Tag Archives: to

From ‘Blockbuster Drugs’ to ‘Personalized Medicines’ – will it revolutionize the way the patients will be treated tomorrow?

Posted on by
Reply
Financial Times quoted Jeff Kendler, the CEO of Pfizersaying, “the era of dependence on a single or a couple of blockbuster drugs should be over. Lipitor sells U.S$ 12 billion a year. You can’t build a company predicted on the belief that you are going to find such a drug.”The argument is robust, what then are the alternatives?Rapid strides in pharmacogenomic bring in a promise of radically different way of treating diseases, as major pharmaceutical companies of the world make progress in developing much more effective medicines designed to target smaller populations. These medicines are termed as ‘personalized medicines’ and are expected to be an effective alternative to now quite unwieldy ‘blockbuster drugs’ business model.

In what way ‘Personalized Medicines’ will be different?

With ‘Personalized Medicines’ the health of a patient will be managed based on personal characteristics of the individual, including height, weight, diet, age, sex etc, instead of defined “standards of care”, based on averaging response across a patient group. Pharmacogenomic tests like, sequencing of human genome will determine a patient’s likely response to such drugs.

These are expected to offer more targeted and effective treatment with safer drugs, and presumably at a lesser cost. Such medicines will also help identify individuals prone to serious ailments like, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer and help physicians to take appropriate preventive measures, simultaneously. ‘Personalized medicines’ in that process will focus on what makes each patient so unique, instead of going by the generalities of a disease.

To give a quick example, genetic differences within individuals determine how their bodies react to drugs such as Warfarin, a blood thinner taken to prevent clotting. It is of utmost importance to get the dosing right, as more of the drug will cause bleeding and less of it will not have any therapeutic effect.

‘Personalized medicines’, therefore, have the potential to bring in a revolutionary change the way patients are offered treatment by the medical profession. Genomic research will enable physicians to use a patient’s genetic code to arrive at how each patient will respond to different types of treatments.

In the field of cancer, genetic tests are currently being done by many oncologists to determine which patients will be benefitted most, say by Herceptin, in the treatment of breast cancer.

What is then the aim of ‘Personalized Medicines’?

The aim of ‘personalized medicines’ is to make a perfect fit between the drug and the patient.
It is worth noting that genotyping is currently not a part of clinically accepted routine. However, it is expected to acquire this status in the western world, by 2010.

Expected benefits from ‘Personalized Medicines’:

1. More Accurate dosing: Instead of dose being decided based on age and body weight of the patients, the physicians may decide and adjust the dose of the medicines based on the genetic profiling of the patients.

2. More Targeted Drugs: It will be possible for the pharmaceutical companies to develop and market drugs for patients with specific genetic profiles. In that process, a drug needs to be tested only on those who are likely to derive benefits from it. This in turn will be able to effectively tailor clinical trials, expediting the process of market launch of these drugs.

3. Improved Health care: ‘Personalized Medicines’ will enable the physicians to prescribe ‘the right dose of the right medicine the first time for everyone’. This would give rise to much better overall healthcare.

Role of Pharmaceutical and Biotech companies:

Many research based pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have taken a leading role towards development of ‘personalized medicines’ in line with their key role as healthcare enterprises. India is also taking keen interest in this science.

Some important issues:

However, there are some ethical and social issues in the development of ‘personalized medicines’ primarily in the area of genetic testing and consideration of race in the development of such medicines, which need to be effectively addressed, sooner.

Can it replace the‘Blockbuster Drugs’ business model?

Realization of deficiencies in the economics of ‘block buster drugs’ R&D business model, has made ‘personalized medicines’ a reality today.

Improved efficacy and safety of treatment with ‘personalized medicines’ will prove to be cost-effective in healthcare systems. Smaller and exclusive markets for ‘personalized medicines’ are expected to be profitable for the pharmaceutical companies. But such smaller segmentation of the market may not leave enough space for the conventional ‘blockbuster model’, which is the prime mover of the global pharmaceutical industry, today.

Reports indicate that some renowned global pharmaceutical companies like, Roche, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline are making good progress towards this direction through collaborative initiatives.

Approximate cost of ‘Genome Sequencing’:

When human genome was first sequenced, the reported cost was staggering U.S$ 3 billion. However, with the advancement of technology, it came down to U.S$ 1 million, last year. Currently, the cost has further come down to U.S$ 60,000. With the rapid stride made in the field of biotechnology, combined with the economies of scale, cost of such genetic tests is expected to be around U.S$ 1,000 in near future, making it possible for people to obtain the blue print of their genetic code.

Savings on cost of Clinical trials with ‘Personalized Medicines’:

Genome sequencing will help identifying a patient population, which will be far more likely to respond positively to the new treatment. In that process, if it reduces costs of clinical trial by even 5%, expected net savings for the industry towards clinical trial have been reported to be around U.S$ 5 billion.

With ‘personalized medicines’ the innovator companies will be able to significantly reduce both time, costs and the risks involved in obtaining regulatory approvals and penetrating new markets with simultaneous development of necessary diagnostic tests. Such tests will be able to identify patients group who will not only be most likely to be benefitted from such medicines, but also will be least likely to suffer from adverse drug reactions.

Therefore, considerable cost advantages coupled with much lesser risks of failure and significant reduction in the lead time for clinical trials are expected to make ‘personalized medicines’ much more cost effective, compared to conventional ‘blockbuster drugs’.

Innovative and cost effective way to market ‘Personalized Medicines’:

With ‘personalized medicines’ the ball game of marketing pharmaceuticals is expected to undergo a paradigm shift. Roche’s model of combining necessary diagnostic tests with new drugs will play a very important role in the new paradigm.

Roche is ensuring that with accompanying required diagnostic tests, the new oncology products developed at Genentech can be precisely matched to patients.

Can ‘Personalized Medicines’ be used in ‘Primary Care’ also?

To use ‘personalized medicines’ in a ‘primary care’ situation, currently there is no successful model. However, it has been reported that in states like, Wisconsin in the U.S, initiative to integrate genomic medicines with ‘primary care’ has already been undertaken. Scaling-up operations of such pilot projects will give a big boost to revolutionize the use of ‘personalized medicines’ for precision and targeted treatment of the ailing population.

In my view, there does not seem to be any possibility of looking back now. The robust business model of ‘personalized medicines’, is now the way forward, as much for the industry as for the patients. It is a win-win game.

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.

Recent appetite of Global Pharmaceutical Majors for Generic Pharmaceutical Business: can it pose a threat to pure generic players?

Posted on by
Reply
Last year Lehman Brothers estimated that by 2012 over 25% of the global pharmaceutical market will face competition from generics. Higher demand of generics is mainly due to the following reasons:1. Increased number of patented drugs is going off-patent.2. Cost containment and pricing pressure, especially from the Government, in the developed markets of the world.

3. Increasing number of patents is being challenged, especially in the U.S courts, on the ground of “obviousness”.

“Obviousness” is becoming a key reason of patent challenges in the U.S:

In first quarter of the last year we read about the U.S trial court making void the key patent of Yasmin, the contraceptive drug of Bayer for ‘obviousness’. This incident had compelled Bayer to revise its profit forecast downwards, for 2008.

‘Obviousness’ is increasingly becoming one of the key reasons for challenging Patents in many countries of the world, including India. Financial Times reported recently that keeping protection to all patents intact, could eventually pose to be a key challenge for the R&D based global pharmaceutical companies. Many analysts feel that the issue of “obviousness” could indeed be a threat to many U.S pharmaceutical patents, especially those, which will be considered by the court just as a ‘tweaked-up’ version of existing drugs.

As reported by ‘Chemical Weekly’, March 2008, total 338 patent challenges were recorded globally in 2008. India ranks only next to USA with a share of 21% pharmaceutical patent challenges.

Global generic pharmaceutical market is growing at a faster pace:

Prescription market in the U.S grew by just 1.3% last year to U.S$291 billion. Key factors believed to be responsible for slower growth in the U.S market are as follows:

1. Higher prescriptions for less expensive generic medicines.

2. Lower sales of higher priced new products.

3. Economic downturn has made more patients to move to generics and large number of consumers to lose their health insurance.

Similarly in the United Kingdom (U.K) generics industry supplies 64% of medicines dispensed by the National Health Scheme (NHS), though they contribute just around 30% of NHS expenditure towards medicines.

Recent reports indicate that the generic global pharmaceutical market is expected to record a turnover of U.S$ 520 billion by 2012. This market size is too lucrative to ignore by any big global pharmaceutical player.

Based on sales turnover of 2007, Teva tops the list of global generic players with a turnover of U.S$ 9.1 billion, followed by Sandoz with U.S$ 5.8 billion and Mylan/Merck with U.S$ 4.6 billion.

From India, Ranbaxy registered a turnover of U.S$ 1.7 billion, Dr.Reddy’s U.S$ 1.4 billion, Cipla U.S$ 1 billion and Sun Pharma/Taro U.S$ 900 million, during that year.

48% of the total 422.6 million prescriptions written in Canada in 2007 were for generic medicines, which registered an annual growth of 14%, reports IMS Canada. Compared to this performance, branded products in Canada recorded a growth of meager 0.2%, during this period. As a consequence, generic Canadian pharmaceutical companies like Novopharm (Teva) and Apotex recorded impressive growth of 46.8% and 18.5%, respectively, in that period.

Despite such outstanding performance of generic pharmaceuticals, overall growth of prescription drugs in Canada was at just 6.3%, the lowest in the last ten year period.

President Obama’s Healthcare Policy will encourage generics and biosimilar drugs:

It is widely believed that the new U.S administration under President Barak Obama will try to encourage speedy introduction of generics into the U.S market.

So far as ‘Biosimilar’ drugs are concerned, in 2009 Obama administration is expected to work out the road map to facilitate the introduction of ‘Biosimilar dugs’ in the U.S market. Due to inherent characteristics that biological are ‘grown and not just manufactured’, biosimilar drugs are not expected to be replica of the original products.

To find out a solution to the heated debate, an answer has to be found out regarding the extent of clinical trials that the ‘biosimilar’ manufacturers will require to undertake to satisfy the U.S FDA that these drugs are as safe as the original ones. It is believed by some that the answer to this question lies in the approach that gives regulatory authority the flexibility in ‘what it demands that asks for more evidence than is now required for generic drugs, but something less than the kind of full-blown trials required for products new to the market.’

Global pharmaceutical majors are developing appetite for generics business:

Keeping a close vigil on these developments, as it were, even Pfizer, the largest pharmaceutical player of the world, has started curving out a niche for itself in the global market of fast growing generics, following the footsteps of other large global players like Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis and Daiichi Sankyo.

Is Pfizer planning to follow the business model of Abbott and Johnson & Johnson (J&J)?

As reported by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Mr. Kindler the CEO of Pfizer very recently commented, “We are breaking the company down into smaller units so we aren’t dependent on any single product… I am a great admirer of J&J and Abbott’s business model.”

It appears what Mr. Kindler perhaps meant by this statement is that smaller business units, like Over the Trade Counter (OTC), Vaccines, Nutrition and Animal Health can be more ‘manoeuvrable and innovative’ for faster business growth. Acquisition of Wyeth could actually help Pfizer to implement this business model.

Coming back to generic business, the recent collaborative arrangement of Pfizer with Aurobindo Pharma in India vindicates Pfizer’s recent appetite on generic global pharmaceutical business. The company is already in this business with some of its off patent products. But now like others, Pfizer seems to be strategizing to reap a rich harvest from fast-growing generic pharmaceutical business through most probably its “Established Products” business division.

Could such business model of Global Pharmaceutical majors pose a threat to pure generic players in the business?

The entry of the global pharmaceutical majors into generic pharmaceutical business, in my view, could pose a serious threat to current generic players in the business, including those who are operating from India in the ‘regulated markets’ of the world, for the the following reasons:

1. Generic pharmaceutical business is usually a high volume, relatively low margin and highly competitive business. To survive in this business of cut-throat competition will require both financial and innovative marketing expertise, as well as financial and marketing muscle, where large global players are expected to easily score over others.

2. Product price of generics of the same or similar molecules being within a price band, prescribers and payors’ preference are expected to be in favour of large global pharmaceuticals, because of corporate brand image.

3. In future, the pharmaceutical marketing model, in my view, is expected to shift from ‘marketing of only medicines’ to ‘marketing of a bundle of medicines and services’. In the changed scenario global pharmaceutical majors are expected to have a distinct strategic advantage.

4. Global Pharmaceutical majors may also use this business model as a ‘preventive strategy’ to restrict market entry of number of players for an off-patent molecule and thereby effectively contain the extent of price erosion, as the brands will go off-patent.

It will, therefore, be quite interesting to watch, what happens in the global generic pharmaceutical business in the next five to ten years. I expect a significant consolidation taking place in this market, both global and local.

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.

Improving ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India –Public Private Partnership (PPP) is the way forward.

Posted on by
Reply
Despite various measures being taken by the Government of India (GoI) from time to time, around 65% of Indian population are not having access to modern medicines. It appears, GoI is of the view that the reason for poor ‘access to modern medicines’ to a vast majority of our population is intimately linked to the issue of ‘affordability of medicines’.To make medicines affordable to the common man, the Government took a radical step in 1972 by passing a law to abolish products patent in India. The change in paradigm at that time, encouraged domestic pharmaceutical players to manufacture and market even those latest and innovative drugs, which were protected by patents, n many countries of the world. The new ball game enabled the domestic players to highly specialize in ‘reverse engineering’ and launch generic versions of most of the New Chemical Entities (NCEs)at a fraction of the innovators price, in India.This shift in Paradigm in 1972, catapulted the Indian domestic pharmaceutical industry to a newer orbit of success. India in that process, over a period of time, established itself as a major force to reckon with, in the generic pharmaceutical markets of the world. Currently, the domestic pharmaceutical industry in India caters to around one third of the global requirement of generic pharmaceuticals.

From 1972 to 2005 domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies focused on replicating all most all blockbuster drugs, like for example, major Cox2 inhibitors (Merck and Pfizer), Viagra and Lipitor (Pfizer) etc, to low price generic substitutes and that too just within a year or two from the date of first launch of these products in the developed markets of the world.

In 1972, the Market share of the Indian domestic companies, as a percentage to turnovers of the total pharmaceutical industry of India, was around 20%. During the era of ‘reverse engineering’, coupled with many top class manufacturing and marketing strategies, domestic Indian pharmaceutical players wheezed past their multinational (MNCs) counterparts in the race of market share, exactly reversing the situation in 2009.

‘Reverse engineering’ was one of the key growth drivers of domestic pharmaceutical industry during this period. In its absence, during post IPR regime, the growth rate of branded generic industry is not expected to be as spectacular. However, the low cost ‘essential medicines’ will continue to be produced and marketed in India in future, as well.

Be that as it may, from 1972 to 2005, India could produce and offer even the latest NCEs, at a fraction of their international price, to the Indian population. There were as many as 40 to over 60 generic versions of each successful blockbuster drug of the world, in India. Cut-throat competition was intense and still it is, which keeps the average price of such medicines well under control. To further tighten its grip over pharmaceutical products pricing, GoI imposed stringent price control and price monitoring mechanism simultaneously, which are in place even today. Despite competitive pricing pressure coupled with Government price control, over nearly four decades, with a key policy focus on ‘affordability of medicines’, why then ‘access to modern medicine’ remained abysmal for a vast majority of the population of India?

To address this vexing problem, Industry Associations reported to have suggested a policy shift towards public-private-partnership (PPP) model to the Ministry of Chemicals and fertilizers in 2006-07. At that time, the Associations seem to have offered that the Pharmaceutical Industry will supply to the GoI the essential medicines at 50% of their Maximum Retail Price (MRP), to cater to the need of the common man, especially those who are below the poverty line (BPL).

However, to make this proposal effective there is a fundamental need for the Government to quickly initiate significant ‘capacity building’ exercise, initially in our primary and then in the secondary healthcare value chain. Towards this direction, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) reported to have suggested to the Government for an investment of around US$ 80 billion to create over 2 million hospital beds.

Frugal budget allocation (1.12%) of the GoI towards healthcare as % of GDP of the country, suggests that Government is gradually shifting its role in this very important area, primarily from healthcare provider to healthcare facilitator for the private sectors to develop it further. In such a scenario, it is imperative for the government to realize that the lack of even basic primary healthcare infrastructure, leave aside other incentives, impede effective penetration of private sectors into semi-urban and rural areas. PPP model should be worked out to address such issues, effectively.

I have highlighted the remedial measures to be taken to address this situation in my article, which can be read by clicking on the following link:

http://www.tapanray.in/profiles/blogs/65-of-indians-do-not-have

Over 70 percent of our population are located in rural India. A relatively recent study indicates that despite some major projects undertaken by the Governments, like National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), about 80 percent of doctors, 75 percent dispensaries and 60 percent of hospitals are located in urban India. Another recent initiative taken by the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) called ‘Jan Aushadhi’ is also orientated towards urban and semi-urban India.

I had deliberated upon the ways to increase penetration of ‘Jan Aushadhi’ in rural India, in another article, which can be read by clicking on the following link:

http://www.tapanray.in/profiles/blogs/jan-aushadhi-medicines-for

The net result of such policy initiatives, denies over 65 percent of Indian rural population from having access to quality healthcare services. Such lack of focus on rural areas, perhaps will explain the reason why only 35 percent of Indian population is having access to modern medicines.

Instead of trying to find a solution for this alarming ‘access to medicines’ problem, by limiting focus mainly on the issue of ‘affordability’ of medicines, for several decades, the Government is doing a great disservice to the common man, mainly located in the rural and semi-urban India. It is now high time that the GoI analyzes the available data to address the root cause of poor healthcare delivery, infrastructure and almost total lack of healthcare financing for all strata of Indian society.

Let me hasten to add that in no way I am trying to say that ‘affordability of medicines’ is no issue in India. All I am saying is that an integrated approach towards the root causes will quite effectively take care of ‘affordability’ issue and NOT the vice versa.

Even a problem of such magnitude can be converted into an opportunity. India can certainly be made a global hub for quality and affordable healthcare services, flashes of which we see in medical tourism initiatives.

Therefore, to address the acute problem of ‘access to modern medicines’ to a vast majority of the Indian population, GOI should reach all out to attract significant private and even foreign direct investments (FDI) through innovative Private Public Partnership initiatives. A strong will to have an ‘out of box’ solution to this critical problem is the crying need of the hour.

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.

Simmering discontentment in the functioning of the Indian Patent Office (IPO) – urgent need to tighten the ‘loose knots’ in the system.

Posted on by
Reply
Indian Patent office (IPO) though is headquartered at Kolkata, because of some unknown reason, the office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM)is located in Mumbai with other two offices at New Delhi and Chennai. Moreover, the office of the ‘Patent Information System’ is located at Nagpur. Scattered location of the IPO, many believe, could be an impediment in ensuring uniformity in operations between all its units. Such an opinion is debatable though, I shall not deliberate on this issue in this article.The point that I shall argue upon is the crying need in the IPO to tighten 15 identified ‘loose knots’in its operation, which are causing considerable concern within stakeholders, who are casting serious aspersions in its efficiency.There are some areas where our IPO is doing quite well. I shall also dwell upon those areas before highlighting the areas of improvements.

The new IPR regime came into force from January 1, 2005. Even 4 years down the line, the IPO still remains grossly understaffed. Growing dissatisfaction with the current functioning of the IPO is fast sapping initial enthusiasm of the innovators on the new IPR regime in the country. ‘The glass’ now perpetually looks as ‘half empty’, as it were and will continue to do so, if corrective measures are not taken, forthwith.

The information available from the IPO website indicates that all the four centers put together, there are just 134 Examiners, 31 Assistant Controllers, 4 Deputy Controllers and 1 Joint Controller. Staff attrition rate within the IPOs has been reported to be reasonably high, which incidentally appears to be one of the key issues of their inefficiency. These trained IPO personnel are being poached mainly by the private sector enterprises, offering significantly higher remuneration. At the same time, there appears to be 3 times increase in the number of applications filed in the last five years, complicating the situation further.

The silver lining is, despite all these, the performance of IPO quantitatively speaking, is really not as poor. Around 11,000 patents were granted by the IPOs in 2007-08. This number, when translated into average number of patents granted per day, works out to be 50. This figure, when viewed in terms of number of patents granted against the number of applications made, compares reasonably well with the developed nations of the world like, USA and EU. It is worth noting that in those countries the product patent regime is in place, since long.

Indian Patent Act 2005 is believed to be more stringent than the prevailing Patent Acts in the USA or EU. It is good to note that quoting the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) it has been reported that each Indian Patent Examiner examines about 100 applications per annum against 50 to 80 in the USA and the EU. This is indeed laudable.

Indian Patent Office is currently going through ‘capacity building’ exercises. The efforts being made towards this direction are expected to make the IPOs more efficient, hopefully, in pursuit of excellence.

India has recently been approved as an International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). This, in turn, will significantly increase the workload of the IPO.

When we are mentioning about the PCT, perhaps it will not be out of place to say that some section in India argues in favour of the need to include the International Nonproprietary Names (INN) in the title of pharmaceutical patent applications by the IPO. However, as INNs are not required in the title of patent applications under Article 27(1) of the PCT, such a requirement, in my view, could appear to conflict with the PCT.

Thus, it has now become more essential that the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) tightens the ‘loose knots’ in the IPO system, immediately, to make it efficient and effective.

In this article I shall not go into much debated and discussed, ‘Indian Patent Manual’ issue. I shall only submit the following 15 suggestions towards achieving the above objective:

1. To effectively cope with its growing workload, the Patent office should upgrade its IT facilities and ensure that patent examiners are trained to handle the filing and prosecution of patent applications.

2. Electronic-filing of patent applications has been introduced, but there is no facility of paying the fees online by credit card. This facility should be introduced to make it more convenient for applicants to file patent application online. This will also add speed to the process.

3. Electronic prosecution of patent applications should be introduced to make the patent prosecution paperless and more efficient.

4. To encourage applicants to file applications electronically, incentives such as reduced fees should be offered to applicants who file their applications electronically.

5. The Patent Office has in the past experienced problems in locating and managing physical application files. It is therefore recommended that the Patent Office introduce systems for better management and storage of physical files. Using a system of bar codes on the physical files could be one such system.

6. The Patent Office should digitize all of its physical files so that file histories of each application will be available online.

7. The Indian Patents Database and the Indian Designs Database to be released without further delay.

8. An efficient system to be introduced to ensure timely publication of all patent applications and proceedings that are eligible for publication in the technical journal of the IPO. Currently there is inordinate delay, for example Delhi Patent Office is now publishing applications for 2005

9. Patent applications that are published in the official gazette have minimal information. It is therefore recommended that the official gazette include more details of the applications in order to avoid any frivolous or unnecessary oppositions being filed.

10. The Patent office does not have any centers, which provide assistance to applicants for filing or prosecuting applications. It is therefore recommended that assistance centers should be established to help applicants to file and prosecute applications in India.

11. Clear guidelines to be issued for conducting pre-grant and post grant opposition proceedings. Presently they are being handled in an arbitrary manner

12. In order to avoid any frivolous pre-grant opposition during the prosecution of the application, the Patent Office should introduce a fixed fee that has to be paid to the Patent Office at the time of filing of a pre-grant opposition. This will help to avoid frivolous delays in the grant of the patent.

13. In order to introduce an efficient system of patent prosecution, it is recommended that the Patent Office adjust patent term to compensate patentees for any delay in the grant of the patent that reduces the term of the patent, when such delay is caused solely by the Patent office.

14. Decision making and its communication to all concerned to be made faster at the IPO. A system to be instituted for issuing the operative part of the decision first, followed by details of the decision taken. These should be advertised immediately in the technical journal to close proceedings at the earliest. Delays are leading to extensive delays in the grant of patents even if the proceedings have been concluded (opposition or otherwise) attracting serial and frivolous pre-grant oppositions. Such delays are also preventing the patent applicants to get their grants and are, therefore, unable to initiate infringement proceedings against infringers quickly, defeating the very purpose of the patent and trademark system.

15. The timeline for an application to be taken up for examination to be clearly defined. Currently, there is no time defined for taking up the applications for examination.

It will indeed be great, if the DIPP and the IPO take note of these suggestions and formalize a process within the IPO to address these issues. A growing discontentment in several areas of operation within the IPO is brewing, both in India and abroad. If such discontentment increases further, it may have serious impact on the credibility of the new IPR regime in India.

Will the Government of India want that to happen? I hope not.

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.

R&D and Protection of IPR related to Pharma sector, are now the responsibilities of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) – a quick look at the initiatives taken by the department.

Posted on by
Reply
On July 2, 2008, the Cabinet Secretariat of the Government of India notified creation of a new department to be known as the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers with an objective to have a sharper focus on the Pharmaceuticals Industry of India. In that notification besides other important areas, Research and Development (R&D) and protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) related to the Pharmaceutical sector, were brought under the newly created department.In this discussion let us try to have a look at the progress in both the R&D and IPRareas, separately.After creation of the new department, the Minister of Chemicals and Fertilisers Shri Ram Vilas Paswan, announced a proposed allocation of Rs. 10,000 crores (around US$ 2 billion), together with necessary regulatory reforms, towards annual Pharmaceutical R&D funding by the DoP.

The Government expects that such initiatives will help bringing in transformation of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry from brilliant and highly successful ‘imitators’ to world class ‘innovators’ of path breaking medicines. Discovery of such medicines in India is also expected to help the Government significantly, to improve access to affordable innovative modern medicines to the common man of the country. All these are no doubt, very laudable initiatives by the DoP, with a very capable, effective and a ‘can do’ leader at its helm.

The DoP plans to bring in significant changes in the clinical trial facilities available within the country. Currently even very basic clinical trials on ‘dogs’ cannot be undertaken because of protests from the activists related to ‘prevention of cruelty on animals’. Such reform measures, I am sure, will be sincerely welcomed by many.

It is interesting to note that the DoP is also planning to extend Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) to innovators. It has been reported that the invaluable data generated by the innovators towards development of the New Molecular Entity (NME) will, in near future, be protected from ‘piracy’ during 20 year patent life of the product. However, the DoP cautions that attempt to ‘evergreen patent’ through data protection, beyond the patent life of a product will not be permitted.

The argument of the innovators on this issue is that Product Patent and Clinical Data are two different types of intellectual properties and should not be considered as one and the same. While patent protection is extended for discovery of the molecule, data protection is for the immense and expensive clinical data that the innovators share with the Government for regulatory approval of the patented molecule, within the country. The argument that such valuable data generated by the innovators is an intellectual property (IP), lies in the premise that if the innovator would not have been required to part with the data with the regulatory authorities, such data would have been regarded as a ‘trade secret’, which is an IP. Therefore, the innovators argue that for sharing this IP with the Government, specific period of data protection to be extended to them, which should be unrelated to the life of the patent.

Thus far, we see that DoP has taken some very important and admirable initiatives to encourage R&D within the country. However, while looking at another important area of its responsibility i.e. protection of IPR within the Pharmaceutical sector, nothing has been announced by the department, as yet.

Encouraging R&D without effective protection of IPR, points towards an incomplete agenda to effectively address pharmaceutical product innovation related issues by the department. I sincerely hope that the DoP will soon announce its policy initiatives towards IPR protection to further encourage the innovators, both within and outside the country.

The DoP has taken some significant steps to address various important issues of the pharmaceutical industry under its terms of reference, within a very short period. I look forward to knowing from the DoP the detail initiatives in each of its nine functions and responsibilities, as announced in the notification of the cabinet secretariat on July 2, 2008.

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 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.

65% of Indians do not have access to affordable modern medical treatment – why?

Posted on by
Reply
India is indeed a country of many paradoxes. Not just peaceful co-existence of luxurious sky scrapers and dilapidated shanties side by side. In the healthcare sector as well, we witness on one side booming medical tourism of foreign nationals to get various types of ailments treated with the best possible medical amenities, just when on the other side common diseases like, malaria and tuberculosis are taking the common man on a rampage. Is India, therefore, ignoring the crying need to strike a balance between extending cost competitive healthcare benefits to the ‘haves’ of the world without neglecting the domestic ‘have nots’?Another paradox, when India caters significantly to the growing needs of the world for low cost generic medicines, 65% of Indian population cannot afford the same and do not have access even to a doctor.In a situation like this, what sort of equitable distribution of healthcare benefits are we then talking about? Isolated attempts of opening low cost generic medicine shops, enforcing rigorous non-transparent price control, attempt to divert the debate on the price of patented medicines which contribute miniscule decimal points on the total pharma market in India, can at best be termed as populist measures, instead of trying to look at the macro picture to address the pressing healthcare issues of the country.

When we talk about affordability, why do we not talk about affordability of medical treatment as a whole and not just affordability of medicine, for one or many ailments that the common man suffers from? Will our government try to address this bigger issue in a holistic way?

What could possibly be the reasons for such inaction? Is it because improper co-ordination, if not lack of co-ordination, between various Government departments, the ultimate victim of which is the common man?

Such a situation reminds me of an old story of three blind men and an elephant. After touching the trunk of the elephant, one blind man describes the elephant as a large Python, touching a leg of the elephant, the other blind man describes it as a pillar. The third blind man while touching the body of the elephant describes it as a strong wall. Unfortunately no one could describe the elephant as it really is and no one in this particular case was helping them to do so, either.

Could it be that various departments of our Governments are acting like these blind men and are not seeing the big picture – the elephant of the above story? It appears that the Pharmaceutical department of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers believes that only the price of medicines is the key issue for an ailing patient while going for a medical treatment and not the cost of total treatment. Thus, they seem to be working full time to drive down only the price of medicines.

The Ministry of Health is also trying to do a little bit of something in some not so known areas. The Ministry possibly believes that they are effectively helping everybody to address the pressing healthcare issues. It does not so appear that the Ministry realizes that majority of our population does not have access to affordable modern treatment for the ailments that they are suffering from. Number of doctors, nurses, hospital beds etc. per 1000 of Indian population is still abysmally low even compared to some developing nations. Cost of getting a disease diagnosed even before any medicine is prescribed is sky rocketing, at a break neck speed. Which Government department is trying to address the cost of disease burden and trying to alleviate it for all of us, in a holistic way?

Here comes another paradox. While the Pharmaceutical Department intends to bring down the price to make the drug affordable, the Finance Ministry keeps the transaction cost of medicines at a high level by levying various taxes to improve its revenue collection, ultimately making the same medicine less affordable.

In the developed nations and also in many emerging markets healthcare financing or health insurance for all strata of the society is being successfully implemented to address the key issue of improving access to affordable modern treatment to a vast majority of the population. Even after 61 years of independence we have not been able to address this critical healthcare financing issue effectively.

Piece meal approach of our Government has not succeeded much to address this important issue of the country. Taking one-off populist measures of various types and creating media hype may not help sorting out this issue, at all.

The way forward, very broadly speaking, is to bring the entire healthcare policy making and implementation functions under one ministry. If that is not possible, the concerned ministries should work in unison, with effective procedural interfaces being put in place for proper co-ordination with a clear goal of improving access to affordable modern treatment to all.

Is it not a shame on us that even today, 65% of Indian population does not have access to affordable modern medical treatment?

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.

We need to encourage the new product patent regime

Posted on by
Reply
Ushering in the Product Patent Regime in India heralds the dawn of a new era. The era that vindicates not only the need to encourage, protect and reward innovation for the rapid progress of our nation but also to compete effectively, in the knowledge economy with the best in the world to establish India as a leading country with a significant share of the global economy.However, it is quite unfortunate that the patents that protect today’s innovations and drive research and development to create tomorrow’s life-saving treatments are under criticism from some quarters.India chose to follow an alternative to Product Patent regime for many years. In 1970, the Government of India amended its IP laws with a clear objective in mind to reduce the prices of medicines to improve their access to the ailing population of the country.

As a result, some drugs were made cheaper. However, the moot question that we need to address now: was it a panacea? While looking back, it does not really appear so. On the contrary, the situation remained as gloomy thereafter, so far as the access of medicines is concerned. After almost 4 decades of continuation with the above policy, around 65% of Indian population still do not have access to cheaper off-patent medicines against comparative figures of 47% in Africa and 15% in China (Source: International Policy Network, November 2004).

Children still go without routine vaccinations, though the Government has made the primary vaccination programs free in our country, for all. Even in a situation like this, where affordability is no issue, only about 44% of infants (12 – 23 months) are fully vaccinated against six major childhood diseases – tuberculosis, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio and measles.

Moreover, as we know, despite distribution of cheaper generic HIV-AIDS drugs by the Government and others mostly free for years, only 5% of India’s AIDS patients were receiving any drugs by the end of 2006.

The above two important examples prove the point very clearly that, addressing the issue of price alone will not help our country to solve the issue of poor access of medicine to the ailing population of India. Only a sharp focus on rejuvenation of our fragile healthcare system, healthcare financing and rapid development of healthcare infrastructure of the country by the Government or through Public Private Partnership (PPP), will help address this pressing issue.

Indian Patent Act 2005 has paved the way for innovation and hi-tech research and development within the country. Contrary to adverse forecasts from some quarters, prices of medicines have not gone up.

However, while medicines play a relatively small role in rising overall health care spending including hospitalization, it is important to ensure that individuals with large healthcare expenses have affordable access to their medicines. Thus a good affordable insurance coverage (both Government and Private) available to all Indians belonging to various socio-economic strata, together with the above measures, will help address the key issues of both access and affordability of medicines for all, in a holistic way.

The attack on patents is not really a defense of patients or the poor. Such attacks help diverting attention from the core healthcare issues, as mentioned above, which are healthcare system, healthcare financing and healthcare infrastructure. Health of our nation will depend on how well these key issues are being addressed by the policy and decision makers. Our country cannot afford to ignore that Intellectual Property is one of the keys to prosperity of a great nation like India and it should be encouraged, protected and rewarded under a robust Patent Act of the country for inclusive growth.

By Tapan Ray

Disclaimer:Views/opinion expressed in this article are entirely my personal, written on my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or any organization for this opinion.