Tag Archives: W.H.O

Multifaceted Coronavirus Narrative Raises Multiple Questions

Posted on by
Reply

Last night, amid the national lockdown, many people followed Prime Minister Modi’s video message, broadcasted on April 03 at 9 am for all, ‘to challenge the darkness of Coronavirus together – with a Diya, candle, torch or flashlight, at 9 pm for 9 minutes, from their respective balconies.’ That was the 12th day of 21-day lockdown, when the deadly microbe – Covid19 infected, tested and detected cases climbed to 3,577 in the country, with the death toll rising to 83. This is against 564 - the total number of confirmed cases in India when the lockdown commenced on March 24, 2020.

With all this, a mind-boggling narrative is developing at an accelerating pace. It’s not just about the rogue microbe – rampaging the world hunting for its prey. But also pans over multiple dimensions of its fallout, impacting virtually everything, for all. People of all sections of the society are participating, deliberating or debating on this issue, as the invisible camera of destiny rolls on. Unprecedented!

That’s the real world where, despite fear of an unknown future, most people prefer freedom of expression while playing a constructive role in containing the menace, collectively. We are witnessing a similar scenario – the world over. But, more in the democratic nations. Relatively enlightened citizens will always want to participate in this emerging chronicle, shaping the overall narrative and help sharpening the nations Covid19 policy further – instead of being passive onlookers.

Meanwhile, the objective of maintaining physical distancing during 21-day national lockdown period and beyond must be achieved, regardless of any public discord on its mechanics. This has to happen, primarily because of the TINA factor. Likewise, it’s also a prerequisite that the lockdown is handled efficiently, with meticulous advance planning, deft and dignified handling of any situation, by all and for all. That said, the good news is, newer scientific, evidence-based data are revealing more actionable pathways, in this multifaceted narrative.

A multifaceted narrative raises multiple questions:

As I wrote above, Covid19 narrative is multifaceted and not just one dimensional. It’s true beyond doubt: ‘If there is life, there is the world.’ But, that has to be a life with dignity, a life that help protect families and facilitates contributing to the nation, in different ways – enabling a scope of fulfillment of all.

In this article, I shall, explore some important facets of the evolving narrative on the Covid19 outbreak to drive home this point. In that process some very valid questions, as raised by many, also deserve to be addressed. Some of these include:

  • Covid19 is a war like situation where no questions are asked about the strategic details of a warfare, why the same is not being followed today? In a war some collateral damages are inevitable, why so much of noises now?
  • Why has Covid19 created a general panic with stigma attached to it?  
  • Panic is avoidable, but is the threat real. If so, why?
  • Why people violating national lockdown by migrating from the job location to respective hometowns – increasing the risk of the disease spread, must be brought to their senses mostly through the harsh measures?
  • In the absence of any vaccine or an effective curative drug, why all decisions of policymakers must be blindly accepted by all, during national lockdown and maybe beyond, as if there is ‘not to reason why, but to do or die?’

Let me now explore each of these questions.

A war like situation?

No doubt Covid19 is a war like situation, but with some striking dissimilarities between a conventional war and this war. A conventional war is fought by a well-trained and well-armed defense forces with already developed a gamut, against a known and visible enemy nation.

Whereas, the war against Covid19 is against an invisible and unknown microbe’s sudden attack, being fought in India by a limited army of health care professionals and workers. They fight this war, mostly without adequate or no battle gear, like Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), testing kits and ventilators, supported by a fragile health care infrastructure.

Moreover, in the conventional warfare, the type of advance information and intelligence that the Governments usually possess against the enemy nations, can’t be matched by any private domain experts.

Whereas, Covid 19 still being a lesser known entity to medical scientists, as on date, the remedial measures are still evolving. Only scientific-evidence-based data can create actionable pathways for combat, spearheaded by the W.H.O. Thus, most people expect the nation to comply with, at least, the current W.H.O guidelines for health-safety of the population.

Further, in the cyberspace, several latest and highly credible research data are available for all. These are being well-covered by the global media as a part of the narrative. Thus, unlike conventional warfare, external experts may know as much, if not even more than the Government on Covid19.

Some avoidable show-stoppers:

There are several such avoidable show-stoppers. For example, when one reads news like, ‘Delhi Government Hospital Shut As Doctor Tests Positive For Coronavirus,’ or something like, ‘Indian doctors fight Coronavirus with raincoats, helmets amid lack of equipment,’ alongside a jaw-dropping one, ‘India Sends COVID-19 Protective Gear To Serbia Amid Huge Shortage At Home,’ chaos in the narrative takes place.

In the tough fight against Covid19 menace, these much avoidable fallout may be construed as show-stoppers, if not counterproductive. Many may advocate to pass a gag order against revelation of such difficult to understand developments, and keep those beyond any public discussion. Instead, why not order a transparent enquiry by independent experts to find facts – holding concerned people accountable?

Why has the disease created so much of panic with stigma attached to it?

This is intriguing because, according to the W.H.O – China Joint Mission report on COVID-19, around 80 percent of the 55924 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in China, had mild-to-moderate disease. This includes both non- pneumonia and pneumonia cases. While 13·8 percent developed severe disease, and 6·1 percent developed to a critical stage requiring intensive care.

Moreover, The Lancet paper of March 30, 2020 also highlighted, in all laboratory confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases from mainland China estimated case fatality ratio was of 3·67 percent. However, after demographic adjustment and under-ascertainment, the best estimate of the case fatality ratio in China was found to be of 1·38 percent, with substantially higher ratios in older age groups – 0·32 percent in those aged below 60 years versus 6·4 percent in those aged 60 years or more, up to 13·4 percent in those aged 80 years or older. Estimates of the case fatality ratio from international cases stratified by age were consistent with those from China, the paper underscored.

Even the Health Minister of India has emphasized, ‘around 80-85 percent of cases are likely to be mild.’ He also acknowledged: “My biggest challenge is to ensure that affected people are treated with compassion, and not stigmatized. This is also applicable for the health care workforce, which is working hard to counter this epidemic. It is through concerted, community-owned efforts, supported by the policies put in place by the government that we can contain this disease.” This subject, surely, needs to be debated by all, and effectively resolved.

Panic is avoidable, but does a real threat exist with Covid19?

As The Lancet paper of March 30, 2020 cautions by saying - although the case fatality ratio for COVID-19 is lower than some of the crude estimates made so far, with its rapid geographical spread observed to date, ‘COVID-19 represents a major global health threat in the coming weeks and months. Our estimate of the proportion of infected individuals requiring hospitalization, when combined with likely infection attack rates (around 50–80 percent), show that even the most advanced healthcare systems are likely to be overwhelmed. These estimates are therefore crucial to enable countries around the world to best prepare as the global pandemic continues to unfold.’ This facet of Covid19 also requires to be a part of the evolving narrative to mitigate the threat, collectively, with a robust and well thought out Plan A, Plan B, Plan C….

Violation of lockdown increases the risk manifold, but… 

There isn’t a shade of doubt even on this count, in any responsible citizen. Besides individual violation, recently a huge exodus of migrant laborer’s ignoring the lockdown raised the level of risk for others. This exodus should have been stopped at the very start, by better planning and with empathy and dignity by the law enforcing authorities, as many believe. Curiously, even the current Chief Justice of India (CJI) commented, on March 30, 2020: “The fear and the panic over the Coronavirus pandemic is bigger that the virus itself,” during a hearing on the exodus of migrant laborers from workplace to their respective hometowns, due to Covid19 lockdown.

To mitigate the risk, the CJI advised the Government to ensure calming down ‘the fear of migrants about their future, after being abruptly left without jobs or homes because of the 21-day lockdown to prevent the spread of Coronavirus.’ The Court felt, ‘the panic will destroy more lives than the virus.’ Thus, the Government should “ensure trained counsellors and community leaders of all faiths visit relief camps and prevent panic.”

The CJI also directed the Government to take care of food, shelter, nourishment and medical aid of the migrants who have been stopped. This appears to be the desirable pathway of preventing the migrant exodus, causing greater risk to people, requiring better planning, deft situation management with empathy and dignity, by the law enforcing authorities. However, individual violations, if any, can be addressed by intimately involving the civil society, against any possibility of the disease spread.

Whatever decision the policy makers take, must be blindly accepted by all:

In this area, all must first follow what the Government expects us to do. Maintaining strict compliance with such requirements. But, some people do ask, is it in total conformance with the steps W.H.O recommends following? At the March 30, 2020 issue of the Financial Times reported, the W.H.O’s health emergency program has outlined four factors that might contribute to the differing mortality rates in Covid19 outbreak:

  • Who becomes infected?
  • What stage the epidemic has reached in a country?
  • How much testing a country is doing?
  • How well different health care systems are coping?

Many members of the civil society are also keen to know these facts, and may want to seek clarification, if a gap exists anywhere. After all, Covid19 outbreak has brought to the fore, an unprecedented future uncertainty of unknown duration, involving not just life, but a sustainable livelihood and a dignified living in the future, for a very large global population, including India.

Conclusion:

There seems to be a dose of chaos in an otherwise reasonably controlled scenario. One option of looking at it as a pure law and order issue, which needs to be brought to order only with a heavy hand. The second option is to accept it as a golden opportunity to take all on board, by clearly explaining what people want to know – with reasons, patience, persuasion, empathy and compassion, as is happening in many countries.  Of course, without compromising on the urgency of the situation. This is a challenging task, but a sustainable one. Overcoming it successfully, will possibly be the acid test of true leadership, at all levels. However, the slowly unfolding narrative on the ground, doesn’t appear to be quite in sync with the second option.

In the largest democracy of the world, people want to get involved in a meaningful discussion on Covid19 crisis, collectively – based on evidence-based scientific data. Then, it’s up to the policy makers to decide what is right for the country and in which way to go. In tandem, fast evolving, multifaceted Coronavirus narrative, I reckon, will keep raising multiple questions.

As the disease spreads, the pathways of combating it decisively, is being charted by different experts, led by the World Health Organization (WHO). This is being widely covered by the mainstream global media, even in the din of a cacophony. Nonetheless, it is generally believed that a true relief will come, only after a vaccine is developed and made available and accessible to all sections of the world. Till such time a ‘hide and seek’ game, as it were, is expected to continue.

By: Tapan J. Ray  

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

 

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

Voices against this ‘unethical practice’ getting louder:                                             

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

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

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

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

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

Independent experts’ views differed from the innovator companies:

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

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

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

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

A crusader emerged in Canada:

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

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

This example is worth imbibing elsewhere.

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

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

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

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Pharma's serious apprehensions on greater Public transparency:  

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

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

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

Gross non-compliance, endangering patients’ health safety:

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

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

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

The paper reported the results as follows:

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

Based on the findings, the authors concluded asunder:

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

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

Unethical practices skewing medical science:

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

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

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

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

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

Despite vindication no tangible outcome yet:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

India To Expand NLEM 2011: A Step In The Right Direction

Posted on by
Reply

Responding to growing discontentment on the flawed National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and equally vociferous demand for its urgent rectification, on May 5, 2015, in a written reply to the Lower House of Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha) the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Ananth Kumar made the following submission:

“The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, has constituted a Core Committee of Experts to review and recommend the revision of National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) 2011 in the context of contemporary knowledge of use of therapeutic products.”

According to earlier media reports, the Government had formed this Core Committee in May 2014 under Dr. V.M Katoch, Secretary, Department of Health Research (DHR) and Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). However to utter dismay of many, even in a full year’s time, the Committee has not been able to come out with any tangible recommendations in this area.

In his reply from the floor of the Parliament, the Union Minister added with a tinge of reassurance:

“The Core committee has already held wide consultations with stakeholders and is likely to come out with its recommendations on the revised NLEM soon… The revised NLEM would form the basis of number of medicines which would come under price control,”

This reply from the Minister was in response to a query from a lawmaker on what steps have been taken by the Government to expand the list of NLEM 2011 and provide them to the poor at affordable prices.

Mr. Ananth Kumar also reiterated, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has already fixed the ceiling prices in respect of 521 medicines till date, out of 628 NLEM formulations included in the first schedule of DPCO, 2013.

“The revised NLEM would bring more drugs under price control”, the Minister said.

NPPA’s earlier initiative was thwarted:

It is worth noting that in 2014, to include all drugs of mass consumption, in addition to essential and life saving medicines, NPPA initiated an exercise to expand the NLEM 2011.

At that time, quite rightly I reckon, the pharmaceutical industry vehemently protested against this regulatory overreach of NPPA and sought judicial intervention at least in two High Courts of India.

Moreover, as is well known today, NPPA’s attempt to regulate prices of medicines of mass consumption got thwarted, when the Union Government intervened and directed the price regulator to withdraw its related internal guidelines. Coincidentally this lightning action was taken just before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s schedule visit to the United States in end 2014.

Be that as it may, the industry observers consider the last week’s announcement of the Union Minister, from the floor of the Parliament, to expand the span of NLEM 2011 as a step in the right direction for improving access to affordable essential medicines for all in India.

A brief backdrop for ‘Essential Medicines’:

The World Health Organization (W.H.O) has defined ‘Essential Medicines’ as those that ‘satisfy the priority healthcare needs of the population’. It has been propagating this concept since 1977, when W.H.O published the first Model List of Essential Drugs with 208 medicines. All these medicines together provided safe, effective treatment for the majority of communicable and non-communicable diseases, at that time.

Every two year this list is updated. The current Model List of Essential Medicines, prepared by the W.H.O Expert Committee in April 2013, is its 18th Edition.

According to W.H.O, such ‘Essential Medicines’ are selected with due regard to disease prevalence, evidence on efficacy and safety, and comparative cost-effectiveness. The Organization categorically states:

“Essential medicines are intended to be available within the context of functioning health systems at all times in adequate amounts, in the appropriate dosage forms, with assured quality, and at a price the individual and the community can afford.”

Many countries of the world, India included now, have the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) and some have provincial or state lists as well, such as, in Tamilnadu Rajasthan and Delhi.

Health being a state subject in India, NLEM usually relates closely to Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) for use within the State Government health facilities. Ironically, such measures are currently being taken by just a small number of State Governments in the country.

NLEM – A forward-looking ongoing concept:

According to W.H.O, the concept of ‘Essential Medicines’ is forward-looking and ongoing. This idea prompts the need to regularly update the selection of medicines in the NLEM, reflecting:

  • New therapeutic options
  • Changing therapeutic needs
  • The need to ensure drug quality
  • The need for continued development of better medicines
  • Medicines for emerging diseases
  • Medicines to meet changing resistance patterns

As a part of its ongoing exercise, on May 8, 2015, The World Health Organization (W.H.O) by a ‘News Release’ announced addition of several new treatments for cancer and hepatitis C to its list of ‘Essential Medicines’, which the agency believes should be made available at affordable prices.

All 5 new products for the treatment of Hepatitis C, including sofosbuvir and daclatasvir, were included in the List. These medicines cure more than 90 percent of those infected and cost from US$63,000 to US$94,500 in the United States, depending upon the drug and treatment regimen.

Considering, new breakthroughs made in cancer treatment in the last years, W.H.O also revised the full cancer segment of the Essential Medicines List this year: 52 products were reviewed and 30 treatments confirmed, with 16 new medicines added in the list, including Herceptin of Roche, and Gleevec of Novartis.

“When new effective medicines emerge to safely treat serious and widespread diseases, it is vital to ensure that everyone who needs them can obtain them,” said W.H.O Director-General, Dr Margaret Chan. “Placing them on the WHO Essential Medicines List is a first step in that direction.”

India would also require putting similar effective systems in place for a robust, ongoing and time-bound review process for its NLEM.

Immense health and economic impact of ‘Essential Medicines’:

Globally the health and economic impact of ‘Essential Medicines’ have been proved to be remarkable, especially in the developing countries, as such drugs are one of the most cost-effective elements in healthcare system of any time. That’s why the stakeholders bestow so much of importance on a well thought out and properly crafted list of essential medicines by the astute experts appointed by the Government.

According to W.H.O, while spending on pharmaceuticals represents less than one-fifth of total public and private health spending in most developed countries, it represents 15 to 30 percent of health spending in transitional economies and 25 to 66 percent in developing countries.

In developing countries, such as India, pharmaceuticals are the largest Out of Pocket (OoP) household health expenditure. “And the expense of serious family illness, including drugs, is a major cause of household impoverishment.”

Flawed NLEM could multiply access to medicines problems:

Despite well-documented global evidence regarding high potential of health and economic impact of ‘Essential Drugs’, if the NLEM does not include right kind of drugs and remains flawed, it could have significant adverse impact on the overall access to ‘Essential Medicines’ in India.

In addition, properly structured NLEM could help setting the right course in the procurement and supply of medicines in the public sector – national or state Government schemes that reimburse medicine costs, and also for domestic production of drugs in the country.

A quick overview of NLEM in India:

There was no functional NLEM in India before 2002. According to a paper titled “Decisions on WHO’s essential medicines need more scrutiny”, published in the BMJ on July 31, 2014, in India the first National Essential Medical List (NEML) was prepared in 1996. However, this list was neither implemented for procuring drugs nor were STGs drawn up.

It all started in 2002, when the National Drug Policy of India, announced in that year, was subsequently challenged through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Karnataka High Court on the ground of being inflationary in nature. The Honorable Court by its order dated November 12, 2002 issued a stay on the implementation of that Policy.

This judgment was challenged by the Government in the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay vide its order dated March 10, 2003 and ordered as follows:

“We suspend the operation of the order to the extent it directs that the Policy dated February 15, 2002 shall not be implemented. However we direct that the petitioner shall consider and formulate appropriate criteria for ensuring essential and lifesaving drugs not to fall out of the price control and further directed to review drugs, which are essential and lifesaving in nature till 2nd May, 2003”.

As a result DPCO 1995 continued to remain operational, pending formulation of a new drug policy, based on NLEM based span of price control, as directed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India. Necessitated by this directive of the Apex Court of the country, the first NLEM of India came into effect in 2002.

In 2011, NLEM 2002 was subsequently reviewed and re-evaluated by a committee of 87 experts from various fields, and was replaced by the NLEM 2011 with 348 drugs.

In the recent years, following a series of protracted judicial and executive activities, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) came into effect on December 7, 2012. In the new policy the span of price control was changed to all drugs falling under the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) and the price control methodology was modified from the cost-based to market based one. Accordingly the new Drug Price Control Order (DPCO 2013) was notified on May 15, 2013.

However, the matter is still subjudice, as NPPP 2012 would ultimately require passing the acid test of scrutiny by the Supreme Court of India, in the future days.

A recent study emphasizes need for urgent expansion of NLEM:

A March 2015 independent evaluation of DPCO 2013, which controls prices of essential medicines in India as featured in the NLEM 2011, brought to light some interesting facts. The Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) and the Institute for Studies in Industrial Development released this report titled “Pharmaceutical Policies in India: Balancing Industrial and Public Health Interests” at a conference on pharmaceutical policies in India, held in New Delhi from 3 to 7 March, 2015.

This independent evaluation would most probably be submitted to the Supreme Court where PHFI is one of the petitioners in a case challenging the current NPPP 2012.

The study found that price regulations of NLEM 2011 are limited to just 17 percent of the total pharmaceutical market in India. This leaves 83 percent of the domestic pharma market free from price control, providing only marginal financial relief to patients for all essential medicines, in its true sense, as desired by the Supreme Court of India. Thus, one of the key recommendations of this study is to review the NLEM 2011, urgently.

“Clearly the interests of the pharmaceutical industry have received precedence over the interest of the patient population,” the report highlighted.

Anurag Bhargava, of the Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, was quoted in March 2014 BMJ Article titled, “Analysts in India call for urgent expansion of essential medicines list”, saying:

“This is a matter of concern given that the NLEM was not drafted as an instrument for price regulation. It is a representative rather than a comprehensive list of medicines utilized in actual practice. To serve as a reference for rational prescribing, the NLEM includes only a few model dosage forms, strengths, and combinations of drugs.”

NLEM 2011 fails to reflect public health priorities:

The report, with relevant details, brings to the fore that NLEM 2011 has failed to reflect India’s public health priorities. It underscores the following glaring deficiencies in NLEM 2011, which covers just:

  • 1 percent of drugs for anemia
  • 5 percent of respiratory drugs
  • 7 percent of antidepressants
  • 15 percent of drugs for diabetes
  • 18 percent of drugs for tuberculosis
  • 13 percent of anti-malarial drugs
  • 23 percent of cardiac drugs
  • 35 percent of antibiotics

Areas for revision in NLEM 2011:

A critical appraisal of NLEM 2011 was done in the above-mentioned 2014 BMJ paper and also by the NPPA separately.

Taking all these into consideration, some key areas of concerns related to NLEM 2011 floats at the top of mind. A few examples of important issues, which need immediate attention, are as follows (not necessarily in the same order):

  • Other key strengths and dosage forms of the same drugs covered under NLEM 2011
  • Analogues of scheduled formulations not covered
  • Close substitutes in the same therapeutic class not covered
  • Some essential drugs listed in the W.H.O model list and even in Delhi list are missing in the NLEM 2011
  • Several essential HIV and Cancer drugs are not included in NLEM 2011
  • Essential oral anti-diabetic medicines, like glimeperide and glicazide do not find place in NLEM 2011, especially when the list in the DSPRUD for Delhi includes anti-diabetic medicines such as glimepiride, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin
  • Commonly used anti-asthmatic medicines like almeterol and montelukast are missing in NLEM 2011
  • When W.H.O model List (EML) includes capreomycin, cycloserine, ethionamide, kanamycin and para-aminosalicylic acid for treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, these drugs are missing in NLEM 2011 list
  • Though a large number of Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) are prescribed to treat common ailments in India, especially in certain therapeutic groups such as respiratory, cardiovascular, anti-diabetic, dermatology, anti-malarial and anti TB/MDR TB, most of these are missing in NLEM 2011
  • While the W.H.O list mentions 21 vaccines, the NLEM 2011 mentions only nine vaccines
  • A separate list of lifesaving drugs based on existing lifesaving drugs list of government agencies like the CGHS needs to be worked out
  • Pediatric formulations need to be included in NLEM
  • Inclusion of some medical devices which are already covered under the definition of drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940
  • Essential and well-selected lifesaving patented drugs should also feature in the NLEM, just as what W.H.O has done this month by adding to its ‘Essential Medicines List’ all the five patented new curative treatments for hepatitis C, besides 16 new cancer drugs.

Thus, in its present form the NLEM 2011 needs a critical relook and revision, mainly in the light of the missing drugs and keeping in view of the requirements under various National Health Programs as well as the National Formulary of India 2010.

The BMJ paper also highlights, the Indian Academy of Pediatrics has come out with a list of ‘Essential Drugs’ for children in India. Such a list might be consulted for the Pediatric List of Essential Medicine within the NLEM. Provision should be made to review the NLEM at two yearly intervals, as is currently practiced by the W.H.O.

Civil Society steps in:

Accordingly, in August 2014, seven Civil Society Organizations in a letter to Minister Ananth Kumar with a copy to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, among others, wrote as follows:

“Limiting all price regulation only to a list of 348 medicines and specified dosages and strengths in the DPCO 2013 goes against the policy objective of making medicines affordable to the public. The National List of Essential Medicines, a list of 348 rational and cost-effective medicines, is not the basis for production, promotion and prescription in India. In reality the most frequently prescribed and consumed medicines are not listed in the NLEM.”

Healthcare: China on a fast track, India crawls through a slow lane: 

Interestingly, to help improve economic growth and boost domestic consumption, China has recently decided to floor the gas pedal on the fast lane of healthcare reform, while India chose to continue to crawl through its slow lane.

Interestingly, both the countries want to draw similar sets of trend lines for health and economic progress of their respective nations.

This has been vindicated by Reuters report of May 9, 2015, when it highlighted, China would increase its healthcare subsidies by 19 percent this year as part of efforts to deepen social reforms and strengthen safety nets.

The report also indicated, economists view this measure as crucial for China to improve the quality of its healthcare, if it wishes to remake its economy and boost domestic consumption. They say a stronger safety net will encourage Chinese to spend more and save less.

As opposed to the Chinese scenario, in India, the Union Budget 2015-16 came as a real dampener for the healthcare space in the country. This assumes greater significance, as the budget was planned by the reform oriented Modi Government.

Despite the dismal state of current public healthcare services, the annual budgetary allocation for healthcare has been kept at Rs. 33,152 Crore, just a tad more than Rs. 30,645 Crore of 2014-15, with no visible indication for any healthcare reform measure in the country, any time soon.

Conclusion:

‘Essential Medicines’ based drug price control, as was directed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India, is just not far sighted, but a potential game changer in the healthcare space of the country.

While looking at the bigger picture, this policy also promises a significant contribution in the overall economic progress of the nation.

To make this policy effective in the longer term, NLEM should be fair, impartial, far sighted, up to date, robust and beyond obvious any controversy, which includes its authors… just as the spirit behind the good old saying: “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”

Unfortunately, NLEM 2011 is mired with many shortcomings for all the wrong reasons, as discussed above.

The incumbent Government would require striking a just and right balance between public health interest and expectations of the Pharma industry in this critical area. Taking the right policy decision in a transparent an effective manner, balancing the healthcare and economic interest of the country, would be critical.

That said, Pharma industry in India, I reckon, would also not be devastatingly impacted with the possible expansion of NLEM. This is mainly because, currently only 17 percent of the total pharmaceutical market in India comes under price control, based on the span of NLEM 2011 formulations. In any case, the balance 83 percent of the domestic pharma market still falls under the free-pricing zone.

Even when DPCO 1995 came into force, which continued till DPCO 2013 became effective, 20 percent of the total domestic pharmaceutical market was under price control.

Moreover, there was no provision for automatic annual price increases for price-controlled drugs under DPCO 1995. Whereas DPCO 2013 has a provision for annual price increases for all such essential drugs based on WPI. As a result, MRPs of all price controlled essential drugs have gone up effective April 1 of this year and would continue to happen so every year, as long as NPPP 2012 remains in force.

Under this complex mosaic and fast evolving backdrop, the announcement of the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers – Mr. Ananth Kumar on the floor of the Parliament last week is a laudable one.

To help improve access to affordable essential medicines for all in the country, the Minister has reiterated, “The expanded NLEM would bring more essential drugs under price control.”  This categorical affirmation by the Government in power, though belated, is a step in the right direction…for both better healthcare and also its consequential critical impact on the economic progress 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.