Tag Archives: study

Physicians’ Increasing Digital Proficiency And Its Implication

Posted on by
Reply

At a time, when an unexpected and unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic struck a catastrophic impact on human lives, livelihood, and the global economy the healthcare sector continued surging ahead. This is being fueled by exponential advances in medical science, and the pandemic-triggered explosion of digital technologies, data access, analytics – besides emergence of more informed and empowered consumers with new expectations and aspirations.

Echoing this, Deloitte’s paper - ‘2022 Global Health Care Outlook’ articulated: ‘The global health care sector continues to rise up to the new challenges presented by the ongoing pandemic, which continues to dominate health care systems’ attention and resources.’

No more than just a couple of years back, none could predict that a pandemic in these modern days, would have the power to initiate the unforeseen changes so quickly. This is especially applicable to – mostly tradition bound and slow to change – the pharmaceutical industry, even in India, which gets reflected in the growth of this sector. That too, amid sporadic disruptions in the operational areas of many companies.

As reported on December 29, 2021, Indian Pharma Industry registered a growth of 15% in 2021 led by growth of Covid-19 products, against a growth of 3% last year. The report emphasized that the challenges posed by the pandemic gave rise to new opportunities for the pharma sector to evolve quickly under changing circumstances.

Which is why, many players are being compelled to adapt newer digital processes and practices to survive and excel – while navigating through this uncharted frontier. These will call for growing investments for paving a high-tech digital pathway, primarily for an effective customer engagement, besides refinement of the product life cycle through digitization.

To give a sense of perspective on strategic implications of increasing digital proficiency of physicians, particularly in the context of an effective, patient-centric engagement by pharma companies, I shall focus on this development, in this article.

HCPs digital proficiency poses a fresh challenge – it’s real:

Increasing digital proficiency of HCPs during Covid-19 pandemic poses a fresh challenge to pharma marketers for several reasons. It’s so real, which will invite many fundamental strategic changes, as Covid-19 isn’t going anywhere, at least, anytime soon, contrary to what many people are expecting.

The emergence of Delta and Omicron like variants that infected a large number of fully vaccinated people, as well, is expected to continue. For example, as reported on January 27, 2022: ‘Just as the omicron surge starts to recede in parts of the U.S., scientists have their eye on another coronavirus variant spreading rapidly in parts of Asia and Europe.’

Increasing digital savviness of HCPs is now unstoppable. It is expected to keep rolling at faster a faster pace now than ever before. Endorsing this trend, an article published in the Pharmaceutical Executiveon January 20, 2022, made some interesting observations.

The author underscored that the trend of the digital shift of HCPs in their professional space, is an outcome of a catalytic effect of the pandemic. It poses a new challenge for the life sciences industry, requiring a complete revamp of the content strategy and customer engagement channels, for each specialty. It further said: ‘The wave of consumerism led by digital natives has impacted HCPs when it comes to engaging with content on various digital channels for personal consumption.’  

A recent research study vindicates the magnitude of the challenge:

A recently published Indegene study, revealed some thought-provoking areas in this space. The research surveyed 984 physicians from the United States, Europe, India, and China for this study. All participants have >10 years of experience and represent a broad spectrum of specialty areas. According to Indegene, the process of surveying HCPs had started since 2014, to identify how their digital habits manifest and how do they change. Some of the key findings of the study include:

  • More HCPs, in general, are increasingly adopting digital channels to consume content.
  • 77% of HCPs use digital channels primarily for personal learning and development.
  • 68% of HCPs prefer short webinars or webcasts over other virtual
    engagement channels, globally.
  • Only 47% of HCPs prefer receiving communication through the marketing e-mail channel, although, marketing emails are among the top 5 channels used by pharma companies to engage HCPs. 
  • 62% of HCPs are overwhelmed by product promotional content pushed by pharma companies on various digital channels.
  • 70% of HCPs said that pharma representatives do not understand their requirements completely. Further, 62% of HCPs said that the most significant area where pharma representatives can add value is, by understanding the needs of HCPs and sharing only relevant content with them to make the interactions more insightful. The one-size-fits-all approach will no longer work, and pharma companies will have to invest in greater personalization at scale and build better content development and operations capabilities.
  • Pharma to consider using digital channels to provide HCPs on demand access to reps and content.
  • Need to map and implement geographic variations in HCP preferences for content, channels, device, and time.

This evolving trend sends clear signals to pharma marketers that need for professional engagement with the HCPs has to be on their own terms in the new normal

‘Engaging HCPs on their own terms’ – the need of the new normal:

This emerging need also came out clearly in another recent Global Physician Specialty Survey by Medscape - with over 12,000 participants in key specialties across Europe, Latin America, Canada, Asia, and MENA.

It provided some actionable insights, highlighting online content consumption habits of HCPs across the globe, in the new normal. This study also found: ‘The pandemic has had an undeniable impact on the interactions between HCPs and the pharmaceutical industry, with the shift towards virtual engagement and online events likely to be long-lasting.’

Based on this finding, it flagged a critical issue. This is, while the consumption of online medical content is growing and traditional in-person meetings are still not completely back on the agenda, how can pharma players reimagine the way they reach their target audience? This is indeed a primary business requirement to maintain respective drug company’s share of voice and foster relationships with their key customers. The key takeaway from this study includes the following:

  • Being incredibly time poor even now, HCPs mostly prefer to engage with the pharma companies on their own terms.
  • Compared to traditional in-person interactions, most HCPs feel, digital engagement channels offer them greater flexibility that they desire.
  • Over half of the survey respondents rated their online consumption of digital content higher, or much higher now than before the pandemic.

Conclusion:

On the positive side, during a short span of the last couple of years, Covid-19 pandemic has also triggered unprecedented advances in various critical areas of medical science and related areas. These include, remote healthcare services, digital technologies, ease of access to required data by all, the application of sophisticated analytics and above all emergence of an increasing number of digitally empowered customers. Consequently, aided by greater disease awareness and the need for prevention, the ‘self-care’ space also witnessed exponential advances.

Besides, the pandemic has also offered a fresh opportunity to the pharma and biotech sectors – to leverage the break in the cloud for accelerating all-round innovation – charting new frontiers of the modern digital world to remodel their business models for a faster growth in a new paradigm. Although, pharma customers have remained mostly unchanged, their expectations, behavior, practices, and preferences have undergone a metamorphosis. Some of these changes may be stark, and more may be a bit nuanced. Marketers, need to map all the changes, which are specific to their organizations, to excel in the new paradigm.

That said and, as pointed out above, results of expert surveys and syndicated studies in this area, send a clear signal about the pandemic-triggered – increasing digital proficiency of HCPs, even in India. This trend needs to be leveraged for a thorough overhaul of pharma’s customer engagement models. This is a new ball game of the new normal – having a huge impact on the business performance of drug companies.

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.

Covid 2.0 Rampages India As Top Echelon Policy Makers Ignore Science

Posted on by
Reply

‘India is in the endgame of COVID,’ announced the union health minister of India, just in the last month – March 08, 2021. Although, it was then clearly known to medical fraternity that today’s Covid vaccines won’t be magic bullets against rapidly mutating new Coronavirus. Interestingly, a scientific-data based MIT study, published last year – on July 01, 2020 predicted that India might record the highest ever in the world – 287,000 new Coronavirus cases per day, by February 2021. At that juncture also Covid vaccines were expected to be available in India before that predicted time frame. The MIT study warning received a wide coverage even in India - by almost all news dailies, on that very month of the last year. The national Covid management team did not seem to have taken it seriously, along with others. These include, besides the top echelon of governance – a vast majority of Indians – across the social, political, religious and economic strata.

The fallout of such callousness – both at the individual Covid-appropriate behavior level, as well as Covid governance level, have been more disastrous than what was forecasted even in the above MIT study. The ferocity and scale of the second Covid-19 wave in India did not just overwhelm the nation, but raised grave concern across the world too. On April 22, 2021, India recorded the world’s biggest ever single-day rise with 314,835 new cases of Covid-19, causing death to 2,104 people. The very next day, this number increased to 332,730 new cases with 2263 deaths.

But, the peak of the Covid second wave hasn’t come, just yet. According to a mathematical model developed by a team of scientists from the IIT Kanpur and reported by news media on April 22, 2021, the number of active covid-19 cases in India during the second wave is expected to peak in May. The daily infection count is expected to exceed 350,000 cases. In this article, I shall dwell on three specific areas – acknowledging that the current scenario is the outcome of national misjudgment, if not a humongous misgovernance to prepare India for Covid 2.0:

  • Current struggle of India’s fragile and long-ignored health care infrastructure.
  • Need to neutralize some general misgivings on Covid vaccines and associated dilemmas.
  • Who is equipped to save people, if no external remedial measures remain unavailable for some more time?

India’s fragile and long-ignored health infrastructure can’t take anymore:

Amid this calamity, India has run short of oxygen, hospital beds, important Covid medicines, including Remdesivir. Curiously, reports keep coming incessantly confirm and reconfirm: ‘Ever since the second wave of the pandemic started, the healthcare systems in India have been teetering on the brink, with many hospitals unable to handle the relentless inflow of patients whilst also running short of beds, oxygen cylinders and other essentials.’

Doctors and many health care workers are overwhelmed by the massive scale of the human tragedy and in tears, as they articulate: ‘Many lives could have been saved had there been enough beds, oxygen supplies, ventilators and other resources – if the healthcare system had been better prepared for the second wave.’

The Supreme Court intervened, noting the ‘grim situation’ in the country:

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of India, reportedly, ‘Suo motu’ (on its own) took note of the grim situation in the country and the havoc caused due to shortage of Oxygen cylinders in hospitals. Consequently, on April 22, 2021, the top court said, ‘it expected the Centre to come out with a “national plan” on the supply of oxygen and essential drugs for treatment of infected patients and method and manner of vaccination against the disease.’  The Delhi High Court also observed, “We all know that this country is being run by God,” coming down heavily on the Centre over the Covid-19 management.

Some Covid vaccine related misgivings and dilemmas:

Many people are raising questions of the efficacy of two currently available Covid vaccines in India – Covishield and Covaxin, especially against our probably ‘desi’ double mutant variety of Covid-19. The trepidation increased manifold when India’s former Prime Minister – Dr. Manmohan Singh got Covid infected after taking two doses of Covaxin. Or, reports, such as: ‘Sri Lanka reports six cases of blood clots in AstraZeneca vaccine recipients, 3 dead.’ Incidentally, these vaccines were made in India. Some may not possibly know that both the issues have been deliberated by the Indian scientists, who haven’t expressed any concern, as yet. This has to be shared with all by all concerned, soon. Let me explore some of these related issues, as follows:

Re-infection after taking Covid vaccines:

Regarding re-infection rate after taking two doses of Covid vaccines, the scientists have now released data establishing that only a very small fraction of those vaccinated with either Covaxin or Covishield, have tested positive. In any case, instances of a few “breakthrough” infections do not undermine the efficacy of the vaccines, they added.

The ICMR has also clarified, “These vaccines definitely protect against disease. However, the immune response begins to develop usually two weeks after every dose and there are variations within individuals, too. Even after the first dose, if exposure to the virus happens, one can test positive.”

Efficacy of Covishield and Covaxin against double mutant strains:

Notably, both – the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) have announced last week that Covishield and Covaxin protect patients even from the ‘double mutant’, B.1.617, variety of Covid-19. Scientists believe that the “double mutant” is responsible for the sudden spike in the number of cases in Maharashtra and other parts of the country. They had earlier feared that this “double mutant” or B.1.617, may escape the immune system and thus vaccines may not offer protection from this strain of the novel coronavirus.

Reported risk of blood clotting with Oxford-AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine:

No cases of blood clotting have come to light in India. However, a government panel of experts is,reportedly, investigating for any domestic cases of blood clotting, even mild ones, as a side effect of the two COVID-19 vaccines being administered in India. According to India’s leading virologist Gagandeep Kang, “blood clots reportedly caused as a result of Oxford-AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine amount to a very small risk.”

As reported on April 24, 2021, the United States has also decided to immediately resume the use of Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine, ending a 10-day pause to investigate its link to extremely rare but potentially deadly blood clots. These details, I reckon, need also to be shared with all people, soon, in order to neutralize any doubt on administering Covid vaccines.

Covid vaccine availability and pricing:

Recent media reports highlight, at least six states of India – Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Maharashtra, Odisha and Telangana – are facing Covid vaccine shortage, as Covid 2.0 overwhelms India. Most of these states have already apprised the Centre of the situation, as the Supreme Court of India also seeks the details from the center about its current status.

As on April 22, 2021, India has administered over 135 million vaccine doses, where each individual will require two doses. Whereas, as published in Bloomberg on April 23, 2021, ‘1 billion Covid-19 vaccines have been administered around the world.’ The good news is, effective May 01, 2021, everyone above the age of 18 years will be eligible to get vaccinated. The Central Government will also lift its singular control on supply and delivery of Covid-19 vaccines in a bid to tackle the massive rise of cases that have crippled the country’s health infrastructure.

That said, the key question that follows – would Covid vaccine manufacturers be able to meet this increasing demand in India, when there already exists more demand than its supply? According to Niti Aayog Covid-19: Vaccine availability will improve by July 2021. The two major vaccine manufacturers in India are also indicating broadly similar time frame.

Meanwhile, amid a deadly second wave of Covid infections, a third Coronavirus vaccine - Russia’s Sputnik V, has been approved for emergency use in India. Incidentally, Sputnik V’s approval came not before India overtook Brazil to become the country with the second-highest number of cases globally. According to its local distributor – Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, India will start receiving Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine by end May.

Be that as it may, it is still unclear whether enough Covid vaccine doses will be available right from May 1, 2021, to start inoculating all Indians above 18 years of age, across the length and breadth of the country. Besides, SSI’s decision to fix the rate of Covishield vaccine for private hospitals and state governments, has attracted sharp criticism from the Opposition, who argued that there was no logic in charging the state governments a higher price, when the Centre is getting the same vaccine at Rs 150 per dose.

This question surfaces, especially when SII Chief himself acknowledged that they are making profit even with Rs.150/per dose price as the pandemic ravages the nation. A news item of April 24, 2021 also underscores ‘Serum Institute’s Rs.600/dose for Covishield in private hospitals is its highest rate in the world.’ Nonetheless, price sensitivity to Covid vaccines during the pandemic is not specific to India.

Shareholders of Pfizer, J&J, reportedly, are also pushing for detailed COVID-19 pricing strategies of the respective companies, at their annual meetings. Curiously, at the same, yet another report highlights: ‘With the competition struggling, Pfizer’s COVID vaccine sales could hit $24B this year.’ Amazing!

India utterly overwhelmed, angry outbursts of concern beyond its shores:

Witnessing the nature of rampage caused by Covid 2.0 in India, global press blames the Indian top policy makers for utter failure to anticipate and tackle the devastating second wave. For example, The Guardian of the UK flashed a headline on April 21, 2021 – ‘The system has collapsed’: India’s descent into Covid hell.’ It further elaborated: ‘Many falsely believed that the country had defeated Covid. Now hospitals are running out of oxygen and bodies are stacking up in morgues.’ The Times, UK was harsher. It reported, ‘Modi flounders in India’s gigantic second wave.’ It further added: ‘Record levels of infection have put huge strain on the health service and highlighted the perils of complacency in the nationalist government.’

The New York Times reported on April 23, 2021: ‘India’s Health System Cracks Under the Strain as Coronavirus Cases Surge.’ The report also cited examples of ‘recent political rallies held by Mr. Modi that have drawn thousands, as well as the government’s decision to allow an enormous Hindu festival to continue despite signs that it has become a super spreader event.’

Conclusion:

Keeping aside the responsibility, or rather lack of it, of the National Covid governance team, individual Indians – like you and me – can’t in any way shy away from our own responsibility of compliance to Covid appropriate behavior, religiously. We are equally responsible, at least, for our own lives and fate. Even today, many of those who are wearing a face mask, are wearing in the chin – keeping the nose exposed – forget about double masking! Moreover, how many of us were or are eligible for Covid vaccination till date, but did not or could not take?

Curiously, Covid 2.0 is no longer striking mostly the poor urban population, living in slums or hutments, or the migrant laborer. Nor it is attacking mainly the senior citizens or people with co-morbidities. More young people, including children are getting infected in Covid 2.0. In Covid 2.0 – over 90 per cent of Covid new cases concentrate in in high rise and other buildings in major cities, like Mumbai. While urban slums account for just 10 per cent. On April 24, 2021, Bloomberg also reported, ‘India’s Urban Affluent Hit By New Virus Wave After Dodging First.’

Terming Covid 2.0 as concerning and scaring‘, Tata Sons Chairman also said, ‘India needs to get as many different Covid-19 vaccine licenses as possible. And replicate multiple factories on a war footing to ramp up production in order to meet the requirements as the country reels under the devastating second wave of the pandemic.’ It’s incredible, how a small country in the Indian subcontinent – Bhutan with limited resources, got its vaccination plan right and carried out, reportedly, the world’s fastest immunization drive.

Coming back to the last year’s above MIT study forecast for 2021 Covid situation in India. It goes without saying that this one, among several others, was based on credible data. It also brought to the fore the scientific reasons of consequences for not following the norms of Covid appropriate behavior. Looking back and coming back to real life scenario of date, one thing becomes crystal clear. When science is ignored, both at the highest echelon of national governance where the buck stops – or at the individual, social, religious or political level – it is virtually inevitable that a disaster would strike. And in most cases, it will strike hard – very hard. Much beyond what a human can withstand to survive. We have choice for survival – even in today’s frightening scenario. Let’s individually and collectively behave, as the science demands. Life and livelihood are important – for all of us.

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.

 

 

Aptness Of Pharma Marketing Audit In Covid Days And Beyond

Posted on by
Reply

That, Covid-19 pandemic has changed the operational dynamics of many areas of the pharma industry, as compared to the old normal, is being felt by many. These changes generally fall into two categories. Some are broad industry specific changes, giving rise to a new normal. Whereas, a lot more could often be specific changes required by individual companies in the changing times – depending on how these companies were operating in pre-Covid days. The good news is, the industry specific ones are being well deliberated by many domain experts, almost on an ongoing basis.

Most experts are suggesting digital solutions, for a number of problem areas in the pharma industry as a whole. But, the reality is, for rapid adaptation of the new normal, there is also a crucial need to dovetail the Company specific solutions, with the industry specific generic ones. This effort will call for effective use of robust, well-structured and time-tested systems. However, not as many discussions seem to be taking place in this area, as on date.

As I see around, one such comprehensive and well proven approach is ‘Marketing Audit’. This can be effectively used to ascertain Company specific changes, required for successful pharma business operation during the Coronavirus triggered paradigm shift. It may not sound as zesty as a ‘digital approach,’ but remains fundamentally important for pharma marketers, nonetheless.

In this article, I shall discuss the relevance and the key importance of a comprehensive pharma Marketing Audit, in this trying time for business. Its key purpose is to give shape to a cutting-edge strategy in today’s unfamiliar order. Let me begin with a brief background of the same, for better understanding of all.

Marketing Audit demonstrated its perennial importance over decades:

To put it in perspective, let me refer to a landmark article by Philip Kotler, titled ‘‘The Marketing Audit Comes of Age.’ It was published by the MIT Sloan Management Review, on January 15, 1989. In his review of the need for Marketing Audit, one can get a sense of perennial importance of Marketing Audit, proven over decades.

In Kotler’s own words: ‘The marketing audit as an idea, dates back to the early 1950s.’ An executive at Booz Allen & Hamilton, conducted marketing audits as early as 1952. Its importance of improving business results, was captured by an excellent set of papers under the title ‘Analyzing and Improving Marketing Performance,’ published by the American Management Association, in 1959.  

Covid-19 Surveys highlight general trends, not any Company specific:

We all are witnessing these days, how the Coronavirus pandemic is changing the pharma consumers. In my June 22, 2020 article in this blog on ‘Enhancing Pharma Brand Experience in The New Normal,’ I highlighted some of the basic changes required in the traditional pharma sales and marketing practices.’ These were the generic changes in the marketplace involving the stakeholders. To illustrate this point better, let me cite some recent examples.

The pandemic has suddenly accelerated certain trends:

The lockdowns have brought to the fore certain shortcomings of the pharma industry, more than ever before. Consequently, its serious fallout compelled almost all players ‘to evaluate and adapt its roles and responsibilities almost overnight.’ This point was captured in the ‘Survey results: Accelerating digital transformation during COVID-19,’ published by Reuters Events– Pharma on September 04, 2020. Some of the survey findings included the following:

  • Although, adoption of digital engagement has accelerated, pharma’s ability to deliver exceptional virtual engagement and content is being put to test.
  • Customer Relationship Management (CRM), Content Management Systems (CMS) and customer engagement platforms were found wanting and not fully exploited.
  • There will be a greater emphasis on the Connected healthcare customer journey.
  • Providing a unique customer experience will emerge as a competitive edge.
  • The industry must re-direct resources accordingly, and re-tool to make the most of them.

Let’s now examine some India specific findings from another survey in this space.

Some India specific survey findings:

To explore the impact of COVID-19 on the Indian pharmaceutical industry, another survey, conducted by C Com Digital of India, came out with some interesting findings, some of which are as follows:

  • The new normal warrants a strategic shift in the business operation, besides engagement with doctors and patients.
  • Increasingly, drug companies are moving into online business operations from mostly offline operations of pre-Covid days.
  • Many companies are considering dedicating about 5 percent to 10 percent of their marketing budget towards creating webinars and online communications.
  • Teleconsultations and online consultations are steadily increasing and around 42 percent patients are getting their prescriptions in this way.
  • Doctor visits dropped by 5 percent only during March-April 2020 period.
  • Companies are expanding in online patient education, and online field staff training through custom made e-Learning modules.

As we find above, the emerging new trends are all generic in nature – not enough to prepare any comprehensive company specific strategy for success in the prevailing situation. This brings us to the question: What exactly is Marketing Audit and its relevance during pandemic days?

Relevance of Marketing Audit during pandemic days and beyond:

Thus, the extent of changes required on all sales and marketing related areas, during the pandemic period and beyond, has to be carefully and productively evaluated by each Company, separately. No wonder, why a comprehensive ‘Marketing Audit,’ is also considered “a marketing mirror” - so appropriately.

Without going into the theoretical details, let me first try to explain this terminology in simple terms. It has clearly been established that a Marketing Audit helps understanding, both internal and external marketing environments of an organization, in a comprehensive way. Mainly because, it involves an in-depth and data analysis of the concerned company’s business domain, not just to accurately diagnose the new areas of problems, but also to work out a contemporary – cutting edge marketing strategy.

Thus, I reckon, this tool should be effectively used by pharma marketers, as a high potential mechanism in the marketing warfare, especially during the global pandemic and beyond. Still, some can raise the question, what exactly pharma industry surveys will tell you and what those won’t, – and what gaps company specific surveys will help bridge.

The gaps that Marketing Audit will help bridge:

Industry specific surveys on Covid-19 pandemic would tell the Companies where they should aim to reach. However, each Company would still need to figure out where they currently are in those areas, and most importantly how to reach the target point. An effective Marketing Audit will help the Companies get exact information on where they currently are, and how to reach where they want to reach.

As the new normal is changing, it needs to be done periodically: 

The information obtained through a robust Marketing Audit will help address both customer and market needs – on the one hand and honing or reorganizing the company’s internal value delivery systems commensurately, on the other. However, when an unprecedented or a disruptive change, such as the Covid-19 pandemic keeps striking all conceivable entities, very hard, ‘the new normal’ keeps changing. In this situation, most of the past success ingredients will no longer yield results. Thus, to realign the business with changing market demand, pre-Covid strategic blueprint needs to be redrawn, alongside the necessary wherewithal required for the same.

Marketing Audit, therefore, becomes a periodic requirement for all organizations, assuming the importance of a key business success imperative, if not for survival in the new normal. Any delay in this area may lead to significant loss of Company business.

Conclusion:

According to Covid-19 update of Evaluate Pharma, ‘seemingly uncontrollable advance of Covid-19 in India,’ is perturbing. As on September 20 morning, the country had recorded a staggering figure of 5,400,619 of Coronavirus cases with 86,774 deaths, overtaking Brazil the week before.

The above report points out the potential danger of ‘the country’s health care system to buckle under the weight of hospital admissions for the virus.’ However disturbing this trend may be, from the pharma industry perspective, it sends, at least, four clear signals:

  • It’s a long-haul struggle for the business, as Covid-19 is not going to vanish any time soon.
  • The barriers to in-person interaction will continue for an indefinite period.
  • The market dynamics will keep changing, mostly based on Government’s new guidelines.
  • A robust, flexible, contemporary and comprehensive marketing strategy needs to be supported by stronger and time-tested marketing systems for all times.

From the above perspective, one such time-tested mechanism still remains – ‘the Marketing Audit.’ For business excellence during Covid times, it carries a game changing potential, by dovetailing the industry specific generic problems with company specific strategic solutions.

The criticality of ‘Marketing Audit’ does not remain limited just to bright pharma marketers. It also provides an equally critical top management decision support tool, especially for risk-benefit analysis of the corporate business. Thus, relevance and importance of ‘Marketing Audit’, would remain undiluted, not just during the Covid pandemic – but much beyond.

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.

Draft Pharma Policy 2017 And Branded Generics

Posted on by
Reply

In its first reading, the 18-page draft Pharma Policy, 2017 gives me a sense that the Government has followed the much-desired principle of ‘walk the talk’, especially in some key areas. One such space is what Prime Minister Modi distinctly hinted on April 17, 2017, during the inauguration function of a charitable hospital in Surat. He clearly signaled that prescriptions in generic names be made a must in India, and reiterated without any ambiguity whatsoever that, to facilitate this process, his government may bring in a legal framework under which doctors will have to prescribe generic medicines.

Immediately following its wide coverage by both the national and international media, many eyebrows were raised regarding the feasibility of the intent of the Indian Prime Minister, especially by the pharma industry and its business associates, for the reasons known to many. A somewhat muted echo of the same could be sensed from some business dailies too, a few expressed through editorials, and the rest quoting the views on the likely ‘health disaster’ that may follow, if ‘branded generics’ are not prescribed by the medical profession. Obviously, the main apprehension was centered around the ‘shoddy quality parameters’ of unbranded generic drugs in India. It’s a different matter though, that none can possibly either confirm or pooh-pooh it, backed by irrefutable data with statistical significance.

Be that as it may, making high quality generic drugs accessible to most patients at affordable prices, avoiding any possible nexus between the doctors and pharma companies, which could jeopardize the patients’ economic interest, deserves general appreciation, shrill voices of some vested interests notwithstanding.  Nonetheless, if the related proposals in the new pharma policy come to fruition as such, it would be a watershed decision of the government, leaving a long-lasting impact both on the patients, as well as the industry, though in different ways, altogether.

I raised this issue in my article titled, “Is Department of Pharmaceuticals On The same Page As The Prime Minister?”, published in this blog on May 15, 2017. However, in today’s discussion, I shall focus only on how has the draft pharma policy 2017 proposed to address this issue, taking well into consideration the quality concerns expressed on unbranded generics, deftly.

Before I do that, let me give a brief perspective on ‘brand name drugs’, ‘generic drugs’, ‘branded generics’ and ‘unbranded generic drugs’. This would basically serve as a preamble to arrive at the relevance of ‘branded generic’ prescriptions, along with the genesis of safety concern about the use of un-branded generic drugs.

No definition in Indian drug laws:

Although, Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India 1940 defines a drug under section 3 (b), it does not provide any legal definition of ‘brand name drugs’, ‘generic drugs’, ‘branded generic drugs’ or ‘un-branded generics’.  Hence, a quick landscaping of the same, as follows, I reckon, will be important to understand the pertinence of the ongoing debate on ‘branded generic’ prescriptions in India, from the patients’ health and safety perspectives:

‘Brand name’ drugs:

Globally, ‘brand name drugs’ are known as those, which are covered by a product patent, and are usually innovative New Chemical Entity (NCE) or a New Molecular Entity (NME). Respective innovator pharma companies hold exclusive legal rights to manufacture and market the ‘brand name drugs’, without any competition till the patents expire.

Generic drugs:

Post patent expiry of, any pharma player, located anywhere in the world, is legally permitted, as defined in the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regulations, to manufacture, market and sell the generic equivalents of ‘brand name drugs’. However, it’s a global norm that the concerned generic manufacturer will require proving to the competent drug regulatory authorities where these will be marketed, that the generic versions are stable in all parameters, and bioequivalent to the respective original molecules. According to US-FDA, a ‘generic drug’ will require to be the same as the original ‘brand-name drug’ in dosage, safety, strength, quality, purity, the way it works, the way it is taken and the way it should be used.

‘Branded generic’ drugs:

Branded generics are generic molecules marketed and prescribed by their respective brand names. Around 90 percent of generic formulations are branded generics in India, involving heavy sales and marketing expenditure in various forms, which has become a contentious issue today in India. The reason being, although branded generics cost significantly more than unbranded generics, the former variety of generic drugs are most preferred by the medical profession, as a group, in India. Interestingly, there is no difference whatsoever in the marketing approval process between the ‘branded generics’ and other generic varieties without any brand names.

Unbranded generic drugs:

Unbranded generic drugs are those, which are sold only in the generic names, sans any brand name. I reiterate, once again, that there is no difference in the marketing approval process between the ‘branded generics’ and ‘unbranded generic medicines’.

The core issue:

The whole debate or concern related to both efficacy and safety on the use of unbranded generic drugs in India stems from a single regulatory issue, which is widely construed as scientifically improper, and totally avoidable. If this subject is addressed in a holistic way and implemented satisfactorily in the country, by and large, there should not be any worthwhile concern in prescribing or consuming single ingredient unbranded generic drugs in India, which generally cost much less than their branded generic equivalents.

This core issue is primarily related to establishing bioequivalence (BE) with the original molecules for all generic formulations, regardless of whether these are branded or unbranded generic drugs. Thus, positive results in bioequivalence studies, should be a fundamental requirement for the grant of marketing approval of any generics in India, as is required by the regulators of most countries, across the world.

This has been lucidly articulated also in the publication of the National Institute of Health (NIH), USA, underscoring the critical importance of generic drugs in healthcare is unquestionable. The article says: “it is imperative that the pharmaceutical quality and ‘in vivo’ performance of generic drugs be reliably assessed. Because generic drugs would be interchanged with innovator products in the market place, it must be demonstrated that the safety and efficacy of generics are comparable to the safety and efficacy of the corresponding innovator drugs. Assessment of ‘interchangeability’ between the generic and the innovator product is carried out by a study of ‘in vivo’ equivalence or ‘bioequivalence’ (BE).”

The paper further highlights, “the concept of BE has, therefore, been accepted worldwide by the pharmaceutical industry and national regulatory authorities for over 20 years and is applied to new as well as generic products. As a result, thousands of high-quality generic drugs at reduced costs have become available in every corner of the globe.”

Why is BE not mandatory for marketing approval of all generic drugs in India?

It is intriguing, why is this basic scientific and medical requirement of proving BE is not mandatory for granting marketing approval of all generic drugs at all time, without any exception – covering both branded generics and their unbranded equivalents, in India.

As I have already deliberated on this subject in my article titled “Generic Drug Quality: Cacophony Masks An Important Note, Creates A Pariah ”, published in this blog on May 08, 2017, I shall now proceed further to relate this critical issue with the Draft Pharma Policy 2017.

Brand, branding and branded generics:

Nevertheless, before I focus on the draft pharma policy 2017, let me skim through the definitions of a ‘brand’ and the ‘branding process’, in general, for better understanding of the subject.

American Marketing Association defines a brand as: ‘A name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s goods or services as distinct from other sellers.’ Whereas, ‘The Branding Journal’ articulates: ‘A brand provides consumers with a decision-making-shortcut when feeling indecisive about the same product from different companies.’

Business Dictionary describes the ‘branding process’ as: ‘Creating a unique name and image for a product in the consumers’ mind, mainly through advertising campaigns with a consistent theme. Branding aims to establish a significant and differentiated presence in the market that attracts and retains loyal customers.’

How does it benefit the branded generic consumers?

One thing that comes out clearly from the above definitions that brands, and for that matter the branding process is directed to the consumers. Applying the branding process for generic drugs, the moot question that surfaces is, how does it benefit the pharma consumers, significantly?

Besides, the branding process being so very expensive, adds significant cost to a generic drug, making its price exorbitant to most patients, quite disproportionate to incremental value, if any, that a branded generic offers over its unbranded equivalents. Thus, the relevance of the branding process for a generic drug, continues to remain a contentious issue for many, especially where the out of pocket expenditure for medicines is so high, as in India.

Marketing experts’ view on the branding process for drugs:

An interesting article titled ‘From Managing Pills to Managing Brands’, authored by the Unilever Chaired Professor of Marketing and a research fellow at INSEAD, published in the Harvard Business Review made the following observations on brands and the branding process for drugs:

“…It takes a huge investment to build a successful brand, consumer goods manufacturers try to make their brands last as long as possible. Some consumer products—notably, Coca-Cola, Nescafé, and Persil (a European laundry detergent) -  have stayed at the top for decades. That’s not to say the products don’t evolve, but the changes are presented as improvements and refinements rather than as breakthroughs.”

“In the pharmaceutical business, by contrast, a new product is always given a new name. Drug companies believe that only by introducing a new name can you signal to the market that the product itself is new. Unfortunately, this approach throws out the company’s previous marketing investment entirely; it has to build a new brand with each new product. That may not have mattered when pharmaceutical companies could rely on a large, high-margin market for each drug they wheeled out. But in a crowded market with tightening margins, the new-product, new-brand strategy is becoming less and less feasible.”

The above observations when applied to expensive ‘branded generics’, which are nothing but exact ‘me too’ varieties among tens other similar formulations of the same generic molecule, do not add any additional value to the patients, in a well-functioning drug regulatory environment.

Hence, to reduce the out of pocket drug cost significantly, Prime Minister Modi hinted at bringing an appropriate legal framework to address this critical issue, which gets well-reflected in the draft pharma policy 2017, as I read it.

Six key features of the draft pharma policy related to ‘branded generics’:

Following are the six key features enshrined in the draft pharma policy 2017 to translate into reality what the Prime Minister spoke about on this subject in Surat on April 17, 2017.

1. Bio-availability and Bio-equivalence tests mandatory for all drug manufacturing permissions:

For quality control of generic drugs, Bio-availability and Bio-equivalence tests (BA/BE Tests) will be made mandatory for all drug manufacturing permissions accorded by the State Drug Regulator or by the Central Drug Regulator. This will be made compulsory even for the future renewals of manufacturing licenses for all.

2. WHO GMP/GLP mandatory for all drug units:

The government shall ensure to get the World Health Organization’s Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) adopted by all manufacturing units.

3. No branded generics for single ingredient off-patent molecules:

The government will pursue the policy of sale of single ingredient drugs by their pharmacopeial name/salt name. To keep the identity of the manufacturer, the manufacturer would be allowed to stamp its name on the drug package. For patented drugs and Fixed Dose Combination (FDCs) drugs the brand names may be used.

4. ‘One company – one drug – one brand name – one price’:

The principle of ‘one company – one drug – one brand name – one price’ would be implemented for all drugs.

5. Aid and assistance to prescribe in generic names:

To aid and assist the registered medical practitioners in prescribing medicines in the generic names, e-prescription will be put into operation whereby the prescriptions will be computerized and the medicine name will be picked up from a drop-down menu of salt names.

6. UCPMP to be made mandatory:

The marketing practices of several pharmaceutical companies create an unfair advantage. To provide a level playing field, the regulation for marketing practices which is at present voluntary will be made mandatory. Penalty will be levied for violations and an agency for implementation would also be assigned.

Conclusion:

I have focused in this article only on those specific intents of the government, as captured in the draft pharma policy 2017, to reduce the out of pocket expenses on drugs for the Indian patients, which is currently one of the highest in the world. This area assumes greater importance to many, keeping in mind what Prime Minister Modi hinted at in this regard on April 17, 2017. If implemented exactly as detailed in the policy draft, this specific area would have a watershed impact both on the patients, as well as, the pharma companies, including their related business associates, lasting over a long period time.

Far reaching consequential fall outs are expected to loom large on the way pharma players’ strategic business processes generally revolve round ‘branded generics’ in India. I hope, the Plan B of many predominantly branded generic players is also receiving final touches on the drawing board by now, as this aspect of the draft policy proposal can in no way be construed as a bolt from the blue, catching the industry totally off-guard. That said, would the same changes as proposed in the draft pharma policy 2017, if and when implemented, be a ‘wow’ moment for patients?

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.

 

India, China Revoke Four Pharma Patents in A Fortnight: A Double Whammy for MNCs?

Posted on by
Reply

Revocation of four pharma patents by India and China within a fortnight has raised many eyebrows, yet again, across the globe. In this short period, India has revoked three patents and China one.

While this quick development is probably a double whammy for the Multinational Corporations (MNCs) operating in both the countries, a future trend could possibly emerge by analyzing and connecting the evolving dots.

On August 8, 2013, a judicial body, the Intellectual Property Apellate Board (IPAB) of India reportedly revoked two patents of Allergan Inc on Combigan and Ganfort, both are Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs of known molecules, used in the treatment of specified eye conditions. Local pharmaceutical player Ajantha Pharma had challenged these patents granted earlier to Allergan Inc. by the Indian Patent Office (IPO), alleging that the patents were obtained on false representation, the compositions were obvious ones, mere admixture of two pharmaceutical substances and not inventions.

IPAB in its order, while revoking the patent, has also said:

  • “The revocation of the patent was sought on various grounds that the patent was obtained on a false suggestion or representation, that it is not an invention, that it is obvious and does not sufficiently disclose and that the Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970 was violated.”
  • The “respondents (Allergan Inc) have incorrectly deciphered enhancement in therapeutic efficacy as reduction in interocular pressure comparable to serial application.”
  • “The respondent has not shown that it had complied with the Section 8 of Patents Act, 1970.”

Though Allergan claimed to have achieved enhanced efficacy with reduced side effects for these FDCs, the IPAB did not find the claims justifiable. Interestingly, Ajantha’s product reportedly is much less expensive too. As compared to Allergan’s Ganfort drops (3 ml) costing about Rs 580, Ajanta’s equivalent formulation costs just Rs 131.

The other pharma patent revocation of the fortnight:

On July 27, 2013, IPAB revoked yet another patent granted earlier to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)’s Lapatinib ditosylate salt of its breast cancer drug Tykerb, while upholding the patent on the original API, Lapatinib. IPAB in its order has stated that the ditosylate salt version of Lapatinib is not patentable as per patentability criteria of the Indian Patents Act.

Experts believe, with these decisions, the Indian legal system has clearly demonstrated that despite intense anger, pressure and protests mainly from the United States and Europe, to dilute public health interest related safeguards enshrined in the current Indian patent regime, the rule of law still prevails in the country for IP disputes.

Tykerb decision of IPAB follows the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India clarifying patentability criteria for incremental innovations.

An interesting precedent set:

In case of Tykerb of GSK, unlike other occasions, for the first time one MNC has challenged the patent of another MNC in India, instead of domestic companies doing so. The German drug manufacturer, Fresenius Kabi, instead of criticizing Indian IP law like other MNCs, had challenged the British drug maker GSK’s patent on the patentability criteria as provided in the Indian Patent Law and obtained a favorable decision from the IPAB against one of their two patent challenges on Tykerb.

A different case, yet worth mentioning:

Earlier, in late 2012, Delhi High Court while recognizing the validity of Roche’s patent for Tarceva (erlotinib), ordered that Cipla’s generic equivalent of erlotinib has different molecular structures. Hence, Cipla has not infringed Roche’s patent.

The generic version of Cipla’s erlotinib is reportedly available at a price of Rs 1,600 against Roche’s price of Rs 4,800 for Tarceva. Though this is not a patent revocation, but an interesting case nevertheless.

Other patent revocations:

Besides the only Compulsory License (CL) issued, so far, by the IPO for Bayer’s Nexavar to Natco (Cost of a pack of 120 tablets of Natco generic is Rs.8,800 against Nexavar’s Rs. 280,000), such patent challenges are now taking place in India quite close on the heels of one another as follows:

Sutent (Pfizer): 

In this case, the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib), granted earlier by the 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.

However, on November 26, 2012 in a new twist to this case, the Supreme Court of India reportedly restored the patent for Sutent. Interestingly, at the same time the court removed the restraining order, which prevented Cipla from launching a copycat generic equivalent of Sunitinib.

The cost of 45 day’s treatment with Cipla generic is Rs. 50,000 against Rs. 196,000 of Sutent. (Source ET, April 7, 2013)

Pegasys (Roche):

Again, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche. It is worth mentioning, Pegasys enjoys patent protection across the world.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by IPO in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the Indian pharma major – 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 the Patents Act of India.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, the judicial body IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys, costing Rs. 360,000 for a six month course of treatment for a patient.

Iressa (AstraZeneca):

On November 26, 2012, IPAB reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Iressa (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, IPO in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Iressa Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Anti-asthma FDC aerosol suspension (Merck & Co):

Similar to Allergan case, on December 11, 2012 Indian Patent Office (IPO) reportedly revoked a patent granted to an anti-asthma FDC drug of Merck & Co on the ground of lack of invention, after the domestic pharma major Cipla Ltd challenged an earlier granted patent of this FDC drug.

This aerosol suspension combines three molecules: mometasone furoate, formoterol and heptaflouropropane.

A similar asthma treatment, Dulera, reportedly lost its Indian patent held by Novartis AG in 2010.

Patentability for ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

Patentability criteria for any ‘incremental innovation’ 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.”

Indian Patents Act prevails: 

As is well known, way back in 2006, IPO refused to grant patent to the cancer drug Glivec of Novartis on the ground that the molecule is a mere modification of an existing substance known as Imatinib.

In that case, on April 1, 2013 the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of Section 3(d), where the rules of the game for patentability of incremental pharmaceutical innovations, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005, were cast in stone.

Court did not disallow all incremental innovations:

Point 191 in page number 95 of the Glivec judgment 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, it should not be highlighted unfairly by concerned constituents that all ‘incremental innovations’ are not patentable in India. The above judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and the arguments of Novartis.

Only 3% of patents are challenged:

Quoting a study, a recent media report highlighted that only 3% of the patent applications filed in India since 2006 were challenged. The study concluded, “This demonstrates that given the various resource constraints faced by the Indian patent office, one can never really be sure of the patent quality unless the patent is challenged.”

Rejection by IPO under Section 3d is minimum – is that a key issue?

Another study done by Columbia University reportedly found that out of 214 patents filed in India last year, only 3 patents were rejected by IPO exclusively for failing to prove better efficacy, as required under Section 3d. Turning this finding on its head, would it be reasonable to ponder:

Could this be a key issue for so many patents failing to pass the acid test of judicial scrutiny when challenged?

Government has no role to play in IP disputes:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue, patent challenge is a legal process all over the world, where the Government has hardly any role to play in resolving these 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 by the 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.

Pharma patents granted in India:

As reported in the media, pharma MNCs have been granted over 1,000 patents since 2005. Moreover out of 4,036 patents granted in the past six years, 1,130 have been awarded to MNCs, like:

  • AstraZeneca 180 patents
  • Roche with 166 patents
  • Sanofi with 159 patents
  • Novartis with 147 patents

It is therefore understandable, as pharma MNCs have secured more number of pharma patents they are facing larger number of litigations at this point of time.

China and Brazil revoke patents:

Last week, just about a year after China introduced the country’s amended patent law, its State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) has reportedly revoked the patent on HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B drug – Viread (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) of Gilead Science Inc. Aurisco, the largest manufacturer of active pharmaceutical ingredients in China, challenged this patent. The ground of patent revocation was that the drug lacked novelty and was not entitled to protection.

In 2008 Brazil also declared the patent of tenofovir invalid. It is worth mentioning that tenofovir of Gilead is the third-best-selling drug of the company, clocking sales of US$ 849 million in 2012.

South Africa mulls new law to stop ‘Evergreening’:

Recently, the Department of Trade and Industry of South Africa has reportedly submitted to the South African Cabinet a draft Intellectual Property Policy with far-reaching changes to the country’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for medicines in order to increase access to cheaper drugs by making it harder for companies to obtain and extend patents.

The draft includes a proposal to introduce a patent examination office to stop pharmaceutical companies from “evergreening” where companies take out new patents based on minor changes or new uses. 

Currently, South Africa uses a depository system, in which patent applications are granted without extensive scrutiny. Experts believe, “this system allows companies to file multiple patents on the same medicine and extend the life of their monopoly, keeping prices artificially high.”

Innovators Angry:

In this context, the following report recently captured the anger of the innovator companies and stated that the US drug giants are once again pushing for stronger patent protection in India:

“A coalition of U.S. lawmakers and business groups outlined concerns about Indian policies as a threat to American exports, jobs and innovation in a letter to President Barack Obama on June 18. Among the business groups were the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Biotechnology Industry Association. On June 14, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Finance Committee urged that Kerry raise trade concerns on his visit.”

Quoting US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center another report highlighted, “Recent policy and judicial decisions that invalidate intellectual property rights, which have been increasing in India, cast a daunting shadow over its otherwise promising business climate. From the revocation of patents to the staggering rates of piracy, India stands alone as an international outlier in IP policies. This trend is bad for investment, innovation and international trade.”

Does it benefit patients? 

In the paper titled ‘TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond’, published in ‘Chicago Journal for International Law, Vol. 3(1), Spring 2002’, the author argues, though the reasons for the lack of access to essential medicines are manifold, there are many instances where high prices of drugs deny access to needed treatments for many patients. Prohibitive drug prices, in those cases, were the outcome of monopoly due to strong intellectual property protection.

The author adds, “The attempts of Governments in developing countries to bring down the prices of patented medicines have come under heavy pressure from industrialized countries and the multinational pharmaceutical industry”.

While the ‘Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)’ of the World Trade Organization (WTO) sets out minimum standards for the patent protection for pharmaceuticals, it also offers adequate safeguards against negative impact of patent protection or its abuse in terms of extraordinary and unjustifiable drug pricing. The levels of these safeguards vary from country to country based on the socioeconomic and political requirements of a nation, as in India.  

Following table is an example of price differential between patented and generic equivalents of those molecules used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS:

1

2

3

3TC (Lamivudine)

Zerit (Stavudine)

Viramune (Nevirapine)

Price / Year / Patient in US$

Price / Year / Patient in US$

Price / Year /Patient in US$

GSK

Cipla

Hetero

BMS

Cipla

Hetero

B.I.*

Cipla

Hetero

3271

190

98

3589

70

47

3508

340

202

(Source: Third World Network, *B.I: Boehringer Ingelheim) 

Patentability for ‘genuine innovations’:

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 causing immense hardships to them.
  • 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.

Conclusion:

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.

Since, most of the above patents have not been challenged, as yet, the quality of these patents cannot be ascertained beyond any reasonable doubt, as we discuss today.

If the apprehension, as expressed above in the IPA study has any merit, right answers to the following questions, I reckon, would help charting out the future direction for the IP ecosystem of India:

  • Is there a theoretical possibility of revocation of all these 86 already granted product patents, if and when challenged in a court of law?
  • Is the current Patents Act of India pragmatic?
  • Does it reasonably benefit both the innovators and the Indian patients,  signifying a paradigm shift in the global IPR scenario?
  • Will it inspire other countries also to emulate similar IP system in the years ahead?
  • Will it then invite more intense ire of the global pharma innovator companies creating increasing  pressure on the Indian Government to amend the current Patents Act?
  • Being under continuous public scrutiny, would it be feasible for any Indian Government, now or in future, in the near or medium term, to amend the Indian Patents Act due to any amount of outside pressure?
  • And finally, is the Act then irreversible, at least, for quite some time from now?

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.

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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:

  • 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

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.

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

Posted on by
Reply

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:
  1. Evidenced a significant proliferation of ‘ever-greening’ pharmaceutical patents that    can block generic competition and thereby limit patients’ access to medicines.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

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.