Tag Archives: drugs

Covid-19 Drugs: Accessibility, Affordability And Availability

Posted on by
Reply

Covid-19 continues refusing to unravel the key to neutralize its destructive power – for bringing human life and the socioeconomic fabric of a country back to the old normal again. Just as India, all other countries are, apparently, awaiting a ‘magic bullet’ to come, breaking the shackles of this labyrinth, so to speak.

General expectation is, all concerned will understand that coming out of the new Coronavirus maze, sooner, at any cost – is the only way to bring back life, livelihoods, social fabric and the national economy on to the rail, again. Consequently, every entity in the world would require making moderate sacrifices in this unprecedented endeavor.

Right at this time, accessibility, affordability and availability of emergency use Covid-19 drugs, for various reasons, are going beyond the reach of a large number of the population who need those the most. This is happening not just beyond the shores of India, but in the country, as well, perhaps much more than expected. Interestingly, the issue pertains more to Covid-10 repurposed older drugs, and not so much for vaccines – just yet, as I shall deliberate below.

In this article, I shall focus on this issue, hoping for a reversal of the current trend through active involvement of the both the drug company leadership, and also the national decision makers to safeguard public health interest. Interestingly, the drug pricing issue, mostly with repurposed older drugs, is both global and local. Thus, let me first dwell on the subject of drug price increases during this global public health emergency.

Drug price increases during a global public health emergency: 

According to the July 08, 2020 report of IHS Markit, prices of critical drugs are increasing at a time when they are needed the most, as the governments and individual patients potentially struggle to pay for them.

The findings brought to the fore, prices for the 10 most critical drugs to treat COVID-19 have risen a highly unusual 4 percent globally, during the crisis. The cost for over half of these essential COVID-19 medicines rose across 80 countries between February and June 2020. Let me illustrate this point with one example each of Covid-19 emergency treatment options, starting with the global outcry for the same.

Global skepticism on remdesivir pricing:

As the world anxiously awaits a Covid-19 vaccine to hit the market, an experimental repurposed older drug – remdesivir of Gilead Sciences Inc. was introduced as an emergency treatment option for this infection. Pending detail clinical trial results, currently the drug has received only emergency regulatory approvals with an expectation that it may shorten the recovery period in some severely ill Covid-19 patients.

Gilead Sciences, on June 29, 2020, announced its price of $2,340 for a typical treatment course for people covered by government health programs in the United States and other developed countries.However, it will cost $3,120 for patients with private insurance. This price was swiftly and widely criticized, because the drug has received at least $70 million in public funding toward its development - the report highlighted.

Elaborating what would be affordable pricing for this drug in the developed world, another reportquoted the watchdog group – Public Citizen. This group maintains $1 per day is fair. It points to a cost-recovery model developed by the University of Liverpool, which calculated that the cost of manufacturing remdesivir at scale would be 93 cents per dose, leaving the remainder as, in its view, “a reasonable profit to Gilead,” as the report underscored.

Interestingly, analysts expect Gilead to make $525 million on remdesivir sales this year and $2.1 billion next year. This isn’t the first time Gilead is facing public criticism on life saving drug pricing. Just to recap, in 2013, the company also received ‘brickbats’ for its $84,000 price tag for groundbreaking hepatitis C treatment Sovaldi—followed up by its combo pill Harvoni, priced at $94,500. But those were first in class new and innovative drugs. Nevertheless, the remdesivir pricing issue is viewed differently, because it is not just a repurposed older drug, but indicated to combat a global public health crisis.

Let me now give an Indian example on a similar issue, but with a different anti-Covid-19 drug.

Criticism in India with Covid- 19 drug pricing: 

The Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) had on June19, 2020 approved anti-viral drug favipiravir, manufactured in India by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. This approval was for “restricted emergency use” of the drug in mild to moderate cases of COVID-19 in the country, in view of the urgent medical need during the pandemic. Favipiravir is made under the brand name Avigan by Japan’s Fujifilm Holdings Corp and was approved for use as an anti-flu drug there in 2014.

According to media reports, Glenmark launched the drug on June 20, 2020 with the brand name FabiFlu at a price of Rs 103 per tablet. On this pricing issue, a member of the Indian Parliament, reportedly, made a representation to the DCGI stating, as a patient has to take 122 tablets of the drug in 14 days, the total cost of the treatment will come to around Rs 12,500. The M.P argued, “price quoted for this drug is definitely not affordable to the common people,” and ‘is definitely not in the interest of the poor, lower middle class and middle-class people of India.’ Additionally, the submission mentioned that ‘Glenmark has also claimed that this drug is effective in co-morbid conditions like hypertension, diabetes, whereas in reality, as per protocol summary, this trial was not designed to assess the FabiFlu in comorbid condition,’ as the letter read.

However, on July 13, 2020, Glenmark reportedly said that it had reduced Favipiravir price from Rs103 to Rs75 per tablet. The Company said, “The price reduction has been made possible through benefits gained from higher yields and better scale, as both the API (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient) and formulations are made at Glenmark’s facilities in India, the benefits of which are being passed on to patients in the country.”

Thereafter, as reported on July 19, 2020, after receiving a complaint from a member of Parliament, the DCGI sought a clarification from Glenmark over its alleged “false claims” about the use of FabiFlu on Covid-19 patients with comorbidities, including the “pricing” of the drug.

In response Glenmark stated, “Compared to other therapies approved for emergency use in Covid-19, FabiFlu is much more economical and an effective treatment option.” The comparing argued, the estimated total cost for the full course of Favipiravir is Rs 9,150. Whereas, the same for Remdesivir, Tocilizumab and Itolizumab will come to Rs 24,000-30,000, Rs 44,000 and Rs 32,000, respectively.

Importantly, seriously ill Covid-19 patients will often be given many of these drugs, such as, tocilizumab, remdesivir and favipiravir, either one after the other, or simultaneously, making the overall price of treatment hefty for many. From this perspective, the bottom line is, Covid-19 drug treatment in India – where the out of pocket drug expenses is one of the highest in the world, won’t be affordable to many. Besides, there are other critical issues related to Covid-19 drug access and availability to Indian patients. The question that surfaces in this situation, are Covid-19 drug prices are high where there is no or less competition. If, so this is an avoidable situation.

Could this be due to less or no competition?

Continuing with the example of Favipiravir against the above backdrop, Cipla also, reportedly, received the DCGI approval for the launch of experimental Covid-19 drug Favipiravir in India on July 24, 2020. The brand will be marketed under the brand name Ciplenza in the first week of August and is priced much less than Glenmark’s Favipiravir – at Rs 68 per tablet. Could this be due to market competition?

Possibly so, because another report of July 25, 2020 indicated, nearly 10 other Favipiravir formulations will be launched shortly, despite inconclusive scientific clinical evidence as on date. Favipiravir price is expected to fall further due to competition. In that case, what could be the takeaway message, when this price trend is viewed against the response of Glenmark to the DCGI letter, justifying FabiFlu pricing?

Other issues of Covid-19 drug availability and access to Indian patients:

Other critical issues related to Covid-19 drug availability and access to Indian patients include, prices of Covid-19 drugs shooting up in short supply. There have been reports of difficulty in accessing remdesivir in India, too, although, Gilead Sciences has licensed this drug out to a few Indian generic pharmaceutical companies such as Hetero Healthcare, which has announced that it would manufacture and sell it at Rs 5,400 per vial. According to the latest protocol of the health ministry, the dosage of remdesivir should be 200 mg IV on day 1 followed by 100 mg IV daily for 4 days (5 days in total). From this one can easily work out the treatment cost with remdesivir for each patient.

Moreover, a BBC investigation has found that two life-saving drugs used to treat Covid-19 patients in India – remdesivir and tocilizumab – are in short supply and being sold for excessive rates on a thriving black market. Yet another recent investigation has unraveled a growing black-market for plasma therapy, ‘born out of the desperation of families willing to do anything to save their loved ones infected with Covid-19.’

I am citing these examples to give a sense of the plight of common Covid-19 patients from the drug availability, affordability and accessibility perspective – to save lives. However, the good news is, in this otherwise gloomy scenario, as perceived by many, a more empathetic scenario has been reported from many Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers.

More empathetic scenario with Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers: 

According to the World Health Organization (W.H.O), over 160 groups are working on COVID-19 vaccines, and 24 candidates have already reached human testing, Some are, reportedly gearing up for phase 3. It is widely expected, vaccines might be ready later this year or early next year. Vaccine developers are racing ahead at record speed, supported by Governments and facilitated by the drug regulators, to translate billion dreams coming true amid a public health catastrophe.

For the world population to acquire immunity against the Covid-19 onslaught, the key question remains: ‘At what price’, when vaccines are available? According to reports, the encouraging news is, some major vaccine makers, such as:

  • AstraZeneca (with Oxford University) plans to price at “no profit” during the pandemic “to support broad and equitable access around the world.” The company has entered several agreements with governments and other groups to provide about 2 billion doses around the world, at no profit.
  • Similarly, J&J has also “committed to bringing a safe and effective vaccine to the public on a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.”
  • Pfizer CEO has also said the company “will make a very, very marginal profit at this stage.” He pointed out that the company hasn’t taken any governmental funding, unlike other players. The company and its partner BioNTech have entered a deal with the U.K. government for 30 million doses. Moreover, Pfizer and BioNTech will get $1.95 billion from the US government to produce and deliver 100 million doses of their Covid-19 vaccine candidate.
  • Moderna CEO said, there’s “no world, I think, where we would contemplate to price this higher than other respiratory virus vaccines.”
  • Sanofi, which has separate COVID-19 vaccine partnerships with GlaxoSmithKline and Translate Bio, has “been committed to working with governments, partners and payers to ensure that when new vaccines are approved, we will make them available and affordable,”
  • Merck CEO also said the company has committed to “broad, equitable, affordable access.”
  • Nearer home, Serum Institute of India, has pledged to make 1 billion doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca jointly formed COVID-19 vaccine at under Rs1000 per shot. The production could start as early as first quarter next year. Company CEO said this is not the time to make money from a vaccine against the novel Coronavirus, which has caused a global pandemic.

These pledges do give a comfort to many. Because, unlike Covid-19 repurposed older drug manufacturers, Covid-19 vaccine makers seem to be more empathetic to make these accessible and available to the world population at an affordable price.

Conclusion:

Well past a million mark, as on July 26, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country reached 1,339,176 with 31,425 deaths. With the number of daily cases being more than Brazil, India is poised to bridge its gap with the South American country. The steep unenviable climb continues.

The July 21, 2020 article – ‘Drug Pricing Back in the Spotlight,’ published in the PharmaExec.com, quoted the ICER Executive Vice-President saying,’ the drug pricing conversation is different in a pandemic.’ The system needs to ensure public access to drugs and vaccines in this global health crisis. If it does not happen, I reckon, appropriate authorities must step in with specific remedial measures.

Otherwise, the kudos showered on the drug industry for promptly offering a number of repurposed older drugs for emergency use against Covid-19 may not last long, if these treatments are not affordable and accessible to a vast majority. From this perspective, the questions being raised on accessibility, affordability and availability of many Covid-19 drugs, need to be addressed and resolved – soon.

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.

Time For Predictive Rather Than Reactive Pharma Strategy

Posted on by
Reply

Traditionally, pharmaceutical industry, across the world, is mostly reactive – rather than proactive or predictive in its strategic approach – spanning across all its business domains. A large number of pharma players – both innovators and generic drug makers, formulate their business strategy – generally reacting to competition, changing market dynamics and patient/ doctor /other stakeholder preferences. The same is being witnessed even during Covid-19 pandemic. However, this trend seems to be more prevalent in India – as one looks around.

For example, in R&D – be it a statin drug, proton pump inhibitors and right up to monoclonal antibodies or cancer immunotherapies – after a first-in-class molecule comes, a plethora of ‘me-too’ – but patented molecules soon follow. A comparable trend in the generic drug categories is also all-pervasive, including fixed-dose combinations (FDCs).

Similarly, even in the good old days of sales and marketing, we have seen – after the first product detailing folder was successfully introduced by a leading pharma company in India, how competition lapped the concept up – considering this change as a magic wand for brand demand generation!

In recent days, a similar trend is surfacing for ‘Digitalization’ of pharma business, mostly reacting to the changing practices of key competitors, or involving patients or doctors’ preferences. It gets reflected in other business domains, as well. With this perspective, in this article, I shall deliberate on this area, especially in view of the current situation.

Traditional ‘safe sailing’ is no longer an option:

The Coronavirus pandemic could be a stronger catalytic factor for the drug industry to initiate the much-desired transition from being reactive to predictive in its strategic business approach- faster. Interestingly, way back in June 2007, the PwC Whitepaper titled “Pharma 2020: The vision”, had also articulated: ‘The social, demographic and economic context in which the pharmaceutical industry (Pharma) operates is changing dramatically.’

Some drug players have already opted to transform their organizations in sync with the changes in the operating environment. But, a vast majority of them preferred to stick to the traditional reactive mindset, for a safe sail, as it were. However, this doesn’t seem to be an option, any longer. Be that as it may, there is nothing wrong in being reactive in strategic business practices, although formulating a predictive or proactive growth strategy demands more cerebral prowess and is much different from the reactive ones.

The difference, I reckon, is similar to that of a leader and the followers, with nearly similar impact on overall corporate image and performance, besides a prime-mover advantage of the latter. Nevertheless, there could be a predictive approach even within a reactive approach to competition. To illustrate the point, let me cite an example related to ‘me-too’ – patented-drug development.

Making an overall reactive strategic approach proactive in nature: 

Among several examples of making a reactive strategic approach – proactive in nature with innovative goals, let me quote a very recent one. For decades, drug companies have been selling ‘me too’ but patented drugs, at prices similar to the original and ‘first-in-class’ drugs, which are successful and enjoying a market monopoly.

Moving away from this trend, a startup drug maker, reportedly, wants to disrupt the traditional pharma industry practices by delivering what most patients and healthcare stakeholders want. It has set a novel goal of becoming patient-centric in its offering by making innovative drugs available at affordable prices. The startup wants to achieve this objective ‘by changing long-held industry practices for developing, pricing, and selling slightly different versions of costly brand-name drugs.’

Accordingly, with a proactive or predictive approach within an overall ‘reactive’ trend, it wants to create a unique niche for itself. The entity ‘will focus on developing “me too” drugs, which imitate the biological functions of existing drugs, but use distinct molecular structures so they don’t infringe on existing drug patents.’

Evolving a new demand of value-based health care system:

During disruptive changes and uncertainties in the business environment, such as what is being experienced today, gaining actionable insight on how these changes will call for new strategies to excel, would require a predictive mindset. This is of critical importance, particularly when a new demand for a value-based health care system is fast unfolding. This subject was well deliberated also in the book – ‘Healthcare Disrupted: Next Generation Business Models and Strategies.’

About six years back what the authors of this book predicted, seems to be a reality today. They had said: The concept of “value” rules the day, undoubtedly. The transition from the old ‘fee-for-service’ to ‘fee for value’, is game changing. On the same subject, another article - Focus on Value 1: The “Tsunami of Change”, published in the ‘eye for pharma’ on March 22, 2026, quoted the authors of this book – explaining the scenario lucidly.

They said, today’s health care system is largely reactionary, as the health services react to the persistence of consumers, their phone calls, queuing for services, waiting in the waiting room and calls to healthcare insurers. Whereas, ‘tomorrow’s system would prompt the health care providers to answer a seemingly simple question: how will they become relevant to a customer group?

Even six years down the line, especially in the current global pandemic situation with an evolving demand of a value-based health care system, this concept remains so relevant, possibly more than ever before. That said, an unforeseen and unprecedented situation could also force a pharma player – already moving on a predictive strategic path, to choose a reactive path – mostly for survival and progress of business.

When a company moves into a ‘reactive’ path from a ‘predictive’ one:

Such instances are infrequent. But a major event like Covid -19 may give rise to such a situation. For example, in the Pharma and Biopharma R&D space, it happened and is still happening. As ‘Evaluate Vantage Covid-19 Report’ of April 16, 2020 highlighted, as follows:

‘Anyone thinking that 2020 might travel down a predictable path for the biopharma sector was swiftly disabused of this view in the opening weeks of the year. The Coronavirus pandemic has changed the focus for almost every drug developer, whether they are working on potential treatments or trying to keep their businesses on track – or both.’ Good or bad, this is the reality today.

However, many of these organizations are unlikely to jettison their well-thought out ‘predictive’ pathway and are expected to soon find ways to move back to it. Thus, the question that one may pose, how does a company move into a predictive pathway from a reactive one? And particularly considering, if Covid-19 pandemic has caused some irreversible changes, or even – a long-term change in the business environment.

Getting back to predictive strategic path from a reactive one:

This issue was also covered in the article – ‘Three Proactive Response Strategies to COVID-19 Business Challenges,’ published in the MIT Sloan Management Review, on April 17, 2020. It wrote, as organizations move from a reactive to a proactive approach to dealing with COVID-19, they should ask themselves the following three questions:

  • Can we offer a version of our products and/or services through an online channel? Going online is the closest equivalent to low-hanging fruit in the current environment.
  • Can we use our existing infrastructure to produce products and/or offer services that are in demand?  Many organizations have allocated infrastructure to produce goods and services to support the fight against COVID-19, but some strategic companies would think beyond the crisis to future changes in consumer needs.
  • How can we rapidly increase our capacity to produce and distribute on-demand products and/or services?  Turning to partnerships with other companies can boost capacity in a crunch situation, such as today.

The need for collaboration, in such extraordinary situation, has also been underscored by the European Pharmaceutical Review. It pointed out - how academia, government and the pharmaceutical industry can work together to potentially ‘repurpose drugs’ for the treatment of COVID-19. This is another example of formulating a predictive growth strategy to create a win-win situation, while being in the midst of a reactive one.

Conclusion:

Meanwhile, despite national Lockdowns at a very early stage on March 24, 2020, India has now climbed up to occupy the fourth highest position in terms of the number of Coronavirus infected cases. Continuing the steep ascending trend, as on June 14, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases in the country reached 321,616 with 9,199 deaths.

During the current global pandemic of a humongous scale, drug companies are trying to respond to rapid challenges across their business operations, right from planned R&D programs to effectively maintaining supply chain, including manufacturing activities. If the current COVID-19 pandemic lasts for medium/long term, there could also be significant delays in the execution of various other ongoing projects/programs. This was the analysis of Deloitte in a paper, titled, ‘COVID-19 response for Pharma companies – Respond. Recover. Thrive’

While the full impact of the Coronavirus pandemic is still unknown, adopting a predictive strategy in the prevailing overall reactive environment, is expected to yield a significantly better business performance. As I said earlier, the core difference between adopting a ‘predictive’ and a ‘reactive’ business pathway, under the circumstances, is akin to the difference between a leader and a follower.

Unlocking the value innovation in all areas of pharma business is the name of the game, for excellence. Leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) based contemporary ‘predictive’ tools will help pharma players break the new ground, even in such trying times. Coming from this perspective, a ‘predictive’ strategy rather than a ‘reactive’ one, apparently, is the demand of time – where we all are in – today.

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.

Covid-19: Will Pharma Deliver What It Can Do The Best, Soon?

Posted on by
Reply

The news of a bright possibility of finding magic bullets to significantly tame, if not totally annihilate Covid-19, is coming almost every passing day. As expected, these are being initiated mostly by drug companies, alongside various academia, located in several countries of the world, including India. It rekindles hope to return to some kind of normalcy in daily life, work and business.

However, the hype created around each of these, either too early or based on some anecdotal reports, apparently driven by the desire for a windfall commercial gain, may be counterproductive. That some remedial measures to tackle the notorious virus will come very soon, could influence a number of decisions of those who are engaged in managing the situation.

The pressing need to restart the economic activity – come what may, even before the first wave of Covid-19 subsides in a developing country like, India, comes along with a strong storm signal. Balancing life with livelihood has never been so difficult ever. In tandem, it poses a great challenge also for the pharma industry to demonstrate what it stands for the society, such as:

  • Bringing scientifically proven, safe and effective drugs and vaccine, in a specified timeframe falling close to the realm of a genuine possibility.
  • Making these drugs and vaccines available, at an affordable price and accessible to all, globally.

In this article, I shall focus on the relevance of these two critical expectations of all, where, incidentally, pharma is expected to do and deliver the very best – particularly against the prevailing and near-chaotic scenario. Let me begin with the first point first.

A great challenge:

Understandably, the above task is not a piece of cake due to many reasons. For example, according to a leading pharma trade association in the United States, ‘On average, it takes at least ten years for a new medicine to complete the journey from initial discovery to the marketplace, with clinical trials alone taking six to seven years on average.’

Thus, logically, a new drug molecule for Covid-19 can’t possibly be expected, by any stretch of imagination, within the next 12 to 18 months. What one can possibly expect for the same is, repurposing older drugs for the same. Quite logically, steps are being taken in this direction. However, even for such drugs, a clinical trial would take ‘six to seven years on average.’ Considering the urgency to combat the Covid-19 pandemic, can a fair clinical trial be completed in the next 12 to 18 months?

Therefore, the challenge in hand for the drug companies, even considering a super fast-track regulatory assessment and approval in 12 to 18 months, appear a pretty tough proposition. The challenge gets more complex, if Covid-19 starts changing.

A new issue is unraveling:  

Recently, a new dimension got added to the mounting challenge of coming out with an effective drug or vaccine to fight Covid-19 pandemic, as evident from the Bloomberg article of May 20, 2020. It carries a headline ‘China’s New Outbreak Shows Signs the Virus Could Be Changing.’

It reported, Chinese doctors are seeing the Coronavirus manifest differently among patients in the new cluster of cases of their northern provinces of Jilin and Heilongjiang, compared to the original outbreak in Wuhan. Apparently, it indicates that the pathogen may be changing in unknown ways, complicating efforts to manage the infection. Although, more details need to be unraveled in this area, this incident could flag a fresh uncertainty over the virus mutation that may hinder current efforts of developing safe and effective drugs and vaccine for Covid-19.

Still no available drugs and vaccine for Covid-19 with proven clinical efficacy:

‘The Lancet’ article of April 02, 2020 – ‘‘Global coalition to accelerate COVID-19 clinical research in resource-limited settings’ has also emphasized the above point. It reiterated, there is still no available vaccine against Covid-19 infections and no drug with proven clinical efficacy, although there are several candidates that might be effective in prevention or treatment.

As of March 24, 2020, there were 332 COVID-19 related clinical trials, 188 of which were open for recruitment and 146 trials are preparing to recruit. These clinical trials were either planned or being carried out, mostly in China, South Korea, Europe and North America. However, not many trials were planned in south and southeast Asia, Africa, and central and South America at that time, the article pointed out. But the hype for the availability of drugs continues to reverberate, generally in the media reports. Nevertheless, the work is still in progress.

Some unproven hype as on date?

Despite so much of publicity on availability of drugs for the treatment and prevention of Covid-10, starting from Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine, which the US President Donald Trump called a “game changer” for Coronavirus – right up to Remdesivir, none has demonstrated scientifically proven clinical efficacy, as yet.

For example, the latest clinical trial results for Covid-19 on 15000 people, published in The Lancet on May 22, 2014 found, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine did not benefit patients with the Coronavirus, either alone or in combination with an antibiotic. Moreover, the drugs caused an increased risk of cardiac arrhythmia. Earlier,  ‘The BMJ’ article of May 14, 2020 also found that the administration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard care alone in mild to moderate Covid-19 infections. This study also noted, adverse events with the recipients of hydroxychloroquine were higher than non-recipients.

On the other hand, in India, as reported on May 23, 2020, the Union Health Ministry has issued an advisory expanding the pool of people to be given the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a prophylactic to prevent them from contracting the infection.

Similarly, even Gilead had stated in its Press Release of April 29, 2020: ‘Remdesivir is not yet licensed or approved anywhere globally and has not yet been demonstrated to be safe or effective for the treatment of COVID-19,’ besides some  initial success reports. Notably, in India, Union Health Ministry has also recommended the use of anti-HIV drug combinations Lopinavir and Ritonavir for high-risk group patients, although there is no proven clinical evidence for its efficacy and safety in Covid-19 patients, if not against the use of this combination therapy.

Commercial activity progresses even before evidence-based regulatory approval:

Although, a single clinically proven drug is yet to come out, commercial activities for some of these drugs – in a near desperate situation – based apparently on hype created, including by the US President, have progressed or progressing. This had happened for hydroxychloroquine and has now started happening for remdesivir.

Almost every passing day one finds yet another repurposed drug being put on clinical trial by a different company, probably for similar reasons. There is nothing wrong on that, but which drugs work and which do not, must be evaluated in a more cohesive manner and sooner.

The good news is, the World Health Organization (WHO), which is concerned with recommendations for ‘administering unproven treatments to patients with COVID-19 or people self-medicating with them,’ has announced the “Solidarity” clinical trial for the new Coronavirus treatments. This is an international clinical trial, aimed at the scientific assessment of 4 treatment options to slow the disease progression or improve survival rate for COVID-19 patients.

Otherwise, a strong desire for people to survive – ‘somehow’, will prevail in this desperate situation, over what these medicines can actually deliver. Even drug companies never experienced in the past or even could even envisage such a pandemic at this humongous global scale.

A similar scenario is witnessed with some major vaccine development initiatives. For example, stock markets soared with the early signs of viral immune response of the much publicized experimental Covid-19 vaccine being developed by Moderna Inc. However, a few days later, after ‘parsing the data to gauge the company’s chances of success’ by the analysts, it was reported: ‘It’s too soon to assume success for Moderna Inc’s COVID-19 vaccine.’ Curiously, it continues to happen in the early days with almost all such well publicized initiatives. Nonetheless, the pursuit to find out safe, effective and clinically proven drugs and vaccine continues.

Which is why, bringing scientifically proven safe and effective drugs and vaccine sans the early hype, in a specified time, falling close to the realm of a genuine possibility, becomes a key deliverable of pharma players, in this situation. That said, it brings me to the second point where pharma and biotech companies are widely expected to meet the other expectations of all – making these drugs and vaccines available, affordable and accessible to all, globally.

Making Covid-19 drugs and vaccines available, affordable and accessible to all, globally:

Again, this seems to be an equally tough call for most drug players, as has been happening, generally. But Covid-19 drugs and vaccines are just not for saving life, these are also intimately related directly to the livelihood of a very large global population, especially in the developing nations, like India. Therefore, ‘Coronavirus vaccine should be for everyone, not just those who can afford it,’ as articulated in the article, published in the STAT news on March 05, 2020.

This apprehension arises among many in the United States, as well. Mainly because, as reported in the above article, vaccine coming out of the two vaccine development projects funded by the U.S. government, one by Sanofi and another by Johnson & Johnson, may not be affordable to all Americans.

Further, quite a number of countries in the world lack resources, infrastructure, and health care personnel to detect the virus and prevent it from spreading quickly and easily among populations. In which case, without drugs and vaccines, the number of cases is likely to grow exponentially, putting stress on already burdened health care workers and facilities. Consequently, it will make harder to provide timely care for those who are ill. Thus, vaccines will be an important tool for preventing such a catastrophe.

For those with resources – ‘rich countries and rich people,’ a Covid-19 vaccine will certainly be valuable to save lives. However, for most people in all countries, including India, it may be essential for the livelihood, as well. Without it, they will suffer disproportionately and unnecessarily, the article concluded. Thus, in this hour of multiple crisis of global dimension, the drug players are expected to come forward, making these drugs and vaccines available, affordable and accessible to all, globally – a task where they can deliver the best, compared to others.

Conclusion:

Amid ‘Lockdown.4’ in India, as on May 24, 2020 morning, the recorded Coronavirus cases have mounted to 131,920 with 3,869 deaths. By the way, on the same day, the most populated country in the world – China, where Covid-19 struck first in December 2019, records 82,974 cases with 4634 deaths, so far.

That apart, Covid-19 is a very special situation for all countries, probably more than what happened during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, for several reasons. Comparing these two pandemics, especially during the lockdown period, has been common. Due to this pandemic, as many as 675,000 people, reportedly died only in America, many of them were previously healthy young adults. Almost similar situation is on the horizon with the Covid-19 pandemic.

Agreed, that the overall healthcare infrastructure and global scientific resources to combat these two pandemics may not be comparable. But even in the context of the 21st century, this is a very critical global situation, for both – saving life and also the livelihood. Thus, for pharma and biotech companies ‘this is not a time to make money’, as the chief executive officer of Serum Institute of India, which is helping produce a vaccine for Covid-19 developed by Oxford, puts it succinctly. Be that as it may, the answer to the two questions that I started with, still remains elusive.

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.

Criticality of Drug Quality In The Moment Of Truth

Posted on by
Reply

When global health emergencies strike unannounced – in the scale and magnitude of new coronavirus, it shakes the health care system of all countries, in varying degree though, irrespective of the robustness of the economy. In such situation, the robustness of health care infrastructure, stringent manufacturing quality standards, operational flexibility for seamless sourcing of all drug ingredients in the required quantities, besides speed and agility of the delivery system – are put to the acid test.

Anytime readiness to effectively neutralize this crisis is of utmost importance. Accordingly, the key national goal should be to create a robust ‘whole’ that is much more than the sum total of each of each of the above factors – a sturdy ‘drug security system’ for the country. The most populous country of the world – China may have succeeded in building a 1,600-bed hospital coronavirus hospital in just 10 days, completing on February 05, 20120. But it is still looking for necessary drugs from other countries, such as the United States.

Curiously, China hasn’t yet disclosed its reason. More so, when the country is the top global supplier of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), including antiretroviral (ARV) drugs, along with India, according to the World Health Organization (W.H.O). This draws many to look at the general apprehension on the questionable quality of drugs that China, allegedly, produces. But, could this be the reason?

Nevertheless, regardless of inquisitiveness to know the reason, the question mark on its drug quality remains. And this is also not the risk-taking time for any nation, as it could possibly endanger lives of scores of the impacted population. The criticality of drug quality in ‘The Moment of Truth,’ such as, the new coronavirus emergency, can only be wished away at one’s own peril.

On the other hand, the confidence expressed in India, as we shall see below, in ‘drug security’, just based on adequate ARV drug availability appears to be coming from a different plane, although the drug quality issue is exactly the same in India, if not more concerning. From the above perspective, my today’s article will focus on this subject, purely based on available data, starting with the request of the Chinese authorities for ARV drugs from the United States.

Chinese request for ARV drugs:

‘U.S. Drugmakers Ship Therapies to China, Seeking to Treat Coronavirus – AbbVie, Gilead, others respond to Chinese authorities’ requests for antiviral drugs to test effectiveness against deadly respiratory illness.’ This was reported by The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on January 27, 2020. It goes without saying that these antiviral drugs also include Anti-Retrovirals (ARVs).

AbbVie Inc. and Johnson & Johnson  are among the drug makers that have begun shipping drugs approved to treat HIV, while Gilead Sciences Inc. is exploring whether it should send an antiviral therapy it is developing.

It isn’t known whether the drugs would be able to help contain the explosion of respiratory virus infections sweeping the country or provide relief to infected patients. Chinese authorities have requested the shipments to test the drugs’ effectiveness in containing the new coronavirus, the report added.

An intriguing difference between India and China:

Interestingly, China is looking for sourcing some of these ARV drugs from the United States and not from India, either – one of the top producers of these drugs, as W.H.O reported.

In contrast, according to an Indian report of February 04, 2020: ‘Leading domestic drug companies have said they are ready with supply of anti-retrovirals (ARVs) that seem to work in treating the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV).’

As I said earlier, although, China hasn’t yet specified the reasons behind their decision on ARV drug import from the United States, but could it have any link on the internal general apprehension of these drugs quality, safety and effectiveness?

Acknowledging for a moment that this is global allegation on Chinese drugs, in general. So is regarding India, as we shall see below. Then where does India stand on this score, especially in view of the confidence with ARV drugs, as exhibited in the above media report from India? That said, the logical question that surfaces now – why is the request for ARV drugs?

Why ARV drugs?

Although W.H.O said that there is ‘No known effective treatments’ for new coronavirus, as yet, various reports do indicate the use of ARV drugs in the treatment of 2019-nCoV:

  • A combination of flu and HIV medications are helping treat severe cases of the new coronavirus in Thailand.
  • Chinese health officials are already administering the HIV and flu drugs to fight the coronavirus, but the combination of the three together in a cocktail seemed to improve the treatment.

The Scientist, on February 02, 2020 reported that large doses of the flu drug oseltamivir combined with HIV drugs lopinavir and ritonavir, reportedly, improved the conditions of several patients in Bangkok, Thailand.

Global dependence on Chinese and Indian generic drugs:

About 80 percent of the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), including many ARVs, which are used for manufacturing of drug formulations in the United States are said to come from China and other countries like India. This appeared in the article titled, ‘U.S. Dependence on Pharmaceutical Products From China,’ published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on August 14, 2019.

India’s dependence on Chinese APIs:

Latest statistics from Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics tabled in the Parliament show that in 2017-18, Indian imports of APIs and drug intermediates from China increased to 68.36 per cent. The same at 67.56 per cent in 2018-19, still remained the largest share in total Indian imports, with the overall India’s dependence on imports going up by 23 per cent from 2016-17 to 2018-19.

As reported in the media on November 22, 2019, India’s national strategies, such as, “2015 – Year of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients” or ‘Make in India’ campaign, to promote indigenous means of production continue to be relegated on paper. Even, the current National Security Advisor had warned that Chinese dependence on API can be a national security threat.

According to the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), Chinese API imports are due to economic considerations, which are essentially cheaper and more cost-effective for the Indian drug manufacturers, the above report highlighted.

Against this backdrop, the above local media report indicating, leading domestic drug companies are ready to supply anti-retrovirals (ARVs), may invite more questions than answers. Added to this come the critical quality issues with drugs manufactured in China and India.

Quality issues with Chinese drugs:

Credible documents highlight, as China’s pharmaceutical industry is not effectively regulated by the Chinese government, its regulatory apparatus is inadequately resourced to oversee thousands of Chinese drug manufacturers. Even if Beijing made such oversight a greater priority. This has resulted in significant drug safety scandals.

Although, the drug quality related concerns seem to be even more related to India, the drug industry of the country, reportedly, remains in a denial over most of such charges involving drug-quality.

India tops with the most quality related FDA warning letters in 2019:

The author of the above article reiterates, ‘Americans are expecting India, which supplies a significant percentage of the finished drug supply in the U.S., to get its act together to improve the quality of the medicines it makes, I am afraid they will be waiting a long time for that to happen. The only solution is for American lawmakers to enact new regulations focused on holding those who intentionally put public health at risk to account.’

To avoid ‘your-opinion-versus-my-opinion’ type of a debate with this article, let us look at some hard facts. These are from the ‘warning letters’ on drug quality, issued to various pharma companies, across the world, by the USFDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). The details were well captured in an article, titled ‘The country with the most FDA warning letters in 2019,’ published by Pharma Manufacturing on January 20, 2020.

Some key CDER findings:

As I consider, the top three CDER findings may be summarized as follows:

  • In 2019, CDER issued dozens warning letters for manufacturing issues to pharma companies outside the U.S. One country in particular – India – received the highest number of letters.
  • CDER’s office of Manufacturing Quality Letters issued 43 letters to companies outside of the U.S. Of those letters:

-   20 were aimed at facilities in India.

-   With 11, China received the second most manufacturing quality warning letters.

-   The rest of the letters were distributed among plants in Europe, Costa Rica, Singapore, Turkey and others.

  • The data from CDER shows that India has the poorest rate of FDA inspections with acceptable outcomes (83 percent) — much lower than China (90 percent) and the U.S. (93 percent).

Conclusion:

Today, a host of effective drugs and vaccines are available to treat a number of both non-infectious and infectious ailments, including many life-threatening viral diseases. However, the effectiveness of these medicines in treating such diseases, as well as many other illnesses, gets significantly compromised by questionable quality and distribution of these medicinal products. Even way back, a similar concern was deliberated in an article captioned, ‘Substandard drugs: a potential crisis for public health’, published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (BJCP), on November 29, 2013..

It may ordinarily remain undetected, sans stringent and wide-scale regulatory scrutiny. Additionally, a number of involved countries still remain in a denial mode. It’s also a fact, several governments may not have wherewithal for the same, particularly when the manufacturing units are too many, such as in China and India.

However, when a critical national health emergency strikes, unannounced, like the new coronavirus, the moment of truth dawns. Obviously, the national governments would want to be risk averse and prefer sourcing the best of drugs, to rapidly contain the spread of the disease, saving more lives. It’s not difficult to fathom, either, any country is unlikely to admit this reality, in public, even while taking measures for the same.

China’s sourcing of ARV and other drugs from the United States may or may not be due to the drug quality reasons. Nonetheless, I reckon, the criticality of drug quality issues can possibly be best realized, mostly when the ‘Moment of Truth’ arrives. Unannounced! Just like a bolt from the blue!

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.

China Coronavirus And API Sourcing – A Threat… Or An Opportunity For India?

Posted on by
Reply

‘2015 – Year of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients’ (API), announced the Government of India by a Press Release on February 25, 2015. This came after ascertaining that over-dependence on imports of bulk drugs or API, especially from China, is detrimental to India’s health interest. This decision was also in sync with the freshly announced, and well-publicized government objective regarding ‘Make in India’.

Two years down the line, on July 15, 2017, eHEALTH publication also deliberated on this issue in an article – ‘Why over dependence on APIs imported from China is harmful for India?’ It reiterated, India has proven capabilities in the generic drug formulations, but over dependence on China for sourcing – 70-75 per cent of APIs does not augur well for the Indian pharmaceutical sector. Because, as any interruption in supply from China can badly impact the sector, jeopardizing the health of millions of people, not just in India, but across the world, as well.

The reason for Indian drug formulation makers depending on China-supplied APIs, is mainly for its low cost, and not for any technological other reason, the article said. Regardless of the India’s announcement – ‘2015 as the year of API’, the API industry continued to struggle without much tangible support. Despite a lot of decisions still being in the pipeline, let me hasten to add, some inconclusive signs of early recovery have been captured in this space by some recent studies.

With the outbreak of the recent ‘coronavirus’ menace, the moment of truth has arrived in the country. On the one hand, it is posing a threat to the country’s API sourcing, on the other it could throw open a door of opportunity for Indian API manufacturers, as the Chinese API prices would start climbing up. But the question is, in which way it would evolve? In this article, I shall focus on this aspect of the new coronavirus menace, starting with a brief description of the background.

China coronavirus – when the alarm bell rang: 

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), on December 31, 2019, it was alerted to several cases of pneumonia in Wuhan City, Hubei Province of China. The virus did not match any other known virus, raising a great concern. No one knows how it affects people who are sick with it – how they can be treated, and what the countries can do to respond. One week later, on 7 January, Chinese authorities confirmed that they had identified a new virus.

What it does?

This new virus is a coronavirus, which is a large family of viruses that cause illnesses ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, such as SARS and MERS.

Since the virus, reportedly was first detected in Wuhan in people who had visited a local seafood and animal market, it is likely to have transmitted from an animal to humans. Nevertheless, several known coronaviruses are known to be circulating in animals that have not yet infected humans. The new coronavirus has been named novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) and is the seventh coronavirus known to affect humans.

W.H.O has been working with Chinese authorities and global experts to learn more about it. However, because this is a coronavirus, which usually causes respiratory illness, the world body has circulated advice to people on how to protect themselves and those around them from getting the disease.

The damage, thus far:

Bloomberg on February 02, 2020 reported the death toll from the coronavirus outbreak has risen to 305, with 14,555 confirmed cases worldwide.  The first death outside of China took place in the Philippines on February 01. Alarmingly, 2019-nCoV infections have also spread to at least 15 other countries. These numbers keep increasing.

Nearer home, India, on January 30, 2020, also announced its first case. “One positive case of Novel Coronavirus – a student studying in Wuhan University — has been reported from Kerala,” said a statement released by the Health Ministry. On February 02, 2020, Reuters reported the second case of coronavirus in Kerala.

This scenario prompted the World Health Organization (WHO) to meet again on the last Thursday and declare the new coronavirus an international public health emergency.

The impact on the pharma industry:

Responding to the criticality of this situation, health authorities across the world are trying to put in place effective ways to overcome this crisis. In the healthcare space, medical scientists are ‘racing to develop a vaccine to protect people from the virus.’ One lab in California, reportedly. has plans for a potential vaccine to enter human trials by June or July this year.

Alongside, many are wondering about the looming threat that it poses on the API sourcing from China by the global pharmaceutical industry, including India. However, as I said earlier, some Indian experts, are also sensing an opportunity for country’s API manufacturers to fill the possible void, as it gets created.

API sourcing concern:

An exclusive survey conducted by Kemiex, titled ‘Coronavirus impact analysis for APIs, feed and food additives,’ among 97 life sciences professionals, published by them on January 20, 2020, reports some interesting findings. Some of the key ones are, as follows:

  • 85 percent experts foresee API and other ingredient supply disruptions, with 35 percent expecting a high and 50 percent envisaging a low impact.
  • Orders planned for the 1st quarter with delivery in 2nd quarter are expected to be mostly affected, while disruptions might continue a quarter. Only a minority believes the disruptions will last until year end or beyond 2020.
  • The biggest impact is expected from extended Chinese New Year holidays and delayed production start.
  • A first impact analysis based on preliminary information shows that only selected products such as amino acids (taurine…), certain vitamins and other APIs and additives could be affected.
  • European and other suppliers report readiness and stocks to secure delivery to end users during interruptions in China, or some of its districts. respectively.

However, other reports also underscore, with the proliferation of the new coronavirus the incidences of confirmed infection with clear symptoms and deaths are also expected to increase. This may lead the Chinese government to extend lock down several commercially important parts of the country. Which, in turn, could impact, among others, manufacturing and shipments of API and pharma ingredients for several months.

Some green shoots are now visible in India?

Quoting a JM Financial analysis, some media reports predicted, a worsening coronavirus crisis may benefit Indian API manufacturers, as it observed some green shoots in the Indian API manufacturing space. Analyzing the stocks of six local API manufacturers – Galaxy Surfactants Ltd., Fine Organic Industries Ltd., Navin Fluorine International Ltd., SRF Ltd., PI Industries Ltd. and UPL Ltd., it found that the stocks of these companies have beaten the market trend in recent years. They observed, the robust growth of these companies was fueled by end-user industries, and exports to China – which has closed many chemical facilities on environmental concerns.

Moreover, the increase in overall API demand – caused by shortages triggered by a serious disruption of API production in China’s Hubei province, and restriction of movement within China, is likely to drive the prices up with the spread of the epidemic. The cumulative impact of all this, would possibly help the Indian bulk drug manufacturers, significantly, helping India to tide over the API sourcing crisis.

Conclusion:

‘Scientists are racing to develop a coronavirus vaccine, but it could take years to reach the market,’ as media reports highlight. Meanwhile, researchers are, reportedly, also looking at ways of quickly repurposing existing antiviral drugs to see whether any might work against the new coronavirus.

The serious health menace caused by the new coronavirus that prompted the W.H.O to signal it as a global emergency, has also raised a serious concern on API sourcing. This is because, around 80 percent of the API used by drug formulation manufacturers is sourced from China.

Looking only at this aspect of the issue, and also from the Indian perspective, the point to ponder – is it all threat? Or a veiled opportunity worth cashing-on to neutralize, at least, a part of the API sourcing threat?

Against the backdrop of the Indian Government’s announcements, such as, ‘2015 – Year of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients’ (API), alongside the well-publicized ‘Make in India’ campaign, and some recently reported green shoots in this area – the expectation of an ‘opportunity in waiting’, could well be a reality. Who knows? But, a lurking apprehension still lingers!

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.

What Pays More: Creating ‘Innovative ‘Customer Experience’ Or ‘Innovative Drugs’?

Posted on by
Reply

More innovative a drug is, the better is its business success rate. This was the general perception of around 92 percent pharma professionals in the past three years. Whereas the fact is: ‘Having the best product doesn’t guarantee sales anymore’. This was established by a research study of the ‘Bain & Company’ - covering multiple therapeutic areas, and was published on October 14, 2019.

It showed, when physicians prescribe a drug – its efficacy, safety and side-effect profile initially account for only 50 percent to 60 percent of the physician’s choice, with a declining trend over time. Interestingly, the other 40 percent to 50 percent of it, is based on a range of ‘physician and patient experience factors’, which pharma players need to target in innovative ways to differentiate their brands.

Many pharma companies are now experiencing the harsh reality that more innovative drugs, backed by traditional sales and marketing support are not yielding desirable financial returns. Head scratching has already started among astute pharma professionals to understand its reason for remedial measures. Thus, the number of executives who agreed with the above ‘Bain & Co’ study that: ‘Having the best product doesn’t guarantee sales anymore,’ increased to almost fourfold – from 8 percent to 28 percent in the next three years.

Thus, in this article, I shall explore whether innovation in creating a ‘unique patient experience’ during a disease treatment process, is as important, if not more than a ‘new drug innovation’. Curiously, high failure rate of most pharma players to innovate in this area, isn’t discussed as much as high failure rates in the development of innovative new drugs.

‘Customer service’ innovation – high failure rate – falling short of expectations:

Again, another article - ‘How Agile Is Powering Healthcare Innovation,’ published by ‘Bain & Company’ on June 20, 2019, brought out some interesting points related to this area. Let me quote a few of which as follows:

  • 65 percent of ‘customer-service innovation’ fall short of expectations of the target group.
  • The number of health care executives recognizing the need to respond quickly to changing customer-needs, has increased from 38 percent in the past three years to 60 percent for the next 3 years. But, most of them ‘lack the methodology, and even the language to implement it in practice.’
  • ‘Having the best product doesn’t guarantee sales anymore.’ Thus, healthcare companies face growing pressure to innovate in providing unique ‘customer experience’.
  • The critical point to note, customer needs evolve continuously, and leading companies respond rapidly with innovative new solutions catering to changing market demand.

As the core purpose of working for ‘customer-service innovation’ is linked with creating ‘brand loyalty’, let’s have a quick recap on ‘brand loyalty’ really means for pharmaceutical products, in today’s context.

‘Brand loyalty’ for pharmaceutical products in modern times:

There are many similar definitions of ‘brand loyalty’ for a pharmaceutical product. The research article – ‘Brand Loyalty as a Strategy for the Competition with Generic Drugs: Physicians Perspective,’ published in the Journal of Developing Drugs, on August 30, 2016, defined ‘brand loyalty,’ and articulated its advantages.‘ I am paraphrasing a few of which, as below:

  • The extent of the faithfulness to a particular brand, which is a major indicator of a long-term financial performance of companies.
  • The main advantages of brand loyalty can be defined as greater sales and revenue, a substantial entry barrier to competitors, increase in a company’s ability to respond to competitive threats and lower consumer price sensitivity.
  • ‘Brand loyalty’ can protect against price competition, including branded generics, as it gives confidence to physicians on the perceived effectiveness and safety of a brand – which they usually won’t be willing to compromise with for lower prices.

This brings us to a key question. Are traditional pharma methods of creating ‘brand loyalty’ getting replaced by the key consideration of creating a ‘unique customer experience’?

Creating ‘brand loyalty’ through ‘patient loyalty’ – a new equation:

It’s a fact today that traditional pharma methods of creating ‘brand loyalty’ is getting replaced by the key consideration of creating a ‘unique customer experience.’ This, in turn, is increasing the need of building ‘patient loyalty’, both for a pharma brand, as well as respective companies offering these brands. This is a new equation, where offering a ‘unique treatment experience’ to patients assumes a critical role more than ever before. This needs to be clearly understood by today’s pharma marketer, without any ambiguity.

In traditional pharma marketing, physicians remain, virtually, the sole focus of the branding exercise, as they appear to be the only decision makers of writing a brand prescription. Patients, in general, hardly used to have any role to play in that process. In this scenario, brand loyalty for the doctors – assuming the absence of any malpractices, is primarily driven by the following three much known factors:

  • Physicians’ unprejudiced buying-in a brand’s value offerings
  • Evaluation of opinion leaders and the doctors’ professional counterparts,
  • Quality of disease treatment outcomes.

Nevertheless, before getting into this area, let’s have a quick look at the primary drivers that pharma marketers have been using to boost financial performance of a brand.

Traditional sales boosters of a pharma brand:

The primary drivers that pharma marketers have been using to boost financial performance of a brand can broadly be classified as follows:

  • Multiple ways are followed to make important doctors write more prescriptions,
  • Increase the drug price, whenever an opportunity arises.

These factors still remain important, but aren’t just enough to deliver sustainable performance over a period of time. Thus, a new dimension needs to be added to it.

Add a new dimension to create brand and corporate loyalty:

With the emergence of increasingly more informed and demanding patients, there is a need to create a ‘loyal patient population’, by offering them primarily a ‘unique treatment experience’. And this is the new dimension.

For this purpose, off-the cuff approaches or strategies based on mere gut-feelings are unlikely to work. As I indicated in one of my articles, marketers need to acquire deep insights on their customers to make sales and marketing decisions more informed, than what it is today. Currently available state of the art technology can be a great enabler to facilitate this process.

This is easier said than done, because answering the question – how does a drug company create ‘brand loyalty’, is indeed a tough call. Nonetheless, many different industries have realized, since long, that offering a ‘unique customer experience’, is critical to create a pool of ‘loyal customers’.

I also had written earlier, pharma is still a late learner in accepting various new normal, in a holistic way. Accepting this reality, a sharp focus on creating ‘brand loyal doctors’ in various innovative ways, I reckon, will serve this purpose well. It’s only recently, a few companies have started working to offer such ‘experience’ to patients in the disease treatment process - end-to-end. Ironically, a large majority of them prefer to talk about it more than actually translating the same into reality.

Benefits of ‘brand loyalty’ through ‘unique customer experience’:

There are several advantages of building pharma ‘brand loyalty’ by offering ‘unique customer experience, without diluting the focus on ‘increasing prescription generation through doctors’. The benefits, I reckon, include, both new – innovative products and also branded generics. Let me give below one example of each:

  • Innovative new-products – positive word-of-mouth promotion: Satisfied patients having ‘unique end-to-end treatment experience’ with a new, innovative brand, are very likely to share it with others. This may be done by using different modes of communication, including various social-media platforms. This, in turn, may help both – add to take-off speed – post launch and create a snowballing impact on the brand adoption thereafter.
  • Branded generics – extend the product life cycle and increase growth: Patients who are loyal to a particular branded version of a generic molecule, are quite likely to refuse any change to a cheaper equivalent, even if recommended by the physician. Moreover, they will advocate for this brand to others, using different communication platforms, as indicated above. Continuation of this process will extend the life cycle of the branded-generic, with increasing growth and market share.

Conclusion:

Now, it’s time to get back to what we started with - What pays more: Creating ‘Innovative ‘Customer Experience’ Or ‘Innovative Drug?’ From the above perspective, it emerges that bringing innovative product to markets is, of course important. However, to ensure its sustainable financial success, other innovations, such as creating ‘a unique end-to-end patient experience’ with the brand, in all probability, would weigh more. This is an area which did not receive much attention for a long time, moving beyond the creation of increasing numbers of ‘brand loyal’ doctors, for business success.

Today, increasing consumerism in the health care space, besides pricing pressure, unfavorable perception and sinking image of the industry, is creating a strong headwind – impeding desirable growth of many pharma players. Such a challenging business scenario has prompted a few of them to innovate in designing a differentiated ‘customer experience’ – in a true sense.

Although, a large number of companies are talking about it, most are mere lip-services – a ground-swell in this area is yet to take place. The industry priority, in general, still weighs heavily in developing innovative products, and creating ‘brand loyal’ doctors, rather than cultivating ‘brand loyal patients’, alongside.

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.

Drug Pricing: Why Justify On R&D Cost Rather Than Precise ‘Customer Value’?

Posted on by
Reply

While looking around, it won’t be difficult to spot many types of steep-priced highly innovative products, where high costs aren’t justified by high R&D expenditure, but for unique ‘customer value’ offerings. Many consumers evaluate those and decide to settle for one, instead of opting for cheaper variants – delivering the basic customer requirements in that product class or category. Although, both pharma and electronic goods belong to high tech-based knowledge industries, similar examples are in plenty of the latter, but hardly any in pharma.

Agreed that pharma is a highly regulated industry, unlike electronic goods. But so are banks, financial services, airlines, telecommunication, among many others. Interestingly, all these industries are building great brands without talking about their investment costs in R&D, while doing so.

In this article, I shall focus on – despite facing a formidable headwind, mostly for the same, pharma industry, in general, continue to lack in two critical areas of brand building. But, before doing that let me quote from some recent research papers wondering, how is this situation continuing unchanged, despite all concerned being aware of it.

Two opposing views:

Just to recap, let me put below, two diametrically opposing views that continue to clash with each one, since long:

  • New and innovative drug costs being excessive, globally, lowering their prices will not harm the progress of innovation.
  • Drug industry argues, any restriction of free pricing of innovative drugs, will seriously jeopardize innovation of newer medicines and treatments.

So much of divergence in the views of two key partners within the industry, can’t just continue any longer, without a serious intervention of governments across the world, including the United States.

Pharma does want to talk about ‘Cost & Value of Medicines’. But…

It’s not that pharma doesn’t want to talk about ‘Value of Medicines,’ but not, apparently, to create an ‘emotional connect’ with its stakeholders, including the patients. It appears, more as a general justification for the high cost of new drugs. For example, a pharma trade association’s communication, after acknowledging ‘that many are struggling to access the medicine they need,’ says upfront: ‘Discussions about costs are important.’ It follows a series of much-repeated common justifications, which are no- brainer, such as:

  • Medicines Help Patients Avoid Expensive Hospital Services,
  • Developing New Treatments and Cures is a Complex and Risky Undertaking,
  • Medicines are Transforming the Treatment of Devastating Diseases.

But, the reality is, these justifications are not working on the ground, as these are not quite in sync with ‘customers’ value’ expectations, both from the company as well from the brand. Moreover, instead of establishing an ‘emotional connect’, this approach probably is further alienating many stakeholders, as several governments are now broaching the issue of price control, or some other mechanism to set drug prices.

Pharma marketers need to be eclectic:

Instead of keep following the age-old marketing and communication models, young pharma marketers need to be empowered to be eclectic. They should look around and try to fathom how is ‘marketing,’ as a business domain, changing in other fast-growing industries, and act accordingly. As pharma is a high-tech knowledge industry, let me draw examples from other similar industries, such one that innovates and manufactures electronic products.

Unlike any high-priced, high-tech electronic product companies, such as Google, Apple or Microsoft – pharma marketing communications are more like ‘justification’ centric, for charging high prices for medicines. This approach, apparently, is not just a bit defensive, but virtually negative. Whereas, unlike drug manufacturers, the above tech companies are constantly focusing on the following two areas, for creating a robust ‘corporate brand’ that infuses consumer-trust in each of their products:

  • Establishing ‘emotional connects’ with customers
  • Focusing on the total value of unique value offerings, rather than the high cost of innovation to justify high prices

Let me deliberate briefly on each of the above two.

The importance of establishing ‘emotional connects’ with customers:

With the penetration of technology, almost in every household, with a varying degree, though, access to a gamut of information becomes increasingly easy, so are the options available to customers. This is impacting almost every industry, including pharma and healthcare.

Thus, for corporate performance excellence, customers are now creating a space for themselves at the core of the pharma business strategy. Consequently, a need arises for the pharma marketers to enhance end-to-end customer experience. Besides, brand value offerings, this includes both short and long-term customer service offerings to ensure an ongoing emotional connect with customers, for more intense and longer-lasting engagement with trust, both on the ‘corporate brand’ and also on individual products.

Therefore, creating effective ‘emotional connects’ with customers are assuming a cutting-edge strategic importance – in multiple facets of pharma business. More ‘emotionally connected’ customers also act as a force-multiplier to enhance corporate reputation. Although, it mostly happens through word of mouth, in recent days, value added omnichannel communication by respective companies, is playing a crucial role for success in this area.

In the good old days, reaching patients or patient groups directly, would have been a challenging proposition. Most communications on products, diseases and treatments, used to be through healthcare providers. But, this is no longer so, especially in the digital world, that opened a new spectacle of opportunities for crafting patient-centric strategies – as patients become more digital-savvy, too.

Focus on brand value offerings, not on cost of innovation to justify high prices:

To dwell in this area, a series of questions that one may possibly encounter, such as: ‘How do you define value? can you measure it? What are your products and services actually worth to customers?’ Way back, these points were deliberated in the article – ‘Business Marketing: Understand What Customers Value,’ published in the November-December 1998 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR). It said: ‘Value in business markets is the worth in monetary terms of the technical, economic, service, and social benefits a customer company receives in exchange for the price it pays for a market offering.’ From this paper let me pick up just two critical components of value, as follows, for better understanding:

  • Value in monetary terms: Such as, dollars per unit
  • Value for a customer: What the person gets in exchange for the price it pays

Nevertheless, the important point to note: As ‘market offering has two elemental characteristics: its value and its price, raising or lowering the price of a market offering does not change the value that such an offering provides to a customer. Rather, it changes the customer’s incentive to purchase that market offering.’

When applied in the pharma perspective:

When the above concept of value is applied in the pharma industry perspective, it vindicates an important. Which is, tangible value offerings of an exclusive, high-priced patented products, and the same in its off-patent low-priced avatar remains unchanged, regardless of significant change in its monetary value per unit. However, unlike a patent protected drug, options for generic equivalents will be many, with differing prices.

This brings out another important facet of ‘value’. As the above HBR paper states, considerations of value take place within some context. Even when no comparable market offerings exist, there is always a competitive alternative. For example, in the pharma business, one possible competitive alternative for patented products could well be – when the Government decides to issue a Compulsory License (CL) for make the product available at a cheaper price to patients.

The name of the new game:

Thus, for an exclusive new drug, instead of focusing on cost of innovation to justify high prices, a sharp focus on ‘total value offering’ of the brand would possibly be the name of the new game. It will entail persuading the ‘connected customers’ to realize the total value of both the tangible and intangible cost of each benefit that the product offers, rather than simply the cost of a pill. In doing so, a pharma marketer and his entire team, must have an accurate understanding of what its customers value, and also, would value. This calls for a painstaking research, and a mammoth real time data analysis.

Developing a unique ‘Customer Value’ model:

As the above HBR article reiterates, ‘customer value’ models are not easy to develop. Unfortunately, pharma’s ‘value delivery system’ is still tuned to a self-serving mode and not ‘customer value’ centric.Thus, marketers may wish to note some key points in this regard, as below:

  • Many customers understand their own requirements, but do not necessarily know what fulfilling those requirements is worth to them.
  • This leaves an opportunity to demonstrate persuasively, the total ‘customer value’ that the new brand provides, and how it fulfills their requirements.
  • The strategy makers would have to necessarily generate a comprehensive list of ‘customer value’ elements, based on robust data, on an ongoing basis.
  • The acquired insight on – what customers value, and would value, to gain marketplace advantages over competitors, would form the core of the business strategy.

The next stage would be a pilot study to validate the model and understand the variations, if any, in the estimates. It is also vital to note that an improvement in some functionality may appear important, but may not necessarily mean that customers are willing to pay for it. The aim should always be delivering superior value, and get an equitable return for it. Thus, enhancing end-to-end customer experience in this effort, becomes a critical ingredient to brand success.

Conclusion:

After the article – ‘Business Marketing: Understand What Customers Value,’ published in the November-December 1998 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR), in June 2000, a similar article was published in the ‘McKinsey Quarterly.’ The paper titled, ‘A business is a value delivery system,’ also emphasized the importance of a clear, well-articulated “value proposition” for each targeted market segment.

This means a simple statement of benefits that the company intends to provide to each segment, along with the approximate price the company will charge for each of those. The paper also underlined, the strength of the buying proposition for any customer is a function of the product value minus the price. In other words, the ‘surplus value’ that the customer will enjoy, once that product is paid for.

Over a period of time, high prices of new and innovative drugs are attracting negative headlines, like - ‘High cost of hepatitis drug reflects a broken pricing system.’ This continues, despite high decibel justification of the ‘exorbitant’ cost of innovation. Undaunted, Big Pharma and its large trade associations remain reluctant to jettison their old advocacy toolkit.

They seem to be still on a – ‘Listen and believe what we are saying’ mode. This is vindicated by the December 14, 2019 report that revealed: ‘The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the drug industry’s top lobbying group, filed a lawsuit this week against the state of Oregon, claiming two laws it passed requiring greater transparency of drug prices are unconstitutional.’

Continuation of such approaches, on the contrary, is further alienating many stakeholders, especially the patients and the governments. Thus, time appears more than ripe today to focus more on delivering measurable ‘surplus value’ of new products, to well engaged and connected patients, both globally and locally.

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.

 

Reaping Rich Harvest With Orphan Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

A set of perplexing questions on the drug industry has been haunting many, since long. One such area is intimately associated with the core purpose of this business, as enunciated by each company, often publicly. Just to give a feel of it, let me quote what one of the largest global pharma players – Pfizer articulated in this regard, on April 5, 2019: “Health for All is at the core of our company’s purpose. We advance breakthroughs that change patients’ lives by ensuring they have access to quality health care services and Pfizer’s medicines and vaccines.”

Publicly expressed core purpose of any pharma business being generally similar, it may be construed as the same of the industry, at large. Hence, some baffling questions – not ethical, but purely commercial in nature, float at the top of mind, such as:

  • How the core purpose of business – “Health for All”, gets served when companies bring to the market mostly exorbitantly high-priced drugs, having access only to a minuscule patient population?
  • How are these companies growing at a faster pace and doing better commercially, by focusing more on orphan drugs approved for the treatment of rare diseases, affecting a very small patient population.

At this point, it will be worthwhile to have a quick recap on ‘orphan drug’ and ‘rare disease’. According to MedicineNet, orphan drugs are those which are developed to specifically treat rare medical condition. This rare medical condition is also referred to as an orphan disease. With that preamble, I shall now focus on this knotty area in search of evidence-based answers to – Is it possible to reap a rich harvest in business with orphan drugs for rare disease? And, if so, how?

Is the focus on high priced orphan a strategic business move?

Regardless of an affirmative or negative answer to the above questions, many people are head scratching with anguish while observing this trend in the drug industry. Mainly because, it is possibly the most important industry for most patients, not only while suffering from an ailment, but also before and after it happens, for various reasons.

The anguish increases manifold, when top manufacturers of popular mass-market drugs, such as, the cholesterol blockbuster Crestor, Abilify for psychiatric conditions, cancer drug Herceptin, and rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira, the best-selling medicine in the world, at a later stage seek and receive orphan drug status for these products reaping a rich harvest. The underlying intent being leveraging ‘additional advantages’ for exorbitant pricing and lesser competition. Hence, it is a strategic business move. I shall discuss this point in greater details, as was raised in a Kaiser Health News (KHN) investigation, in this article.

The same feeling gets resonated in several articles and papers, such as the one titled ‘Big Pharma’s Go-To Defense of Soaring Drug Prices Doesn’t Add Up,’ published in The Atlantic on March 23, 2019. It questioned, ‘How is it that pharmaceutical companies can charge patients $100,000, $200,000, or even $500,000 a year for drugs – many of which are not even curative?’ Nonetheless, the strategy is working well, as we shall find below.

More drugs for rare diseases entering the market at a higher price:

Another article, titled ‘Drug Prices for Rare Diseases Skyrocket While Big Pharma Makes Record Profits,’ published by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) on September 10, 2019 wrote, drugs for rare diseases are now entering the market at higher prices than ever before, ranging from tens-of-thousands to hundreds-of-thousands of dollars per patient. It further wrote, according to a new report by AHIP, ‘out-of-control drug prices mean too many patients are forced to choose between paying for their prescriptions or paying their mortgage. The prices for drugs to treat rare medical conditions are 25 times more expensive than traditional drugs. That is 26-fold increase in two decades.

The rationale behind so high pricing:

To explore the rationale behind the exorbitant pricing of such drugs, let’s examine what the expert organizations, such as the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSSD) said in this regard. Quoting a senior research fellow of CSDD, the article - ‘The High Cost of Rare Disease Drugs,’ published by the Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN) on March 04, 2014 reported, although biopharma players generally set higher prices for orphan drugs, there is no causal link between cost of development and pricing. Instead, rare-disease drug prices reflect typical supply and demand situation: ‘Few treatment alternatives allow companies to charge what they can, knowing that payers will often ultimately foot the bill.’

It further explained: “The rarity of the disease means that few people are affected. Generally, the fewer disease sufferers there are, the higher the price of the drug. Companies that invest the same amount of money or more in orphan drugs as they would non-orphan drugs, want to recoup their investment.”

The situation in India for such drugs:

The January 05, 2019 issue of The Pharma Letter captures it all in its headline – ‘India lifts price caps on innovative and orphan drugs; major fillip for Big Pharma.’ It said, with the new legislation announced on January 4, 2019, the Indian government has decided to remove price restrictions on new and innovative drugs developed by foreign pharmaceutical companies for the first five years. In a rider, the government notification also states, the provisions of the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) 2013 will not apply to drugs for treating orphan diseases (rare diseases).

How will it impact Indian patients?

Consequent to the above government decision, as the report indicated: ‘Orphan drugs to treat rare disease, like Myozyme (alglucosidase alfa) and Fabrazyme (agalsidase beta), both from Genzyme, which are used in the treatment of rare genetic diseases, are among a host of medicines that are to be kept out of price control.’

Quoting officials, the paper pointed out, the most challenging part in the fight against rare diseases is access to affordable treatment. As on date, the prices of these drugs tend to vary, e.g., the cost of treatment with enzyme replacement therapies may reach more than $150,000 per treatment per year. Whereas, in some other areas it may even be as much as $400,000 annually. Moreover, most of these drugs are rarely available in India. As a result, Indian patients suffering from rare diseases have to import these drugs directly. This makes affordability of medicines with an orphan drug regulatory status, a major issue for different stakeholders.

Why patient groups are not generally too vocal about this issue?

An interesting paper of 2008-09 brought to the fore the importance of patient organizations to further patient interest in various areas of health care. With the example of rare diseases and orphan drugs, it aptly expressed: ‘by changing the scale of their organizational efforts, patients’ organizations have managed to integrate themselves into the relays of power through which matters of health are thought about and acted upon. Through their formation into coalitions, patients’ organizations have been able to assume a number of important functions in relation to the government of health.’ The paper further added that the orphan drug problem can be thought of as having changed the scale and organizational form of rare disease patients’ groups.

Regrettably, a recent report of October 09, 2019, raised a big question in this area with a startling headline - ‘Big Pharma’s shelling out big-time to patient organizations. Is there any quid pro quo?’ It said, the Senate Finance Committee of the United States, while looking into the drug pricing decisions, ‘is digging into pharma funding for patient advocacy groups, which have been known to speak in tune that are music to the industry’s ears.’ It added, some Big Pharma constituents together contributed more than $ 680 million to hundreds of patient groups and other nonprofits last year.

It’s worth noting, earlier this year, several patient advocacy groups rallied in objection to a Trump-administration plan that would introduce step therapy requiring patients to try cheaper drugs before moving to more costly ones. ‘A Kaiser Health News analysis found that about half of the groups that objected had received funding from the pharmaceutical industry.’ Be that it may, rallying behind high drug prices by patient groups would help the industry only at the cost of patients’ interest. This is beyond an iota of doubt.

The motivation behind marketing more drugs for rare diseases:

There are several motivating factors to market drugs, which also treat rare disease, attaching startling price tags. The top drivers are generally considered, as follows:

  • The company gets seven years of market exclusive rights with the drug marketing approval for a rare or orphan disease. Interestingly, many drugs that now have an orphan status aren’t entirely new, either. Even if, the product patent runs out, USFDA won’t approve another version to treat that rare disease for seven years. This exclusivity is compensation for developing a drug, designed for a small number of patients whose total sales weren’t expected to be that profitable, otherwise.
  • Market exclusivity rights granted by the ‘Orphan Drug Act’ in the United States, can be a vital part of the protective shield that companies create.
  • Leveraging associated free pricing incentive, the concerned company can attach any price tag of its choice to the orphan drug, sans any competition.
  • Interestingly, more than 80 orphan drugs won USFDA approval for more than one rare disease, and in some cases, multiple rare diseases. For each additional approval, the drug manufacturer is qualified for a fresh batch of incentives. 

The system ‘is being manipulated by many drug makers’:

That this system is being manipulated by many drug makers was also established by the Kaiser Health News (KHN) investigation dated January 17, 2017 titled, ‘Drugmakers Manipulate Orphan Drug Rules To Create Prized Monopolies.’ The analysis brought out that ‘the system intended to help desperate patients, is being manipulated by most drug makers. It reiterated, the key driver is to maximize profits, besides protecting niche markets for even those medicines, which are already being taken by millions. Thus, many orphan drugs, originally developed to treat diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people, come with astronomical price tags.’

Even some familiar brands were later approved as orphan drugs:

The KHN’s investigation also uncovered that many drugs that now have an orphan status aren’t entirely new. Over 70 were drugs first approved by the USFDA for mass market use. These medicines, some with familiar brand names, were later approved as orphans. ‘In each case, their manufacturers received millions of dollars in government incentives plus seven years of exclusive rights to treat that rare disease, or a monopoly’, the investigation revealed.

The same KHN study also cited the example of AbbVie’s Humira – the best-selling drug in the world. ‘Humira was approved by the USFDA in late 2002 to treat millions of people who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis. Three years later, AbbVie asked the FDA to designate it as an orphan to treat juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, which they told the FDA affects between 30,000 and 50,000 Americans. That pediatric use was approved in 2008, and Humira subsequently was approved for four more rare diseases, including Crohn’s and uveitis, an inflammatory disease affecting the eyes. The ophthalmologic approval would extend the market exclusivity for Humira for that disease until 2023, the report highlighted.

The report also indicated, much touted Gleevec of Novartis, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia, has nine orphan approvals. Similarly, Botox, started out as a drug to treat painful muscle spasms of the eye and has three orphan drug approvals. It’s also approved as a drug for mass-market for a variety of ailments, including chronic migraines and wrinkles. Despite humongous pricing, recent reports show that drugs with orphan status are eclipsing many new drugs with outstanding commercial success.

Companies focus on orphan drugs for better financial results:

Many top global companies’ sharp strategic focus on orphan drugs, presumably for the above reasons, is paying a rich dividend. This is evident from a number of recent reports, such as, ‘Orphan Drug Report 2019’ of Evaluate Pharma, released in April. The report says, orphan drugs will make up one-fifth of worldwide prescription sales, amounting to $242bn in spending by 2024 – much of it is going to either big pharma or big biotech players. It also found that the drugs prescribed for the treatment of rare diseases now account for seven of the 10 top-selling drugs of any kind, ranked by annual sales.

Another study of October 2019 by Prime Therapeutics LLC (Prime) shows, with more of ultra-expensive drug treatments coming to market, there is a sharp jump in the number of drug super spenders. While small in number, this group of drug super spenders grew 63 percent, which resulted in $800 million in additional drug costs. In the same period, the number of drug super spenders with drug costs over $750,000 increased 38 percent. This explains, why many companies are focusing on orphan drugs for better financial results.

Conclusion:

As the above quoted report of AHIP articulated, the regulators’ primary intent behind creating lucrative incentives for orphan drugs, was to encourage drug makers to develop treatments for rare diseases by earning a modest profit. ‘Unfortunately, drug makers have responded by building lucrative business models that empower them to achieve a gross profit margin of more than 80 percent – compared to an average gross profit margin of 16 percent for the rest of the pharmaceutical industry,’ the report said.

The AHIP study also finds, from 1998 to 2017, orphan drugs were 25 times more expensive than non-orphan drugs, resulting 26-fold increase in average per-patient annual cost, while the cost of specialty and traditional drugs merely doubled. Today, 88 percent of orphan drugs cost more than $10,000 per year per patient, which will be no different even when Indian patients import the same. The paper also revealed, in 2017, seven out of ten best-selling drugs had orphan indications. And among newly launched drugs, the share of orphan drugs increased more than 4-fold, from 10 percent to 44 percent, over a 20-year period.

Coming back to the core purpose of the pharma and biotech business, as defined by the pharma organizations themselves, one would have expected the situation to be much different. Their stated business purpose – ‘Health for All’, does not seem to recognize: “Every patient deserves to get the medications they need at a cost they can afford,’ as AHIP reiterates. Whereas, “drug makers are gaming well-intentioned legislation to generate outsized profits from drugs intended to treat a small population of patients with rare diseases.” In this scenario, reaping a rich harvest with the orphan drug status seems to have become a new normal.

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.