

It goes without saying that success in the generation of enough prescriptions for biosimilar drugs is the fundamental requirement to benefit the patients, which, in turn, would lead to significant savings in health care cost, as estimated above, creating a win-win situation for all, in every way.

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

Biocon’s grand announcement of its entry with a ‘made in India’ biosimilar drug in one of the word’s top three pharma markets, would probably be a great encouragement for all other Indian biosimilar drug manufacturers. It clearly showcases the capabilities of an Indian drug manufacturer to chart in an uncharted and a highly complex frontier of medicine.

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.