Tag Archives: drugs

Why MNC Pharma Still Moans Over Indian IP Ecosystem?

Posted on by
Reply

Improving patient access to expensive drugs, paving the way for entry of their cheaper generic equivalents, post patent expiry, and avoiding evergreening, is assuming priority a priority focus area in many countries. The United States is no exception, in this area. The Keynote Address of Scott Gottlieb, Commissioner of Food and Drug at the 2018 Food and Drug Law Institute Annual Conference inWashington, DC by, on May 3, 2018, confirms this. Where, in sharp contrast with what the MNC Pharma players and their trade associations propagated, the US-FDA commissioner himself admitted by saying, “Let’s face it. Right now, we don’t have a truly free market when it comes to drug pricing, and in too many cases, that’s driving prices to unaffordable levels for some patients.”

Does US talk differently outside the country?

At least, it appears so to many. For example, in April 2018, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its 2018 Special 301 Report. In this exercise, the USPTO names the country’s trading partners for not adequately protecting and enforcing Intellectual Property (IP) rights or otherwise deny market access to U.S. innovators that rely on the protection of their IP rights.’ Accordingly, U.S. trading partners are asked to address IP-related challenges, with a special focus on the countries identified on the Watch List (WL) and Priority Watch List (PWL).

In 2018, just as the past years, India continues to feature, along with 11 other countries, on the PWL, for the so called longstanding challenges in its IP framework and lack of sufficient measurable improvements that have negatively affected U.S. right holders over the past year.

From Patient access to affordable drugs to Market access for Expensive Drugs: 

Curiously, the USTR Report highlights its concerns not just related to IP, but also on market access barriers for patented drugs and medical devices, irrespective of a country’s socioeconomic compulsion. Nevertheless, comparing it to what the US-FDA Commissioner articulated above, one gets an impression, while the US priority is improving patient access to affordable drugs for Americans, it changes to supporting MNC pharma to improve market access for expensive patented drugs, outside its shores.

Insisting others to improve global IP Index while the same for the US slides:

In the context of the 2018 report, the U.S. Trade Representative, reportedly said, “the ideas and creativity of American entrepreneurs’ fuel economic growth and employ millions of hardworking Americans.” However, on a closer look at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s annual Global IP Index for 2018, a contrasting fact surfaces, quite clearly. It shows, America, which once was at the very top of the overall IP Index score, is no longer so – in 2018, the world rank of the US in offering patent protection to innovators, dropped to 12thposition from its 10thglobal ranking in 2017. Does it mean, what the US is asking its trading partners to follow, it is unable to hold its own ground against similar parameters, any longer.

Should IP laws ignore country’s socioeconomic reality? 

MNC Pharma often articulated, it doesn’t generally fall within its areas of concern, and is the Government responsibility. However, an affirmative answer, echoes from many independent sources on this issue. No wonder, some astute and credible voices, such as an article titled “U.S. IP Policy Spins Out of Control in the 2018 Special 301 Report”, published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on May 01, 2018, termed 2018 Special 301 Report – ‘A Tired, Repetitive Report.’ It reiterates in no ambiguous term: ‘The report maintains the line that there is only one adequate and effective level of IP protection and enforcement that every country should adhere to, regardless of its social and economic circumstances or its international legal obligations.

The ever-expanding MNC Pharma list of concerns on Indian IP laws:

The areas of MNC Pharma concern, related to Indian IP laws, continues to grow even in 2018. The letter dated February 8, 2018 of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, Washington, DC to the USTR, makes these areas rather clear. I shall quote below some major pharma related ones, from this ever-expanding list:

  • Additional Patentability Criteria – section 3 (d): The law makes it difficult for them to secure patent protection for certain types of pharma inventions.
  • TADF (Technology Acquisition and Development Fund)is empowered to request Compulsory Licensing (CL) from the Government:Section 4.4 of India’s National Manufacturing Policy discusses the use of CL to help domestic companies access the latest patented green technology.This helps in situations when a patent holder is unwilling to license, either at all or “at reasonable rates,” or when an invention is not being “worked” within India.
  • India’s National Competition Policyrequires IP owners to grant access to “essential facilities” on “agreed and nondiscriminatory terms” without reservation. They are not comfortable with it.
  • Regulatory Data Protection: The Indian Regulatory Authority relies on test data submitted by originators to another country when granting marketing approval to follow-on pharma products. It discourages them to develop new medicines that could meet unmet medical needs.
  • Requirement of local working of patents: The Controller of Patents is empowered to require patent holders and any licensees to provide details on how the invention is being worked in India. Statements of the Working, (Form 27),must be provided annually.Failure to provide the requested information is punishable by fine or imprisonment. It makes pharma patent holders facing the risk of CL, if they fail to “work” their inventions in India within three years of the respective patent grant.
  • Disclosure of Foreign Filings: Section 8 of India’s Patent Act requires disclosure and regular updates on foreign applications that are substantially “the same or substantially the same invention.” They feel it is irrelevant today.

Pharma MNCs’ self-serving tirade is insensitive to Indian patient interest:

Continuing its tirade against some developed and developing countries, such as India, the US drug manufacturers lobby group – Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has urged the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) to take immediate action to address serious market access and intellectual property (IP) barriers in 19 overseas markets, including India, reports reported The Pharma Letter on February 28, 2018. It will be interesting to watch and note the level active and passive participation of India based stakeholders of this powerful US lobby group, as well.

Government of India holds its ground… but the saga continues:

India Government’s stand in this regard, including 2018 Special 301 Report, has been well articulated in its report released on January 24, 2018, titled “Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India – An Overview”, released by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Ministry of Commerce and Industry (DIPP). The paper also includes asummary of some of the main recommendations, as captured in the September 2016 Report of the High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, constituted by the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon of the United Nations in November 2015.  Some of these observations are as follows:

  • WTO members must make full use of the TRIPS flexibilities as confirmed by the Doha Declaration to promote access to health technologies when necessary.
  • WTO members should make full use of the policy space available in Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement by adopting and applying rigorous definitions of invention and patentability that are in the interests of public health of the country and its inhabitants. This includes amending laws to curtail the evergreening of patents and awarding patents only when genuine innovation has occurred.
  • Governments should adopt and implement legislation that facilitates the issuance of Compulsory Licenses (CL). The use of CL should be based on the provisions found in the Doha Declaration and the grounds for the issuance left to the discretion of the governments.
  • WTO members should revise the paragraph 6 decision in order to find a solution that enables a swift and expedient export of pharmaceutical products produced under compulsory license.
  • Governments and the private sector must refrain from explicit or implicit threats, tactics or strategies that undermine the right of WTO Members to use TRIPS flexibilities.
  • Governments engaged in bilateral and regional trade and investment treaties should ensure that these agreements do not include provisions that interfere with their obligations to fulfill the rights to health.

The DIPP report includes two important quotes, among several others, as follows:

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize for Economics (2001) – an American Citizen:

-       “If patent rights are too strong and maintained for too long, they prevent access to knowledge, the most important input in the innovation process. In the US, there is growing recognition that the balance has been too far tilted towards patent protection in general (not just in medicine).”

-       “Greater IP protection for medicines would, we fear, limit access to life-saving drugs and seriously undermine the very capable indigenous generics industry that has been critical for people’s well-being in not only India but other developing countries as well”.

Bernie Sanders, an American Citizen and Senior U.S. Senator:

-      “Access to health care is a human right, and that includes access to safe and affordable prescription drugs. It is time to enact prescription drug policies that work for everyone, not just the CEOs of the pharmaceutical industry.”

-      “Healthcare must be recognized as a right, not a privilege. Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income.”

Conclusion:

Why is then this orchestrated moaning and accompanying pressure for making Indian IP laws more stringent, which apparently continues under the façade of ‘innovation at risk’, which isn’t so – in any case. But, cleverly marketed high priced ‘me too’ drugs with molecular tweaking do impact patient access. So is the practice of delaying off-patent generic drugs entry, surreptitiously. Instead, why not encourage Voluntary Licensing (VL) of patented drugs against a mutually agreed fee, for achieving greater market access to the developing countries, like India?

Whatever intense advocacy is done by the vested interests to change Indian patent laws in favor of MNC pharma, the intense efforts so far, I reckon, have been akin to running on a treadmill – without moving an inch from where they were, since and even prior to 2005. The moaning of MNC Pharma on the Indian IP ecosystem, as I see it, will continue, as no Indian Government will wish to take any risk in this area. It appears irreversible and is likely to remain so, for a long time to come. The time demands from all concerned to be part of the solution, and not continue to be a part of the problem, especially by trying to tamper with the IP ecosystem of the country.

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.

‘Rigged’ Payment System Limits Biosimilar Access

Posted on by
Reply

As often discussed, market entry of biosimilars, in general, brings a new hope not just for many patients, but also to biosimilar drug manufacturers – planning to get marketing approvals of these drugs in the United States, the El Dorado of global pharma industry.

Stakeholder expectations keep increasing manifold as biosimilars offer cheaper treatment options with biologic drugs in many life-threatening and rare diseases. However, biosimilars still remain an unfulfilled promise.

The January 2018 paper by Trinity Partners on “The State of US Biosimilars Market Access” in the largest drug market of the world makes an important observation in this regard. It says, the promise of biosimilars offering cost-saving competition in the lucrative US biologic market, remains largely unfulfilled.

As on date, adoption of biosimilars has been hindered by lack of market access due to complex contracting dynamics, besides regulatory and legal uncertainty, and a general lack of clinical comfort with biosimilars.

Consequently, current state of biosimilar acceptance and access appear too insignificant. More so, as compared to traditional small molecule generic markets where their use is fueled by automatic substitution and payer formularies, over higher priced branded reference drugs.

It would not have been difficult, especially for the innovative biologic drug makers to brush this important study aside, had the US-FDA Commissioner – Scott Gottlieb would not have voiced what he did in March this year.

With this perspective, I shall discuss in this article, how access to biosimilar drugs are getting limited. In doing so, I shall begin with what the US-FDA Commissioner has recently highlighted in this area.

Yet another barrier:

As reported by Bloomberg on March 07, 2018, the US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb unambiguously expressed that biologic drug manufacturers enter into exclusive arrangements with Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and insurers, who agree to cover only the old brands in return for rebates or discounts. This “rigged” payment scheme might quite literally scare the biosimilar competition out of the market altogether, he articulated, categorically.

US-FDA Commissioner delivered this speech at the National Health Policy Conference for America’s Health Insurance Plans. During this deliberation, Gottlieb criticized some unwanted and avoidable practices that stifle biosimilar development.

He observed, of the 9 approved biosimilars in the US, only 3 could be launched market. In many instances, patent litigation is the reason for such delay in launch, post FDA approval. Connecting the dots, the Commissioner observed, even after being in the market, biosimilars continue facing more uncertainty due to a ‘rigged payment scheme.’

Started with a great promise:

It is worth noting, till 2010 no regulatory pathway for marketing approval of biosimilars was in place in the world’s largest pharma market – the United States. Hence, despite biosimilar drugs being a treatment option in many countries over the last two decades, the first biosimilar was launched in the US, following this pathway, only in 2015. It was Zarxio ((Filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis – indicated for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Since then, US-FDA has approved nine biosimilars. Ironically biosimilar market size still remains small and much below the general expectations. Most biosimilar manufacturers are navigating through multiple tough hurdles for market launch of this relatively new genre of complex drugs.

Navigating through tough hurdles:

There are tough hurdles to navigate through, while launching biosimilars, especially in the US. Some of which are as follows:

Protracted litigations: The development and launch of most biosimilars get stuck in the multiple patent web-lock, created around original biologic molecules, leading to long drawn expensive litigations.

Pricing: Following small molecule generic drugs, most payers and consumers expect biosimilar pricing too will be no different. However, in practice, most biosimilars are priced just around 15 percent to 20 percent less than original biologics.

Interchangeability: Lack of interchangeability among presently approved biosimilars in the US limits payers’ and consumer choice for a shift from the reference biologic drugs to suitable biosimilars. This virtually restricts the use of biosimilars mostly to such drug-naïve patients.

Confidence: For various reasons, the confidence and familiarity of both physicians and the consumers on biosimilars remain suboptimal. Whether relatively cheaper biosimilars can be used in the same indications as the reference biologic to the new patients – as an alternative choice, is still not clear to many of them. This situation calls for increasing awareness programs involving all stakeholders.

Manufacturing: The manufacturing process of large molecule biosimilars is quite costly as compared to small molecule generic drugs. Hence, these are unlikely to follow a similar pricing pattern, attracting as high a discount as around 80 percent, compared to original branded drugs.

Some of these barriers I have discussed in my article, titled ‘Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers’, published in this blog on July 31, 2017.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, drug manufacturers continue to see tremendous opportunity in biosimilars. The interest is heating up, as about six of the top 10 biologic drugs are expected to go off-patent in the US by 2019.

Despite all this, it is generally believed, the prevailing situation will change even in the US. The regulator is expected to facilitate smoother market entry of biosimilars, facing much less obstacles on the way. As many strongly believe, these are possibly an outcome of intense industry lobbying, with the high-level policy makers.  Many of these hurdles can be removed by the regulators, themselves, including drug interchangeability.

The US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has already said in a meeting on March 07, 2018, the FDA will start educating doctors and patients to minimize clinical and other concerns related to biosimilars. Therefore, going forward, greater competition in the biosimilar space is expected to increase the long-awaited price differential, as compared to reference biologic.

With greater support from the regulators, biosimilars still show a unique promise of greater acceptance and access to patients – occasionally ‘Rigged’ maneuvers by the vested interests notwithstanding.

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.

‘Made-to-Measure’ Marketing for ‘Made-to-Measure’ Medicines

Posted on by
Reply

We have entered into a new era of innovation in medical science where ‘one size fits all’ type of treatment is making a sizeable space for a new ‘made-to-measure’ variety of the same. Such medicines are being developed particularly for life-threatening and rare diseases, where individual genetic differences in patients play a key role in the choice of therapy.

The marketers of such drugs, at the same time, will need to make sure that the right sets of messages are delivered to the right person, in the right way and at the right time, for brand success. This isn’t a piece of cake, as it will be akin to finding out a needle from a haystack. It would call for craftily ferreting out from an enormous database, both the patients’ and the prescribers detail profile virtually in each stage of the treatment process.

Such information would form the bedrock for effective brand value creation and its delivery, to achieve best possible business results and also patient outcomes. Thus, ‘made-to-measure’ marketing would be a whole new ball game for many pharma marketers – a  completely different situation that, very often, they know little about.

In this article, I shall dwell on this subject. Let me begin with a brief description of the emerging ‘made-to-measure’ variety of treatments.

‘Made-to-measure’ treatment:

There are many serious and life-threatening disease conditions where ‘One Size Fits All’ sort of treatment approach doesn’t work too well. One such dreaded disease is cancer. Conventionally, following standard treatment guidelines, doctors generally opt for similar treatment for patients suffering from the same type and stage of cancer. Interestingly, it has been conclusively established over a period of time that this approach often yields different outcomes to different patients.

With the progress of genetic science, the researchers have unraveled this mystery from the genetic difference of patients. This understanding heralded the dawn of a new era of targeted or ‘made-to-measure’ drug therapies. These are called “personalized medicine” or “precision medicine”. According to the National Research Council, “personalized medicine” is an older term with a meaning similar to “precision medicine.”

Personalized medicines:

According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), understanding a patient’s genetic makeup and ascertaining how certain gene changes during cancerous tumor growth, doctors can now choose more effective treatment options for each patient. In other words, based on genetic test results, oncologists can now opt for a customize treatment, based on each patient’s specific needs. Such drugs can block or turn off the signals that tell malignant cells to grow and divide, keep cells from living longer than normal, or kill the cancer cells altogether.

Moreover, by performing genetic tests both on the cancer and normal cells, doctors can also:

  • Find out the chances of a person developing cancer and selecting the screening strategies to lower the risk
  • Match patients with treatments that are likely to be more effective and cause fewer side effects
  • Predict the risk of recurrence, which means the return of cancer

The new era began in 1998:

The era of ‘personalized medicine’ for cancer, in all practical purposes, commenced in 1998, when the US-FDA approved the targeted therapy, Herceptin (trastuzumab). Breast cancer patients having high levels of a biomarker, known as “HER-2,” are more likely to be susceptible to this drug.

Since then, the development of targeted therapies has grown rapidly. As reported by the American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC), published on January 31, 2018, one in every 4 drugs approved by the US-FDA over the past 4 years was a personalized medicine, and the agency approved a record-breaking 16 personalized therapy in 2017. The same year, US-FDA also approved the first biosimilar of a personalized medicine - trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri) for HER-2-positive breast cancer patients. This biosimilar was developed with Herceptin as its reference.

The February 2018 report of Research and Markets titled, ‘Personalized Medicine – Scientific and Commercial Aspects’ says, the aim of ‘personalized medicine’ is to match the right drug to the right patient and, in some cases, even to design the appropriate treatment for a patient according to his/her genotype. I deliberated on genotype-based treatment in my article titled, ‘A Disruptive Innovation to Fight and Cure Intractable Diseases’, published in this blog on October 30, 2017.

At this point, let me hasten to add that the development of personalized medicine raises some ethical issues, as well. Currently, this debate is mostly limited to the area of genetic testing.

Personalized dosage:

An article published on March 23, 2015 in the ‘FDA Voice’ of the US-FDA states, since the 1990s, the agency is also working on personalized drug dosing. This is because individuals differ in how they eliminate a drug. Some eliminate it much more slowly than most other people, and thus are susceptible to overdosing, while others eliminate it much faster, and may not get the desired therapeutic effect. There are biomarkers to identify people who may have these unusual results. Personalized drug dosing makes sure that drug efficacy for such patients are not compromised, or they are not at high risk of any severe side effects.

Marketing ‘personalized medicine’ a whole new ball game:

All this vindicates that ‘personalized medicine’ is not just a flash in the pan. With each passing year, it’s moving ahead at a brisk pace. In this emerging scenario, what happens to marketing of these drugs? Will the marketing of ‘personalized medicine’ remain just the same as the conventional one, or it warrants radically different cerebral inputs?

The opportunities for personalization in pharma marketing are immense. ‘Personalized medicines’ offer a greater scope in leveraging its potential that is yet to be fathomed, meaningfully. Broadly, this will mean targeting customers or potential consumers even at the individual level, to add greater differential value.

This, in turn, will involve making the marketing content, the message format and choosing the effective value delivery platforms, virtually ‘made-to-measure’ for the target audience. Marketing interaction of this ilk, has proven to offer a cutting-edge experience to the target groups with greater outcomes, in tandem, yielding superior financial results to the concerned pharma players.

Recent reports:

On December 18, 2017, Cambridge BioMarketing – one of the world’s leading rare disease agency highlighted, as personalized medicine continues to take hold, it will be more important than ever for healthcare companies to incorporate the ‘hyperpersonalized’ experience in marketing and communications. Patients’ voice has already started becoming more important than ever before, in various facets of pharma business. In 2018, one may expect to witness more pharma companies tapping the experts who can help explain the life-changing benefits of a treatment for the patient, effectively – the report predicted.

Moving forward, patients embarking on new treatments will be better empowered to take charge of their well-being. Physicians and nurses will also be better connected to their patients, along with other care providers, with the support of enhanced digital connections and mobile apps. Interestingly, one can find it happening in several developed countries, especially, in areas like rare diseases, where ‘personalized medicines’ will be used more – underscored this agency.

On January 22, 2018, quoting the same Cambridge BioMarketing, FiercePharma also reported, more ‘personalized medicines’ also mean more ‘personalized marketing’ – and the ‘hyperpersonalization’ trend goes to extremes. Crunching data gathered from multiple sources, such drug marketers need to identify small groups that could be receptive to specific messaging. Advanced data and analytics, would facilitate the marketers to whittle down their targets and tailor messages to consumer audiences, sometimes as small as one person – the report asserted.

Conclusion:

As the February 2018 report of ‘Research and Markets’ highlights, increase in efficacy and safety of treatment by individualizing it, has benefitted in financial terms too. Available information indicates that ‘personalized medicine’ will ultimately be cost-effective in healthcare systems. This would also eliminate the need for various assumptions in the process of diagnosing a disease.

Thus, conventional pharma marketing based on the mostly segmentation strategy used for blockbuster molecules may not work for a ‘personalized medicine’. Instead, ‘personalized marketing, focused on smaller and exclusive markets – identified based on robust research and analytical data, will be the name of the new game for business excellence in this specialized area.

Thus, I reckon, as we move ahead, ‘made-to-measure’ marketing will no doubt be one of the key success requirements to make ‘made-to-measure’ medicines’ – a money spinner.

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.

Why Branded Generics Promise High Quality For Patients?

Posted on by
Reply

Why most branded generic drugs don’t carry any stigma of quality, even when these are manufactured by small companies? The corollary to it is, why non-branded generics always carry a general stigma of inferior quality, even when produced by large Indian pharma companies?

While pondering over the answers to these questions, several other related facts also float at the top of mind, simultaneously, such as:

1. Just as many non-branded generics don’t go through the regular drug quality scrutiny of the regulators, branded generics are no different in this regard.

2. A large number of both branded and non-branded generics gets manufacturing approval by various State Drug Authorities.

3. The process of regulatory approval is exactly the same for both branded and non-branded generics. Even for branded generics regulatory approvals come only in the generic names and not with the brand names.

4. One can find hundreds of varieties of both branded and non-branded generics of the same molecules or of similar fixed dose combinations in the market.

5. Reports of substandard drugs of both non-branded and branded generics are also not significantly different.

6. Legal measures of reasonably stringent punishment in the country are no different between branded and non-branded generics.

This list is not exhaustive. Nevertheless, in this scenario, it is intriguing to fathom the reason of so much of contempt for non-branded generics within the industry, supported by a section of the media. This disgust gets invariably well-displayed as and when any serious discussion revolves around non-branded cheaper generic drug prescriptions in India.

Is it just a perception or based on solid facts?

This is a million-dollar question, but the optics is interesting. This also gets reflected in the recent media report on February 26, 2018. It writes, ‘The central government’s National Health Protection Scheme (NHPS) is going to put all of its focus on quality generic medicines, and not just the branded generic medicines, said Union Chemical and Fertilizer Minister Ananth Kumar while addressing a closed-door session with chief executives (CEOs) of pharmaceutical companies in Bengaluru on February 15.”

Curiously, in his statement the Minister also used the term ‘Quality’ only against non-branded generics and not against branded generics. Does it mean anything? If it does, is that just a perception or based on solid facts?

In this article, I shall try to assess why is this generally negative perception against cheaper non-branded generics gaining strength among many of us?

A general impression:  

An often-repeated fascinating argument is, branding of a generic drug is important as it will ensure high product quality. This reasoning persists, regardless of the fact that the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) often makes public announcements to the contrary, as happened even recently.

Risks of NSQ drugs don’t lie solely on non-branded generics:

According to the ‘National Drug Survey, 2014-16’, conducted in association with the National Institute of Biologicals, out of the 47,012 samples tested from the country, 13 samples (0.0245 percent) were ‘Spurious’ and 1,850 samples (3.16 percent) were found ‘Not of Standard Quality (NSQ)’.

The data on 1,850 NSQ samples showed that these were from 569 manufacturing units. Of these, 10 percent of manufacturing units were responsible for about 50 percent of NSQ samples. Further, one third of total NSQ samples were from 22 manufacturing units.

Further, quoting the survey carried out through the National Institute of Biologicals, a September 04, 2017 media report also articulated: ‘During its recent survey, the drug regulator found well-known drug manufacturers failing quality tests. In the survey, samples tested from top drug companies were found not to be of standard quality.’

The names of some of these large drug manufacturers in India, including the multinationals, along with their smaller counterparts, appeared in the Public Notice of July 21, 2017 of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of India. Thus, the risks of NSQ medicines can’t possibly be attributed solely to the small time non-branded generic drug manufacturers. This public notice is expected to draw attention of many stakeholders.

More facts:

On April 22, 2017, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) reported that popular branded drugs like D-Cold Total, Cetrizine, Combiflam, Panza-40 tablets, Ibuprofen, and antibiotics with ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, Amoxycillin, Ciprofloxacin have tested sub-standard. Before this, media reports of July 8, 2016 highlighted, “The DCGI has again found Sanofi’s popular painkiller drug, Combiflam, of sub-standard quality, in its latest test last month. It had found the same defect in the medicine in February and April, too.’

Conclusion:

Considering these facts, it is difficult to comprehend why branded generic drugs, irrespective of who manufacturers, will be of high quality perceptually – always. Conversely, non-branded generic drugs, even when manufactured by a reputed manufacturer, say for example – Cipla, are perceptually no good for patients, in terms of quality standard.

Nevertheless, the hard facts indicate, quality is a general issue both for branded and non-branded generic drugs in India, and not particularly for the later one.

This brings me back to where I started from: Do Branded Generics Promise High Quality for Patients? To find the right answer to this question, one should look at the scientific data on the same – sans any perception. Otherwise, it becomes ‘your view’ versus ‘my view’ sort of a mindless, though a highly passionate debate.

I shall refrain from being judgmental in this area. The readers may wish to ponder over it, seriously, and arrive at a well-considered inference on the very basis of this discourse – from the patients’ perspective.

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.

How Relevant Is A Pharma Brand Name To Patients?

Posted on by
Reply

Are brand names necessary for medicines? Well – its’s a contentious issue, at least, as on date. It becomes the subject of a raging debate when the same question is slightly modified to: – Are brand names necessary for prescription drugs?

The current reality is, almost all pharma companies believe, and have been following this practice. This has been happening for decades, regardless of the fact that unlike other branded non-pharma products, each and every drug also carries another specific name – the generic name. Which is why, questions are often raised, why can’t drugs be prescribed only in generic names by the doctors?

Before I proceed further, let me recapitulate the definition of a ‘brand’. One of the most comprehensive definitions of a brand is: Unique design, sign, symbol, words, or a combination of these that identifies a product and differentiates it from its competitors. It helps create a level of credibility, quality, and satisfaction in the consumer’s mind, by standing for certain benefits and value. And, the creative marketing practices followed in this process is termed as ‘branding’. Keeping this at the center, in this article, let me try to arrive at a relevant perspective on this subject.

The arguments in favor:

Votaries of pharma branding believe that a pharma brand helps establish an emotional connect with the consumers on various parameters, including quality, efficacy, safety and reliability. This is expected to establish a preferential advantage of a brand over its competitors. Quoting the ‘father of advertising’ David Ogilvy, some of these proponents relate the outcome of branding to offering ‘intangible sum of a product’s attributes’ to its consumers, and also prospective consumers.

Entrepreneur India puts across such favorable outcome of ‘branding’ very candidly, which is also applicable to branding medicines – both patented and generic ones. It says, “Consistent, strategic branding leads to a strong brand equity, which means the added value brought to your company’s products or services that allows you to charge more for your brand than what identical, unbranded products command.”

The general belief within the pharma industry is that, ‘branding’ facilitates doctors in choosing and prescribing medicines to patients, especially in those situations where the choices are many. Aficionados of pharma product branding argue, that to save time, doctors usually select those top of mind products, which they are familiar with and feel, can serve the purpose well. This belief prompts the necessity to go all out for ‘branding’ by the pharma companies, even when the process is an expensive one.

Where pharma ‘branding’ is necessary:

There are a few old publications of the 1980’s, which claim that studies based on human psychology have found that medicines with brand names can have a better perceived impact on the actual effectiveness of ‘Over the Counter (OTC)’ medications. One of the examples cited was of aspirin.

Be that as it may, the relevance of branding for OTC pharmaceutical products is undeniable, where a medicinal product is generally treated just as any other Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) goods. Establishing an emotional connect of OTC brands with consumers is, therefore, considered an important process to create a preferential perceived advantage over its competitors.

There is no well-laid out legal or procedural pathway, as yet, for pharma OTC brands in India. No ‘Direct to Consumer (DTC) promotion is allowed in the country for Schedule H and Schedule X drugs – the only exceptions being Ayurvedic proprietary medicines and for homeopathy drugs. That said, the question continues to haunt, how relevant is branding for prescription drugs – now?

Relevance of ‘branding’ for prescription drugs:

The juggernaut of ‘branding prescription drugs’, riding mostly the wave of vested interests – of many hues and color, has been made to be perceived as necessary to ensure drug quality and safety for patients. It continues to move on, up until today, even for highly specialized prescription drugs. Nonetheless, some initiatives are visible from some Governments to gradually shift this contentious paradigm.

This move has been catalyzed by a blend of changing times with changing expectations of a large number of patients. They want to be an integral part in their treatment decisions, receive more personalized healthcare from both doctors and pharma companies. Patients, ultimately, want to feel confident that they’re receiving the best treatment – says a fresh study.

A number of other research papers also confirm that, a virtually static bar of patients’ expectations, in the disease treatment process – either for themselves or their near and dear ones, is slowly but surely gaining height, measurably. For better outcomes, patients have started expecting new types of services both from their doctors and the drug manufacturers. This process begins, even before a final decision is taken in the treatment process. As this paradigm shifts, pharma players would be significantly impacted – in several parameters.

Fast expanding digital empowerment options for all, across the world, is expediting this process further, including India. Placing oneself in the midst of it, one may ponder – how relevant is pharma branding today, as is being highlighted by many, since long.

In my view, a part of the answer to the above question arguably lies in a study titled, “Product Launch: The Patient Has Spoken”. The Key findings from the survey that covered 8,000 patients from three generations in the US, the UK, Germany and France, were published by ‘Accenture Life Sciences’ in January 2018. The research reveals how these patients evaluate and select new treatments in eight therapeutic areas (immune system, heart, lungs, brain, cancer, hormone/ metabolism and eye disease) across three generations, spanning across – Baby boomers, Generation X and Millennials.

Brands don’t matter to most patients…outcomes do:

69 percent of patients said, the benefits of the product are more important to them than the brand of the product. The four top factors influencing patients’ while making decisions about their healthcare are listed in the report as:

  • The doctor/ physician relationship: 66 percent
  • The patient’s ability to maintain their current lifestyle: 55 percent
  • Patients’ ease of access to health care they’ll need: 53 percent
  • Patients’ financial situation / ability to pay: 51 percent. When this is read with another finding where, 48 percent of patients believe that their doctors discuss the whole range of product options with them, a more interesting scenario emerges.

Further, lack of knowledge about the treatments available, as expressed by 42 percent of patients obviously indicate, pharma players’ intent to better inform patients by educating the doctors through brand promotion is not working. Interestingly, brand loyalty or popularity appeared relatively unimportant, ranking twelfth out of 14 influencing factors. Just 25 percent of patients characterized themselves as having a strong affinity with brands in a healthcare setting – the above report revealed.

Could there be an alternative approach?

An effective ‘branding’ exercise should lead to creating a ‘brand loyalty’ for any product. For pharma companies, doctors’ brand loyalty should lead to more number of its brand prescriptions. This expectation emanates from the idea that the prescription brand will represent something, such as quality, trust, assured relief, or may well be anything else. That means pharma product ‘branding’ is primarily aimed at the medical profession.

In an alternative approach to the current practice, an article titled, “From Managing Pills to Managing Brands”, published sometime back in the March-April 2000 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR), finds its great relevance, even today. It says, pharma companies can retain the loyalty of customers by building a franchise around specific therapeutic areas based on a focused approach to R&D. In other words, their corporate brand can replace individual drug brands. For example, a doctor looking for a treatment for – say asthma, would look for the latest GlaxoSmithKline medicines. Let me hasten to add, I used this example just to illustrate a point. This may appear as a long shot to some. Nonetheless, it would significantly reduce the cost of marketing, and subsequently the cost of a drug to patients. Incidentally, I also wrote about the relevance of ‘Corporate Branding’ in this Blog on June 15, 2015.

Conclusion:

With this fast-emerging backdrop, the Accenture Study raises an important issue to this effect. It wonders, whether the expenses incurred towards branding medicines, especially, during product launch be significantly reduced and be made more productive?

Illustrating the point, the report says, in 2016, the US pharmaceutical and healthcare industry alone spent US$ 15.2 billion in marketing. To earn a better business return, could a substantial part of this expenditure be reallocated to other programs that matter more to patients, such as access to patient service programs, and creating ‘Real-World Evidence (RWE)’ data that can document improved health outcomes, particularly those that matter to patients?

Well-crafted pharma branding and other associated initiatives, targeted predominantly to the medical profession, may make a doctor emotionally obligated to prescribe any company’s specific brands, for now. However, in the gradually firming-up ‘patient outcomes’-oriented environment, where patients want to participate in the treatment decision making process, will it remain so?

Dispassionately thinking, to most patients, a brand is as good or bad as the perceived value it delivers to them in the form of outcomes. Or, in other words, prescription pharma brands may not even matter to most of them, at all, but the outcomes will be. Hopefully, before it is too late pharma players would realize that, especially the well-informed patients are becoming co-decision makers in choosing the drug that a doctor will prescribe to them. If not, the current targeted process of pharma prescription drug branding, may lose its practical relevance, over a period of time.

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 Improving Drug Quality in India – A Bizarre Intent

Posted on by
Reply

On January 16, 2017, quoting a Government source, a media report revealed, “India’s drug regulator is looking to inspect US pharmaceutical facilities, making critical medicines so that only high-quality products are imported from them.”

This intent follows a similar decision of the apex regulatory body – the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), against some Chinese manufacturers on drug quality concern. The latest proposal to this effect was sent to the health ministry the previous week – the above report adds.

In this article, I shall explore the fundamental basis of this specific initiative. If it has any, I shall try to fathom whether it’s yet another case of misplaced priority of the decision makers, if not a bizarre one.

The current perspective:

About a couple of years ago, an article published in the global financial daily – the Financial Times, on September 9, 2015 titled, ‘Indian drugs: not what the doctor ordered’, articulated that the Indian pharma industry ‘now face a serious credibility crisis, as they battle to allay western regulators’ concerns about their manufacturing practices — especially the reliability of data from trials of their medicines.’

The report also pointed out: ‘Overseas regulators have been scrutinizing and banning products from some of India’s biggest and most reputable groups — including Sun Pharmaceuticals, IPCA, and Wockhardt – many of which have ongoing relationships with large multinational drug companies.’

Has anything changed now?

Nothing perceptibly seems to have changed in this area since then, to set our ‘own house in order’. Not even after witnessing a barrage of drug quality related ‘import bans’ by the US-FDA that involves Indian manufacturers of all sizes and scale. Instead, CDSCO turns its focus on setting-right ‘others’ manufacturing houses with its reportedly meagre manpower resources. Curiously, these initiatives include even those countries, which are globally acclaimed for having stringent regulatory frameworks well in place, such as the United States (US) and the European Union (EU).

Where a justifiable reason exists:

On Chinese API import by different countries, the article titled “Imports To Fuel India’s Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients’ Requirements,” published by Bloomberg | Quint on November 15, 2017 brings out a nice comparison. It says: ‘Among the top emerging and developing economies, India is a major importer of bulk drugs from China at 54 percent, followed by Indonesia at 24 percent, Brazil at 12 percent and South Africa at 8 percent.’ It also writes, in comparison, most of the developed markets of the world import in the range of just 2-3 percent from China.’

Going by this fact, Indian drug regulator’s inspection of some of the Chinese API plants is, by all means, understandable – mainly for two reasons. One, India is largely dependent on Chinese bulk drugs for formulations manufacturing and consumption in the country, besides exports. And the second, some incidents of compromised Chinese drug ingredients have already been reported. For example, citing quality issues, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has recently, reportedly banned import of such questionable drug constituents from six major Chinese pharma companies. This is not a solitary instance. Similar incidents involving Chinese drugs were  reported in the past, as well.

An irony:

When international media agencies flash headlines, such as “U.S. and EU regulators urge Indian drug companies to step up standards,” Indian drug regulators decide to inspect overseas manufacturing plants, as well. Such a decision becomes intriguing, especially when it includes those countries, where from imports are meager, besides their stringent drug quality standards being globally acclaimed.

This is an irony, as the recent local media headlines like, “India among countries where 10% of drugs are substandard: WHO” or “… 27 medicines sold by top firms ‘fail’ quality tests in seven states”, unfold the veracity of drug regulatory laxity within the country.

The basis of the recent proposal becomes more incomprehensible, when the DCGI himself reportedly admits, even today that: “Substandard medicines are a major issue in India and we are looking out for ways to tackle the problem. As quality regulator, we are developing proper mechanisms to stop manufacturing and sale of counterfeit drugs so that they don’t reach the patients.”

The reasons cited for overseas plant inspection:

According to media reports, the reasons cited in the CDSCO proposal for Indian Drug Inspectors’ (DI) inspecting other overseas manufacturers, including those in the US and Europe, are broadly as follows:

  • Most of over 28 manufacturing sites registered in India from the US, manufacture critical formulations or critical new therapies, which are not available in other countries, as they fall into high-risk categories.
  • Inspections will not only result in compliance to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules, but also give exposure to Indian drugs inspectors to new technology adopted in the manufacturing and state-of-the-art facilities.
  • The sites will be inspected if they have made substandard drugs, received quality complaints, or faced action by other regulatory authorities.
  • Companies shortlisted for the proposed inspections include those making biologic and anti-cancer medicines.

Let me hasten to add, there is nothing wrong with this intent as such, but the moot point is: what’s the core issue that we are talking about? While addressing this point, let’s first have a quick look at India’s import of pharmaceutical product around the last two decades.

India’s import of pharmaceutical products – 1996 – 2018:

According to ‘Trading Economics’ (last updated in January of 2018), India’s import of pharmaceutical products decreased to USD 254.57 Million in 2016 from USD 795.34 Million in 2015. Average drug imports are shown as USD 645.06 USD Million from 1996 until 2016, reaching an all-time high of USD 1747.65 Million in 2012, and a record low of USD 64.32 Million in 1996.

Nonetheless, the micro- picture of India’s bulk drugs or API import isn’t quite the same. On December 19, 2017 in a written reply to the Lok Sabha, the Minister of State, Chemicals and Fertilizers gave details of India’s bulk drug imports from top five countries, as follows:

Country Import value Rs Crore Import value $ Million (Approx.)
China 12,254.97 1915 (66%)
United States 820.18 128 (4.5%)
Italy 701.85 110 (3.8%)
Germany 485.11 76 (2.6%)
Singapore 422.01 66 (2.3%)
Total 18,372.54 2871

It’s worth noting, although the overall value of API import has declined, including from China, its volume share still remains too high in India. More importantly, Indian drug import from the United States and the European countries, are not only very small, there doesn’t seem to be enough instances of substandard drugs imported from these countries to India, either.

The core issue:

Taking a serious note of the reported incidences of widespread substandard drugs by various reports, including the WHO, the core issue becomes rather obvious. What else could possibly be the core issue other than taking effective remedial regulatory measures to contain the menace of substandard drugs circulating within the country?

An article titled, “Correcting India’s Chronic Shortage of Drug Inspectors to Ensure the Production and Distribution of Safe, High-Quality of Medicines,” published by the International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) on April 27, 2017, made an important observation in this regard.

It reiterated: Good drug regulation requires an effective system for monitoring and inspection of manufacturing and sales units. In India, despite widespread agreement on this principle, ongoing shortages of drug inspectors have been identified as a major hindrance to this effort by the national committees, since 1975. Rapid growth of India’s pharmaceutical industry and its large export market makes the problem more acute.

Thus, the major remedial measure that CDSCO needs to take on priority to effectively address this core issue, is the chronic shortage of competent drug inspectors in the country.

An assessment of the current situation:

On the ground, the above situation continues to prevail almost in every state of the country, with a varying degree, though. However, at this point, I shall quote just three such instances – only to illustrate the gravity of the situation.

Example 1 – Delhi:

The article titled, “Delhi’s pharmacy woes: Only 21 inspectors for city’s 25,000 chemists,” published by ‘India Today’ on November 25, 2017, well-captured the latest scenario in this regard, of India’s national capital – New Delhi.

It wrote, there’s no guarantee that the medicine you are buying from a pharmacy is safe. The drug regulatory body does not have enough manpower to conduct regular inspections of the city’s mushrooming chemist shops and wholesale units.

Against the sanctioned posts of 31 drug inspectors, the department has only 21 DI for keeping an eye on Delhi’s 25,000 medical stores, and blood banks. Quoting Government officials the report reiterated, while the number of DI has declined – or at best remained constant – over the past 40 years, the number of pharmacies has increased from 5,000 to 25,000.

Whereas, going by the Centre’s recommendation, Dr. Mashelkar Committee report and the Task Force Committee’s observation, there should be one drug inspector for every 50 manufacturing units. Considering the magnitude of the problem, the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB), in a recent meeting, reportedly suggested, there should be one official for every 200 sales outlets, and one official for every 50 manufacturing units.

Example 2 – Kerala:

Another report of July 08, 2017, with a similar headline – “Remedial action needed in medicine market”, focused on one more important state – Kerala. It wrote that the Kerala has just 47 drug inspectors to monitor the entire State drug market that has over 20,000 drug stores, excluding those located in the hospitals. “In Kerala – the consumer of about 15 to 20 percent of drugs manufactured in the country, there are no quality checks taking place owing to the manpower shortage” – the article cautioned.

Example 3 – Maharashtra:

Yet another national media report of March 16, 2017 carried a headline ‘FDA faces staff shortage again.’ It discussed the same issue for a major State where the financial capital of India is located – Maharashtra. Giving details, the article pointed out that out of 160 posts of drug inspectors across Maharashtra, only 90 have been filled so far and of the 250 food safety officer posts, just 180 have been filled. More than 50,000 pharmacies, 15,000 wholesalers and over 8,000 manufacturing units, are supposed to be properly governed as per the regulatory rules and godliness, to ensure high quality drug safety standards, by this meager DI staff strength of the State.

Conclusion:

Against the above backdrop, it appears absolutely minimum to expect that CDSCO would make the public know, how does it plan to make the drugs manufactured for domestic consumption of high quality standards, as a safeguard to patients’ health and safety.

This calls for strict quality audits by the DIs of the individual states, at pre-determined periodicity, just as what US-FDA does to ensure exactly the same, for patients in their own country. With dwindling resources of DI, CDSCO seems to be continually failing in achieving this critical goal. There doesn’t seem to be any specific and transparent accountability criteria in place, for the CDSCO to comply with.

In this situation, the plan to audit the overseas manufacturing plants located in the US and EU for drug quality assessment, carving out a slice from the existing DI manpower strength, appears rather foolhardy. Moreover, the safety-risk for those imported medicines is apparently low, not just due to meager quantity of drug import, but also for stringent regulatory environment prevailing in those countries.

In view of all this, the media report on CDSCO’s plan to inspect US and EU pharma facilities, making ‘critical’ drugs to ensure high product-quality, is interesting. If it holds any water, the initiative may be construed by many not merely a case of misplaced priority, but a bizarre one, to say the least.

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: Pharma Keeps An Eye On The Ball

Posted on by
Reply

On April 24, 2017, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) came out with an interesting headline, “Dubai Aims to Be a City Built on Blockchain.” Some may have taken note of it seriously. However, a vast majority of its readers possibly equated the article with something, which is far from reality – like a distant dream.

However, looking at the rapid transformational phase of digital technology, nothing apparently is a dream – not even ‘a distant one.’ The following recent example, in a similar but not exactly the same context, would vindicate this point.

On January 09, 2018, Reuters reported with a headline, “JPMorgan’s Dimon regrets calling bitcoin a fraud.” Interestingly, at a conference held in September 2017, the same Dimon – the Chief Executive of JPMorgan, had commented: “The currency isn’t going to work. You can’t have a business where people can invent a currency out of thin air and think that people who are buying it are really smart.”

I cited the example of ‘Bitcoin’ while deliberating on ‘Blockchain’, primarily because ‘Bitcoin’ – an unregulated virtual or cryptocurrency was built on ‘Blockchain’ technology. This technology reportedly facilitates absolutely transparent, smooth, safe and corruption-free transaction of ‘Bitcoin’, without any third-party intervention at any stage.

Currently, moving beyond Bitcoin, many industries – including pharma, have started finding various uses of Blockchain in their respective businesses. Domain experts envisage, this technology has the potential to offer game changing values – revolutionizing various business processes.

In this article, I shall focus on how the healthcare industry, in general, and more specifically some global pharma players are contemplating to leverage the path breaking ‘Blockchain’ technology to add unprecedented value in the business. The technology being rather a complex one, I shall put it across in a way that an ordinary man like me can easily absorb. Which is why, I start with the first basic question that comes to the fore: ‘What exactly is ‘Blockchain’?

‘Blockchain’:

‘Blockchain’ is a technology that was reportedly conceptualized by an anonymous individual or a group known as Satoshi Nakamoto, in 2008. It was implemented in 2009, as a core component of ‘Bitcoin’ transactions – in an altogether different form of Internet. The technology provides in its network access to transparent digital information that no user can corrupt or probably even hack, leave aside taking copies. The December 13, 2017 article, featured in the Computerworld on this ‘Most disruptive tech in decades’, describes Blockchain as:

  • “Blockchain is a public electronic ledger – similar to a relational database – that can be openly shared among disparate users. It creates an unchangeable record of their transactions, each one time-stamped and linked to the previous one. Each digital record or transaction in the thread is called a block (hence the name), and it allows either an open or controlled set of users to participate in the electronic ledger. Each block is linked to a specific participant.”
  • “Blockchain can only be updated by consensus between participants in the system, and when new data is entered, it can never be erased. The Blockchain contains a true and verifiable record of each and every transaction ever made in the system.”
  • “As a peer-to-peer network, combined with a distributed time-stamping server, Blockchain databases can be managed autonomously to exchange information between disparate parties. There’s no need for an administrator. In effect, the Blockchain users are the administrators.”

Blockchain has, therefore, been meticulously designed to reveal any interference with the contents, ensuring a very high level of data security and access for all its users. Thus, many domain experts justifiably believe, what ‘open-source’ software did almost two and half decades ago, ‘Blockchain’ technology is possibly on a similar threshold of changing much of the ball game in Information Technology (IT), globally.

Big corporate houses of several industries, such as Fintech, Healthcare and Shipping envisage that ‘Blockchain’ technology has a great potential, as they start making limited use of it. It is still in its infancy for scalable use in most industries, probably other than ‘Bitcoin’ transactions.

Use of ‘Blockchain’ in pharma and healthcare:

Let me now explore the potential of ‘Blockchain’ in healthcare and pharma. A paper titled, “Healthcare rallies for Blockchains: Keeping patients at the center” by IBM Institute for Business Value, provides some important insight on its application in healthcare sector. This study is based on a survey of 200 healthcare executives in 16 countries, conducted by The Economist Intelligence Unit. The key highlights are as follows:

  • 16 percent of pharma and healthcare respondents expected to have a commercial Blockchain solution at scale in 2017, as compared to 15 percent of the Banks and 14 percent of Financial enterprises. Thus, it appears, the adoption of Blockchain by healthcare entities are taking place at a faster pace than the other two.
  • 6 in 10 anticipate Blockchains will help them access new markets, and new and trusted information they can keep secure.
  • 7 in 10 of them expect the greatest Blockchain benefits to be in clinical trial records, regulatory compliance and medical/ health records.

Accordingly, the authors posed a few questions: How valuable would it be to have the full history of an individual’s health? What if every vital sign that has been recorded, of all the medicines taken, information associated with every doctor’s visit, illness, operation and more, could be efficiently and accurately captured – and securely stored?

If and when all this is put to scalable use, the designated users will get access to the historic and real-time patient data of various types, of high credibility. In turn, it is expected to significantly reduce many other costs, including the cost towards data reconciliation. Consequently, the quality and coordination of care would rise manifold, with lesser risk, if at all. I shall give below just a couple of examples to drive home the point:

I. Adds credibility and value to Clinical Trials:

The issue of not reporting around half of all clinical trial data, conducted by pharma players while obtaining marketing approval for innovative products, has become a topic of raging debates, across the world. The reason for the same is apparently the intent for the deliberate creation of an information-gap, by cherry picking more favorable trial data. This could eventually lead to compromising patient safety, seriously.

Allegations continue for not just mostly favorable trial data being presented to drug regulators and policymakers to obtain marketing and other approvals, but also for product promotion to doctors. This prompts many believing, “if the clinical trials are supported by Blockchain solution, all results, protocols, and other related information would be time-stamped and immutable, resulting in less data snooping and errors.” Consequently, it would help enhance the dwindling public trust on pharma, especially in this area.

II. Adds unprecedented security and transparency in SCM:

Another example of its effective use is in making a tamper-evident pharma Supply Chain Management (SCM), with unprecedented built-in security features to prevent drug counterfeiting and circulation of substandard drugs. Moreover, ‘Blockchain’ would ensure supply chain tracking even at the individual Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) level by establishing proof of ownership for specific sources of any product. This is especially important in the backdrop of the WHO report, highlighting that 30 percent of such drugs are sold primarily in developing countries.

Global pharma keeping an eye on the ball:

An article titled, ‘Big Pharma Seeks DLT Solution for Drug Costs’, published on January 09, 2018 by the CoinDesk – a digital media and information services company, discussed on this fascinating subject.

It reported, at least, three global pharma heavyweights – Pfizer, Amgen and Sanofi, are pondering, whether ‘Blockchain could be used to actually save lives?’ To achieve this goal with combined efforts, they are now exploring a Blockchain framework to streamline the process of developing and testing new drugs. These early initiators believe, as areas such as this, are of industry-wide importance, there is a need to create a growing momentum for collaboration on foundational issues. And, Blockchain framework that can address the current issues in drug development and clinical trials, will fetch a win-win outcome, both for the innovators and patients, besides other stakeholders.

To reduce the time and cost of bringing new drugs from research labs to patients, improved data management and movement is critical. Blockchain technology could hasten this process, by automating communication between pharma companies, researchers and patients. At the same time, it will ensure a very high level of data integrity, which is so important for health and safety interest of patients.

This area has assumed greater relevance in the recent years, when pharma innovators are facing different challenges to bring new, more personalized drugs to market – faster and at affordable prices, the paper highlights.

Areas of initial use by Indian pharma:

In my article “SCM: Embracing Technology For Patients’ Safety”, published in this Blog on December 18, 2017, I discussed a similar point, not in context of ‘Blockchain’, though. I wrote that by a notification dated January 05, 2016, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) has made encoding and printing of unique numbers and bar codes as per GSI Global Standard mandatory. This would cover tertiary, secondary and primary packaging for all pharmaceuticals manufactured in India and exported out of the country to facilitate tracking and tracing.

Although, the ‘Track and Trace’ system in India for drugs is currently applicable only to pharma exports, will ultimately cover drugs in the domestic market, as well. This is evident from a draft proposal of the Government to the stakeholders in June 2015, in this regard.

Blockchain-based public electronic ledgers that can be openly shared among disparate users, creating an unchangeable record of their transactions, with each one time-stamped and linked to the previous one, would be of immense importance for all concerned towards the reliability of medicines in India.

Similarly, as Indian players venture into more complex clinical trials, such as with biosimilars, Blockchain could catapult the narrative on reliability of Indian clinical data to a much higher level of trust.

Blockchain has come to stay:

As I said in the beginning, ‘Blockchain’ technology has started coming to the fore of many discussions and debates, mainly for its critical role in transparent transaction and distribution process of the cryptocurrency – Bitcoin.

December 16, 2017 issue of the Gulf News reported that UAE’s central bank is working on a joint cryptocurrency, based on Blockchain, with its counterpart in Saudi Arabia. Just prior to that, in August 31, 2017 issue of the Financial Times also reported: “Six of the world’s biggest banks have joined a project to create a new form of digital cash that they hope to launch next year for clearing and settling financial transactions over Blockchain, the technology underpinning bitcoin.”

And just this month, we got to know about the combined efforts of Pfizer, Amgen and Sanofi, to use a Blockchain framework for streamlining the process of developing and testing new drugs.

Besides many other industries, even several Governments are envisaging to unleash the transformative potential of Blockchain in various Governance processes. It may include the confidential data procured and used by Governments to confirm the identity or identification of individuals for different purpose, or even to ensure that the country’s election process is transparent and beyond corruption.

An expression of interest on the use of Blockchain by some State Governments in India, gets reflected in what the Chief Minister (CM) of Maharashtra said while inaugurating the Maharashtra Technology Summit (MTECH), jointly organized by FICCI and Govt. of Maharashtra in Mumbai on January 17, 2018.

The CM clearly indicated, as Blockchain can transform the e-governance, the State Governments must start interacting with technology providers to make Public delivery of goods and services transparent. This will reduce the trust deficit between businesses, and citizens with government departments. He admitted, in the space of technology, ‘Blockchain is one level up and it’s not just Internet of Thing, but it is Internet of trust, Internet of values, that can change the entire space of governance’.

Conclusion:

Blockchain may be just a technological component, but, nonetheless, a game changing one. Thus, the good news is, several pharma players are also taking great interest to step into this never ever experienced – and a new kind of digital paradigm.

It is heartening to note that a number of global pharma head honchos, such as of Novartis, Takeda, and several others, are creating a new global position of chief digital officer. GSK, reportedly, is the latest one to initiate similar step.

Indian pharma players, I reckon, can also reap a rich harvest, both tangible and intangible, by putting ‘Blockchain’ technology in place. It may start with building a transparent, incorruptible ‘Track and Trace’ system for medicines, in addition to achieving high degree of international reliability in its clinical trials, especially on biologic drugs.

The benefits built into the Blockchain technology for pharma, apparently, are far too many than perceived constraints to leverage it effectively. Encouragingly, global pharma seems to be keeping an eye on the ball – but what about Indian pharma?

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.

Patent Expiry No Longer End of The Road

Posted on by
Reply

Who says that the phenomenal success of blockbuster drugs is mostly eaten away by  ‘look-alikes’ of the same, immediately after respective patent expiry? It doesn’t seem to be so any longer, not anymore! Several examples will vindicate this emerging trend. However, I shall quote just a few of these from the published reports.

In 2016, the patent of AbbVie’s Humira (Adalimumab), indicated in the treatment of autoimmune diseases and moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, expired in the United States (US). It will also expire in Europe by 2018. This event was expected to create significant opportunities for lower priced Adalimumab biosimilars in the US market, increasing the product access to many more patients at affordable prices. Just as it happens with patent expiry of small molecule blockbuster drugs. One of the classic examples of which, is a sharp decline in sales turnover and profit from Pfizer’s Lipitor (Atorvastatin), as its patent expired on November 30, 2011.

However, Humira topped the prescription-drug list of 2016 with an annual growth of 15 percent, accounting for USD 16 billion sales, globally. More interestingly, according to a recent report of EvaluatePharma, AbbVie’s Humira will continue to retain its top most ranking in 2020 with expected sales of USD 13.9 billion. Nevertheless, possible threat from biosimilars has slightly slowed down its growth. Although, there are many other similar examples, I would quote just three more of these to illustrate the point, as follows:

  • Rituxan (Rituximab, MabThera) indicated in the treatment of cancer and co-marketed by Biogen and Roche, went off-patent in 2015. However, in 2016, the product held 4th position in the prescription drug market with a revenue growth of nearly 3 percent. Even five years after its patent expiry, Rituxan is still expected to occupy the 17th rank with an estimated turnover of over USD 5 billion in 2020, according to the EvaluatePharma report.
  • Remicade (Infliximab) indicated for autoimmune diseases and manufactured by J&J and Merck, lost market exclusivity in 2015. But, in 2016 it still held 5th place in the global ranking. Five years after it goes off patent, Remicade is expected to feature in the 6th rank in 2020, with an estimated turnover of over USD 6.5 billion, according to the same report as above.
  • The US product patent for Lantus – a long-acting human insulin analog manufactured by Sanofi, expired in August 2014. However, in 2016, clocking a global turnover of USD 6.05 billion, Lantus still ranked 10 in the global prescription brand league table. Six years after its patent expiry – in 2020, Lantus will continue to feature in the rank 20, as the same EvaluatePharma report estimates.

These examples give a feel that unlike small molecule blockbuster drugs, patent expiry is still not end of the road to retain this status for most large molecule biologics, across the world. In this article, I shall discuss this point taking Humira as the case study.

What about biosimilar competition?

In any way, this does not mean that related biosimilars are not getting regulatory approval in the global markets, post-patent expiry of original biologic drugs, including the United States. Nonetheless, biosimilar makers are facing new challenges in this endeavor, some of which are highly cost intensive, creating tough hurdles to make such drugs available to more patients at an affordable price, soon enough. It happened for the very first biosimilar to Humira, as well. On September 23, 2016, almost immediately after its patent expiry in 2016, the USFDA by a Press Release announced approval for the first biosimilar to Humira (adalimumab). This was Amgen’s Amjevita (adalimumab-atto), indicated for multiple inflammatory diseases.

The second biosimilar to AbbVie’s Humira – Boehringer Ingelheim’s Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm), was also approved by the USFDA in August 2017. So far, six biosimilars have been introduced in the United states. But, none of these got approved as an ‘interchangeable’ product. Some of these, such as Cyltezo could not even be launched, as yet. I shall discuss this point later in this article. Thus, Humira is expected to retain its top global prescription brand ranking in 2020 – over 4 years after its patent expiry.

In Europe, two marketing authorizations were reportedly granted by the European Commission (EC) in March 2017 for Amgen’s biosimilars to Humira, named Amgevita (adalimumab) and Solymbic (adalimumab). Later this year, in November 2017 Boehringer Ingelheim’s – Cyltezo also received its European marketing approval.

It is worth noting that in December 2014, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly granted marketing approval for Zydus Cadila’s Adalimumab biosimilar (Exemptia) for treating rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune disorders in India. The company claims: “This novel non-infringing process for Adalimumab Biosimilar and a novel non-infringing formulation have been researched, developed and produced by scientists at the Zydus Research Centre. The biosimilar is the first to be launched by any company in the world and is a ‘fingerprint match’ with the originator in terms of safety, purity and potency of the product.”

Several important reasons indicate why a full throttle competition is lacking in the  biosimilar market early enough – immediately after patent expiry of original biologic molecules. I shall cite just a couple of these examples to illustrate the point. One is related to aggressive brand protection, creating a labyrinth of patents having different expiry dates. And the other is a regulatory barrier in the form of drug ‘interchangeability’ condition, between the original biologic and related biosimilars:

In the labyrinth of patents:

The most recent example of innovator companies fiercely protecting their original biologic from the biosimilar competition by creating a labyrinth of patents is Boehringer Ingelheim’s Cyltezo. This is biosimilar to AbbVie’s Humira, approved by the USFDA and EC in August 2017 and November 2017, respectively.

According to reports: “BI does not intend to make the drug commercially available in Europe until the respective SPC (supplementary protection certificate) for adalimumab, which extends the duration of certain rights associated with a patent, expires in October 2018. Cyltezo is also not yet available in the US despite its approval there in August, because of ongoing patent litigation with AbbVie. AbbVie reportedly holds more than 100 patents on Humira, and believes that Boehringer could infringe 74 of these with the launch of its biosimilar. Similarly, the firm has also taken Amgen to court to block the launch of its proposed Humira biosimilar.”

Another interesting example is the epoch-making breast cancer targeted therapy Trastuzumab (Herceptin of Roche/Genentech). The patent on Herceptin reportedly expired in 2014 in Europe and will expire in the United States in 2019. The brand registered a turnover of USD 2.5 billion in 2016. However, a November 21, 2017 report says that creating a series of hurdle in the way of Pfizer’s introduction to Herceptin biosimilar, Roche has sued Pfizer for infringement of 40 patents of its blockbuster breast cancer drug. Pfizer hasn’t yet won approval for its Herceptin biosimilar, though, USFDA accepted its application in August 2017 – the report highlights

‘Interchangeability’ condition for biosimilars:

In the largest global pharma market – the United States, USFDA classifies biosimilars into two very distinct categories:

  • Biosimilars that are “expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product”
  • Biosimilars that are “interchangeable,” or able to be switched with their reference product

According to reports, experts’ argument over ‘interchangeability’ in the US range from “whether pharmacists should be allowed to switch a biologic for its biosimilar without a doctor’s notification, to whether interchangeable biosimilars might be perceived as better or safer than their non-interchangeable counterparts.” This debate has somewhat been resolved by the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) issuance of draft guidance in January 2017, specifying what should be submitted to support an interchangeable application, the report says.

The article also indicates, “the draft makes clear that switching studies to help gain this designation should evaluate changes in treatment that result in two or more alternating exposures (switch intervals) to the proposed interchangeable product and to the reference product. Study design, types of data and other considerations are also included in that draft.” Nonetheless, compliance with this regulatory requirement is expected to be highly cost intensive, too.

Quoting a senior USFDA official, a report dated June 26, 2017 mentioned: “interchangeable biosimilars will come to market within the next two years, though possibly sooner. And the first interchangeable biosimilar will likely be reviewed by an FDA advisory committee of outside experts.” Still the bottom line remains no biosimilar has yet been approved by the USFDA as ‘interchangeable’. Hence, the optics related to desirable success for biosimilars continue to remain somewhat apprehensive, I reckon.

Patent related litigations on Trastuzumab (Herceptin) were filed by Roche in India, as well. However, it’s good to note that on December 01, 2017, by a Press Release, USFDA announced the approval of Mylan’s biosimilar variety of Roche’s blockbuster breast cancer drug – Herceptin. Mylan’s Ogivri was co-developed with Biocon in India to treat breast or stomach cancer, and is the first biosimilar approved in the United States for these indications. It is noteworthy that Ogivri also has not been approved as an interchangeable product.

The global and local scenario for biosimilars:

Be that as it may, the July 26, 2017 study of Netscribes – a global market intelligence and content management firm estimates that the global biosimilar market will be worth USD 36 billion by 2022. Some of the major findings of this study are as follows:

  • With a cumulative share of nearly 85%, North America, Europe, and Japan are the major contributors to global biological and biosimilar sales. Asia and Africa account for 13.2% and 1.2%, respectively.
  • Pfizer is the leading player in the biologic market, with sales of nearly USD 45.9 billion in 2016 followed by Novartis (41.6 billion) and Roche (39.6 billion).
  • Biosimilar approvals are estimated to be around of around 16 to 20 biosimilars between 2018 to 2021 in both US and EU.
  • The US is not a favorable market for biosimilars due to a number of reasons, such as poor access to biologic drugs and an unfavorable regulatory environment.
  • South Africa is one of the best-suited markets for biosimilars due to a favorable regulatory environment and prescriber acceptance.

According to the April 2017 analysis of Research And Markets, biosimilars have started winning key government tenders in countries like Mexico and Russia, and being purchased by a growing number of patients in self-pay markets such as India. The aggregate sales of ‘copy biologics’ in the six BRIC-MS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, Mexico, and South Korea) countries would now almost certainly exceed USD 1.5 billion. Yet Another estimate  expects the Indian biosimilar market to increase from USD 186 million in 2016 to USD 1.1 billion in 2020. It is up to individual experts to assess whether or not this growth trend for biosimilars is desirable to adequately benefit a large number of patients, the world over.

Conclusion:

In my view, if what usually happens to sales and profit for small molecule blockbuster drugs post patent expiry, would have happened to the large molecule biologic drugs, the market scenario for biosimilars would have been quite different. In that scenario, one would have witnessed a plethora of biosimilar competition against high priced and money churning biologics, such as Humira, being launched with a significantly lesser price than the original brand.

Prices of biosimilars would have been much lesser primarily because, the litigation cost, now built into the biosimilar prices for successfully coming out of the labyrinth of patents after the basic patent expiry, would have been minimal. Moreover, restrictions on drug ‘interchangeability’ would not have made the target market smaller, especially in the United states.

Alongside, compliance with the regulatory need to meet the ‘interchangeability’ condition in the US, would drive the product cost even higher. More so, when this specific regulatory requirement is not necessary in other developed markets, like Europe. Both these factors would adversely impact affordability and access to sophisticated biologic drugs for patients, even after the fixed period of market exclusivity.

That said, a virtually impregnable patent labyrinth mostly ensures that going off-patent isn’t end of the road for blockbuster biologic drugs to continue generating significant revenue and  profit, any longer – and it would remain so at least, in the short to medium term.

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.