Tag Archives: drugs

Innovative ‘Medicines Too Damn Expensive’: Health Risk For Billions of People

Posted on by
Reply

Most ‘medicines are too damn expensive. And a key part of the problem is the lack of consistent information about drug pricing. It’s not often that the Trump administration and the anti-poverty NGO Oxfam find themselves singing from the same hymn sheet.’ This was articulated in the article carrying a headline, ‘No One Knows The True Cost Of Medicines, And Blaming Other Countries Won’t Help,’ published by Forbes on March 03, 2019.

In the oldest democracy of the world, on the eve of the last Presidential election, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, September 2016 captured the public anger on skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs, which they ranked near the top of consumers’ health care concerns. Accordingly, politicians in both parties, including the Presidential candidates, vowed to do something about it.

Ironically, even so close to General Election in the largest democracy of the world, no such data is available, nor it is one of the top priority election issues. Nevertheless, the discontentment of the general public in this area is palpable. The final push of election propaganda of any political party is now unlikely to include health care as one of the key focus areas for them. This is because, many seemingly trivial ones are expected to fetch more votes, as many believe.

In this area, I shall dwell on the ‘mystic’ area of jaw dropping, arbitrary drug pricing, especially for innovative lifesaving drugs – drawing examples from some recent research studies in this area.

High drug prices and associated health risks for billions of people:

New Oxfam research paper, titled: ‘Harmful Side Effects: How drug companies undermine global health,’ published on September 18, 2018, ferreted out some facts, which, in general terms, aren’t a big surprise for many. It highlighted the following:

  • Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Pfizer – systematically hide their profits in overseas tax havens.
  • By charging very high prices for their products, they appear to deprive developing countries more than USD 100 million every year – money that is urgently needed to meet health needs of people in these countries.
  • In the UK, these four companies may be underpaying around £125m of tax each year.
  • These corporations also deploy massive lobbying operations to influence trade, tax and health policies in their favor and give their damaging behavior greater apparent legitimacy.
  • Tax dodging, high prices and political influencing by pharmaceutical companies exacerbate the yawning gap between rich and poor, between men and women, and between advanced economies and developing ones.

The impact of this situation is profound and is likely to further escalate, if left unchecked, the reason being self-regulation of pharma industry is far from desirable in this area.

As discussed in the article, titled ‘Why Rising Drug Prices May Be the Biggest Risk to Your Health,’ published in Healthline on July 18, 2018, left unchecked, the rising cost of prescription drugs could cripple healthcare, as well as raise health risks for millions of people. Although this specific article was penned in the American context, it is also relevant in India, especially for lifesaving patented drugs, for treating many serious ailments, such as cancer.

Is pharma pricing arbitrary?

The answer to this question seems to be no less than an emphatic ‘yes’. Vindicating this point, the above Forbes article says: ‘It’s a myth that the costs of medicines need to be high, to cover the research & development costs of pharmaceutical companies.’

Explaining it further, the paper underscored, ‘Prices in the pharma industry aren’t set based on a particular acceptable level of profit, or in relation to the cost of production. They’re established based on a calculation of the absolute maximum that enough people are willing to pay.’

The myth: ‘High R&D cost is the reason for high drug price’: 

Curiously, ample evidences indicate that this often-repeated argument of the drug companies’, is indeed a myth. To illustrate the point, I am quoting below just a few examples, as available from both independent and also the industry sources that would bust this myth:

  • Several research studies show that actual R&D cost to discover and develop a New Molecular Entity (NME) is much less than what the pharma and biotech industry claims. Again, in another article, titled ‘The R&D Factor: One of the Greatest Myths of the Industry,” published in this blog on March 25, 2013, I also quoted the erstwhile CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on this subject. He clearly enunciated in an interview with Reuters that: “US $1 billion price tag for R&D was an average figure that includes money spent on drugs that ultimately fail… If you stop failing so often, you massively reduce the cost of drug development… It’s entirely achievable.”
  • In addition, according to the BMJ report: ‘More than four fifths of all funds for basic research to discover new drugs and vaccines come from public sources,’ and not incurred by respective drug companies.
  • Interestingly, other research data reveals that ‘drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs – in some cases twice as much – than on developing them.’ This was published by the BBC New with details, in an article, titled ‘Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits.’

World Health Organization (WHO) recommends transparency in drug pricing:

The report of the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on ‘Access to Medicines’ released on September 14, 2016 emphasized the need of transparency in this area of the pharma sector. It recommended, governments should require manufacturers and distributors to disclose to drug regulatory and procurement authorities information pertaining to:

  • The costs of R&D, production, marketing and distribution of health technology being procured or given marketing approval to each expense category separated; and
  • Any public funding received in the development of any health technology, including tax credits, subsidies and grants.

But the bottom-line is, not much, if any, progress has been made by any UN member countries participating in this study. The overall situation today still remains as it has always been.

Conclusion:

The Oxfam report, as mentioned above, captures how arbitrarily fixed exorbitant drug pricing, creates a profound adverse impact on the lives of billions of people in developing and underdeveloped countries. Let me quote here only one such example from this report corroborating this point. It underlined that the breast cancer drug trastuzumab, costing around USD 38,000 for a 12-month course, is almost five times the average income for a South African household. The situation in India for such drugs, I reckon, is no quite different.

To make drug pricing transparent for all, the paper recommends, “attacking that system of secrecy around R&D costs is key.” Pharma players have erected a wall around them, as it were, by giving reasons, such as, ‘commercial secret, commercial information, no we can’t find out about this’…if you question intellectual property, it’s like you’re questioning God.” The report adds.

In India, the near-term solution for greater access to new and innovative lifesaving drugs to patients, is to implement a transparent patented drug pricing policy mechanism in the country. This is clearly enshrined in the current national pharma policy document, but has not seen the light of the day, just yet.

In the battle against disease, life-threatening ailments are getting increasingly more complex to treat, warranting newer and innovative medicines. But these ‘drugs are too damn expensive’.

In the midst of this complicated scenario, billions of people across the world are getting a sense of being trapped between ‘the devil and the deep blue sea.’Occasional price tweaking of such drugs by the regulator are no more than ‘palliative’ measures. Whereas, a long-term solution to this important issue by the policy makers are now absolutely necessary for public health interest, especially in a country like India.

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.

Is India A Success Story With Biosimilar Drugs?

Posted on by
Reply

How Indian generic companies are expanding, if not shifting their business focus on biosimilar and complex generic drugs, may be a current trend of general discourse – but the initiative is not a current one. This journey commenced decades ago with an eye on the future. In those days, Indian players were already dominating the global markets of small molecule generic drugs. Interestingly, it started much before the big global players decided to enter into this segment – especially post patent expiry of large molecule blockbuster drugs.

This strategy not just exhibits a sound business rationale, but also benefits patients with affordable access to biosimilar versions of high cost biologic drugs. In this article, I shall dwell on this subject, basically to understand whether India is a success story with large molecule biosimilar drugs, both in terms of drug development, and also in its commercial performance.

India’s journey began with the dawn of the new millennium:

About two decades back from now, some Indian pharma companies decided to step into an uncharted frontier of large molecule biosimilar drugs. According to the ‘Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI)’, in 2000 – the first biosimilar drug, duly approved by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), was launched in the country.  This was hepatitis B vaccine from Wockhardt – Biovac-B.

I hasten to add, in those years, there were no specific regulatory pathways for approval of large molecule biosimilar drugs in India. Thus, the same marketing approval guidelines as applicable to small molecule generic drugs, used to be followed by the DCGI for this purpose. Specific guidelines for biosimilar drugs were implemented on September 15, 2012, which was subsequently updated in August 2016. To date, around 70 large molecule biosimilar drugs, including biopharmaceuticals, have been introduced in India, as the GaBI list indicates.

It is equally important to note that well before any other countries, domestic pharma companies launched in India, AbbVie’s blockbuster Humira (adalimumab) and Roche’s breast cancer treatment Herceptin (trastuzumab). In this context, it is worth mentioning that US-FDA approved the first biosimilar product, Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), in March 2015.

Will India be a key driver for global biosimilar market growth?

According to the Grand View Research Report of July 2018, increasing focus on biosimilar product development in countries, such as India, China and South Korea, is a major growth driver of the global biosimilar market. As this report indicates, the global biosimilars market size was valued at USD 4.36 billion in 2016, which is expected to record a CAGR of 34.2 percent during 2018-25 period.

Europe has held the largest revenue market share due to a well-defined regulatory framework for biosimilars was in place there for quite some time, and was followed by Asia Pacific (AP), in 2016. Growing demand for less expensive therapeutic products and high prevalence of chronic diseases in the AP region are expected to contribute to the regional market growth – the report highlighted.

Further, the Report on ‘Country-wise biosimilar pipelines number in development worldwide 2017’ of Statista also indicated that as of October 2017, India has a pipeline of 257 biosimilar drugs, against 269 of China, 187 of the United States, 109 of South Korea, 97 of Russia and 57 of Switzerland. However, post 2009 – after biosimilar regulatory pathway was established in the United States, the country has gained significant momentum in this segment, presenting new opportunities and also some challenges to biosimilar players across the world.

Is Indian biosimilar market growth enough now?

An important point to ponder at this stage: Is Indian biosimilar market growth good enough as of now, as compared to its expected potential? Against the backdrop of India’s global success with generic drugs – right from the initial stages, the current biosimilar market growth is certainly not what it ought to be. Let me illustrate this point by drawing an example from theAssociated Chambers of Commerce of India’s October 2016 White Paper.

According to the Paper, biosimilars were worth USD 2.2 billion out of the USD 32 billion of the Indian pharmaceutical market, in 2016, and is expected to reach USD 40 billion by 2030. This represents a CAGR of 30 percent. A range of biologic patent expiry in the next few years could add further fuel to this growth.

A similar scenario prevails in the global market, as well. According to Energias Market Research report of August 2018, ‘the global biosimilar market is expected to grow significantly from USD 3,748 million in 2017 to USD 34,865 million in 2024, at a CAGR of 32.6 percent from 2018 to 2024.’

Many other reports also forecast that the future of biosimilar drugs would be dramatically different. For example, the ‘World Preview 2017, Outlook to 2022 Report’ of Evaluate Pharma estimated that the entry of biosimilars would erode the total sales of biologics by as much as 54 percent through 2022, in the global markets. It further elaborated that biologic sales may stand to lose up to USD 194 billion as several top blockbuster biologic drugs will go off-patent during this period.

Although, current growth rate of the biosimilar market isn’t at par with expectations, there is a reasonable possibility of its zooming north, both in India and the overseas markets, in the near future. However, I would put a few riders for this to happen, some of which are as follows:

Some uncertainties still exist:

I shall not discuss here the basic barriers that restrict entry of too many players in this segment, unlike small molecule generics. Some of which are – requisite scientific and regulatory expertise, alongside wherewithal to create a world class manufacturing facility a complex nature. Keeping those aside, there are some different types of uncertainties, which need to be successfully navigated to succeed with biosimilars. To get an idea of such unpredictability, let me cite a couple of examples, as hereunder:

1. Unforeseen patent challenges, manufacturing and regulatory issues:

  • Wherewithal to effectively navigate through any unexpected labyrinth of intricate patent challenges, which are very expensive and time-consuming. It may crop up even during the final stages of development, till drug marketing, especially in potentially high profit developed markets, like for biosimilars of Humira (AbbVie) in the United States or for Roche’s Herceptin and Avastin in India.
  • It is expensive, time consuming and risk-intensive to correct even a minor modification or unforeseen variation in the highly controlled manufacturing environment to maintain quality across the system, to ensure high product safety. For example, what happened to Biocon and Mylan with Herceptin Biosimilar. As the production volume goes up, the financial risk becomes greater.
  • There are reports that innovator companies may make access to supplies of reference products difficult, which are so vital for ‘comparability testing and clinical trials.’  This could delay the entire process of development of biosimilar drugs, inviting a cost and time-overrun.
  • Current regulatory requirements in various countries may not be exactly the same, involving significant additional expenditure for overseas market access.

2. User-perception of biosimilar drugs:

Studies on perception of biosimilar vis-à-vis originator’s biologic drugs have brought out that many prescribing physicians still believe that there can be differences between originator’s biologic medicine and their biosimilar equivalents. With drug safety being the major concern of patients, who trust their physician’s decision to start on or switch to a biosimilar, this dilemma gets often translated into doctors’ preferring the originator’s product to its biosimilar version. One such study was published in the September 2017 issue of Bio Drugs. Thus, the evolution of the uptake of biosimilars could also depend mainly on similar perception of physicians.

What happens if this perception continues?

Whereas, the W.H.O and drug regulators in different countries are quite clear about comparable safety and efficacy between the originator’s product and its biosimilar variety, some innovator companies’ position on biosimilar drug definition, could help creating a perception that both are not being quite the same, both in efficacy and safety.

To illustrate this point, let me reproduce below how a top ranked global pharma company - Amgen, defines biosimilar drugs, starting with a perspective of biologic medicines:

“Biologic medicines have led to significant advances in the treatment of patients with serious illnesses.These medicines are large, complex molecules that are difficult to manufacture because they are made in living cells grown in a laboratory. It is impossible for a different manufacturer to make an exact replica of a biologic medicine due to several factors, including the inherent complexity of biologics and the proprietary details of the manufacturing process for the original biologic medicine, often referred to as the reference product.It is because of this that copies of biological products are referred to as “biosimilars”; they are highly SIMILAR but not identical to the biologic upon which they are based.”

Could dissemination of the above concept through a mammoth sales and marketing machine to the target audience, lead to creating a better perception that the originators’ biologic drugs are better than their biosimilar genre?

Other realities:

Despite the availability of a wide array of biosimilar drugs, the prescription pattern of these molecules is still very modest, even in India. One of its reasons, as many believe, these are still not affordable to many, due to high out-of-pocket drug expenses in India.

Thus, where other biosimilars of the same category already exist, competitive domestic pricing would play a critical role for faster market penetration, as happens with small molecule generic drugs.

Another strategic approach to address cost aspect of the issue, is to explore possibilities of sharing the high cost and risks associated with biosimilar drug development, through collaborative arrangements with global drug companies. One good Indian example in this area is Biocon’s collaboration with Mylan.

Conclusion:

The question on whether Indian biosimilar market growth is good enough, assumes greater importance, specifically against the backdrop of domestic players’ engagement in this segment, since around last two decades. Apart from the important perception issue with biosimilars , these medicines are still not affordable to many in India, owing to high ‘out of pocket’ drug expenditure. Just focusing on the price difference between original biologic drugs and their biosimilars, it is unlikely to get this issue resolved. There should be enough competition even within biosimilars to drive down the price, as happened earlier with small molecule generics.

That said, with around 100 private biopharmaceutical companies associated with development, manufacturing and marketing of biosimilar drugs in India, the segment certainly offers a good opportunity for future growth. Over 70 such drugs, most of which are biosimilar versions of blockbuster biologic, are already in the market. Today, Indian companies are stepping out of the shores of India, expecting to make their presence felt in the global biosimilar markets, as they did with generic drugs.

The future projections of biosimilar drugs, both in the domestic and global markets are indeed very bullish. But to reap a rich harvest from expected future opportunities, Indian players would still require some more grounds to cover. Overall, in terms of biosimilar drug development since 2000, India indeed stands out as a success story, but a spectacular commercial success with biosimilars is yet to eventuate.

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.

Access To Comprehensive Healthcare Merits Multipronged Approach

Posted on by
Reply

Since the turn of the new millennium, several high profile and flagship health schemes are being announced in India by the Union successive governments. Some of the important ones will include the National Health Mission, Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) - a Health Insurance Scheme for the Below Poverty Line families and now Ayushman Bharat – National Health Protection Mission - expected to cover over 100 million poor and vulnerable families providing coverage up to 500,000 rupees per family per year for hospitalization related to secondary and tertiary care.

Besides, the Mental Health Care Act 2017 has been operational since last year. It was passed by the Rajya Sabha in August 2016, and the Lok Sabha on March 2017. The right to mental health care is the core of the Act.

Each of these announcements look good on paper and was accompanied with lofty government promises. Riding on the waves of hypes thus created, public expectations increased commensurately for getting easy access to a comprehensive and affordable health care, which now includes ‘Mental Health’ as well. Unfortunately, the Gordian knot in Indian public healthcare space continued to exist. As various reports  indicate, for example, one that appeared on November 27, 2018, – even Ayushman Bharat is apparently moving towards the same detection driven by some critical basic issues.

Consequently, scores of people still do not have adequate and affordable access to basic health care, including essential drugs – clamping price control notwithstanding. The government knows it well, as it increases vigil on drug pricing. Pharma industry also feels its scorching heat. Overall storyline remains mostly unchanged. The vicious cycle continues.

In this article, I shall dwell on a system-approach to delivering comprehensive public health care. The key objective is trying to figure out what is the core problem that most of these schemes are either not addressing or doing it with a ‘band-aid’ approach. One of the key requirements for improving access to health care significantly, I reckon, is a clear understanding on the characterizations of the critical stages of healthcare access and their dimensions, from the patients’ perspective.

However, before doing so, let me glance upon some health care related current and important facts, as uploaded in the government’s National Health Profile 2018.  

National Health Profile 2018:

As available in the National Health Profile (NHP) of India – 2018, following are some of the important facts, which are worth noting:

  • In the current budget year, public (government) spending on health is just 1.3 per cent of the GDP against the global average for the same at 6 percent.
  • Just one doctor serves a population of 11,000 people, which is way below W.H.O recommended a doctor to population ratio of 1:1,000. The scenario is even worse in many states, such asBihar with 1: 28,391, Uttar Pradesh records 1:19,962, Jharkhand with 1:18,518, Madhya Pradesh shows 1:16,996 and Chhattisgarh at 1:15,916.
  • Per capita public expenditure by the government on health, stands at Rs 1,112 that comes to Rs 3 per day. This puts India below other low-income nations like the Maldives (9.4), Bhutan (2.5), Sri Lanka (1.6) and Nepal (1.1).

These numbers provide just a flavor of the Indian healthcare space, as it stands today. Some may of course talk about legacy factor, but to move ahead more important for all is what is happening today in this regard. Yes, one more health mission, as mentioned above, has been launched on September 25, 2018 with similar hype as the past ones, if not more. Only the future will tell us what changed it brings to the ground. That said, I am not very upbeat about it either, as providing a comprehensive health care access has always been multi-factorial and will remain so. Let me now dwell on why I am saying so.

Understanding health care access:

The 2013 research paper on “Improving Healthcare Access in India” by erstwhile IMS Consulting group (now IQVIA), said that ‘health care access characterizes 3 stages,’ which from the patient’s perspective has 4 key dimensions. In the Indian context, these three stages are:

  • Accessing care: Physical reach and location
  • Receiving care: Availability/capacity, Quality/functionality
  • Paying for care: Affordability

Accordingly, healthcare access is a function of 4 key aspects:

  • Physical reaches to health care facility
  • Availability of doctors and medicines in those places
  • Quality of care provided by these centers
  • Affordability of treatment, if available there

Access to healthcare is slowly improving, but far from being enough:

All the above schemes of the government are primarily focused on ‘paying for care’ stage and ‘affordability’ of treatment, including drugs. To a limited extent it makes sense as the above study vindicates that ‘availability’ and ‘affordability’ have good impact on ‘access to health care’.

Since the inception of NHM, this approach, no doubt, has made some improvement in the overall access to health care in the country, as many studies indicate. The IMS Consulting study also observes that compared to 2004, more patients received free medicines in outpatient care in 2013 – over 50 percent of patients going to Government hospitals say that they get free medicines there. However, the outcomes of the same across the Indian states vary quite a lot.

Inadequate healthcare infrastructure and physical reach in rural areas:

Having noted that, grossly inadequate availability of public health care infrastructure – or when available physical access to many of those from remote villages, coupled with lack of availability of required doctors, paramedics, nurses and medicines in those dispensaries – often become major issues. Moreover, their capacity to providing quality care, besides longer waiting time, often pushes many – either to remain virtually untreated or to go to private care centers costing much more.

The study finds that such movement of people from public to private facilities leads to higher health care costs. Consequently, high usage of private channels drives up the out of pocket (oop) cost of treatment. Some of the details are as follows:

  • 74 percent of patients sought private consultation
  • 85 percent of ‘oop’ spending on health care was in the private sector
  • 81percent of patients incurred ‘oop’ expenditure for medicines

Curiously, 35 percent of patients in the study rated public health facilities as – good. Whereas an overwhelming 81 percent said so for private facilities. Nevertheless, associated high ‘oop’ expenditure for the same often becomes an economic burden. The large number of patients with chronic ailments, are the major sufferers.

Application of mobile-health could help improve access:

On improving access to health care in India, an interesting ‘Review Article’ titled, “Applications of m-Health and e-Health in Public Health Sector: The Challenges and Opportunities”, appeared in the International Journal of Medicine and Public Health, April-June, 2018 issue, makes some thought-provoking observations.

It says, while the use of mobile phone (MPs) has become commonplace in many industry sectors, such as banking, railways, airlines – the public health sector has been somewhat slow in adopting MP technologies into routine operations. Its innovative use can benefit patients and providers alike by enhancing access to health care.Smartphones’ usefulness in the treatment of chronic diseases – for example, monitoring of blood pressure, blood sugar, body weight, electro- cardiograph (ECG), has already been established.

The paper also suggests, mobile health (m-H) is more effective when tailored to specific social, ethnic, demographic group using colloquial language. If implemented craftily and systematically, m-H can revolutionize the scenario of the health care delivery system, in many ways. Optimal doctor-patient engagement policy for m-H needs to be formulated, outlining a legal framework and with multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Mental health still largely ignored:

Another important aspect of comprehensive health care is ‘Mental Health’, as more than 60 million Indians suffer from mental disorders, suicides being one of the major killers in India (Source: W.H.O, IndiaSpend). However, it is disturbing to note that awareness and access to mental health treatment, especially in the hinterland of the country, continue to remain ignored. Increasing incidences of farmers’ suicides, for example, notwithstanding.

This was further elaborated by the IndiaSpend report of January 30, 2018, which underscored:“Allocation to the National Program for Mental Health has been stagnant for the past three years. At Rs 350 million, the program received 0.07 percent of India’s 2017-18 health budget.This is despite the fact that an estimated 10-20 million Indians (1-2% of the population) suffer from severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and nearly 50 million (5 percent of the population) – almost equal to the population of South Africa–suffer from common mental disorders such as depression and anxiety.”

The report further highlights that, notwithstanding 15 suicides every hour and 133,623 suicides in 2015, India is short of 66,200 psychiatrists and 269,750 psychiatric nurses. It is also noteworthy, while a frugal sum of 0.06 percent of India’s health budget is for mental health care, the same for even Bangladesh stands at 0.44 percent (Source: W.H.O, IndiaSpend).

Conclusion:

From the above perspective, I reckon, although access to health care in India, except ‘mental health care’, is improving at a modest pace, it doesn’t seem to be anywhere near adequate, as on date. A holistic approach for a comprehensive health care access to all, through the public health system, seems to be the need of the hour.

That said, currently India is not meeting the minimum W.H.O recommendations for healthcare workforce and also in bed density. A large section of the population continues to lack affordable access to quality health care. Moreover, the importance of mental health is still unknown to many in the country.

Thus, in tandem with addressing all the three stages and four key dimensions of comprehensive health care access, it is imperative to leverage new technology-based       e-healthcare and digital devices like m-Health. Together, these will help provide and facilitate not just quality care to patients, but also complement the healthcare infrastructure, including doctors and paramedics – making quality and affordable health care accessible to all.

As I said in my article, titled ‘Mental Health Problem: A Growing Concern in The Healthcare Space of India, the ‘Mental Health Care Bill’, which is now an Act, redefines mental illness to better understand various conditions that are persistent among the Indian population.This is a good development, as it aims at protecting the rights of persons with mental illness and promote access to mental health care. Since, the current ground reality in this area is a cause of great concern, when will it be effectively implemented for all, is the all-important question.

It is imperative for all concerned to understand that improving access to comprehensive health care is multi-factorial issue. Therefore, it needs nothing less than a well-thought out multi-pronged approach for an effective solution.

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.

Protect Generic Drug Margin Moving Up The Value Chain

Posted on by
Reply

As an innovative drug molecule goes off-patent, it paves the way for market-entry of cheaper generic equivalents of the same. It benefits not just the patients, but all generic drug players awaiting this opportunity. But, in case of even those generic drugs enjoying 180-day exclusivity in the United States, the price erosion would still be significant, at least, 20 percent to 30 percent. Post 180-day exclusivity, intense competition between different formulations of the same molecule can bring the price down by even 85 percent or more, as compared to the original one.

While looking at the world’s largest pharma market, one sees an interesting scenario unfolding in this area. The Generic Access and Savings Report in the United States 2018 released on July 10, 2018 by the Association for Accessible Medicines, captures it well. Some of the key findings of which on generic drugs are as follows:

  • In 2017, generic medicines account for nine out of every 10 prescriptions filled in the United States.
  • Patients fail to fill their prescriptions for brand-name drugs at a rate 2-3 times higher than for generics.
  • 93 percent of generic prescriptions are filled at $20 or less.
  • Average patient copay for a generic prescription is $6.06.
  • Generic medicines generated a total of $265 billion in savings.

That’s a good story for the patients in general, and specifically for those who are in the United States. That said, there is a business aspect of this story, as well. In this article, I shall focus on that, venturing into the way forward. However, before proceeding further, for the understanding of all, let me briefly explain, what is this 180-day exclusivity period as described by the FDA in the United States (USFDA).

180-day exclusivity period for generic drug:

USFDA may grant some exclusivity to Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) for generic drugs. For this purpose, under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, a company can seek approval from the FDA to market a generic drug before the expiration of a patent relating to the brand name drug upon which the generic is based. The first company to submit an ANDA with the FDA has the exclusive right to market the generic drug for 180 days. This is called 180-day exclusivity and:

  • Provides an incentive of 180 days of market exclusivity to the “first” generic applicant who challenges a listed patent by filing a paragraph IV certification and running the risk of having to defend a patent infringement suit.
  • Begins either from the date the sponsor begins commercial marketing of the generic drug product, or from the date of a court decision finding the patent invalid, unenforceable or not infringed, whichever is first.
  • In some circumstances, an applicant who obtains 180-day exclusivity may be the sole marketer of a generic competitor to the innovator product for 180 days
  • FDA does not send letters to the sponsor indicating the grant of exclusivity. The Orange Book is the official vehicle for dissemination of this information.

It is worth noting that some drugs have both patent and exclusivity protections while others have just one or none. Patents and exclusivity may or may not run concurrently and may or may not encompass the same claims.

Increasing pressure on margin:

Nevertheless, after 180-day exclusivity period or as in most other cases, cut-throat price competition starts among product proliferation. On the other hand, even after patent expiry, the prices of original brand name drugs keep attracting a substantial premium. According to another study: “Brand-name drugs have been shown to be priced 20 percent higher than generic drugs in the Netherlands, 30 percent higher in Germany, 50 percent higher in Canada, 50–90 percent higher in the US, and 80 percent higher in the UK.”

In today’s environment, generic drugs are under severe cost pressure also because of direct government interventions in many large markets, such as the United States. A couple of other factors also play a major role in squeezing the generic drug margin in several countries, such as:

  • Large wholesalers while fighting with each other to get the pharmacy business, often exert tough pressure on generic manufacturers to lower the price.
  • Other bulk buyers also do the same making the margin wafer-thin.

Its cumulative impact leads to commoditization of generic drugs.

Commoditization of generic drugs:

As is known to many, for a commodity there are many suppliers mostly without any tangible differentiating features and benefits. The same thing happens to generic medicines of the same molecule without any worthwhile difference in efficacy, quality and safety standards. Thus, the price of a generic formulation generally includes its total cost, plus a margin, and depends market demand and supply for products outside any price control. Intense competition within many players with more supply of the same molecule, often squeezes the margin out to a dangerous level.

This scenario was well captured in an 2018 article published in the Journal of Bioequivalence & Bioavailability (volume 10(3): 48-49 (2018) –48). It reiterated, cutthroat competition and public pressure pose challenges for ethical and generic pharma companies. 7 to 10 percent annual price erosion, increased competition coupled with other pressure push margins lower leading to decreased profitability.

Major costs did not change much:

Moreover, the major fixed costs involving raw materials, packing materials, labor and conversion expenditure did not change commensurately. The manufacturing process and yield improvement measures did help. But up to a certain point and not beyond that, to keep the quality of finished formulations within the accepted regulatory requirements of the respective countries, such as the United States.

The trend prevails in 2018: 

The above trend prevails even in 2018, in continuation with the previous year. One may recall that in August 2017, due to serious price erosion, several billion dollars in market value were wiped out for some top generic companies. These names include India’s homegrown Dr. Reddy’s Lab., besides Teva and Mylan.

The article titled, ‘Opportunities and Obstacles for Generic Drugs,’ published in PharmTechalso emphasized: ‘Continued pressure on generic-drug prices may reduce product development and limit manufacturing in the US. Numerous state officials have filed lawsuits against generic-drug makers for alleged price-fixing, and debate continues over brand vs. generic product labeling to warn consumers about safety issues. All these trends will shape generic-drug production and costs in the coming months.’

In this situation, the ability of the generic companies to find ways to increase their margin will be the key to success in this business, if not for a long-term survival too.

Ways to achieve it:

One of the novel ways to achieve this goal is entry into ‘Complex Generics’ business.

According to Market Realist – an independent investment research organization, ‘Complex Generics’ are attractive due to high margins. Unlike, commoditized generic formulations, ‘complex generics’ are not easy to manufacture and are generally used in specialty care, namely for treating serious chronic diseases or several life-threatening ailments, such as cancer, HIV or hepatitis C. To some extent complex generics create a market entry barrier for many generic players, due to higher manufacturing cost and complex processes involved in developing this genre of drugs.Complex generics may be classified into several categories, such as:

  • Complex Active Ingredients: like, peptides
  • Complex Formulations: like, liposomes, iron colloids
  • Complex Delivery System: like, locally acting drugs
  • Complex Drug-Device Combinations: like respiratory metered dose inhalers, transdermal system or a medicated adhesive patch
  • Biosimilar drugs

On October 09, 2018, a statement from USFDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb highlighted a new effort to advance the development of generic copies of complex drugs to improve patient access to medicines. Gottlieb said, complex generics “aredrugs that, by nature of their formulation or delivery systems for example, are harder to ‘genericize’ under our traditional approaches. As a result, these drugs often face less competition. Today, we’re announcing a series of guidance documents that will advance the development of generic transdermal and topical delivery systems (TDS).”

This is an interesting development in the world’s largest pharma market.

Lucrative prices of complex generics:

Prices of complex generics are much higher than conventional generic drugs. According to Market Realist a complex generic could cost around US$ 6,000 per month to patients, but would still remain way below the cost of related original brand. Hence, it is a win-win situation – both for patients and also the generic drug manufacturers. Additionally, alongside benefiting patients in terms of cost, complex generics show potential to fetch higher profitability with a reasonable product differentiation.

The ball has started rolling:

It happened in a big way this year, when due to intense price pressure on generics, Sandoz division of Novartis took a major step. On September 6, 2018 - Novartis announced that it has agreed to sell selected portions of its Sandoz US portfolio, specifically the Sandoz US dermatology business and generic US oral solid portfolio, to Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. It also said, ‘this transaction supports the Sandoz strategy of focusing on complex-generics, value-added medicines and biosimilars to achieve sustainable and profitable growth in the US over the long-term.’

Indian generic drug manufacturers have also sniffed this opportunity. Several Indian players, such as Sun Pharma, Cipla, Lupin, Reliance Life Science, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Glenmark, Biocon and Aurobindo Pharma, to name a few, have made forays into complex generics, including biosimilars. All put together Indian companies have filed around 50 ANDAs in the United States. This number is good, but may not guarantee success for all the applicants. Only the quality of these ANDAs will determine how soon, or how late, or how expensive would be the process of getting marketing approval for complex generics in the United States.

Conclusion:

As ‘The Lancet Oncology’ editorial of June 2015 noted: ‘In recent years, generics manufacturers have increased investment in the development of complex generics.” I reckon, this won’t include a large number of drug exporters from India – not just yet.

The development process of complex generics isn’t everybody’s cup of tea. Thus, venturing into this area by any generic player of all sizes and scale, would call for greater commitment from the company concerned. This path is arduous as compared to conventional generics. If not navigated properly, cost may also be high in certain circumstances. For example, if and when the regulator asks more elaborate trial, or repeat trials, or even the marketing approval process itself could be tough to conform with. That said, complex generics are expected to eventually contribute a significant percentage of the generic market, as their approval challenges are overcome.

Be that as it may, to improve, if not for protecting the profitability of the generic drug business, transacted especially in the developed world, there doesn’t seem to be much option left now, but to move up the value chain.

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.

 

Pharma Policy Execution Gap Limits Access To Affordable Medicines?

Posted on by
Reply

“The cost of new drugs is putting increasing pressure on people in both rich and poor countries”- was eloquently expressed in an article, titled “Why do new medicines cost so much, and what can we do about it?”. This was published by “The Guardian” on April 09, 2018.

Almost synchronically, expressing concern on this issue, the World Health Organization (W.H.O) advised the world leaders ‘to take bold new approaches’ for increasing access to medicines for all. A UN high-level panel on ‘access to medicines’ spent almost a year deliberating over related issues. The panel members were from pharma companies, as well as civil society and academics. The final report coming in September, backed de-linkage of the costs of R&D from the eventual price of the drug. Notably, the author who is also the health editor of the above publication, feels that any positive outcome in this direction is unlikely to materialize soon.

The majority of big pharma constituents, with the possible exception of GSK, whose then chief executive Sir Andrew Witty was unenthusiastic about the UN report. Probably because, it supported governments’ right to invoke ‘a get-out’ from the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS agreement. This is to bypass drug patents and make cheaper versions of the respective generic equivalents, in the interests of public health, in accordance with the 2001 Doha declaration. However, the author is hopeful that, “as happened with AIDS, each new crisis over access to medicines – whether concerning a common liver disease or a rare cancer, and particularly over the antibiotics that are under threat and vital to all our lives – is likely to put pressure on companies to find ways to bring the costs of medicines down.”

Stakeholder pressure for increasing access to medicines continues. Even in smaller developed countries, such as Switzerland, a section of the public demands that “Swiss authorities must act to make lifesaving drugs more affordable by introducing compulsory licensing.” Or, one can now see reports saying,“Irish patients are being denied access to nine drugs that are widely available across Europe, largely, on cost grounds.”

Nevertheless, regardless of mounting pressure for drawing a reasonable symmetry between cost of, especially new drugs and their improved access to patients, ongoing status-quo continues. In this article, I shall dwell on this concern from the Indian perspective, focusing on an agonizingly stark implementation-gap related to the current Indian pharma pricing policy.

Under pressure, pharma now recognizes the need for affordable drugs:

Coming under intense pressure of patients and other stakeholders, even the largest trade association of Big Pharma has recently changed its stance on this issue, though clearly sharking any responsibility for the same. It just recognized the need for affordable medicines for improved patient access to treatments by saying: “Too often patients have to fight to access breakthrough medicines that are revolutionizing how we fight disease.” It also accepted the fact that “many Americans are struggling to afford their medicines.”

“We can improve patient access and affordability by moving toward a system that prioritizes results for patients. Biopharmaceutical companies are working with insurers to develop innovative and flexible ways to pay for medicines that focus on results, lower out-of-pocket costs and enable patients to access the right treatments the first time” – it added.

What it really means: 

What it really means ‘treatment outcomes-based drug pricing’ or ‘value-based drug pricing (VBP)’. In other words, a situation where drug prices are set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, against other available products. This model will also ensure that patients’ money doesn’t get wasted from drugs that aren’t effective on them. The VBP model is, thus, significantly different from product pricing, based on ‘undisclosed’ cost of ongoing innovation for new drugs.

Is this Big Pharma’s new way to change optics?

The intent for imbibing VBP, as expressed by the above pharma association, throws open the door for discussion of its core intent. Is the intention real, or another Big Pharma way of changing general optics on the sensitive issue of new drug pricing? This doubt creeps in from the findings of some important studies on this issue. One such is an interesting paper, titled “Pricing for Survival” from KPMG. The analysis highlighted very limited application of VBP concept, and also why it is not yet viable – despite the hype being created around it.

According to KPMG, “there were 25 drugs engaged in various types of VBP with payers in the fragmented United States market as of September 2017. The problem is, these models appear to be limited in applicability to disease states with more standardized protocols and dominated by drug therapies with single indications – notably osteoporosis, diabetes and hepatitis C.” To date, VBP models seem to be facing several constraints, such as it is appealing mostly to payers that are fully integrated with healthcare delivery i.e., closed-loop payer-provider health systems or integrated delivery networks.

“The takeaway is, when it comes to specialty and orphan drugs, outcomes-based pricing simply faces too many barriers at present” – the article elaborated. Be that as it may, let me now explore the relevance of VBP in India.

Any relevance of VBP in India?

VBP has been tried in a health care environment where payers and drug companies are two critical players for access to affordable medicines, as we see in the KPMG study. Under any value-based pricing agreements for pharmaceuticals, both payers and pharma companies agree to link payment for a medicine to the value achieved, rather than volume.

Whereas, in the Indian healthcare scenario, as we are experiencing today, payers are mostly individuals.  Despite various well-publicized health schemes, expenditure on health, including drugs, remains by and large ‘out of pocket (OoP)’ – for a large Indian population. Hence, copying western framework for implementation VBP in India, would call for scores of ‘pharma – individual payer agreements.’ This would be a daunting task, if not impractical, to even try it out.

In this context, let me touch upon the Ayushman Bharat scheme that was launched by the Prime Minister on September 23, 2018, but just in one of the 29 states of India – Jharkhand. If, or as and when it will cover the entire country, the scheme is expected to bring 107.4 million families and more than 550 million people under health insurance coverage. However, the work seems to be still in progress.

There are three financing models for this scheme – insurance model, trust model and hybrid model – and the 19 states that have come on board for the scheme’s implementation in the country, have chosen a trust model, according to the Union Health Minister. The minister also reiterated: “Things are still unfolding. Only when the letters reach the beneficiaries will they understand and react.”

Nevertheless, the Union Health Minister himself, just like his counterparts in the previous governments, exhibited confidence that the country is “moving towards universal health cover with Ayushman Bharat scheme,” – as was the headline of the above media report.

Going by the past and current outcomes of several such government schemes in the country, and what the minister himself articulated on September 17, 2018, a large section of the Indian population still remains  apprehensive on the fast pan-India rollout and overall success of this ambitious health scheme. Hence, at this stage, I reckon, it may not be relevant to discuss the application of VBP model on Ayushman Bharat project. I wrote about such apprehensions in this Blog on June 18, 2018.

Having said that, VBP still remains relevant when we look at the government’s intent captured in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy (NPPP) 2012,’ as I shall discuss below.

VBP and the policy implementation gap:

For making the point clearer, let me keep the Ayushman Bharat scheme aside because of its associated uncertainties. Even in the current health care environment of high OoP expenditure on drugs, especially on high priced new drugs, if one tries to make use of the VBP model, it is very much possible.

This is because, the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012, under point 4 (XV) on ‘Patented Drugs, categorically states:  “There is a separate Committee constituted by the Government order dated February 01, 2007 for finalizing the pricing of Patented Drugs, and decisions on pricing of patented drugs would be taken based on the recommendations of the Committee.”

Curiously, even 6 years down the line, no meaningful decision has been taken on patented drug pricing in India by the successive governments. As I wrote in this Blog on December 12, 2016, Price Negotiation For Patented Drugs: Still A Policy Paralysis.

Parliamentary Standing Committee intervenes:

Six years after the constitution of the committee by the Department of Pharmaceutical (DoP), the long-awaited report was eventually submitted with a vague formula for pricing patented drugs in India. Intriguingly,the issue remained as such, until the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s August 2016 report was placed before the parliament. It strongly criticized the DoP’s efforts to recommend measures in regulating prices of life-saving patented drugs, despite government assurances for the same.

On September 23, 2016, media reported: “Upbraided by the parliamentary standing committee for its gross negligence and lackadaisical attitude, the department of pharmaceuticals has set about seeking suggestions from different ministries on price regulation of patented drugs.”

According to reports, a new inter-ministerial committee was formed thereafter, under the chairmanship of one of the Joint Secretaries of the DoP to suggest a new mechanism to fix prices of patented drugs in the country.
The other members of the committee are Joint Secretary – Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP); Joint Secretary – Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; and Member Secretary – National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). But, the saga continues – at the cost of patients’ health interest.

Conclusion:

As it appears, there still lies a clear opportunity for Indian drug pricing policy makers introduce VBP concept for patented drugs in the country. Following this model, the prices of new and innovative drugs under patents can be set in line with their real and demonstrated clinical and economic value to patients, over the available existing products. Health Technology Assessment (HTA), for example, could be an effective tool in this process.

Additionally, the VBP model could also minimize, if not eliminate the risk of patients paying a high a price for new drugs coming through incremental innovation, adding too little clinical and economic value over existing drugs. There may, of course, be some teething trouble or even important issues in arriving at consensus on value-metrics for VBP. But, this can be sorted out through meaningful engagement with concerned parties.

Strikingly, even after 6 years since the NPPP 2012 was announced, nothing tangible has been made known to stakeholders on the execution of ‘patented drug pricing policy’ in India. An avoidable policy execution gap continues, limiting access to affordable new medicines to a vast majority of the Indian population, even 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.

For Patient-Centricity: Emerging a C-Suite Role

Posted on by
Reply

Regardless of skepticism of many, the formidable power of physicians to take all treatment decisions for patients, is gradually getting moderated, globally. Although, its pace may vary from country to country. An increasing number of more informed patients are carving out a greater role for themselves in this important process.

The central focus for brand demand generation can no longer remain just on the doctors. This is because, as I wrote this in my article, published in this Blog on July 06, 2015: “Slowly but steadily the process of taking treatment decisions for the patients is undergoing a metamorphosis, where well informed patients no longer want to play just a passive role. These patients want the doctors to take a final decision on their treatment only after meaningful interactions with them.” Besides a broad prescription pattern, this includes the medicines that they will consume, including meaningful details on product cost against the benefits to be accrued.

The age-old practice of doing a little bit on patient education or compliance, are grossly inadequate in an evolving new scenario. The good news is, many pharma companies have started realizing that appropriate engagement with patients to deliver what they want and more, can lead to better financial performance.

Consequently, the ball game for prescription demand generation is showing early signs of a change – somewhat radical in nature. To spearhead this unavoidable metamorphosis for the organization, there surfaced a brand-new role of a CxO – The Chief Patient Officers (CPO).

This new senior management position is expected to direct organizational focus on patients. Understand their concerns, needs, wants and goals, particularly in the disease areas where the company represents. And finally, give shape to new multichannel well-coordinated platforms of patient engagement, for better commercial returns. In this article, I shall try to explore how this transformation pans out, if at all.

The direction is right, but patients must feel the change:

As I said before, some pharma players have started accepting the reality. The crucial need for an organization to become ‘Patients-Centric’ can’t be wished away anymore. For example, a 2015 “Industry Healthcheck” survey where 1600 pharma executives participated, found that 85 percent of respondents agreed that ‘Patient-Centricity’ is the best route to improve profitability, in the fast changing business environment.

It is perhaps well understood that the pharma industry has arrived at this point due to increasing access of the general population to easily available, all-kind of information on the cyber space, including health care. The enabling facility has already prompted many patients evaluating various treatment options for a disease, including choice of drugs and their cost.

As a result, pharma companies felt the necessity to have a new leader who will give a new perspective and direction in creating a new value for the organization, for a sustainable progress. This involves charting a comprehensive pathway to gradually shift the entire company focus on ‘patients for products’, and not on ‘products for patients.’

According to reports, a few global pharma majors, such as Merck and Sanofi already have their CPO in place, but patients are yet to feel any difference on the ground even for these companies, as many say.

What exactly is ‘Patient-Centricity?’ – Two perspectives:

It won’t be a bad idea to get to know two different perspectives on what ‘Patient-Centricity’ exactly is – one from a CPO and the other from patient groups, as follows:

A. 3 three pillars of ‘Patient-Centricity’ from the CPO perspective:

To get a ringside perspective to this question from the industry, let me quote from the first CPO - Anne C. Beal appointed in a top-10 pharma – Sanofi, on March 31, 2014, though the CPO position is in existence, since 2012.

On December 2014, at the 11th annual Patient Summit USA conference, Anne Beal, reportedly deliberated on the three pillars of her company’s patient-centric strategy, which I shall describe, as follows:

  • Utilizing patients’ input to get a better sense of their needs in order to design and deliver solutions that help fulfill them.
  • Engaging and supporting patients to ensure the solutions that the company delivers help enhance their lives and improve outcomes.
  • Involving with the company employees and supporting them to create an engaged community and patient-centric culture.

B. 9 attributes of ‘Patient-Centricity’ from the patients’ perspective:

‘Patient View’ – a UK-based research, publishing, and consultancy group, arrived at the ‘9 Key Attributes’ of ‘Patient-Centricity’. This is based on the analysis of feedbacks (2016-17) from 2,000 patient groups worldwide, 50+ different medical specialties in 100+ countries. The critical attributes of the same that patients want to see in a drug company can be summarized, as follows:

  • Demonstrate integrity and authenticity through all company actions.
  • Understand all the issues that patients face ‘beyond the pill’ and help in dealing with them.
  • Transparency in drug pricing policy, research, results, funding relationship.
  • Ensure that all patients are included in access strategies, regardless of the returns to the company.
  • Products to provide quantifiable value to patients.
  • Reliable supply and comprehensive patient safeguard.
  • Provide quality product information – Consistent, current, balanced and usable.
  • Patient group relation – good intention, effective governance, communication and training.
  • Ensure patients are engaged and their opinions are sought at each stage of R&D.

On a broader canvas, the two perspectives on ‘Patient-Centricity’ – one from the CPO and the other from the patients’ groups, do have some important similarities. Nevertheless, I reckon, the CPOs would still need to cover more ground to match patients’ expectations from a ‘Patient-Centric’ pharma company. 

Claimants of ‘patient-centric’ focus are many, but few deliver consistently:

Quite expectedly, there are many claimants for a ‘patient-centric’ organizational focus. Interestingly, few actually deliver consistently. This was vindicated in the article – ‘How patient-centric is the pharma industry’, published by PDD - a design and innovation consultancy firm on June 06, 2016.

The paper indicates both the up and downside of pharma company claims on ‘Patient-Centricity.’ The upside is that the hype has influenced, at least, some drug players to openly talk about the need to shift the company focus more on patients. A few have initiated some tangible action, as well. Whereas, the downside of it is the lack of consistency in the enthusiasm of ‘patient-centric’ actions by these companies. To illustrate the point, let me quote the following two examples from the article:

  • In the 2013 survey on ‘Patient-Centricity’ by the research firm ‘Patient View’, ViiV Healthcare (the GSK & Pfizer joint venture focused on HIV therapies), Gilead, AbbVie, Menarini and Janssen occupied the top 5 spots.
  • However, in the ‘eyeforpharma Barcelona Awards 2016 ’ that too focuses on ‘Patient-Centricity’, none of these companies featured in the “Most Valuable Patient Initiative or Service” category. Whereas, Sanofi took the top spot, and Merck, Roche, Novartis and TEVA were the remaining nominees.

The criteria of the two selection processes, apparently being similar, this is interesting. More so, when the ‘patient-centric’ focus of an organization is an ongoing strategy, with a ‘top priority’ tag attached to it.

Be that as it may, that some serious efforts being made by a few companies in this area, can’t be brushed aside, either, regardless of the fact that the CPO position came into existence, since 2012. It flagged, at that time, the criticality of ‘Patient-Centricity’ in the pharmaceutical business and possibly, sent a signal to pharma players for a course correction, in this direction, soon enough.

Conclusion:

In an interview, published in December 2016 issue of McKinsey Quarterly, LEO Pharma’s president and CEO, Gitte Aabo, aptly summarized the process of ‘Patient-Centricity’, as follows:

“Patient-Centricity means being deeply entrenched in the patient’s needs, not just thinking about how to develop new products and new features. It means reaching out to patients and considering treatments that will help them in whatever situation they find themselves in.”

However, since long, most drug manufacturers are apparently solely driven by commercial considerations, both for new drug discovery and also in generic product development. Subsequent marketing strategies are obviously an integral component of the same organizational thought leadership and value chain. Several examples from the current status of the R&D pipeline for multi-drug resistant antibiotics, or what is happening even with the generic drug pricing in many countries, including the United States, will vindicate this point.

That said, a mild wind of change on the sails of traditional pharma mindset seems to be slowly catching up, as some CPOs position themselves in the saddle. Hopefully, this will  ultimately make patients the centerpiece of pharma business. Can more of this kind of actions be construed as signals for imbibing ‘Patient-Centricity’ by the drug companies? Will its impact be visible and felt by all – in real life, 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.

A ‘Toxin’ Delaying Success of Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

The above comment, although sounds a bit harsh, was made recently by none other than Scott Gottlieb - the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner of the United States. He expressed his anguish while explaining the reasons for a delayed launch of several important biosimilar drugs.

We know, this new genre of drugs has a potential to be a quick game changer, significantly improving access to affordable biologic medicines for many patients. Unfortunately, much desired accelerated progress in this direction, got considerably retarded in the face of a strong headwind, craftily created by the innovator companies, as is widely believed. There are various ways of creating the same. However, the two major ones can be ascribed to:

  • Getting caught in the labyrinth of complex patent challenge.
  • General apprehensions of many doctors on the efficacy and safety of biosimilars as compared to reference drugs.

This is happening in major markets, including India, in varying degree, though.  In this article, I shall deliberate on this issue, starting with the largest pharma market of the world and then focusing on India.

‘Toxin’ that delays biosimilar drug launch:

“Americans could have saved $ 4.5 billion in 2017, if all of the FDA-approved biosimilars were actually available in the United States, instead of getting delayed because of litigations or other agreements.” The Food and Drug Administration Commissioner of the United States – Scott Gottlieb, reportedly, made this comment on July 18, 2018.

Gottlieb referred to some of these as a “toxin” that have prevented other drug makers from launching biosimilar medicines. He accused the manufacturers of pricey biologic medicines of using “unacceptable” anti-competitive tactics to keep competitors off the market. These cost Americans billions of dollars – the report highlighted.

These tactics, as the US FDA commissioner said, are being deliberately used by the innovator pharma and biotech companies and can be corroborated with several examples. One such is the fact that despite the expiration ofthe ‘composition of the matter’ patent for Humira (adalimumab) in December 2016, its ‘non-composition of the matter’ patent would expire not earlier than 2022. The company has therefore made settlement agreements with Amgen and Samsung Bioepis, delaying the launch of adalimumab biosimilars until January 2023.

Protecting own patents Big Pharma challenging rivals’ patents:

Both these are happening for original biologic and biosimilar equivalents, often by the same manufacturers. For example, the Reuters report of October 02, 2016, titled  ‘Big Pharma vs Big Pharma in court battles over biosimilar drugs’ highlighted, although Novartis and Amgen are at each other’s throats in court over the Swiss drug maker’s Enbrel copy, but the two are still cooperating on a drug for migraines.

“One of the biggest surprises has been the number of innovator Biopharma companies, like Amgen, now developing biosimilars to compete with the products of other innovator companies,” the article observes. It also reports that Sanofi, Merck, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Biogen are also embroiled in lawsuits over biosimilars.

This trend vindicates that the line dividing makers of brand-name drugs and copycat medicines is blurring as companies known for innovative treatments queue up to peddle copies of rivals’ complex biological medicines, Reuters noted. Consequently, they are now doing both – protecting their high-price products from biosimilars drugs,while simultaneously challenging rivals’ patent claims.

There is another interesting side to it. Notwithstanding, biosimilars are a cost-effective alternative to biologic drugs that could improve patients’ access to expensive biological medicines, prescribers’ perception of biosimilar medicines are still not quite positive, just yet.

Doctors’ attitude on biosimilar prescription:

To illustrate this point, let me quote from recent research findings in this area. One such is the May 2017 study on “Medical specialists’ attitudes to prescribing biosimilars.” The key points are as follows:

  • Between 54 and 74 percent of the specialists are confident in the safety, efficacy, manufacturing and Pharmacovigilance of biosimilars.
  • 71 percent of specialists agreed that they would prescribe biosimilars for all or some conditions meeting relevant clinical criteria.
  • Specialists are less confident about indication extrapolation and switching patients from an existing biologic.
  • The most common situations that they would not prescribe a biosimilar was where there was a lack of clinical data supporting efficacy (32 percent), or evidence of adverse effects.

Overall, medical specialists held positive attitudes towards biosimilars, but were less confident in indication extrapolation and switching patients from the original biologic. Several experts believe that constantly highlighting the fear factors against biosimilar drugs, such as possible risks of interchangeability with reference product, or immunogenicity related serious consequences, though very rare, are fueling the fire of apprehensions on the wide use of biosimilar medicines.

However, several reviews, like the one that I am quoting here finds that ‘switching from the reference product to related biosimilar drug is not inherently dangerous.’I discussed this issue, with details in one of my articles, published in this blog on July 31, 2017.

Any therapeutic difference between the original biologic and biosimilars?

As the US-FDA says: “Patients and their physicians can expect that there will be no clinically meaningful differences between taking a reference product and a biosimilar drug when these products are used as intended. All reference products and biosimilar products meet FDA’s rigorous standards for approval for the indications (medical conditions) described in product labeling.”

The key point to take note of is that the US drug regulator categorically reiterates: “Once a biosimilar has been approved by the FDA, patients and health care providers can be assured of the safety and effectiveness of the biosimilar, just as they would for the reference product.”

The invisible barriers to biosimilar drugs in India:

Although, there are no specific data requirements for interchangeability of biosimilar drugs with the reference product, as mentioned in the latest Indian Guidelines on similar biologic, other visible and visible barriers are restricting the rapid growth of drugs belonging to this genre.

An interesting research study finds, like many other drugs, the cost of biosimilars is a major barrier to the rapid growth of the market in India. The Deloitte Report, titled “Winning with biosimilars: Opportunities in global markets” also articulated: “Approximately 70 percent of the country’s population is considered rural and will focus on the cost of therapy – a 20-30 percent discount on originator biologics may not be sufficient.”

Moreover, many patients who are on original biologic drugs, costing higher than related biosimilars and want to switch over to affordable equivalents, are not able to do so. In many cases, doctors’ do not encourage them to do so, for various reasons, including the general assertion that original biologic drugs are more effective. India being considered as the global capital of diabetes, let me cite an example from this disease area, just to drive home the point.

A recent experience on biosimilar drug interchangeability in India:

Just the last week, I received a call from a friend’s wife living in Delhi who wanted to know whether Lantus 100 IU/ml of Sanofi can be replaced with Glaritus 100 IU/ml of Wockhardt, as the latter costs much less. I advised her to consult their doctor and request accordingly. She said, it has already been done and the doctor says Lantus is a better product.

To get a fact-based idea on what she told me, I referred to two circulars of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) – one for Glaritus and the other one for Lantus and found that both are under drug price control and have respective ceiling prices. As both the circulars are of 2009, these may probably be treated as an indicative price difference. NPPA notified price for a 3 ml cartridge of Glaritus reads as Rs.135. 24. Whereas, the same for Lantus was mentioned as Rs.564.84.

Is an original biologic generally superior to Indian biosimilars?

US-FDA has already reiterated, “Once a biosimilar has been approved by the FDA, patients and health care providers can be assured of the safety and effectiveness of the biosimilar, just as they would for the reference product.”

However, to get India-specific, evidence-based information in this area, I checked, whether Lantus has any clinically proven therapeutic superiority over Glaritus. Interestingly, I came across the results of a 12-week study concluding that biosimilar insulin glargine, Glaritus, is comparable to the reference product, Lantus – providing a safe and effective option for patients with T1DM. Nevertheless, the researchers did say that more studies are required in this area.

The core question that needs to be addressed why is the doctor’s perception so different and the reasons for the same?

Conclusion:

In view of all that has been discussed in this article, I find it challenging to fathom that in the absence of any credible and conclusive specific study, how could a doctor possibly infer that higher priced imported original biologic drugs are generally superior to lower priced biosimilar equivalents? More so, when in India, there are no regulatory issues on interchangeability between original biologic and its biosimilar equivalent.

Or for that matter, a branded generic product is superior to all other equivalent generic drugs without a brand name? This can happen, especially when the vested interests actively work on ensuring that such a perception gains ground, boosting the sales revenue and mostly at the cost of patients’ interest.

As one would witness in many other spheres of life that creating a blatantly self-serving, positive target audience perception, by any means, primarily aimed at destroying the same of others, is assuming increasing importance. Are we seeing the reflection of the same, even in the field of evidence based medical science?

I reckon, it raises a flag for all to ponder, particularly after reading the recent candid comments of the US-FDA commissioner, as quoted above.

Could this be one of those ‘Toxins’, which delays success of biosimilar drugs?

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.

 

Blockchain: A Game Changer For Safe Medicines

Posted on by
Reply

‘Your medicine box may have fake drugs’ was the March 18, 2018 headline of a popular pan Indian news daily. Just the year before, the 2017 report of the World Health Organization (WHO), also flagged that around 10.5 percent of all medicines in low-and middle-income countries, including India are substandard or fake. Even prior to this, another news headline of February 15, 2016 highlighted: ‘1 In 7 Indian Drugs Revealed As Substandard.’ These reports paint a scary situation for consumers of medicine in India, especially when the same incidence is just around one percent in the high-income countries of the world. Nevertheless, getting into a protracted discussion to prove the veracity of this issue, may not yield much, either. Some may even term these as efforts to ‘sensationalizing’ the situation.

That said, the good news is, the Government Think Tank Niti Aayog and also the Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) of India,are reportedly contemplating to combat this menace with cutting-edge technology. In this article, I shall dwell on this threat, starting with its profound impact, not just on human health, but also on the economic and the socioeconomic space of India.

Why is it so important?

The most obvious fallout of this hazard is of course borne by the consuming patient.  The other two critical impact areas has also been well captured by the World Health Organization (WHO) in its 2017 study, titled ‘A study on the public health and socioeconomic impact of substandard and falsified medical products’. I am summarizing those 3 key impact areas hereunder:

A. Health impact: 

  • Adverse effects (for example, toxicity or lack of efficacy) from incorrect active ingredients
  • Failure to cure or prevent future disease, increasing mortality, morbidity and the prevalence of disease
  • Progression of antimicrobial resistance and drug-resistant infections, loss of confidence in health care professionals, health programs and health systems

B. Economic impact:

  • Increased out-of-pocket and health system spending on health care
  • Economic loss for patients, their families, health systems and manufacturers (and other actors in the supply chain) of quality medical products
  • Waste of human effort and financial outlay across the health system, further straining resources, staff and infrastructure
  • Increased burden for health care professionals, national medicine regulatory authorities, law enforcement and criminal justice systems.

C. Socioeconomic impact:

  • Lost income due to prolonged illness or death
  • Lost productivity costs to patients and households when seeking additional medical care, the effects of which are felt by businesses and the wider economy
  • Lack of social mobility and increased poverty

What the Government contemplates in India? 

According to the April 09, 2018 news report, “Indian policy think tank Niti Aayog is working to put the entire inventory of drugs made and consumed in the country on blockchain with an intent to crack down on counterfeit and spurious drugs, according to two government sources. The government wants to complete a proof of concept (PoC) solution by the year-end and begin implementation in 2019.”

On May 16, 2018, DTAB reportedly deliberated and approved a Track and Trace mechanism to address this issue. The proposal is a stand-alone measure to combat fake or counterfeit drugs covering 300 pharma products. However, it does not intend to cover the entire drug supply chain integrity with Blockchain technology, in a comprehensive manner.

According to the above report, this particular approach involves asking the pharma manufacturers to print a unique 14-digit alphanumeric code on the package of the drug. While buying any medicine, the individual can inquire via a text message, whether the drug bearing that code is genuine or not.

I wrote an article in this Blog on the use Blockchain by pharma players, on January 22, 2018. You may wish to refer that to know more about it in context of the pharma industry.

Recent Blockchain initiatives by global pharma majors:

Some global pharma layers have already covered some ground with Blockchain, especially in this area.On September 21, 2017, an article titled ‘Big Pharma Turns to Blockchain to Track Meds’, published in Fortune, presented some interesting facts. It indicated: to stop a flow of fake, spurious or counterfeit medicines entering the supply chain and reaching patientshow the pharma industry appears to be on the verge of resolving this long-time problem with the intervention of one of the most modern technology – Blockchain.

A group of companies, including Genentech and Pfizer has announced the MediLedger Project for creating blockchain tools to manage pharmaceutical supply chains. The group, has completed a successful pilot program to track medicines, where all concerned – from drug manufacturers to wholesalers to hospitals and retailers will be recording drug deliveries on a blockchain. This would ensure that, at each step of the distribution process, a network of computers will vouch for the ‘provenance and authenticity’ of a drug shipment—making it virtually impossible for counterfeiters to introduce fake drugs – the article highlighted.

Quoting domain experts, the authors underscored the key difference between current practices in this area and managing supply chain through Blockchain technology. At present, most companies use various software to manage the supply chain. However, these usually consist of a mishmash of different databases. ‘The introduction of a Blockchain system, in which each participant controls a node on the network, and transactions require a consensus, is thus a significant leap forward’ – the experts noted.

On scaling up, if this project achieves the intended goals, it would possibly be a game changer for the pharma companies in addressing the counterfeit or fake drug menace, effectively.

How will Blockchain combat fake or counterfeit drugs?

In India, there are basically four constituents in the pharma supply chain: source of procurement of various ingredients – manufacturers – C&F Agents – wholesalers – retailers, besides hospitals and dispensaries. To avoid counterfeit or fake/spurious drugs in a comprehensive way, it is critical for these constituents to see and share relevant data based on a modern and tamper-proof technology platform. Unfortunately, the current practices mostly fail to address this serious threat in a holistic way.

Experts envisage Blockchain delivering a superior value in this area, as it has the potential to cover end-to-end supply chain network of a pharma business. A November 14, 2017 article appeared in a Harvard Business School publication of Technology and Operations Management (TOM) explains its rationale very well. The paper is titled “Can blockchain help solve the problem of counterfeit drugs?”

In the context of a supply chain it says, blockchain can be used to track the flow of goods and services between businesses and even across borders. At each step of the distribution process, a network of computers can unmistakably indicate the provenance and authenticity of a shipment, making it harder or counterfeiters to introduce fake drugs. The key advantage of this technological process is that

it is virtually impossible for malicious actors to alter the event logs. Another advantage is speed: should a shipment be disrupted or go missing, the data stored on the common ledger would provide a rapid way for all parties trace it, and determine who handled the shipment last, the author elaborates.

Common anti-counterfeit-measures:

In many countries, including India, drug regulators are focusing on putting in place various anti-counterfeit measures, such as, ‘track and trace’ and ‘mass serialization.’ In some nations these mandatory in nature. At present, the most common process, globally, is to have machine-readable codes carrying a serial number featuring on each and every pack of medicines. Many anti-counterfeit solution providers call these in various different names, to position themselves on a marketing high ground. Other such measures include, forensic markers, cloud-based supply chain data repositories are also being talked about.

So far so good, but the current reality continues to remain scary for patients, probably more in India. Each year ‘tens of thousands dying from $30 billion fake drug trade,’ – reported Reuters just recently – on November 28, 2017. As reported by IntelligentHQ on November 3, 2016, ‘studies have shown that the pharmaceutical industry still struggles on two main counts: interoperability between all the participants, from the manufacturer to the dispenser and data management, to better integrate the serialization systems. Being able to avoid drug counterfeiting is just one of the reasons for which it is so critical to successfully track products down the supply chain.’

Conclusion:

Ensuring safety and security of the pharma supply chain – from sourcing to manufacturing to logistics to retail chemist and ultimately to the final consumer, is now possible with the application of Blockchain. In fact, this process has already been developed, and tried in many continents of the world, including Africa (video).

Thus, in my view, for an effective anti-counterfeiting system to work or even a substandard drug ingredient going into any original final product that ultimately will be consumed by patients, the most important requirement is to ensureend-to-end supply chain visibility and integrity.Any stand-alone anti-counterfeit measure can’t possibly provide such holistic solution.

Just to emphasize on this point – what happens, if anything goes wrong during sourcing of ingredients, or during the manufacturing of the original drug? The drug in question, although could be substandard, can’t be termed counterfeit. Hence, any standalone anti-counterfeit mechanism will obviously indicate ‘all is well’ for the patients to consume this original medicine – before the product is ultimately recalled, if and when the defect is detected by other means.

From this perspective, the application of Blockchain technology covering end-to-end supply chain network has the wherewithal of being a game changer – offering safe medicines to patients.

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.