Pharma: ‘Digitalization’ Not A Panacea – A Basic Step For Giant Leaps

Posted on October 7, 2019 by Tapan Ray

The hype of ‘Digitalization’ in the pharma industry, virtually as a panacea, is palpable all around. It gives many a feel, directly or indirectly, that this one-time, resource-intensive, disruptive transformation would reap a rich harvest for a long time. In some way, good or bad, the sense of urgency underlying the hype, could possibly be akin to Y2K, that one witnessed before the turn of the new millennium.

Notwithstanding the current ballyhoo, the process of digitization in several Indian pharma companies began since quite some time and is now gathering wind in its wings. Several studies vindicating this point, were reported by the Indian media, as well. One such report of October 31, 2016 highlighted – even around 2013, a number of Indian drug players commenced adopting digitization. They mostly began with the use of modern technology for scientific detailing to doctors, often using algorithms for better insights into issues, like patient compliance. A similar trend was seen also in China, the report added.

Be that as it may, this article will explore whether or not ‘Digitalization’ is a panacea for all pharma business hurdles. Or, it is the backbone to build and maintain a patient-centric organization, with need-based subsequent giant technological leaps, for game changing sustainable outcomes. For better clarity of all, I shall dwell on this concept with AI as the next disruptive step, as it would play an increasingly critical role to be in sync with the customers of the fast-growing digital world.

Digitization is the bedrock to move forward with newer technologies:

That digitization is the backbone of AI adoption was brought out in the May 2019 paper by McKinsey Global Institute - titled, ‘Twenty-five years of digitization: Ten insights into how to play it right.’ It articulated, leveraging, and transitioning from, digital to new frontier technologies is an imperative, as several new frontier technologies are opening up, such as AI. It also spotlighted that early digitization is the foundation of AI deployment.

Elaborating the point further, the article wrote: ‘70 percent of companies that generate 50 percent of their sales through digitization are already investing in one AI domain. The evidence suggests that incumbents that have adopted AI early and are savvy about deploying these technologies have experienced strong profit growth. In effect AI is a new, higher- performance type of digital technology that may boost the ability of firms to accelerate their digital performance.’

No doubt, several hundred AI use cases would provide evidence of widespread benefits to operations and profitability for AI adoption. However, from the drug industry perspective, the possible dilemmas that will be important to understand, what factors are prompting faster adoption of AI in pharma. Besides, how to make out – what type of use of AI is likely to be most effective for an organization.

Regardless of the dilemma, the AI buzz is gaining momentum:

The fervor around AI is now peaking up, more than ever before. Regardless of the general dilemma – ‘what type of use of AI is likely to be most effective for an organization.,’ several companies are working on AI application in various areas. In sales and marketing domain, these include, improving customer interactions, maximizing product launches, understanding patient insights. This was also corroborated in an article, published by ZS on July 24, 2019.

Why is the AI buzz increasing in pharma?

The above paper identifies 3 broad elements for rapid increase of AI buzz in the pharma industry, which I am paraphrasing as follows:

Data requirement for any meaningful business decision-making process has exploded, facilitated by increasing use of internet- based digital platforms.
With the increasing digitization of virtually anything in everyday life, paper-based processes are fast disappearing.
Realization of game changing impact of new AI algorithms with high degree of precision, on business.

As AI-based interventions are making a radical impact on everyday life, most pharma and biotech players are progressively getting convinced that it will eventually transform many critical areas of the business, despite a slow start.

AI can deliver much more than ever before, across pharma domains:

AI has a great potential to meet critical requirements of almost all domains of the drug industry. For example: AI may be used to help a medical representative get top insights for his particular day’s or a week’s or a month’s call with doctors by sifting through all his daily reports for that period. Some companies are already moving into this direction. For example, Novartis, reportedly, has equipped sales representatives ‘with an AI service that suggests doctors to visit and subjects to talk up during their meetings.’

Similar AI-based cognitive insights may be obtained from the patient-collected data in the apps or other digital tools. Deep understanding of the process of thinking of important doctors and patients, would facilitate developing customized content for engagement with them, and thereby help achieve well-defined goals with precision.

There are instances of significant success with the use of AI in R&D, clinical trials, many areas of sales and marketing, including supply chains. Nevertheless, the general concern of sharing confidential patient information, often limits access to requisite data for use in AI solutions. Appropriate regulations are expected to address this apprehension, soon.

Big Pharma players are already in it:

The paper – ‘Artificial Intelligence in Life Sciences: The Formula for Pharma Success Across the Drug Lifecycle,’ published on December 05, 2018 by L.E.K Consulting, discussed this point in detail. It says, ‘each of the major pharma players is investing in the technology at some level.’

For example, pharma and biotech majors, such as Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Johnson & Johnson, are either collaborating or acquired AI technologies to acquire a cutting-edge in business.

The paper also reiterates, developments in AI applications are occurring across the spectrum of pharma business, from target discovery to post-approval activities to automate processes, generate insights from large-scale data and support stakeholder engagement. Let me illustrate this point with an example below.

Example of use of AI for better patient compliance, improving sales and profit:

As highlighted in my article, published in this blog on May 20, 2019, effective use of AI for better patient compliance, can help improve concerned company’s both top and bottom lines. I mentioned there: ‘According to November 16, 2016 report, published by Capgemini and HealthPrize Technologies, globally, annual pharmaceutical revenue losses had increased from USD 564 billion in 2012 to USD 637 billion due to non-adherence to medications for chronic conditions. This works out to 59 percent of the USD 1.1 trillion in total global pharmaceutical revenue in 2015.’

Several reports vindicate that drug companies are making phenomenal progress in this area. Let me cite an example of achieving huge success to improve treatment adherence of patients during clinical trials. The September 26, 2016 Press Release of AiCure, an AI company that visually confirms medication ingestion on smartphones, announced that use of AiCure AI platform demonstrated 90 percent medication adherence in patients with schizophrenia, participating in Phase 2 of the AbbVie study.

Opportunity to make more effective drugs faster and at reduced cost:

Besides, drug discovery, clinical trials, patient monitoring, compliance monitoring – AI applications have been developed for marketing optimization, as well. As AI technology spreads its wings with a snowballing effect, taking a quantum leap in organizational effectiveness, productivity and outcomes will be a reality for many. Moreover, AI now offers a never before opportunity of making novel, more effective and safer drugs, faster and at much reduced cost.

Thus, I reckon, AI-based technology would be a basic requirement of the drug industry for effective operation with desirable business outcomes, in less than a decade. Its slow start as compared to many other industries, notwithstanding. Further, the pharma industry’s endeavor for a swift digital transformation – the backbone of AI adoption, as captured in recent surveys, also vindicates this belief. Other business realities are also generating a strong tailwind for this process.

Pharma’s swift digital transformation to create a solid base for AI:

The ‘White Paper’, titled ‘Use of Artificial Intelligence and Advanced Analytics in pharmaceuticals’ by FICCI captured this scenario quite well. It pointed out, two seismic shifts in the pharma business, namely, – reducing prices and demonstrating greater value from their therapies, along with a swing from treatment to prevention, diagnostics and cure – are prompting the industry for a holistic transformation of business.

Which is why, pharma players are exhibiting greater intent for ‘Digitalization’ of business, paving the way for quick adoption of different modern technologies, such as AI and advanced analytics. This fundamental shift will not only improve efficiencies and reduce costs, but also significantly help adapting to more patient centric business models. Yet, post digital transformation the key question that still remains to be addressed – how does an organization identify and focus on the right areas or ‘good problems’ for AI intervention, fetching game changing outcomes, on an ongoing basis.

Conclusion:

There could be many approaches to address this situation. However, according to ZS, building the capability and the muscle first for AI, and then looking for the problems, may not be a great idea. This could make a company, even post ‘Digitalization’, flounder with the right applications of AI technology. Thus, while venturing into AI intervention for watershed outcomes, the top priority of an organization will be to resolve this dilemma for precise identification of the right problems.

These areas may even include crucial bottlenecks in the business process, AI interventions for which, would lead to not just incremental benefits, but cutting-edge value creation, for a giant leap in an all-round performance. The name of the game is to start selectively with the right problems, evaluate the upshots of AI use, before scaling up and adding new areas. Ongoing value creation of such nature can’t be achieved just by one-time digital transformation, sans imbibing other disruptive technologies, proactively.

This, in my view, has to happen and is practically unavoidable, primarily driven by two key factors, as below:

The first one was the focal point of the ‘2018 Digital Savvy HCP Survey Report of Indegene.’ It found, the highest jump of digital adoption by healthcare practitioners (HCPs) was seen in 2018, compared to its similar surveys done from 2015 to 2017, signaling physicians’ fast-growing digital preference, as we move on.

The second one comes from an important ‘consumer behavioral perspective.’ and is specially in India. According to a report by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) – with 451 million monthly active internet users at the end of financial year 2019, India is now second only to China in terms of internet users. More, importantly, the digital savvy customers are also using other disruptive technologies, mostly smartphone based.

Thus, disruptive digital transformation in pharma domains, including sales and marketing, is a necessary basic step. It will help companies being all-time ready to imbibe other leading-edge technologies, such as AI, for giant leaps to higher growth trajectories.

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.

Against Pharma Marketing Malpractices: A Gutsy Step

Posted on February 22, 2016 by Tapan Ray

January 7, 2016 edition of ‘The Financial Times (FT)’ reported that responding to escalating pressure on the drug industry, related to its ‘Conflict of Interest’ with the doctors and other related professionals, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has decided taking a very unorthodox step.

According to this news report, GSK has decided not to promote its brands by making payments to doctors in any form. The company also strongly expressed its belief that to refurbish the dented image of the industry, in general, its competitors, as well, would start following the same steps, sooner than later.

Whatever it may be, GSK has apparently decided to avoid the above ‘conflict of interest’ and not to ride on the trendy wave for drug promotion, any longer.

Although, many restrictions have already been put in place by different countries, to curb these practices to the extent required, many pharma companies always find effective ways to circumvent those restrictions, as many report highlights.

In this scenario, GSK has taken a bold and calculated decision to swim against the tide. Respecting public outcry and sensitiveness on the subject, it has decided against engaging paid physician speakers, as an integral of the brand marketing strategy, any longer. More importantly, this decision of the company is absolutely voluntary, transparent, and its faithful implementation level can also be monitored externally.

The consequences of this ‘Conflict of Interest’:

Available reports indicate that the consequences of alleged marketing malpractices of any kind, attract some serious financial consequences for the pharma players, provided of course, if one gets caught, especially in the United States or Europe.

A February 24, 2014 article highlights that in the last few years alone, pharmaceutical companies have agreed to pay over US$13 billion to resolve only U.S. Department of Justice allegations of ‘fraudulent marketing practices’.

Dwelling on the subject, a November 6, 2014, BBC News commented, “Imagine an industry that generates higher profit margins than any other and is no stranger to multi-billion dollar fines for malpractice.”

It is worth noting, all those pharma players paying hefty fines due to alleged marketing misadventures of humongous proportion, also prominently display their well-crafted code of ethics of pharma marketing practices in their respective websites, vowing for strict voluntary adherence. Nevertheless, the (mal)practice goes on, unabated.

Did a recent deterrent work in America?

Despite recent enactment of “Physician Payments Sunshine Act”, such practices of pharma companies continue unabated even in the World’s largest pharma market – the United States.

As is known by many, the ‘Physician Payments Sunshine Act’ is a healthcare law enacted in the United States in 2010 to increase transparency of financial relationships between health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This Act requires manufacturers of drugs, medical devices and biologicals that participate in US federal health care programs to submit annual data on payment and other transfers of value that they make to physicians and teaching hospitals. The data submission period is followed by 45 days for physicians to review their ‘Open Payments’ data and dispute errors before the public release.

On July 1, 2015, ‘ProPublica’ – an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest, published an article titled, “Dollars for Docs: How Industry Dollars Reach Your Doctors.” Quoting the public database, it reported that in 2014, 1,630 pharma companies in the United States disclosed a hefty total payment of US$ 3.53 billion to 681,432 doctors. The maximum total payment received by a single doctor during this period was US$ $43.9 million.

Published names of ‘Top 20 Companies’:

According to ‘ProPublica’, the money that the following 20 companies spend on interactions with doctors in the United States, excluding research and royalties, is as follows:

Pfizer: $30M,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals: $20.5M
Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals: $19.1M
Forest Laboratories: $17.2M
Allergan: $15.5M
Otsuka America Pharmaceutical: $15M
Sanofi and Genzyme: $14.6M
AbbVie: $13.5M
Genentech: $12.9M
Intuitive Surgical: $12.8M
Novo Nordisk: $12.4M
Depuy Synthes Sales: $12M
Bristol Myers Squibb: $11.9M
Eli Lilly: $11.7M
Teva: $11.6M
Novartis: $11.5M
Boehringer Ingelheim: $10.8M
Stryker: $10.3M
Merck Sharp & Dohme: $10.3M
Takeda: $9.68M

GlaxoSmithKline not featuring in the list:

Interestingly, I could not locate GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) featuring in this specific list of the top 20 companies in the United States. Some industry watchers comment that this could well be an outcome of other unorthodox measures taken by GSK earlier to revamp its reputation, dented by the widely reported Chinese bribery scandal and also a huge settlement of US$3 billion with the Government of the United States, for alleged marketing malpractices. Whatever it is, GSK has now initiated some tangible policy decisions in this regard, unlike most of its counterparts.

Alleged pharma malpractices are rampant in India too:

Frequent reports of Indian media have already triggered a raging debate in the country on the same subject. It has also been reported that a related case is now pending before the Supreme Court against a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for the hearing.

On May 08, 2012, the ‘Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare’ presented its 58th Report to both the Lower and the Upper houses of the Indian Parliament. The committee, with a strong indictment against the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), observed that the DoP should take decisive action, without any further delay, in making the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ mandatory, so that effective checks could be ensured on ‘huge promotional costs and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices’.

Unfortunately, nothing substantive has happened on the ground regarding this issue as on date, excepting announcement of voluntary implementation of the DoP’s ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, effective January 1, 2015 for six months for its assessment. Thereafter, the date extension process on the voluntary implementation of the UCPMP has become a routine exercise for the DoP, on the pretext of continuing discussion on the subject with the pharma trade associations and other stakeholders.

Nevertheless, incidences of alleged marketing malpractices are still unfolding today and getting dragged into the futile public debate. In a situation like this, I reckon, the Government is expected to play a more proactive role by all, instead of maintaining the status quo, any longer.

‘Voluntary practice’ concept alone, has not worked, anywhere:

Strong internal and external business performance pressures, while navigating through turbulent business environment with strong headwinds, could temporarily unnerve even the seasoned managers with nerves made of steel, as it were. It has been happening all the time, now more frequently, despite having stringent ‘voluntary pharma marketing practices’ codes in place, for many different reasons.

This has been vindicated by a recent research published by ‘PLOS Medicine’ on January 26, 2016.

The study states that European Union law prohibits companies from marketing drugs off-label. However, in the United Kingdom (UK), as in some other European countries, but unlike the United States, pharma industry self-regulatory bodies are tasked with supervising compliance with marketing rules. The objectives of this study were to characterize off-label promotion rulings in the UK compared to the whistleblower-initiated cases in the US and also) shedding light on the UK self-regulatory mechanism for detecting, deterring, and sanctioning off-label promotion.

The paper provided credible evidence of the limited capacity of the UK’s self-regulatory arrangements to expose marketing violations. It recommended that the UK authorities should consider introducing increased incentives and protections for whistleblowers combined with US-style governmental investigations and meaningful sanctions.

Thus, all-weather ‘voluntary practice of ethical pharma marketing code model’ alone, is either failing or has failed, almost everywhere in the world. GSK’s is a novel, but solo attempt and may not necessarily be imbibed by others.

Appropriate regulations and robust laws, instilling not just the ‘fear of God’ to the violators, but also promising justice to all, would always be a strong deterrent in those trying situations, especially in countries like, India, unless of course, any person or a legal entity is a hardcore manipulator with its key focus just on profiteering.

Restoring tarnished image:

GSK has taken the above bold step to restore its tarnished image, after receiving body blows related to several scandals, as it were. Commendably, it did not continue doing the same, unlike many others. Instead, the leadership of the Company demonstrated sensitivity to public outrage.

GSK won’t be a solitary example of pharma marketing malpractices. There are other large drug companies too, who even after meeting with similar public disgrace, keep charting the same old path to maximize brand sales by paying for the doctors, either directly or in several other forms, as many reports have alleged.

To offset all such marketing related expenses, and thereafter earn a huge profit, many of them keep the new drug prices exorbitantly high, adversely impacting the access of those drugs to many of those, who need them the most. This is besides taking hefty annual increases on existing brand pricing, even when inflation is very low to moderate.

Access to drugs for all needy patients is ‘Government responsibility’:

To justify access barrier to high priced drugs for a large number of patients globally, most pharma players and their trade associations have a ready answer in their advocacy toolkit. It says, ensuring access to drugs for all needy patients is the responsibility of the Government, not of the drug companies.

As a result, the trust deficit between the pharma industry and the general public is increasing, further denting its image. At present, when many national Governments are initiating action or are contemplating to do so, to contain such insensitive practices, the industry probably would require to pause for a while, take a step back and ponder – what next?

Restoring the tarnished image of the drug industry is a challenging ball game, far beyond the capabilities of even the richest pharma associations of the world, and their over-paid lobbyists. Crafty creation of any facade to hoodwink all, is no longer working to achieve their self serving purposes. Today, the public, in general, seems to understand much more about their reasonably affordable healthcare needs and wants, than what these trade associations’ possibly think about them.

Otherwise, why would Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton – one of the strongest contenders for American Presidency this time, would tweet on January 28, 2016 addressing her voters and admirers with the following vow:

“We will go after pharmaceutical companies that gouge patients with pricing. They are wrong, and we will stop them.”

My experience tells me that astute pharma CEOs, by and large, still command much higher credibility than their trade associations. Thus, the top leadership of the respective organizations would require taking the ‘image revamping exercise’ in their own hands, directly. It is essential to publicly demonstrate that most of them are aligned and in sync with the emerging new paradigm of changing aspirations, needs and wants of the patients and other key stakeholders. Future business excellence would demand inclusive growth. GSK is just an example of a CEO’s bold response to address this challenge of change – ‘a small step but a giant leap’ in this direction.

Conclusion:

In my view, all these contentious practices are basically being prompted by the strong intent of most of the pharma CEOs to ‘play safe’, in order to deliver expected shareholder value.

Any unorthodox approach to rebuild the tarnished image is usually risky, generally frowned upon and discouraged by the industry. Other vested interests often join them too. All these retarding forces express grave apprehensions on any fresh look by a company to mend fences with its key stakeholder – the patients and the public, in general.

The recent GSK example is no exception. Apprehensions have already been expressed, whether this untested fresh thinking, against a widely perceived corrupt practice of paying physician speakers for indirect brand promotion would really be able to boost its image, without cutting into revenue. Some would take a step further and question, would a rejuvenated image ultimately fetch expected growth in sales revenue and profit?

Only time will tell us the consequences of this uncommon and unorthodox decision taken by a courageous leader in the pharma industry.

In India, even the Government seems to have gone into a deep slumber on this issue. Despite reported discussions with the stakeholders several times, Government’s UCPMP still remains voluntary, with the DoP holding the same old ground, where it started from on January 1, 2015. It is difficult to fathom, whether intense industry lobbying is influencing a long overdue decision in favor of the patients’ overall interest.

However, there is good news also. According to a February 6, 2016 media report, ‘The Medical Council of India (MCI), for the first time ever, is set to notify specific punishments for errant doctors based on the value of favors or freebies received from drug players, under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) (Amendment) Regulations, 2015.

That apart, to revamp its dented image, the decision of GSK against paid physician speakers as an integral part of brand promotion, is not just a gutsy step with a sharp focus on restoring business ethics and values, but more laudably a voluntary one. Would others follow it too, including in India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

India To Expand NLEM 2011: A Step In The Right Direction

Posted on May 11, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Responding to growing discontentment on the flawed National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and equally vociferous demand for its urgent rectification, on May 5, 2015, in a written reply to the Lower House of Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha) the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Ananth Kumar made the following submission:

“The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, has constituted a Core Committee of Experts to review and recommend the revision of National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) 2011 in the context of contemporary knowledge of use of therapeutic products.”

According to earlier media reports, the Government had formed this Core Committee in May 2014 under Dr. V.M Katoch, Secretary, Department of Health Research (DHR) and Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). However to utter dismay of many, even in a full year’s time, the Committee has not been able to come out with any tangible recommendations in this area.

In his reply from the floor of the Parliament, the Union Minister added with a tinge of reassurance:

“The Core committee has already held wide consultations with stakeholders and is likely to come out with its recommendations on the revised NLEM soon… The revised NLEM would form the basis of number of medicines which would come under price control,”

This reply from the Minister was in response to a query from a lawmaker on what steps have been taken by the Government to expand the list of NLEM 2011 and provide them to the poor at affordable prices.

Mr. Ananth Kumar also reiterated, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has already fixed the ceiling prices in respect of 521 medicines till date, out of 628 NLEM formulations included in the first schedule of DPCO, 2013.

“The revised NLEM would bring more drugs under price control”, the Minister said.

NPPA’s earlier initiative was thwarted:

It is worth noting that in 2014, to include all drugs of mass consumption, in addition to essential and life saving medicines, NPPA initiated an exercise to expand the NLEM 2011.

At that time, quite rightly I reckon, the pharmaceutical industry vehemently protested against this regulatory overreach of NPPA and sought judicial intervention at least in two High Courts of India.

Moreover, as is well known today, NPPA’s attempt to regulate prices of medicines of mass consumption got thwarted, when the Union Government intervened and directed the price regulator to withdraw its related internal guidelines. Coincidentally this lightning action was taken just before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s schedule visit to the United States in end 2014.

Be that as it may, the industry observers consider the last week’s announcement of the Union Minister, from the floor of the Parliament, to expand the span of NLEM 2011 as a step in the right direction for improving access to affordable essential medicines for all in India.

A brief backdrop for ‘Essential Medicines’:

The World Health Organization (W.H.O) has defined ‘Essential Medicines’ as those that ‘satisfy the priority healthcare needs of the population’. It has been propagating this concept since 1977, when W.H.O published the first Model List of Essential Drugs with 208 medicines. All these medicines together provided safe, effective treatment for the majority of communicable and non-communicable diseases, at that time.

Every two year this list is updated. The current Model List of Essential Medicines, prepared by the W.H.O Expert Committee in April 2013, is its 18^th Edition.

According to W.H.O, such ‘Essential Medicines’ are selected with due regard to disease prevalence, evidence on efficacy and safety, and comparative cost-effectiveness. The Organization categorically states:

“Essential medicines are intended to be available within the context of functioning health systems at all times in adequate amounts, in the appropriate dosage forms, with assured quality, and at a price the individual and the community can afford.”

Many countries of the world, India included now, have the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) and some have provincial or state lists as well, such as, in Tamilnadu Rajasthan and Delhi.

Health being a state subject in India, NLEM usually relates closely to Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) for use within the State Government health facilities. Ironically, such measures are currently being taken by just a small number of State Governments in the country.

NLEM – A forward-looking ongoing concept:

According to W.H.O, the concept of ‘Essential Medicines’ is forward-looking and ongoing. This idea prompts the need to regularly update the selection of medicines in the NLEM, reflecting:

New therapeutic options
Changing therapeutic needs
The need to ensure drug quality
The need for continued development of better medicines
Medicines for emerging diseases
Medicines to meet changing resistance patterns

As a part of its ongoing exercise, on May 8, 2015, The World Health Organization (W.H.O) by a ‘News Release’ announced addition of several new treatments for cancer and hepatitis C to its list of ‘Essential Medicines’, which the agency believes should be made available at affordable prices.

All 5 new products for the treatment of Hepatitis C, including sofosbuvir and daclatasvir, were included in the List. These medicines cure more than 90 percent of those infected and cost from US$63,000 to US$94,500 in the United States, depending upon the drug and treatment regimen.

Considering, new breakthroughs made in cancer treatment in the last years, W.H.O also revised the full cancer segment of the Essential Medicines List this year: 52 products were reviewed and 30 treatments confirmed, with 16 new medicines added in the list, including Herceptin of Roche, and Gleevec of Novartis.

“When new effective medicines emerge to safely treat serious and widespread diseases, it is vital to ensure that everyone who needs them can obtain them,” said W.H.O Director-General, Dr Margaret Chan. “Placing them on the WHO Essential Medicines List is a first step in that direction.”

India would also require putting similar effective systems in place for a robust, ongoing and time-bound review process for its NLEM.

Immense health and economic impact of ‘Essential Medicines’:

Globally the health and economic impact of ‘Essential Medicines’ have been proved to be remarkable, especially in the developing countries, as such drugs are one of the most cost-effective elements in healthcare system of any time. That’s why the stakeholders bestow so much of importance on a well thought out and properly crafted list of essential medicines by the astute experts appointed by the Government.

According to W.H.O, while spending on pharmaceuticals represents less than one-fifth of total public and private health spending in most developed countries, it represents 15 to 30 percent of health spending in transitional economies and 25 to 66 percent in developing countries.

In developing countries, such as India, pharmaceuticals are the largest Out of Pocket (OoP) household health expenditure. “And the expense of serious family illness, including drugs, is a major cause of household impoverishment.”

Flawed NLEM could multiply access to medicines problems:

Despite well-documented global evidence regarding high potential of health and economic impact of ‘Essential Drugs’, if the NLEM does not include right kind of drugs and remains flawed, it could have significant adverse impact on the overall access to ‘Essential Medicines’ in India.

In addition, properly structured NLEM could help setting the right course in the procurement and supply of medicines in the public sector – national or state Government schemes that reimburse medicine costs, and also for domestic production of drugs in the country.

A quick overview of NLEM in India:

There was no functional NLEM in India before 2002. According to a paper titled “Decisions on WHO’s essential medicines need more scrutiny”, published in the BMJ on July 31, 2014, in India the first National Essential Medical List (NEML) was prepared in 1996. However, this list was neither implemented for procuring drugs nor were STGs drawn up.

It all started in 2002, when the National Drug Policy of India, announced in that year, was subsequently challenged through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Karnataka High Court on the ground of being inflationary in nature. The Honorable Court by its order dated November 12, 2002 issued a stay on the implementation of that Policy.

This judgment was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay vide its order dated March 10, 2003 and ordered as follows:

“We suspend the operation of the order to the extent it directs that the Policy dated February 15, 2002 shall not be implemented. However we direct that the petitioner shall consider and formulate appropriate criteria for ensuring essential and lifesaving drugs not to fall out of the price control and further directed to review drugs, which are essential and lifesaving in nature till 2nd May, 2003”.

As a result DPCO 1995 continued to remain operational, pending formulation of a new drug policy, based on NLEM based span of price control, as directed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India. Necessitated by this directive of the Apex Court of the country, the first NLEM of India came into effect in 2002.

In 2011, NLEM 2002 was subsequently reviewed and re-evaluated by a committee of 87 experts from various fields, and was replaced by the NLEM 2011 with 348 drugs.

In the recent years, following a series of protracted judicial and executive activities, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) came into effect on December 7, 2012. In the new policy the span of price control was changed to all drugs falling under the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and the price control methodology was modified from the cost-based to market based one. Accordingly the new Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) was notified on May 15, 2013.

However, the matter is still subjudice, as NPPP 2012 would ultimately require passing the acid test of scrutiny by the Supreme Court of India, in the future days.

A recent study emphasizes need for urgent expansion of NLEM:

A March 2015 independent evaluation of DPCO 2013, which controls prices of essential medicines in India as featured in the NLEM 2011, brought to light some interesting facts. The Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) and the Institute for Studies in Industrial Development released this report titled “Pharmaceutical Policies in India: Balancing Industrial and Public Health Interests” at a conference on pharmaceutical policies in India, held in New Delhi from 3 to 7 March, 2015.

This independent evaluation would most probably be submitted to the Supreme Court where PHFI is one of the petitioners in a case challenging the current NPPP 2012.

The study found that price regulations of NLEM 2011 are limited to just 17 percent of the total pharmaceutical market in India. This leaves 83 percent of the domestic pharma market free from price control, providing only marginal financial relief to patients for all essential medicines, in its true sense, as desired by the Supreme Court of India. Thus, one of the key recommendations of this study is to review the NLEM 2011, urgently.

“Clearly the interests of the pharmaceutical industry have received precedence over the interest of the patient population,” the report highlighted.

Anurag Bhargava, of the Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, was quoted in March 2014 BMJ Article titled, “Analysts in India call for urgent expansion of essential medicines list”, saying:

“This is a matter of concern given that the NLEM was not drafted as an instrument for price regulation. It is a representative rather than a comprehensive list of medicines utilized in actual practice. To serve as a reference for rational prescribing, the NLEM includes only a few model dosage forms, strengths, and combinations of drugs.”

NLEM 2011 fails to reflect public health priorities:

The report, with relevant details, brings to the fore that NLEM 2011 has failed to reflect India’s public health priorities. It underscores the following glaring deficiencies in NLEM 2011, which covers just:

1 percent of drugs for anemia
5 percent of respiratory drugs
7 percent of antidepressants
15 percent of drugs for diabetes
18 percent of drugs for tuberculosis
13 percent of anti-malarial drugs
23 percent of cardiac drugs
35 percent of antibiotics

Areas for revision in NLEM 2011:

A critical appraisal of NLEM 2011 was done in the above-mentioned 2014 BMJ paper and also by the NPPA separately.

Taking all these into consideration, some key areas of concerns related to NLEM 2011 floats at the top of mind. A few examples of important issues, which need immediate attention, are as follows (not necessarily in the same order):

Other key strengths and dosage forms of the same drugs covered under NLEM 2011

Analogues of scheduled formulations not covered

Close substitutes in the same therapeutic class not covered

Some essential drugs listed in the W.H.O model list and even in Delhi list are missing in the NLEM 2011

Several essential HIV and Cancer drugs are not included in NLEM 2011

Essential oral anti-diabetic medicines, like glimeperide and glicazide do not find place in NLEM 2011, especially when the list in the DSPRUD for Delhi includes anti-diabetic medicines such as glimepiride, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin

Commonly used anti-asthmatic medicines like almeterol and montelukast are missing in NLEM 2011

When W.H.O model List (EML) includes capreomycin, cycloserine, ethionamide, kanamycin and para-aminosalicylic acid for treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, these drugs are missing in NLEM 2011 list

Though a large number of Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) are prescribed to treat common ailments in India, especially in certain therapeutic groups such as respiratory, cardiovascular, anti-diabetic, dermatology, anti-malarial and anti TB/MDR TB, most of these are missing in NLEM 2011

While the W.H.O list mentions 21 vaccines, the NLEM 2011 mentions only nine vaccines

A separate list of lifesaving drugs based on existing lifesaving drugs list of government agencies like the CGHS needs to be worked out

Pediatric formulations need to be included in NLEM

Inclusion of some medical devices which are already covered under the definition of drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940

Essential and well-selected lifesaving patented drugs should also feature in the NLEM, just as what W.H.O has done this month by adding to its ‘Essential Medicines List’ all the five patented new curative treatments for hepatitis C, besides 16 new cancer drugs.

Thus, in its present form the NLEM 2011 needs a critical relook and revision, mainly in the light of the missing drugs and keeping in view of the requirements under various National Health Programs as well as the National Formulary of India 2010.

The BMJ paper also highlights, the Indian Academy of Pediatrics has come out with a list of ‘Essential Drugs’ for children in India. Such a list might be consulted for the Pediatric List of Essential Medicine within the NLEM. Provision should be made to review the NLEM at two yearly intervals, as is currently practiced by the W.H.O.

Civil Society steps in:

Accordingly, in August 2014, seven Civil Society Organizations in a letter to Minister Ananth Kumar with a copy to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, among others, wrote as follows:

“Limiting all price regulation only to a list of 348 medicines and specified dosages and strengths in the DPCO 2013 goes against the policy objective of making medicines affordable to the public. The National List of Essential Medicines, a list of 348 rational and cost-effective medicines, is not the basis for production, promotion and prescription in India. In reality the most frequently prescribed and consumed medicines are not listed in the NLEM.”

Healthcare: China on a fast track, India crawls through a slow lane:

Interestingly, to help improve economic growth and boost domestic consumption, China has recently decided to floor the gas pedal on the fast lane of healthcare reform, while India chose to continue to crawl through its slow lane.

Interestingly, both the countries want to draw similar sets of trend lines for health and economic progress of their respective nations.

This has been vindicated by Reuters report of May 9, 2015, when it highlighted, China would increase its healthcare subsidies by 19 percent this year as part of efforts to deepen social reforms and strengthen safety nets.

The report also indicated, economists view this measure as crucial for China to improve the quality of its healthcare, if it wishes to remake its economy and boost domestic consumption. They say a stronger safety net will encourage Chinese to spend more and save less.

As opposed to the Chinese scenario, in India, the Union Budget 2015-16 came as a real dampener for the healthcare space in the country. This assumes greater significance, as the budget was planned by the reform oriented Modi Government.

Despite the dismal state of current public healthcare services, the annual budgetary allocation for healthcare has been kept at Rs. 33,152 Crore, just a tad more than Rs. 30,645 Crore of 2014-15, with no visible indication for any healthcare reform measure in the country, any time soon.

Conclusion:

‘Essential Medicines’ based drug price control, as was directed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India, is just not far sighted, but a potential game changer in the healthcare space of the country.

While looking at the bigger picture, this policy also promises a significant contribution in the overall economic progress of the nation.

To make this policy effective in the longer term, NLEM should be fair, impartial, far sighted, up to date, robust and beyond obvious any controversy, which includes its authors… just as the spirit behind the good old saying: “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”

Unfortunately, NLEM 2011 is mired with many shortcomings for all the wrong reasons, as discussed above.

The incumbent Government would require striking a just and right balance between public health interest and expectations of the Pharma industry in this critical area. Taking the right policy decision in a transparent an effective manner, balancing the healthcare and economic interest of the country, would be critical.

That said, Pharma industry in India, I reckon, would also not be devastatingly impacted with the possible expansion of NLEM. This is mainly because, currently only 17 percent of the total pharmaceutical market in India comes under price control, based on the span of NLEM 2011 formulations. In any case, the balance 83 percent of the domestic pharma market still falls under the free-pricing zone.

Even when DPCO 1995 came into force, which continued till DPCO 2013 became effective, 20 percent of the total domestic pharmaceutical market was under price control.

Moreover, there was no provision for automatic annual price increases for price-controlled drugs under DPCO 1995. Whereas DPCO 2013 has a provision for annual price increases for all such essential drugs based on WPI. As a result, MRPs of all price controlled essential drugs have gone up effective April 1 of this year and would continue to happen so every year, as long as NPPP 2012 remains in force.

Under this complex mosaic and fast evolving backdrop, the announcement of the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Ananth Kumar on the floor of the Parliament last week is a laudable one.

To help improve access to affordable essential medicines for all in the country, the Minister has reiterated, “The expanded NLEM would bring more essential drugs under price control.” This categorical affirmation by the Government in power, though belated, is a step in the right direction…for both better healthcare and also its consequential critical impact on the economic progress of India.

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.

R&D: Is Indian Pharma Moving Up the Value Chain?

Posted on September 2, 2013 by Tapan Ray

It almost went unnoticed by many, when in the post product patent regime, Ranbaxy launched its first homegrown ‘New Drug’ of India, Synriam, on April 25, 2012, coinciding with the ‘World Malaria Day’. The drug is used in the treatment of plasmodium falciparum malaria affecting adult patients. However, the company has also announced its plans to extend the benefits of Synriam to children in the malaria endemic zones of Asia and Africa.

The new drug is highly efficacious with a cure rate of over 95 percent offering advantages of “compliance and convenience” too. The full course of treatment is one tablet a day for three days costing less than US$ 2.0 to a patient.

Synriam was developed by Ranbaxy in collaboration with the Department of Science and Technology of the Government of India. The project received support from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and conforms to the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). The R&D cost for this drug was reported to be around US$ 30 million. After its regulatory approval in India, Synriam is now being registered in many other countries of the world.

Close on the heels of the above launch, in June 2013 another pharmaceutical major of India, Zydus Cadilla announced that the company is ready for launch in India its first New Chemical Entity (NCE) for the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia. The NCE called Lipaglyn has been discovered and developed in India and is getting ready for launch in the global markets too.

The key highlights of Lipaglyn are reportedly as follows:

The first Glitazar to be approved in the world.

The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has already approved the drug for launch in India.

Over 80% of all diabetic patients are estimated to be suffering from diabetic dyslipidemia. There are more than 350 million diabetics globally – so the people suffering from diabetic dyslipidemia could be around 300 million.

With 20 discovery research programs under various stages of clinical development, Zydus Cadilla reportedly invests over 7 percent of its turnover in R&D. At the company’s state-of-the-art research facility, the Zydus Research Centre, over 400 research scientists are currently engaged in NCE research alone.

Prior to this in May 14, 2013, the Government of India’s Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and Indian vaccine company Bharat Biotech jointly announced positive results, having excellent safety and efficacy profile in Phase III clinical trials, of an indigenously developed rotavirus vaccine.

The vaccine name Rotavac is considered to be an important scientific breakthrough against rotavirus infections, the most severe and lethal cause of childhood diarrhea, responsible for approximately 100,000 deaths of small children in India each year.

Bharat Biotech has announced a price of US$ 1.00/dose for Rotavac. When approved by the Drug Controller General of India, Rotavac will be a more affordable alternative to the rotavirus vaccines currently available in the Indian market.

It is indeed interesting to note, a number of local Indian companies have started investing in pharmaceutical R&D to move up the industry value chain and are making rapid strides in this direction.

Indian Pharma poised to move-up the value-chain:

Over the past decade or so, India has acquired capabilities and honed skills in several important areas of pharma R&D, like for example:

Cost effective process development
Custom synthesis
Physical and chemical characterization of molecules
Genomics
Bio-pharmaceutics
Toxicology studies
Execution of phase 2 and phase 3 studies

According to a paper titled, “The R&D Scenario in Indian Pharmaceutical Industry” published by Research and Information System for Developing Countries, over 50 NCEs/NMEs of the Indian Companies are currently at different stages of development, as follows:

Company	Compounds	Therapy Areas	Status
Biocon	7	Oncology, Inflammation, Diabetes	Pre-clinical, phase II, III
Wockhardt	2	Anti-infective	Phase I, II
Piramal Healthcare	21	Oncology, Inflammation, Diabetes	Lead selection, Pre-clinical, Phase I, II
Lupin	6	Migraine, TB, Psoriasis, Diabetes, Rheumatoid Arthritis	Pre-clinical, Phase I, II, III
Torrent	1	Diabetic heart failure	Phase I
Dr. Reddy’s Lab	6	Metabolic/Cardiovascular disorders, Psoriasis, migraine	On going, Phase I, II
Glenmark	8	Metabolic/Cardiovascular /Respiratory/Inflammatory /Skin disorders, Anti-platelet, Adjunct to PCI/Acute Coronary Syndrome, Anti-diarrheal, Neuropathic Pain, Skin Disorders, Multiple Sclerosis,	Ongoing, Pre-clinical, Phase I, II, III

R&D collaboration and partnership:

Some of these domestic companies are also entering into licensing agreements with the global players in the R&D space. Some examples are reportedly as follows:

Glenmark has inked licensing deals with Sanofi of France and Forest Laboratories of the United States to develop three of its own patented molecules.

Domestic drug major Biocon has signed an agreement with Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) for new drug candidates.

Piramal Life Sciences too entered into two risk-reward sharing deals in 2007 with Merck and Eli Lilly, to enrich its research pipeline of drugs.

Jubilant Group partnered with Janssen Pharma of Belgium and AstraZeneca of the United Kingdom for pharma R&D in India, last year.

All these are just indicative collaborative R&D initiatives in the Indian pharmaceutical industry towards harnessing immense growth potential of this area for a win-win business outcome.

The critical mass:

An international study estimated that out of 10,000 molecules synthesized, only 20 reach the preclinical stage, 10 the clinical trials stage and ultimately only one gets regulatory approval for marketing. If one takes this estimate into consideration, the research pipeline of the Indian companies would require to have at least 20 molecules at the pre-clinical stage to be able to launch one innovative product in the market.

Though pharmaceutical R&D investments in India are increasing, still these are not good enough. The Annual Report for 2011-12 of the Department of Pharmaceuticals indicates that investments made by the domestic pharmaceutical companies in R&D registered an increase from 1.34 per cent of sales in 1995 to 4.5 percent in 2010. Similarly, the R&D expenditure for the MNCs in India has increased from 0.77 percent of their net sales in 1995 to 4.01 percent in 2010.

Thus, it is quite clear, both the domestic companies and the MNCs are not spending enough on R&D in India. As a result, at the individual company level, India is yet to garner the critical mass in this important area.

No major R&D investments in India by large MNCs:

According to a report, major foreign players with noteworthy commercial operations in India have spent either nothing or very small amount towards pharmaceutical R&D in the country. The report also mentions that Swiss multinational Novartis, which spent $ 9 billion on R&D in 2012 globally, does not do any R&D in India.

Analogue R&D strategy could throw greater challenges:

For adopting the analogue research strategy, by and large, the Indian pharma players appear to run the additional challenge of proving enhanced clinical efficacy over the known substance to pass the acid test of the Section 3(d) of the Patents Act of India.

Public sector R&D:

In addition to the private sector, research laboratories in the public sector under the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) like, Central Drug Research Institute (CDRI), Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IICT) and National Chemical Laboratory (NCL) have also started contributing to the growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry.

As McKinsey & company estimated, given adequate thrust, the R&D costs in India could be much lower, only 40 to 60 per cent of the costs incurred in the US. However, in reality R&D investments of the largest global pharma R&D spenders in India are still insignificant, although they have been expressing keenness for Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) mostly in the brownfield pharma sector.

Cost-arbitrage:

Based on available information, global pharma R&D spending is estimated to be over US$ 60 billion. Taking the cost arbitrage of India into account, the global R&D spend at Indian prices comes to around US$ 24 billion. To achieve even 5 percent of this total expenditure, India should have invested by now around US$ 1.2 billion on the pharmaceutical R&D alone. Unfortunately that has not been achieved just yet, as discussed above.

Areas of cost-arbitrage:

A survey done by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) in 2011 with the senior executives from the American and European pharmaceutical companies, highlights the following areas of perceived R&D cost arbitrage in India:

Areas	% Respondents
Low overall cost	73
Access to patient pool	70
Data management/Informatics	55
Infrastructure set up	52
Talent	48
Capabilities in new TA	15

That said, India should realize that the current cost arbitrage of the country is not sustainable on a longer-term basis. Thus, to ‘make hay while the sun shines’ and harness its competitive edge in this part of the world, the country should take proactive steps to attract both domestic as well as Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) in R&D with appropriate policy measures and fiscal incentives.

Simultaneously, aggressive capacity building initiatives in the R&D space, regulatory reforms based on the longer term need of the country and intensive scientific education and training would play critical role to establish India as an attractive global hub in this part of the world to discover and develop newer medicines for all.

Funding:

Accessing the world markets is the greatest opportunity in the entire process of globalization and the funds available abroad could play an important role to boost R&D in India. Inadequacy of funds in the Indian pharmaceutical R&D space is now one of the greatest concerns for the country.

The various ways of funding R&D could be considered as follows:

Self-financing Research: This is based on:

“CSIR Model”: Recover research costs through commercialization/ collaboration with industries to fund research projects.
“Dr Reddy’s Lab / Glenmark Model”: Recover research costs by selling lead compounds without taking through to development.

Overseas Funding: By way of joint R&D ventures with overseas collaborators, seeking grants from overseas health foundations, earnings from contract research as also from clinical development and transfer of aborted leads and collaborative projects on ‘Orphan Drugs’.

Venture Capital & Equity Market: This could be both via ‘Private Venture Capital Funds’ and ‘Special Government Institutions’. If regulations permit, foreign venture funds may also wish to participate in such initiatives. Venture Capital and Equity Financing could emerge as important sources of finance once track record is demonstrated and ‘early wins’ are recorded.

Fiscal & Non-Fiscal Support: Should also be valuable in early stages of R&D, for which a variety of schemes are possible as follows:

Customs Duty Concessions: For Imports of specialized equipment, e.g. high throughput screening equipment, equipment for combinatorial chemistry, special analytical tools, specialized pilot plants, etc.
Income tax concessions (weighted tax deductibility): For both in-house and sponsored research programs.
Soft loans: For financing approved R&D projects from the Government financial institutions / banks.
Tax holidays: Deferrals, loans on earnings from R&D.
Government funding: Government grants though available, tend to be small and typically targeted to government institutions or research bodies. There is very little government support for private sector R&D as on date.

All these schemes need to be simple and hassle free and the eligibility criteria must be stringent to prevent any possible misuse.

Patent infrastructure:

Overall Indian patent infrastructure needs to be strengthened, among others, in the following areas:

Enhancement of patent literacy both in legal and scientific communities, who must be taught how to read, write and file a probe.

Making available appropriate ‘Search Engines’ to Indian scientists to facilitate worldwide patent searches.

Creating world class Indian Patent Offices (IPOs) where the examination skills and resources will need considerable enhancement.

‘Advisory Services’ on patents to Indian scientists to help filing patents in other countries could play an important role.

Creating R&D ecosystem:

Knowledge and learning need to be upgraded through the universities and specialist centers of learning within India.

Science and Technological achievements should be recognized and rewarded through financial grants and future funding should be linked to scientific achievements.

Indian scientists working abroad are now inclined to return to India or network with laboratories in India. This trend should be effectively leveraged.

Universities to play a critical role:

Most of Indian raw scientific talents go abroad to pursue higher studies. International Schools of Science like Stanford or Rutgers should be encouraged to set up schools in India, just like Kellogg’s and Wharton who have set up Business Schools. It has, however, been reported that the Government of India is actively looking into this matter.

‘Open Innovation’ Model:

As the name suggest, ‘Open Innovation’ or the ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ is an open source code model of discovering a New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). In this model all data generated related to the discovery research will be available in the open for collaborative inputs. In ‘Open Innovation’, the key component is the supportive pathway of its information network, which is driven by three key parameters of open development, open access and open source.

Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) of India has adopted OSDD to discover more effective anti-tubercular medicines.

Insignificant R&D investment in Asia-Pacific Region:

Available data indicate that 85 percent of the medicines produced by the global pharmaceutical industry originate from North America, Europe, Japan and some from Latin America and the developed nations hold 97 percent of the total pharmaceutical patents worldwide.

MedTRACK reveals that just 15 percent of all new drug development is taking place in Asia-Pacific region, including China, despite the largest global growth potential of the region.

This situation is not expected to change significantly in the near future for obvious reasons. The head start that the western world and Japan enjoy in this space of the global pharmaceutical industry would continue to benefit those countries for some more time.

Some points to ponder:

It is essential to have balanced laws and policies, offering equitable advantage for innovation to all stakeholders, including patients.

Trade policy is another important ingredient, any imbalance of which can either reinforce or retard R&D efforts.

Empirical evidence across the globe has demonstrated that a well-balanced patent regime would encourage the inflow of technology, stimulate R&D, benefit both the national and the global pharmaceutical sectors and most importantly improve the healthcare system, in the long run.

The Government, academia, scientific fraternity and the pharmaceutical Industry need to get engaged in various relevant Public Private Partnership (PPP) arrangements for R&D to ensure wider access to newer and better medicines in the country, providing much needed stimulus to the public health interest of the nation.

Conclusion:

R&D initiatives, though very important for most of the industries, are the lifeblood for the pharmaceutical sector, across the globe, to meet the unmet needs of the patients. Thus, quite rightly, the pharmaceutical Industry is considered to be the ‘lifeline’ for any nation in the battle against diseases of all types.

While the common man expects newer and better medicines at affordable prices, the pharmaceutical industry has to battle with burgeoning R&D costs, high risks and increasingly long period of time to take a drug from the ‘mind to market’, mainly due to stringent regulatory requirements. There is an urgent need to strike a right balance between the two.

In this context, it is indeed a proud moment for India, when with the launch of its home grown new products, Synriam of Ranbaxy and Lipaglyn of Zydus Cadilla or Rotavac Vaccine of Bharat Biotech translate a common man’s dream of affordable new medicines into reality and set examples for others to emulate.

Thus, just within seven years from the beginning of the new product patent regime in India, stories like Synriam, Lipaglyn, Rotavac or the R&D pipeline of over 50 NCEs/NMEs prompt resurfacing the key unavoidable query yet again:

Has Indian pharma started catching-up with the process of new drug discovery, after decades of hibernation, to move up the industry ‘Value Chain’?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pioglitazone Conundrum: Should The Drug Regulator Step Over The Line?

Posted on July 8, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Recent order of the Indian drug regulator to withdraw all formulations of the well known, yet controversial, anti-diabetic drug – Pioglitazone from the domestic market has created a flutter in the country, ruffling many feathers at the same time.

Withdrawal of any drug from the market involves well-considered findings based on ongoing robust pharmacovigilance data since the concerned product launch. To ascertain long-term drug safety profile, this process is universally considered as important as the processes followed for high quality drug manufacturing and even for R&D.

A paper titled, “Withdrawing Drugs in the U.S. Versus Other Countries” brings to the fore that one of the leading causes of deaths in the United States is adverse drug reaction. Assessing enormity and impact of this issue, the United Nations General Assembly for the first time in 1979 decided to publish a list of banned pharmaceutical products that different countries may use for appropriate decisions keeping patients’ safety in mind, as they will deem necessary from time to time.

An interesting finding:

Quite interestingly, the paper also highlights:

“There are a number of pharmaceuticals on the market in the USA that have been banned elsewhere and similarly, there are some drug products that have been banned in the United States, but remain on the market in other countries.”

Different policies in different countries:

The reason for the above finding is mainly because, various countries follow different policies to address this important health related issue. For example, though the United States will withdraw drugs based on the decision taken by its own FDA, it will also compare the action taken by countries like, UK, Japan, Australia and Sweden on the same subject.

However, many experts do believe that United Nations must take greater initiative to make all concerned much more aware about the UN list of dangerous drugs, which should be continuously updated to expect the least.

Need transparency in pharmacovigilance:

Pharmacovigilance has been defined as:

“The task of monitoring the safety of medicines and ensuring that the risks of a medicine do not outweigh the benefits, in the interests of public health.”

An article on Pharmacovigilance by A.C. (Kees) van Grootheest and Rachel L. Richesson highlights as follows:

“The majority of post marketing study commitments are never initiated, and the completion of post marketing safety studies (i.e., phase IV studies) declined from 62% between 1970 and 1984 to 24% between 1998 and 2003.”

Thus, in many countries, due to lack of required transparency in the pharmacovigilance process, harmful drugs continue to remain in the market for many years before they are withdrawn, for various reasons.

The above paper strongly recommends, “While there might be monetary benefits for each country in keeping these drugs on the market, the U.N. must step up the visibility of the withdrawal of dangerous drugs list.”

Recent Pioglitazone withdrawal in India:

Recently in India, the Ministry of Health under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has suspended the manufacture and sale of Pioglitazone, along with two other drugs, with immediate effect, through a notification issued on June 18, 2013.

As per the Drugs and Cosmetic Rule 30-B, import and marketing of all those drugs, which are prohibited in the country of origin, is banned in India. Just as in the United States, the Ministry of health, while taking such decisions in India, compares long-term safety profile of the concerned drugs in countries like, USA, UK, EU and Australia.

A Parliamentary Standing Committee of India has already indicted the drug regulator for not taking prompt action on such issues to protect patients’ treatment safety.

Pioglitazone: the risk profile:

In India:

A leading medical journal (JAPI) cautions:

“Given the possible risk of bladder cancer, physicians have to be extremely careful about using pioglitazone indiscriminately in the future.”

The JAPI article continues to state:

“We require more robust data on the risk of bladder cancer with pioglitazone and Indian studies are clearly needed. Till that time, we may continue the use of this drug as a second or third line glucose-lowering agent. In all such cases, the patient should be adequately informed about this adverse effect and drug should be used in as small a dose as possible, with careful monitoring and follow up.”

In the USA:

In 2011 The US FDA as a part of its ongoing safety review of pioglitazone informed physicians and the public that use of this drug for more than 12 months is linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer.

The USFDA review is reportedly based on “an ongoing 10-year observational cohort study as well as a nested, case-control study of the long-term risk of bladder cancer in over 193,000 patients with diabetes who are members of the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) health plan.”

Based on this finding US FDA directed that physicians should:

Not use pioglitazone in patients with active bladder cancer.
Use pioglitazone with caution in patients who have a prior history of bladder cancer, adding, “The benefits of blood sugar control with pioglitazone should be weighed against the unknown risks for cancer recurrence.”
Tell patients to report any signs or symptoms of “blood in the urine, urinary urgency, pain on urination, or back or abdominal pain, as these may be due to bladder cancer.”
Urge patients to read the pioglitazone medication guide.
Report adverse events involving pioglitazone medicines to the FDA MedWatch program.

The moot point:

Considering the above US FDA directives in the Indian context, the moot point therefore is, whether it will be possible for the drug regulator to ensure that physicians and the patients in India follow such steps for drug safety with pioglitazone?

In Canada:

Another new Canadian study has again reportedly linked Pioglitazone with risks of bladder cancer and cautioned, “physicians, patients and regulatory agencies should be aware of this association when assessing the overall risks and benefits of this therapy.”

Pioglitazone and its combinations banned in France and Germany:

After a government-funded study, tracking diabetics from 2006 to 2009, concluded that Pioglitazone increases bladder cancer risk, the French Medicines Agency (FMA) announced withdrawal of Pioglitazone along with its fixed-dose combination with Metformin, as well.

FMA also advised doctors to stop prescribing Pioglitazone, plain or in combination, and asked patients, who are on this drug to consult their doctors immediately.

Simultaneously, German health authorities also acted on similar lines.

An intriguing comment by the Indian drug regulator:

Keeping all these in view, it is indeed intriguing to note that the Indian drug regulator is reportedly open to re-examine the case of pioglitazone and revoking its ban in India, if strong scientific evidences emerge in support of safety and efficacy of the drug.

However, the question then comes up is what more new scientific evidences that the Indian drug regulator is now expecting, especially when the pharmacovigilance studies are almost non-existent in India?

Moreover, such comments of the drug regulator not only prompt raising doubts about the fragility and hastiness of his own decision of banning Pioglitazone in India, but also amply demonstrate lack of seriousness in his part on this extremely important decision on drug safety?

‘Drug Product Liability Claims’ in India virtually non-existant:

In most of the developed countries, appropriate regulations are in place for product liability claims.

Under this law, if any patient suffers injury in any form while administering a pharmaceutical drug, the patient concerned is eligible to make pharmaceutical-drug-based product liability claims, which usually involve a huge amount of money by any imaginable standard.

These claims are based on:

Defectively manufactured pharmaceutical drugs (Types of Defective Product Liability Claims)

Pharmaceutical drugs with dangerous side effects, even though properly manufactured (Damages in Defective Products Cases.)

Improperly marketed pharmaceutical drugs. This category includes:

- Failure to provide adequate or accurate warnings regarding a dangerous side effect.

- Failure to provide adequate instructions on safe and appropriate use of the drug.

- The “bad advice”, which may have been given by the manufacturer or by a doctor, pharmacist, sales rep, or some other medical provider.

In the United States drug safety and effectiveness related litigations reportedly also include:

- Criminal and civil complaints brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.

- Lawsuits brought by state Attorney Generals and private plaintiffs under state consumer protection acts and other causes of action.

In India, closer to the above system there is a law in paper, named as “Products Liability”. This law deals with the liability of manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and vendors for injury to a person or property caused by dangerous or defective products. The aim of this law is to help protecting consumers from dangerous or defective products, while holding manufacturers, distributors, and retailers responsible for putting into the market place products that they knew or should have known were dangerous or defective. However, in reality, there are hardly any damages slapped by consumers on to the manufacturers in India under this ‘Product Liability’ law.

It may sound however bizarre, but is a hard fact that many drugs in Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) had never even gone through any form clinical trials on human volunteers before they were for the first time allowed to be marketed in India by the drug regulators.

In absence of any active steps taken by the government to educate and encourage patients to make use of this law, patients, by and large, would continue to pay a heavy price for their ignorance, keeping their mouth shut all the way, while using:

- Defectively manufactured pharmaceutical drugs.

- Pharmaceutical drugs with dangerous side effects.

- And even improperly marketed pharmaceutical drugs.

As stated before, it is worth repeating, neither is their any functional pharmacovigilance system in place in India.

Drug product liability suit for Pioglitazone in the United States:

Just to cite an example, one report indicates:

“According to court filings, all of the Actos (Pioglitazone) lawsuits pending in the Western District of Louisiana allege Takeda Pharmaceuticals failed to provide adequate warnings to doctors and patients regarding the drug’s association with an increased risk of bladder cancer. Last month (April, 2013), the nation’s first trial involving Actos bladder cancer allegations ended with a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarding $6.5 million to a plaintiff who was diagnosed with the disease after taking the drug for four years”. However, the judge overseeing the case granted Takeda Pharmaceuticals’ request to set aside the verdict.

The report also indicates, ‘more than 1,200 Actos bladder cancer claims are pending in the Louisiana litigation. Additional Actos lawsuits have been filed in state litigations in California and Illinois.’

Indian doctors and manufacturers protest together against Pioglitazone ban:

It is equally intriguing to note, despite serious life threatening side-effect and restricted usage profile of Pioglitazone, as established internationally through robust and large clinical studies, both the doctors and the Pioglitazone manufacturers in India are urging the government to lift ban on this drug immediately, keeping the silent patient community in the front line, as usually happens all over.

A news report highlighted that ‘doctors flayed the ban on anti-diabetes drug Pioglitazone and requested the Centre to reverse its decision in interest of patients.’

Another media report highlighted, major drug makers are strongly opposing the move of the government to ban Pioglitazone, in India.

Conclusion:

Without generating another set of robust evidence proving contrary to what has been already concluded in the United States and EU based on strong supporting pharmacovigilance data, if the Indian drug regulator revokes the ban of Pioglitazone, it will be construed as a huge compromise with patients’ safety interest with this drug.

This issue assumes even greater importance, when the ‘drug product liability’ system is almost dysfunctional in India.

The other alternative of the drug regulator is to revoke the ban, wilting under combined pressure of the manufacturers and doctors and ask for safety warnings trying to emulate, as it were, what has been done by the US FDA.

In which case, with full knowledge that it is virtually impossible for any one to comply with the above US FDA requirements in India, will the drug regulator not step over the line, yet again?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Balancing IPR with Public Health Interest: Brickbats, Power Play and Bouquets

Posted on July 1, 2013 by Tapan Ray

It is now a widely accepted dictum that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), especially pharma patents, help fostering innovation and is critical in meeting unmet needs of the patients.

However, the moot question still remains, what type pharmaceutical invention, should deserve market exclusivity or monopoly with overall freedom in pricing, keeping larger public health interest in mind.

In line with this thinking, for quite sometime a raging global debate has brought to the fore that there are quite a large number of patents on drug variants that offer not very significant value to the patients over the mother molecules, yet as expensive, if not more than the original ones. In common parlance these types of inventions are considered as ‘trivial incremental innovations’ and described as attempts to ‘evergreening’ the patents.

The terminology ‘evergreening‘ usually ‘refers to a strategy employed by many pharmaceutical companies to extend their market monopoly by slightly changing the existing molecules and obtaining new patents to continue to enjoy market exclusivity and pricing freedom, which otherwise would not have been possible.

Path breaking or jaw-drooping ‘W-O-W’ types of innovations are not so many. Thus most of the patented drugs launched globally over the last several decades are indeed some sort of ‘me-too drugs’ and generally considered as ‘low hanging fruits’ of R&D, not being able to offer significantly greater value to patients than already exiting ones. Many of these drugs have also achieved blockbuster status for the concerned companies, backed by high voltage marketing over a reasonably long period of time. It is understandable, therefore, that from pure business perspective why serious global efforts are being made to push the same contentious system in India too.

Example of some of these molecules (not necessarily in the written order), are as follows:

Cemetidine – Ranitidine – Famotidine – Nizatidine – Roxatidine (to treat Acid-peptic disease)

Simvastatin – Pravastatin – Lovastatin – Pitavastatin – Atorvastatin – Fluvastatin – Rosuvastatin (to treat blood lipid disorder)

Captopril – Enalepril – Lisinopril – Fosinopril – Benzapril – Perindopril – Ramipiril – Quinalapril – Zofenopril (Anti-hypertensives)

However, pharmaceutical companies do argue that such ‘incremental innovations’ are the bedrock for growth of the pharmaceutical industry and are essential to continue to fund pharmaceutical research and development.

An interesting paper:

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Innovation, Incremental Patenting and Compulsory Licensing” by Carlos M. Correa argued as follows:

Despite decline in the discovery of New Chemical Entities (NCEs) for pharmaceutical use, there has been significant proliferation of patents on products and processes that cover minor, incremental innovations.

A study conducted in five developing countries – Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, India and South Africa has:

Evidenced a significant proliferation of ‘ever-greening’ pharmaceutical patents that can block generic competition and thereby limit patients’ access to medicines.
Found that both the nature of pharmaceutical learning and innovation and the interest of public health are best served in a framework where rigorous standards of inventive step are used to grant patents.
Suggested that with the application of well-defined patentability standards, governments could avoid spending the political capital necessary to grant and sustain compulsory licenses/government use.
Commented, if patent applications were correctly scrutinized, there would be no need to have recourse to CL measures.

A remarkable similarity with the Indian Patents Act:

The findings of the above study have a striking similarity with the Indian Patents Act. As per this Act, to be eligible for grant of patents in India, the pharmaceutical products must pass the ‘two-step’ acid test of:

Following the inventive step: Defined under Section 2(ja) of the Patents Act as follows:

“Inventive step” means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.

Passing scrutiny of Section 3(d) of the law: It categorically states, inventions that are a mere “discovery” of a “new form” of a “known substance” and do not result in increased efficacy of that substance are not patentable.

Supreme Court of India clarifies it:

The Honorable Supreme Court of India in page 90 of its its landmark Glivec judgement has clearly pronounced that all ‘incremental innovations’ may not be trivial or frivolous in nature. However, only those ‘incremental innovations’, which will satisfy the requirements of both the above Sections of the Act, wherever applicable, will be eligible for grant of patents in India.

An opposite view:

Another paper presents a different view altogether. It states that incremental improvements on existing drugs have great relevance to overall increases in the quality of healthcare.

With the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, such drugs have helped the physicians to treat diverse group of patients. They also represent advances in safety, efficacy along with newer dosing options significantly increasing patient compliance.

The paper claims that ‘even from an economic standpoint, expanding drug classes represent the possibility of lower drug prices as competition between manufacturers is increased’. It states that any policy aimed at curbing incremental innovation will ultimately lead to a reduction in the overall quality of existing drug classes and may ultimately curb the creation of novel drugs.

Pricing:

Experts, on the other hand, argue, if patents are granted to such ‘incremental innovations’ at all, their prices need to be determined by quantifying ‘Incremental Value’ that patients will derive out of these inventions as compared to the generic versions of respective original molecules.

Use of such drugs may lead to wasteful expenditure:

A large majority of stakeholders also highlight, though many of such drugs will have cheaper or generic alternatives, physicians are persuaded by the pharma players to prescribe higher cost patented medicines with the help of expensive avoidable marketing tools, leading to wasteful expenditure for all. The issue of affordability for these drugs is also being raised, especially, in the Indian context.

The ‘2012 Express Scripts Canada Drug Trend Report’ unfolded that the use of higher-cost medications without offering additional patient benefits resulted in waste of $3.9 billion annually in Canada.

Another recent Geneva-based study concluded as follows:

“Evergreening strategies for follow-on drugs contribute to overall healthcare costs. It also implies that policies that encourage prescription of generic drugs could induce saving on healthcare expenditure. Healthcare providers and policymakers should be aware of the impact of evergreening strategies on overall healthcare costs.”

Some other studies reportedly revealed, “Medicines sold in France are 30 times more expensive than what it costs pharmaceutical companies pay to manufacture them.” Industry observers opine, if that is happening in France what about India? Quoting experts the same report comments, “If pharmaceutical companies are forced to follow moral and human values, it could save the tax payer at least 10 billion euros, an amount which could fill up the deficit of the national health care system.”

Yet another article questioned, “What if a physician is paid speaking or consulting fees by a drug maker and then prescribes its medicine, even if there is no added benefit compared with cheaper alternatives?”

More debate:

According to a paper titled, ‘Patented Drug Extension Strategies on Healthcare Spending: A Cost-Evaluation Analysis’ published by PLOS Medicine, European public health experts estimate that pharmaceutical companies have developed “evergreening” strategies to compete with generic medication after patent termination. These are usually slightly modified versions of the existing drugs.

Following are some brands, which were taken as examples for evergreening:

S.No.	Evergreen	Medical Condition	Original Brand
1.	Levocetirizine (Vozet)	Allergies	Cetirizine (Zyrtec)
2.	Escitalopram (Lexapro)	Depression	Citalopram (Celexa)
3.	Esomeprazole (Nexium)	Acid reflux	Omeprazole (Prilosec)
4.	Desloratadine (Clarinex)	Allergies	Loratadine (Claritan)
5.	Zolpidem Extended Release (Ambien CR)	Insomnia	Zolpidem (Ambien)
6.	Pregabalin (Lyrica)	Seizures	Gabapentin (Neurotonin)

Source: Medical Daily, June 4, 2013

In this study, the researchers calculated that evergreening – where pharmaceutical companies slightly modify a drug molecule to extend its patent, had cost an extra 30 million euros to the healthcare system in Geneva between 2000 and 2008. The authors argue that ‘evergreening’ strategies, “more euphemistically called as ‘life cycle management’ are sometimes questionable benefit to society.”

As the paper highlights, in this scenario the companies concerned rely on brand equity of the original molecule with newer and more innovative marketing campaigns to generate more prescriptions and incurring in that process expenses nearly twice as much on marketing than on research and development.

Brickbats:

In this context, recently a lawmaker rom America reportedly almost lambasted India as follows:

“I’m very concerned with the deterioration in the environment for protection of US intellectual property rights and innovation in India. The government of India continues to take actions that make it very difficult for US innovative pharmaceutical companies to secure and enforce their patents in India.“

On this, the Indian experts comment, if the situation is so bad in India, why doesn’t America get this dispute sorted out by lodging a formal complaint against India in the WTO, just as what India contemplated to do, when consignments of generic drugs of Indian manufacturers were confiscated at the European ports, alleging those are counterfeit medicines.

Yet another recent news item highlighted a “concerted effort, which involves letters from US corporations and business groups to the president, testimony by Obama administration officials before Congress, and lawmakers’ own critiques, came ahead of US secretary of state John Kerry’s trip to India later this month (has already taken place by now) for the annual strategic dialogue, which will precede Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Washington DC in September.”

The report stated, the above letter complained that over the last year, “courts and policymakers in India have engaged in a persistent pattern of discrimination designed to benefit India’s business community at the expense of American jobs … Administrative and court rulings have repeatedly ignored internationally recognized rights — imposing arbitrary marketing restrictions on medical devices and denying, breaking, or revoking patents for nearly a dozen lifesaving medications.”  

At a recent Congressional hearing of the United States, 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.”

Indian experts respond to these allegations by saying, patent disputes, patent challenges, revocation of patents, compulsory licensing etc. are all following a well-articulated judicial process of the country, where Indian government has hardly any role to play or intervene. American government and lawmakers are also expected to respect the rule of law in all such cases instead of trying to denigrate the Indian system.

The Power Play:

This short video clipping captures the Power Play in America on this matter.

The Government of India responds:

Ministry of Commerce and Industries of India reportedly countered the allegations of the United States over patents to the US Trade Representive arguing that the Indian IPR regime is fully TRIPS-compliant and Indian Patents Act “encourages genuine innovation by discouraging trivial, frivolous innovation, which leads to evergreening”.

Countries adopting the Indian model:

The above report also highlighted as follows:

Argentina has issued guidelines to reject ‘frivolous’ patents.
Peru, Columbia, other South American countries have placed curbs.
Philippines has similar provisions.
Australia is contemplating making the law tougher.

Revised report of Dr. R. A. Mashelkar Committee:

Even the revised (March 2009) ‘Report of the Technical Expert Group (TEG) on Patent Law Issues’, the TEG, chaired by the well-known scientist Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, in point number 5.30 of their report recommended as follows:

“Every effort must be made to prevent the practice of ‘evergreening’ often used by some of the pharma companies to unreasonably extend the life of the patent by making claims based sometimes on ‘trivial’ changes to the original patented product. The Indian patent office has the full authority under law and practice to determine what is patentable and what would constitute only a trivial change with no significant additional improvements or inventive steps involving benefits. Such authority should be used to prevent ‘evergreening’, rather than to introduce an arguable concept of ‘statutory exclusion’ of incremental innovations from the scope of patentability.”

Bouquets:

As stated above, many experts across the world believe, the criticism that Section 3 (d) is not TRIPS Agreement compliant is unfounded, as no such complaint has been lodged with the World Trade Organization (WTO) in this matter, thus far. The safeguards provided in the patent law of India will help the country to avoid similar issues now being faced by many countries. Importantly, neither does the section 3(d) stop all ‘incremental innovations’ in India.

Quoting a special adviser for health and development at South Centre, a think tank based in Geneva, Switzerland, a recent report indicated, “Many developing countries will follow India’s example to protect the rights of their populations to have access to essential medicines”.

Yet another report quoting an expert articulates, “India’s top court’s decision affirms India’s position and policy on defining how it defines inventions from a patenting point of view for its development needs. It challenges the patenting standards and practices of the developed countries which are the ones really in much need of reform.”

The Honorable Supreme Court in its Glivec judgment has also confirmed that such safeguard provisions in the statute are expected to withstand the test of time to protect public health interest in India and do not introduce any form of unreasonable restrictions on patentability of drug inventions.

Conclusion:

Not withstanding the report of the US-India Business Council (USIBC) titled ‘The Value of Incremental Innovation: Benefits for Indian Patients and Indian Business’, arguing for abolition of section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act to pave the way for patentability for all types of incremental innovations in pharmaceuticals, realistically it appears extremely challenging.

As the paper quoted first in this article suggests, denial of patents for inventions of dubious value extending effective patent period through additional patents, is a significant safeguard to protect public health interest. This statutory provision will also pave the way for quick introduction of generics on expiry of the original patent.

Taking all these developments into active consideration, keen industry watchers do believe, for every effort towards balancing IPR with Public Health Interest, both brickbats and bouquets will continue to be showered in varying proportion together with the mounting pressure of power play, especially from the developed world and still for some more time.

However, in India this critical balancing factor seems to have taken its root not just deep and strong, but in all probabilities - both politically and realistically, the law is now virtually irreversible, come what may.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Does the Landmark Glivec Judgment Discourage Innovation in India?

Posted on April 8, 2013 by Tapan Ray

No, I do not think so. The 112 pages well articulated judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered on April 1, 2013, does not even remotely discourage innovation in India, including much talked about ‘incremental innovation’. This landmark judgment reconfirms the rules of the game for pharmaceutical innovation, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005.

When one reads the judgment, point 191 in page number 95 very clearly states as follows:

“191. We have held that the subject product, the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, does not qualify the test of Section 3(d) of the Act but that is not to say that Section 3(d) bars patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances. It will be a grave mistake to read this judgment to mean that section 3(d) was amended with the intent to undo the fundamental change brought in the patent regime by deletion of section 5 from the Parent Act. That is not said in this judgment.”

Thus all ‘incremental innovations’, which some people always paint with a general broad brush of ‘evergreening’, should no longer be a taboo in India. The judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and arguments of Novartis.

To me, the judgment does also not signal that no more Glivec like case will come to the Supreme Court in future. It vindicated inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act 2005.

It is interesting to note that honorable Supreme Court itself used the terminology of ‘incremental innovation’ for such cases.

That said, I find it extremely complex to imagine what would have happened, if the judgment had gone the opposite way.

A critical point to ponder:

The judgment will also mean that all those products, having valid product patents abroad, if fail to meet the requirements of Section 3(d), will not be patentable in India, enabling introduction of their generic equivalents much sooner in the country and at the same time causing a nightmarish situation for their innovators.

However, this again, in no way, is an outcome of this judgement or a new development, as stated above. It is just vindication of the intent behind inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act, when it was enacted by the Parliament of India in 2005.

Patentability of ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

Patentability criteria for any ‘incremental innovations’ has been defined in the Section 3(d) of the Indian statute as follows:

“The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

Supreme Court interpretation of the term “Efficacy” in Section 3(d):

The Honorable Supreme Court in page 90 of its above order under point 180 stated that in case of medicines, efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”, which must be judged strictly and narrowly. The interpretation goes as follows:

180. “What is “efficacy”? Efficacy means ‘the ability to produce a desired or intended result’. Hence, the test of efficacy in the context of section 3(d) would be different, depending upon the result the product under consideration is desired or intended to produce. In other words, the test of efficacy would depend upon the function, utility or the purpose of the product under consideration. Therefore, in the case of a medicine that claims to cure a disease, the test of efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”.

The Honorable Court under the same point 180 further elaborated:

“With regard to the genesis of section 3(d), and more particularly the circumstances in which section 3(d) was amended to make it even more constrictive than before, we have no doubt that the “therapeutic efficacy” of a medicine must be judged strictly and narrowly…Further, the explanation requires the derivative to ‘differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy’. What is evident, therefore, is that not all advantageous or beneficial properties are relevant, but only such properties that directly relate to efficacy, which in case of medicine, as seen above, is its therapeutic efficacy.”

Based on this interpretation of Section 3(d), the Honorable Supreme Court of India ordered that Glivec does not fulfill the required criteria of the statute.

The rationale behind Section 3(d):

A report on ‘Patentability of the incremental innovation’ indicates that the policy makers keeping the following points in mind formulated the Indian Patents Act 2005:

The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industry, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.

A stringent patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs to a large number of populations in India.

Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will be able to demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

IPA challenges: 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by IPO fall under Section 3(d):

A study by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Possible implications to IPA challenge:

If the argument, as expressed above in the IPA study, is true by any stretch of imagination, in that case, there exists a theoretical possibility of at least 86 already granted product patents to get revoked. This will invite again another nightmarish situation for innovators.

Examples of revocation of patents in India:

On November 26, 2012, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Gefitinib on the ground that the molecule lacked invention.

The report also states that AstraZeneca suffered its first setback on Gefitinib in June 2006, when the Indian generic company Natco Pharma opposed the initial patent application filed by the global major in a pre-grant opposition. Later on, another local company, GM Pharma, joined Natco in November 2006.

After accepting the pre-grant opposition by the two Indian companies, the Indian Patent office (IPO) in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Prior to this, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the large Indian pharma player – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a “novel” product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’, as required by Section 3(d) of Patents Act of India 2005.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys.

Similarly the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib) granted by IPO in 2007, was revoked by the IPAB in October, 2012 after a post grant challenge by Cipla and Natco Pharma on the ground that the claimed ‘invention’ does not involve inventive steps.

Patent challenges under section 3(d) may come up even more frequently in future:

Some observers in this field have expressed, although ‘public health interest’ is the primary objective for having Section 3(d) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, many generic companies, both local and global, have already started exploiting this provision as a part of their ‘business strategy’ to improve business performance in India, especially when an injunction is usually not being granted by the honorable Courts for such cases on public health interest ground.

Thus, as stated above, there is likely to be many more cases like, Glivec coming before the Supreme Court in the years ahead.

Another related development of the last week:

It has been reported that American pharma major MSD has last week filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against Indian pharma major – Glenmark for alleged patent violation of its leading anti-diabetic drugs Januvia and Janumet. In this case also no interim injunction has reportedly been granted to MSD by the Honorable Delhi High Court.

Glenmark has stated through a media report, “It is a responsible company and has launched the products after due diligence and research.” The company has also announced that their version of the molecule named Zita and Zita Met will be available to patients at a 20 percent discount to MSD’s price.

Hence, once again, the Indian court to decide, the balance of justice would now point to which direction.

Government has no role to play – patent challenge is a legal process across the world:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue, ‘Patent Challenge’ is a legal process all over the world, the Government has hardly got any role to play in settling such disputes. The law should be allowed to take its own course for all disputes related to the Patents Act of the country, including Section 3(d).

They also opine that India must be allowed to follow the law of justice without casting aspersions on the knowledge and biases of the Indian judiciary for vested interests.

That said, there is certainly an urgent need to add speed to this legal process by setting up ‘Fast-track Courts’ for resolving all Intellectual Property (IP) related disputes in a time bound manner.

Arguments against Section 3(d):

Opposition to the Section 3(d) counter-argues by saying, this is a critical period for India to help fostering an appropriate ecosystem for innovation in the country. This group emphasizes, “Providing the right incentives for incremental pharmaceutical innovation can move India forward on this path and encourage the development of drug products that meet the needs of Indian patients. Reforming Section 3(d) to encourage and protect incremental pharmaceutical innovation would create such incentives and help India become a true powerhouse of innovation.”

Another group says that the main reason in favor of Section 3(d) being the provision will prevent grant of frivolous patents, the ultimate fallout of which will result in limited access to these drugs due to high price, is rather irrelevant today. This, they point out, is mainly because the Government is now actively mulling a structured mechanism of price negotiation for all patented drugs to improve their access to patients in India.

Importance of ‘Incremental Innovation’ in India:

Incremental innovations are indeed very important for the country and have been benefiting the patients immensely over decades, across the world.

A report titled, “The Value Of Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation” highlighted as follows:

As per the National Knowledge Commission, while 37.3% of Indian companies introduced breakthrough innovations in recent years, no fewer than 76.4% introduced incremental innovations.

60 percent of the drugs on the World health Organization’s essential Drug list reflect incremental improvements over older drugs.

The report indicates some of the benefits of ‘Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation’ for India as follows:

Improved quality of drug products, including products that are better suited to India’s climate.
Development of treatments for diseases that are prevalent in India for which new drug discovery is currently limited or otherwise inadequate.
Increasing likelihood that for every therapeutic class, there is a treatment to which an Indian patient will respond.
Development of the R&D capacity and expertise  of Indian pharmaceutical companies.
Reduction of healthcare and other social costs in India through improved drug quality and selection.
Increased access to medicine as a result of price competition.

The study concluded by saying that Section 3(d) potentially precludes the patenting of hundreds of incremental pharmaceutical innovations that Indian companies are attempting to patent and commercialize outside India.

There are umpteen numbers of examples that can ably demonstrate, ‘incremental innovation’ of the pharmaceutical innovators help significantly improving the efficacy and safety of existing drugs. All such innovations should in no way be considered “frivolous” as they have very substantial and positive impact in improving conditions of the ailing patients.

Be that as it may, the Supreme Court judgment has categorically mentioned that all ‘Incremental innovations’ should conform to the requirement of the Section 3(d) of the statute.

“West should learn from India’s high patent standards”

An article appeared just yesterday written by a well-regarded Indian economist recommended, “West should learn from India’s high patent standards”. It observed that over-liberal patent system of the West is now broken and it should learn from India’s much tougher patent system.

Patent monopolies needs to be given only for genuine innovations, as defined in the Indian Patents Act 2005, where the public benefits clearly exceed the monopoly cost.

The author concluded by saying, “This means setting a high bar for innovation. High standards are desirable for patents, as for everything else.”

View of the Glivec inventor:

In another interview titled, “If you erode patents, where will innovations come from?” Dr Brian Druker, whose work resulted in the development of Glivec, re-emphasizing the need for R&D by the pharmaceutical industry, commented, “I’m going to stay away from the legal judgment … but as a physician, I do recognize that the advances will come from new products, not modifications.”

Are discordant voices out of step with time?

The interpretation of the Section 3(d) of the statute by the Honorable Supreme Court of India is the last word for all, despite a few voices of discord from within and mostly outside India. These voices, many would reckon, could well be out of step with time, especially in relatively fast growing, modern, independent, thinking and assertive young India.

Conclusion:

In my view, nothing materially has changed on the ground before and after the Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case so far as the Indian Patents Act is concerned and also in its interpretation.

While encouraging all types of innovations, including incremental ones and protecting them with an effective IPR regime are very important for any country. No nation can afford to just wish away various socioeconomic expectations, demands and requirements not just of the poor, but also of the growing middle class intelligentsia, as gradually getting unfolded in many parts of the globe.

Available indicators do point out that the civil society would continue to expect in return, just, fair, responsible and reasonably affordable prices for the innovative medicines, based on the overall socioeconomic status of the local population.

This critical balancing factor is essential not only for the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, but also to alleviate sufferings of the ailing population of the country, effectively.

For arguments sake, in an ideal scenario, if the Central and State Governments in India decide to buy such drugs to supply to all patients free of cost, just like any ‘welfare state’, will even the Government be able to afford these prices and fund such schemes in India?

It is, therefore, now widely expected that innovator pharmaceutical companies, which play a pivotal role in keeping population of any nation healthy and disease free to the extent possible, should also proactively find out ways to help resolving this critical issue in India, working closely with the Government of 1.2 billion Indians, including other concerned stakeholders.

In that context, the landmark Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case has vindicated the need of striking a right balance between encouraging and protecting innovation, including incremental ones and the public health interest of India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

A Ten Step Strategy Prescribed

Posted on December 24, 2012 by Tapan Ray

In India, there are various hurdles to address the healthcare issues in a comprehensive way. Though, these do not seem to be insurmountable, the country needs a clear time-bound grand strategy to squarely address this vexing concern, which also has its consequent socioeconomic fallout.

If we look at the history of development of the industrialized countries of the world, we shall easily be able to fathom that all of them not only had heavily invested, but even now are investing to improve the socioeconomic framework of the country where education and health are the center pieces. Continuous reform measures in these two key areas are proven key drivers of economic growth of any nation.

Just as focus on education is of utmost importance to realize the economic potential of any country, so is the healthcare. It will be extremely challenging for India to realize its dream of becoming one of the economic superpowers of the world, without a sharp strategic focus and significant resource allocation in these two areas.

The World Health Statistics:

As reported by the ‘World Health Statistics 2011′, India spends around 4.2 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health, which is quite in line with other BRIC countries like, China and Russia.This has been possible mainly due to increasing participation of the private players in the healthcare sector and not so much by the government. The following table on ‘Health Expenditure’ will highlight this point:

Type	Brazil	Russia	India	China
Exp. on Health (% of GDP)	8.4	4.8	4.2	4.3
Govt. Exp. on Health(% of Total Exp. on Health)	44	64.3	32.4	47.3
Pvt. Exp. on Health (% of Total Exp. on Health)	56	35.7	67.6	52.7
Govt. Exp. on Health (% of Total Govt. Exp.)	6	9.2	4.4	10.3
Social Security Exp. on Health (% of General Govt. Exp. on Health)	-	38.7	17.2	66.3

Key healthcare goals:

As articulated in a recent paper titled ‘Meeting the Challenges of Healthcare Needs in India: Paths to Innovation’, the key healthcare goals of any country have been described as follows:

Improved quality of care and population health as measured by life expectancy and other measures of wellness

Cost containment and pooled risk-sharing by the population to allow financial access to care as well as avoid catastrophic ruin
Provide access to care in an equitable manner for all citizens

Specifically to India one of the key challenges to healthcare is ‘Universal Access’ to care and health equity. However, in terms of pure concept the country has a universal healthcare system, where theoretically any citizen is entitled to avail the public health facilities irrespective of socioeconomic status. Unfortunately, the reality is far out of the line.

Health is a ‘State subject’:

In Indian system, health is primarily a state subject and the Central Government deals with:

Health related policies
Health related regulations
Initiatives related to identified disease prevention and control

Whereas, each state needs to take care of:

Healthcare administration
Healthcare delivery
Healthcare financing
Training of personnel related to healthcare

The system:

Primary Health Centers (PHCs) of India located in the cities, districts or rural villages are expected to provide medical treatment free of cost to the local citizens. The focus areas of these PHCs, as articulated by the government, are the treatment of common illnesses, immunization, malnutrition, pregnancy and child birth. For secondary or tertiary care, patients are referred to the state or district level hospitals.
The public healthcare delivery system is grossly inadequate and does not function, by and large, with an optimal degree of efficiency, though some of the government hospitals like, All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) are among the best hospitals in India.

Most essential drugs, if available, are dispensed free of cost from the public hospitals/clinics. Outpatient treatment facilities available in the government hospitals are either free or available at a nominal cost. In AIIMS an outpatient card is available at a nominal onetime fee and thereafter outpatient medical advice is free to the patient.

However, the cost of inpatient treatment in the public hospitals though significantly less than the private hospitals, depends on the economic condition of the patient and the type of facilities that the individual will require. The patients who are from Below Poverty Line (BPL) families are usually not required to pay the cost of treatment. Such costs are subsidized or borne by the government.

Private sector is expensive:

That said, in India health facilities in the public sector being inadequate, generally under-staffed and under-financed, a large section of population still does not have access to affordable modern healthcare. As a result, more often than not, common patients are compelled to go to expensive private healthcare providers. Majority of the population of India cannot afford such high cost private healthcare, though comes with a much better quality.

Thus, as things stand today the public sector actually provides just about 20% of actual care services. The balance is catered by the private sector.

A great potential:

A 2012 report on ‘Indian Healthcare Industry’ indicates that in 2010 the size of the industry was around US$ 50 billion and is expected to register a turnover of US$ 140 billion in 2017 with a CAGR of 15 percent. This growth momentum, despite all these, positions India as one of the most lucrative markets within the developing countries of the world. On a global perspective as well, healthcare industry is one of the fastest growing segments clocking a turnover of US$ 5.5 trillion in 2010.

Growth drivers:

The main drivers of growth for the Indian healthcare industry are considered as follows:

Second highest growing economy in the world
Changing demographic profile
Increasing disposable income
Higher incidence of Non-infectious Chronic Diseases (NCD)
New investment avenues
A large talent pool
Cost-effective human resource

Besides above, other growth drivers are as follows:

Increased penetration of pharmaceuticals in the rural markets
Increased export potential for low cost and high quality generic pharmaceuticals, as a large number of patents are going to expire in the next 5 years
Emergence of various health cities and also single specialty clinics offering quality healthcare
Health insurance portability is expected to increase the penetration of insurance, improve quality of service and raise competition among insurers to retain customers
Telemedicine: E-healthcare in rural areas is gaining popularity with the involvement of both
public and private players like, ISRO, Mazumdar Shaw Cancer Center and Narayana Hrudayalaya. Some telecom companies like, Nokia and BlackBerry are also contemplating to extend the use of mobile phones for remote disease monitoring as well as diagnostic and treatment support. Introduction of 3G and in the near future 4G telecom services will
further enhance opportunities of e-healthcare through mobile phones, expanding the field of healthcare.

Promising sectors:

Within the healthcare industry, the most promising sectors are:

Pharmaceuticals
Hospitals and Nursing Homes
Medical equipment
Pathological labs and other diagnostic service providers

According to the Investment Commission of India, the healthcare sector of the country has registered a robust CAGR of over 12 percent during the last four years and the trend is expected to be ascending further.

Quite in tandem, other important areas of the healthcare sector, besides pharmaceuticals, have also recorded impressive performance as follows:

Areas	Growth %
Hospitals/Nursing Homes	20
Medical Equipment	15
Clinical Lab Diagnostics	30
Imaging Diagnostics	30
Other Services (includes Training & Education; Aesthetics & Weight loss; Retail Pharmacy, etc.)	40

Government initiatives:

On its part, the Indian government is also in the process of giving a thrust to the healthcare sector as a whole by:

Increasing public expenditure on healthcare from 1 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP in the 12th Five Year Plan Period
Encouraging public-private partnerships (PPP) in hospital infrastructure and R&D
Encouraging medical tourism
Attracting Indian and foreign players to invest in Tier-II and Tier-III cities with huge untapped market potential. For example:

- Expansion of major healthcare players in tier-II and tier-III cities of India like, Apollo, Narayana Hrudayalaya, Max Hospitals, Aravind Eye Hospitals and Fortis

- BCG Group will reportedly open shortly a multidisciplinary health mall that would provide a one-stop solution for all healthcare needs starting from doctors, hospitals, ayurvedic centers, pharmacies including insurance referral units at Palarivattom in Kochi, Kerala.

BCG’s long-term plan, as reported in the media, is to set up a health village spanning across an area of a 750,000 sq. ft. with an estimated cost of US$ 88.91 million. Along the same line, to set up more facilities for diagnostic services in India, GE Healthcare reportedly has planned to invest US$ 50 million for this purpose

Introduction of the ‘National Commission for Human Resources for Health Bill 2011( NCHRH Bill 2011)’, which will bring all independent bodies like the Medical Council of India (MCI), the Dental Council of India (DCI), the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) and the Nursing Council of India (NCI) under a centralized authority for a more cohesive action.

Attracting FDI:

According to the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP), the healthcare sector is undergoing significant transformation and attracting investments not only from within the country but also from overseas.

The Cumulative FDI inflow in the healthcare sector from April 2000 to October 2012, as per DIPP publications, is as follows:

Sector	FDI inflow (US$ million)
Hospital and diagnostic centers	1482.86
Medical and surgical appliances	571.91
Drugs and pharmaceuticals	9775.03

(Source: Fact Sheet on FDI – April 2000 to October 2012, DIPP)

Job creation:

The trend of new job creation in the healthcare sector of India is also quite encouraging, as supported by the following facts:

The Healthcare sector in India recorded a maximum post-recession recruitment to a total employee base of 36, 21,177 with a new job creation of 2, 73, 571, according to ‘Ma Foi Employment Trends Survey 2012’.

Despite slowdown in other industries, in the healthcare sector the new job creation continues at a faster pace.

With many new hospital beds added and increasing access to primary, secondary and tertiary / specialty healthcare, among others, the ascending trend in job creation is expected to continue in the healthcare sectors of India in the years ahead.

A Strategy Prescribed:

Though the report of the High Level Expert Group (HLEG) on the ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ is already in place, without going into the implementability issues of the report in this article, I would like to propose a ten pronged approach towards a new healthcare reform process to achieve the national healthcare objectives:

1. The government should focus on its role as provider of preventive and primary healthcare to all, through public hospitals, dispensaries and PHCs, including free distribution of essential medicines.

2. In tandem, the government should play the role of enabler to create Public-Private partnership (PPP) projects for secondary and tertiary healthcare services at the state and district levels with appropriate fiscal and other incentives.

3. PPP also may be extended to create a robust health insurance infrastructure urgently.

4. The insurance companies will be empowered to negotiate with concerned doctors, hospitals and other organizations, all fees payable by the patients to doctors, hospitals, for diagnostic services etc., including cost of medicines for both inpatients and outpatients treatment, with the sole objective to ensure access to affordable high quality healthcare to all.

5. Create an independent regulatory body for healthcare services to regulate and monitor the operations of both public and private healthcare providers/institutions, including the health insurance sector.

6. Levy a ‘healthcare cess’ to all, for effective implementation of this new healthcare reform process.

7. Effectively manage the corpus thus generated to achieve the healthcare objectives of the nation through the Healthcare Services Regulatory Authority (HSRA).

8. Make HSRS accountable for ensuring access to affordable high quality healthcare to the entire population of the country together with a grievance redressal mechanism.

9. Make HSRS accountable, its operation transparent to the civil society through HSRS website and cost-neutral to the government, through innovative pricing model based on economic status of an individual.

10. Allow independent private healthcare providers to make reasonable profit out of the investments made by them

Conclusion:

All the ten steps prescribed as above, will help ensure a holistic approach to healthcare needs of India and reduce prevailing socioeconomic inequalities within the healthcare delivery systems of the country.

Rapidly growing urban centric five-star private healthcare initiatives are welcome but these are now just catering to the privileged few, perpetuating the pressing healthcare issues unanswered.

Only a well-orchestrated, comprehensive, time-bound and holistic approach is capable of addressing the humongous healthcare needs of India and at the same time providing much required growth momentum to the Indian healthcare industry, positioning India as one of the most lucrative healthcare hubs within the emerging economies of the world.

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 and also do not contribute to any other blog or website with the same article that I post in this website. Any such act of reproducing my articles, which I write in my personal capacity, in other blogs or websites by anyone is unauthorized and prohibited.

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: step

Pharma: ‘Digitalization’ Not A Panacea – A Basic Step For Giant Leaps

Against Pharma Marketing Malpractices: A Gutsy Step

R&D: Is Indian Pharma Moving Up the Value Chain?

Balancing IPR with Public Health Interest: Brickbats, Power Play and Bouquets

It is now a widely accepted dictum that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), especially pharma patents, help fostering innovation and is critical in meeting unmet needs of the patients.

However, the moot question still remains, what type pharmaceutical invention, should deserve market exclusivity or monopoly with overall freedom in pricing, keeping larger public health interest in mind.

However, pharmaceutical companies do argue that such ‘incremental innovations’ are the bedrock for growth of the pharmaceutical industry and are essential to continue to fund pharmaceutical research and development.

Experts, on the other hand, argue, if patents are granted to such ‘incremental innovations’ at all, their prices need to be determined by quantifying ‘Incremental Value’ that patients will derive out of these inventions as compared to the generic versions of respective original molecules.

Does the Landmark Glivec Judgment Discourage Innovation in India?

A Ten Step Strategy Prescribed