Innovation: Is Big Pharma Talking Differently?

Posted on September 17, 2018 by Tapan Ray

“Nearly 2 billion people have no access to basic medicines, causing a cascade of preventable misery and suffering. Good health is impossible without access to pharmaceutical products.” The World Health Organization’s (WHO) ‘Access to Medicine’ report on ‘Ten years in public health 2007–2017’ made this observation.

It also reemphasized: “A significant proportion of the world’s population, especially in developing countries, has yet to derive much benefit from innovations that are commonplace elsewhere.” Despite this, continued lobbying of many pharma companies for TRIPS-plus measures and legislation, the breaching of laws or codes relating to corruption and unethical marketing, and several blatant instances of company misconduct continues, even today.

In the midst of this situation, has Big Pharma started thinking differently about the purpose of innovation? I shall try to explore the ground reality in this article.

The argument of Big Pharma:

In response to the above observation or anything akin to that, Big Pharma has counter arguments, which are rather contentious, as many believe. They generally say, it is the responsibility of the different governments to alleviate health misery of the citizens, and not theirs. In tandem, they keep repeating the same old argument, underscoring lower prices of innovative drugs would lead to lower profit generation, significantly slowing down the process of innovation.

Drug innovation follows an arduous path and an expensive process:

Big Pharma wants people to comprehend about what it entails in the journey of discovering a New Molecular Entity (NME) and converting it to a safe and effective medicine.

For example, in its booklet Bayer explained: ‘it takes about ten to twelve years to develop a new drug. during this time, highly qualified scientists from a variety of disciplines work on filtering out a suitable active ingredient from an enormous number of compounds. Between 5,000 and 10,000 compounds are rigorously studied in numerous laboratory tests and the best ones further optimized. out of four or five drug candidates that are then tested on humans in clinical studies often only one substance is approved and becomes available to physicians and patients.”

The entire process reportedly takes around 14 years, and according to a 2016 study by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development - developing a new prescription drug, which gains marketing approval, is estimated to cost drug manufacturers USD 2.6 billion. Besides, a new analysis conducted at Forbes finds that getting a single drug to market may involve an expenditure of USD 350 million before the medicine is available for sale. It concludes, large pharmaceutical companies that are working on dozens of drug projects, spend USD 5 billion per new medicine.

Drug innovation is only for those who can afford:

As is being witnessed by many, Big Pharma always tend to argue that high R&D costs drive new drug prices up in pharma. Moving a step further, that drug innovation is for only those patients who can afford, was justified even by the CEO of a major constituent of Big Pharma. An article published in Forbes Magazine on December 05, 2013 wrote: “At the Financial Times Global Pharmaceutical & Biotech Conference this week, Bayer AG CEO, Marijn Dekkers, is reported to have said that Bayer didn’t develop its cancer drug, Nexavar (sorafenib) for India but for Western patients that can afford it.”

How strong is the justification for high new drug cost?

Instead of believing the pharma argument on its face value, it will be worthwhile to go for a dip-stick analysis. One such analysis, titled “Pharmaceutical industry profits and research and development”, published by the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy on November 17, 2017, presents some interesting facts.

It says, the pharmaceutical industry is a high-fixed-cost and low-marginal-cost industry. This means, as the authors explain, that the cost of bringing a new drug to market is very high and the process is risky, while the cost of producing an extra unit of a product that is on the market is frequently “pennies a pill”. It also, indicates, though there is a disagreement about the exact cost of bringing a new drug to market, there is general recognition that the process costs run a fewhundreds of millions of dollars per new drug. Thus, innovative drugs are supposed to be somewhat more expensive to many patients. But how much – is the question to ponder, I reckon.

An example of a new drug pricing:

Let me choose here, as an example, the pricing of one of the most contentious, but undoubtedly a breakthrough medicine – Sovaldi (Sofosbuvir) of Gilead. Sofosbuvir was discovered in 2007 – not by Gilead Sciences, but by Michael Sofia, a scientist at Pharmasset. The drug was first tested on human successfully in 2010. However, on January 17, 2012 Gilead announced completion of the acquisition of Pharmasset at approximately USD 11.2 billion.

Subsequently, on December 06, 2013, US-FDA approved Gilead’s Sovaldi (Sofosbuvir) for the treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C. Sovaldi was priced at USD 1,000 a day in the U.S., costingUSD 84,000 for a course of treatment. That Gilead can’t justify the price of its hepatitis C therapy – Sovaldi, was highlighted in an article with a similar title, published in the Forbes Magazine on June 17, 2014.

It is worth mentioning that Sovaldi costs around USD 67,000 for a course of therapy, in Germany. Whereas, it costs round USD 55,000 in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK). Gilead has accepted an altogether different pricing strategy for Sovaldi in some other countries, such as India and Egypt.

When the above concept is used to explain Sovaldi pricing:

The above Forbes paper explained its pricing by saying: “Add in other therapies that supplement Sovaldi, and now you’re talking about USD 100,000 or so to treat a single patient. To use Sovaldi to treat each of the 3 million hepatitis C patients in the United States, it would cost around USD 300 billion, or about the same amount we annually spend for all other drugs combined.”

Let me now put a couple of important numbers together to get a sense of the overall pricing scenario of a new drug. The New York Times (NYT) reported on February 03, 2015: “Gilead Sciences sold USD 10.3 billion of its new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi in 2014, a figure that brought it close to being the best-selling drug in the world in only its first year on the market.”

Against its just the first-year sale, let me put the cost of acquisition of Sovaldi at USD 11.2 billion, an expenditure of USD 350 million before the medicine is available for sale as calculated in the Forbes articleand the cost to manufacture a pill of Sovaldi at around USD 130. This reinforces the point, beyond any doubt how ‘outrageous’ its pricing is.Even Gilead’s CEO admitted to failures in setting price of Sovaldi at USD 1,000-A-Pill, said another article on the subject. More important is, the costs to Gilead for Sovaldi acquisition and launch were virtually recovered in just a little over a year, but Sovaldi’s original price tag remains unaltered.

Is the Big Pharma talking differently now?

It appears that some constituents of Big Pharma have now started talking differently in this regard, publicly – at least, in letters, if not in both letter and spirit. Be that as it may, one will possibly be too naïve to accept such sporadic signals coming from pharma, as a shift in their fundamental thought pattern on drug innovation as a profit booster. Being highly optimistic in this area, I would rather say that these are early days to conclude that Big Pharma has really accepted the reality that – drug innovation is only meaningful, if it reaches those patients who need them the most.

Changing…not changing…or early days?

Let me explain this point with examples of changing…not changing…orearly days.

Changing?

On July 24, 2018 during an interview to Pharm Exec the head of the sub-Saharan African region for Roche made some key points, such as:

Groundbreaking innovation in medical science is only meaningful, if it reaches the patients who need it.

Access to healthcare is a multidimensional challenge and key to addressing the barriers, is really understanding them

Need to create a new business model that can sustainably – and this is very important – create access for patients.

Not changing?

When one Big Pharma constituent is showing some change in its approach on the purpose of innovation, another constituent is trying to make the entry of cheaper biosimilar drugs even tougher. This creates yet another doubt – both on safety and efficacy of biosimilars, as compared to much higher priced off-patent original biologic drugs.In August 2018, Pfizer reportedly called for US-FDA guidance on ‘false or misleading information’ about biosimilars, citing some of the following examples from other Big Pharma constituents, such as:

Genentech’s “Examine Biosimilars” website, which states that “the FDA requires a biosimilar to be highly similar, but not identical to the existing biologic medicine.” Pfizer argues that Genentech’s omission of the fact that an approved biosimilar must have no clinically meaningful differences from its reference product is a failure to properly communicate the definition of a biosimilar.

Janssen Biotech’s patient brochure for brand-name Remicade, which states that a biosimilar works “in a similar way” to a biosimilar without clarifying that the biosimilar must have the same mechanism of action as the originator. Pfizer also takes issue with the brochure’s suggestion that no infliximab biosimilar has been proven to be safe or effective in a switching study.

Amgen’s April 13, 2018, tweet that states that patients may react differently to biosimilars than to reference products. Pfizer also points out an Amgen YouTube video that implies that switching to a biosimilar is unsafe for patients who are well controlled on a current therapy.

Interestingly, on July 20, 2018 Pfizer announced that the US-FDA has approved Nivestym (filgrastim-aafi), a biosimilar to Neupogen (filgrastim) of Amgen, for all eligible indications of the reference product. This is the fourth US-FDA approved Pfizer biosimilar drug, the marketing and sales promotion of which expectedly, I reckon, will be no different from other biosimilars.

Early days?

Yes, it appears so. These are early days to draw any definitive conclusion on the subject.

Conclusion:

W.H.O observed in its above report that the ‘overall situation is somewhat improving’. It was also corroborated in the ‘2016 Access to Medicines Index’, which gave high marks to those companies that negotiated licenses for antiretrovirals and hepatitis C medicines through the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). MPP was set up in 2010 as a public health organization supported by the United Nations to improve access to HIV, hepatitis and tuberculosis treatments in low- and middle- income countries.

It could well be, on the purpose of drug innovation some new realization has dawned, at least, on some few global pharma majors. However, it is still difficult to fathom its depth, at this point of time. There is no conclusive signal to believe that the Big Pharma is now thinking differently on the subject, not just yet.

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.

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Posted on July 11, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The upcoming trend of jaw dropping high prices for new patented drugs sends a ‘storm signal’ to many stakeholders, especially for its adverse impact on patient access. Even more intriguing, such high and insane prices are being fixed rather arbitrarily, without any valid reason whatsoever.

It has now been well established, very clearly, that this trend has no linkages with the necessity of keeping the wheel of cost-intensive new drug development initiatives moving, uninterruptedly.

Many believe that this dangerous inclination of the global pharma players picked up, in a major way, with the launch of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), costing around US$ 1,000 per pill in the United States. This new drug has no relationship with Gilead’s own R&D initiatives, just as many other high priced patented drugs belonging to this genre.

Additionally, the current brand pricing strategy of even those pharma companies who are developing new drugs in-house, is equally intriguing, as those drug prices too have no direct or indirect relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. As I discussed that issue in my Blog on August 18, 2014 in an article titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments”, I am not arguing on those points here again.

Nevertheless, these unholy practices did not go unnoticed. Anguish against irresponsible pricing, adversely impacting patient access, started gaining momentum, all over. A raging debate has also kick-started on this issue within a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including various Governments and other payers.

They all are questioning, should the Governments, health insurance companies and other payers support such windfall profits of the so called ‘research based’ pharma companies’?

In this article, I shall deliberate on this issue, just when the voices of disgust against this unholy trend have started multiplying.

A palpable disgust expressed in a recent article:

Against this arbitrary drug pricing trend, a good number of doctors have started raising their voices, with a discernible disgust.

“We’re all paying a high price for drug company profiteering”, thundered Dr. Daniel J. Stone, an internal medicine and geriatric medicine specialist, in an Op-Ed published in ‘The Los Angeles Times’ on July 6, 2016.

Dr. Stone further reiterated, “The drug companies are ripping us off, pill by pill, shot by shot. Instead of working to earn reasonable returns by relieving our suffering and saving lives, they now focus on profits above all. Their main targets are insurance companies. But when insurance companies take a hit, they bump up premiums to employers or the government. So we all pay - in taxes, reduced take-home pay, copayments and deductibles.”

Windfall profits:

The article focuses on this new trend in the global pharma industry, adversely affecting access to, especially, the new drugs to a vast majority of the patients. The author unambiguously highlighted that this dangerous pricing strategy got a major thrust from Gilead Sciences Inc. with its acquisition of sofosbuvir’s (Sovaldi) developer – ‘Pharmasset’ in 2011, for US$ 11 billion.

According to Dr. Stone, ‘Pharmasset’s chief executive made an estimated US$ 255 million on the deal, and its 82 employees each averaged around US$ 3.3 million, before Sovaldi came to the market. Thereafter, it’s a history. Gilead took a double markup on the drug, charging enough not just to more than cover the high cost of acquisition of ‘Pharmasset’, but also for making windfall profits.

The reason behind irresponsible pricing:

The question, therefore, arises, how do the global pharma players dare to go for such irresponsible pricing in many countries of the world?

It is possible for them because the payers, especially the health insurance companies, usually find it difficult to out rightly ignore any unique and new life saving patented medicine for various reasons. As a result, the concerned companies, allegedly effectively use these payers, and also a large section of doctors who can prescribe these brands, facilitating them to make huge profits at the cost of patients.

The justification:

To justify such pricing, these pharma companies and their trade associations are apparently using fear as the key. Through various types of communications, they keep trying to convey that any attempt to restrict their so called ‘reasonable’ prices of these medicines would seriously jeopardize the innovative drug development process, jeopardizing the long term needs of the patients.

More recently, serious attempts were made to also establish Sovaldi’s so called ‘reasonable’ pricing, and its cost effectiveness, in an interesting way.

The company highlighted that Sovaldi is cost effective, not just in comparison to paying for other health care services that the drug might prevent, it also helps avoid cost intensive liver transplant, in many cases. With those costs not being incurred with Sovaldi, the patients, on the contrary, make some savings on the possible alternative treatment cost to fight this deadly disease.

Is it not an atrocious argument?

However, according to Dr. Stone, “This argument is a lot like a plumber billing a customer US$ 20,000 to fix a leaky pipe under the sink. Considering the costs of a possible flood, it might seem defensible. In the real world, any plumber charging based on ‘what you saved’ by preventing a potential catastrophe would lose business to competitors.”

A warning sign:

The above article also highlights, Sovaldi like drug price tag is an unmistakable warning sign, and the emerging trend of patented drug pricing system is a danger to the health of any nation. According to the author:

Reforming the financing of drug development will require more creativity.

The government should consider subsidizing research and development to reduce the industry’s risk, in return for oversight on pricing that would allow reasonable returns on investment.

Not possible without many doctors’ active support:

Though it is encouraging to see that some doctors, such as, Daniel J. Stone are raising their voices and arguing against this practice, a large number of other doctors are being actively influenced by the pharma companies to prescribe such products.

This is vindicated by the latest release from the Open Payments database of the Government of the United States. It shows that the drug and device makers of the country incurred a mind boggling expenditure of US$ 2.6 billion towards payment to doctors related to speakers’ fees, meals, royalties and other payments, in 2015. Under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of America, this is the second full year of the disclosure.

The total payment made by the drug and device makers to doctors and medical institutions for the year was shown as US$ 7.52 billion.

The point to ponder:

That said, the question that surfaces, if Gilead had to sell its drugs to individuals incurring ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, how many Sovaldi like drugs would it sell with equivalent to around US$ 80,000 treatments cost?

It won’t be too difficult to ferret out its answer, if we look at the countries, like India, with very high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on health care, in general, and medicines in particular.

A possible solution:

According to an article published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on February 8, 2007, Voluntary Licensing (VL)’ practices in the pharmaceutical sector could possibly be a solution to improving access to affordable medicines.

The Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents 2005, which is generally applicable to ‘me too’ type of new products, could place India at an advantage. In the absence of a grant of evergreen type of product patents, many global companies would ultimately prefer to offer VL to Indian generic manufacturers, under specific terms and conditions, mainly to salvage the situation.

However, such a VL is unlikely to have any potential value, if the IPO refuses to grant patents to those products falling under the above section. In that case, generic competition would possibly further bring down the prices.

Has it started working in India?

Just to recapitulate, starting with a flash back to the year 2006, one can see that Gilead followed the VL strategy for India, probably for the first time, for its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

At that time Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead. The company had signed a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

Interestingly, by that time Cipla had started selling one of the two versions of tenofovir, not licensed by Gilead. Cipla’s generic version was named Tenvir, available at a price of US$ 700 per person per year in India, against Gilead’s tenofovir (Viread) price of US$ 5,718 per patient per year in the developed Markets. Gilead’s target price for tenofovir in India was US$ 200 per month, as stated above.

Following this strategy, again in 2014, Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing know how and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

Accordingly, on September 15, 2014, international media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also announced, just as tenofovir, that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Once again, in July 2016, it was reported that a drug called Epclusa – the latest breakthrough treatment for Hepatitis C virus could soon be available in India following Gilead Sciences’ getting its marketing approval from the US FDA.

Press Trust of India (PTI) reported, as part of its effort to offer affordable treatment, Gilead Sciences, together with its 11 partners in India, are pioneering a VL model that transfers technology and Intellectual Property for the latest treatments and cures for viral Hepatitis and HIV.

Some other pharma majors of the world also seem to be attempting to overcome the safeguards provided in the Indian Patents Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest. Their strategy may not include VL, but also not so transparent ‘Patient Access Programs’, and the so called ‘flexible pricing’. All these mostly happen when the concerned companies sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act.

That said, I have not witnessed the global pharmaceutical companies’ issuing a flurry of VLs in India, as yet.

Another possible solution for India:

Another possible solution for India, although was scripted in Para 4. XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and notified on December 07, 2012, unfortunately has not taken shape even after four years.

On ‘Pricing of Patented Drugs’, NPPA 2012 categorically states as follows:

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

To utter disappointment of many, a strong will to make it happen, even by the new Government is still eluding, by far.

Conclusion:

Without having adequate access to new life-saving drugs, the struggle for life in the fierce battle against dangerous ailments, has indeed assumed an alarming dimension. This is being fuelled by the absence of Universal Health Coverage, and ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on medicines in India being one of the highest in the world.

It would continue to remain so, up until the global pharma majors consider entering into a VL agreement with the Indian pharma majors, just as Gilead. Otherwise, the Government in power should demonstrate its strong will to act, putting in place a transparent model of ‘patented drugs pricing’, without succumbing to any power play or pressures of any kind from vested interests.

Sans these strong initiatives, the dangerous trend of patented drug pricing will continue to deny access of many new medicines to a vast majority of the population to save precious lives.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma R&D: Chasing A Rainbow To Replicate The Past

Posted on January 25, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Would future be always a replica of the past?

If the response is yes, the efforts of many global pharma players to replicate the successful Research and Development (R&D) models of long gone by days, would continue to be a grand success. The new drug pipeline would remain rich and sustainable. R&D costs would be increasingly more productive, with the rapid and more frequent churning out of blockbuster drugs, in various therapy areas.

However, an affirmative response to this question, if any, has to be necessarily supported by relevant credible data from independent sources.

Additionally, yet another equally critical query would surface. Why then the prices of newer innovative drugs have started going through the roof, with the rapid escalation of R&D expenses?

Thus, there is a need to ponder whether the continued hard effort by many large innovator companies in this direction is yielding the desired results or not.

In this article, I shall try to dwell on this issue with the most recent data available with us.

A new research report:

A new research report of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions titled, “Measuring the return from pharmaceutical innovation 2015: Transforming R&D returns in uncertain times” states that the R&D returns of major life sciences industry groups have fallen to their lowest point in 2015, since 2010. The report tracked and reviewed the estimated returns of 12 leading global life sciences companies.

Some of the data presented in this report would give an idea about the magnitude of current challenges in this space. Nevertheless, there could be a few rare and sporadic green shoots, which can also be cited to claim a revival in this area.

I am quoting below some key pharma R&D trends, for the period starting from 2010 to 2015, as illustrated in the Deloitte report:

A. Declining R&D productivity:

Year	R&D return (%)
2010	10.1
2011	7.6
2012	7.3
2013	4.8
2014	5.5
2015	4.2

B. Increasing drug development cost with decreasing estimated sales:

During 2010 to 2015 period, the average peak sales estimate per drug has fallen by 50 percent from US$ 816 million to US$416 million per year, while the development costs per drug, during the same period increased by 33 percent, from US$ 1.188 billion to US$ 1.576 billion.

C. Smaller Companies showing better R&D productivity:

Between 2013-2015, relatively smaller companies showed better R&D productivity as follows:

Big companies: 5 percent
Mid to large cap companies: 17 percent

D. External innovation becoming increasingly more important:

Again, mid to large cap companies opting for more external innovation are showing a higher proportion of late stage pipeline value, as below:

Big companies: 54 percent
Mid to large cap companies: 79 percent

A fear of failure?

The Deloitte report throws some light on the general stakeholders’ concerns about the exorbitantly high price fixation for innovative new drugs by the concerned companies, together with consequential macroeconomic pressures.

One of the key suggestions made in this report, is to increase the focus on reduction of R&D costs, while accelerating the new drug development timelines. I shall broach upon this point briefly just in a short while.

However, the stark reality today, the hard efforts still being made by many large global drug companies to almost replicate the old paradigm of highly productive pharma R&D, though with some tweaking here or there, are not yielding expected results. The return on R&D investments is sharply going south, as the new drug prices rocketing towards north.

Is it happening due to a paralyzing fear of failure, that moving out of the known and the traditional sphere of the new drug discovery models could impact the stock markets adversely, making the concerned CEOs operational environment too hot to bear?

Be that as it may, without venturing into the uncharted frontiers of the new drug discovery models, would it at all be possible to bring out such drugs at a reasonable affordable price to the patients, ever?

I have deliberated before, in this blog, some of the possible eclectic ways in this area, including in one of my very recent articles on January 4, 2016 titled, “2015: Pharma Industry Achieved Some, Could Achieve Some More”.

New innovative drugs evaluated over priced:

Here, I would not quote the prices of Sovaldi and its ilk, which are known to many. I intend to give examples of just two other new drugs that have triggered significant interest as potential advances for the care of patients in two common disease areas, namely, asthma and diabetes. These two drugs are GlaxoSmithKline’s Nucala® (Mepolizumab) for Asthma and Novo Nordisk’s Tresiba® (Insulin Degludec) for Diabetes.

According a December 21, 2015 report of the ‘Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)’ of the United States:

“The annual price of mepolizumab would need to be discounted 63-76% to be better aligned with value to patients and the health system, while insulin degludec would need to be discounted less than 10% to do so.”

Thus, there has been a growing mismatch between the value that new innovative drugs, in general, offers to the patients and the price that the innovator companies fix for such drugs. This trend, if continues, would significantly limit patients’ access to new drugs, as the pharma players keep chasing disproportionately high profitability to increase their shareholder value.

External sourcing of R&D may not make new drugs affordable:

Taking a cue from the highly successful strategy of Gilead, especially what it has done with Sovaldi and Harvoni, if other major global pharma players’ also try to enrich their late stage new drug molecule pipeline from external sources, would that effectively resolve the core issue?

In my view, this could possibly be one of the ways to contain R&D expenses and with much lesser risk, as suggested in the Deloitte report. However, I doubt, whether the same would effectively help bringing down the prices of newer innovative drugs, in tandem.

This is primarily because of the following contemporary example, that we now have with us.

Although the active compound that is used to manufacture Sovaldi, or for that matter even Harvoni, is not Gilead’s in-house discovery, the prices of these drugs have already gone through the roof.

It is altogether a different matter that robust patent laws along with the Government vigilance on obnoxious drug pricing is gradually increasing in various countries. Some developed and developing markets of the world, including the Unites States and the United Kingdom, either already have or are now mulling for an effective counter check to irresponsible drug pricing, primarily by putting the ‘innovation’ bogey right at the very front.

In India, prompted by its robust patent law and to avoid any possibility of Compulsory Licensing (CL), Gilead ultimately decided to give Voluntary Licenses (CL) for Sovaldi to several Indian drug companies. These pharma players will manufacture the drug in India and market it in the country at a much lesser price.

A new cooperative effort for cancer drugs:

On January 11 2016, ‘The New York Times’ reported the formation of ‘National Immunotherapy Coalition (NIC)’. This is a cooperative effort by some leading global pharma companies to speed up the testing of new types of cancer drugs that harness the body’s immune system to battle tumors. The NIC will try to rapidly test various combinations of such drugs.

This is important, as many researchers believe that combinations of two or more drugs that engage different parts of the immune system might be effective for more patients than a single drug.

On the face of it, this initiative appears to be a step in the right direction and could make the cancer drugs more affordable to patients. However, only future will tell us whether it happens that way or not.

Conclusion:

Nevertheless, the bottom line is, to make the new innovative drugs available at an affordable price to patients, along with strict vigilance by the government bodies, the old and a traditional ball game of drug discovery has to change.

This would necessarily require fresh eyes, inquiring minds and high IQ brains that can bring forth at least significant eclectic changes, if not a disruptive innovation, in the new drug discovery and development process, across the world.

Otherwise, and especially when the low-hanging fruits of drug discovery have already been plucked, if the major global pharma players continue striving to replicate the grand old path of new drug discovery, the efforts could very likely be, and quite akin to, chasing a rainbow.

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.

Reverberations Around The Proposed New IPR Policy Of India

Posted on February 16, 2015 by Tapan Ray

“If the Obama administration succeeds in forcing India to strengthen its patent laws, the change would harm not only India and other developing countries; it would also enshrine a grossly corrupt and inefficient patent system in the US, in which companies increase their profits by driving out the competition – both at home and abroad. After all, generic drugs from India often provide the lowest-cost option in the US market once patent terms have expired.”

The above sharp, piercing and precise comment did not come from any health activist from India or elsewhere. It came from a team of highly credible academic experts working in the United States.

On February 10, 2015, Nobel Laureate in Economics – Joseph E. Stiglitz, who is also University Professor at Columbia University, former Chairman of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers and Chief Economist of the World Bank, made this comment in an article published in ‘The World Opinion Page’ of ‘Project Syndicate’.

The article is co-authored by Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC and Arjun Jayadev, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.

The authors arrived at the above conclusion based on some sound arguments. I am highlighting below some of those important ones (may not be in the same order):

A patent that raises the price of a drug a hundred-fold has the same effect on the market as a 10,000 percent tariff.

India’s Patents and Act and policies allow drugs to be sold at a small fraction of the monopoly prices commanded by patent holders. For example, the Hepatitis-C drug Sovaldi is sold for US$84,000 per treatment in the US; Indian manufacturers are able to sell the generic version profitably for less than US$1,000 per treatment.

The threat of competition from Indian generics is partly responsible for major pharmaceutical companies’ decision to make some of their drugs available to the world’s poor at low prices. If the US compels India to tighten its patent rules substantially, so that they resemble US rules more closely, this outcome could be jeopardized.

Multilateral approach, using the World Trade Organization (WTO), has proved less effective than the major multinational pharmaceutical companies hoped, so now they are attempting to achieve this goal through bilateral and regional agreements.

In the view of America’s pharmaceutical industry, TRIPS did not go far enough. The Indian government’s desire to enhance its trade relations with the US thus provides the industry an ideal opportunity to pick up where TRIPS left off, by compelling India to make patents easier to obtain and to reduce the availability of low-cost generics.

In September 2014, during his visit to the US, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to establish a working group to reevaluate the country’s patent policy. The US participants in that group will be led by the Office of the US Trade Representative, which serves the pharmaceutical companies’ interests, rather than, say, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, or the National Institutes of Health.

Any comparable voice in favor of changes in Indian Patents Act?

I don’t seem to have heard or read as strong arguments from as credible sources as Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz, Dean Baker and Arjun Jayadev – the authors of the above article, in favor of the changes that American pharma companies want in the Indian Patents Act.

India at the center stage in IPR debate:

In the IPR debate, India is continuously being seen at the center stage for various reasons. The key one being the size, scale and economic efficiency that the home grown Indian pharma players have attained to cater to the needs of a large number of global population, including those residing in the United States and Europe, with a wide range of high quality generic drugs at affordable prices.

Fast evolving scenario:

It is now absolutely clear that being rattled by several refusals of India’s granting product patent to very similar molecules with minor tweaking under section (3d) of the country’s Patents Act, together with the nation’s uprightness in issuing Compulsory License (CL) for an enormously expensive cancer drug reducing its price by over 95 percent, United States now intends to directly intervene into India’s IPR policy environment.

As Nobel Laureate Stiglitz wrote, keen desire of the new dispensation of the Indian government to enhance its trade relations with the US has provided a golden opportunity to American pharma companies and their paid lobbyists to jump into the fray. They have started exerting enormous pressure on their own Government to compel India, at bilateral discussions, dilute its well-balanced Patents Act, ignoring India’s sovereign right to play by the flexibilities as provided by the WTO to protect public health interest in the country.

Both the domestic and international civil society organizations, including public health activists have expressed their serious concerns on this aggressive intent of US and India’s seemingly vulnerable position in this regard.

“The US is pushing India to play by its rules on Intellectual Property, which we know will lead to medicines being priced out of reach for millions of people,” commented the Executive Director of MSF’s Access Campaign, according to media reports.

Non-pharma American Organizations reacted differently:

14 American organizations in a letter to their President Barack Obama dated January 20, 2015, just prior to his visit to India, asked him “to support India’s central role in providing high-quality, low-cost generic medicines -which are essential for health care around the world. Recent U.S. policy stances have sought to topple parts of India’s intellectual property regime that protect public health in order to advance the interests of multinational pharmaceutical corporations in longer, stronger, and broader exclusive patent and related monopoly rights. India’s laws fully comply with the WTO TRIPS Agreement. Millions around the world depend on affordable generic medicines that would disappear if India acceded to these proposals, including many beneficiaries of US-funded programs. Instead of using your trip to promote the narrow interests of one segment of the pharmaceutical industry, we ask you to support the interests of people who need affordable medicines, whether they live in the U.S., in India, in Africa or elsewhere. Our world is safer and healthier because of India’s pro-health stance and we ask you to say so publicly while you are there.”

The letter re-emphasized at the end:

“From Detroit to New Delhi, health is increasingly interconnected. Our world is safer when it is healthier, and it is healthier because India’s laws appropriately balance health and IP.”

An interesting development:

It is interesting to note that after Winter Session of the Indian Parliament, the Modi Government announced a number of important policy changes at the end of December 2014.

Interestingly, one more critical policy – National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy has been left open for public comments and the final IPR Policy is yet to be announced despite enormous American pressure on India in this regard.

Without any specifics, the first draft of the National IPR policy just states that India will “review and update IP laws, where necessary, and remove anomalies and inconsistencies, if any.” It does emphasize though, the need of “more innovation” in the country, unequivocally and quite justifiably.

I wrote on the draft National IPR Policy in my blog post of January 19, 2015, titled “New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”.

Conclusion:

It is generally believed that the National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy is undoubtedly a positive step to clarify the Government’s stand in maintaining a balanced IP regime in the country that would encourage innovation to add speed to the progress of the nation.

In just 10 years Indian IPR regime has, by and large, attracted enormous global attention mostly for balancing IP and public health interest, admirably. Experts like Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz sincerely hope that India will not change this course under pressure of any kind or form.

Be that as it may, several recent media reports also speculated, around the same time, that Government of India is probably considering putting in place ‘Data Exclusivity’ and ‘Patent Linkage’ through administrative measures, without making any amendments in the Patents Act of the country.

In my subsequent articles in this blog, I shall deliberate on these two contentious issues, keeping the evolving scenario in perspective.

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.

New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective

Posted on January 19, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Whether under pressure or not, is hardly of any relevance now. What is relevant today is the fact that the new Indian Government, almost in a record time of just around two months, has been able to release a high quality first draft of an important national policy for public discourse.

In October 2014, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) constituted a six-member ‘Think Tank’ chaired by Justice (Retd.) Prabha Sridevan to draft the ‘National IPR Policy’ of India and taking quick strides, on December 19, 2014, released its first draft of 29 pages seeking stakeholders’ comments and suggestions on or before January 30, 2015. A meeting with the stakeholders has now been scheduled on February 5, 2015 to take it forward.

A quick glance at the Draft IPR Policy:

The proposed ‘Mission Statement’ as stated in the draft “National IPR Policy” is:

“To establish a dynamic, vibrant and balanced intellectual property system in India, to foster innovation and creativity in a knowledge economy and to accelerate economic growth, employment and entrepreneurship.”

Specifying its vision, mission and objectives, the draft policy suggests adopting a catchy national slogan to increase IP awareness: ‘Creative India; Innovative India’ and integrating IP with “Smart cities”, “Digital India” and “Make in India” campaigns of the new Government.

The ‘Think Tank’ dwells on the following seven areas:

IP Awareness and Promotion
Creation of IP
Legal and Legislative Framework
IP Administration and Management
Commercialization of IP
Enforcement and Adjudication
Human Capital Development

In the policy document, the ‘Think Tank’ has discussed all the above seven areas in detail. However, putting all these in a nutshell, I shall highlight only three of those important areas.

1. To encourage IP, the ‘Think Tank’ proposes to provide statutory incentives, like tax benefits linked to IP creation, for the entire value chain from IP creation to commercialization.

2. For speedy redressal of patent related disputes, specialized patent benches in the high courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras have been mooted. The draft also proposes creation of regional benches of the IPAB in all five regions where IPOs are already located and at least one designated IP court at the district level.

3. The draft concludes by highlighting that a high level body would monitor the progress of implementation of the National IP Policy, linked with performance indicators, targeted results and deliverables. Annual evaluation of overall working of the National IP Policy and quantification of the results achieved during the period have also been suggested, along with a major review of the policy after 3 years.

Although the National IPR policy cuts across the entire industrial spectrum and domains, in this article I shall deliberate on it solely from the pharmaceutical industry perspective.

Stakeholders’ keen interest in the National IPR Policy – Key reasons:

Despite full support of the domestic pharmaceutical industry, the angst of the pharma MNCs on the well-balanced product patent regime in India has been simmering since its very inception, way back in 2005.

A chronicle of recent events, besides the seven objectives of the IPR policy as enumerated above, created fresh general inquisitiveness on how would this new policy impact the current pharmaceutical patent regime of India, both in favor and also against.

Here below are examples of some of those events:

At a Congressional hearing of the United States in July 2013, a Congressman reportedly expressed his anger and called for taking actions against India by saying:

“Like all of you, my blood boils, when I hear that India is revoking and denying patents and granting compulsory licenses for cancer treatments or adopting local content requirements.”

This short video clipping captures the tone and mood of one such hearing of the US lawmakers.

On April 30, 2014, the United States in its report on annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement, named ‘Special 301 report’, classified India as a ‘Priority Watch List Country’. Placement of a trading partner on the ‘Priority Watch List’ or ‘Watch List’ indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on IP.

It further stated that USTR would conduct an Out of Cycle Review (OCR) of India focusing in particular on assessing progress made in establishing and building effective, meaningful, and constructive engagement with the Government of India on IPR issues of concern. An OCR is a tool that USTR uses on adverse IPR issues and for heightened engagement with a trading partner to address and remedy in those areas.

“India misuses its own IP system to boost its domestic industries,” commented the US Senator Orrin Hatch while introducing the 2014 report of the Global Intellectual Property Centre (GIPC) of US Chamber of Commerce on ‘International Intellectual Property (IP) Index’. In this report, India featured at the bottom of a list of 25 countries, scoring only 6.95 out of 30. The main reasons for the low score in the report were cited as follows:

- India’s patentability requirements are (allegedly) in violations of ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)’ Agreement.

- Non-availability of regulatory data protection

- Non-availability of patent term restoration

- The use of Compulsory Licensing (CL) for commercial, non-emergency situations.

Based on this report, US Chamber of Commerce urged USTR to classify India as a “Priority Foreign Country”, a terminology reserved for the worst IP offenders, which could lead to trade sanctions.

In the midst of all these, international media reported:

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi got an earful from both constituents and the US drug industry about India’s approach to drug patents during his first visit to the US last month. Three weeks later, there is evidence the government will take a considered approach to the contested issue.”

Washington based powerful pharmaceutical industry lobby group – PhRMA, which seemingly dominates all MNC pharma trade associations globally, has reportedly urged the US government to continue to keep its pressure on India in this matter. According to industry sources, PhRMA has a strong indirect presence and influence in India too. Interestingly, as reported in the media a senior representative of this lobby group would be India when President Obama visits the country later this month.

In view of all these concerns, during Prime Minister Narendra Modis’s visit to the United States in September 2014, a high-level Indo-US working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries.

Almost immediately after the Prime Minister’s return to India, in October 2014, the Government formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’ to draft ‘National IPR Policy’ and suggest ways and legal means to handle undue pressure exerted by other countries in IPR related areas. The notification mandated the ‘Think Tank’ to examine the current issues raised by the industry associations, including those that have appeared in the media and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce and Industry as appropriate.

However, the domestic pharma industry of India, many international and national experts together with the local stakeholders continue to strongly argue against any fundamental changes in the prevailing patent regime of India.

A perspective of National IPR Policy in view of Pharma MNCs’ concerns:

I shall now focus on four key areas of concern/allegations against India on IPR and in those specific areas what has the draft National IPR Policy enumerated.

- Concern 1: “India’s patentability requirements are in violations of ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)’ Agreement.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “India recognizes that effective protection of IP rights is essential for making optimal use of the innovative and creative capabilities of its people. India has a long history of IP laws, which have evolved taking into consideration national needs and international commitments. The existing laws were either enacted or revised after the TRIPS Agreement and are fully compliant with it. These laws along with various judicial pronouncements provide a stable and effective legal framework for protection and promotion of IP.”

A recent vindication: Just last week (January 15, 2015), Indian Patent Office’s (IPO’s) rejection of a key patent claim on Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) of Gilead Sciences Inc. further reinforces that India’s patent regime is robust and on course.

Gilead’s patent application was opposed by Hyderabad based Natco Pharma. According to the ruling of the IPO, a new “molecule with minor changes, in addition to the novelty, must show significantly enhanced therapeutic efficacy” when compared with a prior compound. This is essential to be in conformity with the Indian Patents Act 2005. Gilead’s patent application failed to comply with this legal requirement.

Although Sovaldi ((sofosbuvir) carries an international price tag of US$84,000 for just one treatment course, Gilead, probably evaluating the robustness of Sovaldi patent against Indian Patents Act, had already planned to sell this drug in India at a rice of US$ 900 for the same 12 weeks of therapy.

It is envisaged that this new development at the IPO would prompt entry of a good number of generic equivalents of Sovaldi. As a result, the price of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) formulations would further come down, despite prior licensing agreements of Gilead in India, fetching huge relief to a large number of patients suffering from Hepatitis C Virus, in the country.

However, reacting to this development Gilead has said, “The main patent applications covering sofosbuvir are still pending before the Indian Patent Office…This rejection relates to the patent application covering the metabolites of sofosbuvir. We (Gilead) are pleased that the Patent Office found in favor of the novelty and inventiveness of our claims, but believe their Section 3(d) decision to be improper. Gilead strongly defends its intellectual property. The company will be appealing the decision as well as exploring additional procedural options.”

For more on this subject, please read my blog post of September 22, 2014 titled, “Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India”

- Concern 2: “Future negotiations in international forums and with other countries.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “In future negotiations in international forums and with other countries, India shall continue to give precedence to its national development priorities whilst adhering to its international commitments and avoiding TRIPS plus provisions.”

- Concern 3: “Data Exclusivity or Regulatory Data Protection.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity.”

- Concern 4: “Non-availability of patent term restoration, patent linkage, use of compulsory licensing (CL) for commercial, non-emergency situations”.

Draft IPR Policy: Does dwell on these issues.

I discussed a similar subject in my blog post of October 20, 2014 titled, “Unilateral American Action on Agreed Bilateral Issues: Would India Remain Unfazed?”

Conclusion:

Overall, the first draft of the outcome-based model of the National IPR Policy appears to me as fair and balanced, especially considering its approach to the evolving IPR regime within the pharmaceutical industry of India.

The draft policy though touches upon the ‘Utility Model’, intriguingly does not deliberate on ‘Open Source Innovation’ or ‘Open Innovation’.

Be that as it may, the suggested pathway for IPR in India seems to be clear, unambiguous, and transparent. The draft policy understandably has not taken any extreme stance on any aspect of the IP. Nor does it succumb to high voltage power play of the United States and its allies in the IPR space, which, if considered, could go against the public health interest.

It is heartening to note, a high level body would monitor the progress of implementation of the National IPR Policy, which will be linked with performance indicators, targeted results and deliverables. Annual evaluation of the overall working of the policy and the results achieved will also be undertaken. A major review of the policy will be done after 3 years.

That said, pharma MNCs in general, don’t seem to quite agree with this draft policy probably based purely on commercial considerations, shorn of public health interest. It is quite evident, when a senior lobbyist of a powerful American pharma lobby group reportedly commented to Indian media on the draft National IPR Policy as follows:

“Real progress will only be achieved when India demonstrates through policy change that it does indeed value the importance of intellectual property, especially for the innovative treatments and cures of today and tomorrow”.

It appears, India continues to hold its stated ground on IPR with clearly enunciated policy statements. On the other hand MNCs don’t stop playing hardball either. Though these are still early days, the question that floats on the top of mind: Who would blink first?…India? Do you reckon so?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India

Posted on September 22, 2014 by Tapan Ray

I had mentioned in my blog post of August 4, 2014, titled “Hepatitis C: A Silent, Deadly Disease: Treatment beyond reach of Most Indians” that in line with Gilead’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company would offer to license production of sofosbuvir (brand name Sovaldi) to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing knowhow, allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.

Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) is a once-a-day patented drug of Gilead for cure of chronic hepatitis C infection in most patients. Sovaldi has been priced at Rs 60,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet in the developed markets with a three-month course costing Rs1.8 Crore (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a tablet. This treatment cost is being considered very high even for many Americans and Europeans.

Gilead has also announced that it has set a minimum threshold price for Sovaldi of US$ 300 (Rs.18,000) a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost of Sovaldi per patient would be about US$ 900 (Rs.54,000) for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000 (Rs1.8 Crore). The company would offer this price to at least 80 countries.

Breaking-news in India:

On September 15, 2014, International media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also reported that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Indian companies would require paying 7 per cent of their revenues as royalty to Gilead, which, in turn would ensure full technology transfer to them to produce both the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and finished formulations. The generic version of Sovaldi is likely to be available in India in the second or third quarter of 2015, at the earliest.

Another reason of Gilead’s selecting the Indian generic manufacturers could possibly be, that of much of the global supply of generic finished formulations is manufactured in India, especially for the developing countries of the world.

Patent status, broad strategy and the possibility:

It is worth noting here that the Indian Patent Office (IPO) has not recognized Sovaldi’s (sofosbuvir) patent for the domestic market, just yet. This patent application has been opposed on the ground that it is an “old science, known compound.”

It is interesting that the Indian Pharmaceutical Association (IPA) and others, such as, Delhi Network of Positive People and Natco have reportedly opposed Sovaldi’s (sofosbuvir) patent application. If the patent for this drug does not come through, low priced generic versions of Sovaldi, without any licensing agreement with Gilead, would possibly capture the Indian market.

Conversely, due to unaffordable price of Sovaldi for most of the Hepatitis C patients, even if a patent is granted for this drug in India, the sword of Compulsory License (CL) on the ground of ‘reasonably affordable price’ looms large on this product.

To negate the possibility of any CL, in the best-case scenario of a patent grant, Gilead seems to have decided to enter into licensing agreement with seven other Indian generic manufacturers to create a sense of adequate competition in the market, as many believe.

However, if the IPO considers sofosbuvir not patentable in India, it would indeed be a double whammy for Gilead. Without any patent protection, all these in licensing agreements may also fall flat on the face, paving the way of greater access of much lesser priced generic sofosbuvir to patients, as indicated above.

The action replay:

If we flash back to the year 2006, we shall see that Gilead had followed exactly the same strategy for another of its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

1. Voluntary license:

At that time also Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead.

Gilead did sign a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

The arrangement was somewhat like this. Gilead would charge a royalty of 5 percent on the access price of US$ 200 a year for the drug. Any company that signs a manufacturing agreement with Gilead to manufacture API of tenofovir would be able to sell them only to those generic manufacturers that have voluntary license agreements with Gilead.

2. Patent challenge:

Like sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), Gilead had filed a patent application for tenofovir (Viread) in India at that time. However, the ‘Indian Network for People Living with HIV/AIDs’ challenged this patent application on similar grounds.

3. Patent grant refused:

In September 2009, IPO refused the grant of patent for tenofovir to Gilead, citing specific reasons for its non-conformance to the Indian Patents Act 2005. As a result, the voluntary license agreements that Gilead had already signed with the Indian generic manufacturers were in jeopardy.

Current status:

In 2014, while planning the launch strategy of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) for India, Gilead seems to have mimicked the ‘Action Replay’ of 2006 involving tenofovir, at least, in the first two stages, as detailed above. Only the patent status of sofosbuvir from the IPO is now awaited. If IPO refuses patent grant for sofosbuvir, Gilead’s fate in India with sofosbuvir could exactly be the same as tenofovir, almost frame by frame.

Gilead and the two top players in India:

Very briefly, I would deliberate below the strategic stance taken by two top generic players in india, from 2006 to 2014, in entering into voluntary licensing agreements with Gilead for two of its big products, as I understand.

Ranbaxy:

In my view, the stand of Ranbaxy in Gilead’s India strategy of voluntary licensing in the last eight years has remained unchanged. It involves both sofosbuvir and tenofovir.Thus, there has been a clear consistency in approach on the part of Ranbaxy on this issue.

Cipla:

Conversely, an apparent shift in Cipla’s strategic position during this period has become a bone of contention to many. For tenofovir, Cipla did not sign any voluntary license agreement with Gilead. On the contrary, it came out with its own version of this product, that too much before IPO refused to grant patent for this drug.

However, unlike 2006, Cipla decided to sign a voluntary license agreement with Gilead for sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) in 2014, though no patent has yet been granted for this product in India.

Has Cipla changed its position on drug patent?

I find in various reports that this contentious issue keeps coming up every now and then today. Some die-hards have expressed disappointments. Others articulated that the new dispensation in Cipla management, has decided to take a different stance in such matter altogether.

In my view, no tectonic shift has taken place in Cipla’s position on the drug patent issue, just yet.

The owner of Cipla, the legendary Dr.Yusuf Hamied has always been saying: ‘I Am Not Against Patents … I Am Against Monopolies’

He has also reportedly been quoted saying: “About 70 per cent of the patented drugs sold worldwide are not invented by the owning companies”.

He had urged the government, instead of having to fight for CL for expensive lifesaving medicines by the generic drug makers, where voluntary licenses are not forthcoming, the government needs to pass a law giving the generic players “automatic license of rights” for such drugs, making these medicines affordable and thereby improving access to patients. In return, the local generic manufacturers would pay 4 percent royalty on net sales to patent holders. He was also very candid in articulating, if Big Pharma would come into the developing markets, like India, with reasonable prices, Cipla would not come out against it.

According to Dr. Hamied, “When you are in healthcare, you are saving lives. You have to have a humanitarian approach. You have to take into account what it costs to make and what people can pay.”

Considering all these, I reckon, the core value of Cipla and its stand on patents have not changed much, if at all, for the following reasons:

The voluntary license agreement of Cipla with Gilead for sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) along with six other generic manufacturers of India, unlike tenofovir, still vindicates its strong opposition to drug monopoly, respecting product patents.

Cipla along with manufacturing of sofosbuvir, maintains its right to market the product at a price that it considers affordable for the patients in India.

Conclusion:

Indian Patents Act 2005 has the requisite teeth to tame the most aggressive and ruthless players in drug pricing even for the most feared diseases of the world, such as, HIV/AIDS, cancer, Hepatitis C and others.

Many global drug companies, resourceful international pharma lobby groups and governments in the developed world are opposing this commendable Act, tooth and nail, generating enormous international political pressure and even chasing it in the highest court of law in India, but in vain. Glivec case is just one example.

Some pharma majors of the world seem to be attempting to overcome this Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest in India. Their strategy includes not just voluntary licenses, but also not so transparent, though well hyped, ‘Patient Access Programs’ and the so called ‘flexible pricing’, mostly when the concerned companies are able to sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act 2005.

It has happened once with even Gilead in 2006. The drug was tenofovir. Following the same old strategy of voluntary licenses and relatively lower pricing, especially when its drug patent is pending with IPO post patent challenges, Gilead intends to launch Sovaldi in India now.

Carrying the baggage of its past in India, Gilead seems to have been caught between a rock and the hard place with sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) launch in the country. On the one hand, the risk of uncertain outcome of its patent application and on the other, the risk of CL for exorbitant high price of the drug, if the patent is granted by the IPO. Probably considering all these, the company decided to repeat its 2006 tenofovir strategy of voluntary licenses, yet again in 2014, for Sovaldi in India.

As of today, Sovaldi strategy of Gilead in India appears to be progressing in the same direction as tenofovir, the way I see it. However, the final decision of IPO on the grant of its patent holds the key to future success of similar high-voltage, seemingly benign, marketing warfare of pharma majors of the world.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments

Posted on August 18, 2014 by Tapan Ray

The costs of most of the new life saving drugs, used in the treatment of dreaded diseases such as cancer, have now started going north at a brisk pace, more than ever before.

From the global pharma industry perspective, the standard answer to this disturbing phenomenon has remained unchanged over a period of time. It continues to argue; with the same old emphasis and much challenged details that the high drug price is due to rapidly escalating R&D expenses.

However, experts have reasons to believe that irrespective of R&D costs, the companies stretch the new drug prices to the farthest edge to maximize profits. Generation of highest possible revenue for the product is the goal. Passing on the benefits of the new drug to a large number of patients does not matter, at all.

How credible is the industry argument?

In this context, let me take the example of Hepatitis C drug – Sovaldi of Gilead. Many now know that for each patient Sovaldi costs US$ 30,000 a month and US$ 84,000 for a treatment course.

According to an article published in Forbes, one health executive estimated that the annual price tag for Sovaldi could reach US$ 300 Billion because so many people have Hepatitis C infection worldwide. This mindboggling amount is more than all spending on all drugs in the United States, currently. A more realistic number might be between US$7 Billion and $12 Billion a year. Even that amount is roughly five times the amount Gilead spends each year on research.

Like Sovaldi, in many other instances too, industry argument of recovering high R&D investment through product pricing would fall flat on its face.

Need to put all the cards on the table:

The distinguished author underscores in his article the expected responsibilities of the experts in this area to ask the global pharma industry to connect the dots for all us between:

The societal goals they aim to achieve
The costs they incur on R&D
The profits they should reasonably be earning.

Public investments in R&D:

Another article titled, “Putting Price On Life”, argues that R&D projects are mainly initiated in the public sphere through tax-funded research. Unfortunately, patients do not derive any benefit of these public investments in terms of reduction in prices for the related drugs. On the contrary, they effectively pay for these new products twice – once through tax-funded research and then paying full purchase price of the same drug.

Additionally, industry corners the praise for the work done by others in tax-funded research, while at the same time making R&D less risky, as public funded research groups carry out most of the initial risk prone and breakthrough innovation.

The article also highlights that global pharma companies receive other tax credits over billions of dollars for their expenditure on R&D. However, the R&D figures that are produced are not adjusted to take into account the tax credits, thereby inflating costs and the prices of drugs.

All these tax credits significantly lower the private costs of doing the R&D in the United States, increasing the private returns. Interestingly, there does not seem to be any public information regarding who gets the tax credit and what the credit is used for, while the government does not retain any rights in the R&D.

Does pharma R&D always create novel drugs?

According to a report, US-FDA approved 667 new drugs from 2000 to 2007. Out of these only 75 (11 percent) were innovative molecules having much superior therapeutic profile than the available drugs. However, more than 80 percent of 667 approved molecules were not found to be better than those, which are already available in the market.

Thus, the question that very often being raised by many is, why so much money is spent on discovery and development of ‘me-too’ drugs, and thereafter on aggressive marketing for their prescription generation? This is important, as the patients pay for the entire cost of such drugs including the profit, after being prescribed by the doctors?

Should Pharma R&D move away from its traditional models?

The critical point to ponder today, should the pharmaceutical R&D now move from its traditional comfort zone of expensive one company initiative to a much less charted frontier of sharing drug discovery involving many players? If this approach gains acceptance sooner, it could lead to significant increase in R&D productivity at a much lesser cost, benefiting the patients at large.

Finding the right pathway in this direction is more important today than ever before, as the R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, keeps going south and that too at a faster pace.

Current IPR mechanism failing to deliver:

Current mechanism of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), especially in the pharmaceutical space, undoubtedly facilitates spiraling high drug prices with no respite to patients and payers, as access to these drugs gets severely restricted to the privileged few, denying ‘right to life’ to many.

Moreover, the current global ‘Pharma Patent System’ does not differentiate between qualities of innovations. The system extends equal incentives for pricing the drugs as high as possible, even if those offer little advantages to patients. Fortunately, this loophole has been plugged in the Indian Patents Act 2005, to a large extent.

That said, there is no well-structured incentive available to develop clinically superior drugs with public funding, even in India, so that prices could be significantly lower with equally lesser risks to the companies too.

Conclusion:

Current pricing system of patented medicines is even more intriguing, as these have no direct or indirect co-relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. On the contrary, drug prices allegedly go up due to other avoidable high expenditures, such as, physicians’ gratification oriented marketing, which includes even reported bribing, high profile political lobbying and private jet setting key executives lifestyle with exorbitant compensation packages, besides others.

To effectively address this issue, besides public R&D funding, there has been a number of suggestions for creation of a win-win pathway like, creation of “Health Impact Fund’. There are other inclusive, sustainable and cost effective R&D models too, such as ‘Open Innovation’ and ‘Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)’, to choose from.

A recent HBR Article titled “A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain” also highlighted, “Open innovation projects (where organizations facing tricky problems invite outsiders to take a crack at solving them) always present cognitive challenges, of course. But they also force new, boundary-spanning human interactions and fresh perspective taking. They require people to reach out to other people, and thus foster social interaction.” This articulation further reinforces the relevance of a new, contemporary and inclusive drug innovation model for greater patient access with reasonable affordability.

Be that as it may, ‘Patented Drug Pricing’ does not seem to have any relevance to a company’s investments towards R&D. On the contrary, the companies charge the maximum price that they could possibly handle to maximize profits on these life saving medicines.

In an environment of indifference like this, it is the responsibility of other stakeholders, especially the government, to ensure, by invoking all available measures, that life saving medications for dreaded diseases such as cancer, can get to those who need them the most, come what may.

Is the ever-alert new Government listening?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Hepatitis C: A Silent, Deadly Disease: Treatment Beyond Reach of Most Indians

Posted on August 4, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Every year, July 28 is remembered as the ‘World Hepatitis Day’. In India, this year too, the day had gone by virtually uneventful, for various reasons. This happened despite increasing trend of the disease in the country.

Though, there are five main hepatitis virus types, namely A, B, C, D and E, of which B and C are the most fatal, in this article, I shall focus mainly on hepatitis C.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), globally around 150 million people are infected with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV), which is considered as one of the key factors for liver cirrhosis, fibrosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. At least, 350,000 HCV infected people die annually from these ailments.

A July 2014 study conducted by Metropolis Healthcare reportedly found that 17.97 percent of 78,102 samples studied in major cities of India such as, Mumbai, Delhi and Chennai, were infected with HCV and the patients belonged to the age group of 20 to 30 years. Out of 10,534 the tested sample in the age group of 0 to 10 years, 3,254 samples (30.89 percent) tested positive with HCV.

Institutes of Medicine (IOM) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the United States consider hepatitis C infections a “silent epidemic,” as many patients infected with HCV are symptom free, without even leaving any hint to them that they are infected. The infected persons may feel healthy, even when serious liver damage is taking place, sometimes through decades.

All these patients are also potential carriers of HCV, risking rapid spread of the virus, as identification of the infected individuals for remedial measures continue to remain mostly eluding in India.

According to experts, around 80 percent of the HCV patients ultimately develop chronic hepatitis with serious liver damage, causing significant debility. With further progression of the disease, around 20 percent of these patients could develop fatal liver cirrhosis and 5 percent may fall victim of liver cancer.

A situation like this, is indeed a cause of yet another major worry in the healthcare space of India. Deadly hepatitis C crisis would likely to worsen much, if it does not receive healthcare focus of all stakeholders, sooner.

Traditional treatment regime:

There is no vaccine developed for HCV, as yet. HCV usually spreads through sharing of needles, syringes or other equipment to inject drugs, infected blood transfusion and tattooing, among others.

The standard treatment for HCV is interferon-based injections, which could make patients feel ill and give rise to flulike symptoms. Moreover, the treatment with interferon lasts from six months to a year and cures only 40 to 50 of HCV infected patients.

Now, chronic HCV treatment also includes a combination of three drugs – ribavirin (RBV), pegylated interferon (PEG) and a protease inhibitor, such as, simeprevir or boceprevir or telaprevir. These three drug combinations inhibit viral replication for enhancing immune response of the body to hopefully eradicate the virus.

At times, patients with very advanced liver disease may not be able to tolerate this traditional treatment with interferon-based injections, as those could make them feel worse.

The latest development in treatment:

There has been a significant advance in the treatment of HCV patients today with a new drug in the form of tablet that has doubled the viral cure rates from 40 to 50 percent to 90 to 100 percent.

Moreover, the new drug not just enables the physicians switching from injectibles to oral tablet, but at the same time reduces the duration of treatment to just 12 weeks, instead of 6 months to one year, offering a huge advantage to patients suffering from HCV.

This new generation of treatment now includes only Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) of Gilead, which is the first drug approved to treat certain types of hepatitis C infection, without any compelling need to co-administer with interferon.

Some other global pharma majors, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck & Co, Johnson & Johnson and AbbVie are also developing oral treatment regimens for HCV. All these have shown equally dramatic results in clinical trials, reducing the requirement for debilitating interferon injections.

Allegation of profiteering:

Looking at the high cure rate of more than 90 per cent for much-distressed HCV infected patients, none would possibly dispute that Sovaldi of Gilead signifies a giant leap in the treatment of HCV. But Gilead, according to a ‘Financial Times (FT)’ report, faces strong criticism of alleged ‘profiteering’ for its pricing strategy of this drug.

Sovaldi has been priced by Gilead at Rs 60,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet with a three-month course costing Rs1.8 Crore (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a tablet. This treatment cost is being considered very high for many Americans and Europeans too.

“At the US price, Gilead will recoup its Sovaldi development investment . . . in a single year and then stand to make extraordinary profits off the backs of US consumers, who will subsidize the drug for other patients around the globe”, the FT report states.

This line of argument has been gaining ground on Capitol Hill, as well. This month, two senior members of the US Senate Finance Committee wrote to John Martin, Gilead Chief Executive, asking him to justify Sovaldi’s price, the report mentioned.

Half yearly sales of US$ 5.8 billion came from just 9,000 patients:

Be that as it may, the bottom line is, in the midst of huge global concerns over alleged ‘profiteering’ with this exorbitantly priced HCV drug, Gilead has reportedly registered US$ 5.8 billion in sales for Sovaldi in the first half of 2014.

The company has reportedly noted on its earnings call that it believes 9,000 people have been cured of HCV so far with Sovaldi. This means that the 6-month turnover of Sovaldi of US$ 5.8 billion has come just from 9000 patients. If we take the total number of HCV infected patients at 150 million globally, this new drug has benefited just a minuscule fraction of less than one percent of the total number of patients, despite clocking mind-boggling turnover and profit.

Stakeholders’ pressure building up:

Coming under intense pressure from all possible corners, Gilead has reportedly announced that it has set a minimum threshold price of US$ 300 a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost per patient would be about US$ 900 for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000. The company would offer that price to at least 80 countries.

For this special price, Gilead reportedly has targeted mostly the world’s poorest nations, but also included some middle income ones such as Egypt, which has by far the highest prevalence of HCV in the world. In Egypt, about 10 million people remain chronically infected and 100,000 new infections occur each year, according to Egyptian government figures. However, independent surveys put this number between 200,000 and 300,000. Gilead has already signed an agreement with the Egyptian government in early July 2014 and the drug would be available there in September 2014. This would make Egypt the first to have access to Sovaldi outside the US and the EU.

What about India?

Gilead has reportedly announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing knowhow and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

This is indeed a welcoming news for the country and needs to be encouraged for expeditious implementation with support and co-operation from all concerned.

Regulatory requirement:

However, despite all good intent, Gilead says, “ Some countries, such as India and China, are not satisfied with the tests conducted in the US and elsewhere for Sovaldi. They want additional clinical trials to be conducted on their own patients as a precondition for authorization, which will add extra costs and delays.”

Patent status:

It is worth noting here that the Indian patent office has not even recognized Sovaldi’s patent for the domestic market.

Local measures to address chronic hepatitis:

On May 22, 2014, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution to improve prevention, diagnosis and treatment of viral hepatitis, in general. However, as things stand today in India, the surveillance systems for viral hepatitis are grossly inadequate and preventive measures are not universally implemented.

The Union Government of India has now expressed its intent to set up ten regional laboratories through the National Communicable Disease Centre (NCDC) for surveillance of viral hepatitis in the country. The key objective of these laboratories would be to ascertain the burden of viral hepatitis in India by 2017 and to provide lab support for investigating outbreaks.

Government sources indicate, the initial focus would be more on the preventive aspects rather than treatment of viral hepatitis given the limited health resources available. Setting up universal guidelines for immunization along with mass awareness and education have been considered as critical to fight this dreaded disease in the country. Simultaneously introduction of nucleic acid testing (NAT) and standardization of blood bank practices would be undertaken for preventing blood transfusions related viral hepatitis, in general.

Treatment for HCV is not widely available in the country. All types of HCV treatments, especially the newer and innovative ones, must be made available to all infected patients, as these drugs have high cure rates, short duration of treatment and minimal side effects.

Conclusion:

Viral hepatitis in general and hepatitis C in particular are becoming great national health concerns, as these contribute to significant morbidity and mortality, further adding to the national economic burden. India should just not strengthen its prevention strategies; it needs to focus on all the factors that influence speedy diagnosis and treatment of HCV.

As the WHO says, “New drugs have the potential to transform hepatitis C treatment, with safe and simple treatments resulting in cure rates of over 90 per cent”. The raging debate on Sovaldi needs to explore the newer avenues and measures for appropriately pricing the innovative medicines in the days ahead.

Concerned pharma players, the government and other stakeholders must work together and in unison to ensure that all those infected with HCV are diagnosed quickly and have access to life-saving treatments.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Sovaldi

Innovation: Is Big Pharma Talking Differently?

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Pharma R&D: Chasing A Rainbow To Replicate The Past

Reverberations Around The Proposed New IPR Policy Of India

New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective

Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India

Hepatitis C: A Silent, Deadly Disease: Treatment Beyond Reach of Most Indians