Ticking Some Right Boxes Biosimilar Drugs’ Acceptance Gaining Steam in India

Posted on September 24, 2023 by Tapan Ray

Looking at a broader canvas, on September 19, 2023, a credible international report flashed a headline, ‘Biosimilars making inroads into Humira sales, but docs still cautious on switching: Spherix.’ This is based on a survey of U.S. healthcare specialists, including 80 dermatologists, 83 gastroenterologists and 81 rheumatologists.

This is indeed a significant development in the realm of biologic and biosimilar drugs, internationally. If this trend gathers a strong wind on its sales, it will effectively address the need for affordable biologic drugs, especially in life threatening ailments.

According to another January 05, 2023 report, Humira, which dominated the top of the global pharmaceutical brand ranking charts between 2012 and 2022, has slipped in 2023 to no 3 in ranking as it lost its last patent protection in the US in May 2022. Doctors’ gradual acceptance of biosimilars and the price could be a key differentiator among the competitors, potentially hastening Humira’s sales decline.

On July 31, 2017, I wrote an article in this blog captioned “Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers.” Interestingly, 6 years down the line, reflecting the same sentiment – the above September 19, 2023, report also noted that ‘efficacy remains “top of mind” as prescribers’ leading concern for adalimumab (Humira) biosimilars, followed by safety concerns and an overall lack of cost savings.’

In today’s article, I shall particularly focus on the latest developments in India and the initiatives taken by the concerned stakeholders in this area. Let me start with a quick recap of biosimilar drugs, in my understanding, so that we all are on the same page while discussing the subject.

A quick recap:

As we know, biologic drugs are medicines made from living organisms, such as bacteria, yeast, or cells. They are used to treat a wide range of conditions, including cancer, autoimmune diseases, and infectious diseases. Biosimilar drugs are highly similar copies of original biologic drugs that have gone off patent and are typically less expensive than the original biologic drugs. However, there are still some existing barriers to doctors’ fast and wider acceptance of biosimilar drugs by many.

Current global barriers to doctors’ fast acceptance of biosimilar drugs:

Lack of awareness and education: Many doctors are not familiar with biosimilar drugs or the regulatory process that oversees them. This lack of awareness may lead to skepticism and hesitation about prescribing biosimilar drugs to patients.

Concerns about safety and efficacy: Some doctors are concerned that biosimilar drugs may not be as safe or effective as biologic drugs. These concerns are often based on a misunderstanding of the regulatory process for biosimilar drugs.

Financial incentives: Some doctors may be reluctant to prescribe biosimilar drugs because they receive financial incentives from biologic drug manufacturers. These incentives can take the form of speaking fees, consulting fees, and research grants.

Regulatory uncertainty: In some countries, the regulatory framework for biosimilar drugs is still evolving. This uncertainty can make it difficult for doctors to know which biosimilar drugs are safe and effective, and how to use them effectively.

Some contemporary examples show that these barriers still exist:

As shown by the following contemporary data available to the public:

In 2022, a study published in the journal JAMA found that only 25% of US doctors were aware that biosimilar drugs are just as safe and effective as biologic drugs.

In 2023, a study published in the journal Annals of Rheumatic Diseases found that only 30% of rheumatologists in the UK were willing to prescribe biosimilar drugs to their patients.

In 2023, a study published in the journal Cancer found that oncologists in the US were more likely to prescribe biologic drugs to their patients if they had received financial incentives from biologic drug manufacturers.

In 2023, a report published by the European Commission found that the regulatory framework for biosimilar drugs in the EU is still complex and fragmented.

Measures being taken to address these barriers, globally?

There are a number of things that can be done to address the barriers to doctors’ fast acceptance of biosimilar drugs. These include:

Education and outreach: More needs to be done to educate doctors about biosimilar drugs and the regulatory process that oversees them. This education should come from a variety of sources, including medical schools, professional organizations, and pharmaceutical companies.

Financial transparency: Pharmaceutical companies should be required to disclose all financial payments they make to doctors. This transparency will help to reduce the potential for conflicts of interest.

Regulatory harmonization: The EU should work to harmonize the regulatory framework for biosimilar drugs across member states. This will make it easier for doctors to prescribe biosimilar drugs to their patients.

By addressing these barriers, it is possible to increase the acceptance of biosimilar drugs and make them more accessible to patients. This will lead to lower healthcare costs and improved patient outcomes.

Indian scenario of biosimilar drugs, issues and actions:

As reported, India is a global leader in the production and development of biosimilar drugs. The Indian biosimilar market is expected to reach $30 billion by 2025. Biosimilar drugs in India are typically 30-70% cheaper than original biologic drugs. For example, a vial of the biologic drug Herceptin costs around INR 1 lakh, while a vial of the biosimilar drug Trastuzumab costs around INR 30,000.

The key reasons for price arbitrage:

The price difference between biosimilar drugs and original biologic drugs is due to a number of factors, including:

Lower development costs: Biosimilar drugs are less expensive to develop than original biologic drugs because they do not require the same level of research and clinical trials.

Increased competition: There is more competition among biosimilar manufacturers, which drives down prices.

Government support: The Indian government provides financial incentives to biosimilar manufacturers, which also helps to keep prices low.

Biologic drugs, especially biosimilar insulin, some medications for cancer and a variety of autoimmune diseases, have been proved to be very effective for patients. That said, original biologic drugs can also be very expensive. Biosimilar drugs are making these drugs more affordable for patients.

Indian stakeholder initiatives and support is essential:

Indian key stakeholders are also supportive of the biosimilar industry and have taken a number of steps to promote its growth. Some of the recent ones are:

In 2022, the Indian government announced a new policy that will give preference to biosimilar drugs in government procurement. This policy is expected to save the government billions of dollars in healthcare costs.

In 2023, the Indian government launched a new awareness campaign to promote the use of biosimilar drugs. The campaign is targeting doctors, patients, and healthcare policymakers.

In 2023, a number of leading private hospitals in India announced that they would be switching to biosimilar drugs for a range of conditions. These hospitals include Apollo Hospitals, Fortis Healthcare, and Max Healthcare.

In 2023, the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA) released a report that found that the use of biosimilar drugs in India had increased by 20% in the past year. The report also found that the use of biosimilar drugs was expected to continue to grow in the coming years.

These are just a few examples of the growing acceptance of biosimilar drugs in India. As more and more doctors and patients become aware of the benefits of biosimilar drugs, we can expect to see their use continue to grow in the coming years.

State-specific advantages for greater acceptance of biosimilar drugs in India:

As available from different reports, the following are some specific examples of state-specific advantages that have led to the greater acceptance of biosimilar drugs in India:

In 2022, the government of Maharashtra launched a scheme to provide financial incentives to doctors who prescribe biosimilar drugs. Under the scheme, doctors who prescribe biosimilar drugs to at least 20% of their patients are eligible to receive a bonus of up to INR 10,000 per month.

In 2023, the government of Gujarat launched a campaign called “Biosimilar Drugs: Safe, Effective, and Affordable.” The campaign aims to educate doctors and patients about the benefits of biosimilar drugs and to dispel any myths or misconceptions about them.

The states of Karnataka and Telangana have a number of leading biopharmaceutical companies that are developing and manufacturing biosimilar drugs. These companies are working with doctors and hospitals in these states to promote the use of biosimilar drugs.

As a result of these advantages, the acceptance of biosimilar drugs is growing rapidly in some states in India. For example, in Maharashtra, the use of biosimilar drugs increased by 25% in the past year.

Conclusion:

Against the above backdrop, I reckon, the acceptance of biosimilar drugs is gaining steam in India now. This is due to a number of factors, including rising costs of original biologic drugs, government support, growing availability of biosimilar drugs, and increasing awareness and education.

It is important to note that biosimilar drugs are just as safe and effective as original biologic drugs, but they are much more affordable. This is making it possible for more patients to access the treatment they need, especially for life-threatening ailments.

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.

Pharma Branding At Tough Times

Posted on November 18, 2019 by Tapan Ray

“About two-thirds of drug launches don’t meet expectations. Improving that record requires pharmaceutical companies to recognize the world has changed and adjust their marketing accordingly.” This appeared in an article – “The secret of successful drug launches,” published by McKinsey & Company in March 2014. There isn’t any recent evidence, either, that this situation has improved now.

Even innovative drugs no longer guarantee a commercial success, as greater competition is building up there, as well. Today, the number of such drugs per indication has risen by 37 percent since 2006 making the task tougher, according to another article of McKinsey & Company, titled ‘Why innovative products aren’t enough for a successful pharma launch,’ brought out in August 2017.

Top marketers’ intimate involvement in these launches, backed by robust marketing strategies notwithstanding, large scale ‘brand failures’ or rather ‘branding failures,’ still remains unavoidable. Although, its telltale signs are more often visible immediately after launch, but may happen even several years after.

Pundits are just not scratching their heads, but doing extensive research to fathom why it happens. However, with changing times – the market dynamics and the research outcomes/inferences keep changing too. And that will be the focus of my today’s discussion in this article, while I explore various facets of the same.

Is pharma branding just a marketing exercise?

That pharma branding is not just a marketing exercise and its failure at any stage – from launch to even years after, I reckon, isn’t the sole responsibility of the pharma marketer. This is mainly because, doctors would ideally prefer to prescribe specific pharma brands and patients would feel confident to use those, because of successful construction of a positive brand bias. Which in turn creates a higher perceived efficacy and a low anticipated safety concern with the brand.

Although, it will be right to assume that good pharma marketers are solely responsible for the creation of this intangible brand asset, but the tangible intrinsic brand value should necessarily be ingrained into each dose of the same that patients consume, always.

Thus, tangible brand value creation, its maintenance, if not enhancement, span across many other functional domains of a drug company. Some of these include, unbiased reporting with expected disclosures of all clinical trial results, maintaining a robust and highly efficient supply chain network or high-quality manufacturing facilities, besides a few others. Evidences exist that irrational pricing could also result in a kind of brand failure. Considering these aspects in totality, creating a positive bias during a pharma brand-building process, is a collective responsibility, and not just of the marketers.

Why creating a positive brand bias is a collective responsibility?

There are ample examples to substantiate that creating a positive stakeholder bias during its brand-building process, is a collective responsibility. Let me illustrate this point by drawing a few examples of branded failures prompted by supply-chain network, disclosures on clinical development and of course perceived ‘irrational’ pricing that falls basically in the marketing domain. It is worth noting, similar incidents may also be related to the manufacturing process, even for top selling generic drugs.

Supply-chain: In the beginning of 2008, serious adverse drug events, some even fatal, were reported with Heparin (Baxter), which used to be widely used as an injectable anticoagulant. Around 80 people died from contaminated Heparin products in the U.S. The US FDA reported that such contaminated Heparin was detected from at least 12 other countries. The primary reason of the same was a serious breach in the supply-chain integrity.

Disclosures on clinical trial results: On 30 September 2004, Vioox (rofecoxib), a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that had been on the market since 1999, was suddenly withdrawn by its manufacturer MSD, owing to concerns about its effect on cardiovascular health.

‘Irrational’ pricing: Like a lot of new cancer drugs, Zaltrap (aflibercept) wasn’t cheap carrying a price tag of USD 9,600 a month. But its price was quickly taken down. This followed some serious public flak, such as, doctors from Memorial Sloan-Kettering (MSK) wrote a blistering review for The New York Times in November 2012. They declared that MSK was taking the drug off the institution’s formulary, because less expensive and just as good alternative angiogenesis inhibitors were available. Although, Sanofi initially defended the price, it subsequently backed down, cutting down the price by half.

Manufacturing process: On September 13, 2019, the FDA announced that preliminary tests found low levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in ranitidine (Zantac), a heartburn medication. Consequently, almost all companies, including Novartis (through its generic division, Sandoz), GSK, Apotex and many others announced its withdrawal from a large number of markets. Interestingly, these announcements came after a Connecticut-based online pharmacy informed the FDA that it had detected NDMA in multiple ranitidine products under certain test conditions. The NDMA impurity was believed to have been introduced by changes in the manufacturing process. There are several other well-reported examples, as well.

These examples vindicate that creating a positive brand bias remains a collective responsibility throughout the product lifecycle. And it involves several functional areas of drug companies. That said, let me now focus on the creation of a positive bias for pharma brands.

Creating a positive brand bias:

Skillful creation of a positive brand-bias, supported by high quality – tangible and intangible value offerings, is the net outcome of any successful branding process. It augments stakeholder confidence, leading to an increased prescription generation, alongside a favorable patient experience.

More often than not, a positive brand-bias successfully brings into being greater perceived brand-efficacy and higher perceived brand-quality, with lesser anticipated safety concerns. Consequently, the process invigorates an emotional bonding with customers for a long-term brand-loyalty. A positive brand-bias also creates a strong brand equity that often helps in working out a good pricing strategy for the company.

An interesting strategy prescribed – recently:

The October 8, 2019 issue of Fierce Pharma featured an article on creating a positive brand-bias with “Prime and prompt” marketing strategies, outlined by CMI/Compas.

According to Changing Minds: ‘Priming works by providing people with information that is easily brought to mind. The prompt that brings the information to mind can be an implanted and specific trigger or can be an associated term that will naturally bring back the primed information.’ Illustrating the point, it adds: ‘Prime-and-prompt can be a bit like firing a gun, where priming cocks and prompting pulls the trigger.’

Putting this concept in the pharma industry perspective, the CMI/Compas officials explained in the above article, ‘pharma marketers can create primes with product messages that condition people to recall their product when they need medicine or are diagnosed with a condition.’

Hence, a pharma marketer’s adroitness in the ‘priming’ strategy helps ‘prompt’ the desirable action, such as, going to a doctor to ask about a product. Hence, the persuasion technique is termed – ‘prime and prompt’, the paper explained. Naturally, the question that follows: what are the key principles behind this strategy?

Key principles behind ‘prime and prompt’ strategy:

As elucidated by the Changing Minds, when thinking and deciding, we are influenced by related information from the past. At that time, our memories would supply that information, which helps us understand, make sense, decide and act on the subject at hand. Thus, those things that come at the top of mind will have a more immediate and disproportionate influential effect, while those things which are long forgotten may have little or no effect.

It further adds: ‘Priming is driven by implicit memory, where recall is entirely unconscious as the person ‘just knows’ without having to think hard or otherwise put effort into remembering or working things out.’

How to apply the ‘prime and prompt’ strategy in pharma?

It’s no-brainer that to use ‘priming’ in the persuasion process, say for increasing prescription support, the marketers need to provide stakeholders with relevant information beforehand, and more importantly, in a different setting. And only thereafter, they need to focus on a normal brand persuasion strategy. One may most appropriately comment, this is easier said than done in the drug industry.

Taking a cue from the above interview with the CMI/Compas officials, some of the broad steps of the ‘prime and prompt’ strategy, I reckon, may be summarized as follows:

Consistent messaging through omnichannel media achieving target reach and frequency, as I had explained before.

For intended top of mind recall, a combination of print, digital, social, search, display at appropriate places and in TV, especially for OTC drugs, should consistently surround the target audience for ‘priming.’

According to a recent research, the most highly rated ‘priming’ spots for pharma ads for physicians are medical journals, conferences and the likes. Similarly, for patients, appropriate displays at doctors’ clinics and similar places also appeared to be one of the top-rated ‘priming’ spots.

Consequently, a well thought-out ‘priming’ strategy, skillfully executed – based on research findings, is expected to be effective. It will then help trigger desirable ‘prompts’ for the target-audience, augmenting a successful branding process. However, it comes with a caveat that the tangible intrinsic value of the brand, especially those which originate in other functional areas, don’t get compromised or changed in any way.

Conclusion:

Branding exercise in the pharma industry has never been more challenging, as it is today – both for innovative and generic drugs. As stated above, the number of innovative drugs per indication has risen by 37 percent since 2006, making the market competition tougher. Likewise, product proliferation with cut-throat pricing for branded generics, is also making the generic drug marketers grasping at straws, as it were.

In this challenging situation, creating a positive stakeholder bias for brands, as the net outcome of the pharma branding process, is a collective responsibility. Any non-marketing misstep in the tangible brand value offering, could sweep a brand away to oblivion – not just during launch, but at any stage of its life-cycle. Pharma marketers will of course be solely responsible to create the critical intangible brand assets, such as a positive stakeholder bias for brands.

At this tough time for pharma branding, several fresh marketing concepts like, ‘prime and prompt’ are now being seriously evaluated. Thus, I reckon, its also a time for astute marketers in the pharma industry to test the water, in pursuit of excellence.

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.

Pharma ‘Chatbots’: For Better Stakeholder Engagement

Posted on July 29, 2019 by Tapan Ray

The critical value of meaningful interaction and engagement with individual customers – responding to their specific needs, is fast drawing attention of many businesses, for sustainable performance excellence. The same is happening in the pharma industry, as well. Creative use of this process leveraging modern technological support systems, would also provide a unique scope of cutting-edge brand service differentiation, in well researched areas.

That, it is a very important focus area for the pharma players, is no-brainer. Nonetheless, what really matters most is the novelty in strategizing such interactions and engagements, especially with patients and doctors. I also wrote about it in my article, titled ‘Indian Pharma To Stay Ahead of Technology Curve,’ published in this blog on May 22, 2017. Over two years ago, I clearly indicated there that application of AI via digital tools, called ‘Chatbots’ – the shorter form of ‘Chat Robot’, is one of the ways that pharma may wish to explore this area.

Illustrating this point in that article, I mentioned that on March 05, 2017, a leading bank in India announced the launch of an AI-driven Chatbot named Eva, coined from the words Electronic Virtual Assistant (EVA), to add more value to their services for greater customer satisfaction. ‘According to reports, Eva is India’s first AI driven banking Chatbot that can answer millions of customer queries on its own, across multiple channels, immediately.’

In this article, I shall dwell on this interesting area, with a primary focus on pharma sales and marketing, and assess the progress made in this space, thus far, by several drug companies, including some Indian players. Let me start by recapitulating the basic function and purpose of ‘Chatbots’ in pharma.

Pharma ‘Chatbots’ – the function and purpose:

Simply speaking, pharma ‘Chatbots’ are also AI-powered, fully automated virtual assistants. Its basic function is to mimic one-to-one human conversation on particular areas, as desired by the user. Likewise, its basic purpose is to genuinely help and assist the customers who are in search of right answers to specific disease related questions, in a one-to-one conversational format, having a higher source-credibility.

In that process, ‘Chatbots’ can effectively satisfy the patients and doctors by providing them the required information, immediately. In tandem, pharma companies also reap a rich harvest, by developing not just a trust-based healthy relationship with them, but also in building a robust corporate brand – creating a long-term goodwill that competition would possibly envy.

Effective customer satisfaction is an area that can’t be ignored:

In the digital age, a new type of general need is all pervasive, with its demand shooting north. This is the need to satisfy a voracious appetite among a large section of the population for all types of information, with effortless and prompt availability of the required details – as and when these come to one’s mind.

When such information need relates to health concern of a person, such as – available treatment options against affordability, or drug price comparisons – factoring in effectiveness, safety concern – exactly the same thing happens. Most individuals won’t have patience even to write an email and wait for an answer, even the wait is just for a short while.

In the current scenario, it will be interesting to fathom, how would a pharma company, generally, interact or engage with such patients, to further business and creating a possible long-time customer? Some companies have started responding to this need – effectively and efficiently, by providing easy access to information through ‘Chatbots’, created on advances AI platforms. But, such players are a few in number.

Can pharma also think of ‘Chatbots’, like ‘Siri’ or ‘Alexa’?

Today, several people are using standalone and branded Chatbot devices in everyday life, such as, Siri (Apple), Alexa (Amazon), Cortana (Microsoft) or Google Now (Android). Interestingly, many industries, including a few companies in pharma, have also started developing their own version of ‘Chatbot dialog application systems.’

Industry specific ‘Chatbots’ are designed to meet with some specific purpose of human communication, including a variety of customer interaction, information acquisition and engagement – by providing a range of customized services to the target group.’ ‘Siri’ or ‘Alexa’ or the likes, on the other hand, are all-purpose general Chatbots, though, for everyday use of individuals. Thus, the question that comes up, in which areas pharma companies can use Chatbots to add value to their interactions and engagements with patients, in general, and also doctors.

Where to use ‘Chatbots’ as a new pharma marketing channel?

Some of the findings on the application of ‘Chatbots’, especially in pharma sales and marketing, featured in the CMI Media publication in December, 2016. It found that drug companies have a unique scope to leverage this new sales and marketing – channel, by developing ‘Chatbots’ in the company represented therapy areas. Following are just a few most simple illustrations of possible types ‘Chatbots’ for interaction and engagement with patients, which can be designed in interesting ways:

That can answer all types of patient questions on specific diseases, educate them about the disease and available treatment options with details.

That allows patients or physicians to get all relevant information about the prescription drugs that they require to prescribe for patients to start treatment, including potential side effects, adverse events, tolerability, dosing, efficacy and costs, besides others.

Once a treatment option is chosen, a third kind of Chatbot can help with patient adherence to treatment, provide reminders when the treatment should be administered, explain how to properly dose and administer the treatment, and other relevant information.

Chatbots could also be useful for doctors and nurses:

As the above paper finds, ‘Chatbots have value for serving healthcare professionals as well, for example:

When, physicians and nurses want to understand the pathogenesis, pathophysiology, and/or progression of a specific disease in their patients.

Although, such content may also be available on disease state awareness sites, but branded Chatbots would make that content readily available in more of an FAQ format.

When health care professionals would like to get data around safety/toxicity, or information about dosing strengths, calculations, and titrations, while using specific brands.

Chatbots can also be effectively utilized by the drug manufacturer to gain deep insights into customer behavior across all touchpoints, to enhance end-to-end customer experience, as I wrote in this blog on July 02, 2018. The data created through this process, can also be put to strategic use to design unique brand offerings.

Need to chart this frontier with caution:

Pharma, being a highly regulated industry in every country of the world, with a varying degree, though, the ‘Chatbot’ development process should strictly conform to all ‘Dos’ and ‘Don’ts’, as prescribed by the regulators of each country. Each and every content of the ‘Chatbot’ should pass through intense, not just regulatory, but also legal and medical scrutiny. Yet another, critical redline that ‘Chatbots’ should never cross is the ‘privacy’ of any individual involved in the process.

Three critical areas to consider for pharma ‘Chatbots’:

Effective pharma ‘Chatbots’ are expected to get ticks on all three of the following critical boxes:

Meeting clearly defined unmet needs of patients in search of a health care solution or most suitable disease treatment options.
Brand value offerings should match or be very close to the targeted patients’ and doctors’ expectations.
Should facilitate achieving company’s business objectives in a quantifiable manner, directly or indirectly, as was planned in advance.

Pharma has made some progress in this area, even in India:

To facilitate more meaningful and deeper engagements with patients, some drug companies, including, in India, are using ‘Chatbots.’ Here, I shall give just three examples to drive home the point – two from outside India and one from India.

October 23, 2018 issue of the pharma letter reported, a study from DRG Digital Manhattan Research found, ‘Novo Nordisk and Sanofi brands rank best for the digital type 2 diabetes patient experience.’ The article wrote, about some pharma players ‘facilitating deeper engagement through the use of automated tools like Chatbots to triage inquiries and get patients the answers they need faster, and through interactive content like quizzes and questionnaires that pull patients in and help them navigate health decisions,’ as follows:

Novo Nordisk‘s diabetes website includes an automated Chat feature dubbed “Ask Sophia,” helping patients access disease and condition management information more quickly.

Likewise, Merck & Co‘s website for Januvia employs interactive quizzes to educate patients and caregivers.

Similarly, on November 23, 2018, a leading Indian business daily came with a headline, ‘Lupin launches first Chatbot for patients to know about their ailments.’ It further elaborated, the Chatbot named ‘ANYA’, is designed to provide medically verified information for health-related queries. The disease awareness bot aims to answer patient queries related to ailments,’ the report highlighted.

Chatbots – global market outlook:

According to the report, titled ‘Healthcare Chatbots – Global Market Outlook (2017-2026),’the Global Healthcare Chat bots market accounted for USD 97.46 million in 2017 and is expected to reach USD 618.54 million by 2026 growing at a CAGR of 22.8 percent.

The increasing demand for Chatbot ‘virtual health assistance’, is fueled primarily by the following two key growth drivers, the report added:

Increasing penetration of high-speed Internet.
Rising adoption of smart devices.

Conclusion:

With the steep increase of the usage of the Internet and smart phones, general demand to have greater access to customized information is also showing a sharp ascending trend, over a period of time. A general expectation of individuals is to get such information immediately and in a user-friendly way.

Encouraged by this trend, and after a reasonably thorough information gathering process, mainly from the cyberspace, many patients now want to more actively participate in their treatment decision making process with the doctors. This new development has a great relevance to drug companies, besides other health service providers. They get an opportunity to proactively interact and engage with patients in various innovative ways, responding to individual health needs and requirements, thereby boosting the sales revenue of the corporation.

The unique AI-driven technological platform of pharma ‘Chatbots’, is emerging as cutting-edge tools for more productive stakeholder engagement – so important for achieving business excellence in the digital world. The recent growth trajectory of ‘Chatbots’ in the health care space, vindicates this point.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Exigency of Cybersecurity in Digitalized Pharma

Posted on October 8, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Digitalization – as it unfolds and imbibed by most drug companies, is presumed to herald a whole new ballgame in the Indian pharma business. Equally significant is the quantum benefit that the process will deliver to pharma stakeholders – right from drug companies to patients. It has already hastened the process of new drug discovery and will also help charting newer ways to meaningfully engage with stakeholders, besides enhancing treatment outcomes for patients, appreciably.

However, the flip side is, more benefits a company accrues from digitalization, greater will be the risks of cyber-attacks. Thus, preventive measures should also be equally robust. Otherwise, hackers can bring a company’s digital system to a standstill, causing not just a temporary loss in revenue and profit, but also valuable data leak, with considerable impact on even long-term business.

Strangely, associated risks of digitalization to pharma companies are seldom outlined in any discussion, leave aside alternatives for salvaging such untoward situation, if or as and when it comes. Unless, it is felt that the scope of such discussion doesn’t cover the implementors and falls totally on cybersecurity experts.

Nonetheless, it is intriguing in the pharma space. The reason being, pharma industry believes, while talking about the efficacy of any drug, its vulnerability in terms of side-effects, contraindications or drug interactions, should also be known to its users. That’s the purpose of a packaging leaflet. It’s a different reason though, that most drug companies in India have virtually jettisoned this practice as a cost saving measure, even for drugs that are not under price control. That apart, in this article, I shall explore the relevance of cybersecurity in the digitalized pharma world.

A question that help understand its implication:

During organizational transformation through digitalization in pharma, just like any other business, all crucial documents get transferred from paper to digital formats. The key question that follows in this regard is – what happens to these digital documents post cyber-attacks, if any? Any attempt to answer this question holistically will help people realize its implication – that ‘cybersecurity must be more than an afterthought.’

‘Cybersecurity must be more than an afterthought’:

The article, ‘Cybersecurity in the Age of Digital Transformation,’ published by MIT Technology Review Insights on January 23, 2017, stressed upon this critical point. It highlighted: “As companies embrace technologies such as the Internet of Things, big data, cloud, and mobility, security must be more than an afterthought. But in the digital era, the focus needs to shift from securing network perimeters to safeguarding data spread across systems, devices, and the cloud.”

Thus, while discussing the need to digitally transform a company’s business, cybersecurity must be part of that conversation from the very start – the paper underscored in no uncertain terms. That’s exactly what we are deliberating today - ‘as companies embark on their journeys of digital transformation, they must make cybersecurity a top priority.’

The cybersecurity threat may cripple innovation and slow business:

Cisco explored the concept of Cybersecurity as a Growth Advantage by a thought leadership global study. While assessing the impact of cybersecurity on digitalization, it surveyed more than 1,000 senior finance and line-of-business executives across 10 countries. Some of the key findings, as captured in the Cisco report, may be summarized, as follows:

71 percent of executives said that concerns over cybersecurity are impeding innovation in their organizations.

39 percent stated that they had halted mission-critical initiatives due to cybersecurity issues.

Interestingly, 73 percent of survey respondents admitted that they often embrace new technologies and business processes, despite cybersecurity risk. However, as we shall see below, pharma executives are quite confident of cybersecurity, probably because of inadequate experience in this area, as on date.

Companies are struggling with their capabilities in cyber-risk management:

The paper published in the May 2014 issue of the McKinsey Quarterly journal, titled “The rising strategic risks of cyberattacks”, also flagged this issue. It said: “More and more business value and personal information worldwide are rapidly migrating into digital form on open and globally interconnected technology platforms. As that happens, the risks from cyberattacks become increasingly daunting. Criminals pursue financial gain through fraud and identity theft; competitors steal intellectual property or disrupt business to grab advantage; ‘hacktivists’ pierce online firewalls to make political statements.”

McKinsey’s research study on the subject, conducted in partnership with the World Economic Forum also upheld that companies are struggling with their capabilities in cyber-risk management. As highly visible breaches occur with growing regularity, most technology executives believe that they are losing ground to attackers. Its ongoing cyber-risk-maturity survey research also ferreted out the following important points:

Large companies reported cross-sector gaps in their risk-management capabilities.
90 percent had “nascent” or “developing” ones.
5 percent was rated “mature” overall across the practice areas studied.

Interestingly, the research found no correlation between spending levels and risk-management maturity. Some companies spend less, but do a comparatively good job of making risk-management decisions. Others spend vigorously, but without much sophistication. Even the largest firms had substantial room for improvement – McKinsey reiterated.

‘Corporate espionage’– a prime reason behind cyberattack on pharma:

An interesting article appeared in The Pharma Letter on July 18, 2017 on this subject. The paper is titled “Cyber-attacks: How prepared is pharma?” It said:“The pharmaceutical industry is a prime target for hackers. In 2015, a survey of Crown Records Management revealed that nearly, two-thirds of pharma firms had experienced breaches in data, and that one fourth of these same companies had been victims of hacking.”The paper also highlighted ‘corporate espionage’ as one of the prime reasons behind hacking.

In view of this, the author articulated that the need for pharma and healthcare companies to fortify their security systems has become clear in recent years. The best method of protection is to prevent cyber-attacks from happening, or at least reduce the risk of a hack, he advised.

Instances of cyber-attacks in pharma are many:

To drive home the point that when firms and other organizations fail to strengthen IT systems against attacks, they incur high costs -the above paper cited an example from the year 2016. It said: “The average global cost of data breach per stolen record was US$ 355 for healthcare groups, higher than losses in other fields such as education (US$ 246/record), transportation (US$ 129), and research (US$ 112).”

The author further emphasized that besides financial losses, pharma companies and other healthcare groups risk losing the trust of patients and other stakeholders. With the ongoing digitization in pharma, new threats may become even more pervasive and sophisticated. “Thus, investment in cybersecurity must be a priority, if pharma players are to protect their data and the data of their stakeholders”, he added.

Are pharma executives experienced enough on cybersecurity?

As reported by Pharma IQ on July 31, 2018, one of its recent surveys found that around 70 percent of senior pharma decision makers are “confident” or even “very confident” in their company’s IT security. But, digging deeper, the survey uncovered that:

42 percent of respondents’ companies do not routinely follow IT security policies,

49 percent said that the corporate risk profile is not firmly understood across all departments.

The survey concluded that this could potentially lead to gaps in the security process. To me it appears, this could, as well, be due to inadequate experience of pharma executives in this area.

But, investment in pharma IT is increasing:

The good news is, even in the current scenario, many pharmaceutical companieshave started making investments in IT solutions, in general. This is corroborated by the 2018 survey by Global Data. Some of its important findings are, as follows:

79 percent of them are currently making investments in identity and access management (IAM) solutions

72 percent are considering investment in the solutions over the next two years.

75 percent of the respondents are currently deploying some form of backup, archiving, alongside content and web filtering solutions to store, as well as, preserve their online information.

Conclusion:

In pharma perspective, digitalization of business promotes paperless culture. It radically changes the basic infrastructure of maintaining critical documents in the workplace. Digital document storage systems become the nerve center of information on the company. All data – strategic or related to operations – internally generated or acquired – right across all critical functional areas, such as IP, research, clinical trials, manufacturing, sales and marketing, finance, supply chain legal and even of the CEO’s office, find a space in this digital data sever.

Although, the benefits of digitalization are well known and much discussed, it has a contraposition, as well – related to the vulnerability of the system to cyber-attacks. This flags a demanding need for protection of digitally stored assets from cyber-attacks, or to frustrate even any misdemeanorfrom amateur hackers. Thus, creating an almost impregnable, well-firewalled digital data storage server assumes prime importance. Equally important is formulating and religiously implementing a robust digital policy for the same.

Creating strong awareness among employees and stakeholders regarding cybersecurity and involving them in tandem with a system-approach, sans an iota of complacency, is expected to mitigate such vulnerability, appreciably. Thus, a sense ofexigency for cybersecurity in the digitalized pharma world, I reckon, is very real.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma Stakeholder Sentiment: Back to Square One?

Posted on May 28, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Is it fair to push out the core purpose of an important process, or rather a mission, unfairly? Whether we like it or not, it happened that way, over a period of time.

Way back on December 01, 1950, George W. Merck (President and Chairman Merck & Co., Inc.1925-1957), epitomized the core purpose of the drug innovation process. This is something, which apparently was possible only for him to articulate exactly the way he did.

On that day, while addressing the students and the faculty at the Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, George Merck said: “We try to remember that medicine is for the patient. We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered it, the larger they have been.”

To many of us, it may sound more as an altruistic statement, and not really coming from a businessman who wants to excel in the financial performance of the organization. Interestingly, that was not the case, either. Merck removed any possible ambiguity in his statement by stating categorically: “In doing this, it will be as a business man associated with that area of the chemical industry which serves chiefly the worlds of medicine and pharmacy.”

In this article, I shall deliberate on whether or not the core purpose of drug innovation, as articulated by George Merck in 1950 has been pushed out of the mind of the stakeholders for good.

Management Guru – Peter Drucker’s similar observation:

It is worthwhile to recapitulate at this stage that around the same time, the Management Guru – Peter Drucker also made a similar observation, which is relevant even today. He said: “Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two – and only two basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business.”

Interestingly, when the word ‘customer’ is replaced with ‘patients’, George W. Merck’s iconic statement fits so well even in the realm of business management, including drugs and pharmaceuticals.

Signs of the core purpose of new drug discovery getting pushed out:

The core purpose of new drug innovation in pharma business, as articulated by a top industry pioneer – ‘Medicine is for the patient and not for the profits’, was pushed out eventually, regardless of its reasons. Today’s core purpose of the same process has seemingly become just the opposite of that – ‘Medicine is only for the patient who can afford it – to maximize profit.’

This change in the core purpose was visible in a large number of instances. For example, when the then Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers reportedly said: ‘Our cancer drug is for rich westerners, not poor Indians.’ However, his exact wordings were “we did not develop this product for the Indian market, let’s be honest. We developed this product for Western patients who can afford this product, quite honestly.” If so,the question that comes up: why then Bayer fought so hard and spent so much of money, efforts and time to keep selling this specific product in India – exclusively?

In any case, this statement from the highest echelon of one of the top global pharma players is a contentious one, especially against George Merck’s articulation, or even Peter Drucker’s for that matter, on the same. By the way, Dekkers made this commentat the Financial Times Global Pharmaceutical & Biotech Conference in December in December 2013.

A wind of change?

The hope for a wind of change flickered when in an interview, Andrew Witty,the erstwhile global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), signaled a totally contrasting view of his company. Witty said: “GSK is committed to offering all its new drugs in India at affordable prices.”

Much prior to this, on March 14, 2013 he told a conference on healthcare in London that: “It’s not unrealistic to expect that new innovation ought to be priced at or below, in some cases, the prices that have pre-existed them.” He further expressed: “The pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge less for new drugs in future by passing on efficiencies in research and development to its customers.”

Witty era is also over now. He retired from GSK at the age of around 53 on March 31, 2017. Perhaps his refreshing patient-centric thoughts would also not find any takers within the industry. Nonetheless, in March 2018, the same issue resurfaced in an interesting article, followed by a few other related developments.

Call for socializing drug development?

The issue, which is not just limited to high prices for new patented drugs, is much broader. An interesting article titled, “Developing drugs wasn’t always about profit, and it shouldn’t be now”, was published in Quartz- a news website owned by Atlantic Media, brings to the fore the same key point, yet again. It makes some profound observations, such as socializing drug development. The word ‘socializing’ may not be quite acceptable to many, though. Nevertheless, it raises some critical issues worth pondering over, such as:

Faith in the power of money pervades our modern medical system. Pharmaceutical companies aren’t evil (usually). They just choose to make the most profitable drugs, not the drugs of greatest value to society.

For example, despite antimicrobial resistance being a global threat, pharma companies have largely abandoned new antibiotic development on the eminently sensible principle that they are money-losers. Promising narrow-spectrum antibiotics – agents that precisely target pathogens and spare “good” bacteria - languish in development limbo because there is no hope that they might churn as much profit as several other drugs.

The coming disruption in pharma will force drug makers to focus even more on short-term profits and their own survival.

It’s high time, I reckon, to adequately address the dire need for a reliable supply of the medicines that make a vibrant modern society possible. All stakeholders, including the pharma industry, globally, would require putting their heads together in charting out a clear and time bound pathway for its effective resolution, soon. Otherwise, sheer gravity and the complexity of the situation may prompt the policy makers to move towards ‘socializing drug development,’ much to the dismay of many of us.

Hospitals creating nonprofit generic drug company:

On January 18, 2018, The New York Times (NYT), published an article titled “Fed Up With Drug Companies, Hospitals Decide to Start Their Own,” highlighted a novel initiative to address the prevailing situation, in their own way, without depending on others.

It reported, for many years, several hospital administrations have been expressing frustration when essential drugs like heart medicines have become scarce, or when prices have skyrocketed because investors manipulated the market. Now, about 300 of the country’s largest hospital systems are taking an aggressive step to combat the problem. They plan to go into the drug business themselves, in a move that appears to be the first on this scale.

‘The idea is to directly challenge the host of industry players who have capitalized on certain markets, buying up monopolies of old, off-patent drugs and then sharply raising prices, stoking public outrage’, the article elaborates.

‘Price of medications has soared, so have pharma profits’:

‘Big Pharma is jacking up prices for one reason – because it can,’ says a CNN Article, published on April 04, 2018. The article further emphasizes: “As the price of medications has soared, so have pharmaceutical company profits. Total sales revenue for top brand-name drugs jumped by almost $8.5 billion over the last five years. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that 67% of drug manufacturers boosted their annual profit margins between 2006 and 2015 – with profit margins up to 20% for some companies in certain years.”

It further writes, “Not only have pharmaceutical companies reaped outsized profits from these price hikes, so have their CEOs. According to a USA Today analysis, the median compensation package for biotech and pharmaceutical CEOs in the Standard & Poor’s 500 was 71% higher than the median compensation for S&P 500 executives in all industries in 2015.”

Conclusion:

This is happening the world over. But its degree varies. In those countries where there are drug price regulators, only a small percentage of the total pharma market by value comes under price regulation, the rest of the products enjoy virtually free pricing freedom.

Would this ground situation change on its own any time soon? There is no specific answer to this question, yet. Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be none around in the pharma industry today with the stature and articulated vision like George Merck. He started from the very basic. Drawing the ‘square one’, he clearly defined the core purpose of discovery, manufacturing and marketing of medicines. Today’s pharma industry, by and large, seems to be charting in other newly drawn squares. Maximizing profit is now considered a key objective of achieving the core purpose – and not an outcome of achieving the core purpose of pharma business.

However, there are some very early signs of several stakeholders’ sentiment changing in this regard. Are they moving back to the basic – square one?

From the chronicles of the past several years on this issue, pharma industry does not seem to be on the same page with those stakeholders, just yet. If they do, a humongous health worry of a vast majority of the global population could be effectively addressed, as many believe.

The reverberations of this sentiment, though rather faint, can be felt in many countries, including the United States, and not just in the developing world, such as India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Is Fraud or Negligence in Drug Quality Standards Not a Fraud on Patients?

Posted on June 3, 2013 by Tapan Ray

As we know, a substance is called a drug when it has scientifically proven and well documented efficacy and safety profile to reduce both mortality and morbidity of patients. Any fraud or negligence in the drug quality standards, for whatever may be the reasons or wherever these take place, is a fraud on patients and should warrant zero tolerance.

A perception survey on drug quality:

According to a poll released in 2010 by the ‘Pew Charitable Trusts’s Prescription Project’ of the United States:

More than three out of four voters are confident that prescription drugs made in the USA are free from contamination

While less than one in 10 feel confident about medications made in India or China.

54 percent of Americans distrusted Indian drugs and 70 percent distrusted Chinese drugs.

“When you buy a shirt, it will say right on the label where it was made, but when you get a pharmaceutical, you don’t know.”

Despite all these, the survey points out that in 2007, 68 percent of the ingredients of all drugs sold worldwide came from India or China, as compared to 49 percent in 2004.

Experts comment that USFDA does not have either people or resources required to monitor manufacturing in the geographically widespread locations, as these are today.

Recent spate of charges against Indian pharmaceutical companies – a vindication?

Recent spate of charges against some top ranked Indian companies, will further dent the image of India not just in the United States or Europe, but also as a pharmacy of high quality yet low cost generic drugs for the developing countries of the world.

In May 2013, well known India-based pharma major Ranbaxy reported to have pleaded guilty to criminal charges of manufacturing and distributing some adulterated medicines, produced at its Paonta Sahib and Dewas, facilities and agreed to US$ 500-millon settlement. Can this be considered as a vindication of the above perception on the quality of ‘made in India’ drugs?

The view of WHO:

Interestingly the World Health Organisation (WHO) even after the above USFDA indictment has commented that at present it has no evidence that Ranbaxy manufactured medicines that are currently prequalified by WHO are of unacceptable quality.

Indian drug regulator initiates action:

It is good to know that the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) and the Ministry of Health will reportedly decide the way forward in this matter on completion of a fact-finding study initiated by the Central Drugs Standards Control Organization (CDSCO) on the subject.

Other incidents in India:

Following are examples of other reported serious regulatory violations involving the domestic pharmaceutical companies:

No.	Year	Company	Issue	Status
	2009	Lupin	USFDA warning for Mandideep plant	Resolved in 2010
	2010	Claris Life Sciences	USFDA ban products for manufacturing norms violations	Ban revoked in 2012
	2011	Zydus Cadila	USFDA warns Co. over Moraiya, Gujarat Facility	Ban revoked in 2012
	2011	Dr Reddy’s	USFDA bans sale of drugs from Mexico facility	Ban revoked in 2012
	2013	Jubilant Life Sciences	Gets USFDA warning for Canada facility	Company taking corrective steps
	2013	Wockhardt	Banned from exporting products from its Aurangabad factory to the US due to quality concerns	In discussion

Source: The Economic Times (May 22, 2013), Financial Express (May 25, 2013)

Though some other countries also have faced bans from exporting products, it cannot be taken, I reckon, as any consolation by anyone.

A Mumbai Hospital demonstrated the mood of zero tolerance:

The above expression of good intent should not just remain as a ‘lip service’. Indian drug regulator is expected to take a leaf out of all these allegations and initiate appropriate audit as required. Otherwise, exhibiting zero tolerance, like Jaslok Hospital of Mumbai, many other institutions will ask their doctors not to prescribe products of these companies to protect patients’ interest. More hospitals reportedly are mulling similar action against Ranbaxy.

IMA expresses apprehension:

Even ‘The Indian Medical Association (IMA)’ has reportedly asked the DCGI to investigate quality of medicines manufactured by Ranbaxy.

It happens in the ‘heartland’ too just as in the ‘hinterland’:

Contrary to the above poll released in 2010 by the ‘Pew Charitable Trusts’s Prescription Project’, pointing accusing fingers, in this respect, exclusively to India and China, may not be just fair. Incidents of such regulatory violations are not just restricted to Indian pharmaceutical companies either. Unfortunately, these happen with the global majors too.

None of these should be condoned in any way by anyone and attract as much global publicity, public wrath and zero tolerance, as all these would possibly deserve.

Following are some examples:

No	Company	Issues with USFDA	Consent decree signed (year)	Issue status	Penalty amount
	Schering-Plough	GMP violations affecting four manufacturing sites and 125 products	Yes (2002)	Closed (2007)	$500 Mn.
	GlaxoSmithKline	Manufacturing deficiencies found at Puerto Rico facility	Yes (2005)	Pending	$650 Mn. Bond
	Wyeth	GMP violations at plant in Pennsylvania and New York which were producing FluShield	Yes (2000)	Pending	$297 Mn. Plus 18.5% of sales of FluShield
	Abbott Labs	Non-conformance with quality system regulations for in vitro diagnostic products at an Illinois facility	Yes (1999)	Pending	$212 Mn.
	Boehringer Ingelheim	To bring its Ohio facility into compliance with regulatory requirements	Yes (2013)	Pending	Not specified

Source: Financial Express (May 25, 2013)

Further, in December 1998 the US FDA reportedly had stopped shipments of Abbott Laboratories’ clot-busting drug Abbokinase till the company had resolved undisclosed manufacturing problems at its plant. Abbott subsequently resolved this to the satisfaction of the drug regulator.

Even end May 2011, the USFDA reportedly raised concerns about contamination of drugs of the American pharmaceutical major – Hospira, at its Indian manufacturing facility.This issue was highlighted as the latest in a string of manufacturing and quality problems dogging the company since 2010.

American lawmakers demand thorough review of USFDA oversight procedures:

Pressure has reportedly started mounting in the United States for a thorough review into the effectiveness of oversight procedures for all bulk drugs and formulations manufactured in foreign facilities.

Simultaneously, there is also a specific demand for an in-depth review of all actions of the US regulator for so many years, which allowed Ranbaxy’s ‘massive fraud to remain unchecked’.

Beyond regulatory oversight, need robust internal system driven model as a fire-wall:

To address such issues only drug regulators interventions may not be just enough, maintaining total integrity of ‘Supply Chain’ of an organization proactively in a well structured, fool-proof and a system-driven way, will continue to play the most critical role. This will help creating ‘fire-wall’, which will be difficult to breach.

The scope of Supply Chain:

The scope of ‘Supply Chain’, which is comprised of the entire network of entities from vendors who supply raw and packaging materials, manufacturers who convert these materials into medicines, together with warehouses, distributors, retailers and healthcare centers who will reach these medicines ultimately to patients exactly the way these will deserve.

Thus, just not in the manufacturing process, any breach of security at any place of the supply chain can cause serious problems to patients.

Accordingly, pharmaceutical companies need to adequately invest along with appropriate staff training programs to ensure that the Supply Chain Integrity is maintained, always.

Supply Chain Security (SCS) is critical:

SCS, therefore, deserves to be of prime importance for the pharmaceutical companies across the globe. Recent high profile SCS related cases, as mentioned above, have exposed the vulnerability in addressing this global menace effectively.

All pharmaceutical players should realize that not just ‘show-off’, an effective integrated approach is of paramount importance to eliminate this crime syndicate, which is taking lives of millions of patients the world over.

Mixing-up counterfeit drugs with this menace may not be prudent:

Shouting for counterfeit drugs involving mainly intellectual property related issues, may be important, but will in no way help resolving self-created menaces arising out of breach of supply chain integrity endangering million of lives, in another way.

Though an expensive process, can’t be compromised:

It is worth repeating, securing pharmaceutical supply chain on a continuous basis is of critical importance for all the pharmaceutical players across the globe. However, the process will no doubt be expensive for any company.

Like other industries, in the pharmaceutical sector, as well, cost effective procurement is critical, which entices many pharmaceutical players, especially, in the generic industry not to go for such expensive process just to maintain the SCS.

A serious SCS related tragedy:

I would like to reinforce my argument on the importance of SCS with the following example of the ‘Heparin tragedy’ where the supply chain integrity was seriously violated with ‘ingeneuity’.

In the beginning of 2008, there were media reports on serious adverse drug events, some even fatal, with Heparin, a highly sulfated glycosaminoglycan of Baxter International. Heparin is widely used as an injectable anticoagulant. Baxter voluntarily recalled almost all their Heparin products in the U.S. Around 80 people died from contaminated Heparin products in the U.S. The US FDA reported that such contaminated Heparin was detected from at least 12 other countries.

A joint investigation conducted by Baxter and the US FDA ascertained that the Heparin used in batches associated with the serious adverse drug events was contaminated with Over Sulfated Chondroitin Sulfate (OSCS). It was reported that Heparin Scientific Protein Laboratories, Changzhou, China supplied Heparin to Baxter.

The cost of OSCS is just a fraction of the ingredient used in Heparin. Being driven by the criminal profiteering motive the manufacturers in Changzhou, China had reportedly used OSCS for highly sulfated glycosaminoglycan, as the former could not be detected by the pharmacopeia test in use, until 2008. This is because OSCS mimics Heparin in the pharmacopeia test. Post this criminal event, at present, all over the world more specific pharmacopeia test methods have been adopted for Heparin.

Stakeholders need to be extremely vigilant:

Considering all these, pharmaceutical players and the drug regulators from across the world should put proper ‘fool proof’ systems in place to eliminate the growing menace of criminal adulteration of APIs, drug intermediates, excipients entering in the supply chain together with preventing any breach in their logistics support systems.

Apprehension against generic drugs as a class:

Taking advantage of the situation, one can possibly say, as some vested interests have already started propagating that generic equivalents of the branded drugs are really not quite the same in quality.

However, the point that cannot be ignored is the comment of a senior USFDA, who was quoted in the same article saying, “I have heard it enough times from enough people to believe that there are a few products that aren’t meeting quality standards.“

Generic drug manufacturers should make serious note of such comments and act accordingly to allay prevailing lurking fear on the use of generic medicines, in general, though small in number.

Conclusion:

Following the recent series of incidents including that of Ranbaxy, the image of India as a low cost generic drugs manufacturer of high quality could get adversely impacted. Although there are enough instances that such things happen in the developed world, as well, including the United States.

Moreover, in the backdrop of high decibel quality concerns raised by USFDA, the level of apprehension regarding effectiveness of generic drugs made in India may increase significantly, unless some tangible, well thought out and highly publicized remedial measures are taken forthwith.

The decision of Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai advising their doctors for not using Ranbaxy products to patients on the same ground, will further strengthen the public apprehension.

Whatever may be the reason, as long as any company is in the business of manufacturing medicines, there should be demonstrable zero tolerance on any compromise, fraud or negligence in the drug quality standards. Any fraud and negligence in drug quality, I reckon, is virtually a fraud against humanity.

That said, changing mindset towards a strong corporate governance by walking the talk, all pharmaceutical companies must guarantee safe and high quality medicines to the society, come what may.

This, I believe, could be achieved by putting in place a robust SCS system and ensuring that this is not compromised in any way… anywhere…ever… for patients’ sake…both globally and locally.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Could M&As in Pharma create significant stakeholder value?

Posted on April 25, 2011 by Tapan Ray

At the very outset, I pay my homage to the departed soul of our industry colleague respected Amar Lulla, former joint managing director of Cipla, who passed away on Friday, April 22, 2011 after a prolonged battle against cancer.

As we know, “Merger and Acquisition (M&A)” is an inorganic growth tool of any business. In this model growth in business operations arise from value creation through mergers or takeovers of other companies, rather than from increase in the company’s own existing business activities.

On April 13, 2011, quoting a study released by Burrill & Co, a noted life sciences investment firm, ‘Fierce Pharma’ reported that “drug makers’ deal making over the past 10 years has utterly and completely failed to build value in the industry. Big Pharma has actually lost almost $1 trillion in value during the past decade.”

Big Pharmas lost value in the past decade through deal making:

Burrill argued: “The drug industry’s 17 most active buyers had a combined market value of $1.57 trillion at the end of 2000. By the end of 2010, that value had shrunk to $1.04 trillion–notwithstanding the $425 billion in acquisitions these companies made during the decade with a total loss of $955 billion.”

The report commented that global pharma majors could not make up non-delivery of innovative products through these acquisitions.

M&As triggered by in-market blockbuster products, were successful in the past:

It was observed that those M&As, which were triggered by in-market blockbuster products were successful in the past. Like for example:

Year	M&A	Product/Products
2000	Pfizer and Warner Lambert	Lipitor
2006	Eli Lilly-ICOS	Cialis
2008	Eli Lilly- ImClone	Erbitux

However, when a company was acquired for products in development or R&D pipelines, it was observed that acquirer could not derive full benefits of their respective inorganic growth plans, as many of those projects did not fructify or could not be continued in the long run for various different reasons. I am not trying to go into those details in this article.

It is usually believed that healthcare companies with diversified interests along with pharmaceuticals and biotech business, like, diagnostic, devices and generic pharmaceuticals encountered much lesser growth pangs in the past. I reckon, it is for this reason, companies like, Abbott, J&J, Roche and Novartis registered overall better business performance than their pure pharmaceutical business counterparts like, Merck, Pfizer etc.

Only future will tell us whether high takeover prices, such as US$ 68 bn paid by Pfizer for Wyeth or US$ 46 bn of Roche for Genentech or US$ 41 bn of Merck for Schering-Plough, mainly to acquire the drug pipelines of the respective companies, can ultimately be justified or not. At this stage, it is indeed extremely difficult to quantify the transaction value of phase III drugs that Pfizer, Roche and Merck acquired with these mega deals.

However, about a couple of years ago ‘Forbes’ in its article titled, “Will Pfizer’s Merger Hurt Innovation?” published in January 26, 2009 commented as follows:

“Between 1998 and now, Pfizer has launched only one medicine with annual sales surpassing $1 billion, despite ploughing more than $60 billion into research and development. That drug, the pain med Lyrica, was already in development at Warner-Lambert when Pfizer bought it.”

Other significant global M&A initiatives in 2010 were as follows:

Global Companies	Value (US $ billion)
Sepracor by Dainippon Sumitomo	2.6
77% of Alcon (the eye care unit of Nestle) by Novartis	50
Millipore by Merck KGA	6
OSI Pharma by Astellas	4
King Pharma by Pfizer	3.6
BioVex by Amgen	1
Ratiopharm by Teva	5

In addition, work is in progress for some more M&A initiatives, like the hostile bid of US $ 20 billion of Sanofi Aventis for Genzyme in 2011. J&J’s offer of US $2.3 billion for vaccines of Crucell; Valeant’s hostile bid for Cephalon of US $ 5.7 billion, and J&J’s talk with Synthes for an acquisition with US $20 billion.

Emerging markets: the Eldorado:

At the same time, IMS Health reports that emerging markets will register a growth rate of 14% to 17% by 2014, significantly driven by generic pharmaceuticals, when the developed markets will be growing by 3% to 6% during this period. It is forecasted that the global pharmaceutical industry will record a turnover of US$1.1 trillion by this time.

Probably prompted by this overall market scenario, the global pharmaceutical majors are still trying to keep their heads above water through deal making and various collaborative initiatives. India, being one of the fastest growing global pharmaceutical markets, has also started experiencing this consolidation process.

Real consolidation process in India commenced in 2006: The consolidation process in India started gaining momentum from the year 2006 with the acquisition of Matrix Lab by Mylan, although 2009 witnessed the biggest merger in the Pharmaceutical Industry of India, thus far, in value terms, when the third largest drug maker of Japan, Daiichi Sankyo acquired 63.9% stake of Ranbaxy Laboratories of India for US $4.6 billion.
This was widely believed to be a win-win deal for both the companies with Daiichi Sankyo leveraging the cost arbitrage of Ranbaxy effectively, while Ranbaxy benefiting from the innovative products range of Daiichi Sankyo. This deal also established Daiichi Sankyo as one of the leading pharmaceutical generic manufacturers of the world, making the merged company a force to reckon with, in the space of both innovative and generic pharmaceuticals business.
Another mega acquisition soon followed:
In May 2010, the Pharma major in the US Abbott catapulted itself to number one position in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) by acquiring the branded generics business of Piramal Healthcare with whopping US$3.72 billion. Abbott acquired Piramal Healthcare at around 9 times of its sales multiple against around 4 times of the same paid by Daiichi Sankyo.

According to Michael Warmuth, senior vice-president, established products of Abbott the sales turnover of Abbott in India, after this acquisition, will grow from its current around US$ 480 million to US$2.5 billion by the next decade.

Was the valuation right for the acquired companies?
Abbott had valued formulations business of Piramal Healthcare at about eight times of sales, which is almost twice of what Japan’s Daiichi Sankyo paid for its US$4.6 billion purchase of a controlling stake in India’s Ranbaxy Laboratories in June 2008.

On the valuation, Warmuth of Abbott has reportedly commented “If you want the best companies you will pay a premium; however, we feel it was the right price.”

This is not surprising at all, as we all remember Daiichi Sankyo commented that the valuation was right for Ranbaxy, even when they wrote off US$3.5 billion on its acquisition.
In my opinion, considering the fact that not too many attractive acquisition targets are available within the domestic pharmaceutical industry, the valuation of any well performed Indian Pharmaceutical Company will continue to remain high, at least in the short to medium term… and why not, when the domestic pharmaceutical industry is growing so well, consistently?

M&As in India from 2006 to 2010:

Year	Indian Companies	Multinational Companies	Value ($Mn)	Type
2006
	Matrix Labs	Mylan	736	Acquisition
	Dabur Pharma	Fresenius Kabi	219	Acquisition
	Ranbaxy Labs	Daiichi Sankyo	4,600	Acquisition
	Shantha Biotech	Sanofi-aventis	783	Acquisition
2009
	Orchid Chemicals	Hospira	400	Business Buyout
2010
	Piramal Healthcare	Abbott	3,720	Business Buyout
	Paras Pharma	Reckitt Benkiser	726	Acquisition

Collaborative deals in India from 2009 to 2011:

Year	Multinational Companies	Indian Companies
2009
	GSK	Dr. Reddy’s Lab
	Pfizer	Aurobindo Pharma
2010
	AstraZeneca	Torrent
	Abbott	Cadila Healthcare
	Pfizer	Strides Arcolab
	AstraZeneca	Aurobindo Pharma
	Pfizer	Biocon
2011
	Bayer	Cadila Healthcare
	MSD	Sun Pharma

The Key driver for acquisition of large Indian companies:
Such strategies highlight the intent of the global players to quickly grab sizeable share of the highly fragmented IPM – the second fastest growing and one of the most important emerging markets of the world.
If there is one most important key driver for such consolidation process in India, I reckon it will undoubtedly be the strategic intent of the global companies to dig their heel deep into the fast growing Indian branded generic market, contributing over 99% of the IPM. The same process is being witnessed in other fast growing emerging pharmaceutical markets, as well, the growth of which is basically driven by the branded generic business.
Important characteristics to target the branded generic companies:
To a global acquirer the following seem to be important requirements while shortlisting its target companies:
• Current sales and profit volume of the domestic branded generic business • Level of market penetration and the rate of growth of this business • Strength, spread and depth of the product portfolio • Quality of the sales and marketing teams • Valuation of the business
Faster speed of consolidation process could slow down the speed of evolution of the ‘generics pharmaceutical industry’ in India: Though quite unlikely, if the moderate valuation of large Indian companies starts attracting more and more global pharmaceutical majors, the speed of evolution of the ‘local generic pharmaceutical industry’ in the country could slow down, despite entry of newer smaller players in the market.

The global companies will then acquire a cutting edge on both sides of the pharmaceutical business, discovering and developing innovative patented medicines while maintaining a dominant presence in the fast growing emerging branded generics market across the world.
An alarm bell in the Indian Market for a different reason:
It has been reported that being alarmed by these developments, some industry insiders feel, “Lack of available funding is the main reason for the recent spurt in the sale of stakes in domestic companies”.
They have reportedly urged the Government to adequately fund the research and development (R&D) initiatives of the local Pharmaceutical Companies to ensure a safeguard against further acquisition of large Indian generic players by the global pharmaceutical majors. It is a fact that the domestic Indian companies do not have adequate capital to fund cost-intensive R&D projects in India even after having a significant cost arbitrage.
Will such consolidation process now gain momentum in India?
In my view, it will take some more time for acquisitions of large domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies by the Global Pharma majors to gain momentum in the country. In the near future, we shall rather witness more strategic collaborations between Indian and Global pharmaceutical companies, especially in the generic space, as indicated above.
The number of high profile M&As of Indian pharma companies will significantly increase, as I mentioned earlier, when the valuation of the domestic companies appears quite attractive to the global pharma majors. This could happen, as the local players face more cut-throat competition both in Indian and international markets, squeezing their profit margin.
It won’t be a cake walk either…not just yet:
Be that as it may, establishing dominance in the highly fragmented and fiercely competitive IPM will not be a ‘cakewalk’ for any company, not even for the global pharmaceutical majors. Many Indian branded generic players are good marketers too. Companies like, Cipla, Sun Pharma, Alkem, Mankind, Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) have proven it time and again, over a period of so many years.
The acquisition of Ranbaxy by Daiichi Sankyo did not change anything in the competition front. Currently the market share of Abbott, post M&A, including Solvay and Piramal Healthcare, comes to just around 6.2% followed by Cipla at 5.5% (Source: AIOCD). This situation in no way signifies domination by Abbott in the IPM, far from creating any oligopolistic pharmaceutical market in India.
Thus the pharmaceutical market in the country will continue to remain fragmented with cut-throat competition from the existing and the newer tough minded, innovative and determined local branded generic players having cost arbitrage, cerebral power and untiring spirit of competitiveness with a burning desire to win.
Simultaneously, some of the domestic pharmaceutical companies are in the process of creating a sizeable Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS) sector to service the global pharmaceutical market.
Conclusion:
In my view, it does not make long term business sense to pay such unusually high prices for the branded generics business of any Indian company. Besides the report of Burrill & Co., we also have with us examples of some of the Indian pharmaceutical acquisitions in the overseas market are not working satisfactorily as the regulatory requirements for the low cost generics drugs were changed in those countries.
Most glaring example is the acquisition of the German generic company Betapharm by DRL for US$ 570 million in 2006. It was reported that like Piramals, a significant part of the valuation of Betapharm was for its trained sales team. However, being caught in a regulatory quagmire, the ultimate outcome of this deal turned sour for DRL.
Could similar situation arise in India, as well? Who knows? What happens then to such expensive acquisitions, if for example, prescriptions by generic names are made mandatory by the Government within the country, despite intensive lobbying efforts?

Be that as it may, in India also, a study like, ‘Burrill Report” could be quite useful to ascertain whether or not the deal making of global and local drug majors in the country over a ten year period commencing from 2006 onwards, has succeeded to create desired stakeholder value.

By: Tapan J Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: stakeholder

Ticking Some Right Boxes Biosimilar Drugs’ Acceptance Gaining Steam in India

Pharma Branding At Tough Times

Pharma ‘Chatbots’: For Better Stakeholder Engagement

Exigency of Cybersecurity in Digitalized Pharma

Pharma Stakeholder Sentiment: Back to Square One?

Is Fraud or Negligence in Drug Quality Standards Not a Fraud on Patients?

Could M&As in Pharma create significant stakeholder value?