Tag Archives: there

Seeing ghosts where there aren’t any

Posted on by
Reply

Seeing ghosts almost everywhere in the Indian pharmaceutical industry, especially where there aren’t any, has indeed become quite common nowadays, across the spectrum of stakeholders. The ‘ghosts’ could well reside in ‘100% Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) through automatic route in the pharmaceutical sector’ or ‘threat to the generic industry of the country by the MNCs’ or ‘abysmal Intellectual Property environment vitiating investment climate of the global players’ or even presence of ‘invisible foreign hands’ in shaping important policies of the country, just to name a few.

“Seeing ghosts”: Both from inside and outside the country:

The incidence of encountering with ‘ghosts’, from both inside and outside the country, would possibly increase further as the economic attractiveness of India in general and pharmaceutical consumption in the country in particular, will keep growing fast in the years ahead.

India attracting:

Currently McKinsey & Company in its report titled, “India Pharma 2020: Propelling access and acceptance, realizing true potential”, estimates that the Indian Pharmaceuticals Market (IPM) will record a turnover of US$ 55 billion in 2020 from around US$ 12.1 billion in 2011. The report further highlights that with aggressive growth boosters it is quite possible to make the IPM attain a turnover of US $70 billion during the same period. Rapid urbanization, increasing accessibility to drugs due to expansion of healthcare infrastructure, fast growing rural markets, increasing resource allocation to public health, patented products, consumer healthcare, biologics and vaccines will be the key growth drivers for the industry.

The burning issue of affordability for healthcare is expected to be addressed by 650 million people coming under health insurance and additional 73 million people getting added to middle and upper class segments by 2020.

All ‘ghost’ seeing are not unjustifiable:

In this evolving scenario, ‘encounter with ghosts’ in some areas may perhaps be justifiable, especially, within the country. Commensurate justifiable measures will require to be put in place to allay those justifiable fears.

Recent India visit of two global iconoclasts:

However, last week, when India witnessed visits of two global CEOs of two global pharmaceutical majors, Andrew Witty of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Chris Viehbacher of Sanofi, from the media reports it appeared to me  that we are made to see ‘ghosts’ in some of the key areas of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, where there aren’t infact any. As per media reports, both Witty and Viehbacher, who are also Chairpersons of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), respectively, articulated great commitments of their respective companies to India by aligning their business goals with the national healthcare policy and objectives of the country.

Long term commitment to India:

 

Last year Andrew Witty dedicated the new Albendazole manufacturing facility of GSK at Nashik in India to the ‘Global Program Filariasis’ to the ‘World Health Organization (WHO)’ being the largest drug donation program in the history of global pharmaceutical industry.

Early October this year during his visit to Mumbai, Witty reiterated in unequivocal terms that the cost of around US$ 2 billion to innovate and develop a successful drug is unacceptable to him as it includes to a large extent the cost of failure in that endeavor.  “We need to fail less often and succeed more often”, he said while emphasizing that the global pharmaceutical industry needs to metamorphose and must learn to strike a right balance between the cost of R&D projects and delivering innovative medicines to the patients at affordable prices.

Witty also mentioned that GSK globally follows a tiered pricing strategy, linked to the economic conditions of the individual countries. He feels that pharmaceutical product price should be commensurate to per capita income of a nation.

Without any hesitation Andrew Witty said that India will be one of the most prominent markets among the emerging economies that the global drug makers are concentrating now.

Closely followed by Andrew Witty’s visit to India, another iconoclast Christopher A Viehbacher, global CEO of Sanofi stepped into our soil and announced that Sanofi will invest US$ 300 million in a “state-of-the-art” manufacturing plant and R&D initiatives of Shantha Biotechnics in Hyderabad to make it the biggest vaccine plant of Asia not only to cater to the needs of India, but also to reach affordable vaccines across the globe.

Viehbacher emphasized that Sanofi wants to continue to build its long term business in India because of its market attractiveness. Like Witty, he emphasized that Sanofi strategy is also to have affordable medicines in emerging markets like India so that people can afford to pay for.

He reportedly reiterated, “I do not want us to be a colonial company with a colonial approach where we say we decide on the strategy and pricing. If you have to compete locally then the pricing strategy cannot be decided in Paris but will have to be in the marketplace. People here will decide on the pricing strategy and we have to develop a range of products for it”.

Viehbacher feels that emerging markets including India are expected to account for 40% sales of Sanofi by 2015.

Conclusion:

October 2011 India visit of these two visionaries of the global pharmaceutical industry, reinforced the fact that in many areas of the Indian Pharma sector we fancy to see “Ghosts where there aren’t any”, just as it happens outside the shores of India with equal intensity, gusto and zest.

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.

From Cross-Licensing to ‘Patent Pools’ and… India: Will there be a ground swell?

Posted on by
Reply

Since many years, the global pharmaceutical industry has been making effective commercial use of cross-licensing, however, by and large, the industry still does not seem to be quite in favor of  ‘Patent Pools’ for various reasons.

The ‘Patent Pool’, as I understand is defined as, “an agreement between different owners, including companies, governments and academic bodies to make available patent rights on non-exclusive basis to manufacturers and distributor of drugs against payment of royalties.”

Thus one of the often repeated key benefits of the ‘Patent Pools’, as considered by its proponents, is that the system enables the use of innovation against payment of royalties, without the risk of patent infringement. Many believe that the concept of ‘Patent Pool’ can play an immensely useful role for productive use of Intellectual Property (IP) in the global pharmaceutical industry.

The difference between cross-licensing and ‘Patent Pools’:

The basic purposes of both Cross-Licensing and patent pools may appear to be similar, however the key difference is that in ‘Patent Pool’ system the patent owners usually agree to license to third parties who may not even contribute any patents to the pool. Moreover, ‘Patent Pools’ involve a large number of parties with its scope being narrow and well standardized.

“Patent Pools”- still a contentious issue:

The concept of ‘Patent Pools’ has become a contentious issue within the global pharmaceutical industry. Some opinion leaders vehemently argue that creation of a ‘patent pool’ will bring down the cost of any innovation significantly and save huge time, ensuring speedier and improved access to such medicines to a vast majority of ailing population across the world. This section of the experts also feels, “in the case of blocking patents as a commercial strategy, it would only be a reasonable method for making the innovation publicly available.”
In the midst of this high decibel debate, on February 13, 2009, ‘The Guardian’ reported the following comment of Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on the same issue:
“GSK will put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a patent pool, so they can be explored by other researchers”.
Andrew Witty in that interview also commented, “I think it’s the first time anybody’s really come out and said we’re prepared to start talking to people about pooling our patents to try to facilitate innovation in areas where, so far, there hasn’t been much progress… I think the shareholders understand this and it’s my job to make sure I can explain it. I think we can. I think it’s absolutely the kind of thing large global companies need to be demonstrating, that they’ve got a more balanced view of the world than short-term returns.”
Quoting Andrew Witty, ‘The Guardian’ reported, “his stance may not win him friends in other drug companies, but he is inviting them to join him in an attempt to make a significant difference to the health of people in poor countries”.
Yet another ‘out of box’ comment:
As if to prove ‘The Guardian’ right on their above comment, during his visit to India on March 2010, though in a slightly different context, Witty made the following comments, while answering a question of “The Economic Times”:
“I am relatively relaxed with the Indian regulatory environment. The government has made it clear about the direction to have an Intellectual Property (IP) mechanism and to be TRIPS compliant. Some people are unrealistic and want everything to change overnight. But we should be absolutely realistic about pricing to keep it affordable for India. If someone has the IP right, it does not mean that it should make it inaccessible for lower income people. Over the next 10-15 years India will become increasingly IP defined market.”
The rationale for ‘Patent Pools’ system:
Many experts in this area feel that the conventional patent system does not really work for the diseases of the poor, all over the world. Though the concept of ‘Patent Pools’ is quite new in the global pharmaceutical industry, this system is being very successfully and widely practiced within the Information Technology (IT) industry. ‘Patent Pool’ system, if effectively used, as stated earlier, can also help the global pharmaceutical companies to improve access of such medicines to many more developing countries of the world.

Key requirements for the ‘Patent Pools’:
Careful identification of various patents, which will be essential for the pool, will be one of the key requirements to initiate a ‘Patent Pool’ system. It makes the need to obtain individual patents, required in the process of a drug discovery, less important.

National Institute of Health (NIH), USA initiated the process:
On September 30, 2010, NIH became the first patent-holder to share its intellectual property with the Medicines Patent Pool, supported by UNITAID, by licensing a patent for ‘Darunavir’ to increase access of HIV and AIDS medicines to the suffering patients in the developing countries of the world.

UNITAID, an innovative global health financing mechanism is funded by a levy on airline tickets. This initiative was co-founded by the U.K, France, Norway, Brazil and Chile at the United Nations General Assembly in 2006 and buys drugs against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
The above move of NIH towards the noble cause was appreciated by many all over the world, urging the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, to take a leaf out of it.

India was kept out of UNITAID “Patent Pool”:

In 2009-10, UNITAID reportedly had opposed the move to include countries like, India, China and Brazil from the proposed patent pool for AIDS drugs. At least seven civil society groups from India like, the Centre for Trade and Development, the National Working Group on Patent Laws, the All India Peoples Science Network openly stated that UNITAID does not intend to share the patent pool implementation plan with these civil society groups of India. They also alleged that this development in UNITAID will have a significant impact on the ability of Indian Pharmaceutical industry to manufacture low-cost versions of patented HIV/AIDS medicines for the developing countries of the world.

At that time, it was also reported that large global pharmaceutical players had indicated to UNITAID that they could contribute to the ‘patent pool’ on a selective basis, however, over 100 middle income countries such as India, Brazil and China should not have rights to manufacture generic versions of these HIV/AIDS medicines. They felt that ‘patent pool’ will be meaningless if poor countries, who do not have the capability to manufacture these medicines, are included in the process.

However, according to UNITAID, “the patent pool in no way a means to replace or override other provisions contained in the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement or the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. The patent pool represents an additional tool to increase access to HIV treatment, and an opportunity for patent holders to voluntarily contribute to the attainment of crucial health-related goals endorsed by the international community.”

GSK kick-started the process:

Andrew Witty of GSK is undoubtedly the first CEO of a global pharmaceutical company to announce a ‘Patent Pool’ system for research on 16 neglected tropical diseases like, tuberculosis, malaria, filariasis, leprosy and leishmaniasis. GSK has, in a real sense, kick started the process by putting more than 500 granted pharmaceuticals patents and over 300 pending applications in the ‘Patent Pool’.

J&J followed suit:

Johnson and Johnson (J&J) in January 2011 expressed its willingness to assist ‘Medicines Patent Pool Foundation (MPPF)’ to implement ‘Medicines Patent Pool (MPP)’, which aims to improve access to affordable and appropriate HIV medicines in developing countries. MPPF works through voluntary licensing of patents for public health interest, at the same time extending compensation to the innovator pharmaceutical companies.

‘Medicines Patent Pools’:

On April 7, 2011. ‘Intellectual Property Watch’ reported that the ‘Medicines Patent Pools’, an initiative to improve access to HIV drugs through voluntary licenses of patented drugs, have launched a new database of patent information on HIV medicines in developing countries. The database has been developed with the support of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Regional Patent Offices across the world. Intellectual Property Watch

Key issues with the ‘Patent Pools’ concept:
The report from a WHO conference held in April, 2006 ‘Innovation Strategy Today’ indicates that the start-up cost of a ‘Patent Pools’ for vaccines will be economically viable only if more than 25 participants holding relevant patents join the initiative.
Moreover, various types of litigation related to patents, which are being currently witnessed within the global pharmaceutical industry, could also be an impediment in getting more patents in the pool.

Recommended ‘General Principles’ for “Patent Pools”:
International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), Switzerland, suggested the following guidelines for the ‘Patent Pool’ initiatives:
1. Patent pools should be voluntary associations of entities formed without coercion 2. Objectives of any patent pool should be clearly defined 3. Patent pools should complement rather than replace elements of existing intellectual property regimes 4. Rights and obligations of contributors and licensees of contributed rights should be clear 5. Patent pools should reduce transaction costs, and not increase administrative costs, relative to other options such as direct licensing
Conclusion:
There is certainly an urgent need to communicate more on how innovation and IPR could help rather than hinder public health. At the same time all stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry need to come out with a robust solution to ever increasing problem of improving access to innovative medicines to the ailing population of the world, in the best possible way.
However, these are still very early days, before such a disrupting idea get widely accepted by the global innovators and implemented religiously not just for the ‘public health interest’, across the world, but also to create a sustainable business model to harvest ‘Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid’.

Only future will tell us whether or not the ‘Patent Pools’ initiatives become the footprints on the sands of time as the global pharmaceutical industry keeps  navigating through the challenges of change.

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.

Challenges for the Pharmaceutical Industry in the new paradigm – there are more questions than answers

Posted on by
Reply

To get insight into the future challenges of the pharmaceutical industry in general ‘Complete Medical Group’of U.K recently conducted a study with a sizeable number of senior participants from the pharmaceutical companies of various sizes and involving many countries. The survey covered participants from various functional areas like, marketing, product development, commercial, pricing and other important areas.
The study indicates that a paradigm shift has taken place in the global pharmaceutical industry, where continuation with the business strategies of the old paradigm will no longer be a pragmatic approach. Besides this finding, my experience also vindicates that today is not a mega yesterday, just as tomorrow will not be a mega today.
Learning from the results of the above study, which brought out several big challenges facing the pharmaceutical industry in the new paradigm, my submissions are as follows:

Gaining greater market access and increasing pressure of price containment:

The increasing power of payors in the developed world and the interventions of the Government in the developing countries are creating an all pervasive pricing pressure. This critical development together with the issues related to gaining greater market access remain a prime concern for the future.

Better understanding of the new and differential value offerings that the doctors and patients will increasingly look for beyond the physical pharmaceutical products, will indeed be the cutting edge for the winners, in this new ball game.

Questioning the relevance of the current business model:
Top managements of the pharmaceutical companies have already started evaluating the relevance of the current global pharmaceutical business model. They will now need to include in their strategy wider areas of healthcare value delivery system with a holistic disease management focus. Only treatment of diseases will not be considered just enough with an offering of various type medications. Added value with disease prevention initiatives and appropriately managing quality of life of the patients, especially in case of chronic ailments, will assume increasing importance in the pharmaceutical business process.

Greater innovation across the pharmaceutical value chain:
Greater and more frequent incremental innovation across the pharmaceutical Value Chain will be critical success factors. The ability to really harness new technologies, rather than just recognize their potential, and the flexibility to adapt to the fast changing and demanding regulatory environment together with patients’ newer value requirements, should be an important part of the business strategy of a pharmaceutical company in the new world order.

Well integrated decision making processes:
More complex, highly fragmented and cut throat competition, especially in the branded generic market, have created a need for better, more aligned and integrated decision making process across various functional areas of the pharmaceutical business. Avoiding silos and empire building have long been a significant issue, especially for big pharmaceutical companies. Part of better decision making will include more pragmatic and efficient investment decisions and jettisoning all those activities, which are duplications and will no longer deliver incremental intrinsic or extrinsic differential value to the stakeholders.

Customer engagement:
Growing complexity of the prevailing business environment, including most recent change in the MCI regulations for the doctors are making meaningful interactions with the customers and decision makers increasingly challenging. There is a greater need for better management of the pharmaceutical communications channels to strike a right balance between ‘pushing’ information to the doctors and patients and helping them ‘pull’ the relevant information whenever required.

Let me hasten to add, even in the new paradigm, the fundamental way the pharmaceutical industry has been attempting to address these critical issues over decades, has not changed much. To unleash the future growth potential the pharmaceutical companies are still moving around the same old issues like, innovative new product development, scientific sales and marketing, customer focus, application of information technology (IT) in all areas of strategy making process including supply chain, building mega product brands, continuing medical education, greater market penetration skills, to name just a few.

Such responses do ring an alarm bell to me. It is known to many that most of the pharmaceutical companies have been investing in all these areas since long and yet these are the very points being highlighted even in the new paradigm to meet the “Challenge of Change”. The moot question will therefore be, what have all investments in these areas achieved, so far? And why have we not been able to address the needs of the new world order focusing with these tools? More importantly, if we do not address these issues moving ‘outside the box’ and with ‘lateral thinking’ even now, one can well imagine what could the implications be in the times to come?

The future Business Model will need to different:
I believe, the underlying business model of large global organizations focused primarily on developing New Chemical/Molecular Entities (NCEs/NMEs) from initial product discovery through development and commercialization, is unlikely to continue to yield results in the new era. The issue of ‘Patent Cliff’ has already started haunting the research based companies and assuming larger dimensions day by day.
Global pharmaceutical businesses have started evolving beyond patented drugs and including generics to create more diversified and robust healthcare businesses. It is quite evident from the strategies of many larger global pharmaceutical companies that this process has already begun.

Will R&D be collaborative in nature in future?
Currently R&D cost to launch a new patented drug in the market is reported to be around US$ 1.8 – 2.0 billion with accompanying huge risk factors. Thus there is a need to re-evaluate the R&D model of the pharmaceutical companies to make it cost effective with lesser built-in risk factors.
Could there be a collaborative model for R&D, where multiple stakeholders will join hands to discover new patented molecules? In this model all involved parties would be in agreement on what will be considered as important innovations and share the risk and reward of R&D as the collaborative initiative progresses. The Translational Medicine Research Collaboration (TMRC) partnering with Pfizer and others, ‘Patent Pool’ initiative for tropical diseases of GSK and OSDD for Tuberculosis by CSIR in India are examples of steps taken towards this direction.
Surely such collaborative initiatives are not easy but they are not uncommon either, as we witness these, especially in areas like IT. So why cost effective collaborative R&D projects be not initiated to create a win-win situation for all stakeholders in the healthcare space?

Could building pharmaceutical mega brands go beyond just a product for better ROI?
Building brands involve creating equity around an entity that delivers value to the customer, over and above the key functional properties of product. Traditionally, the global pharmaceutical industry has been largely focusing on building mega product brands having specific product life cycle say about ten years, especially for patented products.

Could the core idea of building a mega pharmaceutical brand be substantially different, in future?
I reckon, yes. Instead of investing huge sums in building pharmaceutical product brands with very limited product life cycle (for patented products), a more dynamic, powerful and cost efficient brand building process could well entail focusing on the ‘Corporate franchise’ brands with a mix of both patented and generic products in different price bands for different customer segments within a specific therapy category or disease area.

So instead of consistently creating, building and watching the mega patented pharmaceutical brands grow, mature and die, pharmaceutical companies could well encash the real opportunity to build long term emotional equity into their brands, hopefully without the suffocating NPPA restrictions associated with the current product brands.

Who knows, tomorrow’s list of the world’s top mega brands will not be dominated by the likes of Lipitor, Nexium, Plavix or Advair, but perhaps by quite a different types of mega brands like for example, GSK Vaccines, Sanofi-aventis Endocrinology, Novo-Nordisk Diabetic Care, Abbott Nutrition or Pfizer Cardiac Care.

Serum Institute Vaccines could be considered as one such brand for vaccines as a category, created within the pharmaceutical arena in India, over a long period of time.

Conclusion:
It is indeed quite clear now that the pharmaceutical business models are undergoing a serious re-evaluation in the new paradigm. I get a sense that the change is inevitable due to a variety of trends that are squeezing both sales and margins, posing severe challenges towards R&D, product development, marketing and communications.

As I have deliberated, some kind of solutions are gradually emerging. However, the key questions of how profound will this change be and how well the pharmaceutical companies are prepared to counter these changes, still remain unanswered.

By Tapan 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.

The ‘Climate Change’ and its impact on ‘Public health’: is there anything in it that we can do ourselves?

Posted on by
Reply
The Lancet in its December 5, 12 and 19, 2009 issues published the following interesting studies:A. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: household energy
B. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land transport
C. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: low-carbon electricity generation
D. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture
E. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: health implications of short-lived greenhouse pollutants
F. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: overview and implications for policy makersThe findings of these studies clearly indicate that climate change is intimately linked to the global public health.

The key highlights:

1. In rural households (particularly in a developing country like India), if low carbon emission cooking stoves are used, the incidence of acute respiratory tract infections, chronic respiratory illnesses and even cardiac disorders can be brought down significantly.

2. For city transportation, increased usage of more fuel efficient or even hybrid vehicle will not be just enough to effectively reduce the greenhouse effect and improve public health. To achieve this some fundamental change in our life style and urban pedestrian infrastructure will be necessary rather than building more and more flyovers. Encouragement of ‘foot- and pedal-powered mobility’ could prove to be more useful for specific public health benefits, which could come in terms of reductions of cardiovascular disease by around 20%, in addition to reduced incidence of depression, dementia and diabetes.

3. The civil society would require putting more efforts to burn less of fossil fuels and increase in production of cleaner energy through solar and wind power to substantially improve the quality of air that we breathe.

4. In areas of agriculture and food production, initiatives like lesser usage of fossil fuel, innovative usage of manure, reduced livestock production and intensive programs of carbon capture could significantly lower the impact of climate change on public health.

“A 30% fall in the adult consumption of saturated fat from animal sources would reduce heart disease in the population by around 15% in the UK and by 16% in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. If the study had used additional health outcomes such as obesity and diet-related cancers, the health gains might have been even more substantial”, the Lancet highlighted.

The studies further indicated, “Recognition that mitigation strategies can have substantial benefits for both health and climate protection offers the possibilities of policy choices that are potentially both more cost effective and socially attractive than are those that address these priorities independently.”

India perspective:

‘Climatico national first assessment report’ of March 8, 2009 makes important observations on the general trends between national policies to understand how climate policy is developing in the major greenhouse gas-emitting countries like, UK, EU, France, Germany, Canada, USA, Mexico, India, China, Indonesia, Japan, Australia.

Key findings of the report are as follows:

1. “A significant funding gap is appearing for adaptation, as developing country lack domestic resources and capacity and also appears unable to rely on international transfer mechanisms to meet their financing needs. It is at present unclear how adaptation will be effectively financed”.

2. “The financial crisis is allowing a mainstreaming of climate change into recovery packages, accelerating otherwise difficult shifts to low carbon growth in developed countries. However, the same crisis is causing a major slow down in projects that do not contribute to financial recovery”.

It has been reported that the above observations have prompted the Government of India to seek global cooperation both in terms of funding and technology to facilitate the capacity building exercise in these areas to effectively address all issues arising out of ‘climate change’.

Conclusion:

It has now been well accepted by the policy makers in India that there is a dire need to effectively address the critical public health issues related to global ‘climate change’. Based on the findings, as published in ‘The Lancet’, the Government of India should take appropriate collaborative measures to neutralize the adverse impact of ‘climate change’ on ‘public health’, sooner the better.

At the same time, let me hasten to add that there are many other measures, as stated earlier, which we all can take ourselves as a civil society in general and a responsible citizen in particular, to prevent this impending crisis.

By Tapan 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.

Fixed Dose Combination’ drugs market in India is growing faster – are there enough regulatory checks and balances to prevent market entry of ‘irrational combinations’ to ensure patients’ safety?

Posted on by
Reply
The WHO Model of FDCs:The 2005 ʹProcedure to update and disseminate the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, Criteria for Selection‘ includes the following statement regarding fixed dose combination products (FDCs):ʺMost essential medicines should be formulated as single compounds. Fixed‐dose combination products are selected only when the combination has a proven advantage over single compounds administered separately in therapeutic effect, safety, and adherence or in delaying the development of drug resistance in malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/ AIDS.ʺ

FDCs need to demonstrate clinical efficacy and safety beyond that for the individual drugs given alone. They would also need to ‘demonstrate bioequivalence of the single combined dose unit with the components administered in the same doses separately but concomitantly’.

‘Adherence’ aspect of WHO Model for FDCs is also important. Problems with ‘adherence’ could lead to inadequate and inconsistent dosing, which in turn could lead to development of drug resistance. FDCs, therefore, are expected to improve compliance reducing the risk of development of drug resistance.

However, one of the major disadvantages with the FDCs is lack of flexibility in adjusting dose of individual ingredients, even if it is required for some patients. Internationally, most popular example is the FDCs of antiretroviral drugs for HIV infected patients like, Combivir, Trzivir, Kaletra etc. Besides, there are FDCs for various other disease areas, like, infections, respiratory and cardiovascular disorders etc.

New FDCs are patent protected in the USA:

In the western world, like the USA, new FDCs may also get patent protection. A company may obtain marketing exclusivity for a new FDC even when individual active ingredients go off patent. However, in India FDCs cannot be patented as per Patent Acts of India 2005.

Market attractiveness for FDCs in India:

In India the market for FDCs is very large and growing much faster, in sharp contrast to the western world. Because of growing market demand, pharmaceutical companies in India tend to market FDCs of all different permutations and combination, at times even crossing the line of a ‘sound medical rationale’. For this reason, we find in the website of ‘Central Drugs Standard Control Organization’ (CDSCO), the banned list of so many FDCs.

Lack of regulatory compliance has created a messy situation with FDCs in India:

Introduction of new FDCs does not only warrant a ‘sound medical rationale’ but also ‘strict conformance to all prescribed regulatory requirements’ for the sake of patents’ safety.

To check unfettered market introduction of potentially harmful FDCs, the Ministry of Health issued a Notification in September 1988, including FDCs in Rule 122 E of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules (D&CR) 1945. In effect, it removed the powers of the State FDAs to give manufacturing or marketing approval of FDCs. After the notification was issued, all manufacturers/marketers of all FDCs are required to apply only to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) under Rule 122E of the D&CR 1945 as a new drug, along with the stipulated fees by way of a Treasury Challan.

Since this entire process entails relatively more regulatory data generation, besides the time and expenses involved, the above Rule was continuously and deliberately broken and manufacturing and marketing approvals were routinely sought and obtained from the State FDAs. Many believe that the State FDAs were equally responsible for knowingly flaunting the Law, as were the pharmaceutical companies.

Patients’ safety – the key concern:

This complicity resulted in the market being flooded with ‘irrational combinations’ which posed a real threat to patients’ safety. The state FDAs were reminded of the Notification by the earlier DCGI. 294 FDCs got caught in this dispute. The important issue of patients’ safety in that process got converted into a legal issue, as many FDC manufacturers chose to go to the court of law to redress their grievances in this matter.

Untangling the messy knot:

As the issue got trapped into various prolonged litigations, the current DCGI took initiative of resolving this contentious issue with the help of an expert committee, involving the manufacturers.

This subcommittee cleared 48 FDCs under ‘similar FDCs already approved’, after discussing the merits and demerits, including pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, side effects, dosage, medical rationale etc. of each ingredient and the combinations. The decision of the Sub Committee was then submitted to the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB).

After formal approval of DTAB, a notification is expected to be issued subsequent to which each of these combinations will be construed to be a new drug and any company wishing to market/manufacture the formulation will require submitting its Application in Form 44 to the DCGI to get approval in Form 45. The process will be completed after the balance 142 FDCs, which need further examination, are individually approved.

This issue sends a clear signal to all concerned that resorting to any form of shortcuts to bypass strict adherence to prescribed regulatory requirements, could seriously jeopardise the patients’ safety. The number of FDCs banned by CDSCO and also ban of those FDCs agreed and accepted by the industry without any challenge during the above process, will vindicate this point.

Solving the current logjam is not enough:

Solving the current logjam on FDCs by the DCGI is a onetime exercise and will perhaps clear a serious mess-up created over a long period of time. It can definitely not be an ongoing process. Neither will it be desirable. There is an absolute and urgent need to follow the WHO Model for FDCs, in India, as indicated above, through appropriate regulatory processes. At the same time, the DCGI should ensure strict compliance of the Notification issued by Ministry of Health on FDCs, in September 1988. Otherwise, unchecked entry of FDCs of all possible permutations and combinations could pose a serious threat to patients’ interest and safety.

Meeting unmet needs of the patients with high quality drugs of scientifically proven high efficacy and safety profile should always define the purpose of existence of the pharmaceutical industry. Any patients’ safety related issue deserves no scope for any compromise.

By Tapan 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.