Has Prime Minister Modi Conceded Ground To America On Patents Over Patients?

Posted on October 6, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Unprecedented high profile engagement of the Indian Prime Minister with various interested groups during his recent visit to the United States under equally unprecedented media glare, has invited overwhelmingly more kudos than brickbats, from across the world.

However, in the context of upholding patients’ health interest in India, a lurking fear did creep in, immediately after his visit to the United States. This was related to whether or not demonstrably tough minded Prime Minister Modi has yielded to enormous pressure created by all powerful American drug lobby against the current Intellectual Property (IP) regime in India.

The backdrop:

This apprehension started bothering many as the Prime Minister appeared to have moved away from a much-reiterated stand of India that any IP related issue would be discussed only in a multi-lateral forum.

That India’s Patents Act is TRIP’s compliant, has been categorically endorsed by a vast majority of international and national experts, including, a key intellectual belonging to Prime Minister Modi’s ‘Think -Tank’ – Arvind Panagariya, Professor of Economics at Columbia University, USA.

Subsequent to my blog post of February 5, 2014, an article dated March 4, 2014 titled “India Must Call The US’ Bluff On Patents” penned by Panagariya stated as follows:

“Critics of the Indian patent law chastise it for flouting its international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. When confronted with these critics, my (Arvind Panagariya) response has been to advise them:

To urge the US to challenge India in the WTO dispute settlement body and test whether they are indeed right.

Nine years have elapsed since the Indian law came into force; and, while bitterly complaining about its flaws, the USTR has not dared challenge it in the WTO. Nor would it do so now. Why?

There is, at best, a minuscule chance that the USTR will win the case.

Against this, it must weigh the near certainty of losing the case and the cost associated with such a loss.

Once the Indian law officially passes muster with the WTO, the USTR and pharmaceutical lobbies will no longer be able to maintain the fiction that India violates its WTO obligations.

Even more importantly, it will open the floodgates to the adoption of the flexibility provisions of the Indian law by other countries.

Activists may begin to demand similar flexibilities even within the US laws.

On possible actions against India under the ‘Special 301’ provision of the US trade law, Professor Arvind Panagariya argues:

“Ironically, this provision itself was ruled inconsistent with the WTO rules in 1999 and the US is forbidden from taking any action under it in violation of its WTO obligations. This would mean that it couldn’t link the elimination of tariff preferences on imports from India to TRIPS violation by the latter. The withdrawal of preferences would, therefore, constitute an unprovoked unilateral action, placing India on firm footing for its retaliatory action.”

Examples of some global and local views:

On this score, a large number of business experts from all over the world have expressed their views, recently. Some examples are as follows:

The former Chairman of Microsoft India reportedly advised the new ‘Modi Regime’ as follows:

“While the new government must work hard to make India more business friendly, it must not cave in to pressure on other vital matters. For instance, on intellectual property protection, there is enormous pressure from global pharmaceutical companies for India to provide stronger patent protection and end compulsory licensing. These are difficult constraints for a country where 800 million people earn less than US$ 2 per day.”

Maruti Suzuki, India’s largest car manufacturer, aircraft maker Boeing, global pharma major Abbott and technology leader Honeywell have reportedly just not supported India’s IP regime, but have strongly voiced that IPR regime of India is “very strong” and at par with international standards.

The Chairman of the Indian pharma major – Wockhardt also echoes the above sentiment by articulating, “I think Indian government should stay firm on the Patents Act, which we have agreed.”

Other domestic pharma trade bodies and stakeholder groups in India expect similar action from the ‘Modi Government’.

Who are against Indian IP regime?

By and large, American pharma sector and their well-paid lobbyists representing drug multinationals are the strongest critics of Indian Patents Act 2005. They allege that Indian IP law discriminate against US companies and violates global norms, severely affecting their investments in India.

Recent stand of India on unilateral US measures:

Just to recapitulate, on April 30, 2014, the United States in its report on annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement, named ‘Special 301 report’, classified India as a ‘priority watch list country’.

On this report, India responded by saying that the ‘Special 301’ process is nothing but unilateral measures taken by the US under their Trade Act 1974, to create pressure on countries to increase IPR protection beyond the TRIPS agreement.

The Government of India has always maintained that its IPR regime is fully compliant with all international laws.

The Indo-US working group on IP:

The Indo-US high-level working group on IP would be constituted as part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF). The US-India TPF is the principal trade dialogue body between the countries. It has five focus groups: Agriculture, Investment, Innovation and Creativity, Services, and Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers.

The recent joint statement issued after talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Barack Obama states:

“Agreeing on the need to foster innovation in a manner that promotes economic growth and job creation, the leaders committed to establish an annual high-level Intellectual Property (IP) Working Group with appropriate decision-making and technical-level meetings as part of the TPF.”

This part of the Indo-US joint statement on IPR created almost a furore not just in India, but in other parts of the world too, interpreting that Prime Minister Modi has conceded ground to America on patents over patients.

IP experts’ expressed concerns even in the US:

Commenting on this specific move by the Obama Administration to push India on issues related to IP, even the independent American healthcare experts expressed grave concern.

Professor Brook K. Baker from the Northeastern University School of Law has reportedly said:

“This working group will give the US a dedicated forum to continue to pressure India to adopt TRIPS-plus IP measures, including repeal of Section 3(d) of the India Patents Act, adoption of data exclusivity/monopolies, patent term extensions, and restrictions on the use of compulsory licenses”.

Professor Baker further said:

“The US, in particular, will work to eliminate local working requirements that India is seeking to use to promote its own technological development…. The fact that this working group will have ‘decision-making’ powers is particularly problematic as it places the US fox in the Indian chicken coop.”

“FDI and innovation are also always rhetorically tied to strong IPRs despite inclusive evidence that typically shows that most low and middle-income countries do not benefit economically from IP maximization, since they are net importers of IP goods. It is also because the path to technological development is ordinarily through copying and incremental innovation – development tools that are severely undermined by IP monopoly rights and their related restrictive licensing agreements,” Baker elaborated.

Jamie Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International, an NGO working on knowledge governance also reportedly said:

“It is very clearly going to be used to pressure India to expand liberal grants of drug patents in India, and to block or restrain the use of compulsory licenses on drug patents.”

Has India conceded to American bullying?

On this backdrop, during Indian Prime Minister’s interaction with the President of the United States and his aids, it was reportedly decided to set up a high-level working group on IP, as a part of the TPF, to sort out contentious issues which have been hampering investments. This was interpreted by many experts that India has conceded to American bullying, as it apparently deviated from its earlier firm stand that the country would discuss IP issues only in multilateral forum such as the World Trade Organization (WTO).

No change in India’s position on patents:

Taking note of this humongous misunderstanding, on October 4, 2014, the Union Ministry of Commerce in an official clarification reiterated that during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to America:

There has been no change in India’s stated position on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

India has reaffirmed that the IPR legal regime in India is fully TRIPS-compliant.

A bilateral Innovation and Creativity Focus Group already exists in the Trade Policy Forum (TPF) since 2010. Any IP related issues have to be discussed by the United States only in the TPF. This group consults each other no less than twice a year on improving intellectual property rights protection and enforcement, enhancing awareness of intellectual property rights, fostering innovation and creativity, and increasing collaboration between American and Indian innovators.

The Indo-US joint statement issued now merely reiterates whatever has existed in the earlier Trade Policy Forum. IPR issues are critical for both the countries and India has been repeatedly raising the issue of copyright piracy and misappropriation of traditional knowledge with the US.

The US agreeing to discuss IPR issues through the bilateral mechanism of the Trade Policy forum is in fact a re-affirmation of India’s stand that issues need bilateral discussion and not unilateral action. The statement on the IPR issue will only strengthen the bilateral institutional mechanism.

Conclusion:

Most part of the above statement is indeed quite consistent to what happened even immediately before the Modi regime.

In September 2013, the Commerce Secretary and India’s Chief trade Negotiator, Rajeev Kher, while terming the decision by the US Trade Representative for not labeling India with its worst offender tag in IP as a ‘very sensible decision’, strongly defended India’s right to overrule patents in special cases to provide access to affordable innovative medicines to its 1.2 billion people.

Moreover, many recent judicial verdicts have vindicated that a strong and balanced patent regime of the country not just secures the bonafide rights of the patentee, but at the same time ensures genuine needs of the public and in case of pharma of the ailing patients.

The Indian Supreme Court judgment on Glivec of Novartis in the recent past, have re-established, beyond an iota of doubt, that to secure and enforce patents rights of genuine inventions, other than evergreening, India provides a very transparent IP framework.

Taking all these into consideration, it seems unlikely to me that Prime Minister Modi, who is a self-confessed nationalist and holds India’s interest first, would in any way compromise with the country’s TRIPS compliant patent regime, sacrificing millions of Indian patients’ health interest at the altar of American business needs.

The above official clarification by the Union Ministry of Commerce is expected to tame the fire of this raging debate to a great extent. However, the grave concern expressed in the following lines by the independent healthcare experts, such as Professor Baker, on the high-level IP working group, cannot just be wished away:

“The fact that this working group will have ‘decision-making’ powers is particularly problematic as it places the US fox in the Indian chicken coop.”

That said, from your government Mr. Prime Minister “Yeh Dil Maange Much More”.

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.

“Make in India…Sell Anywhere in The World”: An Indian Pharma Perspective

Posted on September 29, 2014 by Tapan Ray

In his Independent Day speech from the ramparts of the Red Fort on August 15, 2014, Indian Prime Minister Modi gave a clarion call to all investors of the world, “Come, make in India”, “Come, manufacture in India”, “Sell in any country of the world, but manufacture here”.

The Prime Minister did not stop there. In his inimitable style, following it through on September 25, 2014 he gave an official status to ‘Make in India’ slogan and launched a global campaign.

“My definition of FDI for the people of India is First Develop India. This is also a responsibility for the people of India,” he further clarified.

An Indian perspective:

If I juxtapose this vision of the Prime Minister in the Indian pharmaceutical industry perspective, one finds that many small, medium and large size local domestic manufacturers are currently manufacturing drugs not just for the domestic market, but are also exporting in large quantities to various countries of the world, including, North America, South America and Europe.

The United States (US) is one of the most critical markets for majority of the Indian drug exporters. This transaction was taking place without any major regulatory hitches since quite some time. Unfortunately, over the last few years, mostly the Federal Drug Administration of the US (USFDA) and the United Kingdom (UK)’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have started raising serious doubts on the quality of medicines manufactured in India, making a significant impact on the drug exports of the country.

Most of these quality issues are related to ‘Data Integrity’ in the dug manufacturing and its documentation processes.

The impact:

According to industry data, in 2013-14, Indian drug exports registered the slowest growth in nearly the last 15 years. In this fiscal year, pharma exports of the country with a turnover of US$ 14.84 billion grew at a meager 1.2 percent. Pharmexcil attributed its reason to USFDA related regulatory issues and increasing global competition.

US accounts for about 25 percent of India’s pharma exports and its Federal Drug Administration (USFDA) has been expressing, since quite a while, serious concerns on ‘Data Integrity’ at the agency’s previously approved production facilities of a large number of Indian pharma players.

The issue is causing not just a serious concern to USFDA and some other overseas drug regulatory agencies, but also posing a huge threat to future growth potential of Indian drug exports.

It is worth noting that Indian government had set an objective, in its strategy document, to register a turnover of US$ 25 billion for pharma exports in 2014-15. In all probability, it would fall far short of this target at the end of this fiscal, predominantly for related reasons.

Why is so much of ‘fuss’ on ‘Data Integrity’?

Broadly speaking, ‘Data Integrity’ in pharmaceutical manufacturing ensures that finished products meet pre-established specifications, such as, for purity, potency, stability and sterility. If data integrity is breached in any manner or in absence of credible data, the product becomes of dubious quality in the eyes of drug regulators.

Manufacturing related ‘Data Integrity’ is usually breached, when data from a database is deliberately or otherwise modified or destroyed or even cooked.

Over the last several years, ‘Data Integrity’ related issues in India are attracting enormous attention of both the USFDA and the MHRA, UK. As a result, concerned pharma manufacturing facilities are receiving Import Alerts/Warning Letters from the respective overseas drug regulators, refusing entry of those medicines mostly in the United States and some in the UK.

Recent warning letters:

Just over a year – from May 2013 to July 2014, around a dozen ‘Warning Letters’ have been sent to the Indian drug manufacturers by the USFDA on ‘Data Integrity’ related issue, as follows:

	Recent ‘Warning Letter’ issued to:	Date of issue
1.	Marck Biosciences Ltd.	08. 07. 2014
2.	Apotex Pharmachem India Pvt Ltd.	17. 06. 2014
3.	Sun Pharmaceutical Industries	07. 05. 2014
4.	Canton Laboratories Private Limited	27. 02. 2014
5.	USV Limited	06. 02. 2014
6.	Wockhardt Limited	25. 11. 2013
7.	Agila Specialties Private Limited	09. 09. 2013
8.	Posh Chemicals Private Limited	02. 08. 2013
9.	Aarti Drugs Limited	30. 07. 2013
10.	Wockhardt Limited	18. 07. 2013
11.	Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd	01. 07. 2013
12.	RPG Life Sciences Limited	28. 05. 2013

(Source: RAPS, 19 August 2014)

Another report states that USFDA has, so far, banned at least 36 manufacturing plants in India from selling products in the US.

Importance of US for Indian generic players:

Generic drugs currently contribute over 80 percent of prescriptions written in the US. Around 40 percent of prescriptions and Over The Counter (OTC) drugs that are sold there, come from India. Almost all of these are cheaper generic versions of patent expired drugs. Hence, India’s commercial stake in this area is indeed mind-boggling.

The ‘Data Integrity’ issue is not restricted to just US or UK:

A report quoting researchers led by Roger Bate, an American Enterprise Institute scholar and funded by the The Legatum Institute and the Humanities Research Council of Canada, concluded that many Indian pharma companies follow double manufacturing standards, as they are sending poor quality drugs to Africa compared to the same pills sold in other countries. This study was based on tests of 1,470 samples produced by 17 Indian drug manufacturers.

Besides India, the researchers took drug samples from pharmacies in Africa and middle-income countries, including China, Russia and Brazil.

According to this paper, the researchers found that 17.5 percent of samples of the tuberculosis therapy rifampicin sold in Africa tested substandard, which means the drug has less than 80 percent of the active ingredient than what it should otherwise. Against this number, in India, 7.8 percent of the medicine sampled was found substandard.

Moreover, Almost 9 percent of samples of the widely used antibiotic ciprofloxacin sold in Africa tested substandard, as compared to 3.3 percent in India.

Thorny issues around golden opportunities:

Much reported breach in manufacturing ‘Data Integrity’ detected at the manufacturing sites in India, are throwing fresh doubts on the efficacy and safety profile of generic/branded generic medicines, in general, produced in the country and more importantly, whether they are putting the patients’ health at risk.

A new analysis by the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research pointed out some thorny issues related to ‘Data Integrity’ of drugs produced by the Indian pharmaceutical companies, which supply around 40 percent of the generic drugs sold in the United States, as stated above.

The researchers examined nearly 1,500 India-made drug samples, collected from 22 cities and found that “up to 10 percent of some medications contained insufficient levels of the key active ingredients or concentrations so low, in fact, that they would not be effective against the diseases they’re designed to treat.”

The report also highlighted that international regulators detected more than 1,600 errors in 15 drug applications submitted by Ranbaxy. The Bureau Officials commented that these pills were “potentially unsafe and illegal to sell.”

Frequent drug recalls by Indian pharma majors:

The above findings came in tandem with a series of drug recalls made recently by the Indian pharma companies in the US.

Some of the reported recent drug recalls in America, arising out of manufacturing related issues at the facilities of two well-known Indian pharma majors, which are going to merge soon, are as follows:

Sun Pharmaceuticals recalled nearly 400,000 bottles of the decongestant cetirizine (Zyrtec) and 251,882 of the antidepressant venlafaxine (Effexor) this May, because the pills failed to dissolve properly. The drugs were distributed by the drug maker’s US subsidiary Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, but were manufactured in India.

In the same month – May, Ranbaxy recalled 30,000 packs of the allergy drugs loratadine and pseudo-ephedrine sulphate extended release tablets because of manufacturing defects in packaging.

In March, Sun Pharma recalled a batch of a generic diabetes drug bound for the US after an epilepsy drug was found in it. A patient discovered the error after noticing the wrong medication in the drug bottle.

Again in March, Ranbaxy recalled nearly 65,000 bottles of the statin drug atorvastatin calcium (Lipitor) after 20-milligram tablets were found in sealed bottles marked 10-milligrams. A pharmacist in the U.S. discovered the mix up.

Indian media reinforces the point:

Indian media (TNN) also reported that there is no quality control even for life-saving generic drugs and the government is apathetic on ensuring that the quality protocol of these drugs is properly observed.

This happens, as the report states, despite government’s efforts to push generic drugs, as they are more affordable. The report gave an example of a life-saving drug, Liposomal Amphotericin B, which is used to treat fungal infections in critically ill patients.

Are all these drugs safe enough for Indian Patients?

Though sounds awkward, it is a fact that India is a country where ‘export quality’ attracts a premium. Unintentionally though, with this attitude, we indirectly accept that Indian product quality for domestic consumption is not as good.

Unfortunately, in the recent years, increasing number of even ‘export quality’ drug manufacturing units in India are being seriously questioned, warned and banned by the overseas drug regulators, such as USFDA and MHRA, UK, just to ensure dug safety for the patients in their respective countries.

Taking all these into consideration, and noting increasing instances of blatant violations of cGMP standards and ‘Data Integrity’ requirements for ‘export quality’ drugs, one perhaps would shudder to think, what could possibly be the level of conformance to cGMP for the drugs manufactured solely for the consumption of local patients in India.

A cause of concern, as generic drugs are more cost effective to patients:

It has been widely recognized globally that the use of generic drugs significantly reduces out-of-pocket expenditure of the patients and also payers’ spending.

The findings of a study conducted by the Researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), Harvard Medical School and CVS Health has just been published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on September 15, 2014. In this study the researchers investigated whether the use of generic versus brand name statins can play a role in medication adherence and whether or not this leads to improved health outcomes. The study concluded that patients taking generic statins were more likely to adhere to their medication and also had a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular events and death.

In this study, the mean co-payment for the generic statin was US$10, as against US$48 for brand-name statins. It is generally expected that the generic drugs would be of high quality, besides being affordable.

I deliberated on a related subject in one of my earlier blog posts of November 11, 2013 titled, “USFDA” Import Bans’: The Malady Calls For Strong Bitter Pills”.

Conclusion:

According to USFDA data, from 2013 onwards, about 20 drug manufacturing facilities across India attracted ‘Import Alerts’ as against seven from China, two each from Australian, Canadian and Japanese units and one each from South African and German facilities.

Unfortunately, despite intense local and global furore on this subject, Indian drug regulators at the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), very strangely, do not seem to be much concerned on the ‘Data Integrity’ issue, at least, not just yet.

In my view, ‘Data Integrity’ issues are mostly not related to any technical or other knowledge deficiency. From the “Warning Letters” of the USFDA to respective Indian companies, it appears that these breaches are predominantly caused by falsification or doctoring of critical data. Thus, it basically boils down to a mindset issue, which possibly pans across the Indian pharma industry, irrespective of size of operations of a company.

Indian Prime Minister’s passionate appeal aimed at all investors, including from India, to “Make in India” and “Sell Anywhere in The World”, extends to pharma industry too, both local and global. The drug makers also seem to be aware of it, but the ghost keeps haunting unabated, signaling that the core mindset has remained unchanged despite periodic lip service and public utterances for corrective measures by a number of head honchos.

Any attempt to trivialize this situation, I reckon, could meet with grave consequences, jeopardizing the thriving pharma exports business of India, and in that process would betray the Prime Ministers grand vision for the country that he epitomized with, “Make in India” and “Sell Anywhere in The World”.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India

Posted on September 22, 2014 by Tapan Ray

I had mentioned in my blog post of August 4, 2014, titled “Hepatitis C: A Silent, Deadly Disease: Treatment beyond reach of Most Indians” that in line with Gilead’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company would offer to license production of sofosbuvir (brand name Sovaldi) to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing knowhow, allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.

Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) is a once-a-day patented drug of Gilead for cure of chronic hepatitis C infection in most patients. Sovaldi has been priced at Rs 60,000 (US$ 1,000) per tablet in the developed markets with a three-month course costing Rs1.8 Crore (US$ 84,000), when it reportedly costs around U$130 to manufacture a tablet. This treatment cost is being considered very high even for many Americans and Europeans.

Gilead has also announced that it has set a minimum threshold price for Sovaldi of US$ 300 (Rs.18,000) a bottle, enough for a month. With three months typically required for a full course and taking into account the currently approved combination with interferon, the total cost of Sovaldi per patient would be about US$ 900 (Rs.54,000) for a complete treatment against its usual price of US$ 84,000 (Rs1.8 Crore). The company would offer this price to at least 80 countries.

Breaking-news in India:

On September 15, 2014, International media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also reported that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Indian companies would require paying 7 per cent of their revenues as royalty to Gilead, which, in turn would ensure full technology transfer to them to produce both the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) and finished formulations. The generic version of Sovaldi is likely to be available in India in the second or third quarter of 2015, at the earliest.

Another reason of Gilead’s selecting the Indian generic manufacturers could possibly be, that of much of the global supply of generic finished formulations is manufactured in India, especially for the developing countries of the world.

Patent status, broad strategy and the possibility:

It is worth noting here that the Indian Patent Office (IPO) has not recognized Sovaldi’s (sofosbuvir) patent for the domestic market, just yet. This patent application has been opposed on the ground that it is an “old science, known compound.”

It is interesting that the Indian Pharmaceutical Association (IPA) and others, such as, Delhi Network of Positive People and Natco have reportedly opposed Sovaldi’s (sofosbuvir) patent application. If the patent for this drug does not come through, low priced generic versions of Sovaldi, without any licensing agreement with Gilead, would possibly capture the Indian market.

Conversely, due to unaffordable price of Sovaldi for most of the Hepatitis C patients, even if a patent is granted for this drug in India, the sword of Compulsory License (CL) on the ground of ‘reasonably affordable price’ looms large on this product.

To negate the possibility of any CL, in the best-case scenario of a patent grant, Gilead seems to have decided to enter into licensing agreement with seven other Indian generic manufacturers to create a sense of adequate competition in the market, as many believe.

However, if the IPO considers sofosbuvir not patentable in India, it would indeed be a double whammy for Gilead. Without any patent protection, all these in licensing agreements may also fall flat on the face, paving the way of greater access of much lesser priced generic sofosbuvir to patients, as indicated above.

The action replay:

If we flash back to the year 2006, we shall see that Gilead had followed exactly the same strategy for another of its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

1. Voluntary license:

At that time also Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead.

Gilead did sign a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

The arrangement was somewhat like this. Gilead would charge a royalty of 5 percent on the access price of US$ 200 a year for the drug. Any company that signs a manufacturing agreement with Gilead to manufacture API of tenofovir would be able to sell them only to those generic manufacturers that have voluntary license agreements with Gilead.

Interestingly, by that time Cipla had started selling one of the two versions of tenofovir, not licensed by Gilead. Cipla’s generic version was named Tenvir, available at a price of US$ 700 per person per year in India, against Gilead’s tenofovir (Viread) price of US$ 5,718 per patient per year in the developed Markets. Gilead’s target price for tenofovir in India was US$ 200 per month, as stated above.

2. Patent challenge:

Like sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), Gilead had filed a patent application for tenofovir (Viread) in India at that time. However, the ‘Indian Network for People Living with HIV/AIDs’ challenged this patent application on similar grounds.

3. Patent grant refused:

In September 2009, IPO refused the grant of patent for tenofovir to Gilead, citing specific reasons for its non-conformance to the Indian Patents Act 2005. As a result, the voluntary license agreements that Gilead had already signed with the Indian generic manufacturers were in jeopardy.

Current status:

In 2014, while planning the launch strategy of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) for India, Gilead seems to have mimicked the ‘Action Replay’ of 2006 involving tenofovir, at least, in the first two stages, as detailed above. Only the patent status of sofosbuvir from the IPO is now awaited. If IPO refuses patent grant for sofosbuvir, Gilead’s fate in India with sofosbuvir could exactly be the same as tenofovir, almost frame by frame.

Gilead and the two top players in India:

Very briefly, I would deliberate below the strategic stance taken by two top generic players in india, from 2006 to 2014, in entering into voluntary licensing agreements with Gilead for two of its big products, as I understand.

Ranbaxy:

In my view, the stand of Ranbaxy in Gilead’s India strategy of voluntary licensing in the last eight years has remained unchanged. It involves both sofosbuvir and tenofovir.Thus, there has been a clear consistency in approach on the part of Ranbaxy on this issue.

Cipla:

Conversely, an apparent shift in Cipla’s strategic position during this period has become a bone of contention to many. For tenofovir, Cipla did not sign any voluntary license agreement with Gilead. On the contrary, it came out with its own version of this product, that too much before IPO refused to grant patent for this drug.

However, unlike 2006, Cipla decided to sign a voluntary license agreement with Gilead for sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) in 2014, though no patent has yet been granted for this product in India.

Has Cipla changed its position on drug patent?

I find in various reports that this contentious issue keeps coming up every now and then today. Some die-hards have expressed disappointments. Others articulated that the new dispensation in Cipla management, has decided to take a different stance in such matter altogether.

In my view, no tectonic shift has taken place in Cipla’s position on the drug patent issue, just yet.

The owner of Cipla, the legendary Dr.Yusuf Hamied has always been saying: ‘I Am Not Against Patents … I Am Against Monopolies’

He has also reportedly been quoted saying: “About 70 per cent of the patented drugs sold worldwide are not invented by the owning companies”.

He had urged the government, instead of having to fight for CL for expensive lifesaving medicines by the generic drug makers, where voluntary licenses are not forthcoming, the government needs to pass a law giving the generic players “automatic license of rights” for such drugs, making these medicines affordable and thereby improving access to patients. In return, the local generic manufacturers would pay 4 percent royalty on net sales to patent holders. He was also very candid in articulating, if Big Pharma would come into the developing markets, like India, with reasonable prices, Cipla would not come out against it.

According to Dr. Hamied, “When you are in healthcare, you are saving lives. You have to have a humanitarian approach. You have to take into account what it costs to make and what people can pay.”

Considering all these, I reckon, the core value of Cipla and its stand on patents have not changed much, if at all, for the following reasons:

The voluntary license agreement of Cipla with Gilead for sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) along with six other generic manufacturers of India, unlike tenofovir, still vindicates its strong opposition to drug monopoly, respecting product patents.

Cipla along with manufacturing of sofosbuvir, maintains its right to market the product at a price that it considers affordable for the patients in India.

Conclusion:

Indian Patents Act 2005 has the requisite teeth to tame the most aggressive and ruthless players in drug pricing even for the most feared diseases of the world, such as, HIV/AIDS, cancer, Hepatitis C and others.

Many global drug companies, resourceful international pharma lobby groups and governments in the developed world are opposing this commendable Act, tooth and nail, generating enormous international political pressure and even chasing it in the highest court of law in India, but in vain. Glivec case is just one example.

Some pharma majors of the world seem to be attempting to overcome this Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest in India. Their strategy includes not just voluntary licenses, but also not so transparent, though well hyped, ‘Patient Access Programs’ and the so called ‘flexible pricing’, mostly when the concerned companies are able to sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act 2005.

It has happened once with even Gilead in 2006. The drug was tenofovir. Following the same old strategy of voluntary licenses and relatively lower pricing, especially when its drug patent is pending with IPO post patent challenges, Gilead intends to launch Sovaldi in India now.

Carrying the baggage of its past in India, Gilead seems to have been caught between a rock and the hard place with sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) launch in the country. On the one hand, the risk of uncertain outcome of its patent application and on the other, the risk of CL for exorbitant high price of the drug, if the patent is granted by the IPO. Probably considering all these, the company decided to repeat its 2006 tenofovir strategy of voluntary licenses, yet again in 2014, for Sovaldi in India.

As of today, Sovaldi strategy of Gilead in India appears to be progressing in the same direction as tenofovir, the way I see it. However, the final decision of IPO on the grant of its patent holds the key to future success of similar high-voltage, seemingly benign, marketing warfare of pharma majors of the world.

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.

Ringside View Of A Key Pharma Job Missing ‘The X Factor’

Posted on September 15, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Just the other day, a well known doctor and a long-time friend of mine invited me for a friendly chat over lunch, after a long while. I had no option really but to accept the invite, as the warmth of his voice was overflowing.

Though the eatery, based on the ambiance and the quality of food we like, was mutually decided in his previous call, I called him again to ask whether on the pre-fixed date, about an hour earlier to the scheduled time, I can meet him first in his clinic and from there we can go together for lunch.

With a slight pause, he said, ‘No problem…but I won’t be able to talk to you there much, as I need to see all those patients with pre-scheduled appointments.”

“That’s no issue. We’ll have enough time to chat while eating. But, would you see any Medical Representatives (MRs) during that time?” I asked.

“Though my hectic schedule and other commitments don’t allow me to meet with them as much as I used to earlier… yes, still I do meet with a few of them only two days in a week,” he took a pause, possibly to refer to his calendar and said, “Tomorrow being one those day…yes… I will… but why are you asking that?”

“I would like to just observe the MRs, while they discuss their products with you”, I literally warmed up while replying to him

“But Tapan, I don’t talk much in these meetings”, he replied somewhat apprehensively.

“Don’t worry, I shall just sit there, incognito, taking a mental note of what’s happening around, nothing more, nothing less,” I closed the call, as he did not ask any further question.

The ‘D-Day’:

On the ‘D-Day’, I entered for the first time into his well equipped and squeaky-clean clinic and saw his secretary sitting outside his office. She buzzed him immediately, as I introduced myself to her. To my utter surprise, my doctor friend came out promptly, despite his jam-packed schedule. Greeting me with his both hands and usual warmth and laughter, he took me inside, as the waiting patients were probably wondering, who is this gate-crasher? Offering a chair to me, the doctor friend smiled and said, “I couldn’t make time to meet any MR today since morning, though have kept a couple of them waiting for you to arrive, as you had desired.”

“That was not really necessary,” I quipped, “but thanks so much, nonetheless.”

The ringside view:

In a little over an hour’s time, I observed with great interest four MRs interacting with their, quite expectedly, one of the very potential customers.

Three of them were about thirtyish or below and one middle aged gentleman. Two of them came with their respective superiors. Three were quite traditional in approach. One was armed with an iPad.

I got an overall impression that the MRs were more in a hurry to conclude the call as compared to my doctor friend. Most of the interactions were more of reminder types than full detailing of any product, though all four of them had some very specialized products. I was under the impression that, at least, in presence of the supervisors, in-clinic proceedings take place with far more detail.

My doctor friend seem to be rather impatient and not quite enthused with the ongoing proceedings, but I was curious, very curious, especially when the young MR took out his iPad. I expected to see something novel on the innovative application of technology in medical communication. Probably for that reason, I was disappointed, when the young man handled the gizmo rather clumsily and used it merely to highlight some recent references on his specialized product stored in the archive.

Young looking accompanying managers of the two MRs did not appear to be live-wires, either. The participation of one of them was restricted to just handing over some medicine samples to the doctor, which the MR was passing on to him from his bag and the other just requested for prescription support for a product, as he was getting up from his chair.

While I was engrossed in the ringside view and my related thoughts, my doctor friend seemingly woke up wearing a smile, as a middle-aged confidant looking MR entered into the room. That gentleman came alone. He started his interaction recalling some events related to a trip abroad, which his boss had briefed him and conveyed to my friend how positive was the audience feedback after his speech. Informing that after the event his company has analyzed the key questions raised on the concerned product, he sought permission of the doctor to discuss top three of those questions very briefly, and he did. The doctor shifted his position in the chair several times rather awkwardly; probably because he was being so frequently referred to by the MR with lavish eulogy and that too in my presence. Though the content of the MR’s talk was not anything earthshaking, the environment that he created putting my friend on the pedestal, albeit with plain flattery, appeared to be working. He used no detailing aids, neither did he give any gift, but applied just impromptu traditional salesmanship.

This was the last MR call for us. My friend looked at me and asked, “Liked?” looking at each other both of us laughed loudly. I then stopped to ask him, “Do you prescribe the products they thanked you for prescribing?”

I am not very sure about others, but the gentleman who came last? … Yes, I do prescribe at least two of his products,” my friend replied with a disarming smile as he was standing up, looking at his watch.

He then put his hand on my shoulder and with a mild squeeze said, “Let’s step out now, rest we shall catch up on the run.”

A quick analysis:

According to my assessment, barring the last MR, none of the other three calls appeared to have interested my friend in any way, as he kept referring to his calendar, diary and other things very often, while those MRs were talking.

No wonder, my friend could not even remember prescribing any of their products. This probably means, at least three out of the four calls, made by MRs of very well reputed companies, did not leave much impact, if at all. Interestingly, two out of the four calls were from the MNCs.

Is the professional standard of MRs declining in India?

As we know, pharma industry in India is highly fragmented, with over 10,000 companies in the organized sectors and around 60,000 brands. In an environment of cutthroat competition like this, pharma players are exploring all possible means to carve out for themselves a decent share of the respective product categories, incurring average sales and marketing expenditure of around 20 to 22 percent of the total sales.

Like many other countries of the world, in India too, MRs are the most important link between the medical profession and the pharma companies. Thus, the cost of MRs takes quite a significant chunk of total sales and marketing budget of the pharma companies. There remains a huge scope for improvement though, in the realm of per MR productivity, which varies widely between the companies. For example, according to a recent report, a Sun Pharma MR on an average generated around Rs 90 lakh of business in the full year ended on March 31 2014, as compared to Rs 55 lakh of Ranbaxy, during the same period.

According to a survey conducted among both specialists and General Practitioners (GP), published in Express Pharma some years ago, out of total 30 doctors interviewed, 23 reported that quality of medical representatives visiting them has deteriorated. Only three doctors reported that the quality has not really changed, while four reported quality has improved. It was claimed by the authors that this survey result is statistically significant both on ‘t test and z test’.

The study concluded that pharma companies are responsible for this decline, as majority of them are focusing just on the end results without bothering much about the means to the end. This indicates, disproportionately more weightage is being given on the total quantum of sales rather than its quality, during performance measurement.

My above personal experience on the subject, though very short, is not much different from the above survey results, either.

The tradition continues over decades:

It appeared to me, besides new application of state-of-art technology to modernize the communication process, to ensure rapid access to all related information and to improve efficiency of tech based command and control sales & marketing management systems; basically nothing noteworthy has changed, just yet.

Interestingly, many readily available third party training programs for the MRs in the peripheral areas are springing up in large numbers with fancy claims, leaving one of the most critical issues virtually unaddressed.

I shall try to deliberate on that area now, as I see it.

‘The X Factor’:

In my view, just as the doctors are well recognized professional experts in medical care for treating patients based on evidence based science, MRs are also, supposedly, experts and a valuable source of knowledge for the medicines that their respective companies deal with, but unfortunately not regarded that way in India, generally. This is predominantly because, the doctors have accreditation for their profession that is absolutely a pre-requisite for their medical care business. Whereas, MRs do not have any such accreditation, which could formally recognize them as professionals in the knowledge-based drug/medicine business and related areas. Thus, there is somewhere a basic disconnect between the professions of the doctors and the MRs.

‘The X Factor’, in my view, is the process that facilitates requisite professional connects between the doctors and MRs, cemented by mutual professional respect, sans any kind of vested interests or needs of allurements, generally speaking.

Only with ‘The X Factor’ induced professional connects, I reckon, MRs could establish themselves as high quality source of knowledge for the drugs and disease areas that they deal with, of course, backed by regular training to hone their knowledge and skills.

This ‘X Factor’ could well be embedded into the organizational sales/marketing systems by putting in place a formal process to recognize medical representation as a respected profession.

The process of accreditation:

A structured process for Accreditation of MRs, most desirably, by involving the Government, can help achieving this goal sooner. If the Government participation is not possible for various reasons, the accreditation to MRs should come from some highly credible source, as would be accepted by the medical profession.

The process of Accreditation of MRs involves, in brief, documentation of the candidate’s basic pharma related knowledge, comprehension ability and domain specific skill sets, together with the ability of successful application of all those, while interacting with the medical profession to achieve the business goals.

The key task in the process of Accreditation is to develop modern technology based self-learning programs for the MRs that would provide basic knowledge of anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology together with a range of common treatments. Overall knowledge of communication and selling skills would also form an integral part of this process.

The Accreditation would ensure that the MR aspirants attain reasonable high standards for the profession that they are aspiring for. Later on, the pharmaceutical companies, who would hire them, could mold and sharpen their knowledge and skills according to company specific requirements.

Accreditation of MRs would, therefore, be a formal way to ensure that requisite high standards of the MR profession are met. Consequently, while meeting accredited MRs, the doctors would also know that they are meeting well trained and groomed, competent and credible disease area specific drug consultants. This, in turn, would help establishing requisite professional connects between the two professions based on a bond of mutual trust and respect, resulting in a win-win outcome for both.

How would the doctors recognize accredited MRs?

On successful completion of the examination for Accreditation, the individual would earn the privilege of being called an ‘Accredited Medical Representative (AMR)’, and acquire the right to put ‘AMR’ symbol next to his or her name in the business card and to wear a nice looking ‘AMR Pin’, while meeting the doctors.

Nothing much visible in this direction:

That said, not much has been effectively done, as yet, either to arrest the declining image of the MRs in the eyes of the medical profession or to make the MR profession a respectable one, except giving some extrinsic fancy job titles to them, devoid of any intrinsic value.

I am aware of some highly credible organizations, which are capable enough to give a formal shape to ‘MR Accreditation Program’ in India.

Thus the following key question arises in search of ‘The X-Factor’:

Should MRs need to have Accreditation from a credible and recognized authority in India, formally recognizing them as ‘Drugs/Medicine professionals’ and adding significant value and greater respect to the profession that they belong to?

In an earlier blog post titled “A National Regulatory Standard is necessary for MRs of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry”, I had flagged this issue, though on a different perspective

Epilogue:

Now I get back to where I started from, in this article:

In about an hour, we were done with the lunch. However, while my doctor friend and I were eating, in track two of my brain, all those that I mentioned above were flashing by, though not in an orderly manner.

While we were in the portico of the hotel requesting the doorman to page our drivers, I thanked my doctor friend for buying me a sumptuous lunch and casually commented, “You remember the last MR?… He seems to have been really flabbergasted by your awesome speech in their conference abroad. My compliments! You have always been an excellent speaker!”

“Well…”, he quipped somewhat embarrassingly.

“Why have you reduced the frequency of meeting with the MRs?” I was curious, as those calls were a great learning experience for me, after a long while.

“Time…that’s a great constraint for me. Moreover, these meetings are like going through just motions”, he replied, while looking for his car.

Our cars arrived.

Before, I got into my car, I turned back to ask again, “Did you enjoy your foreign sojourn as a speaker for that pharma company?”

By that time the doctor friend was already in his car. Before closing the door, he looked at me again, widely smiled…somewhat naughtily, lunged forward, lowered his voice and haltingly replied, “Well…You know that…Bye for now.”

By: Tapan J. Ray

Does Patent Expiry Matter Less For Difficult To Copy Drugs?

Posted on September 8, 2014 by Tapan Ray

“Patent expiry matters much less for difficult to copy drugs”.

Not so long ago, this is what many used to believe in the pharma industry. However, looking at the current trend involving the tech savvy generic players, it appears, gone are those days even for the home grown companies in India. As we witness today, a number of global generic players, including some from India, are overcoming the tough challenge of technological barrier of the original drugs with technology, boldly and squarely, and that too with reasonably good speed.

A global CEO felt quite the same:

Possibly encouraged by this commercial dogma, the Chief Executive of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Sir Andrew Witty reportedly felt in not too distant past that his company’s blockbuster drug Advair/Seretide, used for the treatment of asthma, would continue to remain a major product, despite losing US patent in end 2010. Witty thought so considering the intricate technology involved in making its high tech inhalation drug delivery system with exacting precision.

Technology based entry barrier:

Although, Advair/Seretide is a respiratory inhalation drug, it is not quite like a typical aerosol inhaler consisting of a pressurized canister filled with liquid medicine formulation. In such system, as the canister is compressed, the liquid inside comes out as a spray that is breathable in an amount as required for desirable clinical efficacy for the patients.

With the application of complex technology, Advair/Seretide was formulated not as a liquid, but as pre-determined fixed dose combination of powders that patients inhale into their respiratory tracts with a device called ‘Diskus’, which involves a complex and difficult to copy inhaler technology with a long patent life.

This precision technology was expected to create the requisite entry barrier for generic equivalents of this important medicine.

“Diskus” patent to continue:

It is important to note, though Advair/Seretide had gone off patent in end 2010, the patent protection for the “Diskus” device that dispenses the powder version of the fixed dose drugs combination, continues till 2016. For the inhaler device that dispenses the aerosol version of the same drugs, the patent remains valid until 2025.

New USFDA guidance:

Keeping these factors in mind, the USFDA in its latest guidance has clearly enunciated the characteristics that an inhaler should have, including a similar size and shape to Diskus. This new USFDA guidance for inhaled drugs, like Advair/Seretide, now requires only “relatively basic” preclinical tests and a short clinical trial.

Many believe that this new guidance is mainly to ensure that other generic devices also qualify for the GSK’s asthma drug combo, after its patent expiry.

Nevertheless a challenging task:

Despite this new USFDA guidance for inhaled drugs, some large generic manufacturers apprehended, even way back in 2010, that they doubt whether it will be possible for them to adequately replicate Advair/Seretide to meet the stringent “substitution” requirements of the USFDA on generics. This is exactly what Witty had envisaged earlier.

Almost two years after its patent expiry, in October 2012, the world’s largest generic drug maker Teva also announced that the company does not expect to see true substitutes for Advair/Seretide before 2018.

No immediate sales impact post-patent expiry:

As a result, in 2012, even a couple of years after its patent expiry, Advair/Seretide could successfully weather the impending storm, though GSK reported a lackluster overall business performance. The brand at that time was virtually immune to substitution threats from generic equivalents. The key reason being, as stated above, much unlike a patented chemical drug substance, the ‘Diskus’ system of the GSK inhaler is a hell of a task to copy by meeting the regulatory requirements of substitution.

In 2013, close to three years after its patent expiry, Advair/Seretide ranked fourth within the top 10 global best-selling drugs of that year, clocking annual revenue of US $8.25 billion.

The first competition:

In the midst of all these, the first generic equivalent of Advair/Serevent with a new inhalation device, carrying a name AirFluSal Forspiro from the Sandoz unit of Novartis, started warming up to obtain regulatory approval from several countries within the European Union (EU).

The product was first approved in Denmark on December, 2013 with subsequent marketing authorizations received in Germany, Sweden, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Norway.

The heat started being felt now:

The overall position of the brand started changing thereafter. According to published reports, sales trend of Advair/Seretide in Europe and other markets are on the decline in 2014. In Europe, the drop was around 3 percent and in the US around 19 percent in the last quarter, due to a combined impact of many factors.

According to Bloomberg, the sales of Advair/Seretide are expected to drop from US$8.25 billion in 2013 to US$5.9 billion in 2016 with the entry of generics.

A large and growing market to invest into:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), in every 10 seconds, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) that includes conditions such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema kills one person globally. It is expected to be the third leading cause of death worldwide by 2030. However, though more number of people suffers from asthma globally, its mortality rate is still much less, WHO says.

Bloomberg estimates that COPD market, including asthma, is expected to reach over US$30 billion by 2018.

Cipla came next crossing the ‘technology hurdle’:

Though the leader in the global generic market – Teva, expressed its inability to introduce the generic version of Advair/Seretide before 2018, this month, the Indian pharma major Cipla introduced its version of the product in two European countries, just next to Novartis. Consequently, Cipla demonstrated its ability to overcome the technological hurdle of the product faster than most others and mastering the intricate NDDS technology in record time, with precision.

The Cipla product is named as ‘Serroflo’ in Germany and ‘Salmeterol/Fluticasone Cipla’ in Sweden. As reported in the media quoting Cipla Chairman Dr. Yusuf Hamied, the product has also been launched in Croatia. By now, Cipla has obtained regulatory approvals of this product in 10 countries in total, with an approval pending in the GSK’s own domestic turf, the United Kingdom (UK). Other country-wise launches in Europe would probably take place much before the end of 2014, according to Dr. Hamied.

The product is expected to be launched in the US in the next three to four year’s time, though one media report mentioned about its 2015 launch in that market. Dr. Hamied also said that his company is now planning its first-ever manufacturing plant in America, which might focus on producing HIV medicines.

On a conservative estimate, the market analysts expect Cipla to generate around US$50 million in sales from the EU markets by 2016 and around US$110 million by 2018, as the company gains increasing market access with not more than 4-5 generic competitors competing in this segment.

Be that as it may, getting regulatory approval for launch of a generic version of Advair/Seretide in the regulated markets, by itself, is a huge achievement of technological prowess that Cipla has demonstrated, yet again.

Not too many generic competition expected:

Because of high quality technological requirements to develop a replaceable generic version of the GSK product, not too much competition is expected in this segment.

Thus far, another global generic drug major Mylan is expected to file for a generic version of Advair/Seretide in the US by the third quarter of 2015 for a 2016 launch. Besides Cipla and Novartis, Mylan, Teva and Actavis are expected come out with the generic version of this drug.

Opportunities in ‘difficult to copy’ drugs:

According to a recent ‘RnR Market Research Report’, over 1,400 drugs with New Drug Delivery System (NDDS) have since been approved globally. This includes inhalation devices too.

The oral drugs contribute the largest share of the overall NDDS market with over 52 percent of the total pie. This segment is expected to attain a turnover of over US$90 billion by 2016 at a CAGR of 11 percent. The injectable new drug delivery market is expected to reach a turnover of over US $29billion by 2015, according to this report.

I have deliberated this subject in one of my earlier blog posts titled. “Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain”.

Another high tech area – biosimilar drugs:

As the high priced biologic drugs of the innovator companies go off patent, large molecule biosimilar drugs, involving high technology, would emerge as another lucrative growth opportunity for the generic players having requisite wherewithal.

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies. Some of the Indian companies that have already entered into the biosimilar segment are Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Lupin, Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Glenmark, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute, Hetero, Intas and Reliance Life Sciences, besides others.

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

Overall improvement in the quality of ANDA filings:

In the last few years, overall quality of ANDA filings of the domestic Indian pharma players has also improved significantly. Their regulatory filing schedules now include many complex molecules, injectibles, oral contraceptives, ophthalmic preparations, inhalers/other drug delivery systems and biosimilars, beside Para IV/FTFs. All these are now contributing a growing share in their new product initiatives for the regulated markets.

Conclusion:

In the largest pharma market of the world – the United States, global generic companies are increasingly facing cutthroat price competition with steep price erosion, registering mixed figures of business performance and growth.

However, a new trend is fast emerging. Even when global innovator companies are including increasing number of difficult to copy medicines in their product portfolio, some pharma players are reaping a rich harvest by moving up the value chain with the generic versions of those products, post patent expiry. These copycats offer much higher margin than non-differentiated generics.

Some Indian generic companies too have started focusing on building value added, difficult to manufacture, and technology intensive generic product portfolios in various therapy areas. DRL is reportedly all set to take its complex generic drug Fondaparinux sodium injection to Canada and two other emerging markets.

Those Indian pharma companies, which would be able to develop a robust product portfolio of complex generics and other differentiated formulations for the global market, would now be much better placed in positioning themselves significantly ahead of the rest, both in terms of top and the bottom line performance.

The myth, as epitomized in the good old saying, “Patent expiry matters less for difficult to copy drugs”, seems to be partly true in delaying entry of generics immediately after the end of the monopoly period, at least, for now. However, I reckon, this gap of delay would eventually get much reduced, if not eliminated altogether, as we move on. Armed with cutting edge technology Cipla has almost busted the myth, as it came close second to Novartis with the launch of a complex generic equivalent of Advair/Seretide in the EU and other markets.

Pharma majors of the country, such as, DRL, Cipla, Lupin and Biocon, to name a few, are taking great strides, setting examples for many others to emulate and excel in this area. The groundswell has already begun for a long haul global journey of the Indian pharma into the El Dorado of high tech generics fetching higher rewards.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma And Healthcare: Mounting ‘Trust Deficit’ In Post Halcyon Days

Posted on September 1, 2014 by Tapan Ray

Although a radical transformation in the field of medicine and path breaking advances of medical sciences are in progress, the healthcare system as whole, including the pharma industry, as voiced by many, is fast losing its human touch and values. This is mainly because a large number of patients feel that they are being financially exploited in the entire medical treatment chain, as their ailments become primary means of making money…more money by many others .

A new and interesting book, authored by a practicing cardiologist, titled “Doctored: The Disillusionment of an American Physician”, which has just been released in August 2014, also unfolds with self-example a dysfunctional healthcare system and stark realities of practicing medicine even in the ‘Mecca’ of medicine – the United states.

The author eloquently highlights the malaise and cronyism affecting a sizeable number within the medical profession, being hand in gloves with a large constituents of the pharma industry. Medical practice seems to have now become just as any other ‘make-money’ endeavor; not quite different from what the pharma business has metamorphosed into, over a period of time.

A heartless game played by shrewd minds:

In a situation like this, a heartless game is being played by shrewd business savvy minds, at the cost of patients, making healthcare frightfully expensive to many.

As the above new book narrates, many pharmaceutical companies are coming to the fore to exploit the situation for commercial gain. In the book the author confesses, to make extra cash, he too accepts speaking fees from a pharmaceutical company that makes a cardiac drug he prescribes. He candidly admits enjoying the paid speeches on that specific pharma company’s drugs to influence other doctors, usually arranged at exotic places over fancy dinners. The author does not fail in his part to admit that the drug he touts on behalf of the pharma company turns out to be no better than other cheaper alternatives.

In this beautifully written memoir, the author Dr. Sundeep Jauhar tries to bring to light many complex problems of the healthcare system and alleged involvement of global pharma companies to drive the medical treatment costs up at a galloping pace. All these are being driven by various malpractices in pursuit of making quick bucks.

There are some compelling health policy, public spending on health and infrastructure related issues too, specifically for India, which are not the subject of my today’s discussion.

In this article, I shall neither dwell on the above book any further, but briefly deliberate on how all these, much too often repeated instances, are giving rise to mounting ‘Trust Deficit’ of the stakeholders, involving both the pharma industry and the medical profession at large and yet, quite intriguingly, they seem to remain unbothered.

The Halcyon days and after:

When we take a glimpse into the recent history of pharma and healthcare industry, it would be quite possible to convince ourselves that the overall situation, focus and mindset of the drug industry honchos and members of the medical profession were quite different, even a few decades ago. Those were the ‘Halcyon Days’.

At that time, pharmaceutical industry used to be one of the most admired industries of the world and people used to place the doctors almost in the pedestal of God.

Unlike today, when the drugs meant for the treatment of even widely prevalent dreaded diseases, such as, Cancer, Hepatitis C and HIV are not spared from maximum stretch pricing, the grand vision of the Global Chief Executives, in general, used to extend much beyond of just making profits. So were the doctors christened by the Hippocratic Oath. Yes, I repeat, those were the ‘Halcyon Days’.

Just to cite an example, in 1952, George Wilhelm Herman Emanuel Merck, the then President of Merck & Co was quoted on the front cover of the ‘Time Magazine’, epitomizing his following vision for the company:

“Medicine is for people, not for the profits”.

Having articulated this vision with so much of passion and clarity, Merck did not just walk the talk, in tandem, he steered an up swing in the company’s valuation over 50 times, proving beyond an iota of doubt that it is possible to give shape to his vision, if there is a will.

Today, in post ‘Halcyon Days’, for many of those who follow the history and development of the knowledge driven pharma and healthcare industry, this grand vision is no more than a sweet memory. Though the bedrock of pharma industry is innovation, is it inclusive? Is it benefitting the majority of the global population? No one believes now that “Medicine is for people, not for the profits”.

Thus, it was no surprise to many, when in 2012 while vocalizing its anguish on specific pharma mega malpractices ‘The Guardian’ came out with a lashing headline that reads as follows:

‘Pharma Overtakes Arms Industry To Top The League Of Misbehavior.’

Ignoring the reality:

Many people believe that all these are happening, as the global pharma industry refuses to come out of its nearly absurd arrogance created by spectacular business successes, over a very long period of time, with a large number of blockbuster drugs and the massive wealth thus created.

It appears, the pharma industry, by and large, cannot fathom just yet that its business model of 1950 to perhaps 1990, has lost much of relevance at the turn of the new millennium with changing aspirations and values of people, governments and the civil society at large.

Key reasons of distrust:

If we make a list from the global and local reports, the following are some of the key examples:

Media reports on pharmaceutical companies directly paying to doctors for writing prescriptions of high priced drugs to patients.

A growing belief that the pharma industry spends disproportionately more on sales & marketing than on R&D, which eventually increases the drug prices.

Unabated reports in the media of various pharma malpractices from across the world, including hefty fines amounting to billions of dollars, paid by many global pharma players.

A widespread belief that for commercial gain, the industry often hides negative clinical trial results, which go against patients’ health interest.

A recent survey:

According to a recent ‘Healthcheck Survey’ of the drug business by ‘Eye for Pharma’:

42 percent of the respondents indicated that image of pharma is not getting any better among average people.

More than one-third said they are not sure or remained neutral on the subject.

19 percent within the group are optimistic about improving image of pharma.

Though, it was reported that almost half of the respondents believe the industry knows what to do to gain standing and only 24 percent think pharma is clueless about how to regain its reputation, the commentators on the survey results are skeptical that companies are willing to do what it takes. This is predominantly because the pharma players do not know what would be the immediate financial impact, if the corrective measures were taken.

2014 developments in India:

In August 2014, a premier television news channel of India – NDTV exposed some blatant violations of medical guidelines involving both the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies in the country. The crew of NDTV carried out a sting operation (video), pretending to be medical representatives of a Delhi based new pharma company. The video clipping showed three doctors resorting to malpractices for which the pharma companies pay them heavily, though illegally.

This particular sting operation by NDTV could arrest the attention of the new Union Minister of Health Dr. Harsh Vardhan, whose reaction on tweeter was:

“One more sting operation on doctors exposing greed and readiness to shed professional ethics. I again appeal to brother doctors – show spine!”

Based on this public expose, the Medical Council of India (MCI), which is supposed to serve as the watchdog for doctors and overall medical practices, was compelled to conduct an enquiry on professional misconduct against those three doctors through its Ethics Committee. MCI has the power to cancel licenses of the erring medical practitioners.

Soon thereafter, one of the three Delhi doctors, who were caught on camera taking bribes in exchange of prescribing drugs, was reportedly arrested and the other two doctors were summoned by MCI for further investigation.

Just before this incident an article published in the well-reputed British Medical Journal (BMJ) on 08 May 2014 highlighted, “Corruption ruins the doctor-patient relationship in India”. The author David Berger wrote, “Kickbacks and bribes oil every part of the country’s healthcare machinery and if India’s authorities cannot make improvements, international agencies should act.”

I deliberated a part of this issue in one of my earlier blog posts titled “Kickbacks And Bribes Oil Every Part of India’s Healthcare Machinery”.

Interestingly, a couple of months earlier to this BMJ report, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) issued notices for various illegal practices in the pharma industry. These notices were served, among others, to pharma industry associations, chemists associations, including individual chemists & druggists, stockists, wholesalers and even to some local and global pharma majors.

In February 2014, the CCI reportedly issued a warning of severe penalties and prosecution to various bodies in the pharmaceutical industry indulging in anti-competitive practices even after giving undertakings of stopping the illegal practices, for which they were summoned for deposition before the commission earlier.

The CCI has now called upon the public through a public notice to approach it for curbing the malpractices that amount to anti-competitive in nature, adversely impacting interests of the consumer.

I reckon, all these actions are fine, but the bottom-line is, pharma and healthcare malpractices still continue unabated at the cost of patients, despite all these. Unable to garner adequate resources to pay for the high cost of treatment, which is fuelled by virtually out of control systemic malfunctioning, the families of a large number of patients are reportedly embracing abject poverty each year.

Pharma and healthcare continue to remain unbothered:

It is also not surprising that despite global uproar and all these socio-commercial issues, including pressure on drug prices, pharma and healthcare continue to march on the growth path, without any dent in their business performance particularly on this count.

Just to give an example, Moody Investor Services have highlighted just last week that India’s pharmaceutical market is set to experience continuing double-digit growth, faster than most other markets of the industry.

Lack of significant financial impact on the overall business performance on account of the alleged misconducts, barring USFDA imports bans, further reduces the possibility of a sense urgency for a speedy image makeover of the industry by doing the right things, in an organized manner.

The reason behind this inertia is also understandable, as expenditure on healthcare is not discretionary for the patients. To save lives of the near and dear ones, almost everybody, irrespective of financial status, try to garner resources to the maximum possible, whatever it costs.

Urgent remedial measures necessary:

Effective remedial measures to allay public distrust in all the above areas, in tandem with working out well-networked and inclusive innovation models, I reckon, would prove to be more meaningful today. This would facilitate not just in increasing the market access, but also for cost-effective innovation of new products leveraging the complex science of evolving biology. Let me reiterate, all these should be woven around the center piece of patients’ interest, without an exception.

I hasten to add here that some green shoots in this area have already started becoming visible, as some global industry constituents, though small in number, are articulating their new vision and the uncharted path that they intend to follow. Keeping a tab on the speed of spread of these green shoots would be important.

It is really a matter of conjecture now, whether the visible green shoots, as seen today would perish or not over a period of time. Nonetheless, that possibility is always there, if the concerned companies decide afresh that the efforts required for a long haul are not sustainable due to intense short-term performance pressure. Hence, it is not worth the financial risk taking.

In that scenario, they would continue with their existing business model of achieving the financial goals by selling the high priced medicines to the privileged few of the rich countries and to affluent people living in the other parts of the world, depriving millions of patients who desperately need those drugs, but are unable to afford.

Conclusion:

Alleged malpractices in pharma and healthcare business operations, might not have hit any of the constituents really hard in financial terms just yet. However, the humongous ‘Trust Deficit’ of stakeholders, including the government, is gradually compelling them to face tougher resistance in operating the key business levers. Such resistance is increasingly coming in drug pricing, clinical trial requirements and related disclosure, marketing practices and even in the arena of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

On the part of the government, it is important to realize that self-regulations of various business and marketing practices have miserably failed in India for the pharmaceutical industry, just as it has failed in many other parts of the world, self-serving hypes often created by the global pharma associations in this regard notwithstanding. Besides the China saga and other reported scandals, billions of dollars of fines levied to the global pharma players, since last so many years, for a large number of malpractices would vindicate this point. It is worth noting that even these hefty fines are pittance, as compared to mind-boggling profits that these companies make on patented drugs with the adopted means. Hence, many of them would possibly feel that this risk is worth taking. Similarly, lackadaisical implementation of MCI guidelines for the medical profession brings shame to the country, as evidenced by the article in the BMJ.

As self-regulation by the industry has proved to be nothing more than an utopia, it is about time for the new government to come out with strict, yet transparent and fair regulation, ensuring its effective implementation, to kill all these malpractices, once and for all, writing an apt epitaph to draw the final curtain to this chronicle.

That said, conscious efforts towards a mindset-changing approach for inclusive progress and growth by majority of pharma players and a sizeable number within the medical profession, would surely help reducing the ‘Trust Deficit’ of the stakeholders.

This much desirable transformation, if materializes, would enable both the pharma and healthcare industry to retrieve, at least, a part of the past glory. The constituents of the industry undoubtedly deserve it, just for the very nature of business they are engaged in.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns

Posted on August 25, 2014 by Tapan Ray

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

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

Innovating hurdles to negate the impact:

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

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

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

Intense lobbying to push the envelope:

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

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

Mounting protests against industry move:

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

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

Global pharma investors also raising voices in support of biosimilars:

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

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

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

Among other points, the letter reiterates:

Though the important role of biologics in treating cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, anemia, multiple sclerosis and many other conditions is well recognized, the costs of these medicines are on an unsustainable trajectory, with some biologics costing as much 22 times more than other drugs. This critical issue seriously impedes patients’ access to biologics, as well as, acceptance by providers and insurance companies.

Biosimilars hold the promise of lowering costs of treating conditions for which biologics are indicated. At the same time, the recent adoption of a regulatory pathway to approval of biosimilars in the US market and the continued growth of biosimilars in the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia and South Korea, pose a formidable business challenge for the companies that market patented biologic medicines.

Financial experts project that biosimilars too have the potential for significant market penetration and attractive returns on investments.

Assigning different INN would communicate to providers that the biosimilar is less effective, prompting them not to prescribe this class of medicines and making it difficult for the pharmacists to dispense too. Besides, different names could lead to prescribing errors.

In short, the boards of directors of the pharma and biotech majors were urged by these investors to use the following principles to guide their decision-making related to biosimilars:

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

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

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

The WHO proposal:

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

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

Biosimilars go through stringent regulatory review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The market potential of biosimilars:

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

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

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

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

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

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

India:

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

Current global usage of biosimilars:

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

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

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

Source: Pharmaceutical Product Development

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray

Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments

Posted on August 18, 2014 by Tapan Ray

The costs of most of the new life saving drugs, used in the treatment of dreaded diseases such as cancer, have now started going north at a brisk pace, more than ever before.

From the global pharma industry perspective, the standard answer to this disturbing phenomenon has remained unchanged over a period of time. It continues to argue; with the same old emphasis and much challenged details that the high drug price is due to rapidly escalating R&D expenses.

However, experts have reasons to believe that irrespective of R&D costs, the companies stretch the new drug prices to the farthest edge to maximize profits. Generation of highest possible revenue for the product is the goal. Passing on the benefits of the new drug to a large number of patients does not matter, at all.

How credible is the industry argument?

In this context, let me take the example of Hepatitis C drug – Sovaldi of Gilead. Many now know that for each patient Sovaldi costs US$ 30,000 a month and US$ 84,000 for a treatment course.

According to an article published in Forbes, one health executive estimated that the annual price tag for Sovaldi could reach US$ 300 Billion because so many people have Hepatitis C infection worldwide. This mindboggling amount is more than all spending on all drugs in the United States, currently. A more realistic number might be between US$7 Billion and $12 Billion a year. Even that amount is roughly five times the amount Gilead spends each year on research.

Like Sovaldi, in many other instances too, industry argument of recovering high R&D investment through product pricing would fall flat on its face.

Need to put all the cards on the table:

The distinguished author underscores in his article the expected responsibilities of the experts in this area to ask the global pharma industry to connect the dots for all us between:

The societal goals they aim to achieve
The costs they incur on R&D
The profits they should reasonably be earning.

Public investments in R&D:

Another article titled, “Putting Price On Life”, argues that R&D projects are mainly initiated in the public sphere through tax-funded research. Unfortunately, patients do not derive any benefit of these public investments in terms of reduction in prices for the related drugs. On the contrary, they effectively pay for these new products twice – once through tax-funded research and then paying full purchase price of the same drug.

Additionally, industry corners the praise for the work done by others in tax-funded research, while at the same time making R&D less risky, as public funded research groups carry out most of the initial risk prone and breakthrough innovation.

The article also highlights that global pharma companies receive other tax credits over billions of dollars for their expenditure on R&D. However, the R&D figures that are produced are not adjusted to take into account the tax credits, thereby inflating costs and the prices of drugs.

All these tax credits significantly lower the private costs of doing the R&D in the United States, increasing the private returns. Interestingly, there does not seem to be any public information regarding who gets the tax credit and what the credit is used for, while the government does not retain any rights in the R&D.

Does pharma R&D always create novel drugs?

According to a report, US-FDA approved 667 new drugs from 2000 to 2007. Out of these only 75 (11 percent) were innovative molecules having much superior therapeutic profile than the available drugs. However, more than 80 percent of 667 approved molecules were not found to be better than those, which are already available in the market.

Thus, the question that very often being raised by many is, why so much money is spent on discovery and development of ‘me-too’ drugs, and thereafter on aggressive marketing for their prescription generation? This is important, as the patients pay for the entire cost of such drugs including the profit, after being prescribed by the doctors?

Should Pharma R&D move away from its traditional models?

The critical point to ponder today, should the pharmaceutical R&D now move from its traditional comfort zone of expensive one company initiative to a much less charted frontier of sharing drug discovery involving many players? If this approach gains acceptance sooner, it could lead to significant increase in R&D productivity at a much lesser cost, benefiting the patients at large.

Finding the right pathway in this direction is more important today than ever before, as the R&D productivity of the global pharmaceutical industry, in general, keeps going south and that too at a faster pace.

Current IPR mechanism failing to deliver:

Current mechanism of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), especially in the pharmaceutical space, undoubtedly facilitates spiraling high drug prices with no respite to patients and payers, as access to these drugs gets severely restricted to the privileged few, denying ‘right to life’ to many.

Moreover, the current global ‘Pharma Patent System’ does not differentiate between qualities of innovations. The system extends equal incentives for pricing the drugs as high as possible, even if those offer little advantages to patients. Fortunately, this loophole has been plugged in the Indian Patents Act 2005, to a large extent.

That said, there is no well-structured incentive available to develop clinically superior drugs with public funding, even in India, so that prices could be significantly lower with equally lesser risks to the companies too.

Conclusion:

Current pricing system of patented medicines is even more intriguing, as these have no direct or indirect co-relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. On the contrary, drug prices allegedly go up due to other avoidable high expenditures, such as, physicians’ gratification oriented marketing, which includes even reported bribing, high profile political lobbying and private jet setting key executives lifestyle with exorbitant compensation packages, besides others.

To effectively address this issue, besides public R&D funding, there has been a number of suggestions for creation of a win-win pathway like, creation of “Health Impact Fund’. There are other inclusive, sustainable and cost effective R&D models too, such as ‘Open Innovation’ and ‘Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP)’, to choose from.

A recent HBR Article titled “A Social Brain Is a Smarter Brain” also highlighted, “Open innovation projects (where organizations facing tricky problems invite outsiders to take a crack at solving them) always present cognitive challenges, of course. But they also force new, boundary-spanning human interactions and fresh perspective taking. They require people to reach out to other people, and thus foster social interaction.” This articulation further reinforces the relevance of a new, contemporary and inclusive drug innovation model for greater patient access with reasonable affordability.

Be that as it may, ‘Patented Drug Pricing’ does not seem to have any relevance to a company’s investments towards R&D. On the contrary, the companies charge the maximum price that they could possibly handle to maximize profits on these life saving medicines.

In an environment of indifference like this, it is the responsibility of other stakeholders, especially the government, to ensure, by invoking all available measures, that life saving medications for dreaded diseases such as cancer, can get to those who need them the most, come what may.

Is the ever-alert new Government listening?

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Author Archives: Tapan Ray

Has Prime Minister Modi Conceded Ground To America On Patents Over Patients?

“Make in India…Sell Anywhere in The World”: An Indian Pharma Perspective

Why is so much of ‘fuss’ on ‘Data Integrity’?

Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India

Ringside View Of A Key Pharma Job Missing ‘The X Factor’

Does Patent Expiry Matter Less For Difficult To Copy Drugs?

Pharma And Healthcare: Mounting ‘Trust Deficit’ In Post Halcyon Days

Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns