Multichannel Marketing: Two Important Pharma Trends

Posted on September 10, 2018 by Tapan Ray

On September 6, 2018, Reuters reported the announcement of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) that it would cut about 650 positions in the United States related to a global restructuring program. This includes 450 Medical (sales) Representatives (MR). Similar announcements on job cuts for MRs by other pharma companies are being made since the last several years. Last week’s GSK announcement was the continuation of the same process. This prompts me to use the aforementioned global news while focusing on two important emerging trends in the pharma industry, as we witness today.

In the rapidly digitalized world, several broader questions are often raised today. These include whether or not e-detailing in the pharma industry will eliminate the role of MRs, or for that matter will digital marketing replace the pharma print media? As the concept of ‘multichannel marketing’ (MCM) gains momentum, finding right answers to these questions or at least the right trends are assuming as much importance for business success. As I don’t have any specific answers to these queries, in this article, let me discuss just two of these emerging trends, as appears to me.

Importance of multichannel marketing in pharma:

Many pharma companies are fast realizing that their customers, such as doctors, patients and others, are showing increasing interest in getting the requisite product or treatment related information from multiple readily available channels or sources. These are accessible both in digital and print platforms, which are often of independent origin. Such behavioral preferences of pharma customers are contrary to what was mostly happening in the past, globally. However, in the pharma world of contemporary India the same old traditional path of product information flow, from drug companies through Medical Representatives to doctors, continues, by and large.

Looking ahead, ‘multichannel marketing’ for pharmaceutical and biologic products is being generally considered as the recipe for commercial success of brands. Thus, pharma players are trying to engage their customers more through multiple channels, both directly or indirectly. This is happening in many countries of the world. It is a matter of time, I reckon, that majority of large to medium Indian drug manufacturers will also follow suit.

Two interesting trends:

As multichannel marketing in pharma catches up, I find some interesting developments. These are outcomes of different channels getting balanced, based on customer preferences. Let me underscore, these are customers’ perceptions in the real world and not what the drug companies and their associates usually think, hence are worth considering. The two emerging trends, in my view, are as follows:

1. Although, the role of Medical Representatives is still important, but not as indispensable as was in the past.

2. Despite high decibel discussion over digital media, print media is still very relevant.

1. Impact on the role of Medical Representatives (MR):

“There is an ongoing debate about the effectiveness and impact of the traditional sales representative, with some arguing to discontinue the role while others sense an opportunity to improve both rep productivity and efficiency.” This was articulated in a McKinsey & McKinsey paper titled, “Death of a sales model or not.” The same article also says, even those who champion the role, point out that using richer analytics, better leadership and aligned incentives to deliver stellar results in many geographies.

To comprehend what is really happening in this area, I would quote below from two important global survey reports, with a sincere wish that similar surveys are carried out in India too. Although, these two surveys are different in nature, but address the same basic issue.

A. ZS’s Access Monitor 2014 survey:

According to this survey, “Representatives access to physicians continues to decline, particularly in certain specialties and areas of the country. Overall, close to half of all doctors in the United States are now considered “access restricted” to varying degrees.” It further says: “Since the initial ‘Access Monitor’survey in 2008, access has steadily fallen, with 77 percent of physicians considered “accessible” that year, compared with 65 percent in 2012, 55 percent in 2013 and 51 percent in 2014.

In another important finding the same study captured that “the pharmaceutical and biotech industry wastes approximately USD 1.4 billion in infeasible calls. (A call is considered infeasible if a best-in-class sales rep can’t deliver it.) The cost of infeasible calls appears to have plateaued, as companies have largely squeezed out sales force inefficiencies— making alternative channels the best path to improving access and customer engagement.”

B. CMI/Compas Media Vitals research 2018:

Despite such debate, doctors still value face to face interaction with MR, across the world. However, the digital tools and platforms of various types are increasingly used as the source of both new and existing product information, including updates.

According to CMI/Compas Media Vitals research 2018, as shown in the Table I below, doctors’ dependence on MR for information on new and existing products now stands at 51 percent and 46 percent, respectively. Similarly, for product updates their dependence stands at just 39 percent. The above McKinsey & McKinsey paper also predicts that the number of MR will gradually decline as the multichannel marketing initiatives pick up.

That said, in Table I – dinner meeting ranks seven and peer to peer information comes in the third place. Digital sources when put together now occupy a significant part of the doctors’ preferences for obtaining product information.This is also clear from the Table I that the doctors have started showing interest e-detailing, as well.

Table I: How do you want to receive information from pharma companies, for:

In %	New Products	Existing Products	Product Update
E-detailing	15	16	13
EHR	16	16	26
Reps’ Email	21	7	27
Medical Journal	22	19	12
MSL	24	23	14
Pharma Brand E-Mail	24	21	28
Direct Mail	32	29	29
Peer-to-peer	47	40	21
Dinner Meetings	49	45	24
Representatives	51	46	39

(Source CMI/Compass Media Vitals 2018)

Dinner Meetings:

As I said before, “Dinner Meetings” were rated as the second most preferred choice of the doctors for getting new and existing product information, in the above Table I. This is interesting, especially when one reads it along with the findings of the research paper, published in the August 2016 issue of JAMA Internal Medicine. The study concluded with: “The receipt of industry-sponsored meals was associated with an increased rate of prescribing the promoted brand-name medication relative to alternatives within the drug class.” The paper also clarified that “the findings represent an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship.”

2. Print media remains relevant despite digital push:

The research by CMI/Compass Media Vitals 2018 has also shown that despite the abundant availability of online versions of various medical publications, many doctors still prefer to read the print format of the same Journal, as shown below in the Table II:

Table II. How do doctors read medical Journals?

Online/Digital format (%)	Print format (%)
47	53

(Source CMI/Compass Media Vitals 2018)

Although, the professional portals are the most used to get the requisite information by the doctors, print journals still rank number three, after peer-to-peer information.

That print media is still relevant for the doctors to know about drugs, was confirmed by another study, as shown in Table III:

Table III. Print media is still relevant:

Professional Portal	Colleagues	Print Journals	CME Meetings	Online Journals	Drug Ref. App	In Person	Speaker program
72%	67%	66%	66%	53%	53%	53%	53%

(Source :Kantar Sources & Interactions report from September 2017)

It is noteworthy that ‘online journals’ rank number 5, after ‘CME meeting’.

Conclusion:

Despite Millennials in India mostly prefer reading news online through digital media, print media has still remained relevant and growing too. So are the television channels, regardless of easy availability of anytime streaming of all types of news, videos, TV serials and even movies.

Moreover, with increasing preference of digital media by an increasing number of populations, reliance of many industries such as Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) haven’t totally shifted from magazine and newspaper advertisements, alongside targeting their customers through digital platforms. The same is expected to happen with various print formats in multichannel pharma marketing, where the physical presence of MRs still play an important role. Thus, to create a greater impact on doctors, patients and other stakeholders, pharma marketers are expected to leverage the best of both print and digital world in the form of comprehensive MCM initiatives. It could well be more on digital platforms and less with print materials, as we move on.

The new role of MRs was epitomized in an interview of the Sales Director, Roche, UK, published in the eyeforpharma on January 26, 2018. In the words of the sales director: “For us, in our market, the traditional showing a visual aid and some messages with the HCP is dead… But the face to face meeting is certainly not. Its role, however, will be more about adding value, about finding the right patients for the right drug.” He further highlighted, “the clear challenge that stands before the pharmaceutical industry’s sales organizations; a world where access to physicians is diminishing, trust in the information the industry provides is dwindling, and having a costly sales force is increasingly hard to defend.”

Against this backdrop, regardless of MCM, the role of those MRs who will be in sync with the requisite applications of technology in their focus areas of work, will continue to remain relevant, though they will be lesser in number. A few of them will also stand out and shoulder higher and higher professional responsibilities in the industry. Be that as it may, in my view, these two emerging trends are expected to gather a strong tailwind, at least in the medium to long term, heralding the dawn of a new era in the Indian pharma industry.

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.

Is The Global Generic Drug Market Slowing Down?

Posted on June 5, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Driven by a strong environmental headwind, both within and outside the country, several pharma companies in India have recently started raising a red flag on their future earning guidance for the stock market, though citing quite different reasons altogether. Quoting the following two recent examples, I shall illustrate this point:

“For decades, the generic drug business has followed a simple model for growth: wait for a chemical medicine to go off patent, then copy it. But 2018 promises to be one of the industry’s last big bumper crops, with $27.8 billion worth of therapies losing protection. The following year’s haul drops by almost two thirds, and the year after it shrinks even further” – reported the May 27, 2017 article in Bloomberg titled, ‘Pharma Heir Seeks a New Holy Grail as Generic Drugs Run Dry,” quoting the promoter of Glenmark.

Another May 27, 2017 article by Reuters also quoted similar business sentiment, though for a much different reason, of the world’s fifth-largest generic drug maker – Sun Pharma, following similar concerns of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd and Lupin Ltd. Here, the promoter of Sun Pharma said, “We may even have a single digit decline in consolidated revenue for full-year 2018 versus full-year 2017.”

These red flags, though signal different reasons, prompt some fundamental questions: Is the global generic drug market, especially the US, slowing down? If so, what then is the real reason of the anticipated business slow-down of large Indian pharma players? Is it due to lesser number of patented products going off-patent in the future years, or is it due to pricing pressure in various countries, including the US, or a combination of several other factors alongside? In this article, I shall deliberate on this emerging concern.

Global generic drug market – the past trend:

Several favorable environmental factors have been fueling the growth of generic drug prescriptions across the world, and the trend continues going north. Currently, the growth of generic drug prescriptions is outpacing the same for the patented ones. According to the April 2017 research study titled “Generic Drugs Market: Global Industry Trends, Manufacturing Process, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2017-2022”, published by IMARC, the global generic drug market was valued at around US$ 228.8 Billion in 2016, growing at a CAGR of around 9 percent during 2010-2016.

This trend has been well captured in numbers, from various different angles, in the September 2016 report of Evaluate Pharma, as follows:

Global trend of prescription generic drug sales (2008-2015)

Year	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
Global Rx Drug Sales (2008-15) (US$ Billion)	650	663	687	729	717	724	749	742
Growth per Year (%)		+2.0	+3.5	+6.1	(1.6)	+0.9	+3.5	(1.0)
Rx Generics Drug Sales (US $Billion)	53	53	59	65	66	69	74	73
Generics as % of Total Rx Drugs	8.2	8.0	8.6	9.0	9.2	9.5	9.9	9.9
% Market at risk to patent expiry or available for new generic drugs entry	3.0	4.0	4.0	5.0	7.0	4.0	5.0	6.0

(Table 1: Adapted from the report ‘World Preview 2016, Outlook to 2022’ of EvaluatePharma, September 2016)

The Table 1 shows, while the overall global sales growth of prescription drugs faltered during 2012-15 period, mainly due to after effects of patent expiry of several blockbuster drugs, the general trend of generic drug sales continued to ascend. As we shall see below, the projected trend in the succeeding years is not much different, either.

Global generic drug market – present, and projected future trend:

The global generic drug market is currently growing at a faster pace than the patented drugs, and this overall trend is likely to remain so in future too, as we shall find below.

Globally, North America, and particularly the US, is the largest market for generic drugs. According to the QuintilesIMS 2016 report, generic drugs saved patients and the US health care system US$227 billion in 2015. Although around 89 percent of the total prescriptions in the US are for generic drugs, these constitute just 27 percent of total spending for medicines. In other words, the share of patented drugs, though, just around 11 percent of total prescriptions, contribute 73 percent of the total prescription drug costs.

Backed by the support of Governments for similar reasons, Europe is, and will continue to register impressive growth in this area. Similarly, in Latin America, Brazil is the largest market for generic drugs, contributing 23 percent and 25 percent of the country’s pharma sector by value and by volume, respectively, in 2015.

Major growth drivers to remain the same:

The following major factors would continue to drive the growth of the global generic drug market:

Patent expiration of innovative drugs
Increasing aging population
Healthcare cost containment pressure, including out of pocket drug expenditure
Government initiatives for the use of low cost generic drugs to treat chronic diseases
Despite high price competition more leading companies are taking interest in generic drugs especially in emerging markets

India – a major global player for generic drugs:

India and China dominated the generic drug market in the Asia pacific region. India is the largest exporter of the generic drug formulations. A large number of drug manufacturing plants belonging to several Indian players have obtained regulatory approval from the overseas regulators, such as, US-FDA, MHRA-UK, TGA-Australia and MCC-South Africa. Consequently, around 50 percent of the total annual turnover of many large domestic Indian drug manufacturers comes from exports. The top global players in the generic drug market include Teva Pharmaceuticals, Novartis AG, Mylan, Abbott, Actavis Pharma and India’s own Sun Pharma.

No significant change in the future market trend is envisaged:

When I compare the same factors that fueled the growth of global prescription generic drug market in the past years (2008-2015) with the following year (2016), and the research-based projections from 2017-2022, no significant change in the market trend is visible.

Global trend of prescription generic drug sales (2015 – 2022)

Year	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Global Rx Drug Sales (2015-22) (US$ Billion)	742	778	822	873	931	996	1060	1121
Growth per Year (%)	(-1.0)	+4.8	+5.7	+6.2	+6.6	+7.0	+6.5	+5.7
Rx Generics Drug Sales (US $Billion)	73	80	86	92	97	103	109	115
Generics as % of Total Rx Drugs	9.9	10.3	10.5	10.5	10.4	10.4	10.3	10.3
% Market at risk to patent expiry or available for new generic drugs entry	6.0	6.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	2.0	2.0	5.0

(Table 2: Adapted from the report ‘World Preview 2016, Outlook to 2022’ of EvaluatePharma, September 2016)

The Table 2 shows, the overall global sales growth trend of prescription drugs appears a shade better in 2008-15 period, even with the after effects of patent expiry (Table 1), as compared to 2016-22. The scope for entry of new generic drugs goes below 4 percent of the total prescription drug market only in two years – 2020 and 2021. Thus, any serious concern only on this count for a long-term growth impediment of the global generic drug market, post 2018, doesn’t seem to be based on a solid ground, and is a contentious one. Moreover, the sales trend of prescription generic drugs as a percentage of the total value of all prescription drugs, hovers around 10 percent in this statistical projection, which is again a shade better than around 9 percent of the past comparable years.

What triggered the major pricing pressure?

With its over 40 percent of the total pharmaceutical produce, predominantly generic drug formulations, being exported around the world, India has become one of the fastest growing global manufacturing hubs for medicinal products. According to Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council of India (Pharmexcil), United States (US) is the largest market for the India’s pharma exports, followed by the United Kingdom (UK), South Africa, Russia, Nigeria, Brazil and Germany.

Since long, the largest pharma market in the world – the US, has been the Eldorado of pharma business across the globe, mostly driven by the unfettered freedom of continuously charging a hefty price premium in the country. Thus far, it has been an incredible dream run, all the way, even for many large, medium and small generic drug exporters from India.

However, ongoing activities of many large drug companies, dominated by allegedly blatant self-serving interests, have now given rise to a strong general demand on the Governments in different countries, including the US, to initiate robust remedial measures, soon. The telltale signs of which indicate that this no holds barred pricing freedom may not be available to pharma, even in the US, any longer.

Self-inflicted injury?

The situation where several major Indian generic companies are in today, appears akin to an avoidable self-inflicted injury, basically falling in the following two important areas. Nonetheless, even after the healing process gets over, the scar mark would remain for some more time, till the business becomes as usual. Hopefully, it will happen sooner than expected, provided truly ‘out of box’ corrective measures are taken, and followed up with a military precision.

Huge price hikes:

According to the Reuters report of September 11, 2016, US Department of Justice sent summons to the US arm of Sun Pharma – Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Inc. and its two senior executives seeking information on generic drug prices. In 2010, Sun Pharma acquired a controlling stake in Taro Pharmaceutical Industries.

On September 14, 2016, quoting a September 8, 2016 research done by the brokerage firm IIFL, ‘The Economic Times’ also reported that several large Indian generic drug manufacturers, such as, Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy’s, Lupin, Aurobindo and Glenmark have hiked the prices of some of their drugs between 150 percent and 800 percent in the US. These apparently avoidable incidents fuel more apprehensions in the prevailing scenario. As I wrote in this Blog on September 12, 2016, the subject of price increases even for generic drugs reverberated during the last Presidential campaign in the US, as well.

Serious compromise with product quality standards:

Apprehensions on dubious quality standards of many drugs manufactured in India have now assumed a gigantic dimension with import bans of many India made generic drugs by foreign drug regulators, such as US-FDA, EMA and MHRA. Today, even smaller countries are questioning the Indian drug quality to protect their patients’ health interest. This critical issue has started gaining momentum since 2013, after Ranbaxy pleaded guilty and paid a hefty fine of US$ 500 million for falsifying clinical data and distributing allegedly ‘adulterated medicines’ in the United States.

Thereafter, it’s a history. The names of who’s who of Indian drug manufacturers started appearing in the US-FDA and other overseas drug regulators’ import ban list, not just for failing to conform to their quality standards, but also for willful non-compliance with major cGMP requirements, besides widely reported incidents of data fudging and falsification of other drug quality related documents.

Global murmurs on generic drug quality among doctors:

There are reported murmurs both among the US and the Indian doctors on the generic drug quality standards, but for different drug types and categories.

According to the Reuters article published on March 18, 2014, titled “Unease grows among US doctors over Indian drug quality”, many US doctors expressed serious concerns about the quality of generic drugs supplied by Indian manufacturers. This followed the ‘import bans’ by the USFDA and a flurry of huge Indian drug recalls there. Such concerns are so serious, as India supplies about 40 percent of generic and over-the-counter drugs used in the United States, making it the second-biggest generic drug supplier after Canada.

While the doctors in the US raise overall quality concerns on the products manufactured by the large Indian branded generic companies, Indian doctors are quite at ease with the branded generics. They generally raise quality concerns only on generic drugs without any brand names.

Thus, a lurking fear keeps lingering, as many feel that Indian drug manufacturing quality related issues may not necessarily be confined only to exports in the developed world, such as, the United States, European Union or Canada. There is no reason to vouch for either, that such gross violations are not taking place with the medicines consumed by patients in India, or in the poorer nations of Africa and other similar markets.

In conclusion:

Sun Pharma has publicly expressed its concern that pricing pressure in the US may adversely impact its business in 2018. There doesn’t seem to be any major surprise on this statement, as many believe it was likely to happen, though for a different reason, since when the global media reported in September 2015: “FDA revokes approval for Sun Pharma’s seizure drug over compliance issues.”

As investors are raising concerns, the following comment by the Co-Chairman and Chief Executive of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, reported by ‘Financial Express’ on August 24, 2015, well captures the vulnerability of Indian generic drug business in this area: “The U.S. market is so big that there is no equivalent alternative. We just have to get stronger in the U.S., resolve our issues, build a pipeline and be more innovative to drive growth.”

Inadequate remedial measures could unleash this pressure to reach a dangerous threshold, impacting sustainable performance of the concerned companies. On the other hand, adequate remedial action, both strategic and operational, could lead to significant cost escalation, with no space available for its neutralization through price increases, gradually squeezing the margin. It will be a tight rope walk for many in the coming years.

As research reports indicate, the global generic drug market is not and will not be slowing down in the long term, not even in India. There may be some temporary ups and downs in the market due to pricing pressure, and the number of novel products going off-patent in some years. Nevertheless, the traditional business models being followed by some large companies may retard their respective business growth, considerably.

The pricing pressure is a real one. However, from the Indian perspective, I reckon, it’s primarily a self-inflicted injury, just as the other major one – the drug import bans on the ground of serious compromise with product quality standards. Many Indian generic drug players don’t believe so, and probably would never will, publicly.

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.

Making New Cancer Drugs Cost-effective

Posted on April 17, 2017 by Tapan Ray

The prices of new cancer drugs are increasingly becoming unsustainable across the world, and more so in India. A sizable number of poor and even middle-income patients, who spend their entire life’s savings for the treatment of this dreaded disease, is pushed towards extreme economic hardship. Their plight in India would continue to remain so, till Universal Health Care (UHC) comes into force, as enunciated in the National Health Policy 2017.

Thus, the delivery of affordable and equitable cancer care poses one of India’s greatest public health challenges. Public expenditure on cancer in India remains below US$ 10 per person, as compared with more than US$ 100 per person in high-income countries. The May 2014 paper, published in ‘The Lancet Oncology’, analyzed this concern in detail.

In this article, after giving a brief backdrop, I shall explore a possible alternative to make cancer treatment with new drugs affordable to many by scaling up this strategic option.

Cancer – the second leading cause of death:

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), cancer is the second leading cause of death globally and accounted for 8.8 million deaths in 2015. This works out to nearly 1 in 6 of all global deaths, with US$ 1.16 trillion being the estimated total annual economic cost of cancer in 2010. Lung, prostate, colorectal, stomach and liver cancer are the most common types of cancer in men, while breast, colorectal, lung, cervix and stomach cancer are the most common among women. To reduce significant disability, suffering and deaths caused by cancer worldwide, effective and affordable programs in early diagnosis, screening, treatment, and palliative care are needed. Treatment options may include surgery, medicines and/or radiotherapy – the report reiterates. In many instances, anti-cancer drugs are the mainstay treatment.

For the country, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) reported over 736, 000 people succumbing to the disease in 2016. This figure is expected to shoot up to 880,000 by 2020. ICMR estimated the total number of new cancer cases at around 1.45 million in 2016, and the same is likely to reach 1.73 million by 2020. The situation in this area, therefore, rather grim across the world, including India.

Cancer treatment cost in India is one of the highest in the world:

Anticancer drugs are generally expensive. As stated in a related article, published in the Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology on March 14, 2017, in the United States, a novel anticancer drug routinely costs more than US$ 100,000 per year of treatment. When adjusted for per capita spending power, these lifesaving medicines become most unaffordable in economically developing nations, such as India and China. Not only are their launch prices high and fast rising, but these also often escalate during the respective patent exclusivity period.

That in terms of the ability to pay for drugs, cancer drugs are most affordable in Australia and least affordable in India and China, was established in one of the largest research study presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Moreover, even in those cases where cancer could be detected early, about half the patients in India are compelled to skip the treatment for high drug cost, highlights another article.

Interestingly, the concerned drug manufacturers seldom, if at all, justify such astronomical drug prices and subsequent price increases well supported by some rational factors, such as, the extent of benefit patients are likely to derive, the novelty of the agents, or detailed spending on research and development, the above paper states.

The increasing trend of price escalation of cancer drugs harms many patients, often directly, through increased out-of-pocket expenses, which reduce levels of patient compliance, or drive thousands of cancer patients skipping the drug treatment, altogether. Consequently, it also harms the society by imposing cumulative price burdens on many patients that are unsustainable.

Despite high cost, annual global spending on anticancer drugs has already exceeded US$100 billion, and is predicted to reach US$150 billion by 2020. In India too, oncology is a leading therapeutic segment, which reached a turnover of Rs. 2,000 Crore (around US$ 320 million) in 2013 and is expected to grow to Rs. 3,831 crore (around US$ 615 million) by the end of 2017, according to a report of Frost and Sullivan.

The reason for high drug price:

The real reason for the high cost of cancer drugs, just as many other life-saving medicines, is quite challenging to fathom. Many attribute its reason to unsustainable R&D models of the global pharma companies, in general.

For example, “the spiraling cost of new drugs mandates a fundamentally different approach to keep lifesaving therapies affordable for cancer patients” – argued an article titled, “How Much Longer Will We Put Up With US$ 100,000 Cancer Drugs?”, published by Elsevier Inc. In the same context, another article titled “Making Cancer Treatment More Affordable”, published in the ‘Rare Disease Report’ on Feb 09, 2017, reiterated that the current R&D model needs to change, as the cost of many such treatments is higher than the cost of an average person’s house in the United States.

Nonetheless, the drug manufacturers answer this difficult question with ease and promptness, citing that the cost of innovation to bring these drugs through a complex research and development (R&D) process to the market, isn’t just very high, but is also increasing at a rapid pace.

Pharma R&D cost:

An analysis by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, published in the Journal of Health Economics in March, 2016 pegged the average cost to develop and gain marketing approval for a new drug at US$ 2.558 billion. It also said that the total cost of innovation of a new drug and bringing it to market, has increased more than double from US$ 1.22 billion in 2003 to US$ 2.6 billion in 2014. Although these numbers are being vehemently challenged in several credible journals and by the international media, many global pharma majors justify the high new drug prices

by highlighting that developing a new molecule takes an enormous amount of time of 12 to 14 years, lots of financial resources and huge efforts.

On the other hand, an article titled, “Does it really cost US$ 2.6 billion to develop a new drug?”, published in The Washington Post on November 18, 2014 observed that: ‘The never-ending debate about what drugs should cost is in part driven by the fact that no one seems to know what it actually costs to develop one.”

But, why is the decline in the R&D productivity trend?

According to a 2014 review article titled, “Recent Advances in Drug Repositioning for the Discovery of New Anticancer Drugs”, published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences, while the total R&D expenditure for drug discovery worldwide increased 10 times since 1975 (US$ 4 billion) to 2009 (US$ 40 billion), the number of NMEs approved has remained largely flat (26 new drugs approved in 1976 and 27 new drugs approved in 2013). The average time required for drug discovery to market launch has also increased over time in the US and in the EU countries from 9.7 years during 1990s, to 13.9 years from 2000 onwards.

Be that as it may, the bottom-line is regardless of tremendous advancement in biological science, technology and analytics, especially in the new millennium, coupled with increasing investments in pharma R&D, the total number of NMEs that has reached the market hasn’t shown commensurate increase.

One of my articles published in this blog titled, “How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?” found an echo of the same in a globally reputed journal. This study, published by the BMJ on May 2016, titled “Propaganda or the cost of innovation? Challenging the high price of new drugs”, expressed deep concern on the rising prices of new medicines. It reiterated that this trend is set to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Need for an alternative R&D strategy:

The hurdles in discovering and developing new drugs call for alternative approaches, particularly for life threatening diseases, such as cancer. I reckon, it’s about time to scale-up a viable alternative strategy to bring down the R&D cost of new drugs, improve the success rate of clinical development, reduce a decade long ‘mind to market’ timeframe for an innovative drug or a treatment, and of course, the mind blogging cost of the entire process, as asserted in the above report from the Tufts Center.

One such alternative strategy could well be: ‘Drug Repurposing’

Drug Repurposing:

As defined by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, ‘drug repurposing’ “generally refers to studying drugs that are already approved to treat one disease or condition to see if they are safe and effective for treating other diseases”.

As many molecules, with well-documented records on their pharmacology and toxicity profile, have been already formulated and undergone large clinical trials on humans, repurposing those drugs building upon the available documents and experiences for fresh clinical trials in different disease conditions, would hasten the regulatory review process for marketing approval, and at a much lesser cost.

I shall quote here just two such examples of ‘drug repurposing’ from well-known molecules, as follows:

Sildenafil (Viagra): The blockbuster drug that was launched by Pfizer in 1998 for the treatment of erectile dysfunctions was originally developed for the treatment of coronary artery disease by the same company in 1980s.

Thalidomide: Originally designed and developed by a German pharmaceutical company called Grünenthal in Stolberg as a treatment for morning sickness in 1957, but was withdrawn in 1961 from the market because it caused birth defects. The same molecule was reintroduced in 1998 as a ‘repurposed drug’ to effectively treat patients with erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) – a complication of leprosy, and multiple myeloma – a type of cancer.

I had given many more examples of ‘drug repurposing’ in one of my earlier articles published in this blog.

Repurposing drugs for cancer:

The above-mentioned review article of International Journal of Biological Sciences 2014 clearly noted: “Drug repositioning has attracted particular attention from the communities engaged in anticancer drug discovery due to the combination of great demand for new anticancer drugs and the availability of a wide variety of cell and target-based screening assays. With the successful clinical introduction of a number of non-cancer drugs for cancer treatment, ‘drug repurposing’ now became a powerful alternative strategy to discover and develop novel anticancer drug candidates from the existing drug space.”

The following are some recent successful examples of ‘drug repurposing’ for anticancer drug discovery from non-cancer drugs, which are mostly under Phase I to II clinical trials:

Drug	Original treatment	Clinical status for cancer treatment
Itraconazole	Fungal infections	Phase I and II
Nelfinavir	HIV infections	Phase I and II
Digoxin	Cardiac diseases	Phase I and II
Nitroxoline	Urinary Tract Infections	Preclinical
Riluzole	Amyotropic lateral sclerosis	Phase I and II
Disulfram	Chronic alcoholism	Phase I and II

‘Drug repurposing’ market:

A January 2016 report by BCC Research estimates that the global market for drug repurposing will grow from nearly US$ 24.4 billion in 2015 to nearly US$ 31.3 billion by 2020, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.1 percent for the period of 2015-2020.

Expressing concern just not enough:

There are enough examples available across the world regarding stakeholders’ expression of great concern on this issue, with the buzz of such protests getting progressively shriller.

However, in India, high prices of cancer drugs do not seem to be a great issue with the medical profession, just yet, notwithstanding some sporadic steps taken by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to allay the economic burden of cancer patients to some extent. Encouragingly, the top cancer specialists of the American Society of Clinical Oncology are reportedly working out a framework for rating and selecting cancer drugs not only for their benefits and side effects, but prices as well.

In a 2015 paper, a group of cancer specialists from Mayo Clinic also articulated, that the oft-repeated arguments of price controls stifle innovation are not good enough to justify unusually high prices of cancer drugs. Their solution for this problem includes value-based pricing and NICE like body of the United Kingdom. An interesting video clip from Mayo Clinic justifies the argument.

All this can at best be epitomized as so far so good, and may help increase the public awareness level on this subject. However, the moot point remains: Has anything significantly changed on the ground, on a permanent basis, by mere expression of such concerns?

Conclusion:

This discussion may provoke many to go back to the square number one, making the ongoing raging debate on Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Public Health Interest to gather more steam, but the core concern continues to remain unresolved.

I hasten to add that all such concerns, including strong protests, may no doubt create some temporary pressure on drug manufacturers, but they are experienced enough to navigate through such issues, as they have been doing, so far. However, for making new cancer drugs cost-effective for a vast population of patients, coming out of the current strategic mold of pharma research and development would be necessary. Grant of Compulsory License (CL), or the expectation of the local drug manufacturers for a Voluntary License (VL) of new cancer drugs, can’t be a routine process either, as it appears unrealistic to me, for various reasons.

I have discussed in this article just one alternative R&D strategy in this area, and that is Drug Repurposing (DR). There could be several others. DR is reportedly gaining increasing focus, as it represents a smart way to exploit new molecular targets of a known non-oncological drug for a new therapeutic applications in oncology. Be that as it may, pharma companies and the academia must agree to sail on the same boat together having a common goal to make new cancer drugs cost-effective for majority of cancer patients struggling hard, for life.

I would conclude this article quoting the President and Chief Science Officer of Illinois-based Cures Within Reach who said: “What I like about drug repurposing is that it can solve two issues: improved health-care impact and reduced health-care cost – That’s a big driver for us.”

By: Tapan J. Ray

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Posted on July 11, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The upcoming trend of jaw dropping high prices for new patented drugs sends a ‘storm signal’ to many stakeholders, especially for its adverse impact on patient access. Even more intriguing, such high and insane prices are being fixed rather arbitrarily, without any valid reason whatsoever.

It has now been well established, very clearly, that this trend has no linkages with the necessity of keeping the wheel of cost-intensive new drug development initiatives moving, uninterruptedly.

Many believe that this dangerous inclination of the global pharma players picked up, in a major way, with the launch of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), costing around US$ 1,000 per pill in the United States. This new drug has no relationship with Gilead’s own R&D initiatives, just as many other high priced patented drugs belonging to this genre.

Additionally, the current brand pricing strategy of even those pharma companies who are developing new drugs in-house, is equally intriguing, as those drug prices too have no direct or indirect relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. As I discussed that issue in my Blog on August 18, 2014 in an article titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments”, I am not arguing on those points here again.

Nevertheless, these unholy practices did not go unnoticed. Anguish against irresponsible pricing, adversely impacting patient access, started gaining momentum, all over. A raging debate has also kick-started on this issue within a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including various Governments and other payers.

They all are questioning, should the Governments, health insurance companies and other payers support such windfall profits of the so called ‘research based’ pharma companies’?

In this article, I shall deliberate on this issue, just when the voices of disgust against this unholy trend have started multiplying.

A palpable disgust expressed in a recent article:

Against this arbitrary drug pricing trend, a good number of doctors have started raising their voices, with a discernible disgust.

“We’re all paying a high price for drug company profiteering”, thundered Dr. Daniel J. Stone, an internal medicine and geriatric medicine specialist, in an Op-Ed published in ‘The Los Angeles Times’ on July 6, 2016.

Dr. Stone further reiterated, “The drug companies are ripping us off, pill by pill, shot by shot. Instead of working to earn reasonable returns by relieving our suffering and saving lives, they now focus on profits above all. Their main targets are insurance companies. But when insurance companies take a hit, they bump up premiums to employers or the government. So we all pay - in taxes, reduced take-home pay, copayments and deductibles.”

Windfall profits:

The article focuses on this new trend in the global pharma industry, adversely affecting access to, especially, the new drugs to a vast majority of the patients. The author unambiguously highlighted that this dangerous pricing strategy got a major thrust from Gilead Sciences Inc. with its acquisition of sofosbuvir’s (Sovaldi) developer – ‘Pharmasset’ in 2011, for US$ 11 billion.

According to Dr. Stone, ‘Pharmasset’s chief executive made an estimated US$ 255 million on the deal, and its 82 employees each averaged around US$ 3.3 million, before Sovaldi came to the market. Thereafter, it’s a history. Gilead took a double markup on the drug, charging enough not just to more than cover the high cost of acquisition of ‘Pharmasset’, but also for making windfall profits.

The reason behind irresponsible pricing:

The question, therefore, arises, how do the global pharma players dare to go for such irresponsible pricing in many countries of the world?

It is possible for them because the payers, especially the health insurance companies, usually find it difficult to out rightly ignore any unique and new life saving patented medicine for various reasons. As a result, the concerned companies, allegedly effectively use these payers, and also a large section of doctors who can prescribe these brands, facilitating them to make huge profits at the cost of patients.

The justification:

To justify such pricing, these pharma companies and their trade associations are apparently using fear as the key. Through various types of communications, they keep trying to convey that any attempt to restrict their so called ‘reasonable’ prices of these medicines would seriously jeopardize the innovative drug development process, jeopardizing the long term needs of the patients.

More recently, serious attempts were made to also establish Sovaldi’s so called ‘reasonable’ pricing, and its cost effectiveness, in an interesting way.

The company highlighted that Sovaldi is cost effective, not just in comparison to paying for other health care services that the drug might prevent, it also helps avoid cost intensive liver transplant, in many cases. With those costs not being incurred with Sovaldi, the patients, on the contrary, make some savings on the possible alternative treatment cost to fight this deadly disease.

Is it not an atrocious argument?

However, according to Dr. Stone, “This argument is a lot like a plumber billing a customer US$ 20,000 to fix a leaky pipe under the sink. Considering the costs of a possible flood, it might seem defensible. In the real world, any plumber charging based on ‘what you saved’ by preventing a potential catastrophe would lose business to competitors.”

A warning sign:

The above article also highlights, Sovaldi like drug price tag is an unmistakable warning sign, and the emerging trend of patented drug pricing system is a danger to the health of any nation. According to the author:

Reforming the financing of drug development will require more creativity.

The government should consider subsidizing research and development to reduce the industry’s risk, in return for oversight on pricing that would allow reasonable returns on investment.

Not possible without many doctors’ active support:

Though it is encouraging to see that some doctors, such as, Daniel J. Stone are raising their voices and arguing against this practice, a large number of other doctors are being actively influenced by the pharma companies to prescribe such products.

This is vindicated by the latest release from the Open Payments database of the Government of the United States. It shows that the drug and device makers of the country incurred a mind boggling expenditure of US$ 2.6 billion towards payment to doctors related to speakers’ fees, meals, royalties and other payments, in 2015. Under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of America, this is the second full year of the disclosure.

The total payment made by the drug and device makers to doctors and medical institutions for the year was shown as US$ 7.52 billion.

The point to ponder:

That said, the question that surfaces, if Gilead had to sell its drugs to individuals incurring ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, how many Sovaldi like drugs would it sell with equivalent to around US$ 80,000 treatments cost?

It won’t be too difficult to ferret out its answer, if we look at the countries, like India, with very high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on health care, in general, and medicines in particular.

A possible solution:

According to an article published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on February 8, 2007, Voluntary Licensing (VL)’ practices in the pharmaceutical sector could possibly be a solution to improving access to affordable medicines.

The Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents 2005, which is generally applicable to ‘me too’ type of new products, could place India at an advantage. In the absence of a grant of evergreen type of product patents, many global companies would ultimately prefer to offer VL to Indian generic manufacturers, under specific terms and conditions, mainly to salvage the situation.

However, such a VL is unlikely to have any potential value, if the IPO refuses to grant patents to those products falling under the above section. In that case, generic competition would possibly further bring down the prices.

Has it started working in India?

Just to recapitulate, starting with a flash back to the year 2006, one can see that Gilead followed the VL strategy for India, probably for the first time, for its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

At that time Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead. The company had signed a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

Interestingly, by that time Cipla had started selling one of the two versions of tenofovir, not licensed by Gilead. Cipla’s generic version was named Tenvir, available at a price of US$ 700 per person per year in India, against Gilead’s tenofovir (Viread) price of US$ 5,718 per patient per year in the developed Markets. Gilead’s target price for tenofovir in India was US$ 200 per month, as stated above.

Following this strategy, again in 2014, Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing know how and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

Accordingly, on September 15, 2014, international media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also announced, just as tenofovir, that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Once again, in July 2016, it was reported that a drug called Epclusa – the latest breakthrough treatment for Hepatitis C virus could soon be available in India following Gilead Sciences’ getting its marketing approval from the US FDA.

Press Trust of India (PTI) reported, as part of its effort to offer affordable treatment, Gilead Sciences, together with its 11 partners in India, are pioneering a VL model that transfers technology and Intellectual Property for the latest treatments and cures for viral Hepatitis and HIV.

Some other pharma majors of the world also seem to be attempting to overcome the safeguards provided in the Indian Patents Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest. Their strategy may not include VL, but also not so transparent ‘Patient Access Programs’, and the so called ‘flexible pricing’. All these mostly happen when the concerned companies sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act.

That said, I have not witnessed the global pharmaceutical companies’ issuing a flurry of VLs in India, as yet.

Another possible solution for India:

Another possible solution for India, although was scripted in Para 4. XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and notified on December 07, 2012, unfortunately has not taken shape even after four years.

On ‘Pricing of Patented Drugs’, NPPA 2012 categorically states as follows:

“There is a separate committee constituted by the Government Order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented Drugs would be based on the recommendation of this committee.”

To utter disappointment of many, a strong will to make it happen, even by the new Government is still eluding, by far.

Conclusion:

Without having adequate access to new life-saving drugs, the struggle for life in the fierce battle against dangerous ailments, has indeed assumed an alarming dimension. This is being fuelled by the absence of Universal Health Coverage, and ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on medicines in India being one of the highest in the world.

It would continue to remain so, up until the global pharma majors consider entering into a VL agreement with the Indian pharma majors, just as Gilead. Otherwise, the Government in power should demonstrate its strong will to act, putting in place a transparent model of ‘patented drugs pricing’, without succumbing to any power play or pressures of any kind from vested interests.

Sans these strong initiatives, the dangerous trend of patented drug pricing will continue to deny access of many new medicines to a vast majority of the population to save precious lives.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Democratization of Healthcare: An Evolving Trend Driven By Cutting-Edge Technology

Posted on February 15, 2016 by Tapan Ray

We have stepped on to a fascinating era of yet another disruptive innovation in a newly carved out space of the healthcare domain.

Such initiatives are driven by path breaking ideas, which are being translated into reality with the application of cutting-edge technology. All these are aimed at providing a plethora of unique healthcare related solutions in the cyberspace to various stakeholders, especially to patients through inexpensive smartphones of various types.

Although the process has just begun, but is moving at a rapid pace. In virtually no time, as it were, it is showing a great potential of delivering more accurate and affordable healthcare solutions to a large number of the population globally, particularly in the developing nations.

‘Democratization of Healthcare’:

The ‘patient empowerment’ of such kind, with technology enabled the power of personalized healthcare knowledge and information in an organized manner, has been termed as ‘The Democratization of Healthcare.’

The critical point to ponder, therefore, whether this fast developing state of art technological advancement has the potential of delivering a novel and much affordable process of disease treatment and management, in the real world. As it happens, the new paradigm would shift the focus of key stakeholders from doctors to patients, in a genuine sense, and almost irreversibly.

In this article, I shall deliberate on this wonderful emerging scenario.

A recent reiteration raises hope:

The following reiteration of one of the largest and most reputed tech giant of the world raises general hope that this process would soon come to fruition:

‘The democratization potential of healthcare interests most of us, as the injustice of fantastic healthcare available in some parts of the world, and others suffering needlessly.”

The above profound comment was made on a radio show – ‘Conversations on Health Care’, by none other than the Chief Operating Officer, Jeff Williams of Apple Inc. on January 4, 2016 and was reported accordingly by ‘appleinsider.com’ on January 06, 2016.

Jeff Williams also indicated in his talk, how smartphone technology can be harnessed for therapeutic purpose in disease treatment, as well. Citing an example, he said, detecting autism at an early age is a key to future treatment, as doctors can intervene – albeit to a limited degree – as long as the brain is still developing.

He referred to a study that found not just the potential in app-based smartphone screening of children, but can even go much further by delivering therapy and treatment.

The rapid progress of technology in this direction is very real, as ‘Apple’ and other smartphone health app developers are stretching the commoditization of computer technology to serve health sciences. In not so distant future, with relatively inexpensive smartphones and supporting health apps – the doctors and researchers can deliver better standards of living in severely under-served areas like Africa, where there are only 55 trained specialists in autism, Williams said.

Triggers a key shift in focus:

As I said before, unleashing the power of technology in healthcare solutions through smartphones will bring a fundamental shift in focus of all concerned, from medical doctors to ordinary patients.

This transformation seems to be rather imminent now, as equipped with detailed knowledge of various types of individual health and disease related information through their smartphones, the patients would position themselves in the driver’s seat, demanding more for affordable treatment of diseases.

Dr. Eric Topol, the author of the book titled, “The Patient Will See You Now”, thus very appropriately said, “MDs will no longer be considered ‘medical deities’, but rather professionals with whom patients will consult to get the proper treatment on the path of least resistance.”

Consequently, the pharma players and other related service providers would require to ‘walk the talk’ by being ‘patient centric’ in the true sense, and definitely not by using this profound term, as one of the tools of their mostly self-serving, advocacy campaigns.

Empowering patients:

As Dr. Eric Topol said, smartphone applications that can monitor throughout the day, such as, heart rate and rhythm, blood pressure, take and interpret an electrocardiogram, capture X-rays and analyze ultrasound, have the potential to reduce patient visits to doctors, cut costs, speed up the pace of care and give more power to patients. He emphasized though, digital apps won’t replace physicians. The patients would still be seeing doctors, but the doctor-patient relationship will ultimately be radically altered.

As an illustration, it is worth mentioning here, that taking a significant step forward in this direction, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) has already approved ECG apps by for consumers, which have been validated in many clinical studies.

Examples of Smartphone Apps for patients:

Smartphone apps are now available for different user segments. In this section, I shall focus only on patient-centered apps capable of performing a wide array of functions, such as managing chronic disease, lifestyle management, smoking cessation and even self-diagnosis.

I am quoting below just a few of these interesting apps, as reported in an article published by ‘The Online Journal of Public Health Informatics (OJPHI)’ on February 5, 2014:

A. For diabetic patients, over 80 apps on the Android platform alone, offer a variety of functions. These include self-monitoring blood glucose recording, medication or insulin logs, and prandial insulin dose calculators.

Yet another diabetes intervention app integrated communication between patients and a healthcare provider. Here, the patient would log fasting blood sugars, daily eating behaviors, medication compliance, physical activity and emotions into a mobile online diary. A remote therapist with access to these diaries would then formulate personalized feedback to the patient.

‘WellDoc’ is reportedly one such company that has already received approval of the US FDA for its mobile-enabled diabetes management program, and is being paid for by health insurers as they would for a pharmaceutical product.

B. For smoking cessation and alcohol addiction apps are also available. At least 47 iPhone apps for smoking cessation and another one called – ‘A-CHESS’ (Alcohol Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System) helps preventing relapse in alcoholic dependency and harnesses mobile technology to improve treatment and motivation.

C. For asthma and allergic rhinitis patients, an app called ‘m.Carat’, developed at Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto, Portugal, , helps recording their exacerbations, triggers, symptoms, medications, lung function tests and visits to the doctor or the hospital. The users of this app can also receive disease education, medication information, task notifications, and synchronize records with an online database to better control their symptoms.

D. For psychiatric patients, available smartphone apps offer benefits of ambulatory monitoring, that randomly prompts the patient to self-report psychotic symptoms multiple times throughout the day.

E. For sickle cell disease another app allows patients access to an online diary for recording pain and other symptoms.

F. For patients with dementia, ‘iWander’ app assists the affected individuals with daily living, by providing audible prompts to direct the patient home, sending notifications and GPS coordinates to caretakers, or by calling local 911 (US emergency) services.

G. For HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) and STD around 55 unique smartphone apps are available. These are used for education, prevention, testing and to provide other resources.

Self-diagnosis without a medical visit:

The above article also states that patients may even use smartphone apps to attempt self-diagnosis without a medical visit. Patients with a camera-enabled smartphone can use apps to take photographs of skin lesions and send these to a remote server for computer analysis and/or review by a board certified dermatologist. However, such apps are still not without their pitfalls, which are being addressed by the scientists, expeditiously.

Nevertheless, informed debate has already started in search of an appropriate direction for self-diagnosis with the help of robust smartphone apps, without any in-person medical visits.

Need for ‘Regulatory control’ and ‘certification’ of health apps:

I hasten to add, all such smartphone health apps should not be allowed to come to the market without stringent regulatory control and a well thought out the certification process.

As in the United States, where the health apps are being assessed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (US FDA), in India too the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) or any other appropriate and designated authority should approve and certify all such smartphone health apps, before the market launch.

‘Trust deficit’ poses a critical challenge to pharma industry:

Since the health apps opportunity is new, and still in its evolutionary stage, pharma industry, in general, does not seem to have fully accepted yet, that the process of ‘Democratization of Healthcare’ has already commenced. I reckon, the progress in this direction is unstoppable now. Nevertheless, many drug companies apparently continue to prefer sticking to the same proven path that had fetched enormous success for them in the past and, of course, also its associated business models.

Besides health apps, the democratization process of healthcare includes other technological platforms too, such as, social media and video communications, which have started to bring healthcare into patients’ homes. To be successful in a situation like this, gaining ‘patient trust’ has become more important today than ever before, for all concerned.

Unfortunately, the drug companies, generally speaking, continue suffering from an increasing ‘trust deficit’ of the key stakeholders. This has been vindicated by a September 9, 2013 study of Makovsky Health, which found:

Pharma websites continued to rank low in terms of traffic, with just 9 percent of Americans visit them for health information.

WebMD is the most frequented online source for healthcare information (53 percent)

Almost a fourth of consumers (24 percent) use at least one or a combination of social media channels – including YouTube video channels, Facebook sites, blogs, and Twitter feeds with links to other resources – to seek healthcare information

The writing on the wall:

Some major global pharma players apparently have clearly seen the writing on the wall, and started collaborating with the developers of various types of digital health apps.

Quoting from the May 02, 2014 edition of ‘MobileHealthNews”, I am citing below, just as an illustration, the initiatives taken in this space by some of the drug majors:

Pfizer (2014) had backed startup Akili in the development of a mobile game to help diagnose patients with Alzheimer’s. The game could also be used in the treatment or detection of ADHD and autism, among other conditions.

Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiary, Janssen Healthcare Innovations (2013), launched the new version of its free Care4Today medication reminder app and platform – Care4Today Mobile Health Manager 2.0. It has also overhauled Care4Today medication adherence app.

Sanofi US (2013) and the Prostate Cancer Foundation announced the creation of Prost8Care, an SMS system to help prostate cancer patients and their families understand treatment processes.

AstraZeneca (2013) announced a pilot with Exco InTouch to help patients suffering from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), with mobile and online tools.

Sanofi’s (2012) iBGStar device became the first US FDA cleared iPhone-enabled blood glucose meter.

GlaxoSmithKline (2012) offered a free asthma management app called MyAsthma, for iPhone and Android users. The app’s core offering is an Asthma Control Test (ACT), which is a simple 30-second test providing users with an index score of how well they are managing their asthma overall.

The potential in India:

In India, ‘Democratization of Healthcare’ is believed to be more broad based, with a third of all Indian mobile users expected to own a smartphone by 2017.

This is vindicated by the Press Release of Telecom Regulator TRAI, India, pharma, drug, playersy Authority of India (TRAI) of December 30, 2015. It states, the Wireless Tele-density in India is 79.39 as on October 31, 2015. The shares of urban and rural wireless subscribers were 57.61 percent and 42.39 percent, respectively, during the same period.

Conclusion:

The process of ‘Democratization of Healthcare’ is gaining momentum with the digital health app developers flooring the gas pedal. Even the global tech giant – Apple, has expressed its support and vow of taking rapid strides in this direction.

As this fascinating process unfolds, the final disease treatment decision, from various medical options available, is expected shift from doctors to patients, and may be their closest relatives. In tandem, patients would learn to take ownership of their physical and mental health conditions for disease prevention of various types, besides general fitness.

The patients, empowered with relevant digital information and knowledge, on their health status, including the pace of disease progression, would play a pivotal role not just in reducing disease burden, but also in making overall cost of individual healthcare more affordable. Additionally, access to healthcare, especially in the developing world like India and in its hinterland, will be improved significantly.

Digital apps are not just limited to patients’ use, these are being developed with equal speed for doctors, diagnostic centers, and clinical trials, just to name a few. All these would substantially reduce healthcare costs and add speed to various disease treatments.

In this golden pathway, there are some thorns too, mostly in the form of important regulatory issues, which need to be sorted out, expeditiously. Increasing ‘Trust Deficit’ of stakeholders on the drug companies is yet another hurdle, especially when the primary focus of all would shift from doctors to patients. However, it appears, the pharma players will eventually have no other choice, but to willy-nilly mold themselves accordingly, primarily for survival and thereafter progress.

As I see it today, the fast evolving trend of ‘Democratization of Healthcare’, driven by cutting-edge technology, is virtually unstoppable now. The only question is how soon will it happen?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Evolving Trend Of Patient Engagement In Treatment Decisions

Posted on July 6, 2015 by Tapan Ray

Slowly but steadily the process of taking treatment decisions for the patients is undergoing a metamorphosis, where well informed patients no longer want to play just a passive role. These patients want the doctors to take a final decision on their treatment only after meaningful interactions with them.

Today, Internet is increasingly becoming a great enabler for the patients to get to know, learn and obtain more and more information about their fitness, overall health, illnesses, disease symptoms, various diagnostic test results, including progress in various clinical trials, besides drugs and their prices…and all these just with clicks.

As a result, equipped with relevant information from various dependable and user-friendly sources in the cyberspace, patients have started asking probing questions about the risks and benefits of various types of treatment decisions and diagnostics tests, recommended by the doctors. At times, such interactions even lead to changes, additions or deletions in choice of therapy, including drugs, devices and diagnostics tests.

Hence, this change, which could well be a game changer, assumes even commercial importance for the pharma companies and other healthcare players in this area.

The emerging trend of patients’ demand for engagement in the treatment decision making process by the doctors needs encouragement by all concerned, especially, doctors, marketers of pharma products and healthcare services.

This process would not just be more balanced, fair and humane; it would make the entire healthcare value chain more efficient and cost-effective, as it would also involve managing expectations of informed patients. Alongside, it would encourage outcomes based evaluation of healthcare process with commensurate pricing, making the system accountable and efficient more than ever before.

In an emerging situation like this, are the pharma companies connecting the evolving dots and re-strategizing their marketing game plans accordingly? In this article, that’s what I shall try to dwell on.

Pharma marketing still remains tradition bound:

Despite this gradually transforming scenario, which would possibly lead to a paradigm shift, especially in the way of making treatment decisions for the patients, most pharma players do not seem to be thinking so, as they continue to be tradition bound in their overall marketing approach.

Even today, to generate product prescription demand by influencing treatment decision of the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies provide them with not just product information through their respective sales forces, but also drug samples and a variety of different kinds of gifts, besides many other prescription influencing favors. This approach is working very well, albeit more intensely, in India too.

Be that as it may, this trend is a potential ‘Game Changer’.

Data vindicates continuation of traditional pharma marketing:

Broad types of marketing expenditure of the pharma industry vindicate that drug companies are still not deploying adequate resources for ‘patient engagement’ initiatives in creative ways.

According to a November 11, 2013 report of ‘The Pew Charitable Trusts’ titled, “Persuading the Prescribers: Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing and its Influence on Physicians and Patients”, pharma industry spent more than US$27 billion on drug promotion in 2012. Out of this expenditure, more than US$24 billion was incurred on marketing to physicians and over US$3 billion on advertising (mainly through television commercials) to consumers, wherever permitted by a country’s regulator.

This approach is traditional and is designed to promote drugs by influencing only the doctors’ prescription decisions and not so much towards ‘patient engagement’ for the same, as appears to be the emerging need of the time.

Expenditure by type of pharma marketing in 2012:

A. Direct Marketing:

According to Cegedim Strategic Data, U.S. Pharmaceutical Company Promotion Spending (2013), expenditure by type of pharma marketing in 2012 was mainly as follows:

	Type of pharma marketing	Expenditure in US$
1.	Detailing face-to-face to doctors	15
2.	Free samples to doctors	5.7
3.	Educational and Promotional Meetings	2.1
4.	Promotional mailings	1.2
5.	Journal and Web Advertisements	0.9
6.	Direct-to-Consumer Advertising	3.1

B. Indirect marketing:

As indicate in the earlier mentioned report of ‘The Pew Charitable Trusts’, indirect marketing of US$2.35 billion incurred by the pharma companies were mainly in the following areas:

Continuing Medical Education (CME):

In 2011, the pharmaceutical and medical device industries provided 32 percent of all funding for CME courses in the United States, amounting to US$752 million out of $2.35 billion.

It is worth mentioning that to prevent these courses from functioning as veiled marketing, the Accreditation Council for ‘Continuing Medical Education’ regulates them.

However, a 2007 Senate Finance Committee report found that “drug companies have used educational grants as a way to increase the market for their products in recent years.”

Grants to Health Advocacy Organizations (HAO):

In this initiative, patient advocates can mobilize large numbers of people for an event on a specific disease related issue, which often goes to the benefit of pharma companies that manufacture related drugs.

A study found that organizations that had received grants from pharmaceutical manufacturers often endorsed the companies’ positions, while groups that had received minimal financing focused their advocacy on the drugs’ potential side effects.

Thus, the bottom-line is, in the marketing bandwidth of the pharma players, ‘patient engagement’ initiatives targeted towards patients’ benefits did not occupy a significant space.

Need to move beyond drugs and doctors:

From the above reports, it appears that while strategizing the marketing initiatives; pharma players start with products or brands and use doctors as the main decision makers to generate prescription support for those brands.

As stated earlier, though some global pharma companies are now talking about ‘patient centric’ approaches, but not much about ‘patient engagement’ approaches to harvest rich benefits out of the emerging new paradigm, in a win-win way.

Going beyond the drugs and the doctors, deploying significant resources to actively engage with the consumers to satisfy their needs and expectations, and in that process influencing patients’ behavior favorably towards the products or brands, need to be a critical part of the pharma marketing warfare, as we move forward.

Influencing patients’ behavior is challenging:

Influencing patients’ behavior through patient engagement is indeed more challenging. It calls for a multi-pronged approach involving all concerned stakeholders.

Besides innovative use of the cyberspace, digital Health Apps, among others, could well fit in nicely to achieve this goal.

I discussed this subject in my article dated March 30, 2015 in this Blog titled, “Quantum Value Addition With Health Apps, Going Beyond Drugs”.

In that direction, I reiterate that keeping pace with today’s ‘technology revolution’, rapid advent of various game-changing and user-friendly digital platforms, including Health Apps for consumers, are showing immense potential in this area. To usher in a refreshing catalytic change in the overall landscape for ‘patient engagement’ in healthcare, these platforms could emerge as key differentiating factors from the pharma players’ perspective.

Informed patients would want getting more and more engaged:

Currently, relatively smaller numbers of patients are keen to get engaged in their disease treatment decisions of the doctors or with the pharma companies on this subject, directly or indirectly.

Still a much larger number of patients, for historical reasons, remain passive while seeking treatment from the doctors.

This is changing and would change even faster with growing knowledge and awareness of digital power and its fast penetration in the hinterland along with increasing usage of smartphones.

As the patients would try getting more and more engaged in their respective treatment decision process, it would eventually hold the key to rapid progress of healthcare all over world. It has to happen in the ‘Smart Cities’ of ‘Digital India’ too, which is just a matter of time.

An institutional patient engagement initiative:

Without any direct and significant involvement of pharma industry, there are already some exemplary organized moves towards this direction in several parts of the world. One such institution has recently been established through 2010 ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’ of the United States, known as ‘The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)’. It helps patients in making informed healthcare decisions to significantly improve healthcare delivery and outcomes.

Active promotion of high integrity, evidence-based information that comes from intensive research, ably guided by patients, caregivers and the broader healthcare community, forms the bedrock of this Institute. PCORI ensures that, patients and the public at large have information that they can use to make decisions that reflect their desired health outcomes and other expectations.

This move can be termed as one of the key steps towards ‘Patients Engagement’ in the United States, setting a good example for many other countries to follow, across the world.

Meeting with the challenge of change:

To effectively respond to the challenges posed by the need of ‘Patients Engagement’ in the disease treatment process, some pharmaceutical companies, especially in the United States, have started developing more direct relationship with the patients. Besides innovative use of digital Health Apps, creation of ‘Patient Empowered’ social networks would help addressing this issue properly.

Global pharmaceutical majors, such as Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Roche, Novo Nordisk, Becton, Dickinson & Co and Merck are now directly engaging with the customers through social media, such as, Twitter and Facebook. Some of them have also started experimenting with the Health Apps, as well; though in India not much green shoots are seen in this area.

Just to cite an example, I quote from the The Annual Review 2014 of Pfizer that captures the following:

“People today are able to access and exchange more information than ever before, and it’s no surprise that health is an area where information sharing is exploding. As patients become more informed, they become more involved – more active in their own care and the care of others, and in medical research.

This is the era of “patient-centricity,” where patients are far from passive subjects of study or treatment. Laypeople are taking starring roles in designing clinical trials; tracking and managing their personal health data; and, crowdsourcing new insights and solutions with diverse, far-reaching communities.”

This effort of Pfizer, by all means, is highly commendable, which leaves enough room for others in the pharma world to emulate, may be even more creatively.

Conclusion:

To achieve the objective of meaningful ‘patient engagement’ in the treatment decision making process, there is a primary need for the pharma players to put in place a credible, informative and interactive communication platform.

Today’s world prompts that this platform should ideally be digital and must be an outcome of extensive research on the information needs of patients in the identified areas. Patients’ queries and comments require to be appropriately answered by experts with compassion, remaining within the regulatory framework of the country.

Inputs and resources provided by the concerned pharma companies to the patients through these platforms would help strengthen the quality of their ‘patient engagement’ campaigns. This in turn would enable the patients to properly understand the disease, the rationale of treatment decision of the doctors, subsequent follow up steps and further treatment, if any, thereafter.

With such engagements, the image of the concerned pharma companies would grow by manifold in the eyes of the beholder – the patients. It would then expand much beyond just the buyer and seller relationship for drugs, transcending in the space of well-respected pharma institutions that helped patients in arriving at precise and most cost-effective treatment decisions for a better quality of life.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Global New Product Launches: Recent Success Trend Unflattering?

Posted on March 24, 2014 by Tapan Ray

New products are the lifeblood for any company, including the pharmaceutical players. Business performance and sustainable growth of the pharmaceutical industry, as a whole depend on quality of R&D output in terms of ‘New Molecules’, followed by successful development and launch of those new products by the global pharmaceutical innovators.

Post-patent expiry, robust development and ‘just in time’ launch of cheaper generic versions of those innovative products, in a mega scale, usually drive the growth of the generic pharmaceutical industry, globally.

It is worth noting that for the last several years, ‘Patent Cliff’ coupled with progressively drying up R&D pipelines and mostly unflattering new product launches, are taking heavy tolls on the business performance of the global pharmaceutical majors.

The changing dynamics need to be considered:

Echoing this development, a March 2014 report of McKinsey & Company states: “About two-thirds of drug launches don’t meet sales expectations. Improving that record requires pharmaceutical companies to recognize the world has changed and adjust their marketing accordingly.”

To analyze the situation now in perspective, let us start tracking the launches from 2006 and 2007.

10 Big Pharma Sales in 2012 from NMEs approved since 2007 – A comparison

According to a June 2013 report of the ‘FirstWord Pharma’, in 2012 the combined sales of 10 top Big Pharma constituents, as named in the tables below, from the New Molecular Entities (NMEs) approved by the US-FDA since 2007, were US$ 14.8 billion i.e. 4.9 percent of the total revenue of these 10 companies in that year from the patented drugs.

Individual performance of these 10 companies are as follows:

No.	Company	Sales US$ Million	Sales from NMEs US$ Million	As % of 2012 Sales
1.	Novartis	32153	3445	10.7
2.	J&J	25351	2593	10.3
3.	BMS	17621	1495	8.5
4.	GSK	28518	1282	4.5
5.	Merck	35945	1515	4.2
6.	Sanofi	30879	1265	4.1
7.	Roche	37578	1238	3.3
8.	Eli Lilly	20566	457	2.2
9.	Pfizer	47496	1040	2.2
10	AstraZeneca	27925	449	1.6

(Source: FirstWord, June 2013)

The success rate: With 2007 as the base year for NMEs

This table shows that Novartis and Johnson & Johnson were the two most successful companies with the launch of such NMEs in 2012, as they generated 10.7 percent and 10.3 percent, respectively, of their total patented drugs sales from these NMEs, as against an average of 4.9 percent, as mentioned above, during that year.

If we now try to analyze the new product launch success rates of the 10 Big Pharma constituents, based on the contribution of these new products (launched since 2007) to their respective total sales in 2012, the following picture emerges:

Good: More than 10 percent - 2 Companies (20 percent)
Average: Between 5 and 10 percent - 1 Company (10 percent)
Poor: Less than 5 percent - 7 Companies (70 percent)

The success rate: With 2006 as the base year for NMEs

It is interesting to note from this report that by extending the ‘review period’ to NMEs approved by the US-FDA between 2006 and 2012 (i.e. one additional year), revenues generated by these new drugs in 2012 double to US$ 29 billion – or approximately 10 percent (instead of earlier 4.9 percent) of the total combined branded drug sales of the same 10 Big Pharma constituents in the same year, as follows:

No.	Company	Sales US$ Million	Sales from NMEs US$ Million	As % of 2012 Sales
1.	Merck	35945	7518	20.9
2.	Novartis	32153	5843	18.2
3.	J&J	25351	3939	15.5
4.	BMS	17621	2514	14.3
5.	Roche	37578	2818	7.5
6.	Pfizer	47496	2946	6.2
7.	GSK	28518	1282	4.5
8.	Sanofi	30879	1265	4.1
9.	Eli Lilly	20566	457	2.2
10	AstraZeneca	27925	449	1.6

(Source: FirstWord, June 2013)

No significant overall qualitative change:

Here also, though some numbers related to the new product launch success rates of the same 10 Big Pharma constituents, based on the contribution of the NMEs launched since 2006 to their respective total sales in 2012 do change, poor to average performance with the new products still remains quite high, as follows:

Good: More than 10 percent - 4 Companies (40 percent)
Average: Between 5 and 10 percent - 2 Company (20 percent)
Poor: Less than 5 percent - 4 Companies (40 percent)

However, at a company level, the broad success trend with new products does not change very significantly. Just two new products approved by the US-FDA in 2006 were off to flying starts. These were:

Januvia of Merck: Generated sales of US$ 5.7 billion in 2012
Lucentis of Novartis and Roche: Generated combined sales of US$ 4 billion in 2012

Is it practically ‘The End’ of blockbuster drugs era?

While considering the larger picture on the subject, does it mean that Januvia and Lucentis would mark the end of the golden era of global blockbuster drugs…at least for now?

This picture may get clearer with the following table, prompting possibly an affirmative answer:

Best selling NMEs launched since 2006:

No.	Product	Company	Approval Year	2012 Sales in US$ Million
1.	Januvia	Merck	2006	5745
2.	Lucentis	Novartis	2006	2398
3.	Lucentis	Roche	2006	1580
4.	Isentress	Merck	2007	1515
5.	Invega	J&J	2006	1346
6.	Sutent	Pfizer	2006	1236
7.	Gilenya	Novartis	2010	1195
8.	Stelara	J&J	2009	1025
9.	Sprycel	BMS	2006	1019
10	Tasigna	Novartis	2007	998

(Source: FirstWord, June 2013)

Successfully launched most recent product is also on a shaky ground:

The new game-changing hepatitis C drug of Gilead Sciences – Sovaldi, has generated a turnover of around US$ 140 million in less than a month’s time from its market launch. Analysts expect an annual turnover of around US$7 billion from this brand.

However, sustaining the current sales momentum for Sovaldi in the years ahead could indeed be challenging for Gilead, as Bristol-Myers Squibb is preparing to obtain FDA approval for its own hepatitis C treatment daclatasvir, which has already been cleared in Europe. In addition, AbbVie is also progressing fast with its novel three-drug fixed dose combination in the same therapy area.

Moreover, Sovaldi’s unusually high price has reportedly created a furore in the western market. It costs US$ 1,000 a pill, raising huge concern among insurers and state funded healthcare providers in the United States. The report states that three Democratic members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have already demanded that Gilead Sciences must justify the price of Sovaldi.

Categorization of new drugs:

Analyzing the current situation the above McKinsey report categorizes the types of new products that are now being launched, as follows:

Roughly one in four launches involves drugs that are strongly differentiated from competing products.

More than half of upcoming launches are of moderately differentiated products in well-established disease areas, and the priority is to find a way to stand out from the crowd. This requires innovative approaches to unveil insights into stakeholder needs and behaviors that competitors do not have.

For roughly 15 percent of launches, the priority will be to establish unmet needs effectively to ensure access to a well-differentiated treatment for a targeted population. McKinsey call these launches “category creators.” Gardasil, launched in the un-established human papilloma virus market, is an example.

8 percent of launches face the substantial challenge of launching an undifferentiated product in an un-established disease area.

Broad strategic steps prescribed:

To address this challenge effectively the above report underscores the need for a systematic approach for the pharma players as follows:

Establish unmet needs in a disease area,
Develop deep customer insight as a basis for a truly differentiated positioning
Land the products safely in the market
Maximize launch uptake
Use early experiences in the market to fine-tune ongoing launch activities

Conclusion:

Considering the prevailing scenario of ‘Patent Cliff’, coupled with progressively drying up R&D pipelines and mostly unflattering success with the new product launches, how would a company work out its new product launch strategy, is becoming increasingly a critical question to answer on priority.

To appropriately tune a new product in its long-term sales and profit growth trajectory, it is imperative to ensure that the product exhibits its winning trends as soon as it is fired from its launch pad.

This is absolutely essential, as it appears from the above study, around one in three launches has been good in meeting the planned expectations. This makes about two-thirds of new product launches falling well short of target. It is noteworthy that 78 percent of those new products that fell short in their first year target, lagged in their second-year forecasts too. Further, 70 percent of those laggards did not measure up to the organizational expectations even during their third year in the market.

Thus, any inadvertent mistakes in this area could make the grand finale of intense product development and strategizing efforts over a number of years together with expenses of millions of dollars, unflattering, if not catastrophic, both in terms of top and bottom line score-card of the organization, as is happening more frequently during the last several years.

This trend needs to be reversed with the application of innovative minds and charting the uncharted frontiers, sooner the better, for a healthier global pharmaceutical industry, as we move on.

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Patent Pool’ – is GSK setting a new trend for the global pharmaceutical industry?

Posted on May 18, 2009 by Tapan Ray

On February 13, 2009, The Guardian reported that Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced some significant changes to the way his company will operate in the developing countries of the world.

GSK, as Witty said, will:

• “Cut its prices for all drugs in the 50 least developed countries to no more than 25% of the levels in the UK and US – and less if possible – and make drugs more affordable in middle- income countries such as Brazil and India.

• Put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a “patent pool”, so they can be explored by other researchers.

• Reinvest 20% of any profits it makes in the least developed countries in hospitals, clinics and staff.

• Invite scientists from other companies, NGOs or governments to join the hunt for tropical disease treatments at its dedicated institute at Tres Cantos, Spain.”

Quoting Andrew Witty, The Guardian reported, “his stance may not win him friends in other drug companies, but he is inviting them to join him in an attempt to make a significant difference to the health of people in poor countries”.

“We work like crazy to come up with the next great medicine, knowing that it’s likely to get used an awful lot in developed countries, but we could do something for developing countries. Are we working as hard on that? I want to be able to say yes we are, and that’s what this is all about – trying to make sure we are even-handed in terms of our efforts to find solutions not just for developed but for developing countries,” Witty envisioned.

“I think the shareholders understand this and it’s my job to make sure I can explain it. I think we can. I think it’s absolutely the kind of thing large global companies need to be demonstrating, that they’ve got a more balanced view of the world than short-term returns,” he expressed Knowing full well that his comments will be considered as quite radical within the global pharmaceutical Industry.

The unorthodox young CEO of GSK continued, “I think it’s the first time anybody’s really come out and said we’re prepared to start talking to people about pooling our patents to try to facilitate innovation in areas where, so far, there hasn’t been much progress.”

Definition of ‘Patent Pool’:

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

Thus one of the often repeated key benefits of the ‘Patent Pool’, as considered by its proponent, is that the system enables the use of innovation against payment of royalties, without the risk of patent infringement.

The rationale for ‘Patent Pool’ system:

Many experts in this area feel that the conventional patent system does not really work for the diseases of the poor, all over the world. Though the concept of ‘Patent Pool’ is quite new in the global pharmaceutical industry, this system is being very successfully and widely practised within the Information Technology (IT) industry. ‘Patent Pool’ system, if effectively used, can also help the global pharmaceutical companies to improve their access to many more developing countries of the world.

GSK appears to have kick started the process:

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

Key requirements for the ‘Patent Pool’:

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

Key issues with the ‘Patent Pool’ concept:

It has been reported, from a WHO conference held in April, 2006 ‘Innovation Strategy Today’ worked out that the start-up costs of a ‘Patent Pool’ for vaccines will be economically viable only if more than 25 participants holding relevant patents join the initiative.

Moreover, various types of litigations, related to patents, which we are currently witnessing within the global pharmaceutical industry, could also be impediment in getting more patents in the pool.

Conclusion:

The initiative to create a ‘Patent Pool’ system in the global pharmaceutical industry, especially for the diseases of the poor, as enunciated by the CEO of GSK, is indeed a path breaking one. Such initiatives are likely to have very positive contribution in solving the problem of access to affordable medicines, especially in the developing world.

In fact, the Council of Science and Industrial Research of the Government of India, lead by its Director General, Dr. Samir Brahmachari has already undertaken similar initiatives in the country where global experts including academia are actively participating.

Though ‘Patent Pool’ is still an untested model in the global pharmaceutical industry, the recent announcement of GSK towards this direction does appear to offer a realistic and practical approach to address the critical global issue of improving ‘access to affordable innovative modern medicines’ to a vast majority of population in the developing countries of the world.

By Tapan Ray

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

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: trend

Multichannel Marketing: Two Important Pharma Trends

Is The Global Generic Drug Market Slowing Down?

Making New Cancer Drugs Cost-effective

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Democratization of Healthcare: An Evolving Trend Driven By Cutting-Edge Technology

Global New Product Launches: Recent Success Trend Unflattering?

‘Patent Pool’ – is GSK setting a new trend for the global pharmaceutical industry?