Tag Archives: WHO

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

The ‘Gray Area’:

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

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

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

Evolution of the terminology ‘Nutraceuticals’:

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

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

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

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

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

The market:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some other key findings of this report are as under:

  • India is currently a nascent market for nutraceuticals, without a robust business model in place. Both MNCs as well as domestic companies in the pharmaceutical and food and beverage space have tested the market with a variety of launches, with some degree of success.
  • The existence of alternative medicines in India, and the Indian consumer’s belief in them, could provide a platform for the nutraceutical industry to cash on.
  • The Indian consumers’ awareness about conventional nutraceutical ingredients such as omega-3 fatty acids or lutein is very limited. The nutraceutical manufacturers would require spreading awareness about their products to the Indian masses, much more effectively.
  • As compared with the developed countries such as the USA, Europe, and Japan, the percentage of population consuming nutraceuticals in India is much low. The middle to high income groups are the dominant consumers of functional foods and beverages along with dietary supplements, while the lower income groups consume mainly prescription-based dietary supplements.
  • Health awareness and an increase in the penetration of organized retail stores are expected to play a major role in driving the nutraceuticals’ consumption in India.

Current regulations in India:

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

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

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

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

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

A brand ‘New Ministry’ in place:

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

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

Need to generate robust clinical data:

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

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

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

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

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

Regulatory requirements for nutraceuticals in the USA:

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

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

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

Sanofi considered nutraceuticals as a business opportunity in India:

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

Ambivalence of Pharma MNCs:

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

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

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

Food companies leading nutraceuticals business:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Is The Core Purpose of Pharma Business Much Beyond Profit Making?

Posted on by
Reply

Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), at a briefing to discuss the Ebola outbreak in West Africa at the UN Foundation in Washington on September 3, 2014 said:

“Big Pharma’s greed for profits, not lack of funding, delaying Ebola treatment development.”

Highlighting that the disease has already taken lives of 4,951 people in West Africa, Dr. Chan castigated the pharmaceutical industry for failing to develop an effective treatment for the deadly virus Ebola since 1976. “Though the Ebola crisis has become the most severe acute public health emergency seen in modern times, a profit-driven industry does not invest in products for markets that cannot pay”, Dr. Chan added.

That said, the Big Pharma has now initiated some efforts in this area, as the disease currently poses a significant threat to non-African countries, including America.

The sentiment reverberates:

Echoing similar sentiment, an article published in the BBC News on November 7, 2014 reiterated:

“Big pharma companies are in the business to make money, so will generally develop those drugs that offer the greatest potential for profit. This means a number of important drugs are neglected – the current Ebola crisis being a case in point.”

The profit oriented approach isn’t restricted just to the diseases of Africa:

The above article also points out that, besides diseases of the developing world, the Big Pharma has been slow to develop newer and multi-drug resistant antibiotics, as well.

This is mainly because, it is lot more difficult for the pharma companies to make huge quantum of profit from discovery of newer antibiotics for acute infections having limited use for around 7 to 10 days, as compared to the medicines for chronic illnesses that people will have to necessarily take every day, for life.

It appears today that the ongoing public opinion and pressure are possibly not adequate enough to trigger even a slightest change in the fetish for profit-making incentives of the Big Pharma companies.

Despite high profitability, the fetish for even more profit continues:

The pharma industry that basically exists to help saving lives of patients of all types, status and color in various ways, now seems to focus mostly on generation of more and more profit than ever before.

- The following table would vindicate the point of profitability of the industry:

Highest and Lowest Profit Margins of 5 key Industrial Sectors, 2013                        (Profit Margin in %)

No.

Sectors

Highest

Lowest

1.

Pharmaceuticals

42

10

2.

Banks

29

5

3.

Carmakers

10

3

4.

Oil & Gas

24

2

5.

Media

18

6

NB: Highest and lowest margins achieved by individual company                             (Source: Forbes, BBC News)

To generate mind boggling profits, many of the Big Pharma constituents have reportedly resorted to various types of gross misconduct and malpractices too, the Chinese saga being the tip of the iceberg.

- The following are some recent examples to help fathom the enormity of the problem:

  • In September 2014, GlaxoSmithKline was reportedly fined US $490m by China for bribery.
  • In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder.
  • Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges.
  • In November 2013, Teva Pharmaceutical reportedly said that an internal investigation turned up suspect practices in countries ranging from Latin America to Russia.
  • In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.
  • In August 2012, Pfizer Inc. was reportedly fined US$ 60.2 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing of overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines.
  • In April 2012, a judge in Arkansas, US, reportedly fined Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary more than US$1.2 billion after a jury found that the companies had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Many more of such instances are regularly being reported by the international media, unabated.

More profit through high drug pricing – The key argument in favor:

The Big Pharma argues that high drug pricing is absolutely necessary to generate a kind of profit, that is essential to fund heavy investments for drug innovation to meet the unmet needs of patients. Moreover, only 3 out of 10 drugs launched are profitable, on an average.

This argument really goes over the top. It does not hold much water either, as the Big Pharma reportedly spends more on the process of drug marketing than on innovation (R&D) of new drugs.

The following table would paint a different picture altogether, marketing expenditure being far more than the R&D costs: 

R&D and Marketing Spend of World’s largest Pharmaceutical Companies

Company Total Revenue (US$ Bn.) R&D Spend  (US$ Bn.) Marketing Spend (US$ Bn.) Profit (US$ Bn.) Profit Margin (%)
J & J (US) 71.3 8.2 17.5 13.8 19
Novartis (Swiss) 58.8 9.9 14.6 9.2 16
Pfizer (US) 51.6 6.6 11.4 22.0 43
Roche (Swiss) 50.3 9.3 9.0 12.0 24
Sanofi (France) 44.4 6.3 9.1 8.5 11
Merck (US) 44.0 7.5 9.5 4.4 10
GSK (UK) 41.4 5.3 9.9 8.5 21
AstraZeneca(UK) 25.7 4.3 7.3 2.6 10
Eli Lilly (US) 23.1 5.5 5.7 4.7 20
AbbVie (US) 18.8 2.9 4.3 4.1 22

(Source: GlobalData, BBC News)

Thus, it is difficult to fathom why are numbers of drugs, such as, Sovaldi and others costing as much as US $ 84,000 and above for a treatment course, when the cost of manufacturing is no more than an insignificant fraction of that treatment cost?

Considering all these and looking at the published profit and loss accounts of various pharma companies, it appears that, the line between ‘making reasonable profit’ and ‘profiteering’ is getting increasingly blurred in the pharma world.

Why is the marketing cost so high?

Since about the last decade and half, despite reasonably high expenditure on R&D there does not seem to have been many reports on breakthrough innovations. According to an expert of the World Health Organization (WHO), “of the 20 or 30 new drugs brought to the market each year, typically 3 are genuinely new, with the rest offering only marginal benefits.”

In a situation like this, when the challenge mostly is of generating targeted revenues with the new products of ‘me-too values’ rather than with those having intrinsic ‘unmet values’, marketing costs to generate doctors’ prescription would obviously escalate disproportionately. Even the process followed to generate these prescriptions, often cross the red line of regulatory, ethics and compliance standards, as have been cited above.

The following questions come up consequently:

- Are these exorbitant avoidable marketing expenditures adding any tangible or intangible values to the ultimate consumers – the patients?

- If not, why burden the patients with these unnecessary costs?

India is no different against similar parameters:

Back home in India, the deep anguish of the stakeholders over similar issues is now being increasingly reverberated with every passing day, as it were. It has also drawn the attention of the patients’ groups, NGOs, media, Government and even the Parliament.

The quality of the pharmaceutical sales and marketing process in India has touched a new low and continues to go south, causing suffering to a large number of patients. Well documented unethical drug promotion is increasingly becoming an emerging threat to the society.

Even today, the Ministry of Health and the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India provide few checks and balances on unethical drug promotion in India and prefer to keep the eyes meant for vigilance, closely shut.

Despite deplorable inaction of the government on the subject and frequent reporting by Indian media, the national debate on this issue is yet to attain a critical mass. A related Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is now pending before the Supreme Court for hearing, hopefully in the near future. Its judicial verdict is expected to usher in a breath of fresh air around a rather stifling environment for healthcare in India.

I deliberated on a similar issue in one of my earlier blog posts of September 1, 2014, titled, “Pharma And Healthcare: Mounting Trust deficit In Post Halcyon Days”

Conclusion:

While it is well-acknowledged that pharma industry has contributed immensely for the development of a large number of life saving new drugs to save precious lives all over the globe, none can also deny that for such efforts the companies concerned have not been hugely profited either…and, as we have been witnessing, not necessarily through legitimate means, always.

That said, in the backdrop of all the above examples, the core issue that emerges today as raised by many, including the World Health Organization (WHO), is the growing inherent conflict between predominantly the profit driven business goals of the pharma players and the public health interest of a nation.

Considering a number of recent serious public outbursts of the global thought leaders and also from the international media on the ‘profit dominating goals’ of the pharma industry, in general, the following questions need to be addressed with all seriousness:

- Is there a need to define afresh the core purpose of pharmaceutical business for all?

- Does the core purpose go much beyond profit making?

- If so, how would the industry plan to engage the stakeholders for its credible public demonstration?

Meanwhile, taking a serious note of it and learning from the past examples, India should initiate experts’ debate on the subject soon, to effectively resolve the conflict of two different mindsets, not resting on the same page in many ways.

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.

 

Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns

Posted on by
Reply

With the patent expiry of exorbitantly priced biologic medicines, introduction of biosimilar drugs are expected to improve their access to millions of patients across the world, saving billions of dollars in healthcare costs in the subsequent years. According to an article published in Forbes, it is estimated that the potential savings in the United States alone from just 11 biosimilar drugs over a period ranging from 2014 to 2024 could easily be U$250 billion.

However, the flip side of this much awaited development would make commensurate dent on the sales performance of original brand name biologics, now being marketed by the global pharma majors armed with patent monopoly rights.

Innovating hurdles to negate the impact:

Facing this stark reality, global innovators of biotech drugs allegedly want to fast germinate a strong apprehension in the minds of all concerned on the safety and replaceability of biosimilar drugs. Consequently, this would severely restrict the usage of this new class of products, sacrificing patients’ health interest.

To translate this grand plan into reality, garnering additional support from ten medical societies and a physicians’ group, the global players, which mostly hold various patents on biologics, reportedly urged the USFDA to require biosimilars to have distinct names from the original biologics, on the pretext that different names would make it easier for prescribers to distinguish between medicines that “may differ slightly” and also track adverse events and side effect reports that appear in patient records.

However, other stakeholders have negated this move, which is predominantly to make sure that no substitution of high priced original biologics takes place with the cheaper versions of equivalent biosimilars to save on drug costs.

Intense lobbying to push the envelope:

Interestingly, this intense lobbying initiative of big pharma to assign a distinct or different name for biosimilar drugs, if accepted by the USFDA, would provide a clear and cutting-edge commercial advantage to the concerned pharma and biotech majors, even much after their respective biologic drugs go off patent.

Thus, the above allegedly concerted move does not surprise many.

Mounting protests against industry move:

Biosimilar drug makers, on the other hand, have suggested to the USFDA to make biosimilars fall under the same International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) system, like all generic prescription drugs.  They believe that new names would create confusion and the physicians and pharmacists may face difficulties in ascertaining whether biosimilar drugs serve the same purpose with similar dosing and regimens.

The protest seems to have a snowballing effect. In July 2014, by a letter to the Commissioner Hamburg of USFDA, different groups representing pharmacy, labor unions, health insurance plans and others, have reportedly urged her not to go for different INNs for the original biologic and a biosimilar drug, for the same reason as cited above. The letter reinforces that the industry move, if accepted by the USFDA could increase the possibility of medication errors, besides adversely affecting the substitution required to bring down overall health care costs for high priced specialized biologics, thereby slowing down the uptake of biosimilars significantly.

Global pharma investors also raising voices in support of biosimilars:

Another similar and major development followed soon. A letter titled, “Investor Statement on Board Oversight of Biosimilar Issues”, written by a group of 19 institutional investors that manages about US$430 billion in assets, to the boards of several big pharma and biotech companies, flagged that some pharma majors have been scandalizing the safety concerns of biosimilar drugs. This is happening despite the fact that this class of drugs already has a well-established track record in Europe.

They emphasize that recent actions taken by some big pharma companies could raise concerns on the overall acceptance of biosimilar drugs, which would forestall any projected savings on that subject. They also reportedly expressed serious concern that shareholder interests could be adversely affected, if the pharma and biotech players pursue those policies that undermine corporate transparency and medical innovation.

The letter underscores, “Companies seeking to downplay the patient safety record of European biosimilars have also challenged the capacity of the FDA to promulgate rules and determine when biosimilars may be substituted for biologics.”

Among other points, the letter reiterates:

  • Though the important role of biologics in treating cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, anemia, multiple sclerosis and many other conditions is well recognized, the costs of these medicines are on an unsustainable trajectory, with some biologics costing as much 22 times more than other drugs. This critical issue seriously impedes patients’ access to biologics, as well as, acceptance by providers and insurance companies.
  • Biosimilars hold the promise of lowering costs of treating conditions for which biologics are indicated. At the same time, the recent adoption of a regulatory pathway to approval of biosimilars in the US market and the continued growth of biosimilars in the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia and South Korea, pose a formidable business challenge for the companies that market patented biologic medicines.
  • Financial experts project that biosimilars too have the potential for significant market penetration and attractive returns on investments.
  • Assigning different INN would communicate to providers that the biosimilar is less effective, prompting them not to prescribe this class of medicines and making it difficult for the pharmacists to dispense too. Besides, different names could lead to prescribing errors.
  • In short, the boards of directors of the pharma and biotech majors were urged by these investors to use the following principles to guide their decision-making related to biosimilars:

-       Policy and educational information provided on biosimilars should be balanced, accurate and informed by the patient safety experience of biosimilars in the European Union and other biosimilar drug markets.

-       Lobbying expenditures for federal and state activities related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed and the boards should ensure that political activities are aligned with the interests of investors and other stakeholders.

-       Key information about any partnership or business deal related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed to investors, including information about the value, terms and duration of the deal.

The WHO proposal:

In this context it is worth recapitulating, the World Health Organization (WHO) that oversees the global INN system has held a number of meetings to resolve this issue. The WHO proposal suggests that the current system for choosing INNs to remain unchanged, but that a four-letter code would be attached at the end of every drug name. However, individual regulatory agencies in each country could choose whether to adopt such coding or not.

Let us wait to see what really pans out of this flexible WHO proposal on the subject.

Biosimilars go through stringent regulatory review:

It is important to note that the drug regulators carefully review biosimilars before giving marketing approval for any market, as these drugs must prove to be highly similar without any clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic molecules. The interchangeability between biosimilars and the original biologics must also be unquestionably demonstrated to be qualified for being substitutable at the pharmacy level without the need for intervention by a physician.

Thus, there does not seem to be any basis for different INN, other than to severely restrict competition from biosimilars.

12-year data exclusivity period for biologics – another hurdle created earlier:

Another barrier to early introduction of cheaper biosimilar drugs in the United States is the 12-year data exclusivity period for biologics.

On this issue GPhA – the generic drug makers’ group in the United States reportedly issued a statement, criticizing a paper of Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), saying:

“Market exclusivity acts as an absolute shield to their weak patents. Thus, from a practical perspective, extending market exclusivity beyond the Hatch-Waxman period would block the introduction of generic competition for almost 20 years, derailing any potential cost savings by Americans.”

The market potential of biosimilars:

A new report by Allied Market Research estimates that the global biosimilars market would reach US$35 billion by 2020 from the estimated US$1.3 billion in 2013. During the next four years, over 10 blockbuster biologic drugs clocking aggregated annual sales turnover of US $60 billion would go off patent in the United States and in Europe. Humira – a US$10 billion drug of Abbvie that loses patent protection in 2016 is at the top of list.

In tandem, facilitation of regulatory pathways of marketing approval for this class of drugs in many developed markets is expected to drive its growth momentum through greater market penetration and access.

Asia Pacific region is likely to emerge as the leader in the biosimilar drugs market, primarily due to heightened interest and activity of the local players. Collaboration between Mylan and Biocon to commercialize biosimilar version of trastuzumab of Roche in India and the approval of first biosimilar version of monoclonal antibody drug by Hospira in Europe are the encouraging indications.

High growth oncology and autoimmune disease areas are expected to attract more biosimilars developers, as many such biologics would go off patent during 2014 to 2019 period.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and erythropoietin would possibly be key to the growth drivers. Similarly, follitropins, interferons, and insulin biosimilars would emerge as high potential product segments over a period of time.

As we know, among the developed markets, Europe was the first to draft guidelines for approval of biosimilars in 2006. Consequently, the first biosimilars version of Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was introduced in the European Union under the regulatory guidance of European Medical Agency (EMA) in 2008. At present, there are three biosimilar versions of G-CSF available in the European market. Insulin biosimilars also show a good potential for the future.

India:

India is now well poised to encash on this opportunity, which I had deliberated in one of my earlier blog post titled, “Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain”.

Current global usage of biosimilars:

Though regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs are now in place in the United States, no biosimilar has yet been approved there. However, the US drug regulator has for the first time accepted an application for the approval of a biosimilar version of Neupogen (Filgrastim) of Amgen, which treats patients with low white blood cell counts. Sandoz has already been selling the biosimilar version of this drug in more than 40 countries outside the US.

According to the research organization ‘Pharmaceutical Product Development’, as on March 2013, at least 11 countries and the European Union (EU) approve, regulate and allow clinical trials of biosimilars. As of February 2012, the EU has approved at least 14 biosimilar medicines. The following table shows these countries by region:

Region

Countries
North America Canada
Europe E.U. (including U.K.)
Asia and Pacific China, India, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan
Central and South America Argentina, Brazil, Mexico
Eastern Europe Russia, Turkey

Source: Pharmaceutical Product Development

Conclusion:

With the opening up of the United States for biosimilar drugs, the entire product class is expected to be catapulted to a high growth trajectory, provided of course no more allegedly concerted attempts are made to create regulatory hurdles on its path, as we move on. This is mainly because around 46 percent of the world biologic market as on 2010 was in the United States.

However, intense lobbying and power play against biosimilar or interchangeable biologics, allegedly sponsored by the big pharma, are acting as a barrier to this much awaited development solely to benefit the patients. Such activities also undermine attractiveness of investing in safer and more affordable interchangeable biologics.

It is indeed intriguing that all these are happening, despite the fact that the regulatory approval standards for biosimilars are very stringent, as each of these drugs:

  • Must be highly similar to the reference product
  • Cannot have clinically meaningful differences from the original ones
  • Must perform the same in any given patient
  • Would have the same risk associated with switching as the reference product

Thus, scandalizing biosimilar drugs by raising self-serving ‘safety concerns’ in an orchestrated manner, just to extend product life cycles of original biologics even beyond patent expiries, is indeed a very unfortunate development. In this process, the vested interests are creating a great commercial uncertainty for this new class of medicines in the global scenario.

Be that as it may, all these seemingly well synchronized moves against biosimilars, solely to protect business interest, pooh-poohing patients’ health interests, have once again caste a dark shadow on not so enviable image of the big pharma…without even an iota of doubt.

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.

 

Hepatitis C: A Silent, Deadly Disease: Treatment Beyond Reach of Most Indians

Posted on by
Reply

Every year, July 28 is remembered as the ‘World Hepatitis Day’. In India, this year too, the day had gone by virtually uneventful, for various reasons. This happened despite increasing trend of the disease in the country.

Though, there are five main hepatitis virus types, namely A, B, C, D and E, of which B and C are the most fatal, in this article, I shall focus mainly on hepatitis C.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), globally around 150 million people are infected with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV), which is considered as one of the key factors for liver cirrhosis, fibrosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. At least, 350,000 HCV infected people die annually from these ailments.

A July 2014 study conducted by Metropolis Healthcare reportedly found that 17.97 percent of 78,102 samples studied in major cities of India such as, Mumbai, Delhi and Chennai, were infected with HCV and the patients belonged to the age group of 20 to 30 years. Out of 10,534 the tested sample in the age group of 0 to 10 years, 3,254 samples (30.89 percent) tested positive with HCV.

Institutes of Medicine (IOM) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the United States consider hepatitis C infections a “silent epidemic,” as many patients infected with HCV are symptom free, without even leaving any hint to them that they are infected. The infected persons may feel healthy, even when serious liver damage is taking place, sometimes through decades.

All these patients are also potential carriers of HCV, risking rapid spread of the virus, as identification of the infected individuals for remedial measures continue to remain mostly eluding in India.

According to experts, around 80 percent of the HCV patients ultimately develop chronic hepatitis with serious liver damage, causing significant debility. With further progression of the disease, around 20 percent of these patients could develop fatal liver cirrhosis and 5 percent may fall victim of liver cancer.

A situation like this, is indeed a cause of yet another major worry in the healthcare space of India. Deadly hepatitis C crisis would likely to worsen much, if it does not receive healthcare focus of all stakeholders, sooner.

Traditional treatment regime:

There is no vaccine developed for HCV, as yet. HCV usually spreads through sharing of needles, syringes or other equipment to inject drugs, infected blood transfusion and tattooing, among others.

The standard treatment for HCV is interferon-based injections, which could make patients feel ill and give rise to flulike symptoms. Moreover, the treatment with interferon lasts from six months to a year and cures only 40 to 50 of HCV infected patients.

Now, chronic HCV treatment also includes a combination of three drugs – ribavirin (RBV), pegylated interferon (PEG) and a protease inhibitor, such as, simeprevir or boceprevir or telaprevir. These three drug combinations inhibit viral replication for enhancing immune response of the body to hopefully eradicate the virus.

At times, patients with very advanced liver disease may not be able to tolerate this traditional treatment with interferon-based injections, as those could make them feel worse.

The latest development in treatment:

There has been a significant advance in the treatment of HCV patients today with a new drug in the form of tablet that has doubled the viral cure rates from 40 to 50 percent to 90 to 100 percent.

Moreover, the new drug not just enables the physicians switching from injectibles to oral tablet, but at the same time reduces the duration of treatment to just 12 weeks, instead of 6 months to one year, offering a huge advantage to patients suffering from HCV.

This new generation of treatment now includes only Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) of Gilead, which is the first drug approved to treat certain types of hepatitis C infection, without any compelling need to co-administer with interferon.

Some other global pharma majors, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck & Co, Johnson & Johnson and AbbVie are also developing oral treatment regimens for HCV. All these have shown equally dramatic results in clinical trials, reducing the requirement for debilitating interferon injections.

Allegation of profiteering:

Looking at the high cure rate of more than 90 per cent for much-distressed HCV infected patients, none would possibly dispute that Sovaldi of Gilead signifies a giant leap in the treatment of HCV. But Gilead, according to a ‘Financial Times (FT)’ report, faces strong criticism of alleged ‘profiteering’ for its pricing strategy of this drug.

Sovaldi has been priced by Gilead at Rs 60,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet with a three-month course costing Rs1.8 Crore (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a tablet. This treatment cost is being considered very high for many Americans and Europeans too.

“At the US price, Gilead will recoup its Sovaldi development investment  . . . in a single year and then stand to make extraordinary profits off the backs of US consumers, who will subsidize the drug for other patients around the globe”, the FT report states.

This line of argument has been gaining ground on Capitol Hill, as well. This month, two senior members of the US Senate Finance Committee wrote to John Martin, Gilead Chief Executive, asking him to justify Sovaldi’s price, the report mentioned.

Half yearly sales of US$ 5.8 billion came from just 9,000 patients:

Be that as it may, the bottom line is, in the midst of huge global concerns over alleged ‘profiteering’ with this exorbitantly priced HCV drug, Gilead has reportedly registered US$ 5.8 billion in sales for Sovaldi in the first half of 2014.

The company has reportedly noted on its earnings call that it believes 9,000 people have been cured of HCV so far with Sovaldi. This means that the 6-month turnover of Sovaldi of US$ 5.8 billion has come just from 9000 patients. If we take the total number of HCV infected patients at 150 million globally, this new drug has benefited just a minuscule fraction of less than one percent of the total number of patients, despite clocking mind-boggling turnover and profit.

Stakeholders’ pressure building up:

Coming under intense pressure from all possible corners, Gilead has reportedly announced that it has set a minimum threshold price of US$ 300 a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost per patient would be about US$ 900 for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000. The company would offer that price to at least 80 countries.

For this special price, Gilead reportedly has targeted mostly the world’s poorest nations, but also included some middle income ones such as Egypt, which has by far the highest prevalence of HCV in the world. In Egypt, about 10 million people remain chronically infected and 100,000 new infections occur each year, according to Egyptian government figures. However, independent surveys  put this number between 200,000 and 300,000. Gilead has already signed an agreement with the Egyptian government in early July 2014 and the drug would be available there in September 2014. This would make Egypt the first to have access to Sovaldi outside the US and the EU.

What about India?

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

This is indeed a welcoming news for the country and needs to be encouraged for expeditious implementation with support and co-operation from all concerned.

Regulatory requirement:

However, despite all good intent, Gilead says, “ Some countries, such as India and China, are not satisfied with the tests conducted in the US and elsewhere for Sovaldi. They want additional clinical trials to be conducted on their own patients as a precondition for authorization, which will add extra costs and delays.”

Patent status:

It is worth noting here that the Indian patent office has not even recognized Sovaldi’s patent for the domestic market.

Local measures to address chronic hepatitis:

On May 22, 2014, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution to improve prevention, diagnosis and treatment of viral hepatitis, in general. However, as things stand today in India, the surveillance systems for viral hepatitis are grossly inadequate and preventive measures are not universally implemented.

The Union Government of India has now expressed its intent to set up ten regional laboratories through the National Communicable Disease Centre (NCDC) for surveillance of viral hepatitis in the country. The key objective of these laboratories would be to ascertain the burden of viral hepatitis in India by 2017 and to provide lab support for investigating outbreaks.

Government sources indicate, the initial focus would be more on the preventive aspects rather than treatment of viral hepatitis given the limited health resources available. Setting up universal guidelines for immunization along with mass awareness and education have been considered as critical to fight this dreaded disease in the country. Simultaneously introduction of nucleic acid testing (NAT) and standardization of blood bank practices would be undertaken for preventing blood transfusions related viral hepatitis, in general.

Treatment for HCV is not widely available in the country. All types of HCV treatments, especially the newer and innovative ones, must be made available to all infected patients, as these drugs have high cure rates, short duration of treatment and minimal side effects.

Conclusion:

Viral hepatitis in general and hepatitis C in particular are becoming great national health concerns, as these contribute to significant morbidity and mortality, further adding to the national economic burden. India should just not strengthen its prevention strategies; it needs to focus on all the factors that influence speedy diagnosis and treatment of HCV.

As the WHO says, “New drugs have the potential to transform hepatitis C treatment, with safe and simple treatments resulting in cure rates of over 90 per cent”. The raging debate on Sovaldi needs to explore the newer avenues and measures for appropriately pricing the innovative medicines in the days ahead.

Concerned pharma players, the government and other stakeholders must work together and in unison to ensure that all those infected with HCV are diagnosed quickly and have access to life-saving treatments.

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.

Alarming Incidence of Cancer: Fragile Infrastructure: Escalating Drug Prices

Posted on by
Reply

According to the ‘Fact-Sheet 2014′ of the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer cases would rise from 14 million in 2012 to 22 million within the next two decades. It is, therefore, no wonder that cancers figured among the leading causes of over 8.2 million deaths in 2012, worldwide.

A reflection of this scary scenario can also be visualized while analyzing the growth trend of various therapy segments of the global pharmaceutical market.

A recent report of ‘Evaluate Pharma (EP)’ has estimated that the worldwide sales of prescription drugs would reach US$ 1,017 bn by 2020 with a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 5.1 percent between 2013 and 2020. Interestingly, oncology is set to record the highest sales growth among the major therapy categories with a CAGR of 11.2 percent during this period, accounting for US$ 153.4 bn of the global pharmaceutical sales.

The key growth driver is expected to be an exciting new class of cancer products targeting the programmed death-1 (PD-1) pathway with a collective value of US$ 14 bn in 2020, says the report.

Another recent report from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics also highlights that global oncology spending touched US$ 91 billion in 2013 growing at 5 percent annually.

Consequently, Oncology would emerge as the biggest therapeutic class, more than twice of the anti-diabetic category, which features next to it.

Key global players:

Roche would continue to remain by far the largest player in the oncology market in 2020 with a 5 percent year-on-year growth between 2013 and 2020 with estimated total sales of over US$ 34bn in 2020 against US$ 25bn in 2013.

In 2020, besides Roche, other key players in the oncology segment would, in all probability, be Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Merck & Co, the EP report says.

Escalating costs of cancer drugs:

As IMS Health indicates, the overall cost for cancer treatments per month in the United States has now reached to US$10,000 from US$ 5,000 just a year ago. Thus, cancer drugs are fast becoming too expensive even in the developed markets, leave aside India.

The following table would help fathom how exorbitant are the costs per therapy of the common cancer drugs, though these are from the United States:

Generic                               Diagnosis

 Cost/ Dose (US$)

Cost of     Therapy/    28 days  (US$)

Cost per  Therapy      (US$)
brentuximab Hodgkins lymphoma

14,000

18,667

224,000
Pertuzumab Breast cancer

4,000

5,333

68,000
pegylated interferon Hepatitis C

700

2,800

36,400
Carfilzomib Multiple myeloma

1,658

9,948

129,324
ziv-aflibercept CRC

2,300

4,600

59,800
Omacetaxine CML

560

3,920

50,960
Regorafenib CRC

450

9,446

122,800
Bosutinib CML

278

7,814

101,580
Vemurafenib Melanoma

172

4,840

62,915
Abiraterone Prostate

192

5,391

70,080
Crizotinib NSCLC

498

27,951

363,367
Enzalutamide Prostate

248

6,972

90,637
ado-trastuzumab emtansine Breast – metastatic

8,500

8,115

105,500
Ponatinib Leukemia

319

8,941

116,233
Pomalidomide Multiple myeloma

500

10,500

135,500

(Source: ION Solutions)

Even US researchers concerned about high cancer drugs cost:

It is interesting to note, that in a review article published recently in ‘The Lancet Oncology’, the US researchers Prof. Thomas Smith and Dr. Ronan Kelly identified drug pricing as one area of high costs of cancer care. They are confident that this high cost can be reduced, just as it is possible for end-of-life care and medical imaging – the other two areas of high costs in cancer treatment.

Besides many other areas, the authors suggested that reducing the prices of new cancer drugs would immensely help containing cancer costs. Prof. Smith reportedly said, “There are drugs that cost tens of thousands of dollars with an unbalanced relationship between cost and benefit. We need to determine appropriate prices for drugs and inform patients about their costs of care.”

Cancer drug price becoming a key issue all over:

As the targeted therapies have significantly increased their share of global oncology sales, from 11 percent a decade ago to 46 percent last year, increasingly, both the Governments and the payers, almost all over the world, have started feeling quite uncomfortable with the rapidly ascending drug price trend.

In the top cancer markets of the world, such as, the United States and Europe, both the respective governments and also the private insurers have now started playing hardball with the cancer drugs manufacturers.

There are several instances in the developed markets, including the United States, where the stakeholders, such as, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) are expressing their concerns about manufacturers’ charging astronomical prices, even for small improvements in the survival time.

Following examples would give an idea of global sensitivity in this area:

  • After rejecting Roche’s breast cancer drug Kadcyla as too expensive, NICE reportedly articulated in its statement, “A breast cancer treatment that can cost more than US$151,000 per patient is not effective enough to justify the price the NHS is being asked to pay.”
  • In October 2012, three doctors at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center announced in the New York Times that their hospital wouldn’t be using Zaltrap. These oncologists did not consider the drug worth its price. They questioned, why prescribe the far more expensive Zaltrap? Almost immediately thereafter, coming under intense stakeholder pressure, , Sanofi reportedly announced 50 percent off on Zaltrap price.
  • Similarly, ASCO in the United States has reportedly launched an initiative to rate cancer drugs not just on their efficacy and side effects, but prices as well.

India:

  • India has already demonstrated its initial concern on this critical issue by granting Compulsory License (CL) to the local player Natco to formulate the generic version of Bayer’s kidney cancer drug Nexavar and make it available to the patients at a fraction of the originator’s price. As rumors are doing the rounds, probably some more patented cancer drugs would come under Government scrutiny to achieve the same end goal.
  • I indicated in my earlier blog post that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of India by its notification dated July 10, 2014 has decided to bring, among others, some anticancer drugs too, not featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011), under price control.
  • Not too long ago, the Indian government reportedly contemplated to allow production of cheaper generic versions of breast cancer drug Herceptin in India. Roche – the originator of the drug ultimately surrendered its patent rights in 2013, apprehending that it would lose a legal contest in Indian courts, according to media reports. Biocon and Mylan thereafter came out with biosimilar version of Herceptin in the country with around 40 percent lesser price.

Hence, responsible pricing of cancer drugs would continue to remain a key pressure-point  in the days ahead.

Increasing R&D investments coming in oncology:

Considering lucrative business growth opportunities and financial returns from this segment, investments of global pharma players remain relatively high in oncology, accounting for more than 30 percent of all preclinical and phase I clinical product developments, with 21 New Molecular Entities (NMEs) being launched and reaching patients in the past two years alone, according to IMS Health.

However, it is also worth noting that newly launched treatments typically increase the overall incremental survival rate between two and six months.

Opportunities for anti-cancer biosimilars:

With gradual easing out of the regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs in the developed markets, especially in the US, a new competitive dynamic is evolving in the high priced, over US$ 40 billion, biologics market related to cancer drugs. According to IMS Health, on a global basis, biosimilars are expected to generate US$ 6 to12 billion in oncology sales by 2020, increasing the level of competition but accounting for less than 5 percent of the total biologics market even at that time.

Alarming situation of cancer in India:

A major report, published in ‘The Lancet Oncology’ states that In India, around 1 million new cancer cases are diagnosed each year, which is estimated to reach 1.7 million in 2035.

The report also highlights, though deaths from cancer are currently 600,000 -700,000 annually, it is expected to increase to around 1.2 million during this period.

Such high incidence of cancer in India is attributed to both internal factors such as, poor immune conditions, genetic pre-disposition or hormonal and also external factors such as, industrialization, over growth of population, lifestyle and food habits.

The Lancet Oncology study showed that while incidence of cancer in the Indian population is only about a quarter of that in the United States or Europe, mortality rates among those diagnosed with the disease are much higher.

Experts do indicate that one of the main barriers of cancer care is its high treatment cost, that is out of reach for millions of Indians. They also believe that cancer treatment could be effective and cheaper, if detected early. Conversely, the treatment would be more expensive, often leading to bankruptcy, if detected late and would, at the same time, significantly reduce the chances of survival too.

The fact that cancer is being spotted too late in India and most patients lack access to treatment, would be quite evident from the data that less than even 30 percent of patients suffering from cancer survive for more than five years after diagnosis, while over two-thirds of cancer related deaths occur among people aged 30 to 69.

Unfortunately, according to the data of the Union Ministry of Health, 40 percent of over 300 cancer centers in India do not have adequate facilities for advanced cancer care. It is estimated that the country would need at least 600 additional cancer care centers by 2020 to meet this crying need.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer, accounting for over 1 in 5 of all deaths from cancer in women, while 40 percent of cancer cases in the country are attributable to tobacco.

Indian Market and key local players:

Cancer drug market in India was reported to be around Rs 2,000 Crore (US$ 335 million) in 2013 and according to a recent Frost & Sullivan report, is estimated to grow to Rs 3,881 Crore (US$ 650 million) by 2017 with a CAGR of 15.46 percent, throwing immense business growth opportunities to pharma players.

Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) is one of the leading Indian players in oncology. DRL has already developed biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche, Filgastrim of Amgen and has also launched the first generic Darbepoetin Alfa and Peg-grafeel.

Other major Indian players in this field are Cipla, Lupin, Glenmark, Emcure, Biocon, Ipca, Natco, Intas, Reliance Life Science, Zydus Cadila and some more. These home grown companies are expected to take a leading role in the fast growing oncology segments of India, together with the major MNC players, as named above.

Analysis of detailed opportunities that would be available to these companies and consequent financial impacts could be a subject of separate discussion.

Conclusion:

Unlike many other developed and developing countries of the world, there is no system yet in place in India to negotiate prices of innovative patented drugs with the respective manufacturers, including those used for cancer. However, NPPA is now moving fast on reducing prices of cancer drugs. It has reportedly pulled up six pharma for not providing pricing data of cancer drugs sold by them.

Further, CL for all patented anti-cancer drugs may not be a sustainable measure for all time to come, either. One robust alternative, therefore, is the intense price negotiation for patented drugs in general, including anti-cancer drugs, as provided in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012).

This important issue has been under consideration of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) since 2007. The report produced by the committee formed for this specific purpose, after dilly-dallying for over five years, now hardly has any takers and gathering dusts.

I reckon, much discussed administrative inertia, insensitivity and abject lack of sense of urgency of the previous regime, have desisted the DoP from progressing much on this important subject, beyond of course customary lip services, as on date. Intense lobbying by vested interests from across the world, seems to have further helped pushing this envelope deep inside an inactive terrain.

The new Government would hopefully make the DoP break its deep slumber now to resolve this critical issue decisively, in a time bound manner, assigning clear accountability, without any further delay.

At the same time, shouldn’t both the Honorable Ministers of Health and Chemicals & Fertilizers, taking the State Governments on board, put their collective resources together to create the following, expeditiously:

- A robust national health infrastructure for cancer care

- A transparent mechanism to prevent escalating cancer drug prices and other treatment costs

Hope, the good days would come to the cancer patients of India, at least, sooner than never.

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. 

RHDS: A Simmering Promise in Despondency

Posted on by
Reply

Eric Topol, a leading cardiologist who has embraced the study of genomics and the latest advances in technology to treat chronic disease says, “We’ll soon use our smartphones to monitor our vital signs and chronic conditions in future.”

By clicking on this video clipping, you can watch how Dr. Topol in his talk titled “The Wireless Future of Medicine”, highlights several of the most important wireless devices in medicine’s future – all helping to keep more patients out of hospital beds.

In achieving similar objectives, India’s potential is indeed immense. The good news is, though in India Internet penetration has just crossed 16 percent of its total population, in absolute numbers this percentage reportedly works out to nearly 10 times the population of Australia. According to a report released by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IMAI) and IMRB, there will be around 243 million internet users in India by June 2014, overtaking the US as the world’s second largest internet base after China. This situation must be leveraged to improve access to healthcare in the country significantly.

‘Remote Healthcare Delivery Solutions (RHDS)’

However, for several other reasons the situation is quite challenging in India. Out of its total population of over 1.2 billion, nearly 72.2 percent live in the hinterland and remote rural areas spreading across over 700,000 villages. In all these places, despite huge prevalence of diseases, inadequate healthcare infrastructure and delivery mechanisms offer an ideal backdrop to explore innovative healthcare solutions such as, ‘Remote Healthcare Delivery Solutions (RHDS)’ or ‘Telemedicine’. In that endeavor, smartphones could play a key role in improving access to healthcare for a very large number of population.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has defined ‘Telemedicine’ as:

“The use of information and communications technology (ICT) to deliver healthcare, particularly in settings where access to medical services is insufficient.”

Thus, to effectively improve access to healthcare, especially in rural India, RHDS holds a great promise.

A complex mix:

Healthcare space in India is generally a complex mix of issues related to access, availability, affordability and quality of healthcare, compounded by inadequate public healthcare infrastructure and delivery system on the one hand and expensive private healthcare facilities on the other. The degree of this complexity is rather stark in rural areas.

In a situation like this, RHDS holds a great promise to satisfy healthcare needs of the hinterland and rural India, as this would entail effective medical care, despite understaffed Primary Healthcare Centers (PHCs) and undertrained healthcare staff, with low start-up costs.

Equipped with modern Internet enabled technologies, RHDS would facilitate transmission of patient related information through SMS, email, audio, video, or other image transmissions, like MRI and CT Scans to relevant specialists of different disciplines of medical sciences located in other places. With RHDS, these specialists can monitor even blood pressure or blood glucose levels of patients on computer screens without examining them in person.

Key advantages:

The key advantages of a structured and well committed implementation of RHDS or ‘Telemedicine’ in india are as follows:

  • Elimination of many costs, including travel expenses for specialists and patient transfers – especially in a critical health situation, improving access to quality healthcare.
  • Reduction of feeling of isolation of the rural medical practitioners by upgrading their knowledge through Tele-education or Tele-Continuing Medical Education (CME) programs.

RHDS in India:

In India, RHDS initiative in form of telemedicine commenced more than a decade ago in 1999, when the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) deployed a SATCOM-based telemedicine network across the country. ISRO’s telemedicine program has now been reportedly enhanced to multi-point systems with a network of 400 centers across India.

The good news is, besides Department of Information Technology, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and many state governments, some well-reputed medical and technical institutes, corporates and academia have also started taking active interest in this area, especially oriented for the rural population of India.

In this context it is worth mentioning that in March 2014, Biocon Foundation reportedly partnered with Canara Bank and the Odisha Government for an e-healthcare program that aims at setting up of diagnostic facilities in PHCs to improve healthcare access to  51,000 villages.

Simultaneously, the Department of Information Technology has put in place the ‘Standards for Telemedicine Systems’ and the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare has constituted the National Telemedicine Task Force to provide further thrust to RHDS in India,.

To cite an example, US based World Health Partners (WHP) have reportedly set up an extensive Tele-Medicine network in the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP), which has received almost 35,000 calls in two years requesting for services. After receiving the calls, the patients requiring intervention were directed to WHP’s franchisee clinics in the respective areas. This model included three areas namely, Meerut, Bijnor and Muzzafarnagar.

Apollo group, Narayana Hruduyalaya, Aravind Eye Hospital and Asia Heart Foundation are also running similar system in India. Unfortunately, none of these or even all put together can extend such facilities to patients across the whole of India, just yet.

The Market:

According to a report of Infinity research the global market for telemedicine is around US$ 9 billion with a CAGR of 20 percent. However, another report quoting KSA Technopak indicates that the Indian market is currently relatively very small with a market size of around US$ 7.5 Million. Considering future growth opportunities, as deliberated here, RHDS market holds a great promise.

Telemedicine or RHDS market is classified based on the type of technology and services used and usually analyzed on the basis of telemedicine applications, such as Tele-consultation, Tele-cardiology or Tele-dermatology etc. However, Tele-consultation reportedly dominates the telemedicine services market.

To give an idea of its market potential, the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) telemedicine market was reportedly at US$ 200.5 million in 2009 and was expected to expand at a CAGR of 15.8 percent from 2009 to 2014.

The telemedicine technology market segment forms the largest segment of the overall BRIC telemedicine market and is expected to be US$ 307.4 million by end 2014 with a CAGR of 16.6 percent from 2009 to 2014. The services segment in the overall BRIC telemedicine market is expected to reach US$ 111 million in 2014 with a CAGR of 13.8 percent.

The Challenges in India:

Again there are following two critical challenges in this areas:

  • The biggest challenge is undoubtedly the broadband Internet connectivity.
  • Transmitting patients’ medical records through Internet could infringe upon patient privacy giving rise to ethics related issues, besides avoidable litigations.

I reckon, these concerns can be well addressed, if both the private healthcare providers and the Government together resolve and chart a time-bound pathway to improve access to quality healthcare in a cost effective manner to a large majority of Indian population.

Conclusion:

Various public and private RHDS solution providers are gradually getting actively engaged, though incoherent way, to create awareness about telemedicine in the country. This  brings with it a never before hope of ensuring access to quality healthcare to almost the entire population of the country.

A survey conducted in the United States highlighted that 85 percent of patients expressed satisfaction with their telemedicine consultation. Back home in India, a similar study in Odisha reported a satisfaction rate as high as 99 percent post telemedicine consultation.

Having a large base of medical and IT manpower with requisite expertise in RHDS, India holds a great promise to become a major telemedicine hub even for its neighboring countries, transforming the healthcare delivery scenario in all those places significantly.

Bundling all these, together with the increasing use of Internet enabled smartphones as explained by Dr. Eric Topol in his video clipping above, RHDS does offer a simmering promise in an otherwise despondent healthcare scenario 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.

New Clinical Trial Regime Deserves Support, Sans Threats

Posted on by
Reply

Recent Supreme Court intervention compelling the Union Government to enforce stringent regulations both for approval and conduct of Clinical Trials (CT) in India, has unfortunately met with some strong resistance with stronger words. Some of these voices are from credible experienced sources and the shriller ones are mostly from vested interests with dubious credentials. However, it is also a fact that this interim period of process change in CT has resulted in around 50 per cent drop in new drug trials in the country, pharma MNCs being most affected.

Brief background:

The earlier system of CT in India created a huge ruckus as many players, both global and local, reportedly indulged in widespread malpractices, abuse and misuse of the system. The issue was not just of GCP or other CT related standards, but mostly related to ethical mind-set or lack of it and rampant exploitation of uninformed patients/volunteers, especially related to trial-related injuries and death All these are being well covered by the Indian and international media since quite some time.

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

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

Earlier system did not work: 

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

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

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

The report also indicated that after this ultimatum, all the 9 MNCs had paid compensation to the concerned families of the patients, who died related to the CTs. However, the situation did not change much even thereafter.

Indictment of Indian Parliamentary Committee:

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

The report made the following scathing remarks on Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) under its point 2.2:

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

Catalytic change with tough norms:

The intervention of the apex court heralded the beginning of a catalytic changing process in the CT environment of India. The court intervention was in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Swasthya Adhikar Manch calling for robust measures in the procedural guidelines for drug trials in the country.

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

Accordingly, changes have been/are being made mostly in accordance with the recommendations of Professor Ranjit Roy Chaudhury Experts Committee that was constituted specifically for this purpose by the Union Ministry of Health.

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

  • Setting up of a Central Accreditation Council (CAC) to oversee the accreditation of institutes, clinical investigators and ethics committees for CTs in the country.
  • Only those trials, which will be conducted at centers meeting these requirements, be considered for approval by the DCGI.

All modifications in the procedural norms and guidelines for CTs are expected to protect not just the interest of the country in this area, but would also ensure due justice to the volunteers participating in those trials.

The DCGI has now also put in place some tough norms to make the concerned players liable for the death of, or injury to, any drug trial subject. These guidelines were not so specific and stringent in the past. There are enough instances that CT in India, until recently, had exploited poor volunteers enormously, many of which reportedly did not have any inkling that the efficacy and safety of the drugs that they were administering were still undergoing tests and that too on them.

With those radical changes to the rules of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, pertaining to CT, it is now absolutely mandatory for the principal investigator of the pharmaceutical company, unlike in the past, to reveal the contract between the subject and the company to the DCGI. Besides, much reported process of videography of informed consent ensuring full knowledge of the participant has already been made mandatory. Further, any death during the process of CT would now necessarily have to be reported to the DCGI within 24 hours.

A report quoting the Union Minister of Health has highlighted that, “Earlier, the informed consent of the persons on which the trials had been conducted was often manipulated by the companies to the disadvantage of the subjects,”

Reaction to change:

With the Government of India tightening the norms of CT, the drug trial process and the rules are undergoing a metamorphosis with increased liability and costs to the pharma players and Contract Research Organizations (CROs). The reaction has been moderate to rather belligerent from some corners. One such player reportedly has publicly expressed annoyance by saying: “The situation is becoming more and more difficult in India. Several programs have been stalled and we have also moved the trials offshore, to ensure the work on the development does not stop.”

There were couple of similar comments or threats, whatever one may call these, in the past, but the moves of the Government continued to be in the right direction with the intervention of the Supreme Court.

No reverse gear:

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

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

Conclusion: 

While the importance of CTs to ensure better and more effective treatment for millions of patients in India is immense, it should not be allowed at the cost of patients’ safety, under any garb…not even under any open threat of shifting CTs outside India.

If the DCGI loosens the rope in this critical area and even inadvertently allows some pharmaceutical players keep exploiting the system just to keep the CT costs down only for commercial considerations, judiciary has no option but to effectively intervene in response to PILs, as happened in this particular case too.

The new system, besides ensuring patients’/volunteers’ safety, justice, fairplay and good discipline for all, will have the potential to help reaping a rich economic harvest through creation of a meaningful and vibrant CT industry in India in the long run, simultaneously benefitting millions of patients, as we move on. However, the DCGI should ensure to add reasonable speed to the entire CT approval process, diligently.

Taking all these into consideration, let all concerned support the new CT regime in India, sans any threats…veiled or otherwise.

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.

 

Access to Medicine: Losing Track in Cacophony

Posted on by
Reply

Indian Healthcare space is by and large an arena, where perceptions prevail over the changing reality in many important areas. Consequently, fierce discourse in those areas mostly gives rise to a cacophony of ‘Your Perceptions Against Mine’.

It is intriguing, why even in some well-hyped research studies of recent times, multiple interpretations are made not based on specific analytics-based numbers, but around critical data gaps and then the vital ‘conclusion’ is craftily packaged in a particular way to reinforce a set of perceptions and view points.

Serious discourse on ‘Access to Medicine’ in India often falls in these data crevasses, resulting nothing more than abject cynicism and expert sermons sans accountability from all quarters. Suggestions for precise quantification of magnitude of the problem, so far as ‘Access to Medicine’ is concerned, and then measuring the same periodically for sustainable corrective measures, obviously fade away in the din of multiple shrill voices, heavily loaded with self-perceptions attempting to score favorable brownie points.

A quantifiable number on overall ‘access to medicines’ remains illusive:

A quantifiable recent number on overall ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India, which could well form the base to measure progress of the country in this critical area subsequently, still remains illusive.

It is an irony, no one seems to know today what is the current ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India, in real term.

A recent study too goes around it, but NOT into it:

A 2012 industry sponsored study carried out by IMS Consulting, instead of giving just one number for overall ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India, went around it by reiterating the obvious that ‘access’ has 4 dimensions such as, Physical Reach, Availability/Capacity, Quality/Functionality and Affordability.

That is fine. No issue. However, the much sought after number of overall ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ still remained illusory in this study too. Interestingly, there are no numbers available to public for each of the above 4 important dimensions either. Thus the cacophony got shriller.

Clutching on to ‘Dinosaurian data’ in modern times:

Against the above backdrop, like many others, both local and global, even the honorable President of India on January 16, 2013, while addressing the ASSOCHAM 10th Knowledge Millennium Summit, quoted the ‘World Medicines Situation of 2004 report’, the base year of which is reportedly 1999. This study indicated, ‘only 35% of the population of India, against 53% in Africa and 85% in China has access to modern medicines’.

Thus in the absence of any recently updated number, the ‘Dinosaurian data’ of 1999 (published in 2004) is being considered relevant by many even in 2013, including the esteemed industry body that probably provided those irrelevant data to the president of India’s office for his speech, at the beginning of this year.

Importance of capturing today’s ‘Access’ data to provide ‘Healthcare to all’:

There should not be even an iota of doubt that the above reported scenario has changed quite significantly, at least, during the last decade in India, making the 1999 (published in 2004) ‘Access to Medicines’ numbers irrelevant, having no sense whatsoever in 2013.

To drive home this point, I shall now focus on just three sets of parameters, besides many others, to vindicate my comment on ‘dinosaurian data’. These parameters are as follows:

  1. Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) in per-capita expenditure on healthcare from 2006-11
  2. Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the domestic pharmaceutical industry in this period
  3. Quantum of increase in use of public healthcare facilities

1. Per capita Healthcare expenditure from 2006-11:

Year US $
1999 18.2
2004 28.7
2006 33.0
2007 39.9
2008 42.7
2009 43.6
2010 51.4
2011 59.1

(Source WHO Data)

The above table vey clearly highlights that in 1999, the base year of the above study, per capita healthcare expenditure in India was just US$ 18.2. The figure rose to US$ 28.7 in year 2004, when that study was published. The number reached to US $ 59.1 in 2011. This reflects a double digit Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) in per capita healthcare expenditure of the country from the 2004 study to 2011.

No doubt, this number is still much less than many other countries. Nevertheless, in 2013, per capita healthcare expenditure in India will be even more, indicating significant increase in ‘Access’ as compared to 2004.

2. Growth of domestic pharmaceutical market: 

According to the PwC – CII report titled “India Pharma Inc.: Gearing up for the next level of growth”, the domestic drug market has been clocking a CAGR of more than 15 percent over the last five years. Thus, high growth of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) since the last decade, both from the urban and the rural areas, would certainly signal towards significant increase in the domestic consumption of medicines. Moreover, fast growing rural and semi-urban markets would also clearly support the argument in favor of increasing ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ in India.

A back of the envelope calculation:

Improvement in access as compared to what ‘World Medicines Situation of 2004 report’ had highlighted, may not have a linear relationship to the volume growth of the industry during this period. However, a large part of this growth could indeed be attributed to increase in overall consumption of drugs, leading to improvement in access to medicines in India.

For example, out of the reported 15 percent CAGR of the IPM, if one attributes just 8 percent volume growth/year to increased access to drugs, a back of the envelope calculation would indicate that during last nine years over the base year of 2004, the access to medicines has improved at least to 70 percent of the population, if not more, and has NOT remained just at 35 percent, as many tend to establish a point or two by quoting the above dated report.

Unfortunately, even the Government of India does not seem to be aware of this gradually improving trend, as evidenced in the honorable President of India’s speech in 2013, as quoted above. Official communications of the government also keep quoting the outdated statistics stating that 65 percent of the population of India does not have ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ even today.

Be that as it may, around 30 percent of Indian population would still perhaps not have ‘Access to Medicines’ in India. This issue needs immediate attention of the policy makers and can possibly be achieved through effective implementation of a holistic public health policy model like, ‘Universal Health Care (UHC)’.

3. Increase in use of public healthcare facilities:

According to a study done by the IMS Consulting Group in 2012, in rural India, which constitutes around 70 percent of the total 1.2 billion populations of India, usage of Government facilities for Out Patient (OP) care has increased from 22 percent in 2004 to 29 percent in 2012, mainly due to the impact of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). This increase will have significant impact in reducing ‘Out of pocket (OoP)’ healthcare expenses of the rural poor.

Overall impact on some key health indicators: 

The same 2012 study of IMS Consulting highlights that an objective and comprehensive assessment of healthcare access in India was last undertaken in 2004, through a survey performed by the National Survey Sample Organization (NSSO). 
The survey reported on multiple parameters related to healthcare, including morbidity in broad age groups, immunization status, episodes of outpatient/ inpatient treatment across geography/ income segments together with expenditure on treatment. These measures, the study indicates, were taken collectively to indicate the status of healthcare access.

According to this report, the Government of India had undertaken multiple programs to improve healthcare access. These programs have addressed numerous issues, in varying proportion, that are linked to healthcare access, including lack of infrastructure, high cost of treatment, and the quality and availability of treatment. Some of these programs have been enormously successful: for example, India is a polio-free country today, the study reinforces.

The study also highlights significant progress in some basic healthcare indicators. The examples cited are as follows:

  • Maternal mortality rate has decreased by ~50 percent, and was reported at 200 deaths per 100,000 live births in the year 2010 as compared to 390 a decade ago. A few states such as Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Kerala have already achieved the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of a maternal mortality ratio less than 109 maternal death per 100,000 live births, with multiple other states close to achieving this target.
  • Infant mortality rate has decreased by greater than 25 percent over the period 2000–2009, and was reported at 50 deaths per 1,000 live births. Correspondingly, the under-5 child mortality rate (U5MR) has decreased by similar percentage levels, and was reported at 64 deaths per 1,000 live births. While U5MR for urban India has achieved the MDG target of 42 the same for rural of 71 is significantly lagging the target level.
  • Immunization coverage has increased significantly, for example diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization among 1 year olds has increased from 60% to 70%, and the Hepatitis B coverage has increased from 68% in 2005 to 91% in 2010.
  • National programs have successfully improved detection and cure rates for tuberculosis and leprosy.

No direct relationship established between healthcare spend and outcomes:

Though India’s per-capita healthcare spend has been lowest among the usually compared BRIC countries, the following quick example would clearly establish that the healthcare outcomes do not have a linear relationship with the per-capita healthcare spend either:

Per capita Healthcare expenditure in 2011: Country Comparison

Country US $ World Rank Physician/1000 people Hospital/1000 people Life expectancy at birth (years)
Brazil 1120.56   41 1.76 2.3 73.4
Russia 806.7   55 4.31 9.6 69.0
India 59.1 152 0.65 0.9 67.08
China 278.02   99 1.82 3.8 73.5 

(Source: WHO data)

Thus, taking a cue from these numbers, India should decide at what percapita spend the country would possibly be able to ensure quality ‘access’ to healthcare for 100 percent of its population. Mere, comparison of percapita spend of each country, I reckon, may thus not mean much.

Conclusion:

The moot point, I reckon, is that, to measure progress in any sphere of activity, one will need to have a robust well-derived base point. Thereafter, progress needs to be monitored and quantified periodically from one point to the next.

So far as the access to healthcare in general and medicines in particular are concerned, it becomes difficult to fathom why is this basic approach still not being considered to measure progress in ‘Access’ and its rate in India.

As a result, discussions among the stakeholders do not take place around those updated numbers, either. Instead, what we hear is a high decibel cacophony of perceptions, at times groping around various dimensions of ‘Access’ and that too without quantification of each, as stated above.  This makes the task all the more complicated in pursuit of providing ‘Healthcare to All’ in India.

That said, the question to ponder now:

Does any one know what is the current ‘Access to Modern Medicines’ number in India and at what rate the progress is being made in that direction to achieve ‘Health for All’ objective of the country?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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