Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Posted on July 11, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The upcoming trend of jaw dropping high prices for new patented drugs sends a ‘storm signal’ to many stakeholders, especially for its adverse impact on patient access. Even more intriguing, such high and insane prices are being fixed rather arbitrarily, without any valid reason whatsoever.

It has now been well established, very clearly, that this trend has no linkages with the necessity of keeping the wheel of cost-intensive new drug development initiatives moving, uninterruptedly.

Many believe that this dangerous inclination of the global pharma players picked up, in a major way, with the launch of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), costing around US$ 1,000 per pill in the United States. This new drug has no relationship with Gilead’s own R&D initiatives, just as many other high priced patented drugs belonging to this genre.

Additionally, the current brand pricing strategy of even those pharma companies who are developing new drugs in-house, is equally intriguing, as those drug prices too have no direct or indirect relationship with R&D expenditures incurred by the respective players. As I discussed that issue in my Blog on August 18, 2014 in an article titled, “Patented Drug Pricing: Relevance To R&D Investments”, I am not arguing on those points here again.

Nevertheless, these unholy practices did not go unnoticed. Anguish against irresponsible pricing, adversely impacting patient access, started gaining momentum, all over. A raging debate has also kick-started on this issue within a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including various Governments and other payers.

They all are questioning, should the Governments, health insurance companies and other payers support such windfall profits of the so called ‘research based’ pharma companies’?

In this article, I shall deliberate on this issue, just when the voices of disgust against this unholy trend have started multiplying.

A palpable disgust expressed in a recent article:

Against this arbitrary drug pricing trend, a good number of doctors have started raising their voices, with a discernible disgust.

“We’re all paying a high price for drug company profiteering”, thundered Dr. Daniel J. Stone, an internal medicine and geriatric medicine specialist, in an Op-Ed published in ‘The Los Angeles Times’ on July 6, 2016.

Dr. Stone further reiterated, “The drug companies are ripping us off, pill by pill, shot by shot. Instead of working to earn reasonable returns by relieving our suffering and saving lives, they now focus on profits above all. Their main targets are insurance companies. But when insurance companies take a hit, they bump up premiums to employers or the government. So we all pay - in taxes, reduced take-home pay, copayments and deductibles.”

Windfall profits:

The article focuses on this new trend in the global pharma industry, adversely affecting access to, especially, the new drugs to a vast majority of the patients. The author unambiguously highlighted that this dangerous pricing strategy got a major thrust from Gilead Sciences Inc. with its acquisition of sofosbuvir’s (Sovaldi) developer – ‘Pharmasset’ in 2011, for US$ 11 billion.

According to Dr. Stone, ‘Pharmasset’s chief executive made an estimated US$ 255 million on the deal, and its 82 employees each averaged around US$ 3.3 million, before Sovaldi came to the market. Thereafter, it’s a history. Gilead took a double markup on the drug, charging enough not just to more than cover the high cost of acquisition of ‘Pharmasset’, but also for making windfall profits.

The reason behind irresponsible pricing:

The question, therefore, arises, how do the global pharma players dare to go for such irresponsible pricing in many countries of the world?

It is possible for them because the payers, especially the health insurance companies, usually find it difficult to out rightly ignore any unique and new life saving patented medicine for various reasons. As a result, the concerned companies, allegedly effectively use these payers, and also a large section of doctors who can prescribe these brands, facilitating them to make huge profits at the cost of patients.

The justification:

To justify such pricing, these pharma companies and their trade associations are apparently using fear as the key. Through various types of communications, they keep trying to convey that any attempt to restrict their so called ‘reasonable’ prices of these medicines would seriously jeopardize the innovative drug development process, jeopardizing the long term needs of the patients.

More recently, serious attempts were made to also establish Sovaldi’s so called ‘reasonable’ pricing, and its cost effectiveness, in an interesting way.

The company highlighted that Sovaldi is cost effective, not just in comparison to paying for other health care services that the drug might prevent, it also helps avoid cost intensive liver transplant, in many cases. With those costs not being incurred with Sovaldi, the patients, on the contrary, make some savings on the possible alternative treatment cost to fight this deadly disease.

Is it not an atrocious argument?

However, according to Dr. Stone, “This argument is a lot like a plumber billing a customer US$ 20,000 to fix a leaky pipe under the sink. Considering the costs of a possible flood, it might seem defensible. In the real world, any plumber charging based on ‘what you saved’ by preventing a potential catastrophe would lose business to competitors.”

A warning sign:

The above article also highlights, Sovaldi like drug price tag is an unmistakable warning sign, and the emerging trend of patented drug pricing system is a danger to the health of any nation. According to the author:

Reforming the financing of drug development will require more creativity.

The government should consider subsidizing research and development to reduce the industry’s risk, in return for oversight on pricing that would allow reasonable returns on investment.

Not possible without many doctors’ active support:

Though it is encouraging to see that some doctors, such as, Daniel J. Stone are raising their voices and arguing against this practice, a large number of other doctors are being actively influenced by the pharma companies to prescribe such products.

This is vindicated by the latest release from the Open Payments database of the Government of the United States. It shows that the drug and device makers of the country incurred a mind boggling expenditure of US$ 2.6 billion towards payment to doctors related to speakers’ fees, meals, royalties and other payments, in 2015. Under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of America, this is the second full year of the disclosure.

The total payment made by the drug and device makers to doctors and medical institutions for the year was shown as US$ 7.52 billion.

The point to ponder:

That said, the question that surfaces, if Gilead had to sell its drugs to individuals incurring ‘out of pocket’ health expenditure, how many Sovaldi like drugs would it sell with equivalent to around US$ 80,000 treatments cost?

It won’t be too difficult to ferret out its answer, if we look at the countries, like India, with very high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on health care, in general, and medicines in particular.

A possible solution:

According to an article published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on February 8, 2007, Voluntary Licensing (VL)’ practices in the pharmaceutical sector could possibly be a solution to improving access to affordable medicines.

The Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents 2005, which is generally applicable to ‘me too’ type of new products, could place India at an advantage. In the absence of a grant of evergreen type of product patents, many global companies would ultimately prefer to offer VL to Indian generic manufacturers, under specific terms and conditions, mainly to salvage the situation.

However, such a VL is unlikely to have any potential value, if the IPO refuses to grant patents to those products falling under the above section. In that case, generic competition would possibly further bring down the prices.

Has it started working in India?

Just to recapitulate, starting with a flash back to the year 2006, one can see that Gilead followed the VL strategy for India, probably for the first time, for its patented product tenofovir, used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

At that time Gilead announced that it is offering non-exclusive, voluntary licenses to generic manufacturers in India for the local Indian market, along with provision for those manufacturers to export tenofovir formulations to 97 other developing countries, as identified by Gilead. The company had signed a voluntary licensing agreement with Ranbaxy for tenofovir in 2006.

Interestingly, by that time Cipla had started selling one of the two versions of tenofovir, not licensed by Gilead. Cipla’s generic version was named Tenvir, available at a price of US$ 700 per person per year in India, against Gilead’s tenofovir (Viread) price of US$ 5,718 per patient per year in the developed Markets. Gilead’s target price for tenofovir in India was US$ 200 per month, as stated above.

Following this strategy, again in 2014, Gilead announced, “In line with the company’s past approach to its HIV medicines, the company will also offer to license production of this new drug to a number of rival low-cost Indian generic drug companies. They will be offered manufacturing know how and allowed to source and competitively price the product at whatever level they choose.”

Accordingly, on September 15, 2014, international media reported that Cipla, Ranbaxy, Strides Arcolab, Mylan, Cadila Healthcare, Hetero labs and Sequent Scientific are likely to sign in-licensing agreements with Gilead to sell low cost versions of Sovaldi in India.

It was also announced, just as tenofovir, that these Indian generic manufacturers would be free to decide their own prices for sofosbuvir, ‘without any mandated floor price’.

Once again, in July 2016, it was reported that a drug called Epclusa – the latest breakthrough treatment for Hepatitis C virus could soon be available in India following Gilead Sciences’ getting its marketing approval from the US FDA.

Press Trust of India (PTI) reported, as part of its effort to offer affordable treatment, Gilead Sciences, together with its 11 partners in India, are pioneering a VL model that transfers technology and Intellectual Property for the latest treatments and cures for viral Hepatitis and HIV.

Some other pharma majors of the world also seem to be attempting to overcome the safeguards provided in the Indian Patents Act, which serves as the legal gatekeeper for the patients’ interest. Their strategy may not include VL, but also not so transparent ‘Patient Access Programs’, and the so called ‘flexible pricing’. All these mostly happen when the concerned companies sense that the product patents could fail to pass the scrutiny of the Indian Patents Act.

That said, I have not witnessed the global pharmaceutical companies’ issuing a flurry of VLs in India, as yet.

Another possible solution for India:

Another possible solution for India, although was scripted in Para 4. XV of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and notified on December 07, 2012, unfortunately has not taken shape even after four years.

On ‘Pricing of Patented Drugs’, NPPA 2012 categorically states as follows:

“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 based on the recommendation of this committee.”

To utter disappointment of many, a strong will to make it happen, even by the new Government is still eluding, by far.

Conclusion:

Without having adequate access to new life-saving drugs, the struggle for life in the fierce battle against dangerous ailments, has indeed assumed an alarming dimension. This is being fuelled by the absence of Universal Health Coverage, and ‘out of pocket expenditure’ on medicines in India being one of the highest in the world.

It would continue to remain so, up until the global pharma majors consider entering into a VL agreement with the Indian pharma majors, just as Gilead. Otherwise, the Government in power should demonstrate its strong will to act, putting in place a transparent model of ‘patented drugs pricing’, without succumbing to any power play or pressures of any kind from vested interests.

Sans these strong initiatives, the dangerous trend of patented drug pricing will continue to deny access of many new medicines to a vast majority of the population to save precious lives.

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.

Leveraging 3D Printing In Pharma, For Cost Containment And Patient-Centricity

Posted on June 6, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Today, although a number of new and state of the art drugs is regularly being developed, and brought to the market at a reasonably rapid pace, their access to the majority of the global population has still remained a huge challenge. One of the key access barriers continue to remain exorbitant prices of these drugs.

Keeping commensurate pace with gradual improvement in the pinpointed diagnosis of various diseases with modern diagnostics, processes, devices and techniques, fueled by increasing health awareness within a sizeable section of the population, more patients are now aspiring for access to a better quality of life, and greater productivity at work. This is happening all over the world, though with varying degree and magnitude.

Consequently, there has been a sharp increase in the demand for healthcare, which has caused a huge bottleneck in the overall healthcare delivery process, for various reasons. The huge gap between the availability of high-tech drugs/healthcare services, and their access to the general population, mostly due to affordability reasons, is going north at a rapid pace.

Two-pronged cost containment pressure:

This unfettered ascending trend is creating primarily the following two types of cost containment pressure:

Being driven purely by the economical reasons, the Governments and other payers have started taking stringent cost-containment measures, bringing huge pricing pressure, especially on the drugs and medical device manufacturers.

In countries, such as, India, where the ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on healthcare in general, and the medicines in particular, is hovering around 70 percent, the patients, several Governments have started announcing drug price control policy to protect the health interest of patients.

However, currently, only some piecemeal measures are being initiated, including in India, where a holistic approach for all, such as, Universal Health Care (UHC) and several other similar options, are long overdue.

Three different remedial measures:

In my view, consideration of either of these three following approaches, or an innovative blend of these, would enable the Governments to address this pressing issue, remove the existing bottle neck, and thereby bridge the healthcare access gap, holistically:

A. Fast implementation of Universal Health Care (UHC).

B. Closer look at the entire Pharmaceutical Value Chain with a resolve to work out innovative, game-changing solutions to reduce cost of each of its critical components, significantly.

C. Effectively addressing the emerging need of Patient-Centricity.

A. Fast implementation of Universal Health Care (UHC):

I have already discussed UHC in one of my articles titled, “Universal Health Coverage: The Only Alternative To Drug Price Control in India?”, published in this Blog on November 9, 2015.

B. Cost containment with 3D printing:

A report of IMS Health, published on November 18, 2015, forecasts the increase of total global spend for pharmaceuticals by US$ 349 billion on a constant-dollar basis, compared with US$182 billion during the past five years. It also indicated, more than half of the world’s population will live in countries where the use of medicine will exceed one dose per person per day by 2020, up from 31 percent in 2005, as the “medicine use gap” between the developed and the emerging markets narrows.

This steep ascending trend would eventually affect the pharma ‘Value Chain’ in a significant way, throwing open several path-breaking high-technology based options, with impressive favorable impact on the general costs of medicines. 3D-printing technology is expected to play a significant role in this initiative.

Before proceeding further, let me zero-in on a few critical components, as follows, of the pharma ‘Value Chain’, as I see visualize these:

Drug innovation (R&D)
Manufacturing
Marketing
Supply Chain

According to my understanding, at least in 3 of the above 4 ‘Value Chain’ components, there is an immense potential of leveraging 3D printing technology effectively, and in a big way.

In my article of January 11, 2016, published in this Blog, titled “3D Printing: An Emerging Game Changer in Pharma Business”, I have already discussed the game changing impact of 3D Printing technology on the drug discovery process, drug manufacturing strategy, and supply Chain effectiveness in the pharma business.

Hence, I prefer not to dwell on those areas, yet again, here. Instead, I shall briefly deliberate on the application of 3D Printing technology to effectively address the emerging need of ‘Patient-Centricity’ with an interesting and a very recent example.

C. Improving ‘Patient-Centricity’ with 3D printing:

At this stage, there is a need to understand what exactly is the ‘’Patient-Centricity’. It seems to be a popular buzzword now with the health care related companies, primarily to give an impression that they are really focusing on ‘Patient-Centricity’.

However, there does not seem to exist any universally accepted definition of this terminology, just yet. Nevertheless, one appropriate definition could well be: “A focused and transparent approach to providing maximum possible benefits to a patient from a drug, device, technology, or health care services.”

I briefly focused on a part of this basic issue in my article titled, “‘Disease Oriented Treatment’ to ‘Patient Oriented Treatment’- An evolving trend’, published in this Blog on January 7, 2013.

As I said before, in this article, to explain ‘Patient-Centric’ approaches with 3D printing, I would quote from a very recent, and a path-breaking work in this area.

On May 25, 2016, ‘The Straits Times’ reported, the researchers at the National University of Singapore have found a way to use 3D printers to create low-cost tablets. With the help of this technology a tablet can be so personalized to respond to individual patient’s needs that the drug can be customized to take on different release profiles, such as, constant release, pulsed release, increasing or decreasing release, and any arbitrary interval as required by the patient. However, the most striking is, different drugs with different release profiles can also be combined in a single pill.

Once administered, the tablet dissolves layer by layer over a period of time, releasing the drug at a controlled rate. The duration can be altered by changing the chemical composition of the liquid.

It is worth noting here that the conventional tablets are only capable of a constant rate of release, requiring the patient to manually control the dosage and release rate, by taking doses according to a prescribed schedule, given by the doctor. In this scenario, if a patient requires different drugs with different dosages and intervals, it can become inconvenient to keep track and potentially dangerous, especially when the patient misses a dose, the report highlighted.

The commercially available printer used in the project costs just S$2,000.

The Assistant Professor Soh Siow Ling, who leads the project, reportedly, expects that the low cost will allow it to be used in hospitals and neighborhood clinics. He further explained, “Every single person is different, based on many factors such as genetics, age, body mass and so on. Different people also have different activity levels and consumption habits, which affect their needs. It is, (therefore), not desirable to use the same drug to treat different illnesses which have similar apparent symptoms.”

The report indicated that in October, 2015, these findings were published in an issue of Advanced Materials, which is a peer-reviewed materials science journal.

A patent for the tablets was filed last year, and they are currently in talks with multinational corporations, and medical professionals to identify potential applications, the article highlighted.

Changing role of doctors:

From the above developments, it appears that unleashing the full potential of 3D printing technology in the pharma industry, would also enable the medical profession to move further towards ‘Patient-Centricity’, in its true sense.

This technology would empower them offering to each patient, the right drug or drug combinations, with most suitable drug delivery system, and exactly the way individual patients would prefer, with a very high degree of precision.

Thus, from overall disease treatment perspective, especially with medicines, this approach offers a great potential to be significantly more effective, and convenient to individual patients, as compared to the conventional approaches.

I reckon, over a period of time, professional competitiveness would drive the doctors further honing their effectiveness in the disease treatment process, and that too with a high degree of precision. In that situation, many doctors may decide to setup on-demand 3D drug-printing facilities even at their clinics.

The gradual embodiment of this brilliant technology by the doctors, is expected to throw open new vistas of opportunity, also to personalize the shapes, colors and flavors of any medicine, according to individual patient’s choice. This, in turn, would improve patient compliance, ensure a predictable relief from the disease, and demonstrate ‘Patient-Centricity’ of a high order by the medical profession, in general.

Conclusion:

For the first time ever, with Aprecia Pharmaceuticals in the United States getting approval of the US-FDA on August 3, 2015 for the market launch of a 3D printed prescription drug for oral use by the epilepsy patients, dawns a new paradigm in the global pharma business horizon.

Effective application of this ‘disruptive innovation’ could well be a game changer not just in the ‘value chain’ of conventional pharma business models, across the world, but also for taking a giant leap towards ‘Patient-Centricity’. The doctors are also expected to be very much an integral part of this process.

Besides all the above benefits, 3D printing can also encourage low-volume production, whenever required, and a wide variety of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, to meet any immediate demand, mostly for use in research and developmental work.

Thus, noting the ongoing significant progress in this area, I reckon, leveraging 3D printing technology in pharma, not just to address the cost containment pressure, effectively, but also to ensure a tangible and visible move towards ‘Patient-Centricity’, in true sense. All-round success in the innovative application of this cutting-edge technology in the global pharma industry, would eventually separate men from boys in pursuit of business excellence.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs

Posted on May 30, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Should drug innovation models remain as expensive as what these are claimed to be now by the global pharma industry, in general?

Finding a credible, appropriately quantifiable, and generally acceptable answer to this question is critical. It won’t, then, just be a myth-buster for billions of dollar price tag, that is now being attached to drug innovation and development initiatives, by the global pharma industry, as a justification for arbitrarily fixing high new drug prices. If the upcoming and new startups with frugal models for even high-tech drug innovation succeed with flying colors, the patients and the payers would also possibly breathe a huge sigh of relief, from the increasing burden of disease and the cost of medicines.

I believe, it would eventually happen, may not be overnight, but over a period of time. I shall discuss in this article about some bright sparks, already visible in that direction.

The facade of high cost of drug innovation:

At the very outset, to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, let me confess up front, just as many others, I also strongly believe that drug innovation is extremely important. It needs to be encouraged, protected and rewarded reasonably.

That said, let me also give the right perspective of how the cost of ‘drug innovation’ is being often misused as a facade for keeping the drug prices high, if not exorbitant.

According to a contentious study of ‘Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development’, the total cost of innovation of a new drug and bringing it to market, has increased more than double from US$ 1.22 billion in 2003 to US$ 2.6 billion in 2014.

Despite these numbers being vehemently challenged in credible journals, many global pharma majors still keep justifying the high new drug prices on the same old pretext. As a diversionary tactic, they relentlessly argue that innovation has to be adequately rewarded to keep its wheels moving in perpetuity, though no one challenges this basic fact, not even remotely.

The moot questions:

The moot questions, therefore, are: how expensive is the drug innovation and how does the global drug industry establish its relationship with high new drug prices? The answers to these queries must be clear, specific, quantifiable and credible, and not ethereal, if not airy-fairy.

In this context, my article titled, “How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?” found an echo in a globally reputed journal. An analysis published in the BMJ in May 2016 titled, “Propaganda or the cost of innovation? Challenging the high price of new drugs”, expressed deep concern on the rising prices of new medicines. It reiterated that this trend is set to overwhelm health systems around the world.

The above BMJ article also put forth similar questions: “What does it really cost to bring a new medicine to the market, and do these costs justify the high price?”

The authors pointed out that the pharmaceutical market is not actually a “free market” based on supply and demand with minimal government intervention through taxes, subsidies, or regulation. On the contrary, the pharma market is highly manipulated, and not focused on achieving the best prices, or even fair prices for essential and life saving medicines.

No linear link between high drug price and innovation cost:

As I discussed this subject in my previous article titled, “Arbitrary Pricing of Essential Drugs Invites State Intervention”, it has been well established by now that there is no linear, or any relationship between high drug prices and cost of drug innovation. Since long, this argument is being misused just as a façade to keep the cost of medicines high, and making high profits even at the cost of lower sales volume.

The façade has started crumbling:

In India too, the pharma MNCs often use the same façade to keep the prices of also their branded generics much higher than the comparable formulations manufactured by larger domestic pharma manufacturers. However, the façade has started crumbling in many countries, across the world. This gradually increasing general realization is welcoming.

The Governments in many countries, have now started acting. They are increasingly forcing the drug makers to eye for volume growth, by reducing the fat margin, and improving patients’ access to high-priced drugs.

Just to draw an example, I would quote a very recent development in this area, outside India. On May 20, 2016, the Chinese health authorities announced price cuts of up to two-thirds to three patented drugs, in their latest move to reduce the cost of healthcare for patients. It is noteworthy that this happened in the world’s second-biggest economy, after the United States.

Why is arbitrary drug pricing continuing?

It appears, the only reason for the majority of the drug players to continue keeping the new drug prices high is because they can still make huge money through a small segment of patients who can afford their brands. What about the rest? This doesn’t seem to matter to them, at all, unless compelled to, in various ways.

Need to totally demolish the façade of innovation:

Thus, there is a compelling need is to demolish the façade of innovation, decisively, for keeping medicine prices high.

To move towards this direction, some flickers of a sound possibilities, are now visible in the horizon. The ‘Frugal’ or the ‘Silicon Valley’ type startups for high-tech drug innovation models, especially in the biotech sector, have shown high potential to be a game changer in this area.

Frugal innovation models for high-tech drugs:

The quest to find a pathway towards this direction continues. Recently, Professor Atul Butte, Director of the University of California Institute of Computational Health Sciences, highlighted that like other Silicon Valley startups, almost anyone can bring a drug to market from their garage with just a computer, the internet, and freely available data. Professor Butte, students, and research staff have already explored various methods and approaches of scientifically utilizing this data in search for new medicines.

As reported in the May 5, 2016 issue of ‘The Conversation’, Professor Butte outlined this process for an audience of local and international scientists and medics in a talk given at the Science on the Swan conference held in Perth in May 2016.

Professor Butte outlined several models of ‘Frugal Innovation’, especially for new biotech drugs or finding new indications for existing drugs.

A. The search for a new target:

There could be several approaches to the search of a new biotech drug. An example of one such, that Butte’s team is reportedly engaged in, is the construction of a map of how the genetic profiles of people with particular diseases are related to each other. The team looked for diseases with very similar genetic profiles.

Some may argue, this process of discovering other uses of drugs, conventionally termed as “drug repositioning”, is in the strictest sense is not exactly a novel one. They may attempt to establish it by drawing an example from Viagra, which was originally developed for treatment of cardiovascular conditions. However, the major difference is that Viagra’s repositioning for erectile dysfunction is an outcome triggered by its side-effects in patients taking the drug for its original cardiovascular disease treatment.

B. Desk research and discovery:

The primary desk research can start from the freely available enormous published genetic data, based on thousands of studies on humans, mice and other animals. The publications’ websites are also highly credible, such as, National Institute of Health and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory. Thus, as a result of abundantly available high quality genetic data, the cost of genetic sequencing, using gene chip technologies, is also coming down quite rapidly.

C. Animal testing:

After the potential drug discovery in the garage, there is a need to test the drugs on animals.

As Professor Butte suggests, this process also can be made much less expensive. For this purpose, he recommends the internet and the websites, such as, Assay Depot. This site is structured like Amazon, from which a researcher can order an experiment to be carried out to test a drug on a range of animal models, as the report states.

Butte finds this Internet based process very useful for ‘choosing the experiment type the researcher wants, adding it to a shopping cart, paying by credit card and getting the experimental results mailed back in a few weeks’ time.’ Such websites also offer wide choices to the researchers, even regarding the laboratory they would like to use, including the country where the laboratory is located.

D. Human Trial:

As ‘The Conversation’ article indicates, once a new use for a drug has been shown to work in an animal model, the next step would be to test the drug on human volunteers, get approval for the use of the drug for that condition, and then finally take the drug to market.

This purpose could involve spinning out startups with money from investors. In California, Professor Butte and his students have already followed this process after discovery of new uses for several drugs.

As Professor Butte epitomizes, none of this would be possible without sharing data. The ‘Frugal innovation’ models also highlight, how the growth of availability of open research data will be able to discover a range of uses, that would not have been foreseen, when the individual experiments were being carried out.

Would Big Pharma gobble up these startups?

If ‘Big Pharma’ starts gobbling up these startups paying exorbitant prices, the expectations of lower prices of novel drugs may possibly not come to fruition. Nevertheless, the facade of innovation for high drug prices would crumble. But, surely some other different and well-orchestrated pretext would surface, to maintain their stubbornness to continue with the same business model of very high margin and lesser volume sales, with cash register ringing, as ever.

Here is an example. ‘The Huffington Post’, in an article of May 10, 2016, reported on Big Pharma’s betting on a cancer drug startup.

The May 2016 article said, the pharmaceutical giant AbbVie acquired a startup named ‘Stemcentrx’ in a deal that values it at as high as US$10 billion.

The startup Stemcentrx has found out a unique approach, though somewhat controversial, for treating several forms of cancer. While most of today’s treatments view cancer as a result of unchecked cell growth, wherein any cell is capable of becoming cancerous, Stemcentrx believes that cancer primarily sprouts from only one cell type: cancer stem cells.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, hopefully, the evolving models of ‘Frugal innovation’, development and commercialization of high-tech drugs, are expected to be the game changer for quickly bringing a number of new drugs, or existing drugs for new indications to the market, for many disease conditions, at very affordable cost.

Big Pharma may not allow it happen so easily, just for vested interest, but the pressure group must keep a close vigil on this development, and more importantly, must prevail.

Thus, the next frontier of pharma research and development, would possibly shift to small startups of ‘Frugal Innovation’, especially for affordable high-tech drugs, extending their access to the majority of the patients, the world over.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Arbitrary Pricing of Essential Drugs Invites State Intervention

Posted on May 23, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Arbitrary drug pricing has now become a subject of a raging debate, all over the globe. It involves both patented and generic drugs, as we have recently witnessed in the largest pharma market in the world – the United States.

In many countries the same issue is inviting the direct intervention of the Government to protect health interest of a vast majority of the populations. India, I reckon, belongs to this group of countries.

In this article, I shall discuss this issue, citing examples from both the global and local recent developments.

Most high drug price increases defy logic:

Published in March 2016, the ‘Express Scripts 2015 Drug Trend Report’ points out, in the perspective of the United States, that over the last 30 years more and more dollars are spent on specialty, rather than on traditional medications.

Most drug development and spend in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, used to be on traditional, mostly small-molecule oral solid drugs, used to treat conditions, such as, peptic ulcer, depression, hypertension and diabetes. Today, 37.7 percent of drug spends go for specialty medications, with the number expected to increase to 50 percent by 2018, and continue to grow further, thereafter.

The report also states that there are 7,000 potential drugs in development, with most aimed at treating the high-use categories of oncology, neurologic disorders and infectious diseases.

High-cost therapies for non-orphan conditions, particularly for cancer, high cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease, will continue to increase the population of patients with high annual drug expenditures.

‘Express Scripts Exclusive Prescription Price Index’ reveals a brand-price inflation in the United States, nearly doubled between 2011 and 2015, with the greatest impact seen in more recent years. Compared to 2014, brand prices in 2015 were 16 percent higher. Brand medications have increased in price by 164 percent between 2008 and 2015, the report highlighted.

Similar trend, though may not be of similar magnitude and proportion, has commenced in India too. In this emerging situation, the patients with high ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on medicines have started feeling the pinch too. This is becoming more intense as the disease pattern has started shifting from short-term infectious and parasitic diseases to almost lifelong non-infectious chronic ailments.

The pressure started building up:

The drug industry is likely to come under increasing scrutiny on product pricing, to alleviate the ‘pressure cooker’ situation for the patients, in general, especially during chronic and life-threatening disease conditions.

May 10, 2016 issue of ‘Bloomberg’, in an article titled, “Mutual Fund Industry to Drug makers: Stand Up and Defend Yourself”, reported: “In a sign of how U.S. political pressure to rein in drug pricing is weighing on pharmaceutical companies and their investors, a group of major funds called an unusual meeting with top biotech and pharma lobbyists, urging them to do a better job defending their industry.” This is indeed unusual, and I reckon, should happen in India too.

The article also states: “Investors are stepping up pressure on pharma lobbyists at a critical time for the industry, as drug pricing has become a potent political issue on the presidential campaign trail and in Congress. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton sent biotech stocks tumbling last year when she first talked about ‘price gouging,’ and Donald Trump has suggested that Medicare should negotiate with manufacturers.”

It also reported that responding to this emerging pressure situation, the global pharmaceutical lobbying organizations, such as, PhRMA in the Washington, DC has already set up a dedicated webpage called “Costs in Context” with infographics and fact sheets. It has also tried to peg responsibility on insurance companies for making it hard for patients to access medicines.

Patients’ can no longer be taken for granted:

That patients’ can no longer be taken for granted with costly drugs, backed by high profile marketing campaigns, is evident from a recent study.

In May 2016, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, published a poll result on “Americans’ Attitudes About Changing Current Prescription Drug & Medical Device Regulation”.

Among many other related issues, the study reflected that around 57 percent of the poll participants believe that pharmaceutical companies should no longer be allowed to advertise prescription drugs on television. This is because of interesting reasons. The respondents believe that ads for prescription medicines sometimes encourage and persuade the patients to ask for costlier drugs that may not be appropriate for them.

In this context, it is worth recapitulating that on November 17, 2015 the American Medical Association (AMA) also called for a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs and medical devices, including television advertisements.

According to a statement released by the group, “member physicians are concerned about a growing proliferation of ads driving demand for expensive treatments, despite the clinical effectiveness of less costly alternatives.”

Hence, the bottom-line is, even the American patients, most of whom are covered by health insurance of different kinds, are now feeling the bite of increasing medicine prices.

Many patients seem to be realizing that such unfair price increases, driven by the respective pharma manufacturers, are avoidable. This serious concern may assume a snowballing effect, notwithstanding high voltage lobbying and campaigns to negate these general stakeholders’ feelings by the top global pharma lobbying organizations, across the world, India included.

Premium pricing of MNCs’ branded generics arbitrary?

One gets its reflection even in the Indian branded generic market, where the MNCs usually market their generic single molecule or FDC brands at a huge premium price. Such high priced products are backed by intense marketing of all kinds. The MNCs’ justification of charging a high premium stand on the promise of adherence to world-class drug quality standards, unlike many domestic generic manufacturers.

There are not enough evidences either to accept or ignore this claim. However, it has received a big jolt even recently, raising similar suspicion as I briefly raised in my article titled, “Ease of Doing Pharma Business in India: A Kaleidoscopic View”, published in this blog on March 28, 2016.

On May 12, 2016 Reuters reported that Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of India, in the notices posted on its website in February and also in April, has made it public that it has found some batches of Sanofi’s ‘Combiflam’ (FDC of paracetamol and ibuprofen) to be “not of standard quality”, as they failed disintegration tests.

According to the US-FDA, this particular test is used as an integral part of quality-assurance measure in pharmaceuticals, and its non-conformance makes the drug ‘sub-standard’.

Hence, huge premium charged for all those branded generics, which are outside DPCO, and mostly by the MNCs, may be construed by many as baseless and arbitrary.

Premium pricing, with payment to doctors is a winner?

This has again been vindicated in a recent study.

A paper, published in the May 09, 2016 issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, establishes that: ‘Pharmaceutical industry payments to physicians may affect prescribing practices and increase costs, if more expensive medications are prescribed.’

Although no such credible study has been published in the Indian context, it is widely believed, the prevailing situation in this regard, within the country, is no different. Nevertheless, arbitrarily high drug pricing, even for the branded generics, is considered as a winning strategy by many pharma companies.

When the Government steps in:

It happened in India recently, yet again.

As we know, the ‘National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011)’ came under intense public criticism, as it did not include many modern drugs for chronic and lifesaving diseases under its fold, for inclusion in the drug price control order of the Government.

The Experts Committee formed for this purpose recommended addition of a number of drugs for a variety of serious diseases, such as, cancer, hepatitis C, diabetes, cardiovascular, and HIV in the NLEM, to make them more affordable to patients.

Acting on this proposal, the Union Ministry of Health replaced the NLEM 2011 by NLEM 2015 in December 2015. This increased the span of drug price control from 684 to 875 medicines.

According to the well-reputed pharma market research organization – AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt Ltd., with NLEM 2015, still only 18 percent of Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) by value will now come under price control, against 17 percent with NLEM 2011.

On May 12, 2016 the ‘National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)’ started with revising prices of 54 recently included essential medicines in the NLEM 2015, in some cases bringing them down up to 55 percent, in conformance with the DPCO. Again on May 19, 2016 another set of 27 formulations, which, among others, include the treatment for epilepsy, infections and diabetes, were brought under price control.

Does ‘free market economy’ work in pharma industry?

As the NPPA has articulated a number of times, with umpteen number of examples, that arbitrary and wide variation in pricing for the same kind of branded generics is a result of ‘market failure’.

We all are living in a unique situation, where the consumers are unable to participate in the process of an affordable drug selection, much unlike any other consumer goods in a ‘free economy’.

I deliberated this issue in my article titled, “Does ‘Free-Market Economy’ Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?”, published in this Blog on April 27, 2015.

Conclusion:

Arbitrary drug pricing is increasingly attracting the ire of many Governments, other payers, patients and even some important investors, as we have seen in the United States. Most Indian fund houses and other investors are probably taking stock of the possible emerging situation. A large number of them are, by and large, going by the same old and traditional way of evaluating a pharma business.

Pharma companies, across the world, instead of trying to find out an innovative way to douse this fire for the benefit of all concerned, are getting more and more desperate to rationalize their arbitrary drug pricing, in whatever way they possibly can.

The approach taken by them is convincing none, instead, adding further fuel to the fire. Getting favorable views from some handful of seemingly spoon-fed write-ups, would possibly not help resolve this raging issue or protect public health interest, in any way.

All concerned should try to realize that a utopian ‘free market economy for medicines’, with patients exercising their informed choices, backed by active support from the treating doctor, does not exist in the real world, not just yet.

Thus, arbitrary pricing for essential drugs, where market competition is made irrelevant by many drug makers, allegedly by unethically influencing the prescribers in various ways, merits state intervention, unquestionably, solely to protect patients’ health interest.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Biosimilar Drugs: First Indian Foot Print In An Uncharted Frontier

Posted on April 4, 2016 by Tapan Ray

A homegrown Indian biologic manufacturer is now about to leave behind its first foot-print, with a ‘made in India’ biosimilar drug, in one of the largest pharma market of the world. This was indeed an uncharted frontier, and a dream to realize for any Indian bio-pharma player.

On March 28, 2016, by a Press Release, Bengaluru based Biocon Ltd., one of the premier biopharmaceutical companies in India, announced that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) of Japan has approved its biosimilar Insulin Glargine in a prefilled disposable pen. The product is a biosimilar version of Sanofi’s blockbuster insulin brand – ‘Lantus’.

The Company claims that Glargine is a high quality, yet an affordable priced product, as it will reportedly cost around 25 percent less than the original biologic brand – Lantus. This ‘made in India’ biosimilar product is expected to be launched in Japan in the Q1 of 2017. Incidentally, Japan is the second largest Glargine market in the world with a value of US$ 144 Million. Biocon will co-market this product with its partner Fujifilm.

Would it be a free run?

Although it is a very significant and well-deserved achievement of Biocon, but its entry with this biosimilar drug in Japan’s Lantus market, nevertheless, does not seem to be free from tough competition. This is because, in 2015, both Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim also obtained Japanese regulatory approval for their respective biosimilar versions of Lantus. In the same year, both these companies also gained regulatory approval from the US-FDA, and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) for their respective products.

Moreover, Sanofi’s longer acting version of Lantus – Lantus XR, or Toujeo, to treat both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, has already been approved in Japan, which needs to be injected less, expectedly making it more convenient to patients.

Key barriers to a biosimilar drug's success:

Such barriers, as I shall briefly outline below, help sustaining monopoly of the original biologic even after patent expiry, discourage investments in innovation in search of biosimilars, and adversely impacts access to effective and much less expensive follow-on-biologics to save patients’ precious lives.

These barriers can be broadly divided in two categories:

A. Regulatory barriers:

1. Varying non-proprietary names:

A large number of biosimilar drug manufacturers, including insurers and large pharmacy chains believe, just as various global studies have also indicated that varying non-proprietary names for biosimilars, quite different from the original biologic, as required by the drug regulators in the world’s most regulated pharma markets, such as, the United States, Europe, Japan, and Australia, restrict competition in the market for the original biologic brands.

However, the innovator companies for biologic drugs hold quite different views. For example, Roche (Genentech), a developer of original biologic, reportedly explained that “distinguishable non-proprietary names are in the best interest of patient safety, because they facilitate Pharmacovigilance, and mitigate inadvertent product substitution.”

Even, many other global companies that develop both original biologic and also biosimilar products such as, Amgen, Pfizer and others, also reportedly support the use of ‘distinguishable nonproprietary names’.

That said, the Biosimilars Council of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association argues that consistent non-proprietary naming will ensure robust market formation that ultimately supports patient access, affordability, Pharmacovigilance systems currently in place and allow for unambiguous prescribing,

2. Substitution or interchangeable with original biologics:

Besides different ‘non-proprietary names’, but arising primarily out of this issue, automatic substitution or interchangeability is not permitted for biosimilar drugs by the drug regulators in the major pharma markets of the world, such as, the United States, Europe and Japan.

The key argument in favor of interchangeability barrier for biosimilar drugs is the fact that the biological drugs, being large protein molecules, can never be exactly replicated. Hence, automatic substitution of original biologic with biosimilar drugs does not arise. This is mainly due to the safety concern that interchangeability between the biosimilars and the original biologic may increase immunogenicity, giving rise to adverse drug reactions. Hence, it would be risky to allow interchangeability of biosimilar drugs, without generating relevant clinical trial data.

On the other hand, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) and the Biosimilars Council, vehemently argue that a biosimilar drug has a lot many other unique identifying characteristics “including a brand name, company name, a lot number and a National Drug Code (NDC) number that would readily distinguish it from other products that share the same nonproprietary name.”

Further, the interchangeable status for biosimilar drugs would also help its manufacturers to tide over the initial apprehensions on safety and quality of biosimilar drugs, as compared to the original ones.

3. 12-year Data Exclusivity period for biologics in the United states:

Currently, the new law for biologic products in the United States provides 12 years of data exclusivity for a new biologic. This is five years more than what is granted to small molecule drugs.

Many experts believe that this system would further delay the entry of cost-effective biosimilar drugs, restrict the biosimilar drug manufacturers from relying on the test data submitted to drug regulator by the manufacturers of the original biologic drugs while seeking marketing approval.

A rapidly evolving scenario in the United States:

The regulatory space for approval of biosimilar drugs is still evolving in the Unites States. This is vindicated by the fact that in March 2016, giving a somewhat positive signal to the biosimilar drug manufacturers, the US-FDA released another set of a 15-page draft guidelines on how biosimilar products should be labeled for the US market. Interestingly, it has come just around a year of the first biosimilar drug approval in the United States – Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis.

The US-FDA announcement says that all ‘comments and suggestions regarding this draft document should be submitted within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register of the notice announcing the availability of the draft guidance.’ Besides labeling issues, this draft guidance document, though indicates that the ‘interchangeability’ criteria will be addressed in the future, does not still throw enough light on how exactly to determine ‘interchangeability’ for biosimilar drugs.

That said, these key regulatory barriers are likely to continue, at least in the foreseeable future, for many reasons. The biosimilar drug manufacturers, therefore, would necessarily have to work within the set regulations, as applicable to different markets of the world.

I deliberated a related point in my article of August 25, 2014, titled “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”

B. Prescribers’ skepticism:

Initial skepticism of the medical profession for biosimilar drugs are, reportedly, due to the high voltage advocacy of the original biologic manufacturers on the ‘documented variability between original biologic and biosimilars. Which is why, any substitution of an original biologic with a related biosimilar drug could lead to increase in avoidable adverse reactions.

‘The medical platform and community QuantiaMD’, released a study just around September 2015, when by a Press Release, Novartis announced the launch of the first biosimilar approved by the US-FDA – Zarxio(TM) (filgrastim-sndz). However, in 2006, Novartis after suing the US-FDA, got the approval for its human growth hormone – Omnitrope, which is a biosimilar of the original biologic of Genentech and Pfizer. At that time a clear regulatory guideline for biosimilar drugs in the United States, was not in place.

The QuantiaMD report at that time said, “Only 12% of prescribing specialists are ‘very confident’ that biosimilars are as safe as the original biologic version of the drug. In addition, a mere 17% said they were ‘very likely’ to prescribe a biosimilar, while 70% admitted they were not sure if they would.”

Since then, this scenario for biosimilar drugs is changing though gradually, but encouragingly. I shall dwell on that below.

The major growth drivers:

The major growth drivers for biosimilars, especially, in the world’s top pharmaceutical markets are expected to be:

Growing pressure to curtail healthcare expenditure
Growing demand for biosimilar drugs due to their cost-effectiveness
Rising incidences of various life-threatening diseases
Increasing number of off-patent biologics
Positive outcome in the ongoing clinical trials
Rising demand for biosimilars in different therapeutic applications, such as, rheumatoid arthritis and blood disorders.

This in turn would probably usher in an unprecedented opportunity for the manufacturers of high quality biosimilar drugs, including in India.

Unfolding a huge emerging opportunity with biosimilars:

This unprecedented opportunity is expected to come mainly from the world’s three largest pharma market, namely the United States, Europe and Japan, due to very high prices of original biologic drugs, and simultaneously to contain rapidly escalating healthcare expenditure by the respective Governments.

Unlike in the past, when the doctors were apprehensive, and a bit skeptic too, on the use of new biosimilars, some new studies of 2016 indicate a rapid change in that trend. After the launch of the first biosimilar drug in the US, coupled with rapidly increasing incidences of various complex, life-threatening diseases, better knowledge of biosimilar drugs and their cost-effectiveness, doctors are now expressing much lesser concern, and exhibiting greater confidence in the use of biosimilars in their clinical practice.

Yet another, March 2016 study indicates, now only 19.5 percent of respondents feel little or no confidence in the use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies compared to 61percent of respondents to a previous version of the survey undertaken in 2013 by the same market research group. The survey also shows that 44.4 percent of respondents consider that the original biologic and its biosimilar versions are interchangeable, as compared with only 6 percent in the 2013 survey.

As a result of this emerging trend, some global analysts of high credibility estimate that innovative biologic brands will lose around US$110 billion in sales to their biosimilar versions by 2025.

Another March, 2016 report of IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics states that lower-cost biosimilar versions of complex biologic, could save the US and Europe’s five top markets as much as US$112 billion by 2020,

These encouraging developments in the global biosimilar arena are expected to encourage the capable Indian biosimilar drug players to invest in this high-tech format of drug development, and reap a rich harvest as the high priced blockbuster biologic brands go off-patent.

Conclusion:

Putting all these developments together, and considering the rapidly emerging scenario in this space, it now appears that challenges ahead for rapid acceptance of biosimilar drugs though are still many, but not insurmountable, at all.

The situation necessitates application of fresh and innovative marketing strategies to gain doctors’ confidence on biosimilar medicines, in total conformance with the regulatory requirements for the same, as they are, in the most important regulated markets of the world.

It goes without saying that success in the generation of enough prescriptions for biosimilar drugs is the fundamental requirement to benefit the patients, which, in turn, would lead to significant savings in health care cost, as estimated above, creating a win-win situation for all, in every way.

As more innovator companies start joining the biosimilar bandwagon, the physicians’ perception on these new varieties of medicines, hopefully, would also change, sooner.

Biocon’s grand announcement of its entry with a ‘made in India’ biosimilar drug in one of the word’s top three pharma markets, would probably be a great encouragement for all other Indian biosimilar drug manufacturers. It clearly showcases the capabilities of an Indian drug manufacturer to chart in an uncharted and a highly complex frontier of medicine.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Ease of Doing Pharma Business in India: A Kaleidoscopic View

Posted on March 28, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Ensuring ease of doing any ethical business activity in India, is a new focus area of the Government and is very rightly so. Creating ease of doing ethical pharma business too, falls under this overall national objective.

In this article, restricting myself to the drug sector, I shall deliberate on various aspects, which are now being considered by the pharma industry, related to the ‘ease of doing pharma business in India’. My discussion would cover all subsets of pharma players, irrespective of whether they fall under Multinational (MNC) or purely homegrown Indian companies, with different scales of operations – large, medium, small, or micro.

To help the Government facilitating the ‘‘ease of doing pharma business in India’, it is just not enough to make the business models for all subsets of the Indian pharma sector looking ethical, conforming to all relevant laws, policies, rules and norms. Each pharma player need also to maintain an ongoing strict internal vigil, religiously, to ensure that the requirements of high quality clinical development, manufacturing and selling practices for effective, safe and rational medicines, are properly understood and strictly followed by all the employees within the organization.

A Kaleidoscopic View:

The above situation is something that ought to happen, as the Government keeps striving to improve the ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India. However, while looking through a Kaleidoscope, as it were, the colors of industry expectations in this area keep changing rapidly, as the new contentious issues keep emerging. Consequently, the ground reality of assessing the same, by a large section of the pharma players in India, seems to veer only around different types of just self-serving demands, expecting those to act as a powerful tailwind pushing their business interests rapidly forward.

Such expectations keep surfacing, rather frequently, from all the subsets of the pharma industry, be they MNCs and their trade associations or the Companies of purely Indian origin and their trade bodies. The accusation to the Government pertaining to all these issues, is a common one: ‘Where is the ease of doing pharma business in India?’

Citing even some recent incidents, they are voicing with equal gusto, that the root causes of all these problems lie miles outside the pharma industry. The causative factor, they indicate, is rooted at the very doorsteps of the Government, as its ministries initiate tough action to root out corruption in the pharma industry as concurrent measures, disturbing their business comfort zones, and upsetting the apple carts.

The Government has its task cut out:

I hasten to add that I have no intention to paint it as a confrontation between the Government and the pharma industry, in any way. The Government is also facing the brunt from the various stakeholders, relentlessly, for its utter negligence of public health care, and public expenditure over it.

The impact of this Government indifference, though also comes on the patients, the industry does not seem to have much to crib over it as a direct impediment to the ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India.

Probably as a diversionary tactic, the industry keeps using this critical Government inaction in the hope of diverting the public, or media attention from its own alleged business malpractices, even at a time when these are being covered both by the national and international media, regularly. Nevertheless, the industry credibility on these issues, seems to have started waning fast, as the genie is out of the bottle.

A common punching bag of all industry dissatisfaction on the Government:

It is worth noting that despite some key differences between the MNC and Indian pharma companies, which I shall discuss later, the common punching bag of the industry dissatisfaction on various Government decisions, always has been the lack of ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in the country.

This discontentment may be well justified. I have no qualms about it. However, when this dissatisfaction gets tagged with some recent Government action, taken to protect public health interests and does not have much to do with the ‘ease of doing ethical pharma business’, many eyebrows are obviously raised.

Against some of these critical patient-centric actions, the industry continues to express its annoyance in unison, while for some other Government decisions, it speaks in different voices – some are happy ones, and the others are not so. However, the common thread of expression of all such dissatisfactions is always linked with the lack of ‘ease of doing business’ in India.

A. Where the pharma Industry in India speaks in unison:

I shall now give two major examples of the key Government decisions, that have irked the entire pharma industry immensely, and makes it voicing that those Government actions grossly violate the fundamental requirements of its smooth running of business. Is that fair? Let me analyze that below with these two examples:

1. Drug price control:

The industry, by and large, opines that individual drug company should be allowed to decide the way it would price any drug, as the market forces, especially for generic drugs, would determine its price.

Indian Parliament, the Supreme Court of India, the Government in power at different times, most of the independent experts and the NGOs, on the contrary, consider drug price control is necessary in India, especially for essential drugs. It makes high quality essential medicines affordable and accessible to the general population.

National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has also announced and explained that the competition does not work on controlling prices for pharma products, where the consumers are not the decision makers. The key prescribing decision makers for the patients are the doctors, who are mostly and unethically influenced by the drug companies having vested interest in making such decisions. This unholy nexus has been widely alleged globally, and also established through umpteen number of studies of high credibility.

Nevertheless, the doctors, from across the globe, including in India, have long disputed that any payments, if and when they receive from pharmaceutical companies, have no relationship to how they prescribe drugs.

A March 17, 2016 study of ProPublica has conclusively established that: “The more money doctors receive from drug and medical device companies, the more brand-name drugs they tend to prescribe. Even a meal can make a difference.” This study may be in the context of the Unites States, but India in this in this regard is no exception, as captured even in the parliamentary Committee reports.

Thus, conceding to high voltage pharma advocacy, made on the pretext of ‘encouraging innovation’ and ‘ease of doing business in India’, if any Government contemplates the abolition of drug price control in India is, it would make not just essential drugs inaccessible to a large section of society, but encourage blatant corrupt practices. This caution has come, besides many others, also from a Parliamentary Committee report, unambiguously. Incidentally, the present Government too strongly speaks against corruption, in any form.

Thus, I reckon, if the industry believes that the price control of essential drugs, which are for public health interest, goes against ease of doing pharma business in India, so be it.

2. Manufacturing and selling of irrational FDCs:

A Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drug may appear irrational to drug regulators and well-qualified experts, after necessary scientific scrutiny, for various reasons. This may happen, primarily because of the following reasons:

When the medical rationale of the FDC along with the ingredient details, submitted to the regulatory authority for marketing approval, are considered scientifically inappropriate.

When the evolving medical science establishes the irrationality of the FDC after a period of time.

When the analysis of ‘Adverse Drug Event’ reports from the ongoing Pharmacovigilance studies signals a red alert.

Widespread uncontrolled misuse or abuse of FDCs, where the consumers’ health risks far outweigh the drug benefits, as provided in the drugs Act, for public health interest.

Some regulatory loopholes were misused by the drug manufacturers in the past to get the irrational FDCs approved by the State Drug Authorities, violating the new FDC regulatory approval Policy.

Any irrational FDC so identified by the drug regulators and experts, by putting a system of scrutiny in place, must be banned forthwith, in public health interest. There should not be any scope of negotiation with drug manufacturer to make the bans effective.

Incidentally, realizing the gravity of public health risks posed by irrational FDCs, even the NPPA has reportedly decided to review afresh all new applications for price fixations of FDC and examine their safety and efficacy profile.

Moving towards this direction, the NPPA Chairman, has reportedly sent back more than 200 applications for price fixation of FDCs, instructing the concerned manufacturing and marketing companies to apply again with a declaration that their formulations are not “irrational.” It was also reported that the price regulator has also brought under the lens third-party drug makers and pharma companies that outsource to them, to check illegal sales of irrational FDCs and spurious drugs.

Two key questions being raised now:

Despite all these, the industry keeps repeating, especially, the following two questions, which are worth looking at, one by one:

1. Why is the ban now?

I discussed the issue of FDC ban in my previous article in this Blog on March 21, 2016 titled, “The Recent Ban On Irrational FDCs: History Repeats Itself”.

In the above article, I also argued that large section of the industry and its associations are protesting against the Government ban of 344 irrational FDCs, and questioning vigorously, even outside the Delhi High Court – ‘why is the ban now?’

The point ‘why now’ is absolutely irrelevant, as not taking any action ever, against a wrong doing ignored over a long period time for whatever reasons, does not confer any regulatory legitimacy to an irrational FDC formulation to be considered as a rational one for all time to come, and thereby, exposing patients to serious health risks, knowingly.

2. Why is this ban so sudden, and in some cases after decades?

Sudden banning of drugs, which are in the market for a long time, is not a recent Indian phenomenon in India. In 2011, according to a report, in the world’s largest pharma market – the United States, the FDA banned 500 prescription drugs that had been on the market and working for decades. USFDA ban also happened suddenly, and that includes cough syrups too. Thus, it is intriguing, why is this fuss created by the Industry in India now?

In the midst of it, one odd, knee-jerk, apparently ‘spoon-fed’ and ill-informed editorial in some Indian business daily, raises more questions about its real intent, rather than help finding answers to the poorly sketched problems.

I would hope, the Government would stay firm and be able to convince the Delhi High Court today, i.e. on March 28, 2016, with its robust data-based arguments, accordingly.

Be that as it may, in my perspective, if the industry still believes that bans of irrational FDCs to protect public health interest, as decided by the independent experts after long and structured deliberations, would go against ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India, so be it.

B. Where the pharma industry in India speaks in different voices:

As stated above, there are several other key areas, where the MNC and Indian Pharma players have sharp differences in their perspectives. Despite these differences, the aggrieved section does not even blink a bit to attribute those Government actions to the lack of ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in the country.

In this area, I shall give just the following three examples:

1. The Patents Act:

MNCs say that section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents Act 2005, which is aimed at curbing patent ever-greening or frivolous inventions, is against the ease of doing business in India. However, the Indian Pharma players, do not think so, at all. Similar disagreement also exists in other critical areas too, such as, ‘Data Exclusivity (DE)’ and ‘Compulsory Licensing (CL)’.

Thus, in my opinion, if some ‘public health interest’ related provisions of the robust Indian Intellectual Property (IP) Act, such as, section 3 (d), DE and CL, are considered as going against the ‘ease of doing pharma business in India’ by the MNCs, so be it.

2. Mandatory Uniform Code of Pharma Marketing Practices (UCPMP):

Need to have a mandatory UCPMP, though, is reportedly supported by the MNCs, Indian pharma players do not seem to be quite in sync with this idea. I am not sure, whether the delay in the announcement of mandatory UCPMP, almost in every 3 months, has any coincidence with it or not. However, the reality is, no one still knows clearly, when would it definitely come, if at all.

Media reports on pharma MNC support to mandatory UCPMP, and repeated reiteration that its members in India rigidly follow the IFPMA Code of Marketing Practices, though commendable, seem to grossly lack in credibility.

Interestingly, despite the existence of this code and high-decibel vouch for its rigid conformance, maximum number of MNCs have been fined billions of dollars, by the Government in various countries, for alleged gross marketing and other business malpractices. It has been happening over a long period of time, and is being reported by the international media, frequently.

What is really happening, especially, on the so called total support of ethical marketing practices by the MNCs? Are they trying to create just good optics by craftily framing and supporting such showpiece codes, and blatantly defying these to achieve self-serving goals? The voice gets shriller, even when they are being levied hefty fines, after getting caught red handed, as reported by the global media? I guess, the future would ultimately unfold the reality. But would it, at all?

The Indian Scenario:

Even in India, such alleged marketing malpractices involving even a top pharma MNC have often been reported by the media. Just to illustrate, “Prescribe a drug maker’s medicine and get a free vacation”, reported a news article. There are several other similar reports too. Hence, the credibility of pharma MNC statements regarding strict conformance to ethical marketing codes, ably formulated by the well-known pharma trade associations, such as, IFPMA, appears to be very low, if exists at all.

The well-reputed medical Journal BMJ in one of its articles titled, “Corruption ruins the doctor-patient relationship in India”, published on May 8, 2014, expressed serious concern on this issue.

It concluded that corruption, kickbacks and the nexus between doctors and pharmaceutical firms are rampant India. This eventually prompted the BMJ, in June 2014, to launch a campaign reportedly called ‘Corruption in Medicine’.

On this issue, way back in May 08, 2012, even the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 58th Report, placed before the Parliament on May 08, 2012, expressed its serious concern.

Indian lawmakers, recommended in the report that the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) should take decisive action, without further delay, in making the UCPMP mandatory, so that effective checks could be ensured on ‘huge promotional costs’ and the resultant add-on impact on medicine prices. Unfortunately, despite a change in the Government in 2014, UCPMP has still not been mandatory.

It is anybody’s guess, despite all these reports, what type of external pressure, if at all, the DoP is still facing to put in place a robust mandatory UCPMP with strong deterrent measures.

Under this backdrop, in my view, if mandatory UCPMP having enough teeth, to curb ongoing blatant marketing malpractices to protect patients’ health interest in India, is considered by any as going against the ‘ease of doing pharma business in India’, so be it.

3. Drug manufacturing quality:

Enough discussions have already been made on import ban of USFDA from over 45 drug manufacturing facilities of Indian Companies, of all sizes and scale of operations, on the ground of drug quality standards. USFDA considered drugs manufactured in those banned facilities are unsafe for the consumption of American patients. Some other foreign drug regulators, from the developed countries, have also taken similar action.

Taking advantage of this development, it was reported that attempts are indirectly being made to establish that MNC marketed generic drugs are superior to similar ones, manufactured even by the large Indian drug producers.

The fact, apparently, is quite different. MNCs operating in India has not come under the USFDA scanner in this regard as much, probably not because of their far superior drug manufacturing quality standards in India, as compared to even the best of their Indian counterparts. I reckon, it is mainly because, very few MNC drug manufacturing facilities in India export India manufactured drugs for consumption in the United States.

It may not, therefore, make any real sense to conclude that MNC marketed generic drugs in India, either manufactured my themselves or under loan & license or under a third party, are generally better in quality than the similar ones manufactured even by the large Indian manufacturers.

In any case, I feel that there is a huge scope for Indian drug regulators to ensure uniformly high drug quality standards. This is necessary for Indian patients’ health and safety. There also should be stringent regular quality audits in all drug manufacturing facilities in India, where non-conformance with prescribed standards would attract serious punitive measures. The Union Ministry of Health, together with the State Governments would require increasing the number of auditors accordingly.

However, the reality is, many Indian drug manufacturers have expressed that maintaining stricter drug manufacturing standards (cGMP) would involve huge expenditure, which they will not be able to afford. Consequently, this would go against the ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India.

Again, in my view, if the stringent regulatory requirements for maintaining high drug manufacturing standards in India to protect public health interest, is considered as going against the ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India, so be it.

Conclusion:

Improving ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India is an absolute necessity, just as all other businesses. Pharma sector deserves it very badly too, as it has been experiencing excruciating delay in multiple regulatory clearances. Single window clearances of all applications, with a much greater sense of urgency, without bureaucratic red tapes and avoiding other unnecessary delays, is certainly the way forward for India. It would require urgent policy reforms, maintaining a right balance between, public, consumers and business interests.

Pharma sector is not all villain, either, by any yardstick. It is instrumental in saving and improving the quality of lives of so many people across the globe, since a very long time, with its both innovative and generic medicines. All must acknowledge it, and the Government does it too, openly, several times.

That said, the space of focus of the pharma industry appears to be getting increasingly narrowed down to more of its self-serving acts, and in their hard selling, through hugely expensive advocacy campaigns, even at the huge cost of attracting frequent self-defeating scathing criticisms, across the world.

At the same time, the Governments in different times hugely disappointed its citizens, in charting a clear road map for quality and affordable health care for all in India, along with appropriate budgetary allocations and policy reforms, and thereafter, in its implantation with military precision.

However, that doesn’t mean, in any way, while facilitating ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India, the Government would turn a blind eye on the rapidly breeding corruption in the pharma business practices, and give in to unjustified industry muscle-flexing, sacrificing the health interest of its citizens in the country.

While looking through this Kaleidoscope, it appears to me, if the pharma sector considers the appropriate Government actions to protect public health interest, against the unacceptable industry practices, would also go against the ‘ease of doing pharma business’ in India… Well, so be it.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Recent Ban On Irrational FDCs: History Repeats Itself

Posted on March 21, 2016 by Tapan Ray

The recent regulatory ban on a large number of irrational Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) drugs is not a new incident in India. A similar mega ban was announced even before, about nine years ago. Intriguingly, the saga continues, for various reasons, without any tangible outcome for the patients on the ground.

On March 11, 2016, the latest ban, again on a large number of irrational FDCs, was notified. It caused a flutter and an immediate sharp adrenaline rush to the impacted drug companies and was soon followed by an interim stay order, again by an honorable High Court of the country.

Thus, when I connect the past dots with the latest one, on mega ban of irrational FDCs in India, a similar sequence of events gets unfolded, following each of such ban notifications of the Government.

Looking back, 294 FDCs were banned by the DCGI in 2007. At that time too, the important issue of patients’ health, safety and economical interest, got converted into a legal quagmire. Many adversely affected FDC drug players chose to go to the court of law to protect their business interest, and also successfully managed to obtain a ‘Stay’ order from the Madras High Court.

Consequently, those 294 irrational FDCs, banned by the Union Ministry of Health on health and safety grounds, continued to be promoted, prescribed and sold to patients across India, without any hindrance, whatsoever.

The matter continues to remain sub judice, as we deliberate the issue here. Thus, whether the recent gazette notification on the ban of irrational FDCs would immediately be implemented, unlike the past ban, or the history would repeat itself, is indeed a big question mark, at this juncture.

Would this ban have similar outcome?

As discussed, close to a decade after the serious legal fall-out of the ban of 294 irrational FDCs in 2007, another mega ban of 344 irrational FDCs has been announced by the Government, through a Gazette Notification dated March 11, 2016. Some well known brands, such as, Corex, Phensedyl, Crocin Cold and Flu, D-Cold Total, Nasivion and Vicks Action 500 Extra, among others, reportedly come under this ban now. Here is the complete list of 344 banned FDCs.

According to the Government, the reason for banning these drugs is that ‘they involve risk to humans and safer alternatives were available.’

Nevertheless, manufacturers of some of these mega brands have again obtained an interim injunction on the ban for their respective products, from the Delhi High Court.

Sometime during the day, i.e. on March 21, 2016, the honorable Delhi High Court is expected to take up this patient-centric issue. It apparently smacks a blatant self-serving interest of the concerned irrational FDC manufacturers, that defeats the core purpose and value of pharma products for their users.

Like most other issues, the Court directive on this issue, as well, would ultimately prevail, without any shade of doubt.

Is it a ‘bolt from the blue’ for the pharma industry?

Many industry watchers feel that this recent ban has not come as a ‘bolt from the blue’ for the pharma players, at all, as is being claimed by a section of the pharma industry. Even the Union Ministry of Health has, reportedly, clarified the following points on the recent notification:

“We have tried to bring objectivity to the issue by roping in the best of scientists to study the effects of these FDCs.”

“Show cause notices were also issued to more than 344 companies and they were given time to make further representations after the expert committee gave their recommendations. Some of them did not even care to respond. Everybody was given ample opportunity. After that, the move was initiated. It was done after much examination.”

“It is necessary and expedient in the public interest to regulate by way of prohibition of manufacture for sale, sale and distribution for human use, of the said drugs in the country.”

It is worth noting, at least, one of these well known pharma brands was, reportedly, banned in one of our neighboring countries – Sri Lanka, in 2012, for wide-spread drug misuse, long after its marketing approval in the country.

Some key events leading to the recent ban:

Besides the above articulation by the Union Ministry of Health, it is worth noting, especially, the following key developments to ascertain, whether this ban came suddenly to the irrational FDC manufacturers, and without any prior warning or appropriate communication:

The issue of manufacturing licenses being granted by some states for FDCs without prior approval of Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), was first discussed by the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) in the year 2000, though without any major tangible outcome till 2007.

In 2007, Government banned 294 FDCs, and the consequent court proceedings had ‘Stayed’ this ban.

Expressing huge concern on pharma malpractices related to irrational FDCs, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its 59^th report (2012) also had flagged this issue. The lawmakers observed in the report that manufacturing licenses for large numbers FDCs were being issued by the State Drug Authorities, without prior approval of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), in violation of rules. The committee also noted that multiple FDCs, which are available in India had been rejected by the drug regulators in Europe, North America, and Australia, while for many others never had marketing approval applications submitted outside India (Section 7 of [6]).

Subsequently, in June 2013, CDSCO announced the “Policy Guidelines for Approval of Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs) In India.”

According to CDSCO, just 1193 FDCs were approved by the DCGI, since 1961 till November, 2014. Thus, all drug manufacturers should clearly know, which FDC has been approved by the DCGI, and when, leaving no scope for any ambiguity in this area. Thus, there should be no problem in total conformance to the above ‘FDC Policy Guidelines’ by these drug producers.

In the same year – 2013, a public notice was also, reportedly, issued, calling all those drug players manufacturing FDCs to apply with the requisite fee, in the prescribed form to the DCGI office, providing the required details.

In 2014, a six-member committee, chaired by Prof. (Dr.) Chandrakant Kokate, Vice Chancellor, KLE University, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belgaum, Karnataka, was formed to expedite the review process of the applications.

The Kokate Committee has, reportedly, reviewed about 6,600 FDCs, so far, and classified them under four categories – irrational, require further deliberations, rational and require additional data generation.

According to a report, 963 FDCs were found under the irrational category, providing reasons in detail for each.

In 2016, the Government finalized its action, based on the Report of Kokate Committee and also the response received (or still not received despite requests) from the concerned FDC manufacturers.

The March 11, 2016 Gazette Notification banned 344 ‘irrational’ FDCs, ruffling many feathers, but understandably to protect patients’ health interest.

On March 14, 2016, in response to an appeal against this ban through a writ petition, first by Pfizer, the Delhi High Court reportedly granted the company a stay, pending the next court hearing on March 21, 2016. Subsequently, several such stay orders by the honorable Delhi High Court have been issued with the same date of hearing.

Adverse health and economic impact on patients:

Besides serious health risks, the patients also suffer from a huge adverse economical impact, in rupee value terms, by consuming much avoidable irrational FDC formulations, which are generally more expensive than single ingredient drugs, if taken separately at times of necessity or convenience.

The ban of 344 FDCs is estimated to cover over 2,500 brands, in different therapy categories, including chronic diseases, where medicines are taken for a long period of time. Thus, a large number of patients were consuming these irrational formulations for a long period of time without any inkling of their necessity and more importantly serious adverse health impact that these irrational FDCs could cause.

To quantify how much have the patients collectively spent on these banned medicines, in the rupee value terms, I shall quote from the estimates of one of the well reputed and much quoted pharma retail audit and market research organization of India – AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd.

According to its report of March 13, 2016, Indian Pharmaceutical Industry would lose Rs. 3,838 Crore (MAT), which is 3.1 percent of the turnover of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM), when calculated based on the retail sales of these FDCs in the last 12-month period.

Paraphrasing the same finding, one can logically conclude that Indian patients withstood an adverse economic impact of Rs. 3,838 Crore in a 12-month period, by spending on these unnecessary and irrational FDCs of dubious value, besides health risks.

To my surprise, some of the MNC pharma players contribute a major chunk to this avoidable expenditure of the patients, besides associating and avoidable health risks.

Quoting similar credible data, it is also possible to give company-wise break-up in this area, which, in my view, may not be meaningful here.

Two Critical issues to address:

Although, a lot of water has since flown down the bridges, a large number of irrational FDCs are still in the market, exposing patients to possible health hazards and economical hardship.

In this blog, I discussed this core issue in two of my articles, one on July 15, 2013 titled, “FDC Saga: Defiant Manufacturers, Sloppy Regulators and Humongous Inaction”, and the other on May 18, 2015 titled, “Booming Sales Of Unapproved Drugs: Do We Need ‘Safe In India’ Campaign For Medicines?”.

I reckon, the following two would still remain the critical issues, which need to be addressed, expeditiously, once and for all, for patients’ sake:

Stringent compliance with the latest CDSCO requirements by all the manufacturers of FDCs in India must be ensured. Any non-conformance should attract strong punitive measures, through a transparent process.

Whether such drugs are being widely misused, creating a grave risk for health and other safety hazards, must be ascertained periodically, based on credible data.

An important example:

Just the other day, Reuters reported that one of the largest pharma companies operating in India, was selling a FDC of the antibiotics cefixime and azithromycin, without approval of the DCGI.

Interestingly, this particular FDC has reportedly not received marketing approval in the major global pharma markets, such as, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France or Japan.

After the ban of this irrational FDC, the company was compelled to stop manufacturing and sales of this powerful antibiotic cocktail that poses huge health risk to patients.

This Reuters report also states, the drug ‘had been promoted and administered as a treatment for a broad array of illnesses, including colds, fevers, urinary tract infections, drug-resistant typhoid and sexually transmitted diseases.’ It also found chemists who were selling the drug to prevent post-operative infection and for respiratory problems.

Many doctors and health experts have been saying that the spread and misuse of antibiotic combinations may be contributing to antibiotic resistance in India.

FDC approval must be hard evidence-based:

Since all pharmaceutical products, whether available as a single ingredient, or FDC formulations, are globally considered as ‘Evidence-Based Medicines’. Such evidences are established through robust, stringent and well regulated clinical trials for obtaining marketing approval from the drug regulators, unlike most ‘traditional medicines’.

Following this well-established global norm, and as recommended by even the World Health Organization (WHO), all irrational FDCs must be identified through a transparent and medical science-based process, and banned forthwith by the Government.

Establishing safety and efficacy for all FDCs through clinical trials, just like any other single ingredient drug, introduced for the first time in India, whenever it happens or had happened in the past, inadvertently or otherwise, should be a ‘must happen’ regulatory requirement, for all time to come.

Profit making interest through introduction of a plethora of irrational FDCs, should never be allowed to overshadow patients’ health and economical interest.

The bogey of even ‘25 to 30-year-old FDCs’ now being banned:

Some section of the industry is also raising this point, vociferously, protesting against the bans of their respective old and top-selling FDC brands, which have now been considered by the Government as irrational, and questioning: ‘why now?’

This point is irrelevant, as not taking action ever, against a wrong doing allowed over a long period time, does not make an irrational FDC formulation a rational one, for all time to come.

Moreover, this recent action of the drug regulator can not be considered as unique either. With the advancement of medical science, in the past years too, the DCGI issued banned notifications, covering many old FDCs, considering those ‘irrational combinations’ at a given point of time, such as, analgin + pitofenone, vitamins B1 + B6 + B12, cyproheptadine + lysine, just to name a few.

Conclusion:

As is known to many, pharmacovigilance is still at a very nascent stage in India. Consequently, ‘Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR)’ or ‘Adverse Drug Events’ reporting are still abysmally poor in the country. No information on ‘Adverse Drug Events’, as claimed by the manufacturers of these irrational FDCs, should, therefore, in no way mean that these drugs are safe and efficacious and beyond any reasonable doubt.

Although the laxity of the drug regulator in this area can’t also be condoned, in any way, the enormity of the risks posed by irrational FDCs to the innocent patients, is indeed mind boggling.

If the manufacturing and sale of all irrational FDCs are not legally stopped, even after a long and rigorous scientific and medical scrutiny by the experts, the patients in the country would, unfairly, continue to remain exposed to huge health and economic risks, without any fault of theirs. This is exactly what happened in 2007 also, when, after the stay order of the ban notification for 294 irrational FDCs by the honorable Madras High Court, all those FDCs continued to be promoted, prescribed and sold to patients across India, unhindered… but at whose cost?

Yet again, the gazette notification of the Government on the recent ban on 344 FDCs, has gone for judicial scrutiny, at least, for some money spinning key brands of the large pharma players.

This time, however, there is one significant difference, the Government seems to be far more assertive and committed to ensure that only safe medicines are available in the market, despite reported intense advocacy by the industry. This commitment on the part of the Government is also evident from the media report that the (DGCI) has again sent a new list of additional 1,200 FDCs for a probe to the panel, which recommended the ban of 344 irrational FDCs in the last week, and that too, after the court stay order on the latest ban.

Further, a senior a senior official in the Health Ministry has, reportedly, reiterated that the Government will stand firm on its decision, and will support the ban with robust data, in the Delhi High Court.

Would history repeat itself, this time now? We, at least, would get a sense of it, as the proceeding of the honorable Delhi High Court commences today, on this issue.

Either way, it will possibly send a clear signal, whether the triumph of commercial profit motive with irrational FDCs would continue, unabated, over patients’ health, safety and economic interests, at least in the foreseeable future.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process

Posted on January 18, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Fathoming the details of just a short span of time, not going beyond the last 10 years, I find from the published data that many new drugs, such as, Alatrofloxacin, Aprotinin, Drotrecogin alfa, Lumiracoxib, Propoxyphene, Rofecoxib, Rosiglitazone, Sibutramine, Tegaserod, Tetrazepam, were withdrawn from a number of important global markets. Quite a few of those were withdrawn also from the world market.

The key reason for almost all these withdrawals was serious safety concerns for the patients while using these medicines. Interestingly, some of these new molecules were withdrawn even after attaining the blockbuster status, such as Rofecoxib.

Tens of thousands of patients have died only because of this reason, according to reports.

It is widely believed by the experts in this area, if full public disclosure of the entire data of drug clinical trials was made, most of these new drugs would not have seen the light of the day and without putting many patients’ health safety in jeopardy.

All this is a part of a curious conundrum in the new drug approval process, across the world, for various reasons. In this article, I would try to dwell on this issue.

Voices against this ‘unethical practice’ getting louder:

On December 22, 2015, ‘CBC News’ published an interesting article, titled “Researcher issues ‘call to action’ to force release of hidden drug safety data: Bringing drug industry data into the light of public scrutiny.”

The article echoed the same belief of other global experts and, in fact, went a step forward. It categorically reiterated, if full disclosure of the entire data of drug clinical trials is made public, medical practice might have been quite different.

To drive home this point, the article cited the example of the arthritis drug rofecoxib (Vioxx), which has been linked to tens of thousands of deaths related to heart attacks.

It highlighted, although this risk was very much known to the regulatory authority of the United States, the relevant data was not released to the public for an impartial scrutiny.

Quoting different sources, the paper observed, almost half of the drug trials remain secret and the studies that are published, overwhelmingly report results that make the drug in question look good.

Independent experts’ views differed from the innovator companies:

In some cases, when researchers were able to see what is hiding in the filing cabinets of the drug innovator companies, a different picture altogether emerged on the overall profile of those drugs.

One group looked at 12 antidepressants, comparing the published studies with the internal US FDA assessments. They found that 94 per cent of the published studies were positive, as compared to 51 per cent, when they included all of the studies assessed by the drug regulator.

Based on a detailed study, the authors concluded, without considering all the data, drug effectiveness can often be exaggerated, leading doctors and patients to assume that the medications work better than what they actually do. The ongoing practice of the drug players may help them to significantly diminish the risks, related to the benefits offered by these medicines.

A few months ago, another group analyzed the data from an unpublished drug company study about the effect of Paxil on teen depression and found that the drug did not work and was not safe for the patients. This result completely contradicted the original, unpublished study on this drug.

A crusader emerged in Canada:

Interestingly, the same article, as above, states that Mathew Herder , the health law associate professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada is now taking up the fight. He is now “calling on other doctors, researchers and journalists to bombard Ottawa with their own demands for drug industry data, using the new legislative lever called the ‘Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act,’, which was passed late last year in Canada.

He has also created a template to help doctors, researchers and journalists access drug safety data at Health Canada. Herder reportedly could even include biomedical researchers, doctors who prescribe medicine, investigative journalists pursuing questions about drug safety, and other activists and patient groups.

This example is worth imbibing elsewhere.

The ‘Rule Books’ are in place, though with loopholes:

To curb such alleged patient unfriendly practices of the innovative drug manufacturers, while obtaining the marketing approval of new drugs, various rules and procedure were put in place, by various authorities.

I shall deliberate below a few of these rules, and enough loopholes therein, enabling the interested parties to hoodwink the external experts, at the cost of patients.

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform:

Much before Herder, following a ministerial summit on Health Research in 2004, a World Health Assembly Resolution passed in 2005 called for unambiguous identification of all interventional clinical trials. This resolution led to the establishment of the ‘World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform’. It collates information on trials that have been notified in a network of clinical trial registries.

According to W.H.O, “The registration of all interventional trials is a scientific, ethical and moral responsibility”.

In the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki, it reiterates, “Every research study involving human subjects must be registered in a publicly accessible database before recruitment of the first subject.”

It unambiguously states, “Researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research …. Negative and inconclusive as well as positive results must be published or otherwise made publicly available”.

Understandably, W.H.O statement underscores, “There is an ethical imperative to report the results of all clinical trials, including those of unreported trials conducted in the past.”

It is worth mentioning here that on January 1, 2015, by a new policy on publication of clinical data, ‘European Medicines Agency (EMA)’ also decided to proactively publish all clinical reports submitted as part of marketing-authorization applications for human medicines, by the by pharmaceutical companies.

Big Pharma's serious apprehensions on greater Public transparency:

Before finalization of the above policy, EMA sought comments on its draft from various state holders. On September 5, 2013, in its remarks on the draft, ‘The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, EFPIA’ expressed its apprehension about the public health safety oriented proactive move by the EMA as follows:

“We are worried by a move towards greater transparency of clinical trials data that appears to be putting transparency – at whatever cost – ahead of public health interests. Our detailed response to the EMA draft policy speaks to this concern. While EFPIA values other voices and opinion in the conversation surrounding clinical trials data, we believe there are better alternatives than what the EMA is presenting.”

This is of course understandable. That said, it also gives satisfaction to note that EMA did not wilt under any pressure on this score, whatever the anecdotal might of the external force be.

Gross non-compliance, endangering patients’ health safety:

Although, the standards and requirements of “Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Results” have been well specified now, and even in most of the Big Pharma websites one can find disclosure norms of clinical trial data, their overall compliance on the ground, is still grossly inadequate, endangering patients’ health safety.

An article published in the BMJ Open on November 12, 2015 titled, “Clinical trial registration, reporting, publication and FDAAA compliance: a cross-sectional analysis and ranking of new drugs approved by the FDA in 2012”, well captured the magnitude of this issue.

Nevertheless, the study analyzed just a subset of drugs approved in a single year, 2012. The researchers only examined whether clinical trials were registered and reported, not what that data suggested about how the drugs worked.

The paper reported the results as follows:

“In 2012, the US FDA approved 39 novel new medicines, known as NMEs, and 35 novel drugs. Combining these lists, the FDA approved a total of 48 new drug entities, 15 of which were sponsored by 10 large pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies with market capitalizations valued over US$19 billion. A total of 342 trials were conducted to gain regulatory approval of the 15 drugs, 24 of which were excluded from our analysis, leaving 318 trials involving 99 599 participants relevant to our study, a median of 17 trials per drug.”

Based on the findings, the authors concluded asunder:

“Trial disclosures for new drugs remain below legal and ethical standards, with wide variation in practices among drugs and their sponsors. Best practices are emerging. 2 of our 10 reviewed companies disclosed all trials and complied with legal disclosure requirements for their 2012 approved drugs. Ranking new drugs on transparency criteria may improve compliance with legal and ethical standards and the quality of medical knowledge.”

Simultaneously, The Washington Post in an article of November 12, 2015, titled, “How pharma keeps a trove of drug trials out of public view”, summarized this report by highlighting to the general public that one third of the clinical trial results that US FDA reviewed to approve drugs made by large pharmaceutical companies in 2012, were never publicly reported.

Unethical practices skewing medical science:

On July 25, 2015, ‘The Economist’ published an article titled, “Spilling the beans’. It highlighted again that the failure to publish the results of all clinical trials is skewing medical science.

This article also brought to the public attention that half of the clinical trial results are never published over several decades. It broadened the discourse with the observation that this specific unwanted practice, distorts perceptions of the efficacy of not just drugs, but devices and even surgical procedures too, in a well planned and a systematic manner. What is most important to note is, it has seriously compromised with patients’ health interest, across the world.

It keeps on happening, as there are no firm obligations on the part of drug companies for making public disclosure of all such data, both for and against, though all these data are required to be filed with the regulatory authorities. Hence, the overall assessment of the drugs, weighing all pros and cons, is just not possible for any outside expert agency.

For granting necessary marketing approval, the designated authorities, at least theoretically, ensure that the drugs are reasonably safe, and have, at least, ‘some beneficial effects’. However, the prescribing doctors would continue to remain ignorant of the untold facts, the article states.

According to ‘The Economist’, although in the United States the relevant laws were modified, way back in 2007, to address this issue, it still remains as a theory, the actual practices in this regard are mostly not so.

Despite vindication no tangible outcome yet:

As I said earlier, this fact got vindicated through extensive research by the ‘BMJ Online’ article and many other contemporary medical publications.

For example, the evidence released earlier on April 10, 2014 by the Cochrane Collaboration of London, UK, also shows that a large part of negative data generated from the clinical trials of various drugs were not disclosed to the public.

Again, like Vioxx, though the US FDA was aware of all such data, for a well known drug Tamiflu, unfortunately the prescribing doctors were not. As a result, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which doesn’t have the same access to unpublished data as the regulators, recommended this medicine not being able to evaluate it holistically.

However, as the findings from the unpublished clinical trials eventually surfaced, CDC expressed serious apprehension on the overall efficacy of Tamiflu, quite contrary to the assessment of the concerned big pharma player.

Hence, despite quite a large number of vindications by the experts, no tangible outcome has been noticed on this pressing issue, just yet.

Conclusion:

Based on all this discussion, the moot question that springs up: Why do the doctors still prescribe such drugs, even after being aware of the full facts?

In this regard, an article titled, “Big Pharma Plays Hide-The-Ball with Data”, published in the Newsweek on November 13, 2014 raised a very valid question.

It commented, even if Tamiflu does nothing, and there is just a slight chance of life-threatening side effects, why was it approved by the US FDA, in the first place?

Even more intriguing is: Why do the doctors continue prescribing these, especially after the Cochrane Collaboration took the Tamiflu’s maker, Roche, to task about many of its claims, in April 2014.

Incidentally, the Cochrane Collaboration is widely regarded as one of the most rigorous reviewers of health science data. It takes results of multiple trials, looks for faults and draws conclusions. It doesn’t accept funding from businesses with a stake in its findings.

The answer to this question may perhaps be too obvious to merit any elaborate discussion here.

Be that as it may, this curious conundrum of ‘New Drug Approval’ with ‘Partial Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Data’ needs to effectively addressed, without further delay. If not, patients’ health interest would continue to get seriously compromised with the continuation of prevailing laxity in its implementation process by the drug regulators.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: drugs

Patented Drugs: A Dangerous Pricing Trend Impacting Patient Access

Leveraging 3D Printing In Pharma, For Cost Containment And Patient-Centricity

The Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs

Arbitrary Pricing of Essential Drugs Invites State Intervention

Biosimilar Drugs: First Indian Foot Print In An Uncharted Frontier

Ease of Doing Pharma Business in India: A Kaleidoscopic View

The Recent Ban On Irrational FDCs: History Repeats Itself

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process