“New drug prices are Astronomical, Unsustainable and Immoral” – Anatomy of Unique Protests

Posted on May 6, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Yes. The quoted sentiment captured in the headline was reportedly voiced recently by many cancer specialists, including researchers and that too in the heartland of pharmaceutical innovation of the world– the United States of America.

These specialist doctors argued:

“High prices of a medicine to keep someone alive is profiteering, akin to jacking up prices of essential goods after a natural disaster”

Thus, not just in India, high prices of new drugs have started prompting large-scale protests in various types and forms across the world. This time the above unique protest assumed an extra-ordinary dimension, with the eye of the storm being in America.

The news item highlighted quite a different type of public protest by the top doctors, originated at a major cancer center located in New York and actively supported by over 120 influential cancer specialists from more than 15 countries spanning across five continents. These crusaders, though reportedly are working in favor of a healthy pharmaceutical industry, do think, especially the cancer drug prices are beyond the reach of many.

About 30 of these doctors hail from the United States and work closely, as mentioned earlier, with pharmaceutical companies engaged in R&D, including clinical trials.

As the cost of many life saving cancer drugs are now exceeding US$ 100,00 per year, all these doctors and researchers involved in the patients’ fights against cancer, are now playing a pivotal role in resisting such high drug prices vigorously.

Examples of astonishingly high drug prices:

In the area of treating rare diseases, the situation in every sense is mind-boggling. When a drug to treat such ailments comes with a price tag of over US$ 400,000 just for a year’s treatment, it is indeed astonishingly high by any standard. Some protestors even described the cost of these drugs as ‘obvious highway robbery’ in the guise of high R&D cost, while some others would continue to wonder as to why is not there a regulatory intervention for the same?

Here below are the top 10 most expensive drugs of the world…and just hold your breath:

World’s Most Expensive Medicines

No.	Name	Disease	Price US$ /Year
1.	ACTH	Infantile spasm	13,800,00
2.	Elaprase	Hunter Syndrome	657,000
3.	Soliris	Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria	409,500
4.	Nagalazyme	Maroteaux-Lamy Syndrome	375,000
5.	Folotyn	T-Cell Lymphoma	360,000
6.	Cinryze	Hereditary Angioedema	350,000
7.	Myozyme	Pompe	300,000
8.	Arcalyst	Cold Auto-Inflammatory Syndrome	250,000
9.	Ceredase / Cerezyme	Gaucher Disease	200,000
10.	Fabrazyme	Fabry Disease	200,000

(Source: Medical Billing & Coding, February 6, 2012)

The good news is protests against such ‘immoral pricing’ have started mounting.

Protests against high drug prices for rare diseases:

Probably due to this reason, drugs used for the treatment of rare diseases are being reported as ‘hot properties for drug manufacturers’, all over the world.

The above report highlighted a changing and evolving scenario in this area.

In 2013, the Dutch Government had cut the prices of new enzyme-replacement therapies, which costs as high as US$ 909,000. Similarly, Ireland has reduced significantly the cost of a cystic fibrosis drug, and the U.K. rejected a recommendation to expand the use of a drug for blood disorders due to high costs.

Soon, the United States is also expected to join the initiative to reduce high prices of orphan drugs as both the government and private insurers increasingly come under the cost containment pressure.

Yet another protest prompted cancer drug price reduction by half:

Another report highlights that last year physicians at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York refused to use a new colon cancer drug ‘as it was twice as expensive as another drug without being better’.

After this protest, in an unusual move, the manufacturer of this colon cancer drug had cut its price by half.

Even developed countries with low out of pocket expenditure can’t sustain such high prices:

With over one million new cancer cases reportedly coming up every year in India, there is an urgent need for the intervention of the Government in this area, especially for poor and the middleclass population of the country.

Further, it is worth noting that in countries like India, where out of pocket expenditure towards healthcare is very high, as public health system is grossly inadequate, such ‘astronomical prices’ will perhaps mentally knock-down many patients directly, well before they actually die.

That said, even in those countries where out-of-pocket expenditure towards healthcare is nil or very low, respective health systems, by and large, be it public or run by other payors, will still require paying for these high cost drugs, making the systems unsustainable.

Moreover, patients on assistance program of the pharmaceutical companies, reportedly also complain that these ‘Patient Access Programs’ are always not quite user friendly.

Protests spreading beyond cancer and rare disease treatment:

The concern for high drug prices is now spreading across many other serious disease areas, much beyond cancer. It has been reported that the issue of drug prices for various other disease areas was discussed in October 2012 at the Cowen Therapeutic Conference in New York. Many doctors in this conference felt that the drugs with no significant benefit over the existing therapy should not be included in the hospital formulary.

Pressure on diabetic and cardiac drug prices:

Various Governments within the European Union (EU) are now reportedly exerting similar pressures to reduce the costs of drugs used for the treatment of diabetes and cardiac disorders. These measures are now reportedly ‘putting the brakes on an US$ 86 billion sector of the pharmaceutical industry that’s been expanding twice as fast as the market as a whole’.

It is worth noting that each nation within EU is responsible for deciding the price of a new drug, though the European Commission approves drugs for all 27 members of the EU.

Flip side of the story – Commendable initiatives of some global companies:

There is another side of the story too. To address such situation some global companies reportedly are increasing drug donations, reinvesting profits in developing countries and adopting to a more flexible approach to intellectual property related issues. However, as per media reports, there does not seem to be any unanimity within the global companies on country-specific new drug pricing issue, at least not just yet.

To encourage pharmaceutical companies to improve access to affordable drugs for a vast majority of population across the world, an independent initiative known as Access to medicine index ranks 20 largest companies of the world. This ranking is based on the efforts of these companies to improve access to medicine in developing countries.

As indicated by the World Health Organization (WHO), this Index covers 20 companies, 103 countries, and a broad range of drugs, including vaccines, diagnostic tests and other health-related technologies required for preventing, diagnosing and treating disease.

The index covers 33 diseases, including maternal conditions and neonatal infections. The top 10 companies in ‘Access to Medicine Index’ ranking for 2012 are as follows:

No.	Company	Index
1.	GlaxoSmithKline plc	3.8
2.	Johnson & Johnson	3.6
3.	Sanofi	3.2
4.	Merck & Co. Inc.	3.1
5.	Gilead Sciences	3.0
6.	Novo Nordisk A/S	3.0
7.	Novartis AG	2.9
8.	Merck KGaA	2.5
9.	Bayer AG	2.4
10.	Roche Holding Ltd.	2.3

Source: http;//www.accesstomedicineindex.org/ranking

How high is really the high R&D cost?

A recent article published this month raises some interesting points on this subject, which I am quoting below:

No direct and transparent details are available from the industry for public scrutiny on the total cost of innovation.
What one does have access to are studies on the issue funded by pharmaceutical MNCs themselves.
For most NCEs, public-funded programs in the U.S largely invest in drug discovery.
In industry sponsored studies there is lack of transparency on the real costs of drug research and development.
Various tax benefits allowed under U.S. law are also ignored by industry studies.
Researching new drugs gives one Tax breaks to the extent of 50 per cent in the U.S. If one researches and markets an orphan drug for rare diseases, again, tax breaks are available to the tune of half the expenditure.

Further, a 2011 study by Donald W. Light and Rebecca Warburton published by the London School of Economics and Political Science indicates, “based on independent sources and reasonable arguments, one can conclude that R&D costs companies a median of US$ 43.4 million per new drug.”

It is interesting to note, the above cost estimate is a fraction of what is available from the industry source (over US$ 1.2 billion).

An interesting pricing model prescribed:

Another article recently published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) commented, while pharmaceutical companies reportedly spend billions on research, the actual cost of manufacturing a treatment (such as a pill) is minimal. This cost structure enables pricing flexibility.

The author suggests:

Adopt a smarter pricing model, where a company can charge the highest price that each customer is willing to pay.

To implement smarter pricing that saves more lives, and brings in more revenue, the pharmaceutical industry should create a straightforward grid that specifies the annual maximum a patient should pay out of pocket on drug expenses.

Key variables that determine this maximum include income, family size, and their other drug costs. Patients can submit this data to a third party agency to avail discounts based on these criteria.

However, implementability of this model, especially in the Indian scenario, seems to be challenging.

Conclusion:

Despite this gloom and doom, as ‘Access to Medicine Index 2012′ indicates, some pharmaceutical companies do want to become an integral part in finding out a solution to the access problem in general. Though, there are still many more miles to cover, some companies, though small in number, are demonstrably trying to improve access to health care in the developing countries of the world.

Rising prices of new drugs in general and for dreaded disease like cancer and other rare disorders in particular have now started reaching a crescendo, not just India, but in many other countries across the world and in various forms. Probably due to this reason, currently in Europe, regulators tend to be depending more and more in the concept of cost to efficacy ratios for new drugs.

It is interesting to note, the world is witnessing for the first time and that too in the developed world that a large number of specialist doctors are protesting against this trend, unitedly and with strong words.

The anatomy of initial phase of this groundswell, many would tend to believe, signals ushering in a new era of checks and balances to set right ‘astronomical, unsustainable and immoral new drug prices’ in the patients’ fights especially against dreaded diseases, the world over.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

More Glivec Like Deals in China and Mounting Global Challenges: Innovators poised Joining Biosimilar Bandwagon

Posted on April 15, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Pressure from the emerging markets on pricing of patented products is mounting fast. This time the country involved is China.

Recently, the Health Minister of China who stepped down last month after a seven-year stint in the top health job reportedly commented that western drugmakers will require to give hefty subsidies and forgo significant amount of profit on expensive cancer drugs, if they want access to huge market of China. He further voiced as follows:

“If the cost (of patented drugs) is too high, maybe only a few percent of patients can benefit. If we can arrange an appropriate, acceptable, affordable price, then you can have a huge market.”

‘Glivec deal’ in China:

In the same report, it was indicated that in China Novartis ultimately agreed to donate three doses of its leukemia drug Glivec for every one sold to the government.

It is expected that many more such deals will take place in China.

The situation to get more challenging in the emerging markets:

Many experts believe that due to high cost of patented drugs, especially biologics, negotiating hefty discounts with the Governments may be the best alternative for the innovator companies to avoid any possibilities of Compulsory Licensing (CL), like what happened to Bayer’s cancer drug Nexavar in India.

An opportunity in biosimilar drugs:

Biologic drugs came to the international market slightly more than three decades ago, in 1980s. Growing at a scorching pace, the value turnover of these products exceeded US$ 138 billion in 2010 (IMS Health).

Launch of biologics like, Recombinant Insulin, Human Growth Hormone (HGH), Alteplase, Erythropoietin (EPOs), Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factors (G-CSFs) and Monoclonal Antibodies (MAbs) kept fueling the market growth further.

Patent expiry of a number of biologic drugs over a period of next five years, especially in areas like, various types of cancer, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, besides many others, will help opening a huge window of opportunity for the global biosimilar players, including from India, to reap a rich harvest.

Global innovators joining the bandwagon:

After a dream-run with high priced patented drugs for a reasonably long time, now stung by the current reality in various developed and emerging markets and factoring-in the width/depth/robustness of their own research pipeline, many global players have started taking a hard look at the emerging opportunities offered by biosimilar drugs.

Moreover, high price of original biologic drugs, cost containment pressure by various Governments, encouragement of generic prescriptions, large number of such drugs going off patent and growing demand of their low cost alternatives across the world, are making biosimilar market more and more lucrative from the global business perspective to all interested players, including from India.

According to Bloomberg Industries (2013), during the next six years biologic drugs with a total annual sales turnover of US$ 47 billion in 2012, will go off patent.

Sniffing opportunities for business growth, as stated above, many hard-nosed large research-based global pharmaceutical companies, currently fighting a challenging battle also in the ground of a tougher ‘patent cliff’, have started venturing into the biosimilar market, that too in a mega scale.

Some of them have already initiated developing biosimilar versions of blockbuster biologics, as reported below:

Originator	Product	Indication	Biosimilar development by:
Roche/Genentech	Rituxan	Rheumatoid arthritis	Boehringer Ingelheim
Roche/Genentech	Herceptin, Rituxan	Breast Cancer, Rheumatoid arthritis	Pfizer
Roche/Genentech	Rituxan	Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma	Novartis
Johnson & Johnson	Remicade	Rheumatoid arthritis	Hospira

Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek

Thus, I reckon, continuous quest for development of cost-effective alternatives to high-priced biologic medicines would keep on propelling the growth of biosimilar drugs, across the world.

Glivec maker Novartis fought a court battle to launch the first ‘Biosimilar drug’ in America:

In mid-2006, US FDA approved its first ‘biosimilar drug’-Omnitrope of Sandoz, the generic arm of the Glivec maker Novartis, following a Court directive. Omnitrope is a copycat version of Pfizer’s human growth hormone Genotropin. Interestingly, Novartis had also taken the US FDA to court for keeping its regulatory approval pending for a while in the absence of a well-defined regulatory pathway for ‘biosimilar drugs’ in the USA at that time.

More interestingly, having received the US-FDA approval, the CEO of Sandoz (Novartis) had then commented as follows:

“The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like, Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”.

Biosimilar market started shaping-up:

Internationally most known companies in the biosimilar drugs space are Teva, Stada, Hospira and Sandoz. Other large research based global innovator pharmaceutical companies, which so far have expressed interest in the field of biosimilar drugs, are Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Merck and Eli Lilly.

Following are examples of some biosimilar drug related initiatives of the global players as the market started developing:

Merck announced its entry into the biosimilar drugs business on February 12, 2009 with its acquisition of Insmed’s portfolio for US$ 130 million. The company also paid US$ 720 million to Hanwha for rights to its copy of Enbrel of Amgen.

Samsung of South Korea has set up a biosimilars joint venture with Quintiles to create a contract manufacturer for biotech drugs.

Celltrion and LG Life Sciences have expressed global ambitions in biosimilar drugs.

Some leading global innovator biotech companies also like, Biogen Idec and Amgen have reportedly been mulling entry into biosimilar market.

According to Reuter (June 22, 2011), Merck, Sandoz, Teva and Pfizer are expected to emerge stronger in the global biosimilar market, in the years ahead.

Why is still so 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 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 the respective biologics would 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)

Now with the entry of global pharma majors, the biosimilar market is expected to get further heated up and develop at a much faster pace with artificial barriers created by vested interests, if any, being removed.

Recent removal of regulatory hurdles for the marketing approval of such drugs in the US will indeed be the key growth driver.

Other growth drivers:

According to a study (2011) conducted by Global Industry Analysts Inc., besides recent establishment of the above regulatory guidelines for biosimilars in the US, the key growth drivers for global biosimilar market, will be as follows:

▪ Patent expiries of blockbuster biologic drugs

▪ Cost containment measures of various governments

▪ Aging population

▪ Supporting legislation in increasing number of countries

The 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 and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), besides others.

DRL is the largest biosimilar player in India with an impressive product portfolio. Reditux of DRL is the world’s first Biosimilar monoclonal antibody, which is a copy version of Mabthera/ Rituxan of Roche and costs almost 50 percent less than the original brands.

Some of the Biosimilar products of the Indian Companies are as follows:

Indian Company	Biosimilar Product
Dr Reddy’s Lab	Grafeel, Reditux, Cresp
Intas	Neukine, Neupeg, Intalfa, Epofit
Shantha Biotech/Merieux Alliance	Shanferon,Shankinase,Shanpoietin
Reliance Life Sciences	ReliPoietin, ReliGrast, ReliFeron, MIRel
Wockhardt	Wepox, Wosulin
Biocon	Eripro, Biomab, Nufil, Myokinase, Insugen

(Source: Stellarix Consultancy Services)

The cost of development of Biosimilars in India is around US$ 10-20 million, which is expected to go up, as “Biosimilar Guidelines” are now in place for marketing approval of such products in India.

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 making rapid strides:

As stated above, biosimilar version of Rituxan (Rituximab) of Roche used in the treatment of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has already been developed by DRL in India. It 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 soon from its biological research establishment located in Switzerland.

Indian pharmaceutical major Cipla reportedly has invested around US$ 60 million 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 2013.

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, will reportedly be launched in India by 2013.

The global Market:

In 2011 the turnover of Biologic drugs increased to over US$ 175 billion in the total market of US$ 847 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 10 best selling global brands in 2012 with Humira of AbbVie emerging as the highest-selling biologics during the year. Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies.

According to IMS Health report, by 2015, sales of biosimilars are expected to reach between US$ 1.9 – 2.6 billion. The report also states that this market has the potential to be the single fastest-growing biologics sector in the next five years.

Cost of biosimilar development in the developed markets:

The process of developing a biosimilar drug is complex and requires significantly more investment, technical capabilities and clinical trial expertise than any small molecule generic drug. As per industry sources, average product developmental cost ranges between US$ 100 and 250 million in the developed markets, which is several times higher than the same associated with development of small molecule generics, ranging around US$ 1to 4 million.

All these factors create a significant market entry barrier for many smaller players with similar intent but less than adequate wherewithal.

Even higher market entry barrier with ‘second generation’ biosimilar drugs:

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

Negotiating the entry barriers:

As stated above, the barriers to market entry for biosimilar drugs are, in general, are 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 different type of skill sets, especially for 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.

The future potential:

According to an IMS Health study, the emerging markets will drive biosimilar market growth with significantly more number of patients. The report estimates that over a period of time US will emerge as the number one global biosimilars market.

By 2020, emerging markets and the US are expected to register a turnover of US$11 billion and US$ 25 billion representing a share of 4 percent to 10 percent of the total global biologics market, respectively.

The report estimates that overall penetration of biosimilars within the off-patent biological market will reach up to 50 percent by 2020, assuming a price discount in the range of 20 to 30 percent.

Is 12 years exclusivity in the US a significant entry barrier?

In the US, the innovator companies get 12 years exclusivity for their original biologic drugs from the date of respective marketing approvals by the USFDA.

The BPCI Act clearly specifies that applications for ‘biosimilar drugs’ to the USFDA will not be made effective by the regulator before 12 years from the date of approval of the innovators’ products. In addition, if the original product is for pediatric indications, the 12-years exclusivity may get an extension for another six months.

The key point to note here is, if the USFDA starts its review process for the ‘biosimilar drugs’ only after the ’12 year period’, the innovator companies will effectively get, at least, one additional year of exclusivity over and above the ’12 year period’, keeping applicants for ‘biosimilar drugs’ waiting for that longer.

Conclusion:

As stated above, with around 40 percent cost arbitrage and without compromising on the required stringent international regulatory standards, the domestic ‘biosimilar’ players should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for such drugs, just as small molecule generic medicines.

With experience in conforming to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards, having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside USA, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in the country. Now with significant improvement in conformance to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) and honed skill sets in the field of biologics, Indian biosimilar players are clearly poised to catapult themselves to even a higher growth trajectory, either on their own or with appropriate collaborative arrangements with the international partners.

Thus, the initiatives of joining the biosimilar bandwagon by the hard-nosed research based global players, I reckon, will ultimately get translated into a win-win advantage for India in the rapidly evolving pharmaceutical space of the world.

Besides, like what they had to do in China, working with the Government to put in place a robust and win-win mechanism of ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ in India could augur well for the global players of pharmaceutical and biologic drugs. This mechanism may also help putting forth even a stronger argument against any Government initiative to grant CL on the pricing ground for expensive patented drugs in India.

With all these developments, patients will be the ultimate winners having much greater access to both innovative medicines and biosimilar drugs than what they have today, fetching a huge relief to all right thinking population in the country.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Ghost Keeps Haunting: NCD Dogs Cancer in ‘Compulsory License’ Debate of India

Posted on March 11, 2013 by Tapan Ray

In November 2012, as a part of the ‘Campaign for Affordable Trastuzumab’ for the treatment of breast cancer, a citizens’ collective, reportedly sent an ‘Open Letter’ signed by around 200 cancer survivors, women’s groups, human rights and health rights campaigns and treatment activists from across the world to the Indian Prime Minister, urging him to ensure that the breast-cancer drug Trastuzumab is made affordable for treating cancer patients in the country.

Trastuzumab was named because of the following reasons:

Breast-cancer affects around 28-35 per cent of all cancers among women in major cities of India.

No other drug against HER+2 cancer can reduce patients’ mortality as Trastuzumab and reduce the spread of malignancy to other parts of the body.

Majority of women with HER+2 breast cancer do not have access to a complete course of the drug, which reportedly costs anywhere between Rs 6 to 8 lakhs (US$ 11,000 to US$ 14,500).

Reaping reach harvest:

According to a media report, three homegrown Indian companies are currently developing biosimilar drugs to this protein molecule to reap a reach harvest arising out of the emerging opportunities.

However, this is expected to be an arduous, expensive and challenging endeavor, as the concerned companies will require pursuing a complicated biotechnological route to create follow-on biologics for Trastuzumab.

The ‘Trigger Factor’:

It is widely believed that the above ‘Open Letter’ to the Prime Minister had prompted the Ministry of Health to form an ‘Experts Committee’ to evaluate the situation and make recommendations accordingly.

Thereafter, within a short period of time, in January, 2013, in a move that is intended to benefit thousands of cancer patients, Ministry of Health forwarded the report of the above ‘Experts Committee’ to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) for its consideration to issue Compulsory Licenses (CL) for three commonly used anti-cancer drugs namely, Trastuzumab (used for breast cancer), Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy) and Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia). Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), among other experts, also reportedly had participated as a member of this ‘Experts Committee’,

For a month’s treatment drugs like Ixabepilone and Dasatinib reportedly cost on an average of US$ 3,000 – 4,500 or Rs 1.64 – 2.45 lakh for each patient in India.

A ‘Technology Transfer’ discouraged:

Such a rapid development in the CL landscape of India is indeed intriguing, especially after a voluntary announcement by Roche in 2012 that it will produce Trastuzumab and Rituximab in India through transfer of technology to an Indian contract manufacturer.

Consequently for a month’s treatment, the price of Trastuzumab will come down from around US$ 2,000 to US$ 1, 366, i.e. by 31 percent and Rituximab from around US$ 1,456 to US$ 682 i.e. by 53 percent. This was reportedly announced by none other than the Minister of State of Chemicals and Fertilizers of India Mr. Srikant Jena.

Despite this voluntary decision of technology transfer and price reduction of two life saving drugs in India by Roche, reported Government consideration for grant of CL for Trastuzumab, without getting engaged in any form of a win-win dialogue with the Company, could ultimately prove to be counter productive and may discourage further technology transfer of expensive patented drugs to India.

Increasing incidence of cancer in India:

Cancer is just not a dreaded disease, but also making a devastating impact, financial and otherwise, on the lives and families of thousands of sufferers in India.

According to ‘The Lancet’, published on 28 March 2012, in India 556 400 people died of cancer only in 2010.

The paper also comments that only half of the estimated 9.8 million total deaths per year is captured by the CRS in India, fewer than 4 percent are medically certified, while more than 75 percent of deaths occur at home.

The Lancet study clearly highlights that most cancer patients in India die without medical attention and drugs. Cancer is, therefore, increasingly becoming a public sensitive disease area with high socioeconomic impact in the country. High treatment cost of this near terminal disease is beyond reach of majority of population in the country.

In a written reply to a question in the ‘Upper House’ of the Indian Parliament, the Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare on March 4, 2012 said that according to “Three Year Report on Population Based Cancer Registries 2006 – 08″ of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the estimated numbers of cancer patients for 2015 and 2020 are 1.16 million and 1.27 million respectively. There is a gradual rise in the prevalence of cancer in India, though the government has initiated several measures in this area.

High incidence of breast cancer:

As per a recent report, an estimated 1, 00,000 – 1, 25,000 new patients suffer from breast cancer every year in India and this number is expected to double by 2025.

Government is mulling CL for NCD:

Currently the DIPP appears to be planning to extend the provision of Compulsory License (CL) beyond cancer drugs to other Non-Communicable Diseases (NCD) in the country, like diabetes.

Domestic Pharma Association supports the move:

A major domestic pharmaceutical industry association, as per media reports, supports this move by clearly articulating, “Over the years, more deaths are taking place on account of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) than communicable ones. It is, therefore, natural that this provision (CL) will be used for NCDs as well.”

UN declaration on NCD provides flexibilities in TRIPS Agreement:

Experts believe that this new move on CL for drugs related to NCDs is a consequence of India’s signing the United Nation (UN) declaration on the prevention of NCDs in the country by, among others, using flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement to increase availability of affordable drugs for such diseases.

The Government has already launched a “National Program for Prevention & Control of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardio Vascular Diseases and Stroke (NPCDCS)” as a pilot project covering 150 million people in 100 inaccessible and most backward districts during the financial year 2011-2012 at a cost of US$ 275 million.

Socio-economic impact of NCDs in India:

Indian Journal of Community Medicine (IJCM) in an article titled, “Social and Economic Implications of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in India” has highlighted, among others as follows:

NCDs account for 62 percent of the total disease burden in India with a significant ascending trend both in terms of overall mortality and morbidity.

This burden is likely to increase in the years to come.

Due to chronic nature of the disease and technological advancements in care, costs of treatment are high leading to access barriers, or ‘catastrophic expenditures’ for those who undergo treatment.

There are evidences of greater financial implications for the poorer households suffering from NCDs.

Most estimates suggest that the NCDs in India account for a significant economic burden ranging from 5 to 10 percent of GDP.

An urgent multi-sectoral Government action is strongly warranted both on grounds of economic arguments and social justice.

Action needs focus on addressing the social determinants of NCDs for prevention and strengthening of health systems to meet the challenge.

A framework for monitoring, reporting, and accountability is essential to ensure that the returns on investments in NCDs meet the targets and expectations set in the national plans.

Innovator companies contemplating legal recourse:

Reacting to all these developments, the global pharmaceutical companies have, once again, expressed strong commitment to protect and continue to defend their Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) within the legal framework of India.

They have also reiterated their belief that a robust IPR regime will encourage innovation in the country making available more and more innovative drugs for the patients in India.

An interesting WHO report on a ‘robust IPR regime’:

In this regard a World Health Organization (WHO) research report titled “Patents, Price Controls and Access to New Drugs: How Policy Affects Global Market Entry” makes some interesting observations on a ‘robust IPR regime’.

The report highlights the following four important points:

1. Increasing the strength of a patent system to include long-term protection on pharmaceutical products appears to spur market entry mostly in the high-income countries.

For the low- and middle-income countries that are currently being encouraged to move to stronger protection through trade policies, the evidence that extending protection enhances access to new pharmaceuticals is mixed.

2. There is some evidence that high level of protection might encourage more frequent entry of innovative products in the short term. However, in the longer term the same domestic capacity could well be an alternative source of entry of such drugs.

3. Intellectual Property (IP) holders frequently assert that the poor quality of enforcement in developing countries undermines the value of their patent rights. However, it is quite evident now that patent laws in these countries are at least broadly meaningful commensurate to their respective domestic requirements.

4. The standard argument on price regulation that it will dissuade market entry for innovative drugs appears to have more relevance among the high-income countries and not so for the poorer countries.

The authors further indicate:

“There we find that while price regulation makes it less likely that new drugs will be available quickly, it does not appear to prevent new products from being launched eventually.”

Conclusion:

Following all these recent developments and weighing pros and cons, one could well imagine that pressure on the Government from various stakeholders for CL on drugs for Cancer and NCDs will keep mounting, unless an alternative measure like, ‘Price Negotiation for Patented Drugs’ is put in place by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, sooner than later, in 2013.

The recent judgment of the ‘Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)’ on CL to Natco may further add fuel to this raging debate.

It is now quite clear from the Finance Minister’s speech on the ‘Union Budget Proposal’ for 2013-14 that eagerly awaited ‘Universal Health Coverage’ or ‘Free Distribution of Essential Medicines to all’ schemes will not be implemented, at least for now.

Thus in all probability, the ghost of CL will keep haunting the innovators in India unabated, unless an effective, scalable and sustainable model for improving access to patented drugs for majority of population in the country is put in place. This will call for demonstrative, innovative and constructive Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) initiatives, sooner. In this effort all concerned should at first be aligned with the cause, in principle, and try to be a constructive partner to get it translated into reality together, rather than just playing the role of vociferous critics in perpetuity .

By: Tapan J. Ray

Government Ups the Ante for More Compulsory Licenses in India

Posted on January 21, 2013 by Tapan Ray

On January 12, 2013, one of the leading dailies of India first reported that in a move that is intended to benefit thousands of cancer patients, Indian Government has started the process of issuing Compulsory Licenses (CL) for three commonly used anti-cancer drugs:

- Trastuzumab (or Herceptin, used for breast cancer),

- Ixabepilone (used for chemotherapy)

- Dasatinib (used to treat leukemia).

For a month’s treatment drugs like, Trastuzumab, Ixabepilone and Dasatinib reportedly cost on an average of US$ 3,000 – 4,500 or Rs 1.64 – 2.45 lakh for each patient in India.

CL through a different route:

This time the government can reportedly notify its intent to grant CL under Section 92 of the Indian Patents Act 2005, only if any of the following three conditions are met:

- National emergency

- Cases of extreme urgency

- Public non-commercial use

After such Government notification in the gazette, any company interested in manufacturing any or all of these three products can directly apply for a CL to the Indian Patent Office (IPO).

This route is also expected to save usual litigation costs for the interested pharmaceutical players.

In such case, this will be the first time in India, when instead of pharmaceutical players applying for CL the Government on its own will trigger the CL process.

A situation like this will undoubtedly signal immense unpredictability in the IPR environment of the country.

Incongruent with the New Drug Policy 2012:

Interestingly, section 4(xv) of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) under ‘Patented Drugs’ states as follows:

“There is a separate Committee constituted by the Government order dated 1st February, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented drugs would be taken based on the recommendations of the Committee.”

A media report also highlighted that an inter-ministerial group constituted for regulating prices of patented medicines in India has recommended using a per capita income-linked reference pricing mechanism for such products.

Thus, it is rather intriguing for many to fathom, why is the Government contemplating to grant CL on the above three anti-cancer drugs in January 2013, despite the decision of the Union Cabinet on the same in the new Drug Policy as recent as December, 2012.

Medicines come at the third stage of a medical treatment process:

For all patients, including the cancer victims, medicines will come at the earliest in the third stage of any treatment process, the first two or in some cases first three stages being:

A doctor’s intervention
Correct diagnosis through diagnostic processes
Surgical interventions (in some cases)

In India, there is no regulation to address the ‘cost issues’ of the first two or three stages of treatment, though there is a dire need to facilitate the entire process and not just one. Coming straight to cancer medicines considering these as the only ‘magic wands’ to improve access to treatment, may well be considered as ‘jumping the gun’ by the Government, if not an imprudent decision.

Skewed healthcare distribution in India:

Healthcare distribution in India is rather skewed and cancer treatment is no exception mainly because of the following reasons:

Medical personnel are concentrated in urban areas.
74 percent of doctors work in urban settlements, which is just around 1/4^th of the population.
61 percent of the medical colleges are in the 6 states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Pudicherry.
Whereas, just 11 percent of these are located in Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal and the north-eastern states
369,351 government beds are in urban areas and a mere 143,069 beds in the rural areas.
Rural “doctors to population” ratio is lower by 6 times as compared to urban areas.

(Source: KPMG Report 2011)

Huge healthcare Infrastructural Deficiencies:

In India, not just compared to the developed nations, even as compared BRIC countries, there is a huge infrastructural deficiencies as follows:

Indicators	Year	India	US	UK	Brazil	China
Hospital Bed Density(Per 10000 population)	2011	12	31	39	24	30
Doctor Density(Per 10000 population)	2011	6	27	21	17	14

(Source: WHO, World Health Statistics 2012)

0.6 doctors per 1000 population as against the global average of 1.23 suggests an evident manpower gap in the very first stage of a treatment process.
Number of beds available per 1000 people in India is only 1.2, which is less than half of the global average of 2.6.

Coming to Medical Colleges, the scenario is equally dismal, as follows:

Year	Number of Medical Colleges	Total Admissions
2011-2012	314	29,263
	No of dental Colleges	Total Admissions
2011-2012	289	2783

(Source: Medical Council of India & Dental Council of India)

Thus, India needs to open around 600 medical colleges (100 seats per college) and 1500 nursing colleges (60 seats per college) in order to meet the global average of doctors and nurses.

(Source: KPMG Report 2011)

Shortages in other healthcare professionals:

It has been reported that a deficit of 64 lakh (6.4 million) allied healthcare professionals India with highest gaps in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, is a stumbling block in providing basic and quality healthcare to Indian population, as follows:

Healthcare Professionals	Shortage
Anesthetists and technicians	850,000
Dental staff	2.04 Million
Ophthalmologists and optometrists	127, 000
Rehabilitation specialists	1.8 Million
Medical laboratory technicians	61,000
Radiographers	19,000
Audiology and speech language specialists	7,500
Medical staff	230,000

(Source: Times Of India, December 20, 2012)

Is the Government ‘missing the woods for the trees’?

In a scenario like this, it is rather impractical to envisage that routine grant of compulsory licenses by the Indian Patent Office will be able to resolve the critical issue of improving access to patented medicines on a long term basis.

Not many CL granted between 1995-2012:

Despite having the provisions of CL in the Patents Act of many countries, not many CLs have been granted across the world from 1995 to date for the obvious reasons.

The details are as follows:

Country	Medicine	CL granted in:
Israel	Hepatitis B Vaccine	October 1995
Italy	Imipenem (antibiotic)	June 2005
Italy	Sumatriptan Succinate (migraine)	February 2006
Canada	Oseltamivir (influenza)	July 2006
Brazil	Efavirenz (HIV/AIDS)	May 2007
Thailand	Erlotinib, Docetaxel (cancer)	January 2008
India	Sorafenib Tosylate (cancer)	March 2012

Source: DNA, March 9, 2012

An interesting paper:

However, I hasten to add that despite all these, the provision of CL in the Indian Patents Act 2005 has immense relevance, if invoked in the right kind of circumstances.

In the paper titled ‘TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents and Access to Essential Medicines: Seattle, Doha and Beyond’, published in ‘Chicago Journal for International Law, Vol. 3(1), Spring 2002’, the author argues, though the reasons for the lack of access to essential medicines are manifold, there are many instances where high prices of drugs deny access to needed treatments for many patients. Prohibitive drug prices, in those cases, were the outcome of monopoly due to strong intellectual property protection.

The author adds, “The attempts of Governments in developing countries to bring down the prices of patented medicines have come under heavy pressure from industrialized countries and the multinational pharmaceutical industry”.

Right pricing of patented drugs is critical:

While there is no single or only right way to arrive at the price of an IPR protected medicine, how much the pharmaceutical manufacturers will charge for such drugs still remains an important, yet complex and difficult issue to resolve, both locally and globally. Even in the developed nations, where an appropriate healthcare infrastructure is already in place, this issue comes up too often mainly during price negotiation for reimbursed drugs.

A paper titled, “Pharmaceutical Price Controls in OECD Countries”, published by the US Department of Commerce after examining the drug price regulatory systems of 11 OECD countries concluded that all of them enforce some form of price controls to limit spending on pharmaceuticals. The report also indicated that the reimbursement prices in these countries are often treated as de facto market price.

In India, the Government is already mulling to put in place a similar mechanism for patented medicines, as captured in the NPPP 2012.

Further, some OECD governments regularly cut prices of even those drugs, which are already in the market. The values of health outcomes and pharmacoeconomics analysis are gaining increasing importance for drug price negotiations/control by the healthcare regulators even in various developed markets of the world to ensure responsible pricing of IPR protected medicines.

An evolving global trend:

To address such pricing issues, global pharmaceutical majors, like GSK and Merck (MSD) have already started following the differential pricing model, based primarily on the size of GDP and income status of the people of the respective countries. This strategy includes India, as well.

Reference pricing model is yet another such example, where the pricing framework of a pharmaceutical product will be established against the price of a reference drug in reference countries.

An innovative approach to address patented products’ pricing:

To effectively address the challenge of pricing of patented medicines in India, Swiss drug major Roche, has reportedly entered into a ‘never-before’ technology transfer and manufacturing contract for biologics with a local Indian company – Emcure Pharma, for its two widely acclaimed Monoclonal Antibodies’ anti-cancer drugs – Herceptin and MabThera.

The report says that in the past, Emcure had signed licensing deals with US-based bio-pharmaceutical drug maker Gilead Life Sciences for Tenafovir and with Johnson and Johnson for Darunavir. Both are anti-HIV drugs.

In this regard, media reports further indicated that Roche would offer to Indian patients significantly cheaper, local branded versions of these two anti-cancer drugs by early this year. The same news item also quoted the Roche spokesperson from Basel, Switzerland commenting as follows:

“The scope is to enable access for a large majority of patients who currently pay out of pocket as well as to partner with the government to enable increased access to our products for people in need”.

Such ‘out of box’ strategies and initiatives by the global innovator companies could help keeping prices of patented products affordable to the Indian patients, improving their access significantly and making the likes of the current Government initiative on CL irrelevant.

Conclusion:

It is generally accepted that the provisions for CL in the Indian Patents Act 2005 has utmost relevance in terms of public health interest for all concerned.

However, keeping in view of recent policy announcement in the NPPP 2012, as approved by the Union Cabinet, on price negotiation for patented products, the reported Government move of invoking these provisions for three anti-cancer drugs is rather intriguing.

Moreover, even for the cancer patients, there seems to be a greater urgency to attend to basic healthcare infrastructural and delivery issues, besides providing Universal Health Coverage (UHC) as recommended by the High Level Experts Group (HLEG) constituted for this purpose by the Government.

Far encompassing critical decisions like grant of CL, I reckon, should be taken only after exhausting all other access improvement measures.

Thus, recent news reports on the possibility of further grant of three more CLs could make the pharmaceutical business environment for the innovator companies in India more uncertain.

Demonstrable predictability for an innovation friendly environment is critical for the economic growth of India, which the Government should not lose sight of. Just upping the ante for more CL of anti-cancer drugs will not necessarily help improving access to cancer treatments in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Havoc’ and its ‘Aftermath’: Clinical Trials in India

Posted on January 14, 2013 by Tapan Ray

Just as the New Year dawned, on January 3, 2013, in an embarrassing indictment to the Government, the bench of honorable justices R.M Lodha and A.R Dave of the Supreme Court reportedly observed that uncontrolled Clinical Trials (CT) are creating ‘havoc’ to human life causing even deaths to patients.

In an interim order, the bench directed to the Government that CTs can be conducted only under the supervision of the Health Secretary of India. Holding the Government responsible, the bench further observed, “You (Government) have to protect health of citizens of the country. It is your obligation. Deaths must be arrested and illegal trials must be stayed,”

Responding to this damning stricture by the Supreme Court, the Government has now reportedly decided that appropriate rules laying down guidelines for pharma companies and other organizations engaging in drug trials in India would be notified within January 2013. It is envisaged that thereafter, the government will also amend the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India making any violation of prescribed rules and guidelines a punishable offense under the law.

It is worth mentioning that these guidelines have been reportedly worked out after due consideration of around 300 comments received from the stakeholders on the draft proposal circulated by the Ministry of Health in July 2011, couple of rounds of discussion with the members of the Civil Society, expert groups and against reported ‘stiff opposition from the drug companies’.

Better late than never:

In conformance to the well known saying – “better late than never”, it appears that after reportedly around 2,242 deaths related to CT and under immense pressure from the civil society and the Supreme Court, the Government has now left with no options but to bring US$ 500 million CT segment of the country, which is expected to cross US$ 1 Billion by 2016, under stringent regulations.

Experts believe that the growth of the CT segment in India is driven mainly by the overseas players for easy availability of a large patient population with varying disease pattern and demographic profile at a very low cost, as compared to many other countries across the world.

Clinical trial related deaths in India:

As per the Ministry of Health following are the details of deaths related to CTs registered in India from 2008 to August 2012:

Year	Total no of deaths	CT related deaths	Compensation paid to:
2012 (up to August)	272	12	NA
2011	438	16	16
2010	668	22	22
2009	737	NA	NA
2008	288	NA	NA

It is estimated that over the last four years, on an average, 10 persons have died every week in India related to CT.

However, looking at the above reported numbers it appears that financial compensation was paid for all registered death related cases however meager such amounts may be.

A huge ruckus:

The subject of CT in India has created a huge ruckus, mainly for wide spread alleged malpractices, abuse and misuse of fragile CT regulations of the country by some players in this field. The issue is not just of GCP or other CT related standards but more of ethical mind-set and reported rampant exploitation of uninformed patients, especially in case of trial related injuries or even death.

The Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an article titled, “Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns” reported as follows:

“Drug companies are drawn to India for several reasons, including a technically competent workforce, patient availability, low costs and a friendly drug-control system. While good news for India’s economy, the booming clinical trial industry is raising concerns because of a lack of regulation of private trials and the uneven application of requirements for informed consent and proper ethics review.”

Inadequate auditing:

It is unfortunate that focus on ‘Clinical Trial Registry’ and even ‘Auditing of Clinical Trials’ has been grossly lacking in India, which are considered so important not only in maintaining credibility of the studies, but also to demonstrate their scientific integrity and ethical values.

Unfortunately, there seems to be many loose knots in the current CT policy, practices, rules and guidelines. All these require to be adequately tightened by the Government to make the system efficient and transparent in the national endeavor of establishing India as a preferred destination for global CT without compromising safety and the health interest of the volunteers.

Indian Parliament intervened:

On May 8, 2012, the department related ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC)’ on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59th Report on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament.

The PSC in its report made the following critical findings, besides many others:

A total of 31 new drugs were approved in the period January 2008 to October 2010 without conducting clinical trials on Indian patients.

Thirteen drugs scrutinized by the panel are not sold in the United States, Canada, Britain, European Union and Australia, as instructed by their respective regulatory authorities.

Sufficient evidence is available on record to conclude that there is collusive nexus between drug manufacturers, some functionaries of CDSCO and some medical experts.

Due to the sensitive nature of CTs in which foreign companies are involved in a big way and a wide spectrum of ethical issues and legal angles, different aspects of CTs need a thorough and in-depth review.

Jolted drug regulator initiates action:

In response to the high-pitched conundrum and media glare, The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of India issued a draft notification on 17th July 2012 seeking stakeholders’ views on:

Permission to conduct CT
Compensation of the CT victims

The draft notification also says that the licensing authority, only after being satisfied with the adequacy of the data submitted by the applicant in support of proposed clinical trial, shall issue permission to conduct CT, subject to compliance of specified stringent conditions.

However, some experts do apprehend that such stringent system may give rise to significant escalation in the costs of CT for the pharmaceutical players.

Similarly, to assess right compensation for clinical trial related injuries or deaths, following parameters were mooted in the document:

Age of the deceased
Income of the deceased
Seriousness and severity of the disease the subject was suffering at the time of his/her participation into the trial.
Percentage of permanent disability

Further, unlike current practices, the government is expected to set up independent registered Ethics Committees under medical institutions for effective and smooth conduct of CTs in India.

Poor patient compensation:

Absolutely unacceptable level of compensation, by any standard, paid by the concerned companies for the lives lost during CTs are mainly attributed to the lackadaisical attitude of the drug regulators to frame rules and laws for patient compensation for such cases in India.

Information reportedly gathered through the ‘Right To Information (RTI) Act’ reveals that one pharmaceutical company paid just Rs. 50,000 each to the families of two patients who died during CT of its cancer drug. Another Ahmedabad-based Clinical Research Organization (CRO) paid a compensation of exactly the same amount to another patient for a CT related death.

The report points out that in 2011 out of 438 CT related deaths in India only 16 families of such patients received any compensation, the quantum of which varied from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. L 3.0 with one exception being of Rs. L 5.

In 2012 till August, 272 more CT related deaths have already been reported.

Higher patient compensation expected:

It has been alleged that currently the pharmaceutical companies are “getting away with arbitrary payments” sometimes as meager as Rs. 50,000, as stated above, in case of loss of life during CT, as there are no set norms for calculating compensation to those patients.

It is expected that the new rules will help putting in place a transparent formula for providing a respectable compensation for CT related serious adverse events like deaths, along with a prescribed provision for minimum compensation amount to such patients.

Increasing public scrutiny:

Over the last few years, CTs in India are increasingly coming under intense public and media scrutiny. As a result, both the concerned pharmaceutical companies as well as the CROs are facing the wrath of various stakeholders including the Supreme Court.

Following are the reported numbers of registered CTs in India from 2009 to 2011:

Year	Total Number
2009	181
2010	313
2011	513

Although the total number of CTs registered in India from 2007 to 2011, as per available records, was around 1875, the number of new trials registered in the country had reportedly sharply declined in 2011 over 2010, mainly due to time-consuming regulatory approvals and increasing public scrutiny on alleged unethical practices.

According to www.clinicaltrials.gov – the website of the U.S Government, out of 118,804 human trials conducted in 178 countries, less than 2,000 or 2%, are carried out in India as compared to 9,352 or 8% in China.

It appears, all concerned players now seem to be either willingly or grudgingly waiting for the CT regulatory system to function the way it should.

Conclusion:

Although the Ministry of Health has already started taking some positive measures, as stated above, there is an urgent need for the players in this field to reassure the Civil Society, in general, and the Government in particular about the high ethical standards that the pharmaceutical companies and CROs would comply with and continuously practice, while conducting clinical research in India.

We all understand, CTs are the core of research-based pharmaceutical industry. No new drug can come into the market without CTs, which involve both potential benefits and risks to the participants. All CTs are conducted with the primary aim of bringing to patients new medicines with a favorable benefit–risk ratio.

Global CTs being relatively new to India, no wonder, there are several misconceptions on the subject. The companies conducting clinical research need to proactively publicize their commitment to protecting the rights, safety and the well being of the trial participants.

That said, the bottom line is, without any selfish interest or pressure to the Government in any form, from within the country or outside, all concerned must ensure that CTs of all types must strictly adhere to the prescribed norms and well laid down procedures of India, as soon as these are put in place.

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 and also do not contribute to any other blog or website with the same article that I post in this website. Any such act of reproducing my articles, which I write in my personal capacity, in other blogs or websites by anyone is unauthorized and prohibited.

“Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients”: Exploring the book to be released in the Indian context

Posted on October 15, 2012 by Tapan Ray

The title of today’s article could make some of the readers uncomfortable and angry, just as what I experienced while writing the same, being a long time follower and student of the pharmaceutical industry, both global and local.

Ethical business conduct and value standards, especially of medium, large to very large pharmaceutical corporations both in India and across the world are coming increasingly under stakeholders’ scrutiny, besides being severely criticized for non-compliance in many instances by the regulators, judiciary and public at large. We shall find many such examples over a long period of time even from within our own land.

There is no global consensus, as yet, on what is ethically and morally acceptable ‘Business Ethics and Values’ across the world, although there are some very strong common parameters that can be globally followed.

In many companies’ websites such standards are also available in their minutest details. Unfortunately, even some of those companies are also being reportedly held guilty for blatant violations of their own set standards of ethics and compliance.

This trend could prompt one to believe, sincere attempts are still lacking to ensure effective implementation of such well drafted ‘Business Ethics and Values’ in country-specific ways by many of these companies.

The most challenging obstacle to overcome in this area by the corporates, I reckon, would still remain ‘walking the talk’, owning the responsibility and taking sustainable remedial measures, at least when these violations are conclusively established followed by penal actions.

A new book with graphic details:

In this context, ‘The Economist’ in its September 29, 2012 reviewed a book titled ‘Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients’, written by Ben Goldacre, a British doctor and science writer. According to Amazon the book is due to be released on January 8, 2013.

In this book the author describes incidences of routine corruption in the healthcare system and brings out to the fore citing details of some of the following areas, how patients’ interests are being continuously and blatantly compromised by many pharmaceutical companies unabated, just for commercial gain:

Pharmaceutical companies bury clinical trials which show bad results for a drug and publish only those that show a benefit.
The trials are often run on small numbers of unrepresentative patients, and the statistical analyses are massaged to give as rosy a picture as possible.
Entire clinical trials are run not as trials at all, but as ‘under-the-counter advertising campaigns’ designed to persuade doctors to prescribe a company’s drug.

Dr. Ben Goldacre does not spare the drug regulators also as he writes, ‘drug regulators, who do get access to some of the hidden results, often guard them jealously, even from academic researchers, seeming to serve the interests of the firms whose products they are supposed to police.’

The author also writes that ‘many studies published in reputed medical journals are written by the commercial ghostwriters, who are paid by the pharmaceutical companies and are not written by those whose names appear as the author of those studies. He laments that based on such clinical trial reports blitzkrieg expensive marketing campaigns are conducted to influence doctors prescribing such drugs.

None of the above instances is unreported in India, may be in forms which are many shades worse than what has been described by Dr. Ben Goldacre in his above book.

‘The Economist’ recommends that ‘this is a book that deserves to be widely read, because anyone who does read it cannot help feeling both uncomfortable and angry’.

India can’t delay tightening its belt any further:

The concerns of Dr. Ben Goldacre are also being expressed in India quite vocally, almost in all the areas as mentioned above. Thus India needs to tighten its regulatory systems and ensure proper implementation of all its policies, and if required framing some new ones, so that the country can come out of this quagmire which severely hurts the patients’ interests at large.

Among many others, two critical areas where such alleged corporate malpractices are being continuously reported are as follows:

I. Clinical Trials

II. Marketing Practices

I. Ethical concerns over Clinical Trial in India are not getting mitigated:

Clinical trial system still remains a critical area of concern in India. The Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) in an article titled, “Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns” reported as follows:

Because of this reason, on October 8, 2012 the Supreme Court reportedly asked the government to provide details of clinical trials being conducted across the country, which will include drug side effects and clinical trial related deaths, in which case compensation, if any, paid to the victims or to their family members.

This direction came from the apex court of the country while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging Indian citizens are being used as guinea pigs during clinical trials by the pharmaceutical companies all over the country, mainly due to lack of informed consent of the enrolled patients and thereafter short changing their interest citing various reasons.

Clinical-trials process of the country is now, therefore, under intense scrutiny of the government, NGOs and also of the judiciary after a number of scandals focusing on malpractices, somewhat similar to what Dr. Ben Goldacre has highlighted in his book, as mentioned above. These series of events have recently prompted the regulators to come out with proposals of reforms in this important area, for all concerned.

The Parliament intervened:

Recently the department related ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC)’ on Health and Family Welfare presented its 59^th Report on the functioning of the Indian Drug Regulator – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in both the houses of the Parliament on May 08, 2012.

The PSC in its report made, the following critical findings, besides others:

“A total of 31 new drugs were approved in the period January 2008 to October 2010 without conducting clinical trials on Indian patients.

Thirteen drugs scrutinized by the panel are not allowed to be sold in the United States, Canada, Britain, European Union and Australia.

Sufficient evidence is available on record to conclude that there is collusive nexus between drug manufacturers, some functionaries of CDSCO and some medical experts.

Due to the sensitive nature of clinical trials in which foreign companies are involved in a big way and a wide spectrum of ethical issues and legal angles, different aspects of clinical trials need a thorough and in-depth review.”

Regulators woke-up:

In response to the prevailing conundrum, ‘The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’ of the Government of India issued a draft notification on 17th July, 2012 seeking stakeholders’ views on the ‘Permission to conduct Clinical Trial’.

The draft notification says that the licensing authority only after being satisfied with the adequacy of the data submitted by the applicant in support of proposed clinical trial, shall issue permission to conduct clinical trial, subject to compliance of specified stringent conditions.

However, some experts do apprehend that such stringent system could give rise to significant escalation in the costs of clinical trials for the pharmaceutical players.

Similarly to assess right compensation for clinical trial related injuries or deaths following parameters were mooted in the document:

Age of the deceased
Income of the deceased
Seriousness and severity of the disease, the subject was suffering at the time of his/her participation into the trial.
Percentage of permanent disability.

II. Ethical concerns on marketing malpractices in India:

This issue has no longer remained a global concern. Frequent reports by Indian media have already triggered a raging debate in the country on the subject, involving even the Government and also the Parliament. It has been reported that a related case is now pending with the Supreme Court for hearing in not too distant future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

Statistics of compliance to ‘The Codes of Business Ethics & Corporate Values’ are important to know, but demonstrable qualitative changes in the ethics and value standards of an organization should always be the most important goal to drive any business corporation, the pharmaceutical industry being no exception.

The need to formulate ‘Codes of Business Ethics & Values’ and even more importantly their compliance are gradually gaining importance and relevance in the globalized business environment.

However, quite in conflict with the above initiative, at the same time, many pharmaceutical corporations 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 and judiciary. Unfortunately the Juggernaut still keeps moving, perhaps arising out of intense pressure for corporate business performance.

I am not quite sure though, whether such an expectation for ‘Corporate Ethics and Values’ is ‘utopian’ for the pharmaceutical industry or can be translated into reality with some amount of sincere efforts and commitment. However, if it does not happen, sooner than later, the ‘Bad Pharma’ image of the pharmaceutical industry across the world, as enunciated by Dr. Ben Goldacre in his book, will continue to linger inviting increasingly fierce public wrath along with stringent government regulatory controls and judicial interventions.

By: Tapan J Ray

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

Posted on August 6, 2012 by Tapan Ray

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

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

Department of Revenue now steps in:

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

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

CBDT disallows expenses on all ‘freebies’ to Doctors:

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

MCI Guidelines are the basis:

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

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

Tax Assessing Officers have also been instructed:

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

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

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

CBDT Circular:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The turning point:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J Ray

Biosimilar Drugs: The Roadblocks and the Road Ahead

Posted on September 5, 2011 by Tapan Ray

Unlike commonly used ‘small molecule’ chemical based drugs, ‘large molecule’ biologic drugs are developed from living cells and using very complex processes. These groups of drugs could range from simpler insulin to therapy for treating complex ailments like, cancer and almost invariably attract a high price tag, which could run even in thousands of dollars.

It is virtually impossible to replicate these protein substances, unlike the ‘small molecule’ drugs. One can at best develop a biologically similar molecule with the application of high degree of biotechnological expertise. These drugs are usually much less expensive than the original ones and called ‘Biosimilar Drugs’. It is expected that ‘biosimilar drugs’ will have lesser market competition than the conventional ‘small molecule’ generic drugs, mainly because of complexity and costs involved in their developmental process.

Future growth potential:

In most of the developed countries, besides regulatory issues, ‘Biosimilar drugs’ are considered to be a threat to the fast growing global biotech industry. At the same time, it is widely believed that in the rapidly evolving global concern for cheaper and more affordable medicines for patients across the world, relatively smaller biotech companies, given the required wherewithal at their disposal, could emerge as winners in this new ball game as compared to traditional generic pharmaceutical players.

Novartis (Sandoz) – first to launch a ‘Biosimilar drug’ in the US:

In mid-2006, US FDA approved its first ‘Biosimilar drug’- Omnitrope of Sandoz (Novartis) following a court directive. Omnitrope is a copycat version of Pfizer’s human growth hormone, Genotropin. Interestingly, Sandoz had also taken the US FDA to court for keeping its regulatory approval pending for some time in the absence of a well-defined regulatory pathway for ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the USA. The CEO of Sandoz had then commented, “The FDA’s approval is a breakthrough in our goal of making high-quality and cost-effective follow-on biotechnology medicines like Omnitrope available for healthcare providers and patients worldwide”. Despite this event, none at that time expected the US FDA to put regulatory guidelines in place for approval of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the country.

Merck’s entry was through an acquisition:

Merck announced its entry into the ‘Biosimilar drugs’ business on February 12, 2009 with its acquisition of Insmed’s portfolio for US$ 130 million in cash. Rich pipeline of follow-on biologics of Insmed is expected to help Merck to hasten its entry into global ‘Biosimilar drugs’ markets.

Other recent global initiatives:

Merck paid US$ 720 million to Hanwha for rights to its copy of Enbrel of Amgen
Samsung of South Korea has set up a biosimilars joint venture with Quintiles to create a contract manufacturer for biotech drugs.
Celltrion and LG Life Sciences have expressed global ambitions in biosimilar drugs.
Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) has already been marketing a biosimilar version of Rituxan of Roche since 2007.
According to Reuter (June 22, 2011), Merck, Novartis (Sandoz), Teva and Pfizer are expected to be strong players in the biosimilar market.
Reliance Life Science though has faced a setback in Europe with the regulators asking for more data for its copy of EPO prompting them to withdraw their application for now, is also a potential player in the biosimilar market.

Many other developments are also now taking place in the space of ‘Biosimilar drugs’, the world over. To fetch maximum benefits out of this emerging opportunity, India has started taking steps to tighten its regulatory process for marketing approval of such drugs. This is absolutely necessary to allay general apprehensions on drug safety with inadequate clinical data for similar protein substances.

Current status in the US:

President Barak Obama administration of the US has been expressing for quite some time a strong intent to pave the way for ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the US. To facilitate this process, a new draft legislation titled, “Promoting Innovation and Access to Life Saving Medicine Act” was introduced by the legislators of the country. This legislation came into force with the announcement by US-FDA the outline of how biopharmaceutical players can submit their application for marketing approval of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ in the country. Many industry players have since then been gearing up, across the world, to have a share of the potentially large ‘biosimilar drugs’ market in the US.

Challenging clinical data requirements in the US:

According to ‘Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act)’, which was enacted in the US on March 23, 2010, any biological substance to be “biosimilar” will require to be “highly similar to the reference product, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components”. BPCI also specifies that there should be “no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the product”. It is interesting to note that the Act emphasizes on ‘clinical similarity’ rather than ‘biological or structural similarity’ between the original and ‘biosimilar drugs’.

The New England Journal of Medicine dated August 4, 2011 reported that US-FDA is in the process of establishing very challenging clinical requirements from the makers of ‘biosimilar drugs’ for obtaining marketing approval in the country. Such stringent regulatory requirements are expected to push up the cost of development of ‘biosimilar drugs’ significantly, seriously limiting the number of players in the market.

12 years Exclusivity in the US:

In the US, the innovator companies get 12 years exclusivity for their original biologic drugs from the date of respective marketing approvals by the FDA.

The BPCI Act clearly specifies that applications for ‘biosimilar drugs’ to the FDA will not be made effective by the regulator before 12 years from the date of approval of the innovators’ products. In addition, if the original product is for pediatric indications, the 12-years exclusivity may get an extension for another six months.

However, the key point to note here is, if the FDA starts its review process for the ‘biosimilar drugs’ only after the 12 year period, the innovator companies in that case, will effectively get, at least, one more year of exclusivity over and above the 12 years period, when the applicants for ‘biosimilar drugs’ will keep waiting for marketing approval from the FDA.

The market:

According to Datamonitor the global market for ‘biosimilars drugs’ is expected to grow from US$ 243 million in 2010 to around US $3.7 billion by 2015.

Another report points out that only in the top two largest pharmaceutical markets of the world, the USA and EU, sales of ‘biosimilar drugs’ will record a turnover of US$ 16 billion in the next couple of years when about 60 biotech products will go off-patent.

The Indian biotech players:

Such a lucrative business opportunity in the west is obviously attracting many Indian players, like, Biocon, Dr. Reddy’s Labs, Ranbaxy, Wockhardt, Shantha Biotech, Reliance Life Science etc., who have already acquired expertise in the development of ‘Biosimilar drugs’ like, erythropoietin, insulin, monoclonal antibodies, interferon-Alfa, which are not only being marketed in India but are also exported to other non/less-regulated markets of the world.

Ranbaxy in collaboration with Zenotech Laboratories is engaged in global development of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (GCSF) formulations. Wockhardt is expected to enter into the Global ‘Biosimilar drugs’ market shortly. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Biocon are also preparing themselves for global development and marketing of insulin products, GCSF and streptokinase formulations.

Funding by the Government of India:

It has been reported that the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) of the Government of India has proposed funding of US$ 68 million for ‘biosimilar drugs’ through Public Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives, where soft loans will be made available to the Indian biotech companies for the same. Currently DBT spends reportedly around US$200 million annually towards biotechnology related initiatives.

Key success factors for rapid acceptance in the developed markets:

According to a new research finding from ‘The Decision Resources’, one of the key success factors for any such new drugs is how quickly the specialists will accept them. So far as biosimilar drugs are concerned they noted a high level of concern, if such drugs are not supported by robust sets of clinical data on the claimed treatment indications.

Conclusion:

With increasing global cost-containment pressures within the healthcare space, the emergence of a lucrative global ‘biosimilar drugs’ market now appears to be inevitable.

In the fast evolving scenario, major research based global bio-pharma and even the pure pharmaceutical companies will have two clear choices. The first choice is the conventional one of competing with ‘biosimilar drugs’ in all important markets of the world. However, the second choice of jumping into the fray, keeping undiluted focus on R&D, appears to be more prudent and perhaps will also make a shrewd horse sense. Only future will tell us, which of these two business senses will prevail, in the run up to success, for the global biotech companies.

With the above background, the report from the ‘Business Wire’ highlighting the fact, ‘the manufacture and development of a biosimilar molecule requires an investment of about US$ 10 to 20 million in India, as compared to US$ 50 to 100 million in developed countries’, vindicates the emergence of another lucrative business opportunity for India.

With around 40% cost arbitrage, as indicated above and without compromising on the required stringent international regulatory standards, the domestic ‘biosimilar’ players should be able to establish India as one of the most preferred manufacturing destinations to meet the global requirements for ‘biosimilar drugs’.

Experience in conforming to stringent US FDA manufacturing standards, having largest number of US FDA approved plants outside USA, India has already acquired a clear advantage in manufacturing high technology chemical based pharmaceutical products in India. Significant improvement in conformance to Good Clinical Practices (GCP) standards will offer additional advantages.

In addition to cost efficiency, available skill sets in developing ‘biosimilar drugs’, will offer another critical advantage to the domestic players in reaching out to the international ‘biosimilar drugs’ markets either by themselves or with appropriate collaborative arrangements, just as we have recently witnessed in case of Biocon’s strategic collaboration with Pfizer in this rapidly evolving sector of the world.

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.

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: companies

“New drug prices are Astronomical, Unsustainable and Immoral” – Anatomy of Unique Protests

More Glivec Like Deals in China and Mounting Global Challenges: Innovators poised Joining Biosimilar Bandwagon

The Ghost Keeps Haunting: NCD Dogs Cancer in ‘Compulsory License’ Debate of India

Government Ups the Ante for More Compulsory Licenses in India

‘Havoc’ and its ‘Aftermath’: Clinical Trials in India

“Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients”: Exploring the book to be released in the Indian context

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

Biosimilar Drugs: The Roadblocks and the Road Ahead