Author Archives: Tapan Ray

Leveraging Artificial Intelligence For Greater Patient-Centricity

Posted on by
Reply

‘Artificial Intelligence (AI)’ – the science of simulation of intelligent behavior in computers, has the potential to leave a transformational impact on virtually everything that we see and feel around us. As many will know, the modern definition of AI is “the study and design of intelligent agents where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximizes its chances of success.”

Let me begin with a couple of exciting examples on the application of AI for general use. One such is Siri the voice-activated computer in the iPhone that one can interact with as a personal assistant, every day. The other is the self-driving features with the predictive capabilities of Tesla cars; or even the well-hyped Google driver-less car. Alongside, Google is also in pursuit of creating AI with ‘imagination’ through its ‘DeepMind’. It develops algorithms that simulate the human ability to construct plans.

Pharma’s emergence in the AI space:

The unfathomable potential of AI is being slowly recognized in the healthcare arena, as well, including pharma industry. It’s gradual emergence in the space of ‘intelligent learning’, often called ‘machine learning’, ushers in a new paradigm of learning from a vast pool of highly credible real-time data. Innovative applications of this process can fetch a game changing business performance. Its scope spans right across the pharma value chain – from Drug Discovery, including Precision Medicine; Clinical Trials; Pharmacovigilance; Supply Chain Management, and right up-to Sales and Marketing.

Pharma’s emergence in the AI space is quite evident from Reuters report of July 3, 2017. It wrote that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has inked a new USD 43 million deal with Exscientia to help streamline the company’s drug discovery process by leveraging AI. With this deal in place, Exscientia will allow GSK to search for drug candidates for up to 10 disease-related targets. GSK will provide research funding and make this payment, if pre-clinical milestones are met.

Again, on July 27, 2017, Insilico Medicine – a Baltimore-based leader in AI, focusing on drug discovery and biomarker development, announced a similar agreement with the biotechnology player Juvenescence AI Limited. According to this agreement, Juvenescence AI will develop the first compounds generated by Insilico’s AI techniques, such as Generative Adversarial Networks in order to generate novel compounds with desired pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties.

Several other pharmaceutical giants, including Merck & Co, Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi are also exploring the potential of AI for streamlining the drug discovery process. It would help them to significantly improving upon the hit-and-miss business of finding new medicines, as Reuters highlighted.  Eventually, these applications of AI may be placed right at the front-line of pharma business – in search of new drugs.

I have already discussed in this blog – the ‘Relevance of AI in creative pharma marketing’ on October 31, 2016. In this article, I shall mainly focus on leveraging AI in health care for greater patient-centricity, which is emerging as one of the prime requirements for excellence in the pharma business.

Imbibing patient-centricity is no longer an option:

In an article published in this blog on the above subject, I wrote that: ‘providing adequate knowledge, skills and related services to people effectively, making them understand various disease management and alternative treatment measures, thereby facilitating them to be an integral part of their health care related interventions, for better health outcomes, are no longer options for pharma companies.’

The craft of being ‘patient-centric’, therefore, assumes the importance of a cutting-edge  of pharma business for sustainable performance.

What exactly is ‘patient-centricity’?

BMJ Innovations – a peer reviewed online journal, in an article titled, ‘Defining patient centricity with patients for patients and caregivers: a collaborative endeavor’, published on March 24, 2017, defines ‘patient-centricity’ as: “Putting the patient first in an open and sustained engagement of patient to respectfully and compassionately achieve the best experience and outcome for that person and their family.”

Thus, to deliver the best experience, and treatment outcomes to patients, their participation and engagement, especially with the doctors, hospitals and the drug companies assume significant importance.

The June 2017 ‘Discussion Paper’ of McKinsey Global Institute, titled ‘Artificial Intelligence the Next Digital Frontier’ also captured this emerging scenario, succinctly. Recognizing that health care is a promising market for AI, the paper highlighted the enormous potential in its ability. The power of which can draw inferences by recognizing patterns in large volumes of patient histories, medical images, epidemiological statistics, and other data.

Thus, AI has the potential to help doctors improve their diagnoses, forecast the spread of diseases, and customize treatments. Combined with health care digitization, AI can also allow providers to monitor or diagnose patients remotely, as well as transform the way we treat the chronic diseases that account for a large share of health care budgets, the paper underscored. This poses the obvious question: what exactly AI can possibly do in the space of health care?

What can AI do for health care?

In a nutshell, the application of AI or ‘machine learning’ system in health care generally uses algorithms and software to approximate human cognition in the analysis of relevant, yet complex scientific and medical data. In-depth study and interpretation of these in a holistic way would be of immense use in many areas. For example, to understand the relationships between prevention or treatment processes and outcomes, or various debilitating conditions affecting people with the advancement of age, to name just a few.

This necessitates the generation of a huge pool of relevant and credible data from multiple sources, storing and analyzing them meaningfully, and then garnering the capabilities of ‘machine learning’ with the application of AI. Such a process helps in zeroing-in to a series of complex, interdependent strategic actions to go for the gold, in terms of business results. Using conventional methods, as exist today, other than imbibing AI or ‘machine learning’, may indeed be a Herculean task, as it were, to achieve the same.

Invaluable business insights thus acquired need to be shared, across the various different functions of a company, for greater patient-centricity within the organization.

Moving from ‘patient-engagement’ to ‘patient-centricity’:

While making a significant move from just ‘patient engagement’ to being ‘patient centric’, one-size-fits-all strategy is unlikely to yield the desired results. The process of gathering adequate knowledge and understanding of any individual’s disease management skills, which mostly depend on complex multi-factorial, interrelated and combinatorial algorithms, will be a challenging task, otherwise.

Thereafter, comes the need to deliver such knowledge-based value offerings to target patients for better health outcomes, which won’t be easy, either, in the prevailing environment.

Considering these, AI seems to have an immense potential in this area. Some global pharma players are also realizing it. For example, GSK is reportedly engaged with IBM’s Watson in the development of AI-enabled interactive digital Apps for its cold and flu medication to provide relevant information to patients.

Conclusion:

Patient-centricity would soon be the name of the game for pharma business excellence. However, to be truly patient-centric, especially in the sales and marketing operations, pharma players would require to source, process and analyze a huge volume of relevant data in several important areas. These include, target patients, target doctors, environmental dynamics, demographic variations, regulatory requirements, current practices, competitive activities, to name a few.

In this strategic business process, AI or ‘machine learning’ will help accurately mapping the ongoing dynamics and trends in virtually all critical areas. It will help ferret out the nuances of turning around the competitive tide, if any, and that too with immaculate precision. In that sense, AI is likely to emerge as a game changer in imbibing patient-centricity, in the real sense. Consequently, it carries a promise of delivering significantly better outcomes, yielding higher financial returns, alongside.

Although, some concerns on AI are being expressed by several eminent experts, it is generally believed that on the balance of probability, it’s crucial potential benefits far outweigh the anticipated risks. In my view, this holds good even for the pharma industry, especially while leveraging AI for greater patient-centricity, better disease prevention, and more desirable treatment outcomes – improving the quality of life of many, significantly.

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.

 

Patent Expiry No Longer End of The Road

Posted on by
Reply

Who says that the phenomenal success of blockbuster drugs is mostly eaten away by  ‘look-alikes’ of the same, immediately after respective patent expiry? It doesn’t seem to be so any longer, not anymore! Several examples will vindicate this emerging trend. However, I shall quote just a few of these from the published reports.

In 2016, the patent of AbbVie’s Humira (Adalimumab), indicated in the treatment of autoimmune diseases and moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, expired in the United States (US). It will also expire in Europe by 2018. This event was expected to create significant opportunities for lower priced Adalimumab biosimilars in the US market, increasing the product access to many more patients at affordable prices. Just as it happens with patent expiry of small molecule blockbuster drugs. One of the classic examples of which, is a sharp decline in sales turnover and profit from Pfizer’s Lipitor (Atorvastatin), as its patent expired on November 30, 2011.

However, Humira topped the prescription-drug list of 2016 with an annual growth of 15 percent, accounting for USD 16 billion sales, globally. More interestingly, according to a recent report of EvaluatePharma, AbbVie’s Humira will continue to retain its top most ranking in 2020 with expected sales of USD 13.9 billion. Nevertheless, possible threat from biosimilars has slightly slowed down its growth. Although, there are many other similar examples, I would quote just three more of these to illustrate the point, as follows:

  • Rituxan (Rituximab, MabThera) indicated in the treatment of cancer and co-marketed by Biogen and Roche, went off-patent in 2015. However, in 2016, the product held 4th position in the prescription drug market with a revenue growth of nearly 3 percent. Even five years after its patent expiry, Rituxan is still expected to occupy the 17th rank with an estimated turnover of over USD 5 billion in 2020, according to the EvaluatePharma report.
  • Remicade (Infliximab) indicated for autoimmune diseases and manufactured by J&J and Merck, lost market exclusivity in 2015. But, in 2016 it still held 5th place in the global ranking. Five years after it goes off patent, Remicade is expected to feature in the 6th rank in 2020, with an estimated turnover of over USD 6.5 billion, according to the same report as above.
  • The US product patent for Lantus – a long-acting human insulin analog manufactured by Sanofi, expired in August 2014. However, in 2016, clocking a global turnover of USD 6.05 billion, Lantus still ranked 10 in the global prescription brand league table. Six years after its patent expiry – in 2020, Lantus will continue to feature in the rank 20, as the same EvaluatePharma report estimates.

These examples give a feel that unlike small molecule blockbuster drugs, patent expiry is still not end of the road to retain this status for most large molecule biologics, across the world. In this article, I shall discuss this point taking Humira as the case study.

What about biosimilar competition?

In any way, this does not mean that related biosimilars are not getting regulatory approval in the global markets, post-patent expiry of original biologic drugs, including the United States. Nonetheless, biosimilar makers are facing new challenges in this endeavor, some of which are highly cost intensive, creating tough hurdles to make such drugs available to more patients at an affordable price, soon enough. It happened for the very first biosimilar to Humira, as well. On September 23, 2016, almost immediately after its patent expiry in 2016, the USFDA by a Press Release announced approval for the first biosimilar to Humira (adalimumab). This was Amgen’s Amjevita (adalimumab-atto), indicated for multiple inflammatory diseases.

The second biosimilar to AbbVie’s Humira – Boehringer Ingelheim’s Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm), was also approved by the USFDA in August 2017. So far, six biosimilars have been introduced in the United states. But, none of these got approved as an ‘interchangeable’ product. Some of these, such as Cyltezo could not even be launched, as yet. I shall discuss this point later in this article. Thus, Humira is expected to retain its top global prescription brand ranking in 2020 – over 4 years after its patent expiry.

In Europe, two marketing authorizations were reportedly granted by the European Commission (EC) in March 2017 for Amgen’s biosimilars to Humira, named Amgevita (adalimumab) and Solymbic (adalimumab). Later this year, in November 2017 Boehringer Ingelheim’s – Cyltezo also received its European marketing approval.

It is worth noting that in December 2014, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly granted marketing approval for Zydus Cadila’s Adalimumab biosimilar (Exemptia) for treating rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune disorders in India. The company claims: “This novel non-infringing process for Adalimumab Biosimilar and a novel non-infringing formulation have been researched, developed and produced by scientists at the Zydus Research Centre. The biosimilar is the first to be launched by any company in the world and is a ‘fingerprint match’ with the originator in terms of safety, purity and potency of the product.”

Several important reasons indicate why a full throttle competition is lacking in the  biosimilar market early enough – immediately after patent expiry of original biologic molecules. I shall cite just a couple of these examples to illustrate the point. One is related to aggressive brand protection, creating a labyrinth of patents having different expiry dates. And the other is a regulatory barrier in the form of drug ‘interchangeability’ condition, between the original biologic and related biosimilars:

In the labyrinth of patents:

The most recent example of innovator companies fiercely protecting their original biologic from the biosimilar competition by creating a labyrinth of patents is Boehringer Ingelheim’s Cyltezo. This is biosimilar to AbbVie’s Humira, approved by the USFDA and EC in August 2017 and November 2017, respectively.

According to reports: “BI does not intend to make the drug commercially available in Europe until the respective SPC (supplementary protection certificate) for adalimumab, which extends the duration of certain rights associated with a patent, expires in October 2018. Cyltezo is also not yet available in the US despite its approval there in August, because of ongoing patent litigation with AbbVie. AbbVie reportedly holds more than 100 patents on Humira, and believes that Boehringer could infringe 74 of these with the launch of its biosimilar. Similarly, the firm has also taken Amgen to court to block the launch of its proposed Humira biosimilar.”

Another interesting example is the epoch-making breast cancer targeted therapy Trastuzumab (Herceptin of Roche/Genentech). The patent on Herceptin reportedly expired in 2014 in Europe and will expire in the United States in 2019. The brand registered a turnover of USD 2.5 billion in 2016. However, a November 21, 2017 report says that creating a series of hurdle in the way of Pfizer’s introduction to Herceptin biosimilar, Roche has sued Pfizer for infringement of 40 patents of its blockbuster breast cancer drug. Pfizer hasn’t yet won approval for its Herceptin biosimilar, though, USFDA accepted its application in August 2017 – the report highlights

‘Interchangeability’ condition for biosimilars:

In the largest global pharma market – the United States, USFDA classifies biosimilars into two very distinct categories:

  • Biosimilars that are “expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product”
  • Biosimilars that are “interchangeable,” or able to be switched with their reference product

According to reports, experts’ argument over ‘interchangeability’ in the US range from “whether pharmacists should be allowed to switch a biologic for its biosimilar without a doctor’s notification, to whether interchangeable biosimilars might be perceived as better or safer than their non-interchangeable counterparts.” This debate has somewhat been resolved by the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) issuance of draft guidance in January 2017, specifying what should be submitted to support an interchangeable application, the report says.

The article also indicates, “the draft makes clear that switching studies to help gain this designation should evaluate changes in treatment that result in two or more alternating exposures (switch intervals) to the proposed interchangeable product and to the reference product. Study design, types of data and other considerations are also included in that draft.” Nonetheless, compliance with this regulatory requirement is expected to be highly cost intensive, too.

Quoting a senior USFDA official, a report dated June 26, 2017 mentioned: “interchangeable biosimilars will come to market within the next two years, though possibly sooner. And the first interchangeable biosimilar will likely be reviewed by an FDA advisory committee of outside experts.” Still the bottom line remains no biosimilar has yet been approved by the USFDA as ‘interchangeable’. Hence, the optics related to desirable success for biosimilars continue to remain somewhat apprehensive, I reckon.

Patent related litigations on Trastuzumab (Herceptin) were filed by Roche in India, as well. However, it’s good to note that on December 01, 2017, by a Press Release, USFDA announced the approval of Mylan’s biosimilar variety of Roche’s blockbuster breast cancer drug – Herceptin. Mylan’s Ogivri was co-developed with Biocon in India to treat breast or stomach cancer, and is the first biosimilar approved in the United States for these indications. It is noteworthy that Ogivri also has not been approved as an interchangeable product.

The global and local scenario for biosimilars:

Be that as it may, the July 26, 2017 study of Netscribes – a global market intelligence and content management firm estimates that the global biosimilar market will be worth USD 36 billion by 2022. Some of the major findings of this study are as follows:

  • With a cumulative share of nearly 85%, North America, Europe, and Japan are the major contributors to global biological and biosimilar sales. Asia and Africa account for 13.2% and 1.2%, respectively.
  • Pfizer is the leading player in the biologic market, with sales of nearly USD 45.9 billion in 2016 followed by Novartis (41.6 billion) and Roche (39.6 billion).
  • Biosimilar approvals are estimated to be around of around 16 to 20 biosimilars between 2018 to 2021 in both US and EU.
  • The US is not a favorable market for biosimilars due to a number of reasons, such as poor access to biologic drugs and an unfavorable regulatory environment.
  • South Africa is one of the best-suited markets for biosimilars due to a favorable regulatory environment and prescriber acceptance.

According to the April 2017 analysis of Research And Markets, biosimilars have started winning key government tenders in countries like Mexico and Russia, and being purchased by a growing number of patients in self-pay markets such as India. The aggregate sales of ‘copy biologics’ in the six BRIC-MS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, Mexico, and South Korea) countries would now almost certainly exceed USD 1.5 billion. Yet Another estimate  expects the Indian biosimilar market to increase from USD 186 million in 2016 to USD 1.1 billion in 2020. It is up to individual experts to assess whether or not this growth trend for biosimilars is desirable to adequately benefit a large number of patients, the world over.

Conclusion:

In my view, if what usually happens to sales and profit for small molecule blockbuster drugs post patent expiry, would have happened to the large molecule biologic drugs, the market scenario for biosimilars would have been quite different. In that scenario, one would have witnessed a plethora of biosimilar competition against high priced and money churning biologics, such as Humira, being launched with a significantly lesser price than the original brand.

Prices of biosimilars would have been much lesser primarily because, the litigation cost, now built into the biosimilar prices for successfully coming out of the labyrinth of patents after the basic patent expiry, would have been minimal. Moreover, restrictions on drug ‘interchangeability’ would not have made the target market smaller, especially in the United states.

Alongside, compliance with the regulatory need to meet the ‘interchangeability’ condition in the US, would drive the product cost even higher. More so, when this specific regulatory requirement is not necessary in other developed markets, like Europe. Both these factors would adversely impact affordability and access to sophisticated biologic drugs for patients, even after the fixed period of market exclusivity.

That said, a virtually impregnable patent labyrinth mostly ensures that going off-patent isn’t end of the road for blockbuster biologic drugs to continue generating significant revenue and  profit, any longer – and it would remain so at least, in the short to medium term.

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.

Should ‘Pharma Marketing’ Be In The Line of Fire?

Posted on by
Reply

Close to half a century ago, Peter Drucker – the Management Guru wrote: As the purpose of business is to create customers, any business enterprise has two basic functions: marketing and innovation. Drucker’s concept is so fundamental in nature that it will possibly never change, ever.

That innovation is the lifeblood of pharma industry is well-accepted by most people, if not all. However, when similar discussion focuses on pharma marketing, the industry virtually exposes itself in the line of fire, apparently from all directions. This trend, coupled with a few more in other areas, is making a significant dent in the reputation of the pharma industry, triggering a chain of events that create a strong headwind for business growth.

The consequences of such dent in pharma reputation get well-reflected in an article titled “How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time,” published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on February 3, 2017. The author observed:

“This worrisome mix of little growth potential and low reputation is the main explanation for why investors are increasingly interested in how pharma companies manage access-to-medicine opportunities and risks, which range from developing new treatments for neglected populations and pricing existing products at affordable levels to avoiding corruption and price collusion.”

On the above backdrop, this article will try to explore the relevance of Drucker’s ‘marketing’ concept in the pharma business – dispassionately. Alongside, I shall also deliberate on the possibility of a general misunderstanding, or misinterpretation of facts related to ‘pharma marketing’ activities, as these are today.

Communicating the intrinsic value of medications:

Moving in this direction, let me recapitulate what ‘pharma marketing’ generally does for the patients – through the doctors.

Despite being lifeblood that carries the intrinsic value of a medication from research lab to manufacturing plants and finally to patients, ‘pharma marketing’ is, unfortunately under incessant public criticism. It continues to happen, regardless of the fact that one of the key responsibilities of pharma players is to disseminate information on their drugs to the doctors, for the benefits of patients.

One may justifiably question any ‘marketing practice’ that is not patient-friendly. However, the importance of ‘marketing’ in the pharma business can’t just be wished away – for patients’ sake.

Way back in 1994, the article titled, “The role and value of pharmaceutical marketing” captured its relevance, aptly articulated:

“Pharmaceutical marketing is the last element of an information continuum, where research concepts are transformed into practical therapeutic tools and where information is progressively layered and made more useful to the health care system. Thus, transfer of information to physicians through marketing is a crucial element of pharmaceutical innovation. By providing an informed choice of carefully characterized agents, marketing assists physicians in matching drug therapy to individual patient needs. Pharmaceutical marketing is presently the most organized and comprehensive information system for updating physicians about the availability, safety, efficacy, hazards, and techniques of using medicines.”

The above relevance of ‘pharma marketing’, whether globally or locally, remains unchanged, even today, and would remain so, at least, in the foreseeable future.

It’s a serious business:

As many would know, in many respect ‘pharma marketing’, especially of complex small and large molecules, is quite a different ball game, altogether. It’s markedly different from marketing activities in most other industries, including Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), where customers and consumers are generally the same.

In contrast, in prescription drug market customers are not the consumers. In fact, most consumers of any prescription medicine don’t really know much, either about the drugs or their prices. They get to know about their costs while actually paying for those directly or indirectly. Healthcare providers, mostly in those countries that provide Universal Healthcare (UHC) in any form, may also be customers for the drug manufacturers. Even Direct to Consumer (DTC) drug advertisements, such as in the United States, can’t result into a direct choice for self-medication, other than Over the Counter (OTC) drugs.

Additionally, pharma market is highly regulated with a plethora of Do’s and Don’ts, unlike most other industries. Thus, for the drug manufacturers, medical professionals are the real customers, whereas patients are the consumers of medicines, as and when prescribed by doctors.

With this perspective, ‘Pharma marketing’ assumes a critical importance. It is too serious a strategic business process to be jettisoned by any. There exists a fundamental responsibility for the drug manufacturers to communicate important information on various aspects of drugs to individual physicians, in the interest of patients. This has to happen, regardless of any controversy in this regard, though the type of communication platforms, contents used and the degree of leveraging technology in this process may widely vary from company to company.

Assuming that the marketing practices followed by the industry players would be ethical and the regulators keep a strict vigil on the same, effective marketing of a large number of competing molecules or similar brand increases competition, significantly. In that process, it should ultimately enable physicians to prescribe drugs that will suit each patient the most, in every way. There can’t possibly be any other alternative to this concept.

A common allegation:

Despite these, a common allegation against ‘pharma marketing’ keeps gathering momentum. Reports continue pouring in that pharma companies spend far more on marketing drugs than on developing them. One such example is a stinging article, published by the BBC News on November 6, 2014.

Quoting various published reports as evidence, this article highlighted that – 9 out of 10 large pharma players spend more on marketing than R&D. These examples are generally construed as testimony for the profiteering motive of the pharma companies.

Is the reason necessarily so?

As any other knowledge-based industry, effective communication process of complex product information with precision, to highly knowledgeable medical professionals individually, obviously makes pharma marketing cost commensurately high. If the entire process of marketing remains fair, ethical and patient centric, such costs may get well-neutralized by the benefits accrued from the medicines, including lesser cost of drugs driven by high competition.

Further, a successful pharma marketing campaign is the ultimate tool that ensures a reasonable return on investments for further fund allocation, although in varying degree, to offer more new drugs to patients – both innovative and generics.

Marketing decision-support data generation is also cost-intensive:

Achieving short, medium and long-term growth objectives are as fundamental in pharma as in any other business. This prompts that investments made on ‘pharma marketing’, fetch commensurate returns, year after year. To succeed in this report, one of the prime requirements is to ensure that the content, platform and ultimate delivery of the product communication is based on current and credible research data having statistical significance.

With increasing brand proliferation, especially in competing molecules or branded generic market, arriving at cutting-edge brand differentiation has also become more challenging than ever before. Nevertheless, identification of well-differentiated patient-centric product value offerings will always remain ‘a must’ for any persuasive brand communication to be effective.

It calls for generating a vast amount of custom made decision-support data on each aspect of ‘pharma marketing’, such as target market, target patients, target doctors, competitive environment, differential value offering, and scores of others. The key to success in this effort is to come out with that ‘rare commodity’ that separates men from the boys. This is cost intensive.

What ails pharma marketing, then?

So far so good –  the real issue is not, therefore, whether ‘pharma marketing’ deserves to be in the line of fire. The raging debate on what ails ‘pharma marketing’ should primarily focus on – how to ensure that this process remains ethical and fair, for all.

Thus, when criticism mounts on related issues, it may not necessarily mean that ‘marketing’ is avoidable in the pharma business. Quite often, critics do mix-up between the crucial ‘importance of pharma marketing’ and ‘malpractices in pharma marketing.’ Consequently, public impressions take shape, believing that the pharma marketing expenses are generally higher due to malpractices with profiteering motives.

As a result, we come across reports that draw public attention with conclusions like: “Imagine an industry that generates higher profit margins than any other and is no stranger to multi-billion dollar fines for malpractice.”

A similar article published ‘Forbes’ on February 18, 2015 also reiterates: “The deterioration of pharma’s reputation comes from several sources, not the least of which is the staggering amount of criminal behavior that has resulted in billions of dollars’ worth of fines levied against the industry.”

One cannot deny these reports – lock, stock and barrel, either. Several such articles named many large pharma players, both global and local.

Conclusion:

In my view, only pharma marketers with a ‘can do’ resolve will be able to initiate a change in this avoidable perception. No-one else possibly can do so with a total success in the foreseeable future – not even the requirement of a strict compliance with any mandatory code having legal teeth, such as mandatory compliance of the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) that the Indian Government is currently mulling.

I guess so because, after a strong deterrent like mandatory UCPMP is put in place, if reports on marketing malpractices continue to surface, it will invite more intense public criticism against ‘pharma marketing’ – pushing the industry’s reputation further downhill, much faster.

Be that as it may, it’s high time for all to realize, just because some pharma players resort to malpractices, the ‘pharma marketing’ process, as such, doesn’t deserve to be in the line of fire – in any way.

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.

 

A Tipping Point For Robust Healthcare System In India

Posted on by
Reply

“Given the popular uptake of universal health coverage reforms elsewhere in Asia, the Feb 4 elections may be a tipping point for health in India. For example, in 2012, Joko Widodo was elected Governor of Jakarta. He launched popular UHC reforms in the capital and 2 years later was elected president. In 2016, voters in the USA and UK supported politicians prepared to act on the concerns of the electorate. If health becomes a populist cause in India, rather than a political inconvenience, then the country might finally be liberated to achieve health outcomes commensurate with its economic and technical achievements”, is exactly what appeared in the editorial of The Lancet, titled “Health in India, 2017,” published on January 14, 2017.

The Lancet Editor further reiterated: “Because states have responsibility for health, the elections will raise the importance of access to quality, affordable health care in India, regardless of the electoral outcome. It is a debate that needs to be fostered.”

This is, of course, a ‘top-down’ approach for healthcare, as seen in several countries across the world. However, I have recently deliberated another approach in the same area on – why a ‘bottom-up’ demand is not forthcoming in India, in an article titled ‘Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs’, published in this blog on November 06, 2017.

No one, including any Government, would possibly ever argue – why shouldn’t a robust public healthcare system in a country, including the availability of reasonably affordable drugs, assume as much priority as economic growth and education?

On the contrary, Governments in several other countries, including those with a well-functioning Universal Healthcare (UHC) in place, are trying to ensure even better and greater access to healthcare for all, by various different means. In this article, I shall focus on it, in a holistic way.

Exploring a bottom-up approach:

It is increasingly becoming more evident that a bottom-up approach would help yield greater success in this area, with a win-win outcome. It will involve taking the stakeholders on board in the process of framing and implementing healthcare projects within a given time-frame. The question then arises, why is it still not happening on the ground in India the way it should? Just floating a discussion paper on draft projects and policies, for stakeholders’ inputs, isn’t enough any longer. There is a need to move much beyond that in making these decisions more inclusive.

Various successive Governments may have some justifiable funding related or other pressing issues to offer a robust public healthcare system in India. But, none of these will be an insurmountable barrier, if more number of heads of astute stakeholders are involved in ferreting out an effective and implementable India-specific solution in this area, within a pre-determined timeline.

There are examples of remarkable progress in this direction, by involving stakeholders in charting out a workable pathway, agreed by all, and jointly implemented in a well-calibrated and time bound manner. Equally important is to make this plan known to the public, so that the Government can be held accountable, if it falls short of this promise, or even misses any prescribed timeline.

‘The Accelerated Access Pathway’ initiative:

Let me now draw an interesting example of involving stakeholders by the Government to improve patient access to expensive and innovative drugs. This example comes from a country that is running one of the oldest and most efficient UHC in the world – the United Kingdom.

Despite a robust UHC being in place, the National Health Service (NHS) in England had a perennial problem to make ‘breakthrough’ medicines available early to NHS patients. The British pharma industry reportedly had a long-held complaint that patients in England get a raw deal when it comes to accessing the latest medicines.

According to a reported study by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) and endorsed by the charity Cancer Research UK, average British patients get lower access to leading cancer medicines than their European counterparts.

To resolve this issue effectively, the British Government launched ‘The Accelerated Access Pathway initiative’. Former GSK global CEO Sir Andrew Witty was named as the chairman of this collaborative body. The scheme, launching from April 2018, will see approvals of cutting-edge treatments for conditions like cancer, dementia and diabetes dramatically speeding up. The pathway is expected to get ‘breakthrough’ medicines to NHS patients up to four years earlier, as the report, published in ‘The Telegraph’ on November 3, 2017 indicates.

It is believed that ‘Accelerated Access Collaborative’ initiative would benefit the NHS patients, as well as deliver significant long-term savings for the health service.

Similar initiatives may be effective in India:

Taking collaborative initiatives, such as above, may not be absolutely new in India. However, in a real sense, Indian initiatives are no more than top-down approaches, and not in any way be termed as bottom-up. Moreover, these usually originate in the form of Government discussion papers inviting comments from the stakeholders.

Moreover, in the healthcare policy related arena, there is no subsequent firm resolve by the Government to chart out a clear pathway for its effective implementation, with specific timelines indicated for each step, besides assigning individual accountability for delivering the intended deliverables.

Any such decisive move by the government, keeping all stakeholders engaged is quite rare to come across in our country, as yet. Thus, carefully selected outside expert group suggestions based – the National Health Policies also have met with the same fate, without possibly any exception, thus far.

Two illustrations:

I shall illustrate the above point with two top-of-mind examples. The first one is a report – the ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ report on ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ for India, submitted to the erstwhile Planning Commission in November 2011. The other example is of a policy – the National Health Policy (NHP) 2017, which is in place now, based on a report by an expert committee constituted by the Government.

Let me now briefly recapitulate both – one by one, as follows:

The report on ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ for India

The ‘High Level Expert Group (HLEG)’ on ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC)’ was constituted by the Planning Commission of India in October 2010, with the mandate of developing a framework for providing easily accessible and affordable health care to all Indians.

While financial protection for healthcare was the principal objective of this initiative, it was recognized that the delivery of UHC also requires the availability of adequate health infrastructure, skilled health workforce, access to affordable drugs and technologies to ensure the entitled level and quality of healthcare is delivered to every citizen.

The report further highlighted, the design and delivery of health programs and services call for efficient management systems as well as active engagement of empowered communities.

The original terms of reference directed the HLEG to address all of these needs of UHC. Since the social determinants of health have a profound influence not only on the health of populations, but also on the ability of individuals to access healthcare, the HLEG decided to include a clear reference to them.

Nevertheless, this report was never acted upon for its effective implementation. Now, with the change in Government, HLEG recommendations for UHC in India seems to have lost its relevance, altogether.

The National Health Policy (NHP) 2017

The new Government that subsequently came to power, decided to start afresh with a brand new and modern National Health Policy in India, replacing the previous one framed 15 years ago in 2002. NHP 2017 promises healthcare in an ‘assured manner’ to all, by addressing the challenges in the changing socioeconomic, epidemiological and technological scenarios. Accordingly, the National Health Policy 2017 was put in place, early this year.

To achieve the objectives, NHP 2017 intends to raise public healthcare expenditure to 2.5 percent of GDP from the current 1.4 percent. Interestingly, no visible signal about the seriousness on implementation of this laudable initiative has reached the public, just yet.

Let’s now wait for the next year’s budget to ascertain whether the policy objective of ‘healthcare in an assured manner to all’ would continue to remain a pipe dream, as happened in earlier budget proposals. It is noteworthy that union budget allocation on health did not go up, at least, in the last 3 years, despite categorical assurances by the ministers on increasing focus on healthcare.

Significant increase in both the union and the state governments budgetary allocation for healthcare is necessary. This is because, besides many other intents, NHP 2017 intends to provide free diagnostics, free drugs and free emergency and essential healthcare services in all public hospitals for healthcare access and financial protection to all.

Universal Healthcare is the core point in both:

The core focus of both – the HLEG report and also the NHP 2017, is UHC in India, but with different approaches. When HLEG report was not translated into reality, the 2014 general election in India was widely expected to be the tipping point for a new public healthcare landscape in the country fulfilling this promise. More so, as the public healthcare system is generally in a shamble throughout the country, except in a handful of states.

Just as in the United States, Europe or Japan, “if health becomes a populist cause in India, rather than a political inconvenience, then the country might finally be liberated to achieve health outcomes commensurate with its economic and technical achievements,” as the above Lancet editorial commented.  Giving yet another perspective, I also wrote in my blog post, titled ‘Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs’ on November 06, 2017, why has it not happened in India, as on date.

Conclusion:

What happens, if the Indian Government too adopts a major collaborative approach, such as ‘The Accelerated Access Pathway’ initiatives, involving all stakeholders – including the pharma and device industry leaders to implement UHC in the country – part by part?

The relevant counter question to this should not be – Will that work? Of course, it will, if the Government wants to. On the contrary, it could be a potential ‘Tipping Point’ to create a robust public healthcare landscape in India. Thus, the real question that we should ask ourselves: Why won’t it work, when all stakeholders are on board to pave the pathway for an efficient Universal Healthcare system in India, in a win-win way?

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.

Moving Beyond The Pill: No Longer An Option

Posted on by
Reply

Many of us would prefer to live, as long as possible, in the comfort zones of old paradigms, hoping to succeed in the same way as we had succeeded in the past. But the wheel of time keeps moving, triggering a significant shift in various paradigms. This includes even the health care space. Most of these changes, as they tend to attain a critical mass, capture the imagination of some in the pharma industry – escaping the attention of many.

One such area of a shifting paradigm is increasing patient preference to get actively engaged in their health care. More specifically, such preferences span across the entire chain of any disease management process – from diagnosis to treatment, often including continuous monitoring, whenever required.

Thus, the creation of well-differentiated value-added patient engagement services, based on credible research data of statistical significance, craftily bundled around the pill, will assume paramount importance. More importantly, such value offerings should lead to demonstrable improvement in treatment outcomes.

This, I reckon, would be the new recipe for pharma marketing excellence in the coming years. In this article, I shall focus on this fast-evolving landscape.

Dawns a new realization:

Early realization of this change is working as an impetus for some global pharma majors to redraw their strategic business models, making appropriate course corrections, which are mostly fundamental in nature.

The article titled ‘How Pharma Can Offer More than Pills’, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on July 23, 2015 identifies the following two realizations as the impetus behind moving beyond the pill initiatives:

  • Medicines alone are often not enough for patients to achieve optimal clinical outcomes.
  • As pharmaceutical pipelines dry up, beyond-the-pill businesses can be valuable new sources of revenues.

Joseph Jimenez, the global CEO of Novartis, appears to be one of the first and foremost to recognize this requirement when he said in 2014 that: “Creating value by embedding products into a holistic offering with the aim to improve patient outcomes and provide tangible competitive advantages.” Jimenez said at that time, “Beyond-the-pill is a logical and inevitable path forward for all.”

As this new realization gets effectively translated into cutting-edge business strategies, “Medicines could accordingly reach market with a label that includes an ‘around the pill’ solution such as a wearable or another tracking device”, as the above HBR article foresees.

Shifting success requirements:

Going forward, delivering only the value of a pill won’t be quite enough to make the sales revenue and profit trend moving north, registering a steep gradient.

As more patients want to experience differential values in the entire disease treatment process through greater participation and engagement, business success requirements of pharma players call for a major shift, accordingly. This would involve moving away from the traditional model – from increasing sales through a growing number of treatments, to boosting revenue through patient-centric well-differentiated value offerings. I repeat, the entire process should ultimately lead to quantifiable improvement in treatment outcomes.

Direct ‘patient engagement’ is easier said than done:

Direct patient engagement is easier said than done. It is not just something that is ready to happen at any given point of time. Pharma companies will require to first equip much greater number of patients, through various means, to become actively engaged in health care, as they step into this direction.

It is envisaged that most of these direct patient engagement endeavors of pharma will be on various digital platforms. The process would require accurately identifying the target groups, what exactly they consider of immense value for such engagement –  and finally effectively delivering those value offerings in innovative and customized ways to them, for improved treatment outcomes.

‘Patient engagement’ should be measurable:

The level of such engagement needs to be continuously measured through ‘patient activation’ tools to establish cost-efficient improved outcomes. Researchers have established that patients with a lower ‘activation score’ ultimately incur higher costs.

An interesting article on ‘patient activation’ describes this terminology as ‘the skills and confidence that equip patients to become actively engaged in their health care.’ It says that health care delivery systems are now turning to ‘patient activation’ as yet another tool to help them and their patients improve outcomes and influence costs. To establish this point, the paper examined the relationship between ‘patient activation levels’ and billed care costs.

In this analysis of 33,163 patients, the researchers found that patients with the ‘lowest activation levels’ had predicted average costs that were 8 percent higher in the base year and 21 percent higher in the first half of the next year than the costs for patients with the highest activation levels. Both are significant differences.

Following an analogous approach, Novartis has been able to demonstrate better disease outcomes with its cardiovascular drug Entresto, as reported in the Financial Times dated April 14, 2017. Ably supported by remote monitoring and coaching programs for patients with advanced heart failure, Novartis has reportedly been able to establish that its customized disease treatment solution brings down hospitalization and cardiovascular death rate by around 20 percent.

Greater pharma accountability needed for treatment cost versus outcomes:

The authors of this paper, further established ‘patient activation’ as a significant predictor of cost even after adjustment for a commonly used “risk score” specifically designed to predict future costs. This trend, when reaches the decisive moment, is likely to assign greater accountability for costs and outcomes, even to the pharma players.

While moving into this direction:

Accurately knowing patients’ ability and willingness to manage their health will be a critical piece of information for the drug companies. This would prompt the pharma marketers to be highly proficient in generating a huge pool of credible data on target patient groups in various relevant areas, including expectations, aspirations, preferences and treatment related behavior. Thereafter, strategic game plan for business excellence should be based on in-depth analysis of this huge database, created on an ongoing basis.

If any skill gap exists in generating and analyzing the data meaningfully, pharma companies may wish to collaborate with external expertise in this area. A few excellent examples in this area have already started being reported, such as

Astra Zeneca’s partnering with Vida Health to offer free health coaching services to heart attack sufferers, or Sanofi partnering with Verily (previously known as Google Life Sciences) to develop new services for patients to manage diabetes better.

With similar initiatives, pharma players can effectively demonstrate to their stakeholders, details of better health outcomes that their patient-centric disease treatment solutions are offering – eventually taking their brands to a new trajectory of more inclusive success.

Conclusion:

Those days are not too far when many patients, especially with chronic diseases, such as hypertension, arthritis or diabetes, would prefer to buy a comprehensive disease management solution to lead a better quality of life, instead of just buying a pill – and quite often for lifelong.

In a new paradigm, with changing ‘value expectations’ of many patients in the entire treatment process, ‘value creation’ and ‘value delivery’ mechanisms of drug companies are likely to change accordingly. One of the key barriers to this shift is mostly the traditional business culture of most pharma players. Another significant one is its slow pace of moving into the digitized world, as compared to other science and technology driven industries.

Moving ‘beyond the pill’ would necessitate a basic shift in the mindset – from selling a pill to selling better health outcomes. In this endeavor, pharma CEOs require leading from the front. Instilling courage within the organization to ensure this fundamental strategic shift in the company’s business model taking place on the ground, is their prime responsibility. Thus, stepping into this new paradigm with requisite wherewithal, sooner, would no longer be just for business excellence, but for its long-term survival too.

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.

 

Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs

Posted on by
Reply

“Russia and India climb World Bank’s Doing Business rankings”, was a headline in the Financial Times on October 31, 2017. India jumped 30 places – from 130 out of 190. Almost instantly, the domestic media flashed it all across the country, as the prime news item of the day. It brought great satisfaction to many, and very rightly so.

The news is also worth cheering as it ignites the hope of a large section of the society that sometime in the future more business will come into the country, more jobs will be created, and in that process India will emerge as a more healthy and wealthy nation, just as many other countries around the world.

This loud cheer, in tandem, also transcends into a hope for a well-oiled public healthcare system functioning efficiently in India, alongside greater wealth creation. This is because, while expecting a healthier nation, one can’t possibly keep the public healthcare system of the country out of it, altogether. Thus, I reckon, it won’t be quite out of place to have a quick look at India’s current ranking on other healthcare related indices too, such as ‘Healthcare Index’ and ‘Human Development Index’ and ‘Hunger Index’:

Healthcare index:

With that perspective, when go through the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016, published in The Lancet on September 16, 2017, it will be difficult to wish away the fact that India ranks 154 among 195 countries in ‘Healthcare Index’. Surprisingly, India ranks much behind Sri Lanka (72.8), Bangladesh (51.7), Bhutan (52.7) and Nepal (50.8) though, of course, above Pakistan (43.1) and Afghanistan (32.5). This is what it is, regardless of the fact that India’s Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) index has increased by 14.1 – from 30.7 in 1990 to 44.8 in 2015.

Human Development Index:

The ranking of India in the Human Development Index (HDI) is also not encouraging, either. Many would know, HDI is a composite index of life expectancy, education, and per capita income, which are used to rank countries in human development. As life expectancy also depends on the quality of healthcare, HDI has a significant bearing on this count, as well.

The ‘2016 Human Development Index Report (HDR)’ released by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in March 2017 shows that India has slipped by one rank from 130 to 131, among 188 countries. According to UNDP, ‘in the past decades, there has been significant gains in human development levels almost in every country, but millions of people have not benefited from this progress. This report highlights who have been left behind and why?’

I shall dwell on the ‘Global Hunger Index Report’ below at an appropriate context.

Why is this comparison between different indices…and now?

The above question is indeed a very valid one. Nonetheless, it is important to do so. I am quoting these rankings to flag the sharp contrast in our mindset to rejoice the good rankings, and lampooning the adverse ones, citing one reason or the other.

It is obvious from the general euphoria witnessed by many on such good news –  highlighted so well by the print, television and social media, with high decibel discussions by experts and politicians. There is nothing wrong in doing that, in any way. However, similar media discussions were not evident for taking effective corrective measures, soon, when ‘global burden of disease rankings’ or ‘Human Development Index Report (HDR)’ or the ‘Global Hunger Index’ rankings were published in September, March and October 2017, respectively.

Does it therefore mean that effectively addressing issues related to crumbling public healthcare infrastructure in the country attracts much lesser importance than ensuring ease of doing business in the country? Do both the politicians and the voters also consider so? Perhaps the answer is yes, as many would envisage in the largest democracy of the world.

What’s happening elsewhere?

In many developed and also the developing countries of the world, general public or voters’ expectations for having an affordable and robust public healthcare delivery system from the respective Governments seem to be high. Consequently, it also directs the focus of the politicians or lawmakers on the same. This scenario includes even the oldest democracy of the world – America. Such expectations on comprehensive healthcare covers the need for affordable drug prices too.

That voters are greatly concerned about healthcare in those countries is supported by many contemporary surveys. Just before the last year’s American Presidential election, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: September 2016, substantiated this point. It said, besides considering personal characteristics of the candidates, the voters clearly articulated their priority on patient-friendly healthcare laws and affordable drug prices, as follows:

  • Over 66 percent of voters expressed that healthcare law is very important to their vote
  • 77 percent said prescription drug costs are unreasonable, expressing widespread support for a variety of actions in order to keep healthcare costs down

Accordingly, The New York Times on September 17, 2017 reported: “The public is angry about the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs. Surveys have shown that high drug prices rank near the top of consumers’ health care concerns, and politicians in both parties - including President Trump — have vowed to do something about it.”

I haven’t come across such widespread demand from the voters getting captured in any survey, before either any State Assembly or the Parliament elections in India. Hence, public healthcare continues to languish in the country, as various Governments come and go.

What happens post-election in the oldest democracy?

We have enough examples that post-election, the oldest democracy of the world tries to satisfy the well-articulated healthcare needs of the voters, on priority. To illustrate the point, let me help recapitulate what happened in this regard, immediately after the last two Presidential elections in America.

After swearing in on January 20, 2009, then American President Barack Obama, as expected by the voters and promised by him accordingly, enacted the Affordable Care Act (ACA), popularly known as ‘Obamacare’, almost within a year’s time – on March 23, 2010. Similarly, within a few months of swearing in as the American President, Donald Trump administration is mulling to address the voters demand and his electoral promise to make the prescription drugs more affordable.

Public demand and outcry for affordable healthcare, including affordable drugs have led to several serious consequential developments in the United States. Let me illustrate this point with another example of recent lawsuits filed against alleged price fixing of generic drugs – many of these are new, but a few started in the last few years.

Vigil on drug prices continues:

As high drug prices are a burning issue even in America, a lot many steps are being taken there on that issue – just as many other developed and developing countries are taking.

It is rather well known that even after enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, the Department of Justice of the country expanded probing into the allegation of price fixing by many generic drug manufacturers operating in America. One such illustration is October 31, 2017 public notice of the State Attorney General (AG) of Connecticut. It states that the AG is leading a coalition of 46-states in new, expanded complaint in Federal Generic Drug Antitrust Lawsuit. It further mentioned: States allege broad, industry-wide understanding among numerous drug manufacturers to restrain competition and raise prices on 15 generic drugs, where some senior executives have been sued.

Interestingly, in this notice the AG said, “The generic drug market was conceived as a way to help bring down the cost of prescription medications. For years, those savings have not been realized, and instead the prices of many generic drugs have skyrocketed.” He alleged that the defendant companies’ collusion was so pervasive that it essentially eliminated competition from the market for the identified 15 drugs in its entirety. ‘Ongoing investigation continues to uncover additional evidence, and we anticipate bringing more claims involving additional companies and drugs at the appropriate time,” the Attorney General further added.

By the way, the expanded complaint of the states reportedly also includes several large Indian companies, such Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Emcure, Glenmark, Sun Pharma, and Zydus Pharma. Curiously, the expanded complaint also names two individual defendants, one among them is the promoter, the chief executive officer and managing director of a large Indian pharma manufacturer.

Examples such as this vindicate, even if a robust public healthcare system is put in place, the regulators would still keep a careful vigil on drug prices.

Getting back to the key link between some indices:

Let me now get back to where I started from – the link between ‘ease of doing business’ and ‘becoming a healthy and wealthy’ nation, over a period of time. This would subsequently bring us to the link between healthy nation and the existence of a robust and functioning affordable public healthcare system in the country.

From that angle, I raised a key question. Why the general public, and specifically the voters in India aren’t making effective delivery of an affordable public healthcare as one of the top priority areas while voting for or against a political dispensation? The question assumes greater relevance when one sees it happening in many other countries, as discussed above. Is it, therefore, worth pondering whether this issue can be explained, at least to a great extent, by applying the well-known ‘Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs.’

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and hunger index:

As the literature says, ‘Maslow’s hierarchy of needs’ is a theory of motivation in psychology developed by Abraham Maslow in 1943. He believed people move through different stages of five needs that motivate our behavior. He called these needs physiological, safety, love and belonging (social), esteem, and self-actualization.

As we see, the first two basic needs are physiological and then safety. Maslow explains the ‘physiological needs’ as food, water, sleep, and basic biological functions. When these physiological needs are adequately met, our safety needs would usually dominate individual behavior.

Similarly, Maslow’s ‘safety needs’ in the modern era are generally expressed as the needs of job security, financial security, and health and well-being, among a few others. Thus, the need for healthcare falls under ‘safety needs’, following the most basic ‘physiological needs’.

As Food is one the first basic needs, India’s current ranking in the ‘Global Hunger Index (GHI)’, would suggest this primary need of having at least two square meals of nutritious food a day, has not been adequately met by a large population of Indians, not just yet.

India’s ranking in the Global Hunger Index (GHI):

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) has been defined as a multidimensional statistical tool used to describe the state of countries’ hunger situation. The GHI measures progress and failures in the global fight against hunger. It is now, reportedly, in its 12th year, ranking countries based on four key indicators – undernourishment, child mortality, child wasting and child stunting.

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) report, titled ‘2017 global hunger index: The inequalities of hunger ’, indicates that India ranks below many of its neighboring countries, such as China (29th in rank), Nepal (72), Myanmar (77), Sri Lank (84) and Bangladesh (88), but ahead of Pakistan (106) and Afghanistan (107). Just for the sake of interest, North Korea ranks 93rd while Iraq is in 78th position.

The primary basic need of food and nutrition does not seem to have been fully met for a large Indian voter population, as yet. Many of them are still struggling and searching for appropriate means of earning a dignified livelihood. It includes support in agricultural production and the likes. Thus, many voters don’t feel yet, the second level of need that prompts a vocal demand for an affordable and robust public healthcare system in the country. The same situation continues, despite ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on healthcare being one of the highest in India, alongside the cost of drugs too.

Conclusion:

This brings us to the key question – When would the demand for having an affordable and robust public healthcare system in the country, assume priority for the general public in India, and the voters, in particular?

Sans Government’s sharp focus on public healthcare, including the cost of drugs, devices, and education, it will be challenging for a democracy of India’s size to make a decisive move, for a long term – from average to good – and then from good to great, even in the economic parameters.

Applying Maslow’s hierarchy of needs onto various health related global indices, it appears that the primary basic need of food and nutrition has not been fully met for a large Indian voter population, as yet. This possibly makes a large section of Indian voters to move into the second level of need, raising a widespread vocal demand for an affordable and robust public healthcare system in the country.

Rejoicing country’s advancement in the World Bank’s ranking on the ease of doing business by 30 points in a year has its own merits. However, in the same yardstick, doesn’t health care losing the priority focus of the nation also highlight the demerits of misplaced priority in a country’s governance process, and just because the voters are not quite demanding on this issue?

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.

A Disruptive Innovation to Fight and Cure Intractable Diseases

Posted on by
Reply

Several important facets of health care often arrest general attention. These are also widely discussed, analyzed and argued vehemently – with each person or group trying to justify one’s own point of view. Among these, following 6 critical areas, broadly dominate the deliberations:

  • Incredible advancement in the medical science driving health care,
  • Infrastructure, facilitators and providers of health care,
  • ‘Wolves of health care in sheep’s clothing’, as described by many
  • Large populations facing inadequate availability and access to health care,
  • The need for Universal Health Care (UHC)
  • Public investments, policies and regulations governing health care.

In this article, I shall focus only on the first area – incredible recent advancement in the medical science driving health care, especially the very recent developments on a disruptive innovation called ‘Gene Therapy’.

Gene Therapy:

As some would know, one of the latest developments in the pharma world, relates to marketing approval in the United States and Europe of ‘Gene Therapy’ – a disruptive innovation in the medical science.

This technique of treatment using genes to manage, cure or prevent many intractable diseases are fast gaining ground globally, including India – at a slower pace, though. As I said, in America, the first gene therapy has already obtained the approval of the US-FDA in August 2017, closely followed by the second in October 2017, with the third waiting in the wings. In the European Union (EU), the first gene therapy was approved in 2012, but faced some commercial issues that I shall discuss later in this article.

During approval of the first gene therapy in the United States (US), the FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb reportedly said, this new frontier in medical innovation has the ability to reprogram a patient’s own cells to attack a deadly disease, such as cancer, creating an inflection point to treat, and even cure many intractable illnesses.

According to an October 10, 2017 publication of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, gene therapy may allow doctors to treat a disorder by inserting a gene into a patient’s cells instead of using drugs or surgery. Extensive research is ongoing, adopting several approaches to this treatment, including:

  • Replacing a mutated gene that causes disease with a healthy copy of the gene.
  • Inactivating, or “knocking out,” a mutated gene that is functioning improperly.
  • Introducing a new gene into the body to help fight a disease.

Thus, gene therapy is fast emerging as a promising treatment for a number of life-threatening diseases, including inherited disorders, some types of cancer, and certain tough to treat viral infections. That said, the technique being risky, is still under study to make it safer the patients. Currently, it is being tested only for diseases that have no other cures.

The first approval of gene therapy in the United States:

On August 30, 2017, US-FDA took a historic decision with its approval for the first ever gene therapy in America – meeting an unmet need in its true sense, and thus creating a major milestone in medical science. US-FDA approved this treatment for certain pediatric and young adult patients with a form of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) – resistant to standard treatment, or which often relapses. The overall remission rate within three months of this treatment was found 83 percent in clinical trials.

This path-breaking therapy (tisagenlecleucel) is named Kymriah, and is made by Novartis. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the treatment was developed by a group headed by Carl H. June  at the University of Pennsylvania and licensed to Novartis.

A customized treatment:

The US-FDA approval letter to Novartis says, “Kymriah is a genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapy. Each dose of Kymriah is a customized treatment created using an individual patient’s own T-cells, a type of white blood cell known as a lymphocyte. The patient’s T-cells are collected and sent to a manufacturing center where they are genetically modified to include a new gene that contains a specific protein (a chimeric antigen receptor or CAR) that directs the T-cells to target and kill leukemia cells that have a specific antigen (CD19) on the surface. Once the cells are modified, they are infused back into the patient to kill the cancer cells.”

Nevertheless, Kymriah can cause life-threatening side effects, such as dangerous drops in blood pressure. This has prompted US-FDA to caution that hospitals and doctors should be specially trained and certified to administer this therapy, and require stocking of drugs to control severe reactions, if and when required.

The price tag is jaw dropping:

As  reported by New York Times (NYT), Kymriah will be given to patients just once and must be made individually for each, costing US$ 475,000. Novartis reportedly has said, if a patient does not respond within the first month after treatment, there will be no charge. The company also said it would provide financial help to families who were uninsured or underinsured. This is indeed a commendable gesture.

The second USFDA approval for gene therapy:

Just about a week ago, on October 18, 2017, US-FDA approved Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) of Kite Pharma Inc. – a Gilead company. This is gene therapy is to treat adult patients with certain types of large B-cell lymphoma who have not responded to or who have relapsed after at least two other kinds of treatment.

Initially, 54 percent of patients on Yescarta reportedly had complete remissions with their tumors disappearing. Another 28 percent had partial remissions, where tumors shrank or appeared less active on scans. After six months, 80 percent of the 101 were still alive.

Just as Kymriah, Yescarta will also reportedly be introduced gradually, and be available only at centers where doctors and nurses have been trained in using it. This is, again, due to its serious side effects, which include high fevers, crashing blood pressure, lung congestion and neurological problems.

As reported, Kite Pharma hopes that Yescarta will eventually be approved for earlier stages of lymphoma, rather than being limited to patients with advanced disease who have been debilitated by multiple types of chemotherapy that did not work.

Yescarta will cost less than Kymriah at US$ 373,000 per patient. This is a single dose treatment to be infused into a vein, and must be manufactured individually for each patient. About 3,500 people a year only in the United States is estimated to be candidates for this therapy.

Yet another gene therapy is likely to get US-FDA approval soon:

Close on the heels of these two developments, yet another gene therapy is likely to get US-FDA approval in the coming months. On October 12, 2017, Spark Therapeutics – a gene therapy company in the United States, reportedly won unanimous support from a US-FDA advisory panel for its gene therapy – Luxturna (voretigene neparvovec), after the experts concluded that the benefits of this gene therapy outweighed its risks.

Luxturna – a one-shot treatment, has shown to reverse blindness by restoring vision in children with an inherited form of blindness, and shows potential to restore blood-clotting function to hemophiliacs, or even cure rare diseases outright. However, as the analysts estimate, the cost of Luxturna will be hefty, which could even be more than Kymriah of Novartis – at US$ 1 million per patient.

The first gene therapy in Europe was not commercially viable:

As stated above, in 2012, the first gene therapy – Amsterdam-based Uniqure’s Glybera (alipogene tiparvovec), was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the EU market. The product was indicated for treatment of rare inherited disorder – lipoprotein lipase deficiency (LPLD).

However, with treatment cost of €1m+ per patient, Glybera was reportedly the most expensive therapy ever approved in Europe. Interestingly, in April 2017, Uniqure decided to terminate post-marketing studies required for prolongation of its existing EU conditional market approval, for its extremely limited usage, making the product commercially non-viable.

These four developments give me a sense of both – the fast pace of progress of gene therapy and also its possible commercial vulnerability, due to astronomically high prices coupled with a limited number of current usages linked to the specific disease types.

Gene therapy research in India:

According to the paper titled, “Gene therapy in India: a focus,” published by the Journal of Biosciences in June 2014 – ‘starting from 1998, the Indian government is playing a leading role in the advancement of gene therapy research in India by providing enormous financial support to scientists and clinicians through its various funding agencies like Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Department of Science and Technology (DST), Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), etc.’

India is not far behind other Asian countries in the field of gene therapy. In Asia, China is the leader with 16 research laboratories, followed by Japan (13), India (10), South Korea (4), Israel (3) and Taiwan (3), the paper says.

The laboratories established in India to conduct gene therapy research are: Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education for Cancer, Mumbai (1998), University of Delhi (2002), Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata (2004), Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru (2005), Actis Biologics Private Limited (2005), Mumbai, Center for Stem Cell Research, Vellore (2010), Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore (2012), Institute of Life Sciences, Bhubaneswar (2012), Narayana Nethralaya, Bengaluru (2013).

Conclusion:

As deliberated above, gene therapy reflects an incredible advancement in the medical science driving health care. This is primarily because, the disruptive innovation is aimed at treating genetic diseases at the molecular level by correcting the defective genes.

The fact, as captured in the worldwide gene therapy data table, that between 1989 and February 2016, over 2,300 gene therapy clinical trials have been conducted – 93 of which being in phase III while 3 in phase IV, further vindicates the rapid pace of evolution of this science.

As stated before, the critical process of this treatment reportedly involves ‘introduction of new genes into cells, to restore or add gene expression, for the purpose of treating disease. Most commonly a mutated gene is replaced with DNA encoding a functional copy. Alternatively, DNA encoding a therapeutic protein drug may be introduced.’ However, the exorbitant current cost of this novel treatment, for various reasons, severely limits its access to a vast majority of the global population, at least for now.

Be that as it may, the disruptive medical innovation culminating into gene therapy of date, is expected to open new vistas of opportunity to fight and cure several life-threatening intractable diseases. This game changing advancement in the medical science, no doubt, would help provide a new lease of life only to some, mostly due to its price barrier. Nevertheless, for many, it does carry a new hope for access to this life changing therapy – probably at some point of time in future. God willing!

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.

‘Digiceuticals’: A Force Multiplier to Contain Chronic Diseases

Posted on by
Reply

There is a growing need for more effective prevention, treatment or management of many serious Noninfectious Chronic Diseases (NCDs), with greater safety and at a lesser cost. As a major step in this direction, ‘digiceuticals’ or ‘digital therapeutics’ are now drawing heightened interest from the medical and scientific communities.

‘Digiceuticals’ are basically custom made digital software working as drugs. These are presented mostly in the form of user-friendly smartphone apps for various disease conditions –  both as stand-alone therapy, or to augment other treatment processes for better outcomes.

Increasing usage of digital technology enabled therapy for a gamut NCDs, prompts me to discuss in this article the relevance, scope, promise, and of course, the rationale behind the same. Its importance swells manifold when the risks of lifelong health hazards that such chronic disorders may pose are factored-in, alongside their overall socioeconomic impact.

Chronic diseases – the invisible global epidemic:

Chronic diseases, such as heart disease, stroke, chronic respiratory disorders and diabetes, including cancer, are by far the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. The World Health Organization (W.H.O) also reiterates that this invisible epidemic is spreading out globally – across every region and pervading all socioeconomic classes.

The mortality, morbidity and disability attributed to chronic diseases, as estimated by the W.H.O, is expected to rise to 73 percent of all deaths and 60 percent of the global burden of disease by 2020. Interestingly, 79 percent of the deaths attributed to chronic disorders occur in the developing countries, such as India.

Can chronic diseases be prevented?

W.H.O also emphasizes that four of the most prominent chronic disorders, namely cardiovascular (CVD), cancer, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases (COPD), and Type 2 diabetes – are linked by common and preventable biological risk factors, notably high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol and overweight. Most importantly, these relate to major behavioral risk factors, like unhealthy diet, physical inactivity and tobacco use, among several others.

Awaits a radical change – from “Suppliers Push” to “Consumer Pull”:

In the above perspective, a series of well-integrated action related to several human behavioral factors, could help prevent many NCDs, effectively. A fundamental change in mindset of all concerned is critical to avert the merciless onslaught of this epidemic. This calls for a radical change in the existing process of addressing these disorders – from “Suppliers Push” to “Consumer Pull.”

The January 2017 White Paper titled, “Human-Centric Health: Behavior Change and the Prevention of Non- Communicable Diseases”, published by the World Economic Forum (WEF), drives home this point succinctly, as follows:

“Decreasing the burden of NCDs will require a transformation through which the threat of disease is recognized and addressed. The transformation should move us away from the present state of ‘supplier push’, which emphasizes expensive, capital-intensive, hospital-centric interventions that have so far produced disappointing results, to a system that relies on ‘consumer pull’. A consumer-focused system would recognize the principles of behavioral economics to encourage and enable people to adopt healthier behavior across all aspects of their lives. Individuals would be supported in this effort by a network of critical stakeholders ranging from government to private enterprise, from healthcare providers to payers, from the technology developers to local communities.”

NCDs are triggered by behavioral pattern and lifestyle:

Picking up the thread from here, I shall deliberate now, how the state of the art digital technology-developers are playing a stellar role in this space, with greater precision and more cost-effective way. This is because, many NCDs are triggered by consistent behavioral and lifestyle pattern of an individual. Consequently, continuously monitoring of desired changes in individual behavior, are expected to gradually become the first-line treatment to effectively address these conditions. Several published studies indicate that the process has started rolling, aided by smartphone based sophisticated digital tools – in many cases even without any expensive and lifelong medications.

The May 26, 2016 paper titled, “Clustering of Five Health-Related Behaviors for Chronic Disease Prevention Among Adults, United States, 2013”, captures a cluster of five health-related behaviors for chronic disease prevention as – never smoking, getting regular physical activity, consuming no alcohol or only moderate amounts, maintaining a normal body weight, and obtaining daily sufficient sleep. This article was published by the Centers of disease Control and Prevention of the United States.

Preventing chronic diseases with ‘digiceuticals’:

The April 7, 2017 article captioned, “Can ‘Digital Therapeutics’ Be as Good as Drugs?”, published by the MIT Technology Review, dwells on this area. The paper indicates an emerging belief among technology geeks that ‘digiceuticals’, or digital drugs will become ‘the third phase’ of medicine for many disease conditions, being the successor to the chemical and protein drugs that we have today, but without the billion-dollar cost of bringing one such drug to market. The core idea behind this new concept is to develop software that can improve a person’s health as much as a drug can, but without the same cost and side-effects, the author says.

An innovative new class of medicine:

The term digital therapeutics or ‘digiceuticals’, as many calls these, is considered as an innovative new class of medicine that gives participants access to the world’s most effective behavior therapies, enhanced with smart digital technology, and delivered directly to their front door. These can be used both as a replacing medicine, and also for enhancing efficacy of a medical treatment, as a situation would necessitate.

There doesn’t seem to be any clear-cut difference between these two – digital therapeutics and ‘digiceuticals’. Nonetheless, some do believe that there is a difference – quite akin to prescription medication versus nutritional supplements, with consequential differences in regulatory and other areas. Be that as it may, ‘digiceuticals’ when used for prevention, treatment or effective management of any chronic ailments would require to be scientifically evaluated just as any other drugs, devices and treatment processes.

The future of health care will be App-based:

Another article titled “Digital Therapeutics: The Future of Health Care Will Be App-Based”, published in Forbes on July 24, 2017, highlights how several digital technology companies are now focusing on the development of state of art smartphone app-based digital treatment programs that can be delivered at a massive scale and with a low cost to prevent progression of many debilitating NCDs, for a large population across the world, including India.

‘Digiceuticals’ versus other mobile wellness apps:

Unlike many smartphone based wellness apps to keep a regular tab on daily exercises, heart rates, calorie intakes, breathing, sleep pattern among several others; treatment processes with ‘digiceuticals’ are quite different. These softwares are tailor-made to prevent or treat specific chronic disorders, like diabetes, cardiovascular conditions, COPD, insomnia and chronic depression, to name a few. The trend is fast catching up along with an increasing general realization that the influence of individual behavior and lifestyle pattern is so crucial in the prevention, and also in arresting the progression of many debilitating NCDs.

The current status:

The latest scenario in this area has been well captured in several research studies. One such is the 2017 Report of Grand View Research, Inc., which articulated the following key findings:

  • The global ‘digiceuticals’ or digital therapeutics market size was estimated at USD1.7 Billion in 2016, which is expected to grow at 21.0 percent CAGR from 2017 to 2025.Diabetes is expected to gain the largest market share due to the increasing global prevalence, fueled by the preventive steps taken to reduce them.
  • The adoption of digital therapeutics offers a reduction in healthcare cost associated with many NCDs, and are thus being used on an increasing scale. Digital tracking, continuous monitoring of various health parameters, management of physical activity and controlling eating habits are some of the important factors expected to propel the market growth.
  • Ascending trend of its usage for prevention of a wide range of NCDs would further add to the growth momentum. Patients accounted for the largest market share in the end-user segment owing to user-friendly interface and cost-effective management of many NCDs.
  • The North American region accounted for the highest revenue owing to technological advancement and health care expenditure to curb rise in a number of chronic diseases.
  • The Asia Pacific region is expected to garner considerable growth during the forecast period owing to increasing adoption of advanced healthcare technologies and rise in the number of NCDs.

The latest development in India:

A similar initiative, though, as augmentation of physician intervention in patients with Type 2 diabetes for better treatment outcomes, has recently been reported by the Press Trust of India (PTI) on June 13, 2017.

The abstract of the report, among other points, says that an Indian digital diabetes leader has announced “the results from a pilot designed to evaluate the feasibility and scalability of an artificial intelligence-led lifestyle intervention to improve self-management of people living with type 2 diabetes as a supporting tool to existing care in India…. The pilot results suggest that continuity of care between physician appointments for people with type 2 diabetes can be achieved with positive outcomes in a clinically significant, scalable and affordable way through this program. Participants that completed the pilot on average dropped their average blood sugar levels (HbA1c) by 0.59%. Amongst the participants that completed and dropped their HbA1c, the average observed was even higher at 1.04%. In addition, the participants showed a daily active usage of 78% for the duration of the 16-week program.”

This is indeed a laudable initiative by an Indian digital tech company. More such ventures are expected to be forthcoming, taking rapid strides in India. Keeping pace with these developments, “digiceuticals,” I reckon, will spread its wings faster to play a crucial role in preventing, if not treating and managing several serious NCDs – and in most cases without even swallowing any pill.

Conclusion:

The key concept behind ‘digiceuticals’ or digital therapeutics is to exert a strong influence on individual behavior and lifestyle pattern, which are crucial both in prevention, and in controlling the progression of many NCDs.  The desired level of change in behavior and lifestyle of individuals can be achieved through custom-made digital software. These are expected to deliver the same, or even better results in such disease conditions, at a much lesser cost, sans any serious side effects.

The ball has already started rolling with considerable success and a discernible promise in this direction. However, accelerating its speed further, and ultimately flooring the gas pedal, would depend on how all concerned stakeholders’, especially the technology experts, doctors, pharma industry, and other health care providers work in-sync with each other, leveraging the true potential of ‘digiceuticals’.

The rapid pace of progress in this endeavor will be a force multiplier in arresting the fast spreading ‘invisible epidemic’, as it were, of many serious chronic diseases or disorders, in a much better and cost-effective way than ever before.

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.