The Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs

Posted on May 30, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Should drug innovation models remain as expensive as what these are claimed to be now by the global pharma industry, in general?

Finding a credible, appropriately quantifiable, and generally acceptable answer to this question is critical. It won’t, then, just be a myth-buster for billions of dollar price tag, that is now being attached to drug innovation and development initiatives, by the global pharma industry, as a justification for arbitrarily fixing high new drug prices. If the upcoming and new startups with frugal models for even high-tech drug innovation succeed with flying colors, the patients and the payers would also possibly breathe a huge sigh of relief, from the increasing burden of disease and the cost of medicines.

I believe, it would eventually happen, may not be overnight, but over a period of time. I shall discuss in this article about some bright sparks, already visible in that direction.

The facade of high cost of drug innovation:

At the very outset, to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, let me confess up front, just as many others, I also strongly believe that drug innovation is extremely important. It needs to be encouraged, protected and rewarded reasonably.

That said, let me also give the right perspective of how the cost of ‘drug innovation’ is being often misused as a facade for keeping the drug prices high, if not exorbitant.

According to a contentious study of ‘Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development’, the total cost of innovation of a new drug and bringing it to market, has increased more than double from US$ 1.22 billion in 2003 to US$ 2.6 billion in 2014.

Despite these numbers being vehemently challenged in credible journals, many global pharma majors still keep justifying the high new drug prices on the same old pretext. As a diversionary tactic, they relentlessly argue that innovation has to be adequately rewarded to keep its wheels moving in perpetuity, though no one challenges this basic fact, not even remotely.

The moot questions:

The moot questions, therefore, are: how expensive is the drug innovation and how does the global drug industry establish its relationship with high new drug prices? The answers to these queries must be clear, specific, quantifiable and credible, and not ethereal, if not airy-fairy.

In this context, my article titled, “How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?” found an echo in a globally reputed journal. An analysis published in the BMJ in May 2016 titled, “Propaganda or the cost of innovation? Challenging the high price of new drugs”, expressed deep concern on the rising prices of new medicines. It reiterated that this trend is set to overwhelm health systems around the world.

The above BMJ article also put forth similar questions: “What does it really cost to bring a new medicine to the market, and do these costs justify the high price?”

The authors pointed out that the pharmaceutical market is not actually a “free market” based on supply and demand with minimal government intervention through taxes, subsidies, or regulation. On the contrary, the pharma market is highly manipulated, and not focused on achieving the best prices, or even fair prices for essential and life saving medicines.

No linear link between high drug price and innovation cost:

As I discussed this subject in my previous article titled, “Arbitrary Pricing of Essential Drugs Invites State Intervention”, it has been well established by now that there is no linear, or any relationship between high drug prices and cost of drug innovation. Since long, this argument is being misused just as a façade to keep the cost of medicines high, and making high profits even at the cost of lower sales volume.

The façade has started crumbling:

In India too, the pharma MNCs often use the same façade to keep the prices of also their branded generics much higher than the comparable formulations manufactured by larger domestic pharma manufacturers. However, the façade has started crumbling in many countries, across the world. This gradually increasing general realization is welcoming.

The Governments in many countries, have now started acting. They are increasingly forcing the drug makers to eye for volume growth, by reducing the fat margin, and improving patients’ access to high-priced drugs.

Just to draw an example, I would quote a very recent development in this area, outside India. On May 20, 2016, the Chinese health authorities announced price cuts of up to two-thirds to three patented drugs, in their latest move to reduce the cost of healthcare for patients. It is noteworthy that this happened in the world’s second-biggest economy, after the United States.

Why is arbitrary drug pricing continuing?

It appears, the only reason for the majority of the drug players to continue keeping the new drug prices high is because they can still make huge money through a small segment of patients who can afford their brands. What about the rest? This doesn’t seem to matter to them, at all, unless compelled to, in various ways.

Need to totally demolish the façade of innovation:

Thus, there is a compelling need is to demolish the façade of innovation, decisively, for keeping medicine prices high.

To move towards this direction, some flickers of a sound possibilities, are now visible in the horizon. The ‘Frugal’ or the ‘Silicon Valley’ type startups for high-tech drug innovation models, especially in the biotech sector, have shown high potential to be a game changer in this area.

Frugal innovation models for high-tech drugs:

The quest to find a pathway towards this direction continues. Recently, Professor Atul Butte, Director of the University of California Institute of Computational Health Sciences, highlighted that like other Silicon Valley startups, almost anyone can bring a drug to market from their garage with just a computer, the internet, and freely available data. Professor Butte, students, and research staff have already explored various methods and approaches of scientifically utilizing this data in search for new medicines.

As reported in the May 5, 2016 issue of ‘The Conversation’, Professor Butte outlined this process for an audience of local and international scientists and medics in a talk given at the Science on the Swan conference held in Perth in May 2016.

Professor Butte outlined several models of ‘Frugal Innovation’, especially for new biotech drugs or finding new indications for existing drugs.

A. The search for a new target:

There could be several approaches to the search of a new biotech drug. An example of one such, that Butte’s team is reportedly engaged in, is the construction of a map of how the genetic profiles of people with particular diseases are related to each other. The team looked for diseases with very similar genetic profiles.

Some may argue, this process of discovering other uses of drugs, conventionally termed as “drug repositioning”, is in the strictest sense is not exactly a novel one. They may attempt to establish it by drawing an example from Viagra, which was originally developed for treatment of cardiovascular conditions. However, the major difference is that Viagra’s repositioning for erectile dysfunction is an outcome triggered by its side-effects in patients taking the drug for its original cardiovascular disease treatment.

B. Desk research and discovery:

The primary desk research can start from the freely available enormous published genetic data, based on thousands of studies on humans, mice and other animals. The publications’ websites are also highly credible, such as, National Institute of Health and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory. Thus, as a result of abundantly available high quality genetic data, the cost of genetic sequencing, using gene chip technologies, is also coming down quite rapidly.

C. Animal testing:

After the potential drug discovery in the garage, there is a need to test the drugs on animals.

As Professor Butte suggests, this process also can be made much less expensive. For this purpose, he recommends the internet and the websites, such as, Assay Depot. This site is structured like Amazon, from which a researcher can order an experiment to be carried out to test a drug on a range of animal models, as the report states.

Butte finds this Internet based process very useful for ‘choosing the experiment type the researcher wants, adding it to a shopping cart, paying by credit card and getting the experimental results mailed back in a few weeks’ time.’ Such websites also offer wide choices to the researchers, even regarding the laboratory they would like to use, including the country where the laboratory is located.

D. Human Trial:

As ‘The Conversation’ article indicates, once a new use for a drug has been shown to work in an animal model, the next step would be to test the drug on human volunteers, get approval for the use of the drug for that condition, and then finally take the drug to market.

This purpose could involve spinning out startups with money from investors. In California, Professor Butte and his students have already followed this process after discovery of new uses for several drugs.

As Professor Butte epitomizes, none of this would be possible without sharing data. The ‘Frugal innovation’ models also highlight, how the growth of availability of open research data will be able to discover a range of uses, that would not have been foreseen, when the individual experiments were being carried out.

Would Big Pharma gobble up these startups?

If ‘Big Pharma’ starts gobbling up these startups paying exorbitant prices, the expectations of lower prices of novel drugs may possibly not come to fruition. Nevertheless, the facade of innovation for high drug prices would crumble. But, surely some other different and well-orchestrated pretext would surface, to maintain their stubbornness to continue with the same business model of very high margin and lesser volume sales, with cash register ringing, as ever.

Here is an example. ‘The Huffington Post’, in an article of May 10, 2016, reported on Big Pharma’s betting on a cancer drug startup.

The May 2016 article said, the pharmaceutical giant AbbVie acquired a startup named ‘Stemcentrx’ in a deal that values it at as high as US$10 billion.

The startup Stemcentrx has found out a unique approach, though somewhat controversial, for treating several forms of cancer. While most of today’s treatments view cancer as a result of unchecked cell growth, wherein any cell is capable of becoming cancerous, Stemcentrx believes that cancer primarily sprouts from only one cell type: cancer stem cells.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, hopefully, the evolving models of ‘Frugal innovation’, development and commercialization of high-tech drugs, are expected to be the game changer for quickly bringing a number of new drugs, or existing drugs for new indications to the market, for many disease conditions, at very affordable cost.

Big Pharma may not allow it happen so easily, just for vested interest, but the pressure group must keep a close vigil on this development, and more importantly, must prevail.

Thus, the next frontier of pharma research and development, would possibly shift to small startups of ‘Frugal Innovation’, especially for affordable high-tech drugs, extending their access to the majority of the patients, the world over.

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.

Arbitrary Pricing of Essential Drugs Invites State Intervention

Posted on May 23, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Arbitrary drug pricing has now become a subject of a raging debate, all over the globe. It involves both patented and generic drugs, as we have recently witnessed in the largest pharma market in the world – the United States.

In many countries the same issue is inviting the direct intervention of the Government to protect health interest of a vast majority of the populations. India, I reckon, belongs to this group of countries.

In this article, I shall discuss this issue, citing examples from both the global and local recent developments.

Most high drug price increases defy logic:

Published in March 2016, the ‘Express Scripts 2015 Drug Trend Report’ points out, in the perspective of the United States, that over the last 30 years more and more dollars are spent on specialty, rather than on traditional medications.

Most drug development and spend in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, used to be on traditional, mostly small-molecule oral solid drugs, used to treat conditions, such as, peptic ulcer, depression, hypertension and diabetes. Today, 37.7 percent of drug spends go for specialty medications, with the number expected to increase to 50 percent by 2018, and continue to grow further, thereafter.

The report also states that there are 7,000 potential drugs in development, with most aimed at treating the high-use categories of oncology, neurologic disorders and infectious diseases.

High-cost therapies for non-orphan conditions, particularly for cancer, high cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease, will continue to increase the population of patients with high annual drug expenditures.

‘Express Scripts Exclusive Prescription Price Index’ reveals a brand-price inflation in the United States, nearly doubled between 2011 and 2015, with the greatest impact seen in more recent years. Compared to 2014, brand prices in 2015 were 16 percent higher. Brand medications have increased in price by 164 percent between 2008 and 2015, the report highlighted.

Similar trend, though may not be of similar magnitude and proportion, has commenced in India too. In this emerging situation, the patients with high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on medicines have started feeling the pinch too. This is becoming more intense as the disease pattern has started shifting from short-term infectious and parasitic diseases to almost lifelong non-infectious chronic ailments.

The pressure started building up:

The drug industry is likely to come under increasing scrutiny on product pricing, to alleviate the ‘pressure cooker’ situation for the patients, in general, especially during chronic and life-threatening disease conditions.

May 10, 2016 issue of ‘Bloomberg’, in an article titled, “Mutual Fund Industry to Drug makers: Stand Up and Defend Yourself”, reported: “In a sign of how U.S. political pressure to rein in drug pricing is weighing on pharmaceutical companies and their investors, a group of major funds called an unusual meeting with top biotech and pharma lobbyists, urging them to do a better job defending their industry.” This is indeed unusual, and I reckon, should happen in India too.

The article also states: “Investors are stepping up pressure on pharma lobbyists at a critical time for the industry, as drug pricing has become a potent political issue on the presidential campaign trail and in Congress. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton sent biotech stocks tumbling last year when she first talked about ‘price gouging,’ and Donald Trump has suggested that Medicare should negotiate with manufacturers.”

It also reported that responding to this emerging pressure situation, the global pharmaceutical lobbying organizations, such as, PhRMA in the Washington, DC has already set up a dedicated webpage called “Costs in Context” with infographics and fact sheets. It has also tried to peg responsibility on insurance companies for making it hard for patients to access medicines.

Patients’ can no longer be taken for granted:

That patients’ can no longer be taken for granted with costly drugs, backed by high profile marketing campaigns, is evident from a recent study.

In May 2016, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, published a poll result on “Americans’ Attitudes About Changing Current Prescription Drug & Medical Device Regulation”.

Among many other related issues, the study reflected that around 57 percent of the poll participants believe that pharmaceutical companies should no longer be allowed to advertise prescription drugs on television. This is because of interesting reasons. The respondents believe that ads for prescription medicines sometimes encourage and persuade the patients to ask for costlier drugs that may not be appropriate for them.

In this context, it is worth recapitulating that on November 17, 2015 the American Medical Association (AMA) also called for a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs and medical devices, including television advertisements.

According to a statement released by the group, “member physicians are concerned about a growing proliferation of ads driving demand for expensive treatments, despite the clinical effectiveness of less costly alternatives.”

Hence, the bottom-line is, even the American patients, most of whom are covered by health insurance of different kinds, are now feeling the bite of increasing medicine prices.

Many patients seem to be realizing that such unfair price increases, driven by the respective pharma manufacturers, are avoidable. This serious concern may assume a snowballing effect, notwithstanding high voltage lobbying and campaigns to negate these general stakeholders’ feelings by the top global pharma lobbying organizations, across the world, India included.

Premium pricing of MNCs’ branded generics arbitrary?

One gets its reflection even in the Indian branded generic market, where the MNCs usually market their generic single molecule or FDC brands at a huge premium price. Such high priced products are backed by intense marketing of all kinds. The MNCs’ justification of charging a high premium stand on the promise of adherence to world-class drug quality standards, unlike many domestic generic manufacturers.

There are not enough evidences either to accept or ignore this claim. However, it has received a big jolt even recently, raising similar suspicion as I briefly raised in my article titled, “Ease of Doing Pharma Business in India: A Kaleidoscopic View”, published in this blog on March 28, 2016.

On May 12, 2016 Reuters reported that Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of India, in the notices posted on its website in February and also in April, has made it public that it has found some batches of Sanofi’s ‘Combiflam’ (FDC of paracetamol and ibuprofen) to be “not of standard quality”, as they failed disintegration tests.

According to the US-FDA, this particular test is used as an integral part of quality-assurance measure in pharmaceuticals, and its non-conformance makes the drug ‘sub-standard’.

Hence, huge premium charged for all those branded generics, which are outside DPCO, and mostly by the MNCs, may be construed by many as baseless and arbitrary.

Premium pricing, with payment to doctors is a winner?

This has again been vindicated in a recent study.

A paper, published in the May 09, 2016 issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, establishes that: ‘Pharmaceutical industry payments to physicians may affect prescribing practices and increase costs, if more expensive medications are prescribed.’

Although no such credible study has been published in the Indian context, it is widely believed, the prevailing situation in this regard, within the country, is no different. Nevertheless, arbitrarily high drug pricing, even for the branded generics, is considered as a winning strategy by many pharma companies.

When the Government steps in:

It happened in India recently, yet again.

As we know, the ‘National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’ came under intense public criticism, as it did not include many modern drugs for chronic and lifesaving diseases under its fold, for inclusion in the drug price control order of the Government.

The Experts Committee formed for this purpose recommended addition of a number of drugs for a variety of serious diseases, such as, cancer, hepatitis C, diabetes, cardiovascular, and HIV in the NLEM, to make them more affordable to patients.

Acting on this proposal, the Union Ministry of Health replaced the NLEM 2011 by NLEM 2015 in December 2015. This increased the span of drug price control from 684 to 875 medicines.

According to the well-reputed pharma market research organization – AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt Ltd., with NLEM 2015, still only 18 percent of Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) by value will now come under price control, against 17 percent with NLEM 2011.

On May 12, 2016 the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)’ started with revising prices of 54 recently included essential medicines in the NLEM 2015, in some cases bringing them down up to 55 percent, in conformance with the DPCO. Again on May 19, 2016 another set of 27 formulations, which, among others, include the treatment for epilepsy, infections and diabetes, were brought under price control.

Does ‘free market economy’ work in pharma industry?

As the NPPA has articulated a number of times, with umpteen number of examples, that arbitrary and wide variation in pricing for the same kind of branded generics is a result of ‘market failure’.

We all are living in a unique situation, where the consumers are unable to participate in the process of an affordable drug selection, much unlike any other consumer goods in a ‘free economy’.

I deliberated this issue in my article titled, “Does ‘Free-Market Economy’ Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?”, published in this Blog on April 27, 2015.

Conclusion:

Arbitrary drug pricing is increasingly attracting the ire of many Governments, other payers, patients and even some important investors, as we have seen in the United States. Most Indian fund houses and other investors are probably taking stock of the possible emerging situation. A large number of them are, by and large, going by the same old and traditional way of evaluating a pharma business.

Pharma companies, across the world, instead of trying to find out an innovative way to douse this fire for the benefit of all concerned, are getting more and more desperate to rationalize their arbitrary drug pricing, in whatever way they possibly can.

The approach taken by them is convincing none, instead, adding further fuel to the fire. Getting favorable views from some handful of seemingly spoon-fed write-ups, would possibly not help resolve this raging issue or protect public health interest, in any way.

All concerned should try to realize that a utopian ‘free market economy for medicines’, with patients exercising their informed choices, backed by active support from the treating doctor, does not exist in the real world, not just yet.

Thus, arbitrary pricing for essential drugs, where market competition is made irrelevant by many drug makers, allegedly by unethically influencing the prescribers in various ways, merits state intervention, unquestionably, solely to protect patients’ health interest.

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.

How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?

Posted on May 16, 2016 by Tapan Ray

High prices for patented drugs are quite often attributed to the exorbitant cost of drug innovation, by the global pharma players. This argument is played, replayed again, again… and again by them, in various ways and forms, especially when many eyebrows are raised, failing to fathom the primary reason for ever escalating prices of life-saving new drugs.

I find the same argument often getting echoed by some section of both the global and local media too, and also through some cleverly disguised and apparently sponsored articles on the subject.

In this article I shall dwell on this sensitive issue.

A strong justification:

The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) based in Texas in the United States, in an article titled “The High Cost of Inventing New Drugs–And of Not Inventing Them”, published on April 16, 2015 reiterated that the financial cost of developing new drugs is indeed a big one.

It argues that “there is also a big cost to not developing new drugs, and that cost can be both financial and human. People may be able to live with the pain that an undiscovered drug might have alleviated, but they may not be able to do all the things they would have.”

The paper asks, “A cancer patient might still have a few productive years after a diagnosis, but how much would it be worth to the patient—and to society (think Steve Jobs), if a new drug could extend a patient’s life indefinitely?”

“The drug manufacturers poured money into finding a treatment for AIDS once it became clear the disease would take thousands of lives. The research and development was costly and didn’t emerge overnight, but being diagnosed with AIDS is no longer a death sentence,” the authors elucidated.

This is a very cogent argument, and nobody would dispute it. This issue lies somewhere else, as I would try to explore in this article.

The supporting data:

We also find supporting published data to justify the high cost of innovation with numbers.

On November 18, 2014, a new study by the ‘Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development’ highlighted that developing a new prescription medicine and gaining its marketing approval, which is a process often lasting longer than a decade, is estimated to cost US$ 2,558 million.” This number is indeed mind boggling by any yardstick.

While many details of the study remain a secret, only slightly more than half of this cost is directly related to research and development (R&D). For example, US$ 1.2 billion are “time costs” – returns that investors might have made if their money wasn’t tied up in developing a particular drug.

Not many takers:

Besides the above reason, for several other factors, there does not seem to be many takers for this exorbitant cost of innovation and bringing a new drug to the market.

The above study has become a contentious one and has, therefore, been challenged by many experts. I would give here just one example, out of many, from a highly credible source.

May 14, 2015 issue of ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ questioned the methods used to generate the US $ 2.6 billion figure and raised the following interesting points in the above Tufts Center study:

The analysis was based on data that 10 unnamed drug makers provided on 106 unnamed investigational compounds that they had “self-originated.”

The raw numbers on which the analysis is based are not available for transparent review, and are likely never to be divulged.

Since a balanced assessment would have to take into account the costs of failures as well as successes, it is hard to evaluate the key assumption that more than 80 percent of new compounds are abandoned at some point during their development, which is a key driver of the findings.

Nearly half the total cost of developing a new drug (US$ 1.2 billion) was ascribed to this cost of capital, with only US$ 1.4 billion attributed to the funds actually spent on research. These capital costs were assessed at 10.6 percent per year, compounded, despite the fact that bonds issued by drug companies often pay only 1 to 5 percent.

In terms of access to capital, it’s interesting to note that large drug makers are among the U.S. firms with the highest amounts of profits held overseas. Two pharmaceutical companies are ranked third and fourth among all the U.S. corporations in this regard: Pfizer (US$ 69 billion) and Merck (US$ 57 billion), respectively. Collectively, another eight drug companies reportedly have an additional US$ 173 billion of capital that is retained overseas, untaxed by the United States. Such funds could potentially help with the cash-flow problem that plays such a large role in these estimated costs of drug development.

The Tufts calculations also explicitly do not take into account the large public subsidies provided to pharmaceutical companies in the form of research-and-development tax credits or substantial payments received from the federal government for other research activities, such as testing their products in children.

The US$ 2.6 billion figure does not consider drug-development costs borne by the public for the large number of medications that are based on external research that elucidated the disease mechanisms they address.

One recent analysis showed that more than half of the most transformative drugs developed in recent decades had their origins in publicly funded research at nonprofit, university-affiliated centers.

High innovation cost fails to justify high drug prices:

That even the high cost of innovation fails to justify high drug prices, was also echoed in an article published in ‘The New York Times’ on December 19, 2015.

The article categorically said, ‘there is ample evidence that drug prices have been pushed to astronomical heights for no reason other than the desire of drug makers to maximize profits. Prices in many cases far exceed what’s needed to cover the costs of research and clinical trials, and some companies have found ways to rake in profits even without shouldering the cost of drug development.’

Yet another justification of high new drug prices:

Yet another justification of a slightly different kind also frequently comes from the global pharma players for high prices of new drugs.

On May 2, 2015 ‘The Washington Post’ also published an article, which recapitulated this oft repeated justifications for keeping the prices of new drugs high, especially those for rare diseases, including many types of cancer. The key rationale of this argument: the smaller is the number of patients who need the drugs, more would be the need of the company to price the drugs high to recoup the significant costs of drug development.

On the face of it, this justification too may sound convincing. However, on the ground, even if this argument of the global drug companies fails to stand on its feet, post robust scrutiny of the experts. In that context, I shall cite two recent examples.

Two new research studies broke this myth too:

The Following two April 2016 study conclusively demolishes the above justification of the global drug companies:

1. On April 28 2016, a new study was published in JAMA Oncology, throwing a great deal of light on the robustness of the above reasoning. In this paper, the researchers looked at 32 oral cancer medications and found that launch prices of these drugs have spiraled upward, even after adjusting for inflation. The average monthly amount insurers and patients paid for a new cancer drug was less than US$ 2,000 in the year 2000, but it skyrocketed to US$ 11,325 in 2014.

2. In April 2016, another study published in Health Affairs found, when a drug became useful to a larger number of patients, the price also shot up. It, therefore, concluded as follows:

“Our findings suggest that there is currently little competitive pressure in the oral anticancer drug market. Policy makers who wish to reduce the costs of anticancer drugs should consider implementing policies that affect prices not only at launch but also later.”

Are high new drug prices, then arbitrary?

According to a July 2015 article published in JAMA Oncology, the high prices of new drugs, especially for cancer, are arbitrary. This is vindicated in the discussion of the article that clearly states, as follows:

“Cancer drug prices are rising faster than the prices in other sectors of health care, drawing concern from patients, physicians, and policy researchers. We found little difference in the median wholesale price of 21 novel drugs and 30 next-in-class drugs approved over a 5-year period (next-in-class drugs, $119 765; novel drugs, $116 100; P = .42).”

“Our results suggest that the price of cancer drugs is independent of novelty. Additionally, we found little difference in price among drugs approved based on time-to-event end points and drugs approved on the basis of RR (disease Response Rate). Our results suggest that current pricing models are not rational, but simply reflect what the market will bear.”

Thus, the derived fact is, the high prices of new drugs are neither dependent on high cost of drug innovation, nor on the number of drug users – high or low. Higher drug prices, therefore, appear to be nothing but arbitrary, the public justifications being no more than façades.

Is the real cost of drug innovation much less?

This question brings me back to the moot point, ‘What is then the real financial cost of drug innovation?’

The search for a generally acceptable answer to this question gets even more complicated, when one reads the paper of The Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission’ in Washington, DC, published on March 7, 2006 in Health Affairs – the leading journal of health policy thought and research.

The paper estimates the cost per new drug to be US US$ 868 million. However, it says, “Our estimates vary from around US$ 500 million to more than US$ 2,000 million, depending on the therapy or the developing firm. The paper recommended that variations in cost estimates suggest that policymakers should not use a single number to characterize drug costs.

Conclusion:

This situation arises, because the drugs with brand names, whether patented or off-patent, do not compete on price in the pharma market, across the world. The primary reason being a consumer is neither the prescription decision makers nor can they exercise their brand choice in any manner. For any patients, a doctor always takes this decision, who is often influenced by the drug manufacturers, and may not be even aware of the drug price, as is generally alleged, globally.

This process is quite unlike to any other essential commodities. However, the ongoing marketing campaigns for branded drugs are quite a keen to commonly used consumer goods, carrying brand names and backed by high profile branding campaigns, where high prices rather add greater perceived value to the brand status.

But the irony is glaring. The administration of life-saving highly expensive drugs is not optional for any patient, whether poor or rich. These are necessary to save lives. Thus, does not merit arbitrary high-profit driven pricing, at least, from the standpoint of patient-centric ethical business practices.

It still happens, even at the cost of access to such drugs by a large majority of the global population, who requires them the most. In all probability, this process is likely to continue in the near future too, irrespective of the quest of many to fathom how expensive is the drug innovation, unless the government or other payers actively intervenes. I shall discuss this issue in my next article in this Blog.

Nevertheless, the answer to the crucial question, ‘How expensive is the drug innovation’ would continue to remain elusive to many, at least in the near term. This because, no global drug company is likely to allow any competent and independent experts group to arrive at this number in a transparent manner, which can also be peer reviewed. Nor would the pharma players, in all probability, furnish this information to any Government to justify the high price of their respective new brands.

Till this is done, pricing decisions of new lifesaving drugs would continue to remain arbitrary, primarily driven by high-profit motives. It is unlikely to have even a remote direct linkage to the cost of drug innovation, limited consumer access notwithstanding, just as what happens with many branded consumer goods.

By: Tapan J. Ray

An Evolving Paradigm of ‘Price-Value Model’ Of Pharma Value Delivery System

Posted on May 9, 2016 by Tapan Ray

May 4, 2016 edition of the ‘MIT Technology Review’ published an interesting article carrying the headline, “The World’s Most Expensive Medicine Is a Bust”.

The obvious question that floats at the top of mind: What is this most expensive drug in the pharma history, and why has it failed commercially, despite being a product of disruptive innovation and a marvel that stands out in the space of contemporary drug innovation?

The product is called Glybera (alipogene tiparvovec). It heralded the dawn of the “first gene therapy” in the Western world, whose approval helped ignite an explosion of investment and excitement around treatments that correct DNA, as the MIT article said.

Glybera promises to cure rare inherited diseases with one-time repairs to a person’s DNA. A single dose of gene therapy can change the genetic instructions inside a person’s cells in ways that last many years, or even a lifetime.

Interestingly, even with this unprecedented product offering, the product has become a commercial flop, due to its staggering million-dollar price tag, which very few patients can afford.

Is this an extreme example of price-value relationship for a new breakthrough pharma product? Yes, of course! Nevertheless, it makes us ponder on some key fundamentals, afresh, such as:

The core purpose of drug innovation
The price-value relationship of even breakthrough drugs

The proper understanding of these points comprehensively, especially the above two fundamentals, would enable the drug companies to achieve both, the core purpose of intricate drug innovation initiatives, and also making these medicines commercially successful with increased access to patients, through innovative ‘value delivery’ mechanisms.

I believe, the pharmaceutical industry is now at the threshold of a paradigm shift. The new paradigm would signal a metamorphosis in the price-value equations for all drugs, mostly due to changing socio-political environment, across the world, as we have started witnessing in the topmost free economy of the world – the United States.

Pharma business is a ‘value delivery system’:

Way back in June 2000, an article published in ‘McKinsey Quarterly’ on delivering value to the customers, deliberated on a 1988 paper of Michael J. Lanning and Edward G. Michaels. The study combines the value-maps developed in the price-value models with the idea of the “business system,” which was introduced in 1980.

The paper titled, “A business is a value delivery system,” emphasizes the importance of a clear, well-articulated “value proposition” for each targeted market segment. This means a simple statement of the benefits that the company intends to provide to each segment, along with the approximate price the company will charge each segment for those benefits.

Looking at this concept in pharma perspective:

Keeping the above paper in perspective, when we look at the pharma value delivery system, besides the key benefits that a drug offers, one of the most critical value parameter continues to be the financial value.

The healthcare value chain, across the world, has started sharpening its focus on the drug cost today, more than ever before. This is primarily based on the differential value that a drug offers as compared to its closest alternatives. We may like it or not, it is happening irrespective of, whether the drug in question is a breakthrough innovation, or an off-patent high-priced generic medicine.

As I said before, not just in India, the affordability of health care in general, and medicines in particular, is rapidly emerging as a key concern for all developed and the developing nations, including the United States.

Thus, even after careful consideration of all novel product’s benefits and the costs associated with these, the stakeholders’ focus is getting sharper on the overall financial value of the product offerings to the patients. This is reality, and can’t just be wished away by any measure of powerful and expensive advocacy campaigns, together with clever media management.

The drug companies may continue to crib about it, but this will possibly lead them nowhere, in the long term. Instead, they would require to search for a workable win-win and level headed solution, for this most fundamental business issue.

Understanding the evolving paradigm:

We are fast arriving at this new paradigm. There, the financial value of a drug, in the ‘value delivery system’ of pharma marketing, would occupy the center stage. The drug companies would need to arrive at this financial value, not just by understanding the professional mindset of the doctors and taking them on board somehow, but by properly understanding what would the majority of stakeholders want to pay for a new drug, and then perhaps work backwards to translate that finding into reality.

Its successful application would soon assume a pivotal role in the pharma value delivery system. A company may contemplate pricing a drug high, limiting its access to a few rich, and still succeed in making its cash register ringing, such as, some new hepatitis C or cancer drugs. Nonetheless, this could ultimately make their overall business socio-politically too vulnerable, and may not be sustainable either, in the long run.

The same old and current approach does not create a wholesome value for a new drug to most of the customers, despite the company having a state of art ‘value delivery platform’, for unleashing a dazzling marketing blitzkrieg.

The pharma marketing strategy remains unchanged and stale:

At a time, when a paradigm shift is taking place, especially in the way the entire world views at the price-value equation of a new drug, the overall strategic approach of the pharma marketers, as I see it, still remains in the old paradigm, with its roots firmly entrenched there.

I think it so, because the traditional pharma marketing has always been a unilateral communication process, predominantly involving the doctors, and trying to fathom their needs, wants and professional mindset.

Accordingly, the product value delivery process for the doctors, with or without the medical representatives, is basically woven around those needs, wants and mindsets of the target doctors. It, by and large, continues even today, with some cosmetic changes in tools and formats here or there.

Therefore, when the basic marketing and communication process aims at effectively delivering the value of drugs, let us discuss briefly what does the core value of a drug mean?

The value of a drug:

For this purpose, I reckon, it would be prudent to avoid an ethereal approach to arrive at the financial value of a drug, such as, what is the cost of a life, as often raised by many pharma players. A practical approach to resolve this issue would benefit all, in every way.

Without going much into the core purpose of pharma innovation, usually the drug companies define the value of a medicine based on what they think about its attributes. Accordingly, respective players arrive at its financial value, that the patients or the payers must pay for, if they want to have an access to it.

Usually not many independent studies are conducted by the drug companies to ascertain how much the majority of stakeholders, including the governments, payers and patients, would want to willingly pay for a new drug, after well considering its value offerings.

Competitive Scenario:

The ever increasing, and virtually obsessed focus on drug ‘innovation’, while justifying the high financial value of a medicine for the patients, also restricts competition, especially for newer ones. For most of the patients this situation is a double whammy.

Additionally, the consolidation process within the industry is also fuelling this situation further. The virtual monopoly of a few companies with some new drugs, in key therapy segments, such as, diabetes, cancer, vaccines and HIV, is restricting the overall competitive environment. This would continue.

A September 24, 2014 Article, published in the ‘Insight’ of Bain & Company on the throws some light on the subject. It says, “over the past 20 years, and especially since 2000, building leadership in a category has become a crucial route to success in pharma. Seven of our 10 leading value creators, including Roche in oncology and Novo Nordisk in diabetes care, generated at least 50 percent of their revenues from one therapeutic area or primary care. In two cases – Biogen Idec in neurology and Celgene in oncology – more than 90 percent of revenues came from a single therapeutic area.”

As I said, this process is expected to continue, it is necessary for the drug companies, governments, other payers and the patients understand the new paradigm, and act accordingly to address this issue to protect mutual benefit.

If it does not happen, the evolving socio-political environment, across the world, would occupy the driver’s seat to navigate through this complexity, in the healthcare space in general and pharma in particular, safeguarding the patients’ health interest.

The core issue:

In the prevailing scenario, the core issue that gets reinforced, yet again, as raised by many, including the World Health Organization (WHO), is the growing inherent conflict between predominantly the profit driven business goals of the pharma players, and the public health interest of a nation.

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

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

Many countries are now seriously striving to arrive at a middle path to resolve this perennial conflict, India included. The drug companies may wish to take note of it.

I discussed this issue in an article published in this Website titled, “Is The Core Purpose of Pharma Business Beyond Profit Making?” on November 10, 2014.

Conclusion:

As the above ‘McKinsey Quarterly’ paper articulated, the strength of the buying proposition for any customer is a function of the product value minus the price. In other words, the ‘surplus value’ that the customer will enjoy once that product is paid for. As the paper clarified, the “value” in a price-value map will necessarily be informed guesses, though after well-considering multiple variables.

Delivering more of this ‘surplus value’ to patients, willy-nilly, would soon be the name of the game, especially for the winners in both the global and local pharma industry.

In the entire drug sector, including India, this ‘price-value model’ could help a pharma company ascertain the sustainability of its competitive position, well considering the stakeholders’ perspective, and accordingly take the right business decision.

Thus, proper understanding of the ‘surplus value model’ while pricing a drug, and its immaculate execution through state of the art marketing and communication strategies, will separate the men from the boys, for sustained excellence in the pharma business.

Sans understanding of this ‘price-value model’, which is so important in the evolving new paradigm of a pharma value delivery system, a pharma player would risk getting caught in a tough headwind, especially with new high-priced products. This situation could, in turn, jeopardize its long term success, and even erode the well-earned company reputation, in tandem, at times mercilessly.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PE Investment In Pharma: The Changing Need Of Due Diligence

Posted on May 2, 2016 by Tapan Ray

From an international perspective, a Bain & Company report of April 2016 highlighted setting a new healthcare M&A record in the year 2015. During this year the total deal value was over 2.5 times higher than the average annual deal value of the previous decade. The report also mentioned that the Asia-Pacific Region grew in the same year by about 40 percent, fuelled by a number of activities in India and China.

Commenting on India, the Bain report specifically mentioned that during the year, the Private Equity (PE) investors prioritized their investments in the country, not just targeting the global demand for pharmaceuticals, but also based on rapid domestic demand growth.

More popular targets in India were tertiary care, specialty care and laboratories. This is vindicated by TPG’s investment of US$146 million for a minority stake in Manipal Health, which operates multi-specialty and teaching hospitals in the country. Similarly, The Carlyle Group made a minority investment in the pathology lab chain – Metropolis Healthcare. This trend is expected to continue in the coming years and would in all probability include pharma companies of various sizes, with high performance or with high future potential.

In this article, I shall focus only on generic pharma companies in India.

A changing need of due diligence:

Despite some major uncertainties in the generally thriving domestic generic pharma market, this sector has the potential and possibility to come under the radar of many PE investors during the coming years.

However, in this scenario, to embrace success with lucrative returns, I reckon, there is a changing need of due diligence to follow, before suitable pharma companies are appropriately targeted. Conventional pharma due diligence, however stringent it is, may not capture appropriately the high-impact, up and down sides of long term business sustainability for the desired return on investments.

The rationale:

Consideration of significant cost savings in the pharma value chain won’t be just enough, any longer, to tide over any unforeseen rapid downturn in many pharma company’s business performances in the country.

This is largely because, many pharma companies in India have been thriving, so far, taking full advantage of some major loopholes in the regulatory area, including clinical trial; ethical marketing strategy and practices; overall generic product portfolio selection; new generic product developments; besides many others.

The need of a changing format of pharma due diligence in India is largely prompted by this prevailing scenario, even in the midst of stellar success of some companies, and plenty of lush green shoots, as they appear to many.

The process of tightening the loose knots has commenced:

All these loose knots are expected to be tightened by the governments, sooner or later. In fact, while watching the intent of the Government and from some of its recent actions, it appears that the process has just commenced. Public and judicial pressure in these areas would also increasingly mount, with several related and major Public Interest Litigations (PIL) still remaining pending before the Supreme Court of India.

A few examples in this critical area:

Thus, for any successful PE investments, especially for relatively long term, alongside conventional areas of due diligence, several non-conventional, but high business impact areas, need to be effectively covered for the Indian generic pharma companies, in general. Following are just a few examples in this critical area:

Business practices that the promoters personally believe in and practice
Belief and practices of key company personnel
Quality of regulatory approval
Product portfolio scrutiny
Marketing demand generation process and its long-term sustainability
Ability to introduce high-tech formulations with differentiated value offerings
Ability to come out with cost-effective manufacturing processes
Are Independent Directors, if any, really ‘Independent’?

I shall now very briefly try to illustrate each of the above points.

I. Business practices that the promoters personally believe in:

A large number of successful generic pharma companies are directly or indirectly driven, or in all practical purposes managed, and in several cases even micromanaged by the company promoters. Many experts have opined, though a craftily worded handbook of ‘corporate governance’ may exist in many of these companies, on the ground, promoters’ thoughts, belief, ethical standards, business practices and work priorities may easily supersede all those.

The practice of good governance on the ground, rigid compliance with all rules, laws and regulations may quite often go for a toss. The employees implementing promoter’s decisions, may try their level best to record everything perfectly and as required. Nevertheless, sometimes regulators do succeed to ferret out the fact, which leaves an adverse impact on the business, in multiple ways.

Recent reports of the US-FDA on ‘data fudging’ in the drug manufacturing process, product quality standards and also in Clinical Trials, would illustrate this point. According to a 2015 EY Report on data integrity, ‘Import Alerts issued against Indian plants in 2013 accounted for 49 percent of the total 43 imports alerts issued by the US FDA worldwide.’

In some successful generic pharma company’s repetition of such incidences has also been reported. In my view, for recurrence of ‘data fudging’, no promoter of the concerned companies can possibly wash his/her hands off, putting all the blame on concerned employees, and the system.

A situation like this necessitates personal due diligence for promoters. It will help ascertain the persons’ business integrity, alongside the company performance as a whole. Accordingly, the PE investors would be able to flag those critical soft areas, which are key determinants for long-term sustainability of any pharma generic business in the country.

II. Belief and practices of key company personnel:

The findings of the above EY Report also suggest, while most of the generic pharma company professionals are aware of the current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) guidelines, more than 30 percent had still received ‘Inspectional Observations’ from the regulators in the last three years.

This fact calls for due diligence on another critical issue, and that is on the belief and practices of the key company personnel in the new product development, manufacturing, drug quality, marketing, supply chain management, and also covering their interaction with key regulatory and other Government personnel. These are soft issues, but with potential to make the whole business topsy-turvy, virtually overnight.

Conventional due diligence based on the company records may not always reflect the real situation within the organization.

III. Quality of regulatory approval:

To illustrate this point, let me give the example of a launch of a ‘new drug’ in India.

A ‘new drug’ has been defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts in India, as any new drug substance which is being introduced for the first time in India, including any off-patent generic molecule, with the permission of only the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI). A ‘new drug’ shall continue to be considered as ‘new drug’ for a period of four years from the date of its first approval or its inclusion in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, whichever is earlier.

Thus, for even for any generic pharma product, be it a single ingredient or a ‘Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)’, if a marketing license is granted by any State Drug Controller, whatever may be the reason, despite the product being a licensed one, it will deem to be unauthorized as the DCGI’s approval was not obtained during the valid period of the 4 years, as per the Act.

Hence, a proper due diligence on the ‘quality of regulatory approval’ to detect presence of any such successful products in the product portfolio, would enable the PE investors in India to flag a possible risk of a future ban, inviting adverse business impact.

IV. Product portfolio scrutiny:

This scrutiny may not be restricted to some conventional areas, such as, to find out the ratio between the price control and decontrol products, leaving future scope to improve the margin. It may also focus on many other important India-specific areas.

One such area could even be the non-standard FDCs in the product portfolio. Some of these FDCs could also be approved by the state drug controllers earlier, scrupulously following the drug laws and rules. However, if the medical rationale of any of these successful products can’t be credibly established, following the global standards, the risk of a future ban of such products would loom large.

Another area could be the percentage of those products in the product portfolio, where the medical claims are anecdotal, and not based on scientific data, generated through credible clinical trials.

One may draw a relevant example from the Nutraceutical product category. Although, these products are high margin and currently do not come under price control, the stringent regulatory demands for this category of products have already started coming. Strict conformance to the emerging regulatory requirements of both the DCGI of FSSAI may be cost intensive, squeeze the margin, could also pose a great challenge in the conventional demand generating process. I hasten to add that such decision would possibly be dictated by the time scale of PE investment, and the risk-appetite of the investors.

Yet another example prompts the need to check the quality of generic brands in the product portfolio. According to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, some of these brands would merit to be categorized as drugs. In practice, the company concerned could well be surreptitiously classifying those as nutritional supplements, or Nutraceuticals, with the support of some State Drug Controllers and promoted accordingly, simultaneously avoiding any risk of drug price control.

V. Marketing demand generation process and long-term sustainability:

This assumes critical importance in the pharma industry, especially when the Government is mulling to give the current voluntary ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ legal teeth, by making it mandatory for all. As I understand, besides other penal action, in serious cases of gross violations of the code, even the marketing license of the offender may get suspended, or cancelled. Thus, compliance to UCPMP would be critical to business performance. Thus, the level of compliance of a company in this regard could well be a part of the due diligence process of the PE investors.

It is also important to understand, whether the pharma generic target asset is predominantly buying doctors’ prescriptions through various dubious means to increase its brand off-takes, or the prescription demand generation process primarily stands on robust pillars of a differentiated value delivery system. The latter is believed to be more desirable for sustainable long term business success.

It is also important to understand, whether the strategic marketing process adopted by the company can withstand robust ethical, legal and regulatory scrutiny, or it is just an outward impressive looking structure, unknowingly built as ‘House of Cards, waiting to be collapsed anytime, sooner or later.

I would now give just a couple of other examples in this area, out of so many – say, a health product, which has been categorized as a drug by the drug authority, is freely advertised in the media, at times even with top celebrity endorsements. This strategy is short term, may eventually not fly, and is certainly not sustainable in the longer term, avoiding regulatory scrutiny. Another example, big brands of Nutraceuticals are being promoted with off-label strong therapeutic claims, and have become immensely successful because of that reason.

VI. Ability to introduce formulations with high-tech value offerings:

India is basically a branded generic market with huge brand proliferations of each molecule, or their FDCs. Just like any other brand, for business success and to overcome the pricing barrier, differentiated value offerings are essential for long term success of any branded generic too. This differentiation may be both tangible and intangible. However, if such differentiation is based on high-technology platforms, it could provide a cutting edge to effectively fight any cut throat competition. Thus, appropriate due diligence to ascertain the robustness of the ability to introduce high-tech formulations with differentiated value offerings, would be an added advantage.

VII. Ability to come out with cost-effective manufacturing processes:

This is not much new. Many PE investors would possibly look at it, in any case. Just like formulations, ascertaining similar ability to come out with cost-effective manufacturing processes to improve margin would also be very useful, especially for long term investments.

VIII. Are Independent Directors, if any, really ‘Independent’?

If the target company has ‘Independent Directors’ in its Board, as a mandatory legal requirement or even otherwise, there is a need to dispassionately evaluate how independent these directors are, and what value they have added to the company or capable of providing in the future, according to their legal status in the Board.

True independence, given to the high caliber ‘Independent Directors’ in the Board of promoter driven pharma companies, could usher in a catalytic change in the overall business environment of the company. It would, consequently, bring in a breath of fresh air in the organization with their independent thoughts, strategic inputs and involvement in the key peoples’ decisions.

As it is much known, that a large number of ‘Independent Directors’ are primarily hand-picked, based on their unqualified support to the Indian promoters. Many board resolutions, in various critical business impact areas, are passed as desired by the powerful promoters, may be for short term interest and fire fighting. In that process, what is right for the organization for sustainability of business performance, and in the long term interest of all the company stakeholders, may get sacrificed.

When this happens in any target company, mainly for short term business success, taking advantage of regulatory loopholes and inherent weaknesses in the system, a flag needs to be raised by the PE investors for further detailed analysis in the concerned areas.

Conclusion:

Going forward, it appears to me that PE investors would continue to look for attractive pharma investment opportunities in India, though with increasing level of competition. These investors would include both global and local PE firms. Some of them may like to stay invested for longer terms with lesser regulatory and other associated risks and a modest return, unlike a few other high risk takers, sniffing for commensurate windfall returns.

In India – today’s land of seemingly unparalleled economic opportunities, the PE players should also take into consideration the prevailing complexities of the domestic pharma industry seriously and try to analyze the same properly, for appropriate target asset identification. Many successful local generic players may outwardly project sophisticated, and high standard of business practices. However, these need to be ascertained only through a structured format of India-specific due diligence process.

Corporate governance processes, regulatory compliance, marketing practices and financial reporting systems of many of these companies, may not pass the acid test of stringent expert scrutiny, for long term sustainability of business.

This mainly because, a number of generic pharma companies in India have been thriving, taking full advantage of some major loopholes in the regulatory area, marketing practices, overall product portfolio selection and new generic product development areas, besides many others.

These successful domestic drug companies have indeed the potential and overall attractiveness to come under the radar of many PE investors, who, in turn, should also realize that all the loose knots, fully being exploited by many such companies, are expected to be tightened by the governments, sooner or later.

Keeping this possibility in perspective, to embrace success with lucrative returns, I reckon, there is a changing need of due diligence to follow by the PE investors for right valuation, and much before any pharma generic company is identified by them.

That done, the Indian generic pharma market could soon emerge as an Eldorado, especially for those PE investors, who are looking for a relatively long term attractive return on investments.

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Indian Drug Control World’s Weakest: Pharma Trade Bodies Working At Cross Purposes’

Posted on April 25, 2016 by Tapan Ray

“In the entire world, I think our drug control system probably is the weakest today. It needs to be strengthened,” said the Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) – V K Subburaj at an event in New-Delhi on April 19, 2016.

In his speech, the Secretary also singled out the pharma industry associations for working in opposite directions, adding that “if we take one decision, it is appreciated by one but the other one criticizes us”.

This is indeed an irony. Such scathing comments from an important and a top Government official indeed stand out. This is primarily because, in the midst of the prevailing scenario, where a large section of the Government is saying ‘we are the best’ or ‘best among the worst’ or, at least, ‘fast improving’, a seemingly helpless key decision maker for the pharma industry was constrained to publicly say, what he had said, as above.

Nonetheless, public expressions, such as these, coming from a top Government official well-captures the sad and pathetic scenario of the systemic failure of pharma industry regulators to bring order in the midst of continuing chaos. Virtually free-for-all business practices, blatantly ignoring the patients’ health and safety interest in the country, continue to thrive in a self-created divisive environment.

Unsparing remarks in two critical areas:

As reported by the ‘Press Trust of India (PTI)’, the DoP Secretary, with his unsparing remarks, publicly expressed his anguish for the delay in taking remedial measures, at least in the two critical areas of the pharma industry in India, as follows:

Questionable quality of drugs
Questionable pharma marketing practices

He also highlighted, how just not some Government Departments, but the pharma trade associations, which are formed and fully funded by the pharma players, both global and local, are working at cross-purposes to perpetuate the inordinate delay in setting a number of things right, to satisfy the healthcare needs of most patients.

I briefly dwelled on this critical conflict in my article in this blog of March 28, 2016 titled, “Ease of Doing Pharma Business in India: A Kaleidoscopic View”

A. Questionable quality of drugs:

There wasn’t enough debate in the country on the questionable drug quality in India. It began when the US-FDA started banning imports of a number of medicines in the United States from several drug manufacturing facilities in India. These pharma plants are of all sizes and scales of operations – large, medium, small and micro.

Almost on a regular basis, we now get to know, both from the national and international media, one or the other pharma manufacturing facility in the country, has received the ‘warning letter’ from the US-FDA on its ‘import ban’.

Dual drug manufacturing quality standards?

The spate of ‘Warning Letters’ from the US-FDA have brought to the fore the existence of two different quality standards of drug manufacturing in India:

High quality plants dedicated to exports in the well-regulated markets of the world, such as, the United States, following the US-FDA regulations.

Other plants, with not so stringent quality standards of the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), cater to the needs of the Indian population and other developing non-regulated markets.

In this situation, when many Indian manufacturers are repeatedly faltering to meet the USFDA quality standards, the following two critical questions come up:

Are the US-FDA manufacturing requirements so stringent that requires a different compliance mindset, high-technology support, greater domain expertise and more financial resources to comply with, basically for protection of health and safety of the American patients?

If so, do the Indian and other patients from not so regulated markets of the world, also deserve to consume drugs conforming to the same quality standards and for the same reason?

Answers to these questions are absolutely vital for all of us.

Pharma associations working at cross-purposes?

Considering this from the patients’ perspective, there lies a huge scope for the pharma associations, though with different kind of primary business priorities, to help the Government unitedly in resolving this issue.

It appears from the deliberation of the DoP Secretary that the health ministry is already seized of the matter. The concerned departments are also apparently batting for quality, and trying to strengthen some specific capacity building areas, such as, increasing the number of inspectors and other drug control staff.

Reports also keep coming on the poor quality clinical trial data in India, including data fudging, as was recently detected by the foreign drug regulators. Intriguingly, nothing seems to be changing on the ground. In these areas too, the industry can unitedly try to protect the innocent patients from the wrongdoers, demonstrating enough credible and publicly visible real action.

From the anguish of the DoP Secretary on the critical quality related issue, it appears, there is a huge task cut out for the Indian drug regulators to ensure uniform and high drug quality standards for health and safety of all Indian patients’, just as their counterparts in America.

It is unfortunate to note from his observation that pharma industry associations are not visibly working in unison on many such issues in India.

B. The UCPMP:

The Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics of Harvard University, while deliberating on “The Pharmaceutical Industry, Institutional Corruption, and Public Health” dwelled on the legal, financial, and organizational arrangements within which the pharmaceutical industry operates. It said, this situation sometimes creates incentives for drug firms and their employees, that conflict with the development of knowledge, drug safety, the promotion of public health, and innovation. More importantly, they also make the public depend inappropriately on pharmaceutical firms to perform certain activities and this leads to institutional corruption.

Illustrating from Professor Marc Rodwin’s project, the article said pharma players provide substantial discretionary funding for important medical activities, such as, continuing medical education, medical research, medical journals, and professional medical societies, which can encourage unwanted and undesirable compromise and bias in favor of their interests.

The same sentiment was also well-captured in an editorial of the well-reputed international medical journal BMJ of June 25, 2014. It unambiguously articulated, “Patients everywhere are harmed when money is diverted to the doctors’ pockets and away from priority services. Yet this complex challenge is one that medical professionals have failed to deal with, either by choosing to enrich themselves, turning a blind eye, or considering it too difficult.”

The editorial underscored the point that success in tackling corruption in healthcare is possible, even if it is initially limited, as anti-corruption bodies in the United Kingdom and US have shown to a great extent. With this, BMJ planned to launch a campaign against ‘Corruption in Medicine’, with a focus on India.

The DoP initiative:

Initiating a step in this direction, on December 12, 2014, the DoP announced details of the ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’, which became effective across the country from January 1, 2015. The communique also said that the code would be voluntarily adopted and complied with by the pharma industry in India for a period of six months from the effective date, and its compliance would be reviewed thereafter on the basis of the inputs received.

Not a panacea:

It is worth noting, since the last three and a half decades, ‘Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices’, prepared by various global pharma trade associations and most of the large global pharma companies individually, have come into existence purported for strictest voluntary adherence. These are being relentlessly propagated by them and their trade associations, as panacea for all marketing malpractices in the drug industry. Squeaky clean ‘pharma marketing codes’ for voluntary practices can be seen well placed in the websites of almost all large global pharma players and their trade associations.

The concept of a pharma marketing code and its intent are both commendable. However, the key question that follows: are all those working in practice? If the answer is yes, why then mind boggling sums in billions of dollars are being paid as settlement fees by a large number of global pharma companies for alleged colossal marketing malpractices in different countries of the world?

Mandatory UCPMP:

As happens with any other voluntary pharma marketing code of a global drug company or their trade associations, however mighty they are, similar non-compliance was detected by the DoP with voluntary UCPMP. This gross disregard on the code, apparently prompted the DoP making the UCPMP mandatory, with legal implications for non-compliance, which could possibly lead to revocation of marketing licenses.

A move in this direction, obviously necessitated meaningful discussion of the DoP with all stakeholders, especially the pharma trade associations. According to the Secretary, the discussions got unduly protracted, crippling his decision making process to put the mandatory UCPMP in place, soon.

Divergent views of pharma associations?

Thus, it is now quite clear that one of the reasons for the delay in making the UCPMP mandatory is the divergent views of various pharma trade associations.

In the Secretary’s own words, “To take an example of uniform marketing code, we thought we could arrive at a common solution. But even after 7-8 meetings, we failed to come to a conclusion. It’s only now that we have arrived at a code.”

However, the bottom-line is, as on date, we don’t know when would the mandatory UCPMP come into force in India.

Conclusion:

The reverberation of virtual helplessness in the recent utterances of the Secretary of the DoP, has naturally become a cause of great concern, especially for the patients. There is still no sign of early resolution of the critical issue of dubious quality, both in the drug manufacturing and clinical trials in India.

The concerned ministries would require to demonstrate unwavering will and unflagging zeal for good governance with accountability, to set things right, without any further delay. When US-FDA can, why can’t the DCGI succeed in doing so? The Government is expected to ensure that justice prevails in this area, for the patients’ sake, soon enough.

Similarly, wrong doings in pharma marketing practices also need to be addressed by the DoP, initially making the UCPMP mandatory having strong legal teeth, to start with, notwithstanding the fact that the trade associations mostly work at cross-purposes, in this area too.

As I hear from the grapevine, especially the MNC trade associations, both inside and outside the country, are trying hard to take, especially, the owners of the large Indian pharma companies on board, in several ways, basically to further their crusade on various self serving issues, such as dilution of Indian Patents Act.

That said, taking serious note of the observation of the DoP Secretary that the Indian drug control is the “weakest in the world”, together with the challenges that he is facing in containing pharma marketing malpractices, I hope, the honorable Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) may wish to intervene soon, in order to promptly contain these snowballing public health menace.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Clinical Trials: Critical Need To Improve Patient Participation With Informed Consent

Posted on April 18, 2016 by Tapan Ray

On April 13, 2016, an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) titled, “Clinical Trials Need More Subjects” underscored an important point that the rate at which the clinical researchers are able to recruit and retain patients for ‘Clinical Trials (CT)’, has now hit an all-time low. This is vindicated by studies that indicate less than 10 percent of Americans now participate in clinical trials, and only 3 to 5 percent of patients sign up for trials of new cancer therapies, in the largest CT market of the world.

As a result, about 40 percent of CTs do not recruit enough patients to meet their goals, the article highlights. Consequently, a large number of pharma industry sponsored CTs are now, reportedly, moving away from the United States. India should, therefore, take note of this development and pull up the socks.

If similar situation gets replicated in other countries too, and persists, it would be very unlikely that critical and credible medical and scientific knowledge that can significantly improve the treatment outcomes in many serious disease conditions could be meaningfully gathered and put to practice. Its other serious fallouts too, are also not terribly difficult to imagine.

A key medical research tool:

In pursuit of the advancement of medical knowledge and patient care, CT of drugs is universally considered to be a key medical research tool, as it is the best way to learn what works best in treating various types of diseases. It goes without saying that drugs for all new types of treatments would need to be discovered first through a long and painstaking process of discovery research. These are then purified, and tested in preclinical studies, before a final decision is taken for commencement of CT on human against preset parameters, as deemed necessary.

While going through this stringent process some drugs are found to be safe and effective on human subjects and some others are not, on the contrary may be harmful.

There lies the crucial importance of CT for all scientific evidence based medicines. According to the Department of Health & Human Services of the United States, Clinical research is done only if doctors don’t know:

whether a new approach works well with people and is safe and
which treatments or strategies work best for certain illnesses or groups of people

CT, though a small part in the important and lengthy process of developing newer treatments, significantly helps the health care decision makers to decide on the treatments that work best for any patient.

Broad types:

Pharmaceutical companies usually sponsor CT for new drugs and treatments, which are carried out by the designated research teams, consisting of doctors and other related professionals in different specialized areas.

There are 4 phases in any CT, which are broadly as follows:

Phase I: Here, for a new treatment, an investigational drug is tested for the first time in small numbers, usually between 20 and 100, on healthy volunteers, to identify the proper dosage ranges for drug administration, while critically monitoring its method of absorption, adverse effects and toxicity profile.

Phases II: This phase, just as Phase I studies, also tests the drug on, usually between 100 and 300 patients, suffering from the targeted disease conditions. Safety is the main goal of this phase of CT and is programmed towards adjusting treatment doses, monitoring the common side effects, and whether patient’s disease condition improve as a result of the drug. These studies are usually randomized and double-blinded, where neither the patient nor the researchers would know whether a patient is receiving the investigational drug, or a placebo, or a standard treatment.

Phase III: In this phase, the investigational new drug goes through rigorous testing of safety, efficacy, and proper dosage levels in a large group of subjects, which may even exceed several thousand, with a specific illness or disease. The key objective is to enable the doctors to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the treatment for various groups of patients, such as, men versus women, elderly versus young, besides many others.

Phase IV: Such studies are done after the drug receives the marketing approval from the drug regulator. The basic objective of these trials is usually to monitor whether the treatment offers desired benefits or gives rise to long-term side effects, which were not seen in the phase II and III trials. This phase may involve even several hundreds and thousands of patients.

It is worth noting that CT is essential to obtain marketing approval for any new treatment, as required by the drug regulators in the different countries, and takes around 6 to 8 years.

The role of patients:

Patients play a critical role in the entire scientific value chain of any drug evaluation process, especially on human. It is absolutely necessary, particularly in the regulated markets of the world, that all medicines are fully vetted through highly regulated, stringently monitored and well-scrutinized CTs, to ensure safety and effectiveness of each new drug and treatment for the patients.

No CT can take place sans the willingness and informed consent for participation of thousands of patients for any such studies held across the world. Without adequate patient participation in a CT, the drug performance data may also not be credible and thus acceptable to the drug regulator. This would, consequently, make it impossible to bring any new drug for prevention or treatment of various, often life threatening, disease conditions.

Major reasons for not enough patient participation:

There are many reasons for not enough patients volunteering to participate in the CT, even in India. Some of the major reasons have been identified as follows:

Patients often are not aware that such trials also offer a treatment option. In many cases, their doctors too may not be explaining it effectively to them, as a part of their professional discourse. Several studies conclude that trust in a physician is a main reason patients decide to participate in CT.

Some patients, after reading media reports, interacting with some NGOs and also from word of mouth, mistrust the CT process and suffer from fear of being a guinea pig.

At times, complicated protocols, and eligibility requirements may also be discouraging.

Many patients, especially in India, are not very clear about the exact insurance (financial) cover the study provides for them, along with other payments for the care that they would receive during the trial, or for any drug-related long term untoward incident even after completion of the CT.

All these need to be effectively addressed.

India attractiveness for CT:

The number of CT conducted in India had increased with a rapid pace till 2012, driven by cost arbitrage, treatment-naïve patient population, qualified English speaking medical research professionals that the country offers. According to available reports, in 2009, outside the United States, India was the second most preferred country to conduct CT. Incidentally, at that time, the CT guidelines in India were too loose, quite discretionary, patient-unfriendly and with many gaping holes. This scenario has changed dramatically since 2013, with consequent adverse impact on the number of CT in India.

A 2009 study conducted by Ernst & Young and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (FICCI), states that India participates in over 7 percent of all global phase III and 3.2 percent of all global phase II trials. The major reasons of India attraction of the global players to conduct CT in the country, were highlighted as follows:

Cost of Clinical Trial (CL) is significantly less in India than most other countries of the world
Huge treatment-naïve patient pool with different disease pattern and demographic profile
Easy to enroll volunteers, as it is not very difficult to persuade poor and less educated people as ‘willing’ participants. This may not be so easy now with the recent amendment of CT guidelines.

However, there is an urgent need for a world class capacity building in this area to reap a rich harvest.

Improving CT regulations in India:

Not so long ago, it came to light with the help of ‘Right To Information (RTI)’ query that more than 2,000 people in India died as a result of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) caused during drug trials from 2008-2011 and only 22 of such cases, which is just around 1 percent, received any compensation. That too was a meager average sum of around US$ 4,800 per family.

It has been widely reported that pharmaceutical companies often blame deaths, that occur during trials, on a person’s pre-existing medical condition, and not related to CT.

This gloomy situation is now gradually improving. According to an August 2015 research article titled “Impact of new regulations on clinical trials in India”, published in International Journal of Clinical Trials, 2015 Aug; 2 (3): 56-58, there was a need of strict vigilance and regulations for conducting CT in India, which was much easier than in North America or Europe. In India, the trial participants were exploited because of illiteracy, poverty and lack of awareness of their basic rights in this area. The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) has now taken a noteworthy step by launching online Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI) ensuring accountability, transparency and information sharing on clinical trials in the public domain.

Followed by a tough intervention of the Supreme Court in 2013, Indian Government brought in amendments to the CT guidelines of Schedule Y, in December 2014 which came into force effective June 2015. These long-overdue amendments are expected to strengthen the CT process in India and effectively protect the rights, desired safety and general well-being of the participating subjects, while generating authentic clinical data for new drugs or treatment.

Informed consent:

Obtaining informed consent of the participating patients, is absolutely necessary for the researchers. This has recently been made stringent in India effective June 07, 2013. From that date, to make the sCT process transparent and ensure requisite confidentiality, an audio-visual recording of the ‘informed consent’ process has been made mandatory in the country.

A valid consent would mean that the participants have well understood the risks and benefits of the treatment during the CT period and after, along with the general procedures that he or she would need to undergo during the given time-frame.

However, the question that is still being debated, primarily because of the continuing challenge in defining in each case, beyond any scope of doubt, what should be universally considered as an adequate level of information given to the patients to obtain consent of participation in the CT.

Financial compensation process:

Currently, the calculation of financial compensation, wherever applicable, is based on a well-defined formula. This system has been made mandatory for the sponsor in India for any trial related injuries or death. Such compensation has to be paid, even when the trial related injury is discerned after the completion of the CT. The concerned participants would receive this compensation over and above the free medical management of injury, which in any case has to be provided by the sponsor.

Hence patient safety and compensation related issues pertaining to CT in India have, to a great extent, been addressed, though there is still more scope for improvement on an ongoing basis.

Another major issue still to be addressed:

It is generally expected that when CT of a new drug is conducted by the global pharma players in India with the participation of Indian patients, the same drug when launched in other countries would also be made available in India for the benefit of Indian patients.

Unfortunately, the situation is not so, as indicated by a paper titled, “A critical appraisal of clinical trials conducted and subsequent drug approvals in India and South Africa”, published in the BMJ Open on August 31, 2015.

The objective of this study was to assess the relation between the number of clinical trials conducted and respective new drug approvals in India and South Africa.

The study found that out of CTs with the participation of test centers in India and/or South Africa, 39.6 percent (India) and 60.1 percent (South Africa) CTs led to market authorization in the EU/USA, without a New Drug Application (NDA) approval in India or South Africa.

The paper concluded, despite an increase in CT activities, there is a clear gap between the number of trials conducted and market availability of these new drugs in India and South Africa. Hence, the drug regulatory authorities, investigators, institutional review boards and patient groups should direct their efforts to ensuring availability of new drugs in the market that have been tested and researched on their population, the article suggested.

I hope, the CDSCO would take remedial measures to address this situation, soon.

Indian pharma players should get their act together:

In view of the international media reports on alleged ‘CT data fudging’ by some of the larger Indian players in the pharma and relator sectors, there is an urgent need of the Indian pharma players to get their acts together, without any further delay.

On April 15, 2016, Reuters reported, “India’s Alkem Laboratories has been accused by Germany’s health regulator of fudging data on clinical trials of an antibiotic and brain disorder drug, becoming the third Indian firm to be scrutinized since 2014 for suspected manipulation of trial data.” However, a day later Alkem said that it was submitting suitable clarifications to the European Medical Agency (EMA).

Be that as it may, if the allegation for such gross violations of basic ethical standards is true, it would bring shame not just to the companies concerned, but also to India as a trusted source for pharma products and services. Such alleged foul play has the potential to ultimately shatter the stakeholders’ confidence, including patients, on CTs done by the Indian players, both for the local and global markets.

Conclusion:

At the long last, after a grueling experience and tough intervention of the Supreme Court of India, CTs conducted in India are now reasonably well regulated and generally seem to comply with ethical requirements and standards. The question of human ‘guinea pigs’ and its associated concerns have also been adequately addressed by the CDSCO now.

Gradually improving the CT regulatory environment in India, barring some avoidable aberrations, offers some significant direct and indirect benefits to all concerned. Indian pharma is, therefore, expected to handle this sensitive opportunity with great care and following the highest ethical standards.

This, in turn, would help bring to the market robust evidence-based new drugs and treatment for many types of diseases, and at the same time could facilitate their early access to many patients, at a time of dire need.

Through increasing access to CT, the participating patients would be able to avail several important benefits, such as, new and still unavailable treatment options, especially for those serious ailments, where other existing drugs either are not working effectively with satisfactory results, not affordable to many, or not working at all. In that sense, CT could offer to a sizeable number patients several other treatment options to choose from, especially, for many life-threatening diseases. This important benefit needs to be explained to the patients from credible sources, and thus merits serious consideration by the practicing medical professionals.

However, it is also a fact, particularly, in India that some people are lured to, or voluntarily enroll themselves for CT with an objective to make some extra money. Let me hasten to add that there are many other patients for whom the compensation for participation in the CT is no more than just an extra bonus.

Hence, improved patient participation with informed consent, to avail an important medical option in the disease treatment process, encouraged by the doctors without having any vested interest, has a great potential to create a win-win situation, for all concerned.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Nutraceuticals: Make The Fragile Regulatory Space Robust, Soon

Posted on April 11, 2016 by Tapan Ray

In the space between drugs and nutrition, there is an intriguing ‘gray area’ with significant business relevance, especially in India.

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

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

Falling in the middle of the spectrum, a large number of Nutraceuticals clearly blur the line between food and drugs, in many cases. In India, there is no clearly defined legal and regulatory status for such Nutraceuticals, just yet.

Why a robust regulation required for Nutraceuticals?

The scholarly article of S.H. Zeisel (Professor of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Nutrition) titled, “Regulation of Nutraceuticals,” Science 5435, 1853–1855 (1999) highlighted that in many cases when the dosages of food supplements exceed those of a normal diet, there could well be a drug-like bioactivity of a nutrient.

An example of the nutrient tryptophan may suffice to illustrate this point briefly. At higher dosage tryptophan can exhibit drug-like activity, as it is the precursor of serotonin, which is extensively used to treat insomnia. Many of such points are yet to draw the regulators’ attention in India as much as it should, as yet.

Marketing drugs as ‘food supplements’?

Marketing drugs as food supplements to evade Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) by some pharma players, of all sizes and scale of operation, is not an uncommon practice in India. The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), reportedly, pointed it out sometime around 2009.

Not just for pricing reason, but more importantly for consumers’ health and safety, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) should address this issue now with a greater sense of urgency, as the market for Nutraceuticals and health supplements is reportedly growing at a brisk pace today. According to a Frost & Sullivan report, the total Indian Nutraceuticals market in 2015 was expected around US $ 5 billion.

In the absence of any clear and robust regulatory guidelines, most Nutraceutical products, with a spectrum of therapeutic claims, are virtually self-categorized as food supplements, which are not covered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts in India.

Currently in the country, Nutraceuticals and functional foods are covered under the definition of ‘food’ as per Section 22 of Food Safety & Standards Act (FSSA), 2006. These food products have been categorized as Non-Standardized/Special Food Products. Accordingly, Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSAI) of India have described Nutraceuticals as:

“Naturally occurring chemical compound having a physiological benefit or provide protection against chronic disease, isolated and purified from food or non-food source.”

Though categorized as nutritional supplement, the product packs of such Nutraceuticals usually do not carry any “FSSAI’ logo, which signifies conformance to the food safety standards of India, for the benefit of consumers.

Recommendations are many, but no comprehensive action yet:

To give an example, many Nutraceuticals contain vitamins in varying quantity. However, most of these products seem to carefully avoid Schedule V guidelines for vitamin content to avoid being categorized as drugs, and thereby coming under strict regulatory requirements. Self-categorizing these products as ‘food supplement’, helps bypassing this issue, as on date.

Such ongoing practices related to Nutraceuticals need to be viewed keeping in perspective, some of the recent key recommendations made by the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) of the CDSCO, on Schedule V related formulations.

The minutes of the 70^th. meeting of the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) held on August 18, 2015, recorded the acceptance of the report of its sub-committee on vitamins, which recommended, among others, some of the following guidelines:

Ingredients which are covered under the range as prescribed under schedule “V” of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules for Tablets, capsules, granules are 18 classified as a drug, while those powders like Farex, Oats and Cereal fortified vitamins are exempted from the provisions of chapter IV under schedule K of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.

Ingredients which fall below the range as prescribed under schedule “V” shall be classified as food. However, if there is a claim for treatment, mitigation or prevention of any diseases or disorder, then it will be classified as a drug.

Ingredients which are within Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) levels, but fall under the range as prescribed under schedule V Drugs and Cosmetics Rules shall be classified under drug as it is already mentioned in the rules.

Products containing ingredients which are neither covered under Schedule V nor fall within RDA, these can be classified as unprovable products under Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, unless otherwise specifically permitted by the Licensing Authorities of drugs based on major purpose of the item (like food/drug).

Whenever there are additional ingredients than those given in schedule V, including some of herbal ingredients, a separate and conscious view has to be taken about the safety and efficacy of the drug

Any product containing herbal ingredients shall be dealt with by the food or drug authority based on the above principles.

The same subcommittee, on June 12, 2015, after discussing each of some specified products, with a claim of falling in non-drug category, as per directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Patna, recommended categorization of some of the well-known brands brands, such as, Revital (Ranbaxy) and A to Z capsules (Alkem) as drugs. The sub-committee report was then uploaded in the CDSCO website for stakeholders’ comment.

Could there be ‘irrational FDC ban’ like an issue with Nutraceuticals?

The answer to this question is anybody’s guess at this point of time. However, such a possibility can be just wished away either.

This lurking fear stems from the recent notification of FSSAI dated March 30, 2016, which states as follows:

“It has been decided that till the standards of Nutraceuticals, food supplements and health supplements are finally notified, the enforcement activities against such food business operators may be restricted to testing of these products with respect to requirements given in the draft notification on such products of September 9, 2015″.

However, it clarifies that the companies will get an exemption, if such products were available in the market before the Food Safety and Standards Act came into effect in 2011, or if product approval was pending on August 19, 2015.

The key objective of the above September 9, 2015, FSSAI draft notification was to ensure that Nutraceuticals, health and food supplements and other such products are not sold as medicines with therapeutic claims. Thus, asking the industry players to send their suggestions and objections to the proposal, this draft notification indicates, among others, that all such products should:

Adhere to the proposed permissible limits of various minerals, vitamins, plant or botanical-based ingredients, among others.

Adhere to the proposed list of food additives used in all these categories of products, besides labelling norms, every package must carry the words “Food” or “Health Supplement” and prominently display “Not for Medicinal Use” on the label.

Give a disclaimer on the package that the food or health supplement should not be used as a substitute for a varied diet.

Clearly indicate on the label that “this product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease”, besides information on recommended dosages, among others.

As this notification is expected to cover all products, which are marketed as food supplements, many Nutraceuticals manufacturers, reportedly, fear that it could effectively mean a ban on virtually all those brands, self-categorized as food or nutritional supplement, and launched post 2011.

If it happens, the saga of ban of a large number of irrational Fixed-Dose Combinations (FDCs) of drugs, that includes some top-selling pharma brands and is now sub judice, could get extended to the Nutraceuticals sector too.

Nonetheless, the bottom-line is that a robust mechanism to effectively regulate and monitor Nutraceuticals in India, is yet to see the light of the day.

Crazy marketing of Nutraceuticals:

Despite regulatory and marketing restrictions to the therapeutic claims for this category of drugs, Nutraceuticals are mostly promoted to the doctors, just as any other ethical pharma products in India.

Consequently, these are widely prescribed by the medical profession, not just as nutritional supplements, but also for the treatment of disease conditions, ranging from obesity to arthritis, osteoporosis, cardiovascular conditions, diabetes, anti-lipid, gastrointestinal conditions, dementia, age-related muscle loss, pain management and even for fertility. All these are generally based on off-label therapeutic claims of the respective manufacturers.

Being advertised in the mass media too:

To illustrate this point, I would give an example of a well known brand in India. As I see from the Government records, i.e. from the minutes of the 68^th meeting of the DTAB sub-committee held on June 12, 2015 that it had recommended Revital’s (Ranbaxy) categorization under drug.

As we all know that, as per drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, drugs cannot be advertised in the mass media, except Schedule K drugs, such as Aspirin and paracetamol. In that sense, I find it difficult to fathom, how is Revital then, which highlights a naturally occurring substance fortified with vitamins and minerals, advertised even on the Television, along with a top celebrity endorsement?

A recent notification on phytochemicals:

As I mentioned in my article in this Blog on December 21, 2015, titled “Nutraceuticals: A Major regulatory Step That Was Long Overdue”, partly responding to the growing demand for regulatory intervention in this important matter, on November 30, 2015, by a gazette notification, the Government of India included phytopharmaceutical drugs under a separate definition in the Drugs & Cosmetics (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 2015, effective that date.

This regulatory action followed the rapidly growing use of these drugs in India, which includes purified and standardized fraction with defined minimum four bio-active or phytochemical compounds.

On the ground, this significant regulatory measure would require the pharma players to submit the specified data on phytopharmaceutical drugs, along with necessary applications for conduct clinical trial or import or manufacture of these products in the country.

However, this is no more than half-measure in this direction. Hopefully, this will be followed by final action on the DTAB recommendations on vitamins, and final notification of FSSAI on standards of Nutraceuticals, food and health supplements. A well-integrated action of the CDSCO and FSSAI, would possibly help to contain the unregulated proliferation of various types of Nutraceutical products coming into the Indian market, prescribed by the doctors and consumed by the people, sans any scientific evidence based efficacy, safety and quality standards.

Manufacturers’ business interest also can’t just be ignored:

While there is a pressing need to enforce regulatory discipline for claimed efficacy, safety and high quality standards for the Nutraceuticals to protect consumers’ health interest, commercial interest of such drug manufacturers can’t also just be ignored. If that happens, it will be unfair.

Thus, one of the ways to encourage the manufacturers to expand this market, I reckon, could well be categorizing the Nutraceuticals offering health benefits, under a separate category altogether, which will be kept out of any form of drug price control.

Conclusion:

The manufacturers of Nutraceuticals still keep charting in a very relaxed regulatory space. Currently, there is no robust and transparent process in place to standardize and scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy of these products on an ongoing basis. This scenario should not be allowed to continue, any longer.

Appropriate control of standardized Nutraceutical manufacturing, regular monitoring of the same and scientific evidence-based marketing approval process of all such products, therefore, require to be well-well regulated. The requirement for stringent conformance to the set cGMP standards would ensure desired safety, efficacy and high quality of nutraceutical products for the consumers.

The recent decisions of the Union ministry of Ayush for setting up a structured regulatory framework, within the CDSCO, for all Ayush drugs and to allow marketing of any new Ayurvedic medicine only after successful completion of clinical trials to ensure its safety and efficacy, are indeed encouraging.

Just as Ayurvedic products, all Nutraceuticals, not being essential medicines, should always be kept outside price control in any form. It should happen in tandem with the Government’s taking a bold step to make the prevailing fragile regulatory space for the Nutraceuticals a robust one, creating a win-win situation for all.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Author Archives: Tapan Ray

The Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs

Arbitrary Pricing of Essential Drugs Invites State Intervention

How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?

An Evolving Paradigm of ‘Price-Value Model’ Of Pharma Value Delivery System

PE Investment In Pharma: The Changing Need Of Due Diligence

‘Indian Drug Control World’s Weakest: Pharma Trade Bodies Working At Cross Purposes’

Nutraceuticals: Make The Fragile Regulatory Space Robust, Soon