Should high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, be attributed to high R&D cost?

Posted on February 13, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Many thought leaders have been arguing since long that pharmaceutical R&D expenses are being over stated and the real cost is much less. An article titled “Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research”, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2011 indicates that the total cost from discovery and development stages of a new drug to its market launch was around US$ 802 million in year 2000. This was worked out in 2003 by the ‘Tuft Center for the Study of Drug Development’ in Boston, USA.

However, in 2006 the same figure increased by 64 per cent to US$ 1.32 billion, as reported by a pharmaceutical industry association. Maintaining similar trend, if one assumes that the R&D cost will increase by another 64 per cent by 2012, the cost to bring a new drug to the market through its discovery and development stages will be around US $2.16 billion. This will mean a 2.7 times increase from its year 2000 estimate, the article says.

The authors mentioned that the following factors were not considered while working out the 2006 figure of US$ 1.32 billion:

The tax exemptions that the companies avail for investing in R&D.
Tax write-offs amount to taxpayers’ contributing almost 40% of the R&D cost.
The cost of basic research (should not have been included), as these are mostly done in public funded universities or laboratories.

The article comments that ‘half the R&D costs are inflated estimates of profits that companies could have made if they had invested in the stock market instead of R&D and include exaggerated expenses on clinical trials’.

The authors alleged that “Pharmaceutical companies have a strong vested interest in maximizing figures for R&D as high research and development costs have been the industry’s excuse for charging high prices. It has also helped generating political capital worth billions in tax concessions and price protection in the form of increasing patent terms and extending data exclusivity.”

The study concludes by highlighting that “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company is probably about US$ 60 million.”

Declining Pharmaceutical R&D productivity:

That pharmaceutical R&D productivity is fast declining has been vindicated by ‘2011 Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook’ complied by Thomson Reuters, the key highlights of which are as follows:

21 new molecular entities (NMEs) were launched in the global market in 2010, which is a decrease from 26 NMEs of the previous year.
2010 saw the lowest number of NMEs launched by major Pharma players in the last 10 years
The number of drugs entering Phase I and Phase II clinical trials fell 47% and 53% respectively during the year.

Does pharmaceutical R&D always create novel drugs?

According to a recent report, US-FDA approved 667 new drugs from 2000 to 2007. Out of which only 75 (11%) were innovative molecules having much superior therapeutic profile than the existing ones. However, more than 80% of 667 approved molecules were not found to be better than those, which are already available in the market. Thus, the question very often being raised by many is, why so much money is spent on discovery and development of ‘me-too’ drugs and thereafter for their prescription generation through aggressive marketing, when the patients pay for the entire cost of such drugs including the profit after being prescribed by the doctors?

A global CEO challenged the status quo:

By challenging the status quo, Andrew Witty, the global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in his speech in Mumbai on September 27, 2011 to the members of the Indian pharmaceutical industry commented that the cost of over a billion dollar to bring a new molecule to the market through its discovery and development stages is “unacceptable.” He attributed such high R&D expenses to the ‘cost of failure’ by the industry.

Witty said, “High in-house failure rates are slowing progress on pricing affordability… We need to fail less and deliver more”.

He commented during his deliberation that success in reducing the R&D cost to make innovative drugs more affordable to the patients of all income levels, across the globe, will be the way forward in the years ahead.

Ways to reduce the R&D cost:

Some other experts articulated that sharp focus in the following areas may help containing the R&D expenditure to a great extent and the savings thus made, in turn, can fund a larger number of R&D projects:

Early stage identification of unviable new molecules and jettisoning them quickly
Newer cost efficient R&D models, like one implemented by GSK
Significant reduction in drug development time.

An opposite view:

The book titled “Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks, and Rewards”, published by the government of USA states that the three most important components of R&D investment are:

Money
Time
Risk

Money is just one component of investment together with a long duration of time to reap the benefits of success intertwined with a very high risk of failure. The investors in the pharmaceutical R&D projects not only take into account of how much investment is required for the project against expected financial returns, but also the timing of inflow and outflow of fund with associated risks. It is thus quite understandable that longer is the wait for the investors to get their return, greater will be their expectations for the same.

The publication also highlights that the cost of bringing a new drug from the ‘mind to market’ depends on quality and sophistication of science and technology involved in a particular R&D process together with associated investment requirements for the same. In addition, regulatory requirements to get marketing approval of a complex molecule for various serious disease types are also getting more and more stringent, increasing their cost of clinical development simultaneously. All these factors when taken together make the cost of R&D very high and unpredictable.

Thus to summarize, high pharmaceutical R&D costs involve:

Sophisticated science and technology dependent high up-front financial investments
A long and indefinite period of negative cash flow
High tangible and intangible costs for acquiring technology with rapid trend of obsolescence
High risk of failure at any stage of product development

Conclusion:

While getting engaged in to this debate, one should possibly keep in mind that effective patent exclusivity period in the pharmaceutical industry is much limited as compared to any other industry across the globe. This is mainly because a long period of 8-10 years goes between drug discovery/grant of patent, drug development and market launch of the new molecule, when it starts recovering the cost and making a profit. Thus the period of effective commercial exclusivity that a new drug enjoys through patent protection usually lasts not more than 10 to 12 year period.

For all these reasons and despite such a huge controversy, I wonder, even if the R&D expenditures are brought down to the year 2000 level of US$ 802 million through various productivity improvement measures, whether it will really be possible to develop a commercial R&D model by any pharmaceutical company to deliver low price innovative drugs ensuring high access to majority of the patients. For that one should possibly look at other R&D models like, ‘Patent Pool’ and ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ systems along with various funding options.

Thus in my view, high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, should by and large be attributed to high R&D cost. However, there is not even an iota of doubt about commercial unsustainability of such ballooning research and development expenditures even in the medium term.

That said, the arithmetic of pricing for a new marketable molecule could change dramatically, if “the real R&D cost for a drug borne by a pharmaceutical company be just about US$ 60 million”, as argued by the authors of a publication quoted above, though the figure, I reckon, is quite unrealistic.

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.

Pharmaceutical innovation and Public Health Interest: Ways to achieving the dual objectives

Posted on February 6, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Healthcare industry in general and the pharmaceutical sector in particular have been experiencing a plethora of innovations not only to cure and effectively manage ailments to improve the quality of life, but also to help increasing overall disease-free life expectancy of the population with various types of treatment and disease management options. Unfortunately despite all these, over half the global population is still denied of basic healthcare needs and support.

A 2011 official estimate of the current world population reads as 6.93 billion. Out of which over three billion live with a subsistence of less than US$ 2 per day. Another billion population is surviving on even less than US$ 1 per day. According to published reports around 18 million people die from poverty-related causes across the world, every year.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that over a billion population of the world still suffer from neglected tropical diseases.

On February 3, 2012, quoting a ‘World Bank and PwC report’, ‘The Economic Times’ reported that “70% of Indians spend all their income on healthcare and buying drugs.”

In a situation like this, challenges that the governments and the civil society are facing in many developing and to some extent even in some developed countries (although for different reasons), are multi-factoral. It has been well established that the humongous global healthcare challenges are mostly of economic origin.

In such a scenario, ongoing heated debate on innovation, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and public health interest keeps gaining momentum all over the globe and has still remained unabated.

Argumentative Indians have also got caught in this raging debate. I reckon rightly so, as India is not only the largest democracy of the world contributing 16.7% of the global population, it is also afflicted with 21% of the global burden of disease. Thus, the reason for similar heated debate in our country is indeed no brainer to any one.

Thorny issues:

One of the thorny issues in this debate is the belief that huge R&D budgets of the global pharmaceutical companies are worked out without any consideration of relative value of such investments to the vast majority of population in our society, across the world. These thought leaders argue, as the poor cannot pay for the expensive innovative drugs, they are mostly denied of the fruits of pharmaceutical innovation in their battle against diseases.

These experts also say that safeguards built into the patent system in form of compulsory licenses are not usually broad enough to improve access to innovative medicines to a larger section of the society, whenever required.

In addition, they point out that wide scope of patent grants in areas of early fundamental research, quite often is strategically leveraged by the patentee to block further R&D in related areas without significant commercial considerations to them. Such a situation comes in the way of affordable innovative drug development for public health interest, when need arises.

Inadequate access to medicines in India:

The key issue in the country is even more complicated. Inadequate or lack of access to modern medicines reportedly impacts around 50% of our population. It is intriguing to fathom, why has the nation not been able to effectively address the challenge of access to relatively affordable high quality generic medicines to the deprived population of the society over a period of so many decades?

Thus IPR in no way be considered as the reason for poor access, at least, to generic medicines, especially in India. Neither, it is the reason for inadequate availability of affordable essential medicines for the diseases of the poor.

The key reason, as is widely believed, is inadequate focus on the deprived population to address their public health concerns by the government.

Pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease:

A study titled, ‘Pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease in developing and developed countries’ of Columbia University and National Bureau of Economic Research, to ascertain the relationship across diseases between pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease both in the developed and developing countries, reported that pharmaceutical innovation is positively related to the burden of disease in the developed countries but not so in the developing countries.

The most plausible explanation for the lack of a relationship between the burden of disease in the developing countries and pharmaceutical innovation, as pointed out by the study, is weak incentives for firms to develop medicines for the diseases of the poor.

A healthy debate:

Many experts argue that greater focus on the development of new drugs for the diseases of the poor, should not be considered as the best way to address and eradicate such diseases in the developing countries. On the contrary, strengthening basic healthcare infrastructure along with education and the means of transportation from one place to the other could improve general health of the population of the developing world quite dramatically.

However, another school of experts think very differently. In their opinion, health infrastructure projects are certainly very essential elements of achieving longer-term health objectives of these countries, but in the near term, millions of unnecessary deaths in the developing countries can be effectively prevented by offering more innovative drugs at affordable prices to this section of the society.

Creation of IGWG by WHO:

Responding to the need of encouraging pharmaceutical innovation without losing focus on public health interest, in 2006 the ‘World Health Organization (WHO)‘ created the ‘Inter-governmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG)‘. The primary focus of IGWG is on promoting sustainable, needs-driven pharmaceutical R&D for the diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries.

‘Reward Fund’ for innovation and access – an idea:

A paper titled, “Optional reward for new drug for developing countries” published by the Department of Economics, University of Calgary, Institute of Health Economics, proposed an optional reward fund for pharmaceutical innovation aimed at the developing world to the pharmaceutical companies, which would develop new drugs while ensuring their adequate access to the poor. The paper suggests that innovations with very high market value will use the existing patent system, as usual. However, the medicines with high therapeutic value but low market potential would be encouraged to opt for the optional reward system.

It was proposed that the optional reward fund should be created by the governments of the developed countries and charitable institutions to ensure a novel way for access to innovative medicines by the poor.

The positive effects of the debate:

One positive effect of this global debate is that some global pharmaceutical companies like Novartis, GSK and AstraZeneca have initiated their R&D activities for the neglected tropical diseases of the world like, Malaria and Tuberculosis.

Many charitable organizations like Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Clinton Foundation are allocating huge amount of funds for this purpose.

On January 30, 2012, on behalf of the research-based pharmaceutical industry, Geneva based International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) by a Press Release announced donations of 14 billion treatments in this decade to support elimination or control of nine key Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs).

Without creating much adverse impact on pharmaceutical innovation ecosystem of the country, the Government of India is also gradually increasing its resource allocation to address the issue of public health, which is still less than adequate as of now.

All these newer developments and initiatives are definitely ushering in an era of positive change for a grand co-existence of pharmaceutical innovation and public health interest of the country, slow and gradual though, but surely a change for the better.

Innovation helps to improve public health:

In India, various stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry feel that there is a need to communicate more on how innovation and IPR help rather than hinder public health. Some initiatives have already been taken in this direction with the pioneering ‘patent pool’ initiative of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in Europe and ‘Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD)’ by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) of the Government of India.

The pace needs to be accelerated:

The pace of achieving the dual objectives of fostering pharmaceutical innovation without losing focus on public health has to be accelerated, though progress is being slowly made in these areas through various initiatives. Additional efforts are warranted for sustainability of these initiatives, which have not yet gained the status of robust and sustainable work models.

However in India, the government in power should shoulder the key responsibility garnering all resources to develop and implement ‘Universal Health Coverage’ through appropriate innovative healthcare reform measures. Such steps will help achieving the country its national goal of providing affordable healthcare to all.

At the same time, creation of a variant of ‘reward fund’ to encourage smaller pharmaceutical players of India to pursue pharmaceutical innovation needs to be considered expeditiously. This will help encouraging pharmaceutical innovation in a big way within the country.

Address the basic issue of poverty:

It is a well-accepted fact that the price is one of the key determinants to improve access to modern medicines to a vast majority of the population. However, the moot question remains how does one make medicines more affordable by not addressing effectively the basic issue of general poverty in the country? Without appropriately resolving this issue, affordability of medicines will continue remain a vexing problem and a critical issue to address public health in India.

Conclusion:

Innovation, as is widely acknowledged, is the wheel of progress of any nation. This wheel should move on… on and on with the fuel of IPR, which is an economic necessity of the innovator to make the innovation sustainable.

In the book titled, ‘Pharmaceutical Innovation: Revolutionizing Human Health‘ the authors have illustrated how science has provided an astonishing array of medicines to effectively cope with human ailments over the last 150 years.

Moreover, pharmaceutical innovation is a very expensive process and grant of patents to the innovators is an incentive of the government to them for making necessary investments towards R&D projects to meet unmet needs of the patients. The system of patent grants also contributes to society significantly by making freely available patented information to other scientists to improve upon the existing innovation through non-infringing means.

Altruism, especially in the arena of public health, may be demanded by many for various considerations. Unfortunately, that is not how the economic model of pharmaceutical innovation and IPR works globally. Accepting this global reality, the civil society should deliberate on how innovation and IPR can best be used, in a sustainable manner for public health interest, especially for the marginalized section of the society.

By: Tapan J Ray

Healthcare Tourism: India needs to step on the gas

Posted on January 30, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Healthcare Tourism or Medical Tourism are the terminologies initially coined by the travel agents and the media when patients travel outside their national boundaries to seek either more specialized and/or cheaper but high quality healthcare available in other countries.

World Health Organization (WHO) defines Healthcare Tourism as an activity that covers:

Medical care
Sickness & well-being
Rehabilitation & recuperation

The reasons:

The main reasons of healthcare tourism are:

High medical costs, especially for those patients who are under-insured or uninsured
Long waiting period for elective surgery
To avail technologically more advanced medical treatment and care

For example, USA though globally recognized as one of the technologically most advanced countries in providing high quality healthcare to the patients, the cost of comprehensive healthcare in the country is often beyond reach of many Americans.

In not too distant past (2000), the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked USA as the country with most expensive healthcare systems in the world. Moreover, it has also been reported that in the US, the fees paid to doctors for medical services are usually much higher for an ‘uninsured’ patient than one who is ‘insured’.

Such a scenario has given rise to situation where many Americans travel out of the country for a lower cost medical care, if not adequately insured.

‘Time Health’ in an article titled ‘A Brief History of Medical Tourism’ stated as follows:

- In 2006: 150,000 US citizens underwent medical treatment abroad

- In 2007: the number grew to an estimated 750,000

- In 2008: it increased to 1.3 million

- In 2010: the figure further swelled to an estimated 6 million citizens.

The article commented that “Patients are packing suitcases and boarding planes for everything from face lifts to heart bypasses to fertility treatments.”

The key influencers and preferred destinations:

The most common influencer for healthcare tourism globally, as stated earlier, is lack of or inadequate health insurance and the most common emerging destinations for healthcare tourism in the world are Thailand, Singapore, Costa Rica, Panama, Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia and India. This is mainly because of fact that the costs of availing high quality healthcare services in these countries are much cheaper- on an average around 80%. For example, a cardiac surgery, which will cost more than US$ 50,000 in the US, can be availed for US$ 20,000 in Singapore, US$ 12,000 in Thailand and between US$ 3,000 and US$ 10,000 in India.

Other factors influencing Healthcare Tourism, particularly in India, besides significant cost advantages, are:

High quality treatment and hospital stay with world class medical technological support
Rigid compliance with international treatment standards
No language barrier with the western world
Government taking active steps and interest in the medical tourism sector

In all these four areas significant advantages that India offers will need to be adequately leveraged in a sustainable manner by the country.

Most popular treatment areas:

The most popular treatment areas are as follows:

Alternative medicines
IVF treatment
Bone-marrow transplant
Cardiac bypass
Eye surgery
Dental care
Cosmetic surgery
Other areas of advanced medicine

Evolving scenario:

Since last several years healthcare tourism is fast evolving as one of the key growth drivers of the global healthcare sector as a whole.

Dr. Fred Hansen in his article titled, ‘A Revolution in Healthcare’, highlighted that increasing number of high-quality healthcare facilities in the developing countries are attracting medical tourists from the developed countries like the US and the European Union (EU).

Apprehension in the US about growing Healthcare Tourism of India:

India Knowledge@Wharton in its June 2, 2011 issue reported as under:

In the past, US President Barack Obama had singled out India for what he sees as the country usurping American jobs and business.
In May 2009, he removed some tax incentives for US companies who allegedly preferred to outsource rather than create domestic jobs. “Buffalo before Bangalore” was his rallying call at the time.
In April 2011, he told a town hall gathering in Virginia that Americans shouldn’t have to go to India or Mexico for “cheap” health care. “I would like you to get it right here in the U.S.,” he said.
In January 2012, President Obama reiterated the same intent in the run up to the forthcoming US presidential election for his second term.

The Global Market:

In 2006 the global market for healthcare tourism was around US$ 60 billion. According to McKinsey & Company, this market is expected to expand to over US$110 billion by 2012.

India – a contender for supremacy:

Healthcare tourism in India, despite being smaller compared to the western world, is surging ahead both at the national and the regional levels with enormous potential for future growth, if explored appropriately with a carefully charted strategic game plan in its evolution process.

Currently India is emerging as one of the preferred destinations for global health tourists. The country received 150,000 medical tourists in 2004, which grew by 33% to 200,000 in 2008, mainly from the USA, UK and the Gulf countries, primarily due to low-priced and high quality healthcare in wide ranging disease areas. More and more people from these countries are finding the prospect of high quality and value added medical care in India financially attractive. As per estimates, India will receive over 500,000 medical tourists per year come 2015.

While visiting India for healthcare, patients not only get treated by the best medical professionals with western medical training, but also are able to stay in deluxe accommodations fully equipped with the latest television set, refrigerator and in some cases even a personal computer, without facing any language barrier and that too by paying just around 1/10th of the price charged in the developed nations.

Moreover, according to John Lancaster of ‘The Washington Post’ (October 21, 2004) Indian private hospitals have a better mortality rate for heart surgery than American hospitals.

With over 8,500 beds ‘Apollo Hospitals’ chain runs 53 different hospitals across the country, followed by “Max Healthcare” that runs 8 medical centers in the National Capital Region (NCR) in India.

Indian Market:

Economic Times, in its January 6, 2009 edition reported, “Indian medical tourism to touch Rs 9,500 Crore (around US $ 2.1 billion) by 2015”. Another report titled “Booming Medical Tourism in India”, published in December 2010 estimated that the medical tourism industry will generate revenues of around US$ 3 billion by 2013, though with a market share of just around 3% of the of global healthcare tourism industry. Thus, in healthcare tourism, India still remains a smaller player with enormous growth potential.

New job creation:

Both Public and private sector studies estimate that healthcare tourism in India could attract around US$ 3 billion to the country by 2013 with around 40 million direct and indirect job opportunities.

Cost advantage in India:

Cost Comparison: India vs UK:

Nature of Treatment	Treatment Approximate Cost in India ($) *	Cost in other Major Healthcare Destination ($) *	Approximate Waiting Periods in USA / UK (in months)
Open heart Surgery	4,500	> 18,000	9 – 11
Cranio-facial Surgery and skull base	4,300	> 13,000	6 – 8
Neuro-surgery with Hypothermia	6,500	> 21,000	12 – 14
Complex spine surgery with implants	4,300	> 13,000	9 – 11
Simple Spine surgery	2,100	> 6,500	9 – 11
Simple Brain Tumor -Biopsy -Surgery	1,000 4,300	> 4,300 > 10,000	6 – 8
Parkinson -Lesion -DBS	2,100 17,000	> 6,500 > 26,000	9 – 11
Hip Replacement	4,300	> 13,000	9 – 11

* These costs are an average and may not be the actual cost to be incurred.

(Source: Health Line)

The key components:

The following four basic components constitute the healthcare tourism industry: • Healthcare Providers: Hospitals, mainly corporate hospitals and doctors • Payers: Medical/ Health insurance companies • Pharmaceutical Companies: for high quality affordable medicines • IT Companies: operating in the healthcare space

Growth drivers and barriers:

Following are the key growth drivers:

Government support through policies and initiatives
High quality, yet low cost care
Much less or no waiting time
World class private healthcare infrastructure
Rich source of natural and traditional medicines. Ministry of Tourism is promoting the traditional systems of medicines, like, Ayurveda, Siddha, and Yoga to project India as a the destination of choice for spiritual wellness and healing

In future, the world class and low cost private sector healthcare services are expected to drive the growth of the medical tourism in India.

However, any shortages in the talent pool and inadequacy in other basic infrastructural support like roads, airports and power could pose to be barriers to growth of this sector, if not addressed immediately.

Government Assistance:

The government of India is now supporting the hospitals to get the Joint Commission International (JCI) accreditation.

In 2009 the government announced a revised guidelines for ‘Marketing Development Assistance (MDA)’ scheme for approved Medical Tourism service providers like, representatives of hospitals accredited by Joint Commission for International Accredited Hospitals (JCI) and National Accreditation Board of Hospitals (NABH) and Medical Tourism facilitators (Travel Agents/Tour Operators approved by Ministry of Tourism, Government of India and engaged in Medical Tourism (MTSP) and to the approved Wellness Centers i.e. representatives of the Wellness Centers accredited by the State Governments.

All these measures are expected to accelerate the growth of healthcare Tourism industry in India.

List of JCI Accredited Hospitals in India:

Following are the JCI Accredited Hospitals in India till 2007:

	Name and Place	Accredited on
1.	Indraprasta Apollo Hospital, New Delhi	June 18, 2005
2.	Wockhardt Hospital, Mumbai	August 25, 2005
3.	Apollo Hospitals, Chennai	January 29, 2006Disease- or Condition-Specific Care (DCSC)Certification for Acute Stroke: 29 April 2006
4.	Shroff Eye Hospital, Mumbai	February 18, 2006
5.	Apollo Hospitals, Hyderabad	April 28, 2006
6.	Asian Heart Institute, Mumbai	October 20, 2006
7.	Satguru Pratap Singh Apollo Hospital, Punjab	February 3, 2007
8.	Fortis Hospital, Mohali	June 15, 2007

Source: Joint Commission International, 2007

The challenges:

Following are the key challenges that India will need to address to emerge as a healthcare tourism hub of the world:

Improving the infrastructure
Adequate training of the staff
Enhancement of the image of India as a corruption-free country
Continuous improvement of overall service to the patients

Conclusion:

While encountering the global economic meltdown many corporate business houses, even in the developed nations of the world, are under a serious cost containment pressure, which includes medical expenses for their employees. Such cost pressure has already started prompting many companies to send their employees to low cost destinations for treatment, without compromising on the quality of their healthcare needs. This trend could offer an additional growth opportunity in the healthcare tourism sector in India.

According to the ‘Medical Tourism Climate Survey 2010’ report, the leading medical tourism destinations are currently India, Thailand, Hungary and Malaysia and the leading source of patients being again the USA, UK and Russian Federation.

The survey rates Thailand, India and Singapore as the best in terms of quality of overall patients’ care. Insurance and liability issues for the patients from some major markets of the world could pose to be a challenge for speedy growth of this industry.

Countries like, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia, located in quite closer proximity to India, will continue to offer a tough competition in the healthcare tourism space of the country.

In an increasingly heated-up fast evolving competitive scenario, the name of the game for India will be to ‘step on the gas’, sooner and effectively.

By: Tapan J Ray

Encourage vaccine research and improve its access to demonstrate ‘prevention is better than cure’

Posted on January 16, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Vaccines are one of the most successful and cost-effective public health interventions, which help preventing over 2 million deaths every year.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines vaccines as:

“A vaccine is any preparation intended to produce immunity to a disease by stimulating the production of antibodies. Vaccines include, for example, suspensions of killed or attenuated microorganisms, or products or derivatives of microorganisms. The most common method of administering vaccines is by injection, but some are given by mouth or nasal spray.”

Types of Vaccines:

As per the ‘National Institute of Health (NIH)’ of USA, following are some types of vaccines that researchers usually work on:

Live, attenuated vaccines
Inactivated vaccines
Subunit vaccines
Toxoid vaccines
Conjugate vaccines
DNA vaccines
Recombinant vector vaccines

The first vaccine:

In 1796, Edward Anthony Jenner not only discovered the process of vaccination, alongside developed the first vaccine of the world for mankind – smallpox vaccine. To develop this vaccine Jenner acted upon the observation that milkmaids who caught the cowpox virus did not catch smallpox.

As per published data prior to his discovery the mortality rate for smallpox was as high as up to 35%. Thus, Jenner is very often referred to as the “Father of Immunology”, whose pioneering work has “saved more lives than the work of any other person.”

Later on in 1901 Emil Von Behring received the first Nobel Prize (ever) for discovering Diphtheria serum therapy.

The future scope of vaccines:

The future scope of vaccines is immense as several potentially preventable diseases, as indicated below remain still unaddressed.

	Examples of effective Vaccines	Examples of Potentially VaccineTreatable Diseases
Bacterial	Diphtheria Haemophilus influenza type B Meningitis A, C Pneumococcus	Enterococcus Meningitis B, W, Y Group A Streptococcus Staphylococcus
Viral	Varicella Hepatitis B and C Influenza Polio	Pandemic influenza RSV West Nile Virus Epstein Barr Virus
Other		Cancer Alzheimer’s disease Substance abuse Autoimmune disorders

Source: Deutsche Bank Report

Expanded focus for vaccines:

The focus of the global vaccine industry also has been expanded from prophylactic vaccination for communicable disease (e.g. DTP vaccine) to therapeutic vaccines (e.g. Anti-cancer vaccines) and then possibly non-communicable disease vaccines (e.g. vaccines for coronary artery disease).

The Issues and Challenges:

To produce a safe and effective marketable vaccine, it takes reportedly around 12 to 15 years of painstaking research and development process involving an investment ranging between US $500 million and over $1 billion dollars (Ibid, 7).

Moreover, one will need to realize that the actual cost of vaccines will always go much beyond their R&D expenses. This is mainly because of dedicated and highly specialized manufacturing facilities required for mass-scale production of vaccines and then for the distribution of the same mostly using cold-chains.

Around 60% of the production costs for vaccines are fixed in nature (National Health Policy Forum. 25. January 2006:14). Thus such products will need to have a decent market size to be profitable.

Unlike many other medications for chronic ailments, which need to be taken for a long duration, vaccines are administered for a limited number of times, restricting their business potential.

Thus, the long lead time required for the ‘mind to market’ process for vaccine development together with high cost involved in their clinical trials/marketing approval process, special bulk/institutional purchase price and limited demand through retail outlets, restrict the research and development initiatives for vaccines, unlike many other pharmaceutical products.

Besides, even the newer vaccines will be required mostly for the diseases of the poor, like Malaria, Tuberculosis, HIV and ‘Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs)’ in the developing countries, which may not necessarily guarantee a decent return on investments for vaccines, unlike many other newer drugs. As a result, the key issue for developing a right type of newer vaccine will continue to be a matter of pure economics.

A great initiative called GAVI:

Around 23 million children of the developing countries are still denied of important and life-saving vaccines, which otherwise come rather easily to the children of the developed nations of the world.

To resolve this inequity in January 2000, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) was formed. This initiative was mainly aimed at generating sufficient fund to ensure availability of vaccines for children living in the 70 poorest countries of the world.

The GAVI Alliance has been instrumental in improving access to six common infant vaccines, including those for hepatitis B and yellow fever. GAVI is also working to introduce pneumococcal, rotavirus, human papilloma virus, meningococcal, rubella and typhoid vaccines in not too distant future.

A recent example:

As if to vindicate the above points, Reuters on December 16, 2011 reported that “Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are increasing sales of cut-price pneumonia vaccine to developing countries by more than 50 percent, marking the scale-up of an international program to protect millions of children.

GAVI is buying an additional 180 million doses of Pfizer’s pneumococcal vaccine Prevenar 13 and a similar quantity of GSK’s Synflorix at a deeply discounted price of US $3.50 a shot.”

Success with vaccines in disease prevention:

Diphtheria incidence in the US – Mortality 5/10,000 cases	Peak Incidence (1921)	Incidence today
	2,06,939	1

Tetanus incidence in the US – Mortality 3/10 cases	Peak Incidence (1927)	Incidence today
Tetanus incidence in the US – Mortality 3/10 cases	1,314	40

H. Influenza type B incidence in the US – Mortality 2-3/100 cases	Peak Incidence (1927)	Incidence today
	20,000	363

Source: Ehreth Vaccine 21:4105-4117

Development of vaccines through the passage of time:

No. of vaccines	Year	Vaccines
1.	1780-1800	Smallpox (first vaccine for any disease)
2.	1860-1880	Cholera
	1880-1900	Rabies
6.		Tetanus
		Typhoid fever
		Bubonic plague
11	1920-1940	Diphtheria
		Pertussis
		Tuberculosis
		Yellow fever
		Typhus
16	1940-1960	Influenza
		Polio
		Japanese encephalitis
		Anthrax
		Adenovirus-4 and 7
24	1960-1980	Oral polio
		Measles
		Mumps
		Rubella
		Chicken pox
		Pneumonia
		Meningitis
		Hepatitis B
28	1980-2000	Haemophilus influenzae type b
		Hepatitis A
		Lyme disease
		Rotavirus
29	2000-2010	Human papilloma virus

Current trend in vaccine development:

Malarial Vaccine:

Reuters on December 20, 2011 reported that an experimental malaria vaccine has been developed by the British scientists, which has the potential to neutralize all strains of the most deadly species of malaria parasite.

In October 2011, the data published for a large clinical trial conducted in Africa by GlaxoSmithKline on their experimental malaria vaccine revealed that the risk of children getting malaria had halved with this vaccine. Reuters also reported that other teams of researchers around the world are now working on different approaches to develop a malaria vaccine.

Tuberculosis vaccines:

On August 11, 2011, Aeras and the Oxford-Emergent Tuberculosis Consortium (OETC) announced with a ‘Press Release’ the commencement of a Phase IIb ‘proof-of-concept efficacy trial’ of a new investigational tuberculosis (TB) vaccine. OETC indicated that clinical trial for the drug will be undertaken by them in Senegal and South Africa with primary funding support from the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP).

Cancer vaccines:

Cancer vaccines are, in fact, biological response modifiers, which work by stimulating or restoring the ability of the immune system to fight the disease. There are two broad types of cancer vaccines:

Preventive vaccines: To prevent cancer in healthy people
Therapeutic vaccines: To treat cancer by strengthening the natural defense mechanism of the human body against the disease.

The United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) has approved the following cancer vaccines, which protect against two types of HPV that cause approximately 70% of all cases of cervical cancer globally:

Gardasil of Merck & Company
Cervarix of GlaxoSmithKline

The US FDA has also approved a cancer preventive vaccine that protects against HBV infection, which can cause liver cancer. It has been reported that the original HBV vaccine was approved in 1981 and currently most children in the US are vaccinated against HBV after their birth.

In addition, the US regulator has also approved a cancer vaccine for treatment of certain types of metastatic prostate cancer.

HIV Vaccines:

‘The AIDS Vaccine 2011 conference’ held in Bangkok in the month of September, 2011 discussed some of the latest findings on the following two vaccines for prevention and control of HIV disease progression:

A large trial of RV 144 vaccine in Thailand demonstrated the proof of concept that a preventive vaccine with a risk reduction of 31% could effectively work. The trial was supported by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS.
Bionor Pharma announced that clinical trial participants who received Vacc-4x “experienced a 70% viral load decrease relative to their level before starting Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART), compared with no notable reduction among placebo recipients.”

Promising ‘Therapeutic Vaccines’ undergoing clinical trial:

‘FierceVaccines’ in its October 27, 2011 reported the following 10 most promising therapeutic vaccines, which are now undergoing clinical trials on humans:

Molecule	Company	Indication
ICT-107	ImmunoCellular Therapeutics	Glioblastoma
VGX-3100	Inovio Pharmaceuticals	Cervical cancer
MAGE-A3	GlaxoSmithKline	Skin, lung cancer
Neu-Vax	RXi Pharmaceuticals	Breast cancer
AE37	Antigen Express	Breast cancer
NexVax2	ImmusanT	Celiac disease
ADXS-HPV	Advaxis	Cervical, head and neck cancer
CRS-207	Aduro BioTech	Pancreatic cancer
PEV7	Pevion Biotech	Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis
GI-4000	GlobeImmune	Pancreatic cancer

Future scope for cancer vaccines:

One school of scientists firmly believes that out of all cancers diagnosed each year globally, various types of microbes contribute 15% to 25% as a causative factor for this dreaded disease, as indicated below:

Infectious Agents	Type of Organism	Associated Cancers
Hepatitis B virus (HBV)	Virus		Hepatocellular carcinoma(a type of liver cancer)
Hepatitis C virus (HCV)	Virus		Hepatocellular carcinoma(a type of liver cancer)
Human papilloma virus (HPV) types 16 and 18, as well as other HPV types	Virus		Cervical cancer; vaginal cancer;vulvar cancer; oropharyngeal cancer(cancers of the base of the tongue, tonsils, or upper throat); anal cancer; penile cancer; squamous cell carcinoma of the skin
Epstein-Barr virus	Virus		Cancer of the upper part ofthe throat behind the nose
Human herpes virus 8 (HHV8)	Virus		Kaposi sarcoma
Human T-cell lymphotropic virus	Virus		Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma
Helicobacter pylori	Bacterium		Stomach cancer
Schistosomes	Parasite		Bladder cancer
Liver flukes	Parasite		Cholangio carcinoma(a type of liver cancer)

Source: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

These findings open the doors of unique opportunities to develop both preventive and therapeutic vaccines to address the life threatening near fatal ailment of mankind – cancer.

Conclusion:

Developing countries of the world are now demanding more of those vaccines, which no longer feature in the immunization schedules of the developed nations. Thus to supply these vaccines at low cost will be a challenge, especially for the global vaccine manufacturers, unless the low margins get well compensated by high institutional demand.

To effectively focus on all important disease prevention initiatives, there is also a need to build a vibrant vaccine business sector in India. To achieve these dual objectives the government should create an enabling ecosystem for the vaccine manufacturers, academics and the government funded vaccine R&D centers to concentrate more with the relevant vaccine development projects ensuring a decent return on investments, for long term public health interest.

More often than not, the above stakeholders find it difficult to deploy sufficient fund to take their vaccine projects successfully through various stages of clinical development to obtain marketing approval from the drug regulator, working out a decent return on investments. This critical issue needs to be appropriately and urgently addressed by the Government to make the disease prevention initiatives in the country sustainable, demonstrating to all concerned that disease ‘prevention is better than cure’.

By: Tapan J Ray

Infections may cause NCDs like, diabetes and cancer: Ongoing scientific quest to decipher the mystery

Posted on January 9, 2012 by Tapan Ray

To create a positive health impact on the lives of billions of people, the United Nations (UN) on September 19, 2011 unanimously adopted a ‘Political Declaration’ on ‘Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs)’. In the years ahead, this path-breaking initiative on NCDs, with global commitment, is expected to make a huge difference in the lives of many, across the world.

NCDs have now been identified as a key healthcare challenge of this century and include ailments like, cardiovascular, chronic pulmonary diseases, diabetes, arthritis and cancer. In the developing countries, over 80% of all deaths are related to NCDs.

There are times when NCDs raise issues related to social justice and human rights. For example, in a country like India where out of pocket expenses towards healthcare is around 80%, a major illness like cancer even in a middle income group family, can drive the entire household to huge socioeconomic hardship.

NCDs are preventable:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), adequate physical activity, healthy diet/nutrition and tobacco avoidance can prevent:

80% of premature heart disease
80% of type II diabetes
40% of cancers

Currently, as we shall see below, immunization is also being considered as a preventive therapy for certain types of NCDs.

NCDs may be of infectious origin:

Dr. Bennett Lorber in his article titled, ‘Are All Diseases Infectious?’, published in the ‘Annals of Internal medicine’ wrote that many common NCDs like, cardiovascular, diabetes, peptic ulcer, arthritis and even certain types of cancer originate from infections by micro-organisms.

Mainly because of this reason and its consequent adverse socioeconomic impact, the low and middle income countries of the world will require controlling many types of infections, possibly through immunization, before they ultimately develop into NCDs. Such measures, in turn, will help them reducing the risk factors of morbidity and mortality related to NCDs.

Infections and NCDs:

As indicated above by Dr. Bennett Lorber, following are some examples of reported relationship between infection and NCDs:

Reactive Arthritis:

Reactive arthritis or spondyloarthropathy has been known to follow intestinal infection with Salmonella typhimurium and Yersinia enterocolitica or urethral infection with Chlamydia trachomatis.

Scientists from the United Kingdom have already announced that they will soon begin human trial of an experimental rheumatoid arthritis vaccine.

Peptic Ulcer and Gastric Carcinoma:

Helicobacter pylori is known to cause of gastritis and peptic ulcer disease and is an important risk factor for gastric carcinoma.

Researchers at Rhode Island Hospital in collaboration with the University of Rhode Island and EpiVax Inc, have identified a potential vaccine to reduce colonization of Helicobacter pylori, which is known to cause peptic ulcer and gastric carcinoma.

Acute Renal Failure:

It was reported that about 10% of infected persons younger than 10 years of age develop hemolytic uremic syndrome, and as many as 75% of cases of the syndrome in the United States are complications of intestinal infection with E. coli.

Vasculitis:

The most common cause of vascular damage in secondary vasculitis is now considered to be related to different types of microorganisms. Patients were reported to have developed polyarteritis nodosa a few months after having hepatitis B infection.

It is widely reported that in the developed countries most common vasculitis is related to hepatitis B and C. However, in the developing world HIV related vasculitis appears to be common.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBS)/ Crohn’s Disease:

The precise etiology of Crohn’s Disease though remains to be conclusively deciphered, it is believed by many researchers that the disease develops due to a reaction to a persistent intestinal infection in vascular endothelial cells.

Diabetes:

A good number of experts support a link between infection with enteroviruses in the pancreata and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

To arrest or slow the autoimmune response that destroys insulin-producing cells in diabetes, it has been reported that the Diamyd vaccine, now in Phase III clinical trial in both USA and Europe, has shown very promising results.

Coronary Artery Disease:

A study published in the journal of ‘Clinical Infectious Disease’, Volume 40, Issue 8 ‘demonstrates a significant association between high titers to C. pneumoniae IgG and IgA and acute Myocardial Infarction (MI) in a cohort of young men and suggests that recent or chronic active infections could be associated with an increased risk for MI.’

In other studies also, patients with acute myocardial infarction were found to have elevated serum antibody levels to Chlamydia pneumoniae. This opens up possibility of preventing heart attacks with a vaccine.

Cancer:

The US FDA has already approved two types of vaccines for cancer prevention:

Vaccines against the hepatitis B virus, which can cause liver cancer.
Vaccines against human papillomavirus, which are responsible for about 70% of cervical cancers.

In addition, US FDA has also approved another cancer vaccine for metastatic prostate cancer.

A type of cancer known as Kaposi sarcoma is linked to an infectious agent found in patients with acquired immune-deficiency syndrome. Scientists are in the process of developing treatment vaccines against many types of cancer.

Conclusions:

In the field of NCD, a not so widely publicized scientific revolution is in the making. Many well researched findings have, to a great extent, established that infectious agents could be the causative/precipitative or risk factors for NCDs like, chronic pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and cancer.

The moot question raised by Dr. Bennett Lorber earlier: ‘Are all diseases infectious?’, is gradually getting answered through intensive scientific research. Otherwise, who would have thought, until recently, that vaccines could be developed for diabetes, certain types of cancer or even peptic ulcer?

Such path breaking scientific research findings are, in turn, creating a hope and opportunity for disease prevention through immunization for many NCDs, especially for the developing nations of the world.

It is very heartening to know that United Nations (UN) have taken note of these revolutionary developments in the ‘Non Communicable Disease’ space and are deliberating on the effective ways to combat NCDs caused by infections with the development and use of appropriate vaccines.

The entire world eagerly awaits more actionable outcome of the ongoing scientific quest to decipher the mystery related to many more NCDs to ensure better health of mankind of the Planet Earth.

By: Tapan J Ray

The Game Changer: Effective transition from ‘blockbuster’ to an integrated ‘niche buster’ plus ‘generic drugs’ business model

Posted on November 20, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Since quite some time global pharmaceutical majors have been operating within the confines of high risk – high reward R&D based business model with blockbuster drugs (annual sales of over US$ 1 billion).

Blockbuster brands, mostly in the chronic-care segments have been driving the business growth, since long, of the global R&D based pharmaceutical companies. Many such blockbuster drugs are now at the end of their patent life like, Lipitor (Atorvastatin) of Pfizer.

Patent expiry of such drugs, especially in the environment of patent cliff, could make a severe adverse impact on the revenue and profit stream of many companies, leading to drastic cost cut including retrenchment of a large number of employees.

In addition ballooning costs of R&D failure coupled with the decisions of the governments all across the world, including the US , EU and even in Asia, to contain the healthcare cost – the recent examples being Germany, Spain, Korea and China, have become the major cause of concern with the business model of blockbuster drugs.

Availability of low cost and high quality generics coupled with increasing consumerism, growing relevance of outcome-based pricing model are making the global pharmaceutical business models more and more complex.

The need to realign with the new climate:

Accenture in its report titled, “The Era of Outcomes – Emerging Pharmaceutical Business Models for High Performance” had commented, “Unless pharmaceutical companies act now to adjust to the new climate, they will be pressured to sell their proprietary drugs at low profits because the market will no longer bear the premium price”.

‘Blockbuster drugs’ business model is under stress:

Over a period of so many years, the small-molecule blockbuster drugs business model made the global pharmaceutical industry a high-margin/high growth industry. However, it now appears that the low hanging fruits to make blockbuster drugs, with reasonable investments on R&D, have mostly been plucked.

These low hanging fruits mostly involved therapy areas like, anti-ulcerants, anti-lipids, anti-diabetics, cardiovascular, anti-psychotic etc. and their many variants, which were relatively easy R&D targets to manage chronic ailments. Hereafter, the chances of successfully developing drugs for ‘cure’ of these chronic ailments, with value addition, would indeed be a very tough call and enormously expensive.

Thus the blockbuster model of growth engine of the innovator companies effectively relying on a limited number of ‘winning horses’ to achieve their business goal and meeting the Wall Street expectations is becoming more and more challenging. It is well known that such business model will require a rich and vibrant R&D pipeline, always.

The changing scenario with depleting R&D pipeline:

The situation has started changing since quite some time from now. In 2007, depleting pipeline of the blockbuster drugs hit a new low. It is estimated that around U.S. $ 140 billion of annual turnover from blockbuster drugs will get almost shaved off due to patent expiry by the year 2016.

IMS reports that in 2010 revenue of more than U.S. $ 27 billion was adversely impacted due to patent expiry. Another set of blockbuster drugs with similar value turnover will go off patent by the end of 2011.

According to IBIS World, the following large brands will go off patent in 2011 and 2012:

Patent Expiry in 2011	Condition	Company	2010 US Sales $ billion
Lipitor	cholesterol	Pfizer	5.3
Zyprexa	antipsychotic	Eli Lily	2.5
Levaquin	antibiotics	Johnson & Johnson	1.3

Patent Expiry in 2012	Condition	Company	2010 US Sales $ billion
Plavix	anti-platelet	Bristol-Myers Squibb / Sanofi-Aventis	6.2
Seroquel	antipsychotic	AstraZeneca	3.7
Singulair	asthma	Merck	3.2
Actos	type 2 diabetes	Takeda	3.4
Enbrel	arthritis	Amgen	3.3

Proactive shift is required from ‘Blockbuster’ to Niche buster’ model:

Companies with blockbuster-drug business model without adequate molecules in the research pipeline may need to readjust their strategy even if they want to pursue similar R&D focused business model effectively.

Brand proliferation, though innovative, within similar class of molecules competing in the same therapy area, is making the concerned markets highly fragmented with no clear brand domination. In a situation like this, outcome based pricing and competitive pressure will no longer help attracting premium price for such brands anymore.

Being confronted with this kind of situation, many companies are now shifting their R&D initiatives from larger therapy areas with blockbuster focus like, cardiovascular, diabetes, hypertension and more common types of cancer to high value and technologically more complex niche busters in smaller therapy areas like, Alzheimer, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinsonism, rare types of cancer, urinary incontinence, schizophrenia, specialty vaccines etc.

This trend is expected to continue for quite some time from now.

Generics to continue to drive the growth in the emerging markets:

It is expected that the global pharmaceutical market will record a turnover of US $1.1 trillion by 2014 with the growth predominantly driven by the emerging markets like, Brazil, Russia, India, China, Mexico, Turkey and Korea growing at 14% – 17%, while the developed markets are expected to grow just around 3-6% during that period.

The United States of America will continue to remain the largest pharmaceutical market of the world, with around 3-6% growth.

IMS predicts that over the next five years the industry will have the peak period of patent expiry amounting to sales of more than US$ 142 billion, further intensifying the generic competition.

The experts believe that the growth in the emerging markets will continue to come primarily from the generic drugs.

Integrated combo-business model with ‘niche busters’ and generic drugs:

Some large companies have already started imbibing an integrated combo-business model of innovative niche busters and generic medicines, focusing more on high growth emerging pharmaceutical markets.

The global generic drug market was worth US $107.8 billion USD in 2009 and is estimated to be of US$ 129.3 billion by 2014 with a CAGR of around 10%. However, there are some companies, who are still ‘sticking to knitting’ with the traditional R&D ‘blockbuster drugs’ based business models.

The process of innovative and generic drugs ‘combo-business model’ was initiated way back in 1996, when Novartis AG was formed with the merger of Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz. At that time the later became the global generic pharmaceutical business arm of Novartis AG, which continued to project itself as a research-based global pharmaceutical company. With this strategy Novartis paved the way for other innovator companies to follow this uncharted frontier, as a global ‘combo-business strategy’. In 2009 Sandoz was reported to have achieved 19% of the overall net sales of Novartis, with a turnover of US$ 7.2 billion growing at 20%.

Other recent example of such consolidation process in the emerging markets happened on June 10, 2010, when GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced that it has acquired ‘Phoenix’, a leading Argentine pharmaceutical company focused on the development, manufacturing, marketing and sale of branded generic products, for a cash consideration of around US $ 253 million. With this acquisition, GSK gained full ownership of ‘Phoenix’ to accelerate its business growth in Argentina and the Latin American region.

Similarly another global pharma major Sanofi is now seriously trying to position itself as a major player in the generics business, as well, with the acquisition of Zentiva, an important player in the European generics market. Zentiva, is a leading generic player in the markets like, Czechoslovakia, Turkey, Romania, Poland and Russia, besides the Central and Eastern European region. In addition to Zentiva, in the same year 2009, Sanofi also acquired other two important generic players, Medley in Brazil and Kendrick in Mexico.

With this Sanofi announced, “Building a larger business in generic medicines is an important part of our growth strategy. Focusing on the needs of patients, Sanofi has conducted a regional approach in order to enlarge its business volumes and market share, offering more affordable high-quality products to more patients”.

Keeping a close vigil on these developments, 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, Daiichi Sankyo and Abbott.

Yet another strategy – splitting the company for greater focus on both generic and innovative pharmaceuticals:

In the midst of the above trend, on October 19, 2011 Chicago based Abbott announced with a ‘Press Release’ its plan to separate into two publicly traded companies, one in diversified medical products and the other in research-based pharmaceuticals. The announcement said, the diversified medical products company will consist of Abbott’s existing diversified medical products portfolio, including its branded generic pharmaceutical, devices, diagnostic and nutritional businesses, and will retain the Abbott name. The research-based pharmaceutical company will include Abbott’s current portfolio of proprietary pharmaceuticals and biologics and will be named later. Both companies will be global leaders in their respective industries, the Press Release said.

Such splits are based on the belief of many that in the pharmaceutical business two entirely different business models of new drug discovery and generics will need different kind of business focus, which may not complement each other for the long term growth of the overall business.

OTC Switch of prescription drugs will continue:Prescription to ‘Over the Counter (OTC)’ switch of pharmaceutical products is another business strategy that many innovator companies have started imbibing from quite some time, though at a much larger scale now.This strategy is helping many global pharmaceutical companies, especially in the Europe and the US to expand the indication of the drugs and thereby widening the patients’ base.Recent prescription to OTC switches will include products like, Losec (AstraZeneca), Xenical (Roche), Zocor (Merck), etc. Perhaps Lipitor (Pfizer) will join this bandwagon soon.

Conclusion:

PwC in its publication titled “Pharma 2020: The Vision” articulated:

“The current pharmaceutical industry business model is both economically unsustainable and operationally incapable of acting quickly enough to produce the types of innovative treatments demanded by global markets. In order to make the most of these future growth opportunities, the industry must fundamentally change the way it operates.”

Quite in tandem a gradually emerging new ‘pharmaceutical sales and marketing model’ has started emphasizing the need for innovative collaboration and partnership within the global pharmaceutical industry by bundling medicines with patient oriented services. In this model, besides marketing just the medicines, as we see today, the expertise of a company to effectively deliver some key services like, patient monitoring and disease management could well be the cutting edge for business excellence. In this evolving scenario, those companies, which will be able to offer better value with an integrated mix of medicines with services, are expected to be on the winning streak.

Be that as it may, effective transition from ‘blockbuster’ to an integrated ‘niche buster’ plus ‘generic drugs’ business model, is expected to be “The Game Changer’ in the new ball game of the global pharmaceutical industry in the years ahead.

Does branding of generic drugs offer value to the patients in India?

Posted on November 7, 2011 by Tapan Ray

It appears that the government has accepted the submission of the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee for Health and Family Welfare’ made to the ‘Rajya Sabha’ of the Indian Parliament on August 4, 2010, recommending prescription of medicines by their generic names.

It has now been reported that the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) has already considered the proposal to amend the rules of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India for approval of all drug formulations containing single active ingredient only in the generic names by the State Licensing Authorities. The proposal to publish the draft rules has been forwarded to the Ministry of Health for necessary approval. The Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC) will be kept out of the purview of this amendment.

This recommendation of the ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee for Health and Family Welfare’ appears to be based on the premises that the ‘Brand Building’ exercise of the generic drugs in India, includes ‘very high sales and marketing expenditure’, which can easily be eliminated to make medicines available to the common man at much cheaper prices. ‘Jan Aushadhi’ scheme of the Government is often cited as an example to drive home this point.

This recommendation, on the face of it, makes immense sense. However, the moot question remains, “Is it a practical proposition to implement in India?”

The generics and the branded-generic drugs and their value proposition: As we know generic name is the actual chemical name of a drug. The brand name is selected by the producer of a formulation and is built on various differential value parameters for its proper position in the minds of health professionals as well as the patients. Thus, brand names offer a specific identity to a chemical name in their value proposition.

Some other countries are also taking similar steps:

Just to cite an example, as reported by ‘The Guardian” on August 23, 2011, the Spanish government recently enacted a law compelling the doctors of Spain to prescribe generic drugs rather than more expensive patented and branded pharmaceuticals, wherever available. This move is expected to help the Spanish government to save €2.4 billion (£2.1billion) a year, as in Spain the drugs are partly reimbursed by the government.

As a result, the doctors in Spain will now have to prescribe only in the generic or chemical names of the respective drugs. Consequently the pharmacies will be obliged to dispense ‘the cheapest available versions of drugs, which will frequently mean not the better-known brand names sold by the big drugs firms’.

Quality standards of both generic and branded generic drugs are no different:

Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India requires all generic or branded generic drugs to have the same quality and performance. Thus when a generic drug is approved by the drug regulator, one should logically accept that it has met the required standards with respect to identity, strength, quality, purity and potency. It is not uncommon that there could be some variability taking place during manufacturing process for both branded generic and generic drugs and for that matter it is applicable to all drugs. However, all formulations of both types of these drugs manufactured by different manufacturers do not need to contain the same inactive ingredients.

In any case, all formulations of both generic and branded drugs must be shown to be bioequivalent to the reference drugs with similar blood levels to the respective reference products. Regulators even in the USA believe that if blood levels are the same, the therapeutic effect will be the same.

A recent study:

As reported by the US FDA, ‘A recent study evaluated the results of 38 published clinical trials that compared cardiovascular generic drugs to their brand-name counterparts. There was no evidence that brand-name heart drugs worked any better than generic heart drugs. [Kesselheim et al. Clinical equivalence of generic and brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(21)2514-2526]‘.

Prescriptions for generic medicines were a record high in America in 2010:

As per published reports, last year i.e in 2010, generic medicines accounted for more than 78% of the total prescriptions dispensed by retail chemists and long-term care facilities in the US. This is a record high and is four percentage points more than what it was in 2009 and came up from 63% as recorded in 2006.

Points to ponder and resolve in the current Indian situation:

While the intention of the Government is indeed good, some practical issues must be considered before its implementation, which are as follows:

1. Increased chances of error while dispensing:

Chemical names of medicines are complex. In case of any mistake of dispensing the wrong drug by the chemist inadvertently, the patients could face serious consequences.

2. There could be differences even within single ingredient formulations:

Different brands of even single ingredient medicines may have inherent differences in their formulations like, in the drug delivery systems (controlled/sustained release), kind of coatings allowing dissolution in different parts of alimentary canal, dispersible or non-dispersible tablets, chewable or non-chewable tablets etc. Since doctors are best aware of their patients’ conditions, they may wish to prescribe a specific type of formulation based on specific conditions of the patients, which may not be possible by prescribing only in generic names.

3. Price differences between branded generics and generic generics may not exist:

It is intriguing to fathom, just for a switch over from the brand name to the generic name how will the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of a single ingredient formulation, bearing only the generic name, come down. Currently, MRPs printed on the product packs of generic formulations without any brand name, as available in the retail outlets, are similar to comparable branded generic formulations. In that case, what benefits that Government will expect a patient to get out of this well hyped change?

4. Manufacturers may switch from single ingredient formulations to FDCs:

There is a theoretical possibility that to retain brand names, the pharmaceutical companies may be encouraged to change their formulations from single ingredient to FDCs. In that situation, single ingredient formulations may not be available and comparable FDCs could cost more to the patients.

5. The key decision will shift from physicians to retail chemists:

The major issue with prescriptions by the chemical/generic names is that retail chemists will then be the sole decision makers to choose the prescribed product from within a whole lot of over 30 to 40 manufacturers for a particular product.

What then will prompt the retailers to buy, store and sell different generic formulations of various companies and what could possibly be the key selection criteria for such drugs by them?

I reckon, there could only be one criterion for the choice of such medicines by a chemist i.e. to select only those which will give them highest margin of profits.

In such a case, the ultimate decision making authority for the prescription medicines shifts from the physicians to the chemists. This could make the situation far worse for the patients.

In interest of the patients, it is, therefore, extremely important that the government, regulators, physicians, chemists and even the patients’ groups are aware of such risks and ensure that patients are not adversely impacted in any way.

Conclusion: Viewing purely from the Indian perspective, while the generic drugs per se are not bad for the patients, weighing all the above issues and possible risk factors against expected benefits, I reckon, without effectively addressing the above issues to start with, if the prescriptions of single ingredient formulations are made mandatory only in generic names, it could seriously jeopardize patients’ safety and interest.

In any case, when single ingredient formulations contribute just around 30% of the total prescriptions in India, how could then prescriptions of all single ingredient formulations only in generic names address the stated concern of the government, in a holistic way?

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.

Should India follow the US way to regulate all types of lobbying in the country?

Posted on October 31, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Currently, India is one of the fastest-growing economies of the world along with China. Even during the recent global financial meltdown process both India and China could register a very impressive average GDP growth of around 7% consistently during the last so many years. This growth is over three times more than that of the developed countries like the US, which has been growing just around 2% in the recent years.

India growth story, I reckon, is now attracting a large number of companies across the industries from all over the world including India to lobby hard and participate in the process of spectacular growth across many industry sectors. Such lobbying activities in India are expected to increase by manifold in the years ahead.

As per newspaper reports the large corporations involved with these activities, besides pharmaceuticals, include the world’s largest retailers, the coffee shop giants, financial services, insurance companies and technology majors in addition to chemicals, telecom, defense and aerospace giants.

Currently, many US-based companies, as reported in the lobbying disclosure reports filed by them with the US Senate, are lobbying for various issues ranging from facilitating the market access to easing of foreign direct investment caps in retail, insurance and other financial services sectors in India to facilitate their business expansion in the country.

Indian Pharmaceutical sector is becoming more and more attractive to many:

Keeping pace with other high growth industries of the country, Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) with the current domestic turnover of around US$ 12.1 Billion has been registering a scorching pace of CAGR growth of around 15%, since over a decade. The domestic pharmaceutical industry now caters to about 20% of global requirements of high quality and affordable generic medicines of all types.

IPM is, therefore, a global success story and India has already established itself as a major force to reckon with, especially in the development and manufacturing of high quality generic pharmaceuticals, as well as in Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS), in the pharmaceutical industry of the world.

IPM is creating newer jobs:

As per reports, in roughly around 20,000 pharmaceutical organizations and its ancillary units over one million people are currently employed by the Industry. As mentioned above, though India has globally established itself as a producer of high-quality medicines available at reasonable prices, predominantly due to a very high of around 80% ‘Out of Pocket’ expenses towards healthcare in India, ‘common man’ still finds it extremely difficult to bear the cost of illness. Such critical public health interests India can ill afford to ignore.

Spectacular progress of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry:

India, during its independence on August 15, 1947 inherited the patent system of its British colonial masters. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals used to be largely imported from the developed world in that period with local production being absolute minimal.

This abysmal trend and pattern of the IPM of pre-independent India took another 20 years to make any significant change worth mentioning. It will be quite difficult even for the staunchest skeptics to brush aside the fact that the Indian pharmaceutical industry started blossoming since 1970, mainly due to abolition of product patent act and government encouragement with various fiscal and tax incentives paving the way for the emergence of a vibrant high quality drug manufacturing sector in the country. However, that was the need of the 70’s and certainly not for now.

It is good to know that so far as national self-sufficiency in pharmaceuticals is concerned, as per Indian Drug Manufacturers Association (IDMA), it is far above 70% despite many tough challenges.

Patent regime of many ‘developed economies’ had a stormy beginning:

While deliberating on product patents, it should be noted that in many industrial nations of the world, the protection of inventions through patents started taking place in around the last 40 years.

For example, pharmaceuticals product patents in Switzerland came into effect only since 1978. History tells us that at the fag end of the 19^th century the pharmaceutical industry in Switzerland fought vehemently against the enactment of a patent law to be able to imitate foreign drugs, such as Aspirin of Bayer. Mainly because of this reason, at that time, Germany used to consider Switzerland a ‘state of robber barons’. Similarly, France used to be known as a ‘country of counterfeiters’.

Some historians have written that exactly in the same way like India, as mentioned above, the economies of Korea, Taiwan and the ‘land of the rising sun’ – Japan were able to thrive in their formative years due to absence of patent protection in those countries.

Young India is possibly crossing, if not has already crossed that stage much sooner than many others.

Innovation is the ‘Wheel of Progress’ of any nation:

However, it is an undeniable fact that ‘innovation’ is the wheel of progress of any nation. Without innovation, it is virtually impossible for any country to make significant economic progress. The Prime Minister of India has thus termed the current decade of 2010 as the ‘decade of innovation’ for India.

It has been well established by now that ‘Technology Transfer’ from the developed nations not only brings profit to those countries from patent protection and shields them from low-cost competition, but also helps the developing nations to add requisite speed to their growing economy.

However, most developing nations want access to such technological innovations at an affordable and lesser cost without any possible future risk of oligopoly and ‘technological recolonisation’.

New Product Patent regime in India came much after China and Brazil:

India signed the WTO agreement to become its member in January 1, 1995 and following a 10-year transition period, on January 1, 2005 the country amended its national patent legislation to usher in the product patent regime. The lose knots, if any, in the amended Patents Act of India are widely expected to get strengthened as the domestic innovators will feel the need for the same and possibly not due to any extraneous pressure.

Compared to India, product patent came much earlier in China and Brazil. China enacted its first patent law on March 12, 1984. However, it provided little protection to pharmaceutical and chemical inventions. In 1992, China amended the 1984 patent law in compliance with an agreement between China and the United States, as well as to join the WTO. Similarly, the new patent law came into force in Brazil way back on October 6,1999, which also has the provision of issuing Compulsory Licenses (CL).

International independent domain experts feel that it will take some more time for India to gauge the real benefits of product patents for the country.

Public interest for ‘Health and Nutrition’:

The philosophy of India since decades has been to ‘promote the principle of relying on one’s own strength’, especially in the critical and a very sensitive areas of public interest for ‘Health and Nutrition’. Many independent experts in this field both from India and abroad have opined that India seems to be following this path without compromising on its TRIPS compliance status. However, there are some dissenting voices in this area, who feel that a more rigorous and robust patent regime in India is in the best interest of the country.

Should the government regulate lobbying activities?

Considering the fast emerging environment, as mentioned above and arising out of some recent very sensational lobbying related financial/policy scams in India, the moot question, as is being raised by many across the country is: “Should the government regulate the lobbying activities in India?”.

Even in the Pharmaceutical Industry, some instances of lobbying activities carried out both within and outside India, had led to raging debates and controversies.

To cite an example, not so very long ago, some consumer activists from the civil society vehemently protested against the ‘Intellectual Property Conferences’ held in India, which were allegedly sponsored by some interested groups in a guise to influence the policy makers and the judiciary of India.

It was widely reported that the consumer activists viewed these IP summits, organized by the George Washington University Law School of USA as ‘attempts to influence sitting judges on patent law enforcement issues that are pending in Indian courts.’

In a letter dated February 26, 2010 addressed to Shri Anand Sharma, Minister of Commerce and Industry of India, over 20 NGOs demanded transparency and more information on such meetings and wanted the government of India ‘to put a stop to such industry sponsored lobbying with Indian judges and policymakers to promote their own requirements for intellectual property and to lobby for either law amendments or even to plead their cases currently pending before, various courts and the Indian Patent Office,”

In raising their concerns, the civil society groups argued that the posture adopted by the lobbyists and their supporters is to “force India to adopt greater standards” of IP protection “beyond the mandatory levels” required by the WTO, which may go against public health interest in India.

Lobbying activities are expected to gain further momentum:

It is quite logical to expect that lobbying activities in such and many other areas both ‘for’ and ‘against’ are expected to gain momentum in the times to come. However, it is widely believed that long-term interest of India is expected to ultimately prevail in this closely watched ball game.

Lobbying is legal in many countries like the US with the government ground rules firmly in place:

We all know that in many countries like the US, lobbying is a legal activity. Many Indian companies, including the government of India have been lobbying in the US since so many years to present their cases and argument with the American law and policy makers.

When President Obama came to power in the US, it was reported: ‘one of the first acts of the Obama administration in office was to have an executive order which prohibited the Obama Administration either from hiring lobbyists – those who had lobbied within two years of joining the administration or allowing people who had left the Obama administration to service lobbyists for two years. The idea is that you want to break the chains where there is undue influence of special interest groups upon the government’.

However, there are no government ground rules still in place for lobbying in India either for the local or the global companies and their lobbyists, across the industry sectors.

Surrogate lobbying:

It was discussed somewhere about ‘surrogate lobbying’ in many industries from various parts of the world. I have really no idea about what these are and the legality of such activities without appropriate well-drafted government specified disclosures in place, for public interest.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, in the US such activities are required to be intimated to the US senate by the companies concerned and their lobbyists highlighting their activities in form of a quarterly disclosure reports detailing not only the issues, but also the concerned government departments and institutions and the related expenses.

Let me hasten to add that despite a long history with regulated and legalized lobbying in the US, still there has been severe criticism in that country of the way lobbying has worked there in the past so many years. India has plenty to learn from such experiences.

Thus, as a part of following the global ‘public interest best practices’, a large section of the civil society in India has been voicing in so many ways, mainly after the recent financial and policy related mega scams, that it may be a good idea, if the government also puts system driven adequate checks and balances in place for lobbying activities in India, sooner.

It is believed by many that such regulations will ensure perfectly legal lobbying initiatives in India always maintain complete transparency and follow appropriate processes/procedures of disclosures to maintain a right balance between long-term public interest and the growing requirements of a healthy business ecosystem to accelerate the inclusive economic growth of the nation.

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: to

Should high prices of new drugs, causing low access to majority of patients, be attributed to high R&D cost?

Pharmaceutical innovation and Public Health Interest: Ways to achieving the dual objectives

Healthcare Tourism: India needs to step on the gas

Encourage vaccine research and improve its access to demonstrate ‘prevention is better than cure’

Types of Vaccines:

Infections may cause NCDs like, diabetes and cancer: Ongoing scientific quest to decipher the mystery

The Game Changer: Effective transition from ‘blockbuster’ to an integrated ‘niche buster’ plus ‘generic drugs’ business model

Does branding of generic drugs offer value to the patients in India?

Should India follow the US way to regulate all types of lobbying in the country?