Tag Archives: with

Does the Landmark Glivec Judgment Discourage Innovation in India?

Posted on by
Reply

No, I do not think so. The 112 pages well articulated judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered on April 1, 2013, does not even remotely discourage innovation in India, including much talked about ‘incremental innovation’. This landmark judgment reconfirms the rules of the game for pharmaceutical innovation, as captured in the Indian Patents Act 2005.

When one reads the judgment, point 191 in page number 95 very clearly states as follows:

“191. We have held that the subject product, the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, does not qualify the test of Section 3(d) of the Act but that is not to say that Section 3(d) bars patent protection for all incremental inventions of chemical and pharmaceutical substances. It will be a grave mistake to read this judgment to mean that section 3(d) was amended with the intent to undo the fundamental change brought in the patent regime by deletion of section 5 from the Parent Act. That is not said in this judgment.”

Thus all ‘incremental innovations’, which some people always paint with a general broad brush of ‘evergreening’, should no longer be a taboo in India. The judgment just says that Glivec is not patentable as per Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act based on the data provided and arguments of Novartis.

To me, the judgment does also not signal that no more Glivec like case will come to the Supreme Court in future. It vindicated inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act 2005.

It is interesting to note that honorable Supreme Court itself used the terminology of ‘incremental innovation’ for such cases.

That said, I find it extremely complex to imagine what would have happened, if the judgment had gone the opposite way.

A critical point to ponder:

The judgment will also mean that all those products, having valid product patents abroad, if fail to meet the requirements of Section 3(d), will not be patentable in India, enabling introduction of their generic equivalents much sooner in the country and at the same time causing a nightmarish situation for their innovators.

However, this again, in no way, is an outcome of this judgement or a new development, as stated above. It is just vindication of the intent behind inclusion of Section 3(d) in the amended Indian Patents Act, when it was enacted by the Parliament of India in 2005.

Patentability of ‘Incremental Innovations’ in India:

Patentability criteria for any ‘incremental innovations’ has been defined in the Section 3(d) of the Indian statute as follows:

“The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy.”

Supreme Court interpretation of the term “Efficacy” in Section 3(d): 

The Honorable Supreme Court in page 90 of its above order under point 180 stated that in case of medicines, efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”, which must be judged strictly and narrowly. The interpretation goes as follows:

180. “What is “efficacy”? Efficacy means ‘the ability to produce a desired or intended result’. Hence, the test of efficacy in the context of section 3(d) would be different, depending upon the result the product under consideration is desired or intended to produce. In other words, the test of efficacy would depend upon the function, utility or the purpose of the product under consideration. Therefore, in the case of a medicine that claims to cure a disease, the test of efficacy can only be “therapeutic efficacy”.

The Honorable Court under the same point 180 further elaborated:

“With regard to the genesis of section 3(d), and more particularly the circumstances in which section 3(d) was amended to make it even more constrictive than before, we have no doubt that the “therapeutic efficacy” of a medicine must be judged strictly and narrowly…Further, the explanation requires the derivative to ‘differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy’. What is evident, therefore, is that not all advantageous or beneficial properties are relevant, but only such properties that directly relate to efficacy, which in case of medicine, as seen above, is its therapeutic efficacy.” 

Based on this interpretation of Section 3(d), the Honorable Supreme Court of India ordered that Glivec does not fulfill the required criteria of the statute.

The rationale behind Section 3(d):

A report on ‘Patentability of the incremental innovation’ indicates that the policy makers keeping the following points in mind formulated the Indian Patents Act 2005:

  • The strict standards of patentability as envisaged by TRIPS pose a challenge to India’s pharmaceutical industry, whose success depended on the ability to produce generic drugs at much cheaper prices than their patented equivalents.
  • A stringent patent system would severely curtail access to expensive life saving drugs to a large number of populations in India.
  • Grant of a product patents should be restricted only to “genuine innovations” and those “incremental innovations” on existing medicines, which will be able to demonstrate significantly increased efficacy over the original drug.

IPA challenges: 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by IPO fall under Section 3(d):

A study by the ‘Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA)’ indicates that 86 pharmaceutical patents granted by the IPO post 2005 are not breakthrough inventions but only minor variations of existing pharmaceutical products and demanded re-examination of them.

Possible implications to IPA challenge:

If the argument, as expressed above in the IPA study, is true by any stretch of imagination, in that case, there exists a theoretical possibility of at least 86 already granted product patents to get revoked. This will invite again another nightmarish situation for innovators.

Examples of revocation of patents in India:

On November 26, 2012, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) reportedly denied patent protection for AstraZeneca’s anti-cancer drug Gefitinib on the ground that the molecule lacked invention.

The report also states that AstraZeneca suffered its first setback on Gefitinib in June 2006, when the Indian generic company Natco Pharma opposed the initial patent application filed by the global major in a pre-grant opposition. Later on, another local company, GM Pharma, joined Natco in November 2006.

After accepting the pre-grant opposition by the two Indian companies, the Indian Patent office (IPO) in March 2007 rejected the patent application for Gefitinib citing ‘known prior use’ of the drug. AstraZeneca contested the order through a review petition, which was dismissed in May 2011.

Prior to this, on November 2, 2012 the IPAB revoked the patent of Pegasys (Peginterferon alfa-2a) – the hepatitis C drug of the global pharmaceutical giant Roche.

Though Roche was granted a patent for Pegasys by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in 2006, this was subsequently contested by a post-grant challenge by the large Indian pharma player – Wockhardt and the NGO Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust (SRT) on the ground that Pegasys is neither a “novel” product nor did it demonstrate ‘inventiveness’, as required by Section 3(d) of Patents Act of India 2005.

It is worth noting, although the IPO had rejected the patent challenges by Wockhardt and SRT in 2009, IPAB reversed IPO’s decision revoking the patent of Pegasys.

Similarly the patent for liver and kidney cancer drug of Pfizer – Sutent (Sunitinib) granted by IPO in 2007, was revoked by the IPAB in October, 2012 after a post grant challenge by Cipla and Natco Pharma on the ground that the claimed ‘invention’ does not involve inventive steps.

Patent challenges under section 3(d) may come up even more frequently in future:

Some observers in this field have expressed, although ‘public health interest’ is the primary objective for having Section 3(d) in the Indian Patents Act 2005, many generic companies, both local and global, have already started exploiting this provision as a part of their ‘business strategy’ to improve business performance in India, especially when an  injunction is usually not being granted by the honorable Courts for such cases on public health interest ground.

Thus, as stated above, there is likely to be many more cases like, Glivec coming before the Supreme Court in the years ahead.

Another related development of the last week:

It has been reported that American pharma major MSD has last week filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against Indian pharma major – Glenmark for alleged patent violation of its leading anti-diabetic drugs Januvia and Janumet. In this case also no interim injunction has reportedly been granted to MSD by the Honorable Delhi High Court.

Glenmark has stated through a media report, “It is a responsible company and has launched the products after due diligence and research.” The company has also announced that their version of the molecule named Zita and Zita Met will be available to patients at a 20 percent discount to MSD’s price.

Hence, once again, the Indian court to decide, the balance of justice would now point to which direction.

Government has no role to play – patent challenge is a legal process across the world:

The proponents of ‘no change required in the Section 3(d)’ argue, ‘Patent Challenge’ is a legal process all over the world, the Government has hardly got any role to play in settling such disputes. The law should be allowed to take its own course for all disputes related to the Patents Act of the country, including Section 3(d).

They also opine that India must be allowed to follow the law of justice without casting aspersions on the knowledge and biases of the Indian judiciary for vested interests.

That said, there is certainly an urgent need to add speed to this legal process by setting up ‘Fast-track Courts’ for resolving all Intellectual Property (IP) related disputes in a time bound manner.

Arguments against Section 3(d):

Opposition to the Section 3(d) counter-argues by saying, this is a critical period for India to help fostering an appropriate ecosystem for innovation in the country. This group emphasizes, “Providing the right incentives for incremental pharmaceutical innovation can move India forward on this path and encourage the development of drug products that meet the needs of Indian patients. Reforming Section 3(d) to encourage and protect incremental pharmaceutical innovation would create such incentives and help India become a true powerhouse of innovation.”

Another group says that the main reason in favor of Section 3(d) being the provision will prevent grant of frivolous patents, the ultimate fallout of which will result in limited access to these drugs due to high price, is rather irrelevant today. This, they point out, is mainly because the Government is now actively mulling a structured mechanism of price negotiation for all patented drugs to improve their access to patients in India.

Importance of ‘Incremental Innovation’ in India:

Incremental innovations are indeed very important for the country and have been benefiting the patients immensely over decades, across the world.

A report titled, “The Value Of Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation” highlighted as follows:

  • As per the National Knowledge Commission, while 37.3% of Indian companies introduced breakthrough innovations in recent years, no fewer than 76.4% introduced incremental innovations.
  • 60 percent of the drugs on the World health Organization’s essential Drug list reflect incremental improvements over older drugs.

The report indicates some of the benefits of ‘Incremental Pharmaceutical Innovation’ for India as follows:

  1. Improved quality of drug products, including products that are better suited to India’s climate.
  2. Development of treatments for diseases that are prevalent in India for which new drug discovery is currently limited or otherwise inadequate.
  3. Increasing likelihood that for every therapeutic class, there is a treatment to which an Indian patient will respond.
  4. Development of the R&D capacity and expertise
 of Indian pharmaceutical companies.
  5. Reduction of healthcare and other social costs in India through improved drug quality and selection.
  6. Increased access to medicine as a result of price competition.

The study concluded by saying that Section 3(d) potentially precludes the patenting of hundreds of incremental pharmaceutical innovations that Indian companies are attempting to patent and commercialize outside India.

There are umpteen numbers of examples that can ably demonstrate, ‘incremental innovation’ of the pharmaceutical innovators help significantly improving the efficacy and safety of existing drugs. All such innovations should in no way be considered “frivolous” as they have very substantial and positive impact in improving conditions of the ailing patients.

Be that as it may, the Supreme Court judgment has categorically mentioned that all ‘Incremental innovations’ should conform to the requirement of the Section 3(d) of the statute.

“West should learn from India’s high patent standards”

An article appeared just yesterday written by a well-regarded Indian economist recommended, “West should learn from India’s high patent standards”. It observed that    over-liberal patent system of the West is now broken and it should learn from India’s much tougher patent system.

Patent monopolies needs to be given only for genuine innovations, as defined in the Indian Patents Act 2005, where the public benefits clearly exceed the monopoly cost.

The author concluded by saying, “This means setting a high bar for innovation. High standards are desirable for patents, as for everything else.”

View of the Glivec inventor: 

In another interview titled, “If you erode patents, where will innovations come from?” Dr Brian Druker, whose work resulted in the development of Glivec, re-emphasizing the need for R&D by the pharmaceutical industry, commented,  “I’m going to stay away from the legal judgment … but as a physician, I do recognize that the advances will come from new products, not modifications.”

Are discordant voices out of step with time?

The interpretation of the Section 3(d) of the statute by the Honorable Supreme Court of India is the last word for all, despite a few voices of discord from within and mostly outside India. These voices, many would reckon, could well be out of step with time, especially in relatively fast growing, modern, independent, thinking and assertive young  India.

Conclusion:

In my view, nothing materially has changed on the ground before and after the Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case so far as the Indian Patents Act is concerned and also in its interpretation.

While encouraging all types of innovations, including incremental ones and protecting them with an effective IPR regime are very important for any country. No nation can afford to just wish away various socioeconomic expectations, demands and requirements not just of the poor, but also of the growing middle class intelligentsia, as gradually getting unfolded in many parts of the globe.

Available indicators do point out that the civil society would continue to expect in return, just, fair, responsible and reasonably affordable prices for the innovative medicines, based on the overall socioeconomic status of the local population.

This critical balancing factor is essential not only for the progress of the pharmaceutical industry, but also to alleviate sufferings of the ailing population of the country, effectively.

For arguments sake, in an ideal scenario, if the Central and State Governments in India decide to buy such drugs to supply to all patients free of cost, just like any ‘welfare state’, will even the Government be able to afford these prices and fund such schemes in India?

It is, therefore, now widely expected that innovator pharmaceutical companies, which play a pivotal role in keeping population of any nation healthy and disease free to the extent possible, should also proactively find out ways to help resolving this critical issue in India, working closely with the Government of 1.2 billion Indians, including other concerned stakeholders.

In that context, the landmark Supreme Court judgment on the Glivec case has vindicated the need of striking a right balance between encouraging and protecting innovation, including incremental ones and the public health interest 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. 

Nutraceuticals with Therapeutic Claims: A Vulnerable Growing Bubble Protected by Faith and Hope of Patients

Posted on by
Reply

Today a growing number of particularly the aging population wants to live a healthy life without consuming much of chemical drugs, which in turn is becoming a key growth driver for nutraceutical products across the world. Further, increasing interest towards preventive healthcare and self-medication with ‘Over The Counter (OTC)’ products are the additional factors boosting the growth of the nutraceutical products market in India.

It has been reported that by 2020, the number of senior citizens (60 plus age group) is expected to exceed 1.0 billion, with around 70% of them living in the developing world. This further highlights the growth potential of the nutraceutical industry in countries like India with rising per capita income.

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 is now being commonly used in marketing for such products but 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.”

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

In India, nutraceuticals are being promoted to and even prescribed by the medical profession, not just as nutritional supplements but also with off-label claims for the treatment of disease conditions, like arthritis, osteoporosis, cardiology, diabetes, pain management etc.

Are nutraceuticals then ‘Nutritional Supplements’ or ‘Medicines’?

When for any nutraceutical, claims are made either for cure of a specific disease condition or for prevention of a particular ailment, the product assumes the status of a drug substance, which needs to be approved by the drug regulator with undisputed and demonstrable evidence of efficacy and safety on patients.

Thus, the questions that may be very appropriately raised, whether or not such product claims are backed by robust clinical data for efficacy and safety on long term use and whether or not such data have also been published in the peer review journals? The answer will probably be an unambiguous ‘No’.

Unfortunately, clinical trial data proving efficacy and safety are not required for nutraceutical products to get their marketing approval in India, as long as the manufacturers do not put any medicinal or therapeutic claims both on the product label and also in their promotional literature.

However, in practice, making off-label therapeutic claims for nutraceutical products in general, though illegal, are more a routine than exceptions in India.

Relaxed regulatory process for marketing approval of Nutraceutical Products:

As stated above, nutraceutical products do not go through the rigors of stringent regulatory process as followed for the marketing approval of any drug with similar claims. Due to this reason, nutraceutical products currently fall within a grey zone, which has not yet gone through intensive scientific scrutiny for their safety and efficacy on patients, in general.

Ethical issues:

As a result of such relaxed regulatory framework, the nutraceutical products industry also prompts to flag many ethical issues, which include concerns over inadequate disclosure of science based information particularly on the surrogate therapeutic claims based merely on anecdotal evidence, as a part of intensive off-label sales and marketing efforts on their part.

Off-label therapeutic claims for any product are even otherwise illegal in India, like in many other countries.

Appropriate measures by the Government need to be put in place sooner, not only to plug the regulatory loopholes for off-label therapeutic claims, but also to ensure that marketing malpractices are not followed by their manufacturers to boost the sales turnover. This is necessary keeping especially the health outcomes and safety of the patients in mind.

How effective and safe are the nutraceuticals?

As stated above, currently many nutraceuticals are being directly promoted just like any other modern medicines, in the garb of nutritional supplements, to the medical profession, but with illegal claims and intent without being supported by data that can pass through scientific or regulatory scrutiny.

Thus the questions that one can raise logically are as follows:

  • What happens when the nutraceutical products fail to live up to the tall claims made by the respective manufacturers on their efficacy and safety profile?
  • Are these substances safe, just because not enough data has been generated on their toxicity profile?

The New Zealand Medical Journal  (Vol. 118 No 1219 ISSN 1175 8716) in an article titled, “Lead poisoning due to ingestion of Indian herbal remedies” reported about dangerous and life threatening lead poisoning as follows:

“We believe that our cases of lead poisoning was predominantly due to ingestion of lead contaminated Indian herbal medicines, and it is the first such case to be reported in New Zealand.”

Similarly, Times Health in its March 15, 2010 reported that dangerous “lead poisoning in Indian children in the Boston area were linked to consumption of Indian spices.”

Taking lessons from all these, incidence like ‘Tylenol tragedy’ must not be allowed to be repeated in India, the risk of which primarily lies within inadequate quality and safety standards arising out of overall gross deficiency in the product security measures for many of such substances.

Importance of robust clinical data for therapeutic claims:

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, as well, especially when therapeutic claims are made on them, directly or indirectly, as these substances are also involved in a series of reactions within the body.

Similarly, to establish any long term toxicity problem with such products, generation of credible clinical data including those with animal reaction to the products, both short and long term, using test doses several times higher than the recommended ones, is critical. These are not usually followed for nutraceutical products in India, even when therapeutic claims are being made.

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

Should Nutraceuticals also follow ‘Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM)’ standards?

The term and concept of EBM originated at McMaster University of Canada in early 1990 and has been defined as “the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values” (Sackett, 2000).

EBM is thus a multifaceted process of systematically reviewing, appraising and using clinical research findings to aid the delivery of optimum clinical care to patients. EBM also seeks to assess the strength of evidence of the risks and benefits of any particular treatment claim.

Thus many global pharmaceutical companies believe that EBM offers the most objective way to determine and maintain consistently high quality and safety standards of healthcare products in the healthcare practice.

EBM concept, I reckon, is important in the context of nutraceuticals too, because over a period of time more and more users of nutraceuticals will tend to look for authentic scientific evidence within a clinical set up for such products. It is about time that EBM standards are followed for nutraceutical products, as well, by the regulators.

Global pharma companies focus on EBM:

So far, the large global pharmaceutical players have been focusing mainly, if not only on EBM. Companies like, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), were reported to have discontinued marketing those products, which do not fall under ‘Evidence Based Medicines (EBM)’, even in India.

Nutraceuticals market:

The global nutraceuticals market is currently estimated to be around US$ 117 billion and expected to reach US$ 177 billion by 2013 with a CAGR of 7%, driven mainly by ‘functional foods’ segment with a CAGR of 11%. The top countries in this category are Japan, USA and Europe with the former two together enjoying around 58% market share of the total nutraceuticals consumption of the world.

In 2009 Indian nutraceuticals market was around US$ 1.0 billion growing at 5% (IMS), around 55% of which being functional foods. As per IMS about 2800 brands were competing in the nutritional market in 2009.

The prices of most nutraceuticals products with off-label therapeutic claims, being outside government price regulations in India, are usually quite high.

Although India’s current market share of the global nutraceuticals market is around 1%, a report from PwC predicts that India will join the league of top 10 by 2020, primarily driven by the ‘functional foods’.

The status of nutraceuticals in the USA:

In the USA, Congress passed the ‘Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act’ in 1994. This act allows ‘functional claims’ to Dietary supplements without drug approval, 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 said claim has not been evaluated by the FDA and that the product concerned is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.

The above Act bestows some important responsibility on the doctors in particular, 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.

It is difficult to understand why is the Indian regulator not following, at least, the above practices in the country.

Only ‘Patented Traditional Medicines’ will soon require mandatory clinical trials:

Here comes possibly the beginning of a refreshing change in the drug regulatory mindset for nutraceuticals in the country.

It has recently 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 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.”

However, it defies scientific logic, when one argues that anecdotal evidence of last 5,000 years should be accepted as robust data for proven efficacy and safety of nutraceutical products on patients, especially during their longer term use, for the reasons as mentioned above.

Thus, this initiative of the government though commendable, will by no means ensure safety and efficacy of existing nutraceutical products making therapeutic claims – off-label or otherwise in their sales and marketing promotion to the medical profession.

An immediate action:

Nutraceutical products, wearing a tag of providing desirable therapeutic benefits with less or no side effects as compared to conventional medicines, is showing just a moderate growth in India, despite being within a favorable pricing and a relaxed regulatory environment.

As deliberated above, it may take some time for the drug regulator to grant marketing approval of nutraceutical products with therapeutic claims based only on robust clinical data for efficacy and safety. Till such time this happens, the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) without fail should make a statement, something like the following, mandatory on the packaging of all nutraceutical products, just as what has been done by the US-FDA:

“All claims made for this product have not been evaluated by the DCGI and the product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”

Conclusion:

I reckon, the nutraceutical products segment with surrogate or off-label therapeutic claims, is just a growing bubble, as it were, which continues to be well protected by faith and hope of the patients, in the absence of stringent drug regulatory measures for substantiation of specific medicinal claims with predictable efficacy and safety profile.

This bubble could easily burst… decisively, if generation of clinical data on safety and efficacy ever becomes mandatory regulatory requirements for getting marketing approval of nutraceutical products in India claiming therapeutic benefits, off-label or otherwise. In which case, to meet those stringent drug regulatory requirements, commensurate increase in price for such products could indeed make commercial survival of this industry extremely challenging.

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.

Finance Ministry Disallows Expenses on ‘Freebies’ to Doctors by Pharma Companies in line with MCI Guidelines: A Possible Game Changer?

Posted on by
Reply

Things are unfolding reasonably faster now related to the financial relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession. All these issues are getting increasingly dragged into the public debate where government can no longer play the role of a mere bystander.

Last month, around middle of July, most of the leading English business dailies of India reported that much-awaited “Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)” authored by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, quite in line with the amended guidelines for the medical profession by the Medical Council of India (MCI), is expected to be notified by the government by August, 2012 for implementation by the entire pharmaceutical industry on a voluntary basis for six months, to start with.

Department of Revenue now steps in:

Closely following the recent series of events, it now appears that there is a good possibility of framing a robust financial regulation by the Government of India to make the disclosure of all payments made to the physicians by the pharmaceutical companies’ mandatory, like the ‘Physician Payments Sunshine Act in the USA’.

I reckon, this is just a matter of time that similar steps are taken in India, perhaps in stages.

CBDT disallows expenses on all ‘freebies’ to Doctors:

However, taking the first step closer to that direction, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), which is a part of Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance has now decided to disallow expenses on all ‘freebies’ to Doctors by the Pharmaceutical Companies in India.

A circular dated August 1, 2012 of the CBDT that the any expenses incurred by the pharmaceutical companies on gifts and other ‘freebies’ given to the doctors will no longer be allowed as business expenses.

MCI Guidelines are the basis:

The above decision of the CBDT is based on the notification of the Medical Council of India (MCI) dated December 10, 2009 amending the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002”, prohibiting the medical practitioners and their professional associations from taking any gift, travel facility, hospitality, cash or monetary grant from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industries. Amended guidelines of the MCI came into force with effect from December 14, 2009.

Areas of stricter MCI regulations: The above notification of MCI clearly specifies stricter regulations for doctors in their relationship with the ‘pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry and associations’ in the following areas: 1. Gifts 2. Travel facilities 3. Hospitality 4. Cash or Monetary grants 5. Medical Research 6. Maintaining Professional Autonomy 7. Affiliation 8. Endorsement

Tax Assessing Officers have also been instructed:

Based on this amendment, CBDT has now decided that all claims related to expenses incurred in providing the above mentioned or similar ‘freebies’ in violation of the provisions of Regulations 2002 of the MCI on ‘Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics’ of the doctors, shall now be inadmissible under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act being an expense prohibited by the law.

This disallowance shall be made in the hands of all such pharmaceutical or allied health sector industries or other assesses which have provided the ‘freebies’ mentioned above and claimed it as deductible business expenses in their respective accounts against income.

CBDT has directed its assessing officers, with the above circular, to follow this new practice.

CBDT Circular:

“INADMISSIBILITY OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN PROVIDING FREEBEES TO MEDICAL PRACTITIONER BY PHARMACEUTICAL AND ALLIED HEALTH SECTOR INDUSTRY

CIRCULAR NO. 5/2012 [F. NO. 225/142/2012-ITA.II], DATED 1-8-2012

It has been brought to the notice of the Board that some pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industries are providing freebees (freebies) to medical practitioners and their professional associations in violation of the regulations issued by Medical Council of India (the ‘Council’) which is a regulatory body constituted under the Medical Council Act, 1956.

2. The council in exercise of its statutory powers amended the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (the regulations) on 10-12-2009 imposing a prohibition on the medical practitioner and their professional associations from taking any Gift, Travel facility, Hospitality, Cash or monetary grant from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industries.

3. Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act provides for deduction of any revenue expenditure (other than those failing under sections 30 to 36) from the business Income if such expense is laid out/expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business or profession. However, the explanation appended to this sub-section denies claim of any such expense, if the same has been incurred for a purpose which is either an offense or prohibited by law.

Thus, the claim of any expense incurred in providing above mentioned or similar freebees in violation of the provisions of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 shall be inadmissible under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act being an expense prohibited by the law. This disallowance shall be made in the hands of such pharmaceutical or allied health sector Industries or other assesse which has provided aforesaid freebees and claimed it as a deductible expense in its accounts against income.

4. It is also clarified that the sum equivalent to value of freebees enjoyed by the aforesaid medical practitioner or professional associations is also taxable as business income or income from other sources as the case may be depending on the facts of each case. The Assessing Officers of such medical practitioner or professional associations should examine the same and take an appropriate action.

This may be brought to the notice of all the officers of the charge for necessary action.”

The turning point:

In 2010, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ expressed its deep concern that “the evil practice” of inducement of doctors continued because the Medical Council of India had no jurisdiction over the pharma industry and it could not enforce the code of ethics on it.’

It was widely reported that the letter of the Congress Member of Parliament, Dr. Jyoti Mirdha to the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, attaching a bunch of air tickets to claim that ‘doctors and their families were beating the scorching Indian summer with a trip to England and Scotland, courtesy a pharmaceutical company’, compelled the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to initiate inquiry and action on the subject.

The letter had claimed that as many as 30 family members of 11 doctors from all over India enjoyed the hospitality of the pharmaceutical company.

In addition Dr. Mirdha reportedly wrote to the PMO that “The malpractice did not come to an end because while medical profession (recipients of incentives) is subjected to a mandatory code, there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the healthcare industry (givers of incentives). Result: Ingenious methods have been found to flout the code.”

The report also indicated at that time that the Department of Pharmaceuticals is trying to involve the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance to explore the possibilities in devising methods to link the money trail to offending companies.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, it now appears that the new ball game of working out winning pharmaceutical marketing strategies and practices will no longer be driven by more of a ‘deep pocket’ syndrome and less of ‘cerebral power’, by all concerned.

If the new regulations are implemented effectively by the Government, I shall not be surprised to witness a dramatic change in the prescription share of various companies in the next 3 to 5 years, thereby impacting the ranking of these companies in the Indian pharmaceutical industry league table significantly, separating men from the boys.

Thus, the name of the game in the pharmaceutical marketing space, in not too distant future, is expected to be decided by the winning innovative ideas, whose time has just become ripe.

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.

Bollywood Matinee Idol Pontifies on Pharma FDI with Razzmatazz: Exploring Facts

Posted on by
Reply

It has been widely reported  by the media that Bollywood matinee idol Aamir Khan was invited by the Parliamentary Standing Committee  (PSC) on commerce to express his views on Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) in the pharmaceutical sector of India on June 21, 2012.

The actor reportedly has suggested regulations on FDI in the pharma sector to protect the domestic pharmaceutical companies, as well as, any consequent adverse impact on the patients in terms of availability of cheaper generic medicines.

There is absolutely nothing wrong or surprising in the actor’s deposition to the PSC or for that matter in his expressing views on the subject from any platform of his choice. Every citizen of India has got the full right to express his/her views on any matter to the public in general, law or policy makers or any other august body as the person will deem necessary, for the best interest of the country. It is up to the astute individual members or the institutions to extract the essence of the key issues out of all such deliberations based on hard facts and help the nation to move in the right direction for its economic progress with inclusive growth.

That said, one also expects that just charismatic persona of a matinee idol with well-articulated and perfectly modulated pontification, in an expertly manner, on the “do’s and don’ts” of the FDI in Pharma, should not overwhelm anyone, without appropriate substantiation with intimately related hard facts and examples.

From my own perspective, let me now explore the facts on this highly contentious issue for you to judge.

Pharma industry is going through a consolidation process:

Like in many other countries, the consolidation process within the Pharmaceutical Industry in India has also started gaining momentum. Post amendment of the Indian Products Patent Act in January 1, 2005, first major M&A activity took place in 2006 with Mylan acquiring Matrix Lab.

2008 witnessed one of the biggest acquisition in the Pharmaceutical Industry of India, when the third largest drug maker of Japan, Daiichi Sankyo acquired 63.9% stake of Ranbaxy Laboratories for USD 4.6 billion.

This M&A activity was widely believed to be a win-win deal, with Daiichi Sankyo leveraging the cost arbitrage of Ranbaxy, while Ranbaxy benefiting from the innovative product range of Daiichi Sankyo.

In May 2010, Chicago (USA) based Abbott Laboratories acquired the branded generic business of Piramal Healthcare with USD 3.72 billion. This particular acquisition reportedly triggered the Government’s thinking in instituting newer restrictions on FDI in the pharmaceutical sector of the country.

However, I reckon, any such move will be a retrograde step in the financial reform process of India and could adversely affect foreign investments not only in the Pharmaceuticals sector, but possibly far beyond it.

Key Acquisitions of Indian companies:

Following are the details of M&As (Mergers & Acquisitions) in India from 2006 to 2011:

Year Indian Companies Multinational Companies

Value ($Mn)

 Type
2006 Matrix Labs Mylan 736 Acquisition
2008 Ranbaxy Labs Daiichi Sankyo 4,600 Acquisition
Dabur Pharma Fresenius Kabi 219 Acquisition
2009 Shantha Biotech Sanofi-aventis 783 Acquisition
2010 Orchid Chemicals Hospira 400 Business Buyout
Piramal Healthcare Abbott 3,720 Business Buyout
Paras Pharma Reckitt Benckiser 726 Acquisition
2011 Universal Medicare Sanofi 110 Acquisition

It is worth mentioning that all these acquisitions were voluntary in nature, which considerably helped shifting the investment focus of the MNCs into India. This is mainly because the country offers a good science and technology base with a significant cost arbitrage along with a thriving, yet inadequately penetrated, domestic pharmaceutical market.

Key apprehensions on FDI in pharma and the facts:

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries in its ‘Discussion Paper’ dated August 24, 2010, which was primarily on Compulsory Licensing (CL), also expressed some of the following apprehensions towards foreign acquisitions of the Indian pharmaceutical companies:

I would like to address these key apprehensions as stated below:

Apprehension 1. Oligopolistic Market will be created with adverse impact on ‘Public Health Interest’

The dictionary defines ‘Oligopolistic Market’ as ‘a market condition in which sellers are so few that the actions of any one of them will materially affect price and have a measurable impact on competitors’.

Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) has over 23,000 players and around 60,000 brands (Source: IMS 2011). Even after, all the recent acquisitions, the top ranked pharmaceutical company of India – Abbott enjoys a market share of just 6.2% (Source: AIOCD/AWACS, March 2011). The Top 10 groups of companies (each belonging to the same promoter groups and not the individual companies) contribute just over 40% of the IPM.

Thus, IPM is highly fragmented. No company or a group of companies enjoys any clear cut market domination. In a scenario like this, the apprehension of an ‘Oligopolistic Market’ being created through acquisitions by the MNCs is indeed unfounded.

Apprehension 2. ‘Oligopolistic’ situation will severely limit the power of the government to face the challenge of Public Health Interest (PHI) by granting CLs:

With a CL, the Indian Government can authorize any pharmaceutical company to make any medicine needed by the country on an emergency basis. With more than 20,000 registered pharmaceutical manufacturing companies operating in India,[1] there will always be enough skilled and able manufacturers willing to make needed medicines during any type of emergency situations. The country has already witnessed this during the H1N1 influenza pandemic, when several domestic and global pharmaceutical companies stepped forward to supply medicines in adequate quantity to meet the urgent need of the ailing patients.

The very thought of creating a legal barrier by fixing a cap on the FDI to prevent the domestic pharma players from selling their respective companies at a market driven price, which they would consider lucrative, just from the CL point of view, as mentioned in the ‘Discussion Paper’ of DIPP, sounds unreasonable, prejudiced and highly protectionist in the globalized economy.

Apprehension 3.  Lesser competition will push up drug prices:

Equity holding of a company has no bearing on the pricing or access to drugs, especially when medicine prices are controlled strictly by the NPPA guidelines and a highly competitive market condition.

That competition within the pharmaceutical market is extremely fierce in India is vindicated by the following facts:

  1. Each branded generic/ generic molecule (constituting over 99% of the IPM) has not less than 50 to 60 competitors within the same chemical compound.
  2. 100% of the IPM is price regulated by the government, around 20% under cost based price control as per DPCO 95 and the balance 80% is under stringent price monitoring mechanism with a maximum annual price increase cap being effectively in place.

In an environment like this, any apprehension or threat to ‘Public Health Interest’ due to irresponsible pricing, will be highly imaginary in nature, especially when the medicine prices in India are cheapest in the world, cheaper than even our next door neighbors like, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

As stated above, Ranbaxy was the first major Indian drug company to be acquired by the Japanese MNC Daiichi Sankyo in June 2008. Two years later, the prices of medicines of Ranbaxy did remain stable, some in fact even declined. As per IMS MAT, June data, prices of Ranbaxy products grew only by 0.6% in 2009 and actually fell by 1% in 2010.

Similar trend has been observed even for other acquisitions, as well.

Investments through ‘Collaborative deals’:

Following are some important collaborative deals in the pharmaceutical sector of India from 2009 to 2011:

Year Multinational Companies Indian Companies
2009 GSK Dr. Reddy’s Lab
Pfizer Aurobindo Pharma
2010 AstraZeneca Torrent
Abbott Cadila Healthcare
Pfizer Strides Arcolab
AstraZeneca Aurobindo Pharma
Pfizer Biocon
2011

Bayer

Cadila Healthcare

MSD

Sun Pharma

Such deals help the domestic pharmaceutical industry to reap a rich harvest in many other ways.

Positive fall outs of acquisitions/collaborations:

Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) or ‘Brownfield’ investments and collaborative deals contribute significantly not only to create high-value jobs for Indians[2] but also enable access to high-tech equipment and capital goods for the country.

Technology cooperation from the global pharmaceutical industry also stimulates growth in the manufacturing and R&D space of the domestic industry and positively impacts patients’ health with increased access to breakthrough medicines and vaccines. 

In this process, with adequate stimulus to the pharmaceutical R&D, India too could fast evolve as a country with a strong research-based pharmaceutical industry capable of developing innovative medicines and inventing new drugs for the world at large.

Many countries, including India, have instituted programs and policy reforms to attract FDI in the pharmaceutical sector. These programs include substantial efforts to build up the R&D infrastructure and create a pool of qualified and talented work force.

Currently, there is a strong global competition for such investments. Countries recognize that pharmaceutical companies bring high-paying jobs, technology know-how and significant economic spill-over effects. As per reports, in the United States, each job in the research-based pharmaceutical industry supports an additional 3.7 additional jobs in the U.S.[3]

By attracting high quality FDI in the pharmaceutical sector, India can further improve its sectoral capabilities and help honing skills of its talent pool. All these, in turn, will also give rise to increasing  global penetration of pharmaceutical exports of the country.[4]

India still draws lowest FDI within the BRIC countries:

A new study of the United Nations has recently reported that large global companies still consider India as their third most favored destination for FDI, after China and the United States.

However, with the attraction of FDI of just US$ 32 billion in 2011, against US$ 124 billion of China, US$ 67 billion of Brazil and US$ 53 billion of Russia during the same period, India still draws the lowest FDI among the BRIC countries.

At a time when the Global Companies are sitting on a huge cash pile and waiting for the euro zone crisis to melt away before investing overseas, any retrograde steps by India related to FDI in its pharmaceutical sector may not augur well for the nation.

Many countries are trying hard to attract FDI:

While our Government has been publicly debating policies to discourage foreign investment, other countries have stepped forward to attract FDI in their respective countries.  Between October 2010 and January 2011, more than 27 countries and economies have adopted policy measures to attract foreign investment.[6]

Access to generic medicines cannot be improved by restricting FDI:

The Pharmaceutical sector in India was opened up for 100% FDI through automatic route, only in the year 2002. This reformed FDI policy regime has been helping India as an attractive investment destination for pharmaceuticals.

Access to generic medicines cannot be improved by restricting FDI. Following measures and many more are required to address this critical issue in the country:

  • The Government has already signaled increasing allocation of resources towards the health sector by doubling the funding available for the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM).
  • It is also planning to extend the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) scheme to provide out-patient coverage to low income groups.
  • Currently the government seems to be quite poised to distribute all essential drugs to the patients free of cost through public hospitals and dispensaries.
  • Effective implementation of the ‘Universal Healthcare’ project in India will also help improving access to healthcare, including medicines, significantly.
  • Increase in allocation of expenditure towards health from 1.1% of the GDP in the 11th Five Year Plan Period to proposed 2.5% in the 12th Five Year Plan Period is a step in the right direction.
  • Healthcare financing will offer an enduring mechanism for reducing the Out-of-Pocket expenses of the poor, versus short term ‘knee jerk’ measures.
  • Allocating resources from national welfare schemes towards health insurance coverage would be a step in the right direction.  For example, a portion of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) funds could be spent on health insurance premium for workers engaged in such work.

“ Protectionism is harmful”:

It is worth mentioning that our Government has been publicly expressing its views against the concept of ‘Protectionism in Business’ over a period of time.

“Protectionism is harmful” was very aptly commented by Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, the then Finance Minister and now one of the Presidential nominees of India. This comment was in context of “US moves to hike visa fees and clamp down on outsourcing”.

India now needs to ‘Walk the Talk’.

Unfortunately, even recently, on July 3, 2012 Indian media  reports indicate that the Government is still mulling proposals to restrict FDI in India.  It stated, “The new rules will require the foreign investor to give an undertaking that if the company is investing in producing an essential drug, as mentioned in the government list of such drugs, then it will continue to produce that medicine”.

99% of the total pharmaceutical market in India constitutes of generic/branded generic medicines with over 23,000 manufacturers and 60,000 brands. In such a scenario, apprehensions that generic medicines, including those featuring in the National List of Essential of Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) will not be produced in India, is indeed intriguing.

Conclusion:

In the light of ‘2010 Economic Survey of India’, the nation acknowledges the need to attract foreign investors in the country.  Increasing foreign investments due to liberalization of FDI policies over the past two decades have benefited the Indian companies in terms of technology cooperation (technology transfer), greater resource mobilization and new market access opportunities.

Collaborative deals with the MNCs are enabling the local pharmaceutical companies to gain access to international expertise, increasing resources and world class manufacturing practices.

Any possible adverse impact of M&A on competition can now be effectively taken care of by the ‘Competition Commission of India (CCI)’. In addition, apprehension for any unreasonable price increases will appropriately be addressed by the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)’, as is the current practice.

Thus, in my view, limiting FDI in the pharmaceutical sector of India, at this stage, without any substantive reason and just based on unfounded apprehensions, even when the Government is debating to open up the retail and the insurance sectors to foreign investors, will be a retrograde step in the reform process of the country, pontification with razzmatazz of a Bollywood Matinee Idol notwithstanding.

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.

Counterfeit Drugs and ACTA: Should the global menace related to ‘Public Health and Safety’ be mixed-up with Intellectual Property Rights?

Posted on by
Reply

Here in this article, I am talking about drugs or medicines, which you may ultimately land up into buying, quite innocently though, against your doctor’s prescriptions, without having an inkling that these drugs can push you into serious health hazards, instead of addressing your ailments, as your doctor would have desired to.

These are ‘Counterfeit’, ‘Fake’, ‘Spurious’ or ‘Sub-standard’ drugs, in whatever name we may call them. Such substances in the guise of drugs are therapeutically harmful for the patients and are a global menace. This needs to be addressed urgently and with a military precision.

However, public health policy experts have been arguing since long that the issues of such dimension related to critical ‘Public Health and Safety’ needs to be addressed expeditiously by all concerned with focus, without mixing it up with any other commercial considerations or IP related matter, as is being done by some vested interests across the world. India, in this case as well, is of course no exception.

Some reports:

Following are examples of some reports regarding deliberations on this critical issue:

  • A new study published recently in ‘The Lancet’ reported that 7% of anti-malarial drugs tested in India are of poor quality and many were found fake.
  • A February, 2012 report of ‘The National Initiative against Piracy and Counterfeiting’ of FICCI highlighted that the share of fake/counterfeit medicines is estimated at 15% – 20% of the total Indian pharmaceutical market.
  • Another recent report of the US Customs and Border Protection highlighted, “India and Pakistan both made it to top 10 source countries this year due to seizures of counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Pharma seizures accounted for 86% of the value of IPR seizures from India and 85% of the value of IPR seizures from Pakistan.”

However, in this context, it is worth mentioning that the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry along with the Government has been continuously questioning the original source of fake drugs with prominent ‘made in India labels’ on the outer packaging material. It will not be difficult for many to recall that a couple of years ago consignments of ‘counterfeit or fake drugs’ wearing ‘made in India’ labels were confiscated by the drug regulator of Nigeria (Africa), which after a thorough investigation were found to have originated from China.

A contrarian report – CDSCO Survey:

Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of the Government of India released the following details on ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ in India from 2006 to 2010, which shows that the issue is not as acute as it is shown above:

Year Drugs samples tested % of sub-standard drugs % of spurious drugs Prosecution for crime Persons arrested
2006 – 07

34738

5.8

0.22

115

12
2007 – 08

39117

6.2

0.19

120

122
2008 – 09

45145

5.7

0.34

220

133
2009 -10

39248

4.95

0.29

138

147

TOTAL

158248

5.66

0.26

593

414

This ‘Pan-India survey report of CDSCO’ shows that from 2006 to 2010 the percentage of both ‘Substandard’ and ‘Spurious’ drugs were quite low in India.

However, the more worrying fact, as seen in the report is, the arrests and prosecutions for this heinous crime are also abysmally low in India.

IP related ‘counterfeit’ drugs are relatively smaller in numbers: 

WHO has identified following types of counterfeit medicines:
• Without active ingredients: 32% • Wrong ingredients: 21.4% • Incorrect quantities of active ingredients: 20.2% • Right quantities of active ingredients but in fake packaging: 15.6% • High levels of impurities and contaminants: 8.5% • “Substituted ingredients of anything from paracetamol to boric acid, talcum powder, rat    poison or road paint”: 2.3%

In addition, 50% of medicines purchased online from illegal internet are ‘counterfeit or fake’

From the above data, it appears that IP related ‘counterfeit or fake’ drugs are relatively small in number.

‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’:

The subject gets more complicated when such critical ‘Public Health and Safety’ related issue is leveraged to further strengthen Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and address commercial issues in different ways.

One such initiative was ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’. This was signed mostly by the developed countries of the world in October 2011.

ACTA is a plurilateral international trade agreement aimed at countering more efficiently not only the menace of counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the internet, but also Intellectual Property (IP) related issues, including stringent enforcement of product patents.

This agreement was primarily designed to form a new forum, outside the existing ones, like for example United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO) or the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and was signed by Australia, Canada, European Union, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States. However, the agreement has not been formally approved by any of them, as yet.

According to European Commission, “ACTA is an international trade agreement that will help countries work together to tackle more effectively large-scale IPR violations. Citizens will benefit from ACTA because it will help protect Europe’s raw material – innovations and ideas.”

Two aspects of ACTA definition:

As per ACTA definition, there are two aspects for a medicine being termed as ‘Counterfeit’, which are as follows:

  1. ‘Health and safety’ issues, arising out of therapeutically harmful medicines
  2. Violation of IP rights like, patents, trademark and design

It raises more questions than answers:

ACTA definition, as mentioned above, has led to confusion mainly because, if a patent infringing product is termed ‘counterfeit or fake’ in one country, what will then the same product be called in another country where the molecule has gone off-patent? 

Moreover, countries which consider such types of drugs ‘fake’ or ‘counterfeit’, will have the full right to destroy even the in-transit consignments containing such products, not only causing economic loss to the exporter, but also jeopardizing public health interest at the destination countries. Just to site an example, in not too distant past, consignments of generic medicines exported from India to Brazil were seized at the European ports

Thus, many experts feel that ACTA poses a potential risk for global access to generic medicines endangering public health interest, as it could restrict free passage of such drugs through many ports of the world on IP grounds, as happened more than once in the past.

‘Generic medicines’ to be left unharmed:

In this context, Ellen‘t Hoen, former Policy Advocacy Director of MSF’s Campaign for ‘Access to Essential Medicines’ wrote in April 2009 as follows:

“People often seem to confuse counterfeit, substandard and generic medicines – using the terms interchangeably. But they are very separate issues and clearly defining their differences is critical to any discussion”.

Ongoing WHO debate: 

‘Intellectual Property Watch’ in May 20, 2010 reported that:

“Brazil and India claimed that WHO’s work against counterfeit and substandard medicines is being influenced by brand-name drug producers with an interest in undermining legitimate generic competition. The Brazilian ambassador told ‘Intellectual Property Watch’ there is a ‘hidden agenda’ against generics for countries like Brazil.”

“India and Brazil filed requests for consultations with the European Union and the Netherlands over the seizure of generic medicines in transit through Europe. This is the first step towards a dispute settlement case, and if issues cannot be resolved via consultations then formation of a dispute settlement panel could be requested in the coming months”.

However, as reported by ‘The International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD)’, after the Government of India had taken it up strongly with the EU, the issue of confiscation of in-transit consignments of generic drugs has since been resolved.

Three emerging views:

Arising out of all these, there are following three different clearly emerging views on the global issue of counterfeit drugs:

1. The innovator companies feel that the generic pharmaceutical industry and the drug regulators of the developing countries are not really very keen to effectively address and resolve the global issue of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’.
2. The generic companies and the drug regulators of the developing countries feel that the problem is not as acute as it is being projected to be and the innovator global pharmaceutical companies through their intense advocacy campaigns are trying to exploit the sentiment against spurious and harmful drugs to fight against generic medicines and cheaper parallel imports.
3. Some other important stakeholders, including a section of NGOs claim that an intense ‘Public Health and Safety’ related sentiment is being leveraged by the R&D based global pharmaceutical companies to extend IPR issues to “patients’ safety” related concerns, for vested interest.

The role of WHO:

The leadership role of the WHO is extremely important to effectively eliminate the global menace of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ for ‘Public Health and Safety’. Across the world, patients need protection from the growing threat of ‘Counterfeit Medicines’. As a premier global organization to address such critical issues effectively, especially for the developing world, the WHO needs to play a more proactive and stellar role in future.

A Rational Approach:

The groups opposing ACTA recommend the following approaches to address the menace of ‘Counterfeit or Fake or Spurious or Harmful Medicines’:

  1. Address the issue of ‘Public Health and Safety’ by strengthening regulatory systems, related laws of the country and the stakeholder awareness program. In case of India, recently amended Drugs and Cosmetics Act needs to be properly implemented in letter and spirit.
  2. The issue of violation of IP should be dealt with through effective enforcement of IP laws of the country.
  3. There should not be any mix-up between ‘Public Health and Safety’ and ‘IP related issues’, in any way or form.

Countries already approached WHO:

Earlier, along with countries like Indonesia and Thailand, India could make the WHO realize that mixing up the above two issues could pose serious impediment for the supply of cheaper generic medicines to the marginalized sections of the society, globally. 

Weak regulatory enforcement lead to more ‘Counterfeit/Fake’ drugs:

The menace of counterfeit medicines is not restricted to the developing countries like, India alone. It is seen in the developed countries, as well, but at a much smaller scale. Thus, it is generally believed that the issue of ‘counterfeit drugs’ is more common in those countries, where the regulatory enforcement mechanism is rather weak.

A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, ‘in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits’.

Conclusion:

In the meeting of the TRIPS Council of the World Trade Organization (WTO) held in June, 2012, developed countries continued to reiterate that ‘Counterfeiting of Drugs’ being a critical issue should be deliberated upon by the council, expeditiously.

However, emerging countries like, Brazil, India and China strongly opposed this view by reemphasizing that in the name of ‘Counterfeit Drugs’ issues of IPR violations should not be clubbed with ‘Public Health and Safety’. They argued that IPR violation should in no way be confused with sub-standard drugs or therapeutically harmful medicines and any attempt to discuss the menace of harmful or substandard medicines at the WTO platform will be improper.

Developing nations, in general, have already alleged in various global forums that being unsuccessful in their efforts to use ACTA in making the IP environment even more stringent, the developed countries are now trying to use the WTO to achieve the same objective.

The debate continues and the moot question still lingers: Why should the issue of ‘Public Health and Safety’ get mixed-up with ‘Intellectual Property (IP)’ related problems?

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.

Increasing Healthcare Consumption in India with equity

Posted on by
Reply

Along with the economic progress of India, healthcare consumption of the population of the country is also increasing at a reasonably faster pace. According to McKinsey India Report, 2007, the share of average household healthcare consumption has increased from 4 per cent in 1995 to 7 per cent in 2005 and is expected to increase to 13 per cent in 2025 with a CAGR of 9 per cent, as follows:

Share of Average Household Consumption (AHC) (%)

Household Consumption 1995 2005 E 2015 F 2025 F CAGR %
1. Healthcare

4

7

9

13

9
2. Education & Recreation

3

5

6

9

9
3. Communication

1

2

3

6

 12
4. Transportation

11

17

19

20

7
5. Personal Products and Services

4

8

9

11

8
6. Household Products

2

3

3

3

 5
7. Housing & Utilities

14

12

12

10

 5
8. Apparel

5

6

5

5

 5
9. Food, Beverages & Tobacco

56

42

34

25

3

(Source; McKinsey India Report 2007)

From this study, it appears that among all common household consumption, the CAGR of ‘healthcare’ at 9 percent will be the second highest along with ‘education’ and ‘communication’ topping the growth chart at 12 percent.

As per this McKinsey study, in 2025, in terms of AHC for ‘healthcare’ (13 percent) is expected to rank third after ‘Food & Beverages’ (25 percent) and ‘transportation’ (20 percent).

Thus, over a period of time AHC for ‘healthcare’ shows a very significant growth potential in India. Hence, this important area needs much greater attention of the policymakers to help translate the potential into actual performance with requisite policy and fiscal support/incentives.

Sectoral break-up of the Healthcare Industry:

According to IDFC Securities 2010, the sectoral break-up of the US$ 40 billion healthcare industry is as follows:

Industry

%
Hospitals

50
Pharma

25
Diagnostics

10
Insurance & Medical Equipment

15

(Source: IDFC Securities Hospital Sector, November 2010)

Therefore, as per this above report, the top two sectors of the healthcare industry are hospitals with 50 percent share and pharmaceuticals at 25 percent.

Public sector drives the healthcare expenditure in the developed countries:

Almost all OECD countries now provide universal or near-universal health coverage for a core set of health services, which are primarily funded by the public sector.

The report titled, ‘Health at a Glance 2011’ indicates that adjusted for purchasing power parity United States of America (USA) at US$ 7290 per capita expenditure on health in 2007, which is almost two and a half times more than the OECD average of US$ 2984, towers above other OECD countries. However, the same for Turkey and Mexico was less than one-third of the OECD average.

India and South East Asia are different:

Unlike OECD countries, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), in South East Asia, except Thailand and Indonesia, healthcare is primarily driven by private expenditure, as seen in the following table:

Public and Private Expenditure on Health as % of Total

Country

Public %

Private %
Laos

17.60

82.40
Cambodia

23.80

76.20
India

32.40

67.60
Philippines

34.70

65.30
Vietnam

38.50

61.50
Malaysia

44.10

55.90
Indonesia

54.40

45.60
Thailand

74.30

25.70

Source: World Health Statistics 2011, World Health Organization (WHO)

In India, the critical healthcare industry is heavily dependent on private sector investments, where the total public expenditure on health is just around one third of the country’s total expenditure for the same, though in the 12th Five Year Plan period the the government is likely to increase its health expenditure as a percentage to GDP to 2.5 percent.

Healthcare – a more sensitive sector in India:

According to an article titled, ‘Financing health care for all: challenges and opportunities’, published in ‘The Lancet’ dated February 19, 2011 ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on health in India (78 per cent) is one of the highest as compared to its neighboring, except Pakistan (82.5 percent). The details are as follows:

Country ‘Out of Pocket’ expenses (%)
1. Pakistan

82.5
2. India

78
3. China

61
4. Sri Lanka

53
5. Thailand

31
6. Bhutan

29
7. Maldives

14

Such a high out of pocket expenditure for health in India, makes ‘affordability’ of healthcare products and services so sensitive to all concerned.

Just Hospital oriented health insurance plans are not adequate enough:

The above article from ‘The Lancet ‘also indicates that 74 per cent of the total healthcare expenditure goes for only outpatient or in-clinic treatment of the patients. Only 26 per cent of healthcare expenditure goes for inpatient treatment in the hospitals.

Thus coverage of only expenditure towards hospitalization by the health insurance companies will not be able to provide significant benefits to most of the citizens of India.

Further, the article says that from 1986 to 2004, there has been three times increase in the average real expenditure per hospital admission, both in the government and private hospitals.

Threefold increase in the drug prices from 1993-94 to 2006-07 was mentioned as the key factor for cost escalation in the medical care in India.

Private healthcare sector needs more fiscal incentives and lesser cost of capital:

As indicated above, private healthcare players will increasingly play a very significant role to increase healthcare consumption with equitable span across the population of India. To encourage them to spread their wings in the semi-urban and rural areas of the country effectively, lucrative fiscal/ financial incentives along with the availability of low cost capital, are absolutely necessary.

It is worth mentioning that the growth of rural middle class population is now faster than ever before and much more than their urban counterpart.

Exploitation of the patients must stop:

Unfortunate and deplorable incidences of exploitation of patients, mainly by the private players, are critical impediments to foster growth in quality healthcare consumption within the country.

In this context, ‘The Lancet’, January 11, 2011 highlighted as follows:

“Reported problems (which patients face while getting treated at a private doctor’s clinic) include unnecessary tests and procedures, rewards for referrals, lack of quality standards and irrational use of injection and drugs. Since no national regulations exist for provider standards and treatment protocols for healthcare, over diagnosis, over treatment and maltreatment are common.” Prevailing situation like this calls for urgent national regulations for provider-standards and treatment-protocols, at least for the common diseases in India and more importantly their stricter implementation across the country.

UHC will significantly improve healthcare consumption:

In October 2010, the Planning Commission of India constituted a ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on Universal Health Coverage (UHC) under the chairmanship of the well-known medical professional Prof. K. Srinath Reddy. The HLEG was mandated to develop a framework for providing easily accessible and affordable health care to all Indians.

UHC will guarantee access to essential free health services to all. However, because of the uniqueness of India, HLEG proposed a hybrid system that draws on the lessons learnt not only from within India, but also from other developed and developing countries of the world.

UHC is expected to ensure guaranteed access to essential health services to every Indian, including cashless in-patient and out-patient treatment for primary, secondary and tertiary care. All these services will be available to the patients absolutely free of any cost.

Under UHC all citizens of India will be free to choose between Public sector facilities and ‘contracted-in’ private providers for healthcare services.

It is envisaged that the people would be free to supplement the free of cost healthcare services offered under UHC by opting to pay ‘out of pocket’ or going for private health insurance schemes, as per their individual requirements.

Conclusion:

India has already been globally recognized as one of the fastest growing healthcare markets of the world. All components in the healthcare space of the country including hospital and allied services are registering sustainable decent growth, riding mainly on private investments and now fueled by various government projects, such as:

  1. National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)
  2. National Urban Health Mission
  3. Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY)
  4. Universal Health Coverage (UHC)
  5. Free Medicine from the Government hospitals
  6. Centralized procurement by both the Central and the State Governments

Supported by newer, both public and private initiatives, like:

  • Increase in public spending on healthcare from 1.0 per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP in the 12th Five Year Plan period
  • Increasing participation of the private players in smaller towns and hinterland of the country
  • Wider coverage of health insurance
  • Micro-financing
  • Greater spread of telemedicine
  • More number of mobile diagnosis and surgical centers

All these interesting developments adequately fueled by rising income levels and improving access to healthcare though albeit slowly at present, equitable consumption of healthcare in India, I reckon, is expected to improve by manifold in the years ahead, despite shrill voices of  naysayers of vested interests, orchestrated many a times from beyond the shores 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.

Reaping rich harvest with less moaning and bagful of creative ideas from emerging Rural Markets of India

Posted on by
Reply

About 72 percent of the population and 135 million households of India live in the rural areas of the country. Many of them are poor.

Definition of ‘Rural’:

Agencies of the Government of India like, National Council of Applied Economic (NCAER) and Insurance Regulatory and Development Agency (IRDA) have defined the terminology ‘rural’ as “villages with a population of less than 5000 with 75 percent population engaged in agriculture…”

Rural India is no longer an agrarian economy:

A recent study by ‘Credit Suisse’ indicates that rural India is no longer a pure agrarian economy, depending mostly on the quality of rain falls during monsoon season. This has been corroborated by the fact that the contribution of agriculture to the total GDP of rural India has come down from 50 percent, as registered during the turn of this century, to its current level of about 25 percent.

This transition of rural India from agriculture to industry and services, is now taking place at a much faster pace than ever before, as the rural economy is getting increasingly attuned to the national economic cycle, creating more and more non-agrarian jobs in those areas. Most of the incremental job creation is taking place in manufacturing, construction, retail and wholesale trade and also in the community services.

Currently, 55% of India’s GDP from manufacturing comes from rural India as the ‘Credit Suisse’ report highlights. As a result, since April 2000, per capita GDP in rural India has grown at a much faster pace than in urban India.

This welcoming change, in turn, is expected to play a key role in significantly improving the consumption of reasonably affordable healthcare, besides many other products and services, in the rural India.

Rural share of GDP growing faster:

Since last several years with various rural reform initiatives of the Government, the hinterlands of India have started growing faster than ever before.

A National Council of Applied Economic (NCAER) Research survey, indicating rural share of India’s GDP improved from 40 percent in 1980 to 54 percent in 2010, vindicates this point. At the same time, aggregate rural consumption (US$ Bn) increased from 94 in 1985 to 203 in 2005 and is expected to reach 350 in 2015. (Source: National Statistical Offices, UN, Euro Monitor International, Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India).

A new growth opportunity:

According to McKinsey Report, rural India currently accounts for 21 percent of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM). It is interesting to note from the NCAER report that both urban and rural India spend 5% of their total income on health.

Rural growth drivers:

McKinsey estimates that by 2015, upcoming smaller towns and the rural markets will contribute as much to the growth of IPM as the metros and top tier towns.

The following factors are expected to drive the growth of the pharmaceutical industry in the rural India:

  • Large patient base
  • Increasing overall income (over 1 percent of the total population coming above the poverty line every year)
  • Increasing number of middle class in rural areas
  • Disease pattern gradually shifting to chronic ailments
  • Improving healthcare infrastructure with increasing Government spend on the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)
  • Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY), which is the National Health Insurance Scheme for Below Poverty Line (BPL) families, will provide health cover to increasing number of BPL households
  • New initiatives of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) like, “Janaushadhi”  scheme will provide low cost quality medicines to boost the uptake

Rural market size:

The rural markets contribute about 21 percent of U.S$ 12.5 billion pharmaceutical market in India (AIOCD-AWACS, February, 2012). As reported in ‘India Pharma 2015’ of McKinsey, by 2015 rural pharma market size is expected to reach U.S$ 4.8 billion from U.S$1.2 billion in 2005.

Currently, rural markets are dominated by ailments related to various types of infections. As stated above, this disease pattern is expected to change by the next decade to non-infectious chronic illnesses, like diabetes, cardiac, cancer, hypertension etc.

Increasing Pharmaceutical growth trend in the rural markets:

In 2011 the rural markets of India registered a growth of around 23 percent over the previous year. This decent pace of growth is expected to continue in the next decades.

MAT Dec 2011 (INR M)

MAT Dec 2011 (Saliency)

Growth %
Indian Pharma Market

538,028

100.00

14.92
CLASS I TOWNS

168,339

31.29

12.12
METROS

164,625

30.60

16.33
CLASS II TO VI

102,536

19.06

9.93
RURAL

102,528

19.06

23.19

(Source: IMS Town Class Data – Dec MAT 2011)

Moreover, McKinsey Report forecasts that rural markets will contribute around 27 percent of the total consumption of India by 2020 and by 2015, rural India will account for over 24 percent of the domestic pharmaceutical market from its current level of 21 percent.

Charting the uncharted frontier:

It has been reported that growth rate of the rural markets of many companies have more than doubled due to their rural marketing focus. Possibly as a testimony to this new business opportunity, one can now see:

1. Novartis with its “Arygoya Parivar” initiative is rolling out a tailor-made program for rural areas of seven states of India, to start with. They have developed special packs of essential medicines with special prices to reach out to the rural population. To create disease awareness within the target population and also for disease prevention and treatment, Novartis has deployed health educators for this project.

2. Sanofi has initiated a dedicated rural marketing initiative called ‘Prayas’.  The initiative is aimed at ‘bridging the diagnosis‐treatment gap through a structured continuing education program for rural doctors across India’.

The Company says, “through ‘Prayas’, specialists from semi‐urban areas will share latest medical knowledge and clinical experience with general practitioners based in smaller towns and villages in the interiors of India”. Their second strategy, reportedly, is for improving healthcare access by making quality medicines available at affordable prices for the rural patients.

3. Novo Nordisk is currently engaged in screening patients for diabetes in the rural areas of Goa with mobile clinics. This initiative is expected to create widespread awareness about diabetes and early detection of the disease, so as to prevent early onset of the disease related complications.

4. Eli Lilly developed a program along with the Self-Employed Women’s Association in Ahmedabad to educate and encourage rural patients suffering from tuberculosis to go for treatment.

5. Elder pharmaceuticals created a dedicated 750 strong rural marketing sales force called Elvista.

6. Cadila Pharma has set up a dedicated rural marketing arm called ‘Explora’.

7. Alembic Chemicals created a rural business unit called ‘Maxis’.

These are just a few illustrations and not an exhaustive list. However, the issue is whether the rural marketing initiative will continue to remain an experimental one to the pharmaceutical companies in India or will get translated into a decent long term strategic business move.

“The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid”:

The iconic management guru C K Prahalad in his well-known book titled, “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid” wrote:

“If we stop thinking of the poor as victims or as a burden and start recognizing them as resilient and creative consumers, a whole new world of opportunity will open up.” I am not sure whether the above profound observation is encouraging the pharmaceutical companies to explore the rural India with the wings of courage, where majority of the Indian populations live and most of them are poor.

A ‘Pot of Gold’ in the rural markets?

Currently around 20 million middle class households live in over 6,00,000 villages of India. This is almost the same as the number of middle class households residing in urban India and holds the key to significant increase of healthcare spending in rural India.

Rural market-entry strategy:

Instead of transplanting the urban marketing strategy into rural India, some companies, as mentioned above, have taken the community-welfare route to make the rural population aware of particular disease segments like, tuberculosis, diabetes, cardiovascular, waterborne diseases etc. together with the treatments available for such ailments.

These value added marketing strategies offer benefits to both the patients and the company concerned. The local medical practitioners, in turn, are also benefited as they get increasing number of patients in their clinics through such disease awareness community program by the pharmaceutical companies.

Key challenges:

There are some key challenges for effective rural penetration by the Indian pharmaceutical industry, as follows:

• Inadequate basic healthcare infrastructure. Only 20 percent of total healthcare infrastructure of the country is in rural areas where over 72 percent population of the country lives. • Density of doctors per 10,000 populations in India is just 6. A large number of villages in India do not have any doctor. As per AC Nielson study, an average rural Indian has to travel about 6 km to visit a doctor. A Medical Representative will require traveling about 250 to 300 km every day just to meet about 10 doctors and 4 dealers. • Many villages are not well connected by proper all season roads. • Lack of appropriate supply chain network and logistics support.

Conclusion:

With increasing infrastructural support and tailor made innovative marketing strategies for rural India, simultaneously delivering both preventive and curative therapies under one umbrella, it may not be difficult for the Indian pharmaceutical companies to discover ‘The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid’ – a win-win situation indeed for both the ‘haves’ and a vast majority of ‘have-nots’ living in an amazing country called India.

The name of the game is less moaning and a bagful of implementable creative ideas.

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.

Getting unfolded a global opportunity for India with Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

Over a period of time, the trend of a disease treatment process is becoming more targeted and personalized to improve effectiveness of both diagnosis and treatment. Biotechnology being the key driver to this trend, India should not fall out of line from this direction.

There are two clear opportunities for India in this fast evolving arena. One is to get more engaged in the discovery research of new large molecular entity and the other is to make a successful foray in the fast emerging and relatively high value biosimilar drugs (generic versions of biotechnology medicines) markets of the world.

In my view, India has greater probability of success in the field of biosimilar drugs, which could catapult India as a major force to reckon with in the fast growing biotechnology space of the global pharmaceutical industry.

An interesting global collaboration:

On October 19, 2010, the home grown Biotech Company Biocon with its headquarter in the Information Technology (IT) heartland of India – Bangalore created a stir in the Industry by inking an interesting international business deal with the largest global pharmaceutical company – Pfizer.

With this deal of US $350 million Biocon initiated its foray into the global biosimilar market by enabling Pfizer to globally commercialize Biocon’s biosimilar human recombinant insulin and three insulin analogues.

Before this deal, Sanofi-Pasteur, the’ vaccine business unit’ of the global major Sanofi of France had acquired Shantha Biotechnics, located in Hyderabad for a consideration of US$ 602 million, in July 2009.

Global players signal a new aspiration:

Just a year before the above acquisition in India, on December 11, 2008, Reuters reported that just two days after Merck announced a major push into biosimilar medicines, Eli Lilly signaled similar aspirations. This report, at that time, raised many eyebrows in the global pharmaceutical industry, as it was in the midst of a raging scientific debate on the appropriate regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs globally.

Be that as it may, many felt that this announcement ushered in the beginning of a new era in the pharmaceutical sector of the world, not just for the pharmaceutical players, but also for the patients with the availability of affordable lower priced biologic medicines.

The scenario is heating up with regulatory hurdles relatively easing off:

Within the developed world, European Union (EU) had taken a lead towards this direction by putting a robust system in place, way back in 2003. In the US, along with the recent healthcare reform process of the Obama administration, the regulatory pathway for biosimilar drugs is now being charted out by the US FDA. However, as of November 2011, they do not seem to have finalized the details of the process.

It is worth mentioning that during the same reform process a 12 year data exclusivity period has been granted for biosimilar drugs, against the 5-year period of the same granted to the innovators of small molecule chemical drugs.

In the recent past, the EU has approved Sandoz’s (Novartis) Filgrastim (Neupogen brand of Amgen), which is prescribed for the treatment of Neutropenia. With Filgrastim, Sandoz will now have 3 biosimilar products in its portfolio.

The trigger factor:

Globally, the scenario for biosimilar drugs started heating up when Merck announced that the company expects to have at least 5 biosimilars in the late stage development by 2012. The announcement of both Merck and Eli Lilly surprised many, as the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the USA, at that time, was yet to approve the regulatory pathway for biosimilar medicines.

What then are the trigger factors for the research based global pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck and Eli Lilly to step into the arena of biosimilar medicines? Is it gradual drying up research pipeline together with skyrocketing costs of global R&D initiatives, cost containment pressures from the payers or relatively strong market entry barrier for smaller players? I reckon, all of these.

Low penetration of lower cost biosimilar drugs:

Although at present over 150 different biologic medicines are available globally, just around 11 countries have access to low cost biosimilar drugs, India being one of them. Supporters of biosimilar medicines are indeed swelling as time passes by.

It has been widely reported that the cost of treatment with innovative and patented biologic drugs can vary from US$ 100,000 to US$ 300,000 a year. A 2010 review on biosimilar drugs published by the Duke University highlights that biosimilar equivalent of such biologics could not only reduce the cost of treatment,  but would also improve access to such drugs significantly for the patients across the globe. (Source: Chow, S. and Liu, J. 2010, Statistical assessment of biosimilar products, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 20.1:10-30)

At present, the key global players are Sandoz (Novartis), Teva, BioPartners, BioGenerix (Ratiopharm) and Bioceuticals (Stada). With the entry of pharmaceutical majors like, Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck and Eli Lilly, the global biosimilar market is expected to heat up and develop at a much faster pace than ever before. Removal of regulatory hurdles (ban) for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US , as mentioned above, will be the key growth driver.

Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) in the Pipeline:

Company

Location

Biosimilar mAbs

Development Status
BioXpress

Switzerland

16

Preclinical
Gene Techno Science

Japan

6

Preclinical
Zydus Cadilla

India

5

Preclinical
PlantForm

Canada

3

Preclinical
BioCad

Russia

3

Preclinical
Celltrion

South Korea

2

Phase 3
LG Life Sciences

South Korea

2

Preclinical
Gedeon Richter

Hungary

2

Preclinical
Cerbios-Pharma

Switzerland

1

Preclinical
Hanwha Chemical

South Korea

1

Preclinical
PharmaPraxis

Brazil

1

Preclinical
Probiomed

Mexico

1

Phase 3
Samsung BioLogics

South Korea

1

Preclinical
Novartis

Switzerland

1

Phase 2
Teva

Israel

1

Phase 2
Zenotech

India

1

Phase 3
Spectrum

US

1

Preclinical
Biocon/Mylan

India/US

1

Preclinical

(Source: PharmaShare; as of September 10, 2011 from Citeline’s Pipeline database)

Global Market Potential:

According to a study (2011) conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., worldwide market for biosimilar drugs is estimated to reach US$ 4.8 billion by the year 2015, the key growth drivers being as follows:

  • Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs
  • Cost containment measures of various governments
  • Aging population
  • Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries
  • Recent establishment of regulatory guidelines for biosimilars in the US

On the other hand, according to Alan Shepard, principal of Thought Leadership, Global Generics at IMS Health: ‘Forecasting biosimilar sales is complex because of various factors including the imprecise classification of a biosimilar and pricing policies of the originator resulting in the use of the brand in place of the biosimilar. Some estimates show the market growing from US$ 66 million in 2008 to US$ 2.3 billion in 2015. Others see sales exceeding US$ 5.6 billion in 2013. Whatever the forecast, there remains a US$ 50 billion potential for biosimilars’.

Currently, off-patent biologic blockbusters including Erythropoietin offer an excellent commercial opportunity in this category. By 2013, about 10 more patented biologics with a total turnover of around U.S. $ 15 billion will go off-patent, throwing open even greater opportunity for the growth of biosimilar drugs globally.

The scenario and business potential in India:

The size of biotech industry in India is estimated to be around US$ 4 billion by 2015 with a scorching pace of growth driven by both local and global demands (E&Y Report 2011). The biosimilar drugs market in India is expected to reach US$ 2 billion in 2014 (source: Evalueserve, April 2010).

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies like Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute of India, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) etc.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies will be to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Indian players are making rapid strides:

Biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. Last year Rituxan clocked a turnover of over US$ 2 billion. DRL also has developed Filgastrim of Amgen, which enhances production of white blood-cell by the body and markets the product as Grafeel in India. Similarly Ranbaxy has collaborated with Zenotech Laboratories to manufacture G-CSF.

On the other hand Glenmark reportedly is planning to come out with its first biotech product by 2011 from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla reportedly has invested Rs 300 crore in 2010 to acquire stakes of MabPharm in India and BioMab  in China and is planning to launch a biosimilar drug in the field of oncology  by end 2012.

In June this year another large pharmaceutical company of India, Lupin  signed a deal with a private specialty life science company NeuClone Pty Ltd of Sydney, Australia for their cell-line technology. Lupin reportedly will use this technology for developing biosimilar drugs  in the field of oncology, the first one of which is expected to be launched in India again by 2012.

Oncology is becoming the research hot-spot:

As indicated above, many domestic Indian pharmaceutical companies are targeting Oncology disease area for developing biosimilar drugs, which is estimated to be the largest segment globally with a value turnover of over US$ 55 billion by the end of this year growing over 17%.

As per recent reports, about 8 million deaths take place all over the world per year due to cancer. May be for this reason the research pipeline of NMEs is dominated by oncology. With the R&D focus of the deep-pocket global pharmaceutical majors’ on this particular therapy area, the trend will continue to go north.

About 50 NMEs for the treatment of cancer are expected to be launched globally by 2015.

Current market size of Oncology drugs in India is estimated to be around Rs.1,300 Crore (US$ 260 million) and is expected to double by 2014.

Greater potential for global collaborative initiatives:

It is envisaged that the recent Pfizer – Biocon deal will trigger many other collaborative initiatives between the global and the local pharmaceutical companies.

Among Indian biotech companies, Reliance Life Sciences has already marketed Recombinant Erythropoietin, Recombinant Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor, Recombinant Interferon Alpha and Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and  has been reported to have the richest pipeline of biosimilar drugs in India.

Companies like Wockhardt, Lupin, DRL and Intas Biopharmaceuticals are also in the process of developing an interesting portfolio of biosimilar drugs to fully encash the fast growing global opportunities.

‘Patent Cliff’ is hastening the process:

Many large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, after having encountered the ‘patent cliff’, are now looking at the small molecule generic and large molecule biosimilar businesses, in a mega scale, especially in the emerging markets of the world like India.

The country has witnessed major acquisitions like, Ranbaxy, Shantha Biotechnics and Piramal Healthcare by Daiichi Sankyo of Japan, Sanofi of France and Abbott of USA, respectively. We have also seen collaborative initiatives of large global companies like, GSK, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer with Indian companies like DRL, Aurobindo, Claris, Torrent, Zydus Cadila, Strides Arcolab, Sun Pharma and now Biocon to reach out to the fast growing global generic and biosimilar drugs markets.

This trend further gained momentum when immediately after Biocon deal, Pfizer strengthened its footprints in the global generics market with yet another acquisition of 40% stake in Laboratorio Teuto Brasileiro of Brazil with US$ 240 million to develop and globally commercialize their generic portfolio.

Emergence of ‘second generation’ biosimilar drugs and higher market entry barrier:

Emergence of second generation branded biosimilar products such as PEGylated products Pegasys and PegIntron (peginterferon alpha) and Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), and insulin analogs have the potential to reduce the market size for first generation biosimilar drugs creating significant entry barrier.

The barriers to market entry for biosimilar drugs are, by and large, much higher than any small molecule generic drugs. In various markets within EU, many companies face the challenge of higher development costs for biosimilar drugs due to stringent regulatory requirements and greater lead time for product development.

Navigating through such tough regulatory environment will demand a different type of skill sets from the generic companies not only in areas of clinical trials and pharmacovigilance, but also in manufacturing and marketing. Consequently, the investment needed to take biosimilar drugs from clinical trials to launch in the developed markets will indeed be quite significant.

Government support in India:

To give a fillip to the Biotech Industry in India the National Biotechnology Board was set up by the Government under the Ministry of Science and Technology way back in 1982. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) came into existence in 1986. The DBT now spends around US$ 200 million annually to develop biotech resources in the country and have been making reasonably good progress.

The DBT together with the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has now prepared regulatory guidelines for biosimilar Drugs, which are expected to conform to international quality and patients’ safety standards.

Currently, a number both financial and non-financial incentives have been announced by the Central and the State Governments to encourage growth of the biotech industry in India, which include tax incentives, exemption from VAT and other fees, grants for biotech start-ups, financial assistance with patents, subsidies on investment from land to utilities and infrastructural support with the development of ten biotech parks through ‘Biotechnology Parks Society of India’.

However, many industry experts feel that R&D funding for the Biotech sector in the country is grossly inadequate. Currently, there being only a few ‘Venture Capital’ funds for this sector and ‘Angel Investments’ almost being non-existent, Indian biotech companies are, by and large, dependent on Government funding.

Conclusion:

Recent international deal of Pfizer and Biocon to globally commercialize Biocon’s four biosimilar insulin and analogues developed in India, does signal a new global status for the Indian biosimilar drugs to the international pharma majors, who were vocal critics of such drugs developed in India, until recently.

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.