Reticence Around Unveiling Clinical Trials

Posted on October 17, 2016 by Tapan Ray

While scanning through various publications, we now get to know, almost at regular intervals, about new clinical trials capturing the newer ways of treating different ailments. Such information instils an invigorating hope in the minds of doctors and the patients alike, to more successfully and predictably fight the battle against diseases in the ongoing pursuit for a better quality of life.

However, for independent and impartial assessment of any new drug before it comes to the market, an ethical and transparent process of unveiling clinical trials, sans any reticence whatsoever, are absolutely essential. Only this process would be able to satisfactorily establish, beyond an iota of doubt, the safety and efficacy levels of, especially, the new drugs. To move in that direction, the fundamental requirements will be diligently recording and publishing all types of data – positive, not so positive, and also negative, arising out of all clinical trials, conducted anywhere in the world, for the same drug.

Thus, there should be a system of open access to all clinical trial data, as each trial is completed. Otherwise, pharma companies’ publication bias, overwhelmingly on positive results, would continue, as alleged by many across the world. It is worth noting that over 60 percent of all clinical trials for new drugs are sponsored by the pharma and biotech companies.

There isn’t any dearth of examples of new drugs’ getting not just the required regulatory approval, riding on the back of robust ‘positive’ clinical trial data on safety and efficacy, but also becoming highly dependable money-spinners for the companies, and in no time, as it were. These cash churning new brands would also get well protected for monopolistic pricing all through their respective patent life, and sometimes even after that, in various different ways.

Nevertheless, at a later date, mostly post patent expiry, not all pre-launch new drug trials could be universally accepted as robust and conclusive, especially on their efficacy and safety claims. On the contrary, a number of detailed and deep-stick independent studies indicate that some new drugs are, in fact, much less effective, if not ineffective, and cause more serious side effects than what were published earlier.

Hence, some critical questions are now being asked by many stakeholders, with greater assertiveness than ever before and backed by solid evidence, in this arena. Although it has now started creating a snowballing effect, still, nothing much seems to have changed on the ground, just yet.

Why aren’t all clinical trial results, and for all new drugs not still published, or otherwise made available for public scrutiny, unveiled, and of course after protecting any reasonable commercial interest? Does business consideration, then continue to prevail over the need for transparency in clinical trial data disclosure for patients’ health and safety? The sneaking fear behind the reasons of this reticence of pharma players, in general, continues to torment many. I shall discuss this point in this article backed by recently published data.

Not a recent trend:

This isn’t a recent trend either, and continuing for decades, without any effective remedial measures by the appropriate authorities. I would give just a couple of examples, one from 1998 and the other from 2014, to drive home this point.

A British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (BJCP) article, published way back in August 1998 would vindicate this point. This study revealed the following on clinical trial data:

“Substantial evidence of selective reporting was detected, since trials with positive outcome resulted more often in submission of final report to regulatory authorities than those with inconclusive or negative outcomes.”

Another study published on September 10, 2014 in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) states as follows:

“Thirty-five percent of published reanalysis led to changes in the findings that implied conclusions different from those of the original article about the types and number of patients who should be treated.”

That said, I shall now focus on a very recent controversy in this area, related to a blockbuster drug that has now gone off-patent.

A contemporary example:

Statin class of drugs, especially, Atorvastatin is one of many such examples.

Pfizer launched Atorvastatin with the brand name Lipitor in early 1997. At that time, it was the fifth in the statin class of drugs for the treatment of hyperlipidemia.

It was launched on the back of a 1996 clinical study that concluded, Lipitor reduces bad cholesterol significantly more than the other statins, from the very onset of treatment to as long as the treatment continues. After that it’s a history in the pharma industry, Pfizer marketing turned it into the best-selling drug ever, in the history of pharmaceuticals, so far.

Over 14.5 years, Lipitor reportedly made over US$ 125 billion in sales, and provided up to a quarter of Pfizer Inc.’s annual revenue for years.

Product claim – then:

Claiming that in ‘one year alone, statins reduced numerous cases of cardiovascular-related complications and saved thousands of lives’, a Pfizer Paper on “The Value of Statin”, reiterated the drug’s role both in the treatment and prevention of Coronary Artery Diseases (CAD). I am quoting below from this paper to cite just one example each – treatment and prevention:

In a study of patients with Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) statin therapy reduced the relative risk of mortality by 50 percent in those > 80-years-old, 44 percent in those 65- to 79-years-old, and 30% in those < 65 years old, compared to CAD patients in the same age group not taking statin therapy (Ref. Chloe, Allen A., et al. ‘Statin Therapy Is Associated With Reduced Mortality Across All Age Groups of Individuals With Significant Coronary Disease, Including Very Elderly Patients’. JACC. 40: 10; 1777-1785)

An analysis of 18 trials, including 56,934 patients, primarily without CVD, demonstrated statins conferred a relative risk reduction (RRR) in all-cause mortality by 14 percent and stroke by 22 percent (Ref. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013 Jan 31; 1:CD004816).

Research findings for the same drug – now:

Among several other publications on statins, a July 26, 2015 article, published in the ‘World Journal of Cardiology’ concludes as follows:

“History has proven otherwise, and the global prevalence of Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), despite worldwide statin usage and cholesterol lowering campaigns, has reached pandemic proportions. Coronary heart disease is an extremely complex malady and the expectation that it could be prevented or eliminated by simply reducing cholesterol appears unfounded. After twenty years we should concede the anomalies of the cholesterol hypothesis and refocus our efforts on the proven benefits of a healthy lifestyle incorporating a Mediterranean diet to prevent CHD.”

To give one more example, let me quote from a contemporary study, published on June 12, 2016 in the ‘BMJ Open’, which also comes to a similar conclusion, as follows:

“High LDL-C (Low-Density Lipoproteins – Cholesterol) is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (i.e., that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic). Since elderly people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis. Moreover, our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies.”

Examples of other drugs:

Lipitor should not stand out as a solitary example, in this field. To establish this point, let me now put forth, just as illustrations, a few more examples of similar bias on positive results in clinical trial publications, besides many others.

An October 4, 2016 article titled, “Big Pharma’s Role in Clinical Trials”, published in the ‘Drug Watch’, quotes several other companies sailing in the same boat, as follows:

The Cochrane Collaboration, a nonprofit organization based in London that reviews health care information, concluded that unlike its promotional claims, Roche’s Tamiflu only shortened symptoms of influenza by one day, and it did not prevent hospitalizations or complications from influenza.

AstraZeneca reportedly paid US$ 647 million in lawsuit settlements for failing to inform the public of Seroquel’s side effects.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals reportedly settled lawsuits claiming the company’s anti-diabetic drug Actos caused bladder cancer, for US$ 2.37 billion.

In July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline reportedly pleaded guilty and agreed to pay US$ 3 billion to settle charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice for failing to report clinical data on its anti-diabetic drug Avandia.

Johnson & Johnson was reportedly accused of hiding some dangerous side effects like, diabetes, substantial weight gain, stroke and gynecomastia – or breast development in boys for its product Risperdal – used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in adults and adolescents and autism spectrum disorders in children and adolescents. The company reportedly settled claims in Kentucky, Texas and Montana for a total of more than US$ 340 million and settled multiple cases in Pennsylvania for undisclosed amounts.

As reported by ‘Financial Times’ on February 03, 2015, Novartis was accused of manipulating trial data in favor of its anti-hypertensive drug – Diovan, and concealing side-effects associated with its Tasigna – for leukemia treatment. As a result, the company reportedly faced a temporary suspension of its business in Japan, as punishment for alleged manipulation of clinical trial data.

Possible reasons:

The above ‘Drug Watch’ article attributed several reasons to positive data bias in publications, as follows:

Researchers publish positive findings more often than negative findings as a result of human bias. Scholars want their work to contribute to medical advancement and not deter it.

Researchers do not want to put their time and energy into writing studies about negative results.

Journals seek positive results, and publish them more quickly to increase publicity.

Trial sponsors want to publish positive results to increase profit.

The article emphasized, “Big Pharma funds 60 percent of all clinical trials, and takes advantage of its power to persuade researchers and influence institutions. The result is an under-informed, and misinformed medical community giving advice to patients with false or incomplete data. The byproducts of industry cover-ups are scores of deaths and millions of dollars in industry profits.”

Indian scenario:

India is also not immune from such alleged wrongdoings. Indian clinical trial organizations have also been accused of trial related scams, and that too on a mega scale, reaching beyond the shores of the country. I am quoting below two such recent examples:

In August 2015, the European Union reportedly banned the marketing of around 700 generic medicines for alleged manipulation of clinical trials conducted by the domestic research company GVK Biosciences. This was reported as the largest EU-wide suspension of sales and distribution of generic drugs ordered by the European Commission that was applicable to all its 28 member nations.

In July 2016, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) reportedly recommended suspending the sale of dozens of generic medicines over concerns about “flawed” studies that were conducted by the Semler Research Center, located in Bengaluru. Many of these drugs are sold by Novartis and Teva Pharmaceuticals.

In September-October 2015, US-FDA also found “significant instances of misconduct and violations of federal regulations by the same research center, which includes substitution and manipulation of study subject samples.”

This year, the World Health Organization (WHO) also had issued a notice to Semler for the same reasons. After, examining the company’s computer servers, early and late last year, WHO reportedly found a spreadsheet file containing detailed instructions for manipulating drug samples that were used in clinical trials for its clients.

It is even more unfortunate that such malpractices are continuing, even after the Supreme Court of India’s widely reported observation in early 2013 that ‘Uncontrolled clinical trials are causing havoc to human life.’ The apex court of the country made this remark in response to a petition filed by the human rights group Swasthya Adhikar Manch (SAM).

The upshot:

Recent scrutiny of all original clinical trial findings of many new drugs by the independent experts, including statins, even if taken just as raising controversies, the question would still remain, why did such controversies not surface much earlier, or during the product patent life? No company would possibly be willing to unveil the fact behind this raging debate.

The good news is, pharma companies operating in Europe and the United States have decided to share trial data with qualified researchers, effective 2014, presumably in response to mounting pressure from clinical trial transparency campaigners, for quite some time.

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) have jointly released a set of principles detailing plans to allow greater access to information from clinical trials. However, it fell short of public availability of all clinical trial data. Let’s wait, watch and hope that this seemingly good intent would be translated into reality by all their member companies.

Some pharma companies and their trade associations continue to raise issues of the various legalities against related to public disclosures of all trial data. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that in April 2014, a legislation was approved in Europe by the European Parliament to increase transparency in clinical trials by making the trial results publicly available. EMA was commissioned by the European Parliament to create a database where all interested parties could view comprehensive data from clinical trials. The transparency rules for the European Clinical Trial Regulation entered into force on January 1, 2015 and apply to clinical trial reports contained in all marketing authorization applications submitted on or after this date. On March 3, 2016, EMA announced the detailed guidance on the requirements for pharmaceutical companies to comply with the agency’s policy on publication of clinical trials data for all medicines. Chapter Three of this publication gives guidance to companies on how to anonymize clinical reports for the purpose of publication.

The EMA initiative of transparency of clinical trial data aims at ensuring that drug companies are aware of what is expected of them, and that they are ready for the publication of these critical data.

Besides Europe, in the United States too, though there is a clear mandate of the federal government that all clinical trial results related to serious or life-threatening diseases require to be published and uploaded on ClinicalTrials.gov – the database of the Government covering all clinical trials in America. However, this government mandate also seems to be hardly followed, both in its letter and spirit, according to reports. Similar scenario, reportedly, still prevails in most other developed countries, as well. India does not seem to be any different in this matter, either.

Intriguingly, the whole issue continues to remain polemical, with more number of initial clinical trial conclusions reportedly turning out to be not as transparent as these ought to be, carrying a significant bias towards positive treatment outcomes.

As a result, prevailing reticence around unveiling all clinical trials, including those of blockbuster drugs, is eventually pushing many patients to the brink of much avoidable and unforeseen serious health risk.

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 January 18, 2016 by Tapan Ray

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

Nutraceuticals: An Emerging Opportunity in The Gray Area Between Pharma And Nutrition

Posted on November 17, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Close association between nutrition and health has assumed a historical relevance. Growing pieces of evidence, even today, suggests that nutritional intervention with natural substances could play an important role, especially in the preventive healthcare. The World Health Organization (WHO) too has highlighted that mortality rate due to nutrition related factors in the developing countries, like India, is nearly 40 percent.

The ‘Gray Area’:

In the space between pharmaceutical and nutrition, there is an emerging ‘gray area with 50 shades’ having significant business relevance.

In a related publication, A.T. Kearney – a leading global management consulting firm has elaborated it as under:

“At one end of this natural nutrition spectrum, are functional foods and beverages as well as dietary supplements, aimed primarily at maintaining health. At the other, more medical end of the spectrum, are products aimed at people with special nutritional needs. In the middle, is an emerging gray area of products that have a physiological effect to reduce known risk factors, such as high cholesterol, or appear to slow or prevent the progression of common diseases such as diabetes, dementia or age related muscle loss.”

Evolution of the terminology ‘Nutraceuticals’:

Dr. Stephen DeFelice of the ‘Foundation for Innovation in Medicine’ coined the term ‘Nutraceutical’ from “Nutrition” and “Pharmaceutical” in 1989. The term nutraceutical though is now being commonly used in marketing such products has no regulatory definition, other than dietary or nutritional supplements.

It is interesting to note that the dietary supplement industry defines nutraceuticals as, “any nontoxic food component that has scientifically proven health benefits, including disease treatment and prevention.”

Probably because of this reason, it is often claimed by the manufacturers of nutraceutical products that these are not just dietary supplements, but also help in the prevention and/or treatment of many disease conditions.

In India, nutraceuticals are mostly promoted to the doctors just as any other ethical pharma products. These are also prescribed by the medical profession, not just as nutritional supplements but also for the treatment of disease conditions, ranging from obesity to arthritis, osteoporosis, cardiological conditions, diabetes, anti-lipid, gastroenterological conditions, dementia, age-related muscle loss, pain management and even fertility. All these are generally based on off-label therapeutic claims of the respective manufacturers.

Currently, this particular category of nutraceutical products, despite being out of price control and operating within much relaxed regulatory environment, is showing just a moderate growth trend in India.

The market:

According to a report of Frost & Sullivan, the global nutraceutical market has clocked maximum growth in the last decade.

Nutraceuticals as an industry emerged in the early 1990s. However, from 2002 to 2010 has been the key growth phase for the industry. From 1999 to 2002, the nutraceutical industry grew at an Annual Average Growth Rate (AAGR) of 7.3 percent, while from 2002 to 2010, the AAGR doubled to 14.7 percent, in line with the Indian Pharma Market (IPM).

The penetration of nutraceuticals in India was around 15 percent in 2013. In the same year, the turnover of the global nutraceuticals market was around US $168 billion in which India had a demand share of around 2 percent, i.e. around US $2 billion.

Growing at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 17.1 percent, the Indian market is expected to reach US$ 4 billion by 2018. China, Southeast Asia, and India are the fast-growing markets, with each experiencing growth in double digits.

In the last couple of years functional beverages have emerged as a fastest growing category for the Indian market, with many companies expanding their portfolio in the segment. This category is expected to grow at a CAGR of 21.7 percent by 2018.

However, in terms of ingredients, especially plant extracts and phytochemical, Indian manufacturers have entrenched their place as suppliers, both locally as well as globally.

Some other key findings of this report are as under:

India is currently a nascent market for nutraceuticals, without a robust business model in place. Both MNCs as well as domestic companies in the pharmaceutical and food and beverage space have tested the market with a variety of launches, with some degree of success.

The existence of alternative medicines in India, and the Indian consumer’s belief in them, could provide a platform for the nutraceutical industry to cash on.

The Indian consumers’ awareness about conventional nutraceutical ingredients such as omega-3 fatty acids or lutein is very limited. The nutraceutical manufacturers would require spreading awareness about their products to the Indian masses, much more effectively.

As compared with the developed countries such as the USA, Europe, and Japan, the percentage of population consuming nutraceuticals in India is much low. The middle to high income groups are the dominant consumers of functional foods and beverages along with dietary supplements, while the lower income groups consume mainly prescription-based dietary supplements.

Health awareness and an increase in the penetration of organized retail stores are expected to play a major role in driving the nutraceuticals’ consumption in India.

Current regulations in India:

The Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) of India, 2006 predominantly regulate manufacturing, storage, distribution, sale and import of nutraceuticals in India. Unlike pharma products, no other regulations are still in place, though the government reportedly is in the process of inviting suggestions from the stakeholders on the subject.

Experts feel that FSSAI needs to play a more important role in defining standards to streamline the operations for nutraceuticals business in India, which should include, besides others, the following:

Quality of raw materials
Safe manufacture of product with cGMP standards
Health claims
Labeling
Distribution & storage

In the absence of comprehensive regulations many companies are unable to decide on necessary investments that will be required for this business in the longer term.

Currently, nutraceuticals are much less expensive to develop, manufacture, market and distribute, offering a rainbow of business opportunities in the healthcare space.

A brand ‘New Ministry’ in place:

In all likelihood, renewed measures would now be taken to bring nutraceuticals under the mainstream healthcare.

It appears more feasible today than ever before, as the Prime Minister Modi, with an eye on reviving indigenous and traditional medicine has recently created a brand new ministry with a Minister of State (Independent Charge) at the helm to look after Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH).

Need to generate robust clinical data:

In this context, a relatively new development is worth noting. It has been reported that all new traditional medicines will need to undergo clinical trials before their regulatory marketing approval in India. However, it has also been amply clarified that “such products will include only the new patented drugs and not the classical formulations that find mention in India’s ancient texts, some of which are 5,000 years old.”

I reckon, for all nutraceutical formulations with specific therapeutic efficacy and safety claims, there is a need to generate supportive robust clinical data for the patients’ long term health interest.

Therapeutic efficacy of a drug in the treatment of a disease condition is established with pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamics, other pre-clinical and clinical studies. Some experts believe that these studies are very important for nutraceutical products too, particularly when therapeutic claims are made on them, as these substances undergo a series of reactions within the body.

Similarly, to rule out any long-term toxicity problem with such products, generation of credible clinical data is again critical. At present, these are not usually followed for nutraceutical products in India, even when therapeutic claims are made.

The experts, therefore, quite often say, “A lack of reported toxicity problems with any nutraceutical should not be interpreted as evidence of safety.”

Regulatory requirements for nutraceuticals in the USA:

In America, the Congress had passed the ‘Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act’ in 1994. This act allows ‘functional claims’ to dietary supplements, like “Vitamin A promotes good vision” or “St. Johns Wort maintains emotional well-being”, as long as the product label contains a specific disclaimer that the FDA has not evaluated the said claim and that the product concerned is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.

The above Act bestows some important responsibility on to the doctors, who are required to provide specific and accurate scientific information for nutraceutical products to their patients. This process assumes critical importance, as the patients would expect the doctors to describe to them about the usefulness of nutraceutical products as alternatives to approved drugs. In such cases, if any doctor recommends a dietary supplement instead of pharmaceutical products, the doctor concerned must be aware of the risk that the patient’s health may suffer, for which the affected patient could sue the doctor for malpractice.

Indian Health Ministry should take note of these points for ethical promotion of nutraceuticals in India.

Sanofi considered nutraceuticals as a business opportunity in India:

So far in India, Sanofi is the only Pharma MNC that has entered into nutraceuticals business in a big way. Sniffing the market opportunity in this segment, the French major acquired the nutraceuticals business of Universal Medicare Private Ltd of worth Rs.110 Crore, in August 2011. The nutraceuticals product portfolio of Universal Medicare included more than 40 brands from cod liver oil capsules, vitamins/mineral supplements and antioxidants to liver tonics.

Ambivalence of Pharma MNCs:

According to A.T. Kearney report, unlike food industry, the global pharma industry has approached nutraceuticals with a ‘great deal of ambivalence’.

Pfizer and Novartis have sold their nutrition businesses.While the same Pfizer that sold Wyeth Nutrition to Nestle, invested an undisclosed sum to acquire Danish vitamins company Ferrosan and the dietary supplements manufacturer of the United States, Alacer, reinforcing what was already a billion-dollar business enterprise.

On the other hand GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Novartis have recently announced a joint venture for consumer products business, which could probably be a stepping-stone to get into nutraceuticals. Who knows?

Food companies leading nutraceuticals business:

The A.T. Kearney report also states that at present the food companies, and not the pharma players, are in the lead, accounting for about 90 percent of nutraceuticals sales with expertise in branding, consumer market expertise and access to mass distribution channels.

A few consumer companies have also inked partnership with pharma companies. For example, Coca-Cola and Sanofi have partnered to sell health drinks in French pharmacies.

Conclusion:

Nutraceuticals business, as many believe, is an emerging opportunity in the ‘Gray Area’ between pharmaceuticals and nutritional product classes. So far, the food companies have been charting this frontier that remained uncharted by a large majority of the pharma players. This is mainly because the success requirements for nutraceutical products, including dietary supplements, are quite different.

That said, a transparent and well-charted regulatory pathway for nutraceuticals, especially for formulations with therapeutic claims, would have a significant impact on its future growth potential in India.

Many nutraceutical products in the country with specific therapeutic claims do not seem to have supporting robust clinical data, leave aside being peer reviewed and published in the reputed international journals on the claims for safety or efficacy.

The entry of one of the global majors, Sanofi, having a clear focus on Evidence Based Medicines (EBM), ushers in a new hope and promise to get the loose knots tightened in this important area, while driving the business growth of the category.

Just as EBM, scientific ‘Evidence Based Nutraceuticals (EBN)’ with therapeutic claims, should be the centerpiece of consumer confidence and interest in this emerging niche of healthcare business in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Supreme Court Suspends New Drug Trials in India…Time to Shape Up?

Posted on October 14, 2013 by Tapan Ray

On September 30, 2013, with a damning stricture to the Drug Regulator, the Supreme Court, in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Swasthya Adhikar Manch, stayed approvals for 162 applications for local Clinical Trials (CTs) of new drugs approved by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) earlier.

The apex court of the country granted the DCGI two weeks time to furnish evidence to the court that adequate patients’ safety and other related mechanisms have been put in place for CTs of all New Chemical Entities (NCEs) and New Molecular Entities (NMEs) in the country.

According to reports, during July and August 2013, the DCGI received 1,122 CT applications, out of which, 331 related to approval of global CTs. The New Drug Advisory Committee (NDAC) approved 285 drugs in AIDS, oncology, cardiology, neurology, psychiatry, metabolism and endocrinology therapy areas. Finally, 162 drugs received the green signal from the DCGI. Now all these trials have come to a halt.

At the same time, the court also directed the Ministry of Health to come out with a plan within 10 weeks to strengthen the regulatory framework for CTs in India based on various suggestions received from the state governments, other stakeholders and experts groups.

A casual approach?

Just to recapitulate, prior to this, on January 3, 2013, against the PIL, the bench of Honorable Justices R.M Lodha and A.R Dave of the Supreme Court reportedly observed that uncontrolled Clinical Trials (CT) are creating ‘havoc’ to human lives causing even deaths to many subjects in India.

In an interim order, the bench directed the Government that CTs could be conducted only under the supervision of the Health Secretary of India. Holding the Government responsible, the bench further observed, “You (Government) have to protect health of citizens of the country. It is your obligation. Deaths must be arrested and illegal trials must be stayed.”

Thereafter, though the Health Secretary of India approved the above 162 CTs, presumably following the above Supreme Court directive, it is an irony that when asked by the Apex Court, the government could not immediately explain precisely what systems and mechanisms have been put in place for proper conduct of these 162 CTs. It sought 2 weeks’ time to justify the action taken by the drug regulator in this regards.

Compromise on patients’ safety continues unabated:

During another hearing early in October 2013 on a petition filed by the NGO ‘Swasthya Adhikar Manch regarding violations of norms during CTs, the Supreme Court reportedly sought details from the Union Government on the irregularities during the drug trial using Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccines by the Seattle (USA) based organization PATH in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat states of India.

This intervening application by the NGO was based on the 72nd Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Health and Family Welfare report dated August 30, 2013, where it was recommended that action should be taken against PATH, state governments of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and other government officials including Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) for alleged violations on the subject.

The report highlights, HPV vaccines were given to 14,091 girls in Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh and 10,686 girls in Vadodra, Gujarat. These girls were between age group of 10 and 14, of which seven girls died due to such illegal vaccine trials.

Eventually, these trials were stopped, but only after the matter received media attention.

As per reports, the vaccines were provided by two pharma MNCs – Merck and GlaxoSmithKline through PATH. It also stated as follows:

“Vaccines were given to children irrespective of age in the case of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine. While permission was given to use GSK’s Cervarix vaccine in children of 10 to 14 years, CTs had been conducted on subjects in the age group of 18 to 35 years. Thus the safety and well being of subjects were completely jeopardized.”

No options but to shape-up:

It is worth mentioning, the above PIL had alleged that large scale drug trials being conducted across the country, mainly by the pharma MNC, are using Indian patients as ‘guinea pigs’, as it were. The NGO also told the Supreme Court that several pharmaceutical companies continue to conduct CTs quite indiscriminately, in various states of India, endangering lives of poorly/un-informed trial subjects.

In an affidavit to the Court, the Government admitted that between 2005 and 2012, 2,644 people died during CTs of 475 NCEs/NMEs with serious adverse events related deaths taking 80 lives.

Thus, coming under immense pressure from the civil society and now the scrutiny of the Supreme Court for so many CT related deaths and consequential patients’ compensation issues, the Government does not seem to have any other options left now but to bring US$ 500 million CT segment of the country, which is expected to cross a turnover of US$ 1 Billion by 2016, under stringent regulations.

Experts believe that the growth of the CT segment in India is driven mainly by the MNCs for easy availability of a large treatment naive patient population with varying disease pattern and demographic profile at a very low cost, as compared to many other countries across the world.

CT related deaths in India:

As per the Ministry of Health following are the details of deaths related to CTs registered in India from 2008 to August 2012:

Year	Total no of deaths	CT related deaths	Compensation paid to patients:
2012 (up to August)	272	12	NA
2011	438	16	16
2010	668	22	22
2009	737	NA	NA
2008	288	NA	NA

It is estimated that over the last four years, on an average, 10 persons have died every week in India related to CT.

DCGI hauled-up 9 MNCs on patients’ compensation:

It is worth noting, absolutely unacceptable level of compensation, by any standard, are being paid by the concerned companies, including large MNCs, for the lives lost during CTs.

According to another report quoting the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), 25 people died in clinical trials conducted by 9 pharma MNCs, in 2010. Unfortunately, families of just five of these victims received” compensation for trial related deaths, which ranged from an abysmal Rs 1.5 lakh (US$ 2,500) to Rs 3 lakh (US$ 5,000) to the families of the diseased.

This report also highlighted that arising out of this critical negligence, for the first time ever, the then DCGI was compelled to summon the concerned nine pharma MNCs on June 6, 2011 to question them on this issue and give a clear directive to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to CTs by June 20, 2011, or else all CTs of these nine MNCs, which were ongoing at that time or yet to start, will not be allowed.

The 9 pharma MNCs summoned by the DCGI to pay up the mandatory compensation for deaths related to CTs were reported as Wyeth, Quintiles, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Sanofi, PPD and Pfizer.

The report also indicated that after this ultimatum, all the 9 MNCs had paid compensation to the concerned families of the patients, who died related to the CTs.

Prior indictment by Indian Parliamentary Committee:

On May 8, 2012, the department related ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC)’ on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59th Report on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament.

The report made the following scathing remarks on CDSCO under its point 2.2:

“The Committee is of the firm opinion that most of the ills besetting the system of drugs regulation in India are mainly due to the skewed priorities and perceptions of CDSCO. For decades together it has been according primacy to the propagation and facilitation of the drugs industry, due to which, unfortunately, the interest of the biggest stakeholder i.e. the consumer has never been ensured.”

Action just not enough yet:

Acting on the damning stricture by the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Health by a gazette notification of January 30, 2013 made the norms of compensation to patients participating in CTs more stringent. ‘Patient Compensation’ was proposed to include injury or death, even if those are not related to the drugs being tested in the CTs.

Understandably, reacting to this notification, some pharma companies, industry lobby groups and also Clinical Research Organizations (CROs) expressed concerns in areas like:

Lack of distinction between study-related injuries and non-study related injuries.

Use of placebos in placebo-controlled trials.

Lack of any arbitration mechanism in case of disagreement on causality/quantum of compensation and also lack of clarity on who constitutes the Expert Committee and its composition.

In addition, the DCGI requested the stakeholders’ to share their inputs to the independent experts advisory committee chaired by Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury along with six other distinguished members namely, Dr V. P. Kamboj, Dr BT Kaul, Dr Vasantha Muthuswamy, Dr Mira Shiva  and Dr Uma Tekur, to help formulating policy, guidelines and SOPs for approval of NCEs/NMEs and procedures for CTs, including the conduct of ethics committees, the accreditation of trials sites, inspections of trials sites, the ongoing monitoring of trials and banning of drugs. The Government on February 6, 2013 constituted this Committee.

This decision of the regulator, though under pressure, was praiseworthy. Unfortunately nothing substantially changed on the ground for CTs in India even thereafter, as no substantive action has yet been taken on the above expert committee recommendations.

The report of the experts committee:

Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury experts committee in its 99-page report has reportedly recommended some radical changes in the CT space of India. Among others, the report includes the following:

Setting up of a Central Accreditation Council (CAC) to oversee the accreditation of institutes, clinical investigators and ethics committees for CTs in the country.

Only those trials, which will be conducted at centers meeting these requirements, be considered for approval by the DCGI.

For speedy clearance of applications, a broad expertise based Technical Review Committee (TRC) will replace 12 New Drug Advisory Committees (NDACs), which are currently functioning for NCE/NME approvals.

The TRC would be assisted, as required, by appropriate subject experts selected from the ‘Roster of Experts’.

For any Adverse Effects (AEs) or Serious Adverse Effects (SAEs) during a CT, the sponsor investigator will be responsible for providing medical treatment and care to the patient at its/their cost till the resolution of the AEs/SAEs.

This is to be provided irrespective of whether the patient is in the control group, placebo group, standard drug treatment group or the test drug administered group.

A Special Expert Committee should be set up independent of the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) to review all drug formulations in the market and identify drugs, which are potentially hazardous and/or of doubtful therapeutic efficacy.

A mechanism should be put in place to remove these drugs from the market by the CDSCO at the earliest.

Though some of the above provisions were vigorously objected by the industry during stakeholders’ consultations, the committee in its final report has upheld those recommendations.

The main worry – costs of CTs will go up:

CTs, as we know, are of critical importance for obtaining marketing approval of any new drug and at the same time forms a major cost component in the new drug development process, across the world.

Any savings in this area, both in terms of time and money, will add significantly to the profit margin of the product. In that context, the above suggestions, if implemented to create a safety net for the patients participating in CTs, will make these trials more expensive for the concerned companies with increased liability.

Hence, we hear a hue and cry, especially from the pharma MNCs. This is mainly because, India was, thus far, a low cost CT destination for them with virtually no liability for the drug trial patients. This is because, the poor and ill-informed subjects are left in the lurch by many companies exploiting the gaping holes existing in the fragile CT system of the country. After the intervention of the Supreme Court in this regard, some foreign players have reportedly suspended their CTs in India for reasons best known to them.

Exploitation of CT regulations:

The system of CT in India has created a huge ruckus, as it has long been tainted with widespread malpractices, abuses and misuses by many players, both global and local. The issue is not just of GCP or other CT related standards but more of an ethical mind-set and well-reported rampant exploitation of uninformed patients, especially in case of trial-related injuries or even death.

The Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an article titled, “Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns” reported as follows:

“Drug companies are drawn to India for several reasons, including a technically competent workforce, patient availability, low costs and a friendly drug-control system. While good news for India’s economy, the booming clinical trial industry is raising concerns because of a lack of regulation of private trials and the uneven application of requirements for informed consent and proper ethics review.”

Industry reactions:

Very interestingly, there have been a divergent sets of reactions from the industry on this issue.

An influential section in the CT space of the country has reacted, with gross indiscretion, to the most recent SC order banning CTs for NCEs/NMEs till a robust mechanism in India is put in place.

Commenting on the verdict, an industry leader has reportedly said:

“A black day for Indian science and a sad reflection on our judiciary”.

Such comments probably vindicate much talked about crony capitalistic mindset of this class. They do not hesitate a bit to display their scant respect even to the highest judiciary of the country, leave alone their glaring indifference to the important public health interest related issue. All such actions possibly emanate from the intense greed to protect and further the vested interests, not withstanding the gross injustice being meted out to the drug trial subjects as a consequence.

On the other hand, supporting the Supreme Court’s view, The Indian Society for Clinical Research (ISCR) reportedly has said:

“As a professional organization representing clinical research professionals across the stakeholder spectrum, ISCR is fully supportive of the need for a more robust and regulated environment for the conduct of clinical trials in India which ensures the practice of the highest standards of ethics and quality and where patient rights and safety are protected”.  

ISCR further said, “As in every profession and industry, there will always be players who operate at both ends of the spectrum. While we do not condone any irregularities, we must acknowledge, there are several hundreds of clinical trials taking place in the country in compliance with international and local guidelines. There have been over 40 US FDA clinical trial audits done in India with no critical findings reported. There have also been several European regulatory audits of Indian clinical trial sites, again with no critical findings.”

That said, Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee, had commented on a ‘nexus between the industry and the drug regulator’ for continuation of such sorry state of affairs, since long.

‘Industry-pharma nexus’ in the USA too?

Recently, similar tricky relationship between the regulator and the pharma companies was unearthed again with the later paying hefty fees to attend meetings of a panel that advises the US FDA.

The article highlighted, an investigative report in the ‘Washington Post’ found that pharma companies paid as much as US$ 25,000 to attend sessions convened by a scientific panel on painkillers, and has led to claims that the industry was being given an opportunity to influence federal policy in this area.

Expected Government action:

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the matter on October 24, 2013.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health reportedly held meetings with concerned officials to chalk out the strategy before the Court, when this case would come up for hearing after two weeks.

The report says, the Government is planning to place before the court a comprehensive plan with details of the existing mechanism and ongoing efforts like, bringing the the new Drugs and Cosmetic (Amendment) Bill 2013 and incorporation of Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury expert committee recommendations, to plug the loopholes in the new drug trial mechanism of the country.

Conclusion:

While the importance of CTs to ensure better and more effective treatment for millions of patients in India is immense, it should not be allowed at the cost of patients’ safety, under any garb. If the regulator overlooks this critical factor and some pharmaceutical players keep exploiting the system, judiciary has no option but to effectively intervene in response to PILs, as happened in this particular case too.

Thus, I reckon, appropriate safety of human subjects participating in CTs and a fairplay in compensation, whenever justified, should be non-negotiable for the indian drug regulator. Despite reactions with indiscretion from a section of the industry, the Supreme Court is absolutely right to direct the DCGI to stop CTs for all NCEs/NMEs until the apex judiciary is satisfied that a robust system is in place for such trials in India. This will ensure, the scientific objectives of the CTs are properly achieved without any compromise on patients’ safety.

Breaking the nexus decisively between a section of the powerful pharmaceutical lobby group and the drug regulator, as highlighted even in the above Parliamentary Committee report, the Ministry of Health should, without any further delay, put in place a robust and transparent CT mechanism in India, come what may.

This well thought-out new system, besides ensuring patients’ safety and fairplay for all, will have the potential to help reaping a rich economic harvest through creation of a meaningful and vibrant CT industry in India, simultaneously benefitting millions of patients, as we move on.

That said, the moot question still remains: Will the drug regulator be able to satisfy the Supreme Court, as the two weeks expire, that appropriate mechanisms are in place to resume smooth conduct of CTs for the new drugs in India?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Beyond ‘The Magic Moment’ of New Drug Marketing Approval

Posted on June 24, 2013 by Tapan Ray

“Uncontrolled clinical trials are causing havoc to human life. There are so many legal and ethical issues involved with clinical trials and the government has not done anything so far.”

This is exactly what the Supreme Court of India observed while responding to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the subject in January 2013.

While Indian regulators with the active intervention of the Supreme Court are trying to grapple with, besides others, the basic ‘human rights’ aspect of the Clinical Trial (CT), many countries in different parts of the world are moving much ahead at a brisker pace. They have started thinking and putting in place more patient centric newer drug approval systems and also, in tandem, hastening the process of bringing new drugs to the market.

Current general scenario in CT:

Currently, after pre-clinical studies and before applying for regulatory approval, a new drug has to be tested on volunteers in randomized studies to prove its efficacy and safety on patients. Relatively short duration of new drug trials can hardly establish long-term safety and efficacy, which are now arrived at through extrapolation of data collected during CT period.

It is worth noting, the overall situation changes dramatically after launch of these products, as their usage expands from a relatively smaller number of CT volunteers to millions of real-world patients.

In a situation like this, unrealistic expectation of patients’ safety in perpetuity based primarily on extrapolation of very limited CT data is being increasingly questioned today.

That is why, on going post-marketing surveillance, which is also known as a Phase IV CT, is considered as a much more effective process to gauge relative superiority of the drug against the existing ones in terms of both efficacy and safety on a longer term.

That said, today one reads and hears umpteen number of accusations for almost lack of any meaningful response on the part of the pharmaceutical companies, in general, towards revelations of post-marketing surveillance data. This could, in turn, expose the patients to various types of risks, including wasteful healthcare expenditure.

The ‘Magic Moment’ in the present regulatory process:

A recent paper highlights a single “Magic Moment” between pre and post-licensing processes in the current drug-approval model in many countries. In this system, the use of a drug is tightly controlled in a narrowly defined pre-licensing population. Thus, CTs are also conducted on such pre-defined and relatively homogeneous volunteers, who are generally free from complicating conditions.

However, after ‘The Magic Moment’ of marketing approval, a large number of heterogeneous patient population, with many of them on multiple therapy, also use these new products in uncontrolled settings. Situations as these had led to post-marketing major drug withdrawals like, Vioxx and Avandia due to patients’ safety.

These grave concerns have led to a strategic shift in the drug regulatory approval scenario throwing open new ideas in the drug approval process.

Adaptive Licensing:

To find the right answer to this vexing issue the drug regulators in many countries are reportedly seriously contemplating to imbibe a process that will continuously help analyzing information through ongoing post-marketing surveillance data. Continuous medical data analysis like this will enable the regulators to modify their earlier decisions on marketing approval and also medical reimbursements related to pricing reasons.

This new process is called ‘Adaptive Licensing (AL)’, which is expected to benefit the overall healthcare system, by not allowing medical reimbursement of treatments with those drugs, which will provide negligible benefit over existing low cost therapies.

Difference between current mechanism and AL:

According to a ‘Health Canada’ paper titled, “The Path to Adaptive Drug Regulation”, the difference between the two is as follows:

Current system:

As explained above, post-licensing i.e. after ‘The Magic Moment’ of regulatory approval, treatment population grows rapidly and treatment experiences do not contribute to evidence generation.

Adaptive Licensing:

After initial license, treated patients grow more slowly due to regulatory restrictions. Patient experience is captured to contribute to real-world information. The marketing license is also modified accordingly from time to time.

Most desirable for many drugs:

Experts in this field opine that AL will help bringing in alignment of all required processes so important for a new drug seen from patients’ perspective like, R&D, regulatory approval and market access with the active involvement of all stakeholders like, the pharmaceutical companies, the drug regulator, payors/insurance companies and also the researchers.

In the AL system, a transparent drug development process will provide enough data on risk-benefit profile of the concerned drug to satisfy the drug regulator for its quick marketing authorization on pre-determined types of patients.

Such approval will follow real-life monitoring of efficacy and safety for modification of the drug license accordingly, wherever and whenever required.

Thus, AL is expected to strike a right balance balance between timely access to new drugs for the patients and the need to evaluate real time evolving information on safety and efficacy leading to a well-informed patient centric decisions by the drug regulators.

A continuous regulatory evaluation and decision-making process:

AL intends to evaluate a drug through its entire life span. It has been reported that during this long period, clinical and other data will “Continue to be generated on the product through various modalities, including active surveillance and additional studies after initial and full licensing. The artificial dichotomy of pre vs. post licensing stages (‘The Magic Moment’) will be replaced by graded, more tightly managed, but more timely and potentially more cost-effective market entry and market stability.”

Not necessary for all drugs in the near term:

It is worth noting that AL system may not perhaps be required for all pharmaceutical or biologic products and will not totally replace the current system of drug licensing process, at least in the near term.

AL process may immediately be followed only for those products with a favorable risk-benefit drug profile as demonstrated in the initial data and there is a robust reason for early market entry of this drug to meet unmet needs, simultaneously with ongoing studies.

The ‘Magic Moment’ freezes in India…in perpetuity:

As per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, after obtaining drug marketing approval from the regulators, concerned pharmaceutical companies are required to follow the pharmacovigilance system in the country to own the responsibility and liability of the drugs as enunciated in the Schedule Y of the Act. Unfortunately, this is hardly being followed in India, ignoring patients’ safety blatantly.

With the plea that most products launched in India are already being marketed in many developed markets of the world, the concerned companies prefer to depend on clinical experiences in those markets. This attitude totally bypasses the regulatory requirement to follow a robust pharmacovigilance system in India. Indian drug regulators also do not seem to be much concerned about this important patients’ safety related requirements, very surprisingly not even for biosimilar drugs.

However, the current ground realities are quite different. As we witness today, there does not seem to be much difference in time between international and India launch of innovative products. Thus, the argument of gaining medium to long-term experience on safety and efficacy from international data related to these drugs, does not seem to hold any water at all.

On the contrary, some drugs withdrawn from the international markets on safety grounds are still available in India, despite ire and severe indictment even from the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee.

In a situation like this, AL process of Marketing approval for selected newer and innovative drugs may be considered by the Indian Drug Regulators, just not to be more patient centric, but also to help evaluating pricing decisions of innovative drugs failing to demonstrate significantly better treatment outcomes as compared to the existing ones.

A recent example of AL:

One of the latest drugs, which reportedly will undergo such regulatory scrutiny of USFDA is Tacfidera (dimethyl fumarate) used for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, approved in April 2013 and costing US$ 54,900 per patient per year. Interestingly, Tacfidera, before the drug can find itself on a formulary, will need to demonstrate its effectiveness in the real world.

The report indicates, “the first six months after a drug launch are always about educating payers about its benefits, and while most large payers are likely to make a decision to reimburse the drug in the next twelve months, data collection will continue and changes in policies might be made at a later date.”

Thus, in the years ahead, whether a new drug will become a blockbuster or not will very largely be decided by the ongoing real world data. If the promise of a drug diminishes at any point of time through clinical data, it will certainly going to have consequential financial and other adverse impacts.

Another interesting recent development:

Under new pharmacovigilance legislation in Europe, the European Medicines Agency has reportedly announced the list of over 100 drugs that soon will bear the “black triangle” logo. This initiative is directed to encourage both the doctors and patients to report side effects to enable close monitoring of drug safety.

Criteria to include drugs under additional monitoring are:

Medicines authorized after January 1, 2011 that contain a new active substance.

Biologics for which there is limited post-marketing experience.

Medicines with a conditional approval or approved under exceptional circumstances.

Medicines for which the marketing-authorization holder is required to carry out a post-authorization safety study (PASS).

Other medicines can also be placed under additional monitoring, based on a recommendation from the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC).

Conclusion:

Global regulatory experts do believe that in the concept of AL, there are still some loose knots to be tightened expeditiously to make it a fully implementable common drug marketing authorization process. Appropriate pilot projects need to be undertaken in this area to establish beyond any doubt that AL will be decisively more preferable to the current regulatory process.

As and when AL will become the preferred drug-licensing pathway across the world, it is expected to offer greater real benefits of new drug development to the patients for their optimal use at an affordable price.

That said, some other experts do opine as follows:

“No matter how fast the authorization process operates, the merits of innovation will not be felt until they reach patients. And the barrier between authorization and patient access remains, in most of Europe, the issue of reimbursement.”

While all these are fast developing in the global CT scenario, in the jangle of Clinical Trials‘ in India, ‘Adaptive Licensing’ has still remained a critical missing ingredient even to encourage a wider debate.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma Innovation Absolutely Critical: But NOT Shorn from Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values

Posted on May 20, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Significant value added innovation is the bedrock of progress of the pharmaceutical industry and is essential for the patients. This is a hard fact.

However, this current buzzword – ‘innovation’ can in no way be shorn from soft business necessities like, ethics, propriety, compliance and values… not just for longer term sustainability of business, but more in the larger interest of patients and patient groups.

Most importantly, ‘ethics, propriety, compliance and values’ are not meant for mere display in the corporate websites like, any other business showpieces. These should neither be leveraged to create a false positive impression in the minds of the stakeholders with frequent PR blitzkriegs.

The creators of these soft ‘X factors’ are now being increasingly hauled up for gross violations of the same by the Governments in various parts of the world .These are not just legal issues. The net impact of all such acts goes much beyond.

In this article, I shall deliberate on these continuing and annoying issues both in global and local perspectives, quoting relevant examples at random.

The sole purpose of my argument is to drive home that all such repeated gross violations, as reported in the media, go against patients’ interests, directly or indirectly. None of these incidents, in any way, can be negated with stories of great innovations or with any other make of craftily designed shields.

Under increasing scrutiny in the developed world:

Ethics, propriety and business value standards of big pharma, besides various types of legal compliance, are coming under increasing stakeholders’ scrutiny, especially in the developed markets of the world.

Very frequently media reports from across the world, highlight serous indictments of the Government and even judiciary for bribery, corrupt business practices and other unbecoming conduct, aimed at the the global mascot for healthcare.

It is indeed flabbergasting to note that more and more corporates, with all guns blazing at the same time, publicize with equal zest various initiatives being taken by them to uphold high ethical standards and business practices, if not propriety, as the juggernaut keeps on moving forward, unabated.

The scope of ‘ethics and propriety’:

The scope of ‘ethical business conducts, propriety and value standards’ of a company usually encompasses the following, among many others:

The employees, suppliers, customers and other stakeholders

Caring for the society and environment

Fiduciary responsibilities

Business and marketing practices

R&D activities, including clinical trials

Corporate Governance

Corporate espionage

That said, such scope should not be restricted to the top management, but must be allowed to percolate downwards in a structured manner, looking beyond the legal and regulatory boundaries.

Statistics of compliance to ‘codes of business ethics and corporate values’ are important to know, but the qualitative change in the ethics and value standards of an organization should always be the most important goal to drive any corporation and the pharmaceutical sector is no exception.

‘Business Ethics and Values’ in the globalized economy:

Globalization of business makes the process of formulating the ‘codes of ethics and values’ indeed very challenging for many organizations in many ways. This is mainly because, the cultural differences at times create a conflict on ethics and values involving different countries.

For this purpose, many business organizations prefer to interact with the cultural and religious leaders in the foreign countries, mainly to ascertain what really drives culturally diverse people to act in certain ways.

With the wealth of knowledge of the local customs and people, the cultural and religious leaders can help an organization to unify the code of ethics and values of the globalized business.

Such leaders can also help identifying the ‘common meeting ground of minds’ from a specific country perspective, after carefully assessing the cultural differences, which are difficult to resolve in the near term.

The ‘common meeting ground of minds’ within a given society, thus worked out, could form the bedrock to initiate further steps to strengthen global business standards of ethics and values of an organization.

OECD with USA started early enacting ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’:

To prevent bribery and corrupt practices, especially in a foreign land, in 1997, along with 33 other countries belonging to the ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’, the United States Congress enacted a law against the bribery of foreign officials, which is known as ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’.

This Act marked the early beginnings of ethical compliance program in the United States and disallows the US companies from paying, offering to pay or authorizing to pay money or anything of value either directly or through third parties or middlemen. FCPA currently has significant impact on the way American companies are required to run their business, especially in the foreign land.

A dichotomy exists with ‘Grease Payment’:

OECD classified ‘Grease payment’ as “facilitating one, if it is paid to government employees to speed up an administrative process where the outcome is already pre-determined.”

In the FCPA of the US, ‘Grease Payment’, has been defined as “a payment to a foreign official, political party or party official for ‘routine governmental action,’ such as processing papers, issuing permits, and other actions of an official, in order to expedite performance of duties of non-discretionary nature, i.e., which they are already bound to perform. The payment is not intended to influence the outcome of the official’s action, only its timing.”

Many observers opine, ‘Grease Payments’ is an absolute dichotomy to the overall US policy for ethical standards and against corruption.

Currently besides US, only Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea are the countries that permit ‘Grease payments’.

Notwithstanding, the governments of the US and four other countries allow companies to keep doing business without undue delay by making ‘Grease Payments’ to the lower government officials, such payments are considered illegal in most other countries, in which they are paid, including India.

In India such a business practice is viewed as bribery, which is not only perceived as unethical and immoral, but also a criminal offense under the law of the land. Even otherwise, right or wrong, ‘Grease Payments’ are viewed by a vast majority of the population as a morally questionable standard of ‘business conduct’.

Many companies are setting-up the ethical business standards globally:

While visiting the website of especially the large global and local companies, one finds that all these companies, barring a very few exceptions, have already put in place a comprehensive ‘code of business ethics and values’. Some of these companies have also put in place dedicated code compliance officers across the globe.

‘Practice as you preach’:

Despite all these commendable initiatives towards establishing corporate codes of business ethics and values, the moot question that keeps haunting many times and again: “Do all these companies ‘practice what they preach’ in real life?”

Instances are too many for breach in ethics, propriety and value standards:

The media is now increasingly reporting such instances of violations both locally and globally.

Some Indian examples: (At random, not in a chronological order)

Criminal drug regulatory manipulation:

One of India’s top pharma players reportedly will pay a record fine of US$ 500 million in the US for lying to officials and selling badly made generic drugs.

The company has pleaded guilty to improper manufacturing, storing and testing of drugs, closing a year long civil and criminal investigation into the matter.

Compensation for deaths related to Clinical Trials not paid:

In 2011 the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly summoned nine pharma companies on June 6 to question them on the amount of compensation they have decided to pay the ‘victims of their clinical trials’, which is a mandatory part of any clinical trial, or else all other trials of these nine companies going on at that time or yet to start, will not be allowed.

Clinical Trial is another area of pharmaceutical business, especially in the Indian context, where more often than not, issues related to ethics and values are being raised. In an article titled, ‘Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns’ published by the World Health Organization (WHO) following observations have been made:

“The latest developments in India reflect a concerted effort on the part of the global public health community to push clinical trials issues to the fore in the wake of several high-profile cases in which pharmaceutical companies were shown to be withholding information from regulators.”

Alleged marketing malpractices:

In 2010, the Parliamentary Standing committee on Health reportedly expressed concern that the “evil practice” of inducement of doctors by the pharma players continues.

Congress MP Jyoti Mirdha sent a bunch of photocopies of air tickets to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to claim that doctors and their families were ‘beating the scorching Indian summer’ with a trip to England and Scotland, courtesy a pharmaceutical company.

30 family members of 11 doctors from all over the country reportedly enjoyed the hospitality of the concerned company.

Department of Pharmaceuticals reportedly roped in the Revenue Department under Finance Ministry to work out methods to link the money trail to offending companies.

Some global examples: (At random, not in a chronological order)

United States Government sues a Swiss pharma major for alleged multi-million dollar kickbacks:

The United States Government very recently reportedly announced its second civil fraud lawsuit against a Swiss drug major accusing the company of paying multimillion-dollar kickbacks to doctors in exchange for prescribing its drugs.

Fraud fines:

Two largest drug makers of the world reportedly paid US$ 8 billion in fraud fines for repeatedly defrauding Medicare and Medicaid in the USA over the past decade.

Denigrating generics:

Another global pharma major reportedly has been recently fined US$ 52.8 million for denigrating generic copies.

Drug overcharging:

Another global drug major reportedly stirred an ethics scandal and paid US$ 499 million towards overcharging the US government for medicines.

Bribing doctors:

A top global pharma player reportedly paid total US$ 60.2 million to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.

Another European pharma group reportedly was fined US$ 3bn after admitting bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children.

Concealment of important facts:

A judge in USA reportedly ordered a large pharma company to pay more than $1.2 billion in fines after a jury found that the company had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Off-label marketing:

A Swiss pharma major reportedly agreed to pay US$ 422.5 million to resolve an investigation into alleged off-label promotion of a drug, as well as civil allegations relating to five other products.

The U.S. Justice Department reportedly hit an American drug major with a US$ 322 million penalty for illegally promoting a drug before it received approval by the Food and Drug Administration for that condition.

Other illegal marketing practices:

Yet another European pharma group was reportedly fined USD 34 million by a court in the United States for illegal marketing practices for its medicine.

‘Illegal’ Clinical Trials:

It was revealed on May 17, 2013 that global pharmaceutical companies reportedly paid millions of pounds to former communist East Germany to use more that 50,000 patients in state-run hospitals as unwitting guinea pigs for drug tests in which several people died.

All these are some random examples of alleged malpractices associated with ‘ethics, propriety, compliance and values’ in the pharma world, both local and global.

Middle and lower management becomes the ‘fall guy’:

It is interesting to note that whenever, such incidents take place, the fingers are usually pointed towards the middle or lower management cadre of the corporations concerned for violations and non-compliance.

Corporate or top management ownership of such seemingly deplorable incidents still remains confined within a ‘black box’ and probably a distant reality.

Public perception is not encouraging:

In the pharmaceutical sector all over the world, many business practices have still remained very contentious, despite many well-publicized attempts of self-regulation by the industry. The flow of complaints for alleged unethical business practices have not slowed down either, across the world, even after so many years of self-regulation, penalty and severe indictments.

Government apathy in India:

Nearer home, the Government apathy, despite being pressured by the respective Parliamentary Committees and sometimes including judiciary in repose to Public Interest Litigations (PIL), has indeed been appalling, thus far.

The Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has already circulated a draft ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for stakeholders to comment on it. The final UCPMP, when it comes into force, if not implemented by the pharmaceutical players in its ‘letter and spirit’, may attract government’s ire in form of strong doses of regulatory measures. However, the moot question remains, will the UCPMP come at all?

Similar issues are there in drug regulatory areas falling under the Ministry of Health, especially in the clinical trial area. In this matter, very fortunately Supreme Court has intervened against a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Thus, one can expect to witness some tangible steps being taken in this area, sooner than later.

Walking the talk:

The need to formulate and more importantly effectively implement ‘Codes of Business Ethics & Values’ should gain increasing relevance in the globalized business environment, including in India.

It appears from the media reports, many companies across the world are increasingly resorting to ‘unethical behavior, impropriety and business malpractices’ due to intense pressure for business performance, as demanded primarily by the stock markets.

There is no global consensus, as yet, on what is ethically and morally acceptable ‘Business Ethics and Values’ across the world. However, even if these are implemented in a country-specific way, the most challenging obstacle to overcome by the corporates would still remain ‘walking the talk’ and owning responsibility at the top.

Conclusion:

Pharmaceutical innovation will continue to remain the launch pad for the industry growth in the battle against diseases of all types, forms and severity. However, that alone should in no way deserve to receive encouragement from any corner shorn from Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values.

Balancing pharmaceutical innovation with Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values, I reckon, will in turn help striking a right balance, to a considerable extent, between pharmaceutical innovation and public health interest for everyones’ satisfaction, mostly the patients.

Being equipped with the wherewithal to bring new drugs for the global population and being the fundamental source of growth momentum for the generic drug industry of the world, the innovator companies are expected to lead by setting examples in this area too. After all, as the saying goes:

“Caesar’s wife ought to be above suspicion. ‥Caesar himself ought to be so too”.

By: Tapan J. Ray

A Ten Step Strategy Prescribed

Posted on December 24, 2012 by Tapan Ray

In India, there are various hurdles to address the healthcare issues in a comprehensive way. Though, these do not seem to be insurmountable, the country needs a clear time-bound grand strategy to squarely address this vexing concern, which also has its consequent socioeconomic fallout.

If we look at the history of development of the industrialized countries of the world, we shall easily be able to fathom that all of them not only had heavily invested, but even now are investing to improve the socioeconomic framework of the country where education and health are the center pieces. Continuous reform measures in these two key areas are proven key drivers of economic growth of any nation.

Just as focus on education is of utmost importance to realize the economic potential of any country, so is the healthcare. It will be extremely challenging for India to realize its dream of becoming one of the economic superpowers of the world, without a sharp strategic focus and significant resource allocation in these two areas.

The World Health Statistics:

As reported by the ‘World Health Statistics 2011′, India spends around 4.2 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health, which is quite in line with other BRIC countries like, China and Russia.This has been possible mainly due to increasing participation of the private players in the healthcare sector and not so much by the government. The following table on ‘Health Expenditure’ will highlight this point:

Type	Brazil	Russia	India	China
Exp. on Health (% of GDP)	8.4	4.8	4.2	4.3
Govt. Exp. on Health(% of Total Exp. on Health)	44	64.3	32.4	47.3
Pvt. Exp. on Health (% of Total Exp. on Health)	56	35.7	67.6	52.7
Govt. Exp. on Health (% of Total Govt. Exp.)	6	9.2	4.4	10.3
Social Security Exp. on Health (% of General Govt. Exp. on Health)	-	38.7	17.2	66.3

Key healthcare goals:

As articulated in a recent paper titled ‘Meeting the Challenges of Healthcare Needs in India: Paths to Innovation’, the key healthcare goals of any country have been described as follows:

Improved quality of care and population health as measured by life expectancy and other measures of wellness

Cost containment and pooled risk-sharing by the population to allow financial access to care as well as avoid catastrophic ruin
Provide access to care in an equitable manner for all citizens

Specifically to India one of the key challenges to healthcare is ‘Universal Access’ to care and health equity. However, in terms of pure concept the country has a universal healthcare system, where theoretically any citizen is entitled to avail the public health facilities irrespective of socioeconomic status. Unfortunately, the reality is far out of the line.

Health is a ‘State subject’:

In Indian system, health is primarily a state subject and the Central Government deals with:

Health related policies
Health related regulations
Initiatives related to identified disease prevention and control

Whereas, each state needs to take care of:

Healthcare administration
Healthcare delivery
Healthcare financing
Training of personnel related to healthcare

The system:

Primary Health Centers (PHCs) of India located in the cities, districts or rural villages are expected to provide medical treatment free of cost to the local citizens. The focus areas of these PHCs, as articulated by the government, are the treatment of common illnesses, immunization, malnutrition, pregnancy and child birth. For secondary or tertiary care, patients are referred to the state or district level hospitals.
The public healthcare delivery system is grossly inadequate and does not function, by and large, with an optimal degree of efficiency, though some of the government hospitals like, All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) are among the best hospitals in India.

Most essential drugs, if available, are dispensed free of cost from the public hospitals/clinics. Outpatient treatment facilities available in the government hospitals are either free or available at a nominal cost. In AIIMS an outpatient card is available at a nominal onetime fee and thereafter outpatient medical advice is free to the patient.

However, the cost of inpatient treatment in the public hospitals though significantly less than the private hospitals, depends on the economic condition of the patient and the type of facilities that the individual will require. The patients who are from Below Poverty Line (BPL) families are usually not required to pay the cost of treatment. Such costs are subsidized or borne by the government.

Private sector is expensive:

That said, in India health facilities in the public sector being inadequate, generally under-staffed and under-financed, a large section of population still does not have access to affordable modern healthcare. As a result, more often than not, common patients are compelled to go to expensive private healthcare providers. Majority of the population of India cannot afford such high cost private healthcare, though comes with a much better quality.

Thus, as things stand today the public sector actually provides just about 20% of actual care services. The balance is catered by the private sector.

A great potential:

A 2012 report on ‘Indian Healthcare Industry’ indicates that in 2010 the size of the industry was around US$ 50 billion and is expected to register a turnover of US$ 140 billion in 2017 with a CAGR of 15 percent. This growth momentum, despite all these, positions India as one of the most lucrative markets within the developing countries of the world. On a global perspective as well, healthcare industry is one of the fastest growing segments clocking a turnover of US$ 5.5 trillion in 2010.

Growth drivers:

The main drivers of growth for the Indian healthcare industry are considered as follows:

Second highest growing economy in the world
Changing demographic profile
Increasing disposable income
Higher incidence of Non-infectious Chronic Diseases (NCD)
New investment avenues
A large talent pool
Cost-effective human resource

Besides above, other growth drivers are as follows:

Increased penetration of pharmaceuticals in the rural markets
Increased export potential for low cost and high quality generic pharmaceuticals, as a large number of patents are going to expire in the next 5 years
Emergence of various health cities and also single specialty clinics offering quality healthcare
Health insurance portability is expected to increase the penetration of insurance, improve quality of service and raise competition among insurers to retain customers
Telemedicine: E-healthcare in rural areas is gaining popularity with the involvement of both
public and private players like, ISRO, Mazumdar Shaw Cancer Center and Narayana Hrudayalaya. Some telecom companies like, Nokia and BlackBerry are also contemplating to extend the use of mobile phones for remote disease monitoring as well as diagnostic and treatment support. Introduction of 3G and in the near future 4G telecom services will
further enhance opportunities of e-healthcare through mobile phones, expanding the field of healthcare.

Promising sectors:

Within the healthcare industry, the most promising sectors are:

Pharmaceuticals
Hospitals and Nursing Homes
Medical equipment
Pathological labs and other diagnostic service providers

According to the Investment Commission of India, the healthcare sector of the country has registered a robust CAGR of over 12 percent during the last four years and the trend is expected to be ascending further.

Quite in tandem, other important areas of the healthcare sector, besides pharmaceuticals, have also recorded impressive performance as follows:

Areas	Growth %
Hospitals/Nursing Homes	20
Medical Equipment	15
Clinical Lab Diagnostics	30
Imaging Diagnostics	30
Other Services (includes Training & Education; Aesthetics & Weight loss; Retail Pharmacy, etc.)	40

Government initiatives:

On its part, the Indian government is also in the process of giving a thrust to the healthcare sector as a whole by:

Increasing public expenditure on healthcare from 1 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP in the 12th Five Year Plan Period
Encouraging public-private partnerships (PPP) in hospital infrastructure and R&D
Encouraging medical tourism
Attracting Indian and foreign players to invest in Tier-II and Tier-III cities with huge untapped market potential. For example:

- Expansion of major healthcare players in tier-II and tier-III cities of India like, Apollo, Narayana Hrudayalaya, Max Hospitals, Aravind Eye Hospitals and Fortis

- BCG Group will reportedly open shortly a multidisciplinary health mall that would provide a one-stop solution for all healthcare needs starting from doctors, hospitals, ayurvedic centers, pharmacies including insurance referral units at Palarivattom in Kochi, Kerala.

BCG’s long-term plan, as reported in the media, is to set up a health village spanning across an area of a 750,000 sq. ft. with an estimated cost of US$ 88.91 million. Along the same line, to set up more facilities for diagnostic services in India, GE Healthcare reportedly has planned to invest US$ 50 million for this purpose

Introduction of the ‘National Commission for Human Resources for Health Bill 2011( NCHRH Bill 2011)’, which will bring all independent bodies like the Medical Council of India (MCI), the Dental Council of India (DCI), the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) and the Nursing Council of India (NCI) under a centralized authority for a more cohesive action.

Attracting FDI:

According to the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP), the healthcare sector is undergoing significant transformation and attracting investments not only from within the country but also from overseas.

The Cumulative FDI inflow in the healthcare sector from April 2000 to October 2012, as per DIPP publications, is as follows:

Sector	FDI inflow (US$ million)
Hospital and diagnostic centers	1482.86
Medical and surgical appliances	571.91
Drugs and pharmaceuticals	9775.03

(Source: Fact Sheet on FDI – April 2000 to October 2012, DIPP)

Job creation:

The trend of new job creation in the healthcare sector of India is also quite encouraging, as supported by the following facts:

The Healthcare sector in India recorded a maximum post-recession recruitment to a total employee base of 36, 21,177 with a new job creation of 2, 73, 571, according to ‘Ma Foi Employment Trends Survey 2012’.

Despite slowdown in other industries, in the healthcare sector the new job creation continues at a faster pace.

With many new hospital beds added and increasing access to primary, secondary and tertiary / specialty healthcare, among others, the ascending trend in job creation is expected to continue in the healthcare sectors of India in the years ahead.

A Strategy Prescribed:

Though the report of the High Level Expert Group (HLEG) on the ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ is already in place, without going into the implementability issues of the report in this article, I would like to propose a ten pronged approach towards a new healthcare reform process to achieve the national healthcare objectives:

1. The government should focus on its role as provider of preventive and primary healthcare to all, through public hospitals, dispensaries and PHCs, including free distribution of essential medicines.

2. In tandem, the government should play the role of enabler to create Public-Private partnership (PPP) projects for secondary and tertiary healthcare services at the state and district levels with appropriate fiscal and other incentives.

3. PPP also may be extended to create a robust health insurance infrastructure urgently.

4. The insurance companies will be empowered to negotiate with concerned doctors, hospitals and other organizations, all fees payable by the patients to doctors, hospitals, for diagnostic services etc., including cost of medicines for both inpatients and outpatients treatment, with the sole objective to ensure access to affordable high quality healthcare to all.

5. Create an independent regulatory body for healthcare services to regulate and monitor the operations of both public and private healthcare providers/institutions, including the health insurance sector.

6. Levy a ‘healthcare cess’ to all, for effective implementation of this new healthcare reform process.

7. Effectively manage the corpus thus generated to achieve the healthcare objectives of the nation through the Healthcare Services Regulatory Authority (HSRA).

8. Make HSRS accountable for ensuring access to affordable high quality healthcare to the entire population of the country together with a grievance redressal mechanism.

9. Make HSRS accountable, its operation transparent to the civil society through HSRS website and cost-neutral to the government, through innovative pricing model based on economic status of an individual.

10. Allow independent private healthcare providers to make reasonable profit out of the investments made by them

Conclusion:

All the ten steps prescribed as above, will help ensure a holistic approach to healthcare needs of India and reduce prevailing socioeconomic inequalities within the healthcare delivery systems of the country.

Rapidly growing urban centric five-star private healthcare initiatives are welcome but these are now just catering to the privileged few, perpetuating the pressing healthcare issues unanswered.

Only a well-orchestrated, comprehensive, time-bound and holistic approach is capable of addressing the humongous healthcare needs of India and at the same time providing much required growth momentum to the Indian healthcare industry, positioning India as one of the most lucrative healthcare hubs within the emerging economies of the world.

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 and also do not contribute to any other blog or website with the same article that I post in this website. Any such act of reproducing my articles, which I write in my personal capacity, in other blogs or websites by anyone is unauthorized and prohibited.

Hysteria on Corporate Lobbying in India

Posted on December 17, 2012 by Tapan Ray

The ‘hysteria’ on ‘Corporate Lobbying’ influencing the key policy decisions of India, reverberated in the corridors of power of the Indian Parliament last week with consequent media attraction and triggering a raging public debate.

On Monday, December 10, 2012 the Upper House of the Indian Parliament reportedly expressed itshuge concern over a lobbying disclosure in the United States related to a contentious government policy decision India.

Taking part in the debate a distinguished Member of the Parliament and an eminent lawyer Mr.Ravishankar Prasad reportedly articulated, “Lobbying is illegal in India and is a kind of bribe. If Wal-Mart has said that hundreds of crores of rupees were spent on India, then it is a kind of bribe.Government should tell who was given this bribe.”

Responding to the opposition demand on this subject, the Government has already ordered a judicial probe on this allegation.

Corporate Lobbying:

The term ‘Lobbying’ has been defined as “a form of advocacy with the intention of influencing decisions made by the government by individuals or more usually by Lobby groups; it includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents, or organized groups”.

April 21, 2012 edition of ‘The Economist’ in an article titled. “The Chamber of Secrets - The biggest business lobby in the United States is more influential than ever”, reported that ‘Americas first chamber of commerce was founded in Charleston in 1773.

Many a times the key issues of corruption, morality and ethics are being used with ‘lobbying’ activity. However, following two different perceptions remain generally associated with this terminology:

Corporates or people with mighty socioeconomic power, by themselves or through their industry bodies, corrupt the laws to serve a self-serving agenda by bending or deflecting them away from general fairness to majority of the population.
It gives an opportunity to defend minority interest against corruption and tyranny of the majority.

An article published in the ‘The Washington Post’ on August 14, 2011 argued that “Blame for financial mess starts with the corporate lobby” in America.

In a recent book titled, “Time to Start Thinking – America and the Specter of Decline”, the author described how the big money in America has almost completely bought over the political process along with a pen picture of the organized lobbying group continuing to wield their mighty power despite reported ban of this activity in the ‘White House’ by President Barrack Obama.

Lobbying is legal in many countries:

It is worth mentioning that lobbying is a legal activity in many countries, such as, the United States of America, Europe and Canada. In the US, many Indian companies, including the government of India have been lobbying since so many years to present their cases and argument with the American law and policy makers.

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

‘Disclosure’ required in the US:

In the US, lobbying being recognized as a legitimate business activity, the companies are required to inform all such activities through quarterly disclosure reports to the US Senate.

In America, in 2012 alone and only in Washington DC there were reportedly 12,016 active registered lobbyists, who spent a whopping US$ 2.45 Billion for lobbying activities . Similarly, as per publishedreports, there are currently an estimated 15,000 individual lobbyists and 2,500 lobbyist organizations in Brussels to seek favorable business decisions through the legislative process of the European Union.

It has been reported that in the U.S. lobbying is a huge and established industry. This is quite contrary to Indian situation, where lobbying has not been legalized and the activity, going by general perception, ‘smacks of illegal gratification and is ravished by corruption scandals like 2G scams”.

Indian corporates also lobby in the US:

Records with the US House of Representatives reportedly show that around 27 Indian companies have spent money on lobbying in the US. Some examples are as follows:

Reliance Industries (RIL): Unspecified issue
Tata Sons:
Ranbaxy Lab,
The National Association of Software and Service Companies (Nasscom )
Wipro
Gems and Jewellery Export Promotion Council, among others.

Some sensational recent reports:

Following are some sensational recent reports on Corporate Lobbying:

The ‘Pharma Letter’ in its in its March 29, 2012 edition reported that “New research reveals that the pharmaceutical industry lobby is spending more than 40 million Euros (US$ 53.5 million) annually to influence decision making in European Union.”

Back home ‘Live Mint (The wall Street Journal)’ reported on October 6, 2011 as follows:

“Wal-Mart has disclosed earlier, “discussion related to India FDI (Foreign Direct Investment)” as one of the issues in its lobbying with the US lawmakers in the first two quarters of 2011, during which it spent nearly US$ 4 million on various lobbying activities.”

On December 13, 2012, ‘The Telegraph‘ reported that in a recent regulatory disclosure in the United States, Walmart has stated that it spent US$ 25 million in the last four years on lobbying for, among other its hopes for “enhanced market access for investment in India”.

Not legalized in India:

As stated above, though Lobbying is considered a legal business activity in many countries, in India it is still not considered as a legally and recognized business activity. However, many industrial sectors have formed their respective associations primarily for lobbying with the government, which is generally termed as ‘advocacy’.

A recent article published in the India Law Journal titled, ‘Corporate Lobbying and Corruption-Manipulating Capital’ articulates that “lobbying is the preferred means for exerting political influence in developed countries and corruption the preferred one in developing countries. However, lobbying and corruption are symbiotic in nature as both are ways of obtaining help from the public sector in exchange for favors.”

The article further states that corporate lobbying or advocacy has expanded in India mostly as intensive briefings and presentations to the ministers and senior bureaucrats, though it is not yet recognized in a statutory or non-statutory form in the country.

Thus, right from the debate on Bofors Guns to the telephone tapes of high profile lobbyist Niira Radia related to 2G telecom scam and then Tatra trucks scam of the Indian Army and now on Walmart debate in the Parliament, one gets a clear feel that corporate lobbying falls in a grey zone under the Indian law.

Difference between ‘Lobbying’ and ‘Advocacy’:

According to the article titled, ‘Lobbying and Advocacy—Similarities and Differences, published by Charity Lobbying for the Public Interest’, when nonprofit organizations advocate on their own behalf, they seek to positively affect majority of the society, whereas lobbying refers specifically to advocacy efforts that attempt to influence policy or legislation of a country by interested groups, irrespective of its best outcome to the society.

More debate:

In a very recent reported debate published on December 15, 2012 titled, “Is lobbying an acceptable business practice? “, one distinguished professional said, ‘While lobbying can be considered routine, the response to it should not be, as it can be deeply harmful to our country’.

In the same debate, another equally distinguished person commented, ‘Lobbying may be a legitimate activity subject to strict regulatory oversight in the US. But in India, it a sophisticated alibi for the more brazen bribe-giving, what with cash still ruling the roost with its subterranean links lubricating all sections of the economy.”

More controversy:

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

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

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

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

The need for a middle path:

In the current volatile scenario, it is quite reasonable to expect that lobbying activities in India, especially after the current uproar in the Parliament, may come under greater scrutiny both by the media and the government. The intervention of the courts against ‘Public Interest Litigation (PIL)’ cannot also be ruled out.

However, it is also believed by many that long-term interest of India is expected to ultimately prevail in this closely watched raging debate with the acceptance of a middle path.

A strong argument in favor of lobbying/advocacy:

As stated above, there is also a strong argument in support of lobbying or advocacy, based on the following grounds:

In a democratic country like India, people from across the spectrum, including the industries and its associations, should have the right to convey their views to policy makers.
Lobbying should be regarded as a “fundamental basis to express a point of view”, industry included.
Trying to influence the government is a natural process by all, including the civil society, other stakeholders and the industry alike.

Regulating lobbying activities – An option:

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

Surrogate lobbying:

The instances of ‘surrogate lobbying’ by the industries with funds coming from various parts of the world are also being raised by the civil society, media and recently by the Government. The contentious issue became the subject of a heated debate related to ‘Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant’ in Tamil Nadu.

In February 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reportedly charged that foreign NGOs for stoking protests with foreign funds at the ‘Kudankulam Nuclear power Plant’ for vested interests and ordered further investigation by the Ministry of Home Affairs to track the trails of funds.

As a result of all these developments, the Government is reportedly becoming increasingly more vigilant against direct or indirect ‘foreign hand’ through surrogate lobbying in the policy related issues of the country, against majority interest of the society. The ‘Walmart saga’ is a case in point, at this stage.

Industry observers have opined, probably many other forms of surrogate lobbying are currently operational in India, which needs to be thoroughly probed and in case of any illegal activity, the perpetrators must be brought to justice, sooner than later, whether it is related to ‘Kundamkulam Nuclear Power Plant’ or any other .

Examples of political fall-out of lobbying activities:

On June 1, 2012, FiercePharma reported as follows:

“The cat is out of the bag so to speak with the disclosure of memos today detailing the level of drug industry support for passage of President Obama’s prized healthcare reform”

It continued to state, “Big Pharma came around to support the original bill, trading about $80 billion in additional taxes and some price rebates to federal programs for an expanded pool of insured.”

Back home in India, The Outlook Magazine reported on June 6, 2010 on the political fall-out of lobbying related to 2G telecom spectrum allocation scam in India as follows:

“Since Outlook published extracts from the CD of Radia’s phone conversations (submitted to the court) taped by the I-T department and put the 140 conversations up on its website, there has been a raging debate on what they tell us about the role of lobbyists in the 2G spectrum allocation scam, how the media interplays in such a system, and how our political class and retired bureaucrats are more often than not willing partners in the game.”

“These debates do not detract from the aim of punishing the guilty behind the 2G scam; rather they raise disturbing questions we all have to answer. Who is this woman who can speak to the “highest and mightiest” in this country in this way? From where does she draw her power? And what does it tell us about our society? When ‘Outlook’ asked her, whether she would like to give her version of these recent events, Radia SMSed back: “No. Thank You.” This is her story..”

Conclusion:

Despite a long history of regulated and legalized lobbying in the US, there are still severe criticisms even in that country about the way lobbying activities have worked there in the past so many decades. India has plenty to learn from such experiences.

In the prevailing situation within India many experts often question, whether the economic/ other critical policy decisions of the country are mostly based on what the local population would require or depend on the money power of vested interests or business houses within and outside the country to influence such decisions.

To eliminate any possibility of illegal gratification, directly or indirectly or in any other manner or form, the process of lobbying or advocacy should be made absolutely transparent for all through appropriate rules and regulations, legally acceptable lobbyists and an appropriate disclosure mechanism for all such related expenses, just as exists in the United States of America.

In absence of these transparent and robust measures, lobbying or advocacy will continue to be perceived not just as an illegitimate activity, but also an ignoble and dubious profession in the eyes of majority living in India.

The fantastic vocabulary of ‘Good Governance’ should not be used just for others to practice. It is a time to ‘walk the talk’ for all stakeholders, including the government to douse histrionics of various kinds like, what happened last week on ‘Corporate Lobbying in India’.

By: Tapan J Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: Trials

Reticence Around Unveiling Clinical Trials

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process

Nutraceuticals: An Emerging Opportunity in The Gray Area Between Pharma And Nutrition

Supreme Court Suspends New Drug Trials in India…Time to Shape Up?

Beyond ‘The Magic Moment’ of New Drug Marketing Approval

Pharma Innovation Absolutely Critical: But NOT Shorn from Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values

A Ten Step Strategy Prescribed

Hysteria on Corporate Lobbying in India