Tag Archives: Trial

Combating Covid Pandemic: When ‘Something Is Better Than Nothing’

Posted on by
Reply

As the new Coronavirus overwhelms the world, since its global outbreak, up until November 29, 2020, over 1,458,305 people have died from this pandemic. Understandably, the Governments in all countries are frantically searching for some robust remedial measures to prevent these unfortunate deaths, besides protecting livelihoods of a vast majority of people.

For this purpose, experts considered effective preventive measures, such as vaccines could help taming this menace, alongside existing personal prevention measures. Accordingly, scientists around the world, have are hard to accelerate development and manufacturing of safe and effective Covod-19 vaccines, within the prescribed guidelines. Equally important is the fact these vaccines must be safe with predictable effectiveness- for all age groups.

The good news is, vaccines are now a distinct possibility in the near future, with the positive interim Phase III clinical trial reports pouring in. It gets reflected in the remark of the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), on November 23, 2020, at the media briefing on Covid-19. He said: There is now real hope that vaccines – in combination with other tried and tested public health measures – will help to end the pandemic.

Interestingly, amid these reports, a lurking fear of many experts also surfaces – on the impact of possible side effects, that Covid vaccine may cause, besides their medium to long term efficacy in human subjects. But, with the mounting number of deaths, near collapse of the global economy, including India, there isn’t any more time to watch and wait.

Apparently, all governments now want some scientifically relevant vaccines, instead of nothing. This article will deliberate on the one hand – an unprecedented achievement, alongside some critical concerns – voiced even by the Indian Prime Minister. Let me begin with the apprehensions, as expressed by some domain experts on some rough edges, as it were, in the process of its development.

Queries on vaccine dosing, efficacy, safety and testing:

On November 23, 2020, AstraZeneca and Oxford reported interim results of their vaccine with the average efficacy of 70% prevention. This sounded good to many, as it falls within the expectations of above a 50% standard that the FDA had set for Covid vaccines. However, the puzzling part in this result was – bigger (standard) doses of the vaccines were less efficacious. The vaccine was only 62% effective in a group that got two full doses spaced about a month apart. But among about 2,700 people who got a half-dose followed by a full, the number rose to 90%, the report highlighted. This incident prompted several questions about the most effective dose of AstraZeneca and Oxford vaccine, including its safety record and the approach to testing. Consequently, apprehensions surfaced whether the Drug regulators will clear it, based on the currently available data.

It now appears, AstraZeneca ‘s Covid-19 vaccine is ‘headed for an additional global trial as the drug maker tries to clear up the uncertainty and confusion surrounding favorable results in its current study.’ Incidentally, in India - AstraZeneca and Oxford vaccine will be manufactured by Pune-based Serum Institute of India (SII) under a collaborative arrangement. Let me now dwell on a broader as aspect in this space.

Could current Covid vaccines become useless in the future?

There isn’t an iota of doubt that developing Covid vaccine in ten months, which otherwise takes around ten years – is an unprecedented achievement. However, there are several other important areas in this space, where pundits have expressed uneasiness through various articles.

One such paper is titled, ‘Don’t rush to deploy COVID-19 vaccines and drugs without sufficient safety guarantees,’ published in the Nature on March 16, 2020. According to the author, a critical point in this regard is to consider ‘the potential for emerging and re-emerging Coronaviruses to cause future outbreaks.’

This is because, ‘the virus behind COVID-19 might mutate in ways that would make previously effective vaccines and antivirals useless.’ Testing vaccines and medicines without taking the time to fully understand safety risks, could bring unwarranted setbacks during the current pandemic, and into the future. ‘Despite the genuine need for urgency, the old saying holds – ‘measure twice, cut once’, the author commented.

The article concluded by suggesting, ‘any regulatory agency considering ways to accelerate treatments into testing should also weigh up how likely these drugs are to work beyond this particular Coronavirus.’ Moreover, according to the WHO, it’s too early to know if COVID-19 vaccines will provide long-term protection.

Possible side-effects of COVID-19 vaccines:

As people’s hopes swell, expecting Covid vaccines to ultimately end the deadly global pandemic, experts caution about their reported – annoying and unpleasant side effects. The November 12, 2020 paper – ‘Time to Discuss Potentially Unpleasant Side Effects of COVID Shots? Scientists Say Yes,’ published by the Kaiser Health News (KHN), also articulated similar apprehension.

It said, most Covid vaccines, including much publicized ones from Pfizer and Moderna, will require two doses to work, injections that must be given weeks apart, as company protocols show. Scientists anticipate the shots will cause enervating flu-like side effects — including sore arms, muscle aches and fever — that could last days and temporarily sideline some people from work or school.

Even with the Pfizer vaccine, which is touted to be over 90% effective, 1 in 10 recipients would still be vulnerable. There could also be a possibility that a vaccine may not suit everyone due to side-effects, especially the most vulnerable elderly population. That means, at least in the short term, as population-level immunity grows, people can’t stop social distancing and throw away their masks, the report emphasized. Even Prime Minister Modi has informed the nation about possible side effects of Covid vaccines.

PM Modi also warns of possible vaccine side-effects:

Being adequately briefed on the above perspectives related to Covid vaccines, the PM has also warned the nation about the possible side-effects. This is probably to ensure that the unpleasant experience of side-effects, after being administered the first dose, do not catch the population off-guard. Mostly because, no one should miss the second dose of vaccine for the same.

He said, during a recent video conference with the state chief ministers, ‘like many other popular medicines, any COVID-19 vaccine could lead to side-effects in some people.’ Emphasizing that both speed and safety are equally important in launching a vaccine, he assured that ‘the government would only go by science in finalizing a vaccine for the country.’

Is something better than nothing?

In the current situation, it appears so, as there is no other alternatives, except maintenance of social distancing, frequent hand sanitizing and wearing masks while outdoors. The Prime Minister also articulated sans any ambiguity: ‘Whatever vaccine makes it through the world’s certified processes, we will have to accept them and move ahead.’

In the meantime, he urged the states to keep distribution infrastructure, such as cold storages ready, the report said. Interestingly, according to Serum Institute CEO Adar Poonawalla, India could approve the emergency use of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine by December 2020.

That said, for mass vaccination of the population across India, another factor that is extremely important to decide which vaccine to go for – is the required storage temperature of various Covid Vaccines under development.

Required cold chain storage temperature of various Covid vaccines:

Required cold chain storage temperatures of various Covid vaccines are as follows:

Company

Type

Doses

Effectiveness*

Storage
Oxford-AstraZeneca Viral Vector (genetically modified virus) Two 62-90%** Regular fridge temp.
Moderna RNA (part of virus genetic code) Two 95% -20C up to six months
Pfizer-BioNTech RNA Two 95% -70C
Gamaleya (Sputnik V) Viral Vector Two 92% Regular fridge temp.

Source: Respective Companies, WHO – BBC News. *Preliminary Phase III results. **Two full doses: 62%, A half dose followed by a full dose: 90%, Average: 70%

From the above table, it appears, from the perspective of continuous cold chain storage facility of vaccines – till these are administered to each person, Oxford-AstraZeneca and Russian Sputnik vaccines will be more practical, despite issues with them. Viewing from this perspective, as well, it appears ‘something is better than nothing’ term can be applied in this area, as well.

Conclusion:

The Covid pandemic continues to worry India, immensely. As on November 29, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 9,393,039 of Coronavirus cases with 136,733 deaths. The threat of subsequent waves for further spread of Covid infection now looms large in many states.

Unprecedented speed in developing vaccines to effectively combat Covid Pandemic has created some initial issues. Some of these Covid vaccine challenges include, vaccine side effects, its future usefulness, or challenges towards maintaining required stringent cold chain storage requirements, especially in a country like India. Powder version of Covid vaccines, in the future, would possibly resolve this issue for all countries, across the world.

Currently, in tandem with keeping the cold-chain distribution infrastructure ready, at least, for vaccines that require regular fridge temperature, there is a need to make people aware of Covid vaccine side-effects. Otherwise, after getting first shot of a Coronavirus vaccine, many people may get so scared of its side effects that they may not come back for the second dose. If this happens, the very purpose of mass vaccination will get defeated.

However, from the Indian perspective, Covid vaccines that the country, hopefully, will shortly get, may not be the best, out of the available ones, in terms of safety and efficacy. But, for combating Covid Pandemic across India at this juncture, I reckon, the good old dictum still holds good – ‘something is better than nothing.’

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.

 

Blockchain: Pharma Keeps An Eye On The Ball

Posted on by
Reply

On April 24, 2017, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) came out with an interesting headline, “Dubai Aims to Be a City Built on Blockchain.” Some may have taken note of it seriously. However, a vast majority of its readers possibly equated the article with something, which is far from reality – like a distant dream.

However, looking at the rapid transformational phase of digital technology, nothing apparently is a dream – not even ‘a distant one.’ The following recent example, in a similar but not exactly the same context, would vindicate this point.

On January 09, 2018, Reuters reported with a headline, “JPMorgan’s Dimon regrets calling bitcoin a fraud.” Interestingly, at a conference held in September 2017, the same Dimon – the Chief Executive of JPMorgan, had commented: “The currency isn’t going to work. You can’t have a business where people can invent a currency out of thin air and think that people who are buying it are really smart.”

I cited the example of ‘Bitcoin’ while deliberating on ‘Blockchain’, primarily because ‘Bitcoin’ – an unregulated virtual or cryptocurrency was built on ‘Blockchain’ technology. This technology reportedly facilitates absolutely transparent, smooth, safe and corruption-free transaction of ‘Bitcoin’, without any third-party intervention at any stage.

Currently, moving beyond Bitcoin, many industries – including pharma, have started finding various uses of Blockchain in their respective businesses. Domain experts envisage, this technology has the potential to offer game changing values – revolutionizing various business processes.

In this article, I shall focus on how the healthcare industry, in general, and more specifically some global pharma players are contemplating to leverage the path breaking ‘Blockchain’ technology to add unprecedented value in the business. The technology being rather a complex one, I shall put it across in a way that an ordinary man like me can easily absorb. Which is why, I start with the first basic question that comes to the fore: ‘What exactly is ‘Blockchain’?

‘Blockchain’:

‘Blockchain’ is a technology that was reportedly conceptualized by an anonymous individual or a group known as Satoshi Nakamoto, in 2008. It was implemented in 2009, as a core component of ‘Bitcoin’ transactions – in an altogether different form of Internet. The technology provides in its network access to transparent digital information that no user can corrupt or probably even hack, leave aside taking copies. The December 13, 2017 article, featured in the Computerworld on this ‘Most disruptive tech in decades’, describes Blockchain as:

  • “Blockchain is a public electronic ledger – similar to a relational database – that can be openly shared among disparate users. It creates an unchangeable record of their transactions, each one time-stamped and linked to the previous one. Each digital record or transaction in the thread is called a block (hence the name), and it allows either an open or controlled set of users to participate in the electronic ledger. Each block is linked to a specific participant.”
  • “Blockchain can only be updated by consensus between participants in the system, and when new data is entered, it can never be erased. The Blockchain contains a true and verifiable record of each and every transaction ever made in the system.”
  • “As a peer-to-peer network, combined with a distributed time-stamping server, Blockchain databases can be managed autonomously to exchange information between disparate parties. There’s no need for an administrator. In effect, the Blockchain users are the administrators.”

Blockchain has, therefore, been meticulously designed to reveal any interference with the contents, ensuring a very high level of data security and access for all its users. Thus, many domain experts justifiably believe, what ‘open-source’ software did almost two and half decades ago, ‘Blockchain’ technology is possibly on a similar threshold of changing much of the ball game in Information Technology (IT), globally.

Big corporate houses of several industries, such as Fintech, Healthcare and Shipping envisage that ‘Blockchain’ technology has a great potential, as they start making limited use of it. It is still in its infancy for scalable use in most industries, probably other than ‘Bitcoin’ transactions.

Use of ‘Blockchain’ in pharma and healthcare:

Let me now explore the potential of ‘Blockchain’ in healthcare and pharma. A paper titled, “Healthcare rallies for Blockchains: Keeping patients at the center” by IBM Institute for Business Value, provides some important insight on its application in healthcare sector. This study is based on a survey of 200 healthcare executives in 16 countries, conducted by The Economist Intelligence Unit. The key highlights are as follows:

  • 16 percent of pharma and healthcare respondents expected to have a commercial Blockchain solution at scale in 2017, as compared to 15 percent of the Banks and 14 percent of Financial enterprises. Thus, it appears, the adoption of Blockchain by healthcare entities are taking place at a faster pace than the other two.
  • 6 in 10 anticipate Blockchains will help them access new markets, and new and trusted information they can keep secure.
  • 7 in 10 of them expect the greatest Blockchain benefits to be in clinical trial records, regulatory compliance and medical/ health records.

Accordingly, the authors posed a few questions: How valuable would it be to have the full history of an individual’s health? What if every vital sign that has been recorded, of all the medicines taken, information associated with every doctor’s visit, illness, operation and more, could be efficiently and accurately captured – and securely stored?

If and when all this is put to scalable use, the designated users will get access to the historic and real-time patient data of various types, of high credibility. In turn, it is expected to significantly reduce many other costs, including the cost towards data reconciliation. Consequently, the quality and coordination of care would rise manifold, with lesser risk, if at all. I shall give below just a couple of examples to drive home the point:

I. Adds credibility and value to Clinical Trials:

The issue of not reporting around half of all clinical trial data, conducted by pharma players while obtaining marketing approval for innovative products, has become a topic of raging debates, across the world. The reason for the same is apparently the intent for the deliberate creation of an information-gap, by cherry picking more favorable trial data. This could eventually lead to compromising patient safety, seriously.

Allegations continue for not just mostly favorable trial data being presented to drug regulators and policymakers to obtain marketing and other approvals, but also for product promotion to doctors. This prompts many believing, “if the clinical trials are supported by Blockchain solution, all results, protocols, and other related information would be time-stamped and immutable, resulting in less data snooping and errors.” Consequently, it would help enhance the dwindling public trust on pharma, especially in this area.

II. Adds unprecedented security and transparency in SCM:

Another example of its effective use is in making a tamper-evident pharma Supply Chain Management (SCM), with unprecedented built-in security features to prevent drug counterfeiting and circulation of substandard drugs. Moreover, ‘Blockchain’ would ensure supply chain tracking even at the individual Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) level by establishing proof of ownership for specific sources of any product. This is especially important in the backdrop of the WHO report, highlighting that 30 percent of such drugs are sold primarily in developing countries.

Global pharma keeping an eye on the ball:

An article titled, ‘Big Pharma Seeks DLT Solution for Drug Costs’, published on January 09, 2018 by the CoinDesk – a digital media and information services company, discussed on this fascinating subject.

It reported, at least, three global pharma heavyweights – Pfizer, Amgen and Sanofi, are pondering, whether ‘Blockchain could be used to actually save lives?’ To achieve this goal with combined efforts, they are now exploring a Blockchain framework to streamline the process of developing and testing new drugs. These early initiators believe, as areas such as this, are of industry-wide importance, there is a need to create a growing momentum for collaboration on foundational issues. And, Blockchain framework that can address the current issues in drug development and clinical trials, will fetch a win-win outcome, both for the innovators and patients, besides other stakeholders.

To reduce the time and cost of bringing new drugs from research labs to patients, improved data management and movement is critical. Blockchain technology could hasten this process, by automating communication between pharma companies, researchers and patients. At the same time, it will ensure a very high level of data integrity, which is so important for health and safety interest of patients.

This area has assumed greater relevance in the recent years, when pharma innovators are facing different challenges to bring new, more personalized drugs to market – faster and at affordable prices, the paper highlights.

Areas of initial use by Indian pharma:

In my article “SCM: Embracing Technology For Patients’ Safety”, published in this Blog on December 18, 2017, I discussed a similar point, not in context of ‘Blockchain’, though. I wrote that by a notification dated January 05, 2016, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) has made encoding and printing of unique numbers and bar codes as per GSI Global Standard mandatory. This would cover tertiary, secondary and primary packaging for all pharmaceuticals manufactured in India and exported out of the country to facilitate tracking and tracing.

Although, the ‘Track and Trace’ system in India for drugs is currently applicable only to pharma exports, will ultimately cover drugs in the domestic market, as well. This is evident from a draft proposal of the Government to the stakeholders in June 2015, in this regard.

Blockchain-based public electronic ledgers that can be openly shared among disparate users, creating an unchangeable record of their transactions, with each one time-stamped and linked to the previous one, would be of immense importance for all concerned towards the reliability of medicines in India.

Similarly, as Indian players venture into more complex clinical trials, such as with biosimilars, Blockchain could catapult the narrative on reliability of Indian clinical data to a much higher level of trust.

Blockchain has come to stay:

As I said in the beginning, ‘Blockchain’ technology has started coming to the fore of many discussions and debates, mainly for its critical role in transparent transaction and distribution process of the cryptocurrency – Bitcoin.

December 16, 2017 issue of the Gulf News reported that UAE’s central bank is working on a joint cryptocurrency, based on Blockchain, with its counterpart in Saudi Arabia. Just prior to that, in August 31, 2017 issue of the Financial Times also reported: “Six of the world’s biggest banks have joined a project to create a new form of digital cash that they hope to launch next year for clearing and settling financial transactions over Blockchain, the technology underpinning bitcoin.”

And just this month, we got to know about the combined efforts of Pfizer, Amgen and Sanofi, to use a Blockchain framework for streamlining the process of developing and testing new drugs.

Besides many other industries, even several Governments are envisaging to unleash the transformative potential of Blockchain in various Governance processes. It may include the confidential data procured and used by Governments to confirm the identity or identification of individuals for different purpose, or even to ensure that the country’s election process is transparent and beyond corruption.

An expression of interest on the use of Blockchain by some State Governments in India, gets reflected in what the Chief Minister (CM) of Maharashtra said while inaugurating the Maharashtra Technology Summit (MTECH), jointly organized by FICCI and Govt. of Maharashtra in Mumbai on January 17, 2018.

The CM clearly indicated, as Blockchain can transform the e-governance, the State Governments must start interacting with technology providers to make Public delivery of goods and services transparent. This will reduce the trust deficit between businesses, and citizens with government departments. He admitted, in the space of technology, ‘Blockchain is one level up and it’s not just Internet of Thing, but it is Internet of trust, Internet of values, that can change the entire space of governance’.

Conclusion:

Blockchain may be just a technological component, but, nonetheless, a game changing one. Thus, the good news is, several pharma players are also taking great interest to step into this never ever experienced – and a new kind of digital paradigm.

It is heartening to note that a number of global pharma head honchos, such as of Novartis, Takeda, and several others, are creating a new global position of chief digital officer. GSK, reportedly, is the latest one to initiate similar step.

Indian pharma players, I reckon, can also reap a rich harvest, both tangible and intangible, by putting ‘Blockchain’ technology in place. It may start with building a transparent, incorruptible ‘Track and Trace’ system for medicines, in addition to achieving high degree of international reliability in its clinical trials, especially on biologic drugs.

The benefits built into the Blockchain technology for pharma, apparently, are far too many than perceived constraints to leverage it effectively. Encouragingly, global pharma seems to be keeping an eye on the ball – but what about Indian pharma?

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.

Clinical Trials: Critical Need To Improve Patient Participation With Informed Consent

Posted on by
Reply

On April 13, 2016, an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) titled, “Clinical Trials Need More Subjects” underscored an important point that the rate at which the clinical researchers are able to recruit and retain patients for ‘Clinical Trials (CT)’, has now hit an all-time low. This is vindicated by studies that indicate less than 10 percent of Americans now participate in clinical trials, and only 3 to 5 percent of patients sign up for trials of new cancer therapies, in the largest CT market of the world.

As a result, about 40 percent of CTs do not recruit enough patients to meet their goals, the article highlights. Consequently, a large number of pharma industry sponsored CTs are now, reportedly, moving away from the United States. India should, therefore, take note of this development and pull up the socks.

If similar situation gets replicated in other countries too, and persists, it would be very unlikely that critical and credible medical and scientific knowledge that can significantly improve the treatment outcomes in many serious disease conditions could be meaningfully gathered and put to practice. Its other serious fallouts too, are also not terribly difficult to imagine.

A key medical research tool: 

In pursuit of the advancement of medical knowledge and patient care, CT of drugs is universally considered to be a key medical research tool, as it is the best way to learn what works best in treating various types of diseases. It goes without saying that drugs for all new types of treatments would need to be discovered first through a long and painstaking process of discovery research. These are then purified, and tested in preclinical studies, before a final decision is taken for commencement of CT on human against preset parameters, as deemed necessary.

While going through this stringent process some drugs are found to be safe and effective on human subjects and some others are not, on the contrary may be harmful.

There lies the crucial importance of CT for all scientific evidence based medicines. According to the Department of Health & Human Services of the United States, Clinical research is done only if doctors don’t know:

  • whether a new approach works well with people and is safe and
  • which treatments or strategies work best for certain illnesses or groups of people 

CT, though a small part in the important and lengthy process of developing newer treatments, significantly helps the health care decision makers to decide on the treatments that work best for any patient.

Broad types: 

Pharmaceutical companies usually sponsor CT for new drugs and treatments, which are carried out by the designated research teams, consisting of doctors and other related professionals in different specialized areas.

There are 4 phases in any CT, which are broadly as follows:     

  • Phase I: Here, for a new treatment, an investigational drug is tested for the first time in small numbers, usually between 20 and 100, on healthy volunteers, to identify the proper dosage ranges for drug administration, while critically monitoring its method of absorption, adverse effects and toxicity profile.
  • Phases II: This phase, just as Phase I studies, also tests the drug on, usually between 100 and 300 patients, suffering from the targeted disease conditions. Safety is the main goal of this phase of CT and is programmed towards adjusting treatment doses, monitoring the common side effects, and whether patient’s disease condition improve as a result of the drug. These studies are usually randomized and double-blinded, where neither the patient nor the researchers would know whether a patient is receiving the investigational drug, or a placebo, or a standard treatment.
  • Phase III: In this phase, the investigational new drug goes through rigorous testing of safety, efficacy, and proper dosage levels in a large group of subjects, which may even exceed several thousand, with a specific illness or disease. The key objective is to enable the doctors to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the treatment for various groups of patients, such as, men versus women, elderly versus young, besides many others. 
  • Phase IV: Such studies are done after the drug receives the marketing approval from the drug regulator. The basic objective of these trials is usually to monitor whether the treatment offers desired benefits or gives rise to long-term side effects, which were not seen in the phase II and III trials. This phase may involve even several hundreds and thousands of patients.

It is worth noting that CT is essential to obtain marketing approval for any new treatment, as required by the drug regulators in the different countries, and takes around 6 to 8 years.

The role of patients:

Patients play a critical role in the entire scientific value chain of any drug evaluation process, especially on human. It is absolutely necessary, particularly in the regulated markets of the world, that all medicines are fully vetted through highly regulated, stringently monitored and well-scrutinized CTs, to ensure safety and effectiveness of each new drug and treatment for the patients.

No CT can take place sans the willingness and informed consent for participation of thousands of patients for any such studies held across the world. Without adequate patient participation in a CT, the drug performance data may also not be credible and thus acceptable to the drug regulator. This would, consequently, make it impossible to bring any new drug for prevention or treatment of various, often life threatening, disease conditions. 

Major reasons for not enough patient participation:

There are many reasons for not enough patients volunteering to participate in the CT, even in India. Some of the major reasons have been identified as follows:

  • Patients often are not aware that such trials also offer a treatment option. In many cases, their doctors too may not be explaining it effectively to them, as a part of their professional discourse. Several studies conclude that trust in a physician is a main reason patients decide to participate in CT.
  • Some patients, after reading media reports, interacting with some NGOs and also from word of mouth, mistrust the CT process and suffer from fear of being a guinea pig.
  • At times, complicated protocols, and eligibility requirements may also be discouraging.
  • Many patients, especially in India, are not very clear about the exact insurance (financial) cover the study provides for them, along with other payments for the care that they would receive during the trial, or for any drug-related long term untoward incident even after completion of the CT.

All these need to be effectively addressed. 

India attractiveness for CT:

The number of CT conducted in India had increased with a rapid pace till 2012, driven by cost arbitrage, treatment-naïve patient population, qualified English speaking medical research professionals that the country offers. According to available reports, in 2009, outside the United States, India was the second most preferred country to conduct CT. Incidentally, at that time, the CT guidelines in India were too loose, quite discretionary, patient-unfriendly and with many gaping holes. This scenario has changed dramatically since 2013, with consequent adverse impact on the number of CT in India.

A 2009 study conducted by Ernst & Young and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (FICCI), states that India participates in over 7 percent of all global phase III and 3.2 percent of all global phase II trials. The major reasons of India attraction of the global players to conduct CT in the country, were highlighted as follows:

  • Cost of Clinical Trial (CL) is significantly less in India than most other countries of the world
  • Huge treatment-naïve patient pool with different disease pattern and demographic profile
  • Easy to enroll volunteers, as it is not very difficult to persuade poor and less educated people as ‘willing’ participants. This may not be so easy now with the recent amendment of CT guidelines. 

However, there is an urgent need for a world class capacity building in this area to reap a rich harvest.

Improving CT regulations in India:

Not so long ago, it came to light with the help of ‘Right To Information (RTI)’ query that more than 2,000 people in India died as a result of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) caused during drug trials from 2008-2011 and only 22 of such cases, which is just around 1 percent, received any compensation. That too was a meager average sum of around US$ 4,800 per family.

It has been widely reported that pharmaceutical companies often blame deaths, that occur during trials, on a person’s pre-existing medical condition, and not related to CT.

This gloomy situation is now gradually improving. According to an August 2015 research article titled “Impact of new regulations on clinical trials in India”, published in International Journal of Clinical Trials, 2015 Aug; 2 (3): 56-58, there was a need of strict vigilance and regulations for conducting CT in India, which was much easier than in North America or Europe. In India, the trial participants were exploited because of illiteracy, poverty and lack of awareness of their basic rights in this area. The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) has now taken a noteworthy step by launching online Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI) ensuring accountability, transparency and information sharing on clinical trials in the public domain.

Followed by a tough intervention of the Supreme Court in 2013, Indian Government brought in amendments to the CT guidelines of Schedule Y, in December 2014 which came into force effective June 2015. These long-overdue amendments are expected to strengthen the CT process in India and effectively protect the rights, desired safety and general well-being of the participating subjects, while generating authentic clinical data for new drugs or treatment.

Informed consent:

Obtaining informed consent of the participating patients, is absolutely necessary for the researchers. This has recently been made stringent in India effective June 07, 2013. From that date, to make the sCT process transparent and ensure requisite confidentiality, an audio-visual recording of the ‘informed consent’ process has been made mandatory in the country.

A valid consent would mean that the participants have well understood the risks and benefits of the treatment during the CT period and after, along with the general procedures that he or she would need to undergo during the given time-frame.

However, the question that is still being debated, primarily because of the continuing challenge in defining in each case, beyond any scope of doubt, what should be universally considered as an adequate level of information given to the patients to obtain consent of participation in the CT. 

Financial compensation process:

Currently, the calculation of financial compensation, wherever applicable, is based on a well-defined formula. This system has been made mandatory for the sponsor in India for any trial related injuries or death. Such compensation has to be paid, even when the trial related injury is discerned after the completion of the CT. The concerned participants would receive this compensation over and above the free medical management of injury, which in any case has to be provided by the sponsor.

Hence patient safety and compensation related issues pertaining to CT in India have, to a great extent, been addressed, though there is still more scope for improvement on an ongoing basis.

Another major issue still to be addressed:

It is generally expected that when CT of a new drug is conducted by the global pharma players in India with the participation of Indian patients, the same drug when launched in other countries would also be made available in India for the benefit of Indian patients. 

Unfortunately, the situation is not so, as indicated by a paper titled, “A critical appraisal of clinical trials conducted and subsequent drug approvals in India and South Africa”, published in the BMJ Open on August 31, 2015.

The objective of this study was to assess the relation between the number of clinical trials conducted and respective new drug approvals in India and South Africa.

The study found that out of CTs with the participation of test centers in India and/or South Africa, 39.6 percent (India) and 60.1 percent (South Africa) CTs led to market authorization in the EU/USA, without a New Drug Application (NDA) approval in India or South Africa. 

The paper concluded, despite an increase in CT activities, there is a clear gap between the number of trials conducted and market availability of these new drugs in India and South Africa. Hence, the drug regulatory authorities, investigators, institutional review boards and patient groups should direct their efforts to ensuring availability of new drugs in the market that have been tested and researched on their population, the article suggested. 

I hope, the CDSCO would take remedial measures to address this situation, soon.

Indian pharma players should get their act together:

In view of the international media reports on alleged ‘CT data fudging’ by some of the larger Indian players in the pharma and relator sectors, there is an urgent need of the Indian pharma players to get their acts together, without any further delay.

On April 15, 2016, Reuters reported, “India’s Alkem Laboratories has been accused by Germany’s health regulator of fudging data on clinical trials of an antibiotic and brain disorder drug, becoming the third Indian firm to be scrutinized since 2014 for suspected manipulation of trial data.” However, a day later Alkem said that it was submitting suitable clarifications to the European Medical Agency (EMA).

Be that as it may, if the allegation for such gross violations of basic ethical standards is true, it would bring shame not just to the companies concerned, but also to India as a trusted source for pharma products and services. Such alleged foul play has the potential to ultimately shatter the stakeholders’ confidence, including patients, on CTs done by the Indian players, both for the local and global markets. 

Conclusion:

At the long last, after a grueling experience and tough intervention of the Supreme Court of India, CTs conducted in India are now reasonably well regulated and generally seem to comply with ethical requirements and standards. The question of human ‘guinea pigs’ and its associated concerns have also been adequately addressed by the CDSCO now.

Gradually improving the CT regulatory environment in India, barring some avoidable aberrations, offers some significant direct and indirect benefits to all concerned. Indian pharma is, therefore, expected to handle this sensitive opportunity with great care and following the highest ethical standards. 

This, in turn, would help bring to the market robust evidence-based new drugs and treatment for many types of diseases, and at the same time could facilitate their early access to many patients, at a time of dire need.

Through increasing access to CT, the participating patients would be able to avail several important benefits, such as, new and still unavailable treatment options, especially for those serious ailments, where other existing drugs either are not working effectively with satisfactory results, not affordable to many, or not working at all. In that sense, CT could offer to a sizeable number patients several other treatment options to choose from, especially, for many life-threatening diseases. This important benefit needs to be explained to the patients from credible sources, and thus merits serious consideration by the practicing medical professionals.

However, it is also a fact, particularly, in India that some people are lured to, or voluntarily enroll themselves for CT with an objective to make some extra money. Let me hasten to add that there are many other patients for whom the compensation for participation in the CT is no more than just an extra bonus.

Hence, improved patient participation with informed consent, to avail an important medical option in the disease treatment process, encouraged by the doctors without having any vested interest, has a great potential to create a win-win situation, for all concerned.

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.

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process

Posted on by
Reply

Fathoming the details of just a short span of time, not going beyond the last 10 years, I find from the published data that many new drugs, such as, Alatrofloxacin, Aprotinin, Drotrecogin alfa, Lumiracoxib, Propoxyphene, Rofecoxib, Rosiglitazone, Sibutramine, Tegaserod, Tetrazepam, were withdrawn from a number of important global markets. Quite a few of those were withdrawn also from the world market.

The key reason for almost all these withdrawals was serious safety concerns for the patients while using these medicines. Interestingly, some of these new molecules were withdrawn even after attaining the blockbuster status, such as Rofecoxib.

Tens of thousands of patients have died only because of this reason, according to reports.

It is widely believed by the experts in this area, if full public disclosure of the entire data of drug clinical trials was made, most of these new drugs would not have seen the light of the day and without putting many patients’ health safety in jeopardy.

All this is a part of a curious conundrum in the new drug approval process, across the world, for various reasons. In this article, I would try to dwell on this issue.

Voices against this ‘unethical practice’ getting louder:                                             

On December 22, 2015, ‘CBC News’ published an interesting article, titled “Researcher issues ‘call to action’ to force release of hidden drug safety data: Bringing drug industry data into the light of public scrutiny.”

The article echoed the same belief of other global experts and, in fact, went a step forward. It categorically reiterated, if full disclosure of the entire data of drug clinical trials is made public, medical practice might have been quite different.

To drive home this point, the article cited the example of the arthritis drug rofecoxib (Vioxx), which has been linked to tens of thousands of deaths related to heart attacks.

It highlighted, although this risk was very much known to the regulatory authority of the United States, the relevant data was not released to the public for an impartial scrutiny.

Quoting different sources, the paper observed, almost half of the drug trials remain secret and the studies that are published, overwhelmingly report results that make the drug in question look good.

Independent experts’ views differed from the innovator companies:

In some cases, when researchers were able to see what is hiding in the filing cabinets of the drug innovator companies, a different picture altogether emerged on the overall profile of those drugs.

One group looked at 12 antidepressants, comparing the published studies with the internal US FDA assessments. They found that 94 per cent of the published studies were positive, as compared to 51 per cent, when they included all of the studies assessed by the drug regulator.

Based on a detailed study, the authors concluded, without considering all the data, drug effectiveness can often be exaggerated, leading doctors and patients to assume that the medications work better than what they actually do. The ongoing practice of the drug players may help them to significantly diminish the risks, related to the benefits offered by these medicines.

A few months ago, another group analyzed the data from an unpublished drug company study about the effect of Paxil on teen depression and found that the drug did not work and was not safe for the patients. This result completely contradicted the original, unpublished study on this drug.

A crusader emerged in Canada:

Interestingly, the same article, as above, states that Mathew Herder , the health law associate professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada is now taking up the fight. He is now “calling on other doctors, researchers and journalists to bombard Ottawa with their own demands for drug industry data, using the new legislative lever called the ‘Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act,’, which was passed late last year in Canada. 

He has also created a template to help doctors, researchers and journalists access drug safety data at Health Canada. Herder reportedly could even include biomedical researchers, doctors who prescribe medicine, investigative journalists pursuing questions about drug safety, and other activists and patient groups.

This example is worth imbibing elsewhere.

The ‘Rule Books’ are in place, though with loopholes:

To curb such alleged patient unfriendly practices of the innovative drug manufacturers, while obtaining the marketing approval of new drugs, various rules and procedure were put in place, by various authorities.

I shall deliberate below a few of these rules, and enough loopholes therein, enabling the interested parties to hoodwink the external experts, at the cost of patients.

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform:

Much before Herder, following a ministerial summit on Health Research in 2004, a World Health Assembly Resolution passed in 2005 called for unambiguous identification of all interventional clinical trials. This resolution led to the establishment of the ‘World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform’. It collates information on trials that have been notified in a network of clinical trial registries.

According to W.H.O, “The registration of all interventional trials is a scientific, ethical and moral responsibility”.

In the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki, it reiterates, “Every research study involving human subjects must be registered in a publicly accessible database before recruitment of the first subject.”

It unambiguously states, “Researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research …. Negative and inconclusive as well as positive results must be published or otherwise made publicly available”.

Understandably, W.H.O statement underscores, “There is an ethical imperative to report the results of all clinical trials, including those of unreported trials conducted in the past.”

It is worth mentioning here that on January 1, 2015, by a new policy on publication of clinical data, ‘European Medicines Agency (EMA)’ also decided to proactively publish all clinical reports submitted as part of marketing-authorization applications for human medicines, by the by pharmaceutical companies.

Big Pharma's serious apprehensions on greater Public transparency:  

Before finalization of the above policy, EMA sought comments on its draft from various state holders. On September 5, 2013, in its remarks on the draft, ‘The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, EFPIA’ expressed its apprehension about the public health safety oriented proactive move by the EMA as follows:

“We are worried by a move towards greater transparency of clinical trials data that appears to be putting transparency – at whatever cost – ahead of public health interests. Our detailed response to the EMA draft policy speaks to this concern. While EFPIA values other voices and opinion in the conversation surrounding clinical trials data, we believe there are better alternatives than what the EMA is presenting.” 

This is of course understandable. That said, it also gives satisfaction to note that EMA did not wilt under any pressure on this score, whatever the anecdotal might of the external force be. 

Gross non-compliance, endangering patients’ health safety:

Although, the standards and requirements of “Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Results” have been well specified now, and even in most of the Big Pharma websites one can find disclosure norms of clinical trial data, their overall compliance on the ground, is still grossly inadequate, endangering patients’ health safety.

An article published in the BMJ Open on November 12, 2015 titled, “Clinical trial registration, reporting, publication and FDAAA compliance: a cross-sectional analysis and ranking of new drugs approved by the FDA in 2012”, well captured the magnitude of this issue. 

Nevertheless, the study analyzed just a subset of drugs approved in a single year, 2012. The researchers only examined whether clinical trials were registered and reported, not what that data suggested about how the drugs worked.

The paper reported the results as follows:

“In 2012, the US FDA approved 39 novel new medicines, known as NMEs, and 35 novel drugs. Combining these lists, the FDA approved a total of 48 new drug entities, 15 of which were sponsored by 10 large pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies with market capitalizations valued over US$19 billion. A total of 342 trials were conducted to gain regulatory approval of the 15 drugs, 24 of which were excluded from our analysis, leaving 318 trials involving 99 599 participants relevant to our study, a median of 17 trials per drug.”

Based on the findings, the authors concluded asunder:

“Trial disclosures for new drugs remain below legal and ethical standards, with wide variation in practices among drugs and their sponsors. Best practices are emerging. 2 of our 10 reviewed companies disclosed all trials and complied with legal disclosure requirements for their 2012 approved drugs. Ranking new drugs on transparency criteria may improve compliance with legal and ethical standards and the quality of medical knowledge.”

Simultaneously, The Washington Post in an article of November 12, 2015, titled, “How pharma keeps a trove of drug trials out of public view”, summarized this report by highlighting to the general public that one third of the clinical trial results that US FDA reviewed to approve drugs made by large pharmaceutical companies in 2012, were never publicly reported. 

Unethical practices skewing medical science:

On July 25, 2015, ‘The Economist’ published an article titled, “Spilling the beans’. It highlighted again that the failure to publish the results of all clinical trials is skewing medical science. 

This article also brought to the public attention that half of the clinical trial results are never published over several decades. It broadened the discourse with the observation that this specific unwanted practice, distorts perceptions of the efficacy of not just drugs, but devices and even surgical procedures too, in a well planned and a systematic manner. What is most important to note is, it has seriously compromised with patients’ health interest, across the world. 

It keeps on happening, as there are no firm obligations on the part of drug companies for making public disclosure of all such data, both for and against, though all these data are required to be filed with the regulatory authorities. Hence, the overall assessment of the drugs, weighing all pros and cons, is just not possible for any outside expert agency.

For granting necessary marketing approval, the designated authorities, at least theoretically, ensure that the drugs are reasonably safe, and have, at least, ‘some beneficial effects’. However, the prescribing doctors would continue to remain ignorant of the untold facts, the article states. 

According to ‘The Economist’, although in the United States the relevant laws were modified, way back in 2007, to address this issue, it still remains as a theory, the actual practices in this regard are mostly not so.

Despite vindication no tangible outcome yet:

As I said earlier, this fact got vindicated through extensive research by the ‘BMJ Online’ article and many other contemporary medical publications. 

For example, the evidence released earlier on  April 10,  2014 by the Cochrane Collaboration of London, UK, also shows that a large part of negative data generated from the clinical trials of various drugs were not disclosed to the public. 

Again, like Vioxx, though the US FDA was aware of all such data, for a well known drug Tamiflu, unfortunately the prescribing doctors were not. As a result, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which doesn’t have the same access to unpublished data as the regulators, recommended this medicine not being able to evaluate it holistically. 

However, as the findings from the unpublished clinical trials eventually surfaced, CDC expressed serious apprehension on the overall efficacy of Tamiflu, quite contrary to the assessment of the concerned big pharma player.

Hence, despite quite a large number of vindications by the experts, no tangible outcome has been noticed on this pressing issue, just yet.                                                                

Conclusion:

Based on all this discussion, the moot question that springs up: Why do the doctors still prescribe such drugs, even after being aware of the full facts?

In this regard, an article titled, “Big Pharma Plays Hide-The-Ball with Data”, published in the Newsweek on November 13, 2014 raised a very valid question. 

It commented, even if Tamiflu does nothing, and there is just a slight chance of life-threatening side effects, why was it approved by the US FDA, in the first place?

Even more intriguing is: Why do the doctors continue prescribing these, especially after the Cochrane Collaboration took the Tamiflu’s maker, Roche, to task about many of its claims, in April 2014.

Incidentally, the Cochrane Collaboration is widely regarded as one of the most rigorous reviewers of health science data. It takes results of multiple trials, looks for faults and draws conclusions. It doesn’t accept funding from businesses with a stake in its findings.

The answer to this question may perhaps be too obvious to merit any elaborate discussion here. 

Be that as it may, this curious conundrum of ‘New Drug Approval’ with ‘Partial Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Data’ needs to effectively addressed, without further delay. If not, patients’ health interest would continue to get seriously compromised with the continuation of prevailing laxity in its implementation process by the drug regulators.

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.

‘Repurposing’ Older Drugs: Has The Process Started Rolling?

Posted on by
Reply

On October 22, 2015, BBC News reported, “The world’s largest clinical trial to examine whether aspirin can prevent cancers returning has begun in the United Kingdom (UK).”

About 11,000 people, who have had early bowel, breast, prostate, stomach and esophageal cancer will be involved in this study with one tablet a day dosage for five years. This trial is being funded by ‘The Charity Cancer Research, UK’ and ‘The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).’

The scientists feel, if it works, this ‘repurposing’ of an older and much-known drug would be a “game-changing” one. It would then be able to provide a cheap and effective alternative to prevent recurrence of cancer to a large number of cancer survivals. Interestingly, no global pharma players are involved in this cancer prevention research, as yet. 

Aspirin was developed by Bayer way back in 1897 for pain and inflammation. Thereafter, the scientists found a ‘repurpose’ in its use as an anti-platelet drug for treating and preventing heart attacks and strokes.

Similarly, the anti-inflammatory drug Ibuprofen, which was developed by Boots in the 1960s for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, is now showing promises that it can help protect against Parkinson’s disease.

Again, a number of studies claim that statins, a cholesterol-reducing drug, can help prevent Alzheimer’s Disease, resulting in low levels of beta-amyloid. Further research needs to be done in this area, as this finding has not been universally accepted, just yet.

All such commendable initiatives, throw open a relevant question for debate: ‘Can the existing drugs be re-examined in a systematic manner to discover their other possible radically new usages at a much lesser treatment costs to patients?’

In my view, available data emphatically prompts the answer ‘Yes’ and I shall deliberate on on that in this article.

‘Repurposing’ older drugs:

The Oxford Dictionary meaning of ‘repurpose’ is: ‘Adapt for use in a different purpose.’

Accordingly, the process of discovering new usages of older drugs is often called by many scientists as ‘repurposing’.   

Currently, we come across various articles reporting a number of such new initiatives. This process is safer, much less expensive and takes much lesser time.

These laudable R&D initiatives needs encouragement from all stakeholders, especially from the Government. Given proper focus and attractive financial and other incentives, more and more players are expected to get attracted to a different genre of innovation. It is a whole new ball game of discovering new purposes of old and cheaper drugs with known and well-documented long term safety profile.

Some old drugs with ‘new purpose’: 

The following table gives an example of some well known older drugs, for which fresh R&D initiatives discovered their new purpose of treatment, at a much cheaper cost: 

Drug Old Indication New purpose
Amantadine Influenza Parkinson’s Disease
Amphotericin Antifungal Leishmaniasis
Aspirin Inflammation, pain Antiplatelet
Bromocriptine Parkinson’s disease Diabetes mellitus
Bupropion Depression Smoking cessation
Colchicine Gout Recurrent pericarditis
Methotrexate Cancer Psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis

(Source: Indian Journal of Applied Research, Volume: 4, Issue: 8, August 2014)  

A clarion call to join this movement:

The well-known researcher, Dr. Francis S. Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in a TED talk (video) strongly argued in favor of ‘translational research’ to produce better drugs, faster. To make this process to work successfully Francis Collins hopes to encourage global pharmaceutical companies to open up their stashes of drugs that have already passed safety tests, but that failed to successfully treat their targeted disease. 

He wants to study, how drugs approved for one disease could successfully treat another or more ailments and also gave examples of the following drugs, which I am quoting below, as such:

  • Raloxifene: The FDA approved Raloxifene to reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women in 2007. It was initially developed to treat osteoporosis.
    .
  • Thalidomide: This drug started out as a sedative in the late fifties, and soon doctors were infamously prescribing it to prevent nausea in pregnant women. It later caused thousands of severe birth defects, most notably phocomelia, which results in malformed arms and legs. In 1998, thalidomide found a new use as a treatment for leprosy and in 2006 it was approved for multiple myeloma, a bone marrow cancer.
    .
  • Tamoxifen: This hormone therapy treats metastatic breast cancers, or those that have spread to other parts of the body, in both women and men, and it was originally approved in 1977. Thirty years later, researchers discovered that it also helps people with bipolar disorder by blocking the enzyme PKC, which goes into overdrive during the manic phase of the disorder.
    .
  • Rapamycin: This antibiotic, also called sirolimus, was first discovered in bacteria-laced soil from Easter Island in the seventies, and the FDA approved it in 1999 to prevent organ transplant rejection. Since then, researchers have found it effective in treating not one but two diseases: Autoimmune Lymphoproliferative Syndrome (ALPS), in which the body produces too many immune cells called lymphocytes, and lymphangioleiomyomatosis, a rare lung disease.
    .
  • Lomitapide: Intended to lower cholesterol and triglycerides, the FDA approved this drug to treat a rare genetic disorder that causes severe cholesterol problems called homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia last December.
    .
  • Pentostatin: This drug was created as a chemotherapy for specific types of leukemia. It was tested first in T-cell-related leukemias, which didn’t respond to the drug. But later NIH’s National Cancer Institute discovered that the drug was successful in treating a rare leukemia that is B-cell related, called Hairy Cell Leukemia.
    .
  • Sodium nitrite: This salt was first developed as an antidote to cyanide poisoning and, unrelated to medicine, it’s also used to cure meat. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute is currently recruiting participants for a sodium nitrite clinical trial, in which the drug will be tested as a treatment for the chronic leg ulcers associated with sickle cell and other blood disorders.
  • Zidovudine (AZT): The first antiviral approved for HIV/AIDS in 1987.
  • Farnesyltransferase inhibitor (FTI): This was used to successfully treat children with the rapid-aging disease Progeria in a 2012 clinical trial.

“None of these drugs could have been developed without collaborations between drug developers and researchers with new ideas about applications, based on molecular insights about disease,” Dr. Collins said.

The examples that I have given, so far, on ‘repurposing’ older drugs are not exhaustive, in any way, there are more such examples coming up almost regularly.

The key benefits: 

The key benefits of ‘repurposing’ older drugs may be summarized as follows:

  • Ready availability of the starting compound
  • Previously generated relevant R&D data may be used for submission to drug regulators
  • Makes clinical research more time-efficient and cost-effective
  • Possibility of much quicker market launch

Slowly gaining steam: 

On November 27, 2012, ‘The Guardian’ reported that a number of university-based spin-outs and small biotech companies are being set up in the United States to find new purpose for old drugs. They express interest especially, on those drugs, which were shelved as they did not match the desired efficacy requirements, though showed a good overall safety profile.

Such organizations, take advantage of the declining cost of screening, with some compound libraries, such as, the Johns Hopkins library, which includes 3,500 drugs, available for screening at a small charge, the report highlighted.

Quoting a specialist, the report stated, “Existing drugs have been shown to be safe in patients, so if these drugs could be found to work for other diseases, then this would drastically reduce drug development costs and risks. Of 30,000 drugs in the world, 25,000 are ex-patent – it’s a free-for-all.”

‘Repurposing’ may not attract many pharma players, Government should step in:

Notwithstanding the clarion call of Dr. Francis Collins to global pharma players for their active participation in such projects, I reckon, the positive response may not be too many, because of various reasons.

Although, ‘repurposed’ drugs offer similar or even greater value to patients than any comparable ‘me-too’ New Chemical/Molecular Entity (NCE/NME), there may not possibly be any scope here for ‘Obscene Pricing’, such as ‘Sovaldi’ and many others, as some experts feel. And that’s the reality.

Moreover, new usages of the same old molecule, in all probability, may not get any fresh Intellectual Property (IP) protection in India, either.

Hence, considering the health interest of patients, in general, the Government should assume the role of ‘prime mover’, primarily to set the ball of ‘repurposing of older drugs’ rolling in India. This has already started happening in some of the developed countries of the world, which I shall dwell upon here.

Funding clinical development for ‘repurposing’:

Let me give a couple of examples of funding such admirable initiatives in two different countries.

I have already mentioned above that the clinical development for ‘repurposing’ Aspirin in the prevention of cancer, is being funded by the charity Cancer Research UK and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

In a similar initiative, National Institutes for Health (NIH) of the United States, launched the ‘National Center for Advancing Transnational Sciences (NCATS), in May 2012.

New Therapeutic Uses program of NCATS helps to identify new uses for drugs that have undergone significant research and development by the pharma industry, including safety testing in humans. NIH claims that ‘using drugs that already have cleared several key steps in the development process gives scientists nationwide a strong starting point to contribute their unique expertise and accelerate the pace of therapeutics development.’

By pairing researchers with a selection of specific drugs, NCATS program tests ideas for new therapeutic uses, ultimately identifying promising new treatments for patients. Funding for this purpose is done by NCATS through NIH. For example, In July 2015, NCATS planned a funding of around US$3 million to support four academic research groups to test a selection of drugs for new therapeutic uses, as follows:

  • Type 2 diabetes
  • Glioblastoma (one of the most aggressive brain tumors in adults)
  • Acute myeloid leukemia (an aggressive blood cancer)
  • Chagas disease (a neglected tropical disease that causes heart, digestive and neurological problems)

According to NIH, each award recipient will test a selected drug for its effectiveness against a previously unexplored disease or condition. The industry partners for these projects are AstraZeneca and Sanofi.

Can it be done in India?

Of course yes, provided the Government considers health care as one its priority focus areas with commensurate resource deployment of all kinds for the same.

As things stand today, India still remains beyond any visibility to give a tangible shape to this specific concept of ‘repurposing’ of older drugs. There does not seem to be any other valid reason why similar model of funding can’t be followed locally too, for this purpose.

The nodal agency to spearhead such initiatives, and to create appropriate groundswell to help gain a critical mass, may well be the ‘Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)’ or any other body that the Government decides in consultation with domain experts, together with reasonable financial incentives for commercialization of new usages at an affordable cost.

Conclusion:

As we all know, many people, across the world, are currently going through the pain of seeing their loved ones suffer, and even die, from serious ailments, the treatments of which either do not exist or when exist, the therapy costs may be out of reach of a vast majority of patients. In tandem, the R&D pipeline of the global pharma industry is gradually drying up.

In a situation like this, drug ‘repurposing’ that is directed towards meeting unmet medical needs of patients of all types irrespective of financial status, needs to be increasingly encouraged and pursued as a critical solution to this growing problem.

The good news is that some global pharma majors, though very few in number, have now expressed their intention to salvage their failed molecules and are open to help explore whether such drugs may work in other disease conditions.

India seems to be still miles away from this space, and a bit directionless too. That said, the country is scientifically quite capable of making up the lost ground in this area, provided the Government decides so, garnering requisite wherewithal.

Thus, in my view, the process of ‘repurposing’ older drugs has already started rolling in some major countries of the world, in a well structured manner with requisite funding in place. Tangible outcomes are already noticeable today, with some examples quoted in this article.

As Dr. Francis Collins said, collaborations between drug developers and researchers with new ideas about applications, based on molecular insights about disease are critical in the way forward to achieve this cherished goal in a sustainable manner.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Data Manipulation: Leapfrogging Dangerously Into Clinical Trial Domain

Posted on by
Reply

Over the last several years, repeated allegations of gross data manipulative practices, detected by global drug regulatory agencies, such as USFDA and MHRA, have shaken the Indian pharma exporting companies hard.

This has been hurting the overall business performance of most of these players, considerably, besides other consequential fallouts

Significant numbers of pharma manufacturing facilities of different scale and size have been receiving ‘Import Alerts/Warning Letters’, at regular intervals, from the overseas drug regulators. All such steps have resulted in refusal of entry of medicines manufactured in those plants into the importing countries. As on date, most of these bans are for the United States (US), some for the United Kingdom (UK) and now a fresh one that covers all the 28 countries of the European Union (EU).

Consequently, the drug export performance of the country has started moving south, as I indicated in my blog post of September 29, 2014, titled “Make in India…Sell Any where in The World”: An Indian Pharma Perspective.

While looking at the future, the situation seems to be even more concerning than what is generally envisaged today, as it involves many homegrown local pharma behemoths, including the topper of the Indian pharma league table – Sun Pharma.

Time to take the bull by the horns:

These are regular and serious episodes of allegedly deliberate wrong doings involving life saving medicines. It is about time that without further delay the Indian Government and the country’s drug regulators accept unequivocally that there is something fundamentally wrong in this area that needs to be set right urgently.

To come out of this peril soon, competent authorities need to first ascertain without squandering much time on the utopian “conspiracy theory”, whether this seemingly uncontrollable issue falls under:

  • Technical incompetence
  • Inadequate resource deployment
  • Or just an outcome of generally all pervasive and a very Indian “Jugaad” mindset

It could well be a mix of all the three above factors in different proportions.

‘Data manipulation’ dangerously leapfrogging into clinical trial domain:

So far, incidences of alleged data falsification were restricted mostly to drug manufacturing activities. Alarmingly, it has now leapfrogged into the immensely important domain of ‘Clinical Trials’, based on which the drug regulators decide on the ‘Marketing Approval’ of medicines for patients’ consumption, wherever required.

If the Government does not nip it in the bud, ruthlessly and now, it has the potential to heavily impact the innocent patients even costing their precious lives.

What it means commercially?

According to Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council (Pharmexcil), the Indian pharmaceutical industry could lose around US$1 – US$1.2 billion worth of exports due to the latest decision of the European Union to ban 700 generic drugs that earlier received European Union (EU) clearance for sale in their member countries.

According to Pharmexcil, Europe accounts for US$3 billion out of total Indian pharma exports of US$15.4 billion, which includes both APIs and formulations. This is the first time, when there has been a negative growth in pharma exports to the EU.

Unrolling the GVK Bio saga:

On July 22, 2015 Federal Institute for Medicines and Medical Products of Germany reportedly posted the notice (in German language) of ban of 700 generic drugs effective August 21, 2015. This ban would be applicable to all 28 EU member nations.

Accordingly, from the above date, all these drugs of both the Indian and multinational companies for which clinical trials were done by India’s Hyderabad based GVK Biosciences, cannot be distributed or sold by pharma companies, wholesalers, drug stores and other outlets in the EU, as indicate in the above notice. This would be the largest ban of generic drugs imposed by the European Union, as it comes into effect.

This ban is reportedly the ultimate outcome of an inspection in 2014 by the French authorities of the GVK site that handled the clinical trials for those 700 drugs. The French inspectors found that a number of electrocardiograms were falsified by GVK Bio employees as part of 9 approval studies between 2008 and 2014.

Following this finding, earlier on January 23, 2015, by a Press Release, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) had announced that a number of medicines for which authorization in the European Union (EU) was primarily based on clinical studies conducted at GVK Biosciences in Hyderabad, India, should be suspended.

Though GVK Bio has disputed the claims, it has reportedly set aside up to US$6.5 million for new studies on these drugs.

Indian Government blames ‘vested interests supporting Big Pharma’!

Interestingly, on July 23, 2015, The Financial Express reported, “the Modi government has asked the heads of India’s diplomatic missions in EU member countries and at the European Commission (EC)-level to take up the issue with the concerned authorities and ensure that it is not ‘blown out of proportion’ by ‘vested interests’ supporting the Big Pharma (innovator drug companies).”

However, it is even more interesting that earlier on April 16, 2015, quoting the CEO of GVK Biosciences Private Limited Reuters reported, “India may go to the World Trade Organization (WTO) if the European Union does not reconsider a decision to suspend the sale of about 700 generic drugs that were approved based on clinical trials by GVK Biosciences.”

It is noteworthy, despite the above public announcement, between April and July 2015, India has not lodged any complaint to the WTO on this mega ban in EU, involving clinical trials conducted by GVK Biosciences.

In my view, any tangible immediate outcome of the Indian diplomatic move, particularly on this ban in the EU, as reported above, appears rather unlikely, if at all.

The rigmarole continues:

The narrative of alleged gross falsification of sensitive clinical trial data does not end here. Almost replicating what happened earlier with frequent incidences of drug manufacturing data manipulation, the same rigmarole now leapfrogs into another important domain with similar intensity.

On June 30, 2015, close on the heels of the above GVK Biosciences saga, the World Health Organization issued a ‘Notice of Concern’ after inspection of Chennai-based Contract Research Company, Quest Life Sciences facility.

It also brought to light, critical deviations from GCP (Good Clinical Practices), over data integrity, subject safety and quality assurance and in gross violation of procedures during clinical trials for HIV drugs, such as, Lamivudine, Zidovudine and Nevarapine dispersible tablets from Micro Labs.

WHO inspectors reportedly found that “two-thirds of electrocardiograms performed on patients were duplicates with dates and names changed by the company”.

The WHO letter also underscored, “These issues appear to be systemic in nature and occurring many times over a significant period of time, and not only as a one-time incident for the study submitted to WHO.”

Again, almost depicting the past, there does not seem to be any perceptible and strong regulatory interventions in India in this regard, event after the above ‘Notice of Concern’ from the WHO.

Could assume a snowballing effect:

This situation may eventually assume a snowballing effect, when data related malpractices in clinical trials would catch up with drug manufacturing related data manipulation detected by the foreign drug regulators in India. I have just given an example of its continuation in the clinical trial domain.

The following are a few examples of just the last six months of 2015 of the continuation of the same in the drug manufacturing area:

Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited:

In a letter dated February 25, 2015 to Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited, the USFDA wrote that in the pharma manufacturing facility of the company, located at 294 GIDC Industrial Estate, Ankleshwar, Gujarat, their (USFDA) investigator identified significant deviations from current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) for the manufacture of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). Those deviations cause the APIs manufactured there to be adulterated, in that the methods used in, or the facilities or controls used for, their manufacture, processing, packing, or holding do not conform to, or are not operated or administered in conformity with CGMP.

Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.:

On July 13, 2015, by an ‘import alert’ posted on its website, the USFDA announced that the regulatory agency had barred imports from Hinjewadi manufacturing plant in Maharashtra of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., after their inspection revealed the company was not meeting manufacturing quality standards.

Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.:

Again, according to a July 22, 2015 media report, “Hyderabad-based Aurobindo Pharma is the latest addition to an expanding list of Indian drug firms that have come under the scanner of the US health regulator.” In this case also the USFDA reportedly raised issues related to the quality management systems of the company.

Business sustainability could be in jeopardy:

There are ample evidences that manipulations of specified drug quality standards, are making even the large home grown pharma companies to pay through the nose. In fact, it has already cost some of these companies an arm and a leg, at times jeopardizing even their very existence. One such company is Ranbaxy. The issues related to data fudging of Ranbaxy have been so complex and widespread that its recent acquirer Sun Pharma has already started struggling to keep its neck above water with this brand new acquisition.

According to July 27, 2015 media reports, GVK Biosciences are also in parleys to sell the business, following EU drug regulators’ serious allegations of clinical trial data manipulation at its Hyderabad facility.

Again, media reports of July 30, 2015 indicated that hit by the USFDA imposing import ban on three of its manufacturing facilities, Ipca Laboratories reported 86 per cent decline in net profit for first quarter ended June 30, 2015.

Though, some domestic pharma companies are still out of it, with grace, if this overall menace remains unchecked and not intervened by the Government, it could cost the nation dear, at least when it comes to near term exports business growth and global disrepute for the delinquency.

Are medicines for domestic consumption safe and effective?

When such rampant data manipulation can take place for ‘export quality’ of drugs, what about the quality standards of medicines, which are manufactured for consumption of local patients?

Despite intense furore on this subject, Indian drug regulators at the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), very strangely, do not seem to be much concerned on this critical issue, at least, as perceived by majority of the stakeholders. It appears from the precedents, our drug regulators seem to act promptly, mostly when the Supreme Court of the country directs them for any specific action for public interest.

Considering blatant violations of GMP and GCP standards that are increasingly coming to the fore related to ‘export quality’ drugs in India, and that too only after the inspections by the foreign drug regulators, the following questions float at the top of my mind:

  • Why no such warnings are forthcoming at all from the Indian drug regulators?
  • Does it mean that the level of conformance to GMP and GCP is hundred percent for all medicines manufactured and clinically evaluated in India for the consumption of local patients?
  • If yes, why such incidences are not uploaded to the CDSCO website, just like USFDA?
  • If not, why?

Conclusion:

Increasing incidences of repeated GMP and GCP violations by the Indian drug exporters, as enunciated mostly by the USFDA, MHRA and now EMA are, in turn, fueling the apprehensions of many Indian stakeholders on the quality manufacturing and clinical evaluation of those drugs in the country.

In the critical public health safety area, there does not seem to be any room for diplomatic maneuvering by the Government, whatever is its financial impact on the drug exports performance of India.

This can be corrected, only if the Indian pharma industry and the Government, in tandem, wish to move in the right direction. Searching for justifications within imaginary ‘vested interests’ and self-created ‘conspiracy theory’ would be futile and counterproductive.

Making the wrongdoers swallow strong bitter pills would help salvaging the seemingly uncontrollable regulatory situation. Additionally, it would stop inviting disrepute to the country that the world was referring to, even until recently, as the ‘pharmacy of world’.

Any attempt to trivialize the situation, could meet with grave consequences  and prove to be foolhardy. The emerging scenario ultimately may even compel the local doctors and hospitals to avoid prescribing drugs of those companies involved in such wrong doings against patients’ interests. This actually happened earlier with Ranbaxy, though briefly. It is also possible that many erudite patients on their own may request the doctors to prescribe equivalent drugs of pharma MNCs, enjoying better brand equity in this regard.

Drug quality related avoidable malpractices and attempted hoodwinking to regulators, are taking place at a time when Prime Minister Modi is going global to give a boost to his much publicized ‘Make in India’ campaign.

In the current aspirational business climate of the country, it is an irony that alleged ‘Data Manipulation’, which was so far confined to pharma manufacturing activities in India, instead of getting mitigated, is now leapfrogging into the related clinical trial domain too, with utter disregard to patients’ health safety interest and the reputation of the country.

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.

 

Pharma Outlook 2015: A Glimpse Of Some Drivers and Barriers

Posted on by
Reply

Looking ahead, the brand new year 2015 appears quite interesting to me both from the global and also from the local pharmaceutical industry perspective. In this article I shall try to give a glimpse of some of the important drivers and barriers for success of the industry as the year unfolds, based on recent and ongoing developments.

Let me start with the global outlook of 2015, where in the midst of all gloom and doom of the past years, I notice formation of a distinct and new silver lining, mainly due to the following two reasons:

1. Record number of new drugs approval in 2014 spanning across10 therapy areas:

As indicated in its website, USFDA has approved 41 novel medicines in 2014, which is 14 more than the previous year and is the second highest after 1996 that witnessed 53 approvals. Many of these new drugs are with blockbuster potential.

According to another report, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has also recommended 82 new medicines in 2014, which though includes generic drugs in its list. However, this number too shows an increase from 79 in 2013 and 57 in 2012.

According to January 02, 2014 report from Forbes, very interestingly, infectious diseases dominated with 12 approvals (27 percent), cancer with 8 approvals (18 percent), followed by rare diseases with 5 (11 percent). Just two of these new approvals are for Hepatitis treatment and the rest are for bacterial, fungal, viral, and parasitic infections.

AstraZeneca received the highest number of 4 approvals followed by Eli Lilly with 3.

2. Patent expired blockbuster drugs in 2015 would have low generic impact:

Though drugs worth sales turnover of US$ 44 billion would go off patent in 2015, patent expiries will have minimal impact on the top line as 2015 sales will grow close to four times that of patent losses. Following are the top 10 drugs among those:

No. Brand Company Disease Sales2013 (US$ Bn) Patent Expiry
1. Lantus Sanofi Diabetes 7.9 Feb 2015
2. Abilify Otsuka/Bristol-Myers Squibb Schizophrenia/ Other neurological conditions 7.8 April 2015
3. Copaxone Teva Multiple sclerosis 4.33 Sept 2015
4. Neulasta Amgen Infection reduction in cancer patients on chemotherapy 4.4 Oct 2015
5. Tracleer Actelion Pulmonary arterial hypertension 1.57 Nov 2015
6. Namenda Actavis Alzheimer’s disease 1.5 April 2015
7. Avodart/Jalyn GSK Benign prostatic hypertrophy 1.34 Nov 2015
8. Zyvox Pfizer Gram-positive bacterial infections 1.35 May 2015
9. AndroGel Abbvie Low testosterone  1.03 Early 2015
10. Synagis AstraZeneca Monoclonal antibody to prevent respiratory syncytial virus infection in infants  1.1 Oct 2015

(Compiled from FiercePharma data)

As a significant number of these drugs are biologics, such as Lantus, Abilify, Neulasta and Synagis, the generic impact on those large brands, post patent expiry, would be minimal, at least, for several more years.

However, Lantus sales could soon be impacted, as its biosimilar versions from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly have already received approval in Europe, and may be launched in the United States, as well.

Biosimilar versions of other drugs that will go off patent in 2015, do not seem to be anywhere near launch soon to make immediate dent in the sales of the original biologics. I had deliberated on various possible reasons for delay in biosimilar entry, especially in the US, in my earlier blog post of August 25, 2014, titled “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”

Taking all these into consideration, EvaluatePharma has estimated that out of patent expiry related sales turnover of US$44 billion, just around US $16 billion would get impacted in 2015 by their generic equivalents.

Global market outlook 2015:

According to IMS Health, spending on medicines will reach nearly $1,100 billion in 2015 with a growth rate of 3-6 percent over the last five-year period.

According to EvaluatePharma, the overall outlook of the global pharma industry in 2015 and beyond is expected to be as follows:

  • A dozen products launched in 2015 are forecast to achieve blockbuster sales by 2020
  • Drugs treating high cholesterol and heart failure will dominate the field with a combined 2020 sales forecast of US$8 billion
  • Sovaldi and its combination product Harvoni will take the number one worldwide seller spot with forecasted sales of $15.3 billion in 2015
  • Patent expiries will have minimal impact on the top line as 2015 sales will grow close to four times that of patent losses
  • Financing climate appears friendly and deals will continue at a steady pace but M&A activity unlikely to match the frenzy of 2014

Moreover, Oncology therapy area brings a huge promise with novel immuno-oncology drugs. As Reuters have reported, Merck & Co’s Keytruda and Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Opdivo, which work by blocking a protein called Programmed Death receptor (PD-1), are the first in a coming wave of immuno-therapies that analysts believe could generate annual sales of more than US$30 billion a year.

Indian pharma industry outlook 2015:

Indian pharmaceutical industry, dominated by branded generic drugs, is estimated to register a turnover of around US$ 33.8 billion with an average growth of 10.3 percent in 2014 – 2018 period, according to Deloitte. Increasing number of diagnosis and treatment of chronic ailments, fuelled by ascending trend in the per capita income, would be the key factors to drive this double-digit growth rate.

In 2013-14, pharma exports of the country with a turnover of US$ 14.84 billion grew at a meager 1.2 percent, which is the slowest growth in nearly the last 15 years. Pharmexcil attributed its reason to USFDA related regulatory issues and increasing global competition. India still stands exposed in this area, unless meaningful corrective measures are taken forthwith. It is worth noting, although India exports drugs to over 200 countries in the world, the United States (US) alone accounts for about 25 percent of India’s pharma exports.

Key issues and challenges in ‘The Exports Front’:

Generic drugs currently contribute over 80 percent of prescriptions written in the US. Around 40 percent of prescriptions and Over The Counter (OTC) drugs that are sold there, come from India and account for around 10 per cent of finished dosages in the US.

Almost all of these are cheaper generic versions of patent expired drugs, which are mainly produced in around 200 USFDA approved drug-manufacturing facilities located in India. Hence, India’s commercial stake in this space is indeed mind-boggling.

Indian drug exports were taking place satisfactorily without any major regulatory hitches since quite some time. Unfortunately, over the last few years, mostly the Federal Drug Administration of the US (USFDA) and the United Kingdom (UK)’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have started raising serious doubts on the quality of medicines manufactured in India, creating an uncertainty on drug exports in those countries.

To overcome this critical issue and keep marching ahead with distinction in the drug exports front, Indian pharma would require to successfully dealing with the following two areas:

A. Data integrity:

Since quite a while, USFDA has been raising serious concerns on ‘Data Integrity’ in their previously approved production facilities of a large number of Indian pharma players. The details of each of these concerns are available in the USFDA website.

This worrying development is now posing a huge threat to future growth potential of Indian drug exports, as in this area the Indian government had set an objective, in its strategy document, to register a turnover of US$ 25 billion in 2014-15. In all probability, it would fall far short of this target at the end of this fiscal, predominantly for related reasons. However, the good news is, considering the criticality of the situation, the Indian government is now working with the USFDA to resolve this problem.

I discussed a part of this area in my Blog Post of September 29, 2014 titled “Make in India…Sell Any Where in The World”: An Indian Pharma Perspective

B. Credibility of Clinical Trial Data from India:

Credibility of ‘Clinical Trial Data’ generated by the domestic players in India, has also become a cause of great concern, as the regulators in France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg suspended marketing approval for 25 drugs over the genuineness of clinical trial data from India’s GVK Biosciences.

Key issues and challenges in ‘The Domestic Front’:

Though 2015 would also witness the following important issues and challenges, meeting with this challenge of change should not be difficult with a proper mindset and right strategies:

A. The Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013):

Change in the mechanism of drug price control from earlier ‘cost based’ to newer ‘market based’ one and the specified provisions to neutralize inflationary impact of the input costs on the bottom line, based on the WPI, have already been considered as welcoming changes for the industry. As a result, despite implementation of the DPCO 2013, the pharma shares continued to do well in 2014 despite doomsayers’ predicaments, not just in the past, but even today.

I believe, the DPCO 2013 would not cause any significant negative impact further in 2015 on the performance of pharma companies, as the price controlled drugs would in all probability continue to be around 20 percent of the total pharma market. Moreover, now annual price increases are linked to the WPI for the controlled products and the companies can increase prices of remaining 80 percent of decontrolled products, upto 10 percent every year, irrespective of inflationary trend.

That said, due to huge inter-brand price differences, in July 2014 the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) had brought under price control 50 more cardiovascular and anti-diabetic drugs in addition to 348 drugs that featured under price control in the DPCO 2013.

If the pharma players do not take note of such abnormal inter-brand price variation of the same drugs without meaningful reasons, there could possibly be further move by the NPPA in this direction.

Additionally, any mechanism for patented products’ pricing, if announced in 2015, would have far-reaching impact, especially on the MNCs marketing such drugs.

B. Unethical practices in Clinical trial:

In the Clinical Trial arena of India, responding to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court of the country and separately the Parliamentary Standing Committee had indicted the drug regulator and charted out some action areas. The Parliamentary Committee in its report had even mentioned about a nexus existing between the drug regulator and the industry in this area.

Driven by the directives of the Apex Court of the country, the union ministry of health of the government of India has already strengthened some areas of past laxity in drug regulatory control, such as mandatory registration of clinical trials, constitution of committees to oversee the trial approval, its execution and above all ethical treatment of patients, including compensation.

Although, these are all requisite measures to create an appropriate longer-term eco-system for clinical trials in India, it has reportedly ruffled many feathers, such as CROs in the country who work mainly for pharma MNCs and some global pharma players too. This is mainly because of inordinate delays in drug approvals during the regulatory rectification process, besides cost of clinical trials going up. An orderly drug regulatory environment must prevail, instead of allegedly ‘free for all’ clinical trial environment in the country, costing many innocent lives and livelihoods.  Responding to this changing clinical trial environment, some MNCs have already articulated that they are reconsidering their drug trial strategy in India and some Indian players, possibly with vested interests and echoing similar sentiments, are also saying that they would shift their clinical trial projects out of India, which would adversely impact the country’s clinical trial industry.

Be that as it may, it appears now that under the directive of the Supreme Court of the country, the decisions taken by the government in clinical trial area are irreversible, for the long-term interest of the country.

C. Intellectual Property (IP) issues:

Reacting to some well-justified measures taken by India in the IP area to make healthcare affordable to all, the US and its some key allies, continuously pressured by their powerful pharma lobby groups, continue to push India hard to broaden the IP protections. ‘Big Pharma’ lobbyists are reportedly trying to compel India to amend its IP laws that would suit their business interest at the cost of patients.

Fortunately, many stakeholders, including media, have started raising their voices against such strong-arm tactics, further fueling the credibility erosion of ‘Big Pharma’ and creating important pressure groups for the government.

Simultaneously, concerned pharma MNCs are also seeking legal recourse over issues mainly related to the section (3d) and Compulsory Licensing of the Indian Patents Act. However, most of the judicial verdicts vindicate the quality of decisions taken by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in these areas.

Though very unlikely, any amendment or tweaking of the existing patent laws of India in 2015 would provide an unfair advantage to MNCs with negative impact on public health interest.

D. Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices:

Compared to the actions that are now being taken by the law enforcers overseas against pharmaceutical marketing malpractices, India has been showing a rather lackadaisical attitude in these areas, until recently. It astonishes many that unlike even China; no pharmaceutical company has been investigated thoroughly and hauled up by the government for alleged bribery and other serious allegations of corrupt practices.

However, frequent reporting by the Indian media had triggered a debate in the country on the subject. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on this subject is now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing in the near future. It is worth noting that in 2010, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ also had expressed its deep concern by stating that the “evil practice” of inducement of doctors by the pharma companies is continuing unabated as the revised guidelines of the Medical Council of India (MCI) have no jurisdiction over the pharma industry.

The Government, until recently, has shown no active interest in this area either, though the new Union Health Minister, J.P. Nadda decried the unethical nexus between the doctors and pharma companies, amounting violations of medical ethics in the country. He reportedly has stated that in majority of the cases, the pharma companies are luring the doctors by giving gifts and other benefits for prescribing the brand of medicines of their choice to the patients.

As the saying goes, ‘better late than never’, on December 12, 2014, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) of the Government of India announced details of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, which would be effective across the country from January 1, 2015 for all pharma players to implement, across India.

However, I reckon, the document in its current form is rather weak in its effective implementation potential. Meaningful and transparent deterrent measures to uphold public health interest are also lacking. The entire process also deserves a well-structured monitoring mechanism and digital implementation tools that can be operated with military precision. I discussed this issue in my Blog Post of December 29, 2014, titled “India’s Pharma Marketing Code (UCPMP): Is It Crafted Well Enough To Deliver The Deliverables?”

On UCPMP a survey done by E&Y has highlighted the following points, besides other areas:

  • More than 50 percent of the respondents are of the opinion that the UCPMP may lead to manipulation in recording of actual sampling activity.
  • Over 50 percent of the respondents indicated that the effectiveness of the code would be very low in the absence of legislative support provided to the UCPMP committee.
  • 90 percent of the respondents felt that pharma companies in India should focus on building a robust internal controls system to ensure compliance with the UCPMP.

In my view as well, the self-regulatory measures prescribed in the UCPMP of the DoP are unlikely to make any significant impact in 2015, unless pharma companies start focusing on building robust internal controls system to ensure compliance with the UCPMP.

Conclusion:

I would now put on the balance of probabilities, the new ‘Silver Linings’ of the Global pharmaceutical industry as discussed above, the issues and challenges of 2015 for the Indian pharma and also other important factors that I have not been able to discuss in this article. The overall emerging picture depicts that the pharma industry, both global and local, would fare much better than what it did in the recent past, provided the industry, as a whole, does not continue to ignore the storm signals outright.

Thus, based on the available data, the year 2015, as appears to me, would provide an enormous opportunity with promises of an interesting time ahead that the pharmaceutical industry should try to leverage on…and then cherish it for a long while…most probably as a turning point of the same ball game with different success requirements.

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.

 

“Make Global Pharma Responsible in Homeland for Objectionable Conduct in Clinical Trials Elsewhere”

Posted on by
Reply

In the context of his recent meeting with Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg of US-FDA, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly expressed his concern to ‘The Economic Times’ on the ‘objectionable conduct’ of global pharma in new drug trials in India, as follows:

“US and other global drug makers who conduct clinical trials at different locations across the globe need to be made responsible in their home country for their objectionable conduct in clinical trials elsewhere.”

He further added:

“While conducting trials, drug makers cannot discriminate on the basis of nationality, because patient safety is top priority for every regulator – US or India”

The above report also mentioned that there is already a law in place in the United States that makes companies accountable in their homeland, if they are found to be indulging in corruption overseas.

‘Uncontrolled clinical trials are causing havoc to human life’:

That is exactly what the Supreme Court of India observed last year in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Human Rights group ‘Swasthya Adhikar Manch (SAM)’.

At the same time, revoking the power of the ‘Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO)’ under the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), the apex court directed the Health Secretary of India to be personally responsible for all ‘Clinical Trials (CT)’ of new drugs conducted in the country in order to control the ‘menace’ of poorly regulated trials on a war-footing.

Earlier in May 2012, the Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its report on the CDSCO, also stated as follows:

“There is sufficient evidence on record to conclude that there is collusive nexus between drug manufacturers, some functionaries of CDSCO and some medical experts.”

Inaction on CT related deaths:

According to the Ministry of Health, between 2005 and 2012, around 475 new drugs were approved for CT, out of which only 17 obtained the regulatory approval for market launch. Though 57,303 patients were enrolled for CT, only 39,022 could complete the trials. During CT, 11,972 patients suffered Serious Adverse Events (SAE) and 2,644 died. 506 SAEs out of the total and 80 deaths had clearly established link to CTs. However, only 40 out of 80 trial related deaths had their respective families meagerly compensated.

An independent investigation:

Interestingly, an investigation  in 2011 by ‘The Independent’, a newspaper of global repute, also highlighted the recruitment of hundreds of tribal girls for a drug study without any parental consent.

Stringent regulatory action followed:

Following high voltage indictments, alleging wide spread malpractices, from all corners – the Civil Society, the Supreme Court and the Parliament, the Ministry of Health constituted an experts committee last year chaired by Professor Ranjit Roy Chaudhury. The committee, after due consultation with all stakeholders, submitted its report recommending a robust process for CTs in India. Besides many other, the experts committee also recommended that:

  • CTs can only be conducted at accredited centers.
  • The principal investigator of the trial, as well as the Ethics Committee of the institute, must also be accredited.
  • If a trial volunteer developed medical complications during a CT ‘the sponsor investigator’ will be responsible for providing medical treatment and care.

Further, in October 2013, the Supreme Court reportedly ordered the government to video record clinical trials of new drugs, making it even tougher for pharma MNCs and the CROs to avoid responsibility on informed consent of the participating volunteers, as required by the regulator.

Consequent industry uproar and recent Government response:

Following all these, as the ball game for CTs in India changed significantly, there were uproars from Big Pharma, the CROs and their lobbyists crying foul.

As the caustic comments and the directive of the Supreme Court of India triggered the regulatory changes in CT, the Union Ministry of Health did not have much elbowroom to loosen the rope. Consequently, the pharma industry and the CROs reportedly made some angry comments such as:

“The situation is becoming more and more difficult in India. Several programs have been stalled and we have also moved the trials offshore, to ensure the work on the development does not stop.”

In response to shrill voices against the stringent drug trial regime in India, Mr Keshav Desiraju, Secretary, Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, reportedly said recently:

“While it is not our intention to impose unrealistic barriers on industry, it is equally our intention not to take risks, which may compromise the safety of the subjects of clinical trials.”

During the same occasion, the Union Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad also remarked:

“The industry has complained that the regulations are too stringent, but there have also been complaints by parliamentarians, NGOs and others that they are too lax, which the Supreme Court had taken note of.”

He further said without any elaboration, “The Indian regulatory regime governing clinical trials needs to balance the interests of all stakeholders.”

Conclusion:

According to the Indian Society for Clinical Research (ISCR), pharma companies conduct around 60 percent of CTs and the rest 40 percent are outsourced to Contract Research Organizations (CROs) in India.

With the Supreme Court laying stringent guidelines and the regulatory crackdown on CTs, the number of new drug trials in India has reportedly come down by 50 percent. According to Frost & Sullivan, the Indian CT industry was worth US$ 450 million in 2010 -11. Currently, it is growing at 12 percent a year and is estimated to exceed the US$1 billion mark in 2016, with perhaps some hiccups in between due to recent tightening of the loose knots in this area.

Some experts reportedly argue that laxity of regulations and cost arbitrage were the key drivers for global players to come to India for CTs. Thus, there should not be any surprise that with the costs of drug trials going north, in tandem with stringent regulations in the country, some business may shift out of the country. As Mr. Desiraju epitomized in his interview succinctly, as quoted above, this shift would result in much increased costs for the respective companies, which his ministry would ‘regret greatly.’

That said, would the recent anguish of the DCGI, when he expressed “Make global pharma also responsible in their respective homelands for objectionable conduct in CTs elsewhere”, be also construed as a clear signal for shaping up, sooner?

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.