Create Novel Marketing Pathways As Covid Mutants Keep Emerging

Posted on January 10, 2022 by Tapan Ray

The World’s battle against wave after wave unsettling onslaught of Coronavirus on human lives and livelihood continues, since December 2019. The first wave was triggered by the novel Covid-19 from Wuhan in China, the second by its deadly – Delta variant, and now – the third by Omicron. In India, first case of Covid-19 was reported on January 31, 2020.

Initially, global experts contemplated vaccines to prevent and contain Covid-19 and were the best hope for ending the pandemic. However, the effectiveness of existing Covid vaccines apparently declines against its subsequent mutants. This is evident even in India when the next variant Omicron commenced its onslaught.

The good news is, AstraZeneca has now claimed, a third booster shot of its Covid-19 vaccine willsignificantly boost antibody levels against the Omicron variant. However, Omicron may not be the last Covid-19 variant, as it appears today.

As the world grapples with the highly mutated Omicron, scientists have identified another new strain of the COVID-19 causing virus – in Southern France – known as ‘IHU’. This B.1.640.2 variant was reported by researchers at institute IHU Mediterranee Infection in at least 12 cases. However, it is too early to speculate on how this variant behaves as far as infection and protection from vaccines is concerned. This process is likely to take, at least, some more time.

Thus, in the current situation, when increasing numbers of even fully vaccinated individuals are getting re-infected caused by emerging mutants of Covid-19, and some more than once, the focus expanded towards more effective disease treatment. Some countries, such as the US, have decided for the 3^rd booster shot of Covid-19 vaccine. Israel has even gone for the 4^th booster shot of Covid vaccine. Be that as it may, in this fast-evolving scenario, even bright pharma marketers have been experiencing new strategic challenges, as we move on. Against the above backdrop, this article will delve into that space, focusing on some of the new trends of the new normal.

Pharma’s focus expands towards more effective Covid specific treatment:

Visualizing the way Covid-19 pandemic could possibly pan out in the foreseeable future, several global pharma and biotech companies have started focusing on specific treatment for this virus, ensuring speedy patient recovery.

For example, on November 21, 2020, the U.S. FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a cocktail therapy of casirivimab and imdevimab for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and pediatric patients.

Just a month later, on December 22, 2021, the U.S. FDA issued another emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s (nirmatrelvir tablets and ritonavir tablets, co-packaged for oral use). This was also for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in adults and pediatric patients.

A day after Pfizer’s the first oral COVID-19 treatment, approval, on December 23, 2022, the U.S. FDA issued one more emergency use authorization (EUA) for Merck’s molnupiravir. This is the second antiviral pill authorized in the U.S, for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in adults. Nearer home, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has also given EUA to Molnupiravir for the treatment of adult patients.

Interestingly, French regulators rejected Merck’s molnupiravir pill for low efficacy. They found other therapies were much more effective than this molecule. Even in India on January 06, 2022, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) also expressed safety concerns on Molnupiravir. Thus, it has not been included in the national list of Covid treatments in India. That said, such brilliant initiatives by several pharma companies in the battle for saving lives and livelihoods against Covid-19 pandemic, made those companies household names like never before.

Covid made several pharma companies household names, but not brands:

This point was restated in a recent article, published in the Fierce Pharma on December 22, 2021. It emphasized, Covid-19 ‘has brought the words of the pharma industry into people’s lives like never before: Moderna, Pfizer, BioNTech, AstraZeneca and Merck have become household names.’ One may not remember the names of their Covid products, but will mostly know the company.

Many people have now started referring to Covid vaccines and drugs in generic names. As from the very beginning we started hearing people saying, like – I got ‘AstraZeneca Vaccines’, ‘Remdesivir’, or ‘Covid Cocktail therapy’. Company names usually followed the generic names in most cases. Although, ‘that’s been good for pharma’s reputation, but has left marketers in a bind about branding, commented the above article.

Most Covid-19 drugs and vaccine brands are on ‘emergency use approval’

In the Covid dominated year of 2021, drug and biotech companies managed to get USFDA approval for 55 new drugs. However, many of those drugs and vaccines got only Emergency Use Approval (EUA) and only under emergency use basis. This basically means, under EUA these companies did not get full marketing approval and were handicapped to go whole hog with the usual new brand marketing campaigns. This critical issue is expected to remain even in 2022.

In a situation, such as this, when the full scale branding initiatives can’t be undertaken, intenseCorporate Branding Campaigns, I reckon, would pay a rich dividend. This process will be quite different from creative new brand marketing in the old normal. Some global innovator companies are using even the mass media to promote their respective vaccines, albeit differently.

Such promotions include, Open Letter from the Company CEO, creative use of TV shows, messages of the head honchos through twitter or word of mouth campaigns – creating a snowballing effect. Alongside, healthcare marketing professionals are also intensifying their Covid-vaccine ad campaigns, sans brand names, to increase awareness and persuade more people to get vaccinated, soon.

To move in this direction, at least, during EUA period for Covid drugs and vaccines, hybridization of pharma marketing will be necessary in many cases, which won’t be an easy task for all, though.

Hybridization of pharma marketing – necessary – but not an easy task:

Based on experience of almost the last two years, many drug companies have realized that virtual-only customer engagement models have some serious shortcomings to fetch desired outcomes. This issue was studied and well-articulated in an article, published in the Reuters Events on November 30, 2021.

It found: “Virtual-only engagement can make it harder to create a real connection.” Further, as the paper articulated: “Even if HCPs share their video, we are losing the third dimension, hence losing out on parts of that personal component.’ Besides, although, online meetings are flexible regarding timing, if a doctor doesn’t dial-in, there is only a small chance the meeting will happen later that day, unlike waiting in a clinic for the interview to take place.

To address this issue, pharma players are now in various stages of creation and adoption of their respective hybrid marketing models. However, the process offers its own challenges. Working out customer-specific hybrid engagement models are a different ball game altogether- requiring very different skill sets, continuous training and above all a very different mindset.

Conclusion:

As reported on January 06, 2022, rapidly spreading Omicron variant of the novel Coronavirus threatens to rewrite the business recovery timelines, even in India. Even recently, many CEOs and top executives have opined, businesses would have to live with Covid-19 uncertainty. The article further added: ‘Many companies have suspended their return-to-work plans and are reassessing business continuity measures as a third wave of the pandemic starts to surge.’ Most CEOs also expressed one of their top priorities was to ensure Covid-19 protocols were being followed and all employees were safe.

Similar situation arises for all Covid drugs approved under the EUA by the Drug Controller general of India, and are being marketed by Indian companies against non-exclusive voluntary licensing agreements with the innovators. Thus, an analogous marketing issue exists surrounding all such EUAs, as the company concerned can’t undertake a full brand marketing campaign. This constraint is likely to pose a major marketing challenge for several potential Covid blockbuster drugs in India, at least in 2022, which marketers need to overcome, creatively.

From the above perspective of Covid-19 drugs and vaccines, companies would need to create novel and effective strategic pathways for performance excellence. At least, as long as Covid-19 mutants will continue to emerge, causing operational disruptions in the pharma business.

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.

Exploring An Exit To India’s Covid Management Maze

Posted on May 3, 2021 by Tapan Ray

‘India’s Covid-19 Crisis is Spiraling Out of Control. It Didn’t Have to Be This Way,’ was the headline of the lead article, published in The Time with the cover page ‘India in Crisis.’ All Indians also believe the same, as the current reality is shown virtually live in TV news channels daily, with experts commenting on the same.

Ironically, many in the country’s leadership still remain in a ‘denial mode’, even when the country records globally highest number, ever – over 402,110 daily new Covid-19 cases with 3,688 daily deaths, on April 30, 2021. One can also gauge how grim the situation is from the example of the US alert to its citizens in India. It says, ‘access to medical care is becoming severely limited because of a surge in Covid-19 infections and those wishing to leave the country should take advantage of available commercial transportation options.’

Notably, when most Indians, including the President of India, were taking pride in the country’s ‘Aatma-Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyan,’ especially in the Covid-19 vaccine area, during the pandemic, the stark reality appeared to be quite different. Pandemic demonstrated that each country is, in fact, interdependent. One may not acknowledge it in the days of hubris. However, when a crisis, like Covid 2.0 strikes the nation hard and interestingly – not unannounced, as many experts write, the reality dawns. This is also a reality that India as a nation could not adequately prepare itself for Covid 2.0 onslaught, even over a yearlong Covid 1.0 pandemic.

Nonetheless, India now needs global help, almost for everything – in the prevailing calamity – Oxygen, drugs like, Remdesivir – and vaccines, besides many others. Quite expectedly, witnessing the Covid 2.0 tragedy in India ‘Aid (also) pours in from the world to counter India’s Covid-19 second wave.’ Alongside, along with Indian media, even foreign media reports, ‘Bodies piling up at crematoriums: Record death toll may hide extent of India’s COVID-19 crisis.’

Amid Covid crisis, most countries in the world, including the United Kingdom, the United States,Israel and even India’s neighboring country - Bhutan focused on the mass Covid vaccination drive – at a blistering pace, to create a herd immunity. In this article, I shall explore the drivers and barriers for India to achieve a similar goal, soon.

Current developments with vaccine in India:

The latest development is – after a protracted hesitation, the Government of India opened ‘Covid-19 vaccination for all above 18 years of age,’ effective May 01, 2021. However, not so good news is, this happened at a time when the country is experiencing a Covid-19 vaccine shortage even for all adults above 45 years of age. Believing that government has taken this decision without enough advance preparation, experts warn, India is likely to face extreme Covid vaccine shortage from May 1.

They express concern: ‘India is running out of vaccines just as the new wave of Covid-19 infections batters the country, complicating Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s plan to inoculate the nation’s workforce while threatening to drag out the world’s worst healthcare crisis.’

India rejected ‘emergency use’ of imported Pfizer and other vaccines, unlike other countries:

Some decisions by Indian vaccine expert panel also delayed more vaccine availability in the country for ‘emergency use,’ sooner. For example, Reuters reported on February 05, 2021, ‘Pfizer drops India vaccine application after regulator seeks local trial.’ The Company had applied to the DCGI for a waiver of a local trial for importing its mRNA vaccine in India.

Similarly, as reported on February 25, 2021, ‘Expert panel seeks safety data for Russia’s Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccine before emergency use nod,’ in India. Ironically, it was again rejected on April 01, 2021. However, facing the fierce Covid.2.0 wave Sputnik V vaccine is now being imported from Russia. Similarly, as reported on April 30, 2021, ‘Pfizer begins exporting U.S.-made COVID-19 vaccine to Mexico.’ Pfizer has already exported 10 million doses to Mexico.

In the quagmire of indecision, late decision and other non-life saving priorities are omnipresent:

Many Indian and overseas experts opined that valuable time was lost to have more vaccines in India, by now. This is because, amid a wrenching surge in infections and deaths, on April 14, 2021 – ultimately, India agreed to fast-track vaccine approvals for ‘emergency use,’ without local trial. These are now applicable to all those Covid vaccines that have already been authorized by ‘drug regulators in the US, UK, European Union and Japan or cleared by the WHO, without having to conduct a local bridging trial.

The above developments, I reckon, gave rise to two core issues in vaccinating the Indian population of above 18 years of age – at a ‘blistering pace,’ as happened or is happening in countries, like the UK or the US.

Whereas, for speedy mass vaccination wealthy governments took a quick decision to stock up on COVID-19 shots from Pfizer and Moderna Inc, because of their extremely high efficacy. More so, when safety concerns and production problems temporarily sidelined vaccines from AstraZeneca Plc and Johnson & Johnson.

Two core issues for a speedy vaccination process in India:

No domain experts in the world doubt that mass vaccination is India’s Covid-19 escape route from the prevailing health care massacre. However, arising out of the above developments, successful implementation of Covid vaccination process on the ground, making it available and affordable to all, poses a giant challenge. Thus, to effectively address the two core issues, with the quality of speed that it deserves, finding answers to the following questions are critical:

How to add speed to the vaccination process?
How to avoid different pricing for the same vaccine for the Central Government, the State Governments and the Private Hospitals? This will give a choice to the population for speedy vaccination, removing many personal apprehensions involving the entire process.

Let me give an example, each of the most recent quagmire related to each one of the above issues.

All vaccination centers in Mumbai were shut for three days for shortages:

Reuters reported on April 30, 2021 carrying a headline, ‘Indian states run out of COVID-19 vaccines; nationwide inoculation delayed.’ It added, several Indian states have run out of COVID-19 vaccines a day before a planned widening of a nationwide inoculation drive. Interestingly, quoting Indian authorities it elaborated: ‘All vaccination centers in India’s financial capital Mumbai were shut for three days starting Friday due to a shortage of vaccines, as the country posted another record daily rise in coronavirus cases.’ The same saga can be witnessed in the national capital of India. ‘Don’t queue up outside Covid-19 vaccination centers tomorrow, the stock will arrive in 1-2 days,’ urged the Chief Minister of Delhi.

The Government allowed Covishield and Covaxin price increase amid pandemic:

Covishield and Covaxin were being purchased by the central government at a price of Rs. 150 per/dose. While announcing Covid vaccination eligibility to all Indians above 18 years of age – despite vaccine shortages, the government allowed the two Indian vaccine manufacturers to increase the same vaccine prices – for direct supply to the state governments and private hospitals.

The manufacturers lapped up this decision and increased the vaccine prices by several times, amid catastrophic Covid 2.0 pandemic. For example, for state governments the Covishield price was raised to Rs.400/per dose and Rs.600/per dose – for Covaxin. However, facing severe criticism from all quarters the prices were revised to Rs 300 (Covishield) and Rs.400 (Covaxin). Interestingly, still the price increases were double or even more from the initial prices of Rs.150/per dose. Interestingly, one manufacturer even boasted this so called ‘price reduction’ from their initial humongous price increases, as a ‘philanthropic gesture’. Interesting indeed!

A hidden solution within Supreme Court questions to the Center:

While hearing a Suo Moto case in connection with the ongoing Covid 2.0 calamity in the country, the Supreme Court of India also took note of the difference in Covid vaccine prices for the Centre and the state governments. It observed Covid vaccine manufacturing is publicly funded, hence are public goods – these are ultimately meant for the people of India. At the same time, the apex court asked some of the following profound questions to the central government on Covid 2.0 management in the country:

Why is the center not following the national immunization program policy in its Covid-19 vaccination drive where the Centre will buy all vaccines from the manufacturers?
How much investment has the Centre made into the vaccine companies and given advances in the last year?
What has been the financial contribution by the Union govt in research etc. in the development of vaccines?
How will the Centre ensure registration for vaccines for illiterate people and those without internet access as registration through Co-Win is mandatory in the third phase of vaccination?
Will one state get priority access over another in getting the vaccines?
How will the Centre ensure equity by private vaccine manufacturers when it is buying only 50 percent of the doses?
Has the center considered invoking Section 92 of the patents act and issue compulsory licenses so that drugs can be manufactured while the royalty is sorted?
Why are we paying so much for this vaccine for which AstraZeneca has set at a far lower price to the US citizens?

One may possibly find a hidden solution to the question of invoking Section 92 of the Indian Patent Act (IPA 2005) to address some critical Covid vaccine related issues in India.

Is invoking section of IPA 2005 a near-term solution?

As many would know, Section 92 of the Indian Patents Act is a special provision enabling the Central Government to issue Compulsory Licenses for the manufacture of patented drugs in a public health emergency. Section 100 of the IPA enables the Central Government to use patented inventions for government purposes. Curiously, the Supreme Court of India has, reportedly, also observed: “This is an exact case where we should go for compulsory licensing. This is a situation of Public Health Emergency.”

Just to recap, on October 02, 2021, India and South Africa had proposed at the WTO about an IP waiver for Covid-19 drugs and vaccines that could help resolve the urgent issues of access and affordability to these products. It has also been reported: ‘Richer members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) blocked a push by over 80 developing countries on Wednesday to waive patent rights in an effort to boost production of COVID-19 vaccines for poor nations.’

Although, U.S. Trade Representative has recently met with Pfizer and AstraZeneca to discuss this proposed IP waiver for Covid vaccines and drugs, what stops India to invoke Section 92 and 100 of its own Patent Act even during this seemingly uncontrollable Covid 2.0 pandemic?

The April 06, 2021 article of the Observer Research Foundation aptly epitomized the need of the hour. It articulated: ‘As the pandemic continues to rage, countries collectively have to find innovative ways to not just increase the production of vaccines, but also ensure their timely distribution at affordable prices.” Such an initiative may encourage more manufacturers in India to manufacture enough Covid vaccine, facilitating speedy inoculation to Indians and at the same time the government can make its price affordable for all concerned.

Conclusion:

The question, therefore, arises: Is India’s exit to the Covid 2.0 maze now visible? But, before arriving at any possible conclusion in this regard, one may try to address, at least, the following two critical questions:

Can Covid vaccines be reverse-engineered by domestic pharma industry without inventors sharing ‘Know-How’?

Can the IP waiver by the WTO or invocation of section 92 and 100 of IPA 2005 by India, legally mandate vaccine developers, like AstraZeneca, Pfizer-BioNTech or Johnson & Johnson, to share know-how with others, if they do not want to do so?

The resolution of the above issues won’t happen in a jiffy – at this stage. It may take more time. So, I reckon, will be the search for a permanent exit to India’s Covid 2.0 management maze, to avoid a similar strike by Covid 3.0, if or as and when it will come. Thus, till all adult Indians get vaccinated, each one of us must comply with Covid appropriate behavior responsibly, to save ourselves, our families, neighborhood, and above all our own nation.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Prescription Digital Therapy Now A Reality

Posted on May 7, 2018 by Tapan Ray

The pursuit of offering ‘prescription digital therapeutics’ or ‘digiceuticals’ by Big Pharma, to ensure better clinical outcomes for patients, has apparently come to fruition now.

On April 18, 2018, by a media release, Novartis announced that the Sandoz Division of the Company has entered into collaboration with Pear Therapeutics to commercialize and continued development of digital therapeutics, designed to effectively treat disease and improve clinical outcomes for patients.

The collaboration brings on to the table, a synergy between Sandoz expertise in launching and commercializing various disease treatments, with Pear’s leading experience in digital therapeutics design and implementation. This deal has attracted attention of many. Mainly because, any pharma player will, for the first-time, detail a digital therapy treatment directly to the medical profession, and seek their prescription support.

It is worth noting that Pear’s flagship digital therapeutic – reSET is the first USFDA-cleared mobile medical application with both a safety and efficacy label to help treat patients with Substance Use Disorder, in September 2017. According to published reports, several studies have established that it is two-times more effective than conventional in person therapy sessions. Interestingly, the rate of treatment efficacy increases even up to tenfold, in refractory patients.

Just the beginning of a long run:

The above market launch of a digital therapy by Novartis signals just the beginning of a long run in changing in the disease treatment archetype for better outcomes. Incidentally, prior to this announcement, on March 1, 2018, the same Company had announced, “Novartis and Pear Therapeutics to collaborate on prescription software applications aimed to treat patients with schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis.”

The media release underscored:“Psychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases place a heavy physical, mental and economic burden on patients and their families. With widespread adoption of digital devices, prescription digital therapeutics could potentially play an important role in future treatment models for a range of diseases with high unmet medical need”.

The scope and potential:

An article titled – ‘Digital therapeutics: Preparing for takeoff’,published by McKinsey & Company in February 2018, captures its scope succinctly. It says, “digital therapeutics tend to target conditions that are poorly addressed by the healthcare system today, such as chronic diseases or neurological disorders. In addition, they can often deliver treatment more cheaply than traditional therapy by reducing demands on clinicians’ time.”

A separate McKinsey interview article, titled ‘Exploring the potential of digital therapeutics’, published in the same month, elucidated the potential of digital therapy equally well. It highlighted:“A digital therapeutic is an intervention based on software as the key ingredient, which has a direct impact on a disease. This is what distinguishes this category from the broader term digital health. We will see digital therapeutics and digital diagnostics integrate into the health system…”

‘Prescription digital therapy’ are not just ‘Fitness and Well-being’ Apps:

Prescription digital therapy are not just to monitor a person’s general fitness level against pre-identified parameters, and overall well-being. Whereas, digital therapeutics help patients to regularly and consistently monitor relevant and tailor-made disease related data - in real-time to detect behavioral, lifestyle and requisite biological changes on a daily basis. However, this is not ‘a so well-realized necessity’ today, especially, in the treatment of certain serious disease conditions, to ensure significantly better clinical outcomes for patients.

Digital therapeutics can ensure making a favorable change in patient behavior, which is not merely as efficient as administering medicines, but could also ensure greater effectiveness than conventional medications. Further, it assists patients to better understand, manage and control several disease conditions, and more importantly, sans any untoward side-effects.

Besides, with digital therapy, the required treatment interventions will reach patients faster than traditional treatment processes. Both the patient request and the medical response for the same can be quickly exchanged, together with relevant data support, through smartphones or other wearable digital interfaces – either in the form of voice or text or both. I shall dwell on this later in the article. Thus, digital therapy may not require patients to meet the doctor every time a need arises.

Moreover, fitness and wellbeing Apps do not require marketing approval from a country’s drug regulator. Mostly because, they help monitoring general and generic fitness parameters, capturing some low-risk changes. Whereas, a custom-made prescription digital therapy would necessarily require such regulatory nod.

In tandem, various studies are also being conducted on wearables, such as an Apple Watch, as an interface. The following are examples of some of these studies:

Digital therapy study with Apple Watch as an interface:

In February 2017, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. and Cognition Kit Limited, announced a collaboration to pilot the use of a specially designed app on an Apple Watch wearable to monitor and assess cognitive function in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD).

In November 2017, they presented results from ‘Digital Wearable Technology Study’ in patients with MDD. The observational study involved 30 participants, aged 18-65, with a clinical diagnosis of mild to moderate depression who have been prescribed antidepressant monotherapy for MDD.

The study also evaluated feasibility and participant compliance with measures of mood and cognition on wearable technology; and compared measures of mood and cognition on wearable technology using traditional neuropsychological testing and patient reported outcomes on depression symptoms at 6 weeks. Participants were provided with an Apple Watch on which brief cognitive and mood tests were administered daily.

The researchers observed that patients were compliant with the wearable Apple Watch device on a daily basis to evaluate mood (95 percent) and cognition (96 percent). The study also demonstrated that abbreviated daily assessments delivered through the wearable Apple Watch device corresponded with objective Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) cognitive tests and full-length patient reported outcomes, PHQ-9 and PDQ-D, assessed during weeks 1, 3 and 6. No adverse events were reported in the study.

According to another report, this user interface with Apple’s smart-watch versions 2 and 3 is now being used in a number of studies for chronic conditions, such as Parkinson’s disease – combining biometric data with user input. Again, in February 2017, Johns Hopkins University announced a project to use the smart-watch for research on possible triggers of epileptic seizures.

When used as an interface with prescription digital therapy, the provision of e-SIM and GPS in Apple Watch Series 3, I reckon, would also help patients to immediately communicate with the remote therapy centers using the same device, anytime – as and when the patients want.

Digital therapy initiatives in India:

Initiative on digital therapy has already started rolling in India, as well. Its pace is also quite encouraging. For example, Wellthy Therapeutics is building a patient centric solution for diabetes through digital intervention and management. On February 20, 2018, the Company, reportedly, shared the interim results of an ongoing real-world pilot to evaluate the effectiveness of the Wellthy Diabetes Smartphone App (WD). The results were shared at the 11th International Conference on Advanced Technologies and Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD 2018) in Vienna, Austria.

The data demonstrated how the use of WD improved glycemic control. On completion of 16 weeks, participants showed a reduction in their HbA1c by (-0.61%) on average, with 61.5% of participants having showed significant reduction in their HbA1c with an average of (-1.17%) reduction.

Conclusion:

As indicated in my article titled, ‘Digiceuticals: A Force Multiplier to Contain Chronic Diseases’, published in this blog on October 23, 2017,prescription digital therapies are primarily of two types – one for “medication augmentation” and the other for “medication replacement.”

Be that as it may, prescription digital therapyimproves clinical outcomes for patients by manifold. It also shows potential to take over from traditional treatment with medicines in several serious and virtually crippling ailments, mostly related to human behavior and lifestyle, such as a host of chronic diseases, and without causing any side-effects.

Thus, prescription digital therapy is now a reality. It has come to stay for long – can’t be wished away, any longer.

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.

Marketing Off-label Use of Drugs: A Path Much Abused?

Posted on November 30, 2015 by Tapan Ray

As many would know, prescribing any medicine for disease conditions that are not approved by the drug approving authorities while granting its marketing approval, is generally termed as ‘off-label’ use of drugs.

It is also a usual practice in most of the regulated markets of the world that once the drug regulators give marketing approval of a medicine, which is indication-specific, physicians are free to prescribe these as they deem necessary. However, the drug manufacturers can seek prescription support from the doctors only for the indications as approved by the appropriate government authorities.

Even the USFDA had articulated, “the best way to address any concerns that the information about those (off-label) uses is not reaching medical practitioners is to get those uses in the labeling. We believe that the risks of allowing drug companies to distribute journal articles and other information about off label uses far outweigh any benefits.”

Since long, most of the drug regulators across the world, including the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) have prohibited the sales promotion for unapproved uses of drugs to doctors. Nevertheless, the practice continues ignoring its serious consequences.

Monitoring of ‘off-label’ use is challenging:

Monitoring of off-label use of medicines is quite challenging too by the drug regulators, especially in India, where post marketing surveillance is generally just on paper.

In this regard, a recent research study that I shall refer to below in this article, has quite appropriately suggested, “Future electronic health records should be designed to enable post market surveillance of treatment indications and treatment outcomes to monitor the safety of on and off-label uses of drugs.”

As India intends to move towards the ‘Digital’ space, this suggestion would be quite implementable by the DCGI, as the ‘Smart Cities’ start coming up.

Some examples of extensive off-label usages:

According to the study done by a team of experts in medical information – Iodine, using the top drugs by number of monthly prescriptions, the following is a list of 4 medications with surprising off-label uses:

Drug	Approved Indication	Off-label Indication
Abilify (Aripiprazole)	Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (adjunctive), Autism-related Irritability, Agitation associated with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Mania, other	Insomnia
Lyrica (Pregabalin)	Management of: neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, post herpetic neuralgia, fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury; adult patients with partial onset seizures (adjunctive)	Anxiety
Namenda (Memantine)	Moderate to severe dementia of the Alzheimer’s type	ADHD, OCD
Synthroid (Levothyroxine)	Low thyroid hormone levels, some types of goiters, management some types of thyroid cancers	Depression

Off-label use and increasing risks of drug safety:

In its November 02, 2015 online issue, JAMA Internal Medicine published an article titled, “Association of Off-Label Drug Use and Adverse Drug Events (ADE) in an Adult Population.” The objective of this study was to monitor and evaluate off-label use of prescription drugs and its effect on ADEs in an adult population.

This particular study assumes importance, as off-label use of prescription drugs without strong scientific evidence has been identified as an important contributor to preventable Adverse Drug Events (ADEs), especially in children. However, despite concerns in this regard, no systematic investigation on the effects of off-label drug use in adult populations is being performed, regularly.

The detail analysis of this study reveals that not only is the benefit of off-label prescription is uncertain, but the risks of ADEs could make the ‘risk-benefit ratio’ quite unfavorable. So much so that in a large number of cases, no drug treatment will be a much better option.

According to the authors, the risk for ADEs grew as the number of prescription drugs the patient used increased. For example, patients using eight or more drugs had more than a 5-fold increased risk for ADEs compared with patients who used one to two drugs.

The study involving 46,021 adult patients, receiving 151,305 prescriptions between January 2005 and December 2009 was done in Canada. Of those prescriptions, more than 10 percent were prescribed for off-label use. Interestingly, out of that group, more than 80 percent prescriptions were for off-label uses without any robust scientific evidence supporting the use.

Based on the findings the researchers concluded that off-label use of prescription drugs is associated with ADEs.

The article suggested:

Caution should be exercised in prescribing drugs for off-label uses that lack strong scientific evidence.

Future electronic health records should be designed to enable post market surveillance of treatment indications and treatment outcomes to monitor the safety of on and off-label uses of drugs.

Pharma industry strongly opposes off-label use, when it suits them:

Interestingly, pharma industry vehemently opposes off-label use of drugs, when it suits them.

To give just a couple of examples, recently a new law that permits prescribing of drugs for off-label uses in France has reportedly been strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry in Europe.

Pharma trade associations argue, “the above move of France is directly in opposition to European Union’s laws that prohibit member states from supporting off-label use for economic purposes, and is a trend that undermines the current regulatory framework and could put patients’ health at risk.”

Besides France, they have also submitted a complaint against Italy to the European Commission over the country’s new off-label rules.

Common methods followed for off-label marketing:

The other side of the story is that, reportedly many pharma companies continue promoting off-label uses of drugs aggressively, for significant commercial gains.

According to ‘The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) – a federal agency within the United States Department of Health and Human Services, some of the off-label drug promotion methods of the pharmaceutical companies are as follows:

• Paying incentives to sales representatives based on sales for off-label use

• Paying kickbacks to physicians to prescribe drugs for off-label use

• Disseminating misleading posters promoting off-label use

• Paying physicians:

- To pretend to be the authors of articles about off-label uses when the articles were actually written by manufacturers’ agents

- To serve as members of “advisory boards” promoting off-label use

- To travel to resort locations to listen to promotions about off-label use

- To give promotional lectures in favor of off-label use to fellow practitioners

• Publicizing studies showing efficacy of off-label uses, while suppressing studies showing no efficacy.

Even the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) of the Government of India does not allow such sales and marketing practices. But these all continue to happen, unabatedly.

A path much abused?

Although most of the drug companies publicly advocate self regulation to avoid unethical marketing practices, the situation on the ground is much different, across the world.

The following are just a few examples of serious business consequences faced by some of the well-known global pharma and biotech majors, besides many others, from the United States Department of Justice, for alleged off-label promotion of drugs:

On November 4, 2013, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) was asked to pay more than US$ 2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promoting for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider.

On July 30, 2013, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., a pharmaceutical company acquired by Pfizer, Inc. in 2009, agreed to pay US$490.9 million to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the unlawful marketing of the prescription drug Rapamune for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA.

On December 19, 2012, Amgen Inc. pleaded guilty and paid US$762 million to resolve criminal liability and false claims allegations.

On July 2, 2012 GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) pleaded guilty and paid US$3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices. This resolution is the largest health care fraud settlement in the US history and the largest payment ever by a drug company, so far.

On May 7, 2012, Abbott Laboratories Inc. pleaded guilty and agreed to pay US$1.5 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of the prescription drug Depakote for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA. This resolution is the second largest payment by a drug company and includes a criminal fine and forfeiture totaling US$700 million and civil settlements with the federal government and the states totaling US$800 million. Abbott also was reportedly subjected to court-supervised probation and reporting obligations for Abbott’s CEO and Board of Directors.

On October 21, 2011, Pfizer Inc. agreed to pay US$14.5 million to resolve false claims allegations related to its marketing of the drug Detrol.

On June 10, 2011, Novo Nordisk was asked to pay US$25 million to resolve allegations of off-label promotion of Novoseven.

On September 30, 2010, Novartis agreed to pay US$422.5 million to settle criminal and civil investigations into the marketing of the anti-seizure medicine Trileptal and five other drugs. The government accused Novartis of mislabeling, paying illegal kickbacks to health care professionals through speaker programs, advisory boards, entertainment, travel and meals.

Hence, it appears that the path followed by many pharma players to inform the doctors about the judicious off-label use of drugs only in circumstances where approved treatments have failed, is being much abused.

A conflict of interest?

Many doctors believe that there is also a distinct upside for off-label use of drugs, as flexibility of a physician to prescribe drugs off-label offers important advantages too, especially in circumstances where approved treatments have failed. This is indeed true and indisputable.

However, the reality is, many pharma industry, in general, actively encourage off-label use of drugs for commercial benefits through expanded use of their respective brands.

Aggressive drug promotion for various off-label uses, reportedly being so widespread and indiscriminate, many physicians can’t even remember the approved indications of drugs. Hence, they do not necessarily go for off-label use only when approved treatments have failed. In this context, on November 23, 2015, ‘The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)’ in an article titled, “Risk of Off-Label Uses for Prescription Drugs” reported as follows:

“A 2009 study published in the journal Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety found that 1,199 physicians in a national survey were able to identify the FDA-approved indication of 22 drugs only about 55% of the time. The physicians surveyed included primary-care doctors and psychiatrists.”

On the other hand, the patients generally expect that the prescribed drugs will be safe. They want to administer evidence based approved medicines. Some of them have even started expressing that these evidences must also be disclosed to them.

Hence, there seems to exist a clear conflict of interest in this matter between the patients, drug manufacturers and perhaps the doctors, as well.

Conclusion:

The magnitude of general off-label use of drugs is reportedly increasing and is likely to increase further, exposing patients to increased risks of ADEs. Although the business consequences of getting engaged in this unwanted process indiscriminately could at times be quite adverse, in the balance of probability between slim chances of getting caught, and expected creamy return, many pharma players continue to feel that this risk is worth taking.

Therefore, the moot question that needs a pragmatic answer is, for patients’ safety, when the global and local pharma majors talk about prescriptions of only impeccable evidence based medicine, do they walk the talk?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Should India allow use of Compulsory License as a common tool to improve access to medicines?

Posted on August 20, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Compulsory License (CL) is generally considered a very important provision in the Patent Act of a country to protect public health interest not only by the governments, but also by a large number of experts across the globe and the intelligentsia within the civil society.

The key objectives:

The key objectives of the CL provisions in the statute are to:

Rectify any type of market failure

Discourage abuse of a patent in any form by the patent holder

WHO hails CL provisions:

‘The World Health Organization (WHO)’ says that ‘the provision for Compulsory Licenses (CL) is a critical element in a health-sensitive patent law’. It emphasized that CL constitutes an effective mechanism to:

- Promote competition

- Increase affordability of drugs, while ensuring that the patent owner obtains compensation

for the use of the invention

- Lack or insufficiency of working of patent

- Remedy of anti-competitive practices

- National emergency

- Government use for non-commercial purpose

- Other public interest grounds

WHO also recommends the use of CL for any “abuse of patent rights”. This is primarily to ensure that drug prices remain consistent with local purchasing power.

Even ‘UNAIDS’ have recommended the use of CL, as provided under the TRIPS Agreement, where countries have the right to issue such licenses.

Views of R&D based pharma companies:

It is well known that the provisions for the grant of CL other than national emergencies have been generally opposed by the research-based pharmaceutical industry on the grounds that they discourage investments on R&D.

Despite such opposition, most developed countries have CL provisions in their law, which the respective governments can use to promote competition and access to medicines.

Provisions for CL in TRIPS Agreement:

While TRIPS agreement does not limit the grounds or reasons for granting CL, countries can only use those grounds which are allowed by their own national legislation. The development of appropriate national legislation is therefore crucial.

TRIPs further states that the conditions under which a compulsory license is granted should be regulated in accordance with the TRIPs Agreement (Article 31), under a number of conditions aimed at protecting the legitimate interests of the right holder.

Examples of CL provisions in some important countries:

China: Quite close on the heel of grant of Compulsory License (CL) to Bayer AG’s expensive Kidney and Liver cancer drug Sorafenib Tosylate to the domestic Indian manufacturer Natco by the Indian Patent Office, as provided in the Indian Patent Law, China amended its own Patent Law allowing Chinese pharmaceutical manufacturers to make cheaper generic equivalent of patented medicines in the country not only during ‘state emergencies’, but also in ‘unusual circumstances’ or ‘in the interests of the public’.

U.S: Patent law does not provide for CL, which is allowed under the antitrust law. US has been granting CL to remedy anti-competitive practices and for governmental use, including national security.

Canada: The country introduced CL for drugs, way back in 1923. Canada has granted number of CLs and a robust generic pharmaceutical industry exists in that country.

France: French law authorizes CL when medicines are “only available to the public in insufficient quantity or quality or at abnormally high prices”.

Israel: In Israel a CL can be granted, “if it is necessary to assure the public of a reasonable quantity of a product capable of being used as a medicament, to manufacture a medicament or a patented process for manufacturing a medicament.”

Brazil: The country will grant CL in cases of “national emergency or public interest, declared by the Federal Executive Authorities. A temporary nonexclusive compulsory license can be granted if necessary. Brazil defines Public Health interest to include “public health protection, satisfying nutritional requirements, protection of the environment and other areas of fundamental importance to the technological or social and economic development of the country.”

Very few CLs granted between 1995-2012:

Despite having the provisions for the grant of CL in many countries, not many CLs have been granted across the world from 1995 to date. The details are as follows:

Country	Medicine	CL granted in
Israel	Hepatitis B Vaccine	October 1995
Italy	Imipenem (antibiotic)	June 2005
Italy	Sumatripan Succinate (migraine)	February 2006
Canada	Oseltamivir (influenza)	July 2006
Brazil	Efavirenz (HIV/AIDS)	May 2007
Thailand	Erlotinib, Docetaxel (cancer)	January 2008
India	Sorafenib Tosylate (cancer)	March 2012

Source: DNA, March 9, 2012

India joins the league in 2012:

Indian Patent Office granted a Compulsory License (CL) for Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar of Bayer Corporation) to Hyderabad based Natco Pharma Limited under the provisions of Section 84 of the Indian Patents Act. Nexavar is used for treatment for liver and kidney cancer.

The Compulsory License, first of its kind granted in India, enables Natco to sell the drug at a price not exceeding Rs. 8880 (US$ 178 approx.) for a pack of 120 tablets (one month’s therapy) against Rs. 284,428 (US$ 5,690 approx.) being the cost of Nexavar sold by Bayer before the CL was granted to Natco. The license is valid till the expiry of the patent on 2021.

The order on CL also makes it obligatory for Natco to supply the drug free of cost to at least 600 needy and deserving patients per year.

The grant of CL generated adverse impact from many developed nations of the world, as was expected by many.

However, welcoming the order Natco reportedly commented, “This opens up a new avenue of availability of life savings drugs at an affordable price to the suffering masses in India.”

Does grant of CL for non-NLEM products make sense in India?

Currently all government healthcare initiatives in India are focused on ‘The National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’, be it drug price control, free distribution of medicines to all through government hospitals/health centers or even much hyped, ‘Universal Health Coverage’ proposal.

In this situation, another school of thought says that by granting CL to Natco for Sorafenib Tosylate (Nexavar of Bayer), which does not fall under NLEM 2011, hasn’t India diluted its focus on essential drugs? More so, when NLEM 2011 features quite a good number of anti-cancer drugs, as well.

The other side of the argument: Is CL a viable solution to improve access in the developing nations?

International Policy Network (IPN) in an article titled, “Compulsory licensing no solution to health problems in poor countries – say experts from India, Argentina, Canada and South Africa” stated that patents and other forms of Intellectual Property (IP) are an essential component in economic development of any emerging economy, which needs to be well protected by the governments.

The article further opines that any form of interference with IP by the grant of CL or even price controls will undermine investments and cause more harm than good. The paper, therefore, calls for stronger protection of IP across the world.

Yet another paper titled, “The WTO Decision on Compulsory Licensing – Does it enable import of medicines for developing countries with grave public health problems”, states that flexibility of innovator companies to adjust prices according to purchasing power of the people of different countries is constrained by the following two reasons:

A genuine risk that medicines sold at lower prices in the developing countries will be re-exported to high income markets.

Many high income developed countries also regulate the prices of medicines at the national level. There is a high risk that these countries will use prices in the developing markets as external reference pricing.

Thus, the author argues, in both the above situations, patented medicine prices will be undermined in the most important markets, making it difficult for the research-based companies to use prices only of high income countries to fund R&D costs for the discovery of new medicines.

Fostering innovation in India:

The healthcare industry in general and the pharmaceutical sector in particular have been experiencing a plethora of innovations across the world, not only to cure and effectively manage ailments to improve the quality of life, but also to help increasing overall disease-free life expectancy of the population with various types of treatment and disease management options.

Innovation being one of the key growth drivers for the knowledge economy, the creation of an innovation friendly ecosystem in India calls for a radical change in our mind-set.

From process innovation to product innovation, from replicating molecules to creating new molecules- a robust ecosystem for innovation is the wheel of progress of any nation, and India is no exception. It is encouraging to hear that the Government of India is working towards this direction in a more elaborate manner its 12^th 5 year plan.

However, the question that is being raised now: will frequent grant of CL vitiate the attempt of the government to create an innovative culture within the pharmaceutical industry in India.

CL will not arrest increasing ‘OoP’ for healthcare in India:

While India is making reasonable strides in its economic growth, the country is increasingly facing constraints in proving healthcare benefits to a vast majority of its population with ballooning ‘Out of Pocket (OoP)’ expenditure of around 78 per cent of its population.

This is mainly because of the following reasons:

Absence of ‘Universal Health Coverage’
Lack of proper healthcare financing and insurance system for all strata of society
Difficulty in managing the cost of healthcare even when the country is providing generic drugs for a sizable part of the world market

One finds some good initiatives though, for population Below the Poverty Line (BPL) and hears about the success of ‘Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna (RSBY)’ and other health insurance schemes through micro health insurance units, especially in rural areas. It has been reported that currently around 40 such schemes are active in the country.

As the disease pattern is undergoing a shift from acute to chronic non-infectious diseases, OOP on healthcare will increase further.

Currently health insurance schemes only cover expenses towards hospitalization. Ideally, medical insurance schemes in India should also cover domiciliary or in-patient treatment costs and perhaps loss of income too, along with hospitalization costs, if India wants to bring down the OoP for its population or at least till such time the ambitious ‘Universal Health Coverage’ project gets translated into reality.

Greater focus of the Government in these areas, many believe, will help increasing access to essential medicines very significantly in India, rather than frequently granting CL, as is being envisaged by many, especially for drugs, which are outside NLEM 2011.

Access to patented medicines unlikely to be addressed effectively despite frequent grant of CL:

As we know, access to healthcare comprises not just medicines but more importantly healthcare infrastructure like, doctors, paramedics, diagnostics, healthcare centers and hospitals . In India the demand for these services has outstripped supply. There is a huge short fall in ‘Healthcare Manpower’ of the country as demonstrated in the following table:

	Target	Actual	Shortfall %
Doctors	1,09,484	26,329	76
Specialists	58,352	6,935	88
Nurses	1,38,623	65,344	53
Radiographers	14,588	2,221	85
Lab Technicians	80,308	16,208	80

Source: Rural Health Statistics 2011 in 12^th Plan draft chapter

Thus, there is an urgent need to have a holistic approach with the ‘Universal Healthcare’ in developing adequate healthcare infrastructure, efficient delivery system for medical supplies and creation of a talent pool of healthcare professionals and paramedics, to ensure access to healthcare for all the citizens of the country.

Without all these how will the diseases be diagnosed and the patients be treated for ailments, frequent grant of CL not withstanding?

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, the prices of medicines in general and the patented drugs in particular will continue to remain highly sensitive in most parts of the world, if not all, which some astute Global CEOs of the pharmaceutical majors have already contemplated.

One of these Global CEOs very aptly commented, “Pharmaceutical industry, too, on its part, needs to metamorphose to strike a balance in delivering affordable and innovative medicines. It is unacceptable to hear of the US$1billion cost to develop a drug, which includes the cost of failure. We need to fail less often and succeed more often.”

He reiterated, “Pharma companies need to understand that just because you have a patent, people don’t suddenly have money in their pockets, or can afford American prices.”

In the same context another Global CEO said, “Our strategy is really to have affordable medicines because in emerging markets you do not have government reimbursement. So you have to have medicines that people can afford to pay for.…I do not want us to be a colonial company with a colonial approach where we say we decide on the strategy and pricing. If you have to compete locally then the pricing strategy cannot be decided in Paris but will have to be in the marketplace. People here will decide on the pricing strategy and we have to develop a range of products for it.”

Keeping all these developments in view, as I said before, the contentious issue of the price of medicines cannot just be wished away across the world, which is perhaps more relevant now than ever before.

This is irrespective of the fact whether the country provides likes of ‘Universal Health Coverage’ or is driven by OoP expenditure by the majority of its population. Gone are those days, as articulated by the above Global CEOs, when a single global price for a product will be acceptable by all the nations across the world. India seems to be moving to this direction cautiously but steadily.

It appears, responsible pricing and effective working of patents are the only answers to respond to the CL issue in India.

Thus, I reckon, it does make sense for India to have the relevant provisions of CL in its Patent Act, not just to rectify any type of market failure, but also to discourage any possible abuse of a patent in any form by the patent holder in the country, as mentioned above.

However, it is also important for India to examine the potential negative impact of CL to foster innovation in the country and the global ramification of the same, including attraction of more ‘Foreign Direct Investments (FDI)’, which has been universally proved to be so important for the economic progress of any country, like India and China.

That said, while none can deny that all citizens of India should have access to affordable life-saving essential medicines, it appears rather impractical to envisage that routine grant of CL by the Indian Patent Office, as enumerated above by Natco et al, will be able to resolve the critical issue of improving access to essential medicines on a longer term basis in India.The decision for grant of CL, I reckon, should be taken in India only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

As enumerated above, the use of CL as a common tool to improve access to medicines could prove to be counterproductive in the long run for India.

By: Tapan J Ray

Are Indian patients victims of “unnecessary tests and procedures, rewards for referrals and irrational use of drugs?” A perspective

Posted on January 24, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Since quite some time, serious concerns have been expressed by the media, government and the civil society at large about the means adopted by the pharmaceutical industry in general to get their respective brands prescribed by the doctors and why do some of the doctors prescribe what they prescribe to the patients out of multiple available choices.
The MCI Guidelines:
Being concerned mainly by the media outcry, the Medical Council of India (MCI), a year ago, amended their related guidelines for the doctor, clearly articulating what they can and cannot do during their interaction and transaction with the pharmaceutical and related industries.
The Ministry of Health believes that these guidelines, if strictly enforced, would severely limit what the doctors can receive from the pharmaceutical companies in terms of free gifts of wide ranging financial values, entertainments, free visits to exotic locations under various commercial reasons, lavish lunch and dinner etc. in exchange of prescribing specific brands of the concerned companies more…more…and more.
“The Lancet” report:
Let me now combine this scenario with a recent report on India dated January 11, 2011, published in ‘The Lancet’, which states in a similar, though not the same context, as follows:
1. “Reported problems (which patients face while getting treated at a private doctor’s clinic) include unnecessary tests and procedures, rewards for referrals, lack of quality standards and irrational use of injection and drugs. Since no national regulations exist for provider standards and treatment protocols for healthcare, over diagnosis, over treatment and maltreatment are common.”
2. “Most people accessed private providers for outpatient care – 78% in rural areas and 81% in urban areas.”
3. “India’s private expenditure of nearly 80% of total expenditure on health was much higher than that in China, Sri Lanka and Thailand.”
Considering the above three critical issues of India, as reported by ‘The Lancet’, the need to follow a transparent code of pharmaceutical marketing practices by the entire pharmaceutical industry is of utmost importance. Recently amended MCI guidelines for the doctors are welcome steps in the right direction.
Are patients just the pawns?
In the absence of all these, the patients of all socio-economic strata will continue to be exploited as pawns by some unscrupulous healthcare players to satisfy their raw greed for making fast bucks at the cost of the intense agony of the ailing patients and their near and dear ones.
As stated earlier, this phenomenon is not new at all. Over a period of time, many stakeholders of the pharmaceutical industry and the public at large have been raising the issue of physicians being influenced in their prescription decisions by various types of payments made to them by the pharmaceutical companies. Such types of significant and seemingly avoidable expenditures, presumed to be considered by the respective companies as a part of their ‘marketing costs’, are believed to be included in the maximum retail price (MRP) of medicines, making them more expensive to the patients.
On the other hand, most physicians believe that free entertainment, gifts, their travel costs and seminar sponsorships in no way influence their prescription decision for the patients.
This is not a just India specific issue. Some skeptics believe that it has now become an all pervasive global scandal.
Self-regulation by the industry is most desirable:
To address this issue effectively, some national and international pharmaceutical associations have come out with their own codes of ethical marketing practices along with appropriate stakeholder grievance redressal mechanism, effectively.
Despite all these, it is an undeniable fact that overall perceptual image of the pharmaceutical industry in this respect to the stakeholders, in general, is not as good as it should have been.
The Government intervened in India:
Being alarmed by various media reports on the alleged pharmaceutical marketing (mal) practices in the country, the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP) had advised the pharmaceutical industry to develop an ‘Uniform Code of Marketing Practices (UCMP)’, which will be applicable to the entire pharmaceutical industry in India.
It has been reported that the said UCMP with its stakeholder grievance redressal mechanism in a transparent procedural format, was submitted to the government by the major pharmaceutical industry associations in India. However, because of dissent of some section of the industry, the UCMP has not received the ‘green signal’ of the government, as yet. It was expected that all stakeholders will help maintaining the sanctity of the UCMP to address this sensitive global and local issue, effectively.
An emerging trend of public disclosure:
Around third quarter of 2008, in an industry first step, Eli Lilly announced its intent of full disclosure of payments that the company made to the physicians for various commercial reasons. Eli Lilly indicated disclosure of payments of more than US $500 to the physicians for advice and speaking at the seminars. Over a period of time, the company indicated that it will expand such disclosure to include other forms of payments to the physicians like gifts, various entertainment and travel.
Eli Lilly was soon followed in this direction by global pharmaceutical majors like, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).
However, in India, such instances have not been reported, as yet.
Skepticism with voluntary disclosure:
Some are still skeptical about announcements of such ‘voluntary disclosure of payment to the physicians’ by the global pharmaceutical majors to bring in better transparency in the functioning of the industry.

This section of people believes, there are hundreds and thousands of other pharmaceutical companies, who will not follow such precedence of voluntary disclosure in the absence of any properly enforced regulation.
Conclusion:
In all the countries and India is no exception, pharmaceutical companies, by and large, try to follow the legal ways and means to maximize turnover of their respective brands. Many follow transparent and admirable stringent self-regulations, stipulated either by themselves or by their industry associations.
‘Self-regulation with pharmaceutical marketing practices’ and ‘voluntary disclosure of payment to the physicians’ by some leading global pharmaceutical companies are laudable steps to address this vexing issue. However, the moot question still remains, are all these good enough for the entire industry?
It is about time that all players in the healthcare space realize, in case these voluntary measures of the industry and the guidelines of the regulators like MCI, do not work effectively for any reason, there will be no other option but for the government to step in with iron hand and ‘fool proof’ regulations.
The popular dictum, especially, used in the healthcare industry, “all these are for the patients’ interest” should not be allowed to be misused or abused, any further, by some unscrupulous elements and greedy profiteers, to squeeze out even the last drop of financial resource from the long exploited population of ailing patients of 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.

Contract Research – a rapidly evolving business opportunity in India: Is the Pharmaceutical Industry making the best use of it?

Posted on July 2, 2009 by Tapan Ray

A quick perspective of the ‘new-era’ pharmaceutical R&D in India:

Since 1970 up until 2005, Indian pharmaceutical industry used to be considered as the industry of ‘reverse engineering’ and that too with an underlying disparaging tone… and also as the industry of ‘copycat’ medicines’.

However, it will be absolutely unfair on my part to comment that only domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies launched ‘copycat’ versions of patented products in India and no multinational companies (MNCs) resorted to this practice, during this period.

Long before Indian Product Patent regime was put in place, in January 1, 2005, around 1998/99 Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) entered into a bilateral agreement with Novo Nordisk and Ranbaxy with Bayer of Germany to out-license two New Chemical Entities (NCEs) and a New Drug Delivery System (NDDS), respectively for further development.

Opened the new vistas of opportunities:

These research initiatives opened the new vistas of opportunities for the Indian pharmaceutical industry in terms of R&D, in the pharmaceutical science. The above new developments also brought in a sense of determination within the research oriented domestic pharmaceutical players to enter into the big ticket game of the global pharmaceutical industry called ‘product discovery research’.

The jubilation of the industry having demonstrated its initial capability of taking a leap into forthcoming new paradigm of that time, received a set back momentarily when Novo Nordisk terminated the development of both the NCEs of DRL, after a couple of years, because of scientific reasons. However, DRL continued to move on to its chosen path, undeterred by the initial set back.

Need to focus on R&D and create world class ‘Intellectual Properties’:

In a letter addressed to the shareholders of DRL in one of its recent annual reports, the founder and the chairman of the company Dr. Anji Reddy expressed his following vision:

“Excelling in the basic business operations will be necessary, but not sufficient. To maintain a long-term presence in the global pharmaceuticals markets and to grow profitably will require companies to be even more focused on R&D and creation of successful IPR’s [intellectual property rights].”

After India signed the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement, Indian pharmaceutical companies were quick to make out that the ball game of doing pharmaceutical business in the new IPR regime will be quite different. Having pharmaceutical product patents will indeed be important in future, for the domestic R&D based pharmaceutical companies.

The Past versus Present R&D models in India:

Domestic research based pharmaceutical companies did realize in the early days that a radical shift in their focus from ‘process research’ to ‘product discovery research’ may not be prudent or practical either.

Some of these companies initiated step-wise approach from mid 90’s to meet the challenge of change, come year 2005. During the transition period of 10 years as given by the WTO to India from 1995 to 2005, some domestic companies wanted to make full use of their past R&D model.

The past model:

Before the product patent regime, Indian pharmaceutical companies used to manufacture and market generic equivalents of the patented drugs at a fraction of the price of the originators, with non-infringing process technology in the Indian domestic market and also for export to the other non-regulated markets. During the WTO transition period of 10 years, they increased the pace of utilization of this model and launched as many ‘copycat’ versions of the new products as possible to boost up their sales and profit.

The present model for regulated markets:

Following two strategies are followed:

1. Indian companies doing generic business in the regulated markets like the USA submit
“Abbreviated New Drug Application” (ANDA) to the drug regulator for approvals of drugs,
which will go off patent within the next few years, so that the generic products could be launched
immediately after patent expiry.

2. Many other companies follow the second avenue, simultaneously, which is though risky but very
remunerative. In this case, the generic market entry takes place by challenging the patents of the
innovators.

It is believed that this model is being used by the Indian pharmaceutical companies, primarily to raise financial resources to get more engaged in their drug discovery initiatives or to generate wherewithal for collaborative or contract research initiatives.

For short term business growth and to raise fund for discovery research, their non-infringing process research initiatives have been proved to be quite useful. These R&D based Indian pharmaceutical companies; seem to understand very well that discovery of NCEs/NMEs or getting involved in this process will ultimately be ‘the name of the game’ to fuel longer term business growth of their respective organizations.

Contract Research (CR) in India:

Contract research is another business model within the overall R&D space, where a significant part of the investments come from the collaborators. CR business model currently explore the following two key options:

 Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for the discovery will go to the global collabolator and the
Indian CR organization will get an upfront or milestone payments.

 Along with funding support to the CR organization, IPR is shared by both the companies
depending on the terms of agreement.

There could be many other terms/clauses in such CR agreements, which are not within the scope of this discussion.

Types of Contract Research (CR):

Frost & Sullivan in one of their studies on Indian R&D opportunities indicated following three models of contract research:

1. Joint research: Here two or more collaborators will work jointly

2. Collaborative research: In this type of research, scientists of different disciplines work together on a project e.g. Ranbaxy has recently entered into a collaborative research program with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) or collaboration of Ranbaxy to develop an anti-malarial NCE Rbx 11160 with Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV), Geneva.

3. Complete outsourcing: When an altogether different research organization is assigned a research project by another organization. Some Indian research based pharmaceutical companies have already got engaged in these types contract research activities. The market of contract research is expected to grow much faster in the near future.

India – an attractive contract research destination:

A global survey done by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) couple of years ago on the preferred centres for overseas contract research, published as follows:

• 39% preference for China

• 28% preference for India

Attractiveness as preferred contract research center was based on the following criteria:

• A place where companies can tap into existing networks of scientific and technical expertise

• Has good links to academic research facilities

• Provides an environment where innovation is supported and easy to commercialize.

Many global pharmaceutical companies believe that China scores over India on the third point, as mentioned above.

Indian pharmaceutical companies have commenced targeting contract research opportunities:

Research based Indian pharmaceutical companies companies like, Piramal Healthcare, Ranbaxy, DRL, Zydus Cadilla, Glenmark etc are now actively targeting international companies for contract research in custom synthesis, medicinal chemistry and clinical studies.

A medium-sized pharma company Shasun Chemicals and Drugs has been reported to have defined its business as an “integrated research and manufacturing solutions provider”. Similarly Divi’s Laboratories, a pharmaceutical company of similar size has collaborated with global multinational companies for both custom synthesis and contract research projects.

Some international CROs, like Quintiles have its establishments in Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Mumbai with great expectations and a robust business model.

New contract research opportunities in Biopharmaceuticals:

Besides pure pharmaceutical companies, an emerging opportunity is seen within the biotech companies in India, which are mostly engaged in a contract model. Novartis has inked a three year deal with Synergene (Biocon) for various research projects primarily in the early stages of development in cardiovascular and oncology therapy areas.

Likewise, Reliance Life Sciences are involved in chemistry, biology and contract clinical research activities.

Another research process outsourcing company, Avesthagen is engaged in collaborative research in metabolics, proteomics, genomics and sequencing. The company shares the IPR with the collaborators.

Jubilant Biosys of India, which has already partnered in a drug development deal with Eli Lilly has recently entered into another research and development deal with AstraZeneca, estimated to be worth up to US$220 million. This research collaboration will be funded by AstraZeneca for five years and they will own the patent of any neuroscience molecule that will come out of this collaborative agreement.

Contract research – a lucrative business model:

A UBS Warburg study indicated that around 20% to 25% of R&D investments in the US go towards contract research. This percentage is expected to increase as the pressure to contain R&D expenses keeps mounting, especially in the US and EU.

Currently the cost of bringing an NCE/NME to market from its R&D stage is estimated to be around US$ 1.7 billion. Across the world efforts are being generated to bring down these mounting expenses towards R&D.

Many experts believe that cost of innovation in India will be almost half of what it will be in the US and EU. A report from Zinnov Management Consulting forecasts that towards outsourcing by the global pharmaceutical companies, India has the potential to earn about US$2.5 billion by 2012.

Conclusion:

Currently, within CR space India is globally considered as a more mature venue for chemistry related drug-discovery activities than China. However, in biotech space China is ahead of India. Probably, because of this reason, companies like, Divi’s Laboratories, Avesthagen, Ranbaxy, Synergene, Jubilant Biosys, Reliance Life Science, DRL, Zydus Cadilla, Glenmark and Piramal Healthcare could enter into long-term collaborative arrangements with Multinational Companies (MNC)to discover and develop New Chemical Entities (NCEs).

As I said earlier quoting Korn/Ferry that in the CR space China’s infrastructure is better than India, primarily due to firm commitment of the Chinese government to derive maximum benefits of the globalization process in the country.

Prudent policy reforms and other measures as expected from the new UPA Government will hopefully help bridging the gap between the Chinese and Indian pharmaceutical industry in the space of overall CR business including biotechnology, as Indian R&D based pharmaceutical companies will start realizing and encashing the potential of this important business model.

By Tapan Ray

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

Innovative use of the new-age ‘Social cyber-media’ as a pharmaceutical marketing tool has the potential to open a goldmine of opportunities.

Posted on June 25, 2009 by Tapan Ray

The new-age marketing tool:

With more and more doctors not giving adequate time and even showing reluctance to meet the medical representatives and the important hospitals following suit, the global pharmaceutical companies are now in search of new marketing tools.

To get the marketing communications across to important target audiences, many of them have started experimenting, quite seriously, with the digital world. Effective networking media like ‘Facebook’ , ‘YouTube’, ‘MySpace’ and ‘Twitter’ are showing promises to become powerful online pharmaceutical marketing tools. Recent report of Pfizer’s new RSS feed and the plan for a unique ‘Pfacebook’ site for internal communication perhaps is an important step towards this direction.

Global pharmaceutical companies have already started ‘testing the water’:

Some global pharmaceutical giants who have already started using this new age media for pharmaceutical marketing are as follows:

1. Bayer uses ‘Facebook’ page to promote its Aspirin for women

2. Merck is using ‘Facebook’ to promote its cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil

3. GlaxoSmithKline is using ‘YouTube’ for ‘restless-legs syndrome’ awareness film. The popularity of this video spot perhaps has prompted the company to come out with its own ‘YouTube’ channel last year with a name, ‘GSKvision’.

4. AstraZeneca is also using ‘YouTube’ for their anti-asthma drug Symbicort

5. Johnson & Johnson and Novartis use ‘blog’s, ‘YouTube’ and ‘Twitter’ to channel patient groups and deliver news.

Why have these pharmaceutical companies started using the social media as a marketing tool?

This is because social media like, ‘Facebook’, ‘Twitter’, ‘YouTube’ etc. provide a very important platform towards patients’ outreach efforts of the pharmaceutical companies exactly in a format, which will be preferred by the target group.

With the new-age social media these companies are now joining communities to begin a dialogue with the important stakeholders. It has been reported that some of these companies have already created un-branded sites like, silenceyourrooster.com or iwalkbecause.org, to foster relationship with patients’ group through online activity, the contents of which have been generated by the users themselves of the respective social medium. With the help of click-through links these sites lead to the branded sites of the concerned companies.

As reported by TNS Media Intelligence, internet media spending of the global pharmaceutical companies had increased by 36% to US$137 million, in 2008, which is significantly higher than their spending in Television advertisements.

Why is the entry of pharmaceutical companies in the new-age social media so slow?

Pharmaceutical companies are currently delving into marketing through cyber media with a very cautious approach, though the new social media will become more central to many global marketing strategies in not too distant future. The cautious approach by the pharmaceutical companies is primarily due to evolving regulatory requirements in this new space

In the USA, very recently the FDA cautioned the major players in the industry to refrain them from publishing any misleading communication through social media. This is primarily because of absence of any published guidelines for online pharmaceutical marketing. How to use this powerful social media for maximum marketing and other benefits will indeed be quite a challenging task, at this stage. Many pharmaceutical companies are, therefore, slow to use the social media to the fullest extent.

Not only in the USA, there are no specific regulatory guidelines to promote a pharmaceutical brand or create brand awareness through these media in most of the countries of the world, including Europe and Japan. In this much uncharted territory, as there are not enough foot-steps follow, the pharmaceutical companies are now just ‘testing the water’. Most probably to fathom how far regulatory authorities will allow them to explore with this new media.

Effective use of social media is expected to be financially attractive:

Low costs associated with creating internet promotional inputs will make social media quite attractive to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, not only as a marketing tool, but also in their other outreach program for the stakeholders. The role and power of social media are expected to play a significant and cost effective role in creating pharmaceutical brand awareness and brand marketing to appropriate target segments.

‘Proof of the pudding is in the eating’:

A recent report indicates that in 2007, well reputed computer maker Dell’s ‘Twitter’ activity brought in US$ half-million in new business to the company.

Thus the innovative use of the new-age social cyber-media indeed has immense potential to open a goldmine of opportunities for the global pharmaceutical industry.

By Tapan Ray

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

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: use

Create Novel Marketing Pathways As Covid Mutants Keep Emerging

Exploring An Exit To India’s Covid Management Maze

Prescription Digital Therapy Now A Reality

Marketing Off-label Use of Drugs: A Path Much Abused?

Should India allow use of Compulsory License as a common tool to improve access to medicines?

Are Indian patients victims of “unnecessary tests and procedures, rewards for referrals and irrational use of drugs?” A perspective

Contract Research – a rapidly evolving business opportunity in India: Is the Pharmaceutical Industry making the best use of it?