Tag Archives: transparency

Drug Prescription In Generic Names Only, No Branded Generics

Posted on by
Reply

The World Bank Report released on April 07, 2023 highlights that patients’ Out-of-Pocket (OoP) expenses as a percentage of their total healthcare expenditure in India still accounted for as high as 50.59%. This means that patients in India generally pay for the majority of their healthcare costs themselves, rather than through insurance or government funding. The high level of OoP expenses in India has been a major problem for many patients, even today. Studies indicate it often leads to financial hardship, especially for low-income families.

A number of factors contribute to the high level of OoP in the country, as a whole, with regional variations. According to several studies, the healthcare costs in India are rising faster than inflation, making it increasingly difficult for more people to afford the care they need, especially for life threatening ailments, such as cancer.

Different union governments while in power have taken several steps to address this problem, such as, in 2018, the launch of the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY), a national health insurance scheme. It provides free coverage for poor and vulnerable families. The PMJAY is expected to have helped in reducing OoP for some patients, but it is not yet clear how much of an impact it has had overall.

On April 24, 2017, I asked on this blog – would drug ‘Prescriptions in Generic Names Be Made A Must in India?’. Interestingly, in August 2023, a new circular from the National Medical Commission (NMC) notified professional conduct regulations for Registered Medical Practitioners (RMP), including guidance to doctors on drug prescriptions.  This has raised a furor, as it were, among many medical practitioners and their associations. In this article, I shall deliberate on the pros and cons of this decision and its practicality in India. Let me start with the rationale behind such thinking, as I see it.

The rationales behind drug prescription only in generic names in India:

As I see it, there are several rationales behind doctors prescribing drugs only under generic names in India. Here are some of the most important ones:

  • Cost savings: Generic drugs are typically much cheaper than brand-name drugs. This is because generic drugs do not have to go through the same expensive clinical trials and marketing campaigns as brand-name drugs. As a result, they can be sold at a much lower price. This can save patients a significant amount of money, especially for expensive medications. 
  • Increased access to medicines: The lower cost of generic drugs can make them more accessible to people who might not otherwise be able to afford them. This is especially important in India, where a large proportion of the population lives below access, the poverty line. Generic drugs can help to ensure that everyone has access to the medicines they need. 
  • Improved competition: The availability of generic drugs can lead to increased competition in the pharmaceutical market. This can drive down prices even further and benefit patients.
  • Reduced risk of counterfeit drugs: Generic drugs are regulated by the government and must meet the same quality standards as brand-name drugs. This means that patients can be confident that they are getting a safe and effective product, regardless of whether it is a generic or brand-name drug. Counterfeit drugs, on the other hand, are often made with substandard ingredients and can be dangerous to take. By prescribing generic drugs, doctors can help to reduce the risk of patients getting counterfeit drugs. 
  • Transparency and accountability: In addition to these benefits, prescribing drugs under generic names can also help to promote transparency and accountability in the pharmaceutical industry. When doctors prescribe drugs under generic names, it is easier for patients to compare prices and choose the best option for their needs. This can help to drive down prices and improve the quality of care. 

A draft regulation was notified in 2022 for comments by all concerned:

For this purpose, a draft regulation was issued by the National Medical Commission (NMC) on May 23, 2022, for comments by all concerned, before it becomes mandatory in 2023. The NMC has also stated that it will take steps to ensure that the quality of generic drugs is maintained. The NMC will work with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to ensure that generic drugs meet the required quality standards.

The final notification goes beyond drug prescription in generic names:

On August 03, 2023, The National Medical Commission (NMC) notified the professional conduct regulation for Registered Medical Practitioners (RMP). It not only provides guidance to avoid branded generic drugs and prescribing drugs with generic, non-proprietary and pharmacological names only, but also, restricts doctors from getting involved in any third-party educational activity like Continuing Professional Development, seminar, workshop, symposia, conference, etc., which involves direct or indirect sponsorships from pharmaceutical companies or the allied health sector. 

It justified its decision by saying, “India’s out-of-pocket spending on medication accounts for a major proportion of public spending on health care. Further, generic medicines are 30% to 80% cheaper than branded drugs. Hence, prescribing generic medicines may overtly bring down health care costs and improve access to quality care.” The notification also provided guidance on telemedicine consultation and prescriptions.  

The Indian Medical Association (IMA) Protested against it:

The Indian Medical Association (IMA) submitted a memorandum to the Indian regulator, the National Medical Commission (NMC), on February 7, 2023, protesting against the compulsory prescription of generic drugs. The memorandum argued that the regulations would harm patients and doctors, and that they were being implemented without proper consultation with stakeholders.

The IMA also stated that the regulations would violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression of doctors. The memorandum said that doctors should be free to prescribe drugs based on their medical judgment, and that they should not be forced to prescribe generic drugs.

The IMA’s protest is significant because it is the first major challenge to the NMC’s regulations on compulsory prescription of generic drugs. The protest could have a significant impact on the implementation of the regulations, and it could also lead to changes in the regulations.

It is important to note that the IMA is not the only organization that has expressed concerns about the NMC’s regulations. Several other medical associations have also expressed concerns, and some doctors have also spoken out against the regulations.

The controversy over the NMC’s regulations is likely to continue for some time. It is important to note that there are valid concerns on both sides of the issue. It is also important to remember that the regulations are still in the early stages of implementation, and that it is too early to say what their long-term impact will be.

A few reasons why doctors in India may be hesitant to prescribe drugs under generic names. 

Here are some of the most common reasons:

  • Lack of awareness: Some doctors may not be aware of the benefits of generic drugs. They may believe that brand-name drugs are always better than generic drugs, even though this is not always the case. 
  • Influence from pharmaceutical companies: Pharmaceutical companies often give doctors incentives to prescribe their brand-name drugs. This can create a conflict of interest for doctors, who may be more likely to prescribe brand-name drugs even if they believe that generic drugs are just as effective.
  • Patient demand: Some patients may specifically ask for brand-name drugs, even if generic drugs are available. This can put pressure on doctors to prescribe brand-name drugs, even if they believe that generic drugs are a better option.
  • Quality concerns: There have been some cases of counterfeit generic drugs being sold in India. This can lead to doctors being hesitant to prescribe generic drugs, as they may be concerned about the quality of the drugs.

Some ways to encourage doctors to prescribe generic drugs:

  • Educate doctors about the benefits of generic drugs. Doctors need to be aware of the benefits of generic drugs in order to be willing to prescribe them. They should be taught about the cost savings, increased access, and improved quality of generic drugs.
  • Reduce the influence of pharmaceutical companies on doctors. Pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to give doctors incentives to prescribe their brand-name drugs. This would help to ensure that doctors are prescribing drugs based on the best interests of their patients, rather than on financial considerations. 
  • Encourage patients to ask for generic drugs. Patients should be aware of the benefits of generic drugs and should ask their doctors to prescribe them whenever possible. This will help to create a demand for generic drugs and encourage doctors to prescribe them. 
  • Improve the quality control of generic drugs. The government should take steps to improve the quality control of generic drugs in India. This would help to reduce the risk of patients getting counterfeit drugs. 

By taking these steps, we can encourage doctors to prescribe generic drugs and make them more accessible to patients. This would help to save patients money, improve access to medicines, and reduce the number of counterfeit drugs in circulation.

Conclusion:

I now revert to this month’s notification of the National Medical Commission (NMC) on the professional conduct regulation for Registered Medical Practitioners (RMP), providing  new guidance for drug prescriptions in India. It clearly indicates that doctors should avoid prescribing branded generic drugs, instead prescribe drugs with generic, non-proprietary and pharmacological names only. ‘However, in the case of drugs with a narrow therapeutic index, biosimilars, and similar other exceptional cases, the practice of prescribing generic names only, can be relaxed,’ it elaborated.

Weighing the pros and cons of this notification, I reckon, despite the reasons articulated by doctors and their associations, besides the branded generic manufacturers, there are many benefits to prescribing drugs under generic names only. Generic drugs are typically much cheaper than brand-name drugs, and they are just as effective. They can also help to reduce the number of counterfeit drugs in circulation, besides several other benefits, as cited above. As a result, doctors should be encouraged to prescribe generic drugs whenever possible. Let me hasten to add, changing the prescribing practices of doctors and addressing concerns about the quality of generics can be a complex and gradual process.

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.

 

Self-made Barriers To Business Transparency Impacting Drug Access

Posted on by
Reply

A recently published book on pharma industry tried to expose the deceit behind many generic-drug manufacturing—and the consequent risks to global health. This publication is described as an ‘explosive narrative investigation of the generic drug boom that reveals fraud and life-threatening dangers on a global scale.’ However, I reckon, this is just a part of the story, and its huge adverse impact on public health flows generally from the following facts:

  • Greater use of generic drugs is hailed as one of the most important public-health developments of the twenty-first century.
  • Today, almost 90 percent of global pharma market, in volume terms, is comprised of generics.
  • These are mostly manufactured in China and India.
  • The drug regulators continuously assure patients and doctors that generic drugs are identical to their brand-name counterparts, just less expensive.

No question, such deceit, blatant fraud and data manipulation – seriously affecting drug quality of generic medicines, shake the very purpose of making affordable drugs accessible to many. But, simultaneously, lack of transparency – right across the various functions of a pharma business, is also making a host of modern life-saving drugs unaffordable and inaccessible to even more patients. Although, both are despicable acts, but the latter one is not discussed as much.

Thus, in this article, I shall dwell on the second one – how attempts for pharma business ‘transparency’ for expanded drug access to patients, getting repeatedly foiled, especially in light of what happened on May 28, 2019, in the 72nd World Health Assembly (WHA).

Does pharma want low business transparency to continue?

Despite so many encouraging initiatives being taken in the pharma industry over a period of time, gross lack of transparency in its business continues, since long, despite this is being a raging issue. The obvious question, therefore, remains: Does pharma want low business transparency to continue? Thus, to give a perspective to this pertinent point, I shall quote two important observations, appeared in ‘MIMS Today’ – the first one on April 17, 2017, and the other came a year before that, on November 20, 2016, as follows:

  • “A market cannot function when purchasers have limited information and, in the case of prescription drugs, pricing is a black box. Prices for drugs are clearly rising at rates that far exceed inflation and the level of any rebates or discounts offered by manufacturers,” experts opined. They further said, to hold the industry accountable, Access to Medicine Foundation (AMF)’ regularly compiles an index to rank the progress made by each large drug maker in the area of business transparency. Curiously, they concluded, ‘the number and quality of evaluations for the effectiveness of these programs are lacking.’
  • “Lack of transparency of drug makers was also identified. Their policy positions, political contributions, marketing activities and memberships in associations and the associated financial support provided and board seats held were all analyzed. And only then, the ‘AMF’ reached a consensus that transparency remains low in all areas. The analysts further added, ‘there is a lack of transparency and rigor in monitoring and evaluating the access-to-medicines initiatives as well as the link between prices and development costs. Thus, ‘greater transparency from manufacturers to disclose R&D costs for drugs and evaluation of the initiatives’ is imperative.

Despite key policy makers’ favoring transparency, it remains elusive:

To illustrate this point, let me draw a recent example from the United States.

Alex M. Azar II, who is currently the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the United States, also served as president of Eli Lilly USA. LLC from 2012 to 2017 supports the need of business transparency in the pharma industry. Last year, he also emphasized:

“Putting patients in charge of this information is a key priority. But if we’re talking about trying to drive not just better outcomes, but lower costs, we also have to do a better job of informing patients about those costs. That is where our emphasis on price transparency comes in.” By naming the key health care product and service providers, Azar added, “So this administration is calling on not just doctors and hospitals, but also drug companies and pharmacies, to become more transparent about pricing and outcomes of their services and products.”

Like Secretary Azar, policy makers in several other countries, including India, are also talking and seemingly in favor of transparency in health care business systems, but it remains elusive, as we shall see below.

Do vested interests create over-powering pressure to maintain status-quo?

The above examples give some idea about the pressure created by vested interested to maintain a status-quo in this important area. Although, business transparency is a must, pharma influence on policy makers is so powerful that even a recent global resolution on the subject, had to dilute its original version in its final avatar, significantly, which I shall now focus on, as yet another vindication on this issue.

The final version of the 2019 WHA resolution made weaker in transparency:

On May 28, 2019, by a News Release in Geneva, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) announced, to help expand access to medicines for all, the72nd World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted a significant resolution on improving the transparency of markets for medicines, vaccines and other health products, globally. I repeat, this was a global effort to expand access. The assembly brought together delegates from 194 Member States of the W.H.O, including India – from 20 to 28 May 2019, in Geneva, Switzerland.

Intriguingly, as several reports highlighted, ‘the final resolution is considerably weaker than the original draft.’ Nevertheless, it still provides, at least, some measures, which have potential to make an impact on market access, globally.

What exactly was the 2019 WHA original resolution?

The original WHA draft resolution, titled ‘Roadmap for access 2019-2023 – Comprehensive support for access to medicines and vaccines’, urged the Member states the following:

  • To enhance public sharing of information on actual prices paid by governments and other buyers for health products,
  • Greater transparency on pharmaceutical patents, clinical trial results and other determinants of pricing along the value chain from laboratory to patient.
  • Requests the WHO secretariat to support efforts towards transparency and monitor the impact of transparency on affordability and availability of health products, including the effect of differential pricing.

Highlighting that access to medicines is the key to advancing the Universal Health Coverage (UHC), the resolution aims to help the Member States:

  • To make more informed decisions when purchasing health products,
  • Negotiate more affordable prices
  • And ultimately expand access to health products for the populations.

Palpable discomfort of large pharma associations:

The May 30, 2019 article of the Pharm Exec Magazine on this resolution, carried a headline with a query: Is it ‘A Watershed on Transparency and International Collaboration in Drug Pricing?’ The paper brought out some important points that may help explain why the 2019 original WHA resolution, could not be adopted as such. Apparent discomfort in this regard of some top industry associations, which were created and fully funded by large global drug companies, was palpable, according to this report.

For example, “the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), warned governments ‘to carefully consider potential risks to patients, particularly in less developed countries, of sharing outcomes of confidential price negotiations across countries.’ The implication is that prices in less-affluent countries could rise if the wealthier nations used international transparency to demand lower prices for their markets.”

Why couldn’t the original resolution on business transparency be adopted?

To instantiate the level of discomfort of vested interests, let me highlight some critical changes made in the 2019 in final WHA resolution at the international level, as I get from the above paper. A few of which are as follows:

In the original draft Changes in the final resolution
1. “Undertake measures to publicly share information on prices and reimbursement cost of medicines, vaccines, cell and gene-based therapies and other health technologies.” Refers to publicly sharing of information only on net prices.
2. “Require the dissemination of results and costs from human subject clinical trials, regardless of outcome or whether the results will support an application for marketing approval.” “Take the necessary steps, as appropriate, to support dissemination of and enhanced availability of and access to aggregated results data and, if already publicly-available or voluntarily-provided, costs from human subject clinical trials regardless of outcomes or whether the results will support an application for marketing approval.”
3. “Require the publication of annual reports on sales revenue, prices, units sold, and marketing costs for individual products, as well as details of the costs of each trial used to support a marketing authorization application and information on financial support from public sources used in the development of a drug.” Calls on the member states to “work collaboratively to improve the reporting of information by suppliers on registered health products, such as reports on sales revenues, prices, units sold, marketing costs, and subsidies and incentives.”
4. Wanted the WHO Director-General to “propose a model/concept for the possible creation of a web-based tool for national governments to share information, where appropriate, on medicines prices, revenues, units sold, patent landscapes, R&D costs, the public sector investments and subsidies for R&D, marketing costs, and other related information, on a voluntary basis.” Diluted only to “assessing the feasibility and potential value of establishing a web-based tool to share information relevant to the transparency of markets for health products, including investments, incentives, and subsidies.”
5. Proposed the creation of a forum to “develop suitable options for alternative incentive frameworks to patent or regulatory monopolies for new medicines and vaccines” that would both promote universal health coverage and adequately reward innovation. This point doesn’t find any place in the final resolution.

It appears, the final 2019 WHA resolution has been able to remove the key points of discomfort for the drug industry – caused by greater business transparency. It is largely due to the fact that the final pledges ‘consist largely of recommendations for voluntary action rather than the requirements for comprehensive disclosure proposed in the original draft.’

Conclusion:

To arrive at a consensus, especially over promoting transparency in costs incurred towards R&D of drugs and health-related technologies, appeared challenging for the W.H.O Member States, inthe 72nd World Health Assemblythat concluded on May 28, 2019.Overall resolution changed the narrative from a mandatory process to a voluntary initiative. As I said before, it still prescribes several measures, which can help expand access to medicines for all, across the world.

In tandem, it also comes out clearly that barriers to business transparency to ensure better access to drugs for all, across the world, are not easy to uproot, either. Especially, when it comes to fighting against concerted efforts of powerful pharma lobby groups, other vested interests and some looney fringes.

The process of adoption of the May 2019 WHA final resolution of the world’s most relevant public health issues, is just an example.

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.

How Creative Is Pharma Industry?

Posted on by
Reply

“Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two – and only two – basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business,” said the management guru of all times – Peter Drucker, decades ago. He further added, “The aim of marketing is to know and understand the customer, so well the product or service fits him and sells itself.” What needs to be underscored in this visionary articulation of Drucker is, effective marketing should create such a strong pull for a product or service that renders hard selling less relevant.

The word ‘innovation’ is used frequently within the pharma industry, and more by the multi-national players on a specific context. The purpose is mainly to douse stakeholder concern on high prices of innovative drugs – building a narrative around expensive, complex and time-intensive drug innovation process. That said, just as creativity is necessary to discover new drugs, creative minds also help in effectively reducing the cost of innovation – creating more customers for the company.

Curiously, in this debate the other key business function – ‘marketing’, often takes a back seat, with its usage getting generally restricted to product features and benefits, including ‘freebies’ of various kinds. Neither is there any palpable effort to make the culture of ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’ prevail across the organization, for overcoming several critical growth barriers that keep looming over all functional areas.

Is it happening because of a hubris, as it were, within the pharma and biotech industry? This article will try to figure out why this has been happening over decades and would also ponder whether the time is ripe for changing the charted path of the business model. For a clear understanding of all, let me start with the difference between creativity and innovation from the business perspective.

Creativity – a fundamental requirement in a business, is different from innovation:  

This was examined in the article titled, ‘The Importance of Creativity in Business,’ published by Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, on November 09, 2017. It emphasized, although “creativity” and “innovation” are often used interchangeably, these are two separate concepts. “Creativity is different because it is a mechanism to being innovative. You can have great ideas, but not be innovative,” the paper underscored. It brought to the fore that ‘creativity’ – being the fundamental ingredient for being ‘innovative’, is essential in the highly competitive business environment. It fuels big ideas, challenges the employees’ way of thinking, and opens the door to new business opportunities.

The IBM study also confirms this fact:

The study titled, ‘‘Capitalizing on Complexity: Insights from the Global Chief Executive Officer Study,’ led by the IBM Institute for Business Value and IBM Strategy & Change, also confirmed the above fact. The study is the fourth edition of IBM’s biennial Global CEO Study series, involving more than 1,500 Chief Executive Officers from 60 countries and 33 industries worldwide.

The study reported, CEOs selected creativity as the most important leadership attribute and the number one factor for future business success. It added: ‘Creative leaders invite disruptive innovation, encourage others to drop outdated approaches and take balanced risks. They are open-minded and inventive in expanding their management and communication styles, particularly to engage with a new generation of employees, partners and customers.’ Importantly, ‘creativity’ ranked higher than rigor, management discipline, integrity or even vision, as each of these will require creativity. According to the study, successfully navigating through an increasing complex world of ‘accelerated industry transformation, growing volumes of data, rapidly evolving customer preferences, can be overcome by instilling ‘creativity’ throughout an organization.

‘Necessity is the mother of invention’ – does it apply to pharma, as well?  

In today’s complex business environment, pharma’s business challenges are spreading rapidly across many areas. Besides innovation of new drugs, following are four broad, but critical areas, where fostering of creativity, innovative thinking and invention of game changing ideas, across the organization, I reckon, can fetch a sustainable return, in a win-win way:

  • Intense ‘pricing pressure’ to make innovative drugs affordable for greater access to patients: Just as innovative ideas are of fundamental importance to develop new drugs; disruptive innovative ideas in this area, can help resolve this issue, effectively – not any incremental measure.
  • Declining corporate image and eroding public trust: Placing patients’ interest at the center of the business model, and then effective marketing of the same, can reverse this trend, with better business outcomes.
  • Lack of business transparency: Make business processes, including pricing, sales and marketing more transparent, by leveraging the power of data with modern technology.
  • Declining per dollar marketing productivity: Move away from the old and traditional business models to find a new pathway for success, using the process of simulation, on an ongoing basis.

While above are some of the pressing needs for steering the course of pharma and biotech industry, the business keeps charting the same patch, with a bit of tweaking, here or there. Thus, the good old saying – ‘necessity is the mother of invention,’ still doesn’t work in pharma.  The question, therefore, is why? We shall discuss it in just a bit. Before that, let me explore how creative the pharma industry, joining some critical dots.

How creative is pharma and biotech industry?

To explore this area, I shall try to touch upon the following two points:

  • Is there any perceptible financial impact on pharma sales revenue, net profit and gross operating margin, for not creatively resolving some critical growth barriers, as stated above?
  • Where does pharma and biotech industry stand in global ‘creativity ranking’?

For this purpose, when I look at the following four major areas, some interesting findings emerge:

  • Top 10 in sales revenue.
  • Top 10 in net profit
  • Average Gross and Operating Margin
  • Creativity ranking of some major pharma and biotech companies

Top 10 in sales revenue:

The overall sales revenue of the pharma/biotech companies remains healthy. On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be any storm signal.  According to Market Research Reports, Inc. the top 10 companies on 2018 sales revenue, are as follows:

  1. Pfizer Inc.: USD 53.647 Billion
  2. Novartis AG: USD 51.90 Billion
  3. Roche Holding AG: USD 45.5896 Billion
  4. Johnson & Johnson: USD 40.734 Billion
  5. Sanofi S.A: USD 39.288 Billion
  6. Merck & Co., Inc.: USD 37.689 Billion
  7. AbbVie Inc.: USD 32.753 Billion
  8. Amgen: USD 23.7 Billion
  9. GSK: USD 22.968 Billion
  10. Bristol-Myers Squibb: USD 22.600 Billion 

Top 10 in net profit:

There isn’t any storm signal visible in this area, either, as it is seen in isolation. According to Statista, the 2018 ranking of the top 10 biotech and pharmaceutical companies worldwide, based on net income, as appeared in the Financial Times 2018 equity screener database, is as follows:

Rank

Company

Net income ($ Billion)

1.

Johnson & Johnson (USA)

15

2.

Novartis (Switzerland)

13.8

3.

Pfizer (USA)

11.9

4.

Roche (Switzerland)

10.5

5.

Amgen (USA)

8.5

6.

Gilead (USA)

7.7

7.

AbbVie USA)

6.8

8.

Novo Nordisk (Denmark)

6.0

9.

Bayer (Germany)

4.3

10.

Biogen (USA)

4.1

Let’s now look at the average gross and operating margin in the pharma and biotech industry.

Average Gross and operating Margin – still the best:  

This also looks healthy, as compared to others. According to the January 2018 study by New York University’s Stern School of Business, average gross margin of 481 biotech and 237 pharma and biotech companies was reported at 70.71 percent and 68.60 percent, respectively. And their operating margins were at 25.45 percent and 24.89 percent, severally – against 12.32 percent of all the 7209 companies surveyed.

Creativity ranking of some commonly known pharma and biotech companies:

Here there seems to be an issue. When I look at the 2018 Forbes list of ‘The World’s Most Innovative Companies,’ it will be challenging to find any of the above top names of the pharma and biotech companies within the Top 100 ranking. Just to illustrate the point, let me reproduce below some commonly known names of our industry:

Rank Company Country 12-month sales growth% Innovation Premium%
#7. Incyte USA 38.93 70.59
#14. Celltrion S. Korea 45.25 62.3
#16. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals USA 20.82 61.11
#17. Vertex Pharmaceuticals USA 46.2 60.93
#22. Alexion Pharmaceuticals USA 17.32 58.04
#82. Allergan Ireland 9.4 37.59

Some interesting possibilities:

The above data, points towards some interesting possibilities:

  • Because of its sales and profit margin remaining generally lucrative, the focus on innovation of most pharma and biotech companies, get restricted to new drug discovery and development processes.
  • Top management’s encouragement of creativity across all functions of the organization appears inadequate, to successfully navigate through the key growth barriers, to maintain future business sustainability.

But, some critical signals do indicate: ‘shape up or ship out’:

But the real picture isn’t as rosy. Analysis of some key trends does capture several critical storm signals for the industry According to the July 09, 2018 study of EY (Ernst and Young): ‘Margins of pharmaceutical companies are continuing to decline – the future lies in new ecosystems.’ It further indicated: Although the margins of the 21 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world are declining, the businesses ‘are still growing, thanks to blockbuster drugs and new active ingredients against cancer. 40 per cent of the active ingredients that are currently being developed worldwide are cancer drugs.’

The paper concluded, the future lies in designing completely new types of ecosystems and business models. With the aim of providing comprehensive support for healthcare customers, including patients. “Data-driven business models will permanently change the pharmaceutical industry,” the paper articulated. The study forecasted, ‘life Science startups will take over between 30 and 45 per cent of the market by 2030.’ Isn’t this a clear signal, especially for large and longtime pharma players to ‘shape up or ship out?’

Conclusion: 

Let me now revert to what Peter Drucker said on two basic functions of a business – Innovation and Marking. None can question pharma on its consistently bringing to market innovative drugs to effectively tackle many diseases, including complex and life-threatening ones. Given, that ongoing new drug development is the lifeblood of growth of pharma business. Nevertheless, that aspect of innovation is mostly perceived as an exclusive internal business value for most companies. The majority of stakeholders perceives the value of drug innovation as inclusive, when it is made accessible to a large population of patients at an affordable price, along with a decent Return on Investment (ROI) for the corporation. This expectation cannot be wished away. Instead, its core concept should drive the other basic function of business – marketing

This stage can be attained by building an innovative organization, fostering the culture and process of ‘creativity’ – across its functions. It is now a fundamental requirement for pharma and biotech companies. Beyond new product development, innovation immensely helps organizations navigating through strong headwinds to achieve its financial goals and objectives, in an inclusive manner. When IT – another knowledge industry, can reduce the cost of innovation through creative processes, across all functions, making its product and services affordable to a large population, e.g. Reliance Jio, why not Pharma? In that sense, I reckon, pharma and biotech companies are yet to become creative – in a holistic way.

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.

Innovative ‘Medicines Too Damn Expensive’: Health Risk For Billions of People

Posted on by
Reply

Most ‘medicines are too damn expensive. And a key part of the problem is the lack of consistent information about drug pricing. It’s not often that the Trump administration and the anti-poverty NGO Oxfam find themselves singing from the same hymn sheet.’ This was articulated in the article carrying a headline, ‘No One Knows The True Cost Of Medicines, And Blaming Other Countries Won’t Help,’ published by Forbes on March 03, 2019.

In the oldest democracy of the world, on the eve of the last Presidential election, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, September 2016 captured the public anger on skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs, which they ranked near the top of consumers’ health care concerns. Accordingly, politicians in both parties, including the Presidential candidates, vowed to do something about it.

Ironically, even so close to General Election in the largest democracy of the world, no such data is available, nor it is one of the top priority election issues. Nevertheless, the discontentment of the general public in this area is palpable. The final push of election propaganda of any political party is now unlikely to include health care as one of the key focus areas for them. This is because, many seemingly trivial ones are expected to fetch more votes, as many believe.

In this area, I shall dwell on the ‘mystic’ area of jaw dropping, arbitrary drug pricing, especially for innovative lifesaving drugs – drawing examples from some recent research studies in this area.

High drug prices and associated health risks for billions of people:

New Oxfam research paper, titled: ‘Harmful Side Effects: How drug companies undermine global health,’ published on September 18, 2018, ferreted out some facts, which, in general terms, aren’t a big surprise for many. It highlighted the following:

  • Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Pfizer – systematically hide their profits in overseas tax havens.
  • By charging very high prices for their products, they appear to deprive developing countries more than USD 100 million every year – money that is urgently needed to meet health needs of people in these countries.
  • In the UK, these four companies may be underpaying around £125m of tax each year.
  • These corporations also deploy massive lobbying operations to influence trade, tax and health policies in their favor and give their damaging behavior greater apparent legitimacy.
  • Tax dodging, high prices and political influencing by pharmaceutical companies exacerbate the yawning gap between rich and poor, between men and women, and between advanced economies and developing ones.

The impact of this situation is profound and is likely to further escalate, if left unchecked, the reason being self-regulation of pharma industry is far from desirable in this area.

As discussed in the article, titled ‘Why Rising Drug Prices May Be the Biggest Risk to Your Health,’ published in Healthline on July 18, 2018, left unchecked, the rising cost of prescription drugs could cripple healthcare, as well as raise health risks for millions of people. Although this specific article was penned in the American context, it is also relevant in India, especially for lifesaving patented drugs, for treating many serious ailments, such as cancer.

Is pharma pricing arbitrary?

The answer to this question seems to be no less than an emphatic ‘yes’. Vindicating this point, the above Forbes article says: ‘It’s a myth that the costs of medicines need to be high, to cover the research & development costs of pharmaceutical companies.’

Explaining it further, the paper underscored, ‘Prices in the pharma industry aren’t set based on a particular acceptable level of profit, or in relation to the cost of production. They’re established based on a calculation of the absolute maximum that enough people are willing to pay.’

The myth: ‘High R&D cost is the reason for high drug price’: 

Curiously, ample evidences indicate that this often-repeated argument of the drug companies’, is indeed a myth. To illustrate the point, I am quoting below just a few examples, as available from both independent and also the industry sources that would bust this myth:

  • Several research studies show that actual R&D cost to discover and develop a New Molecular Entity (NME) is much less than what the pharma and biotech industry claims. Again, in another article, titled ‘The R&D Factor: One of the Greatest Myths of the Industry,” published in this blog on March 25, 2013, I also quoted the erstwhile CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on this subject. He clearly enunciated in an interview with Reuters that: “US $1 billion price tag for R&D was an average figure that includes money spent on drugs that ultimately fail… If you stop failing so often, you massively reduce the cost of drug development… It’s entirely achievable.”
  • In addition, according to the BMJ report: ‘More than four fifths of all funds for basic research to discover new drugs and vaccines come from public sources,’ and not incurred by respective drug companies.
  • Interestingly, other research data reveals that ‘drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs – in some cases twice as much – than on developing them.’ This was published by the BBC New with details, in an article, titled ‘Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits.’

World Health Organization (WHO) recommends transparency in drug pricing:

The report of the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on ‘Access to Medicines’ released on September 14, 2016 emphasized the need of transparency in this area of the pharma sector. It recommended, governments should require manufacturers and distributors to disclose to drug regulatory and procurement authorities information pertaining to:

  • The costs of R&D, production, marketing and distribution of health technology being procured or given marketing approval to each expense category separated; and
  • Any public funding received in the development of any health technology, including tax credits, subsidies and grants.

But the bottom-line is, not much, if any, progress has been made by any UN member countries participating in this study. The overall situation today still remains as it has always been.

Conclusion:

The Oxfam report, as mentioned above, captures how arbitrarily fixed exorbitant drug pricing, creates a profound adverse impact on the lives of billions of people in developing and underdeveloped countries. Let me quote here only one such example from this report corroborating this point. It underlined that the breast cancer drug trastuzumab, costing around USD 38,000 for a 12-month course, is almost five times the average income for a South African household. The situation in India for such drugs, I reckon, is no quite different.

To make drug pricing transparent for all, the paper recommends, “attacking that system of secrecy around R&D costs is key.” Pharma players have erected a wall around them, as it were, by giving reasons, such as, ‘commercial secret, commercial information, no we can’t find out about this’…if you question intellectual property, it’s like you’re questioning God.” The report adds.

In India, the near-term solution for greater access to new and innovative lifesaving drugs to patients, is to implement a transparent patented drug pricing policy mechanism in the country. This is clearly enshrined in the current national pharma policy document, but has not seen the light of the day, just yet.

In the battle against disease, life-threatening ailments are getting increasingly more complex to treat, warranting newer and innovative medicines. But these ‘drugs are too damn expensive’.

In the midst of this complicated scenario, billions of people across the world are getting a sense of being trapped between ‘the devil and the deep blue sea.’Occasional price tweaking of such drugs by the regulator are no more than ‘palliative’ measures. Whereas, a long-term solution to this important issue by the policy makers are now absolutely necessary for public health interest, especially in a country like India.

By: Tapan J. Ray     

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

Data: The New ‘Magic Wand’ For Pharma Business Excellence?

Posted on by
Reply

Pharma companies focus more on defending their current practices, rather than doing things differently. A September 24, 2014 article by Bain & Company, titled ‘New Paths to Value Creation in Pharma’, made this observation.

This happens regardless of the credence that leaders who change too early, risk losing attractive cash flows from established business models, and those that move too late risk being disrupted by emerging competitors. However, analyzing the recent history, the authors observed that pharma leaders have more often erred on the side of holding on to old models for too long, leaving room for more aggressive players to disrupt them.

Analysis of the 10 companies in the above study also found: “With their sustained success, these companies refute the widely held assumption that serendipitous innovation is the key to success in pharma.” However, on the ground all 10 of these large global drug companies have prospered despite industry-wide trends such as declining R&D productivity and the demise of the primary care blockbuster model. The authors explained: “This is because they operate in a high-margin environment.”

Starting with this scenario, I shall submit in this article, why the importance of well targeted data-based decision-making process, across the pharma functional areas, is now more than ever before.

Rewriting notes in the business playbook, taking cue from new data:

Having charted in the high margin ambience, Big Pharma exhibit reluctance in recomposing notes in the business playbook, based on a new set of real-life data. This is essential for sustainable success in a fast-changing business, political and social environment. They keep maintaining a strong belief in what they have been believing, regardless of what a large volume of credible data overwhelmingly indicates. Ongoing near unanimity in their collective decision to further intensify expensive advocacy initiatives in the same direction, continues. Other pharma players follow the same course.

This vicious circle continues sans any positive outcome, neither for pharma, nor for the patients. Already dented reputation of the industry gets more dented. In my various articles in this blog, I deliberated on various areas that merit radical overhaul in the pharma business, including patient-centricity and transforming the business through digitalization.

Use of data and analytics leaves room for a huge improvement in pharma: 

Let me express upfront, I am not trying to say, in any way, that pharma companies, in general, are not making investments for customized data generation or in analytics for use in new drug discovery and development, aiming improved process productivity. But, in many other functional areas, such as drug marketing, stakeholder engagement or even in strategic corporate communication for greater effectiveness, usage of scalable data and modern analytics leave much room for improvement.

Quality of data-use – ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’: 

As the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, let me give a couple of examples on the quality of data-use and their outcomes in the areas under discussion.

Sizeable data clearly establishes the wish of most stakeholders, including patients for transparency in drug pricing, alongside improved access to affordable medicines. However, Big Pharma and their associates trying to swim against the tide keep advocating how the expensive process of drug innovation merits high drug prices. Understandably, negative public perception towards the industry further intensifies. Assuming that data analytics are extensively put to use while developing such communication, can anyone possibly cite such efforts as examples of productive use data?

Similarly, if any pharma company, for example, Sanofi besides many others, claims that it aims at ‘promoting and sustaining ethics and integrity in all our activities’ and has developed a comprehensive body of policies and standards, to provide guidance on a range of challenges specific to pharma industry like anti-bribery. However, in practice, we hear and read, even very recently that ‘Sanofi to pay more than $25 million to resolve corruption charges’ and which is not a solitary instance, either. The question, therefore, surfaces, how can data play any role in the fight against corruption by uncovering, preventing and deterring corruption.

‘How data is changing the fight against corruption:’

There are many published research papers, which established that effective use of data can prevent such corruption, and surely in cases of alleged repeat or multiple offenders in the pharma industry. One such paper titled, ‘How data is changing the fight against corruption,’ published in the OECD Forum Network on February 13, 2018, also reconfirms this point. It says:Data – both big and open – is indeed changing the anti-corruption landscape, by uncovering, preventing and deterring corruption.

Is pharma leveraging the data power for holistic business success?

I am not sure, but available evidences suggest most of them are not – at least, aiming for holistic business success. This is because, in the pharma industry, including Big Pharma, as I wrotein the past, alleged corrupt practices are widespread and continue unabated. This is quite evident from the national and international business magazines and media reports, coming rather frequently. The Transparency International Report titled “Corruption in the pharmaceutical sector – Transparency International 2016”, discusses the raging issue across the various functions of many drug companies.

Besides pharma and biotech R&D, there are many other critical areas, where leveraging data power with expert application of analytics, pharma players can reap rich harvest in terms of sustainable long-term business growth. However, for that there are some prerequisites, like – an open mind, unbiased approach, a mindset to accept reality as they are, and then neutralize the unfavorable ones with cerebral power. Trying to rationalize what is not working makes the situation worse, more complex, creating stronger headwinds.

Many sources of data capturing, still limited usage:

There are many sources of abundant data availability of various kinds, for pharma players. However, targeted data gathering of scale and appropriate analysis of the same, still remain rather limited in pharma. For example, while marketing their brands, numerous drug players in India don’t venture going beyond limited sources for data capturing for broad analysis. Such data may usually include, syndicated retail and prescription audits, besides internal sales and marketing details together with associated expenses or productivity related statistics. Data mining for dip-stick analysis is done seldom, according to industry sources.

Additionally, there are copious others who operate predominantly on ‘gut feeling’ and hearsay, sans any customer related meaningful and real-time data. When we create hype on patient-centricity, and alongside witness the general outcomes of such approaches, it requires no rocket science to fathom how much intelligent data input has gone behind such strategies.

The present system itself generates an enormous amount of real-time data in various areas, though most are not effectively utilized for weighty payoff, especially in pharma. The ongoing process of data generation also includes, drug innovation initiatives, manufacturing, supply-chain, distributor–wholesaler-retailer activities, digital apps and different websites, besides scores of other sources. But, the information, as stated above, apparently, is hardly analyzed through analytics to obtain targeted strategic inputs. Leave aside, intelligent application of the same to scale newer heights of all-round business success.

Data generation for swimming against the tide of public perception:  

Although, it’s not yielding positive results, I understand, pharma keeps spending a lot, both at the company level or through their trade bodies, to rationalize what they want the stakeholders to believe. For example,’ drug price control limits access to drugs’. Various reports to this effect are made public and used for the aggressive advocacy campaigns, though hardly taken seriously by those who matter.

Any price control, I reckon, may not be supported in ordinary circumstances. However, drug price control has definitely helped India to improve access to drugs without impeding any reasonable growth of the industry. That 5 or 10-year CAGR of the drug industry comes in double digit, despite continuation of drug price control regime for the last 48 years, offers a testimony to this fact. It’s a different issue, though, that Indian public health care system remains in shamble, even in the present regime. The lackadaisical attitude of all governments on public health related areas, is held responsible for this failure.

Conclusion:

The bottom-line is, expensive data generation effort, when gets primarily driven by self-serving motives, becomes increasingly counterproductive, as cited above. More informed stakeholders of date, including patients, probably other than the stock markets, want to see pharma players more in sync with the ground realities, and are acting accordingly. Thus, for sustainable business success, saner senses should prevail to generate adequate amounts of credible and targeted data, analyze them properly through analytics and use these with cerebral power to create a win-win situation in the pharma business.

In my view, any comprehensive ‘Decision Support System’ of an organization should go beyond the generation of mammoth internal business-related data. It should be integrated with the same kind of targeted external data of scale, with the use of modern analytics. This needs to happen – both at the macro level – as an organization, and also at the micro level – with its various functions. The corporate illusion of always ‘operating in a high-margin environment’ in pharma, will not guarantee sustainable business success, any longer.

From this perspective, using well-integrated internal and external data as the bedrock of all strategic decisions in pharma, I reckon, would soon prove to be a ‘magic wand,’ as it were, for pharma business excellence.

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.

 

Big Pharma Demands Transparency, Keeping their ‘Black-Boxes’ Tight and Safe?

Posted on by
Reply

Pharmaceutical Industry across the globe wants absolute transparency in all government laws, policies, guidelines, transactions and overall governance. They also expect the trade environment should be predictable, non-manipulative and business-friendly. These expectations are indeed well justified and deserve whole-hearted support from all concerned.

However, when similar expectations of transparency are voiced by stakeholders in the Big Pharma business operations, that will have direct or indirect impact on public health interests, one would mostly encounter a well guarded, mammoth and impregnable ‘Black Box’, wearing a ‘Top Secret’ label, with all relevant information kept inside.

Such areas of stakeholders’ interests on Big Pharma could well be related to details, like for example:

  • Actual break-up of R&D expense details,
  • Transparency in all clinical trials data for experts review,
  • Patented products’ pricing rationale,
  • Enormous total costs of lobbying and related expenses at the global level,
  • Marketing spend on doctors and other decision makers, directly or indirectly, just to name a few.

Mounting curiosity:

Continuation of such opaque practices for a long time, in turn, sparks the curiosity of the intelligentsia to know more in details, especially, about the areas as stated above.

Various research studies are now coming up, with huge revelations and strong findings in these areas. All of these together indicate, it is about time for the global pharma to also demonstrate transparency in their respective business practices and corporate governances, without further delay.

If it does not happen, probably respective governments in various countries will start acting on these areas of opaque self-serving pharma business practices, with the enactment and more importantly, stricter enforcement of requisite laws and policies. President Obama Administration in the United States has already initiated some important actions in these areas with proposals and laws, like for example,  the “Physicians Payment Sunshine Act’ .

The ‘Power Game’:

An interesting article of May 3, 2013 highlighted that the global pharmaceutical industry exerts incredible influence over the prescription medicines across the globe. This power, as many will know, flows from robust political contacts and influences over various important government agencies administrating the entire healthcare system, executed immaculately by expensive lobbying and PR campaigns by their globally integrated trade bodies.

Similar powerful influences also get extended to doctors and the people who matter to further their interests. These well crafted plans are reportedly executed through sponsored or paid opinion-modifying articles, ‘advertorials’, DTC advertisements (wherever legally permitted) and well-organized, seemingly third party, speeches to push the envelopes further.

Most probably, keeping such ongoing practices in mind and coming under intense media pressure, the Medical Council of India (MCI) on December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ for the doctors in India. Unfortunately, its implementation on the ground is rather tardy.

The above article also stated, “In fact, in the United States the industry contributes heavily to the annual budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is charged with regulating drugs and devices made by those same companies.”

Avoidable Expenditures:

The paper indicates that in the United States alone the industry associations:

  • Have 1,100-plus paid lobbyists on Capitol Hill,
  • Allocated US$ 188 million annual lobbying budget
  • Doles out around US$ 14 million to political candidates every year

The report also comments, ‘Drug companies spend substantially more on marketing than they do on research and development.’

Influencing opinion against patients’ interest?

The article in the ‘drugwatch’ also states:

“Doctors are persuaded by the pharma companies to attach their names (ghost writing), against financial considerations, to favorable article on a particular drug ensuring that it is published in a well reputable medical journal.”

The author continues that ‘Ghost writings’ are being used to promote numerous drugs to influence concerned stakeholders.

In 1998, a study of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine found that ‘out of 75 published articles, nearly half were written by authors with financial conflicts. And, worse than this, only two of the articles disclosed interests.’

Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, was quoted saying, “All journals are bought – or at least cleverly used – by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Striking facts:

Following are some striking facts as reported in the article, as mentioned above:

“Advertising instead of research: For every US$ 1 spent on “basic research,” Big Pharma spends US$ 19 on promotions and advertising.

Distribution of free drug samples: The United States has 1 pharmaceutical sales representative for every 5 office-based physicians.

Sponsorship of symposiums and medical conventions: Drug and medical device makers spend lavishly on doctors, including covering meals, travel, seminars and conventions that may look more like vacations.”

Pressure on publications:

The paper highlights that large global pharma majors may even pull its advertisements out, if the concerned medical journal will question the accuracy of an ad. Such types of threats have very serious effects on these journals in running their businesses without getting lucrative advertisement dollars from the drug manufacturers.

Making drugs looking good:

The same article highlights:

“Quite often the academics and scientists are hired hands who supply human subjects and collect data according to the instructions from their corporate employers. Sponsors keep the data, analyze, write the papers and decide whether and when and where to submit them for publication. Drug companies have discovered ways to stage-manage trials to produce predetermined outcomes that will put their products in the best light.”

With this strategy even a bad drug can allegedly be made looking good by doing many things, like for example:

  • Comparing them to a placebo
  • Comparing them to a competitor’s medication in the wrong strength
  • Pairing them with a drug that is known to work well
  • Shortening a trial before any bad results surface
  • Testing in groups too small to provide valid evidence

Pay-for-delay deals:

A recent report titled, “Top twenty pay-for-delay drugs: How Industry pay-off delay generics” highlights that ‘Pay-for-delay deals’ have forced patients in the United States to pay an average of 10 times more than necessary for at least 20 blockbuster drugs.

Key findings of the analysis on the impact of pay-for-delay deals are as follows:

  • This practice has held back generic medicines used by patients with a wide range of serious or chronic conditions, ranging from cancer and heart disease, to depression and bacterial infection.
  • These payoffs have delayed generic drugs for five years, on average, and as long as nine years.
  • These brand-name drugs cost 10 times more than their generic equivalents, on average, and as much as 33 times more.
  • These patented drug companies have made an estimated US$ 98 billion in total sales of these drugs while the generic versions were delayed.

Citing example, the paper says, a pay-for-delay deal kept a generic version of the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen off the US market for nine years, while Pfizer made $7.4 billion in sales of its cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor (atorvastatin) in 2012 alone.

The point to ponder yet again is, why such practices are being surreptitiously carried out for years sacrificing patients’ interest and without the regulators’ strong interventions, in general?

French Government has initiated a probe:

The French Competition Authority is reportedly expected to publish a report on the findings of its inquiry, initiated in February 2013, into the costs and pricing of medicines in France. The report will also look at whether industry practices are interfering with the market entry of generic drugs, including distribution arrangements between drug manufacturers, wholesalers and pharmacists.

An appreciable initiative in America, but why not in India?

There is still a simmering hope. As indicated above, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act reportedly requires that from September 2013, pharmaceutical companies will need to collect data and openly report information on payments, investment interests, ownership and items of value given to doctors and hospitals. Very unfortunately, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has not taken any such steps, as yet, despite the situation turning grave in the country.

The power of pharma lobby in the US:

According to a recent NYT report, in the United States, government health programs are forbidden from rejecting new drugs on cost grounds.

When the issue of drug prices came up as part of President Obama’s ‘Affordable Care Act’ debate, it was summarily rejected in Congress. Simultaneously, a move toward comparative-effectiveness studies, putting rival drugs or treatments through trials to determine which work better, was also decried.

The report highlights, the mere suggestion of the US government throwing its weight around on drug prices stirs up talk of ‘socialism’. The pharma lobby doesn’t have to look far for support in fighting that idea. In the US, the so-called ‘free market’ is trusted to regulate drug prices, despite the reality that the healthcare market is far from transparent, ‘with byzantine pricing mechanisms and costs that vary wildly region-by-region, pharmacy by pharmacy and even patient-by-patient’.

The usual supply/demand/pricing relationships do not apply to drug prices at the consumer level in the US too, just as it has been proved in India. 

A large part of creation of this environment is attributed to pharmaceutical and other health-products firms, who reportedly spent a total of US$ 250 million on lobbying last year. 

Big Pharma keeps failing credibility tests:

This happened very recently, when The Guardian in July 2013 reported, the pharmaceutical industry has “mobilized” an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drug trials. This is related to the news that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) could force drug companies to publish all Clinical Trial (CT) results in a public database.

The above report says, while some pharma players agreed to share data, important global pharma industry associations have resisted this plan of the EMA. The report continues, a leaked letter from two large pharma trade associations, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) of the United States and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), have drawn out a strategy to combat calls by drug regulators to force companies to publish all CT results.

The strategy reportedly shows how patient groups, many of which receive some or all of their funding from drugs companies, have been drawn into this battle by these Big Pharma lobby groups.

The e-mail reportedly seen by ‘The Guardian’ was from Richard Bergström, Director General of EFPIA, addressed to directors and legal counsel at Roche, Merck, Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis and many smaller companies.

The e-mail leaked by an employee of a pharma company describes a four-pronged campaign that starts with “mobilizing patient groups to express concern about the risk to public health by non-scientific re-use of data”.

Translated, as ‘The Guardian’ reported, “that means patient groups go into bat for the industry by raising fears that if full results from drug trials are published, the information might be misinterpreted and cause a health scare.”

This appears to be another classic case of vested interests working against patients’ interests.

Global lobbying started taking the center stage in India too:

With the above back-drop and lobbying scandals reportedly being surfaced in many other countries, it is about time that India puts its acts together with India-specific stricter disclosure policies, including R&D, Clinical Trials (CTs), Patented Products Pricing, Marketing Practices and Trade Lobbying.

Interestingly, to influence Government policies India’s top lobbying spenders in 2012 (US$ million) were reported as follows:

1 US Chamber of Commerce

136.3
2 National Association of Realtors

41.5
3 Blue Cross / Blue Shield

22.5
4 General Electric

21.1
5 American Hospital Association

19.2
6 National Cable & Telecom. Association

18.9
7 Pharmaceutical Research & Mfrs. of America (PhRMA)

18.5
8 Google

18.2
9 Northrop Grumman

17.5
10 AT&T

17.4
11 American Medical Association

16.5
12 Boeing

15.6

Source: The Center for Responsive Politics (Economic Times, June 4, 2013)

According to the latest lobbying disclosure reports filed with the US Senate and the House of Representatives, at least two dozen American companies and industry associations are reportedly lobbying hard with the US lawmakers on issues in India, which include:

  • Intellectual Property (IP)
  • Patent
  • Market access

Another recent report comments as follows:

“The US Chamber of Commerce has become a portal for dubious reports that claim India’s intellectual property regime is worse than China’s. Such “research” by paid lobbyists and disseminated through the halls of US Congress…”

Hefty fines for illegal practices, yet Black Box remains tight and safe: 

In December 2010, Healthcare advocacy group Public Citizen published a report that, for the first time, documented all major financial settlements and court judgments between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the federal and state governments of the United States since 1991.

It says, almost US$ 20 billion was paid out by the pharmaceutical industry to settle allegations of numerous violations, including illegal, off-label marketing and the deliberate overcharging of taxpayer-funded health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Three-fourths of the settlements and accompanying financial penalties had occurred in just the five-year period prior to 2010. There has been no indication that this upward trend is subsiding.

10 Largest Settlements and Judgments on Big Pharma mis governance:
(Period: Nov. 2, 1010 – July 18, 2012)

Company Amount    US$ Million Year Reasons
1. GlaxoSmithKline 3, 000 2012 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks, concealing study data, overcharging government health programs
2. Abbott  1,500 2012 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
3. Johnson & Johnson 1,200 2012 Unlawful promotion
4.  Merck 950 2011 Unlawful promotion
5. Ranbaxy 500 2012 Poor manufacturing practices, falsifying data on FDA applications.
6. Johnson & Johnson 327 2011 Unlawful promotion
7. Boehringer Ingelheim 280 2011 Overcharging government health programs
8. Mylan’s Dey Pharma unit 280 2010 Overcharging government health programs
9. Elan 203 2010 Unlawful promotion, kickbacks
10. Johnson & Johnson 158 2012 Unlawful promotion

Conclusion:

All such expenditures, including expensive lobbying and court settlement charges for illegal business practices, as mentioned above, I reckon, are wasteful and avoidable. These are mostly outcomes of self serving measures, shorn of public health interest, 

If all these costs are eliminated and actual R&D expenses are reflected, in a transparent manner, there could be significant reduction in the costs of newer innovative drugs, extending their access to billions of patients, across the world.

Thus to help evaluating the innovative drugs with greater transparency, there is an urgent need for the Big Pharma to set examples by voluntarily disclosing the secrets hidden within the ‘Black Boxes’, as deliberated above. These disclosures should be made to the independent experts and the respective Governments under appropriate statutes.

Expectations of transparency in Governance should not, therefore, be restricted just to Government laws, policies and decisions, the industry should reciprocate it too, in equal measures.

To be patient-centric, transparency in governance needs to be a two-way traffic, where pharma industry should volunteer to be an integral part, sooner than later. Otherwise it may be too late for them to avoid harsh interventions of the respective regulators, as the intense pressure from intelligentsia, civil society and media, keep mounting.

That said, the question lingers:

When the ‘Big Pharma is rightly demanding transparency in all areas of public discourse, why are they so reluctant in making their intriguing ‘Black Boxes’ transparent, that too only in areas of public health interest, for fair experts review?

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.

Transparency in Drug Trial Data: Thwarted by Lobbyists or Embroiled in Controversy?

Posted on by
Reply

Based on a leaked letter from overseas pharma industry bodies, a leading international daily in late July 2013 reported:

“Big pharma mobilizing patients in battle over drugs trials data.”

Some experts consider it as a poignant, if not a bizarre moment in the history of drugs development, keeping patients’ interest in mind. However, the concerned trade bodies could well term it as a business savvy strategy to maintain sanctity of ‘Data Exclusivity’ in real sense.

That said, it is important for the stakeholders to figure out where exactly does this strategy stand between the larger issue of patients’ drug safety and efficacy concerns and the commercial interest of the innovator companies to grow  their business.

Lack of transparency in drug trials data and consequences:

Outside pharmaceutical marketing, some of the biggest scandals in the drug industry have been alleged hiding of data related to negative findings in drug Clinical Trials (CTs) by the innovator companies.

Many stakeholders have already expressed their uneasiness on this wide spread allegation that research based pharmaceutical companies publish just a fraction of their CT data and keep much of the drug safety related information to themselves. Not too distant withdrawals of blockbuster drugs like Vioxx (Merck) and Avandia (GSK) will vindicate this point.

Examples of global withdrawals of drugs, including blockbuster ones, available from various publications, are as follows. 

Brand

Company

Indication

Year of Ban/Withdrawal

Reason

Vioxx

Merck

Anti Inflammatory

2004

Increase cardiovascular risk

Bextra

Pfizer

Anti Inflammatory

2005

Heart attack and stroke

Prexige

Novartis

Anti Inflammatory

2007

Hepatotoxicity

Mylotarg

Wyeth

Acute Myelogenous Leukemia

2010

Increased patient death/No added benefit over conventional cancer therapies

Avandia

GSK

Diabetes

2010

Increased cardiovascular risk

Reductil

Abbott

Exogenous Obesity

2010

Increased cardiovascular risk

Paradex

Eli Lilly

Analgesic, Antitussive and Local Anaesthetic

2010

Fatal overdoses and heart arrhythmias

Xigris

Eli Lilly

Anti-Thrombotic, Anti-Inflammatory, and Profibrinolytic

2011

Questionable efficacy for the treatment of sepsis

A recent example:

A recent report indicates that Japan (Tokyo) based Jikei University School of Medicine plans to withdraw a paper on the hypertension drug Diovan of Novartis from the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) due to “data manipulation,” suggesting the drug could help treating other ailments.

The report also indicates that an investigative panel formed by the university to look into the allegations of ‘rigged data’ for Diovan concluded that the results were cooked.

The decision of the Japanese University to withdraw this paper is expected to hurt the reputation of Novartis Pharma AG and at the same time raise ethical concerns about the company’s behavior concerning its best-selling hypertension drug, the report says.

Drug regulators contemplating remedial measures:

Now being cognizant about this practice, some drug regulators in the developed world have exhibited their keenness to disband such practices. These ‘gatekeepers’ of drug efficacy and safety are now contemplating to get the entire published CT data reanalyzed by the independent experts to have a tight leash on selective claims by the concerned pharma companies.

A review reportedly estimates that only half of all CTs were published in full and that positive results are twice as likely to be published than negative ones.

Recently the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has published a draft report for public consideration on greater openness of CT data. As stated above, this proposal allows independent experts to conduct a detail analysis on the safety and effectiveness of new drugs.

Mobilizing patients to thwart transparency?

Interestingly, as stated in the beginning, it has recently been reported that to thwart the above move of the drug regulator in favor of patients’ interest:

“The pharmaceutical industry has mobilized an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drugs trials.”

The same report highlights that two large overseas trade associations had worked out a grand strategy, which is initially targeted at Europe. This is for the obvious reason that the EMA wants to publish all of the clinical study reports that drug companies have filed, and where negotiations around the CT directive could force drug companies to publish all CT results in a public database.

Embroiled in controversy:

It has also been reported simultaneously, “Some who oppose full disclosure of data fear that publishing the information could reveal trade secrets, put patient privacy at risk, and be distorted by scientists’ own conflicts of interest.”

Pharmaceutical trade associations in the west strongly argue in favor of the need of innovator companies to keep most of CT data proprietary for competitive reasons. They reiterate that companies would never invest so much of time and money for new drug development, if someone could easily copy the innovative work during the patent life of the product.

However, the report also states, “While many of these concerns are valid, critics say they can be addressed, and that openness is far more important for patients’ drug safety reasons.“

Addressing the concerns:

To address the above concerns the EMA has reportedly separated clinical data into three categories:

  • Commercially confidential information.
  • Open-access data that doesn’t contain patients’ personal information.
  • Controlled-access data that will only be granted after the requester has fulfilled a number of requirements, including signing of a data-sharing agreement.

However experts do also reiterate, “Risks regarding data privacy and irresponsible use cannot be totally eliminated, and it will be a challenge to accommodate diverse expectations across the scientific and medical community. However, the opportunity to benefit the health of individuals and the public must outweigh these concerns.”

Some laudable responses:

Amidst mega attempts to thwart the move of EMA towards CT data transparency surreptitiously, there are some refreshingly good examples in this area, quite rare though, as follows:

  • As revealed by media, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has recently announced that it would share detailed data from all global clinical trials conducted since 2007, which was later extended to all products since 2000. This means sharing more than 1,000 CTs involving more than 90 drugs. More recently, to further increase transparency in how it reports drug-study results, GSK reportedly has decided to disclose more individual patient data from its CTs. GSK has also announced that qualified researchers can request access to findings on individual patients whose identities are concealed and confidentiality protected.The company would double the number of studies to 400 available by end 2013 to researchers seeking data of approved medicines and of therapies that have been terminated from development.
  • Recently Canada reportedly announced the launch of Canadian Government’s new public database of Health Canada-authorized drug CTs. It is believed that providing access to a central database of clinical trials is an initial step that will help fill an existing information gap as the government works to further increase transparency around CTs.
  • The well-known British Medical Journal (BMJ) in one of its editorials has already announced, “BMJ will require authors to commit to supplying anonymised patient level data on reasonable request from 2013.”

All these are indeed laudable initiatives in terms of ensuring long term drug safety and efficacy for the patients.

Conclusion:

It is quite refreshing to note that a new paradigm is emerging in the arena of CT data transparency, for long-term health interest of patients, despite strong resistance from powerful pharmaceutical trade bodies, as reported in the international media. This paradigm shift is apparently being spearheaded by Europe and Canada among the countries, the global pharma major GSK and the medical Journal BMJ.

A doubt still keeps lingering on whether or not independent expert panels will indeed be given access to relevant CT data for meaningful impartial reviews of new drugs, as the issue, in all probability, would increasingly be made to get embroiled in further controversy.

Moreover, if the innovator companies’ often repeated public stand – “patients’ interest for drug efficacy and safety is supreme” is taken in its face value, the veiled attempt of thwarting transparency of CT Data, with an utterly bizarre strategy, by the lobbyists of the same ‘patient caring’ constituent, can indeed be construed as a poignant moment, now frozen in time, in the history of drug development for mankind.

Be that as it may, to resolve this problem meaningfully and decisively, I reckon, a middle path needs to be carefully charted out between reported thwarting moves by pharma lobbyists and the embroiled controversy on the burning issue.

Thus, the final critical point to ponder:

Would the commerce-driven and cost-intensive pharma innovation also not be in jeopardy, affecting patients’ interest too, if the genuine concerns of the innovator companies over ‘CT Data Protection’ are totally wished away? 

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.

 

Pioglitazone Conundrum: Should The Drug Regulator Step Over The Line?

Posted on by
Reply

Recent order of the Indian drug regulator to withdraw all formulations of the well known, yet controversial, anti-diabetic drug – Pioglitazone from the domestic market has created a flutter in the country, ruffling many feathers at the same time.

Withdrawal of any drug from the market involves well-considered findings based on ongoing robust pharmacovigilance data since the concerned product launch. To ascertain long-term drug safety profile, this process is universally considered as important as the processes followed for high quality drug manufacturing and even for R&D.

A paper titled, “Withdrawing Drugs in the U.S. Versus Other Countries” brings to the fore that one of the leading causes of deaths in the United States is adverse drug reaction. Assessing enormity and impact of this issue, the United Nations General Assembly for the first time in 1979 decided to publish a list of banned pharmaceutical products that different countries may use for appropriate decisions keeping patients’ safety in mind, as they will deem necessary from time to time.

An interesting finding:

Quite interestingly, the paper also highlights:

“There are a number of pharmaceuticals on the market in the USA that have been banned elsewhere and similarly, there are some drug products that have been banned in the United States, but remain on the market in other countries.”

Different policies in different countries:

The reason for the above finding is mainly because, various countries follow different policies to address this important health related issue. For example, though the United States will withdraw drugs based on the decision taken by its own FDA, it will also compare the action taken by countries like, UK, Japan, Australia and Sweden on the same subject.

However, many experts do believe that United Nations must take greater initiative to make all concerned much more aware about the UN list of dangerous drugs, which should be continuously updated to expect the least.

Need transparency in pharmacovigilance:

Pharmacovigilance has been defined as:

“The task of monitoring the safety of medicines and ensuring that the risks of a medicine do not outweigh the benefits, in the interests of public health.”

An article on Pharmacovigilance by A.C. (Kees) van Grootheest and Rachel L. Richesson highlights as follows:

“The majority of post marketing study commitments are never initiated, and the completion of post marketing safety studies (i.e., phase IV studies) declined from 62% between 1970 and 1984 to 24% between 1998 and 2003.”

Thus, in many countries, due to lack of required transparency in the pharmacovigilance process, harmful drugs continue to remain in the market for many years before they are withdrawn, for various reasons.

The above paper strongly recommends, “While there might be monetary benefits for each country in keeping these drugs on the market, the U.N. must step up the visibility of the withdrawal of dangerous drugs list.”

Recent Pioglitazone withdrawal in India:

Recently in India, the Ministry of Health under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has suspended the manufacture and sale of Pioglitazone, along with two other drugs, with immediate effect, through a notification issued on June 18, 2013.

As per the Drugs and Cosmetic Rule 30-B, import and marketing of all those drugs, which are prohibited in the country of origin, is banned in India. Just as in the United States, the Ministry of health, while taking such decisions in India, compares long-term safety profile of the concerned drugs in countries like, USA, UK, EU and Australia.

A Parliamentary Standing Committee of India has already indicted the drug regulator for not taking prompt action on such issues to protect patients’ treatment safety.

Pioglitazone: the risk profile:

In India:

A leading medical journal (JAPI) cautions:

“Given the possible risk of bladder cancer, physicians have to be extremely careful about using pioglitazone indiscriminately in the future.”

The JAPI article continues to state:

“We require more robust data on the risk of bladder cancer with pioglitazone and Indian studies are clearly needed. Till that time, we may continue the use of this drug as a second or third line glucose-lowering agent. In all such cases, the patient should be adequately informed about this adverse effect and drug should be used in as small a dose as possible, with careful monitoring and follow up.”

In the USA:

In 2011 The US FDA as a part of its ongoing safety review of pioglitazone informed physicians and the public that use of this drug for more than 12 months is linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer.

The USFDA review is reportedly based on “an ongoing 10-year observational cohort study as well as a nested, case-control study of the long-term risk of bladder cancer in over 193,000 patients with diabetes who are members of the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) health plan.”

Based on this finding US FDA directed that physicians should:

  • Not use pioglitazone in patients with active bladder cancer.
  • Use pioglitazone with caution in patients who have a prior history of bladder cancer, adding, “The benefits of blood sugar control with pioglitazone should be weighed against the unknown risks for cancer recurrence.”
  • Tell patients to report any signs or symptoms of “blood in the urine, urinary urgency, pain on urination, or back or abdominal pain, as these may be due to bladder cancer.”
  • Urge patients to read the pioglitazone medication guide.
  • Report adverse events involving pioglitazone medicines to the FDA MedWatch program.

The moot point:

Considering the above US FDA directives in the Indian context, the moot point therefore is, whether it will be possible for the drug regulator to ensure that physicians and the patients in India follow such steps for drug safety with pioglitazone?

In Canada:

Another new Canadian study has again reportedly linked Pioglitazone with risks of bladder cancer and cautioned, “physicians, patients and regulatory agencies should be aware of this association when assessing the overall risks and benefits of this therapy.”

Pioglitazone and its combinations banned in France and Germany:

After a government-funded study, tracking diabetics from 2006 to 2009, concluded that Pioglitazone increases bladder cancer risk, the French Medicines Agency (FMA) announced withdrawal of Pioglitazone along with its fixed-dose combination with Metformin, as well.

FMA also advised doctors to stop prescribing Pioglitazone, plain or in combination, and asked patients, who are on this drug to consult their doctors immediately.

Simultaneously, German health authorities also acted on similar lines.

An intriguing comment by the Indian drug regulator:

Keeping all these in view, it is indeed intriguing to note that the Indian drug regulator is reportedly open to re-examine the case of pioglitazone and revoking its ban in India, if strong scientific evidences emerge in support of safety and efficacy of the drug.

However, the question then comes up is what more new scientific evidences that the Indian drug regulator is now expecting, especially when the pharmacovigilance studies are almost non-existent in India?

Moreover, such comments of the drug regulator not only prompt raising doubts about the fragility and hastiness of his own decision of banning Pioglitazone in India, but also amply demonstrate lack of seriousness in his part on this extremely important decision on drug safety?

‘Drug Product Liability Claims’ in India virtually non-existant:

In most of the developed countries, appropriate regulations are in place for product liability claims.

Under this law, if any patient suffers injury in any form while administering  a pharmaceutical drug, the patient concerned is eligible to make pharmaceutical-drug-based product liability claims, which usually involve a huge amount of money by any imaginable standard.

These claims are based on:

  • Improperly marketed pharmaceutical drugs. This category includes:

- Failure to provide adequate or accurate warnings regarding a dangerous side effect.

- Failure to provide adequate instructions on safe and appropriate use of the drug.

- The “bad advice”, which may have been given by the manufacturer or by a doctor, pharmacist, sales rep, or some other medical provider.

In the United States drug safety and effectiveness related litigations reportedly also include:

-        Criminal and civil complaints brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.

-        Lawsuits brought by state Attorney Generals and private plaintiffs under state consumer protection acts and other causes of action.

In India, closer to the above system there is a law in paper, named as “Products Liability”. This law deals with the liability of manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and vendors for injury to a person or property caused by dangerous or defective products. The aim of this law is to help protecting consumers from dangerous or defective products, while holding manufacturers, distributors, and retailers responsible for putting into the market place products that they knew or should have known were dangerous or defective. However, in reality, there are hardly any damages slapped by consumers on to the manufacturers in India under this ‘Product Liability’ law.

It may sound however bizarre, but is a hard fact that many drugs in Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) had never even gone through any form clinical trials on human volunteers before they were for the first time allowed to be marketed in India by the drug regulators.

In absence of any active steps taken by the government to educate and encourage patients to make use of this law, patients, by and large, would continue to pay a heavy price for their ignorance, keeping their mouth shut all the way, while using:

- Defectively manufactured pharmaceutical drugs.

- Pharmaceutical drugs with dangerous side effects.

- And even improperly marketed pharmaceutical drugs.

As stated before, it is worth repeating, neither is their any functional pharmacovigilance system in place in India.

Drug product liability suit for Pioglitazone in the United States:

Just to cite an example, one report indicates:

“According to court filings, all of the Actos (Pioglitazone) lawsuits pending in the Western District of Louisiana allege Takeda Pharmaceuticals failed to provide adequate warnings to doctors and patients regarding the drug’s association with an increased risk of bladder cancer. Last month (April, 2013), the nation’s first trial involving Actos bladder cancer allegations ended with a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarding $6.5 million to a plaintiff who was diagnosed with the disease after taking the drug for four years”. However, the judge overseeing the case granted Takeda Pharmaceuticals’ request to set aside the verdict.

The report also indicates, ‘more than 1,200 Actos bladder cancer claims are pending in the Louisiana litigation. Additional Actos lawsuits have been filed in state litigations in California and Illinois.’

Indian doctors and manufacturers protest together against Pioglitazone ban:

It is equally intriguing to note, despite serious life threatening side-effect and restricted usage profile of Pioglitazone, as established internationally through robust and large clinical studies, both the doctors and the Pioglitazone manufacturers in India are urging the government to lift ban on this drug immediately, keeping the silent patient community in the front line, as usually happens all over.

A news report highlighted that ‘doctors flayed the ban on anti-diabetes drug Pioglitazone and requested the Centre to reverse its decision in interest of patients.’

Another media report highlighted, major drug makers are strongly opposing the move of the government to ban Pioglitazone, in India.

Conclusion:

Without generating another set of robust evidence proving contrary to what has been already concluded in the United States and EU based on strong supporting pharmacovigilance data, if the Indian drug regulator revokes the ban of Pioglitazone, it will be construed as a huge compromise with patients’ safety interest with this drug.

This issue assumes even greater importance, when the ‘drug product liability’ system is almost dysfunctional in India.

The other alternative of the drug regulator is to revoke the ban, wilting under combined pressure of the manufacturers and doctors and ask for safety warnings trying to emulate, as it were, what has been done by the US FDA.  

In which case, with full knowledge that it is virtually impossible for any one to comply with the above US FDA requirements in India, will the drug regulator not step over the line, yet again?

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.