Tag Archives: Health

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process

Posted on by
Reply

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Drotrecogin alfa, Lumiracoxib, Propoxyphene, Rofecoxib, Rosiglitazone, Sibutramine, Tegaserod, Tetrazepam, were withdrawn from a number of important global markets. Quite a few of those were withdrawn also from the world market.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 Interestingly, some of these new molecules were withdrawn even after attaining the blockbuster status, such as Rofecoxib.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

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.

Nutraceuticals: A Major Regulatory Step That Was Long Overdue

Posted on by
Reply

Currently in India the nutraceutical products segment, with surrogate or off-label therapeutic claims, is growing at a reasonable pace.

Many such products are now being directly promoted to the medical profession, just like any other modern medicines, with therapeutic claims not being supported by robust clinical data that can pass through scientific or regulatory scrutiny.

For such use of nutraceutical products, I raised the following two questions in my article on this Blog titled, “Nutraceuticals with Therapeutic Claims: A Vulnerable Growing Bubble Protected by Faith and Hope of Patients” on August 27, 2012: 

  • What happens when the nutraceutical products fail to live up to the tall claims made by the respective manufacturers on their efficacy and safety profile?
  • Are these substances safe in those conditions, even when not enough scientific data has been generated on their long term toxicity profile?

Importance of robust clinical data for any product with therapeutic claims:

For similar claim of therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of a disease condition, any drug would require establishing its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics with pre-clinical and clinical studies, as stipulated by the drug regulators. Some experts believe that these studies are very important for nutraceutical products as well, especially when therapeutic claims are made on them, directly or indirectly. This also because, these substances are involved in a series of reactions within the body. 

Similarly, to establish any long term toxicity problem with such products, generation of credible clinical data, including those with animal reaction to the products, both short and long term, using test doses several times higher than the recommended ones, is critical. These are not usually followed for nutraceutical products in India, even when therapeutic claims are being made.

Some experts in this field, therefore, quite often say, “A lack of reported toxicity problems with any nutraceutical should not be interpreted as evidence of safety.” 

The current status:

Currently in India, nutraceuticals, herbals and functional foods are covered under the definition of ‘food’ as per Section 22 of Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006. These food products have been categorized as Non-Standardized/special food products. Neither was there any properly framed guidelines related to manufacturing, storage, packaging & labeling, distribution, sales, claims and imports, nor any legal fear of counterfeiting.

A recent reiteration of the need of regulatory guidelines for nutraceuticals:

In a study on ‘Indian Nutraceuticals, Herbals, and Functional Foods Industry: Emerging on Global Map,’ jointly conducted by The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) and RNCOS and released by ASSOCHAM on August 17, 2015 the above key apprehensions on the lack of any kind of regulatory guidelines for the approval and monitoring of products falling under this segment, were reiterated.

The market:

According to the above study, the global nutraceuticals market is expected to cross US$ 262.9 billion by 2020 from the current level of US$ 182.6 billion growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 8 percent.

United States (US) has the largest market for the nutraceuticals, followed by Asia-Pacific and European Union. Functional food is the fastest growing segment in the US nutraceuticals market. Germany, France, UK and Italy are the major markets in the European Union for nutraceuticals. Japan (14 percent) is the major consumer of nutraceuticals in Asia-Pacific, followed by China (10 percent).

The Indian nutraceuticals market is at a nascent stage now, but fast emerging. India accounts for around 1.5 percent of the global market. However, the above study forecasts that due to rising awareness of health and fitness and changing lifestyle, India’s Nutraceuticals market is likely to cross US$ 6.1 billion by 2020 from the current level of US$ 2.8 billion, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 17 percent. 

Phytochemicals in nutraceuticals:

Phytochemicals have been broadly defined as chemical compounds occurring naturally in plants. A large number of phytochemicals, either alone and/or in combination, are currently being used as nutraceuticals with significant impact on the health care system, claiming a number of medical health benefits, including prevention, treatment and even cure of many types of diseases.

The most recent regulatory intervention:

Responding to the growing demand for regulatory intervention in this important matter, on November 30, 2015, by a gazette notification, the Government of India included phytopharmaceutical drugs under a separate definition in the Drugs & Cosmetics (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 2015, effective that date.

This regulatory action also followed the rapidly growing use of these drugs in India, which includes purified and standardized fraction with defined minimum four bio-active or phytochemical compounds. 

On the ground, this significant regulatory measure would necessarily require the pharma players to submit the specified data on the phytopharmaceutical drug, along with the application to conduct clinical trial or import or manufacture in the country.

The salient features of the notification:

I am summarizing below, only the salient features of the detail notification for obtaining regulatory approval of these drugs in India:

A. Data to be submitted by the applicant:

A brief description or summary of the phytopharmaceutical drug giving the botanical name of the plant: 

- Formulation and route of administration, dosages

- Therapeutic class for which it is indicated

- The claims to be made for the phytopharmaceutical product.

- Published literature including information on plant or product or phytopharmaceutical drug, as a traditional medicine or as an ethno medicine and provide reference to books and other documents, regarding composition, process prescribed, dose or method of usage, proportion of the active ingredients in such traditional preparations per dose or per day’s consumption and uses.

- Information on any contraindications, side effects mentioned in traditional medicine or ethno medicine literature or reports on current usage of the formulation.

- Published scientific reports in respect of safety and pharmacological studies relevant for the phytopharmaceutical drug intended to be marketed.

- Information on any contraindications, side effects mentioned or reported in any of the studies, information on side effects and adverse reactions reported during current usage of the phytopharmaceutical in the last three years, wherever applicable.

- Present usage of the phytopharmaceutical drug ,  –  to establish history of usages, provide details of the product, manufacturer, quantum sold, extent of exposure on human population and number of years for which the product is being sold. 

B. Human or clinical pharmacology information

C. Identification, authentication and source of plant used for extraction and fractionation

D. Process for extraction and subsequent fractionation and purification

E. Formulation of phytopharmaceutical drug applied for

F. Manufacturing process of formulation

G. Stability data

H. Safety and pharmacological information

I. Human studies

J. Confirmatory clinical trials

K. Regulatory status in other countries

L. Marketing information, including text of package inserts, labels and cartons

M. Post marketing surveillance (PMS)

N. Any other relevant information that will help in scientific evaluation of the application

Conclusion:

Prior to the above gazette notification, companies marketing nutraceutical products in general and phytochemical products, in particular, used to operate under a very relaxed regulatory framework.

Such products are currently promoted with inadequate disclosure of science based information, particularly with the surrogate therapeutic claims, which are based merely on anecdotal evidence and forms a part of intensive off-label sales and marketing efforts on the part of respective marketing players. It continues to happen, despite the fact that off-label therapeutic claims for any product are illegal in India, just like in many other countries.

Appropriate measures now being taken by the Government on phytochemical drugs, are expected to further plug the regulatory loopholes for off-label therapeutic claims without any robust scientific evidence. This particular regulation would also, hopefully, help curbing marketing malpractices to boost sales turnover of such products.

Considering all this, it appears that this is a major regulatory step taken by the Indian Government that was, in fact, very long overdue. Implemented properly, this would ensure predictable health outcomes and improved safety standards for most of the nutraceutical products, solely keeping patients’ health interest in mind.

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.

Worsening Health Effect Of Climate Change In India: A Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

At present, out of the top five most pressing global and local environmental challenges, ‘Climate Change’ features at the top.

It has been broadly defined as, “a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.” 

The impact of Climate Change’ is so profound that, if not addressed immediately, it would most likely to cause extinction of human life from the planet Earth and that too in the most agonizing and painful way, lasting over a long period of time.

The Paris Summit and its objectives: 

To effectively address the ‘Climate Change’ issue, nearly 150 world leaders of 196 countries, including Prime Minister Modi, deliberated in the Paris summit earlier in December 2015. Their representatives and negotiators ultimately succeeded, at the fag end of the ‘Paris Summit’ to arrive at a global consensus for inking a new ‘Climate Change’ agreement.

Prior to this, a report titled, “Paris 2015: Getting a global agreement on climate change”, published in August, 2014 by the Green Alliance Trust, United Kingdom stated that the agreement, expected to be signed in this Paris summit should ensure a meaningful united global action on climate change, covering the following key points:

  • A strong legal framework and clear rules
  • A central role for equity
  • A long term approach
  • Public finance for adaptation and the low carbon transition
  • A framework for action on deforestation and land use

Experts opined that a strong deal will make a significant difference to the ability of individual countries to tackle climate change by ensuring the following:

  • Give a clear signal to business for desired environmental protection and pollution control
  • Guide investment toward low carbon outcomes
  • Create a simpler, more predictable framework for companies operating in different countries
  • Help meeting international development aims, which are at increasing risk from rising global temperatures.
  • Help reducing poverty
  • Help improving health and building security
  • Fetch huge benefits to the natural environment by helping to avoid biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystems upon which the existence of human life depends

India’s position on ‘Climate Change’:

India’s position on ‘Climate Change’ has been clear and is well captured in Prime Minister Modi’s reiteration in the Paris summit as follows:

“Climate change is not of our making. It is the result of global warming that came from an industrial age powered by fossil fuel. Yet, we face its consequences today, and that is why the outcome in Paris is so important and we are here today. We want the world to act with urgency. Agreement must lead us to restore balance between humanity and nature. We want a comprehensive equitable and durable agreement in Paris.”

Worsening health effect:

‘Climate Change’ could even drive the human race to extinction in its final outcome. Meanwhile, besides its devastated environmental impact on the planet Earth, it would gradually but surely worsen human health conditions.

In this article, I shall focus only on human health perspective on ‘Climate Change’. 

Direct and indirect health impact:

I would classify the adverse impact of ‘Climate Change’ on health basically into two categories:

- Indirect

- Direct

Indirect impact: 

Many of the indirect health impact events of ‘Climate Change’ either go unnoticed or are still considered as an ‘Act of God’. Although this issue relates to our ultimate survival, even today in India not many debates are taking place on the subject, mostly in the Television Channels. This amazing medium continues to remain obsessed with competitive high decibel shouting and slanging matches to strengthen the viewers’ appetite, even more, mostly on trivial sensationalism.

Fortunately, global awareness of the disastrous impact of ‘Climate Change’ is increasing, slowly but surely. 

I shall give below just a few examples of indirect health impact of this change:

- Extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, tsunamis, heat-waves and other disasters would keep increasing the mortality rate. Many experts attribute the cause of the recent deluge in Chennai to ‘Climate Change’, though there are other view points too. 

- Extreme weather conditions have also started causing frequent crop failures, especially in the developing world like India. As a result, many people go hungry and children suffer from malnourishment, mostly in rural areas, precipitating adverse health consequences.

- The impact of all these on mental health is also at times devastating and should in no way be ignored. Frequent incidences of farmers’ suicide in India due to crop failures could possibly be due to their deteriorating mental health, which needs to be studied in detail.

Direct impact:

According to ‘Big Picture’ – a free and impartial educational resource that explores the innovations and implications of cutting-edge science, rising temperatures and pollution levels may act together to directly worsen various health conditions, a few examples are as follows:

- Researches say, air temperature is more likely to affect cardiovascular function, when ozone levels are high, including the heart’s electrical activity and airflow into the lungs.

- A recent review has established that air pollution sets off nearly as many heart attacks as physical exertion, alcohol or coffee. Belgian researchers examined 36 studies conducted in various countries between January 1960 and January 2010 to examine the percentage of heart attacks attributable to the common risk factors and found that air pollution increased a person’s heart attack risk by 5 percent.

- Higher temperatures may also make the body more sensitive to toxins, such as ozone.   

- Studies show allergies are on the rise in developed countries, including the United States, which could partly be rising carbon dioxide levels and warming temperatures. 

- A number of notorious diseases, such as, malaria and cholera, thrive with the increase in temperature and rainfall. To give an example, the mosquitos that carry the malaria parasites grow rapidly in hot and humid conditions. The increasing prevalence of such weather conditions in climate change is likely to spread these diseases in a much wider population.

Is there any upside for ‘Climate Change’? 

Available information also points out towards some possible, but limited benefits for ‘Climate Change’, as follows: 

- Reduced risk of dying of the elderly persons from extreme cold in the winters of the temperate countries.

- Longer summers in those countries are likely to improve agricultural yields of the farmers.

Let me hasten to add, all these upsides, if at all, may not help the developing and poorer nations of the planet Earth, as such climatic conditions are mostly prevalent in the developed nations of the world.

Need for further research:

A report titled, “A Human Health Perspective On Climate Change”, published on April 22, 2010 by ‘Environmental Health Perspectives’ and the ‘National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’, identified the following major research areas that need to be further explored and understood in the ‘Climate Change’ perspective:

The above outcome of the study is exactly in the expected line, which was “to identify research needs for all aspects of the research-to-decision making pathway that will help us understand and mitigate the health effects of climate change, as well as ensure that we choose the healthiest and most efficient approaches to climate change adaptation.”

How can we all contribute individually?

On this subject, by a release on November 26, 2011, ‘The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)’ of the United States recommended some very easy to follow steps for all of us.

It said, each individual can help in this matter by using less energy and water. For example, one may consider turning off lights and TVs when one leaves a room. Turn off the water, when brushing teeth.

It suggests, another way to help is by learning about Earth and its climate. The more we know about how Earth’s climate works, the more we shall be able to help solve problems related to climate change and that is also the purpose of this article.

In addition, besides many others, we may consider lesser use of our private cars and more of available public transports. Smokers may consider to quit smoking. We can also help by planting trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

India’s high stake:

A December 9, 2015 article published in ‘The New York Times’, titled “For Indians, Smog and Poverty Are Higher Priorities Than Talks in Paris” reiterated as follows:

At the climate talks in Paris, “few countries have so much at stake as India. For the last month, the front pages of major newspapers have been dominated by one environmental crisis after another: City-dwellers are up in arms about hazardous levels of air pollution, which has already damaged the lungs of about half of Delhi’s schoolchildren. And last month brought torrential rains and flooding in the southern city of Chennai, evoking the erratic weather that climate experts warn about.”

India’s consistent stand in various ‘Climate Change’ talks is drawing a fine balance between rapid development of the nation, with commensurate new job creation and health safety & environment. However, the apprehension that is being expressed now by many, whether that is feasible on the ground at all, for holistic measures in the right direction, with the adequate funds flow for the same.

Thus, the key concern of the Indian negotiators was, signing of any global agreement to support a strong climate regime, without requisite funding, could seriously impede India’s economic growth and development agenda. The developing nations, such as India, therefore, expect adequate and committed funding from the developed nations for generation of clean energy to drive inclusive economic prosperity of the respective emerging economies.

Developed nations still not quite on the same page?

The developed nations, even in the final text of the deal, do not seem to be quite on the same page, with firm financial commitments. As a result, a ‘Tug of War’ of objectives, as it were, surfaced in the final negotiation process – mainly between sustained economic development and stringent global measures with fund commitment to contain possible extinction of the human race in the world.

The impact of an effective implementation of the agreement is expected to last almost in perpetuity.

Conclusion:                                                                              

Finally, on the last Saturday, December 12, 2015 a new global deal to address the pressing issue of ‘Climate Change’, was agreed in Paris. Unquestionably, this is a critical step forward for all countries to save the planet Earth.

Intriguingly, the deal still does not provide for a binding commitment towards adequate funding by the developed countries, which is so essential for the developing nations to adopt clean and renewable energy to contain the devastating impact of the ‘Climate Change’.

Although, the agreement does talk about funding of US$ 100 billion a year from 2020 to 2025, this is not the legally binding part of the deal, as many people had expected.

In my view, if there is just one statesman who could be singled out for taking exemplary initiative to make the deal come through, it would be President Barack Obama of the United States. He spoke several times to the heads of the several developing nations, including India, China and Brazil, many times to iron out the differences till the last moment, for this key global issue – indeed a statesman par excellence, at least to me.

Be that as it may, the deal has now been inked, Indian Government also has expressed its satisfaction and happiness with the final text of the agreement. Still, a key question haunts: Would it produce the desired results, as expected? Well, that depends on how effectively and time bound manner the global commitments get translated into reality, with required fund flowing smoothly, to contain environmental disasters, leading to natural calamities and jeopardizing human health-safety.

Let’s all keep our finger crossed, as the saying goes, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.”

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.

Marketing Off-label Use of Drugs: A Path Much Abused?

Posted on by
Reply

As many would know, prescribing any medicine for disease conditions that are not approved by the drug approving authorities while granting its marketing approval, is generally termed as ‘off-label’ use of drugs.

It is also a usual practice in most of the regulated markets of the world that once the drug regulators give marketing approval of a medicine, which is indication-specific, physicians are free to prescribe these as they deem necessary. However, the drug manufacturers can seek prescription support from the doctors only for the indications as approved by the appropriate government authorities.

Even the USFDA had articulated, “the best way to address any concerns that the information about those (off-label) uses is not reaching medical practitioners is to get those uses in the labeling. We believe that the risks of allowing drug companies to distribute journal articles and other information about off label uses far outweigh any benefits.”        

Since long, most of the drug regulators across the world, including the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) have prohibited the sales promotion for unapproved uses of drugs to doctors. Nevertheless, the practice continues ignoring its serious consequences.

Monitoring of ‘off-label’ use is challenging: 

Monitoring of off-label use of medicines is quite challenging too by the drug regulators, especially in India, where post marketing surveillance is generally just on paper.

In this regard, a recent research study that I shall refer to below in this article, has quite appropriately suggested, “Future electronic health records should be designed to enable post market surveillance of treatment indications and treatment outcomes to monitor the safety of on and off-label uses of drugs.”

As India intends to move towards the ‘Digital’ space, this suggestion would be quite implementable by the DCGI, as the ‘Smart Cities’ start coming up.

Some examples of extensive off-label usages: 

According to the study done by a team of experts in medical information – Iodine, using the top drugs by number of monthly prescriptions, the following is a list of 4 medications with surprising off-label uses:

Drug Approved Indication Off-label Indication
Abilify (Aripiprazole) Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder (adjunctive), Autism-related Irritability, Agitation associated with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Mania, other Insomnia
Lyrica (Pregabalin) Management of: neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, post herpetic neuralgia, fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury; adult patients with partial onset seizures (adjunctive) Anxiety
Namenda (Memantine) Moderate to severe dementia of the Alzheimer’s type ADHD, OCD
Synthroid (Levothyroxine) Low thyroid hormone levels, some types of goiters, management some types of thyroid cancers Depression

Off-label use and increasing risks of drug safety: 

In its November 02, 2015 online issue, JAMA Internal Medicine published an article titled, “Association of Off-Label Drug Use and Adverse Drug Events (ADE) in an Adult Population.” The objective of this study was to monitor and evaluate off-label use of prescription drugs and its effect on ADEs in an adult population.

This particular study assumes importance, as off-label use of prescription drugs without strong scientific evidence has been identified as an important contributor to preventable Adverse Drug Events (ADEs), especially in children. However, despite concerns in this regard, no systematic investigation on the effects of off-label drug use in adult populations is being performed, regularly.

The detail analysis of this study reveals that not only is the benefit of off-label prescription is uncertain, but the risks of ADEs could make the ‘risk-benefit ratio’ quite unfavorable. So much so that in a large number of cases, no drug treatment will be a much better option.

According to the authors, the risk for ADEs grew as the number of prescription drugs the patient used increased. For example, patients using eight or more drugs had more than a 5-fold increased risk for ADEs compared with patients who used one to two drugs.

The study involving 46,021 adult patients, receiving 151,305 prescriptions between January 2005 and December 2009 was done in Canada. Of those prescriptions, more than 10 percent were prescribed for off-label use. Interestingly, out of that group, more than 80 percent prescriptions were for off-label uses without any robust scientific evidence supporting the use.

Based on the findings the researchers concluded that off-label use of prescription drugs is associated with ADEs.

The article suggested:

  • Caution should be exercised in prescribing drugs for off-label uses that lack strong scientific evidence.
  • Future electronic health records should be designed to enable post market surveillance of treatment indications and treatment outcomes to monitor the safety of on and off-label uses of drugs.

Pharma industry strongly opposes off-label use, when it suits them:

Interestingly, pharma industry vehemently opposes off-label use of drugs, when it suits them.

To give just a couple of examples, recently a new law that permits prescribing of drugs for off-label uses in France has reportedly been strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry in Europe.

Pharma trade associations argue, “the above move of France is directly in opposition to European Union’s laws that prohibit member states from supporting off-label use for economic purposes, and is a trend that undermines the current regulatory framework and could put patients’ health at risk.”

Besides France, they have also submitted a complaint against Italy to the European Commission over the country’s new off-label rules.

Common methods followed for off-label marketing:

The other side of the story is that, reportedly many pharma companies continue promoting off-label uses of drugs aggressively, for significant commercial gains.

According to ‘The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) – a federal agency within the United States Department of Health and Human Services, some of the off-label drug promotion methods of the pharmaceutical companies are as follows:

• Paying incentives to sales representatives based on sales for off-label use

• Paying kickbacks to physicians to prescribe drugs for off-label use

• Disseminating misleading posters promoting off-label use

• Paying physicians:

- To pretend to be the authors of articles about off-label uses when the articles were actually written by manufacturers’ agents

- To serve as members of “advisory boards” promoting off-label use

- To travel to resort locations to listen to promotions about off-label use

- To give promotional lectures in favor of off-label use to fellow practitioners

• Publicizing studies showing efficacy of off-label uses, while suppressing studies showing no efficacy.

Even the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) of the Government of India does not allow such sales and marketing practices. But these all continue to happen, unabatedly.

A path much abused?

Although most of the drug companies publicly advocate self regulation to avoid unethical marketing practices, the situation on the ground is much different, across the world. 

The following are just a few examples of serious business consequences faced by some of the well-known global pharma and biotech majors, besides many others, from the United States Department of Justice, for alleged off-label promotion of drugs: 

  • On November 4, 2013, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) was asked to pay more than US$ 2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promoting for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider.  
  • On July 30, 2013, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., a pharmaceutical company acquired by Pfizer, Inc. in 2009, agreed to pay US$490.9 million to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the unlawful marketing of the prescription drug Rapamune for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA. 
  • On December 19, 2012, Amgen Inc. pleaded guilty and paid US$762 million to resolve criminal liability and false claims allegations.
  • On July 2, 2012 GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) pleaded guilty and paid US$3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices. This resolution is the largest health care fraud settlement in the US history and the largest payment ever by a drug company, so far. 
  • On May 7, 2012, Abbott Laboratories Inc. pleaded guilty and agreed to pay US$1.5 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of the prescription drug Depakote for uses not approved as safe and effective by the USFDA.  This resolution is the second largest payment by a drug company and includes a criminal fine and forfeiture totaling US$700 million and civil settlements with the federal government and the states totaling US$800 million.  Abbott also was reportedly subjected to court-supervised probation and reporting obligations for Abbott’s CEO and Board of Directors.
  • On October 21, 2011, Pfizer Inc. agreed to pay US$14.5 million to resolve false claims allegations related to its marketing of the drug Detrol. 
  • On June 10, 2011, Novo Nordisk was asked to pay US$25 million to resolve allegations of off-label promotion of Novoseven.
  • On September 30, 2010, Novartis agreed to pay US$422.5 million to settle criminal and civil investigations into the marketing of the anti-seizure medicine Trileptal and five other drugs. The government accused Novartis of mislabeling, paying illegal kickbacks to health care professionals through speaker programs, advisory boards, entertainment, travel and meals. 

Hence, it appears that the path followed by many pharma players to inform the doctors about the judicious off-label use of drugs only in circumstances where approved treatments have failed, is being much abused. 

A conflict of interest? 

Many doctors believe that there is also a distinct upside for off-label use of drugs, as flexibility of a physician to prescribe drugs off-label offers important advantages too, especially in circumstances where approved treatments have failed. This is indeed true and indisputable.

However, the reality is, many pharma industry, in general, actively encourage off-label use of drugs for commercial benefits through expanded use of their respective brands.

Aggressive drug promotion for various off-label uses, reportedly being so widespread and indiscriminate, many physicians can’t even remember the approved indications of drugs. Hence, they do not necessarily go for off-label use only when approved treatments have failed.  In this context, on November 23, 2015, ‘The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)’ in an article titled, “Risk of Off-Label Uses for Prescription Drugs” reported as follows:

“A 2009 study published in the journal Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety found that 1,199 physicians in a national survey were able to identify the FDA-approved indication of 22 drugs only about 55% of the time. The physicians surveyed included primary-care doctors and psychiatrists.” 

On the other hand, the patients generally expect that the prescribed drugs will be safe. They want to administer evidence based approved medicines. Some of them have even started expressing that these evidences must also be disclosed to them.

Hence, there seems to exist a clear conflict of interest in this matter between the patients, drug manufacturers and perhaps the doctors, as well.

Conclusion:

The magnitude of general off-label use of drugs is reportedly increasing and is likely to increase further, exposing patients to increased risks of ADEs.  Although the business consequences of getting engaged in this unwanted process indiscriminately could at times be quite adverse, in the balance of probability between slim chances of getting caught, and expected creamy return, many pharma players continue to feel that this risk is worth taking.

Therefore, the moot question that needs a pragmatic answer is, for patients’ safety, when the global and local pharma majors talk about prescriptions of only impeccable evidence based medicine, do they walk the talk?

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.

 

Universal Health Coverage: The Only Alternative To Drug Price Control in India?

Posted on by
Reply

Aggressive drug pricing is becoming a burning issue in the healthcare space, across the world. The raging debate continues in India too, fueled by many factors.

In this context, it was quite interesting to note, on July 15, 2015, the Supreme Court of India asked the Government to analyze and explain why the controlled price of essential medicines has been fixed at a high level, depriving the poor from getting life-saving drugs at reasonable rates.

Consequently, the Government was compelled to have a relook at the allegedly ‘flawed’ National Pharmaceutical Pricing Policy 2012 (NPPP 2012) and the subsequent Drug Price Control Order 2013 (DPCO 2013) forming an inter-ministerial committee to work out a more robust alternative.

Even thereafter, on November 03, 2015, the editorial column of a business daily concluded by advocating, “excessive price control may lead to a shortage of crucial medicines and a gray market.” The editorial has not elaborated though, what it means by “excessive price control,” despite the fact, the current span of drug price control is just around 20 percent of the domestic Indian Pharmaceutical Market.

The most intriguing part in this editorial is, to make affordable health care in general and drugs in particular available to all, though it broached on some ideas in a patchy way, did not suggest any comprehensive pan-India solution, as a viable alternative. It just wrote against DPCO, which too seems to be off the cuff, as many believe.

Such blatant advocacy against DPCO, without being overarching solution centric, could jeopardize patients’ health interests in India. This is primarily because, ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on drugs is one of the highest in India, even as compared to its neighboring countries, with very low per capita income.

I discussed in this Blog similar subject on July 13, 2015 in my article titled, “India: Tops The GDP Growth, Remains At The Bottom On Health Care”.

Would abolition of DPCO be foolhardy? 

Further, the above editorial comment on the above  business daily that “excessive price control may lead to a shortage of crucial medicines and a gray market,” appears hypothetical and not fact based, as many experts in this field have articulated quite in contrary.

Many believe, the bogey that advocates ‘price control causes drug shortages’ is industry sponsored. Whether it is right or wrong, may be a contentious issue. Nevertheless, there is no robust evidence that price control causes drug shortages.

At the same time, this is also true that some price controlled drugs under DPCO 1995 were discontinued by the respective manufacturers. The key reason for the same is product obsolescence, as those drugs were old and newer alternatives were in the market. Those are really product value and prescription demand related issues. To the best of my knowledge, not a single modern drug, has ever faced permanent shortages due to the price control in India. Moreover, there are robust provisions under DPCO 2013 to deal with such artificial drug shortages, as and when happen.

Moreover, after the announcement of Ceiling Prices of DPCO 2013 products, when wholesaler’s margins were initially revised downwards by a number of manufacturers, some wholesalers agitated and refused to buy those drugs causing some shortages. This dispute was mutually resolved since then, jointly by the drug manufacturers and pharma wholesalers. There have been no reported shortages of DPCO 2013 drugs, thereafter.

Be that as it may, I reckon, advocacy by any responsible entity to abolish DPCO in India without suggesting an effective alternative, such as, putting in place a public funded Universal Health Care (UHC) mechanism, would be foolhardy. We have a large number of functioning examples of UHC, across the world, including the OECD and BRICS countries, which makes a policy mechanism like DPCO almost irrelevant.

What happens when ‘no holds barred’ drug pricing is allowed?  

Recent incidences of ‘no holds barred’ drug pricing in the largest free-market economy of the world – the United States, have started attracting ire of even the more affluent and mostly health insured American citizens too.

As reported by the Boston Globe on October 16, 2015, this is happening in both patented and generic medicines. A few examples, out of many, of some recent jaw dropping aggressive drug pricing are as follows:

  • Average price of a new cancer drug costs around US$ 100,000 a year
  • A new hepatitis C drug costs US$84,000 for a course of 12-week treatment
  • A generic tetracycline price was increased by 70 fold just within a year
  • 5000 percent-plus increase on Turing Pharmaceuticals’ generic Daraprim (pyrimethamine) ant-parasitic tablets

Moreover, on November 6, 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that three US pharma majors – Eli-Lilly, Merck and Valeant have received inquiries about drug pricing from the Justice Department of the US Government.

Giving an example, the report stated that for the nine months ended September 30, sales of the asthma drug Dulera inhalers (containing a combination of formoterol and mometasone) of Merck, rose 17 percent from the year-earlier period to US$383 million.

Is the dictum ‘competition controls prices of generic drugs’ just a myth?

Besides many other examples, the last two of the above four points on 70 fold and 5000 percent price increase for two old generic drugs – tetracycline and pyrimethamine, respectively, in the world’s largest free-market economy, suggests that ‘competition fails to control even generic drug prices’ for various other reasons. The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of India has already termed this phenomenon as ‘market failure’ for medicines. 

Adding to it, Elsevier Clinical Solutions reported recently in a White Paper titled, “The Impact of Rising Generic Drug Prices on the U.S. Drug Supply Chain”, as follows:

“Over the past two years, the pharmacy industry has seen unprecedented increases in the prices of generic drugs, causing unexpected cost increases for payers and consumers, and spurring an investigation by the United States Congress.”

A recent survey:

More recently, in October 2015, ‘Kaiser Health Tracking Poll’ of the ‘Kaiser Family Foundation’ of the United States reported that the affordability of prescription drugs continues to be at the top of the public’s priority list for the President and Congress in America. In this study, 77 percent of Americans identified the increasing prices of prescription drugs as their number one health concern.

The top two priorities by majorities across political parties, were reported as follows:

  • Making sure that high-cost drugs are affordable to those who need them
  • Government action to lower prescription drug prices

Following this report, on November 03, 2015, the ‘Committee on Oversight & Government Reform’ of the U.S. House of Representatives, by a ‘Press Release’, announced that “Top House Democrats Launch Affordable Drug Pricing Task Force.” The members of the newly formed Task Force will suggest meaningful action to combat the skyrocketing costs of pharmaceuticals in the United States, as captured in the survey of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

Does India want to jump into this quagmire? 

If DPCO is abolished India because of intense, both direct and indirect advocacy, would India have no alternative but to jump into this quagmire of allowing free-drug pricing to pharma players?

70 fold and 5000 percent obscene price increase in a year for branded generics may not be possible in India, but for non-schedule drugs, there is no cap on the fixation of the launch price either. Any drug manufacturer can first fix a high launch price and then can go for 10 percent price increase every year, putting public health interest in jeopardy. That’s why inter-brand price difference for the same drug molecule in India varies so much and has attracted the attention of even the NPPA.

The unfinished agenda:

There is no denying of the fact that even DPCO is not a comprehensive mechanism to offer affordable health care to all. It is meant primarily for the essential drugs in the prevailing environment, when the out of pocket drug expenditure hovers around 70 percent, being one of the highest in the world.

To offer a viable mechanism for affordable health care to all, India expressed its interest towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in 2010, when the erstwhile Planning Commission of India convened a High Level Expert Group (HLEG) to work out a road map for UHC under the chairmanship of Dr. K. Srinath Reddy, the physician of international repute. UHC has still remained an unfinished agenda in the health care space of India.

At that time the HLEG made some important recommendations in its report for effective implementation, the key ones being the following: 

  • Increasing public financing from the current 1.2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to at least 2.5 percent.
  • Outlined an essential health care package for provision through tax funding, supplemented by employer-provided insurance
  • Free provision of essential drugs and diagnostics.
  • Emphasized prioritized funding for primary health care, with efficient links to secondary and tertiary care. 
  • Services were to be delivered jointly by strengthened public facilities and contracted private providers. 
  • Reforms were suggested for improving the health care workforce, strengthening of regulatory systems for quality assurance, and improving governance and accountability. 

Change in Government puts UHC back to square one? 

Meanwhile, the change of national Government in May 2014, gave a new perspective to the debate over UHC. The incumbent Government that had already promised and announced a “National Health Assurance,” released a draft National Health Policy (NHP) in January 2015 for public discourse.

The NHP outlines a broad framework for reform of the health care system in India. The new policy, besides others, clearly recommends the following:

  • Enactment of citizens ‘Right to Health’ through parliamentary legislation
  • Allows states to decide the services that would fall under ‘Right to Health’
  • Both public- and private-sector providers would be engaged to deliver the service package, which would be paid for by government-funded health insurance schemes
  • The states will have greater freedom in designing and delivering health programs

As the union government has already agreed to increase the states’ share of central tax revenues from 32 percent to 42 percent and transferred the responsibility for funding and implementing welfare schemes to the states, it should also identify and assign to them specific responsibilities for effective health care systems against measurable parameters.

Although the final version of the NHP has not yet been made public and adopted just yet, it will need firm political and budgetary commitment for resource allocation both by the Union and the State governments.

Current impediment to UHC:

Implementation of UHC calls for increasing public health expenditure significantly, from the current 1.2 percent to around 2.5 percent, may be over a period of five years. However, immediate increases in public financing for UHC may get impeded by the Government priority on fiscal deficit reduction, which is likely to continue in the immediate future too

Possible alternative:

As Dr. Srinath Reddy suggested in a paper titled, “India’s Aspirations for Universal Health Coverage”, published in New England Journal of Medicine, July 2, 2015:

“Health can, however, be positioned prominently in other new, well-funded government schemes such as:

  • The “Clean India” Mission, focused on sanitation and reducing air pollution,
  • The Smart Cities Project, which deploys information technology for urban development and service delivery.

Nevertheless, it may take years for the right mix of political will, financial resources, and health system capacity to deliver on the full promise of Universal Health Care.”

Assuming continuity of this situation in the near term, UHC for India is not visible anywhere near the horizon, not just yet.

Conclusion:

Non availability of affordable health care for all, including drugs, keeps bothering a vast majority of population in the country. Ironically, people feel its absence, mostly when the concerned individual or his/her dependents or any near and dear ones falls sick afflicted by serious ailments such as cancer or any other serious chronic disease.

This serious handicap for the nation has remained a key retarding factor in its attaining much desired sustainable rapid economic growth objectives, primarily for the following reasons:

  • Per capita income is very low compared to the size and other resources of the country
  • Public expenditure for health has still remained one of the lowest in the world
  • Fragile public health care infrastructure and delivery systems
  • No ‘Universal Health Coverage’ in place
  • Just 16% of the Indian population has access to free or partially-free health care
  • Comprehensive private health care is expensive and beyond reach of a vast majority
  • One of the highest ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on health, including drugs
  • Market failure for most drugs, where competition does not work
  • In terms of ‘Purchasing Power Parity’ together with ‘Per Capita Income’ drug prices are not low in India, as have been made out to be.

In a situation like this, when in the absence of UHC, total average ‘out of pocket’ expenditure on health is around 65 percent, and around 70 percent of which is on drugs, there does not seem to be any scope to abandon DPCO in India, just yet, for public health interest.

Any possible decision of the Government to abandon DPCO is also unlikely to pass the acid test of intense scrutiny of the Supreme Court either, to uphold public health interest. This makes me believe that a well functioning ‘Universal Health Coverage’ is the only alternative to ‘Drug Price Control’ in India, if at all.

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.

Health Care: “India Has Moved From Strength To Strength!”

Posted on by
Reply

The above flabbergasting assertion came recently from the Union Government of India in context of current health care system in the country. 

To be specific, this proclamation of the Ministry of Health was reportedly made at its ‘point by point rebuttal’ letter to the world’s leading medical journal of high repute - ‘The Lancet’, at the end of October 2015, in response to a news report on India’s frugal public expenditure on health. 

The chronicle:

On October 21, 2015 The Times Of India reported that shortly, a detail study in “The Lancet” would take Prime Minister Narendra Modi to task for failing in make public health a national priority area. It is happening despite his categorical promise of rolling out ‘Universal Health Coverage (UHC), during the last general election of India, in 2014.

The paper would be penned by some of the world’s foremost health experts and the issue is expected to be published on December 11, 2015.

In an interview with ‘The Times of India’, Richard Horton - the Editor-in- Chief of ‘The Lancet’, said that “health is an issue of national security for India, but Modi isn’t taking it seriously.”

Horton further commented, “I don’t see any new policies, any new ideas, any significant public commitment, and most importantly no financial commitment to the health sector, since he came into power in May, 2014.”

According to Norton, since Modi has come to power, health has completely lost focus of the Government. India is on the edge in this regard. If Prime Minister Modi does not tackle health, India’s economy combined with rising population is not sustainable. “The country’s healthcare system will collapse, if the government fails to invest in combating non-communicable diseases, such as, diabetes and heart problems”, he cautioned.

‘The Lancet’ to present contemporary fact-based analysis:                         

It is expected that the above article on India’s prevailing public health system, would be factual and analyzed based on the latest expert survey in this regard.

As I mentioned in my article of October 5, 2015 in this Blog titled, “Just 16% Of Indian Population Has Access To Free Or Partially-Free Health Care?”, the current Government has slashed union budgets for several ongoing and critical flag-ship schemes for health, such as:

  • Integrated Child Development Services
  • Mid-day meal
  • Aids and STD control
  • National Food Security Mission
  • National Rural Drinking Water Program

After a drastic reduction in union budgetary allocations for these crucial and very basic health schemes, there would possibly be no scope for any surprise in any quarter, if ‘The Lancet’ survey depicts a rather dismal overall public health care scenario in India.

Indian Government trashes ‘The Editor-in-Chief’s comment:

Trashing ‘The Lancet’ Editor-in-Chief’s above comments, Rakesh Kumar, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health in a hard-hitting letter to Horton reportedly said:

“…launching an alphabet soup of program every quarter and not being able to implement them in true letter and spirit is a disservice to the people we serve.” 

According to this news report, the health ministry maintained that “no existing program” of the ministry has been “curtailed, stopped or truncated due to lack of funds”. It also highlighted that funding to states had been rationalized to break from the straight jacket of ‘one size fits all’ geographies and populations.

“India has moved from strength to strength and some of recent initiatives will ensure improved outcomes for the most vulnerable,” the letter re-iterated unequivocally.

“India has moved from strength to strength” – Government retorted: 

The above statement of the Union Ministry of Health that “India has moved from strength to strength” in health care, generally sounds bizarre and also absurd, to say the least. On the contrary, the available facts do not support this sweeping comment, as it were.

When compared with some much smaller neighboring nations of India and even Vietnam, it comes out clearly that they are doing far better on various critical health indicators.

This is vindicated by the ‘World Bank health indicators data’, which show that even Bangladesh, Nepal and Vietnam, with much lesser per capita GDP, are ahead of India in several key health indicators, as shown in the following table: 

Some Key Indicators India Bangladesh Nepal Vietnam
GDP Per capita(PPP) (Constant at 2011 US$) 2014 5445 2981 2261 5370
Life Expectancy At Birth (Female) 2013 68 71 70 80
Survival to Age 65 (% of Cohort) 2013 63 72 69 72
Public Health Expenditure (% of GDP) 2013 1.3 1.3 2.6 2.5
Infant Female Mortality Rate (Per 1000 Live Births) 2015 38 28 27 15
Mortality Rate (Under 5 year of Live Births) 2015 48 38 36 22
Maternal Mortality Ratio (per 1000 Live Births) 2013 190 170 190 49
Rural Population With Improved Access to Sanitation Facilities (%) 2015 29 62 44 70
Vitamin A Supplementation Coverage Rate (% of Children 6-59 months) 2013 53 97 99 98
Immunization DPT (% of Children 12-23 month) 2014 83 95 92 95

(Source: Live Mint, October 28, 2015)

Similarly, another 2011 study published in the ‘The Lancet’ reported that ‘Out of Pocket’ expenditure on health in India is the highest, again even as compared to its much smaller neighbors, as follows:

Country Out of Pocket Expenditure on Health (%)
Maldives 14
Bhutan 29
Sri Lanka 53
India 78

As I said before, these are just a few examples. In this article, I shall not dwell further on such comparisons, which are already known to many. 

Instead, I would prefer to underscore, as many scholarly research papers have already done, that GDP growth of a nation cannot be driven in a sustainable manner without putting in place a robust public health care system in a country. 

Reasonable public investment is necessary to improve health indicators:

If India wants to improve its key health indicators and surpass the achievements of just not smaller countries, such as, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives, but all other BRICS (Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa) nations, India needs to hike up its public health budget significantly, together with speedy implementation of all identified health projects.

According to the World Bank 2004 report (p56), for developing or middle-income countries with institutions of an acceptable quality, a 10 percent increase in public health expenditures as a proportion of the GDP, would be associated with a 7 percent decrease in the maternal mortality rate, a 0.69 percent decrease in child mortality rate, and a 4.14 percent decrease in low weight for children under five years of age.

Impact of health on economic growth shouldn’t be underestimated:

Between ‘public health’ and ‘other economic growth drivers’, choosing just one as priority focus area, could well be futile, in the long run. This is by no means an ‘either/or’ situation, at all. The Government should take into cognizance that there is a heavy price tag attached on an underestimation of the impact of health on economic growth, which could put its core objective of a sustainable high GDP growth in jeopardy.

I would now illustrate this point with no more than three examples, out of so many available.                                                                                   

According to the ‘World Health Organization (WHO)’, “Good health is linked to economic growth through higher labor productivity, demographic changes and higher educational attainment. In the same way, poor health undermines economic growth.”  

India, though, seems to be chasing a high economic growth with all guns blazing, apparently does not believe in this fundamental dictum; neither does the Government accept that current public health care system is generally pathetic in the country and virtually on the verge of crumbling, if inaction continues.

To underscore the same point that impact of health on the economy should not be underestimated, I now quote from another study hereunder.

A December 2012 paper published in the “Global Management Journal” titled, “The Connection Between Health and Economic Growth: Policy Implications Re-Examined”, concluded as follows: 

“Evidence presented in this paper illuminates the two-way relationship between economic growth and health. Bearing in mind the substantial influence of enhanced health to economic productivity and growth, governments need to look at health expenses as an investment rather than a cost”.

My third example would be another paper published in ‘OECD Observer’ titled, “Health and the economy: A vital relationship”, written by Julio Frenk, Mexican Minister of Health and Chair of the 2004 meeting of OECD Health Ministers. This paper too reiterates that the impact of health on the economy should not be underestimated. Thus, our challenge today is to harmonize health and economic policies to improve health outcomes.

Julio Frenk further emphasized, “The effects of health on development are clear. Countries with weak health and education conditions find it harder to achieve sustained growth. Indeed, economic evidence confirms that a 10% improvement in life expectancy at birth is associated with a rise in economic growth of some 0.3-0.4 percentage points a year.”

Here comes the critical importance of improving ‘Human Development Index (HDI)’ ranking of India to achieve a high and sustainable GDP growth, as the nation moves on.

 Improve ‘Ease of doing business’ and ‘Human development’ indices together: 

According to ‘World Bank’s Doing Business Report 2016’, India has moved up four rungs in the global rankings for ‘ease of doing business’. The country now ranks 130 among 189 countries, against its last year’s ranking of 134. This is a significant achievement, which has been widely publicized by the Government and very rightly so. 

Whereas, according to the latest (2014) ‘Human Development Index (HDI) report, published annually by the ‘United Nations Development Program (UNDP)’, India ranks 135 out of 187 countries across the world. The next HDI report is expected to be launched in November 2015.

HDI is a statistical tool used to measure a country’s overall achievement in its social and economic dimensions. It captures a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development.

Increase in life expectancy is a composite outcome of long-term effectiveness of a robust public health care system in the country.

Interestingly, the present Government does not talk much about HDI. Its primary focus seems to be now on ‘ease of doing business’, though for a sustainable high economic growth of a nation both should be speeded up and right in tandem. 

Conclusion: 

Reducing Union Budget allocation on health substantially and passing the responsibility of the same to the States with no assigned accountability for implementation on the ground, may not work in India. 

Even if the comments of Richard Horton, the Editor-in-Chief of ‘The Lancet’ on this score, are brushed aside with contempt, his factual observations should be noted as valid suggestions. Accordingly, much required action steps need to be factored in by the Government in its 20116-17 Union Budget planning process.

Before concluding, I would very humbly, respectfully and with all humility submit that the Union Government should always be open to outside experts’ comments and suggestions, especially on public health in the country, to initiate a constructive debate. Any voice of discord or dissent, either on Governments’s action or inaction or both, may not necessarily be construed as an act against the national interest.

In this context, I am curious to know, what happened when on October 19, 2015, the Union Cabinet Minister for Women and Child Welfare – Mrs. Maneka Gandhi, who oversees a scheme to feed more than 100 million poor people, reportedly expressed her anguish and concerns in public. She openly said that slashing of her Ministry’s budget by half to US$1.6 billion, has hit her plans to strengthen the fight against ‘Child Malnutrition’ and makes it difficult to pay wages of 2.7 million of health workers.

Leave aside ‘The Lancet’ squabble for a moment. Does the above public anguish of a senior Union Cabinet Minister, in any way, depict that “India has moved from strength to strength” in health care?

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.

‘Repurposing’ Older Drugs: Has The Process Started Rolling?

Posted on by
Reply

On October 22, 2015, BBC News reported, “The world’s largest clinical trial to examine whether aspirin can prevent cancers returning has begun in the United Kingdom (UK).”

About 11,000 people, who have had early bowel, breast, prostate, stomach and esophageal cancer will be involved in this study with one tablet a day dosage for five years. This trial is being funded by ‘The Charity Cancer Research, UK’ and ‘The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).’

The scientists feel, if it works, this ‘repurposing’ of an older and much-known drug would be a “game-changing” one. It would then be able to provide a cheap and effective alternative to prevent recurrence of cancer to a large number of cancer survivals. Interestingly, no global pharma players are involved in this cancer prevention research, as yet. 

Aspirin was developed by Bayer way back in 1897 for pain and inflammation. Thereafter, the scientists found a ‘repurpose’ in its use as an anti-platelet drug for treating and preventing heart attacks and strokes.

Similarly, the anti-inflammatory drug Ibuprofen, which was developed by Boots in the 1960s for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, is now showing promises that it can help protect against Parkinson’s disease.

Again, a number of studies claim that statins, a cholesterol-reducing drug, can help prevent Alzheimer’s Disease, resulting in low levels of beta-amyloid. Further research needs to be done in this area, as this finding has not been universally accepted, just yet.

All such commendable initiatives, throw open a relevant question for debate: ‘Can the existing drugs be re-examined in a systematic manner to discover their other possible radically new usages at a much lesser treatment costs to patients?’

In my view, available data emphatically prompts the answer ‘Yes’ and I shall deliberate on on that in this article.

‘Repurposing’ older drugs:

The Oxford Dictionary meaning of ‘repurpose’ is: ‘Adapt for use in a different purpose.’

Accordingly, the process of discovering new usages of older drugs is often called by many scientists as ‘repurposing’.   

Currently, we come across various articles reporting a number of such new initiatives. This process is safer, much less expensive and takes much lesser time.

These laudable R&D initiatives needs encouragement from all stakeholders, especially from the Government. Given proper focus and attractive financial and other incentives, more and more players are expected to get attracted to a different genre of innovation. It is a whole new ball game of discovering new purposes of old and cheaper drugs with known and well-documented long term safety profile.

Some old drugs with ‘new purpose’: 

The following table gives an example of some well known older drugs, for which fresh R&D initiatives discovered their new purpose of treatment, at a much cheaper cost: 

Drug Old Indication New purpose
Amantadine Influenza Parkinson’s Disease
Amphotericin Antifungal Leishmaniasis
Aspirin Inflammation, pain Antiplatelet
Bromocriptine Parkinson’s disease Diabetes mellitus
Bupropion Depression Smoking cessation
Colchicine Gout Recurrent pericarditis
Methotrexate Cancer Psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis

(Source: Indian Journal of Applied Research, Volume: 4, Issue: 8, August 2014)  

A clarion call to join this movement:

The well-known researcher, Dr. Francis S. Collins, the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in a TED talk (video) strongly argued in favor of ‘translational research’ to produce better drugs, faster. To make this process to work successfully Francis Collins hopes to encourage global pharmaceutical companies to open up their stashes of drugs that have already passed safety tests, but that failed to successfully treat their targeted disease. 

He wants to study, how drugs approved for one disease could successfully treat another or more ailments and also gave examples of the following drugs, which I am quoting below, as such:

  • Raloxifene: The FDA approved Raloxifene to reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women in 2007. It was initially developed to treat osteoporosis.
    .
  • Thalidomide: This drug started out as a sedative in the late fifties, and soon doctors were infamously prescribing it to prevent nausea in pregnant women. It later caused thousands of severe birth defects, most notably phocomelia, which results in malformed arms and legs. In 1998, thalidomide found a new use as a treatment for leprosy and in 2006 it was approved for multiple myeloma, a bone marrow cancer.
    .
  • Tamoxifen: This hormone therapy treats metastatic breast cancers, or those that have spread to other parts of the body, in both women and men, and it was originally approved in 1977. Thirty years later, researchers discovered that it also helps people with bipolar disorder by blocking the enzyme PKC, which goes into overdrive during the manic phase of the disorder.
    .
  • Rapamycin: This antibiotic, also called sirolimus, was first discovered in bacteria-laced soil from Easter Island in the seventies, and the FDA approved it in 1999 to prevent organ transplant rejection. Since then, researchers have found it effective in treating not one but two diseases: Autoimmune Lymphoproliferative Syndrome (ALPS), in which the body produces too many immune cells called lymphocytes, and lymphangioleiomyomatosis, a rare lung disease.
    .
  • Lomitapide: Intended to lower cholesterol and triglycerides, the FDA approved this drug to treat a rare genetic disorder that causes severe cholesterol problems called homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia last December.
    .
  • Pentostatin: This drug was created as a chemotherapy for specific types of leukemia. It was tested first in T-cell-related leukemias, which didn’t respond to the drug. But later NIH’s National Cancer Institute discovered that the drug was successful in treating a rare leukemia that is B-cell related, called Hairy Cell Leukemia.
    .
  • Sodium nitrite: This salt was first developed as an antidote to cyanide poisoning and, unrelated to medicine, it’s also used to cure meat. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute is currently recruiting participants for a sodium nitrite clinical trial, in which the drug will be tested as a treatment for the chronic leg ulcers associated with sickle cell and other blood disorders.
  • Zidovudine (AZT): The first antiviral approved for HIV/AIDS in 1987.
  • Farnesyltransferase inhibitor (FTI): This was used to successfully treat children with the rapid-aging disease Progeria in a 2012 clinical trial.

“None of these drugs could have been developed without collaborations between drug developers and researchers with new ideas about applications, based on molecular insights about disease,” Dr. Collins said.

The examples that I have given, so far, on ‘repurposing’ older drugs are not exhaustive, in any way, there are more such examples coming up almost regularly.

The key benefits: 

The key benefits of ‘repurposing’ older drugs may be summarized as follows:

  • Ready availability of the starting compound
  • Previously generated relevant R&D data may be used for submission to drug regulators
  • Makes clinical research more time-efficient and cost-effective
  • Possibility of much quicker market launch

Slowly gaining steam: 

On November 27, 2012, ‘The Guardian’ reported that a number of university-based spin-outs and small biotech companies are being set up in the United States to find new purpose for old drugs. They express interest especially, on those drugs, which were shelved as they did not match the desired efficacy requirements, though showed a good overall safety profile.

Such organizations, take advantage of the declining cost of screening, with some compound libraries, such as, the Johns Hopkins library, which includes 3,500 drugs, available for screening at a small charge, the report highlighted.

Quoting a specialist, the report stated, “Existing drugs have been shown to be safe in patients, so if these drugs could be found to work for other diseases, then this would drastically reduce drug development costs and risks. Of 30,000 drugs in the world, 25,000 are ex-patent – it’s a free-for-all.”

‘Repurposing’ may not attract many pharma players, Government should step in:

Notwithstanding the clarion call of Dr. Francis Collins to global pharma players for their active participation in such projects, I reckon, the positive response may not be too many, because of various reasons.

Although, ‘repurposed’ drugs offer similar or even greater value to patients than any comparable ‘me-too’ New Chemical/Molecular Entity (NCE/NME), there may not possibly be any scope here for ‘Obscene Pricing’, such as ‘Sovaldi’ and many others, as some experts feel. And that’s the reality.

Moreover, new usages of the same old molecule, in all probability, may not get any fresh Intellectual Property (IP) protection in India, either.

Hence, considering the health interest of patients, in general, the Government should assume the role of ‘prime mover’, primarily to set the ball of ‘repurposing of older drugs’ rolling in India. This has already started happening in some of the developed countries of the world, which I shall dwell upon here.

Funding clinical development for ‘repurposing’:

Let me give a couple of examples of funding such admirable initiatives in two different countries.

I have already mentioned above that the clinical development for ‘repurposing’ Aspirin in the prevention of cancer, is being funded by the charity Cancer Research UK and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

In a similar initiative, National Institutes for Health (NIH) of the United States, launched the ‘National Center for Advancing Transnational Sciences (NCATS), in May 2012.

New Therapeutic Uses program of NCATS helps to identify new uses for drugs that have undergone significant research and development by the pharma industry, including safety testing in humans. NIH claims that ‘using drugs that already have cleared several key steps in the development process gives scientists nationwide a strong starting point to contribute their unique expertise and accelerate the pace of therapeutics development.’

By pairing researchers with a selection of specific drugs, NCATS program tests ideas for new therapeutic uses, ultimately identifying promising new treatments for patients. Funding for this purpose is done by NCATS through NIH. For example, In July 2015, NCATS planned a funding of around US$3 million to support four academic research groups to test a selection of drugs for new therapeutic uses, as follows:

  • Type 2 diabetes
  • Glioblastoma (one of the most aggressive brain tumors in adults)
  • Acute myeloid leukemia (an aggressive blood cancer)
  • Chagas disease (a neglected tropical disease that causes heart, digestive and neurological problems)

According to NIH, each award recipient will test a selected drug for its effectiveness against a previously unexplored disease or condition. The industry partners for these projects are AstraZeneca and Sanofi.

Can it be done in India?

Of course yes, provided the Government considers health care as one its priority focus areas with commensurate resource deployment of all kinds for the same.

As things stand today, India still remains beyond any visibility to give a tangible shape to this specific concept of ‘repurposing’ of older drugs. There does not seem to be any other valid reason why similar model of funding can’t be followed locally too, for this purpose.

The nodal agency to spearhead such initiatives, and to create appropriate groundswell to help gain a critical mass, may well be the ‘Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)’ or any other body that the Government decides in consultation with domain experts, together with reasonable financial incentives for commercialization of new usages at an affordable cost.

Conclusion:

As we all know, many people, across the world, are currently going through the pain of seeing their loved ones suffer, and even die, from serious ailments, the treatments of which either do not exist or when exist, the therapy costs may be out of reach of a vast majority of patients. In tandem, the R&D pipeline of the global pharma industry is gradually drying up.

In a situation like this, drug ‘repurposing’ that is directed towards meeting unmet medical needs of patients of all types irrespective of financial status, needs to be increasingly encouraged and pursued as a critical solution to this growing problem.

The good news is that some global pharma majors, though very few in number, have now expressed their intention to salvage their failed molecules and are open to help explore whether such drugs may work in other disease conditions.

India seems to be still miles away from this space, and a bit directionless too. That said, the country is scientifically quite capable of making up the lost ground in this area, provided the Government decides so, garnering requisite wherewithal.

Thus, in my view, the process of ‘repurposing’ older drugs has already started rolling in some major countries of the world, in a well structured manner with requisite funding in place. Tangible outcomes are already noticeable today, with some examples quoted in this article.

As Dr. Francis Collins said, collaborations between drug developers and researchers with new ideas about applications, based on molecular insights about disease are critical in the way forward to achieve this cherished goal in a sustainable manner.

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

Is Drug Price Control The Key Growth Barrier For Indian Pharma Industry?

Posted on by
Reply

The corollary of the above headline could well be: “Are drug price hikes the key growth driver for the Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM)?”

Whenever the first question, as appears in the headline of this article: “Is drug price control a key barrier to growth of the IPM?”, is asked to the pharma players, irrespective of whether they are domestic companies or multinationals (MNCs), the answer in unison would quite expectedly be a full-throated ‘yes’. Various articles published in the media, including some editorials too, also seem to be on the same page, with this specific view. 

Likewise, if the corollary of the above question: “Are drug price hikes the key growth driver for the IPM?”, is put before this same target audience, most of them, if not all, would expectedly reply that ‘in the drug price control regime, this question does not arise at all, as IPM has been primarily a volume driven growth story.’ This answer gives a feel that the the entire or a major part of the IPM is under Government ‘price control’, which in fact is far from reality

Recently, a pharma industry association sponsored ‘Research Study’, conducted by an international market research organization also became quite vocal with similar conclusion on drug price control in India. This study, released on July 2015, categorically highlights ‘price control is neither an effective nor sustainable strategy for improving access to medicines for Indian patients’. The report also underscores: “The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.”

I argued on the fragility of the above report in this Blog on September 7, 2015, in an article titled, “Drug Price Control in India: A Fresh Advocacy With Blunt Edges”.

Nonetheless, in this article, going beyond the above study, I shall try to put across my own perspective on both the questions raised above, primarily based on the last 12 months retail data of well-respected AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd. 

Pharma product categories from ‘Price Control’ perspective:

To put this discussion in right perspective, following AIOCD-AWACS’ monthly pharma retail audit reports, I shall divide the pharma products in India into three broad categories, as follows:

  • Products included under Drug Price Control Order  2013 (DPCO 2013), which are featuring in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011 (NLEM 2011) 
  • Products not featuring in NLEM 2011, but included in Price Control under Para 19 of DPCO 2013
  • Products outside the ambit of any drug price control and can be priced by the respective drug manufacturers, whatever they deem appropriate

The span of price controlled medicines would currently be around 18 percent of the IPM. Consequently, the drugs falling under free-pricing category would be the balance 82 percent of the total market. Hence, the maximum chunk of the IPM constitutes of those drugs for which there is virtually no price control existing in India.

According to the following table, since, at least the last one-year period, the common key growth driver for all category of drugs, irrespective of whether these are under ‘price control’ or ‘outside price control, is price increase in varying percentages: 

Value vs Volume Growth (October 2014 to September 2015):

Month DPCO Product      Gr% Non-DPCO Products Gr% Non-NLEM Para 19 Gr% IPM
2015 Value Volume Value Volume Value Volume Value Volume
September 2.8 1.2 10.9 1.1 11.5 9.0 9.9 1.4
August 3.3 (2.7) 14.5 2.4 15.2 13.7 13.0 1.6
July 5.1 (0.6) 14.2 4.1 11.8 9.9 12.9 3.3
June 5.6 (0.1) 16.2 6.2 14.6 11.7 14.8 5.0
May 5.3 (0.3) 12.1 3.4 7.2 4.3 11.0 2.6
April 11.1 5.3 18.4 9.6 11.9 9.6 17.2 8.7
March 17.6 9.5 21.7 13.0 15.6 13.2 20.9 12.2
Feb 13.9 7.6 20.0 10.1 14.4 9.9 18.9 9.6
Jan 6.9 1.8 14.0 3.7 NA NA 12.7 3.3
2014    
December 8.0 0.7 14.8 3.2 NA NA 13.6 2.7
November 3.1 (3.4) 12.6 0.3 NA NA 10.9 (0.4)
October (2.4) (5.7) 6.8 (1.7) NA NA 5.2 (2.6) 

Source: Monthly Retail Audit of AIOCD Pharmasofttech AWACS Pvt. Ltd 

Does ‘free drug-pricing’ help improving consumption?

I would not reckon so, though the pharma industry association sponsored above study virtually suggests that ‘free pricing’ of drugs would help improve medicine consumption in India, leading to high volume growth.

As stated earlier, the above report of IMS Health highlights, “The consumption of price-controlled drugs in rural areas has decreased by 7 percent over the past two years, while that of non-price controlled products has risen by 5 percent.”

On this finding, very humbly, I would raise a counter question. If only free pricing of drugs could help increasing volume growth through higher consumption, why would then the ‘price-controlled non-NLEM drugs under para 19’, as shown in the above table, have generally recorded higher volume growth than even those drugs, which are outside any ‘price control’? Or in other words, why is the consumption of these types of ‘price controlled’ drugs increasing so significantly, outstripping the same even for drugs with free pricing?

The right answers to these questions lie somewhere else, which I would touch upon now.

Are many NLEM 2011 drugs no longer in supply?

DPCO 2013 came into effect from from May 15, 2013. Much before that, NLEM 2011 was put in place with a promise that all the drugs featuring in that list would come under ‘price control’, as directed earlier by the Supreme Court of India.  Even at that time, it was widely reported by the media that most of the drugs featuring in the NLEM 2011 are either old or may not be in supply when DPCO 2013 would be made effective. The reports also explained its reasons. 

To give an example, a November 6, 2013 media report stated: “While the government is still in the process of fully implementing the new prices fixed for 348 essential medicines, it has realized that most of these are no longer in supply. This is because companies have already started manufacturing many of these drugs with either special delivery mechanism (an improved and fast acting version of the basic formulation) or in combination with other ingredients, circumventing price control.”

Just to give a feel of these changes, the current NLEM 2011 does not cover many Fixed-Dose Combinations (FDC) of drugs. This is important, as close to 60 percent of the total IPM constitutes of FDCs. Currently, FDCs of lots of drugs for tuberculosis, diabetes and hypertension and many other chronic and acute disease conditions, which are not featuring in the NLEM 201, are very frequently being prescribed in the country. Thus, the decision of keeping most of the popular FDCs outside the ambit of NLEM 2011 is rather strange.

Moreover, a 500 mg paracetamol tablet is under price control being in the NLEM 2011, but its 650 mg strength is not. There are many such examples.

These glaring loopholes in the NLEM 2011 pave the way for switching over to non-NLEM formulations of the same molecules, evading DPCO 2013. Many experts articulated, this process began just after the announcement of NLEM 2011 and a lot of ground was covered in this direction before DPCO 2013 was made effective.

Intense sales promotion and marketing of the same molecule/molecules in different Avatars, in a planned manner, have already started making NLEM 2011 much less effective than what was contemplated earlier. 

Some examples:

As I said before, there would be umpteen number of instances of pharmaceutical companies planning to dodge the DPCO 2013 well in advance, commencing immediately after NLEM 2011 was announced. Nevertheless, I would give the following two examples as was reported by media, quoting FDA, Maharashtra:

1. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare having launched its new ‘Crocin Advance’ 500 mg with a higher price of Rs 30 for a strip of 15 tablets, planned to gradually withdraw its conventional price controlled Crocin 500 mg brand costing around Rs 14 for a strip of 15 tablets to patients. GSK Consumer Healthcare claimed that Crocin Advance is a new drug and therefore should be outside price control.

According to IMS Health data, ‘Crocin Advance’ achieved the fifth largest brand status among top Paracetamol branded generics, clocking a sales turnover of Rs 10.3 Crore during the last 12 months from its launch ending in February 2014. The issue was reportedly resolved at a later date with assertive intervention of National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).

2. Some pharmaceutical companies reportedly started selling the anti-lipid drug Atorvastatin in dosage forms of 20 mg and 40 mg, which are outside price control, instead of its price controlled 10 mg dosage form.

Why DPCO 2013 drugs showing low volume growth?

From the above examples, if I put two and two together, the reason for DPCO 2013 drugs showing low volume growth becomes much clearer.

Such alleged manipulations are grossly illegal, as specified in the DPCO 2013 itself. Thus, resorting to illegal acts of making similar drugs available to patients at a much higher price by tweaking formulations, should just not attract specified punitive measures, but may also be construed as acting against health interest of Indian patients…findings of the above ‘research report’, notwithstanding, even if it is accepted on its face value.

In my view, because of such alleged manipulations, and many NLEM 2011 drugs being either old or not in supply, we find in the above table that the volume growth of ‘Price Controlled NLEM drugs’ is much less than ‘Price Controlled non-NLEM Para 19’ drugs. Interestingly, even ‘Out of Price Control’ drugs show lesser volume growth than ‘Price Controlled non-NLEM Para 19 drugs’.

Government decides to revise NLEM 2011:

The wave of general concerns expressed on the relevance of NLEM 2011 reached the law makers of the country too. Questions were also asked in the Parliament on this subject.

Driven by the stark reality and the hard facts, the Union Government decided to revise NLEM 2011. 

For this purpose, a ‘Core Committee of Experts’ under the Chairmanship of Dr. V.M Katoch, Secretary, Department of Health Research & Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), was formed in May 2014.

The minutes of the first and second meetings of the ‘Core Committee of Experts’, held on June 24, 2014 and July 2, 2014, respectively, were also made public. 

On May 5, 2015, the Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilizers Ananth Kumar said in a written reply to the ‘Lok Sabha’ that “The revised NLEM would form the basis of number of medicines which would come under price control.” This revision is taking place in the context of contemporary knowledge of use of therapeutic products, the Minister added.

Would pharma sector grow faster sans ‘price control’?

If ‘drug price control’ is abolished in India, would pharma companies grow at a much faster rate in volume with commensurate increase in consumption, than what they have recorded during ‘limited price control’ regime in the country? This, in my view, is a matter of conjecture and could be a subject of wide speculation. I am saying this primarily due to the fact that India has emerged as one of the fastest growing global pharmaceutical market during uninterrupted ‘drug price control regime’ spanning over the last 45 years.

Nevertheless, going by the retail audit data from the above table, it may not be necessarily so. The data shows that volume growth of ‘out of price control’ drugs is not the highest, by any measure. On the contrary, it is much less than ‘price controlled drugs under para 19 of DPCO 2013′, which are mainly prescribed for non-infectious chronic diseases on a large scale.

I am referring to AIOCD-AWACS data for just the last 12 months, because of space constraint, but have gone through the same for the entire DPCO 2015 period, till September’15. The reason for my zeroing in on DPCO 2015 is for the three simple reasons:

- The span of price control in this regime is the least, even lesser than DPCO 1995, which was 20 percent. 

- It is much more liberal in its methodology of ‘Ceiling Price (CP)’ calculation, over any other previous DPCOs

- It has also a provision, for the first time ever, of automatic price increases every year for price controlled drugs, based on WPI.

A safeguard for patients?

Medicines enjoy the legal status of ‘essential commodities’ in India. Thus, many believe that ‘drug price control’ is a ‘pricing safeguard’ for Indian patients, especially for essential medicines and ‘out of expenses’ for drugs being as high as over 60 percent.

In the prevailing health care environment of India, the situation otherwise could even be possibly nightmarish. The key reason for the same has been attributed to ‘market failure’ by the Government, for most of the pharmaceutical products, where competition does not work. I discussed this issue in my article titled, “Does ‘Free-Market Economy’ Work For Branded Generic Drugs In India?” of April 27, 2015, in this Blog.

In India, ‘drug price control’ has successfully passed the intense scrutiny of the Supreme Court, along with its endorsement and approval. Any attempt of its retraction by any Government, without facing a tough challenge before the Apex Court, seems near impossible.

Conclusion: 

The fundamental reasons for overall low volume growth, or in other words, price-increase driven value growth of the IPM, I reckon, lie somewhere else, which could be a subject matter of a different debate altogether.

As I said in the past, IPM grew at an impressive speed consistently for decades, despite ‘drug price control’, and grumbling of the industry for the same. This high growth came from volume increase, price increase and new product introductions, the volume growth being the highest.

Most of the top 10 Indian pharma players, came into existence and grew so fast during the ‘drug price control’ regime. The  home-grown promoter of the numero-uno of the IPM league table, is now the second richest person of India. These are all generic pharma companies.

Generally speaking, Indian pharma shares even today attract more investors consistently than any other sector for such a long time. Granted that these companies are drug exporters too, but they all gained their critical mass in partly ‘price controlled’ Indian market. The criticality of the need for consistent growth in the domestic market, by the way, still remains absolutely relevant to all the pharma players in India, even today, despite…whatever.

Growth oriented overall Indian pharma scenario remaining quite the same, ‘drug price control’ with a current span of just around 18 percent of the IPM, can’t possibly be a growth barrier. Otherwise, how does one explain the highest volume growth of ‘price controlled non-NLEM drugs’, which is even more than ‘out of price-control drugs’?

Be that as it may, in my view, implementation of public funded ‘Universal Health Care (UHC)’ by the Indian Government, in any form or calling it by any other name, can possibly replace DPCO. Similar measures have been adopted by all the member countries of the ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’ in this area, though following different paths, but nevertheless to attain the same goal.

Lamentably enough, the incumbent Government too has not ‘walked the talk’ on its number of assurances related to this core issue of health care in India.

Still, the hope lingers!

By: Tapan J. Ray

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