Collaboration For Sustainable Excellence – The Name of The Game in The New Normal

Posted on May 22, 2023 by Tapan Ray

The union minister of health and family welfare of India recently invited Japanese companies to collaborate with Indian companies on research and innovation in emerging therapies, like precision medicine, cell and gene therapy, biological products, and on the utilization of digital tools and technologies. This was reported on May 16, 2023.

Underscoring this objective, the minister articulated, “such collaboration on research and innovation would help enhance the domestic availability and affordability of these innovative therapeutic options.”

The area of research and drug innovation in emerging therapies and on the utilization of digital tools and technologies has emerged as one of the top focus areas of the country in the new normal. Currently, the Indian pharmaceutical industry is primarily focused on manufacturing generic medicines, exporting bulk drugs, and supplying active pharmaceutical ingredients.

Thus, this goal can be quickly achieved through global collaborations – at a time when India plays a pivotal role in improving health outcomes worldwide by serving as a dependable supplier of affordable and high-quality generic drugs. The country is currently providing approximately 60 per cent of the global vaccine supply, and 20-22 per cent of generic exports. Importantly, ‘In the battle against the Covid-19 pandemic, India has supplied essential drugs to around 185 countries,” he underscored.

Interestingly, after the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been a significant shift in the approach of both Indian and multinational drug companies towards business collaboration. This article will focus on this area with recent Indian examples, culled from available reports. However, before delving into this space, let me also point out that drug MNCs operating in India are also changing focus on their India operations, as reported in recent times.

Drug MNCs operating in India are also changing business focus:

This was brought to the fore by several recent reports. For example, in February 2022, The Economic Times reported:

In February, Novartis India passed on the sales and distribution rights of three of its established brands to Dr Reddy’s Labs and terminated the employment of 400 staffers.
In October, US drugmaker Eli Lilly sold the marketing rights of its anti-diabetes drugs to Cipla and laid off 120 employees in India.
Around the same time, Danish pharma company Lundbeck decided to exit India as part of its global strategy.

However, their key goal remains - delivering new patient-perceived value – not just incremental, but in quantum measure for business growth.

The need for increased collaboration and shared resources:

Against the above backdrop, it appears to me that the pandemic has highlighted the need for accelerated cooperation and sharing resources to address global healthcare challenges, effectively. As a result of which, both Indian and MNC drug companies are recognizing the benefits of working together, and are actively seeking collaboration opportunities in the following areas.

Access to Emerging Markets: Indian pharma companies have a strong presence in emerging markets due to their cost-effective generic drug manufacturing capabilities. Multinational companies recognize the potential of these markets and are looking to collaborate with Indian firms to gain access to these regions. By partnering with Indian companies, MNCs can tap into local expertise, distribution networks, and regulatory knowledge.

- Example: In 2022, Cadila Healthcare entered into a collaboration with Novartis to develop and commercialize multiple oral solids and injectable generics for global markets, including emerging markets.

Research and Development: Collaboration in research and development (R&D) activities has become crucial for drug companies. MNCs bring advanced research capabilities, cutting-edge technologies, and substantial financial resources, while Indian companies offer a skilled workforce and a cost-effective environment for R&D. By joining forces, they can pool their strengths and accelerate the discovery and development of new drugs and therapies.

- Example: In 2021, Bharat Biotech collaborated with the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) to develop a novel vaccine candidate for HIV. This collaboration aims to combine the strengths of all three organizations to advance HIV vaccine research.

Manufacturing and Supply Chain: The pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. Collaborations between Indian and MNC drug companies can help diversify manufacturing locations and strengthen supply chain resilience. Indian companies’ expertise in large-scale generic drug production can complement the specialized manufacturing capabilities of multinational firms.

- Example: In 2021, Hetero entered into a partnership with the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) to manufacture the Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccine in India. This collaboration aimed to increase the production capacity of the vaccine to meet global demand.

Regulatory Compliance: Regulatory compliance is a critical aspect of the pharmaceutical industry. Indian companies have been working closely with regulatory authorities to meet global standards and gain approvals for their products. Collaborating with Indian companies enables MNCs to leverage their understanding of regulatory processes, navigate local regulations efficiently, and ensure compliance with diverse international requirements.

- Example, in 2022, Biocon Biologics partnered with Adagio Therapeutics, a US-based biotechnology company, to develop and commercialize an antibody treatment for COVID-19. This collaboration involves regulatory support from both companies to navigate global regulatory processes.

Market Expansion: Collaborations provide an opportunity for both Indian and multinational companies to expand their market presence. Indian companies can benefit from the MNCs’ established marketing networks, while MNCs can leverage the Indian companies’ extensive distribution channels and market knowledge. Joint ventures and partnerships facilitate market entry, improve market penetration, and help companies capture a larger share of the global pharmaceutical market.

- Example: In 2022, Torrent Pharmaceuticals collaborated with Swedish multinational company Handicare Group AB to distribute and market Handicare’s range of mobility solutions in India. This collaboration enables Torrent Pharmaceuticals to diversify its product portfolio and expand into the healthcare mobility market.

Technology and Innovation Sharing: Collaborations foster knowledge exchange between Indian and multinational drug companies. MNCs can share their technological advancements and research findings, while Indian companies can contribute their insights and expertise in managing large-scale production. Such knowledge-sharing initiatives can drive innovation, improve manufacturing processes, and enhance overall operational efficiency.

- Example: In 2022, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals entered into a collaboration with the Canadian multinational company SaNOtize Research and Development Corp. to develop a nitric oxide nasal spray for the treatment of COVID-19. This collaboration combines Glenmark’s expertise in drug development with SaNOtize’s innovative nitric oxide platform.

Intellectual Property and Licensing: Collaboration often involves the exchange of intellectual property (IP) rights and licensing agreements. Indian companies possess a vast pool of generic drug formulations and manufacturing capabilities. MNCs can license their patented drugs or technology to Indian partners for production and distribution in specific markets. These licensing arrangements benefit both parties by expanding the product portfolio and maximizing revenue potential.

- Example: In 2021, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals signed a licensing agreement with Canadian biopharmaceutical company Xenon Pharmaceuticals to develop and commercialize a potential treatment for epilepsy. This collaboration involves the licensing of Xenon Pharmaceuticals’ proprietary technology for the development of a novel therapeutic product.

Conclusion:

Overall, as the recent trends indicate, the post-pandemic era has accelerated initiatives of strategic collaboration between Indian and multinational drug companies. By leveraging each other’s strengths and with shared value and resources, these collaborations aim to drive innovation, address global healthcare challenges, and deliver affordable and accessible healthcare solutions to patients worldwide. And thereby, will help deliver a unique patient experience.

Additionally, the examples, as available from published sources, highlight an increasing number of such recent collaborations, besides operational re-focusing by several MNC drug majors in India.

These strategic steps clearly emphasize their joint efforts to drive innovation, expand their market presence, and address critical healthcare needs. From this angle, I believe, for sustainable business excellence and for staying relevant to customers in the new digital world, one of the top focus areas for Indian pharma players deserves to be strategic collaboration initiatives.

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.

Data Integrity Issue Haunts Again With Covid Vaccine?

Posted on March 29, 2021 by Tapan Ray

On March 22, 2021, by a media release, AstraZeneca announced that its ‘US Phase III trial of AZD1222 demonstrated statistically significant vaccine efficacy of 79% in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 and 100% efficacy at preventing severe disease and hospitalization.’

Quite unexpectedly, on March 23, 2021, the above claim on AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine, triggered a rare post-midnight statement by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the United states. It rekindled a lurking fear of many, yet again, on the issue of questionable data integrity within the drug industry, in general.

This News Release articulated: “Late Monday, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) notified NIAID, BARDA, and AstraZeneca that it was concerned by information released by AstraZeneca on initial data from its COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial.”

The concern was on the possible inclusion of outdated information from that trial, ‘which may have provided an incomplete view of the efficacy data.’ It urged AstraZeneca to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as soon as possible.

Later on that very day, AstraZeneca released another statement saying: “The numbers published yesterday were based on a pre-specified interim analysis with a data cutoff of 17 February. We have reviewed the preliminary assessment of the primary analysis and the results were consistent with the interim analysis. We are now completing the validation of the statistical analysis.”

The company further emphasized, “We will immediately engage with the independent data safety monitoring board (DSMB) to share our primary analysis with the most up to date efficacy data.” And also added that AstraZeneca intends to issue the results of the primary analysis within 48 hours.

However, the impact of the NIAID’s announcement on the unfurling of AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine in the U.S, is yet to be ascertained. It’s also still unknown what this news could mean for the vaccine’s alleged efficacy. Be that as it may, it all happened at a time when millions of people, in many countries of the world, including India, have already taken, at least, the first dose of this vaccine.

In this article, I shall deliberate on broader aspects of this critical issue and its relevance in the present case. However, before doing so, let’s try to figure out, why data integrity still remains a major concern of many experts in this area.

Why data integrity is still a major issue:

There are many studies that raised serious concern in this area, over a period of time. For example – ‘Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data’ – was claimed by the research paper that was discussed in ‘The Guardian’ on June 05, 2017.

This study reviewed data from 5,087 clinical trials, published during the past 15 years, in two prestigious medical journals – JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine, and six anesthesia journals. In total, 90 published trials had underlying statistical patterns that were unlikely to appear by chance (or be termed as ‘unforced error’) in a credible dataset, the paper concluded.

Even my own article of September 30, 2019 deliberated on various facets of ‘data integrity’ involving novel therapy, across the world. There, I quoted one of the top medical experts related to the above paper, saying: “It’s very scary that we may be treating patients based on false evidence.” He further added: “It may be the case that certain treatments may need to be withdrawn from use.”

The ghost of a recent example still haunts:

Not so long ago, much reported fallout from Novartis’ alleged data manipulation fiasco with its billion-dollar gene therapy Zolgensma, shook all concerned. So much so, that the Company CEO had to pledge during an investor conference that: ‘the company will be more proactive in reporting data integrity issues to the FDA.’

He also added, Novartis has responded to the FDA’s Form 483 and is making documents available as requested, while reiterating that the data manipulation uncovered at the San Diego site “does not impact the safety, efficacy or quality of Zolgensma.”

The key point to ponder, therefore, especially in AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine case – is the same ghost haunting us, yet again?

Is it happening again?

One may, possibly, find some cue of the answer to this question while looking at what followed after ‘validation of the statistical analysis’ by AstraZeneca, as it was promised by the company. Interestingly, the following day, after apparently a thorough analysis, the data released by AstraZeneca, re-iterated effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine, which apparently, is broadly similar to the results released earlier.

The Company highlighted therein, ‘US Phase III primary analysis confirms safety and efficacy,’ with the following points:

76% (earlier shown as 79%) vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19
100% efficacy against severe or critical disease and hospitalization
85% efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 in participants aged 65 years and over.

It may continue to remain unclear to many – whether or not there was some suspected issue of data integrity – till the answers, at least, to the following questions are made public:

Why did the data and safety monitoring board for the trial write a harsh letter to AstraZeneca on its claim, and copied the leadership of NIAID and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority?

As the proof of the pudding is in its eating, why there will even be a slight downward revision in the rate of efficacy of AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine?

Conclusion:

I wrote in this blog, way back on August 03, 2015 that data manipulation issues are dangerously leapfrogging into clinical trial domain, even in India. As a result, many domestic drug players had to pay a heavy price – in terms of drug import bans by USFDA and other regulators. Several questions on the quality of efficacy and safety of Indian generic drugs were also raised in many developed countries. A number of best-selling books were also written on this issue.

Some may recall, just ahead Covid pandemic struck, trial data of a highly complex and very expensive gene therapy was also questioned by the US-FDA, for the same reason. However, on March 31, 2020, on completion of its review of the information, records of the inspection, the evidence collected, and the firm’s corrective actions, US-FDA stated: “Objectionable conditions were found and documented but the objectionable conditions observed during the inspection do not meet the threshold for regulatory action.”

Almost in a similar line, after the NIAID decided to make its data related concern public on AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine, its head, Anthony Fauci, reportedly, characterized this issue as “an unforced error.” This is indeed a cryptic comment. The root cause of this entire saga with details is still awaited.

Interestingly, the term “unforced error’ is widely used in Tennis, and means, ‘a mistake in play that is attributed to one’s own failure rather than to the skill or effort of one’s opponent.’ From this perspective, after AstraZeneca’s statement of clarification on its Covid-19 vaccine data, the concern on its phase three trial data would possibly be put to rest. At least for now, let’s not see the ghost of data integrity for this vaccine, where there doesn’t seem to be any.

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.

Still Evolving: Pharma’s New Pathway For Digital And F2F Customer Engagement

Posted on February 15, 2021 by Tapan Ray

Last year – probably left with no better choice – the pharma industry, in general, had to take an unprecedented interest in digitalization of business processes. It happened faster than ever, especially in the marketing domain, along with a few others. Large research studies, across the world have vindicated this point. However, such digital transformation initiatives of last one year, is far from getting over. These are still like a work in progress. Primarily because, the extent of sudden changes in healthcare customer behavior, overall business environment and market dynamics, are still unfolding – slowly and gradually, though.

Consequently, the future drug marketing roadmap for the ongoing journey isn’t clear, just yet, especially in the area of striking a critical balance between virtual F2F (Face to Face) and in-person F2F customer engagements. Which is why, ascertaining the extent of personalization of customer contacts, customer-centric content development and their preference-based channel selection, may take more time. Accordingly, the framework of a strategic blueprint will need to be continuously updated during 2021, based on robust data.

Charting and analyzing the trend for each critical interface related to customer contacts – based on credible data, has already been initiated by renowned professional agencies. The findings of the same are also started trickling in. Some of which are on the expected line thinking, whereas a few others aren’t so expected, by many.

In this article, I shall dwell on some of these critical trends related to striking a right balance between virtual F2F and in-person F2F customer engagements for commercial excellence in 2021 and beyond. The purpose is to encourage marketers for keeping eyes on the ball, always. This is critical while formulating robust digital marketing strategies – charting a new pathway for reps’ digital empowerment – from here on. Let me start by quoting an important research study.

Digital initiatives helped staying relevant in uncertain times:

Several other research studies, including the Veeva study on ‘Industry-wide digital acceleration’, published on September 23, 2020, highlighted pharma’s digital efforts to stay relevant during a year-long uncertain times, like the last year. Even today, the industry’s digital channels, mostly related to customer engagement, like doctors and patients, are drawing similar importance of the top management.

The research underscored, healthcare sectors in emerging countries, such as India, Vietnam, Indonesia and China are increasingly relying on digital return in a post-pandemic world. Interestingly, digital engagement has now unlocked access even to those healthcare professionals who were declining F2F access to many pharma companies.

‘Slow return of in-person interactions’ – what does it mean?

While the increasing use of digital channels in customer engagement was true during last year, the recent APAC Veeva Pulse Data also shows signs of a slow return of in-person interactions. The top 5 therapeutic areas that have started to reopen include:

Respiratory,
Cancer,
Infection,
Diabetes and
Cardiovascular.

The study shows that F2F interactions dropped dramatically between February and April 2020 but increased back to pre-COVID numbers by July 2020. Curiously, at the same time, virtual engagements and meetings also continued to increase significantly. Thus, the question to ponder and address properly is – If in-person F2F interaction is increasing alongside digital, what would it mean for healthcare engagement while moving forward?’

Is it a signal for the hybrid customer engagement model in the future?

While doctors are realizing the benefits and ease of user-friendly digital engagement, this may not mean that virtual visits, meeting and engagements are replacing F2F in-person interactions, lock-stock and barrel.

Thus, it now needs to be established by more and larger studies, whether a customer engagement model with an optimal mix of digital and F2F in-person engagements can be more effective for better commercial outcomes, now and in the days ahead. The point that needs to be ascertained first is – what will this optimal mix be – between digital and F2F, which I reckon, will differ from company to company – mostly based on therapy areas they represent.

F2F engagements may increase from the past year, but not as old normal:

Except initial turbulence, with incredible resilience the pharma industry navigated through the choppy environment during the pandemic, with the skillful application of digital technology. The most recent Veeva article, published on January 07, 2021 captures this point.

It articulated, with companies continue expanding digitalization to accelerate cost-efficient commercial operations and yielding greater productivity, the new operating models will reshape the industry and drive powerful transformation for years to come. It is, therefore, unlikely that the traditional ways of in-person F2F engagement with doctors, patients and other stakeholders will come back soon in its old avatar, if at all.

Increasing scope for a two-way digital engagement with pharma customers:

Veeva Pulse data also observed the initiation of pharma’s two-way digital engagement with health care customers last year and an expanded potential of the same in the current year and thereafter.

Although, virtual meetings increased more than eightfold and rep-sent digital communication by sevenfold since January 2020, these channels have primarily been used for outbound customer engagement.

This leaves some untapped opportunities to explore, by creating new inbound digital customer-engagement channels. The aim is to make it easier for doctors and patients have greater access to companies, its reps or designated individuals, for information and services that they may want. Most importantly, this has to be – as they need it – when they need it – and the way they would prefer having it. Inbound digital engagement channels will also demonstrate a greater company focus on ‘customer-centricity’.

Expanding towards inbound digital engagement for customers has started:

This shift prompts a change in the traditional mindset of pharma marketing leadership. The process will be gradual, ongoing and having a bias on contemporary customer needs. The steps to follow should preferably be initiate – evaluate – expand, while taking every significant step.

For example, as reported by Fierce Pharma on February 08, 2021, global pharma major Novartis is aiming to personalize its interactions with healthcare professionals and deliver “what they need in real time” to support their decision-making process. Novartis, reportedly, is also setting out to change the way that they are “interacting with not only physicians, but healthcare systems, and how they think about the patient journey.”

F2F shifts from ‘in-person interaction for all’ to ‘as per customer preference’:

Be that as it may, pharma’s digital strategy requires to be craftily woven with the company’s field-strategy. Thus, the reps must be digitally well trained in delivering brand values consistently, across digital channels and platforms, as recent studies indicate.

Far from traditional F2F field sales models of in-person meetings for all doctors, the hybrid F2F model requires personalized engagement, based on customer preferences. Some customers may prefer reps to engage only through digital channels, whereas many others may like a mix of virtual and in-person engagements. With the expanding reach of digital technology for all, these preferences will keep changing with time.

Conclusion:

In 2021 and thereafter, accelerating digitization of critical pharma domains, such as marketing, is expected to reduce operational costs and boost operational efficiencies. In tandem, it will help gain deeper insight into customer behavior and market dynamics, fueled by newly acquired digital capabilities. These include, faster generation of customized data or collation of relevant and credible information collected from multiple sources, and their error-free prompt analysis. In addition, prudent application of digital technology in all selected areas by astute pharma professionals, will help reduce, if not totally eliminate, currently practiced and human error-prone, mostly repetitive manual processes.

The pan industry shift toward digital channels is here to stay and is expected to accelerate further for other strategic reasons too, such as, to add more flexibility in attaining greater efficiency and effectiveness for customer engagement. It goes without saying that factoring-in all such key success factors, companies will draw their respective current and future digital marketing strategies. That said, recent data indicate, customer engagement may call for a mix of virtual and in-person F2F engagements. The same report highlights that going back to the old normal of in-person F2F engagements for all doctors could probably be a far cry. Similarly, the initial success of e-customer engagement is unlikely to replace in-person and in-clinic F2F engagements of sales reps completely.

However, the point to note is that the industry scenario in this area is still evolving. Currently published trends indicate, different customers, like doctors, patients and hospitals, will have different preferences of engagement with drug companies, in different communication platforms. Thus, pharma’s new marketing pathway, as discussed above, will entail striking an optimal balance between digital and F2F customer engagement, which will vary from company to company based on several critical factors.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Covid-19: Perils Of Haste In Scientific Decision-Making Process

Posted on August 31, 2020 by Tapan Ray

Multifaceted threats posed by Coronavirus to the humanity, are getting increasingly complex, every day. Currently, Covid-19 cases in India are ‘the highest that any country has ever recorded on a single day since the start of the outbreak.’ Alongside, the hopes of billions of people – for its predictable and dependable remedies are also soaring sky high. But, despite full throttle global endeavor of scientists, the world continues waiting for scientific-evidence-based, well-proven, safe, and effective Covid-19 drugs, vaccines and other treatments.

It is expected, each of these cures and antidotes should be duly authorized by drug regulators, according to global norms – without any outside non-scientific interference – not even from the very top. Nevertheless, the reality is, as on date, besides some ‘emergency use authorizations’, all scientific pursuits in this area are Works in Progress (WIP) – some are with great potential, though.

The catastrophic impact of Covid-19 pandemic is all pervasive. So is the competition between media publications to attract maximum eyeballs, with details on many aspects of the disease and related scientific development. These include reports on intense, non-scientific pressure on scientists and regulators to make drugs, vaccines or other Covid-19 treatments immediately available for use. In this article, I shall dwell on the perils of haste in the scientific decision-making processes, while combating Covid-19.

A quick research outcome is important – based on ‘rational’ – but not ‘rash’ decisions:

In pursuit of a quick disease treatment outcome, a rational and ethical approach in any scientific discovery process, is non-negotiable. It has always been so – while dealing with many different health crises, and should remain that way for Covid-19, as well. In my view, for achieving a prompt and desirable treatment outcome – a quick, but rational decision should always be favored – over highly influenced, contentious, non-scientific and rash decisions.

Many wise men believe, a quick decision is one, made quickly supported by irrefutable inputs of an accepted quality and scale. Whereas, a rash decision is one, made with limited, questionable or even no inputs – just based on gut feel, as it were. This broad concept is applicable to Covid-19 drugs, vaccines and other treatments, including -plasma therapy.

In the space of Covid-19 pandemic, there are several such examples, starting from hydroxychloroquine to the most recent plasma therapy – both in India, and also beyond its shores. Without being judgmental, this article will try to join some critical dots, for the readers draw their own conclusions on this issue. Let me start with two examples of this drug regulatory quagmire – the very first, and the most recent ones.

Perils of haste in the Hydroxychloroquine saga:

As I wrote in this blog that the US President Donald Trump, on March 21, 2020, proclaimed Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine as potential game changers against Covid-19 global pandemic, despite doubts from the US-FDA. Interestingly, on March 28, 2020, the US drug regulator granted the emergency use authorization of these two drugs for treating Covid-19. However, it was subsequently revoked on June 15, 2020. The agency justified this action by saying:

“Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA. Additionally, in light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use.”

The World Health Organization (W.H.O) also announced: “Studies show Hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19.” However, as published by JAMA on May 28, 2020,following President Trump’s naming these drugs at a press conference, Hydroxychloroquine prescriptions shot up by over 200 percent, over the previous year. Nonetheless, the prescriptions returned to normal as news highlighting the lack of enough evidence to support its use started spreading, across the globe.

Soon, India followed the same… a strange coincidence?

As stated above, on March 21, 2020, the US President Trump proclaimed Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine as potential game changers against Covid-19 global pandemic, despite doubts from the US-FDA. Curiously, on March 23, 2020, Indian media also reported:

‘Amid rising Coronavirus cases in the country, the national task force for COVID-19 constituted by Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) has recommended hydroxy-chloroquine as a preventive medication for high-risk population. According to the advisory, it should be given to high risk population — asymptomatic healthcare workers involved in the care of suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 and asymptomatic household contacts of laboratory confirmed cases.’

The above protocol, recommended by the National Task Force, has been approved by the Drug Controller General of India (DGCI) for restricted use in emergency situations. This seems to have happened even before the US-FDA granted similar authorization. Intriguingly, US-FDA subsequently revoked it on June 15, 2020, for lack of enough scientific evidence, unlike the Indian drug regulator.

Another report of April 09, 2020 summed it up well. It wrote, the hype of Hydroxychloroquine – pushed by the US President Trump as a COVID-19 treatment, has now been joined by many other countries, despite inconclusive medical evidence on the efficacy and safety of the drug. Is this just a strange coincidence?

Be that as it may, India’s decision on the emergency use of Hydroxychloroquine had its rub-off financial impact in the country, in terms of increase in its export demand, which may not be an intended one, though.

Its rub-off financial impact in India:

As the world’s largest manufacturers of Hydroxychloroquine are located in India, many of these companies reaped a rich harvest in the April-June quarter, mostly, based on media reports on its use in treating Covid-19. For example, Ipca Laboratories Ltd, reportedly, garnered ₹259 Crore in additional sales, with consolidated net profit for the quarter soar threefold to ₹454 Crore, from the drug in that period.

Notably, Ipca also acknowledged, ‘HCQ sales were a one-time boost for the company. With the hype waning, after various clinical trials showed the drug did not provide any significant benefit, the company now expects sales to ease to earlier levels,’ as the report goes. Let me now move over to the most recent example.

Perils of haste in the plasma therapy saga:

Since, the third week of this month, a series of incidents related to plasma therapy highlighted the ongoing perils of haste in the scientific decision-making process. These were generally prompted by powerful non-scientific external influences, as reported below:

On August 23, 2020, the US President announced that the US-FDA has granted emergency approval of blood plasma from recovered Coronavirus patients as a treatment for those battling the disease. President Trump called the development “a historic breakthrough.”

According to Reuters, the US-FDA had authorized its use after President Donald Trump blamed the drug agency for impeding the rollout of vaccines and therapeutics for political reasons.

The very next day of President Trump’s announcement, on August 24, 2020, the World Health Organization advised caution about endorsing the use of recovered COVID-19 patients’ plasma to treat those who are ill, saying evidence it works remains “low quality.”

American scientists, including researchers at the Mayo Clinic also challenged a key statistic cited by U.S. officials as grounds for emergency approval of the treatment.

On August 25, 2020, US-FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, publicly apologized ‘for overstating the benefits of plasma for treating Covid-19 patients.’

“The US-FDA’s emergency use authorization for plasma for Covid-19 looks questionable. If this presages an early vaccine nod, we should be very afraid,” reported another article.

Similar controversy was also witnessed in India. Just days after the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) gave its go-ahead to a proposal of ICMR for the clinical trial of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients, the Ministry of Health said, ‘there is not enough evidence to claim plasma therapy can be used for treatment of COVID-19. Interestingly, several states, such as, Delhi, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, have already started clinical trials for plasma-based treatment. Meanwhile, media reports, such as, ‘India sees black market boom for plasma from recovered Covid-19 patients,’ started pouring in.

Conclusion:

As recorded in the morning of August 30, 2020, total Coronavirus cases in India have reached a staggering figure of 3,542,733 with 63,657 deaths, despite all measures taken by the country. No signs of flattening of the curve are visible, just yet. In this situation, many experts believe, the way prescriptions are written for Covid-19 patients, based on anything but robust considerations, needs to be re-looked. The headline of an article, written by Richard L. Kravitz, Professor of Health Policy and Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis on July 09, 2020, vindicates this point. It said:‘When Trump pushed Hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, hundreds of thousands of prescriptions followed, despite little evidence that it worked.’

Another interesting article, tried to ferret out the truth behind such haste. It voiced, ‘the truth is that researchers, academic institutions, medical journals and the media all face powerful incentives to portray the latest research findings as more earthshaking than they actually are’. The authors spotlighted, under normal circumstances, numerous mechanisms exist to blunt some of the worst over-hyping and many sources of medical information do their best to be accurate in what they report.

It is possible that in the midst of a pandemic, the urgency of the moment may overwhelm these good intentions. The above paper also cautioned, ‘Bad science can be spread far and wide by normally credible sources.” However, the bottom-line is, the scientific research community, under no circumstances, be made to comply with the thoughts and beliefs of non-scientific, but powerful decision makers. It happened in the oldest democracy in the world, as it also happened in the largest democracy on the planet earth.

The above two instances are just illustrations to highlight an important point – without becoming judgmental. The discussion spotlights the perils of haste in the scientific decision-making processes, while combating Covid-19. As many experts believe, it could be counterproductive for non-scientific power sources to influence the robust medical value creators for a quick remedy. Mainly because, patients will continue to be at the receiving end for the net outcome, of such unproven, and scientifically fragile hypes.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Any Threat To Current Commercial Model Of ‘Gene Therapy’?

Posted on December 30, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Wish All My Readers A Very Happy, Healthy, Peaceful and Prosperous 2020

One of the most complex areas in disease management, is the ailments related to genetic disorders. As these were incurable, over the last four decades, medical researchers are engaged in understanding the complex and intricate process to modify human DNA, using viruses for treatment. This painstaking initiative led to the evolution of ‘gene therapy’ which, according to Mayo Clinic, ‘involves altering the genes inside human body’s cells in an effort to treat or stop the disease.’ In that process, ‘gene therapy’ replaces a faulty gene or adds a new gene, to cure a disease or improve the human body’s ability to safely and effectively treat dreaded ailments, such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, hemophilia and AIDS, it further added.

Several studies, e.g., one titled ‘Gene therapy on the move,’ published in the EMBO Molecular Medicine highlighted, the first gene therapy clinical trials were initiated more than two decades ago. However, initially many of these were impeded by the occurrence of severe side effects in a few treated patients. Nevertheless, over a period of time, ‘highly efficient gene targeting strategies and site-directed gene editing technologies have been developed and applied clinically.’ With over hundreds of clinical trials to date, gene therapy has moved from a vision to clinical reality – offering a powerful treatment option for the correction of monogenic disorders.

It is believed that in the new millennium, ‘gene therapy’ has emerged as one of biotech’s momentous success stories for curing many genetic disorders, which were once considered incurable. But, the cost of ‘gene therapy’ treatment is indeed jaw-dropping – ranging ‘from about US$ 500,000 to US$ 1.5m. And for treatment over a lifetime, some drugs can cost as much as US$ 750,000 in the first year, followed by US$ 375,000 a year after that – for life.

Since, I have already deliberated on ‘gene therapy’ price and associated moral dilemma that it causes, in this article, I shall focus on different concerns that could pose a threat to its ongoing commercial model. Nevertheless, let’s start with the current scenario on ‘gene therapy,’ for better understanding of the issue.

The current scenario:

According to McKinsey & Company’s October 2019 article - ‘Gene therapy coming of age’ - till 2019, the primary focus in development of ‘gene therapy’ has been on monogenic rare diseases with all currently approved therapeutics falling into this category. It is worth noting, rare diseases tend to have clear genomic targets, as well as, high unmet need in a very small patient population, who have generally been under-served by other, more traditional, therapeutic modalities (including monoclonal antibodies)—making them ideal targets for gene therapies.

More than 150 investigational new drug applications were filed for gene therapy in 2018 alone. With this in mind, McKinsey & Company expects this market to grow significantly, with ten to 20 cell and gene therapy approvals per year over the next five years.

Major ‘gene therapy’ launched:

If one takes a broad look at the ‘gene therapy’ treatments launched so far, which I have compiled from different sources, it may appear as follows.

Gene Therapy	Company	Country	Launch Year	Indication	Price ($M)	Current status
Glybera	UniQure	Europe(EMA)	2012	Pancreatitis caused by absence of a gene - lipoprotein lipase, affecting about 14 people per year in Europe	1.0	Withdrawn (unaffordable)
Strimvels	GSK	Europe (EMA)	2016	To treat ADA-SCID patients (rare disease)	0.665	Sold to Orchard Therapeutics. Only 5 patients were treated.
Kymriah(CAR-T therapy)	Novartis	USA	2017	Acute lymphoblastic leukemia	0.475
Yescarta(CAR-T therapy)	Kite Pharma	USA	2017	Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma	0.373	Gilead acquired Kite Pharma in August 2017 for 11.9 billion dollars
Luxturna	Spark		2017	Rare disease called RPE65 mutation-associated retinal dystrophy.	0.850 for both eyes	Novartis is paying $105M up front for the ex-US rights.

The latest being Zolgensma of Novartis. It was approved by USFDA on May 24, 2019 for ‘patients less than 2 years of age with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) with bi-allelic mutations in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene.’ It costs US$ 2.125 million in the US for a one-time treatment.

However, to get a better idea on the industry focus in this area, let us look at the current ‘gene therapy’ pipeline.

Current ‘gene therapy’ pipeline:

To fathom the extent of industry interest in ‘gene therapy’ let’s have a glance at the depth of its pipeline – both in terms of phase-wise clinical study, as well as therapy areas covered. This will help understand the concerns that could pose a threat to its ongoing commercial model.

Clinical Trial Phase	Total by phase	Therapy Areas:HematologyOncologySensory OrgansInternal MedicinesOthers
I	574
II	520
III	205
Filed/Approved/Marketed	237
Total	1536

Adapted from: McKinsey article – ‘Gene therapy coming of age’, October 2019

Both large and small companies are entering into the fray:

Besides Novartis and GSK, as mentioned above, other Big Pharma constituents, such as Pfizer, Roche, Gilead and Bristol-Myers Squibb - are also putting their money in developing ‘gene therapy.’ This includes Mergers and Acquisitions too. For example:

Pfizer’s ‘gene therapy’ deals with Bamboo and Sangamo,
Novartis buying AveXis Inc,
Roche acquires Spark Therapeutics,
Gilead buys Kite Pharma,
Bristol-Myers Squibb takes over Celgene.

Alongside, newer ‘gene therapy’ platforms continue to come up, many funded by venture capitals – further enriching the ‘gene therapy’ pipeline. In tandem, fresh concerns that could pose a serious threat to the ongoing commercial model of ‘gene therapy’ are also being realized. Mainly, the impact of the one-time or curative version of such avant-garde therapy on current pharma business models.

Also facilitates a giant leap towards personalized medicine:

‘Gene therapy’ is also believed to be a giant leap of medical science towards personalized medicine. This is because, in addition to repairing and replacing defective or missing genes of a human body, this therapy can use body’s own cellular immune system to treat the disease. This is because, CAR-T cell therapy can fall in the category of personalized medicine, where a patient’s T cells are changed in the laboratory, empowering them to attack cancer cells.

Concerns that could threaten its ongoing commercial model:

Despite its significant patient-value offerings with long-term benefits, ‘gene therapies’ that have been approved and are already in the market had to confront with tough unforeseen challenges, both from fresh regulatory questions - to therapy withdrawal for commercial reasons. These developments, coupled with a very low and difficult to identify patient population, and affordability related low market access, prompt the need of a transformed marketing model for novel ‘gene therapy.’ This is important for financial sustainability of current ‘gene therapies’ in most pharma markets, globally, including the United States.

Some critical areas:

An article on ‘gene therapy’ by the Managing Directors of L.E.K Consulting, published by Cell & Gene on May 16, 2019, also pointed to some of these critical areas. Even this paper articulated, the fundamental value proposition of ‘gene therapy’, its long-term efficacy with a single-dose treatment, gives rise to a number of unique challenges for its manufacturing companies. Let me paraphrase below just three of those, as I understand, to drive home this point.

Declining number of eligible patients for most doctors:

The promise of a functional cure is expected to limit ‘gene therapies’ to a single dose per patient, in most cases. Thus, inability to re-treat would lead such therapies to deplete their addressable prevalent populations, for most doctors. This is primarily because, as the number of treated patient accumulates – the number of potential patients who could be treated in a given year is reduced. This leads to demand that would peak early before steadily declining. Once the prevalent population is depleted, the demand for a gene therapy would be driven by incident patients.

However, research has now been initiated targeting larger populations – e.g., those suffering from leukemia and lymphomas. But, the greatest revenue potential for ‘gene therapy’, is expected to be its success in delivering life-changing treatment outcomes in multiple myeloma. When such patients will get to experience better outcomes from cell and gene therapies, the incremental approach the industry has been taking in this area, will be more than justified.

Till then, it could pose a challenge to business sustainability:

As discussed, the ‘gene therapy’ sales curve with an early peak and then steady decline, caused by a depleted addressable patient population within a few years after launch, could pose a serious challenge to business sustainability. This would require launching, possibly another ‘gene therapy’ product before the revenue of the first ‘gene therapy’ starts waning. Consequently, the timing of its life cycle management efforts and subsequent launches would be a critical success factor.

Intricacy of market access dynamics:

Optimal market access of ‘gene therapy’ will call for working in unison with virtually all stakeholders, including regulators, governments, and at the same time, effectively disseminating the real-life treatment-success stories. However, both in the developed countries and also in the emerging markets, such as India, its treatment cost will continue to remain a key barrier, sans some disruptive pricing strategy.

How this tough task remains unresolved, can be sensed from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report of December 19, 2019 titled, ‘Novartis to Offer World’s Most Expensive Drug for Free Via Lottery.’ For this purpose, Novartis launched a lottery-style program to provide doses of its pricey gene therapy for Zolgensma, a one-shot ‘gene therapy’ cure, for free of charge. But, this approach drew criticism from patient groups that called it – an inappropriate way to distribute a lifesaving treatment aimed at babies for a deadly inherited disease whose victims cannot control their muscles. At a price of US$ 2.1 million, Zolgensma, is the world’s most expensive drug.

Conclusion:

As I discussed above, ‘gene therapy’, also known as ‘human gene transfer,’ has been one of biotech’s momentous success stories in the new millennium, paving the way for a cure of many genetic disorders – once considered incurable. However, the number of patients on ‘gene therapy’ remains small compared to other therapeutic regimens, mainly because of two factors. One – this therapy, mostly targets rare diseases, and the second – even among those small patient populations, only very few can afford such pricey therapy.

Nevertheless, current research in this complex area, is now targeting larger populations – suffering from leukemia, lymphomas and multiple myeloma. Success in these areas will open the door of significantly greater revenue potential for ‘gene therapy’ by delivering life-changing treatment outcomes. Till then, its current business model, I reckon, would continue to pose a high commercial risk to this venture.

By: Tapan J. Ray

On The Flip Side of Pharma Industry: A Saga of Perennial Contradictions

Posted on December 9, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Awesome contribution in the battle against multiple diseases, is obviously the primary facet of the pharma industry. However, on its flip side, one would witness a saga of numerous contradictions. Some of these exist perennially in well-protected opaque cocoons, regardless of what recent research data reveal. The consequences of which leaves a detrimental impact on the patient’s health interests, eventually turning into highly contentious issues, in the socio-political milieu of recent times.

While there are many such contradictions involving the pharma industry, this article will endeavor to understand just one inherent dispute. This is related to the impact of high R&D expenditure on drug prices. It assumes importance, especially at a time, when the world’s most influential pharma trade organization continues arguing in favor of the dictum – high new drug prices are driven by mind-boggling cost of drug innovation, as R&D spending keep shooting north. Incidentally, many others challenge this assertion backed by robust data, claiming it’s not so, actually.

Thus, the question that comes up, if high R&D cost prompts high drug prices, what happens when this major cost of new drug innovation comes down, as is, apparently, happening now. A proper resolution of this contradiction by ushering in transparency in this area, is important to safeguard a critical health interest of many patients. A recent research report, followed by several other important developments in this area, exposes this contradiction, probably more than ever before.

Some recent reports revealing the contradictions:

To drive home the point of contradictions, I shall cite a few references below, from a pool of many others. For example, one such report of September 26, 2019 unfolded: ‘The cost to bring a new drug to market has decreased to under US$ 2Billion’. This was announced by Clarivate Analytics plc while releasing the “2019 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.”

Interestingly, another article had sharply contradicted the above, presenting a different story altogether. Quoting the Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development, it highlighted that it costs US$ 2.6 billion growing at 8.5 percent annually. However, adding an estimate of post-approval R&D costs increases, the cost estimate to US$ 2870 million. Many estimated, it would take pharma companies more than 15 years of average sales to reach breakeven.

Curiously, a different research paper, titled ‘Comparison of Sales-Income and Research and Development Costs for FDA-Approved Cancer Drugs Sold by Originator Drug Companies,’ published by the JAMA Network Open on January 04, 2019 concluded quite in line with the ‘2019 CMR International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.’ It found, ‘Cancer drugs, through high prices, have generated incomes for the companies far in excess of research and development costs; lowering prices of cancer drugs and facilitating greater competition are essential for improving patient access, health system’s financial sustainability, and future innovation.’

Again, contradicting the above, one more article – ‘The Link Between Drug Prices and Research on the Next Generation of Cures,’ published ITIF (Information Technology & Innovation Foundation) on September 09, 2019, touted to: ‘Put simply, drug companies must make significant profits on their best-selling drugs in one generation in order to reinvest in the next generation.’

The saga of contradiction continues.

A glimpse at the current scenario:

While trying to understand the inherent contradiction in the space of cost of drug innovation by analyzing the available data, let us examine the current scenario, of course with reasons. Going by the oft-repeated justification that high R&D expenses drive the drug prices up, the converse scenario would be – a dip in the R&D expenditure should lead to a reduction in medicine prices, commensurately.

But this is unlikely to happen – drug prices won’t possibly come down due to voluntary measures of the drug manufacturers. As various recent developments indicate, it will be clear in the course of this discussion that the same justification won’t be jettisoned anytime soon.

Pharma CEOs do acknowledge that they have some role to play in helping lower drug prices. However, they continue defending prevailing high new drug prices by highlighting, their multibillion-dollar investments in R&D are responsible for advances in treatments of many serious ailments, such as cancer, hepatitis C, schizophrenia and autoimmune diseases.

This was again contradicted by another BMJ Research Study of October 23, 2019, which concludes: ‘A review of the patents associated with new drugs approved over the past decade indicates that publicly supported research had a major role in the late stage developments of at least one in four new drugs, either through direct funding of late stage research or through spin-off companies created from public sector research institutions. These findings could have implications for policy makers in determining fair prices and revenue flows for these products.’ Nevertheless, in the midst of it, signs of a shift in focus of many pharma companies in this area, is clearly discernible.

Signs of a shift in R&D focus are clearly discernible:

This gets well- reflected in the “2019 Centre for Medicines Research (CMR) International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.” As the report unfolds, one of the basic shifts is a change in focus on R&D targets. Until recently, the research focus of most companies was on Noncommunicable Diseases (NCD) such as, Parkinson’s disease, autoimmune diseases, strokes, most heart diseases, most cancers, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and others. Whereas, today there has been an increased focus on rare diseases.

What does it signify?

It obviously signifies, most companies are now trying to launch steeply priced niche products for rare diseases. This includes complex biologic products, gene therapy, personalized medicine and the likes. Which is why, a majority of current new drug approvals, targets smaller patient populations. For example, between 2010 and 2018, the number of addressable patients per drug approval decreased by 15 percent, as the above report revealed.

The bottom-line, therefore, is with the low hanging fruits already been plucked, many pharma players don’t seem to consider targeting innovation of reasonably priced mass market products. It has already happened with antibiotics and would now probably happen with several NCDs.

Two main drivers for this shift:

The two main drivers for this shift, resulting an increase in drug approvals, and significant reduction in cost per new molecular entity (NME), may be summarized as follows:

Increased focus on rare diseases. Of the 57 NMEs launched in 2018, 22 had an orphan drug designation, indicating that they targeted rare disease area.

Increased activity of smaller pharmaceutical companies. In 2018, as high as 74 percent of drug launches were developed by companies with an R&D spend of US$ 700 million to US$2 billion. Major pharma companies (R&D spend of greater than US$2 billion) accounted for just 26 percent of drug launches.

A good news!

The increase in new drug approvals driven by smaller pharma companies is a good news and also encouraging. This suggests, becoming a big company with deep pocket is no longer a prerequisite to bring an innovative drug to the market. On the contrary, making R&D programs more efficient is the name of the game, today.

Changing pharma investment strategies:

As is evident from the CMR International Factbook, drug manufacturers’’ investment strategies are also undergoing a makeover. In the R&D domain, external innovation, in general, is now playing a more critical role. Perhaps, more than ever before. In the first half of 2019 alone, global spend for pharma M&A and licensing activities was, reportedly, around US$140 billion. Interestingly, it outpaced projected 2019 R&D spend by more than 60 percent.

Do high R&D cost impact drug prices and vice versa?

This brings us to the key question: Does the high cost of R&D impact drug prices and vice versa? Or, it is being over-hyped as a tool to justify high drug prices. There are umpteen instances to believe so – for example, the world’s best-selling drug – Humira of AbbVie. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of September 28, 2017, the initial U.S. patent for Humira expired in December 2016, but the additional patents expire in the 2020s.

Interestingly, according to other reports, AbbVie has collected more than US$115 billion in global Humira sales since 2010. In 2018 alone its sales amounted to US$ 19.9 billion. The report reiterates, ‘AbbVie has made and will continue to make a lot of money from Humira.’ From these facts, one can presume that AbbVie’s R&D expenditure or the product acquisition cost, has long been recovered, but still doesn’t seem to have any significant impact on the drug price.

Pharma CEOs continue to repeat the same argument:

While testifying at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, pharma CEOs had to confront with a Senators’ question - “Prescription drugs did not become outrageously expensive by accident, Drug prices are astronomically high because that’s where pharmaceutical companies and their investors want them.” However, acknowledging that their prices are high for many patients for high R&D expenditure, the company chiefs tried to deflect blame onto the insurance industry, government and middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers.

The CEOs also highlighted the rebates given on list prices to benefit patients. However, the reality is, under the current system, savings from rebates are not consistently passed through to patients in any form. Interestingly, despite such scenario, pharma CEOs don’t want the government negotiating drug prices directly. It’s apparent that none of their reasonings were found to be the genuine reasons for high drug prices, even by the US Senators.

Thus, pharma’s points of justification for high drug prices have not changed, over a long period of time. On the contrary, shifting greater focus on the R&D of rare diseases, where the number of patients is much less, the CEOs seem to be bolstering their same argument on a different ground, despite reducing R&D costs.

Surfaces a glaring contradiction:

Presenting the current situation from the drug industry perspective, the article titled, ‘Drug Prices and Innovation’, published in the Forbes Magazine on June 20, 2019, emphasized on some interesting points.

It said: ‘In 2018 return on investment in drug discovery/development were 1.9 percent, far below the 10.5 percent cost-of-capital - the rate-of-return the industry must provide to compete for capital with similar investments.’ The article also emphasized: ‘Under the current pricing regime, the expected returns from drug discovery do not justify the investment. They have not done so since 2010 and are expected to turn negative by 2020.’ It further added, big pharma, despite one of the highest rates of R&D spending of any industry, chronically fails to fund research sufficient to support adequate growth and returns to the average drug don’t cover the cost of development.

On the other hand, according to a presentation by CVS Health that cited Macrotrends.net as its source,pharmaceutical manufacturers’ profit margins have reportedly exceeded 26 percent for the last three years and 22 percent for the past 10 years.

This brings out again, the glaring contradiction between what is being highlighted and what is actually happening in the pharma business. Lack of transparency in this area of the drug industry, is believed to be the root cause of this confusion among many.

Conclusion:

As it has been recognized the world over, the high new drugs prices are an issue over the contentious argument of ‘high R&D expenditure’ being the ‘root cause’. It is, therefore, imperative for the stakeholders to demand transparency in this area. If finding a solution to this health-related issue is considered critical, without further delay, this needs to be expeditiously addressed.

As the saying goes, once the disease is diagnosed accurately, zeroing in on an effective treatment becomes easier. Let me hasten to add, for new, innovative and patented drugs, the situation in India is generally no different. Thus, there is no scope for any contradiction in this area, whatsoever. As the saying goes, once the disease is diagnosed accurately, zeroing in on an effective treatment becomes easier.

Voluntary implementation of ‘responsible’ drug pricing policies, by pharma manufacturers themselves, has been given a long rope. Time is running out now. If this does not happen soon, government control of drug prices will be essential, just as is being contemplated in the United States – the ‘capital’ of the free-pricing world. Moreover, it has been well documented in several studies that price control won’t jeopardize drug innovation, as pharma manufacturers will have to come out with innovative new products and treatments – event for survival of the business.

Saving lives – more lives, alongside making reasonable profits in the business, remain the primary facet of the pharma industry. However, the flip side of it, revealing a perennial saga of contradictions, such as one we discussed above, raises concerns of their being perceived as profiteering with drug prices, by many. Such practices go not only against patients’ health interest, but also negates the core purpose of existence of the industry – surely, endangering long term survival of this business model – as the modern technology unleashes its mesmerizing power for all.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Dynamics of Cancer Therapy Segment Remain Enigmatic

Posted on October 14, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Currently, cancer is likely to occupy the center stage on any discussion related to the fastest growing therapy segments in the pharma or biotech industries. There are several reasons behind such probability, some of which include:

Cancer is not only the second leading cause of death globally, but also offer outstanding new drug treatment options, though, mostly to those who can afford.

Consequently, these drugs are in high demand for saving lives, but not accessible to a vast majority of those who need them the most.

Alongside, oncology is one of the fastest growing therapy segments in sales in many countries, including the largest and most attractive global pharma market - the United States.

New cancer drugs being complex, involves highly sophisticated cutting-edge technology – creating an entry barrier for many, and are generally high priced, fetching a lucrative profit margin.

These are only a few basic dynamics of the segment. Nevertheless, understanding these dynamics, in a holistic way, is indeed an enigma – caused mostly by directly conflicting arguments on many related issues, within the key stakeholders. Thus, I reckon, this issue will be an interesting area to explore in this article. Later in this discussion, I shall try to substantiate all the points raised, backed by credible data. Let me start with some causative factors, that may make comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of this segment enigmatic.

Some causative factors for triggering the enigma:

Close overlap of several contentious factors is associated with this head-scratcher. These come in a package of reasoning and counter reasoning, a few examples of which may be seen below:

When increasing incidence of cancer related deaths are a global problem, fast growing oncology segment, regularly adding novel drugs in its portfolio, ideally should be a signal for containing this problem. Whereas, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) reports, cancer drugs are beyond reach to millions, for high cost. Nonetheless, the cancer drug sales keep shooting north.

Nearer home, while Indian anti-cancer drug market growth has, reportedly, ‘outstripped that of all other leading countries in recent years and is set to go on doing so,’ another study report underscores, ‘Indians have poor access to essential anti-cancer drugs.’

Although, a 2019 report of W.H.O highlights: Expensive cancer drugs ‘impairing’ access to cure, innovator companies also have their counter argument ready. They claim, higher prices ‘are necessary to fund expensive research projects to generate new drugs.’

When innovator companies keep touting that many new therapies are path-breaking concepts, researchers don’t find these drugs much superior to the existing ones in outcomes, except jaw-dropping prices.

Despite the above argument of research-based drug players to justify unreasonable pricing, several studies have established that the development cost of new cancer drugs is more than recouped in a short period, and some companies are making even more than a 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending.

While several pharma companies claim that they are providing patients with access to a wide variety of cancer medication through Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs), the findings of several published research on the same concluded, ‘the extent to which these programs provide a safety net to patients is poorly understood.’

Let me now briefly substantiate each of the above points raised in this article.

Incidence of cancer and the oncology market:

Now, while substantiating the above points, let me go back to where I started from. According to the W.H.O fact sheet of September 12, 2018, cancer is the second leading cause of death globally and is responsible for an estimated 9.6 million deaths in 2018 – about 1 in 6 deaths was due to cancer. Approximately 70 percent of deaths from cancer occur in low- and middle-income countries. The Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) estimated around 1.4 million new cancer cases in 2016, which is expected to rise to 1.7 million cases by 2020.

According to ‘World Preview 2019, Outlook to 2024’ of Evaluate Pharma, ‘Oncology prevails as the leading therapy segment in 2024, with a 19.4 percent market share and sales reaching USD 237bn.’ The report also highlights: ‘Oncology is the area with the largest proportion of clinical development spending with 40 percent of total pipeline expenditure.’

Similarly, the Indian Oncology market is found to be growing at 20 percent every year and is likely to remain so for the coming 3-5years. In 2012 the cancer market was valued at USD 172m (quoted from Frost & Sullivan). Another report also reiterates, the oncology market in India has outstripped that of all other leading countries in recent years and is set to go on doing so.

Poor access to cancer drugs:

Despite the impressive growth of oncology segment, ‘high prices for cancer medicines are “impairing the capacity of health care systems to provide affordable, population wide access,” emphasizes a recent ‘Technical Report’ of W.H.O. I shall further elaborate on this report in just a bit. However, before that, let me cite an India specific example of the same. The March 2019 study, published in the BMJ Global Health, also highlighted, the mean availability of essential anti-cancer medicines across all hospitals and pharmacies surveyed in India was less than the WHO’s target of 80 percent.

Cancer drug pricing conundrum:

The recent ‘Technical Report of W.H.O – ‘Pricing of cancer medicines and its impacts’ confronts this issue head on. It clearly articulates, the enduring debates on the unaffordability of cancer medicines and the ever-growing list of medicines and combination therapies with annual costs in the hundreds of thousands, suggests that the status quo is not acceptable. The global community must find a way to correct the irrational behaviors that have led to unsustainable prices of cancer medicines. Thus, correction of unaffordable prices is fundamental to the sustainability of access to cancer medicines. Further inertia on this issue and half-hearted commitments from all stakeholders, including governments and the pharmaceutical industry, will only invite distrust and disengagement from the public, the report emphasized.

Another 2019 WHO report says expensive cancer drugs ‘impairing’ access to cure. It pinpointed: “Pharmaceutical companies set prices according to their commercial goals, with a focus on extracting the maximum amount that a buyer is willing to pay for a medicine.” It also reiterated that the standard treatment for breast cancer can drain 10 years of average annual income in India. Unaffordable pricing of cancer medicines set by such intent often prevents their full benefits being realized by scores of cancer patients, the report adds. Yet another paper expressed similar concern about ‘the unsustainability of the high costs of cancer care, and how that affects not only individual patients, but also society at large.

What does the industry say?

The industry holds a different view altogether. According to another recent news, one such company quoted their 2017 Janssen U.S. Transparency Report,” which states: “We have an obligation to ensure that the sale of our medicines provides us with the resources necessary to invest in future research and development.” This is interesting, as it means that even higher pricing may be necessary to fund expensive research projects to generate new drugs for life threatening ailments, such as cancer.

What do research studies reveal?

There are several research studies often disputing the industry quoted claim of R&D spend of over a couple of billion dollar to bring a new molecule to the market. They also keep repeating, this is an arduous and time-intensive process, involving humongous financial risk of failure. One such ‘Original investigation’ titled, ‘Research and Development Spending to Bring a Single Cancer Drug to Market and Revenues After Approval,’ published by JAMA Internal Medicine in its November 2017 issue, presents some interesting facts.

The study brings to the fore: ‘The cost to develop a cancer drug is USD 648.0 million, a figure significantly lower than prior estimates. The revenue since approval is substantial (median, USD 1658.4 million; range, USD 204.1 million to USD 22 275.0 million). This analysis provides a transparent estimate of R&D spending on cancer drugs and has implications for the current debate on drug pricing.’ Thus, the cost of new cancer drug development is more than recovered in a short period, with as much as over 10-fold higher revenue than R&D spending, in many cases, as the analysis concluded.

Even top oncologists, such as Dr. Peter Bach, the Director of Memorial Sloan Kettering’s (MSK)Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, along with other physicians at MSK drew attention to the high price of a newly approved cancer drug. According to available reports, ‘two recently approved CAR-T cell drugs – one is USD 373,000 for a single dose, the other USD 475,000 - are benchmarks on the road to ever-higher cancer drug price tags.’

It happens in India too:

Although, on May 19, 2019, NPPA announced almost 90 percent price reduction of nine anti-cancer drugs, curiously even those cancer drugs, which are not patent protected, continued to be sold at a high price. For example, according to the September 2018 Working Paper Series, of the Indian Institute of management Calcutta (IIM C), the maximum price for Pemetrexed, a ‘not patented’ cancer product was Rs 73,660, though, it is also available at Rs 4,500. Similarly, the price of Bortezomib was between Rs 60,360 and Rs 12,500 and Paclitaxel between Rs 19, 825.57 and Rs 7,380.95. It is intriguing to note that no pricing policy for patented drugs, as promised in the current Drug Policy document, hasn’t been implemented, as yet.

Does Pharma’s ‘Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs) work?

Different pharma companies claim their addressing access to cancer care in developing countries. A report also mentions: ‘16 of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies are engaged in 129 diverse access initiatives in low- and middle-income countries.’ Whereas, a research study, questioning the transparency of these initiatives, concluded, ‘our results suggest that numerous drug company sponsored PAPs exist to provide patients with access to a wide variety of medications but that many details about these programs remain unclear. As a result, the extent to which these programs provide a safety net to patients is poorly understood.’

During the famous Glivec patent case, which went against Novartis at the Supreme Court of India, the company’s PAP for Glivec in the country, also came under focus. Many articles, with mutually conflicting views of the company and independent experts were published regarding this program. One such write-up emphasized with eulogy, “Novartis provides Glivec free of charge to 16,000 patients in India, roughly 95 percent of those who need it via the Novartis – Glivec International Patient Assistance Program. The remaining 5 percent is either reimbursed, insured, or participate in a very generous co-payment program. Thus, not granting a patent for Glivec really hasn’t prevented patients from getting this life-saving medication.”

However, many were, reportedly, not convinced by Novartis’ claims and counter-argued: “Our calculation says there are estimated 20,000 new patients every year suffering from cancer, this means after ten years there will be two lakh (200,000) patients, hence the program is not enough.” The views of many independent global experts on the same are not very different. For example, even Professor Carlos M. Correa had articulated: “The reported donation of Glivec by Novartis to ‘eligible patients’ under the ‘Glivec International Patient Assistance Program’ (GIPAP) may be a palliative but does not ensure a sustainable supply of the product to those in need.” Be that as it may, new studies now question whether novel anti-cancer drugs are worth their extra cost.

Are novel cancer drugs worth the extra cost?

According to a September 26, 2019 report, the results of two studies investigating the links between clinical benefit and pricing in Europe and the USA, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress, September 2019, reveal an interesting finding. It found, many new anti-cancer medicines add little value for patients compared to standard treatment and are rarely worth the extra cost. Interestingly, in the midst of this imbroglio, the world continues taking a vow globally to mitigate the cancer patient related issues on February the fourth, every year.

A vow is taken globally on every 4^th February, but…:

On every February 04 – The World Cancer Day - an initiative of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC), the world takes a noble vow. Everybody agrees on its broad goal that: ‘Life-saving cancer diagnosis and treatment should be equal for all – no matter who you are, your level of education, level of income or where you live in the world. By closing the equity gap, we can save millions of lives.’

UICC also noted, as many cancers are now preventable or can be cured, more and more people are surviving the disease. However, for the vast majority people, the chances of surviving cancer are not getting better. Socioeconomic status of individuals leaves a significant impact on whether one’s cancer is diagnosed, treated and cared for, in an appropriate and cost-effective manner. A customer-focused understanding of the dynamics of the cancer therapy segment, although may help effective ground action, but the status quo continues for various critical reasons. Even on the World Cancer Day 2019, the oncology pricing debate continued.

Conclusion:

The business dynamics for the cancer therapy segment, continues to remain enigmatic regardless of public emotion and sentiments attached to these drugs. Patients access and affordability to the most effective drug at the right time can save or take lives. Surprisingly, despite healthy growth of anti-cancer drugs, especially the newer and pricey ones, the number of deaths due to cancer is also fast increasing, and is the second largest cause of death today.

The pricing conundrum of cancer drugs remains the subject of a raging debate, globally. Nevertheless, the drug industry keeps justifying the mind-boggling prices, with the same sets of contentious reasons, even when various investigative research studies negate those claims. Moreover, when general public expects the drug industry to innovate both in the new drug discovery and also on making the drug prices affordable to a large section of the population, the industry doesn’t exhibit any interest to talk about the latter. Instead, they talk about PAP initiatives for improving access to such drugs. Notwithstanding independent research studies concluding that PAPs lack transparency, and is not an alternative for all those who want to fight the disease, in the most effective way.

The arguments and counterarguments continue. More effective cancer drugs keep coming with lesser number of cancer patients having access to those medicines, as patents prevail over the patients. The reverberation of the power of Big Pharma to stay in the chosen course – come what may, can also be felt from the reported statement of politically the most powerful person in the world – the President of the United States. In view of this, both the business and market dynamics of the cancer therapy segment is likely to remain enigmatic – at least, in the foreseeable future?

By: Tapan J. Ray

A New Facet of ‘Data Integrity’ With Novel Therapy… And Much Beyond

Posted on September 30, 2019 by Tapan Ray

The peril of breach of data integrity involving a top Indian pharma player, jolted many, probably for the first time, on September 17, 2008. On that day, the USFDA, reportedly, issued two ‘Warning Letters’ and an ‘Import Alert’. These were related to deficiencies in the drug manufacturing process and deviations from U.S. current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) at Ranbaxy’s Dewas and Paonta Sahib plants in India.

Since then, instead of demonstrable corrective measures, similar incidents had started ballooning – inviting more serious US-FDA actions, such as Import ban, consent decree, loss of market value, Loss of customer trust, among many others. The research article – ‘Overview of Data Integrity issues in the Pharmaceutical industry,’ published by the International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Review and Research, in its May-June 2018 issue, also reflects the same trend.

Much reported instances of breach of ‘Data Integrity’ were specific to generic drugs and mostly manufactured by Indian companies, besides China. While this may be true at that time, it is now spreading much beyond generic drug manufacturing in India and China – making its way into the global clinical trial arena. I also wrote earlier that ‘Data Manipulation: Leapfrogging Dangerously Into Clinical Trial Domain.’ With greater focus, this article will discuss not just how ‘Data Integrity’ issue is cropping up into clinical trials of even modern, complex, highly innovative and exorbitantly priced lifesaving treatments. Going beyond that, I shall also point towards increasing attempts to exaggerate the success of many cancer drug trials due to strong bias. Nevertheless, let me start by rehashing the relevance of ‘Data Integrity’ on patients’ health interest.

Data Integrity ensures safe, effective and high-quality drugs for patients:

According to US-FDA: ‘Data integrity is an important component of industry’s responsibility to ensure the safety, efficacy, and quality of drugs, and of FDA’s ability to protect the public health.’ Thus, data integrity-related cGMP violations may lead to regulatory actions, including warning letters, import alerts, and consent decrees, as the drug agency notified. In other words, maintain all types of ‘Data Integrity’ is a key requirement in the pharma industry to demonstrate that the final products conform to the required quality parameters.

These requirements are known to all generic drug exporters catering to the regulated markets, including the local manufacturers in the United States. Curiously, it continues to happen despite their full knowledge of the grave consequences of violations. The June 12, 2019 paper – ‘An Analysis Of 2018 FDA Warning Letters Citing Data Integrity Failures,’ published in Pharmaceutical Online, brings out some interesting facts, related to drug manufacturing area.

From the analysis of 194 ‘Data Integrity’ associated ‘Warning Letters (WL).’ from 2008 to 2018, the top 5 countries in this regard came out as follows:

Rank	1	2	3	4	5
Country	China	India	United States	Europe	Japan
No. of WL	58	54	36	14	7
% to Total	29.8	27.8	18.6	7.2	3.6

Interestingly, over 76 percent of US-FDA Warning Letters (WL) are on manufacturing ‘Data Integrity’ and were issued to pharma companies located in China, India and the United States. Moreover, when it comes to all types WL related to various types of regulatory malpractices, India again featured as one of the top violators. Be that as it may, I shall now focus on the spread of this decay in other important drug safety related areas, such as clinical trials.

Ironically, breach of ‘Data Integrity’ in another crucial area, like clinical trials for new drugs, doesn’t seem to attract public attention as much, which I shall reason out below – also explaining why it’s so.

Breach of ‘Data Integrity’ in clinical trial – more crippling for the company:

‘Data Integrity’ concern pertaining to clinical trials was recently expressed in an article, published by the Food and Drug Law Institute, in the April-May 2019 issue of its Update Magazine. The paper reiterated: ‘Good Clinical Practice (GCP) data integrity issues can at times be more crippling to a company than Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) data integrity issues.’ Elaborating the point further, the authors highlighted, where such issues are severe, the drug regulatory agency may completely reject the data submitted in new drug applications, supplemental drug applications, and abbreviated new drug applications.

This outcome is quite akin to import bans for generic drugs into the United States, as it would cause a huge setback for the company, affecting clinical development programs for the new drug. Moreover, as the article says, such action would be ‘costing the sponsor substantial time, money, and reputational credibility, not to mention delaying patient access to new drugs.’

‘Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data’:

This is claimed by the research paper that was discussed in ‘The Guardian’ on June 05, 2017 carrying the headline - ‘Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data, claims study.’

In this study, John Carlisle, a consultant anesthetist at Torbay Hospital, reviewed data from 5,087 clinical trials published during the past 15 years in two prestigious medical journals, JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine, and six anesthesia journals. In total, 90 published trials had underlying statistical patterns that were unlikely to appear by chance in a credible dataset, the review concluded.

As one of the top medical experts quoted in this paper, said: “It’s very scary that we may be treating patients based on false evidence.” He further added: “It may be the case that certain treatments may need to be withdrawn from use.”

Another October 01, 2013 report, citing a specific example of the same, wrote: ‘Japan’s ministry of health has concluded that studies based on clinical trials for Novartis’s blood pressure drug Diovan contain manipulated data.’ It also added: ‘Diovan was approved for use in Japan in 2000, but recently two universities who hosted and analyzed trials for Novartis – the Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine and Jikei University School of Medicine – reported finding evidence of data fabrication.’

Thus, from available reports, it appears, just as the saga of ‘Data Integrity’ related drug manufacturing keeps continuing, the same related to clinical trials doesn’t seem to fall much behind. But, the valid question that may follow – why then reported instances of breach of clinical trial data integrity isn’t as many?

Breach of ‘Data Integrity’ found by USFDA is rarely reported:

The answer to the above question may be found in The BMJ study, published on February 10, 2015. It brought to the fore – ‘Research misconduct found by FDA inspections of clinical trials is rarely reported in journal studies.’ This review was based on identified 57 published clinical trials for which an FDA inspection of one of the trial sites had found significant evidence of research misconduct, including falsification or the submission of false information, problems with adverse event reporting.

The researcher also noted that serious misconducts related to clinical trials, are rarely mentioned in subsequently published journal articles in the same area. More disturbing to note, this critical gap in the transparency of clinical trial reporting is now sneaking into even highly specialized treatment, such as ‘Gene Therapy’, and that too involving a Big Pharma name.

US-FDA has now raised this question even for a ‘Gene Therapy’:

A media report of September 09, 2019 highlights, that Novartis is facing an uproar over data manipulation involving USD 2.1 million gene therapy Zolgensma, which treats spinal muscular atrophy, a leading genetic cause of death in infants. According to this report, Novartis gave “detailed explanations” on Aug. 23 to the FDA about the company’s investigation into the data manipulation and addressed regulators’ questions over why the company waited until late June to make disclosures. However, quoting the FDA, the report indicates, ‘Novartis could face possible civil or criminal penalties.’

Prior to this, another report of August 13, 2019, stated that ‘documents referenced in a Form 483 by the FDA, which inspected the lab a month after it learned of the falsified records, also suggest the data-fudging began at least in early 2018 and could have been uncovered by managers at AveXis during several steps in the clinical outcome assessment.’ The gene unit of Novartis is called AveXis, which had announced the US-FDA approval of Zolgensma on May 24, 2019.

Such instances involving clinical trials with new, complex and highly innovative therapies, further reinforces already existing ‘Data Integrity’ related health safety concern. The cost of these new treatments being so high, it’s perplexing to fathom the necessity of cutting corners in clinical trials, if at all. More so, when these are avoidable to establish efficacy, safety and high-quality standard of the therapy to drug regulators for marketing approval.

Beyond ‘Data Integrity’ – in clinical trials:

Just as ‘Data Integrity’ issue in generic drug manufacturing has intruded in the clinical trial arena for novel treatments, yet another concern, also related to data, goes much beyond what is happening today in this area. This fast-emerging practice is related to ‘cherry-picking data’ for biased clinical trial reporting, adversely impacting public health safety, as brought by several research studies.

Very recently, this was vindicated by another paper published in The BMJ on September 18, 2019. It raised a serious concern of bias in clinical trial data submitted to regulatory agencies for marketing approval of even lifesaving drugs. The findings of the above paper concluded:

Between 2014 and 2016, almost half of the most pivotal studied forming the basis of European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval were judged to be at high risk of bias, based on their design, conduct or analysis. Accepting that some of these might be unavoidable because of complexity of cancer trials, it noted that regulatory documents and the scientific literature had gaps in their reporting. Journal publications also did not acknowledge the key limitations of the available evidence identified in regulatory documents. This concern too keeps growing.

Conclusion:

As discussed above, six broad and important points to note for any ‘breach of integrity’ or ‘cherry-picking’ of data in the pharma industry:

Takes place mostly in two known areas – manufacturing and clinical trials.
Involves both cheaper generic drug manufacturing, as well as, clinical trials of most innovative and highly expensive treatments – conducted even by Big Pharma constituents.
‘Cherry-picking data’ for biased clinical trial reporting while obtaining marketing approval, involves even cancer drugs.
Any such avoidable malpractices with ‘data’, could seriously impact patients’ health interest, raising a public concern.
Instances of such malpractices usually become public, only when the perpetrators are caught by vigilant drug regulatory agencies, such as the US-FDA, or when external experts can trace their footprints through sophisticated analytical tools.
Multiple instances of wrongdoing of this nature, often by the same company, despite requisite regulations being in place, and also after facing penal actions, make it mostly a self-discipline issue of repeat offenders.

It’s a different discussion all together, whether or not ‘data’ is a new oil – air or water. But maintaining the sanctity of data, while generating, interpreting, presenting or even leveraging these, including for commercial considerations, must not be compromised, at any cost.

Today, breach of ‘Data Integrity’ and ‘Cherry-Picking of Data’ for biased reporting, are creeping into new drug clinical trial domain – from its usual habitat of generic drug manufacturing, posing a greater threat to patient safety. At the same time, none can say, either, that it’s happening with all drugs, at all the time and by all drug manufacturers. But, if and when it happens, it could lead to a catastrophic consequence both for patients and their family.

Be that as it may, country’s top drug regulators should strive harder for an ongoing and meaningful engagement with the pharma industry on this avoidable development. It could well be a carrot and stick approach, where repeat violations by any company would pose a risk of legal survival of the business.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: therapy

Collaboration For Sustainable Excellence – The Name of The Game in The New Normal

Data Integrity Issue Haunts Again With Covid Vaccine?

Still Evolving: Pharma’s New Pathway For Digital And F2F Customer Engagement

Covid-19: Perils Of Haste In Scientific Decision-Making Process

Any Threat To Current Commercial Model Of ‘Gene Therapy’?

Wish All My Readers A Very Happy, Healthy, Peaceful and Prosperous 2020

On The Flip Side of Pharma Industry: A Saga of Perennial Contradictions

Dynamics of Cancer Therapy Segment Remain Enigmatic

A New Facet of ‘Data Integrity’ With Novel Therapy… And Much Beyond