Tag Archives: time

Does the Landmark Glivec Judgment Discourage Innovation in India?

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A critical point to ponder:

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

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

Patentability of ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Honorable Court under the same point 180 further elaborated:

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

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

The rationale behind Section 3(d):

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

  • The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industry, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.
  • A stringent patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs to a large number of populations in India.
  • Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will be able to demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

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

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

Possible implications to IPA challenge:

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

Examples of revocation of patents in India:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another related development of the last week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments against Section 3(d):

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

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

Importance of ‘Incremental Innovation’ in India:

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

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

  • As per the National Knowledge Commission, while 37.3% of Indian companies introduced breakthrough innovations in recent years, no fewer than 76.4% introduced incremental innovations.
  • 60 percent of the drugs on the World health Organization’s essential Drug list reflect incremental improvements over older drugs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View of the Glivec inventor: 

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

Are discordant voices out of step with time?

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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. 

A time to keep our nose to the Grindstone – Competition Act will take care of M&As, come June 2011

Posted on by
Reply

Full control of powers on Mergers and Acquisitions of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) effective June 1, 2011, has now been notified.

In this evolving scenario, it is indeed difficult to understand, why is the FDI issue on M&A in the Pharmaceutical space of India is still catching headlines of both national and international media. Instead, should we not now keep our nose to the grindstone and take strategic measures to accelerate the inclusive growth of this life-line industry of the nation?

Stipulations for M&As under the Competition Act:

Section 6(1) of the Act prohibits any person or enterprise from entering into a combination which has an “appreciable adverse effect” on competition in India. It also stipulates that any enterprise which intends to enter into such M&A, shall give notice to the CCI furnishing details of the proposed M&A within thirty days of:

(i)  Approval of the merger by the Board of Directors of the concerned enterprise

or

(ii) Execution of any agreement relating to acquisitions referred to in clause 5(a) & (b) of the Act. S.6(2A) provides a period of 210 days to the CCI to complete the investigation relating to such combinations (if the CCI is unable to come to any conclusion within this period then the combination is deemed to be approved)

S.5 of the Act lays down the transactions which will qualify as combinations for the purposes of the Act. The following is the threshold limit for Mergers and Acquisitions:
• Transactions among Indian companies with combined assets of Rs. 1000 Crores or Rs 3000 Crores in turnover of the merged entity
• Cross-border transactions involving both Indian and foreign companies with combined assets of US $500 million or US $1.5 billion in turnover

• Transactions that have a territorial nexus with India, where the acquirer has US $125 million in assets or US $375 million in turnover in India.

Once any transaction reaches the threshold limit as specified in S.5, the enterprise has to take recourse to the procedure as specified in the Competition Act.

A time to keep our nose to the Grindstone:

Last year, though the growth of the Global Pharmaceutical Industry with a turnover of US$ 752 billion significantly slowed down to just 6.7% due to various contributing factors, the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry continued to maintain a robust of growth of 19% with a turnover of US$ 10.1 billion (IMS October, 2010).

R&D will fuel future growth:

However, on a longer term perspective, the domestic industry growth will be significantly driven by the newer products, which will be the outcome of painstaking innovative research and development initiatives. Keeping this point in mind, the fact that today India accounts less than one per cent of over US$130 billion of the worldwide spending on research and development for pharmaceuticals, despite its known strength in process chemistry and abundant talent pool, has started attracting attention of the government.

Government taking appropriate measures:

It is encouraging to note that the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India through its ‘Vision 2020’ initiatives is planning to create a new echo-system in the country to promote new drug discovery platforms. This is expected to catapult the country as one of the top five global pharmaceutical hubs, by 2020 attracting additional investments of around US$ 20 billion to the GDP of the country.

Primary role of the industry:

The Primary role of the Research based Pharmaceutical Industry in India, like in many other countries of the world, is to make significant contribution to the healthcare objectives of the nation by meeting the unmet needs of the ailing patients, with innovative medicines. This role can be fulfilled by developing newer medicines through painstaking, time-consuming, risky and expensive basic research initiatives. The research based Pharmaceutical Industry in India is committed to its prime function of discovering and developing new medicines not only for the patients in India but all over the world.

Encouraging innovation will be critical:

Despite immense progress made over the past decades in developing new medicines for numerous acute and chronic illnesses, innovation still remains critically important in the continuous and ever complex battle between disease and good health. Ongoing efforts in Research & Development (R&D) would require a robust national policy environment that would encourage, protect and reward innovation. Improving healthcare environment in partnership with the Government remains a priority for the Research based Pharmaceutical Companies in India, both global and local.

Continuous improvement in ‘Access to Medicines’ is critical:

Therefore, improving access to healthcare in general and medicines in particular should be on the top priority agenda of the policy makers in our country. High incidence of mortality and morbidity burden in a country like ours can only be addressed by improving Access to healthcare through a concerted partnership oriented strategy.

Some concerns still linger:

However, in the new paradigm, which has been designed to foster innovation in the country, there are still some loose knots to be tightened up to achieve the set objectives for the inclusive growth of the nation, in the longer term perspective.

These measures, in turn, will help improving the competitiveness of India vis-à-vis countries like China to attract appreciable investments towards R&D related to pharmaceutical and bio-pharmaceutical products. The Government has already initiated measures to expand the capacity of Indian judiciary and setting- up of fast-track specialized courts that can more effectively enforce Pharmaceutical patents with requisite technical expertise.

Industry should set examples in ‘Good Corporate Governance’ and ‘Global Good Manufacturing Practices’:

Another area of focus should be on corporate good governance. This encompasses adherence to high ethical standards in clinical trials, regulatory and legal compliance, working to prevent corrupt practices, high ethical standard in promotion of medicines and addressing all other issues that support good healthcare policies of the Government. In addition, Pharmaceutical Industry should take active measures to involve all concerned to fight the growing menace of counterfeit and spurious medicines, which significantly affect the lives of the ailing patients, all over the country.

All stakeholders should work in tandem:

It is obvious that the Pharmaceutical Industry alone will have a limited role to address key healthcare issues of our nation, especially when around 400 million Below the Poverty Line (BPL) population will not be able to afford any expenses towards healthcare, at all. All stakeholders like the government, corporate and the civil society in general, must work together according to their respective abilities, obligations and enlightened societal interests to effectively address such pressing issues.

Let us move ahead from ‘Price Control’ to ‘Price Monitoring’:

Despite Medicine Prices in India being one of the lowest in the world, mainly because of stiff competition within the industry and watchful eye of an effective price regulator, 100% of the Pharmaceutical market in the country is currently being price regulated by the Government even with the growth restrictive and ‘draconian’ ‘Third Schedule’ of the DPCO 95.

To enable the Industry to be globally competitive in all aspects of its operations, the government should move ahead from ‘Price Control’ to effective ‘Price monitoring’ mechanism and scrap the growth restrictive measures like, ‘third schedule’ of the current DPCO.

Transaction costs of medicines are too high:

Current transaction costs (all taxes) on medicines in India including trade margins is as high as over 50% of the ex-factory cost of a product.

This cost has been further increased in 2011-12 Union Budget proposal. The government should reduce exorbitantly high transaction costs to make medicines even more economical to the common man.

Conclusion:

I am confident, the entire Pharmaceutical Industry in India would continue to act responsibly with demonstrable commitment to help achieving the healthcare objectives of the nation.

Global players will keep on searching for their suitable targets in the emerging markets like India, just as Indian players are searching for the same in the global markets. This is a process of consolidation in any industry and will continue to take place across the world. Adverse impact of M&A on competition, if any, will now be effectively taken care of by the CCI.

So far as the ‘Financial Reform’ process is concerned, India has always been a slow starter, but it never walked backwards. This tradition, I reckon, will continue in the vibrant democracy of the country, in future too.

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.

Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) are hitting the poor even harder, economically: a time to ponder and a time to act

Posted on by
Reply

November 11, 2010 edition of ‘The Lancet’ published an article titled, “Raising the priority of preventing chronic diseases: a political process”. The article enumerated the following:

“Chronic diseases, especially cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer, and chronic obstructive respiratory diseases, are neglected globally despite growing awareness of the serious burden that they cause. Global and national policies have failed to stop, and in many cases have contributed to, the chronic disease pandemic. Low-cost and highly effective solutions for the prevention of chronic diseases are readily available; the failure to respond is now a political, rather than a technical issue.”

The situation is no different in India. The disease pattern in India is also showing a perceptible shift from age old ‘Infectious Diseases’ to ‘Non-infectious Chronic Illnesses’. As reported by IMS, incidence of chronic ailments in India has increased from 23 percent in 2005 to 26 percent in 2009. It has been estimated that chronic illnesses will be the leading cause of both morbidity and mortality by the next decade.

As a consequence of such findings healthcare needs and systems of the country should need to undergo a paradigm shift with the emergence of a carefully planned concept of ‘Preventive Healthcare’ in the country.

It is a myth that non-infectious illnesses are more prevalent in higher socio-economic strata:
There is a common perception that non-communicable diseases are more prevalent within higher socio-economic strata of the society, a national survey done in India shows that diseases related to misuse of alcohol and tobacco are higher in the poorest 20 percent quintile of our society.

Current healthcare system in India:

Currently the medical alleviation of the acute symptoms and the disease that a particular patient is suffering from is the key concern of all concerned starting from the doctor to the patient and his/her family. The process of the medical treatment revolves round symptom relief, diagnostic measures and appropriate treatment protocols and procedures conforming to the proper diagnosis of the ailments. While addressing the acute problems of the patients’ ailments is very important, proper assessment of the underlying diseases or evaluation of their risk factors do not get as much or no attention. As a result the important advice on preventive healthcare from the doctor properly highlighting its importance is not available to most of the patients.

Keeping such common practices in view and noting that ‘Preventive Healthcare’ is significantly different from ‘Curative Healthcare’, developing an appropriate protocol for ‘Preventive Healthcare’ has become the crying need of the hour.

‘Preventive Healthcare’ in India should be made mandatory:

The ‘Preventive Healthcare’ system in India is in its very nascent stage. If appropriate measures are taken in this area, like learning to reduce the impact of stress, avoiding sedentary life style, taking healthy diet, avoidance of tobacco and alcohol consumption, leading healthy sex life etc., it can in turn help the population to remain disease free and thereby to improve their respective work productivity in a very significant way.

Taking all these points into consideration, through policy initiative, The Medical Council of India (MCI) should make ‘Preventive Healthcare’ an integral part of each interaction of a patient with a doctor through appropriate regulations.

Chronic illnesses will significantly increase the disease burden of the country:

Many of the diseases like cancer, chronic respiratory disorders, cardiovascular, diabetes can be identified with preventable risk factors and. Therefore, such diseases can be prevented effectively, provided the healthcare policy of the country supports the ‘Disease Prevention’ process, program and initiatives through adequate resource allocation.

Role of a medical professional in customized ‘disease prevention plan’:

Role of medical professionals in the disease prevention process is also very important. The interaction of the patients with the doctors when they meet to address any ailment provides huge opportunity to the doctors to advice the patients about the ways of specific disease prevention, for which the individual patients have high exposure.

Need to raise general public and political awareness towards ‘Preventive Healthcare’:

Raising the level of awareness for ‘Preventive Healthcare’ is indeed very important. It requires a change in the mindset of the community in general together with healthcare policy makers, medical profession, employers, patients and their families.

National Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) prevention program of the government:

As per the Planning Commission, the government of India has reported to have initiated structured measures for the prevention of NCD, the main features of which are as follows:

• “Health education for primary and secondary prevention of NCDs through mobilizing community action
• Development of treatment protocols for education and training of physicians in the prevention and management of NCDs
• Strengthening/creation of facilities for the diagnosis and treatment of CVD and stroke, and the establishment of referral linkages
• Promotion of the production of affordable drugs to combat diabetes, hypertension, and myocardial infarction
• Development and support of institutions for the rehabilitation of people with disabilities
• Research support for: Multispectral population-based interventions to reduce risk factors
• The role of nutrition and lifestyle-related factors
• The development of cost effective interventions at each level of care”

Conclusion:

Many diseases in India with proper ‘Disease Prevention’ measures can be effectively averted. Some common measures which can be easily practiced through community initiatives are maintenance of proper hygiene, sanitation, adequate physical activities, moderation in alcohol and tobacco consumption, healthy sexual activities, avoidance of unhealthy food etc.

To address this issue ‘The Lancet’ November 11, 2010, in the article, as mentioned above, prescribed three specific strategies as follows:

1. “Reframe the debate to emphasize the societal determinants of disease and the inter-relation between chronic disease, poverty, and development
2. Mobilize resources through a cooperative and inclusive approach to development and by equitably distributing resources on the basis of avoidable mortality
3. Build on emerging strategic and political opportunities, such as the World Health Assembly 2008—13 Action Plan and the high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly in 2011 on chronic disease”.

The government should spearhead the paradigm shift towards this direction with appropriate regulation, generating increased societal and political awareness within the country and through mobilization of adequate resources. All these will ultimately help us to translate the well-known dictum into reality, ‘prevention is better than cure’.

Otherwise, especially the poorer section of the society will continue to get caught in the vicious cycle of debt and illness, seriously jeopardizing the economic progress of the country.

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 heated debate on WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs is now on a ‘pause’ – A time to evaluate the reasons for supporting and opposing it.

Posted on by
Reply
The World Health Organisation (WHO), in December 2008, proposed the following new definition, as prepared by the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT):“A medical product is counterfeit when there is a false representation in relation to its identity and/or source. This applies to the product, its container or other packaging or labeling information. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products. Counterfeits may include products with correct ingredients/components, with wrong ingredients/components, without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake packaging.”This definition, indeed, created a furor in India. The Ministry of Health of the Government of India initiated discussions, on this issue, with the stakeholders and by mid-January, 2009 a consensus was arrived at between the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and the generic industry on much debated definition of counterfeit drugs. It was reported that the Government had decided to place this definition before the World Health Organisation (WHO) in its next meeting on the subject. The consensus definition, after the above meeting, was reported as follows:

“A medical product (medicine, vaccine, diagnostics and medical implants/devices) is counterfeit when it is deliberately and fraudulently mislabelled with respect to its identity and/or source. Counterfeit can apply to components with wrong ingredients/components without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake package”

In end-January 2009, although it was reported that under pressure from the developing countries like, India, WHO has dropped this new definition, it is very likely that the initiative is now just on a ‘pause’ mode.

Let us now try to explore the ‘Eye’ of this stormy debate and its relevance to India. The ‘eye’ of the storm lies mainly within the following 3 key concerns of the opponents of the definition:

1. False representation of identity and source applies not only to labeling but also to the ‘product,
its container or other packaging’
2. The new definition could include Intellectual Property Right (IPR) issues and as a cosequence of
which, Indian generics could run into the risk of being branded as counterfeit
3. Removal of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ from the original definition and replacing them
with ‘false representation’ will shift the burden of proof

In India, the share of voice of those opposing this definition was undoubtedly much more than those who were supporting it. However, the rationale for supporting the definition, in Indian context, appears to be much stronger than opposing it.

While arguing on this point, I am of the view that most of the apprehensions expressed above have been abundantly clarified in the definitions of Misbranded drugs (section 17), and Spurious drugs (Section 17 B) of the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Let us now have a quick look at the Section 17 and Section 17 B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to find out whether the WHO IMPACT definition is way off the definitions for Misbranded and Spurious drugs as indicated in the above Act.

“Section 17. Misbranded drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be misbranded –

(a) If it is so coloured, coated, powdered or polished that damage is concealed or if it is made to appear of better or greater therapeutic value than it really is; or

(b) If it is not labelled in the prescribed manner ; or

(c) If its label or container or anything accompanying the drug bears any statement, design or device which makes any false claim for the drug or which is false or misleading in any particular.”

Does Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 answer the ‘concern 1’ above?

“Section 17B. Spurious drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be spurious

(a) If it is manufactured under a name which belongs to another drug; or

(b) If it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, another drug or resembles another drug in a manner likely to deceive or bears upon it or upon its label or container the name of another drug unless it is plainly and conspicuously marked so as to reveal its true character and its lack of identity with such other drug; or

(c) If the label or container bears the name of an individual or company purporting to be the manufacturer of the drug, which individual or company is fictitious or does not exist; or

(d) If it has been substituted wholly or in part by another drug or substance; or

(e) If it purports to be the product of a manufacturer of whom it is not truly a product.”

Does Section 17B of the Drugs and Cosmetics, 1940 Act answer the ‘concern 2′ above?

The ‘concern 3’ above deals with shifting the ‘burden of proof’ with replacement of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ by ‘false representation’. Many legal experts opine that this change will only mean that “criminal intent (fraudulent and deliberate) shall be considered during the legal procedures for the purpose of sanctions.”

What could then possibly be the reasons for opposing the revised WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs in India, especially when we have similar definition in place in our own Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940? Does it make sense for the Government to reinvent the wheel? Who knows?

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.