‘Empowered Patients’: The changing dynamics of the pharmaceutical industry

Posted on January 23, 2012 by Tapan Ray

In good old days, at the time of someone falling sick in the family, a friendly local general medical practitioner, who was also known as a ‘family doctor’, used to be called to provide relief to the patient from pain and agony of the ailment.

Thorough knowledge of the patient’s medical history gained over a period of time, of these almost vanishing breed of caring doctors, was very common and used to come very handy to them while treating the patients. Their smiling or at times admonishing look at the patients for falling sick due to avoidable reasons, a caring approach – just like or even more than a family member and willingness to answer all questions related to sickness, used to instill a great confidence and hope in the minds of the patients for getting well soon, quite often even before the treatment had started.

Today the situation is very different. The concept of a family doctor mostly does no longer exist, even in the urban families of India. Though the elite groups belonging to the creamy layer of the society still talk in terms of ‘my dentist’ – ‘my cardiologist’ – ‘my physician’, patients by and large have started experiencing that their healthcare needs have been greatly compromised.

However in future, may not exactly be like a ’family doctor’, one can perhaps hope to call a doctor home for treatment in India, which will not cost a bomb as it happens today. ‘Times Of India’’, January 18, 2012 edition reports that “IIM-A student to deliver doctors at your door step.” This service is expected to provide both doctors and medicines at our doorstep at a phone call.”

Changing doctor-patient relationship:

The doctor–patient relationship has undergone a vast change over a period of time. The healthcare environment now very often smacks of commercial gain and loss of the service providers.

In India, even recently the government had to intervene to help restoring the ethical standards of both the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry. That said, medical ethics and compliance, for all practical purpose, are still confined mostly in the text books, codes or in the carefully crafted ‘Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)’ as a ‘show piece’, as it were, more for bending them at the least possible opportunity for hard commercial gains, rather than their conformance in terms of both letter and the spirit.

Individual ‘Patient Empowerment’:

Under the prevailing scenario, the civil society should encourage individual ‘Patient Empowerment’ by making him/her understand how the healthcare system is currently working on the ground, what and who are the key obstacles in getting a reasonably decent healthcare support and what should be done to uproot these obstacles in civilized ways.

It started in America:

The movement for ‘Patient Empowerment’ started in America in the 70’s, which asserts that for truly healthy living, one should get engaged in transforming the social situation and environment affecting their lives, demanding a greater say in their treatment process and observing the following tenets:

Patients’ choice and lifestyle cannot be dictated by others.
‘Patient empowerment’ is necessary even for preventive medicines to be effective.
Patients, just like any other consumers, have the right to make their own choices.

The ‘Empowered Patient’ should always play the role of a participating partner in the healthcare process.

The essence of ‘Patient Empowerment’:

‘Natural Health Perspective’ highlighted ‘Patient Empowerment’ as follows:

Health, as an attitude, can be defined as being successful in coping with pain, sickness, and death. Successful coping always requires being in control of one’s own life.
Health belongs to the individual and the individuals have the prime responsibility for their own health.
The individual’s capacity for growth and self-determination is paramount.
Healthcare professionals cannot empower people; only people can empower themselves.

‘Patient empowerment’ prompts the ‘Patient-Centric’ postures:

In today’s world, the distrust of patients on the healthcare system, pharmaceutical companies and the drug regulators, is growing all over the world. This situation makes an ‘Empowered Patient’ resolve to actively participate in his/her medical treatment process.

Other stakeholders will have no other option but to take a ‘Patient-Centric’ posture, under the circumstances, which has already started happening. In India, as ‘out-of-pocket’ healthcare expenses are skyrocketing in the absence of a comprehensive and affordable universal health coverage, ‘Empowered Patients’ will increasingly demand to know more of not only the available treatment choices, but also about the medicine prescription options.

‘Patient empowerment’ as the change agent:

Not so long ago, to generate increasing prescription demand and influence the prescription decision of the doctors, the pharmaceutical players used to provide product information to the medical profession through various persuasive means of the sales forces along with samples and a variety gifts, besides meeting their unmet needs with innovative medicines.

The above approach though still working very well in India, is no longer fetching the desired results to the pharmaceutical companies, especially in the developed markets of the world. ‘Empowered Patients’ have already started demanding much more from the pharma players. As a result, many global companies are now cutting down on their sales force size to try to move away from just hard selling by gaining more time from the doctors. They have started taking new initiatives to open up a chain of direct communication with their primary and secondary customers with an objective to know more about them to satisfy them better.

In future with growing ‘Patient Empowerment’ the basic sales and marketing models of the pharmaceutical companies are expected to undergo a radical change. At that time, so called ‘Patient-Centric’ companies of today will have no choice but to walk the talk. Consequently, they will have to willy-nilly switch from the ‘hard-selling mode’ to a new process of achieving business excellence through constant endeavor to satisfy both the expressed and the un-expressed needs of the patients, not just with innovative products, but more with innovative and caring services.

Role of ‘Empowered Patients’ in healthcare decision making process:

In the years ahead, more and more ‘Empowered Patients’ are expected to play an important role in their healthcare decision making process, initially in the urban India, ensuring further improvement not just in the public and private healthcare systems, but also in inviting the pharmaceutical industry to be a part of that changing process.

In the book titled, “The Empowered Patient: How to Get the Right Diagnosis, Buy the Cheapest Drugs, Beat Your Insurance Company, and Get the Best Medical Care Every Time”, Elizabeth Cohen articulated as follows:

“The facts are alarming. Medical errors kill more people each year than AIDS, breast cancer or car accidents. A doctor’s relationship with pharmaceutical companies may influence his choice of drugs for you. The wrong key word on an insurance claim can deny you coverage.”

‘USA Today’ dated August 31, 2010 in an article titled, “More empowered patients question doctors’ orders,” reported:

‘In the past, most patients placed their entire trust in the hands of their physician. Your doc said you needed a certain medical test, you got it. Not so much anymore.’

Unfortunately in India, the situation has not changed much as on date.

‘Empowered Patients’ can influence even the R&D process:

Reinhard Angelmar, the Salmon and Rameau Fellow in Healthcare Management and Professor of Marketing at INSEAD, was quoted saying that ‘Empowered Patients’ can make an impact even before the drug is available to them.

He cited instances of how the empowered breast cancer patients in the US played a crucial role not only in diverting funds from the Department of Defense to breast cancer research, but also in expediting the market authorization and improving market access of various other drugs.

Angelmar stated that ‘Empowered Patients’ of the UK were instrumental in getting NICE, their watchdog for cost-effectiveness of medicines, to change its position on the Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD) drug Lucentis of Novartis and approve it for wider use than originally contemplated by them.

Meeting the challenge of change:

To respond to the challenge posed by the ‘Empowered Patients’ pharmaceutical companies, especially in the US are in the process of developing a more direct relationship with the patients (consumers). Creation of ‘Patient Empowered’ social networks may help to address this issue effectively.

For example, to respond to this challenge of change companies like, Novo Nordisk is developing a vibrant patient community named ‘Juvenation’, which is a peer-to-peer social group of individuals suffering from Type 1 diabetes. This program was launched by the company in November 2008 and now the community has over 16,000 members, as available in its ‘Facebook’ page.

To cite one more example, Becton, Dickinson and Co. created a web-based patient-engagement initiative called “Diabetes Learning Center” for the patients, not just to describe the causes of diabetes, but also to explain its symptoms and complications. From the website a patient can also learn how to inject insulin, along with detailed information about blood-glucose monitoring. They can even participate in interactive quizzes, download educational literature and learn through animated demonstrations about diabetes-care skills.

Some other Pharmaceutical Companies, who are in the process of engaging with the customers through social media like Twitter, are Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Roche and Merck.

Conclusion:

Since so many years from now, especially in the developed countries of the world, pharmaceutical companies have been talking about being ‘Patient-Centric’ to ride squarely the increasingly powerful tide of ‘Patient Empowerment’ in their endeavor to satisfy the assertive demands of the new generation of healthcare consumers – the patients or the patient groups.

However, in many cases the prevailing healthcare provisions, the structure and culture together with stiff resistance of the regulators to let the industry engage directly with the patients, have inhibited the ‘Patient-Centric’ intent of the stakeholders in general, to take off the ground in a meaningful way.

At the same time, the aggressive marketing focus of the pharmaceutical industry and blatant commercialization of the system by the healthcare professionals, have more often than not failed to translate the good intent of ‘Patient-Centric’ healthcare process into reality.

Increasing general awareness and rapid access to information on diseases, products and the cost-effective treatment processes through internet, in addition to fast communication within the patients/groups through social media like, ‘Twitter’ and ‘Facebook’ by more and more patients, I reckon, are expected to show the results of ‘Patient Empowerment’ initiatives… ultimately.

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.

Encourage vaccine research and improve its access to demonstrate ‘prevention is better than cure’

Posted on January 16, 2012 by Tapan Ray

Vaccines are one of the most successful and cost-effective public health interventions, which help preventing over 2 million deaths every year.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines vaccines as:

“A vaccine is any preparation intended to produce immunity to a disease by stimulating the production of antibodies. Vaccines include, for example, suspensions of killed or attenuated microorganisms, or products or derivatives of microorganisms. The most common method of administering vaccines is by injection, but some are given by mouth or nasal spray.”

Types of Vaccines:

As per the ‘National Institute of Health (NIH)’ of USA, following are some types of vaccines that researchers usually work on:

Live, attenuated vaccines
Inactivated vaccines
Subunit vaccines
Toxoid vaccines
Conjugate vaccines
DNA vaccines
Recombinant vector vaccines

The first vaccine:

In 1796, Edward Anthony Jenner not only discovered the process of vaccination, alongside developed the first vaccine of the world for mankind – smallpox vaccine. To develop this vaccine Jenner acted upon the observation that milkmaids who caught the cowpox virus did not catch smallpox.

As per published data prior to his discovery the mortality rate for smallpox was as high as up to 35%. Thus, Jenner is very often referred to as the “Father of Immunology”, whose pioneering work has “saved more lives than the work of any other person.”

Later on in 1901 Emil Von Behring received the first Nobel Prize (ever) for discovering Diphtheria serum therapy.

The future scope of vaccines:

The future scope of vaccines is immense as several potentially preventable diseases, as indicated below remain still unaddressed.

	Examples of effective Vaccines	Examples of Potentially VaccineTreatable Diseases
Bacterial	Diphtheria Haemophilus influenza type B Meningitis A, C Pneumococcus	Enterococcus Meningitis B, W, Y Group A Streptococcus Staphylococcus
Viral	Varicella Hepatitis B and C Influenza Polio	Pandemic influenza RSV West Nile Virus Epstein Barr Virus
Other		Cancer Alzheimer’s disease Substance abuse Autoimmune disorders

Source: Deutsche Bank Report

Expanded focus for vaccines:

The focus of the global vaccine industry also has been expanded from prophylactic vaccination for communicable disease (e.g. DTP vaccine) to therapeutic vaccines (e.g. Anti-cancer vaccines) and then possibly non-communicable disease vaccines (e.g. vaccines for coronary artery disease).

The Issues and Challenges:

To produce a safe and effective marketable vaccine, it takes reportedly around 12 to 15 years of painstaking research and development process involving an investment ranging between US $500 million and over $1 billion dollars (Ibid, 7).

Moreover, one will need to realize that the actual cost of vaccines will always go much beyond their R&D expenses. This is mainly because of dedicated and highly specialized manufacturing facilities required for mass-scale production of vaccines and then for the distribution of the same mostly using cold-chains.

Around 60% of the production costs for vaccines are fixed in nature (National Health Policy Forum. 25. January 2006:14). Thus such products will need to have a decent market size to be profitable.

Unlike many other medications for chronic ailments, which need to be taken for a long duration, vaccines are administered for a limited number of times, restricting their business potential.

Thus, the long lead time required for the ‘mind to market’ process for vaccine development together with high cost involved in their clinical trials/marketing approval process, special bulk/institutional purchase price and limited demand through retail outlets, restrict the research and development initiatives for vaccines, unlike many other pharmaceutical products.

Besides, even the newer vaccines will be required mostly for the diseases of the poor, like Malaria, Tuberculosis, HIV and ‘Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs)’ in the developing countries, which may not necessarily guarantee a decent return on investments for vaccines, unlike many other newer drugs. As a result, the key issue for developing a right type of newer vaccine will continue to be a matter of pure economics.

A great initiative called GAVI:

Around 23 million children of the developing countries are still denied of important and life-saving vaccines, which otherwise come rather easily to the children of the developed nations of the world.

To resolve this inequity in January 2000, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) was formed. This initiative was mainly aimed at generating sufficient fund to ensure availability of vaccines for children living in the 70 poorest countries of the world.

The GAVI Alliance has been instrumental in improving access to six common infant vaccines, including those for hepatitis B and yellow fever. GAVI is also working to introduce pneumococcal, rotavirus, human papilloma virus, meningococcal, rubella and typhoid vaccines in not too distant future.

A recent example:

As if to vindicate the above points, Reuters on December 16, 2011 reported that “Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are increasing sales of cut-price pneumonia vaccine to developing countries by more than 50 percent, marking the scale-up of an international program to protect millions of children.

GAVI is buying an additional 180 million doses of Pfizer’s pneumococcal vaccine Prevenar 13 and a similar quantity of GSK’s Synflorix at a deeply discounted price of US $3.50 a shot.”

Success with vaccines in disease prevention:

Diphtheria incidence in the US – Mortality 5/10,000 cases	Peak Incidence (1921)	Incidence today
	2,06,939	1

Tetanus incidence in the US – Mortality 3/10 cases	Peak Incidence (1927)	Incidence today
Tetanus incidence in the US – Mortality 3/10 cases	1,314	40

H. Influenza type B incidence in the US – Mortality 2-3/100 cases	Peak Incidence (1927)	Incidence today
	20,000	363

Source: Ehreth Vaccine 21:4105-4117

Development of vaccines through the passage of time:

No. of vaccines	Year	Vaccines
1.	1780-1800	Smallpox (first vaccine for any disease)
2.	1860-1880	Cholera
	1880-1900	Rabies
6.		Tetanus
		Typhoid fever
		Bubonic plague
11	1920-1940	Diphtheria
		Pertussis
		Tuberculosis
		Yellow fever
		Typhus
16	1940-1960	Influenza
		Polio
		Japanese encephalitis
		Anthrax
		Adenovirus-4 and 7
24	1960-1980	Oral polio
		Measles
		Mumps
		Rubella
		Chicken pox
		Pneumonia
		Meningitis
		Hepatitis B
28	1980-2000	Haemophilus influenzae type b
		Hepatitis A
		Lyme disease
		Rotavirus
29	2000-2010	Human papilloma virus

Current trend in vaccine development:

Malarial Vaccine:

Reuters on December 20, 2011 reported that an experimental malaria vaccine has been developed by the British scientists, which has the potential to neutralize all strains of the most deadly species of malaria parasite.

In October 2011, the data published for a large clinical trial conducted in Africa by GlaxoSmithKline on their experimental malaria vaccine revealed that the risk of children getting malaria had halved with this vaccine. Reuters also reported that other teams of researchers around the world are now working on different approaches to develop a malaria vaccine.

Tuberculosis vaccines:

On August 11, 2011, Aeras and the Oxford-Emergent Tuberculosis Consortium (OETC) announced with a ‘Press Release’ the commencement of a Phase IIb ‘proof-of-concept efficacy trial’ of a new investigational tuberculosis (TB) vaccine. OETC indicated that clinical trial for the drug will be undertaken by them in Senegal and South Africa with primary funding support from the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP).

Cancer vaccines:

Cancer vaccines are, in fact, biological response modifiers, which work by stimulating or restoring the ability of the immune system to fight the disease. There are two broad types of cancer vaccines:

Preventive vaccines: To prevent cancer in healthy people
Therapeutic vaccines: To treat cancer by strengthening the natural defense mechanism of the human body against the disease.

The United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) has approved the following cancer vaccines, which protect against two types of HPV that cause approximately 70% of all cases of cervical cancer globally:

Gardasil of Merck & Company
Cervarix of GlaxoSmithKline

The US FDA has also approved a cancer preventive vaccine that protects against HBV infection, which can cause liver cancer. It has been reported that the original HBV vaccine was approved in 1981 and currently most children in the US are vaccinated against HBV after their birth.

In addition, the US regulator has also approved a cancer vaccine for treatment of certain types of metastatic prostate cancer.

HIV Vaccines:

‘The AIDS Vaccine 2011 conference’ held in Bangkok in the month of September, 2011 discussed some of the latest findings on the following two vaccines for prevention and control of HIV disease progression:

A large trial of RV 144 vaccine in Thailand demonstrated the proof of concept that a preventive vaccine with a risk reduction of 31% could effectively work. The trial was supported by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS.
Bionor Pharma announced that clinical trial participants who received Vacc-4x “experienced a 70% viral load decrease relative to their level before starting Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART), compared with no notable reduction among placebo recipients.”

Promising ‘Therapeutic Vaccines’ undergoing clinical trial:

‘FierceVaccines’ in its October 27, 2011 reported the following 10 most promising therapeutic vaccines, which are now undergoing clinical trials on humans:

Molecule	Company	Indication
ICT-107	ImmunoCellular Therapeutics	Glioblastoma
VGX-3100	Inovio Pharmaceuticals	Cervical cancer
MAGE-A3	GlaxoSmithKline	Skin, lung cancer
Neu-Vax	RXi Pharmaceuticals	Breast cancer
AE37	Antigen Express	Breast cancer
NexVax2	ImmusanT	Celiac disease
ADXS-HPV	Advaxis	Cervical, head and neck cancer
CRS-207	Aduro BioTech	Pancreatic cancer
PEV7	Pevion Biotech	Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis
GI-4000	GlobeImmune	Pancreatic cancer

Future scope for cancer vaccines:

One school of scientists firmly believes that out of all cancers diagnosed each year globally, various types of microbes contribute 15% to 25% as a causative factor for this dreaded disease, as indicated below:

Infectious Agents	Type of Organism	Associated Cancers
Hepatitis B virus (HBV)	Virus		Hepatocellular carcinoma(a type of liver cancer)
Hepatitis C virus (HCV)	Virus		Hepatocellular carcinoma(a type of liver cancer)
Human papilloma virus (HPV) types 16 and 18, as well as other HPV types	Virus		Cervical cancer; vaginal cancer;vulvar cancer; oropharyngeal cancer(cancers of the base of the tongue, tonsils, or upper throat); anal cancer; penile cancer; squamous cell carcinoma of the skin
Epstein-Barr virus	Virus		Cancer of the upper part ofthe throat behind the nose
Human herpes virus 8 (HHV8)	Virus		Kaposi sarcoma
Human T-cell lymphotropic virus	Virus		Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma
Helicobacter pylori	Bacterium		Stomach cancer
Schistosomes	Parasite		Bladder cancer
Liver flukes	Parasite		Cholangio carcinoma(a type of liver cancer)

Source: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

These findings open the doors of unique opportunities to develop both preventive and therapeutic vaccines to address the life threatening near fatal ailment of mankind – cancer.

Conclusion:

Developing countries of the world are now demanding more of those vaccines, which no longer feature in the immunization schedules of the developed nations. Thus to supply these vaccines at low cost will be a challenge, especially for the global vaccine manufacturers, unless the low margins get well compensated by high institutional demand.

To effectively focus on all important disease prevention initiatives, there is also a need to build a vibrant vaccine business sector in India. To achieve these dual objectives the government should create an enabling ecosystem for the vaccine manufacturers, academics and the government funded vaccine R&D centers to concentrate more with the relevant vaccine development projects ensuring a decent return on investments, for long term public health interest.

More often than not, the above stakeholders find it difficult to deploy sufficient fund to take their vaccine projects successfully through various stages of clinical development to obtain marketing approval from the drug regulator, working out a decent return on investments. This critical issue needs to be appropriately and urgently addressed by the Government to make the disease prevention initiatives in the country sustainable, demonstrating to all concerned that disease ‘prevention is better than cure’.

By: Tapan J Ray

Infections may cause NCDs like, diabetes and cancer: Ongoing scientific quest to decipher the mystery

Posted on January 9, 2012 by Tapan Ray

To create a positive health impact on the lives of billions of people, the United Nations (UN) on September 19, 2011 unanimously adopted a ‘Political Declaration’ on ‘Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs)’. In the years ahead, this path-breaking initiative on NCDs, with global commitment, is expected to make a huge difference in the lives of many, across the world.

NCDs have now been identified as a key healthcare challenge of this century and include ailments like, cardiovascular, chronic pulmonary diseases, diabetes, arthritis and cancer. In the developing countries, over 80% of all deaths are related to NCDs.

There are times when NCDs raise issues related to social justice and human rights. For example, in a country like India where out of pocket expenses towards healthcare is around 80%, a major illness like cancer even in a middle income group family, can drive the entire household to huge socioeconomic hardship.

NCDs are preventable:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), adequate physical activity, healthy diet/nutrition and tobacco avoidance can prevent:

80% of premature heart disease
80% of type II diabetes
40% of cancers

Currently, as we shall see below, immunization is also being considered as a preventive therapy for certain types of NCDs.

NCDs may be of infectious origin:

Dr. Bennett Lorber in his article titled, ‘Are All Diseases Infectious?’, published in the ‘Annals of Internal medicine’ wrote that many common NCDs like, cardiovascular, diabetes, peptic ulcer, arthritis and even certain types of cancer originate from infections by micro-organisms.

Mainly because of this reason and its consequent adverse socioeconomic impact, the low and middle income countries of the world will require controlling many types of infections, possibly through immunization, before they ultimately develop into NCDs. Such measures, in turn, will help them reducing the risk factors of morbidity and mortality related to NCDs.

Infections and NCDs:

As indicated above by Dr. Bennett Lorber, following are some examples of reported relationship between infection and NCDs:

Reactive Arthritis:

Reactive arthritis or spondyloarthropathy has been known to follow intestinal infection with Salmonella typhimurium and Yersinia enterocolitica or urethral infection with Chlamydia trachomatis.

Scientists from the United Kingdom have already announced that they will soon begin human trial of an experimental rheumatoid arthritis vaccine.

Peptic Ulcer and Gastric Carcinoma:

Helicobacter pylori is known to cause of gastritis and peptic ulcer disease and is an important risk factor for gastric carcinoma.

Researchers at Rhode Island Hospital in collaboration with the University of Rhode Island and EpiVax Inc, have identified a potential vaccine to reduce colonization of Helicobacter pylori, which is known to cause peptic ulcer and gastric carcinoma.

Acute Renal Failure:

It was reported that about 10% of infected persons younger than 10 years of age develop hemolytic uremic syndrome, and as many as 75% of cases of the syndrome in the United States are complications of intestinal infection with E. coli.

Vasculitis:

The most common cause of vascular damage in secondary vasculitis is now considered to be related to different types of microorganisms. Patients were reported to have developed polyarteritis nodosa a few months after having hepatitis B infection.

It is widely reported that in the developed countries most common vasculitis is related to hepatitis B and C. However, in the developing world HIV related vasculitis appears to be common.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBS)/ Crohn’s Disease:

The precise etiology of Crohn’s Disease though remains to be conclusively deciphered, it is believed by many researchers that the disease develops due to a reaction to a persistent intestinal infection in vascular endothelial cells.

Diabetes:

A good number of experts support a link between infection with enteroviruses in the pancreata and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

To arrest or slow the autoimmune response that destroys insulin-producing cells in diabetes, it has been reported that the Diamyd vaccine, now in Phase III clinical trial in both USA and Europe, has shown very promising results.

Coronary Artery Disease:

A study published in the journal of ‘Clinical Infectious Disease’, Volume 40, Issue 8 ‘demonstrates a significant association between high titers to C. pneumoniae IgG and IgA and acute Myocardial Infarction (MI) in a cohort of young men and suggests that recent or chronic active infections could be associated with an increased risk for MI.’

In other studies also, patients with acute myocardial infarction were found to have elevated serum antibody levels to Chlamydia pneumoniae. This opens up possibility of preventing heart attacks with a vaccine.

Cancer:

The US FDA has already approved two types of vaccines for cancer prevention:

Vaccines against the hepatitis B virus, which can cause liver cancer.
Vaccines against human papillomavirus, which are responsible for about 70% of cervical cancers.

In addition, US FDA has also approved another cancer vaccine for metastatic prostate cancer.

A type of cancer known as Kaposi sarcoma is linked to an infectious agent found in patients with acquired immune-deficiency syndrome. Scientists are in the process of developing treatment vaccines against many types of cancer.

Conclusions:

In the field of NCD, a not so widely publicized scientific revolution is in the making. Many well researched findings have, to a great extent, established that infectious agents could be the causative/precipitative or risk factors for NCDs like, chronic pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and cancer.

The moot question raised by Dr. Bennett Lorber earlier: ‘Are all diseases infectious?’, is gradually getting answered through intensive scientific research. Otherwise, who would have thought, until recently, that vaccines could be developed for diabetes, certain types of cancer or even peptic ulcer?

Such path breaking scientific research findings are, in turn, creating a hope and opportunity for disease prevention through immunization for many NCDs, especially for the developing nations of the world.

It is very heartening to know that United Nations (UN) have taken note of these revolutionary developments in the ‘Non Communicable Disease’ space and are deliberating on the effective ways to combat NCDs caused by infections with the development and use of appropriate vaccines.

The entire world eagerly awaits more actionable outcome of the ongoing scientific quest to decipher the mystery related to many more NCDs to ensure better health of mankind of the Planet Earth.

By: Tapan J Ray

Indian Pharmaceutical Landscape: Looking back (2011), Looking Ahead (2012)

Posted on January 2, 2012 by Tapan Ray

2011 witnessed many interesting developments within the pharmaceutical industry of India. All these developments may not be appreciated by all stakeholders alike, nonetheless had an impact on the industry of varying degree both in the qualitative and quantitative terms.

That said, the list of ‘unfinished agenda’ of the government to improve healthcare access and simultaneously to fuel the growth engine of the industry with reform oriented policy initiatives, kept on increasing staggeringly.

The issue of improving access to modern medicines with comprehensive measures continued to remain unaddressed even in the draft National Pharmaceuticals Pricing Policy 2011. Similarly, the Prime Minister’s dedication of the decade of 2010 as the decade of innovation remained a pipe dream for the pharmaceutical industry of the country. Policy paralysis of the decision makers during the year failed to translate even this praiseworthy intent into reality.

Increasing consumption of medicines in India:

Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) continued to grow at a scorching pace of around 15% registering a turnover of Rs 59,621 Crore during the year. (Source: Nov 2011- AIOCD/AWACS).

Fast increasing consumption of medicines in the country continued to position IPM not just as another global success story, but also an emerging pharmaceutical force to reckon with, especially in the development and manufacturing of high quality and low cost generic pharmaceuticals together with its world-class Contract Research and Manufacturing Services (CRAMS). Indian pharmaceutical players now cater to about 20% of global requirements of high quality and affordable generic medicines of all types.

Consolidation process continues:

At the same time, ongoing consolidation process within the pharmaceutical industry continued in 2011 with Aventis Pharma (Sanofi) acquiring Universal Medicare and Zydus Cadila shopping for Biochem Pharma.

November 30, 2011: Signaled beginning of the end of the blockbuster drug era:

On November 30, 2011, the patent expiry of the world largest ever brand Lipitor (Pfizer), clocking an annual turnover of over US$ 14 billion and accounting for more than 20% of the company’s sales turnover until recently, I reckon, heralds beginning of the end of the blockbuster drug era. To equal the turnover of Lipitor with another brand will be a huge challenge not only for Pfizer, but also for any other company in the near to medium term.

Patent expiry of Lipitor will now help opening up the super size Atorvastatin market of the developed world to the Indian generic players.

Launch of innovative products:

Launch of several innovative and patented products in India by the global players during 2011, reconfirmed the attractiveness of the IPM to the global innovator companies. Some of these innovative products are Revolade (Eltrombopag) , Votrient (Pazopanib Hydrochloride) of GlaxoSmithKline, Flexbumin solution of Baxter and BD Ultra-Fine III Nano of Becton Dickinson.

Looking back (2011):

During 2011, the industry witnessed a number of initiatives from the government as an ongoing process, some of which are as follows:

Establishment of dedicated Pharma Zones in Mumbai, Hyderabad and Delhi airports, including cold rooms to help achieving world-class cold-chain logistics in India in the medium term.
For the first time in 2011, the government initiated steps to put the ‘Biosimilar Guidelines’ in place to ensure high safety standards for follow-on biologics in India. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) prepared these guidelines in consultation with the industry, the effective implementation of which is keenly awaited. This important step will also help Indian biosimilar drug manufacturers to prepare themselves well to explore the opportunity of gradually opening-up biosimilar drugs markets in the western world, like the USA and EU.
The Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) came out with a draft Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) in 2011 to curb alleged unethical practices of ‘bribing doctors’ by pharma companies. The code initially is expected to be of voluntary in nature and its effective implementation will be ensured by the pharmaceutical companies and the industry associations over a period of six months. Thereafter, if the implementation level of UCPMP does not measure up to the expectations of the DoP, it will be made mandatory under strict regulatory control. However, the final UCPMP has not been announced by the government, as yet.
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare constituted a twelve member task force to evolve a long term strategy to address various issues faced by the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry. Unfortunately, tangible outcome from this committee is still awaited.
Following the Supreme Court directive to the government to bring essential drugs under price control, after a very long time, the Government came out hurriedly with a draft National Pharmaceuticals Pricing Policy 2011 (Draft NPPP 2011) by increasing the span of effective price control to over 65% of the IPM. This flawed draft policy, if implemented, could stifle the growth of the industry.
During the year the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare finalized the National Vaccine Policy to strengthen the institutional framework required for the universal immunization program. The policy is also expected to streamline the decision-making process on new and underutilized vaccine introduction, besides addressing issues of vaccine security, management, regulatory guidelines and vaccine research and development.
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare also came out with the National Health Research Policy in 2011 to overcome the weaknesses of the publicly funded health structures, which restrict research in the priority health areas. This policy is expected to help maximizing the returns on investments in health research through creation of a robust health research system.
New National Manufacturing Policy (NMP), which ultimately saw the light of the day during the year, is expected to promote the productivity of the pharmaceutical sector, as well. The policy will help enhancing the share of total manufacturing of all industrial sectors put together from the current level of 15% to 25% of the GDP within a decade and would also help creating 100 million jobs in the country.
100% FDI in the Pharmaceuticals sector of India remained unchanged, which will attract more foreign investments in this sunrise sector of India.
‘Universal Health Converge’, announced during the year by the Planning Commission of India, will help reducing significantly the ‘out of pocket’ expenses incurred towards healthcare, improving its access to all.

Looking Ahead (2012):

The good news for 2012 is that the Planning Commission has decided to increase the national spending on health to 2.5% of the GDP in the 12th Five Year Plan starting from 2012.
In 2012, if the ‘NPPP 2011’ is implemented as in its current draft form, it could seriously impede the court of the vibrant pharmaceutical industry of India.
Introductions of DTC and GST: The ‘Discussion Paper’ on the draft ‘Direct Taxes Code Bill, 2009’ highlighted the possibility that the GST regime could have multiple rates based on classification of goods that are to be listed under the exempted category, like goods which would attract lower rate and another category of goods qualifying for standard rate. This concept of multiple rate of tax under GST regime could impact the pharma/health science industry as the business models followed by this industry typically involves import/manufacture and sale of life saving drugs, medical devices and other formulations, which presently attract either NIL rate of duty under central excise/VAT or lower rate of excise duty at 4%. Presently clinical trial services/R&D services attract service tax at 10.30%.
The growth trajectory of the IPM is expected to continue to go north despite slowdown in the US and European economies in 2012.

Conclusion:

Like many other sectors, the pharmaceutical industry of India also witnessed the reform oriented policy paralysis of the government in 2011, barring some superficial, half- hearted and incomplete initiatives, as indicated above.

Key areas of general public health interest, encouraging innovation, fostering R&D and improving access to medicines to alleviate healthcare related problems of the common man and at the same time to propel the industry to the inclusive high growth trajectory, have still remained unanswered.

Faster recovery from reform-oriented policy paralysis of the government and effective translation into reality of the seemingly good intent of the policy makers, is now eagerly awaited in 2012.

By: Tapan J Ray

Business Ethics, Values and Compliance: Walking the Talk

Posted on December 26, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Wish you and your family all happiness, prosperity, peace and good health in the brand new year 2012

Business Ethics, Values and Compliance: Walking the Talk

Ethical business conduct and value standards, especially of medium, large to very large corporations are coming under increasing stakeholders’ scrutiny and being severely criticized for non-compliance in many instances. At the same time, more and more corporate initiatives are being taken towards this direction by both the global and local companies with special emphasis to combat bribery/ corrupt business practices and contribute to social justice and environmental protection.

The scope of ‘ethical business conducts and value standards’ of a company usually encompasses the following, among many others:

The employees, suppliers, customers and other stakeholders
Caring for the society and environment
Fiduciary responsibilities
Business and marketing practices
R&D activities, including clinical trials
Corporate Governance
Corporate espionage

That said, codes of ethical conduct, corporate values and their compliance should not only get limited to the top management, but must get percolated downwards, looking beyond the legal and regulatory boundaries.

Statistics of compliance to codes of business ethics and corporate values are important to know, but the qualitative change in the ethics and value standards of an organization should always be the most important goal to drive any business corporation and the pharmaceutical sector is no exception.

Business Ethics and Values in the globalized economy:

Globalization of business makes the process of formulating the codes of ethics and values indeed very challenging for many organizations. This is mainly because of the fact that the cultural differences at times create a conflict on ethics and values involving different countries.

For this purpose, many business organizations prefer to interact with the cultural and religious leaders in the foreign countries, mainly to ascertain what really drives culturally diverse people to act in certain ways.

With the wealth of knowledge of the local customs and people, the cultural and religious leaders can help an organization to unify the code of ethics and values of the globalized business.Such leaders can also help identifying the ‘common meeting ground of minds’ from a specific country perspective, after carefully assessing the cultural differences, which are difficult to resolve in the near term.

The ‘common meeting ground of minds’, thus worked out, could form the bedrock to initiate further steps to strengthen global business standards of ethics and values of an organization.

OECD with USA started early enacting ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’:

To prevent bribery and corrupt practices, especially in a foreign land, in 1997, along with 33 other countries belonging to the ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’, the United States Congress enacted a law against the bribery of foreign officials, which is known as ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’.

This Act marked the early beginnings of ethical compliance program in the United States and disallows the US companies from paying, offering to pay or authorizing to pay money or anything of value either directly or through third parties or middlemen. FCPA currently has significant impact on the way American companies are required to run their business, especially in the foreign land.

But a dichotomy exists in the US for ‘Grease Payment’:

‘Grease payment’ is classified by OECD as “a facilitating one if it is paid to government employees to speed up an administrative process where the outcome is already pre-determined.”

In the FCPA of the US ‘grease payment’, has been defined as “a payment to a foreign official, political party or party official for ‘routine governmental action,’ such as processing papers, issuing permits, and other actions of an official, in order to expedite performance of duties of non-discretionary nature, i.e., which they are already bound to perform. The payment is not intended to influence the outcome of the official’s action, only its timing.”

Considering all these ‘grease payments’ seem to be an absolute dichotomy to the overall US policy for ethical standards and against corruption.

Currently besides US, only Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea are the countries that permit ‘Grease payments’.

Notwithstanding the fact that the governments of the US and four other countries allow companies to keep doing business without undue delay by making ‘grease payments’ to the lower government officials, such payments are considered as illegal in most other countries, if not all, in which they are paid, including India.

In India such a business practice is viewed as bribery, which is not only perceived as unethical and immoral, but also a criminal offense under the law of the land. Even otherwise, ‘grease payments’ are viewed by a vast majority of the population as a morally questionable standard of ‘business conduct’.

Many companies are setting-up the ethical business standards globally:

While visiting the website of especially the large global and local companies, one finds that all these companies barring a very few exceptions have already put in place a comprehensive ‘code of business ethics and values’. Some of these companies have also put in place dedicated code compliance officers across the globe.

However, it is important to ensure that the persons who are appointed either as the ‘Watch Dogs’ for such commendable initiatives or to head any committee on the subject, are individuals with squeaky clean record of adherence to the ‘Code of Ethics and Values’. Otherwise, the entire exercise may be perceived as making a mockery of the whole purpose.

Despite all these commendable initiatives towards establishing a corporate codes of business ethics and values, the moot question that haunts many time and again: “Are all these companies ‘walking the talk’?”

Otherwise, why does one read news items like ‘Dirty Secrets In Soap Prices’ as appeared in the ‘Wall Street Journal’ dated December 9, 2011 reporting that P&G, Colgate and Henkel have been fined $484 million by the French Government for ‘Price Fixing’ of laundry soap.

Or why do we see reports like one in the “Fierce Pharma’ dated October 5, 2010 stating that in the US eleven pharmaceutical companies have paid a total of over $6 billion to the government in 22 months for unethical marketing practices Or a ‘Bloomberg’ report dated January 17, 2011 with the headline, “Glaxo Sees $3.5 Billion Charge Related to Avandia Claims, Sales Practices.”

Or…

It is perhaps a sheer coincidence that whenever, such incidents take place, the fingers are usually pointed towards the middle or lower management cadre of the corporations concerned for non-compliance. The Corporate or top management ownership of such seemingly avoidable incidents still remains a distant reality.

Public perception of ethical standards of Pharmaceutical companies is not encouraging:

In the pharmaceutical sector all over the world, the marketing practices have still remained a very contentious issue despite many attempts of self-regulation by the industry. The flow of complaints for alleged unethical business practices have not slowed down significantly, across the world, even after so many years of self-regulation.

Nearer home, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has already circulated a draft ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for stakeholders to comment on it. The final UCPMP, when it comes into force, if not implemented by the pharmaceutical players in its ‘letter and spirit’, may attract government’s ire in form of strong doses of regulatory measures.

A study on the UCPMP:

Ernst & Young released the key findings of a survey report on the UCPMP in September, 2011 titled ‘Pharmaceutical marketing: ethical and responsible conduct’, which are as follows:

Around two-third of the respondents felt that the implementation of the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) drafted by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, would change the manner in which the pharma products are currently marketed in India
More than 50% of the respondents are of the opinion that UCPMP guidelines may lead to manipulation in recording of actual sampling activity
More than 50% of the respondents indicated that the effectiveness of the code will be very low in the absence of legislative support provided to the UCPMP committee
Majority of the respondents (90%) felt that pharma companies in India should focus on building a robust internal controls system for ensuring compliance with the UCPMP
Around 72% of the respondents felt that the MCI was not stringently enforcing its medical ethics guidelines
Only 36% of the respondents felt that the MCI’s guidelines would have an impact on the overall sales of the pharma companies

Thus the quality of implementation of self-regulatory ‘Code of Marketing Practices’ is not only attracting heavy criticism from the stakeholders in many countries in the world, including India, but also indicating a trust deficit between the industry and the civil society in general.

Clinical Trials in India: Ethics and values

Clinical Trial is another area of pharmaceutical business, especially in the Indian context, where more often than not, issues related to ethics and values are being raised. In an article titled, ‘Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns’ published by the World Health Organization (WHO) following observations have been made:

“The latest developments in India reflect a concerted effort on the part of the global public health community to push clinical trials issues to the fore in the wake of several high-profile cases in which pharmaceutical companies were shown to be withholding information from regulators.”

Similarly ‘Times of India’ in its June 6, 2011 issue reported, “Clinical trials claimed 25 lives in 2010, only 5 paid compensation.”

Conclusion:

The need to formulate ‘Codes of Business Ethics & Values’ and even more importantly their compliance are gaining increasing importance and relevance in the globalized business environment. Unfortunately, at the same time, many companies across the world are being increasingly forced to come to terms with the heavy costs and consequences of ‘unethical behavior and business practices’ by the respective governments, perhaps arising out of intense pressure for the business performance.

There is no global consensus, as yet, on what is ethically and morally acceptable ‘Business Ethics and Values’ across the world. However, even if it these are implemented in a country-specific way, the most challenging obstacle to overcome by the corporates would still remain ‘walking the talk’ and owning the responsibility.

The million dollar question thus emerges ‘How to make it happen?’

Getting unfolded a global opportunity for India with Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on December 19, 2011 by Tapan Ray

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

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

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

An interesting global collaboration:

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

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

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

Global players signal a new aspiration:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The trigger factor:

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

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

Low penetration of lower cost biosimilar drugs:

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

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

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

Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) in the Pipeline:

Company	Location	Biosimilar mAbs	Development Status
BioXpress	Switzerland	16	Preclinical
Gene Techno Science	Japan	6	Preclinical
Zydus Cadilla	India	5	Preclinical
PlantForm	Canada	3	Preclinical
BioCad	Russia	3	Preclinical
Celltrion	South Korea	2	Phase 3
LG Life Sciences	South Korea	2	Preclinical
Gedeon Richter	Hungary	2	Preclinical
Cerbios-Pharma	Switzerland	1	Preclinical
Hanwha Chemical	South Korea	1	Preclinical
PharmaPraxis	Brazil	1	Preclinical
Probiomed	Mexico	1	Phase 3
Samsung BioLogics	South Korea	1	Preclinical
Novartis	Switzerland	1	Phase 2
Teva	Israel	1	Phase 2
Zenotech	India	1	Phase 3
Spectrum	US	1	Preclinical
Biocon/Mylan	India/US	1	Preclinical

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

Global Market Potential:

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

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

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

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

The scenario and business potential in India:

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

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

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

Indian players are making rapid strides:

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

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

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

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

Oncology is becoming the research hot-spot:

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

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

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

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

Greater potential for global collaborative initiatives:

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

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

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

‘Patent Cliff’ is hastening the process:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government support in India:

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

Health being a basic human right, the proposal for ‘Universal Health Coverage’ augurs well for India

Posted on December 12, 2011 by Tapan Ray

“The right to health is relevant to all States: every State has ratified at least one international human rights treaty recognizing the right to health. Moreover, States have committed themselves to protecting this right through international declarations, domestic legislation and policies, and at international conferences.”

- The Factsheet, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the WHO

Universal Health Coverage or Universal Healthcare:

In this context, “Universal Health Coverage (UHC)” is a healthcare system where all citizens of a country are covered for the basic healthcare services. In many countries UHC is also known as “Universal Healthcare” and may have different system types as follows:

Single Payer: The government provides insurance to all citizens.

Two-Tier: The government provides basic insurance coverage to citizens and allows purchase of additional voluntary insurance whenever a citizen wants to.

Insurance Mandate: The government mandates that insurance must be bought by all its citizens, like what happened in the USA in 2010.

Global scenario for UHC:

As per published reports, all 33 developed nations have UHC in place. The United States was the only exception until recently, till President Barack Obama administration implemented the ‘path breaking’ new healthcare reform policy in the country in 2010 against tough political opposition.

The new healthcare reform measures in the US had raised a storm within the local pharmaceutical industry, as well, at that time for various reasons.

The countries providing UHC:

Based on an article titled, ‘ Analyzing our economy, government policy and society through the lens of cost-benefit’ published in ‘True Cost’ following is the list of the countries where UHC is currently in place:

Country	Start Date of Universal Health Care	System Type

Norway	1912	Single Payer
New Zealand	1938	Two Tier
Japan	1938	Single Payer
Germany	1941	Insurance Mandate
Belgium	1945	Insurance Mandate
United Kingdom	1948	Single Payer
Kuwait	1950	Single Payer
Sweden	1955	Single Payer
Bahrain	1957	Single Payer
Brunei	1958	Single Payer
Canada	1966	Single Payer
Netherlands	1966	Two-Tier
Austria	1967	Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates	1971	Single Payer
Finland	1972	Single Payer
Slovenia	1972	Single Payer
Denmark	1973	Two-Tier
Luxembourg	1973	Insurance Mandate
France	1974	Two-Tier
Australia	1975	Two Tier
Ireland	1977	Two-Tier
Italy	1978	Single Payer
Portugal	1979	Single Payer
Cyprus	1980	Single Payer
Greece	1983	Insurance Mandate
Spain	1986	Single Payer
South Korea	1988	Insurance Mandate
Iceland	1990	Single Payer
Hong Kong	1993	Two-Tier
Singapore	1993	Two-Tier
Switzerland	1994	Insurance Mandate
Israel	1995	Two-Tier
United States	2010	Insurance Mandate

Highest per capita health spending has no relevance to the quality of health services/ outcome, but early implementation of UHC has:

The following table shows, although per capita spending on health is the highest in the US, the number of doctors, nurses and hospital beds per 10,000 population are highest in Cuba, UK and Japan, respectively. Japan also records the highest life expectancy at birth.Thus it appears, by and large, those countries which have an efficient UHC scheme running since quite some time from now are doing better in the health parameters as indicated below, especially, as compared to the US with the highest per capita health spending.
Country	Per capita spending on health (US $)	Doctors/ 10,000 pop	Nurses and midwives/ 10,000 pop	Hospital beds/10,000 pop	Life expectancy at birth
USA	6719**	26	94	31	78
UK	2815	23	128**	39	80
Russia	698	43	85	97	66
Japan	2581	21	95	140**	83**
Italy	2631	37	72	39	82
Germany	3465	34	80	83	80
France	3420	34	80	73	81
Cuba	674	59**	74	49	78
China	216	14	10	22	74
Canada	3673	19	101	34	81

** Highest

Source: The Guardian, Data Blog, Facts are Sacred)

The current situation in India:

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

The HLEG Report starts with:

“This report is dedicated to the people of India whose health is our most precious asset and whose care is our most sacred duty.”

The HLEG defined UHC for India as follows:

“Ensuring equitable access for all Indian citizens, resident in any part of the country, regardless of income level, social status, gender, caste or religion, to affordable, accountable, appropriate health services of assured quality ( promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative) as well as public health services addressing the wider determinants of health delivered to individuals and populations, with the government being the guarantor and enabler, although not necessarily the only provider, of health and related services”.

Ten principles for UHC in India:

Following are the ‘Ten Principles’, which guided the HLEG for the formulation of the recommendations for the UHC in India:

Universality
Equity
Non-exclusion and non-discrimination
Comprehensive care that is rational and of good quality
Financial protection
Protection of patients’ rights that guarantee appropriateness of care, patient choice, portability and continuity of care
Consolidated and strengthened public health provisioning
Accountability and transparency
Community participation
Putting health in people’s hands

UHC guarantees access to essential free health services for all:

Because of the uniqueness of India, HLEG proposed a hybrid system that draws on the lessons learned from within India as well as other developed and developing countries of the world.

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

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

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

HLEG recommends ‘Price Control’ of ‘Essential Medicines’, just like draft NPPP 2011:

In its recommendation no. 3.5.1, HLEG postulated price controls and price regulation especially on essential drugs, which is quite in line with the draft National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2011 (NPPP 2011). The HLEG report says:

“We recommend the use of ‘essentiality’ as a criterion and applying price controls on formulations rather than basic drugs. Direct price control applied to formulations, rather than basic drugs, is likely to minimize intra-industry distortion in transactions and prevent a substantial rise in drug prices. It may also be necessary to consider caps on trade margins to rein in drug prices while ensuring reasonable returns to manufacturers and distributors. All therapeutic products should be covered and producers should be prevented from circumventing controls by creating nonstandard combinations. This would also discourage producers from moving away from controlled to non-controlled drugs. At the same time, it is necessary to strengthen Central and State regulatory agencies to effectively perform quality and price control functions.”

Price control on essential medicines is also in force in China:

Chinese Government has put a cap on the prices of about 300 drugs featuring in their ‘National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM).’ Perhaps following the similar concept both the NLEG and NPPP 2011 have recommended price control of about 348 drugs falling under ‘The National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’ of India.

Another recent report on ‘Free Medicines for All’:

Meanwhile,the working group of the Planning Commission on health, constituted for the 12th Five Year Plan (2012-2017) headed by the Secretary of Health and Family Welfare Mr. K. Chandramouli (now retired), has also submitted its report recently.

The Part II of the report titled, “Provisions of ’free medicines for all in public health facilities … recommends that health being a state subject, all the state governments of the country should adopt the successful and well proven Tamil Nadu model of healthcare procurement.

Tamil Nadu government through Tamil Nadu Medical Supplies Corporation (TNMSC) reportedly makes bulk purchases of drugs and pharmaceuticals directly from the manufacturers through a transparent bidding process, which reduces the cost of medicines to 1/10th and even to 1/15th of the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the respective product packs.

As per this report, the total running cost for the ‘Free Medicines for All’ project during the plan period would be Rs. 28,675 Crores and an additional allocation of Rs. 1293 Crores will be required as one‐time capital costs. The contribution of the Central Government at 85 % of the total cost would be around Rs 25667 crores for the entire Plan period.

Conclusion:

It was good to read that Ms. Nata Menabde, WHO country-head, India in her interview to ‘The Financial Express’ dated December 7, 2011 said, “We at WHO have been fortunate enough to be consulted on this (UHC). The meeting at planning commission was very productive and positive and we think the recommendations on the road map to Universal Health Coverage in the country is a step in the right direction.”

UHC, I reckon, will also be able to address simultaneously the critical issue of high ‘out of pocket’ healthcare expenses by the common man of the country. Implemented sooner ignoring the motivated stalling tactics, if any, by the vested interests, could usher in an era of a new healthcare reform process in the country.

That said, the proposal of the UHC in its current form does have some ‘loose knots’,which should be appropriately tightened-up through informed public discourse by the stakeholders in the healthcare space of India, sooner.

Biologic Drugs: The hunt for the ‘Magic Bullets’ is on

Posted on December 5, 2011 by Tapan Ray

The global pharmaceutical industry is now navigating its way through very cautiously while negotiating an unprecedented ‘patent cliff’, simultaneously with gradually drying-up R&D pipelines. This unique situation has triggered off several global mega Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) not only involving better protected biologic drugs business, but also in the large generic space mostly in the emerging markets of the world, which used to be ignored by many before the turn of the new century.

Patent Expiry in next 12 months:

According to an article published in the ‘FiercePharma’ dated October 24, 2011 titled, ‘10 largest U.S patent losses’, over the next 12 months the following best-selling drugs, ranked not by US sales volume but by their weight in each company’s US revenue stream, will face patent expiry:

	Company	Brand
1	Forest Laboratories	Lexapro
2	Takeda Pharmaceuticals	Actos
3	Bristol-Myers Squibb	Plavix
4	AstraZeneca	Seroquel
5	Eli Lilly	Zyprexa
6	Pfizer	Lipitor*
7	Merck	Singulair
8	Novartis	Diovan
9	Teva Pharmaceuticals	Provigil
10	Abbott Laboratories	TriCor

* Patent expired on November 30, 2011

Opening a new vista of opportunity:

In the midst of such a critical situation within the global pharmaceutical industry, application of biotechnology in the drug discovery process opened up a new vista of a broad range of new class of therapies. These include monoclonal antibodies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines tissue growth factors, cell or gene therapies and vaccines, just to name a few.

A recent report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) predicts that 80% of the total biotech products, which are expected to be commercialized by 2030, will be medicines and medical diagnostics.

Old business model signals a diminishing return:

Over a period of decades, the business model of small-molecule based blockbuster drugs has successfully catapulted the global pharmaceutical business to a high-margin, dynamic and vibrant industry. However, a time has now come when the golden path from the ‘mind to market’ of the drug discovery process is becoming increasingly arduous and prohibitively expensive.

Deploying expensive resources to discover a New Chemical Entity (NCE) with gradually diminishing returns in the milieu of ‘me too’ types of new drugs, does no longer promise a strong commercial incentive.

A shift in focus from ‘small molecules’ to ‘large molecules’:

Since last several years, the success of biologic drugs compared to conventional small-molecule chemical drugs, has been changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A.

As per published data, although the market capitalization of the top ten large pharmaceutical companies dropped more than US$ 700 billion since 2001, the same for the biotech companies, on the other hand, has gone up by more than 50% during this period. This trend signifies proliferation of biotech drugs in the years ahead for meeting unmet needs of the patients.

To keep pace with the biotech led growth of the global pharmaceutical industry, many companies have started imbibing biotech-like R&D structure within their respective organizations. For examples, the pharmaceutical majors GsK and Pfizer have already articulated the strategic intent to restructure their respective large monolithic R&D set-ups to smaller independent drug discovery units.

Such restructuring is expected to foster ‘can do’ spirit of the biotech entrepreneurs within the recreated smaller units of large R&D setups to accelerate overall R&D productivity for enrichment of the new product pipelines. However, future will be the best judge to evaluate the success of this experiment.

As if to vindicate this emerging scenario, on November 30, 2011 Bloomberg reported, “U.K.’s largest drug maker has broken up research into competitive teams and put scientists back at the center of the process. But freedom carries a price: researchers who don’t adapt must go. Scientists now ‘live or die with their project.’ This month, Glaxo (GsK) completed the first appraisal of its new model. The company is now deciding which teams deserve more funding and which ones don’t. The conclusions will probably be made public in February when Glaxo (GsK) reports full-year earnings.”

Biologic drugs offer greater promise to meet more unmet needs:

Unlike conventional chemical drugs, most genetically modified biologic drugs work with a very high degree of precision and accuracy on the cells of the diseased organ. Many clinical studies have amply demonstrated that such drugs not only ensure faster recovery, but also help saving incremental treatment cost because of their excellent safety profile.

As we see today, more and more of those global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales for R&D projects are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in the fast evolving market of biologic drugs mainly through M&A. This strategy well justifies their strategic intent to make good the loss of income from the blockbuster drugs going off-patent quite in tandem with their fast dwindling R&D pipeline, as it were.

The bottom-line impact of a successful well targeted new biologic molecule to treat intractable ailments like, various types of cancer and blood disorders, auto-immune and Central Nervous System (CNS) related diseases, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Myasthenia gravis, Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease, are expected to be huge.

Faster growth of biologic drugs:

Despite patent cliff, large molecule biologic drugs like Enbrel, Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira continue to contribute more than the small molecule drugs of chemical origin to overall growth of the large global pharmaceutical majors. Many of these drugs were sourced by them either through acquisitions or collaborative arrangements.

Cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules falling in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factor are becoming attractive acquisition targets of the small molecules dominated large pharmaceutical companies having deep pockets.

Global Market Scenario:

According to IMS Health, biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$ 120 billion during MAT March 2009

In 2010 Biologic drugs increased their turnover to US$ 140 billion in the total market of US$ 850 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 12 and eight in the top 20 best selling global brands. Remicade emerged as the highest-selling biologics in 2010, ahead of Enbrel. Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies. (source: Knol 2010)

Major acquisitions from 2005-2011 for Biologic drugs:

The opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologic drugs, especially in high-growth therapy areas, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust in the recent times.

Following are the major acquisitions in the field of biologic drugs from 2005 to 2011:

Company	Target company	The deal: $billion	Products
Roche	Genentech	47	Rituxan, Avastin, Herceptin, MoAbs, Oncology
Sanofi Aventis	Genzyme	20	Orphan biologicsCerezyme, Fabrazyme, Renagel, Synvisc
AstraZeneca	MedImmune	15.6	Monoclonal Antibodies
Merck	Serono	13.5	Biologics
Takeda	Millennium	8.8	Velcade, Oncology
Lilly	ImClone	6.0	Erbitux, Oncology
Novartis	Chiron	5.8	Vaccines
Teva	Cephalon	6.2	Nuvigil, Provigil, Treanda CNS, Oncology
Abraxis	American BioScience	4.2	Oncology
Astellas	OSI Pharma	4.0	Tarceva, oncology
Eisai	MGI Pharma	3.9	Aloxi, Salagen, Hexalen, Oncology
Celgene	Pharmion	2.9	Oncology
Celgene	Abraxis	2.9	Oncology
Gilead	Myogen	2.5	Biotechnology
BMS	Medarex	2.4	Monoclonal antibodies
J&J	Crucell	2.3	Vaccines
Amgen	Abgenix	2.2	Monoclonal antibodies
Boehringer Ingelheim	MacroGenics	2.1	Monoclonal antibodies
Gilead	CV Terapeutics	1.4	Cardiovascular
Genzyme	Osiris	1.4	Prochymal, Stem cells
GSK	ID Biomed	1.3	Biologics
AstraZeneca	Cambridge Antibody Technology	1.3	Monoclonal Antibodies
Merck	Sirna	1.1	RNAi
Amgen	BioVex	1	OncoVex

(Source: Mergers and Acquisitions Review2005-2011 Pharma Biotech by Knol)

Why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space?

The answer to the key question of why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space of the business, in summary, could lie in the following:

Truly innovative small molecule discovery is becoming more and more challenging and expensive with the low hanging fruits already being plucked.
More predictable therapeutic activity of biologics with better safety profile.
A higher percentage of biologic drugs have turned into blockbuster drugs in the recent past.
Market entry barrier for biosimilar drugs, after patent expiry of the original molecule, is much tougher than small molecule generics.
A diverse portfolio of both small and large molecules will reduce future business risks.

A recent study:

In one of their recent collaborative studies published in an article titled, “Is R&D Earning its Investment?” Deloitte and Thomson Reuters (2009) have reported that the top 12 global pharma majors have 21% to 66% biologic drugs in their late stage product pipeline with the average being at 39%.

Another interesting trend:

Besides mega acquisitions, relatively smaller pharmaceutical players have started acquiring venture-backed biotech companies to enrich their product pipelines with early-stage drugs at a much lesser cost. For example, with the acquisition of Calistoga for US $ 600 million and venture-backed Arresto Biosciences and CGI Pharmaceuticals, Gilead known for its HIV drugs, expanded into blood cancer, solid tumor and inflammatory disease segments. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs. In November 2011, Gilead acquired ‘Pharmasset’ for US$ 11 billion to include in its product pipeline a future Hepatitis C drugs offering 95% cure rates.

Smaller biotech companies usually do not get engaged in very large deals unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and successful smaller deals more effectively.

Much less generic competition for biologic space:

After patent expiry of NCEs, innovators’ brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion. This happens as the small molecules are relatively easier to replicate by the generic manufacturers. Moreover, the process of getting regulatory approval of NCEs is also not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biosimilar drugs involving difficult, complex and expensive processes for development with stringent regulatory requirements for getting their marketing approval in the developed markets of the world like the EU and the USA, offer significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, even after the patent expiry.

Mainly due to this reason, brands like the following are expected to go strong for some more time without any significant competition from the biosimilar drugs:

Brand	Company	Launch date
Rituxan	Roche/Biogen idec	1997
Herceptin	Roche	1998
Remicade	Centocor/J&J	1998
Enbrel	Amgen/Pfizer	1998

Smaller biotech companies to be the prime targets:

In my view, the voracious appetite of large pharmaceutical companies for inorganic growth through mega M&A, will ultimately subside due to various compelling reasons. Instead, smaller biotech companies, especially with products in Phase I or II of clinical trials, without wherewithal to take them to subsequent stages of development, will be the prime targets for acquisition by the pharma majors at an attractive valuation.

Cost of treatment:

Despite so many positives, high priced biologic drugs do raise a critical concern about the incremental load on already ballooning healthcare costs to the patients.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in its September 29, 2010 issue highlighted that biologic drugs can cost as much as $1.5 million annually to the user. Similarly Forbes.com on April 12, 2009 reported, “Biologic drugs can cost up to 22 times more than traditional medications – some as much as $400,000 a year”.

This is indeed a very serious issue that needs to be resolved sooner. Speedy entry of biosimilar drugs will partly address this critical issue.

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors have already started experimenting to work with the pure biotech companies in terms of M&A and strategic alliances, it will be interesting to watch the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ of the business models, organization/ work/employee culture and market outlook of these two different types of organizations while improving the global business performance of the overall entity, significantly.

Only future will tell us whether or not just restructuring of the R&D set up of companies like, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and perhaps Sanofi at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged entities.

Be that as it may, despite serious cost concern, experts still believe that biologic drugs have all the potential to deliver the ‘magic bullets’ in the fight against many intractable diseases of mankind in not too distant future.

Hence the hunt is on.

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Author Archives: Tapan Ray

‘Empowered Patients’: The changing dynamics of the pharmaceutical industry

Encourage vaccine research and improve its access to demonstrate ‘prevention is better than cure’

Types of Vaccines:

Infections may cause NCDs like, diabetes and cancer: Ongoing scientific quest to decipher the mystery

Indian Pharmaceutical Landscape: Looking back (2011), Looking Ahead (2012)

Business Ethics, Values and Compliance: Walking the Talk

Getting unfolded a global opportunity for India with Biosimilar Drugs

Health being a basic human right, the proposal for ‘Universal Health Coverage’ augurs well for India

Biologic Drugs: The hunt for the ‘Magic Bullets’ is on