Tag Archives: IMPACT

Concerted action by all stakeholders on counterfeit medicines is the need of the hour.

Posted on by
Reply
The concern of some section of the stakeholders that IPR is being extended to the definition of counterfeit medicines, in my view, is misplaced. As even in India, ‘misbranding’ though an integral part of IPR, is considered as a public health issue and is an offence under Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts, 1940.Currently, the magnitude of this problem is anybody’s guess. Earlier a study sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and conducted by SEARPharm reported that only 0.3% drugs were spurious and 3% of drugs were counterfeits. To scientifically assess the magnitude of this problem the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) India, for the first time ever, has initiated a study with 61 popular brands from nine therapeutic categories for testing 24000 samples. The study is expected to cost Rs.50 million and is expected to be published, soon.However, on the above study, Pharmabiz dated August 26, 2009 has reported the following:

“The Union Health Ministry’s ambitious nationwide survey to get an authentic estimate of spurious drugs in the country found no significant amount of spurious drugs in the pharmaceutical market. Among the 24,000 samples collected by the government for the survey, only around 10 were found to be spurious, it is reliably learnt.”

India being a part of ‘International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce’ (IMPACT), established under WHO in 2006, decided to work together to combat the growing menace of counterfeit medicines. The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) was reported to have several discussions with the convenor of the IMPACT to effectively address the issue.

A study done by IMPACT in 2006 indicates that in countries like, the USA, EU, Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand the problem is less than 1%. On the other hand, in the developing nations like parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa more than 30% of the medicines are counterfeits. In South East Asia, estimated prevalence of counterfeit Artesunate for malaria is 33-53%.

It appears that in all those countries where access to modern medicines is poor, incidences of counterfeit medicines, ranging from anti-malarial, anti-hypertensive, anti-tubercular, anti-retroviral to cardiovascular and other life saving and life style drugs, are higher.

Apprehensions from some section of the generic pharmaceutical industry that attempts are being made by the interested groups to bring generic drugs under the purview of counterfeit medicines, is unfounded. Why should there be any such threat at all, when the world is witnessing the global pharmaceutical companies scaling up their generic business operations?

Incidence like recent detention in transit of DRL shipment of the generic version of Losartan in the Netherlands or a consignment of Amoxicillin at the Frankfurt airport on the ground of patent infringement cannot be considered as attempts of MNCs to brand Indian generic pharmaceuticals as counterfeit medicines. These drugs violated valid patents held in those countries prompting the local authorities to enforce the law of the land by detaining those consignments. India also has been detaining similar consignments for Nepal whenever those transit consignments violated the intellectual property laws of India. It will, therefore, be not fair to expect Netherlands or Germany to follow a different set of rules for goods in transit, when Indian law itself defines ‘imports’ covering goods in ‘transit’. Thus Government of India should take up this issue on a bilateral platform with the European Union (EU) for a desirable resolution to the problem. Meanwhile, to ensure that pharmaceuticals exports from India do not get adversely affected, Indian pharmaceutical exporters should ensure, till such issues are bilaterally resolved, that their export consignments for third countries transit through non EU routes.

Further, the incidence of fake drugs seized recently with made in India label and originating from China is indeed a fraudulent and criminal action of some irresponsible people who bring disgrace to humanity. Such incidences must be strongly condemned and be taken up by the Government India with the Chinese authorities effectively, to stop recurrence of such criminal activities in future.

The sales of counterfeit medicines across the world as estimated by the ‘Centre for Medicine in Public Interest’ will reach US$75 billion by end of 2010. This is an increase of over 90% as compared to 2005. A report from the WHO’s Executive Board in its 124th session indicated that the detection of counterfeit medicines in 2007 had increased to more than 1,500. This reflects an increase of around 20% over 2006 and ten times more compared to year 2000.

WHO indicated that in 2005-06 the volume of counterfeit drug seizures included 2.7 million articles and the main countries where these articles originated from India: 31%, UAE: 31% and China: 20%.

Enough data are available to establish that counterfeit drugs are posing a growing menace to the humanity. All stakeholders should join hands to address this public health issue, leaving aside petty commercial interests, be it generic pharmaceutical companies or research based pharmaceutical companies, across the world and India is no exception. Otherwise, thugs and criminals who are involved in this illicit trade of manufacturing and distributing counterfeit medicines at the cost of the innocent patients, will keep remaing almost scot free, forever.

By Tapan 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

The heated debate on WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs is now on a ‘pause’ – A time to evaluate the reasons for supporting and opposing it.

Posted on by
Reply
The World Health Organisation (WHO), in December 2008, proposed the following new definition, as prepared by the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT):“A medical product is counterfeit when there is a false representation in relation to its identity and/or source. This applies to the product, its container or other packaging or labeling information. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products. Counterfeits may include products with correct ingredients/components, with wrong ingredients/components, without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake packaging.”This definition, indeed, created a furor in India. The Ministry of Health of the Government of India initiated discussions, on this issue, with the stakeholders and by mid-January, 2009 a consensus was arrived at between the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and the generic industry on much debated definition of counterfeit drugs. It was reported that the Government had decided to place this definition before the World Health Organisation (WHO) in its next meeting on the subject. The consensus definition, after the above meeting, was reported as follows:

“A medical product (medicine, vaccine, diagnostics and medical implants/devices) is counterfeit when it is deliberately and fraudulently mislabelled with respect to its identity and/or source. Counterfeit can apply to components with wrong ingredients/components without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake package”

In end-January 2009, although it was reported that under pressure from the developing countries like, India, WHO has dropped this new definition, it is very likely that the initiative is now just on a ‘pause’ mode.

Let us now try to explore the ‘Eye’ of this stormy debate and its relevance to India. The ‘eye’ of the storm lies mainly within the following 3 key concerns of the opponents of the definition:

1. False representation of identity and source applies not only to labeling but also to the ‘product,
its container or other packaging’
2. The new definition could include Intellectual Property Right (IPR) issues and as a cosequence of
which, Indian generics could run into the risk of being branded as counterfeit
3. Removal of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ from the original definition and replacing them
with ‘false representation’ will shift the burden of proof

In India, the share of voice of those opposing this definition was undoubtedly much more than those who were supporting it. However, the rationale for supporting the definition, in Indian context, appears to be much stronger than opposing it.

While arguing on this point, I am of the view that most of the apprehensions expressed above have been abundantly clarified in the definitions of Misbranded drugs (section 17), and Spurious drugs (Section 17 B) of the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Let us now have a quick look at the Section 17 and Section 17 B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to find out whether the WHO IMPACT definition is way off the definitions for Misbranded and Spurious drugs as indicated in the above Act.

“Section 17. Misbranded drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be misbranded –

(a) If it is so coloured, coated, powdered or polished that damage is concealed or if it is made to appear of better or greater therapeutic value than it really is; or

(b) If it is not labelled in the prescribed manner ; or

(c) If its label or container or anything accompanying the drug bears any statement, design or device which makes any false claim for the drug or which is false or misleading in any particular.”

Does Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 answer the ‘concern 1’ above?

“Section 17B. Spurious drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be spurious

(a) If it is manufactured under a name which belongs to another drug; or

(b) If it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, another drug or resembles another drug in a manner likely to deceive or bears upon it or upon its label or container the name of another drug unless it is plainly and conspicuously marked so as to reveal its true character and its lack of identity with such other drug; or

(c) If the label or container bears the name of an individual or company purporting to be the manufacturer of the drug, which individual or company is fictitious or does not exist; or

(d) If it has been substituted wholly or in part by another drug or substance; or

(e) If it purports to be the product of a manufacturer of whom it is not truly a product.”

Does Section 17B of the Drugs and Cosmetics, 1940 Act answer the ‘concern 2′ above?

The ‘concern 3’ above deals with shifting the ‘burden of proof’ with replacement of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ by ‘false representation’. Many legal experts opine that this change will only mean that “criminal intent (fraudulent and deliberate) shall be considered during the legal procedures for the purpose of sanctions.”

What could then possibly be the reasons for opposing the revised WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs in India, especially when we have similar definition in place in our own Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940? Does it make sense for the Government to reinvent the wheel? Who knows?

By Tapan 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.