Tag Archives: innovation

The Next Frontier: Frugal Innovation For High-Tech Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

The facade of high cost of drug innovation: 

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

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

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

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

The moot questions:

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

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

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

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

No linear link between high drug price and innovation cost: 

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

The façade has started crumbling:

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

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

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

Why is arbitrary drug pricing continuing?

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

Need to totally demolish the façade of innovation:

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

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

Frugal innovation models for high-tech drugs:

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

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

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

A. The search for a new target:

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

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

B. Desk research and discovery:

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

C. Animal testing:

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

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

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

D. Human Trial:

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

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

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

Would Big Pharma gobble up these startups?

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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

How Expensive Is Drug Innovation?

Posted on by
Reply

High prices for patented drugs are quite often attributed to the exorbitant cost of drug innovation, by the global pharma players. This argument is played, replayed again, again… and again by them, in various ways and forms, especially when many eyebrows are raised, failing to fathom the primary reason for ever escalating prices of life-saving new drugs.       

I find the same argument often getting echoed by some section of both the global and local media too, and also through some cleverly disguised and apparently sponsored articles on the subject. 

In this article I shall dwell on this sensitive issue.

A strong justification: 

The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) based in Texas in the United States, in an article titled “The High Cost of Inventing New Drugs–And of Not Inventing Them”, published on April 16, 2015 reiterated that the financial cost of developing new drugs is indeed a big one.

It argues that “there is also a big cost to not developing new drugs, and that cost can be both financial and human. People may be able to live with the pain that an undiscovered drug might have alleviated, but they may not be able to do all the things they would have.”

The paper asks, “A cancer patient might still have a few productive years after a diagnosis, but how much would it be worth to the patient—and to society (think Steve Jobs), if a new drug could extend a patient’s life indefinitely?”

“The drug manufacturers poured money into finding a treatment for AIDS once it became clear the disease would take thousands of lives. The research and development was costly and didn’t emerge overnight, but being diagnosed with AIDS is no longer a death sentence,” the authors elucidated.

This is a very cogent argument, and nobody would dispute it. This issue lies somewhere else, as I would try to explore in this article.

The supporting data: 

We also find supporting published data to justify the high cost of innovation with numbers.

On November 18, 2014, a new study by the ‘Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development’ highlighted that developing a new prescription medicine and gaining its marketing approval, which is a process often lasting longer than a decade, is estimated to cost US$ 2,558 million.” This number is indeed mind boggling by any yardstick.

While many details of the study remain a secret, only slightly more than half of this cost is directly related to research and development (R&D). For example, US$ 1.2 billion are “time costs” – returns that investors might have made if their money wasn’t tied up in developing a particular drug.

Not many takers:

Besides the above reason, for several other factors, there does not seem to be many takers for this exorbitant cost of innovation and bringing a new drug to the market.

The above study has become a contentious one and has, therefore, been challenged by many experts. I would give here just one example, out of many, from a highly credible source.

May 14, 2015 issue of ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ questioned the methods used to generate the US $ 2.6 billion figure and raised the following interesting points in the above Tufts Center study: 

  • The analysis was based on data that 10 unnamed drug makers provided on 106 unnamed investigational compounds that they had “self-originated.”
  • The raw numbers on which the analysis is based are not available for transparent review, and are likely never to be divulged. 
  • Since a balanced assessment would have to take into account the costs of failures as well as successes, it is hard to evaluate the key assumption that more than 80 percent of new compounds are abandoned at some point during their development, which is a key driver of the findings.
  • Nearly half the total cost of developing a new drug (US$ 1.2 billion) was ascribed to this cost of capital, with only US$ 1.4 billion attributed to the funds actually spent on research. These capital costs were assessed at 10.6 percent per year, compounded, despite the fact that bonds issued by drug companies often pay only 1 to 5 percent.
  • In terms of access to capital, it’s interesting to note that large drug makers are among the U.S. firms with the highest amounts of profits held overseas. Two pharmaceutical companies are ranked third and fourth among all the U.S. corporations in this regard: Pfizer (US$ 69 billion) and Merck (US$ 57 billion), respectively. Collectively, another eight drug companies reportedly have an additional US$ 173 billion of capital that is retained overseas, untaxed by the United States. Such funds could potentially help with the cash-flow problem that plays such a large role in these estimated costs of drug development.
  • The Tufts calculations also explicitly do not take into account the large public subsidies provided to pharmaceutical companies in the form of research-and-development tax credits or substantial payments received from the federal government for other research activities, such as testing their products in children. 
  • The US$ 2.6 billion figure does not consider drug-development costs borne by the public for the large number of medications that are based on external research that elucidated the disease mechanisms they address.
  • One recent analysis showed that more than half of the most transformative drugs developed in recent decades had their origins in publicly funded research at nonprofit, university-affiliated centers.
High innovation cost fails to justify high drug prices:

That even the high cost of innovation fails to justify high drug prices, was also echoed in an article published in ‘The New York Times’ on December 19, 2015.

The article categorically said, ‘there is ample evidence that drug prices have been pushed to astronomical heights for no reason other than the desire of drug makers to maximize profits. Prices in many cases far exceed what’s needed to cover the costs of research and clinical trials, and some companies have found ways to rake in profits even without shouldering the cost of drug development.’

Yet another justification of high new drug prices:

Yet another justification of a slightly different kind also frequently comes from the global pharma players for high prices of new drugs.

On May 2, 2015 ‘The Washington Post’ also published an article, which recapitulated this oft repeated justifications for keeping the prices of new drugs high, especially those for rare diseases, including many types of cancer. The key rationale of this argument: the smaller is the number of patients who need the drugs, more would be the need of the company to price the drugs high to recoup the significant costs of drug development.

On the face of it, this justification too may sound convincing. However, on the ground, even if this argument of the global drug companies fails to stand on its feet, post robust scrutiny of the experts. In that context, I shall cite two recent examples.

Two new research studies broke this myth too:

The Following two April 2016 study conclusively demolishes the above justification of the global drug companies:

1. On April 28 2016, a new study was published in  JAMA Oncology, throwing  a great deal of light on the robustness of the above reasoning. In this paper, the researchers looked at 32 oral cancer medications and found that launch prices of these drugs have spiraled upward, even after adjusting for inflation. The average monthly amount insurers and patients paid for a new cancer drug was less than US$ 2,000 in the year 2000, but it skyrocketed to US$ 11,325 in 2014. 

2. In April 2016, another study published in Health Affairs found, when a drug became useful to a larger number of patients, the price also shot up. It, therefore, concluded as follows:            

“Our findings suggest that there is currently little competitive pressure in the oral anticancer drug market. Policy makers who wish to reduce the costs of anticancer drugs should consider implementing policies that affect prices not only at launch but also later.”              

Are high new drug prices, then arbitrary?

According to a July 2015 article published in JAMA Oncology, the high prices of new drugs, especially for cancer, are arbitrary. This is vindicated in the discussion of the article that clearly states, as follows: 

“Cancer drug prices are rising faster than the prices in other sectors of health care, drawing concern from patients, physicians, and policy researchers. We found little difference in the median wholesale price of 21 novel drugs and 30 next-in-class drugs approved over a 5-year period (next-in-class drugs, $119 765; novel drugs, $116 100; P = .42).”

“Our results suggest that the price of cancer drugs is independent of novelty. Additionally, we found little difference in price among drugs approved based on time-to-event end points and drugs approved on the basis of RR (disease Response Rate). Our results suggest that current pricing models are not rational, but simply reflect what the market will bear.” 

Thus, the derived fact is, the high prices of new drugs are neither dependent on high cost of drug innovation, nor on the number of drug users – high or low. Higher drug prices, therefore, appear to be nothing but arbitrary, the public justifications being no more than façades. 

Is the real cost of drug innovation much less?

This question brings me back to the moot point, ‘What is then the real financial cost of drug innovation?’

The search for a generally acceptable answer to this question gets even more complicated, when one reads the paper of The Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission’ in Washington, DC, published on March 7, 2006 in Health Affairs – the leading journal of health policy thought and research.

The paper estimates the cost per new drug to be US US$ 868 million. However, it says, “Our estimates vary from around US$ 500 million to more than US$ 2,000 million, depending on the therapy or the developing firm. The paper recommended that variations in cost estimates suggest that policymakers should not use a single number to characterize drug costs.

Conclusion:

This situation arises, because the drugs with brand names, whether patented or off-patent, do not compete on price in the pharma market, across the world. The primary reason being a consumer is neither the prescription decision makers nor can they exercise their brand choice in any manner. For any patients, a doctor always takes this decision, who is often influenced by the drug manufacturers, and may not be even aware of the drug price, as is generally alleged, globally.

This process is quite unlike to any other essential commodities. However, the ongoing marketing campaigns for branded drugs are quite a keen to commonly used consumer goods, carrying brand names and backed by high profile branding campaigns, where high prices rather add greater perceived value to the brand status.

But the irony is glaring. The administration of life-saving highly expensive drugs is not optional for any patient, whether poor or rich. These are necessary to save lives. Thus, does not merit arbitrary high-profit driven pricing, at least, from the standpoint of patient-centric ethical business practices.

It still happens, even at the cost of access to such drugs by a large majority of the global population, who requires them the most. In all probability, this process is likely to continue in the near future too, irrespective of the quest of many to fathom how expensive is the drug innovation, unless the government or other payers actively intervenes. I shall discuss this issue in my next article in this Blog. 

Nevertheless, the answer to the crucial question, ‘How expensive is the drug innovation’ would continue to remain elusive to many, at least in the near term. This because, no global drug company is likely to allow any competent and independent experts group to arrive at this number in a transparent manner, which can also be peer reviewed. Nor would the pharma players, in all probability, furnish this information to any Government to justify the high price of their respective new brands.

Till this is done, pricing decisions of new lifesaving drugs would continue to remain arbitrary, primarily driven by high-profit motives. It is unlikely to have even a remote direct linkage to the cost of drug innovation, limited consumer access notwithstanding, just as what happens with many branded consumer goods.

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.

 

An Evolving Paradigm of ‘Price-Value Model’ Of Pharma Value Delivery System

Posted on by
Reply

May 4, 2016 edition of the ‘MIT Technology Review’ published an interesting article carrying the headline, “The World’s Most Expensive Medicine Is a Bust”.

The obvious question that floats at the top of mind: What is this most expensive drug in the pharma history, and why has it failed commercially, despite being a product of disruptive innovation and a marvel that stands out in the space of contemporary drug innovation? 

The product is called Glybera (alipogene tiparvovec). It heralded the dawn of the “first gene therapy” in the Western world, whose approval helped ignite an explosion of investment and excitement around treatments that correct DNA, as the MIT article said.  

Glybera promises to cure rare inherited diseases with one-time repairs to a person’s DNA. A single dose of gene therapy can change the genetic instructions inside a person’s cells in ways that last many years, or even a lifetime. 

Interestingly, even with this unprecedented product offering, the product has become a commercial flop, due to its staggering million-dollar price tag, which very few patients can afford.

Is this an extreme example of price-value relationship for a new breakthrough pharma product? Yes, of course!  Nevertheless, it makes us ponder on some key fundamentals, afresh, such as:

  • The core purpose of drug innovation
  • The price-value relationship of even breakthrough drugs

The proper understanding of these points comprehensively, especially the above two fundamentals, would enable the drug companies to achieve both, the core purpose of intricate drug innovation initiatives, and also making these medicines commercially successful with increased access to patients, through innovative ‘value delivery’ mechanisms.

I believe, the pharmaceutical industry is now at the threshold of a paradigm shift. The new paradigm would signal a metamorphosis in the price-value equations for all drugs, mostly due to changing socio-political environment, across the world, as we have started witnessing in the topmost free economy of the world – the United States.

Pharma business is a ‘value delivery system’: 

Way back in June 2000, an article published in ‘McKinsey Quarterly’ on delivering value to the customers, deliberated on a 1988 paper of Michael J. Lanning and Edward G. Michaels. The study combines the value-maps developed in the price-value models with the idea of the “business system,” which was introduced in 1980.

The paper titled, “A business is a value delivery system,” emphasizes the importance of a clear, well-articulated “value proposition” for each targeted market segment. This means a simple statement of the benefits that the company intends to provide to each segment, along with the approximate price the company will charge each segment for those benefits. 

Looking at this concept in pharma perspective:

Keeping the above paper in perspective, when we look at the pharma value delivery system, besides the key benefits that a drug offers, one of the most critical value parameter continues to be the financial value.

The healthcare value chain, across the world, has started sharpening its focus on the drug cost today, more than ever before. This is primarily based on the differential value that a drug offers as compared to its closest alternatives. We may like it or not, it is happening irrespective of, whether the drug in question is a breakthrough innovation, or an off-patent high-priced generic medicine.

As I said before, not just in India, the affordability of health care in general, and medicines in particular, is rapidly emerging as a key concern for all developed and the developing nations, including the United States.

Thus, even after careful consideration of all novel product’s benefits and the costs associated with these, the stakeholders’ focus is getting sharper on the overall financial value of the product offerings to the patients. This is reality, and can’t just be wished away by any measure of powerful and expensive advocacy campaigns, together with clever media management. 

The drug companies may continue to crib about it, but this will possibly lead them nowhere, in the long term. Instead, they would require to search for a workable win-win and level headed solution, for this most fundamental business issue.

Understanding the evolving paradigm:

We are fast arriving at this new paradigm. There, the financial value of a drug, in the ‘value delivery system’ of pharma marketing, would occupy the center stage. The drug companies would need to arrive at this financial value, not just by understanding the professional mindset of the doctors and taking them on board somehow, but by properly understanding what would the majority of stakeholders want to pay for a new drug, and then perhaps work backwards to translate that finding into reality. 

Its successful application would soon assume a pivotal role in the pharma value delivery system. A company may contemplate pricing a drug high, limiting its access to a few rich, and still succeed in making its cash register ringing, such as, some new hepatitis C or cancer drugs. Nonetheless, this could ultimately make their overall business socio-politically too vulnerable, and may not be sustainable either, in the long run. 

The same old and current approach does not create a wholesome value for a new drug to most of the customers, despite the company having a state of art ‘value delivery platform’, for unleashing a dazzling marketing blitzkrieg.                                 

The pharma marketing strategy remains unchanged and stale: 

At a time, when a paradigm shift is taking place, especially in the way the entire world views at the price-value equation of a new drug, the overall strategic approach of the pharma marketers, as I see it, still remains in the old paradigm, with its roots firmly entrenched there.

I think it so, because the traditional pharma marketing has always been a unilateral communication process, predominantly involving the doctors, and trying to fathom their needs, wants and professional mindset.

Accordingly, the product value delivery process for the doctors, with or without the medical representatives, is basically woven around those needs, wants and mindsets of the target doctors. It, by and large, continues even today, with some cosmetic changes in tools and formats here or there. 

Therefore, when the basic marketing and communication process aims at effectively delivering the value of drugs, let us discuss briefly what does the core value of a drug mean?

The value of a drug: 

For this purpose, I reckon, it would be prudent to avoid an ethereal approach to arrive at the financial value of a drug, such as, what is the cost of a life, as often raised by many pharma players. A practical approach to resolve this issue would benefit all, in every way.

Without going much into the core purpose of pharma innovation, usually the drug companies define the value of a medicine based on what they think about its attributes. Accordingly, respective players arrive at its financial value, that the patients or the payers must pay for, if they want to have an access to it. 

Usually not many independent studies are conducted by the drug companies to ascertain how much the majority of stakeholders, including the governments, payers and patients, would want to willingly pay for a new drug, after well considering its value offerings.

Competitive Scenario:

The ever increasing, and virtually obsessed focus on drug ‘innovation’, while justifying the high financial value of a medicine for the patients, also restricts competition, especially for newer ones. For most of the patients this situation is a double whammy.

Additionally, the consolidation process within the industry is also fuelling this situation further. The virtual monopoly of a few companies with some new drugs, in key therapy segments, such as, diabetes, cancer, vaccines and HIV, is restricting the overall competitive environment. This would continue.

A September 24, 2014 Article, published in the ‘Insight’ of Bain & Company on the throws some light on the subject. It says, “over the past 20 years, and especially since 2000, building leadership in a category has become a crucial route to success in pharma. Seven of our 10 leading value creators, including Roche in oncology and Novo Nordisk in diabetes care, generated at least 50 percent of their revenues from one therapeutic area or primary care. In two cases – Biogen Idec in neurology and Celgene in oncology – more than 90 percent of revenues came from a single therapeutic area.”

As I said, this process is expected to continue, it is necessary for the drug companies, governments, other payers and the patients understand the new paradigm, and act accordingly to address this issue to protect mutual benefit.

If it does not happen, the evolving socio-political environment, across the world, would occupy the driver’s seat to navigate through this complexity, in the healthcare space in general and pharma in particular, safeguarding the patients’ health interest. 

The core issue:

In the prevailing scenario, the core issue that gets reinforced, yet again, as raised by many, including the World Health Organization (WHO), is the growing inherent conflict between predominantly the profit driven business goals of the pharma players, and the public health interest of a nation.

Possibly for this reason, Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO), at a briefing to discuss the Ebola outbreak in West Africa at the UN Foundation in Washington on September 3, 2014 said:

“Big Pharma’s greed for profits, not lack of funding, delaying Ebola treatment development.” 

Many countries are now seriously striving to arrive at a middle path to resolve this perennial conflict, India included. The drug companies may wish to take note of it.

I discussed this issue in an article published in this Website titled, “Is The Core Purpose of Pharma Business Beyond Profit Making?” on November 10, 2014.

Conclusion:

As the above ‘McKinsey Quarterly’ paper articulated, the strength of the buying proposition for any customer is a function of the product value minus the price. In other words, the ‘surplus value’ that the customer will enjoy once that product is paid for. As the paper clarified, the “value” in a price-value map will necessarily be informed guesses, though after well-considering multiple variables.

Delivering more of this ‘surplus value’ to patients, willy-nilly, would soon be the name of the game, especially for the winners in both the global and local pharma industry. 

In the entire drug sector, including India, this ‘price-value model’ could help a pharma company ascertain the sustainability of its competitive position, well considering the stakeholders’ perspective, and accordingly take the right business decision.

Thus, proper understanding of the ‘surplus value model’ while pricing a drug, and its immaculate execution through state of the art marketing and communication strategies, will separate the men from the boys, for sustained excellence in the pharma business.

Sans understanding of this ‘price-value model’, which is so important in the evolving new paradigm of a pharma value delivery system, a pharma player would risk getting caught in a tough headwind, especially with new high-priced products. This situation could, in turn, jeopardize its long term success, and even erode the well-earned company reputation, in tandem, at times mercilessly.

By: Tapan J. Ray 

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

Pharma R&D: Chasing A Rainbow To Replicate The Past

Posted on by
Reply

Would future be always a replica of the past?

If the response is yes, the efforts of many global pharma players to replicate the successful Research and Development (R&D) models of long gone by days, would continue to be a grand success. The new drug pipeline would remain rich and sustainable. R&D costs would be increasingly more productive, with the rapid and more frequent churning out of blockbuster drugs, in various therapy areas.

However, an affirmative response to this question, if any, has to be necessarily supported by relevant credible data from independent sources.

Additionally, yet another equally critical query would surface. Why then the prices of newer innovative drugs have started going through the roof, with the rapid escalation of R&D expenses?

Thus, there is a need to ponder whether the continued hard effort by many large innovator companies in this direction is yielding the desired results or not.

In this article, I shall try to dwell on this issue with the most recent data available with us.

A new research report:                

A new research report of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions titled, “Measuring the return from pharmaceutical innovation 2015: Transforming R&D returns in uncertain times” states that the R&D returns of major life sciences industry groups have fallen to their lowest point in 2015, since 2010. The report tracked and reviewed the estimated returns of 12 leading global life sciences companies.

Some of the data presented in this report would give an idea about the magnitude of current challenges in this space. Nevertheless, there could be a few rare and sporadic green shoots, which can also be cited to claim a revival in this area.

I am quoting below some key pharma R&D trends, for the period starting from 2010 to 2015, as illustrated in the Deloitte report:                      

A. Declining R&D productivity: 

Year R&D return (%)
2010 10.1
2011 7.6
2012 7.3
2013 4.8
2014 5.5
2015 4.2

B. Increasing drug development cost with decreasing estimated sales:

During 2010 to 2015 period, the average peak sales estimate per drug has fallen by 50 percent from US$ 816 million to US$416 million per year, while the development costs per drug, during the same period increased by 33 percent, from US$ 1.188 billion to US$ 1.576 billion.

C.  Smaller Companies showing better R&D productivity:

Between 2013-2015, relatively smaller companies showed better R&D productivity as follows:

  • Big companies: 5 percent
  • Mid to large cap companies: 17 percent

D. External innovation becoming increasingly more important:             

Again, mid to large cap companies opting for more external innovation are showing a higher proportion of late stage pipeline value, as below:

  • Big companies: 54 percent
  • Mid to large cap companies: 79 percent
A fear of failure?

The Deloitte report throws some light on the general stakeholders’ concerns about the exorbitantly high price fixation for innovative new drugs by the concerned companies, together with consequential macroeconomic pressures.

One of the key suggestions made in this report, is to increase the focus on reduction of R&D costs, while accelerating the new drug development timelines. I shall broach upon this point briefly just in a short while.

However, the stark reality today, the hard efforts still being made by many large global drug companies to almost replicate the old paradigm of highly productive pharma R&D, though with some tweaking here or there, are not yielding expected results. The return on R&D investments is sharply going south, as the new drug prices rocketing towards north.

Is it happening due to a paralyzing fear of failure, that moving out of the known and the traditional sphere of the new drug discovery models could impact the stock markets adversely, making the concerned CEOs operational environment too hot to bear?

Be that as it may, without venturing into the uncharted frontiers of the new drug discovery models, would it at all be possible to bring out such drugs at a reasonable affordable price to the patients, ever?

I have deliberated before, in this blog, some of the possible eclectic ways in this area, including in one of my very recent articles on January 4, 2016 titled, “2015: Pharma Industry Achieved Some, Could Achieve Some More”.

New innovative drugs evaluated over priced: 

Here, I would not quote the prices of Sovaldi and its ilk, which are known to many. I intend to give examples of just two other new drugs that have triggered significant interest as potential advances for the care of patients in two common disease areas, namely, asthma and diabetes. These two drugs are GlaxoSmithKline’s Nucala® (Mepolizumab) for Asthma and Novo Nordisk’s Tresiba® (Insulin Degludec) for Diabetes.

According a December 21, 2015 report of the ‘Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)’ of the United States:

“The annual price of mepolizumab would need to be discounted 63-76% to be better aligned with value to patients and the health system, while insulin degludec would need to be discounted less than 10% to do so.”

Thus, there has been a growing mismatch between the value that new innovative drugs, in general, offers to the patients and the price that the innovator companies fix for such drugs. This trend, if continues, would significantly limit patients’ access to new drugs, as the pharma players keep chasing disproportionately high profitability to increase their shareholder value.

External sourcing of R&D may not make new drugs affordable:

Taking a cue from the highly successful strategy of Gilead, especially what it has done with Sovaldi and Harvoni, if other major global pharma players’ also try to enrich their late stage new drug molecule pipeline from external sources, would that effectively resolve the core issue? 

In my view, this could possibly be one of the ways to contain R&D expenses and with much lesser risk, as suggested in the Deloitte report. However, I doubt, whether the same would effectively help bringing down the prices of newer innovative drugs, in tandem.

This is primarily because of the following contemporary example, that we now have with us.

Although the active compound that is used to manufacture Sovaldi, or for that matter even Harvoni, is not Gilead’s in-house discovery, the prices of these drugs have already gone through the roof. 

It is altogether a different matter that robust patent laws along with the Government vigilance on obnoxious drug pricing is gradually increasing in various countries. Some developed and developing markets of the world, including the Unites States and the United Kingdom, either already have or are now mulling for an effective counter check to irresponsible drug pricing, primarily by putting the ‘innovation’ bogey right at the very front.

In India, prompted by its robust patent law and to avoid any possibility of Compulsory Licensing (CL), Gilead ultimately decided to give Voluntary Licenses (CL) for Sovaldi to several Indian drug companies. These pharma players will manufacture the drug in India and market it in the country at a much lesser price.

A new cooperative effort for cancer drugs:

On January 11 2016, ‘The New York Times’ reported the formation of ‘National Immunotherapy Coalition (NIC)’. This is a cooperative effort by some leading global pharma companies to speed up the testing of new types of cancer drugs that harness the body’s immune system to battle tumors. The NIC will try to rapidly test various combinations of such drugs.

This is important, as many researchers believe that combinations of two or more drugs that engage different parts of the immune system might be effective for more patients than a single drug.

On the face of it, this initiative appears to be a step in the right direction and could make the cancer drugs more affordable to patients. However, only future will tell us whether it happens that way or not.

Conclusion:

Nevertheless, the bottom line is, to make the new innovative drugs available at an affordable price to patients, along with strict vigilance by the government bodies, the old and a traditional ball game of drug discovery has to change.

This would necessarily require fresh eyes, inquiring minds and high IQ brains that can bring forth at least significant eclectic changes, if not a disruptive innovation, in the new drug discovery and development process, across the world.

Otherwise, and especially when the low-hanging fruits of drug discovery have already been plucked, if the major global pharma players continue striving to replicate the grand old path of new drug discovery, the efforts could very likely be, and quite akin to, chasing a rainbow.

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.

Digital Therapeutics: Unfolding A Disruptive Innovation In Healthcare

Posted on by
Reply

On November 9, 2015, ‘The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)’ in an interesting article reported, “Your doctor may soon prescribe you a smartphone app in addition to drugs and physical therapy.”

The hospitals in the United States (US) are developing new mobile apps to help patients manage serious medical conditions, record symptoms and communicate back to their doctors between visits, often in real time, besides helping patients adhere to their therapy, WSJ highlighted. The real beauty in these apps is, in addition to sending messages, reminders and instructions, the apps can alert providers to developing clinical problems before they become a crisis.

For example, “a new app from the University of Michigan called ‘Breast Cancer Ally’ is offered to patients to help them manage the onslaught of information and instructions they get throughout their diagnosis and treatment. It allows patients to look up and record their symptoms and provides guidance on when to consult the doctor about complications or concerns.”

Quoting experts, the article states, “this is a technology that is in everyone’s pocket and makes patients feel engaged in their own care.”

The implication of this development is profound. It appears, there could be a near term possibility of the same, for better, comprehensive health monitoring, leading to better quality of life and undergoing lesser hassles, if not hassle-free, as compared to what it is today in doing so.

Immense value in management of chronic diseases:

Besides serious ailments, these customized digital apps for smartphone, could be used to derive therapeutic impact in the early stages of chronic diseases, such as diabetes and hypertension.

As is well-known, in the early onset of most of the non-infectious chronic diseases, self-management plays a critical role to prevent the progression of the disease, saving significant treatment costs, besides other serious and expensive physiological complications in the future.

To achieve this goal, there is a critical need to appropriately educate the patients through doctors, along with the active role of pharmaceutical players. This could well be a win-win situation for the manufacturers of these products to productively engage the patients, not just for disease management, but for the commercial success of their respective brands too, with a well crafted integrated business strategy.

Digital Therapeutics:

Thus, these health apps serve the role of ‘Digital Therapies (DT)’, as well, for patients, especially at the onset of chronic ailments and to prevent any sudden crisis in serious disease conditions.

DT has, therefore, been defined as web, mobile, wearable and other digital technologies combined into an intervention to support healthy behaviors and provide therapeutic impact.

As stated earlier, DT has the potential to offer immense opportunity for patient engagement and to bring in substantial change in their health behavior with remarkable both short and long term cost-effectiveness.

The opportunities:

Offering DT to patients in India may not be very challenging either, on the contrary, it is an area of opportunity for all the interested players, especially when we go by the following facts: 

  • According to the latest report from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) mobile phone subscriber base in India recorded 6.71 percent YoY growth to 980.81 million users in Q2 2015.
  • There were approximately 82 million 3G subscribers in India by the end of 2014 and the number is projected to reach 284 million by end of year 2017.
  • SMS, email, messaging and social networking apps are the most popular ones.
  • The Indian Government has expressed its commitment to setting up a robust digital infrastructure and to promote adoption of mobile Internet and related products and services.
  • In 2014-15, the Government budgeted INR 500 crore for building infrastructure as per the National Rural Internet and Technology Mission.

Currently, as the smartphones enable individuals to access various types of information, suggestions and advice from anywhere 24×7, in the above emerging scenario, an increasing number of patients are likely to opt for digital therapeutic tools for self-management of health more effectively. 

This is a win-win situation for all, including the pharma companies, though with a contemporary and honed strategic business model.

In the foreseeable future:

An October 2013 paper of IMS Institute, titled “Patient Apps for Improved Healthcare” expects that over a period of time, the health app maturity model will see apps’ progress from being recommended on an ad hoc basis by individual physicians, to systematic use in healthcare, and ultimately to an end goal of being a fully integrated component of healthcare management.

The study makes the following important observations:

  • The patients are unlike to ever have the tools to replace the roles of the physician
  • Health apps may encourage patients to take a more active interest in their overall well being and understand the consequences of poor health in later life.
  • By having the patients aligned with the importance of wellness programs and sickness prevention, health systems can hope to realize savings, especially from a lower burden of multiple chronic conditions. 
  • The Governments may consider making patients aware of the need to take increasing responsibility for their own healthcare, by providing incentives to stay healthy, where health apps could play a major role.

The paper also underscores the following four key steps to move through on this process:

  • Recognition by payers and providers of the important role that apps can play in healthcare 
  • Security and privacy guidelines and assurances must be in place between providers, patients and app developers
  • Systematic curation and evaluation of apps that can provide both physicians and patients with useful summarized content about apps that can aid decision-making regarding their appropriate use 
  • Integration of apps with other aspects of patient care

“Underpinning all of this will be the generation of credible evidence of value derived from the use of apps that will demonstrate the nature and magnitude of behavioral changes or improved health outcomes,” the paper comments.

According to available information, currently in the United States, around 100 advanced health apps have been approved by the FDA. However, all these are not for the use of patients. Some of these are for the use of doctors. Other sets of apps are available to patients only against doctors’ prescriptions. The rest is mainly for fitness and general life style related, and are affordable only to a limited number of people.

Key benefits of ‘Digital Therapeutics’:

To summarize, the key benefits of digital therapeutics are as follows:

  • More cost-efficient, as compared to conventional alternatives.
  • Help doctors managing disease conditions through constant monitoring with digital technology 
  • Make patients more aware and even proactive with real time information in preventing many diseases, avoiding disease aggravation and improving quality of life.
  • Make sharing of information between doctors and patients easier and effective.

Some concerns:

In many countries, including India, many health apps do not have appropriate health regulatory approval. Hence, a number of key concerns, in general, have been raised in this area for speedy resolution, some of which are as follows:

  • Product and data quality
  • Reliability in treatment decisions
  • Privacy and security for patients

Not many pharma companies are engaged in ‘Digital Therapeutics’:

In my view, there is a solid reason why many global pharma companies are still not adequately engaged with digital therapeutics.

They are generally actively involved in the high voltage advocacy by encouraging innovation, which usually does not go beyond drug discovery. This championing does not talk much either, about charting the broader area of comprehensive disease prevention, treatment and management with the application of disruptive innovation, involving other non drug related digital technologies, which are cost effective to patients.

With the low hanging fruits of drug innovation, resulting into money-churning blockbuster drugs with huge margin and almost in no time, made most of these innovator drug companies comfortable with their current business model of only drug discovery.

This business model is now exhibiting enough signs of fatigue with research pipelines gradually drying out.

Nonetheless, there are some indications now of a few pharma players’ exploring this new area of digital therapeutics, but as an extension of the current business models. It still remains a challenging decision for most of them to shift the gear, moving towards a new horizon of a winning mix of new drugs and path breaking digital therapeutics. 

Conclusion:

These are still early days for the majority of the pharma players looking at commercially leveraging the potential of possible customized offerings of digital health apps as integrated digital therapeutics for patients’ self-care health benefits. What we have seen so far is the drug companies using health apps as a tool to market a drug and not much beyond that.

I discussed this issue in my article in this blog on March 30, 2015, titled, “Quantum Value Addition With Health Apps, Going Beyond Drugs”.

An April 17, 2014 article published in the ‘Forbes/Business’ epitomizes the relevance of digital therapeutics in the modern day healthcare, even in the countries like India, as follows:

“Three out of four Americans will die of a disease that could be avoided—if only they could re-route their unhealthy habits. A new category of medicine, digital therapeutics, wants to change the course of these conditions – and of history.”

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.

 

The Curious Imbroglio: Innovation, IPR, India and ‘Uncle Sam’

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released the “2015 Special 301 Report”, which is its annual review of the global state of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection and enforcement.

While looking through the Kaleidoscope of business interests of the United States, variegated changing patterns of a wide variety of country-specific observations can be noted in this report.

It is widely believed that the report ‘pontificates’ about the adequacy and effectiveness of IPR protection and enforcement of its trading partners against USTR’s own yardstick, hinting unhesitantly at the possible consequences, if found lacking.

USTR reviewed seventy-two (72) trading partners for this year’s Special 301 Report, and placed thirty-seven (37) of them on the ‘Priority Watch List’ or ‘Watch List’. Thirteen (13) countries – Algeria, Argentina, Chile, China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Venezuela, are on the ‘Priority Watch List’.  These countries will be the subjects of particularly intense bilateral engagement during the coming year.

India specific significant elements of the 2015 Special 301 Report include the following:

  • Increased bilateral engagement in 2015 between the United States and India on IPR concerns, following the 2014 Out-of-Cycle Review (OCR) of India on this issue.
  • India will remain on the ‘Priority Watch List’ in 2015, but with the full expectation of US about substantive and measurable improvements in India’s IPR regime for the benefit of a broad range of innovative and creative industries.
  • The US offered to work with India to achieve these goals.
  • No OCR at this time for India, but US will monitor progress in India over the coming months, and is prepared to take further action, if necessary.

The 2015 report also highlights:

“While it is impossible to determine an exact figure, studies have suggested that up to 20% of drugs sold in the Indian market are counterfeit and could represent a serious threat to patient health and safety.”

According to media report, a senior Commerce & Industry Ministry official has commented, “India is disappointed at being featured yet again in the US ‘Priority Watch List’ of weak IPR countries. But it is not worried.”

Recent Action by India:

In October 2014, almost immediately after Prime Minister Modi’s return to India from the US, the Government formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’ to draft ‘National IPR Policy’ and suggest ways and legal means to handle undue pressure exerted by other countries in IPR related areas.

The notification mandated the ‘Think Tank’ to examine the current issues raised in such reports and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce & Industry as appropriate.

However, the domestic pharma industry, many international and national experts together with the local stakeholders, continue to strongly argue against any fundamental changes in the prevailing robust patent regime of India.

In the same month, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) constituted a six-member ‘Think Tank’ chaired by Justice (Retd.) Prabha Sridevan to draft the ‘National IPR Policy’ of India. Taking quick strides, on December 19, 2014, the Think Tank’ released its first draft of 29 pages seeking stakeholders’ comments and suggestions on or before January 30, 2015. A meeting with the stakeholders was also scheduled on February 5, 2015 to take it forward.

Possible reasons of US concern on the draft ‘National IPR Policy’:

As I discussed in my blog post of January 19, 2015 titled, “New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective”, I reckon, there are three possible key areas of concern of American pharma industry against Indian patent regime. However, in the draft National IPR Policy India seems to have stood its ground in all those areas.

The draft IPR policy responded to those concerns as follows:

Concern 1: “India’s patentability requirements are in violations of ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)’ Agreement.” (Though it has not yet been challenged at the WTO forum)

Draft IPR Policy states: “India recognizes that effective protection of IP rights is essential for making optimal use of the innovative and creative capabilities of its people. India has a long history of IP laws, which have evolved taking into consideration national needs and international commitments. The existing laws were either enacted or revised after the TRIPS Agreement and are fully compliant with it. These laws along with various judicial pronouncements provide a stable and effective legal framework for protection and promotion of IP.”

A recent vindication: On January 15, 2015, Indian Patent Office’s (IPO’s) rejection of a key patent claim on Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) of Gilead Sciences further reinforces that India’s patent regime is robust and on course.

Gilead’s patent application was opposed by Hyderabad based Natco Pharma. According to the ruling of the IPO, a new “molecule with minor changes, in addition to the novelty, must show significantly enhanced therapeutic efficacy” when compared with a prior compound. This is essential to be in conformity with the Indian Patents Act 2005. Gilead’s patent application failed to comply with this legal requirement.

Although Sovaldi ((sofosbuvir) carries an international price tag of US$84,000 for just one treatment course, Gilead, probably evaluating the robustness of Sovaldi patent against Indian Patents Act, had already planned to sell this drug in India at a rice of US$ 900 for the same 12 weeks of therapy.

It is envisaged that this new development at the IPO would prompt entry of a good number of generic equivalents of Sovaldi. As a result, the price of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) formulations would further come down.

However, reacting to this development Gilead has said, “The main patent applications covering sofosbuvir are still pending before the Indian Patent Office…This rejection relates to the patent application covering the metabolites of sofosbuvir. We (Gilead) are pleased that the Patent Office found in favor of the novelty and inventiveness of our claims, but believe their Section 3(d) decision to be improper. Gilead strongly defends its intellectual property. The company will be appealing the decision as well as exploring additional procedural options.”

For more on this subject, please read my blog post of September 22, 2014 titled, “Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India”

Concern 2: “Future negotiations in international forums and with other countries.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “In future negotiations in international forums and with other countries, India shall continue to give precedence to its national development priorities whilst adhering to its international commitments and avoiding TRIPS plus provisions.”

Concern 3: “Data Exclusivity or Regulatory Data Protection.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity.”

I discussed a similar subject in my blog post of October 20, 2014 titled, “Unilateral American Action on Agreed Bilateral Issues: Would India Remain Unfazed?”

Confusion with the Prime Minister’s recent statement:

It is worth noting that in end April 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reportedly remarked to align India’s patent laws with “international standards”.

What the Prime Minister really meant by patent laws with “international standards” could be of anybody’s guess. This is because, even the World Trade Organization (WTO) considers Indian Patents Act compliant to TRIPS Agreement, which has been globally accepted as the ‘Gold Standard’ in the realm of IPR…unless, of course, Prime Minister Modi intends to accept ‘TRIPS Plus’ provisions for India, under US pressure and at the cost of health interest of majority of Indian patients.

It is noteworthy though, his own Ministry of Commerce & Industry has categorically emphasized and re-emphasized several times in the past that India’s patent regime is fully TRIPS compliant.

To add greater credence to this argument, the noted free market economist and Professor of Economics at Columbia University – Arvind Panagariya, who has recently been appointed to run Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s new NITI Aayog, has also endorsed it in his published articles, unambiguously.

As usual, leaving nothing to chance, immediately after the above remark of the Indian PM to align India’s patent laws with “international standards”, the USTR urged India to ‘expeditiously undertake’ initiatives stated by PM Modi, flashing across a long list of changes that the US wants to get incorporated in the Indian IP Acts and policies.

Pressure for amendment of Indian Patent Law:

From the intensity of pressure that the US Pharma industry is generating on the US Government, it is clear that American pharma industry will not be satisfied till Modi Government brings in changes in the Indian Patents Act 2005, as dictated by its constituents.

At the top of much publicized US wish list on IPR, features abolition of Section 3(d) of the Indian patent law. This provision of the Act denies patents to frivolous and incremental innovations without offering any significant value to the patients in terms of improved clinical efficacy of the drug. Many would term such innovation as attempts towards evergreening of patents through minor molecular manipulation or similar other means. This kind of innovation gives already a very high priced blockbuster drug another full term of patent monopoly, often with even higher price, at the cost of patients.

Pressure for a relook at the National IPR Policy:

In fact, the USTR 2015 report, also asks India to have yet another round of consultations with stakeholders before finalizing its IPR policy. This is widely construed as an attempt on the part of the US Government and industry to conclude their unfinished IPR agenda for India.

Whether Modi Government would be bullied by the American Pharma industry to succumb to its pressure at the cost of the Indian patients and going against the national and international experts’ opinion, only time would tell.

Benefits of Innovation and India:

India has amply demonstrated time and again that it does understand the value and benefits of innovation in different facets of life and business. The country endeavors to protect it too, according to the law of the land. However, there are still some procedural loose knots existing in the IPR environment of the country.

As stated above, for effective remedial measures in those areas, a ‘Think Tank’ has already been constituted by Modi Government to formulate a robust and comprehensive National IPR Policy.

In this context, a media report quoted a senior official from the Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry saying, “We hope this year we can convince the US that our laws are drafted in a way so as to protect both our consumer and industry’s interest. The new IPR policy that we are coming out with will take care of any anomalies or vagueness in our existing regime and make it tight and also fast-track clearances of patent applications.”

Would there be a ‘Ghost Writer’ for Indian IPR Policy?

The first draft of the policy has already been circulated in January 2015 and discussed in the following month with the stakeholders. However, American Pharma industry does not seem to be satisfied with its overall content, leave aside the nitty-gritty.

Going by this development some apprehends that a powerful lobby group probably wants to be the ‘Ghost Writer’ for the IPR Policy of India. Coincidentally enough, we also see the USTR blowing hot and cold on this critical issue…blowing hot through its ‘Special 301 Report’ and cold by praising Prime Minister Modi’s remark to align India’s patent laws with “international standards”.

India should play a catalytic role in changing the drug innovation model:

A paradigm shift in the drug innovation model can materialize only when there will be a desire to step into the uncharted frontier…coming out of the comfort zone of much familiar independent money spinning silos of all kinds of drug innovations…from break-through drugs to me-too varieties. Dove tailing scientific and business excellence with patients’ health interest, dispassionately, would then be the name of the game.

Though arduous, playing a catalytic role to bring out this transformation sooner, is extremely important for India. This is because, drug innovation with significant value addition would continue to remain as critical as access to important medicines for all, in perpetuity. India understands that just as clearly as USTR …for its ‘make in India’ campaign or otherwise. No well-orchestrated and spoon-fed pontification required in this area…uncalled for.

Conclusion:  

The bottom line is, the US Pharma industry continues to flex its muscle relentlessly under the very often used, misused and even abused façade that India does not understand the value of innovation.

On the other hand, the general sentiment in this area, both national and international, favors India.

As the new Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog of India, Dr. Arvind Panagariya wrote, “India must call the US’ bluff on patents,” it’s indeed time to demonstrate the same, once and for all.

However, in the context of upholding patients’ health interest in India, a lurking fear does creep in, after PM Modi’s well publicized recent remark to align India’s patent laws with “international standards”, especially when Indian Patents Act 2005 is already TRIPS compliant, according to WTO requirements.

That said, in the midst of a raging debate involving innovation, IPR, India and ‘Uncle Sam’, the moot question that floats at the top of mind is:

Has seemingly tough-minded Prime Minister Modi already yielded to ‘Uncle Sam’s’ bullying tactics to effect changes in an otherwise robust Indian patent regime, and that too at the cost of health interest of needy patients of the country?

By: Tapan J. Ray

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

New “National IPR Policy” of India – A Pharma Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

Whether under pressure or not, is hardly of any relevance now. What is relevant today is the fact that the new Indian Government, almost in a record time of just around two months, has been able to release a high quality first draft of an important national policy for public discourse.

In October 2014, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) constituted a six-member ‘Think Tank’ chaired by Justice (Retd.) Prabha Sridevan to draft the ‘National IPR Policy’ of India and taking quick strides, on December 19, 2014, released its first draft of 29 pages seeking stakeholders’ comments and suggestions on or before January 30, 2015. A meeting with the stakeholders has now been scheduled on February 5, 2015 to take it forward.

A quick glance at the Draft IPR Policy:

The proposed ‘Mission Statement’ as stated in the draft “National IPR Policy” is:

“To establish a dynamic, vibrant and balanced intellectual property system in India, to foster innovation and creativity in a knowledge economy and to accelerate economic growth, employment and entrepreneurship.”

Specifying its vision, mission and objectives, the draft policy suggests adopting a catchy national slogan to increase IP awareness: ‘Creative India; Innovative India’ and integrating IP with “Smart cities”, “Digital India” and “Make in India” campaigns of the new Government.

The ‘Think Tank’ dwells on the following seven areas:

  • IP Awareness and Promotion
  • Creation of IP
  • Legal and Legislative Framework
  • IP Administration and Management
  • Commercialization of IP
  • Enforcement and Adjudication
  • Human Capital Development

In the policy document, the ‘Think Tank’ has discussed all the above seven areas in detail. However, putting all these in a nutshell, I shall highlight only three of those important areas.

1. To encourage IP, the ‘Think Tank’ proposes to provide statutory incentives, like tax benefits linked to IP creation, for the entire value chain from IP creation to commercialization.

2. For speedy redressal of patent related disputes, specialized patent benches in the high courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras have been mooted. The draft also proposes creation of regional benches of the IPAB in all five regions where IPOs are already located and at least one designated IP court at the district level.

3. The draft concludes by highlighting that a high level body would monitor the progress of implementation of the National IP Policy, linked with performance indicators, targeted results and deliverables. Annual evaluation of overall working of the National IP Policy and quantification of the results achieved during the period have also been suggested, along with a major review of the policy after 3 years.

Although the National IPR policy cuts across the entire industrial spectrum and domains, in this article I shall deliberate on it solely from the pharmaceutical industry perspective.

Stakeholders’ keen interest in the National IPR Policy – Key reasons:

Despite full support of the domestic pharmaceutical industry, the angst of the pharma MNCs on the well-balanced product patent regime in India has been simmering since its very inception, way back in 2005.

A chronicle of recent events, besides the seven objectives of the IPR policy as enumerated above, created fresh general inquisitiveness on how would this new policy impact the current pharmaceutical patent regime of India, both in favor and also against.

Here below are examples of some of those events:

  • At a Congressional hearing of the United States in July 2013, a Congressman reportedly expressed his anger and called for taking actions against India by saying:

“Like all of you, my blood boils, when I hear that India is revoking and denying patents and granting compulsory licenses for cancer treatments or adopting local content requirements.”

This short video clipping captures the tone and mood of one such hearing of the US lawmakers.

  • On April 30, 2014, the United States in its report on annual review of the global state of IPR protection and enforcement, named ‘Special 301 report’, classified India as a ‘Priority Watch List Country’. Placement of a trading partner on the ‘Priority Watch List’ or ‘Watch List’ indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on IP.
  • It further stated that USTR would conduct an Out of Cycle Review (OCR) of India focusing in particular on assessing progress made in establishing and building effective, meaningful, and constructive engagement with the Government of India on IPR issues of concern. An OCR is a tool that USTR uses on adverse IPR issues and for heightened engagement with a trading partner to address and remedy in those areas.
  • “India misuses its own IP system to boost its domestic industries,” commented the US Senator Orrin Hatch while introducing the 2014 report of the Global Intellectual Property Centre (GIPC) of US Chamber of Commerce on ‘International Intellectual Property (IP) Index’. In this report, India featured at the bottom of a list of 25 countries, scoring only 6.95 out of 30. The main reasons for the low score in the report were cited as follows:

-       India’s patentability requirements are (allegedly) in violations of ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)’ Agreement.

-       Non-availability of regulatory data protection

-       Non-availability of patent term restoration

-       The use of Compulsory Licensing (CL) for commercial, non-emergency situations.

Based on this report, US Chamber of Commerce urged USTR to classify India as a “Priority Foreign Country”, a terminology reserved for the worst IP offenders, which could lead to trade sanctions.

  • In the midst of all these, international media reported:

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi got an earful from both constituents and the US drug industry about India’s approach to drug patents during his first visit to the US last month. Three weeks later, there is evidence the government will take a considered approach to the contested issue.”

  • Washington based powerful pharmaceutical industry lobby group – PhRMA, which seemingly dominates all MNC pharma trade associations globally, has reportedly urged the US government to continue to keep its pressure on India in this matter. According to industry sources, PhRMA has a strong indirect presence and influence in India too. Interestingly, as reported in the media a senior representative of this lobby group would be India when President Obama visits the country later this month.
  • In view of all these concerns, during Prime Minister Narendra Modis’s visit to the United States in September 2014, a high-level Indo-US working group on IP was constituted as a part of the Trade Policy Forum (TPF), which is the principal trade dialogue body between the two countries.
  • Almost immediately after the Prime Minister’s return to India, in October 2014, the Government formed a six-member ‘Think Tank’ to draft ‘National IPR Policy’ and suggest ways and legal means to handle undue pressure exerted by other countries in IPR related areas. The notification mandated the ‘Think Tank’ to examine the current issues raised by the industry associations, including those that have appeared in the media and give suggestions to the ministry of Commerce and Industry as appropriate.
  • However, the domestic pharma industry of India, many international and national experts together with the local stakeholders continue to strongly argue against any fundamental changes in the prevailing patent regime of India.

A perspective of National IPR Policy in view of Pharma MNCs’ concerns:

I shall now focus on four key areas of concern/allegations against India on IPR and in those specific areas what has the draft National IPR Policy enumerated.

- Concern 1: “India’s patentability requirements are in violations of ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)’ Agreement.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “India recognizes that effective protection of IP rights is essential for making optimal use of the innovative and creative capabilities of its people. India has a long history of IP laws, which have evolved taking into consideration national needs and international commitments. The existing laws were either enacted or revised after the TRIPS Agreement and are fully compliant with it. These laws along with various judicial pronouncements provide a stable and effective legal framework for protection and promotion of IP.”

A recent vindication: Just last week (January 15, 2015), Indian Patent Office’s (IPO’s) rejection of a key patent claim on Hepatitis C drug Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) of Gilead Sciences Inc. further reinforces that India’s patent regime is robust and on course.

Gilead’s patent application was opposed by Hyderabad based Natco Pharma. According to the ruling of the IPO, a new “molecule with minor changes, in addition to the novelty, must show significantly enhanced therapeutic efficacy” when compared with a prior compound. This is essential to be in conformity with the Indian Patents Act 2005. Gilead’s patent application failed to comply with this legal requirement.

Although Sovaldi ((sofosbuvir) carries an international price tag of US$84,000 for just one treatment course, Gilead, probably evaluating the robustness of Sovaldi patent against Indian Patents Act, had already planned to sell this drug in India at a rice of US$ 900 for the same 12 weeks of therapy.

It is envisaged that this new development at the IPO would prompt entry of a good number of generic equivalents of Sovaldi. As a result, the price of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) formulations would further come down, despite prior licensing agreements of Gilead in India, fetching huge relief to a large number of patients suffering from Hepatitis C Virus, in the country.

However, reacting to this development Gilead has said, “The main patent applications covering sofosbuvir are still pending before the Indian Patent Office…This rejection relates to the patent application covering the metabolites of sofosbuvir. We (Gilead) are pleased that the Patent Office found in favor of the novelty and inventiveness of our claims, but believe their Section 3(d) decision to be improper. Gilead strongly defends its intellectual property. The company will be appealing the decision as well as exploring additional procedural options.”

For more on this subject, please read my blog post of September 22, 2014 titled, “Gilead: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place In India”

- Concern 2: “Future negotiations in international forums and with other countries.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “In future negotiations in international forums and with other countries, India shall continue to give precedence to its national development priorities whilst adhering to its international commitments and avoiding TRIPS plus provisions.”

- Concern 3: “Data Exclusivity or Regulatory Data Protection.”

Draft IPR Policy states: “Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity.”

- Concern 4: “Non-availability of patent term restoration, patent linkage, use of compulsory licensing (CL) for commercial, non-emergency situations”.

Draft IPR Policy: Does dwell on these issues.

I discussed a similar subject in my blog post of October 20, 2014 titled, “Unilateral American Action on Agreed Bilateral Issues: Would India Remain Unfazed?”

Conclusion: 

Overall, the first draft of the outcome-based model of the National IPR Policy appears to me as fair and balanced, especially considering its approach to the evolving IPR regime within the pharmaceutical industry of India.

The draft policy though touches upon the ‘Utility Model’, intriguingly does not deliberate on ‘Open Source Innovation’ or ‘Open Innovation’.

Be that as it may, the suggested pathway for IPR in India seems to be clear, unambiguous, and transparent. The draft policy understandably has not taken any extreme stance on any aspect of the IP. Nor does it succumb to high voltage power play of the United States and its allies in the IPR space, which, if considered, could go against the public health interest.

It is heartening to note, a high level body would monitor the progress of implementation of the National IPR Policy, which will be linked with performance indicators, targeted results and deliverables. Annual evaluation of the overall working of the policy and the results achieved will also be undertaken. A major review of the policy will be done after 3 years.

That said, pharma MNCs in general, don’t seem to quite agree with this draft policy probably based purely on commercial considerations, shorn of public health interest. It is quite evident, when a senior lobbyist of a powerful American pharma lobby group reportedly commented to Indian media on the draft National IPR Policy as follows:

“Real progress will only be achieved when India demonstrates through policy change that it does indeed value the importance of intellectual property, especially for the innovative treatments and cures of today and tomorrow”.

It appears, India continues to hold its stated ground on IPR with clearly enunciated policy statements. On the other hand MNCs don’t stop playing hardball either. Though these are still early days, the question that floats on the top of mind: Who would blink first?…India? Do you reckon so?

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.

 

Awaiting ‘The Moment of Truth’ on ‘Working of Patents’ in India

Posted on by
Reply

By a letter dated October 21, 2014 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of India, the domestic pharma major Cipla has sought for the revocation of five patents of Novartis AG’s respiratory drug Indacaterol (Onbrez) in India, under Sections 66 and 92 of the Indian Patents Act.

Launch of a generic equivalent:

Cipla also announced its decision to launch shortly a generic equivalent of Indacaterol with the brand name Unibrez Rotacaps to satisfy the unfulfilled requirement of the new drug in India.

The Maximum Retail Price for a strip of 10 capsules of Unibrez Rotacaps 150 mcg would cost Rs.130.00 to patients against the equivalent strength of Onbrez of Novartis costing Rs.677.00, which is 420 percent more expensive than the price at which Cipla would sell this drug.

What do the Sections 66 and 92 of the Indian Patents Act say?

- Section 66 of the Indian Patents Act:

“66. Revocation of patent in public interest: Where the Central Government is of the opinion that a patent or the mode in which it is exercised is mischievous to the State of generally prejudicial to the public, if any, after giving the patentee an opportunity to be heard, make a declaration to that effect in the Official Gazette and thereupon the patent shall be deemed to be revoked.”

- Section 92 of the Indian Patents Act:

“92. Special provision for compulsory licenses: (1) If the Central Government is satisfied, in respect of any patent in force in circumstances of national emergency or in circumstances of extreme urgency or in case of public non- commercial use, that it is necessary that compulsory licenses should be granted at any time after the sealing thereof to work the invention, it may make a declaration to that effect, by notification in the Official Gazette, and thereupon the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say –

(i) The Controller shall on application made at any time after the notification by any person interested, grant to the applicant a license under the patent on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit;

(ii) In settling the terms and conditions of a license granted under this section, the Controller shall endeavor to secure that the articles manufactured under the patent shall be available to the public at the lowest prices consistent with the patentees deriving a reasonable advantage from their patent rights.

(2) The provisions of sections 83, 87, 88, 89 and 90 shall apply in relation to the grant of licenses under this section as they apply in relation to the grant of licenses under section 84.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2), where the Controller is satisfied on consideration of the application referred to in clause (i) of sub- section (1) that it is necessary in –

(i) A circumstance of national emergency; or

(ii) A circumstance of extreme urgency; or

(iii) A case of public non- commercial use, which may arise or is required, as the case may be, including public health crises, relating to Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome, Human Immuno Deficiency Virus, tuberculosis, malaria or other epidemics, he shall not apply any procedure specified in section 87 in relation to that application for grant of license under this section:

Provided that the Controller shall, as soon as may be practicable, inform the patentee of the patent relating to the application for such non-application of section 87.”

Two key reasons:

Anchored on the above two sections of the Indian Patents Act, the two key reasons cited by Cipla for revocation of five patents granted to Indacaterol of Novartis AG are, very briefly, as follows:

Lack of inventive steps and ‘evergreening’ of patents:

The exclusivity given to five patents of Indacaterol is contrary to law due to lack of inventive step, being obvious inventions. Novartis allegedly has indulged in ‘evergreening’ with a number of patents to extend monopoly of the drug much beyond the term of the first patent. Indian law expressly bars ‘evergreening’ as it impedes drug access to a large majority of the patients.

Lack of working of the patents:

Cipla also claimed lack of “working” of those patents in the country, as a mere 0.03 percent of the drug requirement is currently being fulfilled in India. This leaves the percentage of inadequacy in the requirement of the drug per year at a staggering number of around 99.97 percent.

With supporting details, Cipla has stated in its letter that Indacaterol under the brand name Onbrez is imported by Novartis through its licensee Lupin Pharma only. It further pointed out that the Indian law requires all patents to be “worked” within the territory of India.

While adequate quantity of imports may qualify as working, the present case is one in which the patents in question have not been worked through imports of adequate quantity of the drug. Thus reasonable requirements of the public have not been fulfilled, at all.

Abysmally low drug access to Indian patients:

According to Cipla, when there has been a necessity for the availability of Indacaterol to a much larger number of patients afflicted by COPD, that has assumed magnitude of an epidemic, just a miniscule of 0.03 percent of the total drug requirement is currently being met in the country. In 2013, the import of Indacaterol, as reportedly declared in Form 27 by Novartis to the Patent office, was just 53,844 units, which could meet this drug requirement at best of only 4,500 out of 15 million patients, annually.

Despite accepted drug benefits, the doctors are unable to adequately prescribe Indacaterol in India, due to low quantity of the drug import for the public.

Thus, while announcing the launch of cheaper generic equivalents of the drug, Cipla emphasized that its Unibrez Rotacaps would fulfill the requirements of the public, meet public health interest and at the same time increase access to this medicine, with an affordable alternative, for a large number of patients.

Increasing incidence of COPD in India:

In its application to the DIPP, Cipla underscored that Indacaterol is one of the preferred medications to treat widely prevalent Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) that has reached the magnitude of an epidemic in India with about 15 million Indians afflicted with the ailment.

COPD is now among the top ten causes of disease burden in India. According to Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the overall prevalence rates of COPD in India are 5.0 and 3.2 percent respectively in men and women of and over 35 years of age. The World Health Organization (WHO) also reported that COPD is the cause of death of more people than HIV-AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis all put together in the South East Asian Region.

Cipla quoted an Indian Study on “Epidemiology of Asthma, Respiratory Symptoms and Chronic Bronchitis in Adults (INSEARCH)”, which estimated that about 7 percent of deaths annually are a result of Chronic Respiratory Diseases in India.

Importance of Indacaterol in COPD treatment:

Cipla reiterated that Indacaterol is the preferred drug over other beta adrenoceptor agonists, as it has to be consumed only once a day. Moreover, it has a higher potency and prolonged effect as compared to other beta adrenoceptor agonists.

Strong arguments make the case interesting:

Though appropriate legal authorities would take a final call on the subject, prima facie, Cipla seems to have a strong case resting on the pillars of Sections 66 and 92 of the Indian Patents Act.

Since, Cipla has already gone ahead and announced the launch of cheaper generic equivalent of Indacaterol in India, it gives a sense about the company’s confidence in its argument against five valid patents of Novartis on this drug.

On the other hand, one may also justifiably say that Cipla should have waited for the final verdict of the court of law on the validity of five Indacaterol patents in India, before deciding to actually launch a generic version of the patented drug.

It is worth noting that in 2013, Novartis lost a legal battle related to patent grant for its anti-leukemia drug Glivec in the Supreme Court of India. The case lasted over seven years in various courts of law. Interestingly, Cipla had followed similar course of action in the Glivec case too, and had won the case decisively.

‘Form 27’ and the Indian Patent office (IPO):

At this stage it is worth noting, a ‘Public Notice’ dated December 24, 2009 was issued by the Controller General of Patents, Design & Trade Marks, directing all ‘Patentees and Licensees’ to furnish information in ‘Form No.27’ on ‘Working of Patents’ as prescribed under Section 146 of the Patents Act read with Rule 131 of the Patents Rule 2003.

The notice also drew attention to penalty provisions in the Patents Act, in case of non-submission of the aforesaid information.

The information sought by the IPO in ‘Form 27’ can be summarized as follows:

A. The reasons for not working and steps being taken for ‘working of the invention’ to be provided by the patentee.

B. In case of establishing ‘working of a patent’, the following yearly information needs to be provided:

  • The quantity and value of the invention worked; which includes both local manufacturing and importation.
  • The details to be provided, if any licenses and/or sub-licenses have been granted for the products during the year.
  • A statement as to whether the public requirements have been met partly/adequately to the fullest extent at a reasonable price.

The ‘Public Notice’ also indicated that:

• A fine of up to (US$ 25,000 may be levied for not submitting or refusing to submit the required information by the IPO.

• And providing false information is a punishable offence attracting imprisonment of up to 6 months and/or a fine.

The important point to ponder now is, if Cipla’s allegation is correct, what has been the IPO doing with the ‘Form 27’ information to uphold the spirit of Indian Patents Act 2005, thus far?

Conclusion:

For various reasons, it would now be interesting to follow, how does the IPO deal with this case right from here. In any case, information provided through ‘Form 27’ cannot remain a secret. ‘The Right to Information Act (RTI)’ will help ferret more such details out in the open.

As the ‘Moment of Truth’ unfolds in this case, one would be quite curious to fathom how the strong voices against ‘non-working of patents’ and ‘evergreening’ drive home their arguments before the court of justice.

On the other hand, the global innovator companies, their highly paid lobby groups and the USTR are expected to exert tremendous pressure on the Indian Government to protect the global pharma business interests in India, come what may. All these would indeed create a potboiler, as expected by many.

In this complex scenario, striking a right balance between rewarding genuine innovation, on the one hand, and help improving access to affordable modern medicines to a vast majority of the population in the country, on the other, would not be an enviable task for the Indian Government.

As the juggernaut of conflicting interest moves on, many would keenly await for a glimpse of ‘the moment of truth’ based on the judicial interpretation of ‘evergreening’ and ‘working of patents’, for this case in particular.

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.